Hello Do Coaches here have any Statistics for Teaching?

[tennislearningforlife]

Hello Coaches I need your help!!!! Thank you

I have questions for tennis coaches here. Or those who have taught players.

My questions are following

1) Do players have better success rate when they start with close stance?

2) Do players have better success when they were taught finish the racket over the shoulder?

3) Do players have better success when they were taught to play aggressive or Defensive?

4) Do players have better success when they were taught Eastern grip from the start?

5) Do players have better success when they were taught flatter shot

6) Do players have better success when they were taught lots footwork.
doing lots of footwork drill

7) Do players have better success when they start compete in early age?

8) Do players have better success when they are taught heavy top spin or western grip


List goes on and on....

Well, this is sort of my conclusion but I am here to hear coaches opinion But this is my stats. When starter players were taught open stance too early they do not turn their body too well and end of hitting the ball without having great turn.
When they were introduced wiperswing early, then they end up not hit through the ball. They tend to wrap the racket too quick.
If kids were taught flatter shot early then it seems like they have little problem getting top spin. This can happen to when I teach them spin first then they have problem getting flatter shots.


Thank you

[klacr]

So many variables. Everyone different.

Hello,

I appreciate your curiosity. Unfortunately, the questions you ask do not have an absolute 100% this way or highway answer.

I'm not sure if there truly is any such research or statistics on what works best and think its improbable to say one way or another is superior over the other. A well taught, well rounded game with proper fundamentals and strategic understanding will hopefully provide students with the tools to grow.

I've never had two students that were the exact same. Ever. Similar yes, but exact same, no. Some are athletic and some were not. Some were passive while others wanted to clobber the ball. Some have been under 5 feet tall, others over 6 feet tall. Some have never picked up a racquet while some played in high school but are just getting back to the game.

What level are we talking about here? complete beginner or avg. club player that rarely if ever has taken a lesson? Adult or junior?

But here are my own personal answers and opinions from my own unique experiences.

1.) When it comes to close stance, I've found it's easier to get players to begin with closed stance so they can "feel" and understand importance of shoulder turn and its role in the shot. I've found many players who hit strictly open stance do so with a severe limitation of any upper body rotation. Many players take open stance literally and that includes not turning upper body. Thus, causing them to hit the ball straight on. No hip or chest or shoulder turn.

2.) Racquet over the shoulder is important. But contact point, type of shot hit is more important. Follow through will have an associated finish based on the shot attempted. because of physical differences, range of grips and type of shot attempted the follow through has a wide range. For example, I'm fairly tall, have a conservative grip, naturally hit the ball relatively "flat". My follow through has a tendency to go around my should, not over the shoulder. If I was a bit shorter, perhaps lifting up and higher and over my shoulder would give me a higher trajectory. I've found most players, if beginning and middle of the stroke are correct, the finish is usually appropriate.

3.) Aggressive or defensive...? Players personality, surface type, and body type may play significant role. At my size, I'd prefer to not stay far behind the baseline and grind it out. Many players are content and patient enough and fast enough laterally to hang and let opponents make the error. To each their own. Coaches responsibility to notice and hone on students behavior and preferences. Is a John McEnroe (serve and volley/attack) better than Bjorn Borg (defense). They were both pretty good from what I remember.

4.) I prefer to start with Eastern grip on forehand. I'm a bit old school perhaps but in my experience this grip gives players the most confidence to start with. I feel it promotes the easiest understanding and comfort level with new students. I have one male player at my club that claims everything feels good with a continental grip for all shots. He's a teady player and watching him play, quite frankly, brings a tear to my eye. (tears of joy for this old soul)

5.) Topspin is important for a player to understand. How to impart topspin even more crucial. Fine line between a solid, consistent driven ball with spin and heavy high spin that does not penetrate. Just make sure student is able to make solid contact and understands the role of topspin, the pros and cons. Students are surprisingly adaptable and naturally curious to try numerous degrees of a shot that make them feel comfortable.

6.) Footwork...everyone can use? Footwork patterns change at different levels. I have players that struggle with one foot in front of the other. Yeah, they could have better footwork but what can you do and how much are you willing to teach? Again, players are good at adapting to situations and some movement happens naturally, it's just a matter of making it more refined and perhaps explosive. Most players know they have to move their feet, it's another thing for them to actually do it. I've never fed a ball to a players right handed forehand and they turned to their backhand and ran to the left. If that did happen, My hope for the human race would take a severe blow and the fact of natural selection probably would have extinguished this player before I had a chance to meet them. People adapt and are capable.

7.) Competing at an early age. Yes! They become accustomed to handling competitive situations, dealing with conflict, problem solving and analytical skills. But the the younger they are, let's make sure FUN is the most significant part of the equation.

8.) Heavy top spin and western grips...kinda makes me cringe but I do get it. Some kids will fall into Western grips because of their high contact points out of strike zone. These things happen and can be adjusted and tweaked.

Just focus on fundamentals and fun. If you are trying to raise a Wimbledon champion than that may be for another thread. But if you nourish and guide a player through the developmental process, and they are happy, appreciative and are devoted to tennis until their final days, that my friend is a bigger success and greater gift to our sport than just a successful fortnight in SW19.

Don't know if those answers are what you wanted to hear, but questions were left wide open. I look forward to hearing from others on this thread and looking forward to learning from them as well.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[tennislearningforlife]

Thank you very much

Mr Klacr

thank you very much for great response

I learned a lot. I always can learn new thing and I can use for my teaching and this make so much fun and sometimes very much frustrating.

I have few more questions to ask you

Majority of my students are not so athletic and play once a week.

So your suggestion is that it is better to teach them with close stance, eastern grip and over the shoulder swing right? When you go over the shoulder, do you teach them to hit the ball flat or more brush up?

My another question is that do you teach "Loop" from day 1? From my experience when I teach loop, I tell my student to point racket face to side fence. And this movement cause them to get semi western grip. (Since it is bit tough to point racket face to side fence with Eastern grip )
so do you teach them to take the racket straight back? How do you do it?


This is my opinion but can you give me your answer

1) Many kids imitate pro stroke and so does coaches. We try to teach how pro hits. Ex. Open stance, wiper swing, sometimes Nadal finish. Heavy top spin.

2) I do believe that classic teaching might be easier for starter payer to get.
Close stance, eastern grip, over the shoulder, hitting the ball flatter,
like Robert Landsdorp, or welby teach.

3) Many coaches and sort of myself believe that students should learn way they hit in the future from day 1. What I mean is that if they are going to hit open and heavy spin with Western grip then they should learn that from Day 1.
For example, if you ask Pete Sampras to change the game style to Nadal when he was 23, I would think he can't do it. On the other hand, if we ask Nadal to hit like Pete sampras, like flatter with Eastern grip and i do not think he can it. Pete Sampras learned way he hit the ball early age and he sort of kept that even he grew up. And so does Nadal, i see his stroke from 12 years old and it is about the same.

One pro guy pointed out to me "If I were teaching, I would teach them exactly way they should hit from day 1. When i was touring and went to Spain and kid like 8 years old hitting like Nadal. US Players get confused since they were introduced open stance and spin"

Well, I do believe this can be right, but as you said this can kill those who are not too athletic.

Do you have answer to these questions??

Thank you very much for your help.

oh by the way, what you said is 100% correct. there is no 100% right way of developing students. But my point is I would like to research the "WAY" which does not destroy my students' tennis career. Many coaches do not realize that we have ability to kill any tennis players career or can make bright future. it is up to us. This is reason why I do stress myself to find the correct way to put them good foundation.

Thank you

[klacr]

getting deep

Thanks for your kind comments.

Let's see if I can make this succinct enough to not bore or scare away any others that would like to comment on this thread.

Classic and fundamental skills are certainly a necessity for any player.

I'm a big food guy so I'll put it to you like this...

Like world class tennis players, great chefs cannot become cutting edge and world renowned and celebrities if they didn't first master the basic knife skills, butchering, prepping, and a rough education working the line of a high-end kitchen. Becoming a master chef is knowing many parts of a cuisine as well as doing the basic rudimentary skills thousands and thousands of times. With that foundation, they build, create and produce dishes of
heir own. Ask Gordon Ramsay or Marco Pierre White or Thomas Keller or Marcus Samuelsson how many potatoes they had to peal, tomatoes they had to cut and dice, mother sauces they had to watch over before they had the confidence and ability to have their own restaurant.

Same goes for tennis players. understanding and respecting the basics will allow a player to grow, improve and flourish.

I believe the loop will happen if the preparation is correct and properly taught. Sure a loop is great, but remember that every player is different and will have their own quirks and idiosyncrasies.

1.) imitating pro strokes just to imitate is dangerous. Students and coaches must learn why strokes look the way they do and why those strokes strokes e used. Alot of players copy a pro's shots because they simply like the player, not because their game style or tactics even remotely resembles their favorite star. Carlos Moya claims he enjoyed watching Stefan Edberg. But did he play like him...hardly. It's important to allow players to develop own game while understanding benefits. Pros hit the way they hit for specific reasons. Important to give students a model, but not a mold.

2.) Classic teaching of fundamentals is good for beginners. But as they progress, so does the level of teaching and technical changes. Again, going back to cooking...there are 5 "mother sauces" Béchamel, Velouté, Espagnole,
Hollandaise/Mayonnaise and Vinagrette. With the mastery and understanding of these 5 mother sauces, a numerous amount of other sauces can be made and created. Tennis players must know their "mother sauces" before they can begin to dress, complement and enhance their own game much like the hundreds of variations can improve and transform a dish.

3.) Yes, teaching students to hit in the way of the future is great. Assuming they want to. What if you are teaching a 50 year old beginner who is simply out there for the workout and social experience. Is she going to care that she needs a multi-segmented forehand with a buggy whip finish. Identify the needs and wants of a student before you start creating the manifesto.

You seem to have the ideas but it's difficult to pigeon hole every player into one plan. I've worked with elite juniors and been fortunate enough to see top pros in the past while employed by a well-known tennis academy, and I've worked with middle aged and athletically varied students at my current club which is private member community.

My best advice to you is simply enjoy the learning and growth process of each student. Do what you can to improve your students for their own benefit and not yours. You'll reach a point in your career where all the info and knowledge is great and a huge advantage, but at the end of the day, people don't care how much you know, they wanna know how much you care. The fact that you care ensures you'll do what's best for your student, but if you already know what's best for student, why do you need to care.

Hope that made sense. Not sure if I answered the questions the way you want, but I don't wanna get too overly technical as that will lead to an endless discussion of "I'm right, you're wrong" The way I look at it, everyone is right, everyone is wrong. If we had the answers this tennis thing would lose it's fun wouldn't it. Everyone here is on a quest for answers, and what a fun quest it is.


Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[tennislearningforlife]

Thank you so much

Mr Klacr

I have to admit this is the one of the best responses I have ever got from tennis instructors. Thank you very much. i do really appreciated your help.


Actually I do talk to many many instructors and I watch many many instructors teach and I do watch many many pros strokes.

i do not know about other coaches, I do get pretty confused.
I mean, there are players who taught open stance right away came out great.. there are players learn from close stance came out great. There are players who learned spin from start came out great. Those who learned flat came out great.

Another intructor who played for USC said "don't get too mechancal kids will find the stroke themselves.. My stroke change depending on who is number 1 at moment" and i kind of laughed.

Back to Moya story.. it is interseting he said Edverg is his idol. But I guess where he grew up, his style became way he is.

For me I do emphasize on stroke since i have struggled my stroke throughout my career. At first nobody taught me loop, so i had problem hitting high balls, second, nobody taught me open stance so i had problem hitting high ball and wide shots. After i got those from top coaches then my game has changed dramatically. I mean i could not believe how much little change made difference in my game. However, just like you said I was old enough and sort of athletic enough to adjust my stroke easily. However, some of the non-athletic students do struggle with open stance big time. And you are right on. Everyone is different. And these are my conclusion and you can give me some opinons.

1) open stance has to be learned, but has to wait for right time.
If kids is athletic enough and dong thing right then i do keep it but if not i go with close stance so they can make sure feel the shoulder turns.

2) Start things as simple as possible and if they are ready for next time and I do show next steps.. Go up the stairs.


Any opinions are welcome. Thank you very much for your hep.

[klacr]

Yup, I 'll agree with your opinions.

Kids are some of the toughest, most adaptable people we'll ever have the pleasure of knowing so they can adjust faster and more easily than an adult.

1.) Open stance-You will find that kids, if fundamentals are correct will start advancing and evolving their games and strokes automatically. But as a coach you must identify that adaptation and make sure it follows the developmental path you and your student seek. But yes, that open stance will be crucial to teach, you have to ID the precise moment to make that progression.

I really try to avoid over-teaching kids technique that have not hit adolescence yet. Their bodies go through extreme changes physically and psychologically. A lot of the "finer" more technically advanced stuff gets lost during this phase anyways and must be reprogrammed. Bombarding them as youngsters can be a lost cause. But yes, there are always exceptions.

2.) Bingo. People are different. We learn differently, we accept challenges differently, we react differently, we see things differently. A player that is 5'6" is gonna see a ball bouncing at their head level as an out of strike zone shot, at 6'6" I'm salivating, seeing it as an opportunity to attack as a perfectly placed ball. You get the point. You are right on with your assessment.

Go for it. Share with us what you learn and discover.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[tennislearningforlife]

Thank you again

Thank you again...

These are really good points thank you.

i am still learning and teaching tennis is really challenging.. Much more than learning tennis for myself.

I mean it is also dealing with lots of frustration as well.

Thank you i will ask more questions thank you again

[tennis_chiro]

Great Thread. I'm becoming more and more a klacr fan!

There are no right or wrong swings/motions. The human machine can find so many variations and make them work for that particular individual. However, there are advantages and disadvantages to the biomechanics of different strokes that effect the consistency, accuracy and power of the shot produced, not to mention the effect producing that shot has on the the body of the one producing it.

The gold standard would be to develop the technique that gives your shot the greatest consistency, accuracy and power while doing the least damage to the player. Your task, as coach, is to guide your player towards that gold standard, but within the limits of that player's athletic ability and also their commitment to spend the necessary time to develop that shot. No point in trying to teach someone a technique that will require at least 1000 hours to master when they are lucky to play 2 hours a week! On the other hand, you don't want to limit your student's ultimate progress by starting them out with strokes that give them maximum immediate positive feedback and success at the cost of very restricted possibility of advancement to elite stroke production. I believe certain fundamentals must be present in some form in every good stroke, but they will be expressed entirely differently by certain individuals: feeling the racketface and tracking the ball with it, hitting through the ball and accelerating through contact, achieving a stable position with the head as the stroke is made, balance and on and on...

But, again as coach, you have to figure out how to get your student to feel those principles and then integrate them effectively, for their particular level of play, into their individual strokes. With the geniuses you just get out of the way and try to keep them from going too far down a dead end; with the less talented or committed player, you may have to be more creative in finding ways to get them to feel and recognize those principles; of course, you will be frustrated because they will almost never devote the necessary time to master the associated skills. But you can't let them get frustrated; you have to guide them to a recognition of the things they are doing correctly and keep them focused on process goals that will lead them to improvement. Oh, you will hope that the taste of success lights a fire and they can make the commitment necessary to proceed to a higher level of mastery. But don't get fooled by the search for "ultimate technique". You have to get your students to "play". That is, learn to contest a match with the best of what they actually have in their tool box. Too many students are stuck trying to play matches with shots they don't have and they never learn the real joy of a fierce contest with the tools they actually do have in that "tool box". It's a very tough transition to make, but that's when they really become "tennis players". There are many fine strokers of the ball, but there are only a relatively few real "tennis players". In my view a 3.0 player could be "player" even though his stroking ability is limited. On the other hand, there are plenty of 5.0 players with almost every shot in the book, but they are not tennis players; that is, they don't understand match play.

I just meant to say I really liked Kyle's posts and this thread, but I got started.

don

[don_budge]

The book is Tilden...

The book is Tilden. The model is Gonzales with the Budge backhand. Hopman is the coach and Federer is the living proof.

Statistically and realistically speaking...98% percent of the tennis playing population fall between three sigma from the mean. But that doesn't mean that the fundamentals change for any of them. In that sense you treat every student alike...from the beginning. They may develop at different rates...depending where they fall in relation to the mean. Picture a Bell Curve.

Hopman taught all of his proteges the same thing. They were all a derivative of Tilden. Their Bible was "Match Play and the Spin of the Ball". They all evolved with their individual interpretations of every stroke in the end. That is the nature of art and philosophy...evolution. Sure there are mechanics involved in the process but people in the end are not machines. Perhaps the biggest decisions the coach needs to impress upon his students are those of a psychological nature as in when and where to apply the "carrot or the stick". Tactics are another matter entirely and often overlooked in the discourse of tennis these days.

You can see from my "Imaginative one hour workout" that I am teaching my students to move forwards and backwards as well. I teach them how to play volleys as well as groundstrokes and all of the shots in between. I teach them all the same fundamentals. But the stroke that I most strictly enforce "my" interpretation of technique is the serve...because I teach a perfect motion and I have yet to meet a student that evolved into a perfect motion on their own.

1) Do players have better success rate when they start with close stance?

Yes.

2) Do players have better success when they were taught finish the racket over the shoulder?

Not necessarily.

3) Do players have better success when they were taught to play aggressive or Defensive?

Players have a better success rate when taught when to play offense and when to play defense.

4) Do players have better success when they were taught Eastern grip from the start?

Yes.

5) Do players have better success when they were taught flatter shot

Yes.

6) Do players have better success when they were taught lots footwork.
doing lots of footwork drill

Yes.

7) Do players have better success when they start compete in early age?

One of the greatest fallacies in the current tennis paradigm today. It takes five years to develop a tennis player and ten to develop a champion. It is not imperative to start at too young of an age. Players should begin to compete when they demonstrate that they want to and when they demonstrate that they are equipped to. To early of an initiation into competition may have the opposite of the desired effect.

8) Do players have better success when they are taught heavy top spin or western grip

No...another of the modern fallacies. I am now of the opinion that they should begin at the net and taught underspin first. It is a simpler motion and the more complex motion of a groundstroke can be built upon this basis. A player can generate plenty of spin with a nice strong eastern grip yet be comfortable making the necessary grip change to use underspin for volleying, approach shots or drop shots. Heavy top spin is one of the very last things that needs to be developed after all of the other work is said and done. Penetrating shots are more importantly developed early on.

[klacr]

tennis_chiro

Thanks for the comments. That means a lot coming from a teaching professional such as yourself.

In my posts during this thread I only meant to say a few words and sentences but turned into paragraphs. Sometimes I get so wrapped up and passionate about tennis I ramble on and on. But also, the questions raised in this thread illicit a greater response than just a sentence or so.

don_budge makes alot of great points in his post and can't really disagree with his thoughts either. Developing a player is a very special and unique experience because of the player, but at the same time the process will be similar to those coaches who have been through it and have done it long enough.

don_budge also brings up the thought of tactics and mental toughness. These subjects are also major components of any player and just as important as anything else. remember the 5 "Mother Sauces"?

tennislearningforlife... you see, your questions are good ones but they transcend the simple yes/no answers as there are a lot of knowledgeable and passionate coaches and tennis enthusiasts who have seen and experienced their fair share of player development. I learn something new or different on this site every day. Never ceases to amaze me and I never get tired of it. Can't wait for the September issue to be out!

Thanks to tennis_chiro and don_budge for contributing to the thread.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stotty]

Footwork

I wish I had more time to join in this discussion; I am flat out working at my club, making the most of the extended good weather we are having in my part of the world.

What I can for sure that will improve players significantly: footwork. Footwork drills, often conducted without a racket, will serve players extremely in the long run. Have players move short distances touching cones 8 feet or so apart....forwards, sideways...and , yes, even backwards.

No lazy knocking in lessons either, always do stuff like in this clip to force players to moving all the time: http://tennisresources.com/index.cfm...idid=2010&rv=1

Tennis is a moving game...

don_budge, I have a clip just for you....86 stroke rally, lasting 2 mins 24 secs...talk about shot tolerance...just shows what a trip to the net can do to finally finish a point...even on clay.

Enjoy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZZMuXBr_Hk

[tennislearningforlife]

Thank you very much

Thank you very much Mr Lisencedcoach

These information really help me since you people are coaching long time and those "Experience" speak by itself and that's valuable information.

I have been teaching quite sometime but I still can feel there so much to learn.
And i still believe there are better method out there and I believe as long as I continue to learn then I will find great methods.

Yes foot work is such a key for this game. I tell my student also.."even you have stroke like Fedeerer, if you can't get to the ball then you can't hit anything"

Thank you please share more ideas please.

[tennislearningforlife]

Thank you to all

Thank you to all great coaches Mr Klach, mr. Don_budege, mr. Tennis_chiro

all the article is great. I print out and goes to my teaching Bible file.


mr Don Budge i have a questions.

Since I thought of same thing.

1) When you teach kid under spin do you teach them with countinental grip?

2) When you said "I teach them all the same fundamentals. But the stroke that I most strictly enforce "my" interpretation of technique is the serve...because I teach a perfect motion and I have yet to meet a student that evolved into a perfect motion on their own."

Will you please, if you don't mind, please explain to me how you teach the mechanics? Do you start with loop or where you ask student to put racket to? How much do you let student to drop the racket and etc. Where the racket should end?

And underline part, i am pretty much agree with that.. When I start playing tennis nobody taught me clear mechanics so I hit the tennis ball with straight back (well, at least that's what i taught..) well, after watching many different player and youtube finally realized that they do differently. Well, should I call this is came naturally? Not really, i had to really suffer to get to this point. If from day one, coach taught me how to take back correctly then I did not have to change my swing millions times or did not have to waste time looking around other players.

Thank you so much .

[tennislearningforlife]

Great coaches and players what do you think about this?

I am sorry i just can't stop shooting my questions. I just have millions of them.

1) If Wozniaki was taught by Robert Landsdorp, say she was taught to hit more flatter, do you think she could have won the gram slam by the time now?

2) If Pete Sampras was grew up on Clay and taught to hit like Nadal would he had same career he did?

3) If Nadal was taught by Robert Landsdorp and learn to hit the ball flatter then he would have won more slam and with less injuries?

4) If Andrew Agassi did have Roger Federer Stroke would he have better career?

5) If Ival Lendl did have Roger Federer Stroke would he have better career?

6) This is serious question, if Sampras, Nadal, Federer, Agassi, Hingis, Macenroe, Djorkovic, Lendl, if they become tennis instructor and teach exact same person I mean same height, same athleticism, who do you think produce the best player?
My question is if they start age of 8, then first match is 10, then 12, 14 16,18, who develop the winner?


Thank you very much

[don_budge]

Modern Volleys...

1) When you teach kid under spin do you teach them with countinental grip?

I think that is the best question you asked so far tennislearningforlife..and you have asked a bunch.

No, I don't teach the continental grip for underspin. With the amount of overspin being generated from the other side of the court in todays game it is not so necessary to use less than a slightly weakened eastern grip. Continental grips only exasperate the problem of volleying the dipping bullets that are the passing shots in todays game. One must negate the overspin as opposed to applying underspin in many cases. I find that the volleys that are most effective today are flatter than the traditional volley with the continental grip. The ball must scoot through the surface of the court and todays courts are substantially more abrasive and therefore excessive underspin allows the ball to sit up rather than lay down. So the modern volleyer makes a slight grip change to accommodate the changes in the modern game.

Volleying on the backhand side with a continental grip is slightly more effective than on the forehand side and it is often advantageous to use extreme backspin off of the backhand volley as in a shot that may even come back on the volleyers side of the court or at least backup...but even so I teach a stronger than continental grip on the backhand side as well. Backhand volleys are more easily produced due to the relationship of the shoulder to the body. Backhand volleys have more of a range from crisp to touch than the forehand which should in general be attacking and penetrating.