Practice and a bit more.

practice is something that everyone agrees is what makes people in choosen skills, fields.  Sometimes it can be termed hard work.  You are what you practice, you are what you eat, you do what you do.  these phrases carry the same kind of message that what you repeat is what you become and this paradigm appears all over.

what does a maths test examine?  whether a person can answer questions (they don’t change all that much year to year) so one simply must practice enough to become proficient at the posed questions.  Does this mean that now you can use mathematics in the work place?  only if it is similar enough to what you have practiced and that what you have practiced can be transferred to this “new” problem.  if you want an A at GCSE maths you must practice, bottom line.  

the issues are people don’t want to practice or don’t make the time to practice (or don’t have the time) there personal requirement.  I was lucky at GCSE maths as for whatever reason I didn’t need many reps to get it but I know people who did, my wife for example, she practiced her butt off to obtain the grade.  

another example is French, or any language for that matter.  I passed French and I most certainly didn’t learn any I just rep’d what I needed to pass the exam.  learnt it like a parrot and boom..done..but I don’t rep french anymore and so lost 99% of it.  Spanish I rep at reading and writing..no listening and limited speaking (in my own head) and you know what..im pretty good at reading and writing and suck at the rest. why?  no reps!  

Now, there is (im sure, I think i use some) learning methods and teaching methods that almost bypass the need for so many reps and reach the same result.  I have heard it term Accelerated Development before in the tennis world.  I think the UK tennis education has done a great job in this as this is what we need to do in the UK due to lower numbers and a multitude of opportunities for young people.  We need to get the success fast so that kids stick at the game..but there is still a requirement for reps and practice.

the amount of practice and reps is partially individual and also goal orientated.  for example if you want to play for the senior county cup team you need to be a certain level (county dependent, weaker for my county) and this requires a certain amount of work.  If you want to go to the USA for college then you must reach a certain level and this also requires a certain amount of work.  If you want to make the top 100 then this requires a certain amount of work.  If you want to play for a laugh with your mates once a year then once a year is all you need.

there is no substitute for practice.

finally, the LTA rating system. it seems flawed at times, but it also dosn’t. the issues are to do with the amount of matches played by players, when they play them (mini tennis, u12, u18 etc) and the huge imbalance created by choices of these factors.  I will also throw into the mix the reps required to reach a level (individually).  to try to illustrate..take a u12 8.1 who has just started competing but is accelerating drastically..they enter a grade 4 locally and get a 6.2 in the first round.  The 6.2 has played a lot (obviously) and probably has reped alot but how much better is a u12 6.2 than this particular 8.2..could be not much.  does the result matter..reality no, actually probably to everyone..8.2 if wins is over the moon and may want to play more..6.2 may say, oh well a respect the situation and continue to get better or may give up as this is not in the script.  Many scenarios..but consider it from a reps point of view.  If the 8.2 just carrys on not doing much and dosn’t practice they will fall later on..if the 6.2 carrys on they will reach a higher level?  what it takes is continued practice to get better and better..it took me many years to reach the dizzy heights of a 3.1 (now 3.2) and what do I need to go higher..practice (at the right level but practice).

I am sure there is more on this paradigm that is practice but my laptop is about to die..thoughts are most welcome on this..

the tennis engineer! 

 

Thought of the Day – Movement Access

I was coaching a young female player of mine and we were working on moving up the court, getting after the ball and exploiting space by playing down the line.  The drill was simple, defend cross and attack line, repeating this on both forehand and backhand side for approximately 20 balls per set.

Another coach and friend of mine observed that when the girl went for the down the line ball her front foot was parallel to the net effectively blocking movement at the hip/pelvis and subsequently making balance after the upper body had rotated through very difficult.

the problem here is that the reason for this is to do with posture and foot function.  She has over pronated feet that are turn into to absorb the force of landing or stepping and hence when putting her front foot down it moves to be a parallel in order to absorb the knee flexion and of course transmit force up through the body from the ground.

The thing for me is that no amount of “coaching” will allow this change to stick but there is a way of bypassing the conscious and fix it with out her even knowing.  This is to give the foot the freedom of movement that it requires and also to educate the body to use it.  Exercises such as the balancing on the offending foot and reaching out with the other leg around a “clock” face gives the foot a 3D experience, in addition some “lunge” type movements encouraging the hip to rotate in a similar manner to the intended stroke forces the foot to take up a new position.

Naturally, the intervention needs repetition and work as with any skill acquisition but there was a instant alteration.  In addition we altered the movement to the ball from a “side step” to more of a “gallop” where the front foot is pointing at the ball and we created a situation where mechanically the position was more desirable.

Homework exercises prescribed and we shall see the effects this coming week!

 

Thought of the Day – Important Feet

well, this is in regards to our two wonderful feet and the server lack of attention to them!

how many coaches referred to “loading up from the legs” or something similar and wondered why it is difficult for some?  Now, of course there are many reasons but consider the foot for a second.  When, you flex the knee what happens to the foot?  when you hop on one foot and flex the knee what happens to the foot?

The foot flattens (or pronates) which is a way of allowing the knee to flex and subsequently load the rest of the body.  Also it loads (or stretches) the muscles required to move the foot out of this position through to full extension at the hip (the foot here has fully supinated).  Isn’t this what we as coaches want for our players when hitting ground-strokes? (or in fact any shot that requires some knee flexing).

For the thought of the day bit consider what would be the output of a players shots if they had difficulty in flattening the foot in the first place or if they had “flat” feet and therefore could not use the supination muscles effectively?

Here in lies the real key to maximum output on stokes!

Enjoy,

Questions just pop me and email!

 

 

Creating a System 1 – Tactical Intentions

Hi, in this blog post I am talking about the necessity of having a system and some ideas on where to start.

The first thing is to consider what a system is and it is defined here;

Noun A set of connected things or parts forming a complex whole, in particular. A set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network.

Synonyms method – order – scheme – process

The end goal in tennis is winning and we must consider how to go about winning.

UK – London – Wimbledon: Wimbledon Lawn Tennis Museum – Championship Trophies (Photo credit: wallyg)

This is where tactics originated and they arise in a variety of game situations.  The LTA, for example consider 6 tactical intentions, namely, in no particular order;

1. Finishing
2. Building
3. Trading
4. Staying
5. Neutralizing
6. Turning around

In addition, these tactical intentions are wrapped up in the game situations  of; both back, serving, returning, opponent approaching or at net, player approaching or at net.

By contrast, Spain, or more specifically Academia Sanchez-Casal consider 3 areas of play;

1. Finishing (predominantly at the net)
2. Controlling (attacking the ball to be offensive)
3. Defending (aggressive or dominant defensive with the intention of creating attacking opportunity)

with the ideal of players being “all court players”.

At the start of my process I claimed 4 areas of play which were the Spanish 3 plus trading (or out rallying).   More recently I have ditched the trading as I consider it a “nothing” term and there is no intention to win and suggests the player has no real purpose in attempting to trade.

The Spanish train with an “ideal” in mind.  This says that we should always train for the ideal and therefore if we can hit the best shot possible we should.  This aids in the acquisition of skills and develops a players “area of control”.  The area of control is defined as the boundaries in which a player can move into defensive and to attack and be still executing the ideal.  Over time and with daily training the area of control expands in which the player can now cover a lot of court and be on balance and executing very effectively.  Consider a player who can defend effectively at high tempo and still feel balanced and in control, the opportunities are great.

Bringing the LTA back for a second, they advocate strategies such as playing with consistency, controlling space and time and considering strengths and weakness.  Spain also have this idea but simply suggest that by always hitting into the space with your fantastic shots, your opponent will run and you will not, good times!  Your area of control determines your ability to manage your own space and time and against players of higher level or increased rhythm.

I have heard that coaches think that Spain is all drills and thousands of balls, and they wouldn’t be wrong.  HOWEVER, each of the 11 drills is tactically devised or has a “transfer objective” to aid tactically and forms the basis of the training system.  In addition to this there is a high emphasis on live drills where player work on the “controls” cooperatively together (at high rhythm) and also the part where they compete in variety of conditioned matches.  Here it is evident that the players learn to adapt and understand the geometry of the court.

So, for me, the important part of all this is not that Spain is better than the LTA or vice versa, but more so that there is a clear system with clearly defined ways of training the players within the system that encourages the play that the system wants.  Everyone involved understands and commits.  Simple.

I have not been into creating weird and wonderful drills but to use simple patterns that I can adpat and mould to whatever I need.  The 11 drills of the Spanish system work brilliantly and have infinite breakouts or alterations so are perfect for me. Regardless of what tactical system you adopt or create the point is that there is a system and that your players have something to relate to, believe in and train in.

Just to clarify, the start of the system is one that aids in the winning of tennis matches and that is built on tactical intentions and situations.  There are other components of the system that I will be addressing in future posts such as;

• Technical Model (This refers to each stroke in a given tactical situation)
• Physical Model (This refers the joint actions and kinetic chain involved in the movement cycle)
• Training Loads (number of repetitions, hours on court)

NB: The physical model is not one of building strength but of movement fluidity within the technical model.

I hope you enjoyed this post and that it may help in the devising of your own system or further understanding of the system in your club, country.

Regards,

The Tennis Engineer.

 

 

 

 

Putting Players in Boxes

Putting Players in Boxes

The philosophy of creating opportunity and possibility to allow players to explore the game from many situations is not only, governed by the coach or facilitators ability to create the environment for this to occur but also the open mindedness and the willing of the players.  I now refer to this thanks to a good friend in football “Acceptance” (Mariman). Acceptance runs wider than players and extends to parents and coaches within the team and possibly the committees and owners of the clubs.  In this context it refers to players unless otherwise stated.

From the very beginning young children begin to develop awareness of their surroundings, actions of others and formulate perceptions of these things and in many cases these perceptions are grossly misplaced.  As a coach, it is not possible to consider a particular child in every situation that they experience in their life, but it is possible to consider their journey in tennis.

The expression “putting players in boxes” is one that is used to describe a closed mind or a mind that is less open than not being in a box.  Without venturing around a Socratic reasoning loop I am going to suggest that everyone is in some kind of box but the size of the box and whether it has ways to enter and exit the box are where they differ.

I believe that true development routes itself in the box being as large as possible, full of experiences both positive and negative and that it is ever expanding, as new possibilities and opportunities present themselves and are experienced.  This is particularly true and relevant for players U12 including mini tennis and only post then do players begin to specialise more with their game style.

I heard recently that personality begins to solidify itself during puberty.  Given this, a player’s personality must be made up of all past experiences, positive and negative and also include routes taken, via decisions made, during situations where opportunity and possibility were possibly possible.  The outcomes of these experiences are what make players the players they are.  Therefore in order to develop a player beyond the current is to simply create the opportunity and possibility to experience something new and potentially improved, and for the player to reason as to whether they see the future possibility and opportunity in order to allow themselves to persevere.

As a side note, this philosophy can extend to the complete game of tennis to from the physical (physical considers the management and usage of one’s body and does not refer to “fitness” or “conditioning”) to the higher order strategies.

To illustrate some examples of some areas where players can be put in boxes that restrict the development of their personality and therefore tennis may illuminate the philosophy and the thinking previous.

Example 1 – A player who has achieved competition success at a young age.

In our club we are fortunate to have facilitated the development of a young girl (11 years old) who in the later stages of mini tennis (green) earned the right to enter and be accepted into Grade 2 (National) events.  Since transitioning into the full ball (yellow) age groups she has also had recent success.

Due to this success she is reluctant in training (group) to experience new possibilities that are created due to a suspected fear of losing as the new situation is out of her comfort zone and something that she doesn’t necessarily need or use in her current matches.  In addition to losing there is more to it than that in that the children she could lose to could use their success to elevate their confidence and reduce that of the girl in question.

The theme of the session was to use the forehand from as many positions on the court as deemed appropriate as it was decided collectively that the forehand does and would be in the future a weapon and possibly the overriding strength.  Therefore it made sense to consider where we could exploit the fact that we have a weapon.  It was also agreed that it is acceptable to hit a forehand from the backhand side of the court both down the line (inside in) or cross court (inside out).  Inside out was favourable due to error margins, and importantly the recovery position being closer to the player than if they went inside in.

Simply players were asked to play points with a scoring system that rewarded shots that win (as opposed to winning shots) i.e forehands from the backhand side are worth more points and forehands from anywhere else are worth more points than the conventional 1.

Back to the girl previously mentioned.  It was noticed that she would rarely take any “risk” or exploit a potential opportunity to attempt to score more points but was content ignoring the game and play as she would a match.  This was primarily, one suspect’s, due to the winning and losing part of point play but of course this defeated the objective of developing and expanding the player’s opportunities. When asked, she made the statements that

“I can’t do that shot”

“I don’t use it when I play”

“I always lose when I try it”

“I don’t know if the pro’s do it”

Is this player in a box? YES! A box that does not allow new experiences to enter and also blocks the possibilities that may or may not be useful.  How is she to know whether this is useful to her if she never experiences it to the fullest?

The box unfortunately in this case is cast iron.  The statements she made suggest that she is not even open to recognising that there may be some merit in what the exercise is suggesting and so the practice itself is completely useless.

I would suggest that the fact that it is currently not in use in her match play is what is preventing her from accepting.  Without this buy in there is no moving forward.  The solution therefore is to open her mind up to its possibility.  This can be done by showing professionals doing it, showing her peer group doing it (if possible), demonstrating the merits on the court in a more comfortable environment such as an individual lesson and possibly providing strategies to cope mentally with the negative perception of failure when in fact it is developmentally positive.

 

Example 2 – Closed drills with no open play

Every type of drill has its place if the purpose and the context are understood and agreed.   Where there is no relation to the actual game is where the drill is just a drill and nothing else.  In my mind the purpose of practicing something is to then put it into the game where it is appropriate or at least have the possibility of using it in the game if the opportunity arises.

Some drills, however, are there to support another drill which in turn translates to the game.  For example, a volley to volley practice could be designed to improve hand skills that in turn will allow greater possibility when approaching the net which will be used as a strategy to win points in the game. The question is does the player understand this?

One thing that I advocate around the club (to those that are prepared to hear what I have to say, which incidentally in most cases I am prepared to listen to them) is that where possible drills should be designed with the game in mind and therefore should take place at the relevant positions on the court.  This may seem obvious and I am happy if it does.  As an example take a practice that is fed out of the basket that works on hitting rally balls to keep the opponent in a neutral position behind the baseline. The key parts are where is the player standing? Where is the coach feeding from and what constitutes success.  Depending on age and state and there are court dimensions defined.  Let’s take an orange court.  This for me does not mean that the player stands on the baseline or in some cases inside the baseline closer to the service line.  For me the sign of a good quality orange player is one who can rally from between the orange baseline and the real baseline (i.e. a step or two back from the orange baseline).  In a purist mind, there is no logic in a player practicing rally from the service line (unless for a warm up or a support drill) as this is not the appropriate position.  At some point in the practice the player must experience rallying from the correct position and have it confirmed that this is the goal of the development (if they can’t already do it).  In summary, the context must be correct!

If the player is finding it difficult then the coach employ’s various strategies to aid the player in achieving this goal.  The beauty is that the player has experienced what is required and has the choice to strive towards it.  If the player was never to experience rallying from this position they will be unaware that it exists and of course all the physical, technical requirements to achieve from this position rendering them a bit useless when this situation undoubtedly presents itself.

The same could be true about drills such as “2 cross 1 line”.  A player would become competent at this pattern but may be placed in the box of “2 cross 1 line” and not ever expand into other possibilities.  Is it unheard of to play line first?  If it was then I personally, would never have done anything in tennis. Within “2 cross 1 line” I ask myself the question what constitutes cross and what constitutes line?  Is it not true that there are many ways to achieve this pattern and ultimately doesn’t the choice to go down the line depend on player’s decision to do so?  In addition, shouldn’t players make decisions out of their own curiosity and evaluate the success or possible future success?

Closed practices in themselves run the risk of placing players in boxes that dampen creativity, personality and development.  Variation, context and experimentation make a seemingly closed practice more “open” and of more interest in a curios mind that is that of a child.

There are probably other examples of ways to put players in boxes and I leave some thoughts behind,

1. Does teaching to the test (for example maths) put a person in a box rather than prepare for real use?
2. Is this what the talent id tests do?
3. Is this what the competition structure does?
4. Do parents and coaches get sucked into these schemes?
5. Would we better off with less structure and more freedom at younger ages?

My philosophy is one of growth through experience and my job is to create learning possibilities and opportunities within the game of tennis.  This extends into the world of biomechanics providing opportunity for the body and subsequent techniques providing possibility for tactics and tactics possibility for strategy.  All of which can work in reverse to aid understanding.  Open play and conditioned, themed play are integral for players to try and experiment thus creating new possibilities and opportunities.  These new possibilities and opportunities that are currently their learning are experienced in conjunction with expressing their inner personality and growing as complete person.  It provides focus and desire to learn the new skills that are required to succeed in the new situations.  This will only lead to more opportunity and possibility and a more complete experience and development of the player.

 

 

 

FC Barcelona Football Camp in Birmingham!

First of all you read the title right! FC Barcelona in the UK offering coaching?  A friend of mine was taking his child along so I couldn’t pass the opportunity to observe the worlds greatest team’s coaching methodology!

The first thing I noticed was the coaches manner, personality, delivery, teaching ability, whatever you want to call it there was serious command for their space and the children are in line.  Even the “liveliest”  of kids were snapped into line and ready to work.   The question is though is this because it is Barcelona or is the respect and authority achievable by all coaches?  Either way it was there!  At one point a coach explained the drill and then added on the end that he did not want to see certain behaviour as it was disrespectful to each other as team mates and developing players.  A philosophy built on moral values!

Each session started with a warm up but not as one may think.  The Barcelona way demands the ball as the main “actor” and must be present in everything that is done.  Warm up with the ball, rest with the ball, work on acceleration…with the ball.  Interestingly the warm up consisted of all the ABC’s etc but was specific to the theme of the day.  Also it lasted about 20-25 minutes with short drinks breaks between progressive exercises.

The main content was delivered in an hour session with only 2 distinct drills being set up.  This suits me as the children never left the theme of the day whilst also there was enough “openness” in the drills to close down various teaching points. Interestingly this allows the drill to be personalised where there was difference in ability at certain points of the drill.

The second half of the morning consisted of a similar warm up followed by very open games with a barrel of rules to abide by that were there to promote the theme of the day.  There was some form of scoring system (not always about the ball going in the goal) and the children were engaged with achieving the game.

During games, drills, warm ups coaches observed like hawks constantly intervening and stopping the activities to explain, reinforce, correct and improve the players.

Overall I think the most outstanding part was the communication of the coaches.  The Spanish coaches were firm but fair and demanded discipline but did it in such a way that the children responded and worked at every task set.  I spoke with one of the coaches who told me that when he keeps on top of the discipline the children think freely about football and the task.  If the coaches don’t get on top of the discipline the children think freely….NOT about football.

Generally the expectations are high but, and this is hard to explain, it wasn’t about how good the drill looked.  Sometimes the drills were difficult and the children weren’t able to do it all perfectly.  I know some coaches who would not like this and regress thinking that the children need total success.  Here the children were praised for aspects of the drill that they did well in context.  Interestingly a seemingly good pass was not praised as it did not fit into the context of the drill and therefore deemed incorrect.  In another example a player dribbled around 5 players and scored.  This was met with a sharp scolding as the drill was to pass and move and the team need 5 passes in order to score.

Due to the fact that there were only 2 drills in the session the players had time to access the drill and improve their performance and understanding along with the constant intervening by the coaches.

Another example of intervening was in a drill where the theme was “dribbling”.  Now, there was a passing and shooting in this drill also but after a while the coach intervened.  He wasn’t happy with the way the players were accelerating once they had dropped the shoulder to take on the player.  All a bit slow.  So he demoed and gave example and clarity to the children.  He could of picked anything in this drill really but the theme is the theme and this is what he observed as important.  Players re focussed and progressed in the drill.

The methodology seems complete in that it covers the 4 performance factors and in every drill there is purpose relating to a theme.  there are a handful of teaching points available within the drills that coaches can emphasise to the complete group or personalise to individuals.

For obvious reasons I think that this is not the complete picture as there was talk about “functional movement” something that if tailored correctly could really enhance the capability of the players in performing some of the drills.  I am sure that there are elements to the development in Barcelona that is not exported but frankly I am not sure the UK can handle all of it at once.

As I write these random thoughts and observations I keep remembering one single word that shapes the reason why Barcelona are Barcelona.  This word is PHILOSOPHY.  Barcelona create players to play the Barcelona way.  There is no movement away from the Barcelona way and it suits the players that play for Barcelona.  They are humble about their way and method but do not see any other way…and why should they.  They are open to sense and logic which probably is already in their method.  In my tennis experience there is lacking of individual philosophy and even worse when it is dictated to coaches from the top (LTA).  A philosophy should be based on your own thinking, logic and it also needs time to grow and develop.  Be under no illusion that Barcelona are not constantly striving to improve their philosophy and method but it has to suit them and it has to make sense.  From U10 to pro Barcelona teach their way and as they put it, it reduces the confusion for the young players.

The other word that appears twice in the above paragraph is SENSE.  This is a word I heard a few times and again in conversations.  Everything that is done has purpose and the players try to execute with sense.  There is some reason to everything no matter how fine.  As I mentioned before, things that make no sense in the context of the drills are not praised no matter how good the outcome might be.  This is because in the context it makes no sense at all.  Dribble around 5 players when you are supposed to pass two yards.  Makes no sense and in the end this cannot help develop the player.  Sense and understanding seemed to be key and then practice this sense and understanding and become better.

The drills and games seem to be few (similar in spanish tennis) but teaching is abundant.  Clear techniques, tactics and requirements allow the players to grow, develop and become well rounded players.  SIMPLES!

If you have read this far you won’t mind one more little interesting point…..

Some of the coaches have limited English (I even spoke to them in Spanish) and I have begun to think of language as being an issue. The instructions given by the foreign coaches in English were short, concise and easy to comprehend.   Since I have been learning Spanish I have found when translating  material from Spanish to English how simple the language is in terms of being able to understand what is being said.  I put my hands up here that when coaching I have sometimes gone into too much detail and elaborated topics when there is no need.  Children require simple language with simple requests for easy understanding.  Again another “simple”!

Un abrazo

Mike

 

 

 

Applying Pressure Vs. Defend/Rally/Attack

Hi All,  Firstly to those who read Tactical Movement thank you and thank you for the great feedback also.  I have written this as post publishing Tactical Movement as some interesting thoughts came up and I wanted to share this mind field with you all.  Enjoy!

Applying Pressure Vs. Defend/Rally/Attack

I am sure that many coaches have done some variation of the “defend, attack and rally” drill and the purpose of this is not to dispel its use but to offer some thoughts as to ways to make the best out of it.

I have used this exercise from a player perspective, i.e. the player who is choosing to rally, attack or defend and also where from the opponent perspective where the player considers what his/her opponent is doing.

With young players the wording and their connotations have caused me a few issues along the way.  The word attack is the primary offender as to very young players they associate this with ball speed.  Attacking tennis must be played hitting the ball faster, and in many cases causing errors and quite drastic ones at that after all the work they have put in to create this “attacking” opportunity.  Similarly defending is considered to be slower than rally and that rally is medium, again all related to ball speed.

Rally by definition is a ball that keeps the opponent in a neutral position, ideally preventing “attacking” options and also not requiring any defensive mechanisms.  This suggests that two players can rally from neutral positions and that the ability to rally from many positions on the court, providing they maintain the opponent neutral is also rally.  As the competency of rally grows we end up with professional players rallying at extremely high levels which can be perceived as attacking play but really it is rally, just they are good at it.

With younger players there is obviously a wider rally potential and that the match up of players where one player rallies the other defends or a rally ball from one player is seen as an opportunity to attack, meaning that they are not rally balls at all.

This leads me to thinking that the desire for high quality rally balls is of great importance and not from single position but from all over the court (to include rallying on the move).

Time and Space

Tennis is really a game of time and space and controlling both parameters.   These two parameters appear in varying situations.

1. The time available for a player to manage the space in which they must move and execute
2. The time and space required to effectively recover
3. The effect of this on the opponent

Example

Hitting into a space causes the opponent to have to manage a distance (space) in a certain amount of time.  If the space and time is managed well by effective reaction, court coverage and selected footwork then the player will be able to execute an effective shot maintaining rally.   If not then the player must adopt defensive techniques in order to solve the problem of lack of space and time.  The player must be able to create suitable time to recover.  Depending on the management of space and time the player will be able to exploit the space and time of the opponent who will have to manage their space and time to counter.

A player will be comfortable rallying in certain situations and at a certain level and will also have a programmed view on when it is possible to attack and similarly when to defend.  However, player’s choices of these may be contrary to our views.   A player may choose to defend when in fact they could rally and hit a more effective shot given that they had or could have the physical and technical competencies to support this new tactical desire.

There are times in a game where a player will utilise varying ball speeds, spins, flights etc in order to manage their space and time and also to have some impact on the opponent’s space and time.  All degrees of these can be used in any of the three situations although some will be more desirable than others. This is where pre conceived understanding of rally, attack and defend can cause problems.

In essence a player will resort to defending when they feel it is necessary and similarly attack.  It is worth considering whether when a player resorts to defence the player could rally and that surely the player would want to rally before defend where possible.  Also in considering attacking there are more options than just increasing ball speed.

The Pressure Scale

I have thought about using a pressure scale as opposed to Attack, Rally, and Defend in order to encompass more options within play.  In an ideal rally situation both players are 50/50 in pressure and arguably at zero pressure (or the centre of the scale).  A player can apply a pressure in numerous ways by exploiting the opponent’s space and time using a variety of ball speeds, spin, flight, direction etc.

In any instance a certain amount of pressure is applied to the opponent (simply because they now have to deal with and execute their tactics).  In rally the opponent’s goal is to play a shot that keeps the opponent neutral and hence brings their pressure back to 0.  The opponent will want to manage the space and time by covering court efficiently and within the given time frame created by the oncoming ball, apply a footwork pattern to firstly execute and secondly allow recovery, play a shot that allows appropriate recovery and cover the said court again efficiently.

Both players have fluctuated up and down the pressure by applying and feeling pressure.  There has been no need to defend and no player has been able to attack?  Simply pressure has been applied and managed.

Controlling points

Through the application and management of pressure which links seamlessly to the management of space and time which is underpinned by effective tactical movement players can understand how they can control points.

Points are constructed by searching for ways to increase the application of pressure.  When serving, there is chance for the server to apply pressure from the outset.  The returner aims to neutralise and the players will be somewhere on the pressure scale post these shots.  When both players are at the back of the court players will look to construct a point by testing the opponent’s space and time and when appropriate apply more pressure.  This could be through repeated shots to a weakness, playing the ball side to side, injecting pace, using angles and a whole lot more.

This suggests an overwhelming importance to consider rallying in a wider context and also to consider the other 2 situations (attack and defend) in more holistic way.  For example a player may finish the point with a drop shot having constructed the point through consistent rallying exploiting space and time.

Quality Factor

There is of course a variety of quality in play from mini tennis through to professional levels and therefore there becomes a quality factor that at all levels must be considered. Andy Murray’s rally ball is of a much greater quality than mine and within that match (if it were to happen) I would find it difficult (maybe impossible) to rally and apply pressure against him.  Similarly my rally ball will affect certain players in the same way.  The qualify factor dictates that a player can manage the space and time well enough to execute a stroke that manages the pressure and applies a certain required pressure to the opponent.

If two players are rallying but one can maintain a higher tempo than the other, the player with the lower tempo or lack of sustainability at the higher tempo, will break first through error or opportunities to apply pressure.

I am sure we have all seen a player who can get to ever ball and get it back with seemingly low quality but the other player makes the error first.  There could be a few reasons for this.  The player with the lower quality shot is managing their time and space well, although presenting opportunity for the opponent to apply pressure.  The opponent sees this opportunity but tries to apply pressure through pace and continually increases this pace until the error appears.  This, I would consider, to not be very smart play.  The player has neglected rally and assumed the old meaning of attack, instead of applying more and more pressure through direction, controlled pace and spin etc where undoubtedly the opponent would be forced to strive for higher quality or alter tactics.

A player will want to be able to inject pace into the ball in order to reduce time for the opponent and there is a time and a place for this as is there for any other shot.  It is the point of the shot and the way the space and time is managed that will affect the outcome.

Limitation model links

My limitation model suggests that the 4 performance factors (technical, tactical, physical, mental) each limit one another, the tactical factor being the one that provides purpose for the others.

Taking the rally concept the tactical outcome would be to be able to rally over increased distances and in varying court positions under certain degrees of pressure.

The considerations that follow are

1. To what degree can the player do this?
2. What techniques are working and which could do with some help?
3. Is the player covering the court?
4. Is the footwork choice appropriate?
5. Does the player recover effectively and to an optimal position?
6. Does the stroke keep the opponent neutral and apply sufficient pressure?

Although there is a racket requirement to handle to sending of the ball there is also a heavy movement and footwork requirement which precedes it.  In order to rally in such a wide context a player will need a host of physical ability including applying certain movement techniques and footwork patterns to achieve the tactic.  If players are doing this well then the racket skill can be optimised.  Ideally it is all done in conjunction at the same time.

Considering this in a holistic manner to include the 4 performance factors players will understand what it is they are trying to do and also understand the progressions that you employ as a coach to improve certain areas within the whole game.

Note on Mini Tennis

This idea can be worked on within mini tennis red, orange and green and of course full ball.  The idea being that if a player can rally from behind the baseline with a sponge ball can the player rally on the move?  Can the player manage the space and time on the red court?  Can the player use a variety of shots to manage pressure and apply pressure?

I believe that a player in mini red can do these things and that this is what will effectively allow players to reach high levels.  If a player struggles to manage space and time on the red court how can you justify moving to orange?

This last part on mini tennis is to put the logic of keeping children in the stages for as long as possible in order to fully develop the skill set and understanding of the wider game.  It is possible for a player to be behind the baseline, using a variety of shots to play the game, managing space and time and looking for ways to exploit space and time of the opponent.

Thanks for reading!

Technique is Movement Skill?

Hi again,

Ok so this might be a little different but then again it might just be blatantly obvious.

I am sure we have all heard, whatever your sport that there is a technical requirement in terms of execution of an action.  I know there is in tennis and that it is something that is prominent in many tennis sessions.  Personally I believe in functional technique on the tennis court as this allows a player to explore tactical options and execute theses tactics to a high level.  I also believe that technique is redundant in isolation and that there must be a desired tactical outcome that provides context for the technique.  I also believe that this extends to movement and footwork and all round physical attributes.

The thing is that there are degrees of tactical outcome that is available as a player develops their skills and understanding.  Take for example the simple tactical of moving your opponent. One can place the ball to move the opponent using simple “bunting” technique where the ball goes in the intended direction but the technique does not affect the ball in terms of spin etc and as a result applies small pressure to the opponent.  The same tactic can be executed with vicious spin, pace etc utilising angles that will apply maximum pressure to the opponent. In addition there are all the degrees of execution in between.

All the other factors (physical, technical, mental) limit the execution of the tactic so the coach must firstly show what the final result will look like and start the player on the road to reaching it.   In this post we are concerned with technique.

Many coaches have differing views on this and also coaches from a physical background also have input into developing athletes/players.  There is a view that a player must develop the technical skills (sports specific ) early and there is the alternative view in that fundamental movement skills should be the emphasis.

Here is my thought – isn’t technical development movement skill?

to elaborate take the “shape” of a ground stroke.  A player must learn to coordinate the swing path and the kinetic chain to produce the most efficient stroke.  Moving an object in this motion such as a football will educate the body in the desired execution.  Allowing players to hop, squat, rotate etc will also stimulate the appropriate sequences that will be required to execute the strokes.  Holding the racket and re producing the strokes also helps as does movements such as arm sprials and 3D stepping/balancing exercises.   In addition there must be some receiving/sending and as a tennis coach wanting tennis players I will use throwing and catching over the net along with drop feeds to be hit progressing to feeding over the net and rallying.  All this can occur within a single session and that over the a period of weeks players can develop movement skills and tennis technique which in essence is simply the moving of the body in a set way.  Any human is capable of moving the racket in the “right” way.

Once the player has developed the basics and the coach is refining and introducing more complexity one should not forget that the movement skills will really help in the learning of new skills and dealing with greater complexities.  Taking a 360 approach, including body motions, footwork, movement and racket skills (in context) players will become rounded in competency.

Good luck to all..

 

Development vs Performance – one and the same

Hi All,

Recently I read our club newsletter and in the staff profiles it said that I was the “Performance” coach.  As nice as that is I started to think about the wording and the message that this sends to the members, in particular the juniors.  In addition to this a few coach friends had mentioned that they prefer the “development” coaching.

I became confused (this is not difficult for me).  The words just don’t make sense and I will begin to explain why.

“Performance” tennis seems to refer to the “talented” ones or those that show a greater degree of competence at a certain age or stage.  “Development” seems to be considering everyone who does not fall into the “performance” category.   This infers that there is a transition a player can make from development to performance tennis?

Having done some thinking on this development can be linked with improvement.  This makes it independent of standard or skill competency.  Simply every time a player is on court with a coach the aim is to develop or improve as a tennis player.  Performance coaching is a redundant term as the goal of the coaching sessions is still to develop and improve the players tennis.    After all a coach is aiming to develop the player to improve the performance within a match.  This is the case always.  If not then there is a question to be asked as to what the point of coaching is.

Some issues that come up in my own head is that not everyone is at tennis coaching to try to become number 1 in the world and of course the vast majority won’t realise this but that does not take away the fact that they all have the right to learn to play tennis.  Develop their skills to improve their performance when they play the game.

There will be degrees of coaches who specialise in certain areas but in the centre I work in every player is in development (as primarily U10) even those reaching national standards.  Every person who enters the centre is in the same boat of wanting to play tennis and therefore they have the right to be taught and developed.

Coaches, whatever the qualification, experience etc should all be aware that they can teach people to play tennis and play tennis well.  Whether the player is once a week  or 4 times a week a player must be taught as this will allow the player to realise success.  Success will breed enjoyment and enthusiasm.  Circumstances in terms of money and parental interest play a part in the whole rate of development discussion but still foundations can be implemented to future proof the players.

I see myself as a both performance/development as my primary goal is to enable everyone who steps on my court to learn and improve at tennis which means developing technique, tactics, physical capabilities and a mind set to play the game.  the players I work with are good but that is because they have been taught and they have learnt and worked hard to improve.

I am a coach with the goal of producing tennis players (whatever that means).

 

 

 

“Centre” – a little anecdote

The table I am sat is wobbly and to say the least annoying.  I look around for an obvious solution to the problem presented.  I find an old magazine, newspaper or bear mat and I fold the object to a suitable size and place it under the affecting leg.  The table ceases to wobble (for now) and my issue is solved.  Until of course the object deteriorates or the dog chews it or it is removed for some reason and the table reverts back to its old self of wobbliness.  the table has no way of adapting to this situation as it has no mind but it does rock to its so called or perceived centre.  It is just when the table is called upon to be functional the problem presents itself.  The degree of the problem is also a question in that the problem has to become suitably bad before anything is done about it.

The human body can be likened to this situation where there is a compensation or an inhibition but the body can adapt to function (or perceive to function) until one day it decides no.  The body adapts to what the requirements are but the degree at which it can perform the requirements are dependant on how the body currently functions.  If it functions optimally (or as close to as possible) the outcome is arguably good in the required function.  At least it gives the person the best possible chance. 

We could simply replace the table with a new one that doesn’t wobble but in the case of the body this isn’t a solution (apart from in obvious situations and I am not referring to enhanced aesthetics).  

In my work as a tennis coach I have been presented with a child who is struggling to serve due to techniques I have instructed previously.  Not that these techniques are wrong but since I have been with Anatomy In Motion (www.anatomyinmotion.co.uk) I have recognised that there is no wonder the serve is struggling. I have looked at segments of the chain where there are problems and low and behold a foot issue presented itself where the player struggled to absorb weight into the foot when performing the serve and had to constantly reposition the foot to accommodate the action.  This led to mishaps up the chain and hence affected the outcome of the serve.  Attention to improving the foot function allowed a smoother transition of weight into and up through the serve. 

In this case there was no wedge to place under the wobbly table but to educate the body to function optimally (or closer to optimum) to improve the serve.  

There are other situations where I have seen children essentially being prescribed wedges to stop their table wobbling.  What happens when the wedge is moved?  the table wobbles again.  This is the same for the child with a wobble stopping wedge.  Once it is removed the body reverts back.

As a sports coach I am starting believe in a relationship between body and requirement and that the body is our primary tool.  We need allow time to focus on allowing the body to function optimally if it is not and this will help players in their development.  

The question is do we as coaches need to skill up our knowledge in body function, posture, gait etc or do we outsource this to another professional?  I have chosen to delve into this subject as it fascinates me. For me this is a definite requirement of the modern day athlete but who is responsible for it?