Updated: Sep 3
I posted a poll recently on our YouTube Community. (www.youtube.com/mytenniscoaching)
Which is the more effective coaching approach?
A direct coach-led or a player constraint-based approach.
It was surprising that 75% of people on my channel felt a more coach-led approach was best.
So let's look at the two in more detail.
Join Our Community
Are you a tennis coach looking to evolve your coaching techniques and achieve better results with your players? Join our online community at My Tennis Coaching! Our platform is dedicated to helping coaches like you navigate the ever-changing world of tennis coaching. By becoming a member, you'll gain access to a wealth of resources, including player-centered coaching techniques, strategies for holistic player development, and tips for effective program management. Plus, you'll have the opportunity to connect with other like-minded coaches, share experiences, and learn from each other.
Our exclusive content, webinars, and downloadable resources are designed to help you stay updated with global coaching trends and reinvigorate your coaching style. Don't miss out on this opportunity to be a part of a community that is as passionate about tennis coaching as you are.
This often traditional coaching method is how many of us have learned the sport.
The coach sets up the practice, and the player is told what to do, when, and how. The method is very closed, and players are asked to repeat specific movements (technique) to get the desired outcome.
The coach gives the bulk of the feedback. The player is often a passenger in the decision-making. The coach provides all the ‘cues’ of what to do and when. It’s often what the player is doing wrong, and as the player progresses, the coach will make the movements more complex and advanced.
The player does not play the game in this coaching style and is focused on repeating a movement (technique or skill).
✅Coach led keeps players on task
✅Facilitates early-stage learning
✅Player provided with Rules
❌ Players will find it hard in a game situation with more variables in play
❌ Players will find it more challenging to adapt to different situations or scenarios
❌ Poor tactical understanding
❌ Improvements will plateau
Playing games encourages players to discover effective movements and develop tactical awareness.
Rather than focusing on mastering technique and attempting to use it in a game. CBA places the players in games where they must discover how to play them.
Players will need initial skill development but are playing modified versions of the entire game. This encourages both technical and tactical skills development. Players will better understand when to play certain shots and how.
The player leads most of the learning, and the coach is the facilitator. Using effective questioning and manipulating elements such as the task, environment or the players themselves, the coach helps guide the player to the solution.
✅ Players play the game (or modified versions) - Players will develop better problem-solving skills
✅ Practice will be varied, and players will develop more versatile skills
✅ Implicit learning encourages better decision making
✅ CBA play better under stress - Less competition anxiety
❌ It can take time for players to develop the skills
❌ It can look messy and disorganised - Less structured and regimented
❌ If the constraints are too easy or too difficult, the player can become disengaged
So there we have the two sides - Which do you think is better when coaching Tennis?
In conclusion, the constraint-led and traditional approaches to tennis coaching have unique benefits and drawbacks. The traditional approach focuses on developing fundamental skills through repetition and structured drills.
In contrast, the constraint-led approach emphasizes creativity and problem-solving by placing players in challenging and unpredictable situations. Both approaches have their place in tennis coaching, and coaches may choose to combine them to create a well-rounded training program. Ultimately, the key is tailoring coaching methods to individual player needs and goals and remaining open to new ideas and techniques to help players reach their full potential.
Written by Steve Whelan