This is from Nick Jacques Tennis. Nice ideas for a constraints led approach (CLA). This already shows the difference between CLA and differential learning (DL). In the CLA the intention and the plan for the development of the skills is an idea of the coach („avoiding backswing“). In a DL approach the coach also offers different situations (like those in this video). But the solution is in the responsibility of the player, not in the responsibility of the coach!
Both approaches are implicit, but there is an important difference in the attitude to the learning athlet. While the coach in the CLA drill has a goal (backswing), the DL coach knows and intends nothing. The system „player“ is a black box and there is no expectation in the long term development of individual skills. The examples in Nicks CLA are in DL only one possible solution for the motion and will not be repeated.
Thx to Nick for the nice ideas ?. I love his quote: „I have no influence over this as I am still with very little noise from me.“
“ 3 constraint led approach drills that have helped reduce the size of my students take back. Lillian has previously been taught a large loop on her take back which has isolated her upper body from her lower body, making it very hard for her to adapt to the many different balls she would need to cope with in a match situation. Lillian has made great improvements on her coordination, here are a few key exercises that have helped her progress. Note how Lillian is intrinsically motivated as the exercises engages her and draws out the effort, you can see I have no influence over this as I am still with very little noise from me ? „
There are very good discussions in some facebook groups about non linear (implicit) and linear (explicit) coaching in tennis. While we have a lot of studies about implicit learning in sports like basketball, cricket and volleyball, there is still a lack of targeted research in tennis. At the same time accustomed truths beginn to waver. Methodical traditionalism with clear statement to „technique coaching first“ is no more the only way to coach, yes it is heavily critisized. Action approach and game based learning are essential elements in the Play and Stay concept of the ITF and of national tennis associations all over the world with changing constraints like balls, fields, rackets, rules and more. But there is coming up a confrontation between the representatives of a „both is possible“ and those who plead for the purity of implicit learning.
On our facebook page we are now at 481 Coaches and others, that follow „Inner Coaching in sports“. Thank you very much, we are hoping to reach soon the milestone of 500.
This is a page, on which we talk about evidence based coaching in sports. Startied from Inner Game over Inner Coaching, we are still on the way. Evidence based coaching with the backing by science.
We are surfing on a wave that pushes teaching and coaching tennis to another level.