Bigger Better Tennis - Paul Dale

HIDDEN POTENTIAL In his best-selling book Hidden Potential, author Adam Grant describes a previously unknown chess team that surprised everyone by winning the US National Schools Chess Championships.  To do so, they overcame schools that had been playing chess much longer, and that had been much more successful.  It turns out that a teacher at the school decided to introduce chess to his students for the first time. Initially, his goal was to get the children enthusiastic about chess. He achieved this  by having them start matches from the game's final stages rather than from the beginning. He guessed that starting from the beginning with all the pieces on the board would be boring to them and perhaps turn them off chess before they fully understood the game. The children soon began to enjoy playing chess and as his young players got better, he would add more pieces at the beginning until finally, they were starting normally, with all the pieces on the board. TRADITIONAL METHODOLOG

Teaching tennis requires an understanding of the differences between coaching men and women.  While athletes of both genders do share many commonalities, there are unique nuances that coaches must understand to fully unlock their potential.  You ca n't teach tennis the same way for both, and you'll get much better results by adopting a different methodology for each gender. Wayne Smith, a renowned New Zealand rugby coach who coached the All Blacks rugby team to win the World Cup, when asked about the difference he found between coaching men and women (he also coached the New Zealand Women's rugby team to win the Women's World Cup) said... 'Men must win to be happy while  women must be happy to win. ' Wayne Smith was able to successfully win the Men's and Women's Rugby  World cups I have witnessed countless on-court sessions in which women have been driven relentlessly and harshly by coaches who have believed it was the correct way to coach a woman. The f

As tennis coaches, we constantly strive to improve our skills. We must be part teachers and parents, often helping to motivate and inspire our students. Central to our job is the art of teaching, which requires more than just imparting knowledge— it demands active engagement, reinforcement, and ongoing development. Teaching tennis is not simply about sharing what we know . Effective teaching goes beyond merely providing information; it also involves setting up the opportunity for learning . It requires fostering an environment that encourages active participation and critical thinking. I'm convinced that most students understand only a small percentage of what you teach them. They hear you, but filters in their heads block the clear transfer of that information. If you don't believe me, give them instructions, wait for 2 minutes then ask them to repeat the instructions! You will be horrified by how often the instructions have not registered with them at all. In most cases, stu

When I was a young coach coming up and wanting to eventually coach competitive players, a close friend of mine got the opportunity to coach a Davis Cup team. I thought this was the ultimate, and I desperately wanted to pick his brains and learn as much as possible about his experience. Something he told me back then stuck with me. He said, "Before you teach, you must first set up the opportunity to teach." This means not to presume that just because you're the "Coach", every player will be ready to follow your teachings without question. Far from it!  Advanced players can be very wary of any advice  from someone they haven't built trust with yet It's a common scenario for highly skilled players to be bombarded with advice on improving their game and ranking from every corner. In the realm of sports, it seems everyone is an expert. This reality further reinforced the need for a cautious coaching strategy. Advanced tennis players meet "experts" 

, You may have been looking at competition all wrong. Maybe competition should not only be about throwing the "kitchen sink" at your opponent to try and beat them down. Even if your strategy leans towards all-out offence: relying on a big serve and a dominating forehand, introducing some subtlety to your game might produce surprising results. After all, why would you want to play an opponent at full strength? Wouldn't it be better to neutralise their strengths first before playing them?  While that may seem overly simplistic to most, reducing your opponent's effectiveness is possible and entirely necessary if you want to reach the top.  STRATEGICALLY SMART "The first job of any army is to  make  themselves  unbeatable first" You must have a plan before every match that addresses your opponent's strengths and weaknesses; otherwise, you're inviting trouble. Without a plan, every match could be a battle because you could be allowing for the best version

All competitive players strive to perform at their very best. They hope for consistency of performance and believe  that playing to the best of their ability should be enough to win matches. However, while trying to achieve your highest level might seem like a good goal, I feel there is a better mindset for you to adopt when you compete.  PICKING WINNERS Have you noticed how difficult it is to confidently pick who will win at tournaments? That's because players throughout the draw all play at a very similar level. Even players who seem to have all the strokes and look like world-beaters often lose in the early rounds. Yet often, players who end up winning the event don't look special at all. I have a theory for this. It's often difficult distinguishing why some players win, and others lose.  During matches, all players experience highs and lows. There will be periods of struggle and periods of comfort.  I BELIEVE CONTROLLING THE "GAP" BETWEEN THE HIGHS  AND LOWS D