For those BC'ers who have taken lessons from different clubs, what do you look for in the training program/lesson? Right now I'm training in my second club, which has a huge difference in teaching than my first. My current training centre starts the lessons with footwork drills, warm-up rallies, then 2 or 3 vs. 1 defense style training, then moving onto singles/doubles games with the coaches analyzing your matches and helping you correct technique while you play. My old training centre also started with footwork, but then we would do drills for most of the classes, spending a lot of time practicing specific shots, with the coaches there to help you. I know this may sound crazy, but I'm not exactly sure which is/was more beneficial to my game. The current training method feels wrong because I'm used the original method I was trained in, but I think I still benefit from it just as much. So back to my original question, what do you look for in a training lesson, working on technique with drills, or working on technique with matches?
It really depends on the person's learning style. I myself very much prefer training strokes and technique first before moving on to incorporating it into a routine/drills.Bringing it into game play becomes natural to me after that. It's very boring but more systematic and that's how I am geared as a learner. Whereas, many people prefer to learn a technique in a practical application first. You get the insight into its use earlier. That may keep people's interest in coming back for longer. It's difficult to say which one is 'better' for you. A mixture of the two methods might be optimal for you rather than solely one or the other.
I have experience with both. I found both benefit in different ways. Through drills and routines, I get to improve on my accuracy and correct my techniques. Through play, I get to analyze and see my own mistakes and improve on them. Another reason might be the coach. For the drills and routines sessions, the coach is much more meticulous, right from mistakes made to improvements that could be made. Whereas for the play sessions, the coach spots improvements to be made, then proceed to drill you specifically to correct and improve. Currently I like both styles of training and am happy with it. My improvements have been much more steadier than a pure drilling or pure playing training.
Maybe you should go to a 3rd club that incorporates both (technical) drills and match-like exercises...;-)
You need to analyse your own game & understand where your weaknesses are & how improvements can be made. Often coaching will incorporate all 3 elements. Basic technique like footwork, stroke execution need to be gained before drills/games should be played. Drills will build your muscle memory and consistency. So that when you choose a shot your body should naturally start the preparation for the shot rather than you consciously controlling it. Playing games leads to tactical and strategic decision making. Coaches will have different approaches to training depending on the level. For experienced players often your concentrating on tactics and small corrections to technique. A coach will watch a game in progress and offer tips which the player can then correct there & then. If they can't then they may break down the format into shot drills or even further to developing a new technique. For lower level players it's often necessary to build the basics and start with technique & drills to get enough repetition to actually learn the shot correctly. Beginner's games often have to much variation and a rally ends with an unforced error that the coach ends up jumping around trying to correct to many things rather than selecting a single aspect.
Thanks minefields, I actually understand now. For me, and most other juniors in our training group, basic strokes were learned and practiced years ago. So I suppose it's only natural to put all the shots we learned into a practical situation.
