This post seems a bit contradictory to your previous post “Death of a Forehand – Part II”. You mention here that errorless learning, or learning by starting off with much easier goals, has better results for intuitive learning. However, in your previous post, you also mention that red ball to green ball progression is contributing to the “death of a forehand” because players aren’t getting the “desirable difficulty” which can be difficult in the short-term but “proved greater long-term benefits”. In my experience, using the red ball progression is a great way for errorless learning in that the ball is much easier to hit for players (the bounce is at hip level height, and the balls are coming in slower, for example). My questions are: (1) why the contradiction? And (2) how would you recommend for junior players to start if not with the red ball to green ball progression?
This is absolutely great content, by the way, and I’m enjoying making my way through your blog!
My personal preference is for desirable difficulties, but here I was just presenting some literature I read.
The caveats of this are that these experiments are done with amateurs with no prior knowledge of the sport, and the tests are short, simple, and not reflective of the typical demands of the sport. In other words, they are isolated tests.
I have no idea where the truth lies, but it is interesting to think about and read. I think it is fine to start with red ball to get players interested in tennis.
But the idea that progressing through these stages is better than just giving a kid a wooden racquet and gut strings with a real ball is not clear to me. I think the latter has some merit.
This post seems a bit contradictory to your previous post “Death of a Forehand – Part II”. You mention here that errorless learning, or learning by starting off with much easier goals, has better results for intuitive learning. However, in your previous post, you also mention that red ball to green ball progression is contributing to the “death of a forehand” because players aren’t getting the “desirable difficulty” which can be difficult in the short-term but “proved greater long-term benefits”. In my experience, using the red ball progression is a great way for errorless learning in that the ball is much easier to hit for players (the bounce is at hip level height, and the balls are coming in slower, for example). My questions are: (1) why the contradiction? And (2) how would you recommend for junior players to start if not with the red ball to green ball progression?
This is absolutely great content, by the way, and I’m enjoying making my way through your blog!
My personal preference is for desirable difficulties, but here I was just presenting some literature I read.
The caveats of this are that these experiments are done with amateurs with no prior knowledge of the sport, and the tests are short, simple, and not reflective of the typical demands of the sport. In other words, they are isolated tests.
I have no idea where the truth lies, but it is interesting to think about and read. I think it is fine to start with red ball to get players interested in tennis.
But the idea that progressing through these stages is better than just giving a kid a wooden racquet and gut strings with a real ball is not clear to me. I think the latter has some merit.
Glad you'r enjoying the content!
This is super interesting stuff mate. Glad I came across it.
Thanks, Lee!