„No ISO-norm within sight.“
Quality criteria for tennis training in club sports
by Frercks Hartwig (translation: Fezire Korat)
Summary
In the usual set of tennis training in club sports with many players and less effective
training time, we find ourselves in an almost
Paradoxical situation. The expectations of the players and the club for the coaches are
very high (WLSB club study from 2004) at the same time, the influence of the coach on the
development of the players is difficult to measure qualitatively. The personal relationship
between coach and player sometimes seems to be more important than the quality of the
training. However, both are important. It is necessary to teach scientifically proven efficient
methods in coaches' instruction and further education and thus work towards high-quality
training. “Quality assurance in tennis training“ is a topic which concerns every coach, not
only fulltime coaches every day.
Every lesson is characterized by the attempt of self-insurance that anything I do on the
court, matches the quality requirements of me and my players. This is about the attempt to
define the “quality of tennis training in club sports”. This is where most of the colleagues
should work. The accompaniment of top athletes will not be regarded. Overlooking the
research in the field of education and motor learning you can carefully form qualitative

demands. With what comes out of it, you can develop a demand profile for a high-quality
tennis training with still to be defined parameters and develop a guideline for tennis
coaches in club sports. Both the subjective and evidence-based quality criteria will be
regarded.
General Set-Up
To understand my remarks,
facing the general setup is
auxiliary. Since 1998 we run
a tennis school in southern
Germany, through which we
supervise 15 tennis clubs in
the rural area. The number
of members varies between
120 and 300. Usually, the
coaches are coaching two
afternoons a week in every
tennis club. We are being
supported by very committed
avocational coaches. All
clubs can be apportioned to
mass sports and competitive
sports in the lower class, so
up to the upper leagues in
the district. In group training,
the players get between 60
and 90 minutes of training a
week.
Occasionally there are
requests for further
education. Individual training
is extremely rare. Some
employees are already
working for us for several
years others only for a year
before they start university or
cannot coach anymore for
other reasons.
Every coach works self-
reliant and also invoices with
the club on his own. This
system did prove beneficial
with a regard to the quality of
the training. It leaves the
employees in charge of the
training and the work in the
tennis clubs. Through that,
the clubs also have a direct
person to contact. Usually,
these are the coaches with
the B- or C- license of the
German Tennis Federation
(DTB). The costs of the
training result from the
qualification and the
experience of the colleague.
Qualified sports
educationists normally agree
on a higher hourly rate. In
some clubs, auxiliary tennis
assistants are being
appointed. Normally the
coaches come directly out of
our clubs so that they
already have plenty of
experience and an idea of
our notion of high-quality
tennis training.
Professionalization
through further education
“A contextual high - quality
education through the
association is a foundation
for the quality assurance.”
(John Hattie)
For the protection and self-
insurance of a tennis training
which is equivalent to the
quality standards of the club
we conduct the following
actions that should serve the
“professionalization through
further training”.
• The participation in
advanced training courses
of professional
associations and other
sports associations (think
outside the box).
• Motivate to participate in
interdisciplinary further
training (sports
psychology, sports
education, training theory,
coaching, and mental
training)
• Communication and
feedback through a
coaches-WhatsApp group
• Forwarding of coaching
ideas to all coaches

• Collegial consulting and
coaching (“...that sits
heavily on my stomach,
how do I cope with it?”)
• Annual internal meeting
of coaches to exchange
the training methods (“my
favorite exercise”)
• The participation in
future workshops of the
supervising clubs for the
club development
• Joint presentation of
the training philosophy at
a Parents’ evening
In these determining factors,
the question arises, whether
the training corresponds with
one’s quality standards, the
ones of the tennis school,
and more importantly the
ones of the clubs and
players. We will see that
there are very different
notions of the meaning of
“Quality in tennis training”.
As in almost every section of
the tertiary sector, there is
hardly any quality criteria. It
is not for nothing that there
are no scientific studies for
the quality of the training in
club sports.
How can you asses criteria
to measure, evaluate and
ultimately refine the own
work and the work of one’s
employees? Is the response
of the association’s board
that everything is “at its best”
and the players are
contented with the training?
Do the progress and the
results of teams and players
in individual tournaments
yield information on the
quality of the training? The
former possibly ensure the
further cooperation with the
club but it’s only the result of
the subjective valuation of
the club’s operatives so it is
rather no evident verification.
Indeed too many factors play
a role in sporting progress.
60 to 90 minutes of group
training a week is hardly
likely to be the “crucial
factor” for sporting
achievements of single
players let alone teams with
possibly shifting players.
Numerous, for coaches
hardly controllable factors
matter.
• How much time does
the player invest in an
additional match and free
training without the
coach?
• which sports does the
player additionally
practice that supports the
progression,
• do players have
additional training with
private trainers,
• if yes, does the
additional training
correspond to the training
methods of the tennis
school or are different
methods of learning and
teaching being applied
(for example training with
a focus on implicit or
explicit learning),
• What is the approach of
the player to tennis as
competitive sports?
• How does the player
act during a match?
• Which role do the
mental abilities of a player
act,
• Which meaning do
personality traits such as
concentration, motivation,
self-concept or fear of
failure has,
• How does the
environment adhere to the
practiced sports,
• How big is the amount
of motivation and
dedication of the parental
home,
• How does the peer
group, the friends, adhere
to tennis?
• How is the personal
valence of tennis
compared to school,
apprenticeship and other
free time activities?
Here you can clearly see
that it’s scarcely possible to
find generally valid criteria
for the quality of tennis
training, when the sporting
success is adducted as
criteria of the quality of the
training. This is probably
also the explanation why
there’s no scientific research
on “quality assurance in
sports”. So an ISO- norm in

tennis training is rather
difficult.
Expectations and
Delusions
„And, in general, sports still
suffer from operating within
the context of “fixing what is
wrong” and a focus on
teaching and giving
prescriptive instructions.
This works but is not the
most effective approach. But
we all have our blind spots.“
(Sean Brawley)
Overall tennis coaches are in
a dilemma. The training has
to live up to the expectations
of the players and the club’s
operatives. The club study of
the Wuerttemberg Sports
Association (WLSB) from
2009 gives an indication on
the club member’s wishes.
When answering the
question “what is important
to club members” the
interest incapable and
committed coaches even
stands before the “funding
of youth work“. This applies
both to multi-sports clubs
and for one sports club,
which most of the tennis
clubs are. (WLSB club study
2004).
A committed tennis coach
nowadays is expected to do
more than just to coach. The
club and its members expect
the coach to counsel the
club at its development and
to bring forward ideas on
how to get more members
and how to keep those which
should be done more or less
complimentary. Furthermore,
the coach is in charge of the
teams, has to work with the
parents, has to help with the
teams, he has to organize
tournaments, has to counsel
the players which equipment
to get and much more. This
is also a quality criterion for
a “good coach” in club
sports. Today’s coach should
be the gratuitous manager of
the club.
Chemistry must be right
„Love me or leave me“ (Nina
Simone)
Which quality criteria for
tennis training can be
formulated through the eyes
of the players? Studies on
the efficacy of the training
show that there is one
crucial factor with which the
players denote the training
as “profitable”: The
chemistry between the
coach and the player has to
be right. When I don’t like my
coach because he reminds
me of my unloved teacher or
I don’t like the way he
speaks, the coach can be
ever so motivated and offer
ever so good training.
This leads many coaches to
methodical the wrong track.
The coach can be ever so
likable when he lets the
group play soccer every
time, maybe the players like
him and they like coming to
training but they won’t get
better at tennis.
Of course, the relationship
between the coach and the
player changes gradually.
But this can take very long. It
is similar to studies on
learning achievements and
failings. The relationship
between student and teacher
over time also plays an
important role.
Often the scholastic
achievements hinge on the
relationship between student
and teacher. This is the
reason why it is useful to
project references from the
research on schools onto
tennis training. Quality
principles can be conveyed
from school to tennis
training. Of course, the
differences between school
and training have to be
considered.
Visible Learning
„Feedback to teachers make
learning visible“ (John
Hattie)
The study “visible learning”
by the New Zealand
educational researcher John
Hattie from 2009 gives
indications on that. Hattie
determines 138 factors for
learning achievements,
which can be found in more
than 50 000 English
speaking studies. For him,
the teaching person is the
center of effective learning.
He speaks of the necessity
of a “passionate act with a

contagious effect”: “It is
called for love of technical
content, „It takes a love for
the subject matter, an
attitude of ethical care and
the desire to fill others with
the love for the subject
taught“ (Hattie).
Hattie says that an important
criterion is to configure the
lesson in “the eye of the
taught”. This demands the
teacher, in this case, the
coach. They become
learning attendants instead
of experts and enable the
learning process. Teachers
are expected to empathize
with the learning process
and to apprehend it through
the eye of the taught. „If the
teacher‘s lens can be
changed to seeing learning
through the eyes of the
students, this would be an
excellent beginning“ (Hattie)
All kinds of feedback play an
extraordinary role in it. This
may seem very effortful in
light of the fact that there are
plenty of participants. Often
there are more than 100
players a week that is being
maintained.
How can we as tennis
coaches get feedback from
the players that fall through
the cracks of 60 minutes and
overexert the coach and
trigger expectations in the
player that are not
realizable?
We developed the following
method to ascertain the
wishes, needs and goals of
our players: they are being
prompted through ffile cards
at the beginning of the
summer and winter training.
The following questions are
conceivable:
• “How do you want to
change your game and
your technique until the
end of the season?”
• “When a friend watches
you play in autumn or
spring, which changes
should he note after the
training season?”
• “If there was a tennis
fairy godmother and you
had three wishes, what
would you wish for your
game?”
The file cards are being
disbursed in the first lesson
and collected during the
following weeks and
evaluated by the coach.
Queries to the answers
make it possible for the
coach to engage in
conversation with the player
and to clarify the
expectations. In these
conversations, mutual
approaches are being
determined.
Structural Quality Criteria
Basic quality criteria are also
the ability and the
willingness of the coach to
ensure a clear structure in
training with comprehensible
and generally valid
requirements:
• „Clothing“
• Greeting and dismissal
of all participants
• Punctuality (punctual
beginning and ending)
• Patience (in respect of
the learning
achievements)
• The capability to
manage conflicts (how do
I cope with problems in
the
group)
• The ability to take
criticism (how do I cope
with critics against me or
within the group)
• Clear rules (the rules
for training are clear and
adhered by everyone)
• Leading of the group
• Structuring of contents
(clear structure from
warm-up till cool down)
• Methodical capability,
methodical transparency
(the coach can explain his
methodical procedure and
justifies it)

• Joint formulation of
goals (coach and player
define the sporting
goal together)
• activating learning
strategy
• Advisory capacity
(career management,
material advice, sports
medical consulting)
Not all of these demands
can be performed by the
coach without additional
training in pedagogy and
training theory.
Evidence-based criteria
„While it is true that everyone
is different and unique, it is
also true that we all share
certain capacities.“
(Sean Brawley)
Besides these requirements,
there are also generalizable
ones for fast and effective
learning in tennis training.
Methodical approaches that
live up to the current stage of
educational research;
training concepts which are
more than the perpetuate
repetition of first hand
experienced training
methods. It is necessary to
make the sports scientific
research the foundation of
the configuration of club
sports. Evidence-based
learning conflicts with
training which is only
characterized by empirical
values.
This, of course, encounters
resistance with most
colleagues. Often they say
just like an American
colleague: “Scientists have
no idea about how to play
tennis... it all depends on
what level of tennis coaching
you are talking about.“
Learning in sports works the
best, when players no matter
how good they are
experienced in an
unexpected sense of
achievement, and through
that sense of pleasure which
helps them to take these
new experiences into their
repertoire of actions.
Additionally learning “asleep”
takes place. New
perceptions are being
processed and saved during
sleep. Research on motoric
learning shows that you can
learn more efficient and
lasting through implicit
learning so through learning
that is not put into words.
Learning with explicit
instructions may show faster
success in training at a first
glance and because of that
seem more attractive for
coach AND player. Still the
most frequent the
expectation of players to
their coach is: “...tell me
what I do wrong then I will
correct the mistake.”
Implicit learning, however,
results in own devising
solutions that are more
creative (technical and
tactical) and more “durable”.
In a survey with
internationally active
coaches, this split between
experience and scientific
research plays a big role.
The reaction from colleagues
reaches from strict rejection
(see above) up to more soft
reactions in which the
always plea on empirical
value. “Ideally you do what
you think is best for the
athlete. Personally I like the
scientific way more. I use my
experience to support the
science but among
colleagues most of the time I
was a minority.” Without
educational work, the
expectations are often
guided by the classical
conciliatory model.
One quality criterion for
evidence-based tennis
training is also the
knowledge of the coach
about learning curves and
science-based methods of
learning. And that he can
communicate that to the
players. What applies in
school, should also be found
again in tennis training: “The
teacher always has to review
his teaching self-critical;
empirically-based goals and
feedback are more essential
than subjective assumptions
and perceptions.”(Hattie). In
conversations about the
expectations of tennis
training with the player's
strategies for club sports can
be developed.
Communication

„As a coach, control what
you can control: your
mouth!“ (Timothy Gallwey)
In sport, we often see the so-
called “much speaker“. They
have got huge practical
knowledge and feed the
players with information on
technique and tactic. From
learning research we know,
that “students” can only
process one or two new
things. New knowledge and
experience from training are
being processed during
sleep. Explicit instructions
lead on to short term senses
of achievement that however
in comparison to implicit
learning vanish relatively
fast. Sometimes wise
sayings can be approved by
science.
“Talking is silver, silence is
gold” should also be a
quality criterion in tennis
training. Dirk Schwarzer,
who wrote a great article on
communication in training in
the last edition of Tennis
Sport formulated it very
nicely “We as coaches have
to discipline ourselves and
shut up! ...accept that
concentration is silent...”.
In an implicit way in which
learning results from
parameters, most of the time
words are redundant. By
learning in a playful way, age
– appropriate with constantly
changing parameters,
changing exercises and
situations that are similar to
matches, there is no need
for explicit instruction.
Training methods
“You can think about why
children learn the fastest in
their first two years even
though they don’t listen to
their parents and get very
few instructions on how to
move. Maybe you also have
to change the ‘even though’
with ‘because’.” (Wolfgang
Schöllhorn)
Research on motor learning
shows that implicit learning,
that is to say: without
technical instructions in
words, is learned more
effectively and, above all,
more sustainably.
At first glance, learning with
explicit instructions may
show faster results in
training and may therefore
be more attractive for
players and coaches. The
most common expectation of
club athletes for the coach
is: "Tell me what I'm doing
wrong and correct my
mistakes."
Implicit learning means that
self-developed solutions for
game tasks (technical and
tactical) are more creative
and “more durable”. The
reactions of coaches to
"new" knowledge about
motor learning range from
strict rejection to gentler
reactions: "Ideally, you do
what you think is best for the
player. Personally, I like the
scientific approach more. I
generally use my experience
to support science. But I was
mostly in the minority among
colleagues. Without
educational work for players
and coaches, the
expectations of players and
coaches are often limited to
the classic mediation model
with error diagnosis and
technology correction.
A quality criterion for
evidence-based tennis
training is the knowledge of
the coach about learning
processes and scientifically
justifiable teaching and
learning methods. And that
he can convey that to the
players. What applies to
school-based learning
should also be found in
tennis lessons: “The teacher
must constantly review their
teaching behavior in a self-
critical manner; Empirical
goals and feedback are
more important than
subjective assumptions and
perceptions.” (Hattie).
Talking to the players about
training expectations can
then be used to develop

common strategies for the
player.
It can also be demonstrated
in simple calculations that a
“standing-in-the-row” training
which is still frequently
observed in club training is
not particularly effective. The
players stand in a row and
play one or more balls each.
Then they stand at the end
of the group again. In this
form of organization, other
than playing on target fields,
no forms of play are
possible. It can now be
calculated that in
comparison to an implicit
and game-oriented
approach, in which "playing"
almost exclusively in
competitive situations, the
players hit significantly fewer
balls in column training.
Depending on the ability of
the training participants to
play, they get up to 10 times
the number of ball contacts
when playing with each
other.
Such a playful approach is
about becoming able to play
as quickly as possible. Ball
changes are played right
from the start, and from an
early confrontation with
differently jumping balls and
changing the game
situations, self-organized
technique, and tactical
behavior develop. In the so-
called "column training",
however, the focus of the
coach is on an explicit
technique training. He
supposedly has "control"
over the behavior of the
players and over the
technique execution.
Quality in club training
In fact, too many factors play
a role in the athletic
development of tennis
players. 60 to 90 minutes of
group training a week is
probably only one, albeit an
important factor for the
sporting success of single
players and teams with
possibly changing players.
Numerous factors that are
hardly controllable for the
coach also play a role:
• What is the personal
value of tennis for the
player compared to
school, training and other
leisure activities
• How much time do
players invest in
additional match training
and in free play without a
coach
• Which sports do
players play in parallel
and support
development,
• Players take
additional training with
private coaches
• If yes, does the
additional training
correspond to the
methods of the tennis
school or are other
learning and teaching
methods used (for
example, training
focusing on implicit
learning or explicit
learning)
• What is the attitude of
the players to tennis as a
competitive sport and in
competition
• What role do the
players' mental
abilities play
• What is the
significance of the player-
related personality traits
such as concentration,
motivation, self-concept
or fear of
failure
• How is his
environment, the friends
of tennis
• What is the level of
excitement and the
commitment of the
parental home?
These questions show that it
is therefore difficult to define
generally applicable criteria
for the quality of the training
if sporting success is the
primary criterion. The variety
of influencing, factors may
explain why there are no
scientific studies on the
subject of "quality assurance
in club sport". With an ISO
standard for Ensuring quality
standards in tennis training
is therefore rather difficult.

Summary
In the usual set of tennis
training in club sports with
many players and less
effective training time, we
find ourselves in an almost
paradoxical situation. The
expectations of the players
and the club for the coaches
are very high (WLSB club
study from 2004) at the
same time, the influence of
the coach on the
development of the players
is difficult to measure
qualitatively. The personal
relationship between coach
and player sometimes
seems to be more important
than the quality of the
training. But both are
important. It is necessary to
teach scientifically proven
efficient methods in coaches'
instruction and further
education and thus work
towards high-quality training.