I would suggest that any technique feedback has the potential to lock players into specific solutions. That is where I struggle with going 100% EcoD. After 40 years of watching a variety of solutions, I do have some strong beliefs that certain solutions don't work. I'm probably not ready to abandon all technique feedback.
As far as your net height constraint, it makes sense in a perfect world. However, I still have to send my 10's out to compete against other teams on a 7' net with refs, parents, opponents, etc.
Just for the record, I enjoy getting into the EcoD weeds with you on this, since I respect your expertise and know that you have dug into all of this more than I have.
Tod — I really appreciate this response, and I’m glad we’re talking at this level. I think we’re actually closer than it might sound on the surface.
First, I completely agree with you on this: any technique feedback has the potential to lock players into specific solutions. That’s not an EcoD claim — that’s just a coaching reality. I don’t think the alternative to that risk is silence or abdication.
Where I want to push back a bit is on the idea that “100% ecological” is a meaningful category in the first place. I don’t think it is — and I don’t think it’s a useful target. Ecological isn’t a purity test, it’s a lens.
Same with technique feedback. I don’t see ecological coaching as “no technique feedback.” I see it as being very selective about what we comment on, when we comment on it, and what level of the system we’re influencing when we do.
I also don’t disagree that some solutions don’t work. After 30+ years myself, I have strong beliefs there too. The difference, for me, is whether I try to remove those solutions by verbal prescription, or whether I try to make them less viable through task and environment first — and then use feedback to stabilize what’s emerging rather than replace it.
On the net height point — I’m with you that we don’t get to live in a perfect world. Kids still have to compete on a 7’ net with refs, parents, and all the rest. For me, lowering the net isn’t pretending that reality doesn’t exist — it’s temporarily reducing threat so the system can explore solutions it will later need at that higher net.
In other words, I’m not trying to avoid the real game — I’m trying to prepare them for it without forcing early freezing that becomes hard to undo later.
So I don’t think the question is “Do we give technique feedback or not?”
I think it’s: Are we using feedback to narrow the solution space prematurely — or to help athletes better attune to the problem they’re actually facing?
And just to say it clearly — I really value these conversations too. I don’t see EcoD as a rejection of experience. I see it as a way of putting experience to work with a little more humility about how complex these systems actually are.
Good stuff. I am a huge fan of shape and spin as well. The issue I have is that the players' favorite solution is often the "shot put." Moving their hand from their chest upward makes it easier to get solid contact, and the low to high movement imparts topspin. This is one of my concerns with going all in on EcoD -- I don't believe that shot put solution will serve players well as they get older, and getting comfortable with that motor pattern may make it more difficult to change in the future.
This is one of the biggest differences I observed when I went to Japan. In pepper, their kids' attacking hand always extended back behind their head (fingers pointing down at the ground behind them) while our kids attack in pepper with their fingers pointed toward the sky. The Japanese kids employ the elbow, while the American kids are pushing with their shoulder.
I've been using "mousetrap", as in bending that lever back to spring forward, but most kids don't know what a mousetrap is. I bring one in and show them, but it would be nice to have something that's a bit more accessible.
Loren! How are you? We haven't connected in a while, but I've been inspired with all your content. Well done!
Regarding wrist snap, what are some cues that might be more external, but still help a beginner? I'm experimenting with 10 year olds right now, and though I identify as an EcoD practitioner, I'm having some issues with the self-organization solutions that my 10's are selecting.
A couple of my armswing cues are: mousetrap (elbow bend that pulls the arm back behind the head) and throw the pizza box (contact with elbow closer to 90 degrees). Are you using any keys for beginners, or is it all constraints?
I would worry that the focus on the arm with your cues like mousetrap or throwing the pizza box is that they can quietly lock kids into a more linear, arm-dominant solution if the environment doesn’t demand anything else.
When kids push instead of whip, I don’t see a technique problem.
I see a net-height problem.
If the net demands survival, they’ll choose survival.
If the net allows exploration, they’ll choose speed and shape.
Think smashball. Get the net down low enough so they don't have to send the ball up significantly off their hand. And give bonus points or other incentives to hits that are not touched by the opponent.
Hey Tod, hope you are well. I keep it pretty simple with the younger ones. I am with this age group twice a week, and we use a few different keys. Bow & arrow, open the door and slam it shut. But primary one is “put spin on the ball”. We do a few different things as “warmup” challenges that help them understand how spin happens, and which spin they are working for (topspin). Then in our games we reward hits that have spin.
I would suggest that any technique feedback has the potential to lock players into specific solutions. That is where I struggle with going 100% EcoD. After 40 years of watching a variety of solutions, I do have some strong beliefs that certain solutions don't work. I'm probably not ready to abandon all technique feedback.
As far as your net height constraint, it makes sense in a perfect world. However, I still have to send my 10's out to compete against other teams on a 7' net with refs, parents, opponents, etc.
Just for the record, I enjoy getting into the EcoD weeds with you on this, since I respect your expertise and know that you have dug into all of this more than I have.
Tod — I really appreciate this response, and I’m glad we’re talking at this level. I think we’re actually closer than it might sound on the surface.
First, I completely agree with you on this: any technique feedback has the potential to lock players into specific solutions. That’s not an EcoD claim — that’s just a coaching reality. I don’t think the alternative to that risk is silence or abdication.
Where I want to push back a bit is on the idea that “100% ecological” is a meaningful category in the first place. I don’t think it is — and I don’t think it’s a useful target. Ecological isn’t a purity test, it’s a lens.
Same with technique feedback. I don’t see ecological coaching as “no technique feedback.” I see it as being very selective about what we comment on, when we comment on it, and what level of the system we’re influencing when we do.
I also don’t disagree that some solutions don’t work. After 30+ years myself, I have strong beliefs there too. The difference, for me, is whether I try to remove those solutions by verbal prescription, or whether I try to make them less viable through task and environment first — and then use feedback to stabilize what’s emerging rather than replace it.
On the net height point — I’m with you that we don’t get to live in a perfect world. Kids still have to compete on a 7’ net with refs, parents, and all the rest. For me, lowering the net isn’t pretending that reality doesn’t exist — it’s temporarily reducing threat so the system can explore solutions it will later need at that higher net.
In other words, I’m not trying to avoid the real game — I’m trying to prepare them for it without forcing early freezing that becomes hard to undo later.
So I don’t think the question is “Do we give technique feedback or not?”
I think it’s: Are we using feedback to narrow the solution space prematurely — or to help athletes better attune to the problem they’re actually facing?
And just to say it clearly — I really value these conversations too. I don’t see EcoD as a rejection of experience. I see it as a way of putting experience to work with a little more humility about how complex these systems actually are.
Good stuff. I am a huge fan of shape and spin as well. The issue I have is that the players' favorite solution is often the "shot put." Moving their hand from their chest upward makes it easier to get solid contact, and the low to high movement imparts topspin. This is one of my concerns with going all in on EcoD -- I don't believe that shot put solution will serve players well as they get older, and getting comfortable with that motor pattern may make it more difficult to change in the future.
This is one of the biggest differences I observed when I went to Japan. In pepper, their kids' attacking hand always extended back behind their head (fingers pointing down at the ground behind them) while our kids attack in pepper with their fingers pointed toward the sky. The Japanese kids employ the elbow, while the American kids are pushing with their shoulder.
I've been using "mousetrap", as in bending that lever back to spring forward, but most kids don't know what a mousetrap is. I bring one in and show them, but it would be nice to have something that's a bit more accessible.
Loren! How are you? We haven't connected in a while, but I've been inspired with all your content. Well done!
Regarding wrist snap, what are some cues that might be more external, but still help a beginner? I'm experimenting with 10 year olds right now, and though I identify as an EcoD practitioner, I'm having some issues with the self-organization solutions that my 10's are selecting.
A couple of my armswing cues are: mousetrap (elbow bend that pulls the arm back behind the head) and throw the pizza box (contact with elbow closer to 90 degrees). Are you using any keys for beginners, or is it all constraints?
I would worry that the focus on the arm with your cues like mousetrap or throwing the pizza box is that they can quietly lock kids into a more linear, arm-dominant solution if the environment doesn’t demand anything else.
When kids push instead of whip, I don’t see a technique problem.
I see a net-height problem.
If the net demands survival, they’ll choose survival.
If the net allows exploration, they’ll choose speed and shape.
Think smashball. Get the net down low enough so they don't have to send the ball up significantly off their hand. And give bonus points or other incentives to hits that are not touched by the opponent.
Hey Tod, hope you are well. I keep it pretty simple with the younger ones. I am with this age group twice a week, and we use a few different keys. Bow & arrow, open the door and slam it shut. But primary one is “put spin on the ball”. We do a few different things as “warmup” challenges that help them understand how spin happens, and which spin they are working for (topspin). Then in our games we reward hits that have spin.