You want to improve your game and are considering signing up for group tennis lessons? Great initiative! Group lessons can be an excellent way to continue your tennis journey. However, before you commit, it’s important to do your research and make sure the program is the right fit for you.
Here are 8 red flags that might suggest you could be disappointed:
1. Classes Not Grouped by NTRP Rating
The National Tennis Rating Program (NTRP) is a system that classifies tennis players based on their abilities. The NTRP Rating ranges from 1.0 (complete beginner) to 7.0 (touring professional) in increments of 0.5. If a program doesn’t group its classes by NTRP ratings and instead uses vague labels like Beginner, Novice Plus, or Intermediate, there’s a good chance the class will include players with a wide range of skill levels. This makes it challenging for the coach to meet everyone’s needs effectively. Instead of targeted instruction, you may end up with a generic session aimed more at keeping everyone busy than helping you improve.
2. Classes Grouped Across Two NTRP Levels (e.g., 2.5-3.0, 3.0-3.5, 3.5-4.0)
This is something you might see at some clubs. If you do, it’s a sign that the program manager may not fully understand the NTRP rating system. There are significant differences between each NTRP level, and it’s difficult to combine two levels in the same class, especially in semi-open or open drills. You’ll likely end up in a generic session or, at best, playing with participants from the lower NTRP level.
For instance, why would a 4.0 player join a 3.5-4.0 class? They wouldn’t. While a 3.5 player might think it’s fine, they would struggle to benefit from a 4.0 class because the skill and experience gap would prevent them from keeping up with the curriculum.
3. No Assessment
What’s the point of grouping classes by NTRP rating if there’s no assessment process, allowing anyone to sign up for any class?
There are various reasons why a club might not offer assessments. For example, when I managed a club, we didn’t assess adult players because we didn’t need to. We ran three-month cycles, and current participants had priority for the next cycle. Our retention rate was so high that I often boasted it was over 100%. Not only did we keep our players, but they also promoted our programs to others who had to wait for a spot to open up.
In this setup, the coaches knew all the players and followed them from cycle to cycle. While we would have liked to assess new participants, it wasn’t always feasible due to limited court availability and busy coaching schedules. Instead, we provided clear documentation to help new participants estimate their skill level and clearly stated that anyone whose skill level didn’t match the class would be recommended for a more suitable class. If no spots were available, they’d receive a refund. This was important because all our classes were consistently full.
To minimize issues, I always scheduled two classes of adjacent NTRP levels at the same time. For example, we might have a 3.0 class on two courts and a 3.5 class on two other courts. If a new participant’s level didn’t match the class they signed up for, I could easily switch them to the appropriate group. While it didn’t always work perfectly, it was an effective risk management strategy. Success depends on sticking to the NTRP levels.
If a club offers monthly cycles, has no assessments, and has high turnover—common in seasonal programs like outdoor tennis—this is a red flag that suggests you might want to look elsewhere.
4. No Clear Pathway for Progression
When you join a tennis program, the goal is to improve your game and progress. Knowing what comes next and the conditions for moving up to the next level are crucial. The club should provide a clear player pathway with information and conditions for advancing from one level to the next.
If that’s not the case, it’s likely that even the curriculums for each level aren’t well-defined, and the classes may be more generic, depending on the coach’s mood that day. If the club only offers classes up to a certain level, such as 2.0, or if they are seasonal, they should at least be able to refer you to other clubs where you can continue your tennis journey.
5. Generic Sessions Without Structure
Tennis programs are meant to improve your game, and gameplay should be the foundation of any session. A well-structured session starts with a game situation where the coach observes how you handle a particular scenario, then provides feedback on what they’ve seen. From there, you should work through a closed drill to correct specific issues, followed by a semi-open drill to practice using the newly learned skills in a more dynamic situation, and finally return to open play. The session should conclude with a wrap-up to ensure everyone understood the key points, with time for participants to ask questions.
If the session lacks structure and the drills are generic with a few tips here and there, watching YouTube videos might be more beneficial—and less expensive.
6. Multiple Topics in One Session
One common mistake many coaches make is trying to cover too much in a single session. They may try to correct everything at once or feel compelled to respond to every off-topic question. However, effective correction requires repetition and appropriate game situations, which are easier to manage in private lessons but not in group sessions. Overloading participants with information can undermine any advice given.
If a coach spends time explaining something off-topic to one player, it affects the rest of the group, who must wait. Answering off-topic questions can also lead to more questions, which won’t add value since the necessary context is missing.
If you notice that the coach is giving well-meaning but off-topic advice during the session, it’s a sign that the class may not be well-structured. It’s like trying to learn ten chapters of Japanese in one hour—you’ll likely retain more by focusing on the first two pages.
7. Coach-to-Participant/Court Ratio
This ratio depends on your skill level. For 1.0 and 1.5 classes, it’s ideal to have 12 players across two courts with two coaches. At this level, the courts are smaller, allowing for a fun and social learning environment where interaction and enjoyment are more important than skill development.
From 2.0 onwards, after working with different ratios—12 players on three courts with two coaches, 12 players on two courts with two coaches, 8 players on two courts with one coach, or even 16 players on four courts with two coaches—the best option for core programs is 8 players on two courts with two coaches.
While the cost for these programs may be higher, this ratio gives coaches the flexibility to work with closed drills, semi-open drills, and open play, both in singles and doubles.
For social play programs, the more participants, the better—as long as you don’t exceed 4 players per court. One coach can manage 3 to 4 courts, depending on the layout, while effectively organizing rotations.
8. Lack of Information About the Coaches
If you can’t find any information about the club’s coaches—their profiles, certifications, experience, how long they’ve been with the club—it’s a red flag. If you ask at the front desk or speak with the program coordinator and still don’t get any clear answers, it’s best to look elsewhere.
It could be that the club doesn’t have a fixed staff or committed coaches. Nothing is more frustrating than a high turnover of coaches, resulting in no continuity from one session to the next. I remember a participant once asked me, when I had to cover for an absent coach, “How does it work here? Is it a different coach every session?” I felt sorry for them, but as a contractor coach not involved in management, there wasn’t much I could do.
If you find yourself in a similar situation as that participant, you’re likely wasting your money.
Do you have other red flags to share? Feel free to leave them in the comments—we’d love to hear from you!