As a coach educator and developer, I encounter a wide range of aspiring tennis coaches each week—hopefully the next generation who will push the sport forward. But recently, I had a moment that highlighted one of the biggest challenges we face in the industry.

I ran into a coach who had previously completed his first two coaching certifications with me. What I saw on the court, however, was a regression in his coaching style—constant interventions, a heavy focus on technique, and a relentless need to “fix” players. It was as if everything we’d worked on together had been replaced by outdated practices. After the session, we grabbed a coffee, and I asked him what his goals were as a coach.

“I want the players to be able to repeat their actions more consistently. It seems to disappear when they are under pressure. I want them to be able to repeat without thinking.”

Oh no, I thought. Fitts and Posner strike again.

I asked him where this new mindset had come from. It certainly wasn’t through anything we’d discussed in his training with me. His response?

“My lead coach is big on repetition and making sure we get the basics right. We focus a lot on shapes and ensuring they’re repeatable.”

And there, in a single conversation, lies one of the biggest problems in tennis coaching today.

The Influence of Outdated Mentors

How can we expect to evolve tennis coaching into a more contemporary, effective model when the next generation of coaches is still being mentored in outdated and regressive methods? This isn’t an isolated incident. All too often, I hear about young coaches being influenced by mentors who are stuck in the past, reinforcing techniques and methodologies that were debunked years ago.

In the case of this young coach, his lead mentor had essentially dragged him back into a world of old-school repetition, heavy technical focus, and the myth of “perfect” shapes. What’s worse is that these methods don’t hold up under scrutiny from modern coaching science. Yet, these outdated practices continue to get passed down, generation after generation, because young coaches are often afraid to challenge their mentors or the “way it’s always been done.”

The Trap of Fitts and Posner: Repeating Actions Under Pressure

The coach’s comment about wanting his players to “repeat without thinking” immediately took me back to the outdated theories of Fitts and Posner. Their model of skill acquisition, which emphasizes cognitive, associative, and autonomous stages, is still widely used. But it paints an overly simplistic picture of how we develop skills, especially in dynamic, open sports like tennis.

Fitts and Posner’s framework suggests that with enough repetition, a player will reach a point where they can perform actions automatically, without thinking. But the reality is far more complex. Tennis is a dynamic, chaotic sport where no two situations are ever the same. Players are not machines, and they don’t learn like machines. Instead of mindlessly repeating actions, players need to learn how to adapt, adjust, and problem-solve under varying conditions.

The Repetition Myth

Another relic of outdated coaching is the myth that repetition alone is the key to mastery. In the traditional model, repetition is seen as the bedrock of skill acquisition. Shadow swings, endless basket feeds, and technical drilling are believed to create a muscle memory that will carry players through the most challenging match situations. But this couldn’t be further from the truth.

Muscle memory is a myth. The human body doesn’t store movement patterns like a hard drive. Instead, players rely on real-time perception and action coupling, reacting to the environment around them. Every shot in tennis is unique—whether it’s due to the ball’s spin, the opponent’s positioning, or even the wind. Relying on repetition and pre-programmed techniques strips players of the ability to adapt to these ever-changing conditions.

Outdated Mentors, Outdated Research

The problem with these outdated coaching methods is that they’re often based on outdated research. Fitts and Posner, schema theory by Schmidt, and early models of skill acquisition may have had their place in the past, but they no longer reflect what we now know about human learning, especially in sports.

Ecological dynamics and the Constraint-Led Approach (CLA) have transformed our understanding of how players develop. These frameworks emphasize learning through interaction with the environment—adjusting to constraints and finding movement solutions in real-time. This approach is far more representative of the actual conditions players face during a match.

Yet, here we are, decades after these outdated models were first introduced, still seeing coaches rely on them because their mentors haven’t updated their knowledge. It’s like teaching a surgeon to use tools from the 1800s because that’s how it’s always been done.

The Instagram Problem

Just today, I was scrolling through Instagram and came across a young coach with a large following selling a $30 book on the importance of repetition and shadow swings. It’s disheartening to see these outdated concepts repackaged and sold to young, impressionable coaches who may not know any better.

Social media can be an incredible tool for learning and sharing, but it can also perpetuate bad information. Coaches see a flashy post, a high follower count, and assume the content must be valuable. In reality, it’s often regressive, misleading, and ultimately harmful to the players they’re trying to develop.

How Do We Break the Cycle?

The only way we can truly modernize tennis coaching is by challenging these outdated methods and mentors. We need to stop revering tradition for tradition’s sake and start asking tough questions: Does this method work? Is it backed by evidence? Does it reflect the chaotic, adaptive nature of tennis?

Coaches need to feel empowered to break away from the traditional model and embrace more contemporary approaches like CLA, where learning emerges from real, representative game environments. Players should be taught to adapt, problem-solve, and make decisions based on the information they perceive during the game—not based on the shapes they drilled in isolation for hours on end.

It’s also crucial that coach education programs reflect modern, evidence-based approaches to skill acquisition. The next generation of coaches should be learning about ecological dynamics, not Fitts and Posner. They should be experimenting with ways to manipulate constraints and challenge players to find solutions, not drilling technical patterns until players are blue in the face.

Conclusion: Modernizing Tennis Coaching

If tennis coaching is to evolve into the 21st century, we need to break free from the chains of outdated mentorship and research. The next generation of coaches deserves better than to be held back by the past. We need coaches who are forward-thinking, who embrace the complexity of the sport, and who focus on helping players adapt and thrive in dynamic environments.

Bad mentors can ruin a coach’s development, but by educating ourselves, challenging old ideas, and embracing contemporary approaches like CLA, we can create a better future for tennis. It’s time to move past repetition, shadow swings, and muscle memory. Let’s build a coaching culture that reflects the reality of the game and the needs of the players.

The future of tennis coaching depends on it.