I can still picture it clearly: the flip chart, the marker, and the hourglass my tutor drew in front of the class. It was 2002, and I was attending my DCA (Development Coach Award) certification course. The hourglass represented the “ideal” lesson structure for tennis coaching.

The framework seemed straightforward: you start open at the top, perhaps with a tie-break or game-like situation, to observe and assess the player. Then, you narrow it down, isolating specific technical issues, focusing on one shot or skill in closed practice. Here, you’d use repetition to “fix” the issue, adjusting the type of feed—hand, throw, or racket—depending on the player’s ability. Finally, you open it back up, adding a layer of complexity or a new shot before attempting to integrate it into a game scenario.

The logic was sound at the time. We had concepts like deliberate practice, the stages of learning, and the all-important “10,000-hour rule” presented as irrefutable evidence for this method. This hourglass approach dominated coaching education and formed the backbone of how many coaches, including myself, were trained.

But now, 22 years later, that magical hourglass is still with us, and I can’t help but ask: is it still relevant in 2024?

The Limitations of the Classic Hourglass in Today’s Coaching

In the early 2000s, the hourglass model fit well with the ideas of structured learning and linear progression. But here’s the thing: tennis, like all sports, isn’t linear. The framework assumes that skills can be broken down into parts, polished in isolation, and then reassembled in game play—a notion we now know is far too simplistic.

In today’s coaching landscape, the hourglass model looks outdated for several key reasons:

1. The Debunking of Deliberate Practice and the 10,000-Hour Myth

The hourglass model heavily relied on concepts like deliberate practice and the belief that players needed 10,000 hours to master a skill. While the idea of hard work and repetition is valid to some extent, more recent research has shown that deliberate practice is not the golden ticket. Not all practice is created equal, and focusing solely on isolated, repetitive drills does not guarantee skill mastery.

In fact, studies have debunked the idea that 10,000 hours is a fixed number for success. The ecological dynamics perspective suggests that skill development happens when players interact with their environment, not through isolated repetitions but through representative, game-like experiences where they learn to adapt and make decisions. So, while repetition has its place, the idea that it alone is the key to skill development has been thoroughly challenged.

2. Learning Isn’t Linear

The hourglass model assumes that learning flows in a neat, progressive manner—from broad observation, to technical isolation, to game-like play. But as we now know, learning isn’t linear. It’s messy, dynamic, and often unpredictable. Skills don’t simply “lock in” through repetition; they are adaptable, evolving as the player experiences different situations on the court.

Players are not machines. They don’t need isolated technical drills to master the perfect forehand—they need to be exposed to varied and unpredictable scenarios where they can develop flexible solutions to problems. The traditional hourglass approach doesn’t account for this complexity and treats learning as a static process rather than a dynamic one.

3. The Problem with Closed Practice

The middle section of the hourglass—the narrowing down to closed practice—is where the real issue lies. Closed practice might seem like a good idea on the surface: isolate the skill, get lots of repetitions, and eventually, the player will master it. But tennis, like many sports, is an open, chaotic environment. No two shots are the same, and players must be able to adapt to the unique demands of each situation.

Closed practice strips away the context that makes tennis tennis. The ball is always moving, opponents are reacting, and conditions change. Focusing too much on perfecting technique in isolation does not prepare players for the reality of match play. Players need variability and game-like conditions to truly develop adaptable skills. In a closed practice setting, they might hit perfect forehands, but as soon as they step into a match, all those isolated reps disappear because the context is completely different.

Why the Classic Hourglass Isn’t Relevant in 2024

In 2024, we know so much more about skill acquisition than we did when the hourglass model was first popularized. Advances in neuroscience, motor learning, and coaching science have shown that the Constraint-Led Approach (CLA) and ecological dynamics provide more effective frameworks for learning. These approaches emphasize the importance of creating practice environments that mimic the conditions players will face in real matches, rather than isolating skills in artificial, closed environments.

Here’s why the hourglass falls short today:

• Adaptability is key: The goal of tennis coaching should be to develop players who can adapt to the dynamic, unpredictable nature of the game. Closed practice doesn’t teach adaptability; it teaches players to rely on predictable patterns that rarely exist in actual matches.

• Perception-action coupling: Modern research tells us that players learn best when they are engaged in perception-action coupling—the process of perceiving relevant information from the environment (like an opponent’s position or the speed of the ball) and responding to it in real-time. The hourglass approach, particularly in its closed practice phase, decouples perception from action, making it harder for players to transfer skills to a match.

• Learning through interaction: In 2024, we recognize that learning happens through interaction with the environment, not through rote repetition. Players need to be placed in representative learning environments where they can engage in problem-solving, adapt to changing conditions, and develop resilience. The hourglass doesn’t allow for this kind of interaction—it’s too focused on isolating and perfecting technique.

Moving Forward: A New Approach to Tennis Coaching

If we’re still using the hourglass model today, we’re holding players back. It’s time to move away from this outdated approach and embrace a more modern, evidence-based framework for skill development.

Ecological dynamics and the Constraint-Led Approach offer a fresh way of thinking about tennis coaching. These approaches focus on manipulating constraints—whether it’s the environment, the task, or the individual player—to guide learning in a way that’s more representative of the actual game. Instead of isolating skills, we should be creating practices that challenge players to adapt, make decisions, and solve problems in real-time.

The future of tennis coaching isn’t about perfecting isolated techniques in a predictable environment. It’s about helping players become adaptable, creative, and resilient problem-solvers who can thrive in the unpredictable, dynamic world of competitive tennis.

Conclusion: Time to Smash the Hourglass

In 2024, the hourglass model simply doesn’t reflect the realities of modern skill acquisition. Learning isn’t linear, and closed practice doesn’t develop the kind of adaptable, flexible players that the game of tennis demands. If we want to produce well-rounded, resilient players, we need to let go of outdated coaching frameworks and embrace methods that reflect the dynamic, ever-changing nature of tennis.

It’s time to smash the hourglass and move forward.