Ask any tennis coach what new players need first and you’ll hear it:

“Start with the fundamentals.”
“Teach the basics.”
“Get the technique right.”

But… what if we’ve misunderstood what “fundamentals” really are?

This week, during a coach education course, I was asked a series of familiar questions:

• Don’t beginners need technical instruction?
• Isn’t there a right way to hit the ball?
• Isn’t this approach risky for injury?

And of course:
“But what about the basics?”

Let’s talk about it.

Redefining Fundamentals: They’re Already in the Game

Most coaches think fundamentals mean grips, racket path, contact points, and shapes.
That’s what we’re taught in coach education.

But when you look through an ecological lens, fundamentals aren’t something we give the player.
They’re already present in the environment, the task, and the individual.

Think about it:

• Gravity is a constant—every shot is shaped by it.
• The net, court lines, and opponent all provide rules and feedback.
• The body’s own movement constraints (height, strength, range) influence every action.

When a beginner hits the ball into the net, they learn not to.
When the ball sails long, they start adjusting the angle or swing.

They’re learning fundamentals—without a single technical instruction.

Why Beginners Don’t Need “Basics” to Start Playing

Here’s a truth that unsettles a lot of coaches:

Two complete beginners can play tennis today.
No demo. No breakdowns. No lessons.

Why? Because the game teaches them.

• The net invites hitting up.
• The lines invite control.
• The racket invites being held at the handle.

This is direct perception in action.
Players don’t need technical models. They need experience in the game itself.

So instead of saying “you need lessons before you play,” maybe we should be saying:

“You can play—and a coach can help you learn faster, with more direction.”

But What About Injury Risk?

Another popular pushback: “Surely poor technique leads to injury?”

Not necessarily.

The body is incredibly good at self-organizing.
It finds its own solutions based on what it can physically do.

Forcing a technical model—like insisting every kid swing low-to-high or grip Eastern—can actually increase injury risk, especially if the model doesn’t match their physical capacities.

Example:
We had a young player with a western grip on the serve.
Is it ideal long term? Maybe not.
But has he adapted around it? Absolutely.

He won’t get injured from his current solution.
But he might if someone forces a technical change that his body isn’t ready for.

And to be blunt—most coaches don’t have the sport science background to prescribe biomechanical changes safely.
The safest path? Let skill emerge and shape gently through context—not force.

Closed Practice Doesn’t Transfer. So Why Do We Keep Doing It?

We’ve talked about this a lot lately—especially after the Sinner basket drill breakdown and the Perry et al. (2025) paper on opposed vs unopposed practice.

Closed practices might feel productive.
They look clean.
But the transfer of learning is minimal.

If a player can’t apply that movement in a match, what did they really learn?

Yes, opposed practice is slower. It’s messier.
But the learning sticks.
It’s richer, more functional, and actually prepares players for matches.

Beginners Don’t Need Consistency—They Need Variability

This is one of the biggest myths in coaching.

We think beginners need a consistent swing.
But what they actually have—through early “freezing”—is a very consistent movement pattern.

It just looks stiff because they’re new.

What they lack is adaptability.
They need to:

• Explore different contact points
• Use different grips and swing speeds
• React to different intentions and outcomes

That’s real learning. And it only happens when they play the game.

So if you’re guiding beginners:

• Don’t build a technique first, then layer on complexity.
• Start with a simplified game. Scale it, don’t strip it.
• Let skill emerge and grow with the demands of play.

Final Thought: We Need to Rethink What Coaching Is

Coaching isn’t about giving players “the right way.”

It’s about guiding their attention.
Designing representative practices.
Supporting their discovery process.

The “basics” are already there.
What players really need is context, intention, and support.

If we get out of their way—and design for learning instead of controlling it—we’ll see just how much they’re capable of.

Want more insights like this every Monday?

Join The Coaching Playbook, my free weekly newsletter for tennis coaches who are ready to challenge outdated methods and design practices that actually transfer to the match court.