A few weeks ago, a popular Instagram tennis coach posted about anticipation being based on “mental maps.”
I replied with respect, but also with evidence. Framing anticipation as a stored “map” comes from outdated information-processing theories. For the last 30 years, research has consistently shown something very different.
Experts don’t rely on stored models. They don’t “pull a map from memory.”
They attune to information in the opponent’s action and the ball flight, and they couple their movement directly to it (Abernethy, 1990; Williams et al., 1999; Müller & Abernethy, 2006).
That’s why in occlusion studies, experts pick up earlier kinematic cues with more accuracy, because they’re tuned in to the information, not guessing from memory.
The Danger of Pseudoscience on Social Media
This isn’t just about one post. Social media is full of easy explanations: “mental maps,” “muscle memory,” “ideal models.” They sound convincing, they get likes, but they don’t stand up to evidence.
The problem is that coaches read these ideas and build their practice on them. That leads to:
- Players training skills in isolation that never transfer to matches.
- Coaches stuck in drills that look neat but don’t prepare players for real decisions.
- A cycle of frustration where “the science” is blamed when, in reality, the science was never applied in the first place.
Why It’s Our Job as Coaches
We don’t all need PhDs. But we do need a basic understanding of how humans learn to move. Because:
- If we don’t, we leave players at the mercy of myths.
- If we don’t, we’re teaching from assumptions, not evidence.
- If we don’t, we hold the game back.
Skill acquisition research is clear: learning is not about storing and retrieving maps. It’s about perception-action coupling in context (Davids et al., 2001). Movement emerges from the interaction between player, task, and environment, not from running programs in the head.
The Call for the Modern Coach
This is why we’re hosting The Modern Tennis Coach Event 2026.
It’s not about chasing the latest fad. It’s about grounding our coaching in science that actually helps players:
- Ecological dynamics
- Constraints-Led Approach
- Representative learning design
- How to design practices that transfer to matches
Because players deserve better than pseudoscience. And coaches deserve to feel confident that what they’re doing is backed by research, not recycled myths.
Join us at the Modern Coach Event and be part of the shift. – Hit the image below-
Let’s move beyond “mental maps” and start coaching in ways that truly prepare players for the game.
References
- Abernethy, B. (1990). Anticipation in squash: Differences in advance cue utilization between expert and novice players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 8(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640419008732128
- Davids, K., Kingsbury, D., Bennett, S., & Handford, C. (2001). Information–movement coupling: Implications for the organization of research and practice during acquisition of self-paced extrinsic timing skills. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19(2), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/026404101300036349
- Müller, S., & Abernethy, B. (2006). Batting with occluded vision: An examination of the information pick-up and interceptive skills of expert cricket batsmen. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 28(4), 387–411. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.28.4.387
- Williams, A. M., Davids, K., & Williams, J. G. (1999). Visual perception and action in sport. London: E & FN Spon.
- Williams, A. M., Ward, P., Knowles, J. M., & Smeeton, N. J. (2002). Anticipation skill in a real-world task: Measurement, training, and transfer in tennis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8(4), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.8.4.259
