When a respected coach like Wayne Elderton puts ecological dynamics (ED) on the radar of tennis coaches, it matters. His recent piece What Coaches Should Know About Ecological Dynamics (2025) is a positive step because it signals that ED is no longer confined to academic journals …… it’s entering the mainstream of coach education.

But when you read the article closely, you see a tension. On one hand, it embraces ecological ideas like perception-action coupling, self-organisation, and repetition without repetition. On the other, it holds onto traditional assumptions, “fundamentals,” invariant technique models, and training solutions outside of representative environments.

This raises an important question: can you really mix ecological dynamics with information-processing and prescriptive coaching models? Or is it oil and water?

Why This Tension Matters

Ecological dynamics is not just another “tool in the toolbox.” It’s an epistemological shift, a different way of understanding how humans learn.

• ED view: Skill is emergent. Players learn by interacting with constraints in their environment (Araújo, D., & Davids, K., 2016).
• Traditional view: Skill is acquired through repetition, stored as motor programs, and recalled in matches (Schmidt, 1975).

If you try to hold both at the same time, contradictions appear. For example, Elderton praises representative learning design but also talks about supplementing it with decontextualised medicine ball throws or invariant technical “fundamentals.”

Those two positions can’t both be true in the same framework of learning.

As Renshaw et al. (2019) note, blending theories without clarity often leads to “coach confusion,” where methods contradict the very principles they claim to follow.

Examples of Contradiction

1. Representative Learning vs. Prescribed Technique
   • The article highlights that skills emerge through problem-solving in context.
   • Yet it also suggests that invariant features of strokes must be respected. That slips back into the idea of a “model technique”, something ED explicitly challenges.
2. Repetition Without Repetition vs. Isolated Drills
   • Elderton cites Bernstein’s principle that skill is about repeating the process of finding solutions.
   • But he also advocates “action-capacity training” outside tennis contexts (medicine balls, footwork exercises). The research is clear: transfer from these drills is minimal compared to in-situ practice (Chow et al., 2021).
3. Self-Organisation vs. Coach-Led Correction
   • ED calls for athletes to self-organise solutions.
   • Yet the article includes language around shaping or “guiding toward fundamentals”, a hangover from prescriptive coaching.

Why Mixing Oil and Water Doesn’t Work

Trying to merge ecological and traditional frameworks is attractive, it feels like you’re keeping the best of both worlds. But epistemologically, they’re incompatible.

• ED assumes direct perception. Players don’t process internal representations of the world, they act on information available in the environment (Gibson, 1979).
• Traditional models assume indirect perception. Players build and retrieve stored programs.

Mixing these creates a philosophical contradiction. It’s like saying players both store motor programs in their brain and self-organise new solutions in real-time. Both can’t be true at once.

Scholars have warned against this kind of “theory blending.” Araújo & Davids (2011) describe it as epistemological incoherence: combining frameworks based on conflicting assumptions undermines both.

Why This Is Still a Positive Step

Despite these contradictions, the article represents progress. For many coaches, ED is still new, and hearing its language from a respected coach educator helps legitimacy. Coaches exposed to these ideas may begin to question:

• Why do so many drills fail to transfer to matches?
• Why are players more adaptable in messy, game-based practice than in clean technical drills?
• Why do methods like representative learning design feel more authentic?

These questions are the entry point into ecological thinking.

Moving Forward

For coaches exploring ED, here are some principles to keep the clarity:

1. Choose your epistemology. Are you operating from an information-processing model, or an ecological model? Don’t try to hold both.
2. Respect the science. Representative learning design, perception-action coupling, and constraints-led practice have decades of empirical support (Chow et al., 2021; Renshaw et al., 2019).
3. Challenge assumptions. When you hear terms like “fundamentals,” ask: is this an attractor emerging from constraints, or a prescribed technique model creeping back in?
4. Educate parents and players. They’ll often default to traditional beliefs (e.g., repetition = progress). Show them why messy practice develops real match skills.

Conclusion

Wayne Elderton’s article is a milestone. It shows that ecological dynamics is no longer fringe in tennis coaching. But it also reveals the risks of trying to “have it both ways.” Mixing ED with traditional coaching frameworks is epistemologically incoherent; it muddies the waters for coaches and players alike.

The challenge for our profession is not just to sprinkle ecological buzzwords into traditional frameworks, but to embrace the shift fully. Because when you stop trying to mix oil and water, coaching becomes clearer, more consistent, and ultimately more effective.

References

• Araújo, D., & Davids, K. (2011). What exactly is acquired during skill acquisition? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 18(3–4), 7–23.
• Araújo, D., & Davids, K. (2016). Ecological dynamics: A theoretical framework for understanding sport performance, physical education, and coaching. Movement & Sport Sciences – Science & Motricité, 95, 55–72.
• Chow, J. Y., Komar, J., & Seifert, L. (2021). The constraints-led approach to motor learning: Implications for coaching practice. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 744814.
• Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
• Renshaw, I., Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., & Hammond, J. (2019). A constraints-led perspective to understanding skill acquisition and game design. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 50(3), 232–252.
• Schmidt, R. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 82(4), 225–260.