In a recent meeting with a performance lead, I heard a phrase that stopped me in my tracks:
“By Year 1 or 2, it’s too late.”

The suggestion was that unless children are playing tennis by the time they leave reception, their chance of developing into competitive players is gone.

That was the first red flag.

The Problem with Early Specialisation

The same meeting went on to outline other “requirements”:

• Players must do two squads per week.
• Players must commit to tennis over other sports.
• Players must take private lessons.

No evidence. No nuance. Just mandates.

This way of thinking is not only unsupported by research, it is potentially harmful.

A wide body of literature shows that early specialisation carries risks:

• Burnout, overuse injuries, and dropout rates are significantly higher for children who specialise before adolescence (Jayanthi et al., 2013).
• Sampling multiple sports in early years builds broader motor skills and reduces injury risk (Côté, 1999).
• Athletes who diversify often reach higher performance later because they’ve built adaptable skill sets and intrinsic motivation (Güllich & Emrich, 2014).

So why are we still pushing children into rigid training models at age six or seven?

Learning Is Non-Linear

Another flawed assumption is that development follows a neat trajectory: X hours equals Y outcome.

But human learning is not linear. Progress zig-zags. Children plateau, regress, and leap forward again depending on their environment, motivation, and support (Chow et al., 2016).

The 10,000-hour myth has been debunked repeatedly (Ericsson, 2016). Hours alone do not explain expertise. The quality of practice, the representativeness of training, and the child’s engagement matter far more.

In tennis, forcing fixed squad numbers or lesson quotas ignores this reality. It reduces a complex developmental journey into a blunt numbers game.

“It Worked for Them” – Survivorship Bias in Action

When I asked what evidence supported these claims, the answer was simple: “We believe it works.”

This is survivorship bias. We point to a handful of success stories and build entire programs around them, ignoring the countless players who quit.

For every professional who started early and trained heavily, there are thousands who burned out, dropped out, or lost the love of the game before they even turned 12.

As Bailey and Collins (2013) note, talent development systems often fail not because of lack of passion, but because they prioritise efficiency and control over sustainability and participation.

What We Should Be Saying Instead

Here’s what the evidence tells us:

• There is no magic number of hours. Development depends on quality, not quantity.
• Children benefit from multi-sport experiences. Broad exposure supports adaptability and creativity.
• Learning is messy and unpredictable. Progress doesn’t fit into neat pathways or quotas.
• It’s never “too late.” Children can begin tennis later and still progress if the environment is supportive and engaging.

Rather than closing doors by declaring “it’s too late,” we should focus on keeping as many doors open as possible.

The Way Forward

If tennis is struggling to attract and retain players, it’s not because of a lack of passion. It’s because too many of our decisions are built on outdated beliefs and unchecked assumptions.

The solution is clear:

• Ground our coaching and development models in evidence, not anecdotes.
• Prioritise enjoyment, competition, and adaptability over rigid training quotas.
• Educate parents and players about the real pathways in sport — pathways that are diverse, flexible, and open-ended.

Because the truth is simple: tennis should be for every child, not just those who tick a box by age six.

References

• Bailey, R., & Collins, D. (2013). The standard model of talent development and its discontents. Kinesiology Review, 2(4), 248–259.
• Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Button, C., & Renshaw, I. (2016). Nonlinear pedagogy in skill acquisition: An introduction. Routledge.
• Côté, J. (1999). The influence of the family in the development of talent in sport. The Sport Psychologist, 13(4), 395–417.
• Ericsson, K. A. (2016). Peak: Secrets from the new science of expertise. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
• Güllich, A., & Emrich, E. (2014). Considering long-term sustainability in the development of world class success. European Journal of Sport Science, 14(S1), S383–S397.
• Jayanthi, N. A., Pinkham, C., Dugas, L., Patrick, B., & LaBella, C. (2013). Sports specialization in young athletes: Evidence-based recommendations. Sports Health, 5(3), 251–257.