And Why Repetition Isn’t the Problem: The problem coaches recognise
Almost every tennis coach has experienced this.
A player looks excellent in training.
Clean forehands. Solid serves. Reliable patterns.
Then match day arrives, and it all falls apart.
Suddenly the timing is off. Decisions look rushed. Technique that seemed “grooved” disappears under pressure. Coaches often respond by adding more repetition, more technical cues, or tighter control.
But the problem isn’t that players haven’t repeated the skill enough.
The problem is that what they learned in practice is not what the match is asking for.
This article explains why tennis technique often fails to transfer, and why the solution is not more drills, but better learning design.
Why this problem exists
Traditional tennis coaching is built on a powerful assumption:
If a movement is repeated often enough, it will be stored and reproduced under pressure.
This idea feels logical. It is tidy. It is coach-friendly. And it has shaped tennis coaching for decades.
But tennis is not a closed skill.
No two forehands are ever the same.
No ball arrives under identical conditions.
No opponent provides the same information twice.
Yet most practice environments strip away:
- opponent behaviour
- tactical intention
- time pressure
- emotional consequence
What remains is a movement without context.
Research in ecological dynamics shows that when practice removes the information present in competition, learning becomes fragile and situation-specific (Davids, Button, & Bennett, 2008).
Players don’t fail in matches because they forgot technique.
They fail because the information that guided action in practice is no longer available.
What the common explanation gets wrong
“They just need to groove the technique”
There is no evidence that athletes store fixed movement patterns for open sports like tennis.
Movement is assembled in the moment, based on:
- perception
- intention
- task demands
- environmental constraints
Even elite performers show constant variability in stroke mechanics when conditions change (Chow et al., 2016).
Repetition without context trains appearance, not adaptability.
“Pressure makes technique break down”
Pressure doesn’t break technique.
Pressure changes information.
In matches:
- time disappears
- opponents disguise intent
- emotional stakes rise
- affordances narrow
If players were never trained to act on this information, behaviour will look unstable, regardless of how “sound” the technique looked in isolation.
This is why players often appear calm in drills but rushed in competition.
“They need more confidence”
Confidence is not a mental add-on.
It emerges when players have reliable information to act upon. When perception–action coupling is disrupted, hesitation appears. What coaches label as “confidence issues” are often design failures in practice.
What actually happens instead
From an ecological dynamics perspective, skill is not stored, it is attuned.
Players learn:
- what information matters
- where opportunities emerge
- how actions shape outcomes
Rather than memorising movements, performers become sensitive to invariants, stable relationships between themselves, the ball, the opponent, and space (Gibson, 1979).
A forehand is not recalled.
It is re-created every time.
This explains why:
- technique looks different across surfaces
- players adapt strokes under fatigue
- no “perfect” forehand exists
Learning, therefore, is not about repetition of form, but calibration to information.
An applied tennis example
The traditional approach
A player struggles to handle pace on the forehand.
The response:
- basket feeding
- slower balls
- repeated technical cues
- controlled feeds to “groove” shape
The result:
- forehand looks improved in drills
- performance collapses in matches
A representative alternative
Instead, the practice design:
- includes a live opponent
- manipulates depth and time
- embeds intention (jam vs stretch)
- constrains options rather than prescribing form
Now the player must:
- perceive opponent positioning
- adapt swing timing
- decide when to attack
The technique emerges as a solution, not an instruction.
This is Representative Learning Design, ensuring the information available in practice matches what competition demands (Pinder et al., 2011).
What this means for coaches
If technique doesn’t transfer, don’t ask:
“How do I fix the stroke?”
Ask:
- What information is the player acting on?
- Does practice contain the same cues as competition?
- Have I removed the opponent too early?
- Am I coaching outcomes or appearances?
Key shifts:
- From repetition → adaptation
- From instruction → information
- From control → constraint design
This is not anti-technique.
It is an anti-decontextualised technique.
Closing position
For years, tennis has tried to solve match problems with practice solutions that remove the match.
I know because I was that coach.
That contradiction explains why so many players look prepared, until it matters.
Technique doesn’t fail under pressure.
Practice design does.
This is why I stopped chasing perfect movements and started designing environments that invite better decisions.
References (APA)
Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Button, C., & Renshaw, I. (2016). Nonlinear pedagogy in skill acquisition. Routledge.
Davids, K., Button, C., & Bennett, S. (2008). Dynamics of skill acquisition. Human Kinetics.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.
Pinder, R. A., Davids, K., Renshaw, I., & Araújo, D. (2011). Representative learning design and functionality of research and practice in sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33(1), 146–155.
