Tennis coaching has long been characterised by a tension between tradition and evidence. While contemporary research continues to emphasise the importance of perception, adaptability, and representative practice environments, much of day-to-day coaching remains grounded in isolated drills, technical instruction, and repetition removed from the demands of competition. This gap between research and practice has become increasingly difficult to ignore.

It is within this context that my recent paper, “Intention and Attention in Tennis: Designing Practices Through Affordances,” has been accepted for publication in the ITF Coaching & Sport Science Review  . The paper does not introduce a new method of coaching. Instead, it attempts to clarify a more fundamental issue: what learning in tennis actually is, and how practice design either supports or undermines it.

Why This Problem Persists in Tennis Coaching

A consistent finding across coaching research is that practice design often lacks representativeness. Training environments frequently remove the very informational variables that define match play, such as opponent interaction, time pressure, and decision-making demands (Pinder et al., 2011; Krause et al., 2018). As a result, players may demonstrate technical consistency in practice, yet struggle to adapt effectively during competition.

This is not simply a methodological issue; it is an epistemological one. Many coaching systems remain grounded in the assumption that skills are acquired through repetition of idealised movement patterns. From this perspective, the role of the coach is to prescribe, correct, and stabilise technique.

However, the evidence base supporting ecological dynamics challenges this view directly. Skill is not stored or reproduced in a fixed form. Instead, it emerges through the continuous interaction between the individual, the task, and the environment (Davids et al., 2008). This requires a shift away from teaching movements in isolation, towards designing environments that preserve the informational constraints of the game.

What the Research Shows Instead

The paper draws on ecological psychology and ecological dynamics to argue that learning in tennis is fundamentally shaped by the relationship between intention, attention, and affordances.

Affordances, as originally defined by Gibson (1979), refer to opportunities for action that emerge from the interaction between a performer and their environment. In tennis, these may include available space, opponent positioning, or ball trajectory. Crucially, these opportunities are not static; they are perceived relative to the player’s capabilities, intentions, and current context.

The findings emphasise that:

• Intention directs attention — what the player is trying to achieve shapes what they look for
• Attention shapes perception — players detect information relevant to their goals
• Perception shapes action — movement emerges in response to the perceived environment

This sequence is not theoretical abstraction. It is observable in every point played. When a player attempts to stretch an opponent, their attention is drawn to space. When they attempt to jam, their attention shifts to time and proximity. When they are in a position to strike, they perceive opportunities for more decisive action.

From this perspective, skill is not the execution of a predefined technique, but the ability to perceive and act upon relevant information in context  .

The Role of Practice Design

If learning is shaped by perception-action coupling, then practice design becomes the central mechanism through which skill is developed. The paper highlights Representative Learning Design (RLD) as a critical framework for ensuring that training environments retain the key informational variables present in competition (Pinder et al., 2011).

Research has shown that when these variables are removed, players are less able to attune to relevant information and adapt their behaviour effectively (Murphy et al., 2016). For example, serving without a returner may improve repetition, but it removes the perceptual cues that guide decision-making in match play. Similarly, blocked drills may produce consistency, but they fail to develop the variability required for performance under pressure.

In contrast, representative environments maintain:

• opponent interaction
• spatial and temporal constraints
• decision-making demands

These conditions allow players to develop attunement to the information that actually matters during competition.

From Technical Instruction to Affordance-Led Design

One of the key implications of this work is a redefinition of the coach’s role. Rather than prescribing technique, the coach becomes responsible for designing environments that invite functional behaviour.

This involves manipulating constraints to shape the landscape of affordances available to the player. The paper introduces three core tactical intentions—jam, stretch, and strike—as practical anchors for this process. These intentions provide a simple, game-relevant framework for guiding attention without prescribing specific movements.

For example, designing a practice around the intention to stretch an opponent naturally invites players to explore width, depth, and angle. The movement solutions that emerge will vary between individuals, reflecting differences in capability, perception, and context. This variability is not noise; it is a fundamental feature of adaptive skill (Bernstein, 1967).

Such an approach aligns with the principle of equifinality, where multiple movement solutions can achieve the same outcome (Deghaies et al., 2025). This stands in contrast to traditional models that seek to standardise technique across players.

Why This Matters for Coaching Practice

The acceptance of this paper reflects a growing recognition within the sport that coaching must move beyond traditional instructional models. While drills and technical feedback may still have a place, they cannot form the foundation of practice design if the goal is to develop adaptable, decision-making performers.

For coaches, this requires a shift in focus:

• from movement reproduction to adaptation
• from instruction to environment design
• from control to guided exploration

This shift is not always comfortable. It challenges long-held beliefs about technique, repetition, and the role of the coach. However, it aligns more closely with the realities of performance in tennis, where no two points are ever the same.

Conclusion

The publication of this paper in the ITF Coaching & Sport Science Review represents more than an individual milestone. It reflects a broader movement within coaching science towards approaches that better account for the complexity of human behaviour and skill acquisition.

Tennis is not a game of repeating identical movements. It is a game of continuous adaptation, shaped by intention, attention, and the environment. When practice design reflects this reality, players are better prepared to perform under the dynamic conditions of competition.

The challenge for coaches is not simply to adopt new terminology or isolated ideas, but to reconsider the assumptions that underpin their practice. As the evidence continues to grow, the question is no longer whether coaching should evolve, but how quickly it is willing to do so.