Are we setting the right standard for a 9 year olds development?

Steve is a tennis coach and a leading authority on methods of learning. He wants to challenge perceptions and ask coaches to think about their own methods whilst detailing an alternative option that he believes will improve you as a coach

The recent release of the LTA 9U Tennis Pathway guidance has sparked considerable discussion among coaches, parents, and those invested in youth athlete development. While the intention behind the pathway is to provide structure and clarity, it raises some significant concerns about how this will be interpreted by parents and coaches. More importantly, it questions whether such an approach truly prioritises the child’s well-being, enjoyment, and long-term development.

As a coach deeply invested in player-centred, evidence-based coaching practices, I felt compelled to delve deeper into what this pathway means in real terms. What does it actually look like for a 9-year-old child to follow these recommendations? What is the real time commitment, and does it align with best practices for child development and sports science?

After conducting a detailed analysis of the schedule outlined, the findings are striking—and, frankly, concerning

Breaking Down the Weekly Commitment

To understand the actual demands of the 9U pathway, I calculated the total structured hours required per week, factoring in school, travel, training, competition, and other activities. Here's what it looks like for a typical weekday:

This daily structure equates to 49.25 structured hours per week, almost the equivalent of a full-time adult working job. That includes school hours, travel, tennis, strength and conditioning, other sports, and competition.

While the pathway emphasises flexibility and the uniqueness of each player, this level of structure naturally sets an implicit standard—one that many parents and coaches will view as a benchmark for success.

Concerns Around Child-Centred Development

From a child-first perspective, this structure raises several red flags. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child highlights the importance of rest, leisure, and play, alongside education and health. Yet, under this pathway, there is limited time for unstructured play, relaxation, and social development outside of tennis and school.

Research by Côté and Vierimaa (2014) stresses that children benefit most from deliberate play and multi-sport exposure, rather than rigid specialisation. Similarly, the American Academy of Pediatrics (Brenner, 2016) warns that early specialisation increases injury risk and burnout without guaranteeing long-term success.

The question is: Does the 9U pathway truly put the child’s well-being first? Or does it inadvertently prioritise performance and structure over holistic development?

Survivorship Bias and Flawed Pathway Assumptions

Another significant concern is the potential for survivorship bias in how these recommendations were formed. It seems likely that the pathway has been shaped by what current and former national-level players have done, rather than what scientific research supports as optimal for long-term development.

The issue with survivorship bias is that it only considers the success stories—those who "made it"—while ignoring the many who followed the same pathway and either burned out, dropped out, or failed to progress.

For example, a common narrative might be: "Most national-level players trained 9+ hours per week at age 9." But what about the many who trained that much and never succeeded? Were they tracked, studied, or considered when forming this pathway?

Research by Hambrick et al. (2014) challenges the notion that training volume alone predicts success. It emphasises quality over quantity, highlighting how perception-action coupling, variability, and adaptable learning environments lead to greater long-term success.

Ecological Dynamics: Are We Building Adaptable Players?

From an Ecological Dynamics perspective, the current pathway seems misaligned with modern skill acquisition principles.

Ecological Dynamics and the Constraints-Led Approach (CLA) emphasise self-organisation, problem-solving, and representative learning environments, rather than sheer volume of practice. Simply accumulating hours does not guarantee skill transfer or adaptability.

According to Davids et al. (2013) and Button et al. (2020):

1. Skill acquisition thrives on variability, not rote repetition.

2. Affordance-based learning (players perceiving and acting on opportunities within dynamic environments) is key.

3. Rest and recovery enable consolidation of learning, preventing physical and cognitive fatigue. The concern here is that high-volume, coach-driven sessions risk reducing autonomy and adaptability, while competition-heavy schedules leave little room for reflection and refinement.

Tournament Load and Recovery Considerations

The guidance suggests 100-120 matches per year, equating to 5-6 hours per month of competition. While match play is essential for development, this frequency raises questions:

• Does this leave enough time for recovery and adaptation?

• Is competition being used for skill development or just performance measurement?

• Are players being given opportunities to reflect on match experiences and adjust their training accordingly?

Without clear guidance on periodisation, deload weeks, or off-seasons, the risk of physical fatigue, mental burnout, and overuse injuries increases significantly

What Evidence Supports These Hours?

One of the most pressing questions is: What scientific evidence underpins the LTA's recommendation for these specific training hours?

• Have these hours been derived from longitudinal studies on youth development?

• Was physical and psychological well-being a primary consideration?

• Have dropout rates, injury statistics, and player retention been factored in?

Without clear answers, the risk remains that parents and coaches will interpret these hours as required standards, not flexible guidelines.

What Needs to Change?

To ensure the 9U pathway aligns with best practices in youth development, several adjustments could strengthen its impact without compromising child well-being:

1. Clarify that the pathway is a guideline, not a requirement.

2. Emphasise quality over quantity, ensuring training is representative, game-based, and adaptable.

3. Promote multi-sport engagement and unstructured play, not just tennis-specific hours.

4. Highlight the importance of recovery, mental health, and reflection.

5. Educate parents on individualised development, avoiding the misconception that volume equals success.

Final Thoughts

While the intention behind the 9U pathway is commendable, the current structure risks promoting an outdated, volume-driven approach to player development. Without clearer messaging, parents and coaches may interpret the guidance as a rigid blueprint for success, rather than a flexible, individualised roadmap.

As we continue to evolve in how we develop young athletes, it’s essential that pathways are shaped by modern research, not just historical success stories. True player development should prioritise well-being, adaptability, and long-term enjoyment, not just structured hours.

The conversation around youth tennis pathways needs to shift—from quantity to quality, from structure to flexibility, and from performance to holistic development. Until then, we risk creating a system where children are asked to fit into a pathway, rather than the pathway adapting to the child.

Do we truly believe this is the best approach for the next generation of players? Or is it time to rethink what success looks like?

If you’re ready to question the traditional norms and move beyond confirmation bias, I invite you to check out my “From Drills to Skills” course. Designed with modern skill acquisition theories in mind, this course will guide you in creating practices that focus on adaptability, decision-making, and real-game scenarios. You’ll learn how to implement representative learning environments and challenge players in ways that traditional drills can’t.

Breaking free from confirmation bias isn’t easy, but it’s essential if we want to develop players who can thrive in the dynamic, unpredictable environment of competitive tennis. With the right tools and an open mind, you can make coaching decisions that truly benefit your players and bring fresh insight into the way tennis coaching is approached.

https://mytenniscoaching.com/drills-to-skills-fast-track-to-match-success/