Breaking free from the grip of tradition

In his previous articles Steve Whelan explored the pitfalls of survivorship bias and confirmation bias in tennis coaching. These biases shape how we perceive success and reinforce outdated practices. In this final piece, he tackles path dependency—the deeply ingrained reliance on traditional methods that keeps tennis coaching stuck in the past.

Path dependency isn’t just a coaching problem; it’s a systemic issue. It influences how players are trained, how coaches are educated, and how governing bodies design development pathways. Breaking free from this cycle isn’t easy, but it’s essential if we want to create a modern, evidence-based approach to tennis coaching.What is

What is Path Dependency?

Path dependency occurs when decisions or methods from the past heavily influence present actions, even when better alternatives exist. Once a path is established, it becomes difficult to deviate from, not because it’s the most effective, but because it’s familiar and comfortable. In tennis, this means clinging to traditional coaching methods, training structures, and player development pathways that were designed for a very different game than the one we see today.

How Path Dependency Manifests in Tennis Coaching

Path dependency in tennis shows up in several ways, from rigid lesson structures to outdated player development models. Let’s break down some of the key areas where it holds us back:

1. Relying on Linear Lesson Models
   The traditional “hourglass” coaching model (warm-up, isolated drills, game) has dominated tennis lessons for decades. This approach assumes that skills learned in isolation will naturally transfer to gameplay. Despite mounting evidence to the contrary, many coaches stick to this model because it’s how they were trained and what they know. Breaking free from this path requires rethinking how we structure sessions to focus on realistic, game-like scenarios.

2. Clinging to Early Specialization
   The belief that players must specialize early to succeed is another relic of outdated thinking. Early specialization creates players who are highly skilled in controlled environments but lack the adaptability and resilience needed for real competition. Path dependency keeps coaches locked into training structures that prioritize early results over long-term development.

3. Focusing on Technique Over Context
   A heavy focus on technique—hitting the “perfect” forehand or serve—ignores the realities of tennis as a dynamic, unpredictable sport. Path dependency reinforces the idea that technical perfection is the key to success, sidelining the critical skills of decision-making, adaptability, and problem-solving.

4. Traditional Pathways to Success
   Development pathways often follow rigid timelines, dictating what players should achieve by certain ages. These timelines fail to account for the non-linear nature of learning and the unique trajectories of individual players. Coaches feel pressured to follow these pathways, even when they don’t align with their players’ needs, because stepping off the path feels like a risk. 

Why Path Dependency is Problematic

Path dependency in tennis coaching limits progress and stifles creativity. Here are a few reasons why it’s particularly damaging:

1. It Ignores Individual Differences
   Players are not one-size-fits-all. Each player brings unique physical, mental, and emotional attributes to the court. Path-dependent coaching treats every player as though they need the same technical, tactical, and psychological approach. This not only limits player development but can also drive players away from the sport when the approach doesn’t work for them.

2. It Stifles Innovation
   Path dependency creates resistance to change. Coaches often avoid trying new methods—like constraint-led coaching or ecological dynamics—because they fear deviating from the norm. This resistance prevents the adoption of evidence-based practices that could revolutionize player development.

3. It Reduces Player Autonomy
   By following rigid pathways and traditional methods, coaches often dictate how players should move, think, and play. This undermines player autonomy, leaving them dependent on the coach’s instructions rather than building the ability to solve problems independently on court.

4. It Fails to Reflect Modern Tennis
   The game of tennis has evolved dramatically over the decades, from changes in racket technology to shifts in playing styles. Yet many coaching methods remain stuck in the past. The serve-and-volley style of the 1980s, for example, gave way to baseline dominance in the 2000s, and now we’re seeing a blend of all-court play. Coaching methods must evolve alongside the sport, but path dependency keeps us tethered to outdated practices.

Breaking Free: Adopting Modern Coaching Practices

To break free from path dependency, tennis coaching must embrace innovation and evidence-based approaches. 

Here’s how:

1. Focus on Representative Learning Environments
   Replace isolated drills with game-like scenarios that mimic the unpredictability of match play. Research shows that representative learning environments promote skill transfer by helping players develop adaptable, context-specific skills (Davids et al., 2008).

2. Embrace Non-Linear Development
   Learning is messy, unpredictable, and non-linear. Coaches must recognize that players will progress at different rates and allow room for exploration and experimentation. Tailor training to the individual rather than forcing them into a rigid pathway.

3. Prioritize Decision-Making and Problem-Solving
   Modern tennis is about more than technical execution—it’s about making smart decisions under pressure. Incorporate drills and games that challenge players to think critically, adapt to their opponent, and solve problems on the fly.

4. Adopt an Ecological Dynamics Framework
   Ecological dynamics emphasizes the interaction between the player, the task, and the environment. This approach encourages players to explore and discover their own solutions, fostering creativity, adaptability, and independence.

5. Continuously Challenge Your Beliefs
   Breaking free from path dependency requires coaches to reflect on their own practices and question why they do things a certain way. Stay informed about the latest research in skill acquisition and be willing to experiment with new methods.

It’s time to break free from the traditions that hold us back. Tennis coaching needs to evolve, and it starts with challenging the biases and dependencies that keep us tethered to the past.

Ready to Break Free from Path Dependency? Join “From Drills to Skills”

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/

References

• Davids, K., Button, C., & Bennett, S. (2008). Dynamics of skill acquisition: A constraints-led approach. Human Kinetics.

• Renshaw, I., Davids, K., & Savelsbergh, G. J. P. (2010). Motor learning in practice: A constraints-led approach. Routledge.

• Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Button, C., & Renshaw, I. (2016). Nonlinear pedagogy in skill acquisition: An introduction. Routledge.