The health and inclusivity of tennis is being damaged by survivorship bias

In tennis, we often look to the top players for guidance on what it takes to succeed. We study the training routines, coaching philosophies, and mental strategies of the stars who have risen to the highest levels of the game. After all, who wouldn’t want to follow in the footsteps of champions? Yet, this approach can lead us into a trap—survivorship bias.

Survivorship bias is the tendency to focus on the "survivors" or those who’ve succeeded, while overlooking those who didn’t make it. In tennis, this means we’re often captivated by the top 1% who break through to the professional level, without considering the thousands who invested just as much time, effort, and passion into the sport but never reached the same heights. This selective attention skews our perception and understanding of what truly leads to success in tennis. Here’s why we need to look beyond the few who make it to get a more accurate picture of player development and coaching.

The Problem with Looking Only at the Top

When we only look at the successful players, we ignore the vast majority who trained just as hard but didn’t reach the same level. The journeys of players like Roger Federer, Serena Williams, and Rafael Nadal are inspiring, but they’re also rare. By focusing on these exceptional cases, we risk creating unrealistic expectations and ignoring other pathways that could be more relevant and effective for most players.

For example, if we study Nadal’s training intensity and make that the benchmark for every junior player, we may overlook players who need more recovery time or benefit from a different developmental approach. The top players have unique qualities, and replicating their path exactly often isn’t possible—or even desirable—for others. Every player is different, and survivorship bias blinds us to the individual adaptations and variations that might lead to success for others.

Survivorship Bias and Over-Emphasis on Specific Techniques

One common manifestation of survivorship bias in tennis is the over-emphasis on specific techniques. When a top player finds success with a particular stroke or style, coaches and players often rush to emulate it. We see this in the rise of the two-handed backhand or the push to develop big, aggressive forehands. But these trends ignore the reality that every player has a unique set of physical and mental attributes, and what works for one player may not work for another.

By focusing only on the techniques used by the top players, we risk overlooking a wider range of styles and approaches that might better suit different players. This approach can stifle creativity and limit players’ development by forcing them into a mold that may not fit their strengths or playing style.

The Dangers of a One-Size-Fits-All Approach

Survivorship bias can also lead to a one-size-fits-all approach to training and development. We assume that if certain drills, training schedules, or coaching techniques worked for top players, they’ll work for everyone. However, this thinking can be dangerous. What worked for a select few players is not a guarantee for others. In fact, this approach can lead to burnout, frustration, and even injury in players who try to adhere to a regimen that doesn’t suit their individual needs.

If we want to create long-term, sustainable player development, we need to look at why players don’t make it—not just why they do. By analyzing the experiences of those who leave the sport early or who don’t reach the highest levels, we can identify common pitfalls, potential stressors, and ways to improve retention and enjoyment.

Survivorship Bias Can Limit Innovation in Coaching

By focusing solely on the methods that led to success for a few, we risk limiting the potential for innovation in coaching. Tennis, like any sport, evolves. New training techniques, technologies, and psychological approaches are continually emerging. But when we’re fixated on the paths that past champions took, we risk stalling progress.

For instance, the rise of ecological dynamics and constraint-led approaches offers a fresh perspective on tennis coaching, emphasizing adaptability and decision-making over rote technique. However, these methods might be overlooked if we remain too focused on what’s worked for past champions under more traditional frameworks. If we only look at how successful players trained in the past, we may miss opportunities to incorporate modern science-backed methods that could be even more effective.

The Importance of Developing All Players, Not Just the Elite

The impact of survivorship bias extends beyond just player development—it affects the overall health and inclusivity of the sport. When we structure programs and coaching methods around the few who’ve succeeded, we risk alienating the many players who aren’t on that path to stardom. Tennis is a sport for life, and by focusing on development pathways that are accessible and beneficial to all players, not just potential champions, we help build a stronger, more inclusive community.

A more balanced approach that acknowledges the different reasons players pursue tennis—from personal growth to fitness to competitive ambition—will help ensure that we’re supporting players at every level. Not everyone will become a pro, but everyone can benefit from a training environment that respects and responds to their individual journey.

How to Look Past Survivorship Bias

To overcome survivorship bias in tennis, we need to broaden our perspective. Here are some steps that can help:

1. Value the Journeys of All Players: Success in tennis isn’t limited to Grand Slam wins. Celebrate achievements at every level—progress in skill, confidence, enjoyment, and resilience.

2. Create Representative Training Environments: Use methods that encourage players to make decisions, adapt to different situations, and develop resilience, rather than merely replicating techniques used by top players.

3. Study Unsuccessful Journeys: Understand the reasons why players leave the sport or don’t reach the highest levels. By addressing these factors, we can create more supportive and adaptable coaching methods.

4. Encourage Individualized Development: Focus on creating training programs that reflect the unique qualities, goals, and development rates of each player, rather than forcing every player down the same path.

5. Embrace Modern Coaching Theories: Consider newer approaches like ecological dynamics, which focus on how players interact with their environment, and constraint-led methods, which prioritize adaptability and decision-making.

Conclusion

Survivorship bias is a powerful influence in tennis, shaping how we coach, train, and develop players. By focusing only on the journeys of the few who’ve “made it,” we risk missing out on valuable lessons that could help a broader range of players succeed. To move the sport forward, we need to look past the top 1% and consider the experiences of the many who dedicate themselves to the game, whether or not they reach the pro ranks. In doing so, we can create a more inclusive, adaptable, and ultimately successful pathway for players at every level.