If you’ve read my blog in the past, you’ve likely seen my post on attentional focus cues - and the research + implementation that goes along with it.
You may have also read my take on the importance of cueing in general. And why the right cue - given at the correct time - is often more impactful than the perfect drill (although combining the right cue with a great drill is a recipe of success).
Personally, I prefer simple cues - either a word (said aloud or in one’s head) that brings a performer’s attention to the most relevant areas of a skill or situation being practiced.
Beyond trigger words, I believe targets are underutilized in many practice settings. When using targets we can use something as simple as a cone or an area of the court. Alternatively, we can challenge players further by having 2 targets. For example, if I am practicing my slice wide serve on the deuce court, I might have one target in the service box (where I want the ball to land) and another on the baseline somewhere (where I want the ball to travel through).
The latter cues are example of external cues. In this post, I want to highlight why using external cueing is my preferred strategy for accelerated learning. But before we get into that, first a little recap.
Internal vs External Cues - A Recap
For those that need a refresher, broadly speaking, there are 2 types of attentional focus cues - internal and external:
Internal:
Bringing attention / focus to a body part or segment (ex: focusing on your wrist position at contact).
External:
Bringing attention / focus to something in the environment (ex: hitting past a target, like the service line, for instance).
Experienced coaches use a mix of both types of cueing, depending on the player, the situation and their own expertise. Below I will outline my take on this debate but before we get to that, let’s dive deeper into each cueing type because there are layers to both external and internal cueing.
4 Subcategories of Cue Types
Nick Winkleman, in Language of Coaching (2020) outlines the research on attentional focus cues and further subdivides the 2 broad categories we’ve outlined. As both a coach or player, it’s important to understand these subcategories as they provide granularity when it comes to what we should be focusing on when on the practice court. Let’s dive in:
Note - quotes are taken directly from Winkleman (2020).
Internal Narrow
“Fully zoomed in, a narrow internal cue asks the athlete to focus on the action of a single muscle or a single joint. This cue prioritizes the part at the possible expense of the whole.”
What Nick is saying here is that we’re really boiling down to a very specific area of the body with this cue type.
Examples that are relevant to tennis include, “squeeze your hand muscles when volleying” or “focus on having your elbow straight/locked at impact” and perhaps “make sure you use a heel to toe step on your topspin backhand”.
Internal Broad
“A broad internal cue zooms out a level and asks the athlete to focus on the action of an entire limb or a global region of the body. These cues don’t comment on the action of any one muscle or joint; rather, they provide general guidance on where a limb or body region should move or be positioned in space”.
Notice that here, Nick is suggesting that we take a step back and ask the performer to look at gross movements of the body, rather than focusing on a very specific body part or joint/muscle action.
Examples in tennis might include the following - serve: “extend your legs as you accelerate to the ball” or stance: “keep your back upright and legs wide during your ready position” and groundstroke: “rotate your upper body about 180 degrees when hitting your forehand”.
External Close
“Zooming out of the body, a close external cue asks the athlete to focus on a feature of the environment that is close to them”.
Ultimately, in tennis - the implement (racquet) + ball - will typically be the focal points when it comes to close external cueing.
For example, instead of focusing on a body part during the prep phase of a groundstroke, we might attend to the tip of the racquet (ex: “make sure the racquet is pointing up and away from your body”). We could also attend to the ball - “hit the ball in the center of the strings” or “hit the ball on the rise”.
When it comes to movement, we might ask players to “push the ground away explosively” during the acceleration phase of the serve. Notice that this brings more attention to the ground rather than the legs. These are all examples of close external cues.
External Far
“Completely zoomed out, a far external cue asks the athlete to focus on a feature of the environment that is far from them. In this case, ‘far’ is relative to the goal of the task”.
In tennis, there are many ‘far’ cues we could attend to. We could focus on the trajectory (or shape) of the ball - i.e. how we want the ball to look as it travels across the net. Or we can focus on a target on the other side of the court (like a cone or designated area). Or we might focus on our opponent - i.e. where are they standing given the situation at play.
A simple example here (the ball can is the target / far external cue).
My Take on External vs Internal Cueing
Here’s my opinion - based on both the scientific research on this topic and my interpretation (which is cemented by relentless experimentation, both with players, and in my own game).
Individual preferences:
Some players respond better to external vs internal cues and vice versa. I respond better to external focus cues. I’ve realized that. And most players I’ve coached, in most cases, also respond better to external cues. But experimentation is critical to determine where you lie on this spectrum.
The reason for point #1 might be because I typically work with players that are older and/or more elite and where there is a higher premium on making sure we’re hitting quality shots. This usually means we pay closer attention to the direction of the ball, the speed, shape, spin etc. - rather than if my elbow is bent at 45 deg or 51 deg.
On retention tests, external usually wins out:
Internal cues seem to be better when we look at beginners - according to research - but I’ve personally found a mix is best with these folks (starting with external, then using internal for specific/special circumstances).
Using internal cueing is typically done more often during ‘dead ball’ feeding. In essence, this is where we really close the skill off and can tackle technique in a predictable environment. But if we live here for too long, players lack the ability to actually play tennis (even if from the naked eye, their mechanics appear sound).
External is better when measured several weeks and months later (i.e. long-term learning). This can be deceiving because we may not see progress immediately.
External seems to benefit more advanced players (as I mentioned above) - probably also because their techniques are largely ingrained - minor tweaks in technique will likely come as a result of paying attention to external cues (and far seems to be better than close for this group).
One is not better than the other, per se:
But I have found that if you don’t have a coach who is able to stand next to you + provide the most appropriate feedback (given the situation), it’s likely best you attend to external factors most of the time. Because of one very important reason - direct + immediate feedback. If you focus on your arm position during the forehand prep, how do you know whether it’s actually in the correct position? Unless you’re video recording yourself and reviewing the video after every exchange (which will probably annoy your playing partner), you’re better off using an external cue - like hitting past the service line.
Using external cues allows for self-coaching in the moment. You can say ‘yes’ to yourself (out loud or in your head), every time the ball lands past the service line and ‘no’ if it lands short, in the net, long or wide. As you're doing this, you will continue to adjust and organize your movement, strokes, ball flight, speed and so on, in a way that satisfies the external goal - hitting past the service line.
Matt’s (Final) Point
For many players, in many settings, organizing drills with externally focused cues in mind, will yield the most ideal results. Not only because you’re focusing on the key aspects of tennis (hitting the ball into the area of the court that you want, given the tactic/situation, and what your current skill dictates). But also because every situation / shot has the opportunity to be slightly better than the previous one. You’ll receive direct feedback, almost instantaneously.
Imagine that you want to hit the ball clean / centered. Here, you might bring your attention to the interaction between the ball and strings - perhaps by focusing on hitting the seams of the ball (a more detailed close external cue compared to just watching the ball). You can then gauge your success, either by the feeling (was the strike flush?) or by the sound (did the strike create a thud/thump). We all know what a clean strike feels and sounds like, so we’ll instantly know whether we were successful or not.
Lastly, I don’t want to take away from internal cueing - I believe there is a place for it (I still use some form of internal cueing all the time). Having said that, I’ve also observed coaches using internal cues almost exclusively. Some players do the same…and go deeper down that rabbit hole when things aren’t going well.
But you know what, there’s no harm in trying to implement external cues - whether close or far (or a combination of the two). Who knows, you might even be surprised with the results.