All this talk about learning, practice and mastery - what gives? From my perspective, it’s about acquiring skills. The more skilled a player is, in theory, the better they’ll perform - although even skilled performers can underperform - but that’s a whole other topic altogether (i.e. choking - which is a very real phenomenon). 

The aim of this lesson is to define the concept of  ‘skills’ - detailing their classifications and providing examples from varying tennis scenarios.

What Are Skills?

In Motor Learning and Performance (2014) Schmidt and Lee define skills as:

“The ability to bring about some end result with maximum certainty and minimum outlay of energy, or of time and energy”.

**NOTE - this definition relates to all types of skills of daily life - including walking, cooking etc - along with skills that relate to sporting activities (the area of concern for us).

This in itself is an interesting definition - and to better understand it, we should consider some of the components that skills are made up of. For instance, the end result refers to some sort of goal a player is aiming to satisfy. In tennis, an example would be to execute a wide slice serve on the deuce court.

Given this, it’s quite apparent that skills are made up of movements - Schmidt and Lee argue, however, that movements themselves are not skills. For example, he might say the arm action during a groundstroke isn’t a skill, it’s one movement - but all the components that make up a groundstroke (including the movement of the arm), is a skill. Notice the difference?

Next, the definition states that the movement must be performed with maximum certainty. So for instance, if I serve out wide on the deuce court but can only execute, on average, 2 out of 10 attempts, I’m not skilled in bringing about this end result (when/if it goes in, I’m lucky). Thus, according to Schmidt and Lee:

“To be considered “skilled” requires that a person produce the skill reliably, on demand, without luck playing a very large role.”

Back to our serve example; on tour, players who have 1st serve percentages in the 60s are considered effective. We could say that they are ‘skilled’ at executing that task. In practice settings, however, my analyses have shown that an 80% first serve percentage would be considered ‘skillful’ (because of match pressures, fatigue, potential environmental conditions etc., serve percentages in competition will usually be lower). All that to say, it’s up to the coach to determine what ‘skilled’ means in their specific setting according to the level, age etc. of their players.

Another component of skill is the ability to perform the desired task with a minimal amount of energy. While the most obvious feature of energy conservation is physical, we underestimate cognitive and emotional forms of energy that are also required to perform complex tasks. Which is why athletes should be working to reach the autonomous (or automatic) stage of learning. 

Roger Federer comes to mind here - the efficiency of his strokes & movements along with his calm demeanour - especially under pressure - aids his skill expression in a wide range of conditions and for extended periods during matches, tournaments etc.

By this point, you should notice that stroke mechanics (or technique) aren’t skills - the varying aspects that make up a stroke contribute to the skill of hitting an effective forehand, for instance (which can help augment that skill). But the mechanics themselves - which are made up of movements - are not skills. 

Skills vs Abilities

Another term that is thrown around a lot is ‘ability’ - i.e. “he or she has tremendous net-play abilities”. But according to researchers, “abilities are part of an individual’s innate traits which affect their ability to become skillful when learning a new motor skill”. 

I like the way the coaches at ALTIS think of these 3 terms:

skill = ability + technique

The issue I have - and the main premise of this course - is that technique is too often tackled in isolation. As we’ll continue to see in subsequent lessons, technique can never be considered in isolation. Every input - be it perceptual, tactical, physical, psychological and so on - must be taken into account on the tennis court. 

Oftentimes, when we do that - and insert the most appropriate cues/commands (given the situation and the quality we’re aiming to improve) technique will change - there’s no way around it. And usually, it’ll change for the better.

Overall, it’s my belief that players should spend a significantly greater amount of time on ‘skills’ training versus ‘technique’ training.

The Key Elements of Tennis Skills

It’s no surprise that skills are realized by a combination of both mental and motor processes - in other words, we cannot separate the mind from the body and vice versa.

While I’ve mentioned the following previously, I will use Schmidt and Lee’s words to reiterate it here. Every shot in tennis depends on:

• Perceiving the relevant environmental features

• Deciding what to do and where and when to do it to achieve the goal

• Producing organized muscular activity to generate movements that achieve the goal

For instance, when receiving a shot from an opponent, we’re trying to detect as many features as we can - where is the shot heading, how much speed/spin/height etc. is on it, along with many others. From there, we have to make a decision - where do I play the shot in order to be in the best possible scenario for the next shot - can I attack, am I defending etc?

Now, even if we fulfill the first 2 criteria - we perceived the oncoming shot effectively, and made the appropriate decision - did we execute the shot? I.e. did we meet the desired end goal? In tennis, this in itself is a feedback loop as numerous shots could be played within one point.

There are obviously many complex features that we must analyze and practice, in order to satisfy each component above as best as possible. A young junior or beginner, for example, may not perceive the depth of the ball very well - and while they might recognize that a short ball is an opportunity to attack, if they do not move forward quick enough, they may have trouble attacking effectively. Perhaps they are still attacking but with the impact point at their feet rather than their shoulders - so this is where we would have to start!

Once they are able to recognize the features of the oncoming ball - and in this case move up effectively to meet the short ball at the right height - we’ll have a chance to see if they organize their body and produce the necessary movements to effectively carry out the skill of ‘attacking’ a short ball (the execution part of the process). But if we train the attacking ball first, we’re missing many items that make up the skill as a whole (the forehand strike in itself isn’t the only part of the skill!).

Tennis as an Open-Skill Sport

If you’ve been around tennis, surely you’re aware that it's largely an open skill sport - especially when compared to something like a 50m swim in a lane. According to Schmidt and Lee,

“An open skill is one for which the environment is variable and unpredictable during the action. A closed skill, on the other hand, is one for which the environment is stable and predictable”.

Open and closed skills, across a variety of domains, are not, however, black and white - they lie on a continuum. Gentile (2000), broke down the skill of batting (as in hitting a pitched ball in baseball) into 16 categories - ranging from completely closed to completely open. On one end of the spectrum, we have a batter hitting a ball in a practice setting off of a tee that is positioned at the same height for every trial (closed skill). On the other end of the spectrum, we have a batter hitting a ball thrown by a pitcher in a real game setting (open skill).

In tennis, this is also apparent. A simple example would be a player hitting a forehand from a stationary position, in which the ball is dropped from the same height on every attempt (closed) versus a player hitting a forehand in a match setting, where the various features of the ball and the intended target, are unknown, and movement is involved (open). Somewhere in the middle of that spectrum, we would have an environment - that Schmidt and Lee called - semi-predictable.

An example of this type of scenario would be 2 players in a forehand rally exchange during a practice. The players know that the ball is coming crosscourt (predictable) but may not know the exact features of each and every ball - spin, speed, depth, height, direction - (unpredictable) which would make this drill semi-predictable.

According to these authors, practices that favor more unpredictable (open) environments, have better transfer to competition. Makes logical sense doesn’t it - especially considering the specificity of learning principle that we discussed in the previous module. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a time and a place for predictable & semi-predictable practices/drills but it’s a matter of positioning them appropriately based on the athlete’s needs, time of year, training plan etc.

Why Is All Of This Important?

Here’s the thing - we’re all after something called the transfer of training. That’s why we practice right? The aim is to be able to take what we’ve learned, trained & mastered in practice, and bring it onto the tennis court during a real match environment. And there is a body of research that can help us determine what ways to optimize this transfer of training, based on the classifications we’ve outlined.

Arranging practice sessions (and drills) that are closed skill vs open skill focused, for instance, can have huge implications to how a player develops. And my opinion is that, open skill training trumps closed skill training every time. 

This does not mean that I’m a proponent of game-based coaching only. Sure, that’s one way to train in an ‘open’ setting. But why do we see so many top players hitting ball after ball on the tennis court? Because those semi-open settings have value too. And this is what we’ll be working on in this module - finding ways to improve our tennis skills. The ones that are necessary to hit better quality shots. To perceive the ball better. To make contact earlier. To feel balanced, prepared and ready to make a clean strike of the ball on groundstrokes, serves and at net.

Take Action

A few words on basket feeding vs live ball drilling…

How many players look super competent when drilling, only to be ‘found out’ in the real world of matchplay? While there is a place for drills and teaching progressions - I’m mostly referring to those that are using a basket, hand or ball machine where the task becomes very predictable - only real time, real work activities connect the practice court to the match court.

Once a deficiency is detected, how do we address the issue? Again, most dig into their drill or progression folders, create a logical sequence of drills, with fancy cones and targets. Everything works great...until we go back to the real world and these players just go back to the way things were before - their skills revert. 

I have not, personally, hit a ball out of a basket or hand since I was in my early 20s. And I’ve gotten better at tennis since then! A lot better.  

You see, there’s just no research or evidence that supports ‘drilling’. It doesn’t transfer. I’m not saying that you should never hit balls out of a basket. There may be times when we need to regress the movement or pattern and slow things down (walk before you run so to speak). But it has to be put back into the real environment as quickly as possible, otherwise, we’ll never be able to play, and compete, at a high level. 

As we go through this module, we’ll go through various drills - but the aim will be to perform them in live ball scenarios. Because it’s more realistic and will transfer better. And in module 3, we’ll really dive into ways in which we can improve our games through various, ‘adapted’ games. This is how we can get more reps in on a specific skill and pattern - but maintain the open nature of the sport.