Is the Fear of Change a Barrier to Improving Your Tennis?

In the world of tennis (or any sport with technical complexity), there is a fascinating paradox: many players are fully aware that their strokes are flawed or limited, yet they resist making the necessary changes to improve. They often rationalize their current strokes as "good enough" for their level, but deep down, they know that these strokes will eventually become barriers to progress. Why, then, do they hesitate to take action? What psychological, emotional, and practical obstacles prevent players from making the very adjustments they know would help them in the long run?

Comfort and Familiarity: The Power of Muscle Memory

One of the most significant barriers to change is habitual comfort. Players have spent hundreds or even thousands of hours ingraining certain movements. These movements, whether efficient or not, feel natural and familiar. Even if the player intellectually understands that their forehand lacks topspin or their serve is overly arm-dominated, actually changing those ingrained patterns requires pushing through the discomfort of feeling awkward and uncoordinated.

Change is uncomfortable, and our brains are wired to avoid discomfort. This aversion to temporary awkwardness is one of the primary reasons players cling to suboptimal strokes. In essence, they would rather be comfortable with limitations than uncomfortable with potential improvement.

Short-Term Results vs. Long-Term Development

Most recreational players — and even many competitive ones — are more focused on winning their next match than on developing strokes that will serve them well in the long run. This short-term mindset leads to a focus on what works today rather than what will work consistently at higher levels.

A player with a "good enough" forehand might win plenty of points against opponents at their current level, even if that forehand lacks proper mechanics. The problem is, they aren’t motivated to change because they aren’t yet punished for those flaws. When improvement doesn’t offer an immediate competitive advantage, it’s easy to rationalize stagnation.

Fear of Regression

There’s also a deep-seated fear that making changes will make the player worse before they get better — and this fear is valid. Changing a stroke, especially if it’s deeply ingrained, often means the player will initially struggle to control the ball. Their timing may suffer, their confidence may dip, and they may lose matches they otherwise would have won. Many players can’t stomach that temporary setback, especially if their self-worth is tied to match outcomes.

Cognitive Dissonance and Ego Protection

There’s also an element of cognitive dissonance — the psychological discomfort that comes from holding two conflicting beliefs. A player might believe, "I’m a decent player" while also knowing "my backhand is fundamentally flawed." To resolve this internal tension, many players default to defending their current technique rather than admitting it needs a complete overhaul.

This often results in excuse-making ("I’m too old to change," "My stroke works fine against these players") or selective attention, where players only notice evidence that supports their belief that their stroke is “good enough” and dismisses evidence to the contrary.

Lack of Clear Guidance

Even when players want to change, they are often uncertain what exactly to change or how to change it effectively. Without expert feedback or a structured plan, the process of improving technique can feel overwhelming and ambiguous. This lack of clear direction leads to paralysis — if they don’t know where to start or what to prioritize, they default to what they already know.

Mismatched Feedback and Environment

Many players also get mixed messages from their environment. A player’s coach might tell them they need to change their grip, but their doubles partner might say, "Your forehand is fine — don’t mess with it." Friends, opponents, and even YouTube videos can offer conflicting advice, leaving players unsure whom to trust. When there’s no clear, unified path forward, players often choose inaction over uncertainty.

Emotional Attachment to Existing Identity

Players often identify with their strokes — the way they play is a reflection of how they see themselves as athletes. A player with a flat, punchy forehand might see themselves as a no-nonsense, aggressive player. Changing to a more topspin-oriented forehand could feel like a loss of that identity. This emotional attachment makes change feel like a threat to their sense of self, not just their technique.

The Allure of Confirmation Bias

When players do make adjustments, they often do so briefly and then abandon them when they don’t see immediate results. This leads to confirmation bias — they conclude that "the change didn’t work" rather than recognizing that the change needed time and commitment to take hold. It’s easier to return to familiar strokes and conclude that change is impossible than to push through the frustrating middle stages of learning.

Fear of Looking Foolish

Especially for adult players, there is often a fear of looking incompetent in front of peers. Experimenting with new technique inevitably leads to some ugly, awkward moments. Many players would rather protect their image as a competent player with flawed strokes than risk appearing clumsy in the pursuit of better technique.

Overcoming These Barriers: What It Takes

Ultimately, making meaningful changes to technique requires:

1. A long-term mindset — prioritizing future improvement over immediate results.

2. A tolerance for discomfort — embracing the awkwardness of relearning.

3. A clear plan — working with a coach to identify specific technical goals and drills.

4. A shift in identity — seeing oneself as a learner and improver rather than someone with a fixed game.

5. A supportive environment — surrounding oneself with people who understand the value of technical improvement.
   

Most players, however, struggle to put all these pieces together. As a result, they plateau with strokes that are good enough for today but insufficient for tomorrow — stuck not because they don’t know better, but because knowing better and doing better are two very different things.