One of the things I love most about tennis is that every match is essentially a puzzle to solve. Sometimes a solution is obvious from the first few points. Other times, it takes a few games, or even longer, to become apparent. Either way, stepping onto the court is not just about hitting good shots. It is about observing patterns, interpreting feedback, and figuring out what actually works. Every tennis match is a puzzle with many dynamic variables to understand and manage.
At its core, a tennis match behaves like a complex system. It is a constantly evolving interaction between players, where the tactics used during one point influence the ensuing ones. The system is dynamic, and it does not remain stable long enough for any single solution to hold indefinitely. Success depends on how quickly players recognize systemic opportunities and adjust their play accordingly.
One of my matches last weekend drove that point home for me. My partner and I were thoroughly outplayed in the first set, as one of our opponents was hitting overpowering shots. At first, we tried to keep the ball away from her, but struggled to do that. We found ourselves reacting instead of dictating. While we understood the pattern, we were at a loss for how to disrupt it. The first set ended as a lopsided beatdown.
At that point, it would have been easy to double down on what we were doing. That is often where players get stuck. We recognize that something is not working, but instead of stepping back, we just try to execute the same tactics, but better. Hitting the same shots with more pace or narrowing the margins by aiming a little closer to the line is not a recipe for success. It is difficult to elevate performance using a pattern that fundamentally isn’t working.
Instead, at the set break, we developed a short list of things we could do to try to turn the match around. As we cycled through those options, a glimmer of possibility emerged. One of our new point patterns revealed an unexpected way to gain a subtle but decisive advantage. It was something that we were able to use successfully over and over throughout the second set.
What may have looked like a tactical adjustment from the sidelines was actually a strategic one. A slight tweak in the placement and pace of one particular ball made all the difference. Rather than trying to hit shots away from a strength, we found a tiny weakness to play into. It was a strategic change of pattern.
As we leaned into that approach, the structure of the match shifted dramatically. The second set was also lopsided, but in the opposite direction.
Tennis does not usually allow winning solutions to work indefinitely. The moment we adjusted, we created a new puzzle for the other team to solve. The only question was whether or how quickly they would recognize what we were doing and adapt in response. They eventually figured it out and bested us in the match tie-breaker.
I am not convinced that the instructional side of tennis invests enough time teaching these concepts to players. Tactics are the specific actions we take within a point. Strategy is the framework that determines which actions are worth taking in the first place. When the two are aligned, the game feels simple. When they are not, it is easy to get stuck working harder and harder at the wrong thing.
That same pattern shows up off the court as well. It is too easy to treat our competitive frameworks as constraints rather than opportunities. So much effort is expended trying to get existing engagement mechanisms to work that strategic opportunities are overlooked. Sometimes it is necessary to step back and consider the possibility that the underlying system itself is the problem.
The practical takeaway is simple, even if it is not always easy to apply. When something is not working, the first question should not always be “how do I do this better?” Sometimes the better question is “should I be doing this at all?”
