
Handling pressure in tennis: attention, routines and practice
Notice the pressure. Choose the next task.
See it, eight instants at a time.
Every frame is traced from real match footage, so you see the shape of the stroke, not a drawing of an idea.

Move the idea yourself.
One instrument from The Program, free here. Drag it and watch the numbers change: models are labelled as models.
Key facts
- 95%
In Experiment 3, putting accuracy declined under pressure after ordinary or word-monitoring practice. The filmed-practice group showed no detected decline. In the separate arithmetic sample, all three groups responded faster; high-pressure accuracy was reported as 95% in each group. Low-pressure testing came first; the study did not test a tennis routine.
Beilock & Carr (2001), Experiment 3, pp. 715–719
- 02
In category-learning experiments, the kind of pressure and the demands of the task affected which performance declined.
DeCaro et al. (2011), Experiment 2
- 03
The on-court drill is our practice proposal. Its one-serve target is a training goal, not a validated cutoff for choking.
Dominating Tennis drill design
Why it works
Explicit monitoring means checking the steps of a movement while performing it. Distraction means attention is pulled away from the task. Both are research explanations; a grooved serve or a new return position does not identify which occurred.
Compare what you were trying to do before the miss with what occupied your attention. A body cue might add checking; an outcome worry might interrupt the plan. Use these as questions to discuss with a coach, not conclusions drawn from one shot.
A familiar routine and a practised target cue give the next attempt a clear plan. Try them with a manageable score consequence and count the result. This guide does not promise that a cue reduces anxiety or prevents mistakes.
Persistent involuntary movement disruption deserves assessment by a qualified clinician. The yips figure introduces research categories; it cannot classify your symptoms or prescribe treatment.
The line to say on court“Notice the pressure. Choose the next task.”
Drill: Stakes versus no stakes
15 min · with a partner- Use the same balls, deuce-side target and familiar routine in both blocks. Hit ten second serves without a score. Your partner counts attempts and serves in, regardless of who would win the point.
- Start each of ten further attempts as a new simulated 30–40 second-serve point: a fault loses that simulated game. Your partner calls the score and counts serves in. Keep the target and routine unchanged.
- On another visit, use a spoken external target cue in both blocks and try to beat your no-score minus scored gap. Alternate block order across visits. If you stop early, a partial block doesn't count toward the aim.
More drills like this: mental game
Faults and fixes
Questions players ask
What should I think about on a pressure second serve?
Try a target cue and familiar routine that you have practised. Treat this as a next-point plan and evaluate it across sessions.
Does telling yourself to relax help with nerves?
It may feel useful, but this lesson cannot predict its effect. Include a clear task for the next point instead of relying on the word alone.
What if my movement keeps getting disrupted?
Persistent involuntary movement problems warrant qualified clinical assessment. A coach can review the tennis task, but a missed toss or this browser exercise cannot diagnose yips.
How do I practise for pressure?
Use the scored second-serve drill with a manageable consequence. Repeat it over several sessions, alternate block order, and notice how fatigue and conditions move your counts.
What this doesn't cover
These studies do not validate a tennis diagnosis or a universal routine. The drill and browser rounds are individual practice comparisons: repetition, order, fatigue and chance can influence results. The one-serve goal is authored. We have no verified tour-wide estimates of pressure-related serve changes. Expert review remains open.
Sources
- Beilock & Carr (2001): original study record
- Beilock & Carr (2001): author-uploaded original paper, Experiment 3, pp. 715–719
- DeCaro et al. (2011): task and pressure experiments
- DeCaro et al.: author-uploaded paper, Experiment 2 methods and results
- Clarke, Sheffield & Akehurst (2015): yips review bibliographic record
- Clarke, Sheffield & Akehurst (2015): original review, proposed categories, Figure 2 and Table 6
- DeCaro et al. (2011): university-hosted original paper, Experiment 2