Coaches often extol the virtues of the “killer instinct” and argue that without it, success is impossible. Players, in turn, will do almost anything to develop it.
But what exactly is the “killer instinct”?
It seems to be the ability to close out a match when we are in a “winning” position. If that is our definition, the first question we need to consider is this:
Is there really such a thing as a “winning” position in tennis?
Tennis is different from many other sports because you cannot play negatively and simply wait for the clock to run out. A few games, or even a few points, from victory may seem like a sure thing, but those games and points still have to be won.
The expectation that because I am leading, I should win can be extremely dangerous. It often affects performance precisely when we need to perform at our best.
In tennis, the score is generally a reflection of what has happened up to that point. If a player is leading 5–2 in the deciding set, the score tells us something about the level of play that has produced that result. It tells us nothing, however, about what is going to happen in the next few games.
The same principle applies within a game.
If you are leading 40–15, do you expect to win the game? What about when you are serving at 15–40?
More importantly, does that expectation help your performance—or hinder it?
If expectations improve your performance, you need read no further. But if they do not, we need to examine what an expectation actually is.
An expectation is an assumption based on past experience. But past experience has no direct connection to what is about to happen.
The future is uncertain.
At the root of this misunderstanding is the belief that time in sports is somehow linear or connected—that what happened on the previous point somehow determines what should happen on the next one.
But is there really a connection between the last point and the next? Between the last game and the next? Between the last set and the next?
Tennis has a remarkably forgiving scoring system. You can lose a set 6–0, but when the next set begins, you start again at 0–0. You can double-fault, and then you play the next point from the other side of the court. The previous point does not create a disadvantage on the next one.
This brings us to another word that deserves closer examination: “should.”
“Should” is different from “is.”
“Is” describes reality—the way things actually are. “Should” describes the way we want things to be or believe they ought to be.
We need to be careful with the word “should” because it has no power to change reality. Yet we frequently allow it to shape our expectations, our emotions and, ultimately, our performance.
I should win this game.
I should have made that shot.
I should be serving better.
I should be winning.
These thoughts take us away from what is actually happening and into a story about what we believe ought to be happening.
Reality is neither positive nor negative. It simply is what it is. Everything beyond that is a story created by the mind—and the mind has a tremendous capacity to create fiction.
If we believe that fiction, it can have a powerful effect on both our lives and our performances.
Players need to examine the traditional competitive “beliefs” they have been taught and subsequently adopted without careful examination.
Tactics may change from point to point, but the centeredness, focus and commitment we bring to each point do not need to change.
This is what it means to be present.
If we are alert, aware and relaxed in the situation in front of us every time we step to the line to serve or prepare to receive, we give ourselves the greatest opportunity to play our best tennis.
And that is true regardless of the score.
Expectations and beliefs can become distractions.
There is another problem with the idea that we need to develop a “killer instinct.” It implies that a player needs to do something different—something extra—when the final stages of a match arrive in order to win.
But is that really true?
If I have created a “winning” position by playing a certain way, why would I suddenly need to do something different at the end of the match?
Of course, successful competitive tennis requires players to constantly adjust to the subtle changes an opponent makes throughout a match and even within a point. Those adjustments are part of playing the game, and they may certainly be required in the final stages of a match.
But adjusting to what is happening is very different from changing how we feel or compete because of the score.
Unfortunately, players often begin to play the score. This invariably creates problems.
When a player is behind, the inner dialogue may encourage them to throw caution to the wind and play freely because defeat seems imminent anyway. When they are ahead, that same dialogue may cause them to become overly cautious, hoping that the opponent will make mistakes because victory is supposedly within reach.
In both situations, the player has been distracted from the only thing that actually matters:
the point in front of them.
Coaches and players who buy into the idea that a “killer instinct” must be developed may, without realizing it, be laying the foundation for mental weakness in competitive match play.
Drop the phrase ‘killer instinct’ from your vocabulary and instead just play with as little inner dialogue as possible.
You may just be surprised how well you play when your mind is not interfering with your body’s natural flow.
Enjoy the journey……..