The Paradox of Control and Freedom: How Implicit and Explicit Cues Impact Player Performance
the more we try to control how athletes move through explicit (internal) cues, the more we may be robbing them of the very freedom they need to perform at their best.
Control is seductive when it comes to coaching.
As coaches, we are responsible for the development and performance of our players. We spend hours planning practices, breaking down mechanics, designing drills, and providing detailed feedback to our athletes.
The more detailed we are, the safer it feels in the sense that we know what we are doing and how we are shaping their development.
The paradox in this equation, and yes, there is a paradox, is that the more we try to control how athletes move through explicit (internal) cues, the more we may be robbing them of the very freedom they need to perform at their best.
This is where the delicate balance between implicit and explicit cueing comes in.
Implicit and explicit cueing are two powerful coaching tools that exist on opposite ends of the attentional focus spectrum. Each influences movement in different ways. And each represents a unique relationship between control and freedom.
Let’s unpack that paradox, explore how different types of cues influence learning and performance, and offer a path for coaches who want to empower athletes while still guiding them effectively.
⚖️ The Two Ends of the Cueing Spectrum
Let’s clarify the key terms:
Explicit (or internal) cues direct attention inward, towards body parts or movement mechanics.
Examples:
“Bend your knees.”
“Keep your elbow in.”
“Engage your core.”
These cues aim to create conscious control of movement. They are rooted in technical precision and are often used in early learning stages or during corrective feedback.
Implicit (or external) cues direct attention outward, to the movement effect or its interaction with the environment.
Examples:
“Push the floor away.”
“Launch like a rocket.”
“Shoot through the tunnel.”
These cues promote automaticity. They encourage athletes to organise movement naturally, without overthinking.
🧠 The Paradox: More Control Often Means Less Performance
We tend to assume:
More detail = better understanding.
More instruction = better execution.
But motor learning research tells a different story. As coaches increase the explicitness of their cues:
Athletes’ cognitive load increases.
Movements become stiff and overcontrolled.
Performance often drops, especially under pressure.
🔄 Why?
Because explicit cues promote conscious processing.
The athlete begins monitoring individual body parts rather than executing whole, coordinated patterns. This breaks down flow and slows down reaction time.
Meanwhile, implicit cues allow the body’s natural movement systems to organise fluidly around a goal rather than a mechanical checklist.
🧪 What the Science Says
A growing body of research led by Gabriele Wulf, Gabby Prinz, and others shows:
Athletes perform better when they adopt an external focus of attention.
External cues lead to greater force production, better accuracy, and faster learning.
Skills learned with external cues are more durable under fatigue and stress.
One classic study compared jump height between groups:
The internal group was told to “extend the knees rapidly.”
The external group was told to “push off the ground as hard as possible.”
The external group jumped significantly higher and retained the improvement longer.
This suggests that freedom from internal control can unlock more powerful and efficient movement.
🧭 The Twist: Explicit Cues Still Have a Role
Implicit cueing isn't a silver bullet.
Athletes aren’t robots, and not every scenario calls for external metaphors. There are moments when explicit instruction is not only helpful but necessary:
When an athlete has no body awareness (“What’s a hip hinge?”).
In rehabilitation, where reconnecting with specific movements is critical.
During early stages of learning, when athletes need a mental map of what’s happening.
This is where the paradox deepens:
Explicit cues can build structure, but too much structure collapses freedom.
Implicit cues foster freedom, but too little direction leads to confusion.
The art of coaching is knowing when to offer control and when to let go.
🧠 Psychological Implications: Trust vs. Overcoaching
There’s also a psychological component to this dynamic.
When coaches lean too heavily on explicit cues:
Athletes may become dependent on feedback and lose confidence in their feel for the game.
Over time, this leads to a fear of failure, as players feel they must move correctly rather than creatively.
When implicit cueing is used strategically:
It signals belief: “You’ve got this. Here’s a direction, now make it your own.”
It encourages autonomy, resilience, and problem-solving.
Athletes begin to own their technique rather than rent it from the coach.
🏀 Coaching in the Grey Zone: A Player Development Framework
Here’s a 3-phase approach for navigating the paradox in a training environment:
Phase 1: Clarify and Construct (Explicit Cues – Control)
Useful during onboarding or technical re-patterning.
Provide internal cues sparingly and with purpose.
Use felt-sense language: “Feel the stretch,” “Notice your weight shift.”
Example: Teaching a low stance in defense
“Bend your knees and lower your hips until you feel tension in your thighs.”
Phase 2: Translate and Test (Implicit Cues – Freedom)
Shift the athlete’s focus to outcomes and environment.
Use external cues and metaphors to reduce overthinking.
Encourage exploration and let them feel it out.
Example: Transitioning to an external cue
“Push the ground away like you're sliding across ice under a low ceiling.”
Phase 3: Anchor and Automate (Game Transfer)
Cueing becomes sparse, strategic, and contextual.
Use short anchor phrases: “Low and slide,” “Launch high,” “Quiet feet.”
Observe whether movement holds under pressure, fatigue, and speed.
Example: Mid-game timeout reminder
“Attack the closeout like you’re dodging traffic—fast feet, low shoulders.”
🧩 Blending Control and Freedom: Cueing Combos
Smart coaches know how to weave internal and external cues together without creating tension. I am not there yet, but I am slowly crawling towards being able to weave these cues to gether.
Here are some combo examples:
Purpose: Internal Cue - External Follow-Up
Build body awareness: “Feel your hips hinge back.” “Now send the floor away behind you.”
Clarify arm action: “Keep your elbow near your body.” “Like you’re tucking a napkin under your arm.”
Establish rhythm: “Relax your shoulders.” “Float like a feather as you land.”
Fix shooting arc: “Snap your wrist through the ball.” “Paint a rainbow over the rim.”
The secret isn’t either/or. It’s the sequence and timing.
🗣️ Coach Reflection: Questions to Guide Cueing Decisions
Is the athlete overthinking or underfeeling?
Do they need direction or space?
Have I repeated this cue because it works, or because I don’t know what else to say?
What’s one image that could help them feel the movement, not force it?
🧬 Final Thoughts: Letting Go to Level Up
At its heart, the paradox of control and freedom is a mirror for the coaching ego.
Control feels safe. It lets us assert expertise and precision.
Freedom feels risky. It requires trust in the athlete, in the process, and ourselves.
But the very best athletes don’t need someone managing every joint. They need someone who creates the space for mastery to emerge.
And the very best coaches?
They speak with intention, guide with restraint, and know that sometimes the most powerful cue is the one they don’t say.