Structural relationships among pair cohesion, tactical communication, and performance in doubles tennis: a structural equation modeling approach

Introduction Effective performance in doubles tennis requires partners to coordinate their actions within a shared competitive context. Although cohesion and communication are considered important for such coordination, less is known about whether within-dyad congruence in partners’ perceptions of cohesion is related to explicit tactical communication and performance. This study examined the relationships among within-dyad cohesion discrepancies, tactical communication, and performance in collegiate doubles tennis. Methods Sixteen male collegiate tennis players formed 29 unique dyads. Pair cohesion was assessed using the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ), and within-dyad cohesion discrepancies were calculated as the absolute differences between partners’ ratings. Between-point verbal interactions were recorded and classified as tactical or non-tactical communication, and match performance was quantified using point, serve success, and return success rates. The relationships among cohesion discrepancies, tactical communication, and performance were examined using exploratory covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM), with PLS-SEM as a robustness check. Additional dependency-aware sensitivity analyses were conducted using match-level mixed-effects models and player-level multiple-membership models to account for dyads linked within matches and repeated player participation across dyads. Results In the exploratory CB-SEM, greater within-dyad discrepancy in GI-S (Group Integration–Social) was associated with a lower tactical communication rate ( β = −0.45, p = .047), while a higher tactical communication rate was associated with a lower point rate ( β = −0.36, p = .012). However, the indirect effect of GI-S discrepancy on point rate through tactical communication was not statistically significant. PLS-SEM showed similar directions and magnitudes for these relationships, although the GI-S discrepancy–tactical communication path did not reach conventional statistical significance. In the dependency-aware analyses, the GI-S discrepancy–tactical communication association was not statistically significant in the match-level model and was not clearly supported in the player-level multiple-membership model. The tactical communication–point rate association remained negative in both analyses but was not clearly supported statistically. Discussion The findings provide preliminary evidence that tactical communication in doubles tennis may be embedded within both relational and competitive contexts. The exploratory association between greater GI-S discrepancy and lower tactical communication raises the possibility that how similarly partners perceive their social integration may be relevant to explicit tactical coordination, although this association was not clearly supported after accounting for match- and player-level dependency. The consistently negative direction of the association between tactical communication and point rate further suggests that more frequent tactical communication does not necessarily reflect more effective coordination. Rather than supporting definitive relationships among cohesion, communication, and performance, these findings highlight the need to examine how relational perceptions, explicit tactical communication, and adaptation to unfolding competitive situations jointly shape dyadic coordination.