Notational Analysis in Female Grand Slam Tennis Competitions
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Sánchez-Pay, A. et al.: NOTATIONAL ANALYSIS IN FEMALE GRAND SLAM TENNIS... Kinesiology 53(2021)1:154-161 NOTATIONAL ANALYSIS IN FEMALE GRAND SLAM TENNIS COMPETITIONS Alejandro Sánchez-Pay, José Antonio Ortega-Soto, and Bernardino J. Sánchez-Alcaraz Faculty of Sport Science, University of Murcia, Spain Original scientific paper DOI 10.26582/k.53.1.18 Abstract: Grand Slam tennis tournaments are played on different surfaces. The aims of the present study were to analyse the technical differences in the Grand Slam tournaments (Australian Open or AO, Roland Garros or RG, Wimbledon or W, and the United States Open or US), as well as to establish differences between winning and losing players. A total of 580 sets in 248 matches played in Grand Slams between 2017 and 2018 were analysed. To observe differences between the tournaments, a one-way analysis of variance (Kruskal Wallis) with the Bonferroni post-hoc test was performed. Univariate (Wilcoxon test) analysis of data was carried out to show the differences between the winning and losing performances of sets. Players who had more aces, points won on the 1st serve, winning shots and net points won more matches in the AO, W and US than in the RG (p<.05). However, in RG, players won more receiving points (43.56% of the points played) with chances to break the opponents’ service game. The results also showed that the winning players were superior in both service and receiving, and the most influential variables on the outcome of the match were percentage of receiving points won, break points won, and percentage of points won on the first serve. Such knowledge may have implications for the design of appropriate game strategies and specific training sessions to improve performance in professional women’s tennis. Key words: tennis, surfaces, performance, technical actions, women’s singles Introduction Likewise, the influence of the court surface The US Open (US) and Australian Open (AO) is reflected in the competition statistics, showing tournaments were played on grass courts until significant differences between the four major 1978 and 1986, respectively, when they changed to tournaments (Cross & Pollard, 2009; Cui, Gómez, synthetic surfaces (O’Donoghue & Ingram, 2001). Gonçalves, & Sampaio, 2018). Coaches can use these The US and AO began to play on the same surface data in order to improve their training programmes, but in 2008 the AO changed the playing surface players can make better tactical decisions, sports from Rebound Ace® to Plexicushion Prestige® so organisations can manage athletes more effectively, concurrently, all the four Grand Slam tournaments and researchers can develop a better understanding are played on different surfaces. The International of sports performance (O’Donoghue, 2015). Tennis Federation (ITF) is responsible for testing In addition, players can modify their tactical and classifying the speed of the surface and the ball. configuration by adapting to the characteristics of In relation to the court pace rating, tennis regulation the court to achieve victory (Katić, Milat, Zagorac, differentiates the following types of surface: 1 (slow & Đurović, 2011). Notation analysis is especially pace), 2 (medium-slow pace), 3 (medium pace), 4 important and useful when it is carried out on tour- (medium-fast pace), and 5 (fast pace). Regarding the nament data (Ortega, Villarejo, & Palao, 2009). In types of balls, the ITF recognises three types from 1 this regard, weekly updated player and competi- (fast) to 3 (slow) (Sánchez-Pay, Palao, Torres-Luque, tion statistics can be found on the official websites & Sanz-Rivas, 2015). Court surface seems to be a of the ITF, the Association of Tennis Professionals determining aspect in the sport of tennis, since it (ATP) and the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) determines speed of the game and players’ strategy (Fernández-García, Giménez-Egido, & Torres- (Du Bois & Heyndels, 2007). However, game speed Luque, 2021). is best understood as the relationship between the However, most of the research are focused on speed of the surface and the ball (Miller, 2006). the men’s singles. Few studies have conducted 154 Sánchez-Pay, A. et al.: NOTATIONAL ANALYSIS IN FEMALE GRAND SLAM TENNIS... Kinesiology 53(2021)1:154-161 an exhaustive analysis of the professional female Method players’ performance in the four Grand Slam events. Also, studies that analyses performance differences Sample according to court surface are scarce (Cui, et al., The sample was composed of 580 sets from a 2018). Some studies have compared tennis perfor- total of 248 matches. It included 149 sets from the mance between male and female category. For Australian Open (Plexicushion Prestige® acrylic example, Del Corral and Prieto-Rodríguez (2010) hard surface), 134 from Roland Garros (clay analysed how the differences in the male and female surface), 146 from Wimbledon (grass surface), players’ ranking could predict the match outcome and 151 from the United States Open (DecoTurf® of the Grand Slam tournaments. Fitzpatrick, Stone, hard surface), all of them in the women’s category. Choppin, and Kelley (2019) analysed the competi- All the matches included in each tournament were tion statistics of male and female players at Roland recorded and analysed from the second round. The Garros and the percentage of points played with data of four matches were not included in the anal- 0-4 shots (short points or short rally length), then ysis, three of them due to a player injury and one with 5-8 and with more than 9 strokes in both tour- for not having data available on the web. The study naments. Finally, the study by Fitzpatrick, Stone, was undertaken according to the Data Protection Choppin, and Kelley (2021) showed statistical Law, and all procedures were approved by the Local performance differences between men and women University Bioethics Committee. In addition, the in short points during Wimbledon. USTA approved the use of the data for publication. Moreover, it seems that, among the four major events, Roland Garros is a tournament with the Variables longest rallies and the lowest shot rate, while Table 1 shows the variables of this study, Wimbledon is the Grand Slam with the shortest divided in seven categories: general, match, serve, rallies and the highest shot rate (Cui, et al., 2018; net, return, winners and errors, and total points. O’Donoghue, 2002; O’Donoghue & Brown, 2008; O’Donoghue & Ingram, 2001). Furthermore, players had better service statistics at the Australian Procedure Open, the US Open and Wimbledon, they spend The data were obtained from the official statis- more time in the baseline zone at Roland Garros, tics of the tournament websites, following the they approach the net more frequently and perform methodology of previous studies (Cui, Gómez, more winning shots at Wimbledon (Cui, et al., 2018; Gonçalves, Liu, & Sampaio, 2017; Cui, et al., 2018; O’Donoghue & Ingram, 2001). Sánchez-Pay, et al., 2015). Match statistics were Filipčič et al. (2008) analysed the statistics included for the players who played on the court in male and female categories at Roland Garros covered with the Hawk-Eye camera system (Hawk- 2005, highlighting that the female winning players Eye Innovations, Southampton, United Kingdom). achieved better percentages and won more points This system uses fixed and synchronised cameras when serving, made fewer unforced errors, to track the ball with a reported measurement mean approached the net more, and won more break error between 2 and 5mm (Cui, et al., 2017; Grif- points. A recent study using the PWOL method fiths, Evans, & Griffiths, 2005). Moreover, the (percentage of matches in which the winner outper- system allows the generation of metadata associated formed the loser), showed that for female players, with the point (e.g. server name, player on the court, points won of 0-4 shot rally length, baseline points score, and point outcome) stored in a file (White- won, first serve points won and second serve points side & Reid, 2017). In addition, some studies have won had the highest PWOLs at Roland Garros, calculated the reliability of the data by comparing while forced errors and unforced errors showed the them with expert observations with high accuracy lowest PWOLs at both (Fitzpatrick, Stone, Choppin, validity (Cui, et al., 2017, 2018; Fernández-García, & Kelley, 2019). Blanca-Torres, Nikolaidis, & Torres-Luque, 2019). Information about female professional players’ Following these investigations, the reliability of the performance in the Grand Slam tournaments is still data was confirmed. In this case, two experienced limited. This study responds to this lack of data performance analysts in tennis and other racquet through an analysis that compares the performance sports observed and collected the data of five sets of the players in the four events. This knowledge is that were randomly selected but played in different vital for planning specific and effective training and locations (Centre Court, Court 1, Court 2, and so design strategies for better performance. Therefore, on). Afterwards, comparisons were made between the aims of this study were to analyse and compare inter-observers (experienced performance analysts the performance of elite female tennis players in and website data) for all the variables (excluding the Grand Slam tournaments, and to determine the ratio variables) after a database treatment process. differences between the winning and losing players. The minimum Cohen’s kappa value for all the vari- 155 Sánchez-Pay,