Journal of Sports Sciences
ISSN: 0264-0414 (Print) 1466-447X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20
Matchplay characteristics of Grand Slam tennis: implications for training and conditioning
Machar Reid, Stuart Morgan & David Whiteside
To cite this article: Machar Reid, Stuart Morgan & David Whiteside (2016) Matchplay characteristics of Grand Slam tennis: implications for training and conditioning, Journal of Sports Sciences, 34:19, 1791-1798, DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2016.1139161
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1139161
Published online: 24 Mar 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 286
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjsp20
Download by: [The University of British Columbia] Date: 14 October 2016, At: 08:37 JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES, 2016 VOL. 34, NO. 19, 1791–1798 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1139161
Matchplay characteristics of Grand Slam tennis: implications for training and conditioning Machar Reida,b, Stuart Morganc and David Whitesidea,d aGame Insight Group, Tennis Australia, Melbourne; bUniversity of Western Australia, Crawley; cMovement Science, Australian Institute of Sport, Canberra; dInstitute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living, Victoria University, Footscray
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY The purpose of this study was to probe the sex-based differences in the stroke and movement Accepted 1 January 2016 dynamics of Grand Slam hard-court tennis. Player and ball tracking data were collated for 102 male – KEYWORDS and 95 female players during the 2012 2014 Australian Open tournaments. Serve, serve return, Hawk-Eye; analytics; groundstroke and movement data were compared between sexes. Serve statistics were the subject strategy; notational; activity of the largest differences, with males achieving significantly faster speeds, aces and unreturned serves while also winning a greater percentage of service points. When returning serve, women contacted the ball closer to the net, lower to the ground and achieved flatter ball trajectories than males. Groundstroke frequencies were similar between sexes, although males hit with greater speed, flatter trajectories and impacted more shots inside the baseline. Distance covered per set or during points won or lost was not sex dependent, yet men exhibited faster average movement speeds. These findings highlight the need for sex-specific training and practice designs that cater to the different stroke dynamics, particularly in relation to the first serve and serve-return, as well as movement speeds.
Introduction differences in serve speed (Cross, 2014a) as well as sex and surface differences in rally length at Grand Slam level (Martin The activity profiles of professional tennis players have et al., 2011;O’Donoghue and Ingram, 2001), but quantitative attracted considerable research interest, variously capturing accounts of the precise movement demands of professional physiological aspects of matchplay (Hornery, Farrow, Mujika, tennis are, with the exception of Ferrauti et al. (2003), virtually & Young, 2007; Martin et al., 2011; Mendez-Villanueva, non-existent. Clearly, if the principle of specificity is to apply, Fernandez-Fernandez, Bishop, Fernandez-Garcia, & Terrados, whereby the training environment reflects the dynamics of 2007) as well as elementary stroke (Gillet, Leroy, Thouvarecq, matchplay (Reilly, Morris & Whyte, 2009), these sporadic—if & Stein, 2009; Johnson & McHugh, 2006; Loffing, Hagemann, & not dated—descriptions of tennis matchplay are inadequate. Strauss, 2009;O’Donoghue & Ingram, 2001) and movement Recent technological advances have presented opportu- (Hughes & Meyers, 2005; Martínez-Gallego et al., 2013) char- nities to track athlete locomotion (Perš, Bon, Kovačič, Šibila, acteristics. This body of work has provided foundational &Dežman, 2002) as well as to quantify the outcomes of stroke knowledge about the performance demands of professional production directly using video footage. For example, Hawk- tennis, thereby helping to inform tennis-specific training Eye (Hawk-Eye Innovations Ltd, Basingstoke, UK) has become (Kovacs, 2007). Unfortunately, the sampled populations, commonplace at many ATP/WTA events and is utilised at all study designs (often involving simulated play) and lack of four Grand Slams. Its non-invasiveness, high accuracy and real- non-invasive measurement instruments have somewhat lim- time measurement power has broadened its spectator appeal, ited the practical relevance of these data in professional while also creating currently untapped research opportunities, tennis. notwithstanding occasionally published insights (Loffing et al., It is widely reported that the characteristics of competitive 2009). Consequently, with the above backdrop in mind, the matchplay should shape the content of practice and physical objectives of this article were to synthesise the player and ball training programmes of athletes (Proteau, Marteniuk, & data collected via Hawk-Eye during Grand Slam tennis to Lévesque, 1992; Reilly, Morris, & Whyte, 2009). Among the better inform those practitioners that develop the technical, rare published accounts of the specific stroke characteristics tactical and physical prowess of current or aspirant profes- in professional tennis, Johnson and McHugh (2006) reported sional players. More specifically, we will contrast the in- that more strokes were played on clay courts (at the 2003 match movement and stroke characteristics of professional French Open), while Gillet et al. (2009) preferred to describe hard court men’s and women’s tennis, played at the the impact/landing locations and ball spins of the serve and Australian Open. It was hypothesised that male players serve-return of players competing at the 2005–2006 French would produce faster movement and shot (i.e., ball) speeds, Open. Other notational analyses have identified sex not just on serve (as per Cross, 2014a) but all strokes. Females,
CONTACT David Whiteside [email protected] Game Insight Group, Tennis Australia, Batman Ave, Melbourne VIC © 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group 1792 M. REID ET AL. on the other hand, were hypothesised to contact balls further Table 1. Dependent variables examined. up the court, hit flatter groundstrokes and execute relatively Variable Description more backhands as inferred in contemporary coaching litera- STROKE PERFORMANCE ture (Antoun, 2007; Crespo and Reid, 2007). Serve Serves per service game Number of serves hit in play per service game Aces serves per service Average number of aces per service game game Methods Double faults per service Average number of double faults per service game game Prior to competition, Hawk-Eye technicians calibrate the First serves in play (%) First serves in play Ä service points dimensions of each court and a right-handed court reference First serve points won (%) First serve points won Ä first serves in play Second serve points won Second serve points won Ä Second serves in frame originating at the base of the centre of the net is (%) play defined. The Hawk-Eye system—comprised of ten 50–60 Hz First serves unreturned (%) First serves not returned into play Ä first cameras—then tracks the four-dimensional coordinates (time serves in play Second serves unreturned Second serves not returned into play Ä × three-dimensional Cartesian coordinates, relative to the (%) second serves in play reference frame) of the ball and players during tennis point Peak serve speed (km·h−1) Maximum serve speed for the match play. Higher order kinematics and descriptive shot information Mean first serve speed Average serve speed for the match (km·h−1) (e.g., ace, shot type, net clearance, landing location) can then Mean second serve speed be computed from these displacement data either directly or (km·h−1) through numerical differentiation and/or propriety algorithms. Return ’ Forehand returns per Number of forehand returns hit in play per Independent testing has validated the system s accuracy and receiving game receiving game reliability as an officiating tool in tennis, with a purported Backhand returns per Number of backhand returns hit in play per mean error of 2.6 mm (for ball tracking) compared to a gold receiving game receiving game Mean first serve return Mean position, relative to the baseline, at standard (Hawk-Eye Innovations, 2015). Moreover, despite position (m) which the ball was impacted: −ve = behind Cross (2014b) highlighting some concern regarding the appro- Mean second serve return baseline; +ve = inside baseline priateness of the system’s methodology for adjudication, the position (m) ’ First serve returns into play First serve returns in play Ä first serves in play purported error is unlikely to affect this study s research ques- (%) faced tions. Also, to the authors’ knowledge, there are no published Second serve returns into Second serve returns in play Ä second serves data on the accuracy of the system’s tracking of player dis- play (%) in play faced Mean first serve return Average height at which the ball was placement. However, the abovementioned precision with ball contact height (m) contacted tracking as well as reported mean square errors of single- Mean second serve return camera systems (i.e., 55mm: (Dunn, Haake, Wheat, & contact height (m) Mean first serve return net Average height by which the serve return Goodwill, 2014)) infer comparable, if not, improved accuracy clearance (m) cleared the net given the size/speed of the image being tracked. Mean second serve return The Hawk-Eye system has been in use at the Australian net clearance (m) Mean first serve return Average serve return speed for the match Open since 2007 however, coincident ball and player tracking speed (km·h−1) only became operational in 2012. Throughout 2012–2014, a Mean second serve return − total of 15 courts at Melbourne Park were equipped with speed (km·h 1) Groundstroke (inclusive of forehand and backhand but excluding serve and return) Hawk-Eye. The ball and player data for each point of each Forehands per game Number of forehands hit per game (excluding main draw match played on one of the 15 courts were stored returns) in individually labelled files. For the purposes of the current Backhands per game Number of backhands hit per game (excluding returns) study, these point-level files were aggregated and processed Forehand-backhand ratio Ratio of forehand groundstrokes to backhand using a custom MATLAB (Mathworks, Natick, MA) script to groundstrokes derive shot-level data. To eliminate potential bias associated Time and space factor (%) Percent of groundstrokes (excluding return) contacted inside the baseline with an unequal number of matches being sampled from Mean shot contact height Average height at which the ball was individual players, one match per player was randomly (m) contacted sampled for analysis. Consequently, matches involving a total Mean groundstroke net Average height by which the groundstrokes clearance (m) cleared the net of 197 players (102 male; 95 female) were included in the Mean groundstroke speed Average groundstroke speed for the match delimited data set. Players competing at the Australian Open (km·h−1) provided informed consent to be recorded and for associated Shot Depth (%) Percent of groundstrokes that landed deeper data to be used as detailed herein. An Institutional Review than the service line Board also approved the study. MOVEMENT PERFORMANCE Table 1 depicts the variables of interest in this study. All Metres in a match (m) Distance covered by an individual player Mean metres in a set (m) during point play (from the time at which data were checked for consistency with tennis matchplay the serve was struck until the end of the dynamics. Initially, all distributions were subject to normality point) during the course of a match/set Mean movement speed Average movement speed of the player during testing using Shapiro-Wilk tests. For normally distributed vari- −1 ’ (m·s ) point play for the match ables, Welch s t-tests were used to evaluate differences Mean metres covered: won Mean distance covered during point play when between male and female matchplay. Mann-Whitney U tests point (m) player won point were used where the assumption of normality was violated. Mean metres covered: lost Mean distance covered during point play when Alpha was set at 0.001 to account for the inflated Type 1 error point (m) player lost point JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 1793 risk associated with the use of multiple tests, while Cohen’s d serves returned into play was significantly greater in effect sizes (d) were also generated to enhance interpretation. women, while the percentage of second serves returned Effect sizes may be classified as small (d < 0.2), small-to-mod- into play did not significantly differ between sexes. When erate (0.2 ≤ d ≤ 0.5), moderate-to-large (0.5 ≤ d ≤ 0.8) or large facing first serves, female players impacted the return sig- (d > 0.8) (Cohen, 1988). nificantly closer to the net than male players, though this difference was not significant on second serves. Independent of serve type, both sexes returned at similar Results speeds but the male return was characterised by higher Data (mean ± standard deviation) describing various elements impact heights and net clearances. of serve performance of males and females competing at the Australian Open men’s and women’s matches were punc- Australian Open are detailed in Table 2. Both men and women tuated by comparable numbers of forehand and backhand hit slightly more than an average of six serves in play per groundstrokes per game, and relatedly an analogous fore- service game. However, males hit significantly more aces per hand-backhand ratio. Players of both sexes also executed service game and recorded a higher percentage of unreturned groundstrokes at similar impact heights and delivered those first serves. Males also served at significantly higher peak and shots to similar depths (Table 4). However, in so doing, males mean serve speeds, and won a significantly greater percen- hit groundstrokes with significantly greater speeds and lower tage of points on their first and second serves than female margins for error (lower net clearance), while also contacting a players. Females committed significantly more double faults significantly greater proportion of shots inside the baseline per service game than males, which equated to approximately (time and space factor). one more double fault for every six games served. Percentage Table 5 describes the movement characteristics of players of second serves that were not returned did not significantly competing at the Australian Open. The ≈900m disparity in the differ between sex, nor did percentage of first serves in play. mean match distance covered between male and female Table 3 summarises the descriptive statistics of the serve- players can be attributed to the variable formats (5 set vs 3 return performance characteristics of Australian Open male set) of competition. Correspondingly, when distance covered and female competitors. Women hit significantly more fore- was normalised to set, points won and points lost, no signifi- hand returns per return game than males, although the cant sex effects were recorded. Male players were, however, frequency of backhand returns per return game did not noted to travel at significantly higher mean speeds during differ significantly between sexes. The percentage of first point play.
Table 2. Serve performance characteristics of Australian Open Grand Slam tennis. Men Women Mean ± SD Mean ± SD Sig d Serves per service game 6.12 ± 0.62 6.42 ± 0.85 .006 † 0.40 Aces per service game 0.48 ± 0.30 0.23 ± 0.25 <.001* ‡ 0.91 Double faults per service game 0.25 ± 0.18 0.42 ± 0.29 <.001* ‡ 0.71 First serves in (%) 60.97 ± 7.50 60.20 ± 8.39 .501 † 0.10 First serve points won (%) 69.13 ± 9.15 60.77 ± 12.58 <.001* † 0.76 Second serve points won (%) 48.71 ± 9.35 41.85 ± 13.96 <.001* † 0.58 First serves unreturned (%) 22.72 ± 6.92 18.93 ± 9.21 <.001* ‡ 0.47 Second serves unreturned (%) 15.07 ± 7.54 12.17 ± 7.91 .006 ‡ 0.37 Peak serve speed (km·h−1) 206.27 ± 11.84 171.84 ± 10.52 <.001* † 3.07 Mean first serve speed (km·h−1) 184.31 ± 9.29 155.50 ± 9.77 <.001* † 3.02 Mean second serve speed (km·h−1) 152.10 ± 9.64 131.23 ± 8.50 <.001* † 2.29 † Independent groups t-test; ‡ Independent groups Mann-Whitney U test; * Significant difference; Sig: Significance value; d: Cohen’s d effect size.
Table 3. Return of serve performance characteristics of Australian Open Grand Slam tennis. Men Women Mean ± SD Mean ± SD Sig d Forehand returns per game receiving 2.23 ± 0.64 2.75 ± 0.86 <.001* † 0.69 Backhand returns per game receiving 2.79 ± 0.64 2.85 ± 0.82 .570 † 0.08 First serve returns into play (%) 63.44 ± 11.09 72.10 ± 12.32 <.001* ‡ 0.74 Second serve returns into play (%) 77.13 ± 10.04 81.52 ± 10.28 .003 † 0.43 Mean first serve return position§ (m) −0.98 ± 0.74 −0.34 ± 0.66 <.001* ‡ 0.91 Mean second serve return position§ (m) −0.10 ± 1.05 0.22 ± 0.74 .031 ‡ 0.36 Mean first serve return contact height (m) 1.27 ± 0.08 1.17 ± 0.07 <.001* † 1.35 Mean second serve return contact height (m) 1.50 ± 0.08 1.37 ± 0.11 <.001* ‡ 1.38 Mean first serve return net clearance (m) 1.10 ± 0.19 0.96 ± 0.22 <.001* † 0.67 Mean second serve return net clearance (m) 0.83 ± 0.17 0.73 ± 0.20 <.001* ‡ 0.51 Mean first serve return speed (km·h−1) 94.65 ± 7.04 97.27 ± 9.27 .007 ‡ 0.32 Mean second serve return speed (km·h−1) 110.15 ± 8.77 111.50 ± 7.46 .099 ‡ 0.17 † Independent groups t-test; ‡ Independent groups Mann-Whitney U test; * Significant difference; Sig: Significance value; d: Cohen’s d effect size; § −ve = behind baseline, +ve = inside baseline. 1794 M. REID ET AL.
Table 4. Groundstroke performance characteristics of Australian Open Grand Slam tennis. Men Women Mean ± SD Mean ± SD Sig d Forehands per game 4.75 ± 1.45 5.22 ± 1.75 .064 ‡ 0.30 Backhands per game 4.13 ± 1.76 4.55 ± 1.59 .025 ‡ 0.25 Forehand-backhand ratio (%) 1.24 ± 0.37 1.22 ± 0.45 .481 ‡ 0.04 Time and space factor (%) 24.12 ± 6.56 18.62 ± 7.79 <.001* ‡ 0.77 Mean shot contact height (m) 0.96 ± 0.06 0.94 ± 0.08 .011 ‡ 0.32 Mean groundstroke net clearance (m) 0.69 ± 0.08 0.77 ± 0.12 <.001* ‡ 0.73 Mean groundstroke speed (km·h−1) 111.30 ± 5.52 106.11 ± 5.77 <.001* † 0.92 Shot depth (%) 81.58 ± 4.46 82.61 ± 4.97 .128 † 0.22 † Independent groups t-test; ‡ Independent groups Mann-Whitney U test; * Significant difference; Sig: Significance value; d: Cohen’s d effect size. Time and space factor: Percentage of shots contacted inside the baseline; shot depth: percentage of shots hit that landed deeper than service line.
Table 5. Movement characteristics of Australian Open Grand Slam tennis. Men Women Mean ± SD Mean ± SD Sig d Metres covered in a match (m) 2110 ± 839 1232 ± 440 <.001* ‡ 1.30 Mean metres covered in a set (m) 572 ± 152 553 ± 172 .397 ‡ 0.12 Mean movement speed (m·s−1) 3.68 ± 0.41 3.43 ± 0.48 <.001* ‡ 0.55 Mean metres covered: won point (m) 10.24 ± 2.44 10.55 ± 3.08 .682 ‡ 0.11 Mean metres covered: lost point (m) 8.07 ± 1.93 7.57 ± 2.20 .042 ‡ 0.24 ‡ Independent groups Mann-Whitney U test; * Significant difference; Sig: Significance value; d: Cohen’s d effect size.
Discussion repetition, and the prevalence of upper limb injury among tennis players. This is the first study to provide a comprehensive critique of Consistent with our hypothesis, serve speeds displayed the the in situ stroke and movement characteristics of Grand Slam greatest sex effects in this study and confirm that the serve is tournament level tennis. Sex effects were observed across a a primary point of difference between men’s and women’s range of serve and return of serve characteristics that under- tennis. It has been contended that service speed is the cor- lined the superiority of the male serve. In turn, males gener- ollary of technique and physical capacities (Pugh, Kovaleski, ated considerably higher ball speed on serve as well as during Heitman, & Gilley, 2003; Reid & Schneiker, 2008). Therefore, sex rally play but not on the return of serve. Male players also differences in explosive power—whose expression has been moved at higher mean in-point speeds, though covered the reported as 25–65% lower in females (Lovell et al., 2011; same distance, per set, as women. The discussion to follow will Mujika, Santisteban, Impellizzeri, & Castagna, 2009)—may examine the stroke and movement characteristics in the con- help to explain some of the disparity in service speeds. text of the empirical evidence base as well as current practice. Logically, sex based differences in the internal rotation strength about the shoulder of tennis players (Ellenbecker & Roetert, 2003) may also contribute. From a technical perspec- Stroke Characteristics – The Serve tive, sex differences in lower limb drive mechanics (Elliott, Fleisig, Nicholls, & Escamilia, 2003) and shoulder internal rota- Though rudimentary, serve count data has direct implications tion (Elliott, Whiteside, Lay, & Reid, 2013) have been presented for training adaptation and injury prevention through their as contributory factors. Collectively, these data—while not relation to training dose prescription. For example, the serve definitive—highlight some potential physical and technical has been implicated in the development of overuse patholo- reasons that underpin the recorded speed differential — gies particularly at the shoulder (Reid, Elliott, & Alderson, between the male and female serve. ’ 2007) and lower back (Campbell, Straker, O Sullivan, Elliott, & That males hit twice as many aces per service game, won — Reid, 2013) thereby highlighting the importance of monitor- 14 % more points on first serve and generated 20 % more ing serve volumes. Where repeatedly high serve volumes may unreturned first serves reinforces the relative dominance of predispose players to injury (Chow, Park, & Tillman, 2009), so the first serve in men’s tennis at the Australian Open. Most too may higher service speeds, which have been positively logically, these differences are an artefact of the abovemen- related to injurious joint loading profiles (Reid, Elliott, & tioned serve speed differential rather than accuracy (both Alderson, 2008). During an average match in this study, male sexes hit ≈60–61 % of first serves in play), however future players hit 71% more serves (106) than females (62) and, work should examine whether other factors (e.g., ball landing consistent with previous research (Chow et al., 2009; Fleisig, location, spin and serve variation) affect the outcome of the – Nicholls, Elliott, & Escamilla, 2003), possessed 16 19 % more point. Contrastingly, despite the sex differential in second potent first and second deliveries than females. This evidence serve speed, the percentage of unreturned second serves encourages future researchers to intensify their investigation was not significantly different between sexes. This might of the relationship between sex, serve performance and infer that returning serve becomes exponentially more difficult JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 1795 above a “critical” serve speed, which males achieve more hit flatter (i.e., with lower net clearance), than both serve- regularly than females. Equally, the higher premium attached returns. Once more, this evidence cautions against practice to accuracy on the second serve seemingly mitigates the regimes that neglect dedicated serve-return practice under extent to which it directly affects the outcome of the point the premise that typical groundstrokes are sufficiently repre- (% points won on second serve was ≈30–31 % lower than % sentative (from a mechanical standpoint) of the serve-return. points won on first serve in both sexes). Correspondingly, there is an increased reliance on auxiliary abilities (e.g., Stroke Characteristics – Groundstrokes groundstroke performance, movement, tactics) when endea- vouring to win points following a second serve. The impor- Reid and Schneiker (2008) suggested that players might tance of this skill set is especially relevant in male tennis, expect to play in excess of 1000 shots per match, yet these where the ability to win points on second serve has been data show that Australian Open matches featured means of presented as a differentiator of ATP ranking (Reid, McMurtrie, 312 (max = 1292) and 191 (max = 391) groundstrokes per & Crespo, 2010). match for female and male players, respectively. While there are no peer-reviewed data characterising professional-level Stroke characteristics – Return of serve tennis training, Murphy et al. (2014) reported that high-level junior (male and female) players hit 40–388 shots per training In partial agreement with our hypothesis, female players session. Thus, on this basis, it can be proffered that elite impacted their first serve returns significantly “further up the training convention provides match-appropriate hitting court” (closer to the net) than male players. However, male opportunities, albeit at an uncertain hitting intensity (speed) players recalibrated their impact point on second serve returns and notwithstanding that what is appropriate might vary with to a greater extent (moving 0.88 m closer to the net v 0.56 m) court surface (Martin et al., 2011;O’Donoghue & Ingram, meaning that both sexes hit second serve returns from more 2001). Additionally, with these data revealing that ≈76–81 % comparable court positions, close to or inside the baseline. of groundstrokes were played from beyond the baseline and Indeed, these data intimate that, in spite of their locations on that ≈82–83 % landed deeper than the opponent’s service court, the average woman had ≈1.0 s from serve impact until line, in general terms, it would be prudent for coaches to return impact, while the average man had ≈0.7 s. A return design hitting drills accordingly. location further up the court, which helps to reduce the angle Contrary to expectations, frequencies of forehand and available to the server, is consistent with recommendations backhand groundstrokes did not significantly differ between ’ ’ espoused in player development texts (Crespo & Miley, 1998), men s and women s tennis at the Australian Open. In keeping particularly in reference to the female game. More generally, with coaching texts (Antoun, 2007), we had hypothesised that the observed sex-based disparity in (first serve) return location the backhand would be the more dominant groundstroke in helps to explain the expected lower net clearances and con- women’s tennis. However, these findings suggest this not to tact heights of the female return, although a sex-differential in be the case, and appear to indicate that other ways of depict- stature would also contribute to this difference. ing dominance need to be considered for prevailing (coach) The differential in impact height between the first and wisdom to be supported. Hitting volumes aside, males gener- second serve return may also relate to previous reports that ated greater ball speeds with their groundstrokes, which is kick serves (i.e., the predominant second serve) contain more consistent with previous research that reported a 9.4% discre- spin (and, in turn, bounce) than flat serves (i.e., the predomi- pancy in groundstroke ball speeds (albeit on grass and having nant first serve) (Sakurai, Reid, & Elliott, 2013). Focusing on the grouped forehands and backhands; Choppin et al, 2011). sex differences, the impact height effects are consistent with While the ball speed differential conformed to expecta- the literature in that they suggest males obtain more ball spin tions, impact locations and net clearances of the ground- than females on serve (Choppin, Goodwill & Haake, 2011; strokes surprised. That is, in direct opposition to our Sakurai et al., 2013; Whiteside, Elliott, Lay, & Reid, 2013). In a hypotheses, female players were found to impact a signifi- similar vein, differences in ball spin and/or the ability to direct cantly lower percentage of groundstrokes inside the baseline the serve to an opponent’s backhand may explain why female as well as, more generally, produce groundstrokes with players hit significantly more forehand returns than their male greater clearance over the net. Impact height and shot counterparts. Given the disparities in % points won on serve, depth (the percentage of balls landing beyond the service future research should examine whether higher impact loca- line) were comparable between sexes. Based on these data, tions affect the quality of or options available on the return. it then appears that groundstroke volumes are similar in both Although our statistical approach precluded direct compar- sexes, but hit with considerably higher speeds and flatter isons between serve returns (rather focusing on a sex effect), it trajectories in men’s tennis. Despite the similarity in impact is instructive to do so on a practical level. That is, the con- height and shot depth, the time and space constraints pre- trasting impact location, ball trajectory (i.e., net clearance), sented by mens’ groundstrokes appeared more pronounced speed and percentage of first and second serve returns in as these shots were played with greater speed, lower net play imply that coaches should carefully and deliberately clearance and, more frequently, from attacking locations plan their rehearsal in practice, in accordance with contem- inside the baseline. Looking forward, more granular analyses porary skill acquisition literature (Reid, Crespo, Lay, & Berry, of groundstroke context (i.e., examining the relationship 2007). Similarly, the data depict the typical groundstroke as a between impact location, direction, shot type, spin, surface, shot that is impacted considerably closer to waist height and ranking and groundstroke performance), and even equipment 1796 M. REID ET AL. design, would provide a valuable extension to this line of surprisingly large distance reported by Suda et al. (2003). The work. current study also revealed that players of both sexes covered, on average, ≈10.5 m during points won and ≈8.75 m during Movement characteristics points lost. More generally, these data support the findings of Martinez-Gallego et al. (2013) who reported that losers of Largely owing to technological constraint (Duffield et al., games traverse less distance than winners of games in profes- 2010), only recently have players and coaches garnered pre- sional men’s tennis. Thus, there is a need for future work to cise in situ and real-time descriptions of the movement char- scrutinise the relationship between movement and point out- acteristics of matchplay. Accordingly, peer-reviewed accounts come in greater detail. As hypothesised, the data describing of the movement dynamics of tennis are limited. The current mean in-point movement speeds infer that male players must study revealed that the typical male and female player tra- be conditioned for faster-paced tennis. This appears consistent verses in-point distances of approximately 550–575 m per set, with the overarching theme of the current study’s findings, with males covering greater match distances, due to the wherein there are parallels in the volume or frequency of match format. The standard deviations of the match distances strokes/movements but differences in intensity (higher in the covered portray considerable variability in within-sex competi- men ’s game) and more subtle tactical/positional and technical tion demands, which is unsurprising given that scorelines— nuance between the sexes. and, therefore, match durations—can differ greatly. This rein- forces the need for coaches and physical trainers to individua- Limitations lise strength and conditioning programmes in accordance with the physical profile but also tactical approach of players. Although the current study offers insights that are more In the context of training load management and overuse detailed than similar published accounts, there remains con- injury, it also raises the interesting prospect of whether players siderable scope for finer grained analysis. For example, the should prepare for what routinely happens, what could hap- one-class classification of all serves, serve-returns and ground- pen or both. strokes is overly simplistic. It is likely that important features of Reid and Duffield (2014) reported that Rafael Nadal and stroke production, such as impact height, net clearance and Novak Djokovic traversed in-point distances >6 km during ball speed, vary in accordance with the spin imparted to the their 5 h 53 min Australian Open final in 2012 yet, in the ball, the direction of the shot played and other situational authors’ experience, it is rare for the duration of tennis training context (i.e., hitting location, score or, in the case of ground-
sessions of professionals to surpass three hours. On that basis, strokes, time pressure, incoming ball behaviour and single vs it would seem that either the accumulation of work or the double handed techniques). Similarly, while we have provided intermittent nature of the sport—therein allowing for pro- some baseline measures of the distances covered and speeds longed, sustained physical performance and adequate recov- reached in hard court tennis play, the directionality of the ery between points—lessens the need for training session locomotion or certain features of the player-opponent (move- durations to specifically replicate the demands of matchplay. ment) dyad may be more important for the practitioner. Indeed, the expectation that players accumulate “miles in their On a general descriptive level, future knowledge discovery legs” features prominently in the narratives of former tennis could also focus on the effect of surface, game score, match professionals (Polkinghorne, 2014). While the temptation result, fatigue or round of the tournament on the investigated exists to dismiss this as rhetoric or posture that the game stroke and movement characteristics. The influence of other has changed, it may be that the game’s combatants are simply factors at the individual player level, such as handedness, play- reminding all stakeholders that tennis is a running game. This ing style, technical strengths, racket characteristics and match- notion of training prescription provides an obvious avenue for ups or opponents could also be probed. Further, in only ran- future research. In that regard, these data may help to shape domly sampling one match per player, our study failed to con- such research designs and also equip practitioners with a sider the permanence or adaptability of the stroke and comprehensive depiction of the movement characteristics of movement characteristics of individual players in any depth. matchplay to formulate more evidence-based programmes. The work of Terroba et al. (2013) provides a prelude in to the As mentioned above, scientific accounts of the movement likely future of predictive analytics in tennis in this regard. characteristics of matchplay at the elite level are sparse. Martinez-Gallego et al. (Martínez-Gallego, Ramón-Llin, Conclusions Guzmán, Vučkovic, & James, 2012) used SAGIT software to determine that two male professionals travelled an average There were significant differences in stroke and movement of 3375m during a 66-min match at the Valencia Open, with characteristics between professional men’s and women’s ten- the winner (3705m) covering a greater distance than the loser nis players. Our data suggest that the serve is a primary point (3045m). Suda et al. (2003), earlier employed similar computer of difference between men’s and women’s professional tennis, vision techniques, reporting that a professional player tra- as it was faster, was returned into play less frequently and versed up to 6932 m during an 82-min women’s singles produced more service points won in male players. When match. In both studies, ≤2 cameras were used to track players, returning serve, women contacted the ball at significantly no mean square error information was available and it was lower impact heights, further up the court and with a flatter unclear what time points were considered to represent the ball trajectory than males, albeit at a comparable ball speed. start and end of in-point movement, which may explain the Surprisingly, the reverse applied for groundstrokes, where JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 1797 men’s matches were characterised by shots that were faster, Ellenbecker, T., & Roetert, E. (2003). Age specific isokinetic glenohumeral flatter and more frequently impacted inside the baseline. internal and external rotation strength in elite junior tennis players. – Surprisingly, both sexes executed approximately 25% more Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 6(1), 63 70. Elliott, B., Fleisig, G., Nicholls, R., & Escamilia, R. (2003). Technique effects forehand groundstrokes than backhands, thereby presenting on upper limb loading in the tennis serve. Journal of Science and some instruction for practice. Medicine in Sport, 6(1), 76–87. With respect to movement, males exhibited significantly Elliott, B., Whiteside, D., Lay, B., & Reid, M. (2013). The female tennis serve: higher mean movement speeds than women, which was indi- An analogous version of the male serve. 31st International Society of – cative of the faster-paced nature of men’s tennis. Further, Sports Biomechanics Conference, Taipei, July 7 11. Fleisig, G., Nicholls, R., Elliott, B., & Escamilla, R. (2003). Tennis: Kinematics distances of 550–575 m were covered per set with the dis- used by world class tennis players to produce high-velocity serves. parate match formats (i.e., 3 vs 5 set) therefore necessitating Sports Biomechanics, 2(1), 51–64. that male tennis players are uniquely conditioned. Ultimately, Gillet, E., Leroy, D., Thouvarecq, R., & Stein, J. (2009). A notational analysis aside from providing objective benchmarks that can be used of elite tennis serve and serve-return strategies on slow surface. Journal – to shape future research and training designs, these findings of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23(2), 532 539. Hawk-Eye Innovations. (2015). Hawk-Eye’s accuracy & reliability: Electronic endorse and inform sex-specific groundstroke and movement line calling [Pamphlet]. Basingstoke, UK: Hawk-Eye Innovations. training, while also providing insights into the tactical disposi- Hornery, D., Farrow, D., Mujika, I., & Young, W. (2007). An integrated tion of professional tennis that could be used to enhance physiological and performance profile of professional tennis. British performance. Journal of Sports Medicine, 41(8), 531–536. Hughes, M., & Meyers, R. (2005). Movement patterns in elite men’ssingles tennis. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 5(2), 110–134 Johnson, C., & McHugh, M. (2006). Performance demands of professional male tennis players. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 40 (8), 696–699. Acknowledgements Kovacs, M. (2007). Tennis physiology. Sports Medicine, 37(3), 189–198. Loffing, F., Hagemann, N., & Strauss, B. (2009). The serve in professional The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of the International men’s tennis: Effects of players’ handedness. International Journal of Tennis Federation's Coaching Department. Performance Analysis in Sport, 9(2), 255–274. Lovell, D., Mason, D., Delphinus, E., Eagles, A., Shewring, S., & McLellan, C. (2011). Does upper body strength and power influence upper body Disclosure statement Wingate performance in men and women? International Journal of Sports Medicine, 32(10), 771–775. The authors have no disclosures or conflicts of interest. Martin, C., Thevenet, D., Zouhal, H., Mornet, Y., Delès, R., Crestel, T.,. . . Prioux, J. (2011). Effects of playing surface (hard and clay courts) on heart rate and blood lactate during tennis matches played by high-level players. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 25(1), 163–170. References Martínez-Gallego, R., Guzmán, J., James, N., Perš, J., Ramón-Llin, J., & Vučkovic, G. (2013). Movement characteristics of elite tennis players Antoun, R. (2007). Women’s Tennis Tactics. Human Kinetics, Champaign. on hard courts with respect to the direction of ground strokes. Journal Campbell, A., Straker, L., O’Sullivan, P., Elliott, B., & Reid, M. (2013). Lumbar of Sports Science & Medicine, 12(2), 275–281. loading in the elite adolescent tennis serve: link to low back pain. Martínez-Gallego, R., Ramón-Llin, J., Guzmán, J., Vučkovic, G., & James, N. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 45(8), 1562–1568. (2012). Analysis of distance covered and speed of movement in a Valencia Choppin, S., Goodwill, S., & Haake, S. (2011). Impact characteristics of the Open 500 elite tennis match. In D. M. Peters & P. G. O’Donoghue (Eds.), ball and racket during play at the Wimbledon qualifying tournament. World Congress of Performance Analysis of Sport IX (pp. 188–189). Sports engineering, 13(4), 163–170. Worcester, UK: International Society of Performance Analysis of Sport. Chow, J., Park, S., & Tillman, M. (2009). Lower trunk kinematics and muscle Mendez-Villanueva, A., Fernandez-Fernandez, J., Bishop, D., Fernandez- activity during different types of tennis serves. BMC Sports Science Garcia, B., & Terrados, N. (2007). Activity patterns, blood lactate concen- Medicine and Rehabilitation, 1(24), 1–14. trations and ratings of perceived exertion during a professional singles Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd tennis tournament. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 41(5), 296–300. ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mujika, I., Santisteban, J., Impellizzeri, F., & Castagna, C. (2009). Fitness Coutts, A., Quinn, J., Hocking, J., Castagna, C., & Rampinini, E. (2010). Match determinants of success in men’s and women’s football. Journal of running performance in elite Australian Rules Football. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(2), 107–114. Science and Medicine in Sport, 13(5), 543–548. Murphy, A., Duffield, R., Kellett, A., & Reid, M. (2014). Comparison of Crespo, M., & Miley, D. (1998). Advanced coaches manual. ITF Ltd, London. athlete-coach perceptions of internal and external load markers for Crespo, M., & Reid, M. (2007). Tactics of the Women’sGame.ITF Coach elite junior tennis training. International Journal of Sports Physiology Education Series. Available at: http://www.itftennis.com/media/113911/ and Performance, 9(5), 751–756. 113911.pdf. O’Donoghue, P., & Ingram, B. (2001). A notational analysis of elite tennis Cross, R. (2014a). Men’s tennis vs Women’s tennis. ITF Coaching and Sport strategy. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19(2), 107–115. Science Review, 62,p3–5. Perš, J., Bon, M., Kovačič, S., Šibila, M., & Dežman, B. (2002). Observation Cross, R. (2014b). The footprint of a tennis ball. Sports Engineering, 17(4), and analysis of large-scale human motion. Human Movement Science, 239–247. 21(2), 295–311. Duffield, R., Reid, M., Baker, J., & Spratford, W. (2010). Accuracy and Polkinghorne, D. (2014, February 14). Tennis greats dismiss hopes of new reliability of GPS devices for measurement of movement patterns in golden era. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from http://www.smh. confined spaces for court-based sports. Journal of Science and Medicine com.au/sport/tennis/tennis-greats-dismiss-hopes-of-new-golden-era- in Sport, 13(5), 523–525. 20140213-32ngp.html Dunn, M., Haake, S., Wheat, J., & Goodwill, S. (2014). Validation of a single Proteau, L., Marteniuk, R. G., & Lévesque, L. (1992). A sensorimotor basis for camera, spatio-temporal gait analysis system. Procedia Engineering, 72, motor learning: Evidence indicating specificity of practice. The Quarterly 243–248. Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 44(3), 557–575. 1798 M. REID ET AL.
Pugh, S., Kovaleski, J., Heitman, R., & Gilley, W. (2003). Upper and lower Reid, M., & Schneiker, K. (2008). Strength and conditioning in tennis: body strength in relation to ball speed during a serve by male collegi- current research and practice. Journal of Science and Medicine in ate tennis players. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 97(3), 867–872. Sport, 11(3), 248–256. Reid, M., Crespo, M., Lay, B., & Berry, J. (2007). Skill acquisition in tennis: Reilly, T., Morris, T., & Whyte, G. (2009). The specificity of training prescription Research and current practice. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, and physiological assessment: A review. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(6), 10(1), 1–10. 575–589. Reid, M., & Duffield, R. (2014). The development of fatigue during Sakurai, S., Reid, M., & Elliott, B. (2013). Ball spin in the tennis serve: spin match-play tennis. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 48(Suppl 1), rate and axis of rotation. Sports Biomechanics, 12(1), 23–29. i7–i11. Suda, K., Michikami, S., Sato, Y., & Umebayahi, K. (2003). Automatic measure- Reid, M., Elliott, B., & Alderson, J. (2007). Shoulder joint loading in the high ment of running distance during tennis matches using computer-based performance flat and kick tennis serves. British Journal of Sports trace analysis. In M. Crespo, M. Reid & D. Miley (Eds.), Applied sport science Medicine, 41(12), 884–889. for high performance tennis (pp. 151). London, UK: International Tennis Reid, M., Elliott, B., & Alderson, J. (2008). Lower-limb coordination and Federation. shoulder joint mechanics in the tennis serve. Medicine and Science in Terroba, A., Kosters, W., Varona, J., & Manresa-Yee, C. (2013). Finding Sports and Exercise, 40(2), 308–315. Optimal Strategies in Tennis from Video Sequences. International Reid,M.,McMurtrie,D.,&Crespo,M.(2010). The relationship between Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence, 27(6), 1–31 match statistics and top 100 ranking in professional men’s tennis. Whiteside, D., Elliott, B., Lay, B., & Reid, M. (2013). The effect of age on International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 10(2), 131– discrete kinematics of the elite female tennis serve. Journal of Applied 138. Biomechanics, 29(5), 573–582.