THE PHYSIOLOGICAL DEMANDS OF HITTING AND RUNNING IN TENNIS ON DIFFERENT SURFACES
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
THE PHYSIOLOGICAL DEMANDS OF HITTING AND
RUNNING IN TENNIS ON DIFFERENT SURFACES
JAIME FERNANDEZ-FERNANDEZ, VANESSA KINNER, AND ALEXANDER FERRAUTI
Department of Coaching Science, Faculty of Sports Science, Ruhr-University, Bochum, Germany
ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION
T
Fernandez-Fernandez, J, Kinner, V, and Ferrauti, A. The ennis is characterized by high-intensity efforts (i.e.,
physiological demands of hitting and running in tennis on accelerations, decelerations, changeovers, and
different surfaces. J Strength Cond Res 24(12): 3255–3264, upper arm involvement) interspersed with periods
2010—The aim of the study was to examine how the training of variable duration and low-intensity activity,
surface (i.e., clay or carpet) affects the characteristics (i.e., ball
during which active recovery (between points: 20 seconds)
and sitting periods (between changeover break in play: 90 and
velocity, running pressure, running volume, and physiological
120 seconds) take place (12). Moreover, these actions
responses) of a tennis training session. Ten competitive healthy
coupled with rapid perceptual-motor processing ultimately
and nationally ranked male tennis players (mean 6 SD: age
require the players to execute strokes with the greatest
24.2 6 1.7 years, weight 81.4 6 7.6 kg, height 1.88 6 0.05 m, possible combination of stroke accuracy and resultant ball
body mass index 23.1 6 1.8) participated in a maximal treadmill speed (4,13). From a physiological point of view, during
test and a field test (e.g., an on-court tennis training session, match play, players typically exercise at mean intensities
which consisted of 4 exercises). Subjects’ oxygen uptake (V_ O2) close to 70–90% of maximal heart rate (HRmax) and 50–60%
and heart rate (HR) were recorded by portable analyzers, and the of maximum oxygen uptake (V_ O2max) with transient
ball velocity was measured using a radar gun during the training increases (e.g., during long rallies) reflecting phases of higher
sessions. We did not find any significant influence of the court intensities with values up to 80% of V_ O2max and close to
surface on any of the variables analyzed under the standardized 100% of HRmax (10,11,21,33).
exercise conditions of the study, as suggested in previous Players devote a great amount of time to improve their
studies conducted under match-play conditions. Moreover, data tennis skills throughout technical and tactical training, and,
for example, in the case of high-performance players, the
showed significant differences between maximal forehand and
International Tennis Federation recommends 15–20 hours of
backhand stroke velocities, the forehand stroke being signifi-
technical training per week to achieve high competitive levels
cantly faster (p = 0.01) and more energy demanding on both
(5). Because the size of the groups during training sessions
playing surfaces (clay: 122.0 6 9.1 vs. 111.1 6 7.5; carpet: often varies (i.e., several players on the court) and throughout
120.4 6 6.0 vs 111.5 6 7.0 kmh21). Comparing the same the sessions there is a combination of forehand and backhand
stroke on the same court surface, but at different stroke exercises or drills involving different hitting power, running
velocities, we found significant differences (p , 0.05) in all the pressure, or running volume, the training load (e.g., work-to-
physiological measurements (e.g., HR, %HRmax; V_ O2; %V_ O2), rest ratio) is often determined more by chance than by choice
which significantly increased with hitting velocity. (13). In most of the cases, coaches have to rely on their
intuition because there is little information about recom-
KEY WORDS tennis, oxygen uptake, heart rate, stroke velocity mendations regarding duration (number of strokes per
workload), density (duration of rest periods), or volume
(total number of strokes per exercise drill) for typical
exercises (14,31).
Regarding training situations, little information has been
reported about the physiological responses and stroke
characteristics of common, on-court tennis training drills
(9,31). As recently shown by Reid et al. (31), 4 structured
Address correspondence to Dr. Jaime Fernandez-Fernandez, jauma_ isolated on-court drills performed regularly by players were
fernandez@hotmail.com. characterized by physiological responses, which met average
24(12)/3255–3264 and maximum match-play demands, suggesting that condi-
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research tioning objectives could be incorporated with skill-related
Ó 2010 National Strength and Conditioning Association activities (32). Although in the cited studies the quality of
VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 12 | DECEMBER 2010 | 3255
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.Demands of Tennis Training and Playing Surfaces
running and hitting was not controlled, a major question
should be to what extent physiological parameters during on-
court training drills can be affected by stroke velocity and TABLE 1. Subject characteristics.*
running pressure during practice sessions performed on Variables Players (n = 10)
different playing surfaces.
Another problem in the tennis tournament schedule is the Age (y) 24.2 6 1.7
difference in terms of playing surface (i.e., clay court, green- Weight (kg) 81.4 6 7.6
Height (cm) 188 6 0.1
set, carpet, etc.), which obviously affects the choice of the
BMI (kgm22) 23.1 6 1.8
training surface. In this regard, the impact of the tennis court HRmax (bmin21) 194 6 8
surface on the physical and physiological demands of match V_ O2max (mlkg21min21) 56.2 6 7.4
play has been previously documented, with longer rallies and
*BMI = body mass index; HRmax = maximum heart
more strokes per rally, and an increased mean HR and mean rate; V_ O2max = maximum oxygen consumption.
blood lactate (LA) with a more steady overall V_ O2 response
on clay court (e.g., category 1 court surface, natural clay
court) than on green-set (e.g., category 3, Acrylic surface),
under simulated match-play conditions (19,29,30). On clay
courts, the friction and coefficient of restitution are higher
than on hard courts, resulting in a high and relatively METHODS
moderate bouncing of the ball, which gives the player more Experimental Approach to the Problem
time to prepare to hit the ball than when they play on hard In this investigation, a crossover, randomized design was used
surfaces (20). This leads to less difficulty in playing shots and, to examine the effects of court surface (i.e., clay court or
therefore, longer rallies from the baseline on clay courts. On carpet) on the technical and physiological responses of
the other hand, faster surfaces, such as hard courts, limit the a tennis training session. Technical parameters measured
time available to hit the ball and increase offensive playing were ball velocity, running pressure, and running volume.
situations (30). However, there is a lack of information Physiological responses were assessed by monitoring HR and
regarding these differences during training situations, as it has V_ O2 during the training session. The experimental design was
been suggested that the nature of tennis still varies between divided into 2 parts: a maximal treadmill test and 2 field tests
different playing surfaces, and, therefore, players should (e.g., tennis on-court training session conducted on a clay
prepare for the specific conditions of each tournament (2). court and a carpet surface), conducted during the preseason
Thus, the aim of the study was to examine how the training training block (i.e., January). During the testing sessions,
surface (i.e., clay or carpet) affects the characteristics (i.e., ball players were advised to have no strength or endurance
velocity, running pressure, running volume, and physiological training at least 48 hours before the test and to take
responses) of a tennis training session. a carbohydrate-rich meal 2 hours before testing.
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the testing sequence. FH = forehand; BH = backhand; RT = rest time; HR = heart rate; and V_ O2 = Oxygen consumption.
the TM
3256 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
Figure 2. Schematic representation of the exercises performed during the training session. P = player; BM = ball machine; LZ = landing zones. (C), (D) (1) Sprint
along the baseline and return a forehand down the line groundstroke; (2) Final passing shot at the backhand side, under maximum running pressure; (3) Sprint
along the baseline and return a backhand down the line groundstroke; (4) 15 side to side sprints plus down the line strokes.
VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 12 | DECEMBER 2010 | 3257
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.Demands of Tennis Training and Playing Surfaces
TABLE 2. General characteristics of exercises.*†
A B C D
Description 2 3 40 balls 2 3 40 balls 8 3 2 balls 3 3 16 balls
FH and BH FH and BH FH to BH FH to BH
Sets 3 duration 2 3 3 min 2 3 3 min 836s 3 3 1 min
Rest between sets 5 min 5 min 30 s 60 s
Rest between exercises 5 min
Stroke velocity Submaximal Maximal Maximal Maximal
Position Standing Standing Running Running
Running pressure Maximal Submaximal
*FH = forehand; BH = backhand.
†Values are mean 6 SD.
Subjects monitored every 5 seconds using the S610 (Polar, Kempele,
Ten competitive healthy and nationally ranked male tennis Finland).
players (mean 6 SD: age 24.2 6 1.7 years, weight 81.4 6 7.6
kg, height 1.88 6 0.05 m, body mass index 23.1 6 1.8) Field Test. The field testing was conducted across 2 morning
participated in this study. All of the players were involved in sessions, which were undertaken between 09:00 and 11:00
regular tennis competition at national and international levels hours. All test procedures were performed by the same
(i.e., ‘‘Futures’’ tournaments), all of them having a similar level assessors, and players were familiar with all test procedures.
(i.e., national ranking between 100 and 200). The mean Training sessions were conducted on either a clay court (e.g.,
training background of the players was 12.0 6 3.6 years, category 1 court surface, natural clay court) or a carpet surface
which focused on tennis-specific training (i.e., technical and (e.g., category 4, carpet surface), each separated by 1 week.
tactical skills), aerobic and anaerobic training (i.e., on- and Training sessions lasted for approximately 60 minutes and
off-court exercises), and resistance training. All the partic- consisted of 4 exercises, combining forehand and backhand
ipants were right-handed tennis players. Voluntary informed strokes at different stroke and running velocities (Figure 2),
consent was obtained from all players before the study regulated by a ball machine (BM) (MIHA 1000 TR,
commenced. The Institutional Review Board for Human Augsburg, Germany) placed in the center line of the opposite
Investigation approved all experimental procedures. service boxes, which projected balls at different frequencies
and velocities (see exercise descriptions). Measurements
Procedures began after a 15-minute standardized warm-up, which
Laboratory Test. One week before the field testing, V_ O2max consisted of 10 minutes of low-intensity forward, sideways,
and HRmax were measured during an incremental treadmill and backwards running, acceleration runs, and finishing with
test (Quasar med 4.0 treadmill, hp Cosmos, Nussdorf– 5 minutes consisting of ground strokes (players were asked to
Traunstein, Germany). The initial velocity of 2.4 ms21 was hit the balls to the center of the court). The experimental
increased by 0.4 ms21 every 5 minutes until exhaustion, with protocol is illustrated in Figure 1.
a constant grade of 1%. Respiratory gas exchange measures
were determined using a calibrated mixing chamber system Exercises A and B. Exercises A and B (Figure 2) aim to execute
(MetaMaxÒ II, Cortex, Leipzig, Germany). Expired air was strokes at different velocities and consisted of returning
continuously analyzed for gas volume (Triple digital-VÒ forehand (A) and backhand (B) down the line ground strokes
turbine), O2 concentration (zirconium analyzer) and CO2 to the opposite end of the court, in a standing position,
concentration (infrared analyzer). Data were transferred by behind the ball bouncing point. BM fed 40 balls (i.e., 1 set of
cable and sorted by MetaSoftÒ. The highest 30-second mean 40 balls each side, with 5-minute rest between sets) at
V_ O2 and HR values measured during the test were used as a frequency of 1 ball every 3.5 seconds, with a velocity of
maximum reference values (HRmax and V_ O2max). The 60 kmh21, 85 cm over the net, and landing 60 cm from the
volume calibration of the system was conducted before each opposite baseline, in front of the player. For exercise A,
test day, and the gas calibration was performed before each players were instructed to hit the balls at a submaximal
test using instructions provided by the manufacturer. Criteria velocity using topspin strokes, returning the balls toward
for determination of V_ O2max included plateau in V_ O2 despite standard square landing zones (2.05 by 5.49 m) at the
an increase in workload, respiratory exchange ratio . 1.1, opposite end of the court. For exercise B, players were
and HR .90% of predicted HRmax (16). The HR was instructed to hit balls following the protocol for exercise A
the TM
3258 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
but at maximal velocity using flat strokes. Rest time between
exercises A and B was set at 5 minutes.
14.0‡ 168.0 6 16.5‡ 169.3 6 16.0‡
42.3 6 10.0‡
77.0 6 17.2‡
*FH = forehand; BH = backhand; HR = heart rate; %HRmax = percentage of maximum heart rate; V_ O2 = oxygen consumption; %V_ O2max = percentage of maximum oxygen uptake.
87.1 6 5.3‡
16.9 6 4.1‡
7.5‡ 120.4 6 6.0‡§ 111.5 6 7.0‡
Exercises C and D. Exercises C and D (Figure 2) aim to
BH
improve starting speed and acceleration, and speed endur-
ance (for exercise D), in combination with a tennis stroke
Carpet
under maximal and submaximal running pressure and high
demands on stroke quality. For exercise C, the BM fed
86.3 6 6.1‡
43.8 6 9.1‡
17.3 6 3.8‡
17.2‡ 78.7 6 17‡
2 alternative balls, to the forehand and backhand, respectively
Exercise B (maximum)
FH
(e.g., 8 sets of 2 balls, 1 each side, with 30-second rest
between sets) at a frequency of 1 ball every 2.0 seconds, with
a velocity of 70 kmh21, 70 cm over the net, and landing
60 cm from the opposite baseline, in front of the player.
6.5‡
9.9‡
3.9‡
Beginning on the backhand side of the court, 50 cm from the
center line, players were required to perform a maximum
BH
129.0 6 19.3 137.0 6 19.1 127.4 6 19.8 131.3 6 18.1 166.0 6 13.3‡ 171.0 6
88.1 6
46.5 6 11.1ठ42.5 6
52.7 6 11.0 55.4 6 13.0 49.4 6 12.5 52.6 6 12.0 83.6 6 20.3ठ76.2 6
16.8 6
82.5 6 8.1 122.0 6 9.1ठ111.1 6
sprint along the baseline and return a forehand down the
line groundstroke, followed by a final passing shot at the
Clay
backhand side, under maximum running pressure
18.5 6 4.6‡§
(i.e., 1 change of direction and a running distance of about
86.0 6 5.0‡
12.5 m per repetition).
FH
For exercise D, the BM fed 16 balls to the forehand and
backhand, respectively (e.g., 3 sets of 16 balls, 1 each side, with
60-second rest between sets) at a frequency of 1 ball every 2.5
second, with a velocity of 62 kmh21, 85 cm over the net, and
67.6 6 7.9
29.6 6 7.8
11.4 6 2.8
landing 60 cm from the opposite baseline, in front of the
BH
player. Beginning at the forehand side of the court, 50 cm
from the center line, players were required to return
Carpet
a backhand down the line groundstroke, followed by the
same action (e.g., sprint + stroke) to the forehand side, under
65.5 6 8.7
27.8 6 8.1
10.8 6 2.9
86.1 6 7.0
Exercise A (submaximum)
TABLE 3. Physiological and performance demands of exercises A and B.*†
submaximum running pressure, completing 16 runs along the
FH
baseline (i.e., 15 changes of direction and a running distance
of about 130 m per repetition).
During the exercises, players were equipped with a portable
metabolic system, which allowed the measurement of V_ O2
70.6 6 9.1
30.8 6 7.0
11.9 6 2.2
85.1 6 6.7
‡Significant differences (p , 0.05) between exercises A and B.
(MetaMaxÒ II, Cortex) and HR (S610-Polar). During
BH
exercises A, B, and C, ground-stroke velocity was measured
§Significant differences (p , 0.05) between FH and BH.
using a radar gun (Stalker Professional Sports Radar,
Clay
Plymouth, MN, USA). The radar recording groundstroke
velocity was positioned on the forehand and backhand side
66.4 6 8.9
29.5 6 6.9
Energy expenditure (kcalmin21) 11.4 6 2.3
88.1 6 6.7
of the court, behind the participant, pointed at net height
FH
down the singles’ sideline. For exercises C and D, running
pressure for stroke preparation (flight time of the ball to the
hitting position minus reaction time) was individually
adjusted, following the methods of Ferrauti et al. (13), by
varying the height and speed of the balls leaving the ball
†Values are mean 6 SD.
Stroke velocity (kmh21)
machine, and corresponded to 80 and 70% of pre-exercise
maximum running speed measured during a baseline sprint
Variables
V_ O2 (mlkg21min21)
Stroke
test, respectively.
HR (bmin )
21
Statistical Analyses
%V_ O2max
%HRmax
Data are presented as mean values with SD. After testing
the sphericity by using the Mauchly test and in the case of
necessity the Greenhouse–Geisser correction, we calculated
a 2-factor analysis of variance for repeated measurements.
Differences between stroke velocity (exercises A vs. B),
VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 12 | DECEMBER 2010 | 3259
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.Demands of Tennis Training and Playing Surfaces
Figure 3. Percentage of V_ O2max (A) and HRmax (B) during exercises A (submaximal stroke velocity) and B (maximal stroke velocity). Values are represented as
mean (SD). *p , 0.05.
the TM
3260 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
TABLE 4. Physiological and performance demands of exercises C and D.*†
Exercise C Exercise D
Variables Clay Carpet Clay Carpet
HR (bmin21) 149.3 6 8.2 149.2 6 12.8 178.1 6 5.0‡ 178.0 6 8.6‡
%HRmax 69.2 6 24.5 77.0 6 6.0 82.4 6 29.0‡ 82.2 6 29.2‡
V_ O2 (mlkg21min21) 28.0 6 4.3 30.5 6 4.7 47.0 6 6.0‡ 48.2 6 6.0‡
%V_ O2max 50.2 6 7.8 54.9 6 8.4 86.6 6 12.8‡ 86.7 6 12.0‡
Energy expenditure (kcal.min21) 15.9 62 15.7 6 2.6 18.7 6 2.3‡ 19.2 6 2.4‡
Stroke velocity (kmh21) FH BH FH BH
120.0 6 10.3§ 110.4 6 6.4 122.0 6 7.0§ 112.0 6 8.5
*FH = forehand; BH = backhand; HR = heart rate; %HRmax = percentage of maximum heart rate; V_ O2 = oxygen consumption;
%V_ O2max = percentage of maximum oxygen uptake.
†Values are mean 6 SD.
‡Significant differences (p , 0.05) between exercise C and D.
§Significant differences (p , 0.05) between FH and BH.
surface (clay vs. carpet) and stroke side (Forehand vs. strokes on different surfaces (p = 0.55–0.87). However,
Backhand) and the interactions between these factors were comparing the same stroke on the same court surface, but at
calculated. In the case of significance, simple effects were different stroke velocities, we found significant differences
verified by means of a Newman–Keuls test. The significance (p , 0.05) in all the physiological measurements (e.g., HR,
level was set at p # 0.05. %HRmax; V_ O2; %V_ O2) being significantly higher during
exercise B (Figure 3).
RESULTS
Subjects’ characteristics and the results of the laboratory Exercises C and D
treadmill test are shown in Table 1. The results from the During exercise C (e.g., 8 3 2 balls; maximum running
physiological and performance (e.g., stroke velocity) data pressure), there were no statistically significant differences in all
from exercises are presented in Tables 3 and 4. the physiological measurements, on either clay or carpet
surface (p = 0.47–0.90). During exercise D (e.g., 3 3 16 balls;
Exercises A and B
submaximal running pressure), there were significant differ-
During exercise A (e.g., submaximal stroke velocity), there
ences between forehand and backhand stroke velocities, on
were no statistically significant differences between stroke
either clay (p = 0.02) or carpet (p = 0.01) surface. However, we
velocities for forehand and backhand strokes, either on clay
did not find any significant differences between the physio-
(p = 0.17) or on carpet surface (p = 0.12). Moreover, there
logical measurements, on either clay or carpet surface (p =
were no significant differences comparing strokes on clay
0.22–0.92). Comparing exercises C and D, all the variables
(p = 0.42) or carpet court (p = 0.23). During exercise B (e.g.,
analyzed (e.g., HR, %HRmax; V_ O2; %V_ O2) were significantly
maximal stroke velocity), there were statistically significant
higher (p , 0.01) during exercise D (e.g., 3 3 16 balls).
differences between forehand and backhand stroke velocities,
the forehand velocity being significantly higher (p = 0.01) on
both playing surfaces. However, we did not find significant DISCUSSION
differences (p = 0.51–0.78) comparing the same stroke (e.g., The aim of the study was to examine how the training surface
forehand, backhand) on different playing surfaces (Table 2). (i.e., clay or carpet) affects the characteristics (i.e., ball
Regarding physiological measurements, there were no velocity, running pressure, running volume, and physiological
significant differences between forehand and backhand responses) of a tennis training session. The main finding of the
strokes in all the variables measured (e.g., HR, %HRmax; study is that we did not find any significant influence of the
V_ O2; %V_ O2) in exercise A (p = 0.16 – 0.88), on either clay or court surface in any of the variables analyzed, as suggested in
carpet. During exercise B, V_ O2 (p = 0.02) and %V_ O2max (p = earlier research (19,29,30). Moreover, we found that, besides
0.02) values were significantly higher for the forehand than the footwork and the running activities in tennis, the stroke
for the backhand strokes, on clay court. There were no execution is also an important energy demanding factor. For
significant differences for the rest of the variables analyzed example, V_ O2 increases during 40 maximal forehand or
(e.g., HR, %HRmax) on either clay or carpet (p = 0.27–0.98). backhand strokes (from a standing position) up to 85% of the
Also, we did not find significant differences comparing V_ O2max.
VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 12 | DECEMBER 2010 | 3261
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.Demands of Tennis Training and Playing Surfaces
In this study, we did not find any influence of playing competitive singles tennis have reported values corresponding
surface on the stroke performance (e.g., ball velocity) during to approximately 70–80% of HRmax (12,21), with periodic
exercises A and B and also during an exercise including increases up to 100% of HRmax associated with periods of
running pressure (e.g., exercise C). Generally, stroke velocity high-intensity activity (i.e., accumulation of several long and
depends on preparation time and ball velocity after bouncing intense rallies from the baseline). Regarding V_ O2, the average
(6,26). On clay courts, the friction and coefficient of values obtained in this study ranged from 55 to 80% of
restitution are higher than on hard courts, resulting in a high V_ O2max, similar to those reported during simulated match-
and relatively moderate bouncing of the ball, which gives the play situations (9,33). It is also interesting to highlight that
player more time to prepare to hit the ball than hard surfaces individual values reached 100% of V_ O2max, suggesting that
do (7). From a biomechanical point of view, the higher and physiological parameters reported in this study mirrored the
slower ball bounce on clay entails a more difficult power aspects of both normal and maximum match-play.
production and therefore a lower ball velocity. On the other The aim of this study was to compare the effects of court
hand, the longer time needed to prepare allows a longer surface (e.g., clay and carpet) on the physiological and
acceleration movement resulting in a faster racket velocity at performance (e.g., ball velocities) responses of players during
the hitting point on clay. In comparison, on carpet, there is the training drills. As previously mentioned, we were not able
a flatter hitting point and the oncoming ball speed is higher, to find any significant difference in any of the selected variables
which allows a better power production, but the shorter analyzed in the study (Table 3; Figure 3). Although previous
movement leads to a decrease in racket acceleration (7,28). research (19,30) found different physiological responses
Overall, our data clearly point out that the differences are playing on hard (e.g., ‘‘Green-set’’) than on clay courts, this
balanced between the 2 surfaces. could be related to a different activity profile found during
Only little information is available reporting ball velocities match play based on a different tactical efficiency (e.g., playing
during a training situation in tennis players (20,28,31). We longer time on clay courts than on hard courts). However, in
reported average ball velocities ranging from approximately this study the activity profile of players (i.e., number of strokes,
86 to 120 kmh21, during submaximum and maximum duration of points) was controlled by a BM, preventing the
strokes, respectively. In this regard, Reid et al. (31) showed influence of the tactical behavior. Nevertheless, during changes
that tennis players were able to generate comparable average of direction on clay, one may expect a longer ground contact
ball speeds (e.g., from 113 to 125 kmh21) using their and a less movement efficiency coming along with a higher
forehands in all drills studied. The results from this study energetic demand (i.e., higher muscle activation during sliding
show that when the stroke execution is maximal (e.g., movements) (18,19). On the other hand, higher ground
exercise B), there are significant differences between fore- reaction forces with a higher rate of acceleration movements
hand and backhand strokes, the forehand being significantly can be expected on carpet. Therefore, the effect of the court
more powerful, on either clay (e.g., 122 vs 111 kmh21) or surface seems to be balanced in those training situations where
carpet (e.g., 120 vs 112 kmh21). One of the reasons for these the tactical impact is eliminated, obtaining overall the same
differences could be that relatively large differences in muscle results on both training surfaces.
activity have been reported between the forehand and It is also important to highlight the differences found
backhand strokes (8), being higher during the forehand between the forehand and backhand strokes during exercise
stroke and thus allowing the player to generate more power B (Table 2), on clay court. As previously mentioned (see ball
(1,3). Consequently, it seems that players are more confident velocity), there are relatively large differences in muscle
and efficient playing with their forehand stroke. This is activity between the forehand and backhand strokes (8),
supported by ball velocity data reported in exercise C, with being higher during forehand strokes. This leads not only to
the inclusion of time pressure to hit the ball, where velocity a higher power development but also to higher metabolic
was significantly higher for the forehand than for the demands (e.g., higher V_ O2 and %V_ O2max values) and energy
backhand strokes, on both clay and carpet surfaces (see Table expenditure (e.g., 18.5 and 16.8 kcalmin21, for the forehand
4). In this regard, previous research showed that forehand and backhand strokes, respectively). On the other hand, data
ground strokes were the second most frequently hit strokes obtained during exercise A (i.e., submaximal stroke velocity)
after the service during 3 Grand Slam tournaments (25). suggest a similar biomechanical efficiency during submaxi-
In this study, players attained average HR values between mal forehand and backhand strokes, represented by similar
65 and 87% of HRmax during the exercises, with individual ball velocities and also energy demands (i.e., V_ O2; energy
responses reaching values close to 100% HRmax. We are not expenditure) (Table 3).
aware of any data of comparison in training situations on Interestingly, another finding of this study is the physio-
different surfaces, as for example, Reid et al. (31) just logical responses during on-court hitting exercises, such as
compared the main and maximum HR obtained during exercises A and B, in which an increase in ball velocity, from
4 exercise drills (i.e., hard court [‘‘Rebound Ace’’]) with the submaximal to maximal during ‘‘standing’’ exercises, entails
information reported in the literature (9) and did not take into a significantly higher metabolic demand, with both %V_ O2max
account the player’s HRmax. Studies on HR responses during and %HRmax values reaching 680–90% (Figure 3). In
the TM
3262 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
accordance with previous studies (17,33), this can be related duration; intensity 70–100% of maximum) (12). Furthermore,
to the involvement of the upper-body muscles required for the results of this study suggest that when the training drills
the ball stroke, and the involvement of additional muscles are fixed and controlled in terms of activity pattern, the
(e.g., biarticulate leg (e.g., biceps femoris, rectus femorus, hip possible differences between court surfaces are balanced.
adductors) muscles very active during the stroke position)
(21,23,24). In this regard, Girard et al. (19) reported that, for
example, peak V_ O2 was higher during an intermittent racket
REFERENCES
test compared with an incremental test performed on 1. Adelsberg, S. The tennis stroke: An EMG analysis of selected
muscles with rackets of increasing grip size. Am J Sports Med
a treadmill. The authors suggested that the higher V_ O2 14: 139–142, 1986.
observed in the tennis test was because of the involvement of 2. Brown, E and O’Donoughue, P. Gender and surface effect on elite
upper-body muscles required for the simulated ball hitting tennis strategy. ITF Coach Sport Sci Rev 46: 9–12, 2008.
action. 3. Chow, JW, Carlton, LG, Lim, YT, Shim, JH, Chae, WS, and
During the last few years, there have been important Kuenster, AF. Muscle activation during the tennis volley. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 31: 846–854, 1999.
advances in training prescriptions for linear endurance events
4. Cooke, K and Davey, P. Tennis ball diameter: The effect on
or team sports (32). However, despite their huge popularity, performance and the concurrent physiological responses. J Sport Sci
very little has been developed for racket sports. In accordance 23: 31–39, 2005.
with the study of Reid et al. (31), it seems that practice drills, 5. Crespo, M and Miley, D. ITF Manual for Advanced Coaches. London,
as those suggested in this study, can be modified to United Kingdom: ITF Ltd. 1998. pp. 17–23.
incorporate both technical elements in conjunction with 6. Elliott, B. Biomechanics and tennis. Br J Sports Med 40: 392–396,
2006.
targeted physiological training stimuli. A growing body of
evidence suggests that high-intensity interval training (.85% 7. Elliott, B, Reid, M, and Crespo, M. Biomechanics of Advanced Tennis.
London, United Kingdom: ITF Ltd. 2003.
HRmax) performed using sport-specific exercises leads to
8. Escamilla, RF and Andrews, JR. Shoulder muscle recruitment
V_ O2max enhancement (5–11%), increased running economy patterns and related biomechanics during upper extremity sports.
(3–7%), and lower LA accumulation during submaximal Sports Med 39: 569–590, 2009.
exercise, and improvements in sport-specific tests, in in- 9. Fernandez, J, Fernandez-Garcia, B, Mendez-Villanueva, A, and
termittent sports (i.e., soccer, rugby) (22,34). Moreover, this Terrados, N. Exercise intensity in tennis: Simulated match play
versus training drills. Med Sci Tennis 10: 6–7, 2005.
low-volume, high-intensity interval training may represent
10. Fernandez-Fernandez, J, Mendez-Villanueva, A, Fernandez-Garcia, B,
a time-efficient strategy to induce adaptations normally and Terrados, N. Match activity and physiological responses
associated with endurance training (i.e., high training during a junior female singles tennis tournament. Br J Sports Med
volume) (15,22), hence the potential value of, for example, 41: 711–716, 2007.
exercise D (e.g., 8 3 16 balls). 11. Fernandez-Fernandez, J, Sanz-Rivas, D, Fernandez-Garcia, B, and
Mendez-Villanueva, A. Match activity and physiological load during
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS a clay-court tennis tournament in elite female players. J Sport Sci
26: 1589–1595, 2008.
Tennis players devote a great amount of time to improve their 12. Fernandez-Fernandez, J, Sanz-Rivas, D, and Mendez-Villanueva, A.
tennis skills throughout the use of on-court drills, such as Review of the activity profile and physiological demands of tennis
those presented in our study. The findings demonstrate that match play. Strength Cond J 31: 15–26, 2009.
physiological responses of the exercises presented here were 13. Ferrauti, A, Bergeron, MF, Pluim, BM, and Weber, K. Physiological
responses in tennis and running with similar oxygen uptake. Eur J
comparable to normal or maximum tennis match-play Appl Physiol 85: 27–33, 2001.
demands. Therefore, it seems that, to produce adaptations 14. Ferrauti, A, Weber, K, and Wright, PR. Endurance: Basic, semi-
to the cardio respiratory system, particularly in individuals specific and specific. In: Strength and Conditioning for Tennis. Reid, M,
with a low level of physical aerobic condition, a high Quinn, A, and Crespo, M, eds. London, United Kingdom: ITF Ltd,
2003. pp. 93–111.
percentage of on-court training loads should include re-
15. Gibala, MJ and McGee, SL. Metabolic adaptations to short-term
petitive displacements (with stroke) of high intensity (80–90% high-intensity interval training: A little pain for a lot of gain? Exerc
V_ O2max; 90–95% HRmax). Also, we found that the stroke Sport Sci Rev 36: 58–63, 2008.
production is an important energetic demanding factor 16. Girard, O, Chevalier, R, Habrard, M, Sciberras, P, Hot, P, and Millet, GP.
during training drills, and it should be taken into account to Game analysis and energy requirements of elite squash. J Strength
Cond Res 21: 909–914, 2007.
quantify individual workloads of players and to separate
17. Girard, O, Chevalier, R, Leveque, F, Micallef, JP, and Millet, GP.
training goals. In this regard, if the aim of training is to focus
Specific incremental field test for aerobic fitness in tennis. Br J Sports
on stroke velocity we should decrease the running demands. Med 40: 791–796, 2006.
On the other hand, specific on-court movements, preferably 18. Girard, O, Eicher, F, Fourchet, F, Micallef, JP, and Millet, GP. Effects
without the racket and stroke, are preferred to ensure the of the playing surface on plantar pressures and potential injuries in
attainment of maximal running intensities and that the local tennis. Br J Sports Med 41: 733–738, 2007.
muscle adaptations can be fully transferred to actual match 19. Girard, O and Millet, GP. Effects of the ground surface on the
physiological and technical responses in young tennis players. In:
play (i.e., for LA production training: 2–10 sets of drills Reilly, T, Hughes, M, and Lees, A, eds. Science and Racket Sports III.
between 15 and 50 seconds; rest time: 3–5 times exercise London, United Kingdom: E & F N Spon, 2004. pp. 43–48.
VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 12 | DECEMBER 2010 | 3263
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.Demands of Tennis Training and Playing Surfaces
20. Haake, SJ, Carre, MJ, and Goodwill, SR. The dynamic impact ratings of perceived exertion during a professional singles tennis
characteristics of tennis balls with tennis rackets. J Sports Sci tournament. Br J Sports Med 41: 296–300, 2007.
21:839–850, 2003. 28. Miller, S. Modern tennis rackets, balls, and surfaces. Br J Sports Med
21. Hornery, D, Farrow, D, Mujika, I, and Young, W. An integrated 40: 401–405, 2006.
physiological and performance profile of professional tennis. Br J 29. Morante, S and Brotherhood, J. Match characteristics of professional
Sports Med 41: 531–536, 2007. singles tennis. Med Sci Tennis 10: 12–13, 2006.
22. Iaia, FM, Rampinini, E, and Bangsbo, J. High-intensity training in 30. Murias, JM, Lanatta, D, Arcuri, CR, and Laino, FA. Metabolic and
football. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 4: 291–306, 2009. functional responses playing tennis on different surfaces. J Strength
23. Jacobs, R, Bobbert, ME, and Van Ingen Schenau, GJ. Function of Cond Res 21: 112–117, 2007.
mono- and bi-articular muscles in running. Med Sci Sports Exerc 25: 31. Reid, M, Duffield, R, Dawson, B, Baker, J, and Crespo, M.
1163–1173, 1993. Quantification of the physiological and performance characteristics
24. Jacobs, R, Bobbert, MF, and Van Ingen Schenau, GJ. Mechanical of on-court tennis drills. Br J Sports Med 42: 146–151, 2008.
output from individual muscles during explosive leg extensions: the 32. Reilly, T, Morris, T, and Whyte, G. The specificity of training
role of biarticular muscles. J Biomech 29: 513–523, 1996. prescription and physiological assessment: A review. J Sports Sci
25. Johnson, CD and McHugh, MP. Performance demands of pro- 27: 575–589, 2009.
fessional tennis players. Br J Sports Med 40: 696–699, 2006. 33. Smekal, G, Von Duvillard, SP, Rihacek, C, Pokan, R, Hofmann, R,
26. Knudson, D. Qualitative biomechanical principles for application in Baron, R, Tschan, H, and Bachl, R. A physiological profile of tennis
coaching. Sports Biomech 6: 109–118, 2007. match play. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33: 999–1005, 2001.
27. Mendez-Villanueva, A, Fernandez-Fernandez, J, Fernandez-Garcia, B, 34. Stone, NM and Kilding, AE. Aerobic conditioning for team sport
and Terrados, N. Activity patterns, blood lactate concentrations and athletes. Sports Med 39: 615–642, 2009.
the TM
3264 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.You can also read
