🎾 1555 - 0273 - Article - P1159¶
Giới Thiệu¶
1555 - 0273 - Article - P1159 — tài liệu 11 trang từ thư viện sách tennis.
Chủ đề chính: Chuỗi động lực, Giao bóng
Tóm tắt nội dung (trích từ tài liệu gốc): International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2022, 17, 1159-1169 BRIEF REVIEW https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2022-0091 � 2022 Human Kinetics, Inc. Determinant Physical Factors of Tennis Serve Velocity: A Brief Review Joshua Colomar,1,2,3 Francisco Corbi,4 Quim Brich,1 and Ernest Baiget1 1National Institute of Physical Education of Catalonia (INEFC), University of Barcelona (UB), Barcelona, Spain; 2Sport and Physical Activity Studies Center (CEEAF), University of Vic--Central University of Catalonia, Vic, Spain; 3Sport Performance Analysis Research Group (SPARG), University of Vic
Lưu ý: Nội dung dưới đây được trích xuất tự động từ PDF gốc tiếng Anh, giữ nguyên ngôn ngữ để bảo toàn độ chính xác kỹ thuật.
Nội Dung Gốc (Tiếng Anh)¶
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2022, 17, 1159-1169 BRIEF REVIEW
https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2022-0091
� 2022 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Determinant Physical Factors of Tennis
Serve Velocity: A Brief Review
Joshua Colomar,1,2,3 Francisco Corbi,4 Quim Brich,1 and Ernest Baiget1
1National Institute of Physical Education of Catalonia (INEFC), University of Barcelona (UB), Barcelona, Spain; 2Sport and Physical Activity Studies Center (CEEAF),
University of Vic--Central University of Catalonia, Vic, Spain; 3Sport Performance Analysis Research Group (SPARG), University of Vic--Central University of
Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain; 4National Institute of Physical Education of Catalonia (INEFC), University of Lleida (UdL), Lleida, Spain
Purpose: To review the main physical aspects that could positively or negatively influence serve velocity (SV). Methods: An
examination of existing literature including studies analyzing positive (biomechanical aspects, anthropometrics, range of
motion, strength, and power) and negative (competition-induced fatigue) associations to SV are summarized in this review.
Results: Aspects such as lower-leg drive, hip and trunk rotations, upper-arm extension, and internal rotation seem to be the
major contributors to racquet and ball speed. Favorable anthropometric characteristics, such as body height, arm length, and a
greater lean body mass, seem to positively influence SV. Also, strength indicators such as maximal isometric strength and
rate of force development in specific joint positions involved in the kinetic chain alongside upper-body power seem to be
related to faster serves. On the other hand, the effects of prolonged or repetitive match play may impair the aforementioned
factors and negatively influence SV. Conclusions: Following specific serving models that seem to enhance velocity
production and efficient motion is highly recommended. Moreover, achieving a higher impact point, alongside shifting body
composition toward a greater lean body mass, will most likely aid toward faster serves. Programs aiming at improving
maximal isometric strength and rate of force development in specific positions involved in the kinetic chain including stretch-
shortening cycle predominance and the mimicking of the serve motion seem of great interest to potentially increase SV.
Effective recovery and monitoring of these variables appear to be essential to avoid impairments produced by continued or
repetitive competition loads.
Keywords: strength, fatigue, biomechanics, anthropometrics
One of the most important actions in modern tennis is the motions.3 Several studies have aimed at identifying the main
serve.1�3 It is one of the most repeated strokes during the game, biomechanical aspects an effective serve should include, although
and it directly influences the outcome of points.4 The effectiveness of depending on the model followed and the particular phase of the
this action is determined by several factors such as its speed, impact action (ie, loading, cocking and impact),3 the necessities required
angle, spin, direction, and precision.3,5 In this sense, serve velocity toward generating faster serves may vary. Yet, it seems clear that
(SV) has been identified as one of the most determinant factors lower leg drive, hip and trunk rotations, and upper arm extension
influencing performance in both men and women's tennis alongside and internal rotations are the major contributors to racquet and ball
junior competitors.1,2,6,7 Consequently, SV has boosted in the pro- speed.11�13
fessional tour together with an increase in aces and a decrease in
double faults.8 Concurrently, the existence of sophisticated measure- Besides technical indications, certain anthropometric character-
ment systems based on high-speed cameras and laser scanners such as istics have been found to have a positive relation to SV, making these
Foxtenn5 or Hawk-Eye,8 and the relative ease of application radar important factors to consider. The strength of correlations found
guns makes data analysis highly accessible. Therefore, knowledge varies across sexes and playing levels; although, results seem to
around mechanisms affecting the capacity of a player to apply speed indicate the importance of obtaining higher peripheral racket veloc-
to the ball is of great interest for tennis players and professionals in ity at ball impact, which could be increased with greater body height
terms of developing training programs that improve the action and (BH) or arm length (AL).5,14�16 Similarly, body mass (BM) seems to
develop strategies to avoid decrements in performance. influence SV as the principle of force (mass � acceleration) and
torque production directly affect a player's velocity production
The necessary coordination throughout the entire kinetic chain capacity.7,17 This positive relation is more evident when analyzing
makes this action a complex motor skill.9 The summation of forces the fastest serves registered in matches.5 Monitoring of these
in an optimal time and space during this movement sequence characteristics seems relevant for a close control on growth and
increases the velocity of the different body segments involved maturational status. In addition, the possibility of affecting body
in the motion, and ultimately is transferred to the ball.2,3 If any of composition with appropriate training methods makes a review on
the links in the chain are not synchronized in an effective way, the how anthropometric traits affect SV of great interest.
result will not be optimal.10 From a technical perspective, serving
appears to require a certain execution to achieve not only improved Physical capacities and neuromuscular performance variables
speed, but also reduced injury risk based on less aggressive have also been studied in relation to their influence on SV. Maximal
dynamic strength18�20 and maximal isometric strength (MIS),7,15,21,22
Colomar (joshua.colomar@uvic.cat) is corresponding author, https://orcid.org/ rate of force development (RFD), impulse (IMP),15,22 range of motion
0000-0002-7686-6594 (ROM),23,24 muscle contractile properties,18 functional measurements
of power such as medicine ball throws (MBT), or jumping
1159
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/12/22 11:16 PM UTC
1160 Colomar et al
capacity7,25 have previously been in some way related to higher or stages. In this line, arm pronation is responsible for racquet
lower SV. Nevertheless, although the influence of these traits seems orientation while elbow extension has a high influence on impact
clear, the importance and impact of these variables on SV varies height, which is an added contributor to head racquet speed.12,31 In
across sexes and playing levels due to interactions with other addition, authors have recognized rotation and side positioning of
parameters present in the complex serve motion such as biomechan- the trunk as an enabler of generating extra rotation in the horizontal
ics and technique. Thus, knowledge around specific physical indi- plane to increase available space and energy storage to transfer to
cators and how these may vary when assessing different participants the consequent acceleration phase.12,31 Also, investigations indi-
seems important for tennis practitioners. In consequence, identifying cate the significance of lower limb and pelvic push as the starting
those parameters that better predict a faster serve in different popula- point of the kinetic chain.12,32,33 Although a greater upward vertical
tions will be reviewed. drive of the dominant shoulder is associated to a greater SV, this is
highly influenced by the drive generated from the hips and lower
Moreover, impairments in these key factors seem to appear limbs. Specifically, peak vertical velocity of the hips, alongside an
following match play or certain training loads. Previous research increased drive of the back leg leads to consider extension moments
has mainly focused on competition simulation or data analysis in the legs and internal rotations in the hip as essential toward
following official events. Although it seems clear that tennis play increasing SV.12,13,32
has the potential to affect key performance factors,26�30 how overall
match play loads, volume, intensity of play, calendar, or traveling Because the serve is a skill with several phases, the ideal
may influence these characteristics could be of further interest. biomechanical layout for faster serves depends on which specific
stage of the stroke is being examined. Kovacs and Ellenbecker3
Thus, the goal of this investigation was to determine and define suggested the use of a multistage analysis of the serve involving 8
the physical factors affecting SV both positively, and negatively, stages. Depending on the phase, biomechanical demands vary.
and to approach existing differences regarding sex, level, and age. Those phases responsible for velocity build-up seem to be the
For this review, search terms included "Tennis Serve," "Serve loading, cocking, acceleration, and impact phases. During the
Speed or Velocity" and "Anthropometry," "Biomechanics," loading phase, kinematics mainly refers to lower body positions
"Physical," "Strength," "Power," "Match," "Competition," and in which the authors identify 2 main techniques (ie, the footback
"Training." Studies reviewed included those that examined possi- and the foot-up), depending on distance between feet.3 Although
ble links between physical determinants and SV alongside inves- the foot-up seems to generate greater vertical forces, which would
tigations that registered changes in SV before, and after, training be interesting to transfer throughout the kinetic chain, no ball
sessions or competitive matches. Criteria regarding participants velocity differences are observed between these 2 techniques. The
included players considered as "elite" (belonging to ATP or WTA footback style provides greater upward and forward leg drive while
rankings above 1000 at the time of the study), "competition" the foot-up provides a stable axis of rotation on which players rely
(players over 18 y of age participating in competitive events to generate momentum.3 Also, during the loading phase, the
without a ranking above 1000 and collegiate players), and "junior" importance of shoulder and pelvis lateral tilt has been identified,
(players under 18 y old participating in both international and as this specific alignment facilitates the development of angular
national/regional events). Studies performed with players consid- momentum through lateral trunk flexion during forward swing.3
ered as "amateur" or "recreational" were not considered. We The cocking phase is known for the importance of driving the
hypothesized that SV would be a multifactorial capacity influenced racquet down and behind the torso allowing greater storage of
by biomechanical and ROM abilities (leg drive, hip, trunk, and elastic energy and an increased path before impact. Maximal
shoulder rotations), anthropometrics (BH and mass), and strength shoulder external rotation is reached and a close parallel position
(applying force in short time frames). In addition, high volume of between racquet and trunk seems important. Accelerating the
match play would impair the mentioned variables and decrease racquet from this position until impact is known as the acceleration
performance. phase. A rapid rotation force occurs from the lumbar spine and
forceful concentric internal rotation movements oversee generating
Biomechanics and Movement Competency velocity. Trunk rotation, elbow extension, shoulder internal rota-
tion, and hand flexion are the main contributors to momentum in
As a complex motor skill, an efficient serve (ie, accurate, fast, and this phase.11,12,31,34,35 During contact, the best kinematic models
nonaggressive to musculoskeletal health) requires the development indicate that the shoulder should be slightly abducted and the
of certain technical parameters. Previous investigations have aimed elbow, wrist, and lead knee somewhat flexed (24� [14�]).11 It is
at identifying those main biomechanical aspects toward this suggested that optimal impact point should happen at 110� angle of
goal.3,11,12 As a key starting point, an increased speed of the elevation between the upper arm and trunk.3 Following the impact
head of the racquet and posterior transfer to the ball is the main phase, during the deceleration of the movement, all the mentioned
aspect players should achieve.12 The height of impact and the structures bear a great level of eccentric forces towards decelerating
amount of momentum and forward rotation applied to the ball seem the motion. Nevertheless, as no velocity is being generated from
the principal contributors toward increasing the head of the rac- this phase onward, training programs should focus on providing the
quet's speed.31 Thus, the influence of angular velocity vectors of player effective tools to manage deceleration.3
the upper arm, forearm, and hand in generating this speed seems
essential. Specifically, hand and upper arm flexion, trunk rotation, In short, depending on the serving model followed and the
and abduction alongside the internal rotation of the shoulder are of specific phase of the motion, certain biomechanical and technical
paramount importance to produce fast racquet head speeds.31 This needs are present toward generating faster serves; however, it
internal rotation gesture has been recognized as the major contrib- seems clear that literature establishes knee extension and lower
utor to speed as it is responsible for accelerating the upper arm and leg drive, hip and trunk rotation and elbow extension, shoulder
building up angular velocity in the swing to impact. Yet, this internal rotation, and hand/wrist flexion as the major contributors to
explains the moment of impact in the upper arm, while the serve is a angular momentum toward transferring speed to the head of the
multifaceted motor skill involving several body structures and racquet and to the ball. These motions and body positions seem to
IJSPP Vol. 17, No. 8, 2022
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/12/22 11:16 PM UTC
Determinant Factors of Serve Velocity 1161
be the most correlated to successful fast serves and performed by Hayes et al,15 and Baiget et al5 found important relationships
those players capable to apply speed to the ball effectively.11 between BM and SV. Also, Fett et al7 and Wong et al17 found
Therefore, coaches are encouraged to include these indications positive correlations between BMI and SV, while no significant
in development programs. relations between this variable and SV were found in elite players
in either the first or the second serve in Baiget et al.5 In terms of an
Anthropometric Characteristics athlete's capacity of being able to produce strength levels, and
following allometric theory,17 an increment in BM in accordance
The height of the impact location of the ball during the serve and with BH is traduced into an increment in torque production.
the BH of the player seem to be the most important factors affecting Consequently, greater BM or BMI may assist in the capacity of
the capacity to produce high-velocity serves16 (Table 1). Biome- producing faster strokes and increasing SV, always considering
chanically, hitting the ball in a higher spot increases the available that an increment in these variables without a close control on lean
space toward the opponent's serve box. Because of this, hitting the mass and fat ratios could negatively affect agility and change of
ball in higher locations allows the player to offer a more optimal direction speed.5 Contrary to BH, BM has shown strong relations to
trajectory and achieve a higher SV.16 Literature has identified BH, SV in female participants,7,23 In this line, and considering the
AL, and jumping height as the main conditioning factors affecting advantages of producing greater strength levels, it seems tennis
the height of ball impact7,16,25 and therefore are highly related to the demands of female competition (ie, lower stroke frequency)37
capacity of a player to serve faster. BH, besides being a key factor would tolerate profiles to shift toward players with a tendency
allowing to achieve higher ball impact points,7,36 has previously to endomorph body types. Male competitors on the other hand may
been identified as the anthropometric characteristic that mostly rely more thoroughly on BH and other physical factors influencing
affects SV in male participants.5,7,30 Nevertheless, many investiga- SV.7,15 A factor to consider is that BM and BMI are modifiable
tions have mentioned the positive relationship between BH and parameters from training,19,20 and it is suggested that the optimi-
first5,7,14�16,24 and second14,16 serves in both, male and female zation of programs could have positive effects on performance,
competitors. These studies show that the submaximal nature of always considering the detrimental effect on speed and agility a
the second serve and prioritizing control over attaining a greater SV nonoptimal program of these characteristics could have.
makes this stroke have a lower relation with BH than the first
serve.16 In fact, Baiget et al5 found that BH did not correlate Strength, Power, and ROM
significantly with SV in the second serve in male elite players.5
Besides this, the length of the racquet arm complex has proven to Beyond the importance of anthropometric parameters in achieving
have an influence on impact point height and therefore SV.7,15 Fett greater SV, knowledge around strength factors affecting this stroke
et al7 found considerable positive correlations between AL and SV has also received thorough attention in literature. Studies have
in all groups of ages included in their study. In this case, longer established different strength aspects as determinants of SV
limbs would not only increase the point of impact but would give (Table 2). Initially, maximal dynamic strength needs during strokes
the opportunity to the player to transfer a greater tangential and seem to be low,20 as the weight of the implement (ie, racquet)
achieve greater SV.7,14,15 ranges from 200 to 400 g and in this line, studies assessing maximal
dynamic strength via bench press or overhead press have not found
Further anthropometric characteristics such as BM and BM strong associations between this variable and SV.16 Because of this,
index (BMI) have also been studied in relation to SV and have investigations have typically aimed at analyzing MIS values at
found certain correlation between these parameters. Fett et al,7
Table 1 Anthropometric Characteristics Related to SV
Reference Description and goals Gender n Age Level Variables tested Correlation
Vaverka and Determine the association M 78� -- Elite BH, cm: 185.0 (7.0) SF: r = .52 (.06)
Cernosek16 between BH and SV in 84 S1: r = .55 (.07)
elite players during Grand S2: r = .37 (.11)
Slams
F 70� -- BH, cm: 173.0 (7.0) SF: r = .52 (.06)
S1: r = .52 (.03)
78
S2: r = .35 (.08)
Bonato Investigate the relationship M 8 23.1 (3.9) Elite BH, cm: 181.8 (4.1) r first serve = .78*
et al14
between anthropometric r second serve = ,80*
S�gut40
Palmer and functional parameters BM, kg: 79.7 (4.3) r first serve = -0.22
et al24
and SV in professional
players r second
serve = -0.15
Determine possible rela- M 16 13.81 (1.11) Junior BH, cm: 163.3 (11.42) r = .69
tions between SV and BH. F 17 13.35 (1.37) BH, cm: 159.5 (0.08) r = .49
To explore the relation M 42 23.9 (5.82) Competition BH, cm: 180.2 (7.23) r = .46**
between BH, ROM,
strength, motor control,
and power and SV
(continued)
IJSPP Vol. 17, No. 8, 2022
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/12/22 11:16 PM UTC
Table 1 (continued)
Reference Description and goals Gender n Age Level Variables tested Correlation
16.5 (2.0) Elite
Hayes et al15 Determine if a relationship M 12 BM, kg: 66.5 (10.6) r = .68*
BMI, kg/m2: 21.22 (1.5) r = .31
exists between anthropo- BH, cm: 178.2 (9.9) r = .80**
BM, kg: 63.9 (6.5) r = .68*
metric measures and SV in BMI, kg/m2: 22 (1.3) r = .31
BH, cm: 170.3 (4.6) r = .80**
elite junior tennis players BM, kg: 38.8 (5.8) r = .47**
BH, cm: 149.9 (7.7) r = .40**
F 9 16.0 (2.2) BMI, kg/m2: 17.2 (1.4) r = .36**
BM, kg: 47.3 (7.9) r = .55**
Fett et al7 Determine the impact of M 124 U12: 11.3 (0.4) Junior BH, cm: 160.7 (8.3) r = .52**
anthropometric character- (n = 625) 248 U14: 12.9 (0.5) Junior BMI, kg/m2: 18.2 (1.7) r = .38**
istics on SV in elite junior BM, kg: 61.4 (8.7) r = .57**
tennis players BH, cm: 174.9 (7.5) r = .51**
BMI, kg/m2: 20.0 (1.8) r = .40**
156 U16: 14.9 (0.5) Junior BM, kg: 72.6 (7.0) r = .44**
BH, cm: 181.9 (5.8) r = .31**
97 U18: 16.8 (0.5) Junior BMI, kg/m2: 21.9 (1.5) r = .32**
BM, kg: 38.7 (6.4) r = .38**
F (n = 394) 78 U12: 11.4 (0.3) Junior BH, cm: 150.0 (6.4) r = .26
BMI, kg/m2: 17.1 (1.9) r = .36**
171 U14: 12.9 (0.5) Junior BM, kg: 49.0 (7.3) r = .39**
BH, cm: 160.9 (7.2) r = .34**
90 U16: 14.8 (0.5) Junior BMI, kg/m2: 18.9 (1.8) r = .28**
BM, kg: 58.2 (6.3) r = .39**
55 U18: 16.7 (0.5) Junior BH, cm: 167.6 (6.2) r = .38**
BMI, kg/m2: 20.7 (1.8) r = .17*
S�gut41 Determine various anthro- F 12 16.4 (1.1) Junior BM, kg: 63.5 (6.3) r = .35**
BH, cm: 171.5 (6.6) r = .32*
BMI, kg/m2: 21.6 (1.8) r = .12
169.6 (5.8) r = .331*
pometric and functional
attributes and their rela-
tionship with SV
Fernandez- Establish the relation M 32 U13: 12.6 (0.2) Junior BH, cm: 154.9 (7.0) r = .549*
BM, kg: 43.5 (6.8) r = .625*
Fernandez between physical and BH, cm: 169.0 (5.7) r = .594*
BM, kg: 58.4 (7.3) r = .600*
et al23 anthropometric variables 36 U15: 14.6 (0.3) Junior BH, cm: 159.8 (7.0) r = .369
BM, kg: 49.1 (7.3) r = .489*
and SV BH, cm:166.3 (5.7) r = .319
BM, kg: 56.8 (5.4) r = .066
F 32 U13: 12.6 (0.3) Junior BH, cm:186.9 (7.4) r first serve = .503*
r second serve = .486*
28 U15: 14.6 (0.3) Junior BM, kg: 81.6 (7.1) r first serve = .593*
r second serve = .466*
Baiget et al5 To analyze the associations M 21 26.4 (5.4) Elite BMI, kg/m2: 23.4 (1.1) r first serve = .263
r second serve = .125
between SV and anthro-
pometric, ball impact and
landing location parame-
ters in total and fastest
serves in professional ten-
nis players during an ATP
Tour event
Abbreviations: ATP, Association of Tennis Professionals; BH, body height; BM, body mass; BMI, body mass index; F, female; M, male; ROM, range of motion; S1,
average first SV; S2, average second SV; SF, fastest serve in a match; SV, serve velocity; U12, under 12; U14, under 14; U16, under 16; U18, under 18. Note: Values are
presented as mean (SD).
*P < .05. **P < .01.
1162 IJSPP Vol. 17, No. 8, 2022
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/12/22 11:16 PM UTC
Table 2 Strength, Power, and ROM Variables Related to SV Performance
Reference Description and goals Gender n Age Level Variables tested Correlation
(r)
Cohen et al38 Determine the relation M 40 33.7 (7.1) Competition Elbow extension torque .474**
Dominant wrist flexion ROM .338*
between strength variables, Shoulder internal rotation ROM .324*
361*
ROM, and SV in compe- 60� shoulder internal rotation
eccentric contraction
tition players
60� shoulder internal rotation .372*
concentric contraction .310*
.335*
180� shoulder internal rotation
eccentric contraction
180� shoulder internal rotation
concentric contraction
Pugh et al39 Study the relation between M 15 20.8 (2.0) Competition Knee extension strength .36
lower body, shoulder, and Shoulder internal rotation .29
grip strength and SV in
college players strength
Grip strength .41
Signorile et al6 Examine the correlations M (n = 23) 33 14.97 (1.36) Junior Diagonal throwing peak torque .69**
Wong et al17 between isokinetic peak and F 12 20.5 (3.8) Elite
torque and SV (n = 10) Knee ROM during phases I and II .705*
of the serve .751**
Investigate the effects of M .657*
kinematics on SV in elite Knee extension velocity during .616*
players phase II of the serve
Peak hip extension speed during
phase II of the serve
Shoulder ROM during phase III
of the serve
Baiget et al21 Investigate the relation M 12 17.2 (1.0) Junior Peak elbow extension velocity .708**
during phase II of the serve
between maximal isomet- .67*
Shoulder internal rotation maxi-
ric strength and SV in mum isometric strength .76*
competition players Shoulder internal rotation � .87**
shoulder flexion maximum iso- .77**
Hayes et al.15 Determine if there is a M (n = 12) 21 M: 16.5 (2) Junior metric strength .71**
.58**
relation between IMTP, and F (n = 9) F: 16.0 (2.2) IMTP peak strength .64**
.63**
CMJ, BH, shoulder inter- CMJ height
nal and external rotation IMP at 300 ms
strength and SV in elite IMP at 200 ms
adolescent players IMP at 100 ms
90� Shoulder internal rotation
<90� Shoulder external rotation .63**
.71*
Dossena Investigate the relationship M 8 20 (3) Competition Maximal jumping height during
et al25 .71*
between jumping capacity first serve
.39**
and SV in professional Maximal jumping height during .36*
second serve .31*
tennis players .30*
Palmer et al24 Determine if upper and M 42 23.9 (5.82) Elite Hip external rotation ROM
lower body power vari- Single leg hop (ipsilateral)
ables are predictive of SV Single leg hop (contralateral)
in elite players
Dominant arm seated shot put
throw
Eriksrud Determine the relationship M 12 28.3 (10.3) Competition CMJ .715**
et al40 Dominant arm vertical press .650*
between power, strength, Bilateral arm overhead anterior .643*
push
and dynamic balance and
SV in competition players
(continued)
IJSPP Vol. 17, No. 8, 2022 1163
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/12/22 11:16 PM UTC
Table 2 (continued)
Reference Description and goals Gender n Age Level Variables tested Correlation
Fett et al7 Junior (r)
Determine the relationship M (n = 625) 124 U12: 11.3 Grip strength
between strength and (0.4) MBO .43**
power variables and SV in MBF .55**
elite junior players MBB .49**
Grip strength .55*
248 U14: 12.9 Junior MBO .59**
(0.5) MBF .52**
MBB .63**
156 U16: 14.9 Junior Grip strength .58**
(0.5) MBO .59**
MBF .60**
97 U18: 16.8 Junior MBB .58**
(0.5) Grip strength .60**
MBO .57**
F (n = 394) 78 U12: 11.4 Junior MBF .52**
(0.3) MBB .55**
Grip strength .51**
171 U14: 12.9 Junior MBO .37**
(0.5) MBF .20*
MBB .29*
90 U16: 14.8 Junior Grip strength .21
(0.5) MBO .36**
MBF .39**
55 U18: 16.7 Junior MBB .56**
(0.5) Grip strength .50**
MBO .34**
Fernandez- Analyze the functional M 32 U13: 12.6 Junior MBF .54**
(0.2) MBB .59**
Fernandez profile of the shoulder and Grip strength .60**
36 U15: 14.6 Junior MBO .27*
et al23 establish relations between (0.3) MBF .48**
MBB .51**
the tested variables and SV 32 U13: 12.6 Junior MBO .38*
(0.3) MBF .557
F MBB .638*
28 U15: 14.6 Junior MBO .442*
Colomar Study the influence of M (0.3) MBF .418*
MBB .582*
21 17.0 (0.8) Junior MBO .532*
MBF .433*
et al18 strength, power, and mus- MBB .295
MBO .307
cle stiffness on SV in MBF .202
MBB .413*
Gastrocnemius stiffness .098
Infraspinatus stiffness .45*
.42*
junior tennis players
(continued)
1164 IJSPP Vol. 17, No. 8, 2022
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/12/22 11:16 PM UTC
Determinant Factors of Serve Velocity 1165
Table 2 (continued)
Reference Description and goals Gender n Age Level Variables tested Correlation
(r)
Baiget et al22 To analyze the associations M (n = 12) 17 16.8 (1.1) Junior IF 30 ms .01�.49
between SV and various and F (n = 5) .54*
single-joint upper limb WF IF 50 ms
isometric force time .49�.56*
parameters (IF, RFD, and WE, WF, SHF IF 90 ms .52�.58*
IMP) .5�.67**
WE, WF, SHF, SHIR IF 100 ms .51�.7**
WE, WF, SHF, SHIR IF 150 ms .54�.72**
WE, EE, SHE, WF, SHF, SHIR .54�.7**
IF 200 ms .66**
WE, EE, SHE, WF, SHF, SHIR .52�.69**
IF 250 ms .5�.69**
Peak IF .49�.69**
WE, RFD 0�30 ms
WE, SHE, SHIR RFD 0�50 ms .5�.7**
WE, SHE, SHF, SHIR RFD 0�
90 ms .58�.69**
WE, EE, SHE, SHF, SHIR RFD .5�.71**
0�100 ms
WE, EE, SHE, WF, SHF, SHIR .04�.48
RFD 0�150 ms .5*
WE, EE, SHE, WF, SHF, SHIR .58*
RFD 0�200 ms .59*
WE, EE, SHE, WF, SHF, SHER,
SHIR RFD 0�250 ms .52�.64**
IMP 30 ms
.5�.66**
WF IMP 50 ms
.52�.66**
WF IMP 90 ms
WF IMP 100 ms
WE, SHE, WF, SHF, SHIR IMP
150 ms
WE, EE, SHE, WF, SHF, SHIR
IMP 200 ms
WE, EE, SHE, WF, SHF, SHIR
IMP 250 ms
Abbreviations: CMJ, countermovement jump; EE, elbow extension; F, female; IMP, impulse; IMTP, isometric midthigh pull; M, male; MBT, medicine ball throw; MBB,
MBT backhand; MBF, MBT forehand; MBO, MBT overhead; RFD, rate of force development; ROM, range of motion; SHE, shoulder extension; SHF, shoulder flexion;
SHER, shoulder external rotation; SHIR, shoulder internal rotation; SV, serve velocity; U12, under 12; U14, under 14; U16, under 16; U18, under 18. Note: Values are
presented as mean (SD).
*P < .05. **P < .01.
specific joint angles observed throughout the kinetic chain, involv- Authors conclude that the ability to produce force rapidly (RFD)
ing upper and lower body structures. Most of these studies con- and the accumulation of force over a given period (IMP), especially in
cluded that the main contributor to a greater SV is shoulder internal rotational movements, seem to be more determinant than MIS to
rotation,31,38 although positive relations were found between MIS generate high-velocity serves. As the authors point out, although the
and SV in most arm positions tested involved in the serve kinetic early phases (<250 ms) of RFD in the shoulder internal rotation
chain,15,21,22 being the wrist flexion, extension, and shoulder account for roughly 50% of SV variability, the multiple regression
flexion the movements with stronger associations. Notwithstand- analysis showed other shoulder positions (ie, shoulder and wrist
ing, Baiget et al21 considered these positive correlations present in flexion) and MIS as important contributors to faster serves. Therefore,
specific positions and involving MIS of few muscle groups would while all mentioned aspects seem important contributors to velocity
not be a strong predictor of SV by themselves but only accounted production, the combination and interaction of these variables, along-
for one piece of the puzzle. In this line, authors perform a multiple side anthropometric characteristics and technical capabilities seem to
regression analysis indicating a 55% of SV variability could be determine the capacity of a player to produce fast serves.
explained by the combination of shoulder internal rotation and
shoulder flexion MIS. Added to this, besides the combination of As greater upper body strength and power levels seem to
different joint positions and movements involved in the serve, positively influence SV, the role of lower body values is not as
certain strength levels regarding RFD and IMP may also positively clear. The elevation the body experiences with respect to the floor
influence SV. Baiget et al22 investigated the influence of RFD at when extending ankles, knees, and hips affects the height of the ball
different time intervals (ie, 0�250 ms) alongside IMP on SV. impact spot.3,25 Following this idea, it could be considered benefi-
cial to have greater strength and power levels in the lower body that
IJSPP Vol. 17, No. 8, 2022
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/12/22 11:16 PM UTC
1166 Colomar et al
could derive into higher impact points and therefore increase SV. In positive associations with SV,17,24,38 establishing the ability to achieve
any case, the low relationship between SV and countermovement necessary movement degrees as relevant to improve this variable. In
jump assessments, or leg extension maximal isometric contrac- this line, coaches are encouraged to guarantee high levels of ROM in
tions18,21,25 indicates that the influence of this variable may be the mentioned joints toward performance increases.
relatively low. Authors emphasize the differences between both
motions and suggest the introduction and use of more specific Factors Negatively Affecting SV
jumping tests that include both upper and lower body (ie, sergeant
jump). Literature seems to agree to grant the lower body a The previously discussed physical parameters positively related to
coordinating role in the serve motion, most likely linked to greater SV may be altered by tennis match play. As these variables
coordination and technique rather than affecting SV by themselves. are directly linked to the multifactorial nature of the tennis serve,
However, some studies have found a positive effect of lower body fatigue is considered as a triggering aspect negatively influencing
strength and power parameters and SV, showing knee extension SV. Metabolic exhaustion, muscle impairment, soreness, and
velocity,17 knee extension strength,39 isometric mid-thigh pull functionality are directly related to a descent in muscular strength29
test,15 jumping height in a countermovement jump,15,42 hop tests,24 and have the potential to negatively affect SV. More specifically,
or even the level of stiffness of the gastrocnemius muscle18 as literature indicates that the main performance aspect negatively
predictors of velocity in this stroke. These studies give importance affected by fatigue is precision.47�49 Davey et al47 and Rota et al49
to the role of ground reaction forces (GRFs) and the ability to found reductions in serve accuracy after performing a maximal
transfer energy to the upper segments of the body. As higher power intermittent activity (-30% and -11.7%, respectively), attributed to
levels in the lower limbs seem to relate to generating greater GRF,9,24 lactate accumulation. Added to effects on precision, fatigue in
these parameters would also be beneficial for SV. Because of these certain regions and on determinant strength and power variables
reasons, although the lower body seems to have a more coordinative seem to be main contributors to decreases in SV.47 Notwithstand-
role than a velocity generator, greater strength and power levels ing, this fatigue does not seem to affect all players in the same way
could favor an appearance of GRF of greater magnitude and, if the and is most likely determined by match load, experience, and
transfer throughout the kinetic chain is effective, SV would be playing level. Terraza and Baiget50 found no reductions in accuracy
enhanced. Regarding the stabilization functions and transfer of or SV following a resistance training or MBT protocol, suggesting
the generated GRF, the trunk is considered essential toward effective although impairments could have appeared in strength and power
serving. Some studies43,44 agree in granting this region not only a levels, players may rely on different neuromuscular parameters to
coordinative role, but also as a force transfer link in the kinetic chain. maintain performance during the serve. Maquirrain et al (2016) and
Although literature has generally not investigated the relationship Moreno-P�rez et al30 did not observe reductions in precision or
between trunk power and strength levels and SV, Wong et al17 found speed of elite tennis players after 5-set matches. On the contrary,
that peak velocity of hip extension positively influenced SV. studies have found reductions in SV (3.9%�4%) in competition
players of lower level49�52 or age,53 suggesting experienced
Alongside isometric force�time curve values that positively athletes could be able to find strategies to avoid the reduction
correlate to SV, literature considers power and the effective use of of SV in fatiguing situations. Nevertheless, investigations are
the stretch-shortening cycle as highly specific indicators of velocity limited when examining the influence of fatigue on SV in young
production capacity.7,23 The technical execution of a serve implies a competitors, making of great interest further studies on the topic.
prestretching of most of the muscle groups involved in the motion, Research has not uniquely focused on fatigue caused by the direct
being the elastic energy storage and rebound capacity of the muscle outcome of tennis practice or competition but has investigated the
of great importance for the action. MBTs have been proven to be a effect of prolonged play or repetitive bouts of play on SV
useful tool to assess upper-body power.7,23 This type of assessment (Table 3). In this line, the organization model tennis follows
allows the summation and transfer of forces throughout the entire has proven to negatively affect SV.26,48 Gallo-Salazar et al26
kinetic chain and is considered an interesting method to obtain found reductions in SV attributed to playing 2 tennis matches
values of power in tennis-specific motions. A great number of in one same day. One of the main reasons these decreases happen
studies have found positive correlations between MBT distance is the loss of functionality around the shoulder region caused by
or speed and SV or even other tennis strokes.7,23,45,46 Fernandez- activities maintained and repeated in short periods of time.30,51
Fernandez et al23 point out that MBT distance is an important These studies show shoulder strength deficits and ROM impair-
predictor of SV in male tennis players. Fett et al7 show that power ments in internal and external rotation values after performing a
values established from MBT is one of the best predictors for SV, in certain volume of tennis play. Authors agree and recommend the
both male and female competitors, especially as age advances. In application of intervention programs including strategies to rees-
younger players, although distance in MBT could be useful to tablish values before competition or practice, especially in players
predict SV, this would present a stronger interaction with SV in without a sufficient experience and level to take advantage of
male competitors.7,23 Added, it has previously been hypothesized technical proficiency or tactical decisions to replace reductions
that the influence of these abilities seems to rise in importance as the in SV.
players level and age increase.7,18 These investigations theorized that
technical and coordinative aspects seem more relevant in young Practical Applications
inexperienced players, as physical factors might become more
important as technical capacity is solid in all performers. � Many serving models are available toward optimizing SV.
However, knee extension and lower leg drive, hip and trunk
Besides strength and power values and measurements, ROM of rotation, and elbow extension, shoulder internal rotation, and
joints involved in the serve motion have shown important relationships hand/wrist flexion seem the major contributors to angular
with SV.17,24,38 Similar to strength and power variables, an increased momentum and transferring speed to the head of the racquet
ROM around joints that are greatly involved in the serve kinetic chain
seems relevant to enhanced velocity production. Shoulder internal
rotation, wrist flexion, and hip external rotation have previously shown
IJSPP Vol. 17, No. 8, 2022
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/12/22 11:16 PM UTC
Determinant Factors of Serve Velocity 1167
Table 3 Factors Negatively Affecting SV
Reference Description and goals Gender N Age Level Fatiguing Findings
condition
Davey Examine the effect of fatigue on M 18 20.7 Competition High-intensity SV was not reduced but pre-
et al47 specific sporting abilities (n = 9) cision declined 30%*
and F (0.9) intermittent
(n = 9)
and activity
M
21.7
M
(0.6)
M
Ojala and To examine changes in selected 8 23 (3.8) Elite 3-d tennis SV was significantly lower
Hakkinen54 physiological and performance vari- M tournament
ables during a 3-day tennis before the third match com-
Rota et al49 tournament M pared with the first match
(-2.72%*)
Gescheit Examine the effect of fatigue on upper M
et al48 body muscular activity and tennis 10 23.8 Competition High-intensity SV is reduced 4.5%* and
performance M precision 11.7%*
Maquirrain M (4.0) intermittent-spe-
et al55 Determine how playing matches in
consecutive days affects performance, M cific activity
Martin physiological and perceptual (n = 4)
et al51 responses and F 7 21.4 Competition Matches on conse- SV is moderately increased
(n = 6)
Analyze SV and accuracy in pro- (2.2) cutive days day by day. Precision de-
longed male professional matches
played on grass courts creases during consecutive
Examine changes in shoulder ROM days
and SV during a 3-h tennis match
30 -- Elite Wimbledon 5 set No significant changes were
matches registered
8 20.4 Competition 3-h match 1.8 m/s (-3.9%*) reductions
(2.8) after 3 h of play. No reductions
at 90 min
Gallo- Analyze how playing 2 consecutive 12 14.4 Junior Playing 2 matches Trivial reductions in SV from
Salazar matches on the same day affects per- (0.9) in the same day 151.7 (13.94) to 149
et al50 formance in young tennis players
(15.09) km/h
Moreno- Determine the acute effects of a tennis
P�rez et al30 match on SV and shoulder ROM 26 20.4 Elite One tennis match No significant decreases in SV
(4.4)
Tooth Assess the influence of scapular
et al49 muscle fatigue on tennis performance 15 22.8 Competition Elastic band exer- Significantly decreased racquet
(3.45) cise until exhaus- velocity (4%*) and accuracy
tion on racquet (55%**)
velocity
Terraza- Acute and delayed effect of strength 10 15.3 Competition MBT or resistance No significant reductions in SV
Rebollo and training on SV and accuracy
Baiget (3.45) training exercises or accuracy
(2021)
Abbreviations: F, female; M, male; MBT, medicine ball throws; ROM, range of motion. Note: Values are presented as mean (SD).
*P < .05. **P < .01.
and to the ball. These indications should be encouraged by be able to maintain SV relying on other aspects involved in the
coaches toward technical proficiency. execution of an optimal serve (ie, ROM, technique, or tactical
decisions), but repetition of competitive bouts or intense match
� The BH and AL seem highly important for the tennis player, as play will most likely end up negatively influencing SV. Thus,
the capacity of reaching higher ball impact locations seems to effective recovery strategies to reestablish initial strength and
correlate strongly with SV. Nevertheless, more trainable as- power values as soon as possible should be implemented,
pects such as shifting body composition toward a greater lean especially in younger and inexperienced populations in which
BM may have positive influence on SV, making interesting the negative outcome could be more evident.
training options aiming at this goal. However, individual needs
should be considered. Conclusions
� Force�time curve parameters (MIS, RFD, and IMP) around the Fast serving certainly needs a well-developed technical ability.
shoulder joint are good predictors of SV across sexes and Toward this goal, coaching methods and literature have provided
especially as age and level increase. Coaches are encouraged to specific serving models intending to achieve greater velocity
include strength training programs that cover the whole load� production and efficient motion. However, depending on which
velocity curve spectrum. In any case, special attention to model followed and the specific phase of the action, technical
maximal velocity intention while performing the program requirements may vary. Yet, aspects such as lower leg drive, hip
seems essential to achieve desired gains. and trunk rotations, and upper arm extension and internal rotations
� Intense match play performed regularly have the capacity to
reduce SV and accuracy. Elite and experienced players seem to
IJSPP Vol. 17, No. 8, 2022
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/12/22 11:16 PM UTC
1168 Colomar et al
seem the major contributors to racquet and ball speed. Regarding 13. Reid M, Elliott B, Alderson J. Lower-limb coordination and shoulder
anthropometric characteristics favoring SV, a higher impact point joint mechanics in the tennis serve. Med Sci Sports Exercise.
achieved by BH or AL, alongside a greater lean BM seem to aid 2008;40(2):308�315. PubMed ID: 18202570 doi:10.1249/mss.
faster serves. Strength and power levels such as MIS and RFD in 0b013e31815c6d61
joint positions involved in the serve kinetic chain, alongside upper
body power have previously been positively correlated to faster SV 14. Bonato M, Maggioni M, Rossi C, Rampinchi S, Latorre A, Merati G.
and should be developed in a velocity production enhancement Relationship between anthropometric or functional characteristics
program. Notwithstanding, the effects of continued or repetitive and maximal serve velocity in professional tennis players. J Sports
competition loads may impair the above-mentioned key physical Med Phys Fitness. 2015;55(10):1157�1165. PubMed ID: 24998615
factors and negatively influence SV, especially in younger un-
experienced players. 15. Hayes MJ, Spits DR, Watts DG, Kelly VG. Relationship between
tennis serve velocity and select performance measures. J Strength
References Cond Res. 2021;35(1):190�197. PubMed ID: 29324575 doi:10.1519/
JSC.0000000000002440
1. Fitzpatrick A, Stone JA, Choppin S, Kelley J. Important performance
characteristics in elite clay and grass court tennis match-play. Int J 16. Vaverka F, Cernosek M. Association between body height and serve
Perform Anal Sport. 2019;19(6):942�952. doi:10.1080/24748668. speed in elite tennis players. Sports Biomech. 2013;12(1):30�37.
2019.1685804 PubMed ID: 23724606 doi:10.1080/14763141.2012.670664
2. Gillet E, Leroy D, Thouvarecq R, Stein JF. A notational analysis of 17. Wong FK, Keung JH, Lau NM, Ng DK, Chung JW, Chow DH.
elite tennis serve and serve-return strategies on slow surface. J Effects of body mass index and full body kinematics on tennis serve
Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(2):532�539. PubMed ID: 19197212 speed. J Hum Kinet. 2014;40(1):21�28. PubMed ID: 25031669
doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31818efe29 doi:10.2478/hukin-2014-0003
3. Kovacs MS, Ellenbecker TS. A performance evaluation of the tennis 18. Colomar J, Baiget E, Corbi F. Influence of strength, power, and
serve: implications for strength, speed, power, and flexibility training muscular stiffness on stroke velocity in junior tennis players. Front
Strength Cond J. 2011;33(4):22�30. doi:10.1519/SSC.0b013e Physiol. 2020;11:196. PubMed ID: 32210838 doi:10.3389/fphys.
318225d59a 2020.00196
4. Kovalchik SA, Reid M. Comparing matchplay characteristics and 19. Kraemer WJ, Ratamess N, Fry AC, et al. Influence of resistance
physical demands of junior and professional tennis athletes in the era training volume and periodization on physiological and performance
of big data. J Sports Sci Med. 2017;16(4):489�497. PubMed ID: adaptations in collegiate women tennis players. Am J Sports Med.
29238248 2000;28(5):626�633. PubMed ID: 11032216 doi:10.1177/036354
65000280050201
5. Baiget E, Corbi Soler F, Lo�pez J. Influence of anthropometric, ball
impact and landing location parameters on serve velocity in elite 20. Kraemer WJ, Hakkinen K, Triplett-Mcbride NT, et al. Physiological
tennis competition. Biol Sport. 2022;40(1):273�281. doi:10.5114/ changes with periodized resistance training in women tennis players.
biolsport.2023.112095 Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(1):157�168. PubMed ID: 12544650
doi:10.1097/00005768-200301000-00024
6. Signorile JF, Sandler DJ, Smith WN, Stoutenberg M, Perry AC.
Correlation analyses and regression modeling between isokinetic 21. Baiget E, Corbi F, Fuentes JP, Fern�ndez-Fern�ndez J. The relation-
testing and on-court performance in competitive adolescent tennis ship between maximum isometric strength and ball velocity in the
players. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19(3):519. PubMed ID: tennis serve. J Hum Kinet. 2016;53(1):63�71. PubMed ID: 28149411
16095400 doi:10.1519/R-15514.1 doi:10.1515/hukin-2016-0028
7. Fett J, Ulbricht A, Ferrauti A. Impact of physical performance and 22. Baiget E, Colomar J, Corbi F. Upper-limb force�time characteristics
anthropometric characteristics on serve velocity in elite junior tennis determine serve velocity in competition tennis players. Int J Sports
players. J Strength Cond Res. 2020;34(1):192�202. PubMed ID: Physiol Perform. 2022;17(3):358�366. PubMed ID: 34794120
29912079 doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000002641 doi:10.1123/ijspp.2021-0254
8. Reid M, Morgan S, Whiteside D. Matchplay characteristics of Grand 23. Fernandez-Fernandez J, Nakamura FY, Moreno-Perez V, et al. Age
Slam tennis: implications for training and conditioning. J Sports Sci. and sex-related upper body performance differences in competitive
2016;34(19):1791�1798. PubMed ID: 27009823 doi:10.1080/ young tennis players. PLoS One. 2019;14(9):e0221761. PubMed ID:
02640414.2016.1139161 31479492 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0221761
9. Kibler WB, Chandler TJ, Shapiro R, Conuel M. Muscle activation 24. Palmer K, Jones D, Morgan C, Zeppieri G. Relationship between range of
in coupled scapulohumeral motions in the high performance motion, strength, motor control, power, and the tennis serve in competi-
tennis serve. Br J Sports Med. 2007;41(11):745�749. PubMed ID: tive-level tennis players: a pilot study. Sports Health. 2018;10(5):462�
17957010 doi:10.1136/bjsm.2007.037333 467. PubMed ID: 29965792 doi:10.1177/1941738118785348
10. Girard O, Millet GP. Physical determinants of tennis performance in 25. Dossena F, Rossi C, Torre AL, Bonato M. The role of lower limbs
competitive teenage players. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(6):1867� during tennis serve. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2018;58(3):210�218.
1872. PubMed ID: 19675471 doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181b3df89 . PubMed ID: 27792219 doi:10.23736/S0022-4707.16.06685-8
11. Fleisig G, Nicholls R, Elliott B, Escamilla R. Tennis: kinematics used 26. Gallo-Salazar C, Del Coso J, Barbado D, et al. Impact of a competi-
by world class tennis players to produce high-velocity serves. Sports tion with two consecutive matches in a day on physical performance
Biomech. 2003;2(1):51�64. PubMed ID: 14658245 doi:10.1080/ in young tennis players. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2017;42(7):750�
14763140308522807 756. PubMed ID: 28231435 doi:10.1139/apnm-2016-0540
12. Elliott B. Biomechanics and tennis. Br J Sports Med. 2006;40(5):392� 27. Gescheit DT, Cormack SJ, Duffield R, et al. A multi-year injury
396. PubMed ID: 16632567 doi:10.1136/bjsm.2005.023150 epidemiology analysis of an elite national junior tennis program. J
Sports Sci Med. 2019;22(1):11�15. PubMed ID: 29958840 doi:10.
1016/j.jsams.2018.06.006
28. Girard O. Changes in exercise characteristics, maximal voluntary
contraction, and explosive strength during prolonged tennis playing.
IJSPP Vol. 17, No. 8, 2022
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/12/22 11:16 PM UTC
Determinant Factors of Serve Velocity 1169
Br J Sports Med. 2006;40(6):521�526. PubMed ID: 16720888 43. Bahamonde RE. Changes in angular momentum during the tennis
doi:10.1136/bjsm.2005.023754 serve. J Sports Sci. 2000;18(8):579�592. PubMed ID: 10972409
29. Mendez-Villanueva A, Fernandez-Fernandez J, Bishop D. Exercise- doi:10.1080/02640410050082297
induced homeostatic perturbations provoked by singles tennis match
play with reference to development of fatigue. Br J Sports Med. 2007; 44. Marshall RN, Elliott B. Long-axis rotation: the missing link in
41(11):717�722. PubMed ID: 17957005 doi:10.1136/bjsm.2007.037259 proximal-to-distal segmental sequencing. J Sports Sci. 2000;18:
30. Moreno-P�rez V, Lo�pez-Samanes �, Dom�nguez R, et al. Acute 247�254. PubMed ID: 10824641
effects of a single tennis match on passive shoulder rotation range of
motion, isometric strength and serve speed in professional tennis 45. Delgado-Garc�a G, Vanrenterghem J, Mun~oz-Garc�a A, Molina-
players. PLoS One. 2019;14(4):e0215015. PubMed ID: 30978212 Molina A, Soto-Hermoso VM. Does stroke performance in amateur
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0215015 tennis players depend on functional power generating capacity? J
31. Elliott B, Marshall R, Noffal G. Contributions of upper limb segment Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2019;59(5):103. PubMed ID: 30160085
rotations during the power serve in tennis. J Appl Biomech. doi:10.23736/S0022-4707.18.08518-3
1995;11(4):433�442. doi:10.1123/jab.11.4.433
32. Sweeney M, Reid M, Elliott B. Lower limb and trunk function in the 46. Terraza-Rebollo M, Baiget E, Corbi F, Planas Anzano A. Efectos del
high performance tennis serve. Asian J Exerc Sports Sci . 2012;9(1):9. entrenamiento de fuerza en la velocidad de golpeo en tenistas jo�venes/
33. Girard O, Micallef JP, Millet GP. Lower-limb activity during the Effects of strength training on hitting speed in young tennis players.
power serve in tennis: effects of performance level. Med Sci Sports Rev Int Med Cienc Act Fis Deporte. 2017;17(66):349�366. doi:10.
Exerc. 2005;37(6):1021�1029. PubMed ID: 15947729 15366/rimcafd2017.66.009
34. Martin C, Kulpa R, Delamarche P, Bideau B. Professional tennis
players' serve: correlation between segmental angular momentums 47. Davey PR, Thorpe RD, Williams C. Fatigue decreases skilled tennis
and ball velocity. Sports Biomech. 2013;12(1):2�14. PubMed ID: performance. J Sports Sci. 2002;20(4):311�318. PubMed ID:
23724603 doi:10.1080/14763141.2012.734321 12003276 doi:10.1080/026404102753576080
35. Reid M, Whiteside D, Elliott B. Serving to different locations: set-up,
toss, and racket kinematics of the professional tennis serve. Sports 48. Gescheit DT, Cormack SJ, Reid M, Duffield R. Consecutive days of
Biomech. 2011;10(4):407�414. PubMed ID: 22303790 doi:10.1080/ prolonged tennis match play: performance, physical, and perceptual
14763141.2011.629206 responses in trained players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2015;
36. Roetert EP, Ellenbecker TS, Reid M. Biomechanics of the tennis 10(7):913�920. PubMed ID: 25710259 doi:10.1123/ijspp.2014-
serve: implications for strength training. Strength Cond J. 0329
2009;31(4):35�40. doi:10.1519/SSC.0b013e3181af65e1
37. O'Donoghue P, Ingram B. A notational analysis of elite tennis 49. Rota S, Morel B, Saboul D, Rogowski I, Hautier C. Influence of
strategy. J Sports Sci. 2001;19(2):107�115. PubMed ID: 11217009 fatigue on upper limb muscle activity and performance in tennis. J
doi:10.1080/026404101300036299 Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2014;24(1):90�97. PubMed ID: 24239164
38. Cohen DB, Mont MA, Campbell KR, Vogelstein BN, Loewy JW. doi:10.1016/j.jelekin.2013.10.007
Upper extremity physical factors affecting tennis serve velocity. J
Sports Med. 1994;22(6):746�750. PubMed ID: 7856797 doi:10. 50. Terraza-Rebollo M, Baiget E. Acute and delayed effects of strength
1177/036354659402200604 training in ball velocity and accuracy in young competition tennis
39. Pugh S, Kovaleski J, Heitman R, Gilley W. Upper and lower body players. PLoS One. 2021;16(12):e0260825. Published December 9,
strength in relation to ball speed during a serve by male collegiate 2021. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0260825
tennis players. Percept Mot Skills. 2003;97:867�872. PubMed ID:
14738353 doi:10.2466/pms.2003.97.3.867 51. Martin C, Bideau B, Delamarche P, Kulpa R. Influence of a prolonged
40. S��t M. all speed during the tennis serve in relation to skill level and tennis match play on serve biomechanics. PLoS One. 2016;11(8):
body height. Pamukkale J Sport Sci. 2016;7(2):13.05.2016. e0159979. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0159979
41. S��t M, Altunsoy K. Physical and morphological characteristics of
Turkish national adolescent tennis players and their association with 52. Tooth C, Schwartz C, Fransolet C, et al. Influence of scapular
serve speed. Spor Hekimligi Dergisi. 2018;54(1):64�70. doi:10.5152/ dyskinesis, kinesiotaping and fatigue on tennis serve performance.
tjsm.2019.117 Int J Perform Anal. 2020;20(3):456�469. doi:10.1080/24748668.
42. Eriksrud O, Ghelem A, Henrikson F, Englund J, Brodin N. Upper and 2020.1761672
lower body power tests predict serve performance in national and
international level male tennis players. Sport Perform Sci Rep. 53. Gallo-Salazar C, Del Coso J, Sanz-Rivas D, Fernandez-Fernandez J.
2018;42(1):1�5. Game activity and physiological responses of young tennis players in
a competition with 2 consecutive matches in a day. Int J Sports
Physiol Perform. 2019;14(7):887�893. PubMed ID: 30569784
doi:10.1123/ijspp.2018-0234
54. Ojala T, H�kkinen K. Effects of the tennis tournament on players'
physical performance, hormonal responses, muscle damage and
recovery. J Sports Sci Med. 2013;12(2):240�248.
55. Maquirriain J, Baglione R. Cardey M. Male professional tennis
players maintain constant serve speed and accuracy over long
matches on grass courts. Eur J Sport Sci. 2016;16(7):845�849.
doi:10.1080/17461391.2016.1156163
IJSPP Vol. 17, No. 8, 2022
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 10/12/22 11:16 PM UTC