P. 1
Key factor, timing, tennis

Key factor, timing, tennis

|Views: 21|Likes:
Published by Anusorn Panich
review and presentation
review and presentation

More info:

Categories:Types, School Work
Published by: Anusorn Panich on Nov 26, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





J. Landlinger et al.

Journal of sports science and medicine (2010)9, 643-651


speed is the players “weapons” in


motions and positions of various joints can either be detrimental to speed and the spin of the ball or may increase the risk of injury.


is no study comparing proximal-to distal sequencing patterns of the forehand with respect to elite vs. high performance playing levels.


identify and compare key mechanical features and their timing of forehand groundstrokes between ATP-professionals (elite) and high performance (HP) youth players when shots were played cross court and down the line.

Participants All male Ranking Age Weight Height

Elite (Mean) ATP 347 23 78.2 188.1

High Performance (Mean) Junior top 15 16.3 72.8 185.9

Testing procedure:
 Hit as many practice strokes as needed with the

same velocity and action as they would in the match.
 Use their own racquets.

 Ball machine controlled pre-impact ball

horizontal velocity (20 m.s) and trajectory.

 2 series of 10 forehands cross court and

down the line (4 X 10 strokes) to a target area (randomized order).
 No instructions in terms of foot placement.

 2 minutes break after each series.
 6 fastest shots of each (= 12 strokes) were


Data Collection:
 39 reflective markers were placed on bony

landmarks (Plug-in Gait Marker Set, Vicon Peak, Oxford, UK).
 4 markers (14 mm in diameter) were placed

on the racquet of each subject (racquet head, shaft, at 3 and 9 o’clock positions).
 Participants wore tight shorts, no shirts.

Data collection (cont.)
 8 Vicon MX 13 cameras (Vicon Peak, Peak,

Oxford, UK) sampling at 400 Hz.
 Cameras were positioned around one side of

the court;
3 behind the baseline  3 overhead cameras on a traverse at 4m height in front of the player

 The centre of baseline were used as the

origin of the global coordinate system.

Data collection (cont.)

Y-axis – pointing forward to the net  X-axis – positive to the right  Z-axis – vertical

 All

43 markers were reconstructed with the Nexus software (Nexus 1.3, Vicon, Oxford, UK), data were filtered with a Woltring filter (MSE of 10).

 Data

was analyzed during the forward swing of the stroke. was the point where the first ball/racquet contact occurred.

 Impact


statistics with repeated

Two-way ANOVA


 Mean

forward swing time of tennis forehand did not vary between elite (0.324+ 0.086) and HP (0.326 + 0.064). the down the line situation, both groups rotated their hips and racquets further backwards (p<0.01), but reduced their separation angle.

 In

 The

HP players showed a tendency towards an interaction effect for maximum racquet angle (p<0.05)

 The

timing of peak angles help facilitate the forward swing in the tennis forehand. hips must have started the counterclockwise rotation towards the ball earlier than the shoulders. angular racquet rotation demonstrates that the racquet tends to lag behind.

 The

 Peak

 Extended

wrist(55 milliseconds before impact)should have put additional stretch on the forearms to help generate wrist and racquet speed.


improve the forehand performance level, the main 3 things to focus are;
 Pelvis

 Trunk rotation velocity
 Their timing


good rear leg drive will initiate pelvis rotation, consequently, increase the separation angle.

Tanaporn Panich 53910313

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->