A NOTATIONAL ANALYSIS OF ELITE TENNIS SERVE
AND SERVE-RETURN STRATEGIES ON SLOW SURFACE
ERIC GILLET,1,2 DAVID LEROY,1,2 RÉGIS THOUVARECQ,1
1
C.E.T.A.P.S. Laboratory, EA 3832, Faculty of Sports Sciences, University of Rouen, Rouen, France; 2G.R.H.A.L. Laboratory,
Hospital Charles Nicole, University of Rouen, Rouen, France; and 3National Institute of Sport and Physical Education,
Paris, France
Downloaded from https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3iopPs8eUYyoQV+SE/i4rypwlhVfeSiJn9jVy6HdcHMA= on 09/08/2020
ABSTRACT
Gillet, E, Leroy, D, Thouvarecq, R, and Stein, J-F. A notational
analysis of elite tennis serve and serve-return strategies on
slow surface. J Strength Cond Res 23(2): 532–539, 2009—A
notational analysis of singles events at the French Open
Grand Slam tournament was undertaken in 2005 and 2006 to
characterize the game patterns and strategies of serve and
serve-return and to determine their influence on the point
issue on a clay court surface. One hundred sixteen men’s
singles matches were video analyzed. The flat serve (57.6%),
particularly down the ‘‘T’’ location (50.3%), allowed servers to
win significantly more points than the topspin (24.1%) and slice
serves (18.3%). When the topspin was the first serve strategy,
servers kept a high percentage of points won from the serve
(52.4%). This strategy was essentially used on the second
serve (91.6%) by playing the ‘‘T’’ location in the deuce court
and the wide zone in the advantage court. Returns to the central
zone allowed receivers to win more points (73.3% on first serve
and 65.9% on second serve) than plays to external locations.
The results highlight the high impact of the first shots of all
opponents on the rally. Even on clay, the slowest court surface,
serves and serve-returns remain the strokes that most influence
the match results in modern tennis games.
KEY WORDS clay court, expertise, game patterns, tennis
INTRODUCTION
T
he hand notation system (5) and computerized
notational analysis (12) are methods for analyzing
the dynamic and complex situations of sport
competition and training. They have been widely
applied to racket sports. Among the main functions of
notational analysis (13), tactical evaluation of play has
become a major area of interest to notational analysts. Match
Address correspondence to Eric Gillet, eric.gillet@univ-rouen.fr.
23(2)/532–539
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2009 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
532 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
AND JEAN-FRANÇOIS STEIN3
analysis ranges from detailed technical analysis to qualitative
analysis of performance in competition. Its results provide
relevant match information that coaches use to offer
feedback to players and optimize their decision making.
Moreover, the results particularly reinforce knowledge of
play by specifying the relevant performance indicators that
define an aspect of performance (25) and by avoiding the
subjective judgments of observers (16).
Tennis is a dynamic and complex game in which players
repeatedly make decisions on positioning for the next shot.
Players establish strategies to optimize their chances of
winning a match based on the opposition-duel relationship.
There are 3 basic factors that influence match play: knowl-
edge of players’ own strengths and weaknesses, knowledge
of those of their opponents, and environmental factors such
as the court surface, weather conditions, time, and psycho-
logical considerations (27). Match analysis has been used to
investigate performance indicators such as serve perfor-
mance, rally length, stroke selection and execution, winners
and errors (14), timing factors and shot details (15,27), dis-
tance covered and positional play (31), and point profiles (28).
The serve and serve-return strokes are a standardized
couple of movement actions that have significant bearing on
the match results in modern tennis games. The serve stroke
facilitates winning the rally, either directly through an ace or
indirectly through the advantage gained in the rally after
a great serve. From Gale’s (9) mathematical model, a number
of statistical studies have demonstrated serve dominance and
effectiveness from point-winning probabilities associated
with possible first/second serving strategies (10,18,24). More
recently, strategies based on gender and court surface have
been investigated in relation to serve speed at Grand Slam
tournaments. First, the serve is of greater importance in men’s
singles than in ladies’ singles. On the first serve, men players
serve faster, getting a lower percentage of serves in but
winning a greater percentage of points when the serve is in
(8,26,27). Second, world tour tennis is characterized by play
on different court surfaces. The ones used at the 4 Grand
Slam tournaments can be classified by their coefficients of
friction and restitution, which affect the ball bounce tra-
jectory (2). According to the International Tennis Federation
(17) court surface classification, surface speed falls into 3
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

categories: slow surfaces such as the French Open clay study has specifically examined the serve and serve-return
courts; medium surfaces such as the cement, acrylic, or strategies used by world-class players on slower surfaces
synthetic courts (U.S. Open and Australian Open), and fast using a holistic analysis that integrates the performance
surfaces such as the Wimbledon grass courts. Controversy indicators of location and spin. Therefore, the purpose of the
persists regarding serve dominance in relation to surface present study was to investigate the game patterns and
speed. Furlong (8) and Hughes and Clarke (15) found no strategies of serve and serve-return on a slow surface (clay) to
significant difference between fast and slow surfaces, whereas specify contextual strategic information. This was done to
O’Donoghue and Ballantyne (26) and O’Donoghue and determine whether the point issue is also strongly influenced
Ingram (27) have shown that serves are more effective on by the characteristics and quality of the first strokes produced
faster surfaces. Moreover, although serve speed has been by all opponents. A notational analysis was thus undertaken
found to be negatively correlated with the proportion of for 2 years (2005 and 2006) during the French Grand Slam
serves that are in, the proportion of points won when the tournament.
serve is in has been positively correlated with the serve speed
on both the first and second serves in all Grand Slam METHODS
tournaments (26). Experimental Approach to the Problem
Serve effectiveness depends directly on the opponent’s This study was a quantitative analysis of tennis based on
serve-return skills. Receiving players face high time con- positional play, shot details, stroke selection and execution,
straints (serves up to and greater than 200 km
h21) and winners, and errors. One hundred twenty-six men’s singles
variations of the serve trajectory (spin, direction, and ampli- matches from terrestrial television tournament coverage were
tude). Thus, they must react extremely quickly and are forced recorded and analyzed (Figure 1). The matches included in
to hit in uncomfortable positions because of the serve the current research were from the second round to the final.
speed. The serve-return has become 1 of 2 most important All matches in which fewer than 100 points were played were
shots, along with the serve, in the modern tennis game. excluded from the study to ensure that each match selected
However, few studies have analyzed its tactical character- was representative of Grand Slam tennis (27). This reduced
istics. On average, 15% of all strokes are serve-returns in the number of singles matches analyzed from 126 to 116.
a best-of-3 set tennis match on clay courts against 20% A computerized notational system was developed to collect
on faster courts (30). The serve is more difficult to return data from video recordings of the selected matches. This
on faster courts (3,15). However, the number of points won system was used to produce a spreadsheet for statistical
when returning is higher on fast surfaces (about 40%) than on analysis. It recorded general information (players, score, etc.)
clay courts (about 30%) (30). and performance indicators for each point about serve and
Thus, the beginning of each point in a modern tennis game serve-return strokes: the type (first or second serve; forehand
seems particularly essential and even decisive for increasing or backhand), spin (flat, topspin, or slice), and location. To
the chances of winning the
point. Nevertheless, perfor-
mance indicators other than
serve speed and the type of
surface need to be investigated
to better understand the strate-
gies developed for the serve and
return. Performance indicators
such as the location of the serve
(4) and the return, as well as
their spins, contribute to the
proportion of points won di-
rectly or indirectly from this
serve-return sequence. To our
knowledge, only the study of
Unierzyski and Wieczorek (32),
which describes the game pat-
terns used by the world’s best
players during the final matches Figure 1. Schematic representation of the tennis court for data collection and analysis. Each service box was
at the French Open and Wim- divided into 3 zones: wide, into the receiver’s body, and ‘‘T’’ near the center service line. Concerning return location,
each half of the tennis court was divided into 16 equal rectangles. Eight rectangles located in the middle of the court
bledon events, has taken the formed the central zone; 8 other rectangles located close to the singles sidelines formed the external zone.
placement of winning serves S = server; R = receiver.
and returns into account. No

VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 2 | MARCH 2009 | 533

Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Analysis of Elite Tennis Strategies

assess serve and serve-return locations, each serve box and

half of the tennis court was respectively divided into zones
(Figure 1). These indicators also included the type of point
(serve and at the net, return and at the net, and background
rally) and the point won by the serving and receiving players.
Serve winners and aces were differentiated according to
whether the opponent touched the ball with the racket.
Serve-return winners were strokes permitting the receiver to
win the point without playing another stroke. Concerning
the serve-return errors, forced and unforced errors were
not distinguished, to reduce the risk of subjective opinion
influencing the data.
Procedures
The video analysis was performed with a Panasonic S-VHS
Figure 2. Proportion of spin used on first and second serves.
NV-FS 100 HQ recorder (50 Hz and with a shuttle) and Significantly more flat first serves than topspin (*) and slice serves (+) (p
a 19-inch, high-resolution, color JVC TM-H1900G monitor. , 0.001). Significantly more topspin second serves than flat (@) and slice
The ball spin of the serve was characterized from the curve serves ($) (p , 0.001).

of the trajectory after the rebound in the serve box accord-

ing the models of Brody et al. (2) and Durey (6). Because the
view of every camera was the same for all matches, a square
pattern of the court was created. The parallax distortion
was resolved by relating the sizes of the court play zones
presented on the video image to those of a real court.
Statistical Analyses
Statistical analyses were processed on the mean of the 116
selected matches using SPSS software. The chi-square test
and the Yates correction were used to analyze the serve and
return data. These tests were completed by an analysis of the
percentage relative of the row or column totals and the post
hoc cell contributions of a 2 3 2 table of contingency.
Significance was accepted at p # 0.05 (11).
RESULTS
The Serve Characteristics
The serving players executed 24,697 shots, of which 15,679
were in. Regarding the total number of first serves, 62.0% were
in. After the first serve, servers stayed in the backcourt in
96.8% of the cases, for only 3.2% serve and at the net.
The players hit significantly more flat first serves and
executed more topspin second serves (x22 = 4538.5, p ,
0.0001; Figure 2).
A significant association was noted between the spin and
location of first serves (x24 = 876.1, p , 0.001), with flat serves
significantly more often down the ‘‘T’’ near the center serve
line and slice and topspin serves in short and wide locations
(Figure 3). There also was a significant association between
the spin and location of first serves according to the half of
the court (Figure 3): in the deuce court (right serve box; x24 =
1144.3, p , 0.001) and in the advantage court (left serve box;
x24 = 306.0, p , 0.001). A similar association was revealed for
second serves in the deuce (x24 = 284.8, p , 0.001) and
advantage (x24 = 53.3, p , 0.001) courts. Figure 3 shows the
relevant results concerning the proportion of the topspin
second serves.
the TM
The Serve-Return Characteristics
The receiving players executed 15,565 strokes, as presented in
Figure 4.
More than 80.0% of the serve-returns were in, with 75.5%
played in the central zone and 24.5% down the line and cross-
court into the external zone (x21 = 1186.2, p , 0.001). A
significant association was revealed between the serve-return
location and the type of serve (x21 = 51.7, p , 0.001). The
receivers sent the ball to the central zone significantly more
often on the first serve (78.8%) than on the second serve (72.0%).
Conversely, returning to the external zone occurred more often
on the second serve (28.0%) than on the first serve (21.2%).
The Serve, the Serve-Return, and the Winning Point
Generally, the players won more points when serving (62.1%)
than when returning (37.9%; x21 = 327.1, p , 0.001).
The Winning Point and the Type of Serve
Winning a point was significantly influenced by the type of
serve (x21 = 197.7; p , 0.001). Players won significantly more
points when serving first serves (67.3%) than second serves
(53.8%). Receivers won significantly more points after second
serves (46.2%) than first serves (32.7%).
The Winning Point and the Spin Used on the First Serve
There was a significant association between winning a point
and the type of spin used when playing a first serve (x22 = 46.8,
p , 0.001). Servers won more points from a flat first serve
(57.6%) than a topspin (24.1%) or slice first serve (18.3%).
The Winning Point and the First Serve Spin and Location
As presented in Figure 5, a significant association was
observed between winning a point and the type of spin and
location of the first serve (x24 = 591.3, p , 0.001).
The Winning Point and the Serve-Return Location
An association was observed between winning a point and the
location of the serve-return (x21 = 340.0, p , 0.001). Receivers

534 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

Figure 3. Location of first and second serves in relation to the serve spins used and the half of the court where the serve stroke was executed. Significantly more
flat first serves down the ‘‘T’’ near the center serve line (*). Significantly more topspin (+) and slice ($) first serves into wide location. In the deuce court, significantly
more flat (*) and topspin + first serves and topspin second serves (+) down the center ‘‘T’’ and slice first serves ($) into the wide location. In the advantage court,
significantly more topspin (+) and slice ($) first serves and topspin (+) second serves into the wide location.

won significantly more points when they sent the ball into p , 0.001). Receivers performed more winners after the
the central zone than into the external zone (Figure 6). second serve (54.7%) than the first serve (45.3%). Nonethe-
Moreover, as presented in Figure 6, this association less, they performed more errors after the second serve
depended on the type of serve (x21 = 26.7, p , 0.001). (78.6%) than the first serve (21.4%).

Serve-Return Winners and Errors According to the

DISCUSSION
Type of Serve The results of the current research show that the serve was
There was a significant association between winning or losing a redoubtable shot for winning points either directly or
a point from the serve-return and the type of serve (x21 = 30.1, indirectly on the clay court surface. It provided servers with

Figure 4. Proportion of forehand and backhand serve-returns.

VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 2 | MARCH 2009 | 535

Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Analysis of Elite Tennis Strategies

and the probability of winning

the point. Hitting the first serve
hard is the best serve strategy
to win a high percentage of
points and increase the chances
of winning points from second
serves (2). This strategy in-
creases the time constraints
on receivers by reducing the
time available for executing
their shot. Servers thus improve
their chances of winning the
point after a second shot, eval-
uated at 11% (30). The first
serve strategy used on slow
surfaces is therefore similar to
the strategy employed on fast
Figure 5. Proportion of winning points in relation to the first serve spin and location. Significantly more flat serves
down the ‘‘T’’ zone (*) than other zones. Significantly more topspin (+) and slice ($) serves into the wide location courts, although more points
than other zones. can be won directly from the
serve on the latter (27).
First serve spins, which re-
the opportunity to accumulate a high percentage of winning duce serve speed, are employed with the intention of
points, particularly from the first serve (67.3 vs. 53.8% on introducing tactical variations in line with the characteristics
second serves). This dominance of the serve over the serve- of the clay court surface. Clay has higher friction and
return confirmed the results of O’Donoghue and Ingram (27) restitution coefficients than the other surfaces, resulting in
and Unierzyski and Wieczorek (32). a high and relatively gentle bounce (2). The current research
When serving the first serve, elite players favored serve shows that players used significantly more topspin serves
speed (flat serve) over spin variation (topspin or slice serves). than slice serves (26.6 and 17.7%, respectively). Moreover, the
The winning point rate from flat first serves (57.6%) was topspin serve strategy was used significantly more often to
higher than those from topspin and slice first serves (24.1 and send the ball down the ‘‘T’’ location in the deuce court
18.3%, respectively). Moreover, this rate was highest when (53.7%) and on the wide side of the serve box (70.0%) in the
serving down the ‘‘T’’ location (50.3%). These results agree advantage court. These results validate the current knowl-
with the findings of O’Donoghue and Ballantyne (26), who edge about playing tennis on a clay surface. The result of
have noted a significant relationship between the serve speed a topspin serve is usually a shoulder- or head-high and deep
bounce, which prevents the
receiver from executing an
offensive stroke. Two strategies
can be employed, depending
on the half of the court. First, in
the deuce court, servers hope to
‘‘push’’ back the receivers and
keep them behind the baseline.
Second, when serving to the
advantage court, players at-
tempt to find more angles to
open up the court. In both
cases, the servers’ intention is
to dominate the rally from its
start by exerting a territorial
influence to facilitate the clay-
specific cross-court baseline
game. Generally, serves are hit
Figure 6. Proportion of winning points in relation to the serve-return location. Significantly more into central zone (*) to the (right) receivers’ back-
than external zone. hand, which is usually consid-
ered the weaker side (the
the TM

536 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

proportion of backhand serve-returns was around 60%). A
high bounce on the serve, together with a short angle, helps
to gain initiative and is followed with a pressure stroke. Then,
servers play their second shot inside the baseline, which can
be hit for a winner or as a preparatory point-winning stroke.
Serving players can use their best shot, such as an inside-out
forehand, to the weak side of the receiver. Finally, the topspin
first serve strategy enables players to obtain high serve
efficiency during a complete match by maintaining a high
percentage of points won from the serve (52.4%). This
topspin strategy is classically used on the second serve
(91.6%) to limit aggressive and offensive serve-returns.
The results show that a high proportion of serve-returns
were in (80%). This percentage reflects the specificities of the
clay game in relation to the characteristics of the surface. The
height and relative slowness of the bounce (2), associated
with the receivers’ ready position on the court far from the
baseline, increases the available time budget for hitting the
ball. However, servers always dominate over receivers.
Moreover, our results show that the bounce of serve-return
strokes was significantly placed into the central zone (75.5%).
This location was the most beneficial for winning the point,
as much after a first serve (73.3%) as after a second serve
(65.9%). These data seem to contradict the findings of
Unierzyski and Wieczorek (32), who have noted that
returning into the external zone gave only a slightly better
chance of winning a rally than returning to the central zone.
Nevertheless, this discrepancy in the data can be explained by
the difference in the location of the central zone in the
aforementioned and current studies (i.e., the middle of the
court and from the net to the baseline, respectively). Given
the high speed of the flat first serve and the high bounce
resulting from the topspin second serve, the strategy to return
into the central zone allows receivers to minimize the error
number of the stroke direction while increasing their chances
of winning the point. Receivers are then able to find an
individual compromise between the velocity and the
precision of their racket movement (19). When receiving
rapid first serves, this issue may be expressed by the execution
of counterstrokes with a short backswing reduced to a simple
hip and shoulder rotation (i.e., blocked return). Players return
with low racket and segment velocities while maintaining
good coordination and synchronization within the kinematic
chain from the proximal to distal segments (19). This
backswing shortening has the advantage of reducing the
‘‘movement time’’ of receivers and, consequently, decreases
the time constraints to which they have been subjected.
Faced with topspin second serves, receiving players may
reach maximum racket velocity at impact. The reduction in
serve speed then enables receivers to execute offensive
strokes with a backswing similar to that used for regular
ground strokes. Thus, the compromise between velocity and
precision is shifted to the velocity side (19). Both these
strategies may be used to increase the ‘‘time required’’ to
build an effective striking action before the ‘‘available time’’
Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
has run out (1). This may imply, in return, a reduction in
‘‘actual available time’’ (20) assigned to servers, disrupting
their motion coordination at the time of the split step (i.e., the
first step after landing). Servers indeed seem to have greater
difficulty in turning around the ball than in moving toward
the ball in response to an external serve-return. Last, return-
ing to the central zone also reduces the tactical response
possibilities of the server’s second shot. This game situation is
less comfortable for opening up the court or winning the
point by this second shot. This interpretation seems to be
corroborated by the present results, which show that the
percentage of serve-returns played in the external zone was
significantly higher after second serves (28.0%) than first
serves (21.2%), indicating that this location allowed receivers
to win more points after second serves (34.1%). The external
serve-returns are thus performed either with the intention of
winning the point directly (i.e., put-away shots) or dominat-
ing the rally with the receiver’s second shot. According to
Schonborn (30), 6% of all points on clay courts end with this
fourth shot. Last, this serve-return strategy may be subject to
the specificity of the second serve on a clay surface.
Indeed, more than 90% of the second serves were
performed with topspins toward 2 main locations: down
the ‘‘T’’ in the deuce court (48.0%) and to the wide zone in the
advantage court (46.0%). Knowledge of this game situation
(current and past) and use of this knowledge during the match
may influence receivers’ performances by enabling them to
develop tactical solutions for the second serve and thus
facilitating the decision-making process. Declarative and
procedural knowledge, sport-specific memory adaptations
and structures, and domain-related strategies probably allow
receivers to select the best response and carry it out (21, 23).
The knowledge structure developed over many hours of
‘‘deliberate practice’’ (7) and competition on clay may enable
receivers to accurately anticipate upcoming second serves
while maintaining other responses on alert for possible
selection once the game situation demands it. This was also
confirmed by the percentage of serve-return winners (54.7%)
and errors (78.6%) after second serves in comparison with
first serves, indicating greater risk taking. Receivers can thus
perform an offensive serve-return by running around their
backhand and hitting an inside-out topspin or flat forehand
to the external zone or to the weakest side of the server. As
the action unfolds, situational probabilities integrated with
game contextual knowledge would provide a confirmation or
modification of the anticipated response (22,29). The player’s
knowledge of the serve proportion (i.e., general situational
probabilities) and the specific server’s tendencies (i.e., specific
situational probabilities) result in a decrease in situational
uncertainty, reaction time, and anticipatory movement time.
This implies an increase in the time required to perform an
offensive return whose longer movement time is determined
by the backswing amplitude.
This notational analysis has allowed us to confirm and
extend our knowledge of clay tennis games by highlighting
VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 2 | MARCH 2009 | 537
Analysis of Elite Tennis Strategies
the indices of performance of the first strokes of each player.
Even on the clay court surface, serves and serve-returns are
decisive for the positive or negative outcome of the rally and,
consequently, for winning matches. Knowledge of the
performance indicators of this game situation should provide
players and coaches with objective information so that they
can improve their acquisition of the specific skills needed for
the clay game. Finally, the above results could be made even
more meaningful by incorporating biomechanical indicators
such as hitting speeds and segment velocities.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Modern clay court players should use, or at least try to play
with, an attacking game based around their serve and serve-
return strokes to force their opponents to start the rally
aggressively and thus facilitate the setting up of their powerful
groundstroke game. Clay court tactics combining powerful
serves on the ‘‘T’’ and topspin serves into wide location should
place opponents under more time pressure and allow players
to better open up the court with sharp angles. Receiving
strokes should be played as aggressively as possible with
a combination of optimal power and control. Only aggressive
serve-returns can save players from being placed on the
defensive from the outset. This forcing return should be
a deep ball into the central zone against a power first serve and
a deep or cross-court into the external zone against a weak
first serve or a second serve. These serve-return strategies
should allow the player to recover his or her position and keep
the server behind the baseline. Although players hit
considerably more forehands and backhands than other
strokes during a match on clay surface, the time spent
practicing the serve and serve-return in terms of volume and
quality are areas that players and coaches need to address.
Surprisingly, knowledge of these game patterns may allow the
use of other unpredictable and effective strategies.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the French Tennis Federation
and Roland Garros Institution for providing funding for this
research program. Special thanks are extended to Patrice
Hagelauer, the French Davis Cup coach, Jean-Claude Massias
and Marc Renoult (National Technical Direction), and
Alexandre Loth (Innovation Technology Director) for their
support and cooperation. The authors gratefully acknowl-
edge Cathy Carmeni for linguistic revision of the manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. Alain, C and Proteau, L. Etudes des variables relatives au traitement
de l’information en sports de raquette. Can J Appl Sport Sci 3: 27–33,
1978.
2. Brody, H, Cross, R, and Lindsey, C. The Physics and Technology of
Tennis. Solana Beach, CA: Racquet Tech Publishing, 2002.
3. Collinson, L and Hughes, M. Surface effect on strategy of elite
female tennis players. J Sports Sci 21: 266–267, 2002.
4. Croucher, JS. Developing strategies in tennis. In: Stat Sport.
J. Bennett, ed. London: Arnold, 1998. pp. 157–171.
the TM
538 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
5. Downey, JC. The use of notational analysis in determining optimal
strategies in sport. In: Proceedings of the Notational Analysis of Sport I
and II. Hughes, M, ed. Cardiff: UWIC, 1992. pp. 3–18.
6. Durey, A. Physique Pour les Sciences du Sport. Paris: Masson, 1997.
7. Ericsson, KA, Krampe, RT, and Tesch-Römer, C. The role of
deliberative practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychol
Rev 100: 363–406, 1993.
8. Furlong, JDG. The serve in lawn tennis: how important is it? In:
Proceedings of the Science and Racket Sports. Reilly, T, Hughes, M, and
Lees, A, eds. London: E & Fn Spon, 1995. pp. 266–271.
9. Gale, D. Optimal strategy for serving in tennis. Math Mag 44:
197–199, 1971.
10. Georges, SL. Optimal strategy in tennis: a simple probabilistic
model. J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat 22: 97–104, 1973.
11. Howell, DC. Fundamental Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (5th ed.).
Brussels: De Boeck University, 2002.
12. Hughes, M. Computerised notation of rackets sports. In: Proceedings
of the Science and Racket Sports. Reilly, T, Hughes, M, and Lees, A, eds.
London: E & Fn Spon, 1995. pp. 249–256.
13. Hughes, M. The application of notational analysis to racket sports.
In: Proceedings of the Science and Racket Sports II. Lees, A, Maynard,
IW, Hughes, M, and Reilly, T, eds. London: E & Fn Spon, 1998. pp.
211–220.
14. Hughes, M and Bartlett, R. The use of performance indicators in
performance analysis. J Sports Sci 20: 735–737, 2002.
15. Hughes, M and Clarke, S. Surface effect on elite tennis strategy.
In: Proceedings of the Science and Racket Sports. Reilly, T, Hughes, M,
and Lees, A, eds. London: E & Fn Spon, 1995.
pp. 272–277.
16. Hughes, M and Franks, IM. Notational analysis—a review of
literature. In: Notational Analysis in Sport (2nd ed.). Hughes M and
Franks, IM, eds. London: Routledge, 2004. pp. 59–106.
17. International Tennis Federation. Approved Tennis Balls & Classified
Court Surfaces. London: ITF Licensing Ltd, 2007.
18. King, HA and Baker, JAW. Statistical analysis of serve and
match play strategies in tennis. Can J Appl Sport Sci 4: 298–301,
1979.
19. Kleinöder, H and Mester, J. Strategies for the return of 1st and
2nd serves. In: Proceedings of the Tennis Science and Technology.
Haake SJ and Coe, AO, eds. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 2000.
pp. 401–408.
20. Leveau, C. Notion de pression temporelle dans la relation duelle: un
exemple en badminton. In: Sports de Raquettes: Entre Pratiques et
The´ories, Dossier Eps n°53. Louis, E. ed. Paris: Revue Eps, 2000.
pp. 77–88.
21. McPherson, SL. The development of sport expertise: mapping the
tactical domain. Quest 46: 223–240, 1994.
22. McPherson, SL. Expert-novice differences in performance skills and
problem representations of youth and adults during tennis
competition. Res Q Exerc Sport 70: 233–251, 2000.
23. McPherson, SL and Kernodle, MW. Tactics, the neglected attribute
of expertise: problem representations and performance skills in
tennis. In: Expert Performance in Sports: Advances in Research on Sport
Expertise. Starkes JL and Ericsson, KA, eds. Champaign: Human
Kinetics, 2003. pp. 137–167.
24. Norman, JM. Dynamic programming in tennis—when to use a fast
serve. J Oper Res Soc 36: 75–77, 1985.
25. O’Donoghue, PG. The advantage of playing less sets than the
opponent in the previous two rounds of Grand Slam tennis
tournaments. In: Proceedings of the Science and Racket Sports III. Lees,
A, Khan, JF, and Maynard, IW, eds. London: Routledge, 2003. pp.
175–178.
26. O’Donoghue, PG and Ballantyne, A. The impact of speed of serve in
Grand Slam singles tennis. In: Proceedings of the Science and Racket

Sports III. Lees, A. Khan, J.F. and Maynard, I.W. eds. London:
Routledge, 2003. pp. 179–184.
27. O’Donoghue, PG and Ingram, B. A notational analysis of elite tennis
strategy. J Sports Sci 19: 107–115, 2001.
28. O’Donoghue, PG and Liddle, SD. A match analysis of elite tennis
strategy for ladies’ singles on clay and grass surface. In: Proceedings
of the Science and Racket Sports II. Lees, A, Maynard, IW, Hughes, M,
and Reilly, T, eds. London: E & Fn Spon, 1998. pp. 247–253.
29. Paull, G and Glencross, DJ. Expert perception and decision making
in baseball. Int J Sport Psychol 28: 35–56, 1997.
Copyright © N ational S trength and Conditioning A ssociation. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
30. Schonborn, R. The return of serve. In: Proceedings of the 11th ITF
Worldwide Coaches Workshop: Top Tennis Coaching. London: ITF
Licensing Ltd, 1999. pp. 38–43.
31. Underwood, G and McHeath, J. Video analysis of the energy system
in elite and competitive singles tennis. J Hum Mov Stud 28: 73–86,
1977.
32. Unierzyski, P and Wieczorek, A. Comparison of tactical solutions
and game patterns in the finals of two grand slam tournaments in
tennis. In: Proceedings of the Science and Racket Sports III. Lees, A,
Khan, JF, and Maynard, IW, eds. London: Routledge, 2003.
pp. 169–174.
VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 2 | MARCH 2009 | 539