Presentation

Select your speaker type

Keynote and Workshop speaker

Title

Biomechanics of the Tennis Strokes: Implications for Strength Training

Abstract

The game of tennis has changed significantly in the past 30 years. Due to changes in equipment as well as training methods, players hit aggressive, high-speed strokes to overpower their opponents. This strategy places significant stress on the body that coaches should consider in designing strength and conditioning programs. The purpose of these programs will be to assist players to play at a high level while staying injury free. This is a review of the available information in the field of Biomechanics as it relates to strength and conditioning. Although a significant amount of information is available on the physiological demands of tennis, less is known about the link between the actual strokes (serves, forehands, backhands) and the specific training methods needed for optimal tennis performance. In fact, most of the available Biomechanics literature specific to tennis has focused on the areas of performance, physical stress and equipment design. This presentation will focus on the sequential coordination of the strokes and the training exercises, including a focus on the stabilizing musculature, that are involved in developing force and/or protecting the body from stressful actions. Recent research will be highlighted related to performance enhancement and injury prevention. The use of sequence photos and video images will allow us to evaluate stroke technique for each of the tennis strokes while developing a model for physical training exercises. The specific focus of this presentation will be on elite level players

Keywords

Biomechanics, Strength training, physical training

Summary

References

Roetert, E.P., Ellenbecker, T.S. & Reid, M. (2009). Biomechanics of the Tennis Serve: Implications for Strength Training. Strength and Conditioning Journal. 31 (4). 35-40.

Roetert, E.P., Kovacs, M., Knudson, D. & Groppel, J.L. (2009). Biomechanics of the Tennis Groundstrokes: Implications for Strength Training. Strength and Conditioning Journal. 31 (4). 41-49.

Title 2º

Figures Don’t Lie - Statistics in Men’s Tennis, What do they Tell Us?

Abstract 2º

The advent of computers has allowed us to gather statistical information on a variety of rankings, standings and other player data. International ranking data for tennis players are currently available on rankings (ITF, ATP, WTA), while some other data might relate to number of events played (Reid et al., 2009) or predictive models (Crespo et al, 2003). Let’s take a look at some different types of data and see if anything can be learned from them. Since we just finished the 2009 US Open Championships, we will take a look at some of the available statistics from that event in particular. Because of space limitations, we will only be able to provide examples on the men’s side. Of course some statistical information is more relevant than other. Let’s start by looking at the “big 5”.

Keywords 2º

Statistics, world rankings, top 5

Summary 2º

The Big 5

By the “Big 5”, we mean the top five male players at this point in time. These players have been dominating tennis over the past year or more. The numbers below are statistics based on the past 12 months of tournaments (October 2008-2009) and were compiled by Bob Larson’s Daily Tennis News (2009) which has been adapted below.

Line Call Challenges

At the 2009 US Open Championships, statistics were kept on the number of line call challenges as well as the success rate of those challenges. The chart below highlights the most successful challengers (minimum of 5 challenges) for these players. We have also included each player’s ranking at the time of the tournament. It appears that most of the players listed (the ones that made the top 10) had a fairly good tournament.

1. Robert Kendrick (USA) 80% 77
2. Juan Carlos Ferrero (ESP) 71% 29
3. Novak Djokovic (SRB) 47% 4
4. Fernando Gonzalez (CHI) 45% 11
5. Robin Soderling (SWE) 44% 12
6. Fernando Verdasco (ESP) 43% 10
7. Juan Martin Del Potro (ARG) 41% 6
8. Andy Roddick (USA) 38% 5
T9. Rafael Nadal (ESP) 33% 2
T9. Gael Monfils (FRA) 33% 13
T9. Nicolas Kiefer (GER) 33% 129

Amazingly, only two players on the men’s side had better than a 50% success rate. Our recommendation is that the rest of the players should keep their day job and not venture into officiating. Remember, these are the 10 most successful challengers. Quite a few players did much worse in challenging calls. In fact, the men’s singles matches averaged 6.3 challenges resulting in a 29% success rate overall (Kedrosky, 2009). On the positive side, it looks like most of the time the officials probably do make the correct call. The message here might be that it is very difficult making line calls while a player is moving and executing shots. Let’s trust the officials to make the right calls!

Serve Speed

The US Open Championships are played on a hard court surface which should help the big servers more than clay. Not surprisingly, we see some of the big hitting hard court players on top. However, some of the players typically considered as clay court players have also developed a strong service game. Five of the top ten players are listed as hitting some of the biggest serves at the event. This indicates the importance of a strong serve in the modern game. Again, we have added the players’ ranking at the time of the US Open in the third column.

1. Taylor Dent (USA) 147MPH 237KMH 195
2. Andy Roddick (USA) 145MPH 233KMH 5
3. Fernando Verdasco (ESP) 142MPH 229KMH 10
4. John Isner (USA) 140MPH 225KMH 55
5. Carsten Ball (AUS) 139MPH 224KMH 155
T6. Nicolas Almagro (ESP) 138MPH 222KMH 35
T6. Juan Martin Del Potro (ARG) 138MPH 222KMH 6
T6. Robin Soderling (SWE) 138MPH 222KMH 12
T9. Andy Murray (GBR) 137MPH 220KMH 3
T9. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (FRA) 137MPH 220KMH 7

Wild cards

Wild cards are frequently controversial, mainly because there are no objective criteria for providing them. Unlike rankings, wild cards are provided at the discretion of the tournament. Reasons may include popularity of the player (putting spectators in the stands), prior results (possible former winner or finalist of the event), country of origin (in or near the country where the event is played) and young, up-and-coming talent (success in junior ITF events and/or nationally in the country where the event is played). Listed below are the players who received the greatest number of wild cards in the past two-and-a-half years as well as their success rate.

Players such as Safin, Kuerten, Baghdatis, Gaudio and Ginepri likely received wild cards based on past successes which makes them a drawing card for the tournament. Players like Dent and Ancic were probably more likely to receive wild card coming back from injury while Isner, Levine, Young, Querrey, de Bakker and Guccione fall in the up and coming category. It is interesting to note that although Isner received a significant number of wild cards, he also made very good use of them. Querrey, Ancic and Ginepri also had very a very high success rate with their wildcards. The same cannot be said for all of them.

References

Bob Larson’s Daily Tennis News. (2009). Binary Boundary. September 17.

Crespo, M., Reid, M., Miley, D. & Atienza, F. (2003). The Relationship between Professional Tournament Structure on the National Level and Success in Men’s Professional Tennis. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. 6 (1). 3-13.

Kedrosky, P. (2009). Challenge, Anyone? New York Times. September 20.

Reid, M., Quinlan, G., Kearney, S. and Jones, D. (2009). Planning and Periodization for the Elite Junior Tennis Player. Strength and Conditioning Journal. 31 (4). 69-76.

Dinner

I am planning to attend the speakers' dinner

CV

Name

E. Paul

Surname

Roetert

Curriculum vitae

E. Paul Roetert, Ph.D., FACSM is the Managing Director of the United States Tennis Association’s Player Development Program. In addition, he serves as Tournament Director of the U.S. Open Junior Tennis Championships. Before re-joining the USTA in November 2001, Roetert spent two years as the Executive Director of the American Sport Education Program. Prior to that position he spent eleven years as the Administrator of Sport Science for the USTA where he developed the sport science program. He also served as Vice Chairman of the sport science committee.

Roetert has published extensively in the field of tennis, including two books, 16 book chapters and well over 100 articles. He is a Fellow in the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM), a Master Professional with the United States Professional Tennis Association (USPTA) and an Honorary Member of the Professional Tennis Registry (PTR). In 1998 he received the PTR’s Plagenhoef Award for sport science; in 1999 the Editorial Excellence Award from the National Strength and Conditioning Association for his work on the Journal of Strength and Conditioning and Research; and in 2000 the Outstanding Alumni award from the University of Connecticut. He is also the 2002 Educational Merit Award recipient from the International Tennis Hall of Fame for outstanding service to the game of tennis. Roetert holds a Ph.D. in biomechanics from the University of Connecticut. Originally from the Netherlands, he and his wife Barbara reside in Miami, Florida.

History

Member for

1 year 14 weeks