Here is another great presentation on warm-ups with more of a focus on adult recreational players. Although this is a slightly different population group focus, it does have some real practical application that can be used in the High School setting. This live presentation was at the Tennis Congress where the International Tennis Performance Association (iTPA) has been the tennis fitness and sport science provider since the founding of this great event. 

If you are a High School coach or someone who teaches, coaches or trains the High School tennis player, we highly recommend you look at the Tennis Performance Trainer (TPT) certification program. It is designed to help you better understand and deliver tennis fitness and sport science information to your players to help them improve performance and reduce the likelyhood of injury. 
​

Our Parent's Guide To Basic Injury Prevention is also a really great resource for anyone working with the High School Tennis Players.

TESTING UNILATERAL POWER
Measurement of initial leg power can be correlated to leg strength. Hewit et al. (2012) tested single leg countermovement (SLCM) jumps vertically (SLCM-V), horizontally (SLCM-H), laterally (SLCM-L) with either legs. The largest leg discrepancies were SLCM-L. Lockie et al. (2014) found some correlation between lateral power and COD but lateral jumps were not the strongest predictors of the COD test. Young et al. (2002) found that COD was related to the outside reactive leg strength. For example, athletes averaging 24% stronger in the right leg were 4% faster moving to the left; moving to the right was not correlated with leg strength. Lateral movement due to unilateral leg strength was not considered a factor unless there was a significant strength difference between legs. In addition, Young et al. suggested reactive leg strength was a greater factor than concentric leg strength. It was suggested that technique and perceptual factors also affect lateral speed. Both studies (Lockie et al., 2014; Young et al., 2002) look at linear speed with 20-60° as the range of COD which represents more traditional cutting in team sports. A test for 3 m COD and acceleration (CODAT) was devised using 45˚ and 90˚ COD (Lockie et al., 2013).

As opposed to many field sports, tennis involves significant movement back to the origin which implicates many 180° CODs. Therefore, unilateral leg reactive strength might be a greater factor in tennis. Hoppe et al. (2014) indicated high acceleration and deceleration with 180˚ COD was a major characteristic of tennis movement. Habibi et al. (2010) found single leg hop power was correlated with 10 m sprints. It was found that a triple single leg hop was even a better predictor for 10 m sprint times. That suggests reactive strength in landing with rapid muscle contraction and stored elastic energy is critical. In addition, the explosiveness movement from a previous jump, hop or bound is more critical for acceleration than from a standing position.

In tennis, lateral speed is initially generated after an athlete makes a modest vertical jump or split-step with a resultant lateral bound. Although Lockie et al. (2014) suggested lateral jumps were not the strongest predictors of 20-60˚ COD ability, 180˚ COD were not investigated. Therefore, lateral jumps may still remain a predictive test for tennis. By definition, a hop is when the take-off and touchdown is done off the same leg and the distance covered is relatively small. A jump is either one- or two-legged but the distance is relatively greater. A bound is when the take-off leg and touchdown leg are opposite legs. With that in mind, single leg lateral bounds for both legs can show promise for improving contralateral force production.
The well-known Pro Agility Test and 3 Cone Drill has been shown to be correlated to 10 m sprinting (Mann et al., 2016). Both can be useful for tennis testing since they utilize 180˚ COD and acceleration/deceleration. In addition, as Young et al. (2002) and Habibi et al. (2010) suggested, reactive unilateral leg strength can be important. Figure 1 shows a simple single leg lateral jump (SLLJ) in which a countermovement is allowed and the takeoff and touchdown leg are the same. Measurements should be on the outside edge of the foot or shoe (green line). Lateral bounds in both directions should be executed and measure from a best of three bounds.

EXERCISES
 
Wall Drives and Runs
 
Wall drives and runs are shown in Figures 3 and 4. In the crossover wall drive (Figure 3), the athlete crouches and leans with the inside shin angled towards the wall. A cross-over step is taken with the outside leg. The athlete can repeat in sets of 10 and then switch direction and legs. The lateral wall run is shown in Figure 4 has the athlete more upright. This exercise can be done with different number of steps: a) 1 step - lifting only the inside leg, b) 2 step, c) multiple step. A coach or another athlete can call the number of steps, e.g., “three,” or “four.”
 
Lateral Wall Drills
The single leg lateral jump test is often used as a repeated bounding exercise alternating legs (aka “alley hops”). Another set of simple movement exercises are wall drives and runs. Many athletes have trained with forward wall drives where the athlete faces a wall and leans forward at  45˚ with hands outstretched supporting the body against the wall. For tennis, lateral wall drives and runs are specifically applicable. Lateral wall drills allow the athlete to shift the center of gravity applying horizontal lateral force, while maintaining balance using a wall or fence.

The simplest drill is the lateral wall hold using either leg (Figure 3) which is also good for core and hips strength. The athlete leans sideways into a wall (fence is more difficult). The athlete lifts either leg with the knee up to the hips and maintains the leaning position for a few seconds and then may switch the legs and hold that position with the knee up for a few seconds. The athlete repeats leaning the other side. Once the athlete is comfortable with the positions, the athlete can do a second drill: lateral wall runs with sets of 2-6 rapid alternating steps. Repeat for a set of 6-8. Then the athlete does another set on the other side.

The second wall drill (Figure 4) is the load and crossover hold which brings the outside leg across and up. Athlete should start low with the outside leg at an angle and ready to push off. Both arms can be placed on the wall or fence and movement is more powerful and angled.

In Figure 5, the crossover load and lift applies greater force. Figure 5 shows loading off the outside leg. Balance is maintained only using one leg and the wall. Either inside or outside leg may be used in loading. Drive upwards and bring the knee above the hips.

Hops + Bounds + Sprints
 
Most split-steps in tennis involve a vertical component with landing first on the leg farther away from the intended direction and the other leg taking a lateral step with the toe pointing toward the intended direction. For training, the following exercises are useful:
 
Figure 6. Vertical single leg hop + lateral bound

Figure 7. Lateral single leg hop + lateral bound

Figure 8. Vertical single leg hop + lateral bound + short sprint opposite direction

Figure 9. Lateral single leg hop + lateral bound + short sprint opposite direction

In these exercises, the single leg hops mimics the initial split-step landing but develops GRF for the lateral bound. An important concept is developing appropriate leg stiffness with short ground contact time (GCT) (Ferris et al., 1999; Morin et al., 2007). It is important to note both leg stiffness and GCT affecting split-steps and the initial takeoff and touchdown steps may change on clay courts (Ferris et al., 1999). In the drill, the athlete shifts weight inside after the lateral bound to sprint in the opposite direction of the bound. Exercises shown in Figures 6 and 7 can be done in sets of 12-20 reps. Exercises in Figures 8 and 9 can be done in sets of 6-10 reps resting between reps. Exercises in Figures 8 and 9 could be combined with additional COD agility movement for tennis-specific repeated sprint ability (RSA).
 
Contrast Resisted and Assisted Training
Contrast training refers to varying loads with similar movement or exercises. For speed training, often contrast training involves only slight changes in force (Dintiman, 2020; Mann & Murphy, 2018) since larger forces can alter mechanics to alter movement. A classic contrast training is performing the same resistance exercise (e.g, leg press) with different loads. A classic contrast training for speed involves running uphill and downhill but at modest angles so not to alter running mechanics (Dintiman, 2020). Bungees and resistance bands can provide assistance or resistance forces without dramatically altering lateral movement. Shown in Figure 9 shows the bungee-assisted lateral explosion. Attached a bungee high so it pulls the athlete laterally but also upwards. Use a split-step into a crossover step and sprint 2-3 m. Figure 9 shows the bungee-assisted exercise. For bungee-resisted lateral explosion, attach the bungee low on the fence (see Figure 10). The athlete can split-step into a crossover step, focusing on a more upwards pull upwards and away and from the fence.
 

CONCLUSIONS
Tennis movement is mostly lateral but athletes may have differences in movement to either side which should be trained. Movement in tennis is mostly short accelerations and decelerations rather than top end speed. In this article, specifically lateral acceleration was tackled from a physical off-court training with regards to technical training. Tennis players who use the forehand weapon to cover most of the court often run farther for the forehand than backhand, which requires higher acceleration to the forehand. Focus in this article was on physical training with some technical training. Physical training should require elastic unilateral reactive leg strength training and COD movement. Little research exists on unilateral reactive leg strength training which has implications in tennis. A series of tests were recommended but need to be correlated to actual lateral speed and acceleration in future studies.

REFERENCES

Bialik, K. (2014 July 2). Does tennis need a shot clock? Retrieved 7 September 2020 from
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/does-tennis-need-a-shot-clock/
 
Carboch, J., Placha, K., & Sklenarik, M. (2018). Rally pace and match characteristics of male
and female tennis matches at the Australian Open 2017. Journal of Human Sport and
Exercise, 13(4), 743-751. https://doi.org/10.14198/jhse.2018.134.03
 
Dintiman, G. (2020). NASE essentials of next-generation sports speed training. Healthy
Learning.
Duthie, G. M., Pyne, D. B., Marsh, D. J., & Hooper, S. L. (2006). Sprint patterns in rugby union
players during competition. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20(1), 208.
https://doi.org/10.1519/00124278-200602000-00034      
Fernandez, J., Mendez-Villanueva, A., & Pluim, B. M. (2006). Intensity of tennis match
play. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 40(5), 387–391. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2005.023168
 
Ferris, D. P., Liang, K., & Farley, C. T. (1999). Runners adjust leg stiffness for their first step on
a new running surface. Journal of Biomechanics, 32(8), 787-794. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0021-9290(99)00078-0 
Ferrauti, A. and Weber, K (2001). Stroke situations in clay court tennis. Unpublished data
Game Inside Group, Tennis Australia (2016 November 24). Djokovic the fastest player in the
world. https://tennismash.com/2016/11/24/gig-djokovic-fastest-tennis-player-world/
Gómez, J. H., Marquina, V., & Gómez, R. W. (2013). On the performance of Usain Bolt in the
100 m sprint. European Journal of Physics, 34(5), 1227. https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/34/5/1227 
 
Habibi, A., Shabani, M., Rahimi, E., Fatemi, R., Najafi, A., Analoei, H., & Hosseini, M. (2010).
Relationship between jump test results and acceleration phase of sprint performance in national and regional 100m sprinters. Journal of Human Kinetics, 23(2010), 29-35. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10078-010-0004-7
 
Hewit, J. K., Cronin, J. B., & Hume, P. A. (2012). Asymmetry in multi-directional jumping
tasks. Physical Therapy in Sport, 13(4), 238-242.            https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ptsp.2011.12.003 
 
Hoppe, M. W., Baumgart, C., Bornefeld, J., Sperlich, B., Freiwald, J., & Holmberg, H. C.
(2014). Running activity profile of adolescent tennis players during match play. Pediatric Exercise Science, 26(3), 281-290. https://doi.org/10.1123/pes.2013-0195 
 
Jeffries, I. (2017). Gamespeed: Movement training for superior sports performance. Coaches
Choice.
Kovacs, M. S. (2007). Tennis physiology. Sports Medicine, 37(3), 189-198.
https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200737030-00001 
 
Kovacs, M. S. (2009). Movement for tennis: The importance of lateral training. Strength &
Conditioning Journal, 31(4), 77-85. https://doi.org/10.1519/ssc.0b013e3181afe806 
 
Kovalchik, S. (2017 Jan 26). Rally lengths are down at the Australian Open. Stats on the T.
http://on-the-t.com/2017/01/26/ao2017-rally-lengths/
 
Lockie, R. G., Schultz, A. B., Callaghan, S. J., Jeffriess, M. D., & Berry, S. P. (2013). Reliability
and validity of a new test of change-of-direction speed for field-based sports: the change-
of-direction and acceleration test (CODAT). Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 12(1), 88. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports7020045 
 
Lockie, R. G., Schultz, A. B., Callaghan, S. J., Jeffriess, M. D., & Luczo, T. M. (2014).
Contribution of leg power to multidirectional speed in field sport athletes. Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning, 22(2), 16-24.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eamonn_Flanagan/publication/265227430_Researc
hed_Applications_of_Velocity_Based_Strength_Training/links/543690a60cf2dc341db35
e79.pdf#page=17
 
Mann, J. B., Ivey, P. A., Mayhew, J. L., Schumacher, R. M., & Brechue, W. F. (2016).
Relationship between agility tests and short sprints: Reliability and smallest worthwhile difference in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division-I football players. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 30(4), 893-900. https://doi.org/10.1519/jsc.0000000000001329 
 
Mann, R.V., & Murphy A. (2018). The mechanics of sprinting and hurdling. R.V. Mann.
 
Morin, J. B., Samozino, P., Zameziati, K., & Belli, A. (2007). Effects of altered stride frequency
and contact time on leg-spring behavior in human running. Journal of Biomechanics, 40(15), 3341-3348. https://doi.org:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2007.05.001
 
O’Donoghue, P.G., Liddle, S.D. (1998). A notational analysis of time factors of elite men’s and
ladies’ singles tennis on clay and grass surfaces. Journal of Sports Sciences, 16, 592-3.
 
Over, S., & O’donoghue, P. (2008). Whats the point: Tennis analysis and why. ITF Coaching
and Sport Science Review, 15(45), 19-21. https://www.itf-academy.com/?view=itfview&academy=103&itemid=1168
 
Richers, T.A. (1995). Time-motion analysis of the energy systems in elite and competitive
singles tennis. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 28, 73-86.
 
Sackmann, J. (n.d.). Match charting project: Men’s rally leaders: Last 52. Retrieved 7
September 2020 from http://tennisabstract.com/reports/mcp_leaders_rally_men_last52.html
 
Sackmann, J. (n.d.). Match charting project: Women’s rally leaders: Last 52. Retrieved 7
September 2020 from http://tennisabstract.com/reports/mcp_leaders_rally_women_last52.html
 
Sackmann, J. (2016 August 19). Searching for meaning in distance run stats.
http://www.tennisabstract.com/blog/category/distance-run/
 
Sackman, J. (2020 August 31). What happens to the pace of play without fans, challenges or
towelkids? http://www.tennisabstract.com/blog/category/match-length/
 
Salonikidis, K., & Zafeiridis, A. (2008). The effects of plyometric, tennis-drills, and combined
training on reaction, lateral and linear speed, power, and strength in novice tennis
players. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22(1), 182-191. https://doi.org/10.1519/jsc.0b013e31815f57ad 
 
Si.com Staff (2015 January 25). Daily data viz: Mens court distance covered.
https://www.si.com/tennis/2015/01/25/daily-data-viz-mens-court-distance-covered-australian-open
 
Young, W. B., James, R., & Montgomery, I. (2002). Is muscle power related to running speed
with changes of direction? Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 42(3), 282-288. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Warren_Young/publication/11281917_Is_Muscle_Power_Related_to_Running_Speed_With_Changes_of_Direction/links/0deec529cfa284fa7d000000.pdf
Weber, K., Pieper, S., & Exler, T. (2007). Characteristics and significance of running speed at
the Australian Open 2006 for training and injury prevention. Journal of Medicine and Science in Tennis, 12(1), 14-17. https://www.tennismedicine.org/page/JMST
Weyand, P., Sternlight, D., Bellizzi, M. and Wright, S. (2000). Faster top running speeds are
achieved with greater ground forces not more rapid leg movements. Journal of Applied Physiology, 89, 1991-2000. https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.2000.89.5.1991 
 
 
 
 

Tennis movement can be characterized by primarily short lateral bursts over typically 3-4 m initiated by a reactive split-step. Movement can be improved by: 1) strength-speed training, 2) technical training, 3) and anticipation training. Kovacs (2009) summarized the importance of lateral movement training. This article will address on-court lateral acceleration with regards to strength-speed and technical training. Lateral acceleration depends on unilateral movement, or specifically, the outside leg to enhance ground reaction force (GRF).

Over and O’donoghue (2008) suggested movement training is often conducted without exact knowledge of physiological, technical and biomechanical demands. Instead, coaches and  trainers should consider research and data implications. About 70% of tennis movement is lateral and 20% of tennis movement is forward (Weber et al., 2007). It has been estimated that the average professional on clay courts runs to only 5% of shots where distance > 4.5 m (Ferrauti, & Weber, 2001). Richers (1995) found the average number of continuous steps to the ball was 5.4 on hard courts and 5.7 on clay or grass courts. Steps may vary in stride length depending on rally speed, distance and time. Over the past 25 years, rally speeds have increased which might affect stride lengths and number of steps. SI.com staff (2015) tracked movement of 4 ATP players and found their movement per point was 8 – 14 m which depended on court position, playing style, and length of rally. At the 2017 Australian Open, the average rally lasted 4.47 and 4.85 shots and 5.44 and 5.93 s for the women and men, respectively (Carboch et al., 2018). In addition, selected ATP (N=34) and WTA (N=44) players from September 2019 to September 2020 had mean rally lengths of 4.21 and 4.06 shots with a player average range from 3.2 – 5.4 (Sackmann, n.d.a; Sackmann, n.d.b). Inter-serve and inter-point times were reported at 29-30 s (O’Donoghue, & Liddle, 1998) but more recently it has been reported that actual time from point to point varies about 25-45 s depending on the individual athlete (Bialik, 2014; Sackmann, 2020). From the data, it can be estimated a run over 4.5 m occurs once every 3-3.5 min.

Although runs > 4.5 m occur infrequently, high acceleration and deceleration are more common. Hoppe et al. (2014) found peak running speeds for adolescent players (12-14 y.o) was 4.4 ± 0.8 m/s (9.8 mph). Players exceeded 3 m/s (6.71 mph) once every 5 min or only 18.5 times per match. High acceleration and deceleration was defined as 2.0 m/s2  (or 6.56 ft/s2 ). High acceleration and deceleration was 51.7 and 47.0 times per match, respectively or 0.6/min each. High acceleration was 51.7 per match at 0.6/min or once per 1.7 min, twice as frequent as running distances > 4.5 m as reported for professional players. The typical top speeds for ATP pros is 15-16 kmh and for WTA pros is 13-14 kmh (Game Inside Group, Tennis Australia, 2016). Novak Djokovic reached 36.02 kmh (22.38 mph) in sprinting > 3 m.

Clearly, initial acceleration is more important than top end or maximal speed. In addition, anticipatory cues can optimize movement and reduce acceleration requirements by responding earlier. Nonetheless, technical footwork training should involve training unilateral explosiveness to improve rate of force development (RFD). In the 5 - 10 m interval, an athlete can reach an estimated 70% of top end speed (Duthie, Pyne, Marsh, & Hooper, 2006). Therefore, in tennis, most athletes reach approximately 70% of top end speed. Djokovic’s 36.02 kmh was likely 80-85% of his top end speed, but the distance might have exceeded 10 m.

In short sprints, a combination of vertical and horizontal components of force are applied (Dintiman, G, 2020; Jeffries, 2017). In the initial acceleration 0 - 5 m phase, the horizontal component of speed is of greater importance than vertical component. For maximal top running speed, ground force is the most important determinant (Weyand et al., 2000). The first 3 steps from a standing or still position involves mostly horizontal force (Dintiman, 2020). At maximal linear velocity, a world-class sprinter achieves stride lengths and stride frequencies of 2.6 m and 5 steps/s, respectively (Dintiman, 2020; Mann & Murphy, 2018). Lateral acceleration has lower stride lengths and frequencies. Of interest is the acceleration of top professional tennis players.
 
LATERAL ACCELERATION OF DJOKOVIC AND NADAL
Novak Djokovic is arguably the best mover on the ATP Tour today. Rafael Nadal is considered one of the best movers of all time. In this case study, 40 groundstrokes were examined (Nadal = 18, Djokovic = 22). High speed 120 and 240 fps HD videography was filmed using a Sony 4K RX10 camera. Velocities and accelerations were estimated over 0.05 s increments from t = 0.00 s to 0.35 s. Measurements were done with displacement of head/shoulders. T=0.00 s starts at the end of the split-step when the head/shoulders begins to move laterally. It was noted that acceleration over each 0.05s interval was not constantly increasing or decreasing, but dependent on the rate of force production (RFD) from either leg.

Table 1 shows 3 maximal accelerations calculated from the selected 40 shots. All maximal accelerations occurred on return games where defensive skills include greater movement. Service games which are initially offensive often do not require the same acceleration early in the point. It is assumed these peak accelerations probably represent the top 10% accelerations of both players (given the 3 measurements shown in Table 1 were the highest from 40 groundstrokes). It should be noted that the top 1 or 2% of peak accelerations may exceed these values. Figures 1 show Rafael Nadal shortly after initial acceleration. Comparatively, Usain Bolt in a starting still 4-point stance (i.e., hands and feet on the ground) has been calculated to reach an initial acceleration of 9.5 m/s2 in the 100 m sprint. (Gómez et al., 2013). However, Djokovic and Nadal are sprinting repeatedly and Bolt is sprinting once. In addition, the short distances in tennis and the 100 m sprint do not have the same demands. Curiously, if the acceleration forces were only in the vertical direction, depending on the actual RFD and impulse, the vertical jumps for Djokovic and Nadal would be around 0.20 – 0.25 m whereas by comparison, Bolt would be ca 0.9 m (Gómez et al., 2013).

On wide balls, Djokovic can typically achieve stride lengths of 2 m and stride frequencies of 4 steps/sec. As noted earlier, acceleration over each 0.05 sec increment was not uniform but dependent on unilateral RFD. An athlete may initially push off from either leg unevenly as unilateral (i.e., single sideways) leg force may not be equal strength. In addition, leg drives are in different phases such as the takeoff or touchdown positions. Hence, acceleration measured for Djokovic and Nadal did not involve a steady RFD.

Few studies have been conducted with lateral speed or the development of lateral speed. Court surface such as clay or hard courts can affect concentric and eccentric forces in both the initial acceleration to the ball and deceleration in recovery.  Weber et al. (2007) pointed out players will run 0.25 to 0.50 m more to the forehand side than the backhand side. Although cases were limited, we see that for Table 1, the measured acceleration to the forehand was higher than to the backhand (e.g., Nadal was recorded as 4.70 m/s2 and 4.30 m/s2 for the forehand and backhand, respectively). Therefore, acceleration to the forehand may be slightly more important for training. In novice athletes, t-test shows significant differences (p=0.001) between either lateral movement as measured over 4 m (Salonikidis, & Zafeiridis, 2008). For elite athletes, movements to either side were similar. Hewit et al. (2012) discussed unilateral leg movement in linear and lateral jumping and running. Largest leg strength differences were found in lateral movement (single leg countermovement lateral jumps or SLCM-L) but it was suggested that up to 15% difference was normal and acceptable. That is, an athlete might be 15% weaker in one leg than the other and normal athletic movement is not affected. Tennis, however, differs from most sports in requiring greater lateral movement and 180˚ change of directions (COD). Most field sports require cutting at 20-60˚ where asymmetric leg strength may not seriously affect movement.

It is reasonable to assume the same concepts in rate of force production and ground force reaction apply in a lateral direction as with linear speed. In lateral movement, most force is generated by the outside leg which is farther from the intended direction. After the stroke, deceleration for recovery to a favorable court position requires the legs to switch roles where in movement to the right, the left leg is the outside leg in explosive movement towards the ball. When the athlete moves back to the center or to the right, the left leg is the outside leg in change of direction (COD) or recovery phase.
Tennis players could be tested on the outside leg moving either to the forehand or backhand side. Using unilateral strength and plyometric training to train unilateral leg force production may improve athletes with weaker movement to one side. Nevertheless, it is important to train both legs for acceleration since they both assume the force-generating reactive power.
 
Continued in a few days...
 

The COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented and unexpected months away from tennis, and for many athletes weeks of complete quarantine and isolation.  Under “stay at home” conditions, many athletes were unable to practice and train using their normal workloads.  In tennis, all of the official tournaments globally were suspended since March 2020.  This has created an unexpected period of inactivity and significant detraining.as competitive tennis events will resume at some point in the future, it is important for athletes to properly prepare for returning to play using a structured, personalized and appropriate return to tennis training as a first step and then at a subsequent date competition.     
    

Proposal of the RETURN TO TENNIS (RTT) MODEL

To determine an effective return from this unique environment we are proposing the RETURN TO TENNIS MODEL (RTT) with a focus on “High Performance Players.” This model has used data collected from two female professional tennis players during the 2018/2019 seasons as our reference data. This will allow us to utilize real data and showcase how to prepare for Return To Tennis scenarios using previous data as a guide for individualization and personalization needed for high performance players.

Key Findings from Workload Data Collections
By monitoring two female professional tennis players (Player A & Player B) daily workloads for 52 to 53 weeks respectively in 2018-19 we were able to utilize this data to prepare a model that could be utilized for future players when planning to return to tennis.  Player A was a Top 100 WTA ranked individual and Player B was a Top 200 WTA individual.  Both players (and each player’s coach) were instructed to report session duration and Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) for each practice and physical activity session.  Data collection started at the beginning of pre-season training in October 2018 for player A and November 2018 for player B.  Prior to the data collection, players and coaches were given specific instructions on how to accurately monitor and record RPE numbers (Table 1).    
​

The data collection continued throughout of the pre-season training and entire 2019 season.  Player A completed a full WTA tour schedule and the player B completed mix of WTA tour events and ITF World Tennis Tour events. 
Both players had successful seasons without any major injuries that would interfere with a normal training and competition schedule.  The workload was calculated using the formula:

 Workload = session duration (in minutes) X session RPE

​Each session workload was recorded daily and the sum of Monday through Sunday daily workload was calculated as weekly workload.  Overall daily and weekly workload averages were 985.27 and 5,822.76, respectively (Table 2).  Other key findings are summarized on Table 2.  There were significant differences in players’ workloads between “training week” and “tournament week.”  If a player played any matches as a part of the tournament, the week was considered a “tournament week.”  In tennis, the tournaments are usually week-long events, and unfortunately each tournament may have various number of matches based on how many matches a player may win. In many tournaments players may only play one match in one week (tournament).  Therefore, the tournament week workloads are highly variable.  Although over 95% of all sessions were recorded throughout the year, a very small number of missing sessions did occur due to travel and communication challenges, especially when unplanned sessions occurred.  These key findings give coaches and support staff valuable information on how to work with high performance female tennis players.  This information could be utilized and applied for tennis players periodization plans as most of the tennis tournaments are played in the same formats (best of 3 set matches lasting between one and four hours in length). 
​

It is important to understand a player’s current physical condition, their baseline numbers, and also the short, medium & long term development goals.  It is recommended to go to through medical screening prior to return to training and play. Our RTT Model uses a three group classification system;

1. Under Prepared: a player has done minimum workload; for examples, 500 daily workload and 2500 (500 x five days a week) weekly work load.

2. Maintained: a player has maintained normal or close to average workload; for examples, 800 daily workload and 4000 (800 x five days a week) weekly workload.

3. Well Prepared: a player has been sustained close to normal training week workload; for example, 1,300 daily workload and 6,500 (1,300 x five days a week) weekly workload. 

Table 3 summarizes initial training status, goal training loads, and estimated weeks to reach the goal weekly load for each category of players.  The examples of the initial daily workloads for the Maintained and Well Prepared players are based on the findings from the two female professional players. The average of daily workload during the tournament week (802.36) and average of daily workload during the training week (1,286.15) are shown respectively (Table 2).

​The Weekly Acute to Chronic Workload Ratio (ACWR) as described by Gabbett et al. (among others) is calculated by total accumulation of the last seven days on the seventh day (Sunday) divided it by the seven-day  (a week) average for the last 28 days.  Daily Acute Chronic Workload Ratio is calculated by the rolling seven days (previous seven days) average divided it by the rolling 28 days (previous 28 days) average.  To calculate the weekly and daily ACWR, we created realistic daily session scenarios with duration in minutes and RPEs for each Initial Training Status scenario.   The first week’s rolling seven days and first four weeks’ rolling 28 days total workloads are based on the Initial Training Status daily workloads. 

1.Under Prepared Athletes
If a player has not been able to practice and training regularly and only perform minimum workloads prior to return to practice and training, the beginning workload for the week one of the practice and training should be very low.  In general, 10% training load increments have been recommended in many environments when returning to play from injury, etc.  However, the potential weekly workload increment for the week one could be less than 10% from previous week (as if the player has been doing minimum practice and training, such as 500 daily workload and 2,500 weekly workload).  In our presented model week one weekly workload is increased by only 6.8% (table 4).  The examples of tennis and non-tennis frequency, RPEs, sessions numbers, and duration of the each session can been seen in Table 5.  The non-tennis sessions include warm up, cool down, regeneration / recovery sessions.  However, non-tennis RPE examples are only for actual training (strength and conditioning) sessions and does not include warm up and cooldown.   If a player is under prepared, the main goal is to rebuild chronic workload so that the player will be able to perform higher workloads safely and eventually achieve the goal daily and weekly workloads. The goal daily & weekly workloads are set to 1,000 daily workload and 5,800 weekly workload in this model.  The daily goal workload of 1,000 is selected as it is an example of higher-intensity sessions.  The 5,800 goal weekly workload is based on the finding from the two female professional players as the overall average weekly workload of 5,822.76 (table 2).  In this model, it takes about seven weeks to achieve the goal workload.  The summary of seven weeks weekly workload progressions can be seen in Table 4.  The full summary includes daily plans is in Table 6.    Because of the initial training status, somewhat aggressive workloads are needed to apply to achieve the goal workloads and be ready for even higher workloads or potential competitions.   At the same time, the workload should be apply and increase safely to maximize training benefits and minimize likelihood of injuries.  Therefore, second and third week’s workloads are significantly higher than the first week, especially second week (increased by 21.91% from week one).  It has been recommended to keep the ACWR between 0.8 and 1.3 in many team sports and some in tennis as well. This recommendation has some support suggesting this may reduce the likelihood of injuries.  Even though the weekly workload increment is high, the ACWR is kept under 1.3. This is important to recognize that higher than 10% increases can be achieved while keeping ACWR in manageable and acceptable ranges.   Because of the aggressive increments of workloads for the first three weeks, the workloads for week four should maintain or slightly lower than week three.  However, the weekly and daily averages of ACWR stay above the 1.0.  The workload for the week five is increased by 47.77% in this model.  It seems a large jump.  However, the daily average ACWR stays below 1.3 and the weekly ACWR is only slightly higher than 1.3.  The following week continues to have a high ACWR of 1.26 for both weekly and daily average.  The previous four weeks of training loads should provide sufficient experience and prepare the players to go through high ACWR days and week during week five and six.  This is similar to “shock” block or microcycle that has been utilized in soccer and other sports.  As the results at the end of the week seven, the player should achieve the goal workload safely and efficiently in this model.
 

2. Maintained Fitness Level
If a player has been able to maintain normal or close to average workload prior to return to train and practice, the player should be able to start higher workload than the under prepared players from week one.  Therefore, the initial daily workload is set as 800 in this model.  This is based on the average tournament week daily workload from the two female professional players’ data (Table 2).  The goal workloads for the “maintained” players are 1,300 daily workload and 6,850 weekly workload.  The goal daily workload is based on the average training week daily workload of 1,286.15 from the female professional tennis players’ data (Table 2).  The goal weekly workload is a middle point between the under prepared goal weekly workload of 5,800 and the well prepared goal weekly workload of 7,900 (Table 3).   The weekly progressions are similar to the ones for the under prepared players.  The week one starts slow, followed by very aggressive week two and three, a slightly lower workload for the week four than week three, very aggressive week five, and moderate increment for the week six (Table 7).    Because of the higher initial workload than under prepared players, a player for this model should achieve the goal workload safely and efficiently by the end of week six.  The weekly ACWR and average daily ACWR are below 1.3 for the entire six weeks. The examples of tennis and non-tennis frequency, RPEs, sessions numbers, and duration of each session can been seen in Table 8.  The full summary includes daily plans is in Table 9.    

​3.Well Prepared Athletes
If a player has been able to sustain close to normal training week workload prior to return to train and practice, the player should be ready for high workload training and practice rather close to a normal training week.  Therefore, the initial daily workload for the “well prepared” players is set to 1,300 that is similar to average training week daily workload from two female players’ data (Table 2).  The goal daily and weekly workloads (Table 3) are based on the average highest daily and weekly workloads during the tournament week 1,860.00 and 7,920.00, respectively from the female professional tennis players’ data (Table 2).  Under this model and due to the well prepared player’s initial training status, it should only take three weeks to achieve the goal daily and weekly workloads. This highlights that a three week training block may suffice to train an athlete before tournament play who comes into this period “well prepared.” This would provide similar workloads to the potentially high workloads for the tournament week (Table 10).  The examples of tennis and non-tennis frequency, RPEs, sessions numbers, and duration of each session can be seen in Table 11.  The full summary includes daily plans in Table 12.   
 

Using a version of an Acute Chronic Workload Ratio (ACWR) is a guide to help with structuring training. A lot of variability may exist based on each athlete; it should not be used a definitive marker, but a tool to help in decision making. The session duration and RPEs are very easy to use and understood metrics by coaches and players alike. Compliance is always a challenge with monitoring programs, especially in a sport like tennis with so much travel and varying schedules from week to week. This proposed model is easy to implement and compliance to this type of data collection has been shown in these case studies to be very high. Although this is an example for high level professional tennis players, the RTT Model can be applied at all levels of competitive tennis for high performance players.  Below is a summary of the major practical applications that can be applied:

• Educational Sessions With Players and Coaches: The purpose of the educational session is to provide a clear and concise explanation on the RPE scale and to make sure agreement exists in the various levels for both players and coaches.  Ideally, any session should be within ±1 RPE between a players’ perspective and that of the coach. This ensures that both the coach and player are under the same subjective perspective of how hard the training sessions “feel.” A secondary benefit of the RPE scale is that it can expose unexpected stress that players might be experiencing, especially when there is a significant difference between coaches planned session RPE and players actual RPE numbers. ​
• It is also helpful to use other questionnaires, assessments, and possibly wearable technologies.  The information from other sources (questions, results and devices) may not only provide additional internal or external load metrics but also potentially confirm what session minutes x RPE workloads may show and provide even more data to help with decision making. 
• The week one of return to play and training should be almost same as the previous weeks of training workloads (avoiding any spikes in workload early in the process is paramount).  This is why it is so important to understand what players have done in the previous two to four weeks prior to return to formal training.   The first week will help to understand players’ actual physical status and provide more accurate information to adjust plans and workloads for the upcoming weeks.  The concept here is go slow and ramp up appropriately.
• The returns to play and practice plans have to be customized for each player using all available data. However, each player has a different initial training status, genetic capabilities, responses to training varies considerably and that is why constant daily monitoring is needed.  
• It is important to remember that any other stressors (academics, family, financial, etc.) might influence a player’s physical and mental condition.   If players have been only training on their own without coaches, presence of the coaches could increase training and practice session intensity automatically.  Return to a more normal training environment will increase the general intensity even if the total time of workouts may be the same. Important to factor this into the plan.  

​In this case study, we understand that the sample size is small and in a unique player population. However, the data provided highlights valuable information to allow individuals who work with high performance tennis players a model for how to return players back to high level training and competition. Although the initial purpose of this article was focused on returning from a unique environment (Covid-19 quarantine), this model may be applied to any return to play scenario such as a return from mild injury or the first few weeks of training after an extended break from tennis (for example the first few weeks of pre-season training).   The model proposed in this article is focused on three different initial training states of players.  It is important to note that each player should work closely with coaches and support team staff (medical, strength & conditioning and sport science, etc.) to accurately set the initial training status and create appropriate customized return to play plans.  A final concept which is paramount to the success of this model is constant and accurate communication between coach and player as well as within the entire support team of the player. The small details and accurate monitoring make this model successful and it requires the communication between all involved to be clear, concise and accurate. 

At the beginning of any return to tennis program, understanding the fitness level of the tennis athlete is important. Here is a link to the TENNIS FITNESS COMBINE which provides a cost effective, easy to implement tennis-specific physical testing protocol that can help coaches, trainers and parents better understand the level of each athlete and if the specific program implemented is improving the vital aspects of tennis fitness. Click Here To  Learn More

This image shows how the small stabilizer or intrinsic system supports our structural integrity to allow stability when the larger prime mover muscles provide force production. Addressing core training with only dynamic movement drills and partial range reps (med ball throws and sit ups) only address the “outer unit” neglecting the “inner unit” exposing potential risk on the “mast.” On the other hand, drills that only address stiffness and stability (plank holds) without any dynamic components neglect the fact that the tennis athlete does not perform on court while stiff and braced. Back to the concept above, “proximal stability for distal mobility.” Of course there are times when all of these traditional training methods should be used and everyone should know their “why” behind programming any exercise. However, incorporating more functional movements will ensure the athlete be better equipped to handle the med ball drills and any other power movements you incorporate into your training. Not only this, it engages the athlete at a higher level due to high level of specificity for their love, tennis. No pun intended. They can connect to the “why,” and it challenges their nervous system in a way partial range mind numbing stomach hardening crunches do not. These partial range prime mover exercises also play a role in contributing to postural imbalances. These imbalances affect the structure of the “mast” and hurts efficiency of the kinetic chain.
 
I challenge everyone to get creative with their core training to help the tennis athlete be exposed to more specific demands they will see on the court.
 
Here are just 6 of many of my favorite functional core exercises you can play with (pictured at the end of this article):

1. Side plank with top arm in “Y” position, performing small shoulder pulses or movements with a band
2. Stance Specific Isometric holds with multi planar palloff presses/band movements
3. Glute Bridge Variations with Perturbations (external disturbance or stimulus) from external force or band
4. ½ kneeling or stance specific Swiss ball/med ball movements with arms (can add perturbations to ball)
5. ½ Turkish get up to bridge with hold (can add perturbations to top arm or bottoms up kettle bell)
6. Medicine Ball Shadow Shots with end position holds (can add perturbations to the hold)

 
To conclude, you must be able to resist and stabilize movement in order to produce it repeatedly with power, efficiency and safety. Following the concept of “proximal stability for distal mobility” can fill in this missing link of core training for the tennis athlete. In a functional environment the cores job is not to only produce movement, but to stabilize and resist movement as well. Functionally, core musculature will co-contract to help create stiffness and stability in order to protect the body’s joints by connecting the kinetic chain and transfer forces/energy (see types of core training listed above). Have a direct “why” in your core training.
 
So I’ll ask the question again… is the current core training for the tennis athlete optimized? You decide.
 
 
For more information or any questions on how to optimize core training for tennis you can reach out to Josh at:
 
Email: jbrifkin1@gmail.com
Cell: 2603855913
Insta: @Coach_Rif
 
 
DON’T MISS THE CORE TRAINING EXERCISES BELOW!

Visualization is arguably the most important factor in the mental approach to tennis, and the current situation we are facing with the COVID-19 pandemic gives us an opportunity to turn within and hone our craft through improving mental acuity with certain visualization techniques. Strong visualization skills allow players to run scenarios in their heads, getting an edge on the court through practicing meditation, imagery, and interval training off the court.
 
Meditation is a technique used by many athletes who want to train their mind. An athlete meditates in order to find a state of consciousness to focus on only what is necessary for that period of time with undivided attention. Current world number one and 17-time Grand Slam Champion Novak Djokovic is known throughout the tennis world for his rigorous routines and preparation, which involves meditation, diet and yoga. Meditation improves an athletes ability to focus in the zone, sharpen concentration and awareness, while releasing negative energy that could poorly impact performance.
 
Djokovic says that “One of the ways is to kind of meditate but not meditate with the intention of going away from those problems, but visualize,” (Wegela. 2010).  Doing so, he is able to reflect upon his self and obtain the mental clarity needed to overcome any hurdles he may be facing.  Meditation requires significant brain power, and many young athletes have not yet developed a sufficient degree of control and willpower to fully incorporate mediation into their program. That said, the sooner meditation is started as part of a young player’s routine, the better, as it may not have an immediate impact, but will certainly pay huge dividends on a competitive level down the line.
 
During COVID-19, I have spent much of my time researching and watching webinars, with one in particular being  ‘Building Character and the USTA Teaching & Coaching Philosophy.’ One topic in particular discussed was how players can gain so much knowledge and confidence by using a visualization skill such as imagery. Imagery will help players absorb information through the demonstration of others. Just by watching another compete can offer you so much information, allowing the otherwise new skill to feel more familiar, translating into a more confident attitude emulated. Juniors can use imagery in their homes as a way to visualize and connect with the idea of competing. Watching others compete can give these players a better sense of what a particular skill, tactic, technique or mindset looks like which will ultimately make it easier to emulate and thus improve the quality of their own game. Patrick Mouratoglou, Serena Williams’s coach, understands the importance of watching. He believes that is one of the best ways for a player to learn.
 
Many pros watch each other to develop tactics and help them mentally in stressful situations such as break point down at 4 all in the 3rd set. For example, Victoria Azerenka studies Rafael Nadal for his mental strength because he is known to make a stressful situation look calm.          
 
Lastly, another visualization skill for juniors to use during COVID-19 is the ability to use interval training to connect with competing in matches. So what exactly is interval training and how can this help players visualize themselves in a competitive match?
 
Interval training alternates between short and high intensity bursts of activity with a recovery in between allowing the body to train the two energy systems: aerobic and anaerobic. Briefly, aerobic exercise is any type of cardiovascular training - i.e.  cardio - and the anaerobic system involves short intense burst of energy performed at maximum effort.
 
As any competitive player knows, tennis matches consist of short bursts high intensity points, usually lasting no more than than 10 seconds, with pauses up to 20 seconds in between points and 90 seconds at the change of ends. To simulate this sort of activity you don’t need fancy equipment, just your driveway, a nearby hill, high school track or a treadmill if you have one. You can recreate a match experience mentally by sprinting 10-15 seconds to represent point play, taking 20 second rests to signify the time between points to regroup, gather thoughts, and take deep breaths. Not only can this help you on a physical standpoint but also mentally. By the middle of the exercise, you may be  exhausted but have 4 sprints remaining. This is when it is time to draw back to visualization and imagine yourself being one game away from winning a tournament after playing an excruciating 3 hour match earlier in the day. That visualization will push you to finish the intervals time and time again.
 
During this challenging time where so many of us are unable to continue our day to day activities, these visualization techniques provide an easily attainable way for you to improve your game and can provide a bit of peace in an otherwise stressful time. Always remember, hard work opens the doors of success, accomplishments and your dreams.
 
References
 
Wegela, K. (2010 January 19). How to Practice Mindfulness Meditation. Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-courage-be- present/201001/how-practice-mindfulness-meditation
 

Introduction/History
Over the past few decades the numbers of players trying to play professional tennis has grown significantly. The prize money has increased 13% in the last year; in 1990 Pete Sampras beat Andre Agassi in US Open Final and Pete’s prize money check was US $220,000. In 2020 the winner will receive right at US $4 million. As a result, the financial benefits of being a top tennis player has increased significantly and more people all over the world are looking at the possibilities of making professional tennis a career. The finances are very top heavy, but if you can make it the rewards are impressive. As a result a lot of players, parents, coaches, agents and federations put time, energy and planning into the young careers of promising junior players. However, from my experience, far too many players are not being developed effectively based on their physical styles and genetics -  or what I like to call “Physical Signature.” Every athlete has a physical signature; it is the athlete’s personal DNA. Just like a fingerprint it is unique to each individual. However, in tennis, three broad categories of physical styles do exist and it is easy to break out most tennis athletes into one of these three styles/signatures. It is important to understand this from a Talent/Physical development perspective, but also to help train each athlete most appropriately. This article is focused on the physical aspects, but I also do the same analysis for technical style, tactical style, mental style and the intangibles (professionalism, desire, etc). 

Based on the current style of play at the top of men’s tennis you can see three broad groups of players that make a great living playing professional tennis. I have used other sports as an example of this athlete and the likelihood that any of the top professional tennis players that would fall into this category would be able to play that sport at the highest level if that was the focus at a young age.

1) The NBA “Big Man” Athlete (A very tall big serving athlete). Just being tall is not enough. You need to be an athlete, a competitor and great tennis player. John Isner, Reilly Opelka, Ivo Karlovic, Kevin Anderson among others fall into this category. They are over 6ft 6inches tall and most are closer to 7ft. 

• If you are a junior tennis player (or the coach/parent) of a young player who is projected to be in this category then the training from a young age should be specific and targeted to focus on the areas of most need.

1. Injury Prevention/Reduction Training: This is specifically on the areas of most need including: lower back, knees and shoulders, foot/ankle. Prevention programs should be implemented from a young age specifically on the areas of most risk. From the research on tall growing athletes the areas of concern/risk are clear and a well targeted program and long-term plan should be implemented. From my personal experience working with two of the tallest players in tennis history (as well as many big men in other sports), the concerns and potential injury risk is higher during the developmental years due to the rapid growth and subsequent challenges associated. You need a very structured plan and long-term focus with measurable data, consistent evaluation periods, smart scheduling and the right type of training to be successful.
2. Movement: In the development years, this will be the biggest weakness and will likely result in this type of athlete not always having the same results as some of their peers. The main reason is that the ability to play defense is challenged and it is harder to win when not playing their best. So it is common to see more losses (and sometimes more “bad” losses during development). As a result, movement mechanics, on-court technique work is paramount to ensure they are efficient and effective with the right movements. Check out the International Tennis Performance Association (iTPA) work on Tennis Movement and Footwork. Go to this site and you can get the full “free” book going through over 30 of the most important tennis movements to make sure you know what to train www.itpa-tennis.org

The Duel Threat Modern NFL Quarterback – This is the tennis player who is between 6ft 1inch -6ft 6inch in height. However, they also are very fast, a great mover and see the court very well. The highest percentage of all-time greats over the past few decades have been in this category – Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Safin et al. What makes this bodytype so valuable is that they all can serve above 130MPH and control the tempo of matches with the serve, but also are great movers and can play outstanding defense when needed. This usually gives them a slight advantage when they are not playing their best to still find ways to win. These individuals do not follow the same developmental timeline. Some can grow early, some can be late maturers, so many players between 10-16 may fall into this category and need to be trained to have a full court game, with the ability to play defense, offense, move very well and be in great overall tennis specific conditioning.  

• If you are a junior tennis player (or the coach/parent) of a young player who is projected to be a in this category then the training from a young age should be specific and targeted to focus on the areas of most need.

​

1. Strength & Power: For this athlete to have a long a successful career the right training habits are needed to be trained throughout the development years. Age appropriate strength and power training is important for this athlete as this will be an important area of training as they get older and need to maximize these areas on-court.
   
2. Movement: Although movement should not be a major weakness during the development years, many athletes are struggling during the years as they are growing at different stages. Therefore, it is vital to train the right movements and mechanics throughout this development period. Here is a good resource that highlights over four hours of on-court movement training for all aspects that are needed to be successful  -TENNIS MOVEMENT
3. Mobility: This is an area that all tennis players need to spend a lot of time developing. However, for this type of athlete it becomes even more important due to the need to play a hybrid of styles. Need to be as fast and agile as the World Class Soccer Player, but be able to bring the power like the NBA Big Man. The hips of a tennis player are one of the most important joints in the body for all tennis players, but specifically for athletes who have this style. Here is a resource specifically focused on the Hips for Tennis Player. We call it Bulletproofing Your Hips.

The World Class Soccer Player: These are the individuals that are usually under 6ft 1inch in height yet have top of the charts on-court tennis movement and tennis-specific fitness and endurance. Think about players such as Lleyton Hewitt and David Ferrer. So how many Top 100 players fall into this category? At the end of 2019 the average height of the Top 100 on the ATP Tour was 6ft 2inches or just above 187cm. However, less than 20 players would fall into the 6ft 1inch height and below category. Although the data suggests that being taller than 6ft 1inch is helpful as a starting guide for professional tennis, many players under this height have made a very successful career from professional tennis. This being said, these players who are succeeding currently (for example as Kei Nishikori, Fabio Fognini, David Goffin, etc.) have some unique talents whether it be shotmaking ability, touch/court craft, fitness, court speed etc. It is vital that this category of player has multiple skills from a physical perspective. This needs to be understand from a young age and the various physical skills need to be developed in a structured and planned method. Although this athlete needs everything to be developed at a very high level to be successful, the following are two that always need to be prioritized:

• If you are a junior tennis player (or the coach/parent) of a young player who is projected to be in this category then the training from a young age should be specific and targeted to focus on the areas of most need.

1. Tennis Specific Endurance: Individuals have a genetic aspect to all these styles and having great endurance is one of the most genetically determined areas. Individuals have a higher composition of slow twitch fibers, higher hemoglobin and myoglobin levels (which helps with oxygen delivery and use by the body) and higher capacity of maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max). However, training can significantly improve these aspects if done correctly. Most younger athletes do not realize the level of tennis specific conditioning needed to be successful on the ATP Tour. Not only at regular tournaments throughout the year, but specifically during Grand Slam events involving 5 set matches.
   
2. Speed & Movement: The challenge for this player is that although tennis specific endurance is a major area that needs to be trained, so does speed and movement. These are two somewhat opposing biomotor capabilities, and improving one to a great extent does potentially reduce the other. Therefore, it is important to structure your training weeks with these competing goals in mind. In simple terms you want to work on speed and movement when the athlete is fresh (early in the training day for example), and you work on tennis specific endurance at the end of the training day or after any skill based or speed-based work is performed. Although a lot more goes into planning for these types of athletes, this is a good rule of thumb to help plan the sessions.
   
3. Strength: This style of athlete needs to be very strong as they are somewhat undersized compared to most of their competitors and as a result, will need to make up for it with developing a strong and powerful game built both on the court, but also in the gym. Having a personalized training program focused on this area will allow this style of athlete to compete and thrive with taller and stronger competitors. 
   

The goal of this article was to highlight a simple framework to help effectively train younger athletes who have the desire to play at the highest levels of the game. It is understood that all athletes are unique and a one size fits all training program is not recommended, these three broad categories outlined above can help provide guidance about how individual young male tennis players should be developed through their formative years. 

by Doug Eng EdD PhD CSCS CTPS MTPS

​PART I – CHANGING PHYSIOLOGY, DEMANDS OF MOVEMENT AND THE CASE STUDY OF NADAL

Traditional tennis movement has been taught as involving quick, small, shuffle and adjustment steps. The traditional clay court game has been taught with additional sliding movement involving long, grinding points. However, today’s matches don’t involve as many long rallies as 40 years ago. Research on modern tennis movement shows today’s game has some different characteristics. Points are shorter and faster creating greater demands on speed, agility and quickness.
Tennis-specific movement is generally regarded as 70% lateral, 20% forward and less than 10% backwards movement (Weber et al 2006, Kovacs 2009). That is, most movement occurs laterally on the baseline, with some movement forward or backwards. Forward movement may be slightly in front of the baseline or up to close to the net. Studies show that the average tennis point lasts 6-11 seconds and as much as 15.7 sec during the average baseline rally (Bernardi et al 1998). Playing style was a major factor in the length of rallies as shown in Table 1.

​For full article, click HERE. 

As part of the 2018 World Tennis Fitness Conference, the International Tennis Performance Association hosted a half day Summit on Tennis Technology and Analytics. The purpose behind the Summit was to bring practical experts together to discuss the State of the Tennis Industry and provides some recommendations for the future.
 
“The Science of Today is the Technology of Tomorrow”
The growth of technology and analytics in all sports has grown exponentially in the last decade. The tennis industry has embraced many aspects of technology and analytics, but also has many areas that continue to be developed to improve the sport in all the various areas.
​
Tennis Needs Innovation
The first step in innovation is understanding where the areas of strength and the areas of opportunity exist. To improve technology and analytics in the sport of tennis, it is paramount to bring together the best minds in the industry and focus on what we currently do well and what we can improve on.
 
The Tennis Technology and Analytics Summit presented by the International Tennis Performance Association (iTPA) was hosted in Atlanta, Georgia on July 22nd, 2018.
The first of its kind, Tennis Specific Technology and Analytics Summit focused on the evidence around quality technologies to help teach, train and test tennis athletes. This summit was a think tank event bringing together some of the top minds in the industry to highlight products followed by panel discussions and moderated sessions focused on how to better utilize current technology/analytics and create a roadmap for the future of the sport to improve the use of technology going forward. 
 
The Summit Had A Few Simple Objectives:

• Highlight the latest tennis technologies that can assist individuals working with tennis athletes in various areas of performance and injury prevention.
• Provide a vehicle for companies in the technology and analytics space to network with the leading minds in the tennis industry to speed the progress of technological innovations in the tennis industry.
• Provide networking opportunities to spur more research and technology development to improve the quality of products and the implementation of existing products. ​
• Develop a consensus document at the end of the Summit which will be circulated throughout the tennis industry to stimulate growth, investment and sales in the areas of data driven and research backed technologies that can improve performance and reduce the likelihood of injuries in the sport at all levels of the game. 

The Big Questions for the Tennis Industry:

Beginning an industry wide analysis focused on athlete monitoring software and hardware:

• What's being done with tennis technology?
• What do we want to target?
• Is the tennis industry accepting of the advances in new technologies and providing a network to embrace new technologies?
• Is the tech providing better information and better outcomes than what's been done in the past? 

The professionals at the summit agreed that SIMPLICITY was the most important factor for a technology to be adopted by tennis coaches at any level. It would be advisable for any technology to have the ability to turn quantitative data into actionable information that can be easily combined with qualitative data, as tennis coaches tend to be more visually oriented. Any technology needs to make a coach or player’s life easier – only then will they adopt it into their training routine. At the same time, the tech needs to give useful quantitative data to a more tech minded individuals in the tennis industry.
 
The future is bright for Technology and Analytics in tennis. The International Tennis Performance Association thanks all the experts and attendees at the Tennis Technology and Analytics Summit for sharing their expertise and experiences which has helped to move the tennis industry forward. It requires forward thinking individuals with a passion for excellence to help us all achieve high performance results.

 
The International Tennis Performance Association would like to thank the individuals who were involved as expert panelists and moderators for the Summit:

Charles Cox, SwingU
Alexander Johannson, Tennis Techie
Mark Kovacs, (PhD, FACSM, CSCS*D, CTPS, MTPS), iTPA and Kovacs Institute
Warren Pretorius, Tennis Analytics
Paul Robbins, Sport Tech Consultant
Jason D. Vescovi (PhD, CSCS, CEP), High Performance Expert
 
Here is the link the full PDF of the White Paper

Here is the link to the iTPA Tennis Technology Company List. This is an ongoing project through the ITPA which lists the major companies in the Tennis Industry in the area of technology and analytics. This list is consistently being updated, and we recognize that this is never a complete list. If you are involved with a company that has a quality product that can help a tennis club, tennis athlete, tennis coach, tennis administrator we would like to add it to our list. Please email us with the information at contact@itpa-tennis.org