Backhand groundstrokes are gaining importance in modern tennis. 20 or 30 years ago, many players had weaker backhands than forehands. In the modern game it is very difficult - some may argue impossible - to play at the highest levels without a strong backhand. While studies and investigations have focused more on the serve and the forehand, the backhand is becoming one of the big changes in tennis over the past few decades. The one-handed backhand was almost the only option before the 1980’s, but nowadays some of the best players in junior, collegiate and professional tennis can master the two-handed backhand without losing tactical versatility. Many coaches only teach the two handed backhand as they feel it provides an advantage over a one handed backhand. This implies the need for coaches to understand the differences and performance factors of these two actions.

To prove the importance of the backhand, studies have compared factors such as ball velocity or accuracy compared to forehand results. Part of the literature doesn’t find any differences while other papers do find higher accuracy or speed with the forehand. Investigations must go further and try to study different levels and situations.

Focusing on the two variations of the backhand, literature is even more inconclusive showing few differences between one and other options. This suggests coaches shouldn’t prejudice any choice regarding which stroke to use based on speed or accuracy. Kinematic differences between each backhand needs to be appreciated and put together in the context of each individual player and their needs.

If we divide the backhand stroke into its three common phases (Ryu et al. 1988) we find:
Preparation phase: displacement of the racket backward until the initial movement of reversing the direction forward. (Figure 1).

Acceleration phase: from the start of the racket forward displacement until the ball contact. (Figure 2).

Follow through phase: from the contact point with the ball until the end of the racket forward movement. (Figure 3).

Following this classification, every phase has its differences between the one-handed backhand and the two-handed backhand.

Concepts offered above can be used as a guide to help with correct technique – whether the athlete uses a one or two handed backhand. Bad execution of strokes is a major reason for many injuries. Different kinematic patterns we’ve seen offer different injury profiles which we will go over next.

As the one handed backhand relies more on upper-body rotation instead of trunk, injuries are many times seen in elbow and wrist related problems. A correct transfer of the momentum from proximal to distal segments (from trunk to hand) is essential in preventing these problems, as well as a specific strengthening program for wrist extensors and pronator teres. Adequate grip size selection based on age and hand size can also help.

Regarding the two-handed backhand, the direction of the foot relative to the net when playing a closed stance can influence the risk of ankle inversion sprain and heightens the stress on the knee. The authors of this one review recommend placement of the foot approximately 45º angle relative to the baseline to facilitate body rotation and decrease stress on the hip, knee and ankle joints. Strengthening programs specifically for these areas could also help and prevent injuries.
In conclusion, backhand selection shouldn’t be conditioned by differences in velocity, speed or ball accuracy, but based on kinematic factors, coordinative abilities and general skills of the player. Knowledge of correct execution and specific movement patterns and strokes help to limit injuries and will allow for more effective prevention programs and preparation workouts.

References:
Genevois, C. Reid, M. Rogowski, I. Crespo, M. Performance Factors Related to the Different Tennis Backhand Groundstrokes: A Review. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine. (2015). 14, 194-202.

by Dominic King, CTPS, MTPS, ASCC, PES

I love to look around at many different sports and consider the transferable qualities that each sport can bring to tennis and how we can improve our training as a result. I believe that if you stay within the confines of a single sport, it is easy to get 'blinkered' and miss loads of great information that is out there and can be used. As a coach or S&C coach, to develop both ourselves and the players we work with, it is vital to learn from wherever we can.

An area I’ve liked to look towards is that of combat sports. I have always considered tennis to have many similarities to combat sports, both in terms of its ‘gladiatorial’ nature of being a battle most often fought 1 on 1, and also due to the fact that the tennis player must ‘strike’, though obviously in their case, a ball rather than someone else! As a result, looking at articles/literature related to combat sports is something I’ve always liked to do.

One such article I came across was, ‘Assessment and Contributors of Punching Forces in Combat Sport Athletes: Implications for Strength and Conditioning’, Seth Lenetsky, Nigel Harris, Matt Brughelli.
NSCA Strength & Conditioning Journal (Vol 35, Number 2)

The article looked to explore potential S&C strategies to improve punching force and so I thought if we substitute ‘ball strike’ for ‘punching force’, it may be possible to get a few ideas that could relate to tennis.

3 primary contributors to punching force were identified:

1) contribution of arm musculature
2) rotation of the trunk
3) drive off the ground by the legs.

I’d say that the above would correspond very closely with contributors to tennis strokes, perhaps groundstrokes especially.
The article wanted to look primarily at the research relating to lower limb involvement in punching. It is however important to consider the other contributors too.

It presented a couple of key points for me:

- In one study (Filimonov at al), of 120 boxers analysed, boxers with more experience/elite level had a greater contribution from their legs to the punch when compared with the other contributors (arms and trunk)
- A further study (Smith at al) concluded that elite boxers produced a greater punching force.
Together, the above studies would suggest that the greater the contribution from the legs, the greater the force.

Fighting Style vs Playing Style

Interestingly, Filimonov broke this down further into fighting styles and concluded that ‘knockout artists’ had a higher leg drive contribution than ‘players’ or ‘speedsters’. I would suggest there could be a certain carry-over into relative playing styles in tennis.... would it perhaps stand to reason that the Aggressive Baseliner for example would display a greater contribution from the legs in the shot than a Counterpuncher might....?

The article also makes note of studies relating to other sports, such as shot-put, javelin, even overhead throwing in children, which also support the conclusions of Filimonov regarding the importance of leg drive. The image below, taken from the ITPA CTPS workbook, ties in the concept nicely regarding the kinetic chain and the importance of the legs in order to generate force up the chain, ultimately ending with the racket.

There are many places we could go with this information, using it to inform S&C interventions to develop any player at any level while simultaneously working to reduce the likelihood of injury (the greater the contribution from the legs, the less force will have to be generated from other parts in the chain, such as shoulder or wrist, which could otherwise leave them more susceptible to injury).

The information above may not necessarily be groundbreaking but it is good to have to back up what I am sure coaches and S&C coaches are looking to do anyway.

We will look to go into some of the implications for Strength and Conditioning work in subsequent posts!

Dom is Head of Athlete Development at Halton Tennis Centre in the UK.  He has been at Halton, working with players of all ages, ‘from the cradle to the tour’ (!) since 2007.

You can contact him at [email protected]

@DomJKing

www.maximiseathleticperformance.com

By Joshua Colomar, iTPA Intern

Caffeine has been shown effective as an ergogenic aid in other sports involving high intensity intermittent actions like soccer, rugby sevens and rugby. Its effectiveness has been related to a reduced perception of exhaustion among other mechanisms such as increasing total running distance, lower limbs power output and increased upper body muscle performance.
Frequently, elite junior tennis players have much pressure to accomplish great results at a short age apart from educational obligations and many training hours a week. Added to this, energy drinks constitute a big part of this population’s consumption and are popular in their inner circle. It’s important for parents and coaches to be aware of the effects of commercially available energy drinks on junior tennis players and their performance during competition.

Studies such as Gallo-Salazar et al. (2015) give us an idea of caffeine implications in tennis players’ performance. 3mg of caffeine per kg of body mass in the form of an energy drink and after 60min to allow its absorption results in increased hand grip force (4.2%) in both hands, in addition to a higher running pace at high intensity (being this considered 18km/h or more) and a larger number of sprints during the match. As a result of these performance parameters, simulated game shows a higher tendency in percentage of points won when serving having ingested caffeine in comparison to placebo. On the other hand, ball velocity wasn’t improved during serve.

This gives us a clear vision of a better performance in some determinant physical aspects we find in tennis. Caffeine could be a nutritional aid to increase some factors associated with tennis success as was confirmed for adult population in previous studies and sports.

Nonetheless, as we all know, the most popular way of caffeine consumption is coffee. This makes us wonder if ergogenic properties remain while consuming caffeine through its most popular form. Studies like Hodgson et al. (2013), give us some hints about this matter. Although it’s not specifically focused on tennis players, trials were performed on athletes comparing coffee consumption, decaffeinated coffee, placebo and caffeine alone. After testing parameters such as average power output and performance times, differences were shown between the placebo/decaffeinated drink and coffee/caffeine drink, showing no significant differences between the two last. This concludes that in certain sports and situations caffeine intake in the form of coffee can be as effective as its consumption in the form of a prepared drink. Studies should focus on specific tennis situations and variety of ages/levels to be completely sure about this matter.

However, tennis coaches, parents, strength and conditioning coaches and nutritionists should be aware of negative side effects these kinds of drinks could induce. Other studies have revealed that some athletes report nervousness and insomnia hours after caffeine consumption. It’s a valid nutritional strategy to increase certain physical performance but must be assessed responsibly. First of all and before considering ergogenic options it’s essential to have a hydration and nutrition routine and/or guide to avoid risks and injuries. The consumption of appropriate fluid volumes before, during and after tennis play is essential to maintain performance.

Following indications provided by Kovacs (2008) we find that tennis players can sweat more than 2.5 liters per hour of play and replace fluids slower during competition than practice. In warm environments electrolyte enhanced fluids should be consumed on a personalized schedule, but somewhere between 200mL - 440mLper changeover is usually required. Nevertheless, coaches, parents and scientists need to individualize protocols and establish a hydration strategy. 
 
References:
Gallo-Salazar et al. Enhancing Physical Performance in Elite Junior Tennis Players With a Caffeinated Energy Drink. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2015, 10, 305-310.
Kovacs, M. A review of fluid and hydration in competitive tennis. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2008, 3(4): 413-23.
Hodgson, A; Randell, R; Jeukendrup, A. (2013). The metabolic and performance effects of caffeine compared to coffee during endurance exercise. PLoS ONE 8(4) e59561. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059561