Differentiating Stroke and Movement Accelerometer Profiles to Improve Prescription of Tennis Training Drills
- PMID: 36165877
- DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000004318
Differentiating Stroke and Movement Accelerometer Profiles to Improve Prescription of Tennis Training Drills
Abstract
Perri, T, Reid, M, Murphy, A, Howle, K, and Duffield, R. Differentiating stroke and movement accelerometer profiles to improve prescription of tennis training drills. J Strength Cond Res 37(3): 646-651, 2023-This study compared the movement- and stroke-related accelerometer profiles and stroke counts between common on-court tennis training drills. Ten, junior-elite, male tennis players wore a cervical-mounted global positioning systems, with in-built accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer during hard court training sessions ( n = 189). Individual training drills were classified into 8 categories based on previous research descriptions. Manufacturer software calculated total player load (tPL), while a prototype algorithm detected forehand (FH), backhands (BH), and serves and then calculated a stroke player load (sPL) from individual strokes. Movement player load (mPL) was calculated as the difference between tPL and sPL. Drill categories were compared for relative ( . min -1 ) tPL, sPL, mPL, and stroke counts via a 1-way analysis of variance with effect sizes (Cohen's d ) and 95% confidence intervals. Highest tPL . min -1 existed in accuracy and recovery or defensive drills ( p < 0.05), with lowest tPL·min -1 values observed in match-play simulation ( p < 0.05). For sPL·min -1 , accuracy drills elicited greater values compared with all other drill types ( p < 0.05), partly via greater FH-sPL·min -1 ( p < 0.05), with lowest sPL·min -1 existing for match-play ( p < 0.05). Accuracy, open, and recovery or defensive drills result in greater BH-sPL·min -1 and BH . min -1 ( p < 0.05). Serve-sPL·min -1 is highest in technical and match-play drills ( p < 0.05). Higher mPL·min -1 existed in accuracy, recovery or defensive, 2v1 net, open, and 2v1 baseline ( p < 0.05). Furthermore, mPL·min -1 in points drills was greater than technical and match-play simulation drills ( p < 0.05). Higher hitting-based accelerometer loads (sPL·min -1 ) exist in accuracy drills, whereas technical and match-play drills show the lowest movement demands (mPL·min -1 ). These findings can aid individual drill prescription for targeting movement or hitting load.
Copyright © 2022 National Strength and Conditioning Association.
References
-
- Barreira P, Robinson MA, Drust B, et al. Mechanical player load using trunk-mounted accelerometry in football: Is it a reliable, task- and player-specific observation? J Sports Sci 35: 1674–1681, 2017.
-
- Barrett S, Midgley A, Lovell R. PlayerLoad™: Reliability, convergent validity, and influence of unit position during treadmill running. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 9: 945–952, 2014.
-
- Bjorklund G, Swaren M, Norman M, Alonso J, Johansson F. Metabolic demands, center of mass movement and fractional utilization of VO 2 max in elite adolescent tennis players during on-court drills. Front Sports Act Living 2, 2020.
-
- Boyd LJ, Ball K, Aughey RJ. The reliability of MinimaxX accelerometers for measuring physical activity in Australian football. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 6: 311–321, 2011.
-
- Bredt SdGT, Chagas MH, Peixoto GH, Menzel HJ, de Andrade AGP. Understanding player load: Meanings and limitations. J Hum Kinet 71: 5–9, 2020.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous