Foam rolling is thought to improve muscular performance and flexibility as well as to alleviate muscle fatigue and soreness. For this reason, foam rolling has become a popular intervention in all kinds of sport settings used to increase the efficiency of training or competition preparation as well as to speed post-exercise recovery. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the effects of foam rolling applied before (pre-rolling as a warm-up activity) and after (post-rolling as a recovery strategy) exercise on sprint, jump, and strength performance as well as on flexibility and muscle pain outcomes and to identify whether self-massage with a foam roller or a roller massager is more effective. A comprehensive and structured literature search was performed using the PubMed, Google Scholar, PEDro, and Cochrane Library search engines. Twenty-one studies were located that met the inclusion criteria. Fourteen studies used pre-rolling, while seven studies used post-rolling. Pre-rolling resulted in a small improvement in sprint performance (+0.7%, g = 0.28) and flexibility (+4.0%, g = 0.34), whereas the effect on jump (−1.9%, g = 0.09) and strength performance (+1.8%, g = 0.12) was negligible. Post-rolling slightly attenuated exercise-induced decreases in sprint (+3.1%, g = 0.34) and strength performance (+3.9 %, g = 0.21). It also reduced muscle pain perception (+6.0%, g = 0.47), whereas its effect on jump performance (−0.2%, g = 0.06) was trivial. Of the twenty-one studies, fourteen used foam rollers, while the other seven used roller massage bars/sticks. A tendency was found for foam rollers to offer larger effects on the recovery of strength performance (+5.6%, g = 0.27 vs. −0.1%, g = −0.01) than roller massagers. The differences in the effects between foam rolling devices in terms of pre-rolling did not seem to be of practical relevance (overall performance: +2.7 %, g = 0.11 vs. +0.4%, g = 0.21; flexibility: +5.0%, g = 0.32 vs. +1.6%, g = 0.39). Overall, it was determined that the effects of foam rolling on performance and recovery are rather minor and partly negligible, but can be relevant in some cases (e.g., to increase sprint performance and flexibility or to reduce muscle pain sensation). Evidence seems to justify the widespread use of foam rolling as a warm-up activity rather than a recovery tool.

The impact of fitness characteristics on tennis performance in adolescent players is not clearly understood. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to test whether physical characteristics are related to players' competitive level (i.e., national youth ranking). A secondary aim was to compare adolescent tennis players by performance level (i.e., regional selected players and the national team). A total of 902 male and female junior players (aged, 11-16 years) in Germany were evaluated using a physical testing battery: grip strength; countermovement jump; 10 and 20-m sprint; tennis-specific sprint; overhead, forehand, and backhand medicine ball throws (MBT); serve velocity and tennis-specific endurance test (hit and turn tennis test). Results showed that serve velocity (r = -0.43 to 0.64 for female subjects [♀]; r = -0.33 to 0.49 for male subjects [♂]) and upper-body power (e.g., MBT r = -0.26 to -0.49 ♀; r = -0.20 to -0.49 ♂) were the most correlated predictors of tennis performance (i.e., national youth ranking) in both female and male tennis players. Moreover, national selected players showed better performance levels than their regional counterparts, mainly in the most predictive physical characteristics (i.e., serve velocity: effect size [ES], 0.78-1.04 ♀; ES 0.92-1.02 ♂, MBT: ES, 0.66-0.88 ♀; ES, 0.67-1.04 ♂) and specific endurance (ES, 0.05-0.95 ♀; ES, 0.31-0.73 ♂). The present findings underline the importance of certain physical attributes, especially serve velocity and strength- and power-related variables (upper body), and suggest the need to include these parameters in the area of training, physical testing, and talent identification of young tennis players.

A comprehensive monitoring of fitness, fatigue, and performance is crucial for understanding an athlete's individual responses to training to optimize the scheduling of training and recovery strategies. Resting and exercise-related heart rate measures have received growing interest in recent decades and are considered potentially useful within multivariate response monitoring, as they provide non-invasive and time-efficient insights into the status of the autonomic nervous system (ANS) and aerobic fitness. In team sports, the practical implementation of athlete monitoring systems poses a particular challenge due to the complex and multidimensional structure of game demands and player and team performance, as well as logistic reasons, such as the typically large number of players and busy training and competition schedules. In this regard, exercise-related heart rate measures are likely the most applicable markers, as they can be routinely assessed during warm-ups using short (3–5 min) submaximal exercise protocols for an entire squad with common chest strap-based team monitoring devices. However, a comprehensive and meaningful monitoring of the training process requires the accurate separation of various types of responses, such as strain, recovery, and adaptation, which may all affect heart rate measures. Therefore, additional information on the training context (such as the training phase, training load, and intensity distribution) combined with multivariate analysis, which includes markers of (perceived) wellness and fatigue, should be considered when interpreting changes in heart rate indices. The aim of this article is to outline current limitations of heart rate monitoring, discuss methodological considerations of univariate and multivariate approaches, illustrate the influence of different analytical concepts on assessing meaningful changes in heart rate responses, and provide case examples for contextualizing heart rate measures using simple heuristics. To overcome current knowledge deficits and methodological inconsistencies, future investigations should systematically evaluate the validity and usefulness of the various approaches available to guide and improve the implementation of decision-support systems in (team) sports practice.

In tennis, sport-specific technical skills are predominant factors, although a complex profile of physical performance factors is also required. The fitness test batteries assist in examining tennis players’ capabilities for performance at different levels in the laboratory as well as in the field, in the junior or elite level. While laboratory tests can be, and are, used to evaluate basic performance characteristics of athletes in most individual sports, in a more specific approach, field-based methods are better suited to the demands of complex intermittent sports like tennis. A regular test battery performed at different periods of the year allows to obtain an individual's performance profile, as well as the ability to prescribe individual training interventions. Thus, the aim of the present review was to describe and evaluate the different physical tests recommended and used by practitioners, sports scientists and institutions (national tennis federations).

AimOur study aimed to investigate changes of different markers for routine assessment of fatigue and recovery in response to high-intensity interval training (HIIT).Methods22 well-trained male and female team sport athletes (age, 23.0 ± 2.7 years; V̇O2max, 57.6 ± 8.6 mL·min·kg−1) participated in a six-day running-based HIIT-microcycle with a total of eleven HIIT sessions. Repeated sprint ability (RSA; criterion measure of fatigue and recovery), countermovement jump (CMJ) height, jump efficiency in a multiple rebound jump test (MRJ), 20-m sprint performance, muscle contractile properties, serum concentrations of creatinkinase (CK), c-reactive protein (CRP) and urea as well as perceived muscle soreness (DOMS) were measured pre and post the training program as well as after 72 h of recovery.ResultsFollowing the microcycle significant changes (p < 0.05) in RSA as well as in CMJ and MRJ performance could be observed, showing a decline (%Δ ± 90% confidence limits, ES = effect size; RSA: -3.8 ± 1.0, ES = -1.51; CMJ: 8.4 ± 2.9, ES = -1.35; MRJ: 17.4 ± 4.5, ES = -1.60) and a return to baseline level (RSA: 2.8 ± 2.6, ES = 0.53; CMJ: 4.1 ± 2.9, ES = 0.68; MRJ: 6.5 ± 4.5, ES = 0.63) after 72 h of recovery. Athletes also demonstrated significant changes (p < 0.05) in muscle contractile properties, CK, and DOMS following the training program and after the recovery period. In contrast, CRP and urea remained unchanged throughout the study. Further analysis revealed that the accuracy of markers for assessment of fatigue and recovery in comparison to RSA derived from a contingency table was insufficient. Multiple regression analysis also showed no correlations between changes in RSA and any of the markers.ConclusionsMean changes in measures of neuromuscular function, CK and DOMS are related to HIIT induced fatigue and subsequent recovery. However, low accuracy of a single or combined use of these markers requires the verification of their applicability on an individual basis.