No abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the effects of 2 training modalities on the tennis forehand drive performance. Forty-four tennis players (mean ± SD: age = 26.9 ± 7.5 years; height = 178.6 ± 6.7 cm; mass = 72.5 ± 8.0 kg; International Tennis Number = 3) were randomly assigned into 3 groups. During 6 weeks, the first group performed handled medicine ball (HMB) throws included in the regular tennis practice, the second group (overweight racket-OWR) played tennis forehand drives with an overweighed racket during the regular tennis practice, and the third group (regular tennis training-RTT) practiced only tennis training as usual. Before and after the 6-week program, velocity and accuracy of tennis crosscourt forehand drives were evaluated in the 3 groups. The main results showed that after 6-week training, the maximal ball velocity was significantly increased in HMB and OWR groups in comparison with RTT (p < 0.001 and p = 0. 001, respectively). The estimated averaged increase in ball velocity was greater in HMB than in OWR (11 vs. 5%, respectively; p = 0.017), but shot accuracy tended to be deteriorated in HMB when compared with OWR and RTT (p = 0.043 and p = 0.027, respectively). The findings of this study highlighted the efficiency of both training modalities to improve tennis forehand drive performance but also suggested that the HMB throws may be incorporated into the preseason program preferably, whereas the OWR forehand drives may be included in the on-season program.

The topspin tennis forehand drive has become a feature of modern game; yet, as compared to the serve, there has been little research analysing its kinematics. This is surprising given that there is considerably more variation in the execution of the topspin forehand. Our study is the first to examine the amplitude of upper limb joint rotations that produce topspin in the forehand drives of 14 male competitive tennis players using video-based motion analysis. Humerothoracic abduction (-)/adduction (+), extension (-) /flexion (+), and external (-)/internal (+) rotation, elbow extension (-) /flexion (+) and forearm supination (-)/pronation (+), wrist extension (-)/flexion (+) and ulnar (-)/radial (-) deviation were computed. Our findings revealed that the generation of topspin demanded more humeral extension and forearm pronation but less humeral internal rotation angular displacement during the forwardswing. The follow-through phase of the topspin shot was characterised by greater humeral internal rotation and forearm pronation, and reduced humeral horizontal adduction when compared to the flat shot. This study provides practitioners with a better understanding of the upper limb kinematics associated with the topspin tennis forehand drive production to help guide skill acquisition interventions and physical training.

This 6-wk strengthening program was effective in improving shoulder external-rotator muscle strength but resulted in a decrease in the ROM in shoulder internal rotation, while throwing velocity remained stable. Adding a stretching program to this type of sling-based training program might help avoid potential detrimental effects on shoulder ROM.

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the upper limb anthropometric dimensions and a history of dominant upper limb injury in tennis players. Dominant and non-dominant wrist, forearm, elbow and arm circumferences, along with a history of dominant upper limb injuries, were assessed in 147 male and female players, assigned to four groups based on location of injury: wrist (n = 9), elbow (n = 25), shoulder (n = 14) and healthy players (n = 99). From anthropometric dimensions, bilateral differences in circumferences and in proportions were calculated. The wrist group presented a significant bilateral difference in arm circumference, and asymmetrical bilateral proportions between wrist and forearm, as well as between elbow and arm, compared to the healthy group (6.6 ± 3.1% vs. 4.9 ± 4.0%, P < 0.01; -3.6 ± 3.0% vs. -0.9 ± 2.9%, P < 0.05; and -2.2 ± 2.2% vs. 0.1 ± 3.4%, P < 0.05, respectively). The elbow group displayed asymmetrical bilateral proportions between forearm and arm compared to the healthy group (-0.4 ± 4.3% vs. 1.5 ± 4.0%, P < 0.01). The shoulder group showed significant bilateral difference in elbow circumference, and asymmetrical bilateral proportions between forearm and elbow when compared to the healthy group (5.8 ± 4.7% vs. 3.1 ± 4.8%, P < 0.05 and -1.7 ± 4.5% vs. 1.4 ± 4.3%, P < 0.01, respectively). These findings suggest that players with a history of injury at the upper limb joint present altered dominant upper limb proportions in comparison with the non-dominant side, and such asymmetrical proportions would appear to be specific to the location of injury. Further studies are needed to confirm the link between location of tennis injury and asymmetry in upper limb proportions using high-tech measurements in symptomatic tennis players.