Understanding Load in Baseball and Tennis

Shanley, Ellen; Myers, Natalie L.

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-12775-6_3

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 75 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A novel aspect of the current study was the application of a prototype algorithm to quantify stroke-specific player load (i.e., sPL) and stroke counts. This represents an important step for tennis in capturing hitting loads, which have historically existed as either simple stroke counts or complex biomechanical analysis of the upper limb and trunk (10,35). The present approach to quantifying tennis hitting load revealed an unexpected finding, where highest sPL·min −1 was observed in accuracy drills.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differentiating Stroke and Movement Accelerometer Profiles to Improve Prescription of Tennis Training Drills

Perri

Reid

Murphy

et al. 2022

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%