Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników
2012 | 13 | 4 | 313-322
Tytuł artykułu

Scoring Abilities in the Game of Tennis – A Pragmatic Study of Unique Cases

Treść / Zawartość
Warianty tytułu
Języki publikacji
Purpose. Many studies analyzing the game of tennis overlook assessing such variables as the pure ability to play the game or the skill needed to take an opponent by surprise. This can be quantified in terms of a player’s shot flexibility, variability, velocity, or by the conscious or intuitive adaptability one can possess towards anticipating return shots, how best to hit the ball in order to keep it in play, as well as the buildup of delivering a shot or in scoring a point. The aim of the study was to identify the ability to score points in tennis based on an original set of assessment criteria that were used to measure the different effective plays against an opponent. This included measuring the variability, spatial flexibility and variability of shots taken, as well as the willingness to make risky plays. Methods. The study analyzed the match play of two elite tennis players, Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic, who competed against one another in the final of the 2007 US Open and the semi-final of 2008 Australian Open. Video recording of the two games was used to score and measure the proposed criteria. Results. The study found numerous quantitative and qualitative aspects that could assess the performance of the players. This included measuring the variety, spatial flexibility and variability of shots taken, as well as the willingness to make risky plays. Shot variety, flexibility and variability, as well as the amount of risk taken during game play, were quantifiable in nature. Taking into account the high sporting level of the players, the obtained results are undoubtedly of considerable educational value. Conclusion. The results allow for the conclusion that the teaching process in tennis demands the introduction of significant modifications aimed at the rationalization of technique and the introduction of criteria that can measure player effectiveness.

Opis fizyczny
  • University School of Physical Education, ul. Nehringa 7/7, 50-381 Wrocław, Poland,
  • University School of Physical Education, Wrocław, Poland
  • 1. O’Donoghue P., Ingram B., A national analysis of elite tennis strategy. J Sport Sci, 2001, 19, 107-115, doi: 10.1080/026404101300036299.[Crossref]
  • 2. Filipčič T., Filipčič A., Berendijaš T., Comparison of game characteristics of male and female tennis players at Roland Garros 2005. Acta Univ Palacki Olomuc. Gymnica, 2008, 38 (3), 21-28.
  • 3. Brody H., Match statistics and their importance [in Polish]. Coaching and Sport Science Review, 2004, 32, 11-12.
  • 4. Freibichler H., Steiner H., Interactive video - prospects to be used in professional sport [in German]. Leistungssport, 1983, 13, 5-12.
  • 5. Nowak M., Lewandowski M., Świst Ł., Verification of observation report on actions in the game of tennis [in Polish]. In: Dembiński J., Naglak Z. (eds.), Fitness and stamina of contestants in sports games [in Polish]. MonografieMTNGS, 2003, 1, 37-47.
  • 6. Nowak M., Lewandowski M., Świst Ł., Registration of sports events as the basis of training process drafting. In: Niedzielska E., Perechuda K. (eds.), The concepts and tools in information and knowledge managment [in Polish]. AE, Wrocław 2004, 180-187.
  • 7. Nowak M., Lewandowski M., Present state and the possibilities (potential) of improving the education of a tennis player [in Polish]. Hum Mov, 2001, 1 (3), 82-84.
  • 8. Hagh Ch., Game analysis by means of “Statman” devise [in German]. Tennissport, 1996, 4, 18-21.
  • 9. Weber K., Bochow W., Long, medium and short - term control of training and starts in the game of tennis with the application of sistematic observation of the game by means of computers [in German]. In: Andersen R., Hagedorn G. (eds.), Control of training in the game and competition. Czwalina, Ahrensburg next to Hamburg 1984, 127-141.
  • 10. Over S., O’Donoughue P., Analysis of strategy and tactics in tennis. Coaching & Sport Science Review, 2010, 50, 15-16.
  • 11. Elderton W., Tactical and technical development considerations for 10 and under players. Coaching and SportScience Review, 2010, 51, 18-19.
  • 12. Dinoffer J., Which shots are most important? Tennis Life, 2011, 42-43.
  • 13. Leupold D., Strakerjahn U., Game analysis [in German]. Tennissport, 1995, 3, 20-22.
  • 14. Wurster K., Game analysis of US Open tournament [in German]. Tennissport, 1995, 6, 14-20.
  • 15. Zhang H., Yu L., Hu J., Computer-aided game analysis of net sports in preparation of Chinese teams for Beijing Olympics. Int J Comp Sci Sport, 2011, 9 (3), 53-69.
  • 16. Cubacs-Collins K., Implementing a tactical approach through action research. Physical Education and SportPedagogy, 2007, 12 (2), 105-126, doi: 10.1080/17408980701281987.[Crossref]
  • 17. Caserta R.J., Singer R.N., The effectiveness of situational awareness learning in response to video tennis match situations. J App Sport Psychol, 2007, 19, 125-141, doi: 10.1080/10413200601184712.[Crossref][WoS]
  • 18. Williams A.M., Ward P., Smeeton N.J., Allen D., Developing anticipation skills in tennis using on-court instruction: perception versus perception and action. J App SportPsychol, 2004, 16, 350-360, doi: 10.1080/10413200490518002.[Crossref]
  • 19. Rowe R., Horswill M.S., Kronvall-Parkinson M., Poulter D.R., McKenna F.P., The effect of disguise on novice and expert tennis players’ anticipation ability. Journalof Applied Sport Psychology, 2009, 21, 178-185, doi: 10.1080/10413200902785811.[WoS][Crossref]
  • 20. McPherson S.L., Kernodle M., Mapping two new points on the tennis expertise continuum: Tactical skills of adult advanced beginners and entry - level professionals during competition. J Sports Sci, 2007, 25 (8), 945-959, doi: 10.1080/02640410600908035.[WoS][Crossref]
  • 21. Panfil R., Praxeological models of the sports game. In: Bergier J. (ed.), Observation of actions in the team sports game [in Polish]. Monografie MTNGS, 2004, 5, 7-19.
  • 22. Panfil R., Praxeology of sports game [in Polish]. Studiai Monografie AWF we Wrocławiu, 2006, 82.
  • 23. Panfil R., A paradigm for identifying ability competition (providing examples of sport game and fight). Hum Mov, 2011, 12 (1), 16-23, doi: 10.2478/v10038-011-0002-1.[Crossref]
  • 24. Superlak E., Wołyniec J., The assessment of players’ activities’ effectiveness in changeable situations in volleyball [in Polish]. Hum Mov, 2001, 1 (3), 116-117.
  • 25. Panfil R., Superlak E., Strategies for using interaction skills in creating point situations: a pragmatic study of a volleyball game (pragmatic study of unique cases) [in Polish]. Antropomotoryka, 2011, 53, 109-120.
  • 26. Matsuzaki C., Tennis fundamentals. Human Kinetics, Champaign 2004, 23-83.
  • 27. Crespo M., Higueras J., Forhands. [In:] Roetert P., Groppel J. (eds.), World-class tennis technique. Human Kinetics, Champaign 2001, 147-247.
  • 28. Douglas P., The handbook of tennis. Pelham Books, London 1992, 46-192.
Typ dokumentu
Identyfikator YADDA
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.