One-year Developmental Changes in Motor Coordination and Technical Preparation in 10–12-year-old Male and Female Tennis Players

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3973660/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

One-year Developmental Changes in Motor Coordination and Technical Preparation in 10–12-year-old Male and Female Tennis Players

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3973660/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 11 Sep, 2024

Read the published version in BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: To date, no longitudinal studies have been conducted on the differences in the development of motor coordination between boys and girls in relation to changes in their technical preparation level in tennis. Therefore, the aim of the study was to assess the development of motor coordination of 10–12-year-old tennis players over the course of 1 year. Insight into the longitudinal changes of coordination abilities may be useful for trainers, instructors, and teachers of physical education training children, and could be used for talent spotting and improving training programs designed for adolescent tennis players.

Methods:One-hundred eighty male and female tennis players aged 10, 11, or 12 years old participated in the study. Each age group comprised 30 boys and 30 girls. To investigate their motor coordination development, a battery of general tests and specific technical preparation tests were performed 4 times quarterly over 1 year. Differences between sexes and the time points were assessed. The rate of development was evaluated based on beta coefficient of linear regression.

Results:Boys generally performed better in technical preparation tests than girls, as observed for one motor coordination test among 10-year-olds, three tests among 11-year-olds, and six tests among 12-year-olds. Jump rope test among 10-year-olds and hexagon jump test among 12-year-olds were the only tests where girls performed better than boys. On the other hand, girls showed higher rate of development in balance and complex reaction tests than boys.

Conclusions:

We conclude that motor coordination and technical preparation development over 1 year is age-, sex-, and task-dependent, with the 10–12-year-old male tennis players performing better in tennis technical preparation and overall motor coordination than females.

racket sports

physical fitness

Eurofit test

performance

training

Tennis is a combination of mainly open complex motor tasks, appealing to physical fitness, motor coordination, tactical skills, concentration, mental toughness, self-regulation, and social skills [1]. According to the International Tennis Federation, the most important factors shaping the sports championship of tennis players are reaction time, speed, and motor coordination [2]. Motor coordination abilities are considered essential from the perspective of their impact on the game of tennis [3–8]. Tennis coaches suggest that kinaesthetic differentiation and reaction ability are the two most important coordination abilities of tennis players [9]. Achieving high performance in tennis requires all-rounder repertoire of moves, and the ability to quickly and flexibly adapt to the ever-changing playing conditions [10–13]. Specific to tennis is the large variation of rotation and the accompanying flight that can be applied to the ball during a rally. This might imply better than motor coordination in the fine ball-handling skills. In addition, players should develop outstanding technical skills; fast switching capability to adjust stroke technique; variable, flexible, and fast footwork; excellent ability to react and anticipate; proper positioning; and balance control [14, 15]. The variety and number of technical elements with high intensity performed during a match are extremely high: the exchange of balls from the depth of the court, return, volley, smash, and shortcut all make it necessary to react immediately to the situation on court, and perform a particular activity with utmost accuracy and efficiency in a very short period of time [16–19]. Overall, even though sports performance is multidimensional by nature, tennis performance relies to a large extent on a player’s motor coordination. Match analyses of the top tennis players in the world have clearly shown that speed and agility are the main motor abilities that distinguish outstanding players from other tennis players [20–22].

Typically, children start tennis training at the age of 5–6, and their playing skills develop along with physical development. One of the crucial time periods in tennis player development is the age of 9–12. It encompasses the optimal time window for motor skill development and thus, it is a critical time for developing fundamental athlete skills and tennis movements [23]. According to experts [24, 25], motor coordination preparation should constitute approximately 30% and 20% of the overall training time in 8–10-year-old and 11–12-year-old athletes, respectively. Having said that, while the basic motor coordination of children at that age is well developed, the specific demands of tennis necessitate further motor coordination development and mastering of the technical skills. Indeed, 5 weeks of additional motor coordination training were shown to enhance the service technique in 9–13-year-old tennis players [9]. Previous studies involving cadet and junior tennis players revealed that 80% of all errors during the game are caused by the loss of balance during the stroke [26, 27]. Of note, the ability to maintain balance plays a major role in the precise execution of a motor activity in tennis, and excellence in this aspect characterizes the world’s top players [26, 27].

Research has shown that women have better body balance than men. Among others, since the position of the body mass centre of women is relatively lower than that of men [28, 29], women and also girls exhibit a better static body balance than men and boys [30, 31]. However, from the broader perspective of differences in motor coordination between boys and girls, the boys’ hand–eye coordination is better than that of girls as early as at 8 years of age, and persists until mid-adolescence [32]. Such differences could influence the process of development of motor coordination and technical skills necessary to achieve mastery in tennis among boys and girls.

Scientific researchers and sports practitioners all indicate the need to monitor the level and dynamics of motor ability development. Since in many tennis clubs, training at the initial stage is co-educational, insight into these mechanisms would allow coaches to prioritize certain performance characteristics in training exercises, keeping in mind the potential differences between boys and girls, and different age categories. In this manner, training could be tailored to individual needs and, as such, might be more effective with regard to performance improvement. To date, no longitudinal studies have been conducted on the differences in the development of motor coordination between boys and girls in relation to changes in their technical preparation level. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to assess 1-year development of motor coordination skills among 10–12-year-old male and female tennis players, in the light of changes in tennis-specific preparation. Insight into the longitudinal changes of coordination abilities may be useful for trainers, instructors, and teachers of physical education training children, and could be used for talent spotting and improving training programs designed for adolescent tennis players.

Participants

One-hundred eighty young tennis players from clubs of the Podlaskie Voivodeship (Poland) took part in the study. Groups of 10-, 11-, and 12-year-old boys and girls were included in the study. The participants were divided into six groups based on sex and age, with 30 individuals per group. Their basic anthropometric characteristics were determined twice: at the beginning of the study and 9 months later, on the day of the last motor coordination assessment (Table 1).

Table 1

**Anthropometric characteristics of the study participants (mean ± standard deviation, n = 180)**
	10-year-olds				11-year-olds				12-year-olds
	Girls (n = 30)		Boys (n = 30)		Girls (n = 30)		Boys (n = 30)		Girls (n = 30)		Boys (n = 30)
Measurement	I	II	I	II	I	II	I	II	I	II	I	II
Body mass (kg)*	37.09 ± 5.78	38.18 ± 5.81	35.29 ± 4.06	36.52 ± 3.65	38.27± 3.79	40.20 ± 3.69	39.07 ± 4.51	40.76 ± 4.52	44.77 ± 5.25	46.79 ± 5.26	44.87 ± 4.35	46.56 ± 4.26
Body height (cm)*	141.10 ± 5.02	143.63 ± 4.72	142.53 ± 5.41	144.53 ± 4.90	148.70 ± 3.41	151.80 ± 3.43	148.53 ± 4.40	150.73 ± 4.01	155.77 ± 5.81	158.60 ± 5.75	155.30 ± 5.39	157.53 ± 5.48

I, assessment in March; II, assessment in December. *Significant difference in I vs. II comparison for each sex and age group (p < 0.01)

The participants have been practicing tennis since they were 6 years old, and those in particular groups were at a similar level of sports advancement. Training classes were held based on the age category. In the study, 10-year-old girls and boys participated in three tennis training sessions (1.5-hour each) per week, while 11- and 12-year-old girls and boys participated in four sessions (1.5-hour each) per week with the exception of April and October, in which, due to the detraining period, the number of tennis training sessions was reduced in each group. The participants underwent training according to their annual framework training plan (Table 2).

Table 2

**Annual framework training plan (n = 180)**
Quarter of the year	I			II			III			IV
Age	10-year-olds (n = 60)	11-year-olds (n = 60)	12-year-olds (n = 60)	10-year-olds (n = 60)	11-year-olds (n = 60)	12-year-olds (n = 60)	10-year-olds (n = 60)	11-year-olds (n = 60)	12-year-olds (n = 60)	10-year-olds (n = 60)	11-year-olds (n = 60)	12-year-olds (n = 60)
Average number of technical and tactical tennis training sessions per week (h)	4,5	6	6	3,5	5	5	4,5	6	6	3,5	5	5
Average number of general development training sessions per week (h)	1	1,5	2	1,5	2	3	1	1,5	2	1,5	2	3
Average number of physiotraining – training with a physiotherapist per week (h)	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Average amount of mental trening per week (h)	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	1
Average number of tennis sparrings per week (h)	1	1	2	1	1	2	1	1	2	1	1	2
Average number of starts in compertitions in a quarter (n)	3	6	6	2	4	4	3	6	6	2	4	4

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Bioethics Committee at Gdansk (KB-25/20). Legal guardians of all participants provided informed written consent to participate in the study prior to the study.

Design and Procedures

Motor coordination abilities and special fitness were assessed four times, quarterly (March, June, September, December), for each participant. The selected time points reflect players’ performance during the first preparatory period, the competition period, the second preparatory period, and the second competition period in the tournament calendar planned by the Polish Tennis Association. The assessments took place on Saturdays (motor coordination tests) and Sundays (special physical fitness test). All tests were carried out at the same time and in the same sports hall, on artificial surface (Gerflor TARAFLEX type, Lyon, France), after a 10-minute warm-up.

Motor Coordination Tests

Each participant performed ten motor coordination tests. The selected tests reflect the specificity of the game of tennis. After familiarization with the procedure, each test was repeated twice and the better result was included in analysis. Based on previous research (Baumgartner, Jackson, 1999; Lemmink, Elferink-Gemser MT, Visscher, 2004) the ICC values for all tests fall within the range of 0.85–0.99; therefore, all tests were considered reliable. The tests were carried out in the following order: simple reaction test, complex reaction test, Spalding test, ball-collecting ‘spider test’, hexagon jumping test, Starosta’s test, hand–eye test, balance test, plate tapping test, and jumping rope test.

Simple Reaction Test

The rate of psychomotor reaction to simple light stimuli emitted at the imposed pace was examined using Piórkowski’s apparatus (Alfa-Electronics, Ustrzyki Dolne, Poland). The task consisted of pushing, as quickly as possible, the button below the corresponding light that randomly appeared on the screen of the apparatus [33]. In the study, the light appeared at the rate of 60 times per min. The test result was the number of correct in-time pushed buttons, expressed as the percentage of the maximum possible score (60/60).

Complex Reaction Test

The rate of the complex reaction, which depends on spatial orientation, psychomotor speed, eye–hand coordination, ability to focus, the speed and accuracy of perception, and the speed of decision making, was examined with the use of cruciform apparatus (Alfa-Electronics, Ustrzyki Dolne, Poland), a complex visual–motor testing device. The device consists of a quadratic 7×7 grid of buttons with a row of 7 lights above the grid and a column of 7 lights on each side of the grid, corresponding to the buttons [33]. Individual light points (one in each row and column) randomly lit up during the test at an imposed pace of 50 times per min. To complete the test, the subject had to press the correct button located at the intersection of rows and columns and indicated by two separate lights coming on (one along the top and one along the side). The test result was the number of correct in-time pushed buttons, expressed as the percentage of the maximum possible score (50/50).

Spalding Test

The task was to complete the circumference of one half of the singles court around markers placed at the intersection of the service line and court sidelines, and in the centre of the service line, a racket’s length from the net (three mini-loops around the markers) in the shortest possible time. The test started at the court baseline next to the centre marker. The subject began in the starting forward lunge position and started on the command of ‘get ready, get set, go’. The measurement was recorded by a stopwatch with an accuracy of 0.1 s.

Spider Test

The test involved collecting five tennis balls on the strings of the racket head, in a given sequence, in the shortest possible time [7]. The five tennis balls were previously arranged, as follows: at the intersections of the baseline and service line with the singles sidelines, and at the intersection of the service line and the centre line dividing the service diamonds. The racket was positioned with its head tangential to the baseline in the centre and with its long axis perpendicular to the baseline. The subject was allowed to carry only one ball at a time; thus, the whole circuit consisted of 10 sections with a total length of approximately 55.5 m. The subject began in the forward lunge starting position and started on the command of ‘get ready, get set, go’.

Hexagon Jumping Test

The subject stood in the centre of a hexagon (side length of 60 cm) marked on the court, facing the net, and performed jumps with both feet over each side of the hexagon, one by one, returning to the centre after each jump. The attempt began after the command ‘get ready, get set, go’ and ended after three series of jumps around all sides of the hexagon, after touching the starting point. The measurement was recorded with an accuracy of 0.1 s. Half a second was added for each touch of the line and 1 s was added when changing the order of hops [34].

Starosta’s Test

In the test, Starosta’s coordination measurement equipment [35] was used, namely, a wooden platform with a surface area of 1 m², with an inscribed circle with a diameter of 0.80 m, on which a scale from 0 to 360 degrees was depicted. The subject stood in the centre of the circle, with the 0 degrees mark between both feet, and jumped up with a maximum rotation to the right and landing on both feet. The obtained result was calculated in degrees, assuming the starting position of 0 degrees mark between both feet. Next, the subject jumped up, with a maximum rotation to the left. The two obtained results were added, and the final result was recorded with an accuracy of 10 degrees.

Hand–eye Test

The subject stood at a distance of 2 m from the wall, holding a tennis ball in their right hand. Upon the instructor’s command ‘get ready, get set, go’, the subject threw the tennis ball against the wall with the right hand and then proceeded to catch it with the left hand, and then threw the tennis ball with the left hand, and caught it with the right hand (one cycle). The subject performed as many cycles of throwing the ball against the wall and catching it as possible within 30 s.

Balance Test

The subject stood with one leg (the preferred leg) on a beam (50 cm long, 4 cm high, and 3 cm wide), along its longitudinal axis, grasping the opposite knee-flexed leg by the foot, while the other hand rested on the person conducting the test (the trainer). The test began (stopwatch timer ON) when the subject let go of the trainer, and continued until they lost their balance, e.g. releasing the foot or touching the floor with a part of the body (stopwatch timer OFF). The participants attempted to hold the position for up to 1 min. The test result was the duration of continuously held balance, with a maximum score of 60 s.

Plate Tapping Test

The test was performed accordingly to the Eurofit testing battery [36]. The stand for the test comprised a table and plates placed on the table: one rectangular plate centrally located between two discus-shaped plates, 60 cm apart. Each subject, standing astride in front of the table as the starting position, placed the non-dominant hand on the rectangular plate, while the dominant hand was placed on the opposite plate. Then, that dominant hand touched each plate as quickly as possible, repeatedly touching them one by one. The subject performed 50 movements in total, i.e. each plate was being touched 25 times. The test result was the exact amount of time needed to touch each plate 25 times, measured with an accuracy of 0.1 s.

Jump Rope Test

The subject was in the starting straddle position, with legs spread out, holding the jump rope by the handles. The test lasted 30 s and consisted of jumping over the rope with both feet, while rotating the rope forward. The test result was the number of jumps in the given period of time.

Special Fitness Tests

The two special physical fitness tests began with the wall game test, followed by the 100-ball test. The former simulated the conditions during ball exchange during a tennis game, including mobility on the court, while the latter evaluated the precision of fundamental tennis strokes.

Wall Game Test

The test examines the degree of mastery of forehand and backhand strokes in terms of the technique (rhythm) of the strokes after the ball bounces once onto the court in a game against a wall. The subject stood behind the control line (6 m from the wall) with the ball in one hand and launched it into the game with a forehand stroke. As soon as the ball touched the wall, the investigator started the stopwatch and started to count the number of wall bounces. The duration of the test was 2 min. If the player crossed the control line (before or during the stroke) or hit the ball below the marked net, the stroke was not counted. In the event of an unsuccessful stroke, the subject launched another ball into the game. The test result was the number of correctly bounced balls off the wall.

100-tennis Ball Test

This test assesses the ability to control the ball through basic strokes (deep-court forehand and backhand, forehand volley, backhand half-court, and service). It consists of 100 strokes in 12 series, of which 80 strokes (deep-court forehand and backhand, forehand volley) are performed by a pass from the coach, and the remaining 20 are self-services performed with attention to the accuracy of each stroke. The subject stood behind the court baseline, in the middle, between the sidelines, waiting to hit a forehand. The coach was on the other side of the court, approximately 3–4 m from the net. A designated investigator, assessing the stroke accuracy and impact, was located behind the baseline on the coach’s side. The coach started playing the balls with the racket in the order of attempts described below, starting with the forehand: Series I, ten diagonal strokes from the forehand; Series II, ten forehand strokes along the line; Series III, ten backhand strokes diagonally; Series IV, ten backhand strokes along the line; Series V, ten backhand volley strokes diagonally; Series VI, ten forehand volley strokes along the line; Series VII, ten backhand volley strokes diagonally; Series VIII, ten backhand volley strokes along the line; Series IX, five services in the inner zone of the right service penalty; Series X, five services in the outer zone of the right service penalty; Series XI, five services in the internal service penalty zone; Series XII, five services in the outer zone of the left service penalty. After completing the first series of 10 balls, without taking a break, the coach informed the subject about the change of the head-impact zone. After two series, a short break was used to collect the balls. After the first four series have been completed, the subject, located in the deep-court, stood in the centre of the court behind the service line and started the first series of volley strokes. After completing four series of volley, the subject moved to the main line of the court to perform four series of five serves.

Each stroke was assessed twice, once for accuracy (2 points for the primary control field, 1 point for the ball in the supplementary control field, 0 points for the ball out or in the net) and then for impact strength (2 points for the ball with a second hit outside of the line located 33 cm and 38 cm from the baseline, 1 point for no bounce on the surface between that line and the court line, and 0 points if the ball bounced before the court baseline). The sum of the points for accuracy and impact strength of 100 strokes gave the final test result of the entire test, with a maximum of 400 points.

Measures

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics, including mean and standard deviation (SD), were calculated for all measured variables. To assess the differences between measures at different time points (RM, repeated measure: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4) and between sexes (GR: male, female), two-way ANOVA (4×2) with repeated measures was performed for specific age groups. To assess and compare the rate of development of motor coordination skills and special fitness over 1 year (measured quarterly) between sexes (GR: male, female) and between age groups (age: 10, 11, 12 years), regression beta coefficient for each participant was calculated and then two-way ANOVA (2×3) was performed. For each ANOVA, the effect size was calculated by eta-squared statistics (η²). Values equal to or greater than 0.01, 0.06, and 0.14 indicated a small, moderate, and large effect, respectively. Finally, Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated for particular motor coordination and special fitness tests. All calculations were performed using Statistica 13 software (StatSoft, Tulsa, OK, USA). Differences were considered statistically significant when p ≤ 0.05.

The test results of 10-year-old children are shown in Fig. 1. ANOVA with repeated measures of motor coordination and special fitness of 10-year-old male and female tennis players revealed a significant effect of the RM factor on all the tested indicators. A significant effect of the GR factor was noted, with boys performing better than girls in the Spalding test (5.37%, η² = 0.38, p < 0.01), 100-ball test (9.29%, η² = 0.18, p < 0.01), and wall game test (64.75%, η² = 0.83, p < 0.01). Further, the results of Spalding test (η² = 0.07, p < 0.01), Starosta’s test (η² = 0.05, p = 0.04), jump rope test (η² = 0.05, p = 0.02), and wall game test (η² = 0.05, p = 0.03) indicated a significant interaction of the GR × RM factors (Fig. 1C, F, J, K).

The test results of 11-year-old children are shown in Fig. 2. ANOVA revealed a significant effect of the RM factor on all the studied indicators, regardless of sex. A significant effect of the GR factor was noted, with boys performing better than girls in the plate tapping test (3.78%, η² = 0.07, p = 0.04), Spalding test (8.79%, η² = 0.40, p < 0.01), Spider test (3.75%, η² = 0.13, p < 0.01), 100-ball test (10.66%, η² = 0.07, p < 0.01), and wall game test (44.08%, η² = 0.74, p < 0.01). A significant interaction of the GR × RM factors was evident in the complex reaction test (Fig. 2B, η² = 0.08, p < 0.01), Starosta’s test (Fig. 2F, η² = 0.08, p < 0.01), 100-ball test (Fig. 2K, η² = 0.05, p = 0.04), and wall game test (Fig. 2L, η² = 0.05, p = 0.03).

The test results of 12-year-old children are shown in Fig. 3. As for the 10- and 11-year-olds, ANOVA revealed a significant effect of the RM factor in all performance tests. A significant effect of the GR factor was noted in the simple reaction test (0.92%, η² = 0.07 p = 0.04), complex reaction test (5.88%, η² = 0.07, p = 0.03), Spalding test (5.52%, η² = 0.21, p < 0.01), Spider test (2.28%, η2 = 0.06 p < 0.05), Starosta’s test (3.55%, η² = 0.07, p = 0.04), plate tapping test (6.66%, η² = 0.08, p = 0.03), 100-ball test (7.32%, η² = 0.07, p = 0.04), and wall game test (28.44%, η² = 0.63, p < 0.01), where boys performed significantly better than girls. However, in the hexagon jump test (5.40%, η² = 0.08, p = 0.03), boys performed worse than girls. A significant interaction of the GR × RM factors was evident in the 100-ball test (Fig. 3K, η² = 0.06, p < 0.01) and wall game test (Fig. 3L, η² = 0.07, p < 0.01).

To evaluate the rate of 1-year development in the investigated age groups, differences in beta coefficients of linear regression were assessed (Table 3). A significant effect of the age factor was noted in the simple and complex reaction tests, spider test and the hand–eye and jump rope tests. The beta coefficient for the simple reaction test of 12-year-olds was 2.57- and 1.66-times higher than that of 10- and 11-year-olds, respectively. Similarly, for the complex reaction and hand–eye tests, the coefficient for 12-year-olds was 2.03- and 1.42-times higher than that for the youngest group, accordingly. In addition, in the former test, the beta coefficient for girls was 45.65% higher than that for boys, regardless of the age group. For the plate tapping test, the beta coefficient for 10-year-olds was 11% higher than that for 12-year-olds, and negative in both groups. For the Spalding test, the beta coefficient for boys was 21% higher and negative, regardless of age. For the balance test, the beta coefficient for boys was 28.57% lower than that for girls. For the jump rope test, the beta coefficient for 10-year-olds was 17% higher than that for 12-year-olds, and that for boys was overall 13% higher than that for girls. However, as was shown by the interaction of GR × RM factors, the differences were mainly driven by the beta coefficient for 12-year-old girls being the lowest among the compared groups (Table 3). As a result of the interaction of both effects, the beta coefficient for the 100-ball test of 12-year-old girls was 17% higher than that of their male peers.

Table 3. Two-way ANOVA (sex × age) of beta coefficients for linear regression analysis of quarterly changes in performance of motor coordination tests by 10–12-year-olds

Variable	Sex	10-year-olds (Mean ± SD)	11-year-olds (Mean ± SD)	12-year-olds (Mean ± SD)	Effect	p-value	Effect size (n²)	Post-hoc outcome
Simple reaction test	B	0.19±0.46	0.29±0.49	0.55±0.19	Age GR Age ´ GR	<0.01** 0.45 0.92	0.10 <0.01 <0.01	A12>A10, A11
	G	0.25±0.50	0.38±0.41	0.56±0.28
Complex reaction test	B	0.28±0.39	0.39±0.69	0.51±0.67	Age GR Age ´ GR	0.01* 0.03* 0.62	0.05 0.02 0.01	A12>A10 G>B
	G	0.35±0.50	0.61±0.60	0.77±0.27
Spalding test	B	–0.91±0.08	–0.84±0.28	–0.68±0.52	Age GR Age ´ GR	0.06 0.02* 0.58	0.03 0.03 0.01	B<G
	G	–0.75±0.04	–0.63±0.54	–0.61±9.48
Spider test	B	–0.46±0.69	–0.74±0.42	–0.69±0.48	Age GR Age ´ GR	0.03* 0.65 0.27	0.04 <0.01 0.01	A10>A11
	G	–0.54±0.60	–0.77±0.31	–0.61±0.66
Hexagon jump test	B	–0.64±0.51	–0.66±0.47	–0.49±0.55	Age GR Age ´ GR	0.20 0.60 0.88	0.01 <0,01 <0.01
	G	–0.71±0.40	–0.65±0.48	–0.56±0.62
Starosta’s test	B	0.80±0.31	0.84±0.20	0.58±0.50	Age GR Age ´ GR	0.11 0.17 0.12	0.02 0.01 0.02
	G	0.79±0.17	0.70±0.36	0.51±0.56
Hand–eye test	B	0.45±0.58	0.79±0.28	0.77±0.35	Age GR Age ´ GR	<0.01** 0.47 0.15	0.06 <0.01 0.02	A12>A10
	G	0.65±0.51	0.68±0.42	0.81±0.24
Balance test	B	0.60±0.55	0.50±0.52	0.29±0.59	Age GR Age ´ GR	0.11 0.03* 0.56	0.02 0.03 <0.01	G>B
	G	0.67±0.50	0.70±0.44	0.64±0.47
Plate tapping test	B	–0.97±0.02	–0.96±0.03	–0.86±0.33	Age GR Age ´ GR	0.01* 0.95 0.71	0.04 <0.01 <0.01	A11<A12
	G	–0.98±0.03	–0.93±0.14	–0.86±0.32
Jump rope test	B	0.82±0.10	0.88±0.14	0.81±0.22	Age GR Age ´ GR	0.02* 0.03* 0.02*	0.04 0.02 0.04	A10>A12 B>G G12<B12, G10, B10, B11
	G	0.90±0.22	0.74±0.36	0.59±0.52
Wall game test	B	0.87±0.11	0.90±0.69	0.90±0.09	Age GR Age ´ GR	0.37 0.65 0.38	0.01 <0.01 0.01
	G	0.88±0.07	0.89±0.60	0.88±0.08
100-ball test	B	0.87±0.10	0.85±0.32	0.75±0.21	Age GR Age ´ GR	0.27 0.81 0.04	0.01 <0.01 0.04	G12>B12
	G	0.86±0.08	0.75±0.39	0.88±0.10

Abbreviations: B, boys; G, girls; GR, sex; A10, 10 years old; A11, 11 years old; A12, 12 years old; G(10–12), girls of the specified age; B(10–12), boys of the specified age. Significant effect at *p<0.05, **p<0.01.

The aim of the current study was to analyse sex- and age-related differences in the development of motor coordination skills considering the subject’s ability to master the technique of basic tennis ball strokes.

In the current study, for the first time, an attempt was made to answer the question of how motor coordination skills change in 10-, 11-, and 12-year-old girls and boys at quarterly intervals in the annual training cycle and whether there are significant sex-related differences. Significant quarterly changes in all motor coordination skills of all tennis players were noted, regardless of sex. Data analyses revealed the largest annual change (42.2%, p<0.01) among 10-year-old tennis players in the balance test performance. In turn, among 11- and 12-year-olds, the largest annual change in performance was observed in the 100-ball test and wall game test equal to 27.89% (p<0.01) and 21.50% (p<0.01), respectively. This indicates that along with gaining tennis expertise, special preparatory training that incorporates technical aspects is important by coaches and players. The main reasons for the improvement of motor coordination skills of the examined groups of girls and boys were a substantial amount of training dedicated to shaping motor coordination during each training session on the court, and also changes resulting from biological development. It was previously shown that 11–14-year-old elite tennis players had better motor coordination skills than club-level tennis players [37], mostly as a result of a higher training volume.

The rate of 1-year developmental changes in simple and complex reaction times, hand–eye and plate tapping tests, measured by the beta coefficient, was highest in 12-year-old players. This indicates that fast-paced manual tasks are most susceptible to training later in the tennis training process. This could be explained by the maturation of the nervous system, wherein both, the myelination process and increasing axon diameter [38, 39] provide faster neuromuscular communication [40].

In a previous study, Kramer et al. [7] investigated 3-year changes in, among others, agility using the spider test, among 14–16-year-old tennis players. Overall, the 14–16-year-olds performed better than our participants who were younger (10–12 years old). However, the performance improvement over 1 years was more rapid in 10–12-year-olds than that in 14–16-year-olds, both boys (10% vs. 5.3%) and girls (7% vs. 2.5%). This indicates that the importance of development of unspecific agility performance declines or reaches an optimal level at 14-16-year-olds. This was supported by our observations with 10-year-old tennis players who showed the most rapid 1-year development of this skill, based on the beta coefficient of linear regression of quarterly changes. It should be pointed out that in the current study, measurements over 1 years consecutive years were derived from different participants, while in Kramer et al. [7], the longitudinal study was conducted in the same group.

In the overall European population, except for the balance, plate tapping, and sit-and-reach tests, the physical fitness of 10–12-year-old boys measured by the Eurofit test is better than that of peers [41]. In the current study, regardless of the repeated quarterly measurement, the Spalding, 100-ball, and wall game test results of 10-, 11-, and 12-year-old boys were significantly better than those of girls. In addition, 11 and 12-year-old male tennis players performed significantly better in the Spider test and plate tapping test than female tennis players. Considering the plate tapping test, it was shown that in the European population, until the age of 12, girls perform better than boys but the advantage of boys then increases, year upon year. In relation to that, the current study suggests that tennis training probably accelerates the typical development of this motor coordination skill among boys by approximately 1 year. This is in accordance with another study, which reported a better plate taping performance of 10–12 years male tennis players [42]. Of note, among 12–13-year-olds, tennis players as well as untrained peers, the tapping test performance decreased over the time period of 1992–2008; however, it is difficult to compare that to the outcomes of the current study, as we used the Eurofit test instead of counting the number of taps in 20 s [43]. The populational sex difference was also apparent with respect to the balance skills, with the girls performing slightly better across 10–12-year-olds and even older adolescents [41]. The same was observed here and was comparable to the finding of another study [42], yet the difference between boys and girls did not reach statistical significance. Finally, girls exhibited faster rate of 1-year development than boys, regardless of the age group.

The Spalding and spider tests are used for agility evaluation, wherein the former incorporates a short (8–10 m) sprinting section and is similar to the Eurofit’s 10´5 m shuttle run. Overall, the reported agility test performance of 10–12-year-old boys is better than that of girls [41]. The same outcome was observed in the current study; however, in the spider test, only 11- and 12-year-old boys performed better than girls. Better agility test performance among young male tennis players has also been reported in other studies [7, 44-47]. This observation could be explained by the nature of the spider test which, in comparison to other agility tests, also incorporates in the assessment the dexterity aspect of grabbing and placing the tennis ball on the designated spot (tennis racket): as mentioned above, 10-year-old female tennis players perform fast-paced dexterity tasks (plate taping test) better than 10-year-old male tennis players. Further, the rate of 1-year developmental changes in the Spalding test performance of male tennis players was higher than that of girls, regardless of the age group.

In the current study, 12-year-old female tennis players performed better than boys of the same age in only one motor coordination test, i.e. the hexagon jump test. This was similar to the findings of Roetert et al. [44], and was also reported for 14-year-old tennis players [46]. By contrast, Myburgh et al. [48] reported no sex-associated differences among 10–12-year-old elite tennis players performing the hexagon jump test. It appears that the performance of repeated jumping tasks by young female tennis players was slightly better because of better jumping precision, as they scored less errors during the hexagon jump test than boys. This was also apparent in the jump rope test, wherein 10-year-old female tennis players performed better than boys. Similar was observed among the 12-year-olds, but the difference with boys did not reach statistical significance. Analysis of the beta coefficients of 1-year quarterly changes in the performance of jump rope test revealed that the rate of development was the lowest among 12-year-old female tennis players, probably because they have achieved an optimal potential earlier than other groups.

In the current study, the 12-year-old male tennis players also performed better than girls in the simple and complex reaction tests, and in the Starosta’s test. It was previously shown that the simple reaction time of boys is better than that of girls, with the major improvement in this skill between the ages of 9 and 11 [49, 50]. However, Lynn and Ja-Song [51] pointed out that that is true only in terms of the movement speed not the decision time. For the Starosta’s test, data on children and adolescents are lacking; however, young untrained male adults also perform better than females [52]. Interestingly, while 12-year-old female tennis players performed relatively worse in the complex reaction test, they showed higher 1-year rate of development of complex reaction performance, regardless of the age group. This suggests that girls were catching up with the development level of this particular motor coordination skill that boys have achieved earlier.

Furthermore, the 10–12-year-old male tennis players performed better in many of the investigated motor coordination tests (e.g. 6/10 tests in the case of 12-year-old boys), and were also more skilled in terms of tennis-specific coordination tests: the 100-ball and wall game tests. These findings are in opposition to those of Theodoros et al. [53], who reported no difference between male and female tennis players in terms of the accuracy of backhand, forehand, and service strokes. This could be explained by the notion that the 100-ball test equally evaluates the accuracy and impact strength, and male tennis players exhibit higher muscle strength and, as a result, higher acceleration of the tennis ball, than female tennis players. The quarterly change analysis revealed that among 12-year-olds, girls exhibited a higher rate of technical skill development in the 100-ball test than boys. To an extent, this could be explained by some maturation processes that take place earlier in girls than in boys. Nonetheless, their performance was much worse than that of 12-year-old male tennis players. It should be also noted that the observed sex-associated differences in the developmental changes in the coordination motor skills and special fitness of tennis players occurred while boys and girls were following the same sports training program in tennis and physical education.

It appears that the 100-ball test involves more of the tested motor coordination skills than the wall game test. Interestingly, female tennis players seemed to rely on motor coordination to a greater extent than males, especially in tests involving agility and precision, e.g. hexagon jump, jump rope, and hand–eye tests. As mentioned earlier, the 100-ball test has a muscle strength component, and thus boys probably rely on this factor more than girls. On the other hand, the wall game test relies almost exclusively on the agility aspects of motor coordination in terms of as are the Spalding, spider, hexagon, and Starosta’s tests, which focus on the ability to change the direction of movement.

One of the limitations of the current study is that we did not control for the children’s maturity status and, hence, some of the outcome could be influenced by puberty, especially among girls. However, based on the analysis of physical characteristics of the investigated age groups, no differences in stature or body mass were apparent between boys and girls in any particular age group. Therefore, their puberty status was similar and the impact of physical development should have been comparable in both sexes.

The current study revealed that 1-year development of motor coordination and technical preparation is age-, sex-, and task-dependent. In terms of technical tennis preparation, the performance of 10–12-year-old male tennis players was better than that of females. While among 10-year-old players, this was only observed in the performance of the Spalding test, the motor coordination skills of 11- and 12-year-old boys improved. The presented findings indicate the importance of motor coordination preparation for 10–12-year-old tennis players, and highlight the necessity of adjusting the training program according to age and sex of young tennis players.

Standard deviation

ANOVA

Analysis of variance

Repeated measure

Sexes

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Data availability

Data are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Funding

No specific grant funding was received for this study.

Authors' contributions

Conception and design of the study: T.W., A.D. and A.K. Data acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data: T.W., E.W., A.D., B.N., J.M., A.K. Drafting the manuscript: T.W., A.D., B.N., J.M., A.K. All authors critically reviewed the manuscript for important intellectual content and approved the final version.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Faber IR, Bustin PM, Oosterveld FG, Elferink-Gemser MT, Nijhuis-Van der Sanden MW. Assessing personal talent determinants in young racquet sport players: a systematic review. J Sports Sci. 2016;34(5):395–410.
Federation IT, Conditioning. - overview 2019 [https://www.itftennis.com/media/2297/conditioning-overview.pdf].
Karnia M, Garsztka T, Rynkiewicz M, Rynkiewicz T, Zurek P, Łuszczyk M et al. Physical Performance, Body Composition and Body Balance in Relation to National Ranking Positions in Young Polish Tennis Players. Baltic J Health Phys Activity. 2010;2(2).
Ziemann E, Sledziewska E, Grzywacz T, Gibson AL, Wierzba TH. Body composition and physical capacity of elite adolescent female tennis players. Georgian Med News. 2011(196–197):19–27.
Reid M, Duffield R. The development of fatigue during match-play tennis. Br J Sports Med. 2014;48(Suppl 1):7–11.
Kolman N, Huijgen B, Kramer T, Elferink-Gemser M, Visscher C. The Dutch Technical-Tactical Tennis Test (D4T) for Talent Identification and Development: Psychometric Characteristics. J Hum Kinet. 2017;55:127–38.
Kramer T, Huijgen BC, Elferink-Gemser MT, Visscher C. A Longitudinal Study of Physical Fitness in Elite Junior Tennis Players. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2016;28(4):553–64.
Robertson K, Pion J, Mostaert M, Norjali Wazir MRW, Kramer T, Faber IR, et al. A coaches' perspective on the contribution of anthropometry, physical performance, and motor coordination in racquet sports. J Sports Sci. 2018;36(23):2706–15.
Tsetseli M, Malliou V, Zetou E, Michalopoulou M, Kambas A. The effect of a coordination training program on the development of tennis service technique. J Biology Exerc. 2010;6(1):29–36.
Roetert EP, Brown SW, Piorkowskil PA, Woods RB. Fitness Comparisons Among Three Different Levels of Elite Tennis Players. J Strength Conditioning Res. 1996;10(3):139–43.
Girard O, Lattier G, Micallef JP, Millet GP. Changes in exercise characteristics, maximal voluntary contraction, and explosive strength during prolonged tennis playing. Br J Sports Med. 2006;40(6):521–6.
Brechbuhl C, Girard O, Millet GP, Schmitt L. On the Use of a Test to Exhaustion Specific to Tennis (TEST) with Ball Hitting by Elite Players. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(4):e0152389.
Faber IR, Oosterveld FG, Nijhuis-Van der Sanden MW. Does an eye-hand coordination test have added value as part of talent identification in table tennis? A validity and reproducibility study. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(1):e85657.
Akpinar S, Devrilmez E, Kirazci S. Coincidence-anticipation timing requirements are different in racket sports. Percept Mot Skills. 2012;115(2):581–93.
Caballero C, Barbado D, Hernandez-Davo H, Hernandez-Davo JL, Moreno FJ. Balance dynamics are related to age and levels of expertise. Application in young and adult tennis players. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(4):e0249941.
Kovacs M. A comparison of work/rest intervals in men's professional tennis. Med Sci Tennis. 2004;9(3):10–1.
Kovacs MS. Tennis physiology: training the competitive athlete. Sports Med. 2007;37(3):189–98.
Brouwers J, De Bosscher V, Sotiriadou P. An examination of the importance of performances in youth and junior competition as an indicator of later success in tennis. Sport Manage Rev. 2021;15(4):461–75.
Tubez F, Schwartz C, Croisier JL, Bruls O, Denoel V, Paulus J, et al. Evolution of the trophy position along the tennis serve player's development. Sports Biomech. 2021;20(4):431–43.
Maquirriain J. Analysis of tennis champions' career: how did top-ranked players perform the previous years? Springerplus. 2014;3:504.
Baiget E, Iglesias X, Rodriguez FA. Aerobic Fitness and Technical Efficiency at High Intensity Discriminate between Elite and Subelite Tennis Players. Int J Sports Med. 2016;37(11):848–54.
Gescheit DT, Cormack SJ, Reid M, Duffield R. Consecutive days of prolonged tennis match play: performance, physical, and perceptual responses in trained players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2015;10(7):913–20.
Ochi S, Kovacs MS. Periodization and Recovery in the Young Tennis Athlete. In: Colvin AC, Gladston JN, editors. The Young Tennis Player: Injury Prevention and Treatment. Contemporary Pediatric and Adolescent Sports Medicine: Springer; 2016. pp. 87–104.
Waldziński T, Kochanowicz K. Podstawy kontroli procesu treningowego młodych tenisistów. Wydawnictwo Uczelniane Akademii Wychowania Fizycznego i Sportu w Gdańsku; 2020.
Żurek P. Somatyczne, kondycyjne i koordynacyjne uwarunkowania sprawności specjalnej tenisistów na etapie treningu ukierunkowanego. Akademia Wychowania FIzycznego im. Eugeniusza Piaseckiego w Poznaniu2013.
Schönborn R. Advanced Techniques for Competitive Tennis. Meyer & Meyer Sport; 2002.
Schönborn R. Optimales tennistraining – Der Weg zum erfolgreichen Tennis vom Anfanger bis zur Weltspitze. Spitta; 2010.
McGinnis PM. Biomechanics of Sport and Exercise. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2020.
Virmavirta M, Isolehto J. Determining the location of the body׳s center of mass for different groups of physically active people. J Biomech. 2014;47(8):1909–13.
Orntoft C, Larsen MN, Madsen M, Sandager L, Lundager I, Moller A, et al. Physical Fitness and Body Composition in 10-12-Year-Old Danish Children in Relation to Leisure-Time Club-Based Sporting Activities. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:9807569.
Fiori F, Bravo G, Parpinel M, Messina G, Malavolta R, Lazzer S. Relationship between body mass index and physical fitness in Italian prepubertal schoolchildren. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(5):e0233362.
Wicks LJ, Telford RM, Cunningham RB, Semple SJ, Telford RD. Longitudinal patterns of change in eye-hand coordination in children aged 8–16 years. Hum Mov Sci. 2015;43:61–6.
Waszkowska M, Dudek B. [Aging and psychological assessment of motor vehicle driving capability]. Med Pr. 2004;55(6):447–53.
Beekhuizen KS, Davis MD, Kolber MJ, Cheng MS. Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change of the hexagon agility test. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(7):2167–71.
Garbolewski K, Starosta W. Level and conditions of selected motor coordination and jumping abilities among advanced water polo players. J Hum Kinet. 2002;8:17–21.
Jurimae T, Volbekiene V, Jurimae J, Tomkinson GR. Changes in Eurofit test performance of Estonian and Lithuanian children and adolescents (1992–2002). Med Sport Sci. 2007;50:129–42.
Sogut M. A Comparison of Serve Speed and Motor Coordination between Elite and Club Level Tennis Players. J Hum Kinet. 2017;55:171–6.
Genc S, Raven EP, Drakesmith M, Blakemore SJ, Jones DK. Novel insights into axon diameter and myelin content in late childhood and adolescence. Cereb Cortex. 2023;33(10):6435–48.
Paus T. Growth of white matter in the adolescent brain: myelin or axon? Brain Cogn. 2010;72(1):26–35.
Fuelscher I, Hyde C, Efron D, Silk TJ. Manual dexterity in late childhood is associated with maturation of the corticospinal tract. NeuroImage. 2021;226:117583.
Tomkinson GR, Carver KD, Atkinson F, Daniell ND, Lewis LK, Fitzgerald JS, et al. European normative values for physical fitness in children and adolescents aged 9–17 years: results from 2 779 165 Eurofit performances representing 30 countries. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52(22):1445–563.
Kaya M, Saritaş N, Köroğlu Y. A comparison of male and female adolescent tennis players through selected eurofit test battery. Sci Mov Health. 2018;18(2):186–91.
Filipčič A, Filipčič T, Leskošek B. Differences in physical fitness among young tennis players in between 1992 and 2008. Coll Antropol. 2015;39(1):131–43.
Paul Roetert E, Piorkowski PA, Woods RB, Brown SW. Establishing Percentiles for Junior Tennis Players Based on Physical Fitness Testing Results. Clin Sports Med. 1995;14(1):1–21.
Ishihara T, Sugasawa S, Matsuda Y, Mizuno M. Relationship between sports experience and executive function in 6-12-year-old children: independence from physical fitness and moderation by gender. Dev Sci. 2018;21(3):e12555.
Dobos K, Novak D, Barbaros P. Neuromuscular Fitness Is Associated with Success in Sport for Elite Female, but Not Male Tennis Players. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(12).
Kramer T, Huijgen BC, Elferink-Gemser MT, Visscher C. Prediction of Tennis Performance in Junior Elite Tennis Players. J Sports Sci Med. 2017;16(1):14–21.
Myburgh GK, Cumming SP, Silva MC, Cooke K, Malina RM. Maturity-Associated Variation in Functional Characteristics Of Elite Youth Tennis Players. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2016;28(4):542–52.
Thomas JR, Gallagher JD, Purvis GJ. Reaction time and anticipation time: effects of development. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1981;52(3):359–67.
Ak E, Kocak S. Coincidence-anticipation timing and reaction time in youth tennis and table tennis players. Percept Mot Skills. 2010;110(3 Pt 1):879–87.
Lynn R, Ja-Song M. Sex differences in reaction times, decision times, and movement times in British and Korean children. J Genet Psychol. 1993;154(2):209–13.
Lewandowski A, Piekorz Z, Sarwinska J, Siedlaczek M. Long-Term Trends in Changes in Physical and Motor Development Observed among Physiotherapy Students from Bydgoszcz in 2011–2020. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(21).
Theodoros I, Antonios T, Kariotou M. The precision of service, forehand and backhand strikes from the baseline, and their comparison between male and female tennis athletes. Int J Perform Anal Sport. 2017;8(3):49–62.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 11 Sep, 2024

Read the published version in BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation →

Editorial decision: Revision requested
22 Feb, 2024
Submission checks completed at journal
20 Feb, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
20 Feb, 2024
First submitted to journal
20 Feb, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

One-year Developmental Changes in Motor Coordination and Technical Preparation in 10–12-year-old Male and Female Tennis Players

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Background

Methods

Participants

Design and Procedures

Motor Coordination Tests

Simple Reaction Test

Complex Reaction Test

Spalding Test

Spider Test

Hexagon Jumping Test

Starosta’s Test

Hand–eye Test

Balance Test

Plate Tapping Test

Jump Rope Test

Special Fitness Tests

Wall Game Test

100-tennis Ball Test

Measures

Statistical Analysis

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Abbreviations

Declarations

Authors' contributions

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1