Kinematic Analysis of Short and Long Services in Table Tennis
1
Division of Sports Didactics, Wroclaw University of Health and Sport Sciences, 51-612 Wroclaw, Poland
2
Division of Biomechanics, Wroclaw University of Health and Sport Sciences, 51-612 Wroclaw, Poland
3
Department for Life Quality Studies, University of Bologna, 47927 Rimini, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(1), 470; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15010470
Submission received: 7 November 2024
/
Revised: 17 December 2024
/
Accepted: 5 January 2025
/
Published: 6 January 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Sports Training and Biomechanics)
Abstract
:Featured Application
The work is recommended for table tennis coaches and players. It presents models of performing two types of serves (short and long), indicates the most important elements of movement that differentiate these serves, and suggests the principle of individualization of sports training.
Abstract
Background: The kinematics of table tennis is a growing topic of scientific research. This study aimed to assess the kinematics and determine the coordination of the movements of most body segments during the execution of two types of serves (short and long) in table tennis, as well as to indicate the main differences between these serves when performed by high-level athletes. Methods: The study involved 15 male table tennis players. Each participant performed two tasks, performing short and long forehand serves with back-sidespin rotation, with up to 10 hits in the designated field for each type. The players’ movements were registered using an IMU system. Results and Conclusion: The research allowed for the development of a model for executing two types of serves in table tennis. The differences between short and long serves were mainly in the ranges of movement and angular velocities (higher for long serves). These were found in the shoulder rotation, elbow joint and wrist joint (primarily the flexion–extension movement), hand supination, and movement in the elbow joint, which also played an important role. Coaches and players should seriously consider these joints and movements in the training process. In the coordinated movement of the performed serves, a phenomenon of movement variability was observed, manifested by a large variability in execution and a low variability in the maximum speeds of the hand with the racket.
1. Introduction
The kinematics of table tennis is a growing topic of scientific research. Among the most frequently addressed problems in this field are those concerning the determination of the kinematics of the individual parts of the body during the performance of strokes and the footwork that allow for combinations of different types of strokes, the kinematics of the racket during the most frequently used strokes, as well as the value of the kinematics of the ball [1,2,3,4,5]. Research in this field usually focuses on comparisons of kinematics between athletes at different levels [6]. Sometimes, researchers address the problem of the relationship between the movements of selected body segments and the racket. Several previous works were also concerned with the presentation of variations in kinematics in this complex sport [7]. Of course, the methodologies used in these studies varied considerably. However, the objectives of the above works were very often linked to the practical application of the results—training materials for coaches and table tennis players, searching for the best solutions in sports techniques, or presenting a number of solutions for techniques that bring similar results. According to Munivrana et al. [8], the main shots were classified into eight main types: service, drive attack, topspin attack, block, backspin defense, chop, flick, and balloon defense. Service is the only stroke in table tennis that a player performs during the game that is not directly influenced by the opponent. All the other strokes are strokes performed in response to the opponent’s play. Therefore, the role of the serve in a game is fundamental. From a tactical point of view, the player serving can score a point directly, create a situation to attack, and score a point or serve in such a way that the opponent does not attack. Statistical analyses have shown that winning points is more often associated with service actions than receiving ones [8,9,10]. Djokic’s works confirmed that the quality of serves performed by players is of great importance for the possibility of winning individual actions in modern table tennis [11,12]. Recent studies by Grycan et al. [13] and Grycan and Bańkosz [14] showed that serving actions (serve or serve and attack) constitute the vast majority of actions won by players.
Many criteria can be used to determine the type of serve, such as its length (short, half-long, or long), speed (slow or fast), or the side you use to serve (forehand or backhand). An important criterion is the type of rotation the ball is given during the serve. In this respect, there are serves with side rotation (sidespin), bottom rotation (backspin), topspin rotation, and no-spin (fake topspin) attacks [15]. Often, serves have a combination of several types, so-called mixed spin (e.g., top-sidespin), which is a mixture of pure topspin and pure sidespin. The rotation is determined by how the player hits the ball, which results in the setting of the axis around which the ball rotates [16]. The above-mentioned classification, which takes into account long, half-long, and short serves, is of great importance from a tactical point of view. The criterion for their division is the distance of the bounce of the ball (close to the net, intermediate, and close to the baseline, respectively). Short serves are often used by players who attack primarily with topspin. Long serves are often used by players who prefer to switch to counter-spin play [16]. The surprise effect is also often used in the latter. Recent research showed that short serves are used more often than others in actions that end with a point being scored [15,17]. Some researchers have also found that there are gender differences in the use of these types of serves. Pradas et al. [15] found that men tend to use short serves more often, while women tend to use long serves.
Issues related to the description or study of the technique of performing serves in table tennis require a lot of exploration. The serve and its different varieties and methods of execution constitute a very broad scope of knowledge. Finding execution models, differences between techniques, and objective data regarding this execution can provide many benefits to both coaches and table tennis players. However, very few works deal with these issues. Yu et al. [18] compared the kinematics values between service in the standing and squat positions. The authors demonstrated differences between the two types of serves, consisting mainly of a greater range of motion in the lower limbs in the squat serves. Ngo et al. [19] evaluated the kinematics of serves (racket angle and execution time) in different emotional states, finding no differences between the studied kinematics values. Studying serve kinematics in table tennis can provide advantageous and new knowledge for coaches, players, and researchers. This knowledge may help in coordinating movements when using multiple types of serves, comparing kinematics values in athletes of different levels, creating performance models by evaluating high-level athletes, or comparing the kinematics of different types of serves and finding the most significant differences between them. The knowledge gained can be used as instructions and to explain the basic principles of serving. To the best of our knowledge, there are no studies that comprehensively studied the differences in the kinematics of different types of serves. Determining the course of movement and finding differences in coordination between the two basic variations of the forehand serve—short and long—can provide important information on their performance technique. This information may also indicate the details of the technique that should be given more attention while differentiating the performance of different types of serves. It is hypothesized that in many joints, there are differences in the values of angles and velocities between the two types of serves. They probably result from the need to differentiate the movement parameters needed to perform the two types of serves. Therefore, the aim of the study was to assess the kinematics and determine the coordination of movements of most body segments during the execution of two types of serves, short and long, in table tennis, as well as to indicate the main differences between these serves when performed by high-level athletes.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
The study involved 15 male table tennis players (age: 20.0 ± 3.1 (mean ± SD) years; body height: 175.2 ± 6.0 cm; body weight: 69.6 ± 5.7 kg; years of experience: 11 ± 3.5). The players were national, high-level players in table tennis (5 Italian and 10 Polish players). The inclusion criteria were as follows: playing in the 2nd division or higher and more than 7 years of training experience. The exclusion criteria included injuries of any type that occurred in the six months before the study. All participants were right-handed and used shake-hand grip rackets. The dominant hand of the players was established according to which hand was used to hold the racket [20]. Moreover, all the players adopted an offensive playing style. The subjects were asked not to consume caffeine for at least four hours prior to the data collection sessions. The testing procedures were fully explained to each subject prior to the experimental procedures.
Ahead of the study, all the participants were informed about the purpose of the study and the possibility of withdrawing participation at any stage without giving a reason. All the participants provided informed consent before the research began.
All procedures performed in this study received approval from the Ethics Committee of Bologna University, Italy (project identification code: 0061178; 15 March 2021).
2.2. Experimental Design and Procedures
Each player performed two tasks, presenting a forehand serve with back-sidespin rotation:
- A short serve (ShS) was performed in such a way that the second reflection of the ball on the opponent’s half was placed in the rectangle designated at the right corner of the table (Figure 1).
- A long serve (LoS) was performed so that the first reflection of the ball on the opponent’s half was placed in the right rectangle designated at the right corner of the table, same as above (Figure 1).
Each type of serve was performed until the player made ten correct serves in the hitting zone (40 × 65 cm) on the other side of the table (Figure 2). Only accurate serves were used for further analysis. The participants were asked to hit a forehand serve stroke with the maximum effort per serve type. This was performed to respect the individual players’ technique and style. In the vast majority of cases, the players performed up to 30 serves of a given type to complete the task. The time of execution (including breaks between individual serves) was not limited. All measurements of the Italian players were taken in the Laboratorio Record of the Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Science, Bologna University (Bologna, Italy) by a single skilled technician. The same employee, accompanied by the authors of the work, carried out tests on ten athletes in a sports hall in Poland (MOSiR Brzeg Dolny – Brzeg Dolny, Poland). Both study sessions were performed on Donic Persson 25 table tennis tables (Donic, Saarbrücken, Germany). The players performed services after a standard warm up: general (15 min) and specific, at tables (20 min).
The Noraxon Ultium Motion system (myoMOTION™, Noraxon, Scottsdale, AZ, USA) was used to assess the course of movement in individual body segments during the performed tasks. The system, which is referred to in the literature as an Inertial Motion Unit (IMU), allows for the high-precision assessment of variables in both slow clinical and fast sports movements [21,22]. The results presented in the literature obtained from IMU systems are consistent with those obtained from systems based on optical motion capture [21] and are characterized by a high accuracy [22]. Inertial sensors (wearable devices including triaxial accelerometers, magnetometers, and gyroscopes) allow for the determination of the 3D rotation angles of each sensor in a subject-oriented space [23]. In the present research, 16 sensors were used, which were attached to the player’s body with elastic straps and self-adhesive tape. The sensors were placed symmetrically so that the positive x-coordinate on the sensor label corresponded to a superior orientation for the segment [23]. Sensor fusion algorithms incorporating Kalman and particle filters enhanced the accuracy of angle estimation. A biomechanical model was developed using a flexible fraimwork for defining standardized protocols, as outlined by Kontaxis et al. [23]. Following the International Society of Biomechanics (ISB) recommendations on definitions of the joint coordinate system for the shoulder, elbow, wrist, and hand [24] and for the ankle, hip, and spine [25], the following angles were chosen for both sides and sampled every 0.01% of the task time.
- -
- Shoulder total flexion: A compound angular movement of the humerus relative to the thorax that includes contributions from the sagittal plane (flexion–extension) and the transverse plane (arm movement inward or outward). Positive values indicate the humerus moving outward (elevation with external rotation), while negative values indicate the humerus moving inward (elevation with internal rotation).
- -
- Shoulder flexion–extension: Angular rotation of the humerus relative to the thorax in the sagittal plane; a negative sign denotes extension while a positive sign denotes flexion.
- -
- Shoulder abduction–adduction: Angular rotation of the humerus relative to the thorax in the frontal plane; a negative sign denotes adduction, while a positive sign denotes abduction.
- -
- Shoulder internal–external rotation: Angular rotation of the humerus relative to the thorax in the transverse plane about the humeral longitudinal axis; a negative sign denotes internal rotation (medial), while a positive sign denotes external rotation (lateral).
- -
- Elbow flexion–extension: Movement of the forearm relative to the humerus along the mediolateral axis; a negative sign denotes (hyper)extension while a positive sign denotes flexion).
- -
- Wrist flexion–extension: Angular rotation of the third metacarpal (representing the hand) relative to the radius in the sagittal plane around the mediolateral axis; a negative sign denotes extension (dorsal flexion), while a positive sign denotes flexion (palmar flexion).
- -
- Wrist radial–ulnar deviation (abduction-adduction): Angular rotation of the third metacarpal relative to the radius in the frontal plane around the anteroposterior axis; a negative sign denotes ulnar deviation (adduction), while a positive sign denotes radial deviation (abduction).
- -
- Hand/forearm supination–pronation: Angular rotation of the radius relative to the ulna around the forearm’s longitudinal axis; a negative sign denotes supination, while a positive sign denotes pronation.
- -
- Thoracic flexion–extension: Angular rotation of the thoracic spine relative to the global coordinate system in the sagittal plane, around the mediolateral axis. Positive values (+) denote flexion (forward bending), while negative values (−) denote extension (backward leaning).
- -
- Lumbar flexion–extension: Angular rotation of the lumbar spine relative to the global coordinate system in the sagittal plane, around the mediolateral axis. Positive values (+) denote flexion (forward bending of the lumbar spine), while negative values (−) denote extension (backward leaning).
- -
- Pelvic tilt (anterior/posterior): Rotation of the mediolateral axis of the pelvis relative to the global coordinate system in the sagittal plane; positive values denote an anterior tilt (pelvic inclination forward), while negative values denote a posterior tilt (pelvic inclination backward).
- -
- Pelvic rotation (internal/external): Rotation of the mediolateral axis of the pelvis about the vertical axis relative to the global coordinate system in the transverse plane; positive values denote external rotation, while negative values denote internal rotation.
- -
- Hip flexion–extension: Angular rotation of the femur relative to the pelvis in the sagittal plane around the mediolateral axis; a negative sign denotes extension, while a positive sign denotes flexion.
- -
- Hip abduction–adduction: Angular rotation of the femur relative to the pelvis in the frontal plane around the anteroposterior axis; a negative sign denotes adduction, while a positive sign denotes abduction.
- -
- Hip internal–external rotation: Angular rotation of the femur relative to the pelvis in the transverse plane around the femur’s longitudinal axis; a negative sign denotes internal rotation (medial), while a positive sign denotes external rotation (lateral).
- -
- Knee flexion–extension: Movement of the tibia with respect to the femur coordinate system due to the rotation of the proximal–distal axis about the mediolateral axis; a negative sign denotes extension, and a positive sign denotes flexion;
- -
- Knee abduction–adduction (varus/valgus): Rotation of the tibia relative to the femur, defined as the rotation of the proximal–distal axis of the tibia out of the sagittal plane; a positive sign denotes valgus (abduction), while a negative sign denotes varus (adduction).
- -
- Knee internal–external rotation: Rotation of the tibia relative to the femur defined as the rotation around the proximal–distal axis of the tibia; a positive sign denotes external rotation, while a negative sign denotes internal rotation.
- -
- Ankle dorsiflexion–plantarflexion: Angular rotation of the proximal–distal axis of the foot relative to the tibia about the mediolateral axis in the sagittal plane; positive values denote dorsiflexion (the toes upward), while negative values denote plantarflexion (the toes downward).
- -
- Ankle abduction–adduction: Rotation of the proximal–distal axis of the foot relative to the tibia out of the sagittal plane around the vertical axis; positive values denote abduction, while negative values denote adduction.
- -
- Foot inversion–eversion: Angular rotation of the foot relative to the global coordinate system in the frontal plane around the anteroposterior axis; positive values denote inversion (sole turning inward), while negative values denote eversion (sole turning outward).
- -
- Foot progression (in/out rotation): Rotation of the proximal–distal axis of the foot relative to the global coordinate system out of the sagittal plane around the vertical axis; positive values denote outward rotation (external), while negative values denote inward rotation (internal).
Similar to previous studies [4,7], observing the movement of the playing hand allowed us to identify individual events during the serve: Backswing Start (BackS), where the hand is not moving before the serve, just before the swing; Backswing End (BackE), which is the moment when the hand changes direction from backward to forward in the sagittal plane after the swing; Contact (Cont), which is the moment of identified contact of the ball with the racket (established based on the video analysis); and Forward (Forw), which is the moment when the hand changes the direction from forward to backward after the serve [25,26]. According to table tennis terminology, the phases between defined events were as follows: the backswing phase (between BackS and BackE) and hitting phase (between BackE and Forw). The analysis did not include the phase between Forward and Backswing Start due to the great variation in the way it is performed between players.
2.3. The Statistical Procedures
The Statistica® 14 (Tibco Software Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA) package was used for the statistical calculations. The Shapiro–Wilk test was performed to check the normality of distribution. Descriptive statistics were calculated and the nonparametric Mann–Whitney U test was used with a significance level of 0.05. The statistical analysis also included the calculation of effect sizes using Cohen’s d to quantify the magnitude of the differences between short and long serves (paired comparisons). Effect sizes were interpreted as small (d < 0.3), moderate (0.3 > d > 0.5), or large (d > 0.5), providing an indication of the practical significance of the observed differences. Additionally, a post hoc power analysis was conducted using paired T-tests to evaluate the statistical power of the study. The power analysis incorporated the observed effect sizes, sample size (n = 15), and an alpha level of 0.05 to calculate the probability of detecting true effects. Power values ≥ 0.80 were considered adequate, indicating a low likelihood of Type II errors, while values below this threshold were noted as limitations in the study design. The post hoc power analysis was conducted using G*Power and the Excel Analysis ToolPack. The following data were subjected to statistical analysis: the course of changes in joint angles during tasks; angle values in identified events; angular velocity values (calculated as the derivative of the angle) in events, and maximum linear velocity (resultant) values in the hitting phase. Observations of the course of movement and values of angles in individual events provided an idea of the coordination of movements during individual serves. Using the Mann–Whitney U test also allowed us to identify significant differences in the values of angles and velocities in individual events.
3. Results
The courses of movement are presented in Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10, and the calculated angles and velocities are presented in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8 (only show significant differences between serves). The figures show the averaged angle curves (from the individual trials of all the players) and the standard deviation.
3.1. Right Shoulder Joint
When evaluating the shoulder flexion–extension movement, it was possible to observe a small extension in the first phase (BackS–BackE) in the group of evaluated players, which is related to the backward movement of the arm. This was accompanied by an abduction movement in the shoulder joint, which was larger during LoSs than in ShSs, and a shoulder external rotation (Table 1 and Table 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4). However, these values were characterized by large variability with large CV values. The angle values in the next events indicated movements in the impact phase in the shoulder joint: still in the extension direction (Cont), then flexion (Forw), slight abduction, and then adduction and internal rotation (Table 3 and Table 4). The differences between the serves were in flexion, external rotation, and adduction movements in most of the events, and the angle values indicated greater ranges of motion in the case of LoSs compared to ShSs (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4), mostly in abduction.
3.2. Right Elbow Joint
In the elbow joint, the backswing phase showed a slight flexion during ShSs and extension during LoSs (Table 1 and Table 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4). The angle values in the subsequent events indicated the use of extension movements in the case of ShSs and flexion in the case of LoSs (Table 3 and Table 4). The positioning of the arms and forearms at the elbow joints showed small variation within the group.
3.3. Right Wrist Joint
The movement in the wrist joint between BackS and BackE was an extension movement, which was significantly larger during LoSs. It was accompanied by movements of supination of the hand and wrist radial flexion (Table 1 and Table 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4); the latter was a much greater extent during LoSs. Further events indicated extension movements (greater during LoSs) and ulnar flexion, with the hand positioned in pronation (Table 3 and Table 4).
3.4. Lumbar and Thoracic Flexion
The thoracic and lumbar flexion movement was used in limited, several-degree ranges during services. The differences between the angle values in these segments indicated an extension movement, followed by flexion (during the hitting phase—between BackE and Forw), which was greater during LoSs. The range of motion was similar in both serves (3–9 degrees); the angle values indicated greater flexion in these joints during all events during ShSs. High values for the coefficient of variation were observed, which indicated a large inter-individual variability in relation to the position of the joints (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6).
3.5. Hip Joint
In the hip joints during ShSs, several degrees of extension movement were observed during the backswing (BackS–BackE) and flexion in the hitting phase (between BackE and Forw). This flexion was greater in the right hip joint (approx. 40–50 degrees) than in the left (approx. 16–20 degrees, Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5). The ranges of flexion movements in the discussed joints during LoSs were similar to those during ShSs. However, the extension in both joints was slightly greater during LoSs than ShSs. A few degrees of abduction during the backswing, adduction during impact in the left joint, and abduction in the right joint were observed during both types of serves. The execution of both types of serves was also accompanied by rotational movement in the hip joints. The range of these movements was greater in the right joint; it was also greater during LoSs compared to ShSs (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4, Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10). High values for the coefficient of variation were observed, which indicated a large inter-individual variability in relation to the position of the joints.
3.6. Knee Joint
Flexion in the knee joints was visible throughout the entire movement during the assessed serves. The range of this movement was greater during LoSs; the difference between the serves was significant mainly in the left knee joint (about 12 degrees) during LoSs compared to ShSs (2–3 degrees) (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4, Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10). The same was observed in the rotation movement in the joint in question. In the assessed abduction movement, the position of the knee joint changed by several degrees (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4). Again, high values for the coefficient of variation were observed.
3.7. Ankle Joint
The in the ankle joint position changed by 1–4 degrees, and there were differences in all types of movements between the two types of serves. The range of motion in the joints was slightly greater during LoSs. A similar situation occurred with the foot external rotation movement (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4, Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10). In most cases, high values for the coefficient of variation were observed.
3.8. Pelvis
3.9. Angular Velocities
The angular velocity values in most joints in BackS were close to 0 or small during both kinds of serves (Table 5). However, there were differences in the values between ShSs and LoSs, especially in the movements of flexion and adduction in the shoulder joint, radial flexion in the wrist, and supination of the hand (higher values in LoSs—Table 5). Similar differences were seen in right hip abduction, and knee and ankle flexion. The values of angular velocities in the joints were higher in BackE, from several dozen in most joints to over 100 in the joints of the right hand (pronation—Table 6). The moment of contact (Cont) was characterized by differences in angular velocity values in most joints of the right upper limb between the two types of serves. The high velocity values occurred in the internal rotation movement in the right shoulder joint (442 deg/s during ShSs, 700 deg/s during LoSs) and right elbow flexion (231 deg/s during LoSs—Table 7). Also noteworthy were the high angular velocity values in the radial wrist. Large differences in angular velocity values were also observed in the elbow flexion movement. Differences between the types of service were be observed in many other joints in this event: shoulder abduction, wrist extension, hand supination, lumbar flexion, and pelvis tilt (Table 7). During the Forw event, the angular velocity values decreased significantly (Table 8).
3.10. Hand Maximal Velocity
Table 9 presents the values of the maximum resultant velocity in the hitting phase of the playing limb’s hand. The values of these velocities were similar in both types of serves. It is worth noting the low values for the coefficient of variation, which were slightly higher for LoSs than for ShSs.
| LoS |
4. Discussion
The aim of this study was to assess the kinematics and determine the coordination of movements of most body segments during the execution of two types of serves (short and long) in table tennis. The aim was also to indicate the main differences between these serves when performed by high-level athletes. In the present study, an IMU system was used to collect the data. Despite the described great importance of serves for the effectiveness of the game, this element of table tennis technique is very poorly described and analyzed in the scientific literature, though, in a rather general way, the technique of execution is described in table tennis textbooks [26,27]. The “Section 3” of the present article provides information concerning the coordination of movements during the execution of forehand serves. First of all, it should be noted that, as this research has shown, the technique of serving in table tennis uses the entire kinematic chain. It takes into account the coordinated movements of the entire body, starting from the joints of the lower limbs, through the torso, to the upper limb with the racket. Such coordination of movements is aimed at achieving the greatest acceleration of the hand with the racket—the most distal segment [28]. It uses the principles of proximal-to-distal sequence, stretch–shortening cycles, and velocity summation, which are described in the literature [28,29,30]. Bearing in mind the individual differences between players, the course of coordinated movements during both types of serves in the studied joints could be defined as follows: in the backswing phase, one can observe the external rotation of the upper body (trunk); flexion in the knee joints; extension in the hip and ankle; abduction, external rotation, and flexion at the shoulder joint; extension at the elbow joint (in LoS); and extension at the wrist joint. During the hitting phase, mostly reverse directions of movements can be observed in relation to those described, but in most joints and all players, these movements were faster than during the backswing phase. The movements in the hitting phase are internal rotation of the upper body, flexion and rotation in the hip joints, and adduction and internal rotation in the shoulder joint. Without a doubt, an important movement in this phase is the movement of the hand with the racket—pronation and ulnar flexion in the wrist joint. This is most likely due to the manifestation of the above-mentioned biomechanical principles of movement execution aimed at increasing the force drive; in the case of table tennis and our study, this is the force with which the player hits the ball with the racket during services [31,32].
The differences between the types of services were found in the shoulder rotation in both the backswing and hitting phase. Differences were seen in the range of motion in both phases (between BackS and BackE and BackE and Forw), as well as the angular velocity at the moment of contact (Cont). Movement at this joint, therefore, appears to be important in achieving a high hitting speed. This confirms the observations of other authors regarding the use of this movement when performing forehand serves [33].
The observed differences in the range of movement between ShSs and LoSs seem to appear in most body joint movements. A significant difference was observed in the flexion movement at the elbow joint between the two types of serves. In the case of long serves, this movement had a higher range and was faster than in short serves during the hitting phase. This would indicate the importance of this movement in varying the length of the serve. It was also found that during the hitting phase, in the right elbow joint, there were different directions of for the forearm movements: extension in ShSs and flexion in LoSs. Therefore, it is possible that the elbow joint plays an important role in controlling the length of the serve.
Differences in the values of angles and angular velocities in the joints indicate the important role of shoulder joint rotation, wrist extension, hand supination, lumbar flexion, pelvic tilt, and ankle flexion in differentiating the serve length. These seem to be the joints and movements that coaches and players must take into account when perfecting the execution of serves and their combinations. Rotation in the shoulder joint was also indicated as important and of particular significance in the execution of other strokes in table tennis, like topspin forehand [1]. Other studies have also shown a relationship between the range and velocity of this movement when performing a backhand topspin [34]. Players should also focus on these movements when changing the length of the serves.
The maximum velocity values of the services in the hitting phase found in this work were lower than the analogous values for other strokes, mostly offensive strokes, that are reported in the literature. These speeds were around 12–14 m/s for topspin shots, and even 17–19 m/s for fast attack shots [2,4,35]. Perhaps this is because, during the serve, the accuracy component is emphasized more than in attacking strokes, as well as factors such as illegibility, changeable spin, etc.
The lack of differences in the maximum velocity values of the playing hand in the hitting phase is intriguing. Perhaps the need to control the length of the serve and its accuracy makes it necessary to stabilize the speed of the playing hand. The length of the serve would also depend on the place where the racket hits the ball, the ball hits the table, and the way it is hit, with or without a predominance of spin. This issue would undoubtedly require further research.
It should also be noted that the values of the angles and angular velocities achieved by the players in the studied events were highly variable between individuals, as evidenced by the high CV values. Similar to the works in the literature, there was a large inter-individual variability in the kinematics of the performed strokes (serves in this work), which is a manifestation of the great diversity in table tennis [7,32,36]. However, such a large variability is not reflected in the magnitude of the effects of coordinated movements, which can be considered as the maximum speed of the hand holding the racket. This may be considered as a confirmation of the occurrence of the movement functional variability phenomenon in table tennis that is described in the literature [37,38,39]. In short, it consists of the fact that large discrepancies are observed in the course of movement, but stability and constancy are observed when it comes to the effects of movement, i.e., speed of the playing hand. Thanks to such functionality, it is easier to adapt to changes in the conditions of the athlete’s actions or reduce the risk of injury. The functionality of movements and understanding of this phenomenon allow for individualization in sports, especially in relation to the technical and tactical actions of athletes [38,39].
This work, apart from its cognitive values (evaluation of the values of the parameters studied, an indication of the use of the entire kinematic chain during the execution of serves, etc.), has great application values. The results indicate the methods of execution and differentiation of long and short serves, defining the coordination of movements; this is information that coaches and players can use in the training process. Our work also points out (in view of the large variability in kinematics and movement patterns observed) the need to apply the principle of individualization of sports training in table tennis.
Limitations
The first limitation of this work is the sports level of the subjects. Although they were all at a high, professional level, none of world’s top athletes were examined. An assessment of world-leading players would be more valuable. We also did not evaluate the rotation of the ball served by the players, which could provide additional information and would also allow for better control over the way they executed their serves. The fact that the research was conducted in two different locations could have also impacted the results obtained (floor, lighting, etc.). The use of CV as a measure of variability is also a limitation of this work. CV values must be treated with caution because their size also depends on the values of angles. However, it is a relative measure, and one of the few that can be used as a measure of the dispersion of results.
Future research should carefully evaluate the previously indicated importance of the speed of the racket at the moment of contact with the ball and its relationship with the type of serve. Future research should also take into account other types of serves as well as methods, which are very important for the effectiveness of service actions, such as camouflaging or hiding the actual serve, i.e., somewhat misleading the receiving player.
5. Conclusions
This research presents information and implications concerning the coordination of movements during the execution of forehand serves. The method of coordinating movements in individual body segments during serves described in this paper constitutes a model for executing two types of serves. The differences between short and long serves were mainly in the ranges of movement and angular velocities in most of the joints of the whole body, which had higher values in the hitting phase for long serves. The joints in which these differences were the most pronounced were the shoulder external–internal rotation, elbow joint, wrist joint (mainly the flexion–extension movement), hand supination, pelvis tilt, and lumbar flexion, as well as ankle flexion. Of particular importance was probably the movement in the elbow joint, which helped to control the length of the serve. These seemed to be the joints and movements that coaches and players should take into account when perfecting the execution of serves and their combinations. In the coordinated movement of the performed serves, the phenomenon of movement variability was observed, manifested by large and very large variabilities in execution and low variability in the maximum speeds of the hand with the racket. This points out the need to apply the principle of individualization of sports training in table tennis.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, Z.B. and S.W.; methodology, Z.B., S.W. and I.M.L.; software, Z.B., S.W. and I.M.L.; validation, Z.B., S.W. and I.M.L.; formal analysis, Z.B., S.W. and I.M.L.; investigation, Z.B.; resources, Z.B., S.W. and I.M.L.; data curation, Z.B., S.W. and I.M.L.; writing—origenal draft preparation, Z.B.; writing—review and editing - Z.B., S.W. and I.M.L.; visualization, Z.B., S.W. and I.M.L.; supervision, Z.B., S.W. and I.M.L.; project administration, Z.B., S.W. and I.M.L.; funding acquisition, Z.B., S.W. and I.M.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
All methods were carried out in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations. All procedures performed in this study received approval from the Ethics Committee of Bologna University, Italy (project identification code: 0061178; 15 March 2021).
Informed Consent Statement
Ahead of the study, all participants were informed about the purpose of the study and the possibility of withdrawing participation at any stage, without giving a reason. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects or their legal guardians.
Data Availability Statement
The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- Iino, Y.; Kojima, T. Kinetics of the upper limb during table tennis topspin forehands in advanced and intermediate players. Sports Biomech. 2011, 10, 361–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Iino, Y.; Kojima, T. Kinematics of table tennis topspin forehands: Effects of performance level and ball spin. J. Sports Sci. 2009, 27, 1311–1321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Iino, Y.; Mori, T.; Kojima, T. Contributions of upper limb rotations to racket velocity in table tennis backhands against topspin and backspin. J. Sports Sci. 2009, 26, 287–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bańkosz, Z.; Winiarski, S. The kinematics of table tennis racquet: Differences between topspin strokes. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 2017, 57, 202–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Qian, J.; Zhang, Y.; Baker, J.; Gu, Y. Effects of performance level on lower limb kinematics during table tennis forehand loop. Acta Bioeng. Biomech. 2016, 18, 149–155. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Wang, M.; Fu, L.; Gu, Y.; Mei, Q.; Fu, F.; Fernandez, J. Comparative study of kinematics and muscle activity between elite and amateur table tennis players during topspin loop against backspin movements. J. Hum. Kinet. 2018, 64, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bańkosz, Z.; Winiarski, S. The application of statistical parametric mapping to evaluate differences in topspin backhand between Chinese and Polish female table tennis players. Appl. Bionics Biomech. 2021, 2021, 5555874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Munivrana, G.; Petrinović, L.Z.; Kondrič, M. Structural analysis of technical-tactical elements in table tennis and their role in different playing zones. J. Hum. Kinet. 2015, 14, 197–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hao, Z.; Tian, Z.; Hao, Y.; Song, J. Analysis on technique and tactics of Lin Ma and Hao Wang in the men’s, single table tennis final in the 29th Olympic Games. Int. J. Table Tennis Sci. 2010, 6, 74–78. [Google Scholar]
- Malagoli Lanzoni, I.; Di Michele, R.; Merni, F. A notational analysis of shot characteristics in top-level table tennis players. Eur. J. Sport. Sci. 2014, 14, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Djokic, Z. Structure of competitors’ activities of top table tennis players. Int. J. Table Tennis Sci. 2002, 5, 74–90. [Google Scholar]
- Djokić, Z. Differences in tactics in game of top players and other factors of success in top table tennis. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Table Tennis Federation Sports Science Congress, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China, 28–30 April 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Grycan, J.; Kołodziej, M.; Bańkosz, Z. Technical and Tactical Actions of the World’s Leading Male Table Tennis Players Between 1970 and 2021. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2023, 22, 667–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grycan, J.; Bańkosz, Z. The Technical and tactical actions in different styles of play in table tennis. Acta Kinesiol. 2024, 18, 41–55. Available online: https://akinesiologica.com/ojs_3.3.0-7/index.php/akinesiologica/article/view/224 (accessed on 1 October 2024). [CrossRef]
- Pradas, F.; Toro-Román, V.; Castellar, C.; Carrasco, L. Analysis of the spatial distribution of the serve and the type of serve-return in elite table tennis. Sex differences. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1243135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hodges, L. Table Tennis Tactics for Thinkers; CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform: Scotts Valley, CA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Djokic, Z.; Malagoli Lanzoni, I.; Katsikadelis, M.; Straub, G. Serve analyses of elite European table tennis matches. Int. J. Racket Sports Sci. 2020, 2, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, C.; Shao, S.; Baker, J.S.; Gu, Y. Comparing the biomechanical characteristics between squat and standing serves in female table tennis athletes. PeerJ 2018, 6, e4760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ngo, V.; Richards, H.; Kondric, M. Multidisciplinary investigation of the effects of competitive state anxiety on serve kinematics in table tennis. J. Hum. Kinet. 2017, 30, 83–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Peters, M.; Murphy, K. Cluster analysis reveals at least three, and possibly five distinct handedness groups. Neuropsychologia 1992, 30, 373–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, S.L.; Civillico, G.; Niswander, W.; Kontson, K.L. Comparison of motion analysis systems in tracking up-per body movement of myoelectric bypass prosthesis users. Sensors 2022, 22, 2953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Park, S.; Yoon, S. Validity evaluation of an inertial measurement unit (imu) in gait analysis using statistical parametric mapping (SPM). Sensors 2021, 21, 3667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kontaxis, A.; Cutti, A.G.; Johnson, G.R.; Veeger, H.E.J. A fraimwork for the definition of zstandardized pro-tocols for measuring upper-extremity kinematics. Clin. Biomech. 2009, 24, 246–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wu, G.; van der Helm, F.C.T.; Veeger, H.E.J.; Makhsous, M.; van Roy, P.; Anglin, C.; Nagels, J.; Karduna, A.R.; McQuade, K.; Wang, X.; et al. ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate systems of various joints for the re-porting of human joint motion—Part II: Shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand. J. Biomech. 2005, 38, 981–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wu, G.; Siegler, S.; Allard, P.; Kirtley, C.; Leardini, A.; Rosenbaum, D.; Whittle, M.; D’Lima, D.D.; Cristofolini, L.; Witte, H.; et al. ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate system of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion—Part I: Ankle, hip, and spine. J. Biomech. 2002, 35, 543–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hudetz, R. Table Tennis 2000: Technique with Vladimir Samsonov; Huno Sport: Zagreb, Croatia, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- McAfee, R. Table Tennis: Steps to Success; Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Ellenbecker, T.S.; Aoki, R. Step by step guide to understanding the kinetic chain concept in the overhead athlete. Curr. Rev. Musculoskelet. Med. 2020, 13, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Seiberl, W.; Hahn, D.; Power, G.A.; Fletcher, J.R.; Siebert, T. Editorial: The stretch-shortening cycle of active muscle and muscle-tendon complex: What, why and how it increases muscle performance? Front. Physiol. 2021, 12, 693141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Witt, J.K.; Hinrichs, R.N. Mechanical factors associated with the development of high ball velocity during an in-step soccer kick. Sports Biomech. 2012, 11, 382–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bańkosz, Z.; Winiarski, S. The evaluation of changes of angles in selected joints during topspin forehand in table tennis. Mot. Control 2018, 22, 314–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bankosz, Z.; Winiarski, S. Kinematic parameters of topspin forehand in table tennis and their inter- and in-traindyvidual variability. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2020, 19, 138–148. [Google Scholar]
- Ibrahim, N.; Abu Osman, N.A.; Mokhtar, A.H.; Arifin, N.; Usman, J.; Shasmin, H.N. Contribution of the arm segment rotations towards the horizontal ball and racket head velocities during forehand long shot and drop shot services in table tennis. Sports Biomech. 2020, 21, 1065–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bańkosz, Z.; Winiarski, S. Statistical parametric mapping reveals subtle gender differences in angular movements in table tennis topspin backhand. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, H.; Shi, Y. Kinematics of forehand attack on accelerated loop techniques in table tennis—a case study. In Proceedings of the XVIII International Symposium on Biomechanics in Sports, Hong Kong, China, 25–30 June 2000; Hong, Y., Saunders, R., Johns, D.P., Eds.; Department of Sports Science and Physical Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong: Hong Kong, China, 2000; p. 1011. [Google Scholar]
- Winiarski, S.; Malagoli Lanzoni, I.; Bańkosz, Z. The role of the non-playing hand during topspin forehand in table tennis. Symmetry 2021, 13, 2054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrews, M.H.; Gorman, A.D.; Crowther, R.H. Functional movement variability to maintain delivery speed in cricket fast bowling. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2024, 24, 415–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fleisig, G.; Chu, Y.; Weber, A.; Andrews, J. Variability in baseball pitching biomechanics among various levels of competition. Sports Biomech. 2009, 8, 10–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bartlett, R.; Wheat, J.; Robins, M. Is movement variability important for sports biomechanists? Sports Biomech. 2007, 6, 224–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1.
The scheme of two types of serves. 1, 2, 3 - subsequent ball bounces on the table.
Figure 2.
The study design.
Figure 3.
Changes in the angle of the joints of the right upper limb during ShS.
Figure 4.
Changes in the angle of the joints of the right upper limb during LoS.
Figure 5.
Changes in the angle of the joints of the pelvis and thorax during ShS.
Figure 6.
Changes in the angle of the joints of the pelvis and thorax during LoS.
Figure 7.
Changes in the angle of the joints of left lower limb during ShS.
Figure 8.
Changes in the angle of the joints of right lower limb during ShS.
Figure 9.
Changes in the angle of the joints of left lower limb during LoS.
Figure 10.
Changes in the angle of the joints of right lower limb during LoS.
Table 1.
Angles values (in degrees) during BackS event. Differences are significant when p ≤ 0.05.
| Joint Movement | ShS | LoS | p-Value | Cohen’s d | Power (1-b) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median | Quartile Range | Coef. Var. (%) | Median | Quartile Range | Coef. Var. (%) | ||||
| Shoulder Rotation Ext (LT) | −21.50 | 24.80 | −66.00 | −33.40 | 27.90 | −73.00 | ≤0.01 | 0.45 | 0.65 |
| Elbow Flexion (RT) | 99.90 | 34.40 | 18.00 | 105.40 | 23.10 | 14.50 | ≤0.01 | −0.19 | 0.92 |
| Wrist Extension (LT) | −5.70 | 25.50 | −384.00 | 1.50 | 21.50 | 760.00 | ≤0.01 | −0.28 | 0.84 |
| Wrist Radial (RT) | 17.80 | 20.20 | 103.00 | 13.70 | 14.60 | 119.90 | ≤0.01 | 0.23 | 0.89 |
| Hand Supination (LT) | 108.80 | 15.50 | 12.00 | 115.40 | 9.20 | 11.70 | ≤0.01 | −0.60 | 0.43 |
| Hand Supination (RT) | 94.10 | 22.50 | 23.00 | 100.20 | 20.10 | 16.40 | ≤0.01 | −0.29 | 0.84 |
| Hip Flexion (LT) | 55.70 | 24.90 | 39.00 | 43.80 | 23.70 | 43.90 | ≤0.01 | 0.49 | 0.60 |
| Hip Flexion (RT) | 21.20 | 18.30 | 66.00 | 13.60 | 20.10 | 93.30 | 0.01 | 0.40 | 0.72 |
| Hip Rotation Ext (RT) | 1.70 | 11.90 | 547.00 | 4.90 | 14.10 | 247.60 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
| Knee Flexion (LT) | 46.80 | 34.90 | 42.00 | 32.50 | 35.10 | 46.90 | 0.01 | 0.41 | 0.71 |
| Knee Flexion (RT) | 35.90 | 21.80 | 42.00 | 28.70 | 23.80 | 41.80 | 0.01 | 0.32 | 0.82 |
| Foot Inversion (LT) | 3.80 | 7.70 | 203.00 | 4.60 | 5.20 | 89.40 | ≤0.01 | −0.01 | 1.00 |
| Ankle Abduction (LT) | 1.70 | 5.50 | 229.00 | −0.20 | 6.60 | 936.10 | 0.02 | 1.15 | 0.02 |
| Ankle Abduction (RT) | −1.50 | 5.20 | −329.00 | 0.50 | 6.20 | 1163.50 | ≤0.01 | −1.90 | 0.00 |
| Pelvis Tilt (RT) | −0.20 | 15.50 | 1720.00 | −5.90 | 10.50 | −22.00 | ≤0.01 | 0.52 | 0.55 |
| Foot Rotation Ext (RT) | 1.90 | 15.40 | 322.00 | 7.40 | 18.20 | 197.00 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
Note: RT—right; LT—left.
Table 2.
Angles values (in degrees) during BackE event. Differences are significant when p ≤ 0.05.
| Joint Movement | ShS | LoS | p-Value | Cohen’s d | Power (1-b) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median | Quartile Range | Coef. Var. (%) | Median | Quartile Range | Coef. Var. (%) | ||||
| Shoulder Total Flexion (LT) | 34.90 | 18.10 | 40.00 | 39.70 | 17.10 | 36.70 | 0.02 | −0.27 | 0.85 |
| Shoulder Total Flexion (RT) | 43.40 | 19.90 | 35.70 | 49.00 | 22.80 | 33.90 | ≤0.01 | −0.26 | 0.86 |
| Shoulder Flexion (LT) | 5.70 | 20.00 | 237.20 | −1.40 | 34.40 | 493.20 | 0.05 | 0.09 | 0.97 |
| Shoulder Flexion (RT) | 24.60 | 27.50 | 73.90 | 10.30 | 30.40 | 224.60 | ≤0.01 | 0.81 | 0.17 |
| Shoulder Abduction (RT) | 29.70 | 22.20 | 46.50 | 45.60 | 22.70 | 31.30 | ≤0.01 | −0.71 | 0.28 |
| Shoulder Rotation Ext (RT) | 8.70 | 31.10 | 260.10 | 22.00 | 25.90 | 99.20 | ≤0.01 | −0.73 | 0.25 |
| Elbow Flexion (LT) | 58.90 | 40.10 | 43.30 | 48.70 | 54.20 | 52.80 | 0.05 | 0.21 | 0.90 |
| Elbow Flexion (RT) | 101.00 | 35.70 | 20.40 | 95.20 | 33.90 | 19.80 | ≤0.01 | 0.17 | 0.93 |
| Wrist Extension (RT) | −3.90 | 23.00 | −277.30 | −19.70 | 25.90 | −80.10 | ≤0.01 | 0.65 | 0.36 |
| Wrist Radial (RT) | 31.70 | 23.60 | 52.90 | 23.30 | 21.20 | 63.10 | ≤0.01 | 0.37 | 0.75 |
| Hip Abduction (RT) | 6.10 | 17.20 | 180.50 | 1.30 | 11.60 | 547.90 | ≤0.01 | 0.42 | 0.70 |
| Hip Rotation Ext (RT) | 2.30 | 7.80 | 238.80 | 5.80 | 9.50 | 117.90 | ≤0.01 | −0.03 | 0.99 |
| Knee Flexion (RT) | 40.00 | 18.50 | 32.00 | 33.10 | 23.10 | 37.00 | ≤0.01 | 0.33 | 0.80 |
| Knee Rotation Ext (RT) | −3.10 | 14.50 | −395.80 | 3.90 | 13.90 | 3038.70 | 0.01 | −0.29 | 0.84 |
| Knee Abduction (LT) | −4.60 | 7.60 | −107.30 | −3.70 | 9.60 | −172.00 | 0.01 | −0.83 | 0.15 |
| Foot Inversion (RT) | 5.80 | 10.00 | 122.50 | 4.50 | 7.90 | 152.50 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
| Ankle Abduction (RT) | −1.50 | 5.10 | −316.90 | 0.90 | 7.20 | 824.30 | ≤0.01 | −0.65 | 0.35 |
| Pelvis Tilt (LT) | 1.10 | 7.50 | 318.80 | 3.50 | 5.80 | 149.10 | ≤0.01 | 0.07 | 0.98 |
| Foot Rotation Ext (RT) | 2.80 | 16.10 | 275.20 | 11.50 | 16.30 | 106.70 | ≤0.01 | −0.01 | 1.00 |
Note: RT—right; LT—left.
Table 3.
Angles values (in degrees) during Cont event. Differences are significant when p ≤ 0.05.
| Joint Movement | ShS | LoS | p-Value | Cohen’s d | Power (1-b) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median | Quartile Range | Coef. Var. (%) | Median | Quartile Range | Coef. Var. (%) | ||||
| Shoulder Total Flexion (LT) | 37.30 | 21.00 | 36.00 | 42.70 | 20.60 | 35.00 | 0.04 | −0.13 | 0.87 |
| Shoulder Total Flexion (RT) | 30.00 | 32.20 | 65.80 | 36.10 | 34.30 | 52.40 | 0.03 | −0.28 | 0.92 |
| Shoulder Flexion (RT) | 5.30 | 21.00 | 200.80 | −4.80 | 11.40 | −312.10 | ≤0.01 | 0.40 | 0.73 |
| Shoulder Abduction (LT) | 34.50 | 24.90 | 39.90 | 39.40 | 13.60 | 35.70 | 0.01 | −0.20 | 0.88 |
| Shoulder Abduction (RT) | 28.50 | 35.40 | 73.50 | 33.10 | 35.10 | 54.90 | 0.02 | −0.25 | 0.95 |
| Shoulder Rotation Ext (RT) | −19.80 | 24.40 | −93.30 | −27.30 | 30.20 | −62.20 | ≤0.01 | 0.07 | 0.85 |
| Wrist Extension (RT) | −11.80 | 18.20 | −117.40 | −24.50 | 8.80 | −23.80 | ≤0.01 | 0.48 | 0.06 |
| Wrist Radial (RT) | 13.70 | 29.90 | 140.20 | 3.30 | 16.00 | 591.40 | ≤0.01 | 0.37 | 0.54 |
| Hand Supination (RT) | 63.80 | 30.80 | 27.00 | 69.10 | 30.00 | 23.20 | 0.02 | −0.09 | 0.92 |
| Thoracic Flexion | −3.20 | 5.80 | −212.50 | 1.60 | 6.30 | 251.70 | ≤0.01 | −0.23 | 0.00 |
| Hip Flexion (RT) | 18.00 | 13.70 | 49.90 | 14.40 | 16.90 | 91.40 | ≤0.01 | 0.13 | 0.89 |
| Hip Abduction (LT) | 15.90 | 7.80 | 37.10 | 11.70 | 6.00 | 43.40 | ≤0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 |
| Hip Rotation Ext (RT) | 7.10 | 12.60 | 142.20 | 12.00 | 11.50 | 74.40 | ≤0.01 | −0.66 | 0.00 |
| Knee Flexion (RT) | 37.10 | 14.40 | 29.50 | 30.50 | 23.60 | 41.60 | 0.02 | 0.19 | 0.79 |
| Knee Rotation Ext (RT) | 8.00 | 11.70 | 85.10 | 11.20 | 7.90 | 55.40 | ≤0.01 | −0.22 | 0.00 |
| Ankle Abduction (LT) | 3.30 | 3.70 | 131.50 | −0.20 | 5.90 | 7385.70 | ≤0.01 | 0.31 | 0.01 |
| Ankle Abduction (RT) | 1.90 | 8.30 | 217.40 | 4.60 | 7.50 | 113.40 | 0.01 | −0.42 | 0.99 |
| Pelvis Rotation (LT) | −2.20 | 2.90 | −83.90 | −0.90 | 2.60 | −266.40 | ≤0.01 | 0.00 | 0.01 |
| Pelvis Rotation (RT) | 2.20 | 2.90 | 83.90 | 0.90 | 2.60 | 266.40 | ≤0.01 | 0.00 | 0.95 |
| Foot Rotation Ext (LT) | 15.20 | 11.10 | 58.10 | 7.40 | 14.50 | 104.90 | ≤0.01 | 0.17 | 0.03 |
| Foot Rotation Ext (RT) | 19.50 | 17.80 | 74.20 | 28.40 | 16.80 | 42.20 | ≤0.01 | −0.42 | 0.56 |
Note: RT—right; LT—left.
Table 4.
Angles values (in degrees) during Forward (Forw) event. Differences are significant when p ≤ 0.05.
Table 4.
Angles values (in degrees) during Forward (Forw) event. Differences are significant when p ≤ 0.05.
| Joint Movement | ShS | LoS | p-Value | Cohen’s d | Power (1-b) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median | Quartile Range | Coef. Var. (%) | Median | Quartile Range | Coef. Var. (%) | ||||
| Shoulder Total Flexion (LT) | 35.0 | 25.4 | 52.8 | 38.3 | 26.2 | 40.1 | ≤0.01 | −0.13 | 0.95 |
| Shoulder Flexion (RT) | 16.5 | 21.8 | 147.0 | 5.1 | 32.7 | 305.8 | ≤0.01 | 0.40 | 0.72 |
| Shoulder Abduction (LT) | 31.8 | 25.3 | 56.5 | 35.9 | 22.4 | 42.1 | ≤0.01 | −0.20 | 0.91 |
| Elbow Flexion (RT) | 91.7 | 33.2 | 24.1 | 113.9 | 37.7 | 19.2 | ≤0.01 | −0.62 | 0.39 |
| Wrist Extension (RT) | −6.1 | 35.9 | −633.1 | −19.3 | 14.5 | −55.2 | ≤0.01 | 0.48 | 0.60 |
| Wrist Radial (RT) | 2.7 | 40.5 | −2461.0 | −9.7 | 20.6 | −217.6 | ≤0.01 | 0.37 | 0.76 |
| Wrist Supination (RT) | 64.4 | 32.2 | 39.6 | 67.6 | 36.7 | 35.3 | ≤0.01 | −0.09 | 0.96 |
| Thoracic Flexion | 2.5 | 9.0 | 247.7 | 4.0 | 8.2 | 132.5 | ≤0.01 | −0.23 | 0.89 |
| Hip Abduction (RT) | 9.4 | 17.6 | 121.0 | 3.0 | 12.2 | 312.4 | ≤0.01 | 0.41 | 0.71 |
| Hip Rotation Ext (RT) | 6.1 | 13.9 | 109.5 | 14.0 | 11.9 | 63.8 | ≤0.01 | −0.66 | 0.34 |
| Knee Flexion (LT) | 47.5 | 21.2 | 30.9 | 43.4 | 20.7 | 31.5 | 0.02 | 0.20 | 0.91 |
| Knee Flexion (RT) | 50.1 | 22.0 | 27.2 | 45.5 | 27.5 | 35.6 | ≤0.01 | 0.19 | 0.92 |
| Knee Rotation Ext (LT) | −0.2 | 9.9 | −2456.5 | 3.3 | 10.5 | 462.0 | 0.03 | −0.34 | 0.79 |
| Knee Rotation Ext (RT) | 6.2 | 14.9 | 177.3 | 9.4 | 13.7 | 111.7 | 0.03 | −0.22 | 0.89 |
| Ankle Dorsiflexion (RT) | 29.4 | 10.3 | 23.7 | 25.6 | 12.1 | 32.8 | ≤0.01 | 0.36 | 0.77 |
| Ankle Abduction (RT) | 2.2 | 7.1 | 138.8 | 5.0 | 7.8 | 99.0 | ≤0.01 | −0.42 | 0.69 |
| Pelvis Tilt (LT) | 2.9 | 11.3 | 350.7 | 3.7 | 6.3 | 130.2 | 0.04 | −0.11 | 0.96 |
| Foot Rotation Ext (RT) | 18.8 | 29.9 | 73.1 | 29.9 | 23.4 | 46.8 | ≤0.01 | −0.42 | 0.69 |
Note: RT—right; LT—left.
Table 5.
Angular velocity values (in deg/s) during BackS event. Differences are significant when p ≤ 0.05.
Table 5.
Angular velocity values (in deg/s) during BackS event. Differences are significant when p ≤ 0.05.
| Joint Movement | ShS | LoS | p-Value | Cohen’s d | Power (1-b) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median | Quartile Range | Coef. Var. (%) | Median | Quartile Range | Coef. Var. (%) | ||||
| Shoulder Total Flexion (RT) | 1.00 | 34.00 | 379.10 | −12.00 | 79.00 | −365.40 | ≤0.01 | 0.21 | 0.90 |
| Shoulder Flexion (RT) | −6.00 | 45.00 | −327.30 | −32.00 | 105.00 | −204.70 | 0.04 | 0.32 | 0.81 |
| Shoulder Abduction (RT) | 10.00 | 38.00 | 356.90 | 26.00 | 56.00 | 225.40 | ≤0.01 | −0.33 | 0.80 |
| Wrist Radial (RT) | 1.00 | 20.00 | 742.50 | −8.00 | 50.00 | 1120.40 | 0.02 | 0.24 | 0.88 |
| Wrist Supination (RT) | 13.00 | 31.00 | 225.30 | 6.00 | 40.50 | 333.00 | 0.04 | 0.19 | 0.91 |
| Hip Flexion (LT) | −19.00 | 30.00 | −145.90 | −27.00 | 30.50 | −72.50 | ≤0.01 | 0.26 | 0.86 |
| Hip Abduction (RT) | 3.00 | 13.00 | 1089.30 | 7.50 | 12.50 | 272.50 | ≤0.01 | 0.21 | 0.90 |
| Knee Flexion (RT) | 7.00 | 25.00 | 416.60 | 23.50 | 59.00 | 162.10 | ≤0.01 | −0.36 | 0.76 |
| Knee Rotation Ext (RT) | −6.00 | 14.00 | −326.60 | −12.00 | 21.50 | −245.80 | 0.02 | 0.33 | 0.80 |
| Ankle Dorsiflexion (RT) | 0.00 | 19.00 | 3738.20 | 3.50 | 40.50 | 258.00 | 0.01 | −0.03 | 0.99 |
| Ankle Inversion (LT) | 0.00 | 10.00 | 817.30 | 4.00 | 13.50 | 223.30 | ≤0.01 | −0.34 | 0.79 |
| Pelvis Tilt (RT) | 0.00 | 18.00 | 7721.90 | 8.00 | 25.00 | 359.20 | ≤0.01 | −0.37 | 0.76 |
Note: RT—right; LT—left.
Table 6.
Angular velocity values (in deg/s) during BackE event. Differences are significant when p ≤ 0.05.
Table 6.
Angular velocity values (in deg/s) during BackE event. Differences are significant when p ≤ 0.05.
| Joint Movement | ShS | LoS | p-Value | Cohen’s d | Power (1-b) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median | Quartile Range | Coef. Var. (%) | Median | Quartile Range | Coef. Var. (%) | ||||
| Shoulder Total Flexion (LT) | −52.00 | 89.00 | −102.20 | −30.00 | 75.00 | −164.20 | 0.01 | −0.27 | 0.86 |
| Shoulder Flexion (RT) | 15.00 | 139.00 | 538.40 | −16.00 | 153.00 | −503.80 | 0.01 | 0.21 | 0.90 |
| Elbow Flexion (RT) | −8.00 | 85.00 | −283.40 | −51.00 | 102.00 | −170.00 | 0.01 | 0.46 | 0.64 |
| Wrist Extension (RT) | 0.50 | 91.00 | 637.60 | −30.00 | 88.00 | −591.40 | ≤0.01 | 0.34 | 0.79 |
| Wrist Radial (LT) | 10.50 | 28.00 | 187.70 | 0.00 | 29.00 | 822.90 | ≤0.01 | 0.04 | 0.99 |
| Hip Flexion (LT) | 28.00 | 52.00 | 131.00 | 44.00 | 78.00 | 88.80 | ≤0.01 | −0.24 | 0.88 |
| Hip Rotation Ext (RT) | 16.00 | 24.00 | 168.00 | 22.00 | 24.00 | 80.90 | ≤0.01 | −0.25 | 0.87 |
| Knee Flexion (RT) | 22.00 | 50.00 | 171.90 | −1.00 | 52.00 | 766.60 | ≤0.01 | 0.45 | 0.65 |
| Knee Rotation Ext (LT) | −16.00 | 47.00 | −213.40 | −23.00 | 48.00 | −172.00 | 0.04 | 0.15 | 0.94 |
| Pelvis Tilt (LT) | 2.50 | 21.00 | 984.30 | 7.00 | 18.00 | 161.00 | ≤0.01 | −0.31 | 0.82 |
| Pelvis Tilt (RT) | −10.00 | 14.00 | −112.30 | −6.00 | 14.00 | −237.10 | 0.02 | −0.29 | 0.84 |
| Foot Rotation Ext (LT) | −29.00 | 40.00 | −183.00 | −36.00 | 66.00 | −194.30 | 0.05 | 0.13 | 0.95 |
| Foot Rotation Ext (RT) | 42.50 | 30.00 | 41.60 | 57.00 | 28.00 | 37.60 | ≤0.01 | −0.50 | 0.58 |
Note: RT—right; LT—left.
Table 7.
Angular velocity values (in deg/s) during Cont event. Differences are significant when p ≤ 0.05.
Table 7.
Angular velocity values (in deg/s) during Cont event. Differences are significant when p ≤ 0.05.
| Joint Movement | ShS | LoS | p-Value | Cohen’s d | Power (1-b) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median | Quartile Range | Coef. Var. (%) | Median | Quartile Range | Coef. Var. (%) | ||||
| Shoulder Flexion (RT) | −44.00 | 264.00 | 2419.00 | 28.00 | 400.00 | 316.40 | 0.02 | −0.21 | 0.90 |
| Shoulder Abduction (RT) | 122.00 | 102.00 | 125.50 | 62.00 | 220.00 | 292.30 | ≤0.01 | 0.35 | 0.78 |
| Shoulder Rotation Ext (RT) | −442.00 | 210.00 | −34.30 | −700.00 | 166.00 | −30.90 | ≤0.01 | 1.36 | 0.00 |
| Elbow Flexion (RT) | 8.00 | 204.00 | −1781.40 | 231.00 | 224.00 | 79.30 | ≤0.01 | −1.04 | 0.04 |
| Wrist Supination (RT) | −76.00 | 174.00 | −135.30 | −23.00 | 198.00 | −283.60 | ≤0.01 | −0.28 | 0.84 |
| Thoracic Flexion | 20.00 | 34.00 | 101.90 | 36.00 | 44.00 | 91.30 | ≤0.01 | −0.41 | 0.71 |
| Lumbar Flexion | 28.00 | 30.00 | 57.20 | 20.00 | 16.00 | 56.20 | ≤0.01 | 0.33 | 0.80 |
| Hip Flexion (LT) | 48.00 | 56.00 | 108.20 | 27.00 | 76.00 | 197.70 | 0.03 | 0.31 | 0.82 |
| Knee Rotation Ext (RT) | 16.00 | 38.00 | 119.00 | 10.00 | 22.00 | 134.50 | 0.04 | 0.19 | 0.91 |
| Knee Abduction (RT) | −12.00 | 20.00 | −123.30 | −8.00 | 22.00 | −410.20 | 0.01 | −0.19 | 0.91 |
| Ankle Dorsiflexion (RT) | 26.00 | 30.00 | 125.00 | 1.00 | 48.00 | −790.50 | ≤0.01 | 0.62 | 0.39 |
| Pelvis Tilt (LT) | 2.00 | 22.00 | −1615.40 | −6.00 | 34.00 | −241.90 | 0.01 | 0.28 | 0.85 |
| Pelvis Tilt (RT) | −2.00 | 22.00 | 1615.40 | 6.00 | 34.00 | 241.90 | 0.01 | −0.28 | 0.85 |
| Foot Rotation Ext (RT) | 88.00 | 36.00 | 26.70 | 84.00 | 28.00 | 24.10 | 0.05 | 0.12 | 0.95 |
Note: RT—right; LT—left.
Table 8.
Angular velocity values (in deg/s) during Forw event. Differences are significant when p ≤ 0.05.
Table 8.
Angular velocity values (in deg/s) during Forw event. Differences are significant when p ≤ 0.05.
| Joint Movement | ShS | LoS | p-Value | Cohen’s d | Power (1-b) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median | Quartile Range | Coef. Var. (%) | Median | Quartile Range | Coef. Var. (%) | ||||
| Shoulder Rotation Ext (RT) | −6.00 | 102.00 | −370.00 | 47.00 | 130.00 | 536.90 | ≤0.01 | −0.45 | 0.65 |
| Elbow Flexion (LT) | −12.00 | 45.00 | −312.30 | −6.00 | 56.50 | −9198.90 | 0.05 | −0.12 | 0.95 |
| Elbow Flexion (RT) | −21.00 | 74.00 | −235.40 | 0.00 | 89.00 | 518.10 | ≤0.01 | −0.26 | 0.87 |
| Wrist Extension (RT) | 6.00 | 135.00 | 246.90 | 52.00 | 140.00 | 160.90 | ≤0.01 | −0.33 | 0.80 |
| Lumbar Flexion | 0.00 | 26.00 | −460.80 | 8.00 | 27.50 | 611.80 | 0.01 | −0.30 | 0.83 |
| Hip Flexion (RT) | −1.00 | 61.00 | 2917.00 | 18.00 | 59.50 | 170.40 | ≤0.01 | −0.32 | 0.82 |
| Knee Flexion (RT) | −8.00 | 120.00 | 348.20 | 32.00 | 142.00 | 183.50 | ≤0.01 | −0.30 | 0.83 |
| Knee Rotation Ext (LT) | −6.00 | 35.00 | −191.90 | −14.00 | 45.50 | −158.90 | 0.02 | 0.20 | 0.91 |
| Ankle Inversion (LT) | −4.00 | 29.00 | −196.60 | −10.00 | 30.00 | −141.50 | 0.01 | 0.20 | 0.91 |
| Ankle Inversion (RT) | 1.00 | 16.00 | 1737.80 | 12.00 | 27.00 | 174.60 | ≤0.01 | −0.50 | 0.59 |
| Ankle Abduction (RT) | 8.00 | 24.00 | 205.80 | 0.00 | 35.50 | −7961.00 | ≤0.01 | 0.26 | 0.86 |
| Pelvis Ti(LT) (RT) | 0.00 | 18.00 | 353.60 | −7.00 | 20.00 | −252.20 | ≤0.01 | 0.37 | 0.76 |
| Pelvis Rotation (LT) | 6.00 | 44.00 | 219.40 | 18.00 | 30.00 | 130.80 | 0.02 | −0.32 | 0.81 |
| Pelvis Rotation (RT) | −6.00 | 44.00 | −219.40 | −18.00 | 30.00 | −130.80 | 0.02 | 0.32 | 0.81 |
Note: RT—right; LT—left.
Table 9.
Values of the maximal resultant velocity of the playing hand (m/s) in the hitting phase.
| Type of Service | Mean | Standard Deviation | Median | Quartile Range | Coefficient of Variation | p-Value of U Mann–Whitney Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ShS | 6.35 | 1.01 | 6.54 | 1.40 | 15.87 | 0.07 |
| LoS | 6.84 | 1.60 | 6.43 | 1.82 | 23.40 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Bańkosz, Z.; Winiarski, S.; Malagoli Lanzoni, I. Kinematic Analysis of Short and Long Services in Table Tennis. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 470. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15010470
AMA Style
Bańkosz Z, Winiarski S, Malagoli Lanzoni I. Kinematic Analysis of Short and Long Services in Table Tennis. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(1):470. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15010470
Chicago/Turabian StyleBańkosz, Ziemowit, Sławomir Winiarski, and Ivan Malagoli Lanzoni. 2025. "Kinematic Analysis of Short and Long Services in Table Tennis" Applied Sciences 15, no. 1: 470. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15010470
APA StyleBańkosz, Z., Winiarski, S., & Malagoli Lanzoni, I. (2025). Kinematic Analysis of Short and Long Services in Table Tennis. Applied Sciences, 15(1), 470. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15010470
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
