International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2022, 17, 1159-1169

https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2022-0091
© 2022 Human Kinetics, Inc. BRIEF REVIEW

Determinant Physical Factors of Tennis

Serve Velocity: A Brief Review
Joshua Colomar,1,2,3 Francisco Corbi,4 Quim Brich,1 and Ernest Baiget1
1
National Institute of Physical Education of Catalonia (INEFC), University of Barcelona (UB), Barcelona, Spain; 2Sport and Physical Activity Studies Center (CEEAF),
University of Vic—Central University of Catalonia, Vic, Spain; 3Sport Performance Analysis Research Group (SPARG), University of Vic—Central University of
Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain; 4National Institute of Physical Education of Catalonia (INEFC), University of Lleida (UdL), Lleida, Spain

Purpose: To review the main physical aspects that could positively or negatively influence serve velocity (SV). Methods: An
examination of existing literature including studies analyzing positive (biomechanical aspects, anthropometrics, range of
motion, strength, and power) and negative (competition-induced fatigue) associations to SV are summarized in this review.
Results: Aspects such as lower-leg drive, hip and trunk rotations, upper-arm extension, and internal rotation seem to be the
major contributors to racquet and ball speed. Favorable anthropometric characteristics, such as body height, arm length, and a
greater lean body mass, seem to positively influence SV. Also, strength indicators such as maximal isometric strength and
rate of force development in specific joint positions involved in the kinetic chain alongside upper-body power seem to be
related to faster serves. On the other hand, the effects of prolonged or repetitive match play may impair the aforementioned
factors and negatively influence SV. Conclusions: Following specific serving models that seem to enhance velocity
production and efficient motion is highly recommended. Moreover, achieving a higher impact point, alongside shifting body
composition toward a greater lean body mass, will most likely aid toward faster serves. Programs aiming at improving
maximal isometric strength and rate of force development in specific positions involved in the kinetic chain including stretch-
shortening cycle predominance and the mimicking of the serve motion seem of great interest to potentially increase SV.
Effective recovery and monitoring of these variables appear to be essential to avoid impairments produced by continued or
repetitive competition loads.

Keywords: strength, fatigue, biomechanics, anthropometrics

One of the most important actions in modern tennis is the motions.3 Several studies have aimed at identifying the main
serve.1–3 It is one of the most repeated strokes during the game, biomechanical aspects an effective serve should include, although
and it directly influences the outcome of points.4 The effectiveness of depending on the model followed and the particular phase of the
this action is determined by several factors such as its speed, impact action (ie, loading, cocking and impact),3 the necessities required
angle, spin, direction, and precision.3,5 In this sense, serve velocity toward generating faster serves may vary. Yet, it seems clear that
(SV) has been identified as one of the most determinant factors lower leg drive, hip and trunk rotations, and upper arm extension
influencing performance in both men and women’s tennis alongside and internal rotations are the major contributors to racquet and ball
junior competitors.1,2,6,7 Consequently, SV has boosted in the pro- speed.11–13
fessional tour together with an increase in aces and a decrease in Besides technical indications, certain anthropometric character-
double faults.8 Concurrently, the existence of sophisticated measure- istics have been found to have a positive relation to SV, making these
ment systems based on high-speed cameras and laser scanners such as important factors to consider. The strength of correlations found
Foxtenn5 or Hawk-Eye,8 and the relative ease of application radar varies across sexes and playing levels; although, results seem to
guns makes data analysis highly accessible. Therefore, knowledge indicate the importance of obtaining higher peripheral racket veloc-
around mechanisms affecting the capacity of a player to apply speed ity at ball impact, which could be increased with greater body height
to the ball is of great interest for tennis players and professionals in (BH) or arm length (AL).5,14–16 Similarly, body mass (BM) seems to
terms of developing training programs that improve the action and influence SV as the principle of force (mass × acceleration) and
develop strategies to avoid decrements in performance. torque production directly affect a player’s velocity production
The necessary coordination throughout the entire kinetic chain capacity.7,17 This positive relation is more evident when analyzing
makes this action a complex motor skill.9 The summation of forces the fastest serves registered in matches.5 Monitoring of these
in an optimal time and space during this movement sequence characteristics seems relevant for a close control on growth and
increases the velocity of the different body segments involved maturational status. In addition, the possibility of affecting body
in the motion, and ultimately is transferred to the ball.2,3 If any of composition with appropriate training methods makes a review on
the links in the chain are not synchronized in an effective way, the how anthropometric traits affect SV of great interest.
result will not be optimal.10 From a technical perspective, serving Physical capacities and neuromuscular performance variables
appears to require a certain execution to achieve not only improved have also been studied in relation to their influence on SV. Maximal
speed, but also reduced injury risk based on less aggressive
dynamic strength18–20 and maximal isometric strength (MIS),7,15,21,22
rate of force development (RFD), impulse (IMP),15,22 range of motion
Colomar (joshua.colomar@uvic.cat) is corresponding author, https://orcid.org/ (ROM),23,24 muscle contractile properties,18 functional measurements
0000-0002-7686-6594 of power such as medicine ball throws (MBT), or jumping
1159
1160 Colomar et al

capacity7,25 have previously been in some way related to higher or stages. In this line, arm pronation is responsible for racquet
lower SV. Nevertheless, although the influence of these traits seems orientation while elbow extension has a high influence on impact
clear, the importance and impact of these variables on SV varies height, which is an added contributor to head racquet speed.12,31 In
across sexes and playing levels due to interactions with other addition, authors have recognized rotation and side positioning of
parameters present in the complex serve motion such as biomechan- the trunk as an enabler of generating extra rotation in the horizontal
ics and technique. Thus, knowledge around specific physical indi- plane to increase available space and energy storage to transfer to
cators and how these may vary when assessing different participants the consequent acceleration phase.12,31 Also, investigations indi-
seems important for tennis practitioners. In consequence, identifying cate the significance of lower limb and pelvic push as the starting
those parameters that better predict a faster serve in different popula- point of the kinetic chain.12,32,33 Although a greater upward vertical
tions will be reviewed. drive of the dominant shoulder is associated to a greater SV, this is
Moreover, impairments in these key factors seem to appear highly influenced by the drive generated from the hips and lower
following match play or certain training loads. Previous research limbs. Specifically, peak vertical velocity of the hips, alongside an
has mainly focused on competition simulation or data analysis increased drive of the back leg leads to consider extension moments
following official events. Although it seems clear that tennis play in the legs and internal rotations in the hip as essential toward
has the potential to affect key performance factors,26–30 how overall increasing SV.12,13,32
match play loads, volume, intensity of play, calendar, or traveling Because the serve is a skill with several phases, the ideal
may influence these characteristics could be of further interest. biomechanical layout for faster serves depends on which specific
Thus, the goal of this investigation was to determine and define stage of the stroke is being examined. Kovacs and Ellenbecker3
the physical factors affecting SV both positively, and negatively, suggested the use of a multistage analysis of the serve involving 8
and to approach existing differences regarding sex, level, and age. stages. Depending on the phase, biomechanical demands vary.
For this review, search terms included “Tennis Serve,” “Serve Those phases responsible for velocity build-up seem to be the
Speed or Velocity” and “Anthropometry,” “Biomechanics,” loading, cocking, acceleration, and impact phases. During the
“Physical,” “Strength,” “Power,” “Match,” “Competition,” and loading phase, kinematics mainly refers to lower body positions
“Training.” Studies reviewed included those that examined possi- in which the authors identify 2 main techniques (ie, the footback
ble links between physical determinants and SV alongside inves- and the foot-up), depending on distance between feet.3 Although
tigations that registered changes in SV before, and after, training the foot-up seems to generate greater vertical forces, which would
sessions or competitive matches. Criteria regarding participants be interesting to transfer throughout the kinetic chain, no ball
included players considered as “elite” (belonging to ATP or WTA velocity differences are observed between these 2 techniques. The
rankings above 1000 at the time of the study), “competition” footback style provides greater upward and forward leg drive while
(players over 18 y of age participating in competitive events the foot-up provides a stable axis of rotation on which players rely
without a ranking above 1000 and collegiate players), and “junior” to generate momentum.3 Also, during the loading phase, the
(players under 18 y old participating in both international and importance of shoulder and pelvis lateral tilt has been identified,
national/regional events). Studies performed with players consid- as this specific alignment facilitates the development of angular
ered as “amateur” or “recreational” were not considered. We momentum through lateral trunk flexion during forward swing.3
hypothesized that SV would be a multifactorial capacity influenced The cocking phase is known for the importance of driving the
by biomechanical and ROM abilities (leg drive, hip, trunk, and racquet down and behind the torso allowing greater storage of
shoulder rotations), anthropometrics (BH and mass), and strength elastic energy and an increased path before impact. Maximal
(applying force in short time frames). In addition, high volume of shoulder external rotation is reached and a close parallel position
match play would impair the mentioned variables and decrease between racquet and trunk seems important. Accelerating the
performance. racquet from this position until impact is known as the acceleration
phase. A rapid rotation force occurs from the lumbar spine and
Biomechanics and Movement Competency forceful concentric internal rotation movements oversee generating
velocity. Trunk rotation, elbow extension, shoulder internal rota-
As a complex motor skill, an efficient serve (ie, accurate, fast, and tion, and hand flexion are the main contributors to momentum in
nonaggressive to musculoskeletal health) requires the development this phase.11,12,31,34,35 During contact, the best kinematic models
of certain technical parameters. Previous investigations have aimed indicate that the shoulder should be slightly abducted and the
at identifying those main biomechanical aspects toward this elbow, wrist, and lead knee somewhat flexed (24° [14°]).11 It is
goal.3,11,12 As a key starting point, an increased speed of the suggested that optimal impact point should happen at 110° angle of
head of the racquet and posterior transfer to the ball is the main elevation between the upper arm and trunk.3 Following the impact
aspect players should achieve.12 The height of impact and the phase, during the deceleration of the movement, all the mentioned
amount of momentum and forward rotation applied to the ball seem structures bear a great level of eccentric forces towards decelerating
the principal contributors toward increasing the head of the rac- the motion. Nevertheless, as no velocity is being generated from
quet’s speed.31 Thus, the influence of angular velocity vectors of this phase onward, training programs should focus on providing the
the upper arm, forearm, and hand in generating this speed seems player effective tools to manage deceleration.3
essential. Specifically, hand and upper arm flexion, trunk rotation, In short, depending on the serving model followed and the
and abduction alongside the internal rotation of the shoulder are of specific phase of the motion, certain biomechanical and technical
paramount importance to produce fast racquet head speeds.31 This needs are present toward generating faster serves; however, it
internal rotation gesture has been recognized as the major contrib- seems clear that literature establishes knee extension and lower
utor to speed as it is responsible for accelerating the upper arm and leg drive, hip and trunk rotation and elbow extension, shoulder
building up angular velocity in the swing to impact. Yet, this internal rotation, and hand/wrist flexion as the major contributors to
explains the moment of impact in the upper arm, while the serve is a angular momentum toward transferring speed to the head of the
multifaceted motor skill involving several body structures and racquet and to the ball. These motions and body positions seem to
IJSPP Vol. 17, No. 8, 2022
 Determinant Factors of Serve Velocity 1161

be the most correlated to successful fast serves and performed by Hayes et al,15 and Baiget et al5 found important relationships
those players capable to apply speed to the ball effectively.11 between BM and SV. Also, Fett et al7 and Wong et al17 found
Therefore, coaches are encouraged to include these indications positive correlations between BMI and SV, while no significant
in development programs. relations between this variable and SV were found in elite players
in either the first or the second serve in Baiget et al.5 In terms of an
athlete’s capacity of being able to produce strength levels, and
Anthropometric Characteristics following allometric theory,17 an increment in BM in accordance
The height of the impact location of the ball during the serve and with BH is traduced into an increment in torque production.
the BH of the player seem to be the most important factors affecting Consequently, greater BM or BMI may assist in the capacity of
the capacity to produce high-velocity serves16 (Table 1). Biome- producing faster strokes and increasing SV, always considering
that an increment in these variables without a close control on lean
chanically, hitting the ball in a higher spot increases the available
mass and fat ratios could negatively affect agility and change of
space toward the opponent’s serve box. Because of this, hitting the
direction speed.5 Contrary to BH, BM has shown strong relations to
ball in higher locations allows the player to offer a more optimal
SV in female participants,7,23 In this line, and considering the
trajectory and achieve a higher SV.16 Literature has identified BH,
advantages of producing greater strength levels, it seems tennis
AL, and jumping height as the main conditioning factors affecting
demands of female competition (ie, lower stroke frequency)37
the height of ball impact7,16,25 and therefore are highly related to the
capacity of a player to serve faster. BH, besides being a key factor would tolerate profiles to shift toward players with a tendency
allowing to achieve higher ball impact points,7,36 has previously to endomorph body types. Male competitors on the other hand may
been identified as the anthropometric characteristic that mostly rely more thoroughly on BH and other physical factors influencing
affects SV in male participants.5,7,30 Nevertheless, many investiga- SV.7,15 A factor to consider is that BM and BMI are modifiable
tions have mentioned the positive relationship between BH and parameters from training,19,20 and it is suggested that the optimi-
first5,7,14–16,24 and second14,16 serves in both, male and female zation of programs could have positive effects on performance,
competitors. These studies show that the submaximal nature of always considering the detrimental effect on speed and agility a
the second serve and prioritizing control over attaining a greater SV nonoptimal program of these characteristics could have.
makes this stroke have a lower relation with BH than the first
serve.16 In fact, Baiget et al5 found that BH did not correlate Strength, Power, and ROM
significantly with SV in the second serve in male elite players.5
Besides this, the length of the racquet arm complex has proven to Beyond the importance of anthropometric parameters in achieving
have an influence on impact point height and therefore SV.7,15 Fett greater SV, knowledge around strength factors affecting this stroke
et al7 found considerable positive correlations between AL and SV has also received thorough attention in literature. Studies have
in all groups of ages included in their study. In this case, longer established different strength aspects as determinants of SV
limbs would not only increase the point of impact but would give (Table 2). Initially, maximal dynamic strength needs during strokes
the opportunity to the player to transfer a greater tangential and seem to be low,20 as the weight of the implement (ie, racquet)
achieve greater SV.7,14,15 ranges from 200 to 400 g and in this line, studies assessing maximal
Further anthropometric characteristics such as BM and BM dynamic strength via bench press or overhead press have not found
index (BMI) have also been studied in relation to SV and have strong associations between this variable and SV.16 Because of this,
found certain correlation between these parameters. Fett et al,7 investigations have typically aimed at analyzing MIS values at

Table 1 Anthropometric Characteristics Related to SV

Reference Description and goals Gender n Age Level Variables tested Correlation
Vaverka and Determine the association M 78– — Elite BH, cm: 185.0 (7.0) SF: r = .52 (.06)
Cernosek16 between BH and SV in 84 S1: r = .55 (.07)
elite players during Grand
Slams S2: r = .37 (.11)
F 70– — BH, cm: 173.0 (7.0) SF: r = .52 (.06)
78 S1: r = .52 (.03)
S2: r = .35 (.08)
Bonato Investigate the relationship M 8 23.1 (3.9) Elite BH, cm: 181.8 (4.1) r first serve = .78*
et al14 between anthropometric r second serve = ,80*
and functional parameters
and SV in professional BM, kg: 79.7 (4.3) r first serve = −0.22
players r second
serve = −0.15
Sögut40 Determine possible rela- M 16 13.81 (1.11) Junior BH, cm: 163.3 (11.42) r = .69
tions between SV and BH. F 17 13.35 (1.37) BH, cm: 159.5 (0.08) r = .49
Palmer To explore the relation M 42 23.9 (5.82) Competition BH, cm: 180.2 (7.23) r = .46**
et al24 between BH, ROM,
strength, motor control,
and power and SV
(continued)

IJSPP Vol. 17, No. 8, 2022

Table 1 (continued)
Reference Description and goals Gender n Age Level Variables tested Correlation
Hayes et al15 Determine if a relationship M 12 16.5 (2.0) Elite BM, kg: 66.5 (10.6) r = .68*
exists between anthropo- BMI, kg/m2: 21.22 (1.5) r = .31
metric measures and SV in
elite junior tennis players BH, cm: 178.2 (9.9) r = .80**
F 9 16.0 (2.2) BM, kg: 63.9 (6.5) r = .68*
BMI, kg/m2: 22 (1.3) r = .31
BH, cm: 170.3 (4.6) r = .80**
Fett et al7 Determine the impact of M 124 U12: 11.3 (0.4) Junior BM, kg: 38.8 (5.8) r = .47**
anthropometric character- (n = 625) BH, cm: 149.9 (7.7) r = .40**
istics on SV in elite junior
tennis players BMI, kg/m2: 17.2 (1.4) r = .36**
248 U14: 12.9 (0.5) Junior BM, kg: 47.3 (7.9) r = .55**
BH, cm: 160.7 (8.3) r = .52**
BMI, kg/m2: 18.2 (1.7) r = .38**
156 U16: 14.9 (0.5) Junior BM, kg: 61.4 (8.7) r = .57**
BH, cm: 174.9 (7.5) r = .51**
BMI, kg/m2: 20.0 (1.8) r = .40**
97 U18: 16.8 (0.5) Junior BM, kg: 72.6 (7.0) r = .44**
BH, cm: 181.9 (5.8) r = .31**
BMI, kg/m2: 21.9 (1.5) r = .32**
F (n = 394) 78 U12: 11.4 (0.3) Junior BM, kg: 38.7 (6.4) r = .38**
BH, cm: 150.0 (6.4) r = .26
BMI, kg/m2: 17.1 (1.9) r = .36**
171 U14: 12.9 (0.5) Junior BM, kg: 49.0 (7.3) r = .39**
BH, cm: 160.9 (7.2) r = .34**
BMI, kg/m2: 18.9 (1.8) r = .28**
90 U16: 14.8 (0.5) Junior BM, kg: 58.2 (6.3) r = .39**
BH, cm: 167.6 (6.2) r = .38**
BMI, kg/m2: 20.7 (1.8) r = .17*
55 U18: 16.7 (0.5) Junior BM, kg: 63.5 (6.3) r = .35**
BH, cm: 171.5 (6.6) r = .32*
BMI, kg/m2: 21.6 (1.8) r = .12
Sögut41 Determine various anthro- F 12 16.4 (1.1) Junior 169.6 (5.8) r = .331*
pometric and functional
attributes and their rela-
tionship with SV
Fernandez- Establish the relation M 32 U13: 12.6 (0.2) Junior BH, cm: 154.9 (7.0) r = .549*
Fernandez between physical and BM, kg: 43.5 (6.8) r = .625*
et al23 anthropometric variables
and SV 36 U15: 14.6 (0.3) Junior BH, cm: 169.0 (5.7) r = .594*
BM, kg: 58.4 (7.3) r = .600*
F 32 U13: 12.6 (0.3) Junior BH, cm: 159.8 (7.0) r = .369
BM, kg: 49.1 (7.3) r = .489*
28 U15: 14.6 (0.3) Junior BH, cm:166.3 (5.7) r = .319
BM, kg: 56.8 (5.4) r = .066
Baiget et al5 To analyze the associations M 21 26.4 (5.4) Elite BH, cm:186.9 (7.4) r first serve = .503*
between SV and anthro- r second serve = .486*
pometric, ball impact and
landing location parame- BM, kg: 81.6 (7.1) r first serve = .593*
ters in total and fastest r second serve = .466*
serves in professional ten- BMI, kg/m2: 23.4 (1.1) r first serve = .263
nis players during an ATP r second serve = .125
Tour event
Abbreviations: ATP, Association of Tennis Professionals; BH, body height; BM, body mass; BMI, body mass index; F, female; M, male; ROM, range of motion; S1,
average first SV; S2, average second SV; SF, fastest serve in a match; SV, serve velocity; U12, under 12; U14, under 14; U16, under 16; U18, under 18. Note: Values are
presented as mean (SD).
*P < .05. **P < .01.

1162 IJSPP Vol. 17, No. 8, 2022

Table 2 Strength, Power, and ROM Variables Related to SV Performance
Correlation
Reference Description and goals Gender n Age Level Variables tested (r)
Cohen et al38 Determine the relation M 40 33.7 (7.1) Competition Elbow extension torque .474**
between strength variables, Dominant wrist flexion ROM .338*
ROM, and SV in compe-
tition players Shoulder internal rotation ROM .324*
60° shoulder internal rotation 361*
eccentric contraction
60° shoulder internal rotation .372*
concentric contraction
180° shoulder internal rotation .310*
eccentric contraction
180° shoulder internal rotation .335*
concentric contraction
Pugh et al39 Study the relation between M 15 20.8 (2.0) Competition Knee extension strength .36
lower body, shoulder, and Shoulder internal rotation .29
grip strength and SV in strength
college players
Grip strength .41
Signorile et al6 Examine the correlations M (n = 23) 33 14.97 (1.36) Junior Diagonal throwing peak torque .69**
between isokinetic peak and F
torque and SV (n = 10)
Wong et al 17 Investigate the effects of M 12 20.5 (3.8) Elite Knee ROM during phases I and II .705*
kinematics on SV in elite of the serve
players Knee extension velocity during .751**
phase II of the serve
Peak hip extension speed during .657*
phase II of the serve
Shoulder ROM during phase III .616*
of the serve
Peak elbow extension velocity .708**
during phase II of the serve
Baiget et al21 Investigate the relation M 12 17.2 (1.0) Junior Shoulder internal rotation maxi- .67*
between maximal isomet- mum isometric strength
ric strength and SV in Shoulder internal rotation ± .76*
competition players shoulder flexion maximum iso-
metric strength
Hayes et al.15 Determine if there is a M (n = 12) 21 M: 16.5 (2) Junior IMTP peak strength .87**
relation between IMTP, and F (n = 9) F: 16.0 (2.2) CMJ height .77**
CMJ, BH, shoulder inter-
nal and external rotation IMP at 300 ms .71**
strength and SV in elite IMP at 200 ms .58**
adolescent players IMP at 100 ms .64**
90° Shoulder internal rotation .63**
<90° Shoulder external rotation .63**
Dossena Investigate the relationship M 8 20 (3) Competition Maximal jumping height during .71*
et al25 between jumping capacity first serve
and SV in professional Maximal jumping height during .71*
tennis players second serve
Palmer et al24 Determine if upper and M 42 23.9 (5.82) Elite Hip external rotation ROM .39**
lower body power vari- Single leg hop (ipsilateral) .36*
ables are predictive of SV
in elite players Single leg hop (contralateral) .31*
Dominant arm seated shot put .30*
throw
Eriksrud Determine the relationship M 12 28.3 (10.3) Competition CMJ .715**
et al40 between power, strength, Dominant arm vertical press .650*
and dynamic balance and
SV in competition players Bilateral arm overhead anterior .643*
push
(continued)

IJSPP Vol. 17, No. 8, 2022 1163

Table 2 (continued)
Correlation
Reference Description and goals Gender n Age Level Variables tested (r)
Fett et al7 Determine the relationship M (n = 625) 124 U12: 11.3 Junior Grip strength .43**
between strength and (0.4) MBO .55**
power variables and SV in
elite junior players MBF .49**
MBB .55*
248 U14: 12.9 Junior Grip strength .59**
(0.5) MBO .52**
MBF .63**
MBB .58**
156 U16: 14.9 Junior Grip strength .59**
(0.5) MBO .60**
MBF .58**
MBB .60**
97 U18: 16.8 Junior Grip strength .57**
(0.5) MBO .52**
MBF .55**
MBB .51**
F (n = 394) 78 U12: 11.4 Junior Grip strength .37**
(0.3) MBO .20*
MBF .29*
MBB .21
171 U14: 12.9 Junior Grip strength .36**
(0.5) MBO .39**
MBF .56**
MBB .50**
90 U16: 14.8 Junior Grip strength .34**
(0.5) MBO .54**
MBF .59**
MBB .60**
55 U18: 16.7 Junior Grip strength .27*
(0.5) MBO .48**
MBF .51**
MBB .38*
Fernandez- Analyze the functional M 32 U13: 12.6 Junior MBO .557
Fernandez profile of the shoulder and (0.2) MBF .638*
et al23 establish relations between
the tested variables and SV MBB .442*
36 U15: 14.6 Junior MBO .418*
(0.3) MBF .582*
MBB .532*
F 32 U13: 12.6 Junior MBO .433*
(0.3) MBF .295
MBB .307
28 U15: 14.6 Junior MBO .202
(0.3) MBF .413*
MBB .098
Colomar Study the influence of M 21 17.0 (0.8) Junior Gastrocnemius stiffness .45*
et al18 strength, power, and mus- Infraspinatus stiffness .42*
cle stiffness on SV in
junior tennis players
(continued)

1164 IJSPP Vol. 17, No. 8, 2022

 Determinant Factors of Serve Velocity 1165

Table 2 (continued)
Correlation
Reference Description and goals Gender n Age Level Variables tested (r)
Baiget et al22 To analyze the associations M (n = 12) 17 16.8 (1.1) Junior IF 30 ms .01–.49
between SV and various and F (n = 5) WF IF 50 ms .54*
single-joint upper limb
isometric force time WE, WF, SHF IF 90 ms .49–.56*
parameters (IF, RFD, and WE, WF, SHF, SHIR IF 100 ms .52–.58*
IMP) WE, WF, SHF, SHIR IF 150 ms .5–.67**
WE, EE, SHE, WF, SHF, SHIR .51–.7**
IF 200 ms
WE, EE, SHE, WF, SHF, SHIR .54–.72**
IF 250 ms
Peak IF .54–.7**
WE, RFD 0–30 ms .66**
WE, SHE, SHIR RFD 0–50 ms .52–.69**
WE, SHE, SHF, SHIR RFD 0– .5–.69**
90 ms
WE, EE, SHE, SHF, SHIR RFD .49–.69**
0–100 ms
WE, EE, SHE, WF, SHF, SHIR .5–.7**
RFD 0–150 ms
WE, EE, SHE, WF, SHF, SHIR .58–.69**
RFD 0–200 ms
WE, EE, SHE, WF, SHF, SHER, .5–.71**
SHIR RFD 0–250 ms
IMP 30 ms .04–.48
WF IMP 50 ms .5*
WF IMP 90 ms .58*
WF IMP 100 ms .59*
WE, SHE, WF, SHF, SHIR IMP .52–.64**
150 ms
WE, EE, SHE, WF, SHF, SHIR .5–.66**
IMP 200 ms
WE, EE, SHE, WF, SHF, SHIR .52–.66**
IMP 250 ms
Abbreviations: CMJ, countermovement jump; EE, elbow extension; F, female; IMP, impulse; IMTP, isometric midthigh pull; M, male; MBT, medicine ball throw; MBB,
MBT backhand; MBF, MBT forehand; MBO, MBT overhead; RFD, rate of force development; ROM, range of motion; SHE, shoulder extension; SHF, shoulder flexion;
SHER, shoulder external rotation; SHIR, shoulder internal rotation; SV, serve velocity; U12, under 12; U14, under 14; U16, under 16; U18, under 18. Note: Values are
presented as mean (SD).
*P < .05. **P < .01.

specific joint angles observed throughout the kinetic chain, involv- Authors conclude that the ability to produce force rapidly (RFD)
ing upper and lower body structures. Most of these studies con- and the accumulation of force over a given period (IMP), especially in
cluded that the main contributor to a greater SV is shoulder internal rotational movements, seem to be more determinant than MIS to
rotation,31,38 although positive relations were found between MIS generate high-velocity serves. As the authors point out, although the
and SV in most arm positions tested involved in the serve kinetic early phases (<250 ms) of RFD in the shoulder internal rotation
chain,15,21,22 being the wrist flexion, extension, and shoulder account for roughly 50% of SV variability, the multiple regression
flexion the movements with stronger associations. Notwithstand- analysis showed other shoulder positions (ie, shoulder and wrist
ing, Baiget et al21 considered these positive correlations present in flexion) and MIS as important contributors to faster serves. Therefore,
specific positions and involving MIS of few muscle groups would while all mentioned aspects seem important contributors to velocity
not be a strong predictor of SV by themselves but only accounted production, the combination and interaction of these variables, along-
for one piece of the puzzle. In this line, authors perform a multiple side anthropometric characteristics and technical capabilities seem to
regression analysis indicating a 55% of SV variability could be determine the capacity of a player to produce fast serves.
explained by the combination of shoulder internal rotation and As greater upper body strength and power levels seem to
shoulder flexion MIS. Added to this, besides the combination of positively influence SV, the role of lower body values is not as
different joint positions and movements involved in the serve, clear. The elevation the body experiences with respect to the floor
certain strength levels regarding RFD and IMP may also positively when extending ankles, knees, and hips affects the height of the ball
influence SV. Baiget et al22 investigated the influence of RFD at impact spot.3,25 Following this idea, it could be considered benefi-
different time intervals (ie, 0–250 ms) alongside IMP on SV. cial to have greater strength and power levels in the lower body that
IJSPP Vol. 17, No. 8, 2022
1166 Colomar et al

could derive into higher impact points and therefore increase SV. In positive associations with SV,17,24,38 establishing the ability to achieve
any case, the low relationship between SV and countermovement necessary movement degrees as relevant to improve this variable. In
jump assessments, or leg extension maximal isometric contrac- this line, coaches are encouraged to guarantee high levels of ROM in
tions18,21,25 indicates that the influence of this variable may be the mentioned joints toward performance increases.
relatively low. Authors emphasize the differences between both
motions and suggest the introduction and use of more specific
jumping tests that include both upper and lower body (ie, sergeant Factors Negatively Affecting SV
jump). Literature seems to agree to grant the lower body a The previously discussed physical parameters positively related to
coordinating role in the serve motion, most likely linked to greater SV may be altered by tennis match play. As these variables
coordination and technique rather than affecting SV by themselves. are directly linked to the multifactorial nature of the tennis serve,
However, some studies have found a positive effect of lower body fatigue is considered as a triggering aspect negatively influencing
strength and power parameters and SV, showing knee extension SV. Metabolic exhaustion, muscle impairment, soreness, and
velocity,17 knee extension strength,39 isometric mid-thigh pull functionality are directly related to a descent in muscular strength29
test,15 jumping height in a countermovement jump,15,42 hop tests,24 and have the potential to negatively affect SV. More specifically,
or even the level of stiffness of the gastrocnemius muscle18 as literature indicates that the main performance aspect negatively
predictors of velocity in this stroke. These studies give importance affected by fatigue is precision.47–49 Davey et al47 and Rota et al49
to the role of ground reaction forces (GRFs) and the ability to found reductions in serve accuracy after performing a maximal
transfer energy to the upper segments of the body. As higher power intermittent activity (−30% and −11.7%, respectively), attributed to
levels in the lower limbs seem to relate to generating greater GRF,9,24 lactate accumulation. Added to effects on precision, fatigue in
these parameters would also be beneficial for SV. Because of these certain regions and on determinant strength and power variables
reasons, although the lower body seems to have a more coordinative seem to be main contributors to decreases in SV.47 Notwithstand-
role than a velocity generator, greater strength and power levels ing, this fatigue does not seem to affect all players in the same way
could favor an appearance of GRF of greater magnitude and, if the and is most likely determined by match load, experience, and
transfer throughout the kinetic chain is effective, SV would be playing level. Terraza and Baiget50 found no reductions in accuracy
enhanced. Regarding the stabilization functions and transfer of or SV following a resistance training or MBT protocol, suggesting
the generated GRF, the trunk is considered essential toward effective although impairments could have appeared in strength and power
serving. Some studies43,44 agree in granting this region not only a levels, players may rely on different neuromuscular parameters to
coordinative role, but also as a force transfer link in the kinetic chain. maintain performance during the serve. Maquirrain et al (2016) and
Although literature has generally not investigated the relationship Moreno-Pérez et al30 did not observe reductions in precision or
between trunk power and strength levels and SV, Wong et al17 found speed of elite tennis players after 5-set matches. On the contrary,
that peak velocity of hip extension positively influenced SV. studies have found reductions in SV (3.9%–4%) in competition
Alongside isometric force–time curve values that positively players of lower level49–52 or age,53 suggesting experienced
correlate to SV, literature considers power and the effective use of athletes could be able to find strategies to avoid the reduction
the stretch-shortening cycle as highly specific indicators of velocity of SV in fatiguing situations. Nevertheless, investigations are
production capacity.7,23 The technical execution of a serve implies a limited when examining the influence of fatigue on SV in young
prestretching of most of the muscle groups involved in the motion, competitors, making of great interest further studies on the topic.
being the elastic energy storage and rebound capacity of the muscle Research has not uniquely focused on fatigue caused by the direct
of great importance for the action. MBTs have been proven to be a outcome of tennis practice or competition but has investigated the
useful tool to assess upper-body power.7,23 This type of assessment effect of prolonged play or repetitive bouts of play on SV
allows the summation and transfer of forces throughout the entire (Table 3). In this line, the organization model tennis follows
kinetic chain and is considered an interesting method to obtain has proven to negatively affect SV.26,48 Gallo-Salazar et al26
values of power in tennis-specific motions. A great number of found reductions in SV attributed to playing 2 tennis matches
studies have found positive correlations between MBT distance in one same day. One of the main reasons these decreases happen
or speed and SV or even other tennis strokes.7,23,45,46 Fernandez- is the loss of functionality around the shoulder region caused by
Fernandez et al23 point out that MBT distance is an important activities maintained and repeated in short periods of time.30,51
predictor of SV in male tennis players. Fett et al7 show that power These studies show shoulder strength deficits and ROM impair-
values established from MBT is one of the best predictors for SV, in ments in internal and external rotation values after performing a
both male and female competitors, especially as age advances. In certain volume of tennis play. Authors agree and recommend the
younger players, although distance in MBT could be useful to application of intervention programs including strategies to rees-
predict SV, this would present a stronger interaction with SV in tablish values before competition or practice, especially in players
male competitors.7,23 Added, it has previously been hypothesized without a sufficient experience and level to take advantage of
that the influence of these abilities seems to rise in importance as the technical proficiency or tactical decisions to replace reductions
players level and age increase.7,18 These investigations theorized that in SV.
technical and coordinative aspects seem more relevant in young
inexperienced players, as physical factors might become more
important as technical capacity is solid in all performers. Practical Applications
Besides strength and power values and measurements, ROM of
joints involved in the serve motion have shown important relationships • Many serving models are available toward optimizing SV.
with SV.17,24,38 Similar to strength and power variables, an increased However, knee extension and lower leg drive, hip and trunk
ROM around joints that are greatly involved in the serve kinetic chain rotation, and elbow extension, shoulder internal rotation, and
seems relevant to enhanced velocity production. Shoulder internal hand/wrist flexion seem the major contributors to angular
rotation, wrist flexion, and hip external rotation have previously shown momentum and transferring speed to the head of the racquet
IJSPP Vol. 17, No. 8, 2022
 Determinant Factors of Serve Velocity 1167

Table 3 Factors Negatively Affecting SV

Fatiguing
Reference Description and goals Gender N Age Level condition Findings
Davey Examine the effect of fatigue on M 18 20.7 Competition High-intensity SV was not reduced but pre-
et al47 specific sporting abilities (n = 9) (0.9) intermittent cision declined 30%*
and F and activity
(n = 9) 21.7
(0.6)
Ojala and To examine changes in selected M 8 23 (3.8) Elite 3-d tennis SV was significantly lower
Hakkinen54 physiological and performance vari- tournament before the third match com-
ables during a 3-day tennis pared with the first match
tournament (−2.72%*)
Rota et al49 Examine the effect of fatigue on upper M 10 23.8 Competition High-intensity SV is reduced 4.5%* and
body muscular activity and tennis (4.0) intermittent-spe- precision 11.7%*
performance cific activity
Gescheit Determine how playing matches in M 7 21.4 Competition Matches on conse- SV is moderately increased
et al48 consecutive days affects performance, (2.2) cutive days day by day. Precision de-
physiological and perceptual creases during consecutive
responses days
Maquirrain Analyze SV and accuracy in pro- M 30 — Elite Wimbledon 5 set No significant changes were
et al55 longed male professional matches matches registered
played on grass courts
Martin Examine changes in shoulder ROM M 8 20.4 Competition 3-h match 1.8 m/s (−3.9%*) reductions
et al51 and SV during a 3-h tennis match (2.8) after 3 h of play. No reductions
at 90 min
Gallo- Analyze how playing 2 consecutive M 12 14.4 Junior Playing 2 matches Trivial reductions in SV from
Salazar matches on the same day affects per- (0.9) in the same day 151.7 (13.94) to 149
et al50 formance in young tennis players (15.09) km/h
Moreno- Determine the acute effects of a tennis M 26 20.4 Elite One tennis match No significant decreases in SV
Pérez et al30 match on SV and shoulder ROM (4.4)
Tooth Assess the influence of scapular M 15 22.8 Competition Elastic band exer- Significantly decreased racquet
et al49 muscle fatigue on tennis performance (3.45) cise until exhaus- velocity (4%*) and accuracy
tion on racquet (55%**)
velocity
Terraza- Acute and delayed effect of strength M 10 15.3 Competition MBT or resistance No significant reductions in SV
Rebollo and training on SV and accuracy (n = 4) (3.45) training exercises or accuracy
Baiget and F
(2021) (n = 6)
Abbreviations: F, female; M, male; MBT, medicine ball throws; ROM, range of motion. Note: Values are presented as mean (SD).
*P < .05. **P < .01.

and to the ball. These indications should be encouraged by be able to maintain SV relying on other aspects involved in the
coaches toward technical proficiency. execution of an optimal serve (ie, ROM, technique, or tactical
• The BH and AL seem highly important for the tennis player, as decisions), but repetition of competitive bouts or intense match
the capacity of reaching higher ball impact locations seems to play will most likely end up negatively influencing SV. Thus,
correlate strongly with SV. Nevertheless, more trainable as- effective recovery strategies to reestablish initial strength and
pects such as shifting body composition toward a greater lean power values as soon as possible should be implemented,
BM may have positive influence on SV, making interesting especially in younger and inexperienced populations in which
training options aiming at this goal. However, individual needs the negative outcome could be more evident.
should be considered.
• Force–time curve parameters (MIS, RFD, and IMP) around the
shoulder joint are good predictors of SV across sexes and Conclusions
especially as age and level increase. Coaches are encouraged to Fast serving certainly needs a well-developed technical ability.
include strength training programs that cover the whole load– Toward this goal, coaching methods and literature have provided
velocity curve spectrum. In any case, special attention to specific serving models intending to achieve greater velocity
maximal velocity intention while performing the program production and efficient motion. However, depending on which
seems essential to achieve desired gains. model followed and the specific phase of the action, technical
• Intense match play performed regularly have the capacity to requirements may vary. Yet, aspects such as lower leg drive, hip
reduce SV and accuracy. Elite and experienced players seem to and trunk rotations, and upper arm extension and internal rotations
IJSPP Vol. 17, No. 8, 2022
1168 Colomar et al

seem the major contributors to racquet and ball speed. Regarding 13. Reid M, Elliott B, Alderson J. Lower-limb coordination and shoulder
anthropometric characteristics favoring SV, a higher impact point joint mechanics in the tennis serve. Med Sci Sports Exercise.
achieved by BH or AL, alongside a greater lean BM seem to aid 2008;40(2):308–315. PubMed ID: 18202570 doi:10.1249/mss.
faster serves. Strength and power levels such as MIS and RFD in 0b013e31815c6d61
joint positions involved in the serve kinetic chain, alongside upper 14. Bonato M, Maggioni M, Rossi C, Rampinchi S, Latorre A, Merati G.
body power have previously been positively correlated to faster SV Relationship between anthropometric or functional characteristics
and should be developed in a velocity production enhancement and maximal serve velocity in professional tennis players. J Sports
program. Notwithstanding, the effects of continued or repetitive Med Phys Fitness. 2015;55(10):1157–1165. PubMed ID: 24998615
competition loads may impair the above-mentioned key physical 15. Hayes MJ, Spits DR, Watts DG, Kelly VG. Relationship between
factors and negatively influence SV, especially in younger un- tennis serve velocity and select performance measures. J Strength
experienced players. Cond Res. 2021;35(1):190–197. PubMed ID: 29324575 doi:10.1519/
JSC.0000000000002440
16. Vaverka F, Cernosek M. Association between body height and serve
References speed in elite tennis players. Sports Biomech. 2013;12(1):30–37.
PubMed ID: 23724606 doi:10.1080/14763141.2012.670664
1. Fitzpatrick A, Stone JA, Choppin S, Kelley J. Important performance 17. Wong FK, Keung JH, Lau NM, Ng DK, Chung JW, Chow DH.
characteristics in elite clay and grass court tennis match-play. Int J Effects of body mass index and full body kinematics on tennis serve
Perform Anal Sport. 2019;19(6):942–952. doi:10.1080/24748668. speed. J Hum Kinet. 2014;40(1):21–28. PubMed ID: 25031669
2019.1685804 doi:10.2478/hukin-2014-0003
2. Gillet E, Leroy D, Thouvarecq R, Stein JF. A notational analysis of 18. Colomar J, Baiget E, Corbi F. Influence of strength, power, and
elite tennis serve and serve-return strategies on slow surface. J muscular stiffness on stroke velocity in junior tennis players. Front
Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(2):532–539. PubMed ID: 19197212 Physiol. 2020;11:196. PubMed ID: 32210838 doi:10.3389/fphys.
doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31818efe29 2020.00196
3. Kovacs MS, Ellenbecker TS. A performance evaluation of the tennis 19. Kraemer WJ, Ratamess N, Fry AC, et al. Influence of resistance
serve: implications for strength, speed, power, and flexibility training training volume and periodization on physiological and performance
Strength Cond J. 2011;33(4):22–30. doi:10.1519/SSC.0b013e adaptations in collegiate women tennis players. Am J Sports Med.
318225d59a 2000;28(5):626–633. PubMed ID: 11032216 doi:10.1177/036354
4. Kovalchik SA, Reid M. Comparing matchplay characteristics and 65000280050201
physical demands of junior and professional tennis athletes in the era 20. Kraemer WJ, Hakkinen K, Triplett-Mcbride NT, et al. Physiological
of big data. J Sports Sci Med. 2017;16(4):489–497. PubMed ID: changes with periodized resistance training in women tennis players.
29238248 Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(1):157–168. PubMed ID: 12544650
5. Baiget E, Corbi Soler F, López J. Influence of anthropometric, ball doi:10.1097/00005768-200301000-00024
impact and landing location parameters on serve velocity in elite 21. Baiget E, Corbi F, Fuentes JP, Fernández-Fernández J. The relation-
tennis competition. Biol Sport. 2022;40(1):273–281. doi:10.5114/ ship between maximum isometric strength and ball velocity in the
biolsport.2023.112095 tennis serve. J Hum Kinet. 2016;53(1):63–71. PubMed ID: 28149411
6. Signorile JF, Sandler DJ, Smith WN, Stoutenberg M, Perry AC. doi:10.1515/hukin-2016-0028
Correlation analyses and regression modeling between isokinetic 22. Baiget E, Colomar J, Corbi F. Upper-limb force–time characteristics
testing and on-court performance in competitive adolescent tennis determine serve velocity in competition tennis players. Int J Sports
players. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19(3):519. PubMed ID: Physiol Perform. 2022;17(3):358–366. PubMed ID: 34794120
16095400 doi:10.1519/R-15514.1 doi:10.1123/ijspp.2021-0254
7. Fett J, Ulbricht A, Ferrauti A. Impact of physical performance and 23. Fernandez-Fernandez J, Nakamura FY, Moreno-Perez V, et al. Age
anthropometric characteristics on serve velocity in elite junior tennis and sex-related upper body performance differences in competitive
players. J Strength Cond Res. 2020;34(1):192–202. PubMed ID: young tennis players. PLoS One. 2019;14(9):e0221761. PubMed ID:
29912079 doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000002641 31479492 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0221761
8. Reid M, Morgan S, Whiteside D. Matchplay characteristics of Grand 24. Palmer K, Jones D, Morgan C, Zeppieri G. Relationship between range of
Slam tennis: implications for training and conditioning. J Sports Sci. motion, strength, motor control, power, and the tennis serve in competi-
2016;34(19):1791–1798. PubMed ID: 27009823 doi:10.1080/ tive-level tennis players: a pilot study. Sports Health. 2018;10(5):462–
02640414.2016.1139161 467. PubMed ID: 29965792 doi:10.1177/1941738118785348
9. Kibler WB, Chandler TJ, Shapiro R, Conuel M. Muscle activation 25. Dossena F, Rossi C, Torre AL, Bonato M. The role of lower limbs
in coupled scapulohumeral motions in the high performance during tennis serve. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2018;58(3):210–218.
tennis serve. Br J Sports Med. 2007;41(11):745–749. PubMed ID: . PubMed ID: 27792219 doi:10.23736/S0022-4707.16.06685-8
17957010 doi:10.1136/bjsm.2007.037333 26. Gallo-Salazar C, Del Coso J, Barbado D, et al. Impact of a competi-
10. Girard O, Millet GP. Physical determinants of tennis performance in tion with two consecutive matches in a day on physical performance
competitive teenage players. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(6):1867– in young tennis players. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2017;42(7):750–
1872. PubMed ID: 19675471 doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181b3df89 756. PubMed ID: 28231435 doi:10.1139/apnm-2016-0540
11. Fleisig G, Nicholls R, Elliott B, Escamilla R. Tennis: kinematics used 27. Gescheit DT, Cormack SJ, Duffield R, et al. A multi-year injury
by world class tennis players to produce high‐velocity serves. Sports epidemiology analysis of an elite national junior tennis program. J
Biomech. 2003;2(1):51–64. PubMed ID: 14658245 doi:10.1080/ Sports Sci Med. 2019;22(1):11–15. PubMed ID: 29958840 doi:10.
14763140308522807 1016/j.jsams.2018.06.006
12. Elliott B. Biomechanics and tennis. Br J Sports Med. 2006;40(5):392– 28. Girard O. Changes in exercise characteristics, maximal voluntary
396. PubMed ID: 16632567 doi:10.1136/bjsm.2005.023150 contraction, and explosive strength during prolonged tennis playing.

IJSPP Vol. 17, No. 8, 2022

 Determinant Factors of Serve Velocity 1169

Br J Sports Med. 2006;40(6):521–526. PubMed ID: 16720888 43. Bahamonde RE. Changes in angular momentum during the tennis
doi:10.1136/bjsm.2005.023754 serve. J Sports Sci. 2000;18(8):579–592. PubMed ID: 10972409
29. Mendez-Villanueva A, Fernandez-Fernandez J, Bishop D. Exercise- doi:10.1080/02640410050082297
induced homeostatic perturbations provoked by singles tennis match 44. Marshall RN, Elliott B. Long-axis rotation: the missing link in
play with reference to development of fatigue. Br J Sports Med. 2007; proximal-to-distal segmental sequencing. J Sports Sci. 2000;18:
41(11):717–722. PubMed ID: 17957005 doi:10.1136/bjsm.2007.037259 247–254. PubMed ID: 10824641
30. Moreno-Pérez V, López-Samanes Á, Domínguez R, et al. Acute 45. Delgado-García G, Vanrenterghem J, Muñoz-García A, Molina-
effects of a single tennis match on passive shoulder rotation range of Molina A, Soto-Hermoso VM. Does stroke performance in amateur
motion, isometric strength and serve speed in professional tennis tennis players depend on functional power generating capacity? J
players. PLoS One. 2019;14(4):e0215015. PubMed ID: 30978212 Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2019;59(5):103. PubMed ID: 30160085
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0215015 doi:10.23736/S0022-4707.18.08518-3
31. Elliott B, Marshall R, Noffal G. Contributions of upper limb segment 46. Terraza-Rebollo M, Baiget E, Corbi F, Planas Anzano A. Efectos del
rotations during the power serve in tennis. J Appl Biomech. entrenamiento de fuerza en la velocidad de golpeo en tenistas jóvenes/
1995;11(4):433–442. doi:10.1123/jab.11.4.433 Effects of strength training on hitting speed in young tennis players.
32. Sweeney M, Reid M, Elliott B. Lower limb and trunk function in the Rev Int Med Cienc Act Fis Deporte. 2017;17(66):349–366. doi:10.
high performance tennis serve. Asian J Exerc Sports Sci . 2012;9(1):9. 15366/rimcafd2017.66.009
33. Girard O, Micallef JP, Millet GP. Lower-limb activity during the 47. Davey PR, Thorpe RD, Williams C. Fatigue decreases skilled tennis
power serve in tennis: effects of performance level. Med Sci Sports performance. J Sports Sci. 2002;20(4):311–318. PubMed ID:
Exerc. 2005;37(6):1021–1029. PubMed ID: 15947729 12003276 doi:10.1080/026404102753576080
34. Martin C, Kulpa R, Delamarche P, Bideau B. Professional tennis 48. Gescheit DT, Cormack SJ, Reid M, Duffield R. Consecutive days of
players’ serve: correlation between segmental angular momentums prolonged tennis match play: performance, physical, and perceptual
and ball velocity. Sports Biomech. 2013;12(1):2–14. PubMed ID: responses in trained players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2015;
23724603 doi:10.1080/14763141.2012.734321 10(7):913–920. PubMed ID: 25710259 doi:10.1123/ijspp.2014-
35. Reid M, Whiteside D, Elliott B. Serving to different locations: set-up, 0329
toss, and racket kinematics of the professional tennis serve. Sports 49. Rota S, Morel B, Saboul D, Rogowski I, Hautier C. Influence of
Biomech. 2011;10(4):407–414. PubMed ID: 22303790 doi:10.1080/ fatigue on upper limb muscle activity and performance in tennis. J
14763141.2011.629206 Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2014;24(1):90–97. PubMed ID: 24239164
36. Roetert EP, Ellenbecker TS, Reid M. Biomechanics of the tennis doi:10.1016/j.jelekin.2013.10.007
serve: implications for strength training. Strength Cond J. 50. Terraza-Rebollo M, Baiget E. Acute and delayed effects of strength
2009;31(4):35–40. doi:10.1519/SSC.0b013e3181af65e1 training in ball velocity and accuracy in young competition tennis
37. O’Donoghue P, Ingram B. A notational analysis of elite tennis players. PLoS One. 2021;16(12):e0260825. Published December 9,
strategy. J Sports Sci. 2001;19(2):107–115. PubMed ID: 11217009 2021. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0260825
doi:10.1080/026404101300036299 51. Martin C, Bideau B, Delamarche P, Kulpa R. Influence of a prolonged
38. Cohen DB, Mont MA, Campbell KR, Vogelstein BN, Loewy JW. tennis match play on serve biomechanics. PLoS One. 2016;11(8):
Upper extremity physical factors affecting tennis serve velocity. J e0159979. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0159979
Sports Med. 1994;22(6):746–750. PubMed ID: 7856797 doi:10. 52. Tooth C, Schwartz C, Fransolet C, et al. Influence of scapular
1177/036354659402200604 dyskinesis, kinesiotaping and fatigue on tennis serve performance.
39. Pugh S, Kovaleski J, Heitman R, Gilley W. Upper and lower body Int J Perform Anal. 2020;20(3):456–469. doi:10.1080/24748668.
strength in relation to ball speed during a serve by male collegiate 2020.1761672
tennis players. Percept Mot Skills. 2003;97:867–872. PubMed ID: 53. Gallo-Salazar C, Del Coso J, Sanz-Rivas D, Fernandez-Fernandez J.
14738353 doi:10.2466/pms.2003.97.3.867 Game activity and physiological responses of young tennis players in
40. Söğüt M. all speed during the tennis serve in relation to skill level and a competition with 2 consecutive matches in a day. Int J Sports
body height. Pamukkale J Sport Sci. 2016;7(2):13.05.2016. Physiol Perform. 2019;14(7):887–893. PubMed ID: 30569784
41. Söğüt M, Altunsoy K. Physical and morphological characteristics of doi:10.1123/ijspp.2018-0234
Turkish national adolescent tennis players and their association with 54. Ojala T, Häkkinen K. Effects of the tennis tournament on players'
serve speed. Spor Hekimligi Dergisi. 2018;54(1):64–70. doi:10.5152/ physical performance, hormonal responses, muscle damage and
tjsm.2019.117 recovery. J Sports Sci Med. 2013;12(2):240–248.
42. Eriksrud O, Ghelem A, Henrikson F, Englund J, Brodin N. Upper and 55. Maquirriain J, Baglione R. Cardey M. Male professional tennis
lower body power tests predict serve performance in national and players maintain constant serve speed and accuracy over long
international level male tennis players. Sport Perform Sci Rep. matches on grass courts. Eur J Sport Sci. 2016;16(7):845–849.
2018;42(1):1–5. doi:10.1080/17461391.2016.1156163

IJSPP Vol. 17, No. 8, 2022

Copyright of International Journal of Sports Physiology & Performance is the property of
Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple
sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.