Tennis coaches often use the fundamental throwing skill as a training tool to develop the service action. However, recent skill acquisition literature questions the efficacy of non-specific training drills for developing complex sporting movements. Thus, this study examined the mechanical analogy of the throw and the tennis serve at three different levels of development. A 500 Hz, 22-camera VICON MX motion capture system recorded 28 elite female tennis players (prepubescent (n = 10), pubescent (n = 10), adult (n = 8)) as they performed flat serves and overhand throws. Two-way ANOVAs with repeated measures and partial correlations (controlling for group) assessed the strength and nature of the mechanical associations between the tasks. Preparatory mechanics were similar between the two tasks, while during propulsion, peak trunk twist and elbow extension velocities were significantly higher in the throw, yet the peak shoulder internal rotation and wrist flexion angular velocities were significantly greater in the serve. Furthermore, all of these peak angular velocities occurred significantly earlier in the serve. Ultimately, although the throw may help to prime transverse trunk kinematics in the serve, mechanics in the two skills appear less similar than many coaches seem to believe. Practitioners should, therefore, be aware that the throw appears less useful for priming the specific arm kinematics and temporal phasing that typifies the tennis serve.

No abstract

No abstract

The perception and identification of technical errors during skill execution is a critical component in coaching, because it provides the foundation for skill analysis, instruction, and feedback provision. In this study, we examined the influences of perceptual and motor experience on the perception of kinematic change in a technical evaluation task that is common in coaching. A total of 21 expert coaches, stratified by playing (Bmotor^) expertise, as well as ten novice coaches and ten current players, observed video and point-light displays of a service action and recorded written judgments on whether the serve had changed from one video clip to the next. Three kinematic variables were manipulated: maximum knee flexion, maximum trunk rotation, and ball toss position at zenith. Coaching experience provided no additional benefit when perceiving global (holistic) changes in the service action, and limited if any benefit when perceiving specific changes in the observed kinematics. A significant expertise effect showed that expert coaches have increased sensitivity when detecting smaller changes in knee flexion. Changes in trunk rotation appeared difficult to perceive for all groups, whereas changes in lateral ball toss position were easily perceived. Motor experience did not influence the perception of global kinematics and provided no benefit above perceptual experience alone when perceiving specific kinematic changes. Collectively, the findings demonstrate that experienced coaches have the capacity to detect relatively small changes in kinematics; however, the ability to detect changes does not appear to be influenced by the extent of their own expertise in producing the movement pattern being evaluated.