Children’s coordination of the “sweet spot” when striking a forehand is shaped by the equipment used

Abstract

Children’s movement coordination is significantly influenced by the equipment used when performing multi-articular actions. Previously we reported that scaled equipment (smaller racket and a softer ball), but not full-sized equipment, promoted a functional coupling between upper arm and forearm angles in children performing a forehand. However, it remains unclear whether the shoulder-racket distance—which is controlled by this coupling—is a performance variable. This study therefore advanced previous research by examining whether the shoulder-racket distance is associated with performance. We also improved our understanding of how the shoulder-racket distance is controlled by including the hand-racket segment in our biomechanical model. Twenty-one children performed 40 forehands in a hitting for accuracy task. Participants were randomly divided into two groups—a scaled equipment group and a full-sized equipment group. Results revealed that the shoulder-racket distance was a performance variable, as evidenced by: (a) its variance reduced closer to ball impact, (b) its distance at ball impact, but not at the start of the forward swing, differentiated good from poor performance, and (c) its distance was similar for both groups, implying that there was a “sweet spot” for striking a ball, regardless of racket size. We also showed that it is the shoulder-racket vector in state-space (i.e., distance and angle) that differentiates good from poor performance. Finally, the manner in which the shoulder-racket distance was controlled differed between the groups, with scaled equipment promoting a more distal control than full-sized equipment. Implications for skill acquisition are discussed.

Using the complexes of specially selected exercises in training of 6-7-year-old tennis players

“…Reliable results were also obtained in technical training, except for stuffing the ball with a racket without bouncing off the floor p>0.05. Conclusions: using the presented complexes of specially selected exercises positively influenced the changes in physical and technical fitness indicators, which allows recommending 6-7-year-old Buszard, T., Garofolini, A,, Whiteside, D., Farrow, D., & Reid, M. (2020) [Slobozhanskyi herald scientific and sports], no 4(54), 47-52. doi: 10.15391/snsv.2016-4.014 [in Russian].…”

“…Отримані результати підтверджують дослідженнями комплексного використання спеціально підібраних вправ в тренувальному процесі початкового етапу підготовки (Shevchenko, & et al, 2021) Напрями візуального контролю за виконанням та удосконалення техніки ударів тенісистів висвітлені в працях Buszard T. із співавторами (Buszard, & et al, 2020). Автори (Penalva, & et al, 2022) Abstract.…”

On Learning to Anticipate in Youth Sport

“…This implies that anticipatory skill might also emerge in youth sport if the game is modified appropriately. For example, modifying tennis by means of using scaled rackets, lower compression balls, lower nets and/or smaller courts has manifested in a number of desirable changes, including more aggressive strokeplay (e.g., faster rallies, more winners without an increase in errors, more approaches to the net, and more shots struck inside the baseline) [60][61][62], fewer errors [63], superior serving [61,64,65], and improved coordination [66,67]. Similar results were evident when cricket was modified, with a shorter pitch leading to perception-action coupling more akin to professional cricket (i.e., short-pitched deliveries were played off the back foot rather than the front foot) [68], more accurate bowling, which also leads to batters having more opportunities to strike the ball [69,70], and bowling with a technique that is deemed at less risk of injury [71].…”

There is no rush to upgrade the tennis racket in young intermediate competitive players: The effects of scaling racket on serve biomechanics and performance

“…In outstanding works, Buszard et al, (2020a,b) showed that a scaled racket (21 inches) and low compression balls promoted functional movement variability, whereas standard, full-size racket (27 inches) and balls resulted in the freezing of mechanical degrees of freedom during a forehand stroke task performed by beginner children (Buszard et al, 2020a). They also reported that scaled equipment promoting a more distal control of the shoulder-racket distance than full-sized equipment (Buszard et al, 2020b).…”