See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267744825

Coordination and variability in the elite female tennis serve

Article  in  Journal of Sports Sciences · October 2014

DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2014.962569 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

44 4,750

4 authors, including:

Bruce C Elliott Brendan Lay

University of Western Australia University of Western Australia
340 PUBLICATIONS   11,530 CITATIONS    77 PUBLICATIONS   1,822 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Machar Reid
Tennis Australia
226 PUBLICATIONS   4,951 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Validating IMU measurement of high-speed, multi-planar trunk motion View project

The overhead penalty throw in water polo View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bruce C Elliott on 07 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [David Whiteside]
On: 03 November 2014, At: 12:37
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sports Sciences

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20

Coordination and variability in the elite female tennis

serve
a a a b
David Whiteside , Bruce Clifford Elliott , Brendan Lay & Machar Reid
a
School of Sport Science, Exercise and Health, University of Western Australia, Crawley,
Australia
b
Sports Science and Medicine Unit, Tennis Australia, Melbourne, Australia
Published online: 30 Oct 2014.

To cite this article: David Whiteside, Bruce Clifford Elliott, Brendan Lay & Machar Reid (2014): Coordination and variability in
the elite female tennis serve, Journal of Sports Sciences, DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2014.962569

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2014.962569

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Journal of Sports Sciences, 2014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2014.962569

Coordination and variability in the elite female tennis serve

DAVID WHITESIDE1, BRUCE CLIFFORD ELLIOTT1, BRENDAN LAY1 & MACHAR REID2
1
School of Sport Science, Exercise and Health, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia and 2Sports Science and
Medicine Unit, Tennis Australia, Melbourne, Australia

(Accepted 1 September 2014)

Abstract
Enhancing the understanding of coordination and variability in the tennis serve may be of interest to coaches as they work
Downloaded by [David Whiteside] at 12:37 03 November 2014

with players to improve performance. The current study examined coordinated joint rotations and variability in the lower
limbs, trunk, serving arm and ball location in the elite female tennis serve. Pre-pubescent, pubescent and adult players
performed maximal effort flat serves while a 22-camera 500 Hz motion analysis system captured three-dimensional body
kinematics. Coordinated joint rotations in the lower limbs and trunk appeared most consistent at the time players left the
ground, suggesting that they coordinate the proximal elements of the kinematic chain to ensure that they leave the ground at
a consistent time, in a consistent posture. Variability in the two degrees of freedom at the elbow became significantly greater
closer to impact in adults, possibly illustrating the mechanical adjustments (compensation) these players employed to
manage the changing impact location from serve to serve. Despite the variable ball toss, the temporal composition of the
serve was highly consistent and supports previous assertions that players use the location of the ball to regulate their
movement. Future work should consider these associations in other populations, while coaches may use the current findings
to improve female serve performance.

Keywords: biomechanics, coaching, compensation, perception-action, motor control

Introduction frontal and sagittal plane trunk rotations

(Bahamonde, 2000; Elliott, 2006; Martin, Kulpa,
A proficient serve is a crucial part of a tennis player’s
Delamarche, & Bideau, 2013). During the final
stroke repertoire as it can be used to gain an advan-
stages of the serve, vigorous internal rotation at the
tage at the start of each point (McGinnis, 2013).
shoulder and wrist flexion augments racquet head
Skilled execution of the serve involves concatenation
speed (Elliott, 2006; Marshall & Elliott, 2000;
of the lower limbs, trunk and serving arm to generate
Tanabe & Ito, 2007), while pronation and extension
racquet head speed and transfer momentum to the
at the elbow act to orientate the racquet in a manner
ball (Bahamonde, 2000). While the notion of coor-
befitting impact (Bahamonde, 2005; Elliott,
dination has been explored variously in past tennis
Marshall, & Noffal, 1995). Additionally, the direc-
research, variability in specific coordinative joint
tion of the ball toss ultimately produces an impact
rotations (e.g. concurrent extension of the hip,
location forward of, and lateral to, the front foot
knee and ankle during leg drive; concurrent upper
(Chow et al., 2003; Reid, Whiteside, & Elliott,
extremity joint rotations during forwardswing) is yet
2011). From a coaching perspective, these studies
to be comprehensively examined and may provide
provide relevant information regarding mechanics of
coaches with useful information.
the service action and how players generate racquet
Investigations of the serve have primarily focused
velocity and intercept the ball. There exists scope to
on discrete values such as joint ranges, discrete kine-
extend this work by exploring other aspects of the
matic peaks and phase durations. This research has
service action, namely the role of coordinated joint
confirmed that flexion at the knee and ankle pre-
rotations and movement variability, as they relate to
cedes the vigorous extension at these joints that pro-
performance.
pels the player into the air (Fleisig, Nicholls, Elliott,
Recent work has petitioned the exploration of
& Escamilla, 2003; Reid, Elliott, & Alderson, 2008).
movement variability in sports biomechanics
While the player is airborne, momentum is then
research (Bartlett, Wheat, & Robins, 2007).
transferred to the serving arm through transverse,

Correspondence: David Whiteside, School of Sport Science, Exercise & Health, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, Perth 6009,
Australia. E-mail: davidwhiteside@gmail.com

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

 2 D. Whiteside et al.
Documenting the variability of movement patterns
within the serve may uncover how tennis players
coordinate joint rotations to produce accurate, high
speed serves. Despite a long history of research
describing movement variability and its functional
relevance to human movement (Hatze, 1986;
Winter, 1984), movement variability in sporting
motions was often considered noise (Bartlett et al.,
2007). While this viewpoint has been tempered by
contemporary movement research, consistency in
some parameters related to performance is still con-
sidered critical to success.
In hitting and projectile tasks, the launch para-
meters critical to success relate to the trajectory and
orientation of the end-effector (i.e. the racquet, bat,
club, in hitting tasks, or the hand in throwing tasks),
as its terminal location, orientation and velocity will
ultimately determine the outcome of the task.
Downloaded by [David Whiteside] at 12:37 03 November 2014
Indeed, a single study on the tennis serve has
reported that consistency in speed and location of
the serving hand around impact is positively related
to serve speed and accuracy (Antúnez, Hernández,
García, Vaíllo, & Arroyo, 2012). Other launch para-
meters that directly govern the outcome of the serve
include the impact height, ball projection angle and
racquet velocity, the combination of which are
thought to determine serve outcome (Whiteside,
Elliott, Lay, & Reid, 2013b). Though these launch
parameters are known to be important, the coordi-
nated joint rotations that regulate their consistency
are not well understood.
Contemporary motor control research in sport
describes a particular form of coordinated joint rota-
tion, referred to as mechanical compensation. In
human movement, this mechanism helps to regulate
the performance parameters that ultimately deter-
mine the outcome of the task (Dupuy, Mottet, &
Ripoll, 2000; Kudo, Tsutsui, Ishikura, Ito, &
Yamamoto, 2000; Smeets, Frens, & Brenner, 2002).
More explicitly, inadvertent variations in a given
execution parameter (e.g. a joint angle) are counter-
acted by the actions of other execution parameters
(Davids, Glazier, Araujo, & Bartlett, 2003). In this
way, errors that are introduced into the movement
system during performance can be managed, thus
preventing any negative influence on the task out-
come that they would otherwise produce.
Mechanical compensation has been highlighted in
numerous projectile and striking sports including
golf drives (Horan, Evans, & Kavanagh, 2011), free
throw shooting in basketball (Button, MacLeod,
Sanders, & Coleman, 2003; Mullineaux & Uhl,
2010), underarm throwing (Dupuy et al., 2000;
Kudo et al., 2000), overarm throwing (Wagner,
Pfusterschmied, Klous, Von Duvillard, & Müller,
2012), table tennis forehands (Bootsma & Van
Wieringen, 1990), tennis forehands (Knudson,
1990), pistol shooting (Scholz, Schoner, & Latash,
2000) and dart throwing (Smeets et al., 2002). Since
mechanical compensation is an inherent biomechani-
cal response to the demands presented when enacting
a particular movement task, it does not follow a con-
sistent pattern. Therefore, variations in joint rotations
(or other mechanics) are no longer considered to be
indicative of movement system ineptitude. Rather,
movement variability is now considered critical to
the stabilisation of the performance parameters that
directly govern the outcome of the task (e.g. launch
parameters in the serve). In other words, variability in
the movement system is not detrimental so long as the
critical end point parameters remain stable. This
notion is reflected in recent tennis research, where
Whiteside et al. (2013b) showed that increased varia-
bility in coordinated elbow and wrist joint rotations
did not reduce serve accuracy. Given the whole-body
nature of the serve, other mechanics may also con-
tribute to the compensatory process but are yet to be
characterised.
Movement variability in sporting actions is not
restricted to the magnitudes of discrete joint rota-
tions. Research in other striking skills has highlighted
the importance of consistent temporal patterns (i.e.
the times at which specific movements occur) in
interceptive (batting) skills in cricket (Renshaw,
Oldham, Davids, & Golds, 2007) and baseball
(Katsumata, 2007), as well as the volleyball serve
(Davids, Kingsbury, Bennett, & Handford, 2001).
It has been suggested that these athletes utilise infor-
mation from the incoming ball (i.e. its location) to
regulate the initiation of key propulsive movements,
hence ensuring that they intercept it at the appropri-
ate moment. Similar strategies have been found in
the tennis serve, where players regulate their move-
ments such that their arrival in the trophy position
coincides with ball zenith (Reid, Whiteside, &
Elliott, 2010; Whiteside, Elliott, Lay, & Reid,
2013a). Likewise, the timing of peak forward racquet
velocity is considered critical to accuracy in the first
serve (Antúnez et al., 2012). Ultimately, coordinated
joint rotations and/or temporal consistency may be
thought of as techniques that players exploit to sim-
plify complex sporting movements. With this in
mind, it is expected that tennis players simplify
those aspects of the serve that are most important
to performance. At present, the particular methods
employed to do so are somewhat unclear as this
topic is yet to be comprehensively examined in the
tennis serve.
It has been suggested that, in learning movement
skills, inexperienced performers initially reduce the
skill complexity by restraining degrees of freedom
(Anderson & Sidaway, 1994; Stergiou & Decker,
2011). These degrees of freedom are then gradually
released as players become more familiar with the

Table I. Mean (± standard deviation) age, physical and menarchial characteristics of participants.
Group N Age (years) Height (cm)
Pre-pubescent 12 10.5 ± 0.5 143.5 ± 5.9
Pubescent 11 14.6 ± 0.7 166.9 ± 4.7
Adult 8 21.3 ± 3.8 169.2 ± 4.8
task and explore alternative solutions to the move-
ment problem (Gentile, 2000; Newell, Deutsch,
Sosnoff, & Mayer-Kress, 2006). In this sense, chil-
dren are often considered novices owing to their
motor inexperience (Guarrera-Bowlby & Gentile,
2004). Indeed, the popular “ten year (10,000 h)
rule” (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Römer, 1993)
virtually precludes any attempt to categorise children
as expert performers. This position is offered partial
support by Newell’s constraints model (Newell,
Downloaded by [David Whiteside] at 12:37 03 November 2014
1986), which states that organismic factors (e.g.
anthropometry, strength, anticipatory ability) influ-
ence performance. As such, more physically and
mentally mature adults are expected to exhibit
more skilled performance than children. However,
“elite child athletes” present a unique cohort whose
motor proficiency may exceed their age-related
expectations and whose practice regimes are often
meticulous and intensive. Consequently, these ath-
letes may not conform to traditional descriptions of
child motor performance and deserve investigation
in their own right. With movement patterns expected
to change throughout development, it seems neces-
sary to separate performers according to level of
development when investigating movement in devel-
oping populations.
At present, there exists scope to supplement exist-
ing tennis literature with research focused on coor-
dinated joint rotations and variability in the serve.
Therefore, the aims of this study were to examine
coordinated joint rotations and variability in the
lower limbs, trunk, serving arm and ball in the tennis
serves of elite female players at three stages of devel-
opment. It was expected that functional movement
variability in the distal joints would manifest during
serve performance to preserve a successful outcome,
though its disposition would change with age.
However, the temporal composition of the serve
was expected to be comparatively more consistent
as players stabilised the timing of critical postures
with respect to impact.
Methods
Participants
The relevant Human Ethics Committee approved
this study prior to recruitment. Thirty-one elite
female tennis players provided informed consent
Coordination and variability in the tennis serve 3
Mass (kg) Experienced menarche Time since menarche
36.5 ± 3.7 No N/A
56.7 ± 3.8 Yes 6–18 months
61.9 ± 4.2 Yes >4 years
and were arranged into pre-pubescent, pubescent
and adult groups based on their age and menarchial
status (Table I). At the time of testing, players in the
pre-pubescent and pubescent groups held a top 8
national ranking for their respective age groups,
while the adult players possessed a professional
(Women’s Tennis Association: WTA) ranking
higher than 325. This cohort was the same as that
used in a previous study (Whiteside et al., 2013a).
Protocol
The protocol was completed at an indoor biomecha-
nics laboratory, where a full-size tennis court was
constructed. Sixty retro-reflective markers, 14 mm
in diameter, were affixed to each player according an
established, calibrated anatomical systems (CAST)-
based, full body marker set (Besier, Sturnieks,
Alderson, & Lloyd, 2003; Chin, Elliott, Alderson,
Lloyd, & Foster, 2009; Lloyd, Alderson, & Elliott,
2000). Three hemispherical markers, composed of
ultra-light foam (radius 7 mm), were placed on the
racquet and three more on ball (Whiteside, Chin, &
Middleton, 2013) to create coordinate systems
therein. Prior to the serving protocol, dynamic cali-
bration of a ≈5.5 (deep)  4 (wide)  4 (high) m
capture volume yielded a mean residual calibration
error smaller than 0.002 m.
Each player completed a standard 10 min warm
up and used their own racquet to complete the
protocol. Verbal confirmation of preparedness
prompted the initiation of the test protocol in
which players performed maximal effort flat (i.e.
“power”) serves. Players were instructed to aim for
a familiar 1  1 m target (Elliott et al., 1995;
Martin et al., 2013; Reid et al., 2008; Sakurai,
Reid, & Elliott, 2012) bordering the T of the ser-
vice box (right-handers: deuce court; left-handers:
advantage court) and to hit all serves with the same
effect (i.e. to emphasise speed as opposed to spin).
Five blocks of eight serves were performed with a 2
min rest period separating successive blocks.
Three-dimensional (3D) marker trajectories were
recorded using a 22-camera VICON MX system
(VICON Motion Systems, Oxford, UK) operating
at 500 Hz. The global reference frame originated at
the centre of the baseline, where positive x pointed
rightward along the baseline, positive y pointed to
the net and positive z pointed up. Five of each
 4 D. Whiteside et al.
player’s fastest serves landing in the target area were
selected for analysis.
Data processing
Gaps in the raw marker trajectories were interpolated
using a cubic spline within the VICON Nexus soft-
ware. A second-order polynomial extrapolation spe-
cific to tennis limited the distortion of kinematic data
around impact (Knudson & Bahamonde, 2001;
Reid, Campbell, & Elliott, 2012). Data were subse-
quently filtered using a Woltring filter (Woltring,
1986) with the optimal mean squared error of
2 mm determined by a residual analysis, and then
modelled using the University of Western Australia’s
full body (Besier et al., 2003; Lloyd et al., 2000),
racquet and ball (Whiteside et al., 2013) models.
Downloaded by [David Whiteside] at 12:37 03 November 2014
Joint rotations were expressed using the Euler ZXY
sequence. Trunk rotations were expressed relative to
a virtual anatomical reference frame (x pointing for-
ward towards the net, y pointing up and z pointing
right) originating at the global origin. To maintain
consistency in the statistical analyses, kinematics for
the left-handed players were inverted where appro-
priate such that all players could be considered
together as right-hand dominant (Campbell,
Straker, O’Sullivan, Elliott, & Reid, 2013;
Whiteside et al., 2013b).
Relevant events of the service action
Figure 1 denotes how the service action was deemed
to begin at the instant the ball was released from the
Figure 1. Key time points of interest in the tennis serve.
hand. Ball zenith represented the peak vertical dis-
placement of the ball during its toss. The subsequent
nadir of vertical racquet displacement was the rac-
quet low point, which is usually coincident with a
player leaving the ground (Bonnefoy, Slawinski,
Leveque, Riquet, & Miller, 2009). Impact was
defined as the frame (i.e. 0.002 s) prior to racquet-
ball contact. The duration of the serve was consid-
ered as the time period between ball release and
impact. Leg drive was defined as the period from
ball zenith to racquet low point, while racquet low
point to impact was considered the forwardswing
phase of the serve.
Variables of interest
To gauge inter-limb coordination during leg drive,
the relative bilateral flexion-extension motion of the
ankles was compared, as was the relative bilateral
flexion-extension motion of the knees. The relative
transverse (twist) and frontal plane (shoulder-over-
shoulder) trunk rotations prior to impact indicated
how players manipulated the trunk during this time,
while relative extension and pronation denoted the
same for the elbow in the serving arm. The location
of the ball during the toss was expressed relative to
the front toe (Chow et al., 2003; Reid et al., 2011),
and its spatial variability measured at both ball zenith
and impact. Finally, the timing of both ball zenith
and racquet low point (expressed as a percentage of
the serve), and also duration of forwardswing pro-
vided an insight into the temporal pattern of the
service action.

Assessment of variability in joint mechanics and the ball
toss
Angle-angle plots provided a qualitative insight into
relative joint rotations. The variability of these traces
was quantified using the coefficient of correspon-
dence – a vector coding technique that assesses the
repeatability of several variable–variable traces
(Tepavac & Field-Fote, 2001). Unlike alternative
vector coding methods that consider only vector
direction, the coefficient of correspondence is advan-
tageous in that it also considers vector magnitude
(Wheat & Glazier, 2006). Ultimately, the coefficient
of correspondence quantified the magnitude of
variability in coordinated joint rotations using a
value between 0 and 1 (0 = no variability; 1 = max-
imum variability). Akin to previous work (Horan
et al., 2011), the average coefficient of correspon-
Downloaded by [David Whiteside] at 12:37 03 November 2014
dence value ±5% of the relevant event represented
the variability at that time point.
The 3D (xσ , yσ and zσ ) standard deviations of ball
displacement at ball zenith and impact were calcu-
lated for each player across their five trials. The
mean and standard deviations of these standard
deviations provided a gauge of ball toss variability
for each group (Davids et al., 2001; Reid et al.,
2010). Further, each standard deviation was doubled
(effectively creating error bar representing one stan-
dard deviation either side of the mean, in each
dimension) and then multiplied (2xσ  2yσ  2zσ )
to yield the “variability volume”: a singular quantity
of the ball’s 3D spatial variability for each player,
across their five serves.
Figure 2. Mean coefficients of correspondence and representative angle–angle plots for the ankles and knees.
Note: *Significant difference between ball zenith and racquet low point in all groups.
Coordination and variability in the tennis serve 5
Statistical analyses
Four split plot analyses of variance (SPANOVAs)
were used to examine between group (i.e. differences
between each group), within group (i.e. differences
between each time point) and interaction (i.e.
group  time) effects in the coefficient of corre-
spondence. The same procedure was used to com-
pare the variability volumes in each group at ball
zenith and impact. The ranges of motion at the
ankles, knees, trunk and elbow were compared
between groups using one-way analyses of variance.
Where significant main effects existed, Bonferroni-
corrected post-hoc tests were employed to find the
source of the difference. In total, 13 analyses of
variance were performed, thus inflating the risk of
encountering type I errors. To account for this, the
significance level was adjusted sequentially for each
test according to the correction method proposed by
Holm (1979). The p-value was not sufficient to
reject the null hypothesis in the eleventh test, indi-
cating that all significance in this study was reported
using a p-value of 0.0125. The temporal variability of
ball zenith, racquet low point and forwardswing
duration were interpreted descriptively.
Results
Ankle mechanics
The representative traces in Figure 2 represent how
all groups utilised simultaneous plantar flexion at
both ankles and simultaneous extension in both
 6 D. Whiteside et al.
Figure 3. Mean ranges of flexion-extension motion at the ankles
and knees during leg drive.
Downloaded by [David Whiteside] at 12:37 03 November 2014
Note: *Significant difference between groups.
knees during leg drive. The coefficient of correspon-
dence for ankle motion displayed a significant main
effect for group (F2,28 = 16.499; P < .001), which
post-hoc tests revealed to be a product of significantly
higher overall variability in the pubescent group
compared with the pre-pubescent group (mean dif-
ference (MD): 0.14; 95% confidence interval (CI):
0.08–0.20; P < .001). From a temporal perspective,
the bilateral coupling of ankle plantarflexion was
significantly more consistent at racquet low point
compared with ball zenith and independent of
group (F1,28 = 151.111; MD: 0.25; CI: 0.21–0.29;
P < .001).
The range of plantar flexion at the back ankle was
significantly (F2,28 = 10.913; P < .001) smaller dur-
ing leg drive in the pre-pubescent group compared
with the pubescent (MD: 14.12°; CI: 5.10–23.14°;
P = .001) and adult (MD: 15.24°; CI: 5.38–25.11°;
P = .002) groups. Likewise, the range of plantar
flexion at the front ankle (F2,28 = 17.299; P < .001)
was significantly smaller during leg drive in the pre-
pubescent group compared with the pubescent
(MD: 17.83°; CI: 8.12–27.53°; P < .001) and adult
(MD: 21.91°; CI: 11.29–32.52°; P < .001) groups
(Figure 3).
Knee mechanics
Regarding the coefficient of correspondence for
bilateral knee extension, the main effect for group
was not significant (F2,28 = .162; P = .852), although
a significant main effect for time revealed that rela-
tive knee extension was significantly more consistent
at racquet low point compared with ball zenith
(F1,28 = 86.376; MD: 0.26; CI: 0.20–0.31;
P < .001).
During leg drive, the back knee extended through
a significantly (F2,28 = 15.954; P < .001) greater
range in the pubescent (MD: 22.46°; CI: 10.97–
33.95°; P < .001) and adult (MD: 22.59°; CI:
10.02–35.15°; P < .001) groups compared with the
pre-pubescent group, though range of motion
(RoM) at the front knee was not significantly differ-
ent between groups (F2,28 = 4.364; P = .022).
Trunk mechanics
The variability of concurrent frontal and transverse
plane trunk rotations revealed a significant main
effect for group (F2,28 = 10.530; P < .001), wherein
relative trunk rotations were significantly more con-
sistent in the pubescent (MD: 0.08; CI: 0.03–0.13;
P = .001) and adult (MD: 0.08; CI: 0.02–0.13;
P = .005) groups compared with the pre-pubescent
group. A post-hoc decomposition of the significant
main effect for time point (F2,28 = 67.672;
P < .001) revealed that relative trunk motion was
significantly different at all time points (most vari-
able at ball zenith, most consistent at racquet low
point, in between at impact).
The range of trunk twist rotation did not differ
with age (F2,28 = .383; P = .686); however, the range
of shoulder-over-shoulder rotation was significantly
(F2,28 = 13.744; P < .001) larger in the pubescent
(MD: 20.12°; CI: 9.45–30.74°; P < .001) and adult
(MD: 18.04°; CI: 6.43–29.65°; P = .001) groups
compared with the pre-pubescent group.
Elbow mechanics
A main effect for group (F2,28 = 7.606; P = .002) was
discovered for the coefficient of correspondence of
the relative elbow joint rotations (flexion and radio-
ulnar pronation). Further analyses revealed that the
pubescent group was significantly more consistent
than the adult group (MD: 0.12; CI: 0.04–0.21;
P = .002) over the period in question. Additionally,
post-hoc analyses of the significant time effect
(F2,28 = 70.069; P < .001) showed that variability
was significantly different at each of the three time
points (becoming progressively more variable
between ball zenith and impact). Importantly, an
interaction effect was also noted (F2,28 = 24.089;
P < .001) and was found to relate to the fact that
the coupled elbow joint rotations only became sig-
nificantly more variable between racquet low point
and impact in the adult group (MD: 0.47; CI: 0.31–
0.64; P < .001) (Figure 4).
The range of flexion-extension at the elbow
between ball zenith and impact did not differ
between groups (F2,28 = .953; P = .398). However,
during the same period, the range of radio-ulnar
pronation was significantly (F2,28 = 12.116;

Downloaded by [David Whiteside] at 12:37 03 November 2014
Figure 4. Mean coefficients of correspondence and representative angle–angle plots for the trunk and elbow.
Note: *Significant difference between the time points in all groups. † Significant difference between racquet low point and impact in the
adult group.
Figure 5. Mean ranges of motion at the trunk and elbow between
ball zenith and impact.
Note: *Significant difference between groups.
P < .001) greater in the adult group compared with
the pubescent (MD: 17.33°; CI: 8.12–26.55°;
P < .001) and pre-pubescent (MD: 17.78°; CI:
4.14–23.18°; P = .002) groups (Figure 5).
Spatial variability of the ball toss
The variability volumes were not significantly
affected by group (F2,28 = .371; P = .694).
However, a main effect for time (F1,28 = 23.065;
P < .001) revealed that the spatial location of the
ball was significantly more variable at impact
Coordination and variability in the tennis serve 7
compared with ball zenith (MD: 1672 cm3; CI:
959–2386 cm3) (Table II). Descriptively, ball loca-
tion was most consistent in the vertical direction at
impact compared with the left-right and forward-
backward directions (Table III).
Temporal variability of the ball zenith and racquet low-
point events
Qualitatively, although the timing of racquet low
point was comparatively more consistent than ball
zenith in all groups, both events displayed impressive
temporal consistency. The duration of forwardswing
was equally consistent, displaying an average stan-
dard deviation <.04 s in all three groups.
Discussion
Coaching texts often stress the importance of coordi-
nation and rhythm in the serve (Bollettieri, 2001;
Elliott & Saviano, 2001; Yandell, 1999). Developing
the understanding of coordinated joint rotations and
movement variability may help coaches to conceptua-
lise specific aspects of coordination and translate them
to practice. The present study extends the understand-
ing of the service action in these respects, across three
developmentally different groups of elite female
players. For example, prepubescent players were
observed to extend their ankles and knees through a
smaller range than pubescent and adult players during
leg drive. More universally, the variability of lower limb
and trunk postures, in all players, decreased between
ball zenith and the moment that they left the ground.
Thereafter, significant increases in the variability of
 8 D. Whiteside et al.

Table II. Two-way mixed ANOVA results for ball variability volumes at ball zenith and impact.

Within group Between group Interaction

Group Ball zenith Impact F P F P F P

Pre-pubescent 1596 ± 1273 4373 ± 2179

Pubescent 1520 ± 860 3264 ± 2476
Adult 2509 ± 1997 3006 ± 2336
Overall 1805 ± 1396 3627 ± 2330 23.065 <.001* .371 .694 3.431 .046

Note: *Significant difference between time points.

that the range through which these joints extended

Table III. Mean (± standard deviations) within-individual stan-
dard deviations (n = 5 serves) for the spatial and temporal para-
meters of the ball toss.
Pre-
Standard deviation Direction pubescent Pubescent
Downloaded by [David Whiteside] at 12:37 03 November 2014
was significantly reduced in the pre-pubescent group
(AnkleBack ≈ 47°; AnkleFront ≈ 37°; KneeBack ≈ 51°)
compared with the pubescent (AnkleBack ≈ 61°;
AnkleFront ≈ 54°; KneeBack ≈ 73°) and adult
Adult
(AnkleBack ≈ 63°; AnkleFront ≈ 58°; KneeBack ≈ 73°)
groups. This may offer a supplementary explanation

Ball zenith location x 7 ± 3 6 ± 2 7 ± 3 for why a reduced leg drive magnitude has been
(cm) y 6 ± 3 6 ± 3 8 ± 2 reported in prepubescent females (Whiteside et al.,
z 5 ± 2 6 ± 3 6 ± 2
2013a). Given that lower limb motions contribute
Impact location x 11 ± 4 9 ± 3 10 ± 5
(cm) y 12 ± 5 10 ± 5 12 ± 5 significantly to the force required in the tennis serve
z 5 ± 1 5 ± 3 3 ± 1 (Kibler, 1995), junior coaches should be mindful of
Ball zenith timing 2.4 ± 2.6 1.4 ± 0.8 1.4 ± 0.6 this potential limitation in the immature service
(% of toss) action. More explicitly, it has been hypothesised that
Racquet low-point 1.3 ± 0.9 0.9 ± 0.7 0.5 ± 0.4
leg drive is a precursor to trunk rotations
timing (% of
toss) (Bahamonde, 2000), pre-stretching of the shoulder
Forwardswing .04 ± .03 .02 ± .02 .03 ± .01 (Bahamonde, 1997) and racquet speed (Reid et al.,
duration (s) 2008), all of which would then be limited in the pre-
pubescent serve.
Note: x = left–right; y = forward–backward; z = up–down.
In all three groups, variability in bilateral exten-
sion at the ankles and knees decreased significantly
trunk and/or elbow joint rotations appeared to be a between the start (ball zenith) and end (racquet
functional response to the varying impact location, low point) of leg drive. With racquet low point
thereby allowing these players to achieve a suitable representing the time at which players generally
racquet-ball impact as the ball location changed from leave the ground (Bonnefoy et al., 2009), it
serve to serve. In other words, the timing at and pos- appears that players of all ages act to sequentially
ture in which these players left the ground was rela- reduce variability in lower limb motion up to this
tively consistent; however, while airborne, their trunk time. In doing so, players may find it easier to
and elbow mechanics generally became more variable. produce a more consistent vertical propulsion. At
Practically, these findings encourage coaches to incor- both ball zenith and racquet low point, the pub-
porate deliberate (though not extreme) perturbations escent group exhibited significantly more variable
of the service action to cultivate appropriate coordina- relative ankle motions than the pre-pubescent and
tive joint rotations and perception-action coupling in adult groups and may represent an intermediate
the tennis serve. stage of motor development. To this point, their
disparate ranges of motion at the ankle denote how
the pre-pubescent (less RoM) and adult (more
RoM) groups used different motor patterns at the
Lower limb mechanics
ankles, each of which was highly consistent in its
During leg drive, the angle–angle traces illustrate own right. In the pre-pubescent group, reduced
simultaneous plantar-flexion at both ankles and ankle involvement (i.e. “freezing”) may be indica-
simultaneous extension at both knees. This is not tive of a deliberate attempt to reduce the complex-
surprising and demonstrates how elite players are ity of the movement, allowing these players to
able to coordinate bilateral extension at the lower develop a more repeatable action. In contrast,
limb joints to propel their bodies off the ground additional years of practice and greater lower
(Bahamonde, 2000; Girard, Micallef, & Millet, limb strength may have afforded the adult players
2005; Reid et al., 2008). It should be noted, however, more masterful coordination of the ankles through

a more expansive range, providing a different
explanation for their consistency. The pubescent
group may represent an intermediate and explora-
tory phase of motor development where the
degrees of freedom (i.e. ankle plantar-flexion)
have been fully released but lack mastery, resulting
in more variable performance. These movement
discrepancies may also help to explain why the
magnitude of prepubescent and pubescent leg
drive has been reported as being 21–22% and
15–16% smaller than professional female players,
respectively (Whiteside et al., 2013a).
Trunk mechanics
Simultaneous frontal and transverse plane trunk
Downloaded by [David Whiteside] at 12:37 03 November 2014
rotations were evident from the angle–angle traces
in all groups, though their respective magnitudes
differed. Independent of group, twist and
shoulder-over-shoulder rotations initially occurred
together, before the latter motion was restrained in
the two younger groups as they approached
impact. With leg drive generating momentum
that may be transferred to the trunk (Bahamonde,
2000), the smaller range of frontal plane trunk
rotation in the pre-pubescent group is not unex-
pected in light of the lower limb results. These
findings support previous work where the magni-
tude of shoulder-over-shoulder rotation has been
shown to be significantly (5–9%) smaller in junior
players compared with their adult counterparts
(Whiteside et al., 2013a).
Despite being significantly more variable in the
pre-pubescent group, the trunk orientation at rac-
quet low point was the most repeatable mechan-
ical feature of each group’s service action. That
this trunk posture was relatively variable at the
commencement of leg drive (ball zenith), but
then extremely repeatable at the end of leg drive
(racquet low point), points to a functional impor-
tance of trunk postures at the time these players
left the ground. Similar phenomena have been
described for elite golfers, where the attainment
of consistent postures at certain critical time
points of the golf swing are considered features
of skilled performance (Bradshaw et al., 2009).
Therefore, the significant reduction in variability
towards a highly repeatable trunk posture at rac-
quet low point may be indicative of an equivalent
posture in the tennis serve. Subsequent to racquet
low point, relative trunk motion became signifi-
cantly more variable in all players and likely
represents postural adjustments required to man-
oeuvre the body correctly for impact.
Coordination and variability in the tennis serve 9
Serving arm mechanics
During forwardswing, the range of elbow extension
did not differ with age; however, the adult group
rotated through a significantly greater range of pro-
nation (≈45°) compared with the pre-pubescent
(≈28°) and pubescent (≈31°) groups. What might
be interpreted as a liberated degree of freedom (pro-
nation) may have been responsible for the adult’s
unique and significant increase in elbow joint rota-
tion variability prior to impact. Where previous work
in adults has suggested that pronation prior to
impact acts to rotate the racquet face to contact the
ball (Elliott, 2006; Tanabe & Ito, 2007), their lack of
pronation indicates that this motion may be
restrained in junior players. Instead, junior players
appear to commence forwardswing in a more pro-
nated posture, thereby reducing the need to manage
this degree of freedom thereafter. Restraining prona-
tion effectively reduces the elbow joint to a single
degree of freedom and offers an explanation for the
lower coefficient of correspondence at the elbow in
junior players. This mechanism may be an attempt
to reduce the complexity of the movement and, in
turn, the margin for error at impact. A potential
drawback of this approach is that the face of the
racquet is more “open” during the forwardswing,
likely providing greater aerodynamic resistance com-
pared with adult players who cut through the air with
the edge of their “closed” racquets. Further, restrict-
ing this degree of freedom logically limits the com-
pensatory potential of the system and, in turn, its
adaptability. It follows that this would leave their
movement systems more susceptible to perturba-
tions. However, it is also possible that young players
rely on other degrees of freedom (e.g. at the shoulder
and/or wrist) for compensatory purposes. Combined
with relatively lower muscle strength, this fact may
be relevant to upper extremity pathologies and pro-
vides an avenue for future work.
The diverging angle–angle curves at impact clearly
show that variable and abrupt, low-magnitude pro-
nation or supination movements were common
immediately prior to impacting the ball.
Interestingly, previous work has noted similar varia-
tions in pronation-supination mechanics immedi-
ately prior to impact (Elliott et al., 1995; Sprigings,
Marshall, Elliott, & Jennings, 1994; Tanabe & Ito,
2007; Van Gheluwe, De Ruysscher, & Craenhals,
1987). Tanabe and Ito (2007) proposed that, in
faster servers, the emergence of pronation-supina-
tion was dependent on shoulder mechanics and
helps to orient the racquet for impact. In other
words, joint motions were not independent of one
another and emerged synergistically, according to
the unique needs of each serve. The variable
 10 D. Whiteside et al.
magnitudes and directions of the elbow joint rota-
tions around impact in this study are consistent with
compensatory function that may help to ensure a
suitable racquet-ball impact. These compensatory
motions seem to intensify after the onset of puberty,
coinciding with an increased involvement of prona-
tion in the serve. The location of the ball at impact
may help to further explain the mechanical compen-
sation in question.
Spatial variability of the ball toss
After the ball leaves the hand, the server has no con-
trol over its trajectory and must move appropriately to
intercept it. For this reason, body and racquet move-
ments are heavily dependent on the ball toss. It could
be argued that a repeatable ball toss would mitigate its
influence on biomechanics; however, the values in
Downloaded by [David Whiteside] at 12:37 03 November 2014
Table III suggest that perhaps the ball toss is less
consistent than many coaches appreciate. From the
variability volume, it can be conservatively assumed
that the ball was placed anywhere within a ≈1500–
2500 cm3 area of space at ball zenith and, by impact,
this volume had increased to ≈3000–4400 cm3. This
endorses the growing body of scientific work that has
demonstrated how elite players do not use a highly
consistent ball toss (Reid et al., 2010, 2011;
Whiteside, Giblin, & Reid, 2014). More importantly,
a changing impact location from serve to serve man-
dates movement variability in the service action.
Given that the ball location (a) varies between serves
and (b) ultimately shapes the mechanics of the service
action, it appears more important for players to learn
how to perceive and respond to the varying ball loca-
tion rather than develop a perfectly consistent action
(which may be impossible anyhow; Whiteside
et al., 2013b, 2014). While the absolute ball location
was more variable at impact – akin to previous work in
tennis (Reid et al., 2010, 2011) – its vertical location
was most consistent at this time. This seemingly con-
firms that impact height is a critical launch parameter
that is highly consistent in successful serves (Elliott,
Marsh, & Blanksby, 1986; Reid, Elliott, & Alderson,
2007; Whiteside et al., 2013b) and which coaches
should aim to refine.
Temporal variability of the ball zenith and racquet low-
point events
The occurrence of ball zenith, though significantly ear-
lier in the pre-pubescent group, was highly consistent
within the groups as evidenced by the respective stan-
dard deviations (pre-pubescent group: 2.4% ± 2.6% of
serve; pubescent: 1.4% ± 0.8%; adult: 1.4% ± 0.6%).
The standard deviations of racquet low-point timing
were more consistent still (pre-pubescent:
1.3% ± 0.9%; pubescent: 0.9% ± 0.7%; adult:
0.5% ± 0.4%). Therefore, not only are lower limb
and trunk postures repeatable at racquet low point,
but the event itself occurs at a highly repeatable time
point of the service action. This temporal stability is
consistent with other striking actions, where the tem-
poral initiation of propulsive movements has been
shown to be highly repeatable in baseball
(Katsumata, 2007) and cricket batting (Renshaw
et al., 2007) as well as volleyball serving (Davids
et al., 2001). Indeed, it has already been suggested
that tennis players use the location of the ball to reg-
ulate their preparatory movements in the serve such
that their arrival in the trophy position coincides with
ball zenith (Reid et al., 2010; Whiteside et al., 2013a).
The players in this study may have used the same
method to ensure that racquet low point occurs at a
relatively consistent juncture of the serve. Considering
that racquet low point represents the beginning of for-
wardswing, regulating the occurrence of this event also
stabilises the duration of forwardswing. This strategy
effectively prevents the movement system from collap-
sing in the presence of a variable ball toss since action
and perception are coupled. For example, if the ball
toss is slightly higher than intended, the player com-
mensurately protracts the initial phase of their service
action, thus delaying the initiation of forwardswing.
Having ensured that they will arrive at impact at an
appropriate time, the player’s final dilemma is achiev-
ing an appropriate racquet orientation at impact. The
solution appears to lie in the subtle mechanical adjust-
ments (i.e. mechanical compensation) in the distal
joints that help to manoeuvre the racquet to intercept
the ball.
Future work may wish to explore smaller targets to
determine whether the size of the target contributed
to any of the variability recorded in this study.
Studying their disposition in unsuccessful serves
could also reveal how the mechanics examined in
this study relate to accuracy. Similarly, exploring
other joint mechanics and/or couplings would help
to develop a more comprehensive understanding of
coordination in the serve. Instructional methods
aimed at developing coordinated joint rotations
and/or perception-action coupling in the serve
could also be appraised to improve coaching techni-
ques. Further, perception-action couplings in the
serve could be evaluated more directly by quantify-
ing gaze behaviour during the ball toss.
Conclusion
The elite female tennis players in this study appeared
to reduce movement variability in the lower limbs
and trunk between the trophy position (i.e. ball
zenith) and the time that they leave the ground (i.e.
racquet low point). They also left the ground at a
highly consistent time point of the service action,

which acted to stabilise the duration of forward-
swing. Given that this temporal consistency persisted
in spite of a variable ball toss location, these players
seemingly used information from the ball to deter-
mine the appropriate times to initiate appropriate
body movements. After becoming airborne, subtle
mechanical adjustments in the trunk and serving
arm acted to manoeuvre the racquet to intercept
the ball. Variability in these adjustments across
serves was mandatory since the location of the ball
at impact changed from serve to serve. There was a
reduced potential for this mechanical compensation
in junior players as they restrained elbow pronation
in the serving arm during forwardswing to reduce
their margin for error at impact. In light of these
points, tennis players may benefit from instructional
techniques that emphasise perception-action cou-
pling as it relates to the serve. More specifically,
Downloaded by [David Whiteside] at 12:37 03 November 2014
deliberate perturbations of the service action (e.g.
manipulating the ball toss, constraining joint
motions, utilising dynamic targets) expose a player
to a wider variety of performance contexts than they
would otherwise experience. This would logically
help players to become more attuned to the move-
ment errors that present during performance and
enhance their ability to manage these errors by
developing a more adaptable movement system.
References
Anderson, D., & Sidaway, B. (1994). Coordination changes asso-
ciated with practice of a soccer kick. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport, 65(2), 93–99.
Antúnez, R., Hernández, F., García, J., Vaíllo, R., & Arroyo, J.
(2012). Relationship between motor variability, accuracy, and
ball speed in the tennis serve. Journal of Human Kinetics, 33,
45–53. doi:10.2478/v10078-012-0043-3
Bahamonde, R. (1997). Joint power production during flat and slice
tennis serves. Paper presented at the XV International sympo-
sium on biomechanics in sports, Denton, TX.
Bahamonde, R. (2000). Changes in angular momentum during
the tennis serve. Journal of Sports Sciences, 18, 579–592.
Bahamonde, R. (2005). Review of the biomechanical function of
the elbow during tennis strokes. International SportMed Journal,
6(2), 42–63.
Bartlett, R., Wheat, J., & Robins, M. (2007). Is movement varia-
bility important for sports biomechanists? Sports Biomechanics,
6(2), 224–243.
Besier, T., Sturnieks, D., Alderson, J., & Lloyd, D. (2003).
Repeatability of gait data using a functional hip joint centre
and a mean helical knee axis. Journal of Biomechanics, 36(8),
1159–1168.
Bollettieri, N. (2001). Sonic Serves Bollettieri’s tennis handbook.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Bonnefoy, A., Slawinski, J., Leveque, J. M., Riquet, A., & Miller,
C. (2009). Relationship between the vertical racquet head
height and the lower limb motions of elite players’ flat serve.
Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering,
12(1), 55–57.
Bootsma, R., & Van Wieringen, P. (1990). Timing an attacking
forehand drive in table tennis. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 16(1), 21–29.
Coordination and variability in the tennis serve 11
Bradshaw, E., Keogh, J., Hume, P., Maulder, P., Nortje, J., &
Marnewick, M. (2009). The effect of biological movement
variability on the performance of the golf swing in high- and
low-handicapped players. Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport, 80(2), 185–196.
Button, C., MacLeod, M., Sanders, R., & Coleman, S. (2003).
Examining movement variability in the basketball free-throw
action at different skill levels. Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport, 74(3), 257–269.
Campbell, A., Straker, L., O’Sullivan, P., Elliott, B., & Reid, M.
(2013). Lumbar loading in the elite adolescent tennis serve: A
link to low back pain. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise,
45(8), 1562–1568.
Chin, A., Elliott, B., Alderson, J., Lloyd, D., & Foster, D. (2009).
The off-break and “doosra”: Kinematic variations of elite and
sub-elite bowlers in creating ball spin in cricket bowling. Sports
Biomechanics, 8(3), 187–198.
Chow, J., Carlton, L., Lim, Y., Chae, W., Shim, J., Kuenster, A.,
& Kokubun, K. (2003). Comparing the pre- and post-impact
ball and racquet kinematics of elite tennis players’ first and
second serves: A preliminary study. Journal of Sports Sciences,
21(7), 529–537.
Davids, K., Glazier, P., Araujo, D., & Bartlett, R. (2003).
Movement systems as dynamical systems. Sports Medicine, 33
(4), 245–260.
Davids, K., Kingsbury, D., Bennett, S., & Handford, C.
(2001). Information-movement coupling: Implications for
the organization of research and practice during acquisition
of self-paced extrinsic timing skills. Journal of Sports Sciences,
19(2), 117–127.
Dupuy, M., Mottet, D., & Ripoll, H. (2000). The regulation of
release parameters in underarm precision throwing. Journal of
Sports Sciences, 18, 375–382.
Elliott, B. (2006). Biomechanics and tennis. British Journal of
Sports Medicine, 40(5), 392–396.
Elliott, B., Marsh, T., & Blanksby, B. (1986). A three-dimensional
cinematographic analysis of the tennis serve. International
Journal of Sport Biomechanics, 2, 260–271.
Elliott, B., Marshall, N., & Noffal, G. (1995). Contributions of
upper limb segment rotations during the power serve in tennis.
Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 11, 433–442.
Elliott, B., & Saviano, N. (2001). Serves and returns. In E. P.
Roetert & J. Groppel (Eds.), World class tennis technique.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The
role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert perfor-
mance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406.
Fleisig, G., Nicholls, R., Elliott, B., & Escamilla, R. (2003).
Kinematics used by world class tennis players to produce
high-velocity serves. Sports Biomechanics, 2(1), 51–64.
Gentile, A. (2000). Skill acquistion: Action, movement, and neu-
romotor process. In J. Carr & R. Shepherd (Eds.), Movement
science: Foundation for physical therapy in rehabilitation. Rockville,
MD: Aspen.
Girard, O., Micallef, J., & Millet, G. (2005). Lower-limb
activity during the power serve in tennis: Effects of perfor-
mance level. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise,
37(6), 1021–1029.
Guarrera-Bowlby, P., & Gentile, A. (2004). Form and variability
during sit-to-stand transitions: Children versus adults. Journal
of Motor Behaviour, 36(1), 104–114.
Hatze, H. (1986). Motion variability–its definition, quantification,
and origin. Journal of Motor Behavior, 18(1), 5–16.
Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test
procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6(2), 65–70.
Horan, S., Evans, K., & Kavanagh, J. (2011). Movement varia-
bility in the golf swing of male and female skilled golfers.
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 43(8), 1474–1483.
 12 D. Whiteside et al.
Katsumata, H. (2007). A functional modulation for timing a
movement: A coordinative structure in baseball hitting.
Human Movement Science, 26(1), 27–47.
Kibler, W. B. (1995). Biomechanical analysis of the shoulder
during tennis activities. Clinics in Sports Medicine, 14(1), 79–85.
Knudson, D. (1990). Intrasubject variability of upper extremity
angular kinematics in the tennis forehand drive. International
Journal of Sport Biomechanics, 6, 415–421.
Knudson, D., & Bahamonde, R. (2001). Effect of endpoint con-
ditions on position and velocity near impact in tennis. Journal of
Sports Sciences, 19, 839–844.
Kudo, K., Tsutsui, S., Ishikura, T., Ito, T., & Yamamoto, Y.
(2000). Compensatory coordination of release parameters
in a throwing task. Journal of Motor Behaviour, 32(4),
337–345.
Lloyd, D., Alderson, J., & Elliott, B. (2000). An upper limb
kinematic model for the examination of cricket bowling: A
case study of Mutiah Muralitharan. Journal of Sports Sciences,
18(12), 975–982.
Marshall, R., & Elliott, B. (2000). Long-axis rotation: The missing
link in proximal-to-distal segmental sequencing. Journal of
Downloaded by [David Whiteside] at 12:37 03 November 2014
Sports Sciences, 18, 247–254.
Martin, C., Kulpa, R., Delamarche, P., & Bideau, B. (2013).
Professional tennis players’ serve: Correlation between segmen-
tal angular momentums and ball velocity. Sports Biomechanics,
12(1), 2–14.
McGinnis, P. (2013). Qualititative biomechanical analysis to
improve technique Biomechanics of sport and exercise (3rd ed).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Mullineaux, D., & Uhl, T. (2010). Coordination-variability and
kinematics of misses versus swishes of basketball free throws.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 28(9), 1017–1024.
Newell, K. (1986). Constraints on the development of coordina-
tion. In M. Wade & H. Whiting (Eds.), Motor development in
children: Aspects of coordination and control (pp. 341–360).
Boston, MA: Martinus Nijhoff.
Newell, K., Deutsch, K., Sosnoff, J., & Mayer-Kress, G.
(2006). Variability in motor output as noise: A default and
erroneous proposition? In K. Davids, S. Bennett, &
K. Newell (Eds.), Movement system variability. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
Reid, M., Campbell, A., & Elliott, B. (2012). Comparison of
endpoint data treatment methods for estimation of kinematics
and kinetics near impact during the tennis serve. Journal of
Applied Biomechanics, 28(1), 93–98.
Reid, M., Elliott, B., & Alderson, J. (2007). Shoulder joint loading
in the high performance flat and kick tennis serves. British
Journal of Sports Medicine, 41(12), 884–889.
Reid, M., Elliott, B., & Alderson, J. (2008). Lower-limb
coordination and shoulder joint mechanics in the tennis
serve. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 40(2),
308–315.
Reid, M., Whiteside, D., & Elliott, B. (2010). Effect of skill
decomposition on racket and ball kinematics of the elite junior
tennis serve. Sports Biomechanics, 9(4), 296–303.
Reid, M., Whiteside, D., & Elliott, B. (2011). Serving to different
locations: Set-up, toss, and racket kinematics of the profes-
sional tennis serve. Sports Biomechanics, 10(4), 407–414.
Renshaw, I., Oldham, A., Davids, K., & Golds, T. (2007).
Changing ecological constraints of practice alters coordination
View publication stats
of dynamic interceptive actions. European Journal of Sport
Science, 7(3), 157–167.
Sakurai, S., Reid, M., & Elliott, B. (2012). Ball spin in the tennis
serve: Spin rate and axis of rotation. Sports Biomechanics, 12(1),
23–29. doi:10.1080/14763141.2012.671355
Scholz, J., Schoner, G., & Latash, M. (2000). Identifying the
control structure of multijoint coordination during pistol shoot-
ing. Experimental Brain Research, 135(3), 382–404.
Smeets, J., Frens, M., & Brenner, E. (2002). Throwing darts:
Timing is not the limiting factor. Experimental Brain Research,
144(2), 268–274.
Sprigings, E., Marshall, R., Elliott, B., & Jennings, L. (1994). A
three-dimensional kinematic method for determining the effec-
tiveness of arm segment rotations in producing racquet-head
speed. Journal of Biomechanics, 27(3), 245–254.
Stergiou, N., & Decker, L. M. (2011). Human movement varia-
bility, nonlinear dynamics, and pathology: Is there a connec-
tion? Human Movement Science, 30(5), 869–888.
Tanabe, S., & Ito, A. (2007). A three-dimensional analysis of the
contributions of upper limb joint movements to horizontal
racket head velocity at ball impact during tennis serving.
Sports Biomechanics, 6(3), 418–433.
Tepavac, D., & Field-Fote, E. (2001). Vector coding: A technique
for quanitification of intersegmental coupling in multicyclic
behaviours. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 17, 259–270.
Van Gheluwe, B., De Ruysscher, I., & Craenhals, J. (1987).
Pronation and endorotation of the racket arm in a tennis
serve. In B. Jonsson (Ed.), Biomechanics X-B (pp. 667–672).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Wagner, H., Pfusterschmied, J., Klous, M., Von Duvillard, S. P.,
& Müller, E. (2012). Movement variability and skill level of
various throwing techniques. Human Movement Science, 31,
78–90.
Wheat, J., & Glazier, P. (2006). Measuring coordination and
variability in coordination. In K. Davids, S. Bennett, & K.
Newell (Eds.), Movement system variability. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Whiteside, D., Chin, A., & Middleton, K. (2013). The validation
of a three-dimensional ball rotation model. Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports
Engineering and Technology, 227(1), 49–56.
Whiteside, D., Elliott, B., Lay, B., & Reid, M. (2013a). The effect
of age on discrete kinematics in the elite female tennis serve.
Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 29(5), 573–582.
Whiteside, D., Elliott, B., Lay, B., & Reid, M. (2013b). A kine-
matic comparison of successful and unsuccessful tennis serves
across the elite development pathway. Human Movement
Science, 32(4), 822–835.
Whiteside, D., Giblin, G., & Reid, M. (2014, July 12–16).
Redefining spatial consistency in the ball toss of the profes-
sional female tennis serve. In K. Sato, W. Sands, &
S. Mizuguchi (Eds.), Proceedings of the XXXII international con-
ference on biomechanics in sports, Johnson City, TN.
Winter, D. (1984). Kinematic and kinetic patterns in human gait:
Variability and compensating effects. Human Movement Science,
3(1–2), 51–76.
Woltring, H. (1986). A fortran package for generalized, cross-
validatory spline smoothing and differentiation. Advances in
Engineering Software (1978), 8(2), 104–113.
Yandell, J. (1999). Visual tennis. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.