Review

International Journal of Sports Science

& Coaching
Influence of scaling on match play 2023, Vol. 18(5) 1726–1734
© The Author(s) 2022
characteristics in youth tennis: Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
A systematic review DOI: 10.1177/17479541221116875
journals.sagepub.com/home/spo

Laurent Chapelle1 , Bruno Tassignon2, Dirk Aerenhouts1

and Evert Zinzen1

Abstract
Scaled tennis is the downsized version of adult tennis and aims to allow youth players to play a type of tennis that resem-
bles adult tennis. However, since the different scaling conditions (red, orange, lime and green tennis court) were chosen
pragmatically it is unclear whether the match play characteristics of scaled tennis resemble those of adult tennis. It is also
unclear whether the match play characteristics are comparable between the different scaling conditions (allowing a
smooth transition through the scaled courts). Therefore, this systematic review aims to compare match play character-
istics in scaled tennis to adult tennis, and to compare match play characteristics across the different scaling conditions.
The PubMed, Web of Science and SPORTDiscus (EBSCO) databases were searched until November 2021. The match
play characteristics included first serve percentage, percentage of first serve points won, percentage of second serve
points won, percentage of total serve points won, number of aces, number of double faults, winners’ percentage,
unforced errors percentage, percentage of break points won, rally duration and inter contact time. The systematic search
identified 887 records and six studies were included. All included match play characteristics, apart from the percentage of
second serve points won and a number of double faults, showed significant differences between scaled tennis and adult
tennis. Similarly, all included match play characteristics, except for a number of double faults, showed significant differ-
ences between the different scaling conditions. Based on these results, future research is needed to optimise the different
scaling conditions in terms of match play characteristics.

Keywords
Game characteristics, match analysis, racquet sports, skill transfer

Introduction play tennis on a red court (6.00 × 12.00 m; net height

Scaled tennis is used in youth tennis and can be described as
the modified (downsized) version of adult tennis. Scaled
tennis refers to typical changes in environmental con-
straints, such as court dimensions, net height, ball compres-
sion and/or racquet characteristics.1–4 The primary goal of
these adaptations is to facilitate motor learning and to
engage player involvement by securing the retainment of
the players with a sized-down equipment. For instance,
youth tennis players are recommended to play with
shorter and lighter racquets based on their body size.5
Various tennis federations and organisations worldwide
are still searching for the optimal refinement of scaling.
Examples of such scaling initiatives are tennis4kids,
progressive-Tennis, Play and Stay, and the United States
Tennis Association 36/60.6–8 Also, the International
Tennis Federation (ITF) developed its own scaled tennis
initiative: the tennis 10s. In this initiative, 5–8-year-olds
between 80.0 and 83.8 cm) with a red tennis ball which is
75% slower than a (standard) yellow ball. In the subsequent
stages of youth development, youth tennis players (8–10
years) play on an orange court (6.50 × 18.00 m; net height
between 80.0 and 91.4 cm) with an orange tennis ball
Reviewer: Miguel Crespo (International Tennis Federation, Spain)
1
Department of Movement and Sport Sciences, Faculty of Physical
Education and Physiotherapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
2
Human Physiology and Sports Physiotherapy Research Group, Faculty of
Physical Education and Physiotherapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels,
Belgium
Corresponding author:
Laurent Chapelle, Department of Movement and Sport Sciences, Faculty
of Physical Education and Physiotherapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel,
Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium.
Email: laurent.chapelle@vub.be
Chapelle et al.
(50% slower than a yellow tennis ball), followed by playing
on the green court (10–11 years; 8.23 × 23.77 m; net height
at 91.4 cm) with a green tennis ball (25% slower than a
yellow ball). Starting from 12 years of age, youth tennis
players play on a full-size court (8.23 × 23.77 m; net
height at 91.4 cm) with a yellow tennis ball.7 In addition
to the abovementioned court sizes, one previous study
introduced the lime court (7.19 × 20.77 m; net height
between 80.0 and 85.0 cm) in an attempt to smoothen the
transition from the orange to the green court for players
between 9 and 10 years old.6 However, with the exception
of the lime court, the decision to implement these specific
court dimensions, net heights and ball compressions is
rather based on intuition and pragmatical motives as
opposed to scientific research.5,9,10 Timmerman et al.
(2015) suggested that the motives for the decision on the
modified courts’ dimensions are mainly pragmatic so they
can be easily implemented on a full-size tennis court.11
This is why the scaling guidelines related to court dimen-
sions, net height and ball compression vary between differ-
ent tennis federations and organisations.7,10 Therefore, a
clear need exists to scientifically determine the most
optimal scaling dimensions in order to let youth tennis
players mimic maximally the features of playing adult
tennis.
The primary aim of scaling in tennis is to provide an
adapted learning environment that corresponds better to
the physical skills and functional capacities of youth
players since they cannot cover a whole adult tennis court
due to individual constraints (e.g., smaller body size,
lower strength, slower speed and developing movement
skills).5,11 A complementary aim of scaling is to allow
youth players to play a type of tennis resembling adult
tennis very closely from both a technical and tactical per-
spective.1,5,6,12 Using scaled equipment elicits a higher
pleasure experience and motivation in youth players
which promotes specific motor learning and perform-
ance.4,13 Scaled tennis is thus a progressive concept
which implies that each scaling condition matches a specific
period of a youth player’s development.14 Even though
scaling has the goal to allow youth tennis players to
compete in a tailored environment that is very similar to
the adult game, it is unclear if the match play characteristics
(e.g., first serve percentage, number of aces and inter-
contact time) of scaled and adult tennis are comparable.15
Since no study has provided an overview of the influence
of scaling conditions on match play characteristics in
youth tennis, it is unknown whether scaling is successful
in achieving this goal. Moreover, it is also unclear
whether the match play characteristics are comparable
between the different scaling conditions (between the red,
orange and green court for example), which is important
as scaling aims to allow a smooth transition across the dif-
ferent scaling conditions up until the yellow court.
Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to provide
1727
an overview of the scientific studies that compare match
play characteristics of different scaling conditions to
match play characteristics of adult tennis. Another aim of
this systematic review is to compare match play character-
istics across different scaling conditions.
Methods
This systematic review was conducted in accordance with
the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and
Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P).16
Information sources and systematic search strategy
The systematic searches were individually performed by
two researchers (LC and BT) between October and
November 2021. The PubMed, Web of Science and
SPORTDiscus (EBSCO) databases were searched by
using the following a priori determined search terms:
(“junior tennis” OR “junior elite tennis” OR “youth tennis”
OR “youth elite tennis” OR “kids tennis” OR “girl tennis”
OR “girl elite tennis” OR “boy tennis” OR “boy elite
tennis” OR “women tennis” OR “women elite tennis” OR
“men tennis” OR “men elite tennis” OR” children tennis”
OR “junior player” OR “junior elite player”) AND (“com-
petition” OR “competition characteristics” OR “game” OR
“game characteristics” OR “match” OR “match characteris-
tics” OR “match analysis” OR “match play” OR “match
play characteristics” OR “match play analysis”).
In addition to the systematic search, both researchers
hand searched the references of the eligible studies previ-
ously identified.
Eligibility criteria and study selection
Inclusion and exclusion criteria were determined in
advance. All study designs were allowed, as this study
aimed at providing a highly sensitive systematic review
regarding all research examining match play characteristics
of scaling conditions in youth tennis. Studies had to be pub-
lished in international peer-reviewed journals. To be
included, the population had to consist of competitive or
elite youth tennis players (i.e., below the age of 18), and
match play characteristics of scaling conditions (and adult
(professional) tennis) had to be examined and reported.
Additionally, and although there was no restriction with
regard to playing experience or playing level, the studied
players had to be able to play a tennis match on a scaled
or adult tennis court. These criteria were used to screen
studies independently through the title, abstract and
finally the full article text. A consensus meeting between
two researchers (LC and BT) was organised following the
completion of the independent searches. In case of
1728
disagreement, a third researcher (EZ) would have been con-
tacted to reach a consensus.
Data extraction and methodological quality
assessment
The authors’ names, the publication year, the number of
participants, the chronological age and sex of the partici-
pants as well as the scaling conditions and a number of ana-
lysed strokes were extracted first followed by the match
play characteristics. In order to provide a robust overview
and discussion, a selection of match play characteristics
that have been most often studied and reported on, and as
such have been identified as the most important for per-
formance, has been made.15,17,18 The extracted match
play characteristics included first serve percentage, percent-
age of first serve points won, percentage of second serve
points won, percentage of total serve points won, number
of aces, number of double faults, percentage winners, per-
centage unforced errors, percentage of break points won,
rally duration and inter contact time. This information
was extracted and tabulated independently by two research-
ers (LC and BT). A consensus meeting was organised fol-
lowing the completion of the data extraction. In case of
disagreement, a third researcher (EZ) would have been
invited to resolve the disagreement. The Joanna Briggs
Institute critical appraisal tool for Analytical
Cross-sectional Studies was used to assess the methodo-
logical quality of the included studies.19 Cohen’s Kappa
value was calculated as a measure of agreement for the
screening process, data extraction and methodological
quality assessment between the two researchers.20
Results
Study selection and characteristics
The systematic search identified a total of 887 articles. After
screening the title, abstract and full text, a total of 6 studies
were included in this systematic review (Figure 1). All
studies implemented a cross-sectional design. The agree-
ment between the two independent researchers was very
good for the systematic search (Cohen’s kappa = 0.92)
and excellent for the data extraction (Cohen’s kappa =
1.00) as well as for the study quality assessment (Cohen’s
kappa = 1.00). For both the selection and data extraction
process, the two researchers could always agree and
involvement of a third researcher was not needed.
Methodological quality assessment
The methodological quality assessment of the included
studies resulted in Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal
tool scores that ranged from 6 to 7 out of 8 (Table 1). Five of
the six included studies failed to identify confounding
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 18(5)
factors and implement strategies to deal with these con-
founding factors whilst one study failed to clearly define
the criteria for inclusion.
Results of individual studies
The extracted match play characteristics of the included
studies are displayed in Table 2. Two studies compared
match play characteristics of scaled tennis with adult (pro-
fessional) tennis and reported the total number of strokes
analysed as well as compared the match play characteristics
of different scaling conditions. Four studies solely com-
pared match play characteristics of different scaling
conditions.
Adult (professional) tennis versus scaled tennis. On the orange,
green, lime and yellow court, the percentage of first serve
points won and the number of aces was significantly
lower whilst the percentage of break points won and the
inter-contact time was significantly higher compared to
adult (professional) tennis. Also, the first serve percentage
was significantly lower on the orange and lime court, the
second serve percentage was significantly lower on the
lime court whereas on the orange, green and lime court
the percentage of serve points won was significantly
lower. On the green, lime and yellow court the percentage
of net approaches won was significantly lower whilst
rally duration was significantly higher on the green and
lime court compared to adult (professional) tennis.
Comparison between different scaling conditions. On the red
court, the first serve percentage and rally duration were sig-
nificantly higher compared to the orange, green and yellow
court. On the orange court (unscaled net), the first serve per-
centage and winners’ percentage was significantly higher
compared to the yellow court and the rally duration was sig-
nificantly higher compared to the green and yellow court.
On the orange court with a scaled net, inter-contact time
was significantly lower compared to the orange court with
an unscaled net and the yellow court (scaled and unscaled
net). On the green court, the percentage of second serve
points won, percentage of serve points won and the percent-
age of net approaches won was significantly higher whereas
rally duration was significantly lower compared to the lime
court. On the yellow court (unscaled net), the first serve per-
centage, winners’ percentage and unforced errors percentage
was significantly lower compared to the yellow court with a
scaled net. Compared to the orange court (scaled and unscaled
net), significantly lower unforced error percentage and signifi-
cantly higher winners’ percentage was apparent on a yellow
court with an unscaled net. Finally, the percentage of
winners was significantly lower on an orange court with a
scaled net compared to a yellow court with a scaled net.
Chapelle et al. 1729

Figure 1. Flow chart of the selection process.

Table 1. Overview of the results from the methodologic quality play characteristics between scaled tennis and adult (profes-
assessment using the johanna briggs institute critical appraisal tool sional) tennis and/or between the different scaling condi-
for analytical cross-sectional studies.19 tions. Overall, current scaled tennis court dimensions
Item seem to be suboptimal for letting youth tennis players
compete in a tailored environment closely resembling adult
Total tennis regarding these matchplay characteristics.
Study 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 score Nevertheless, despite the discrepancy in match play charac-
Bayer et al., 2017 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 7 teristics, it is currently unknown how adjusting the scaling
Fitzpatrick et al., Y Y Y Y N N Y Y 6 conditions to resemble the adult tennis match play character-
2017 istics would affect motor learning and performance in youth
Kachel et al., 2015 Y Y Y Y N N Y Y 6 tennis players. The progression and adaptations in court
Limpens et al., 2018 Y Y Y Y N N Y Y 6 dimensions between different scaling conditions should
Schmidhofer et al., Y Y Y Y N N Y Y 6 thus be researched and revisited scientifically in both the
2014 context of specific motor learning and performance.
Timmerman et al., Y Y Y Y N N Y Y 6 All the included match play characteristics, except for
2015
the percentage of second serve points won and a number
Note. Y = Yes; N = No. of double faults, differed significantly between scaled
tennis and adult (professional) tennis. Overall, the results
of the included studies seem to indicate that youth tennis
players tend to play less aggressively and more securely
Discussion compared to adult (professional) players.6,18 A possible
The aim of this systematic review was to provide an over- explanation could be the smaller court dimensions, as
view of scientific studies comparing match play character- there is less distance for the players to cover during tennis
istics of scaled tennis to match play characteristics of play. Consequently, it is more difficult for a player to hit
adult tennis. Additionally, this systematic review aimed to winners.9 In addition to the smaller courts, lower ball com-
compare the match play characteristics across different pressions (a red, orange or green tennis ball) result in more
scaling conditions. Scaling aims to let youth tennis time and control for the youth players to execute the differ-
players compete in a tailored environment to promote spe- ent tennis strokes.21 These lower ball compressions also
cific motor learning. Five out of the six included studies lead to more balls being hit in an optimal hitting zone
indicated that there are significant differences in match (between the knee and shoulder height) and the execution
Table 2. Match play characteristics of the included studies (n = 6).
1730

Chronological age Number of analysed First serve First serve Second serve Serve points Number of Number of double
Study n (years) Scaling condition strokes (%) points won % points won % won (%) aces (n) faults (n)

Bayer et al., 2017 12 9-10 Lime court 55.7 ± 8.4$ 52.7 ± 10.5$ 36.4 ± 10.6§ 45.1 ± 8.8$, § 0.4 ± 0.7$ 6.7 ± 3.4
12 9-10 Green court 58.6 ± 10.3 59.6 ± 6.5$ 54.6 ± 14.0 57.9 ± 6.7 0.4 ± 0.5$ 6.1 ± 3.0
- - Adult 9796 63.9 ± 4.1 68.5 ± 5.0 46.4 ± 9.3 60.2 ± 4.0 10.3 ± 6.0 4.7 ± 3.5
(professional)
tennis
Fitzpatrick et al., 18 7.4 ± 0.6 Red court - 77.1 ± 13.8 55.9 ± 16.4 - - - -
2017 16 8.5 ± 0.6 Orange court - 60.8 ± 14.5† 59.1 ± 16.4 - - - -
8 9.9 ± 0.4 Green court - 47.7 ± 4.9† 62.0 ± 6.9 - - - -
6 13.7 ± 0.5 Yellow court - 61.7 ± 8.1† 61.3 ± 5.5 - - - -
Kachel et al., 2015 20 10.2 ± 0.6 Yellow court - 54.4 ± 4.8 - - - - 5.6 ± 2.1
(green balls)
Yellow court - 52.7 ± 14.2 - - - - 5.3 ± 1.5
(yellow balls)
Limpens et al., 2018 16 9.9 ± 0.3 Yellow court - 62.0 ± 12.0£ - - - 1 -
scaled net
(0.52 m)
Yellow court - 61.0 ± 15.0 - - - 5 -
scaled net
(0.65 m)
Yellow court - 50.0 ± 16.0 - - - 6 -
scaled net
(0.78 m)
Yellow court - 39.0 ± 11.0 - - - 0 -
unscaled net
(0.91 m)
Schmidhofer et al., 67 - Orange court 6216 50.8 ± 14.1$ 60.3 ± 11.6$ 46.8 ± 18.7 52.4 ± 11.9$ 0.3 ± 0.5$ 2.2 ± 1.7
2014 67 - Green court 6216 55.7 ± 12.6 52.7 ± 16.2$ 36.4 ± 14.9 45.1 ± 13.3$ 0.2 ± 0.5$ 3.3 ± 2.3
67 - Yellow court 6216 63.9 ± 12.6‡ 53.2 ± 11.9$ 40.7 ± 11.2 60.2 ± 5.9 0.0 ± 0.2$ 3.7 ± 2.9
- - Adult 11,844 63.6 ± 6.4 68.5 ± 7.8 46.4 ± 13.1 60.2 ± 5.9 5.2 ± 3.4 2.3 ± 2.2
(professional)
tennis
Timmerman et al., 16 9.7 ± 0.5 Orange court - 51.0 ± 18.3 - - - - -
2015 scaled net
(0.69 m)
Orange court - 48.9 ± 10.5 - - - - -
unscaled net
(0.91 m)
(continued)
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 18(5)
Chapelle et al. 1731

of suitable movement patterns which contribute to longer

different compared to the orange court (scaled net); § significantly different compared to the green court; £ significantly different compared to the yellow court (unscaled net); ^ significantly different compared
Note. $ significantly different compared to adult (professional) tennis; † significantly different compared to the red court; ‡ significantly different compared to the orange court (unscaled net); # significantly
Number of double
rally durations and a longer inter-contact time of scaled
tennis compared to adult (professional) tennis.6,18

faults (n)
Therefore, to resemble adult tennis more closely, coaches

-
are encouraged to let the youth players play in a more
aggressive manner on scaled tennis courts. Regarding the
serve, aces are very rare events in youth tennis in general.
In contrast to adult tennis, aces in youth tennis seem to
First serve First serve Second serve Serve points Number of

happen by chance, not on purpose.6,18 The lack of aces

aces (n)
-

- hit by the younger players is likely related to their not yet

fully developed physique and technical and tactical
skills.22,23 Moreover, the results of the included studies of
points won % points won % won (%)

this systematic review seem to indicate that scaled tennis

-

does not resemble adult tennis play when comparing the

match play characteristics of scaling conditions with
match play characteristics of professional adult tennis
players (as opposed to recreational adult tennis players).
Therefore, future research is needed to better match
-

scaled tennis to adult tennis in order to let youth players

play a type of tennis that resembles adult (professional)
tennis more closely.1,5,10,11 This research topic would
provide insights on the potential advantageous, neutral or
-

detrimental effects on motor learning and performance

when evaluating the current scaling conditions in compari-
60.4 ± 10.8‡

52.1 ± 13.7

son to scaling conditions approaching more closely to the

(%)

match play characteristics of adult tennis.

Using scaling in youth (and beginner adult) tennis is
important and beneficial given the increased fun and motiv-
Number of analysed

ation when playing tennis as well as the increased skill

acquisition through implicit learning.13 These results fit
strokes

with the primary goal of scaled tennis to facilitate motor

-

learning. However, the results of the included studies high-

light that all included match play characteristics (except for
a number of double faults) showed significant differences
between the different scaling conditions. This is surprising
Scaling condition

given that scaling is a progressive concept where each

unscaled net
Yellow court

Yellow court
scaled net

scaling condition should match a specific period of a

(0.69 m)

(0.91 m)

youth player’s development.6 In the context of motor learn-

ing, these variations between different scaling conditions
might be considered beneficial for the development of the
youth tennis player. Though it is currently unknown
Chronological age

whether the current differences in scaling conditions are

(years)

more favourable in comparison to a smooth transition when

youth players would progress from one scaling condition to
another (e.g., from the orange to the green court). For instance,
a previously performed study reported that the transition from
to the yellow court (scaled net).

one scaling condition to the other often entails changes in

n

running patterns and many other unwanted technical and tac-

tical side-effects.18 This is reported to be due to changes in the
Table 2. (continued)

ratio between the tennis court dimensions and the players’

body size.5 As a result, it could be suggested that the court
dimensions should not be chosen in an arbitrary manner as
the court dimensions should be in relation to the players’
Study

body size. For instance, one study introduced the lime court
in an attempt to smoothen the transition from the orange to
 1732

Table 2. Continued. Match play characteristics of the included studies (n = 6).

Winners Unforced errors Break points won

Study Scaling condition (%) (%) (%): Net approach won (%): Rally duration (s) Inter contact time (s)
$
Bayer et al., 2017 Lime court - - 56.5 ± 16.9 32.8 ± 15.4$, § 9.9 ± 3.2$, § 1.58 ± 0.07$
Green court - - 41.8 ± 16.8$ 57.8 ± 20.9 7.6 ± 1.6 1.86 ± 0.13$
Adult (professional) tennis - - 25.1 ± 10.3 67.3 ± 8.4 6.6 ± 1.8 1.29 ± 0.07
Fitzpatrick et al., 2017 Red court - - - - 7.4 ± 6.1 -
Orange court - - - - 6.6 ± 7.4† -
Green court - - - - 4.3 ± 3.8†, ‡ -
Yellow court - - - - 3.8 ± 2.4†, ‡ -
Kachel et al., 2015 Yellow court (green balls) 7.8 ± 4.1 81.3 ± 10.1 - - 8.5 ± 1.0 -
Yellow court (yellow balls) 7.3 ± 5.1 83.5 ± 17.3 - - 9.3 ± 2.1 -
Limpens et al., 2018 Yellow court scaled net (0.52 m) 15.0 ± 6.0£ 23.0 ± 5.0 - - - 1.61 ± 0.08
Yellow court scaled net (0.65 m) 13.0 ± 6.0£ 13.0 ± 6.0 - - - 1.64 ± 0.08
Yellow court scaled net (0.78 m) 9.0 ± 4.0 19.0 ± 6.0 - - - 1.69 ± 0.12
Yellow court unscaled net (0.91 m) 8.0 ± 7.0 20.0 ± 7.0 - - - 1.72 ± 0.15
Orange court - - 45.9 ± 14.4$ 51.2 ± 24.2 9.2 ± 2.6 1.61 ± 0.04$
Schmidhofer et al., 2014 Green court - - 56.5 ± 16.9$ 32.9 ± 23.9$ 9.9 ± 3.2$ 1.86 ± 0.13$
Yellow court - - 49.6 ± 13.1$ 47.9 ± 22.1$ 8.4 ± 1.9 1.67 ± 0.08$
Adult (professional) tennis - - 25.1 ± 10.3 67.3 ± 11.5 6.6 ± 1.7 1.29 ± 0.07
Timmerman et al., 2015 Orange court scaled net (0.69 m) 5.6 ± 3.0^ 12.4 ± 3.6£ - - - 1.66 ± 0.20
Orange court unscaled net 2.8 ± 2.3£ 15.3 ± 4.2£ - - - 1.75 ± 0.12#
(0.91 m)
Yellow court scaled net (0.69 m) 7.8 ± 2.6‡, £ 10.9 ± 3.7£ - - - 1.85 ± 0.18#
Yellow court unscaled net (0.91 m) 5.3 ± 3.2 5.2 ± 2.6 - - - 1.82 ± 0.18#
Note. $ significantly different compared to adult (professional) tennis; † significantly different compared to the red court; ‡ significantly different compared to the orange court (unscaled net); # isgnificantly
different compared to the orange court (scaled net); § significantly different compared to the green court; £ significantly different compared to the yellow court (unscaled net); and ^ significantly different
compared to the yellow court (scaled net).
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 18(5)
Chapelle et al.
the green court.6 Future research should therefore focus on
making (other) scaling conditions possible which allow
youth tennis players to transition more smoothly across their
development (e.g., by taking their maturity into account).
Interestingly, a lower net height was related to improved
serving performance as evidenced by the significantly higher
first serve percentage.5 Thus, it seems that youth tennis
players experienced serving in a manner more closely to
adult (professional) tennis when the net height was
lowered.10 An interesting finding involved a significantly
higher first serve percentage for red players compared to
other scaling conditions. It is, however, important to point
out that these players rather tap the ball into play instead of
playing a technically and tactically relevant serve.12 Lower
net heights also seemed to elicit more offensive stroke play
during rallies, which manifested in a higher proportion of
groundstrokes being contacted inside the baseline, better
use of the width of the court, and more winners being
hit.10 Notably, the increase in winners was not accompanied
by a commensurate increase in unforced errors.10 An
increase in winners suggests that youth tennis players
adopted a more attacking style of play. Scaling the net
results in different visual information and offers more attack-
ing opportunities to the youth tennis players. This also
accounts for the higher number of net approaches when
playing on a scaled court as scaling increases the willingness
to play balls at the net.6 On the contrary, findings revealed
that nets lower than 0.65 m (on a yellow tennis court)
proved to come at the expense of rally length, which was
considered counterproductive to development, as players
got fewer hitting opportunities and played fewer volleys.10
It is thus recommended to scale both the court dimensions
and net height (by lowering the net) when inducing scaling
conditions in youth tennis. Indeed, a scaled court without
lowering the net proved to be overly constraining for
players, with a high production of unforced errors.11
Scaling both court and net led to a significantly faster
game which was very close to adult professional tennis.10
Lastly, Kachel et al. (2015) compare the impact of two ball
compressions (i.e., a green and yellow ball) on match play
characteristics.9 However, and although a lower ball com-
pression led to a more comfortable striking height for the
players, there were no significant differences in match play
characteristics between green and yellow tennis ball.
Nevertheless, coaches are encouraged to take scaling of all
of the equipment into consideration in youth tennis. This
involves that the court dimensions, net height and racquet
weight and size should be in accordance with the players’
body size. Additionally, the tennis ball compression (e.g.,
red, orange, green and yellow ball) should match the
players’ playing level. All of the abovementioned environ-
mental constraints serve the purpose to assist the youth
tennis player in ameliorating their adaptability and specific
motor development. Despite the great efforts made through
various ambitious tennis initiatives by both coaches and
1733
federations to improve the motor learning and performance
of youth tennis players by exposing them to scaled tennis,
it is crucial to put the youth tennis player as well as their
needs, fun and health central at all times. Though good per-
formances and noticeable improvements in motor learning
might (in)directly contribute to the fulfilment of these core
values, it is vital to always remember that it is about the
player and not the game.
Several limitations to this systematic review are appar-
ent. As such, and although the methodological quality of
the included scientific studies was acceptable, only 6 eli-
gible studies were identified which highlights the need for
further scientific research regarding the influence of scaling
conditions on match play characteristics in youth tennis.
Furthermore, only two studies simultaneously compared
scaled tennis to adult (professional) tennis and only one
study examined match play characteristics of the red court.
It should also be pointed out that no study so far has examined
a potential difference in match play characteristics between
male and female youth tennis players under scaling condi-
tions.24 Therefore, and given the results of this systematic
review, more research is needed in an attempt to match the dif-
ferent scaling conditions as closely as possible to the adult
(professional) game as well as to each other. Additionally,
other match play characteristics should be examined, such as
ball impact height, net clearance height or distance covered
per point.24 Future research should consider the inclusion of
these match play characteristics, as they could provide a
more detailed analysis of youth tennis compared to adult
tennis, but also contribute to the improvement of scaling con-
ditions in youth tennis with potential benefits for motor learn-
ing and performance.
To conclude, significant differences are apparent regard-
ing the match play characteristics of scaled tennis compared
to adult (professional) tennis as well as the match play char-
acteristics of different scaling conditions. A possible
explanation for these results is the fact that the current
scaling conditions were chosen pragmatically and subse-
quently based on little empirical evidence. Therefore,
future research should match the different scaling condi-
tions as closely as possible to the adult game as well as to
the other scaling conditions.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iDs
Laurent Chapelle https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0344-6521
Dirk Aerenhouts https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6154-5264
1734
References
1. Buszard T, Farrow D, Reid M, et al. Modifying equipment in
early skill development: a tennis perspective. Res Q Exerc
Sport 2014; 85: 218–225.
2. Hammond J and Smith C. Low compression tennis balls and
skill development. J Sports Sci Med 2006; 5: 575–581.
3. Larson EJ and Guggenheimer JD. The effects of scaling tennis
equipment on the forehand groundstroke performance of chil-
dren. J Sports Sci Med 2013; 12: 323–331.
4. Buszard T, Garofolini A, Whiteside D, et al. Children’s coord-
ination of the “sweet spot” when striking a forehand is shaped
by the equipment used. Sci Rep 2020; 10: 21003.
5. Fitzpatrick A, Davids K and Stone JA. Effects of lawn tennis
association mini tennis as task constraints on children’s
match-play characteristics. J Sports Sci 2017; 35: 2204–2210.
6. Bayer D, Ebert M and Leser R. A comparison of the playing
structure in elite kids tennis on two different scaled courts. Int
J Perf Ana Sport 2017; 17: 34–43.
7. Miley D. Serve rally and score … the ITF tennis play and stay cam-
paign and Tennis10s. ITF Coach Sport Sci Rev 2010; 18: 3–5.
8. Cabral V. Tennis 10s and play and stay in portuga. ITF Coach
Sport Sci Rev 2010; 18: 24–26.
9. Kachel K, Buszard T and Reid M. The effect of ball compres-
sion on the match-play characteristics of elite junior tennis
players. J Sports Sci 2015; 33: 320–326.
10. Limpens V, Buszard T, Shoemaker E, et al. Scaling constraints
in junior tennis: the influence of net height on skilled Players’
match-play performance. Res Q Exerc Sport 2018; 89: 1–10.
11. Timmerman E, De Water J, Kachel K, et al. The effect of
equipment scaling on children’s sport performance: the case
for tennis. J Sports Sci 2015; 33: 1093–1100.
12. Buszard T, Reid M, Masters RS, et al. Scaling tennis racquets
during PE in primary school to enhance motor skill acquisi-
tion. Res Q Exerc Sport 2016; 87: 414–420.
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 18(5)
13. Buszard T, Reid M, Farrow D, et al. Implicit motor learning:
designing practice for performance. ITF Coach Sport Sci Rev
2013; 60: 3–5.
14. Klaus A, Bradshaw R, Young W, et al. Success in national
level junior tennis: tactical perspectives. Int J Sports Sci
Coach 2017; 12: 618–622.
15. O’Donoghue B. A notational analysis of elite tennis strategy.
J Sports Sci 2001; 19: 107–115.
16. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting
items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the
PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6: e1000097.
17. Kovalchik SA and Reid M. Comparing matchplay charac-
teristics and physical demands of junior and professional
tennis athletes in the era of big data. J Sports Sci Med
2017; 16: 489–497.
18. Schmidhofer S. A comparison between the structure in elite
tennis and kids tennis on scaled courts (tennis 10s). Int J
Perf Ana Sport 2014; 14: 829–840.
19. Moola S. Risky business ‘mis’interpretation of observational
evidence. JBI Data Syst Rev Impl Rep 2017; 15: –2.
20. Altman D. Practical statistics for medical research. London:
Chapmann & Hall, 1991.
21. Farrow D and Reid M. The effect of equipment scaling on the
skill acquisition of beginning tennis players. J Sports Sci
2010; 28: 723–732.
22. Knudsen EI. Sensitive periods in the development of the brain
and behavior. J Cogn Neurosci 2004; 16: 1412–1425.
23. Watanabe D, Savion-Lemieux T and Penhune VB. The effect
of early musical training on adult motor performance: evi-
dence for a sensitive period in motor learning. Exp Brain
Res 2007; 176: 332–340.
24. Reid M, Morgan S and Whiteside D. Matchplay characteris-
tics of Grand Slam tennis: implications for training and con-
ditioning. J Sports Sci 2016; 34: 1791–1798.
Copyright of International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching is the property of Sage
Publications 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.