Abstract
Objectives
The aims of this study were to describe the anthropometric characteristics, body composition and somatotype of elite male and female junior tennis players, to compare the anthropometric data, body composition and somatotype of the first 12 elite junior tennis players on the ranking with the lower ranked players, and to establish an anthropometric profile chart for elite junior tennis players.
Methods
A total of 123 (57 males and 66 females) elite junior tennis players participated in this study. The athletes were divided into two groups, the first 12 and the lower ranked players, according to gender. A total of 17 anthropometric variables were recorded of each subject.
Results
There were no significant differences in height and weight between the first 12 and the lower ranked boys, while the first 12 girls were significantly taller than the lower ranked girls (p = 0.009). Significant differences were found for humeral and femoral breadths between the first 12 and the lower ranked girls (p = 0.000; p = 0.004, respectively). The mean (SD) somatotype of elite male junior tennis players could be defined as ectomesomorphic (2.4 (0.7), 5.2 (0.8), 2.9 (0.7)) and the mean (SD) somatotype of elite female junior tennis players evaluated could be defined as endomesomorphic (3.8 (0.9), 4.6 (1.0), 2.4 (1.0)). No significant differences were found in somatotype components between the first 12 and the lower ranked players of both genders.
Conclusions
When comparing the first 12 and the lower ranked elite junior tennis players of both genders, no significant differences were observed in any measured item for the boys. By contrast, significant differences were observed in height and humeral and femoral breadths between the first 12 and the lower ranked girls, whereby the first 12 were taller and had wider humeral and femoral breadths than the lower ranked players. These differences could influence the playing style of junior female players.
The interest in anthropometric characteristics, body composition and somatotype from different competitive sports has increased over the last decades. It has been well described that there are specific physical characteristics in many sports, such as the anthropometric profile, that indicate whether the player would be suitable to compete at the highest level in a specific sport.1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 The quantification of morphological characteristics of elite athletes can be a key point in relating body structure to sports performance.
During the past two decades, great changes have taken place in tennis with respect to technique and tactics, and even more so with respect to the physical performance of the players. Nowadays, tennis is one of the most popular sports in the world and is extensively studied. Most of the scientific literature has focused on physiological9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17 and biomechanical variables,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29 physical performance,30,31,32,33 and prevention and treatment of injuries.34,35,36,37,38,39,40 At present, there is little data on the physical characteristics of young41,42,43,44 and adult45 tennis players.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the anthropometric characteristics, body composition and somatotype of elite junior tennis players, in order to use this for training and for the detection and identification of talented players.
Methods
Subjects
The sample consisted of 123 elite junior tennis players (57 males and 66 females) from 28 national teams that competed at the 2005 and 2006 Davis Junior Cup and Fed Junior Cup (a team competition where the best players in the world from the under 16 category take part). The subjects were grouped according to gender and results; the first 12 players and the lower ranked players. The latter difference was made in order to separate the sample according to playing level, as even though all the tennis players studied had been training for more than 6 years at 16 h/week (tables 1 and 2), at the international level there are still differences between the best teams and the lower ranked teams in number of training hours per week or number of competitions carried. We aimed to separate the teams at the highest position in the final classification (quarter final, semi‐final and final) from the lower ranked players. Therefore, the first 12 subjects studied were a representative sample of the best junior players of the world, and the best in the individual rankings.
Table 1 Descriptive anthropometric characteristics for male junior tennis players (mean (SD) and range), and differences among the first 12 and the lower ranked players.
| All male junior tennis players (n = 57) | First 12 players (n = 12) | Lower ranked players (n = 45) | p Value | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) | Range | Mean (SD) | Range | Mean (SD) | Range | ||
| Age (years) | 16.2 (0.4) | 14.8–16.7 | 16.4 (0.2) | 16.0–16.7 | 16.1 (0.4) | 14.8–16.7 | NS |
| Height (cm) | 176.8 (6.4) | 163.2–195.2 | 176.9 (7.1) | 166.3–192.4 | 176.7 (6.3) | 163.2–195.2 | NS |
| Weight (kg) | 69.9 (6.8) | 51.4–86.3 | 70.4 (6.1) | 60.9–82.3 | 69.8 (7.0) | 51.4–86.3 | NS |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 22.3 (1.4) | 19.3–26.0 | 22.5 (0.8) | 21.6–24.1 | 22.3 (1.5) | 19.3–26.0 | NS |
| Breadth (cm) | 182.1 (6.7) | 165.1–197.6 | 182.4 (6.6) | 174.8–197.6 | 182.1 (6.8) | 165.1–196.5 | NS |
| Triceps skinfold (mm) | 9.5 (2.7) | 5.3–15.9 | 8.8 (1.9) | 6.1–12.3 | 9.6 (2.9) | 5.3–15.9 | NS |
| Biceps skinfold (mm) | 4.3 (1.2) | 2.8–7.9 | 4.0 (0.7) | 3.0–5.5 | 4.4 (1.3) | 2.8–7.9 | NS |
| Subscapular skinfold (mm) | 8.3 (1.7) | 5.4–14.1 | 7.7 (1.1) | 6.5–10.5 | 8.5 (1.8) | 5.4–14.1 | NS |
| Suprailiac skinfold (mm) | 12.9 (4.5) | 6.4–24.6 | 12.4 (3.1) | 7.5–18.0 | 13.0 (4.9) | 6.4–24.6 | NS |
| Supraspinal skinfold (mm) | 7.6 (2.7) | 4.5–16.6 | 7.1 (1.0) | 5.3–9.3 | 7.9 (2.9) | 4.5–16.6 | NS |
| Abdominal skinfold (mm) | 11.3 (4.5) | 5.8–25.2 | 9.8 (1.7) | 6.9–12.6 | 11.7 (4.9) | 5.8–25.2 | NS |
| Thigh skinfold (mm) | 10.7 (2.7) | 6.6–17.3 | 10.1 (2.0) | 7.5–13.4 | 10.9 (2.8) | 6.6–17.3 | NS |
| Calf skinfold (mm) | 8.2 (2.3) | 5.1‐17.0 | 7.9 (1.9) | 5.5–10.9 | 8.3 (2.4) | 5.1–17.0 | NS |
| Upper arm girth (cm) † | 28.7 (1.7) | 23.9–32.1 | 28.9 (1.0) | 27.3–30.5 | 28.7 (1.8) | 23.9–32.1 | NS |
| Upper arm girth (cm)†† | 30.7 (1.8) | 26.9–34.4 | 30.6 (0.9) | 29.4–32.6 | 30.7 (1.9) | 26.9–34.4 | NS |
| Thigh girth (cm) | 51.2 (2.5) | 44.0–56.3 | 51.9 (2.0) | 49.1–56.3 | 51.0 (2.6) | 44.0–56.1 | NS |
| Calf girth (maximum) (cm) | 37.3 (1.8) | 33.0–41.3 | 37.6 (1.7) | 34.8–40.8 | 37.2 (1.8) | 33.0–41.3 | NS |
| Humeral breadth (cm) | 7.2 (0.4) | 6.4–8.0 | 7.2 (0.4) | 6.4–7.9 | 7.2 (0.3) | 6.6–8.0 | NS |
| Femoral breadth (cm) | 10.4 (0.5) | 9.4–11.7 | 10.4 (0.6) | 9.4–11.5 | 10.4 (0.5) | 9.7–11.7 | NS |
| Sum of 3 skinfolds (mm) | 30.6 (8.0) | 17.5–47.8 | 28.9 (5.3) | 21.1–39.2 | 31.1 (8.6) | 17.5–47.8 | NS |
| Sum of 6 skinfolds (mm) | 65.6 (18.0) | 36.7–111.2 | 61.2 (9.5) | 47.3–81.1 | 66.8 (19.5) | 36.7–111.2 | NS |
| Sum of 8 skinfolds (mm) | 78.1 (20.3) | 45.0–125.9 | 73.0 (10.9) | 56.0–96.1 | 79.4 (22.0) | 45.0–125.9 | NS |
| % Body fat48 | 15.8 (3.6) | 8.9–22.2 | 15.2 (2.4) | 11.1–19.8 | 16.0 (3.9) | 8.9–22.2 | NS |
| % Muscle mass50 | 46.7 (1.9) | 42.0–51.9 | 47.0 (1.7) | 44.3–49.2 | 46.6 (2.0) | 42.0–51.9 | NS |
| Endomorphy | 2.4 (0.7) | 1.4–3.9 | 2.2 (0.4) | 1.7–2.9 | 2.5 (0.7) | 1.4–3.9 | NS |
| Mesomorphy | 5.2 (0.8) | 3.0–7.5 | 5.3 (0.4) | 4.6–5.8 | 5.2 (0.9) | 3.0–7.5 | NS |
| Ectomorphy | 2.9 (0.7) | 1.5–5.2 | 2.8 (0.6) | 1.6–3.8 | 2.9 (0.8) | 1.5–5.2 | NS |
| Total years playing tennis | 7.9 (1.6) | 7.0–9.0 | 8.3 (0.9) | 7.0–9.0 | 7.5 (1.4) | 7.0–9.0 | NS |
| Training (h/week) | 23.2 (3.4) | 18.0–27.0 | 25.6 (2.1) | 23.0–27.0 | 22.1 (3.9) | 18.0–25.0 | NS |
*p<0.05, **p<0.001, ***p<0.0001. NS, not significant.
†Relaxed; ††flexed and tensed.
Table 2 Descriptive anthropometric characteristics for female junior tennis players (mean (SD and range), and differences among the first 12 and the lower ranked players.
| All female junior tennis players (n = 57) | First 12 players (n = 12) | Lower ranked players (n = 45) | p Value | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) | Range | Mean (SD) | Range | Mean (SD) | Range | ||
| Age (years) | 15.9 (0.6) | 14.2–16.7 | 16.1 (0.5) | 14.8–16.6 | 15.9 (0.6) | 14.2–16.7 | NS |
| Height (cm) | 165.4 (6.3) | 149.7–180.0 | 170.0 (6.9) | 156.6–180.0 | 164.3 (5.8) | 149.7–177.3 | 0.009* |
| Weight (kg) | 59.9 (6.2) | 45.1–77.6 | 62.0 (4.4) | 55.6–68.7 | 59.4 (6.5) | 45.1–77.6 | NS |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 21.9 (1.7) | 18.7–25.4 | 21.5 (1.9) | 19.0–24.6 | 22.0 (1.7) | 18.7–25.4 | NS |
| Breadth (cm) | 167.9 (6.9) | 153.6–186.1 | 170.9 (7.5) | 156.5–183.2 | 167.3 (6.6) | 153.6–186.1 | NS |
| Triceps skinfold (mm) | 16.3 (4.0) | 9.3–26.1 | 15.8 (4.1) | 11.1–25.7 | 16.4 (4.0) | 9.3–26.1 | NS |
| Biceps skinfold (mm) | 7.4 (2.6) | 3.3–17.1 | 7.8 (2.7) | 4.9–13.1 | 7.3 (2.6) | 3.3–17.1 | NS |
| Subscapular skinfold (mm) | 9.3 (2.4) | 5.9–17.3 | 9.6 (2.6) | 6.5–15.5 | 9.2 (2.4) | 5.9–17.3 | NS |
| Suprailiac skinfold (mm) | 19.1 (6.0) | 8.6–33.9 | 19.5 (7.0) | 9.9–31.5 | 19.1 (5.9) | 8.6–33.9 | NS |
| Supraspinal skinfold (mm) | 10.8 (3.7) | 5.6–22.5 | 11.2 (4.2) | 6.5–20.5 | 10.7 (3.6) | 5.6–22.5 | NS |
| Abdominal skinfold (mm) | 17.7 (5.9) | 6.9–30.3 | 19.0 (6.4) | 9.8–28.3 | 17.4 (5.8) | 6.9–30.3 | NS |
| Thigh skinfold (mm) | 20.4 (4.5) | 10.9–31.7 | 18.9 (3.7) | 13.1–26.7 | 20.8 (4.6) | 10.9–31.7 | NS |
| Calf skinfold (mm) | 14.3 (3.9) | 7.9–24.0 | 14.3 (3.1) | 11.1–20.7 | 14.3 (4.1) | 14.3–4.1 | NS |
| Upper arm girth (cm) † | 27.0 (1.8) | 22.9–31.5 | 27.2 (1.5) | 25.1–30.4 | 26.9 (1.8) | 22.9–31.5 | NS |
| Upper arm girth (cm)†† | 27.9 (1.7) | 24.4–31.9 | 28.1 (1.6) | 26.0–31.1 | 27.9 (1.7) | 24.4–31.9 | NS |
| Thigh girth (cm) | 49.7 (2.9) | 43.1–57.4 | 49.3 (2.5) | 45.3–53.9 | 49.8 (3.0) | 43.1–57.4 | NS |
| Calf girth (maximum) (cm) | 35.7 (2.1) | 31.6–40.0 | 36.5 (2.2) | 33.4–39.1 | 35.6 (2.0) | 31.6–40.0 | NS |
| Humeral breadth (cm) | 6.3 (0.3) | 5.3–6.9 | 6.6 (0.2) | 6.3–6.9 | 6.2 (0.3) | 5.3–6.9 | 0.000** |
| Femoral breadth (cm) | 9.8 (0.6) | 8.8–11.4 | 10.1 (0.5) | 9.3–10.8 | 9.7 (0.6) | 8.8–11.4 | 0.004* |
| Sum of 3 skinfolds (mm) | 44.7 (10.9) | 25.9–67.6 | 44.9 (12.0) | 29.4–65.0 | 44.7 (10.7) | 25.9–67.6 | NS |
| Sum of 6 skinfolds (mm) | 102.0 (24.2) | 58.7–155.5 | 102.2 (27.3) | 64.9–147.8 | 102.0 (23.8) | 58.7–155.5 | NS |
| Sum of 8 skinfolds (mm) | 123.7 (28.8) | 73.1–190.0 | 124.3 (31.5) | 83.5–180.9 | 123.6 (28.5) | 73.1–190.0 | NS |
| % body fat48 | 28.5 (3.7) | 21.1–34.7 | 28.6 (3.9) | 23.2–34.7 | 28.5 (3.6) | 21.1–34.7 | NS |
| % muscle mass50 | 45.2 (1.5) | 41.6–49.3 | 44.9 (1.5) | 41.6–46.6 | 45.3 (1.5) | 42.9–49.3 | NS |
| Endomorphy | 3.8 (0.9) | 2.4–5.7 | 3.7 (1.0) | 2.6–5.5 | 3.8 (0.9) | 2.4–5.7 | NS |
| Mesomorphy | 4.6 (1.0) | 2.6–6.8 | 4.6 (1.2) | 3.1–6.5 | 4.6 (0.9) | 2.6–6.8 | NS |
| Ectomorphy | 2.4 (1.0) | 0.7–4.6 | 2.9 (1.2) | 0.8–4.6 | 2.3 (0.9) | 0.7–4.2 | NS |
| Total years playing tennis | 7.2 (0.9) | 6.0–8.0 | 8.1 (0.7) | 7.0–8.0 | 6.9 (1.2) | 6.0–8.0 | NS |
| Training (h/week) | 21.4 (2.9) | 16.0–25.0 | 23.2 (2.3) | 22.0–25.0 | 20.4 (2.6) | 16.0–26.0 | NS |
*p<0.05, **p<0.001, ***p<0.0001. NS, not significant.
†Relaxed; ††flexed and tensed.
The mean (SD) somatotype of elite male junior tennis players evaluated could be defined as ectomesomorphic (2.4 (0.7), 5.2 (0.8), 2.9 (0.7)), ranging from 1.4–3.9 for endomorphy, 3.0–7.5 for mesomorphy and 1.5–5.2 for ectomorphy. The mean (SD) somatotype of elite female junior tennis players evaluated could be defined as endomesomorphic (3.8 (0.9), 4.6 (1.0), 2.4 (1.0)), ranging from 2.4–5.7 for endomorphy, 2.6–6.8 for mesomorphy and 0.7–4.6 for ectomorphy. No significant differences were found in somatotype components between the first 12 and the lower ranked players of both genders. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the somatotypes for all the studied elite male and female junior tennis players.
Figure 1 Somatotype distribution of elite male junior tennis players (n = 57). ○: mean somatotype = 2.4–5.2–2.9.
Figure 2 Somatotype distribution of elite female junior tennis players (n = 66). ○: mean somatotype = 3.8–4.6–2.4.
Tables 3 and 4 give the anthropometric profile charts of elite male and female junior tennis players. The scores for 17 anthropometric dimensions are located on the chart together with the corresponding percentile values.
Table 3 Anthropometric profile chart for the total male junior tennis players (n = 57).
| Percentiles | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 10 | 25 | 50 | 75 | 90 | 95 | |
| Height (cm) | 166.3 | 166.8 | 173.0 | 177.3 | 179.9 | 184.5 | 190.2 |
| Weight (kg) | 56.1 | 61.6 | 66.3 | 69.2 | 73.7 | 79.6 | 82.5 |
| Breadth (cm) | 172.2 | 174.1 | 177.4 | 182.3 | 186.6 | 190.8 | 193.0 |
| Triceps skinfold (mm) | 5.7 | 6.0 | 7.1 | 9.2 | 11.5 | 14.0 | 14.2 |
| Biceps skinfold (mm) | 3.0 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 4.1 | 4.9 | 5.7 | 7.0 |
| Subscapular skinfold (mm) | 5.8 | 6.5 | 7.1 | 8.1 | 9.2 | 10.9 | 11.1 |
| Suprailiac skinfold (mm) | 6.6 | 7.5 | 9.4 | 12.2 | 15.9 | 20.2 | 21.8 |
| Supraspinal skinfold (mm) | 4.7 | 5.2 | 5.8 | 7.1 | 8.4 | 11.1 | 14.7 |
| Abdominal skinfold (mm) | 5.8 | 6.0 | 8.4 | 10.5 | 13.1 | 16.4 | 22.4 |
| Thigh skinfold (mm) | 6.9 | 7.3 | 8.5 | 11.0 | 12.2 | 15.0 | 16.5 |
| Calf skinfold (mm) | 5.4 | 5.7 | 6.6 | 7.8 | 9.7 | 11.0 | 11.9 |
| Upper arm relaxed girth (cm) | 25.5 | 26.1 | 27.6 | 29.1 | 29.6 | 30.6 | 31.5 |
| Upper arm flexed and tensed girth (cm) | 27.2 | 27.9 | 29.7 | 30.8 | 31.8 | 32.8 | 33.6 |
| Thigh girth (cm) | 47.2 | 48.2 | 49.6 | 51.4 | 52.8 | 54.1 | 55.9 |
| Maximum calf girth (cm) | 34.2 | 34.8 | 36.3 | 37.0 | 38.4 | 39.8 | 40.6 |
| Humeral breadth (cm) | 6.6 | 6.7 | 7.0 | 7.2 | 7.4 | 7.8 | 7.9 |
| Femoral breadth (cm) | 9.7 | 9.8 | 10.0 | 10.2 | 10.7 | 11.1 | 11.3 |
| Body fat (%) | 9.6 | 10.8 | 13.5 | 15.4 | 18.6 | 21.5 | 22.1 |
| Muscle mass (%) | 43.9 | 44.6 | 45.2 | 46.6 | 48.0 | 48.9 | 50.8 |
Table 4 Anthropometric profile chart for the total female junior tennis players (n = 66).
| Percentiles | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 10 | 25 | 50 | 75 | 90 | 95 | |
| Height (cm) | 153.4 | 157.0 | 161.6 | 165.4 | 168.9 | 174.6 | 178.0 |
| Weight (kg) | 48.6 | 51.8 | 55.8 | 60.0 | 64.3 | 66.7 | 68.4 |
| Breadth (cm) | 155.3 | 158.3 | 163.3 | 168.2 | 172.4 | 176.6 | 178.8 |
| Triceps skinfold (mm) | 10.4 | 11.1 | 13.5 | 15.5 | 19.7 | 21.5 | 24.9 |
| Biceps skinfold (mm) | 4.1 | 4.5 | 5.4 | 7.2 | 8.9 | 11.2 | 12.9 |
| Subscapular skinfold (mm) | 6.2 | 6.6 | 7.5 | 8.8 | 10.7 | 12.9 | 14.0 |
| Suprailiac skinfold (mm) | 10.7 | 11.3 | 13.9 | 18.9 | 23.4 | 26.7 | 30.6 |
| Supraspinal skinfold (mm) | 6.1 | 6.6 | 8.1 | 10.1 | 12.4 | 16.2 | 19.4 |
| Abdominal skinfold (mm) | 8.4 | 9.7 | 13.3 | 17.2 | 22.8 | 26.5 | 28.3 |
| Thigh skinfold (mm) | 12.8 | 13.8 | 17.6 | 20.6 | 23.0 | 25.8 | 28.1 |
| Calf skinfold (mm) | 9.2 | 9.8 | 11.1 | 13.5 | 17.3 | 20.1 | 22.5 |
| Upper arm relaxed girth (cm) | 23.5 | 24.8 | 25.8 | 27.0 | 28.0 | 29.0 | 30.3 |
| Upper arm flexed and tensed girth (cm) | 24.9 | 25.7 | 26.7 | 28.0 | 29.0 | 30.1 | 31.2 |
| Thigh girth (cm) | 44.2 | 45.5 | 47.6 | 50.0 | 51.6 | 53.7 | 54.2 |
| Maximum calf girth (cm) | 32.0 | 33.1 | 34.4 | 35.8 | 37.2 | 38.6 | 39.1 |
| Humeral breadth (cm) | 5.8 | 6.0 | 6.1 | 6.3 | 6.5 | 6.7 | 6.9 |
| Femoral breadth (cm) | 8.8 | 9.0 | 9.3 | 9.7 | 10.1 | 10.7 | 10.8 |
| Body fat (%) | 22.2 | 23.2 | 25.0 | 28.9 | 31.5 | 33.1 | 34.4 |
| Muscle mass (%) | 42.9 | 43.6 | 44.0 | 45.3 | 46.2 | 46.7 | 48.7 |
The study was approved by the Review Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects of the University of Granada, and oral as well as written information was given. Before measurement, written informed consent was obtained from each participant and coach.
Data collection
Measurements were performed following the standardised techniques adopted by the International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry (ISAK).47 All measurements were taken by the same investigator, an anthropometrist accredited by the ISAK. The technical error of measurement (TEM) was lower than 5% for skinfolds and lower than 1% for the other measurements. The instruments were calibrated prior to use and all measurements were taken on the subject's right side. Anthropometric variables included body mass, height, breadth, eight skinfolds (biceps, triceps, subscapular, suprailiac, supraspinal, abdominal, thigh and medial calf), four girths (upper arm relaxed, upper arm flexed and tensed, thigh and maximum calf), and two breadths (humeral and femoral). Height was measured on a stadiometer (GPM, Seritex, Inc., Carlstadt, New Jersey) to the nearest 0.1 cm, and the weight was recorded on a portable scale (model 707, Seca Corporation, Columbia, Maryland) to the nearest 0.1 kg. Skinfolds were taken using a calliper (Holtain Ltd, Crymych, UK) to the nearest 0.2 mm, and the girths were performed with a flexible metallic tape measure (Holtain Ltd). Skinfolds were taken three times and the average was employed in further calculations. The sum of three skinfolds (triceps, subscapular, supraspinal), six skinfolds (sum of three and suprailiac, abdominal and thigh), and eight skinfolds (sum of six and biceps and medial calf) were also calculated. BMI was calculated as weight/height2 where weight was expressed in kilograms (kg) and height in metres (m). Body density was estimated using the method of Durnin and Womersley.48 Density was transformed to percentage of body fat (%BF) by the Siri's equation.49 Percentage of muscle mass (% MM) was determined using the method of Poortmans et al.50 Somatotype was determinate according to the equations of Carter and Heath.51
Statistical analysis
Standard descriptive statistics (mean, SD and range) were used to present the characteristics of the subjects for all variables. A non‐parametric Mann–Whitney U test was used to compare the anthropometric data between the first 12 and the lower ranked players groups of both genders. The 5% level of probability was chosen to represent statistical significance. A profile chart with norms, using percentiles (p values of 5, 10, 25, 50, 75, 90, 95) was constructed. The statistical analysis using a statistical package was carried out (V.14.0; SPSS, Inc, Chicago, Illinois, USA).
Results
Tables 1 and 2 gives the mean, SD, and ranges for the age, anthropometric characteristics, body composition, somatotype, total years playing tennis and hours of training per week for the elite male and female junior tennis players. In addition, the results of the statistical analysis for the differences between the first 12 and the lower ranked players of both genders are presented. There were no significant differences in height and weight between the first 12 and the lower ranked boys, while the first 12 girls were significantly taller than the lower ranked girls (p = 0.009). No significant differences were observed in breadth, body mass index (BMI), skinfold thickness, girth, body composition, or somatotype between the first 12 players and the lower ranked boys, while significant differences were found for humeral and femoral breadths between the first 12 and the lower ranked girls (p = 0.000; p = 0.004, respectively).
Discussion
A few studies have examined physical characteristics related to playing tennis.41,42,43,44,45 Our study attempts to describe the anthropometric characteristics, body composition and somatotype in a homogeneous sample (according to performance) of elite junior tennis players.
Elliot et al42 tested a sample of male and female tennis players (age range 10–12 years) who regularly attained a semi‐final position in the Western Australian Lawn Tennis Association sanctioned tournaments biannually over a 5 year period. He compared them with another sample who regularly or occasionally attended a quarter final position in the same tournaments and with non‐competitive performers. In the present study, elite male and female junior tennis players were taller and heavier than those in the study by Elliot et al42 (mean (SD) 176.8 (6.4) cm vs 169.6 (8.3) cm; 69.9 (6.8) kg vs 54.0 (8.8) kg for male and 165.4 (6.3) cm vs 164.5 (7.5) cm; 59.9 (6.2) kg vs 54.2 (6.8) kg for female; respectively). In 1982, Powers and Walker44 compiled anthropometric data of 10 women top 15 at a Louisiana Tennis Association. In agreement with the results of Power and Walker,44 the elite junior tennis players in the present study were smaller and heavier than those (165.4 (6.3) cm vs 168.7 (2.35); 59.9 (6.2) kg vs 57.99 (2.59), respectively).
In relation to skinfolds, our results indicated that biceps and triceps skinfolds values found in our female tennis players are higher than those data reported by Powers and Walker44 (mean (SD) 7.4 (2.6) mm vs 6.55 (1.38) mm and 16.3 (4.0) vs 13.2 (2.34), respectively). Also, the upper arm girth of our female tennis players was greater than those found by Power and Walker.44
In our study, elite male and female junior tennis players tended to show a greater mesomorphic component and a lower ectomorphic component than those in the study by Elliot et al42 (5.2 (0.8) vs 3.90 (0.99) and 2.9 (0.76) vs 4.46 (1.07) for male; 4.6 (1.0) vs 3.2 (0.97) and 2.4 (1.0) vs 3.4 (1.17) for female; respectively). Similar results were found in respect to the somatotype components observed in the study of Elliot et al,43 who analysed a total of 866 leading junior tennis players (516 males and 350 females), aged 10–17 years.
Leone and Larivière46 studied 35 male regional level tennis players, aged 12–17 years (14.5 (1.5) years), but they did not discriminate by age group. Our male subjects were taller (176.8 (6.3) cm vs 165.6 (11.5) cm) and heavier (69.9 (6.8) cm vs 54.8 (11.0) cm). Also, our males showed greater upper arm (28.7 (1.7) cm vs 26.5 (3.0) cm) and calf (37.3 (1.8) cm vs 34.4 (2.6) cm) girth than those studied by Leone and Larivière.46
Leone et al41 identified the anthropometric and biomotor variables of 15 regional level female tennis players aged 13.9 (1.3) years. Our female subjects were taller (165.4 (6.3) cm vs 161.0 96.0) cm) and heavier (59.9 (6.2) kg vs 50.6 (8.3) kg). Also, our females showed greater upper arm (27.0 (1.8) cm vs 25.5 (2.8) cm) and calf (35.7 (2.1) cm vs 34.0 (2.8) cm) girth than those studied by Leone et al.41
The different characteristics of the best female junior tennis players of our study—taller, heavier, and with wider humeral and femoral breadths—compared with the lower ranked players, suggest this could nowadays influence playing style in this category for this gender. This style is more aggressive, as increased height is an advantage when serving or when trying to reach the balls in emergency situations. By contrast, the profile in male junior tennis players is more homogeneous than in the female players.
Sanchis‐Moysi et al45 studied body composition of professional tennis players by using DEXA (dual x ray absoptiometry) measurement, which is not comparable with the anthropometric method generally used.
What is already known on this topic
The interest in anthropometric characteristics, body composition and somatotype from different competitive sports has been increasing in recent years.
It is well documented that for many sports there are specific physical characteristics that indicate suitability to compete in that sport at the highest level, the anthropometric profile being an important selective factor for success in sport.
Quantification of the physiques of top athletes is a reference point in relating body structure and sports performance, and at present there is little data on the physical characteristics of junior and senior tennis players at the highest level.
What this study adds
Our study consists of a greater sample size (123 elite junior tennis players of the best teams: 57 males and 66 females) than other similar studies.
The sample source is important as the subjects were the best junior players in the world at the time of study.
The best players were compared with lower ranks to ascertain if any key point could be found with regard to anthropometric variables.
The study was carried out during the most important competitions in the world for junior category (the Davis Cup and Fed Cup), so all the players should be in top physical shape.
The somatotype for this category has never been elucidated previously.
With respect to the anthropometric data observed in studies of others racquet sports, the elite male junior tennis players of our study were taller and heavier than the Asian elite squash players52 aged 20.7 (2.5) years (176.8 (6.4) cm vs 172.6 (4.3) cm and 69.9 (6.8) kg vs 67.7 (6.9) kg, respectively) and than male badminton players53 of national level aged 24.3 (4.1) years (176.8 (6.4) cm vs 175.4 (5.4) cm and 69.9 (6.8) kg vs 64.8 (6.9) kg, respectively). Finally, when comparing the tennis players of the present study with the top class senior squash players evaluated by Jaski and Bale,54 our athletes were smaller and heavier than those, and showed smaller girths, greater skinfold thicknesses, and similar somatotype components.
The main limitation of this kind of study is that the results have to be taken into account as a point of reference, but should not be taken as an obligatory model for better performance. In this way, the results presented can be used as a standard reference, but should be interpreted with caution according to individual characteristics and necessities.
A longitudinal follow‐up study of these characteristics and variables is recommended. Even though the DEXA method would be more accurate than anthropometrical measurements, using DEXA would not be feasible for this size of sample under competition circumstances because of the high costs and the limited availability of the subjects. We do think the large sample size (123 elite junior tennis players of the best teams) is an asset of this study compared to the other studies found in the literature. In addition, the sample source was important as the subjects were the best junior players in the world at the time of testing. Furthermore, at the time of the study, the players were competing in the most important junior competitions in the world (the junior Davis Cup and Fed Cup), and were therefore in optimal shape.
Conclusions
There were no significant differences in any of the variables studied when comparing the first 12 and the lower ranked elite male junior tennis players. However, significant differences were observed in height and humeral and femoral breadth when comparing the first 12 and the lower ranked female players, whereby the first 12 players were significantly taller than the lower ranked players, and had wider humeral and femoral breadth. These differences could influence the playing pattern in junior women, allowing a more attacking playing style.
This study provides reference values of anthropometric characteristics, body composition and somatotype of elite male and female junior tennis players. This information provides a reference frame for coaches to control the training process in order to help improve athletes' performance, and to improve talent detection and identification in tennis.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all coaches and tennis players competing in the 2005 and 2006 Davis Junior Cup and Fed Junior Cup for their participation and cooperation. The authors also wish to thank all members of the Organising Committee of the 2005 and 2006 Davis Junior Cup and Fed Junior Cup, and to the International Tennis Federation for their permission to set up this study and for their full support and collaboration during the investigation.
Abbreviations
DEXA - dual x ray absoptiometry
ISAK - International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry
TEM - technical error of measurement
Footnotes
Competing interests: None declared.
References
- 1.Bourgois J, Claessens A L, Vrijens J.et al Anthropometric characteristics of elite male junior rowers. Br J Sports Med 200034213–217. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Bourgois J, Claessens A L, Janssens M.et al Anthropometric characteristics of elite female junior rowers. J Sports Sci 200119195–202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Claessens A L, Lefevre J, Beunen G.et al The contribution of anthropometric characteristics to performance scores in elite female gymnasts. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 199939355–360. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Slater G J, Rice A J, Mujika I.et al Physique traits of lightweight rowers and their relationship to competitive success. Br J Sports Med 200539736–741. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Reilly T, Bangsbo J, Franks A. Anthropometric and physiological predispositions for elite soccer. J Sports Sci 200018669–683. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Ackland T R, Ong K B, Kerr D A.et al Morphological characteristics of Olympic sprint canoe and kayak padlers. J Sci Med Sport 20036285–294. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Legaz A, Gonzalez J J, Serrano E. Differences in skinfold thicknesses and fat distribution among top‐class runners. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 200545512–517. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Gabbett T J. Physiological and anthropometric characteristics of amateur rugby league players. Br J Sports Med 200034303–307. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Fernandez J, Mendez‐Villanueva A, Pluim B M. Intensity of tennis match play. Br J Sports Med 200640387–391. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Smekal G, Von Duvillard S P, Rihacek C.et al A physiological profile of tennis match play. Med Sci Sports Exerc 200133999–1005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.König D, Hounker M, Schmid A.et al Cardiovascular, metabolic, and hormonal parameters in professional tennis players. Med Sci Sports Exerc 200033654–658. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Christmass M A, Richmond S E, Cable N T.et al Exercise intensity and metabolic response in singles tennis. J Sport Sci 199816739–747. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Bergeron M F, Maresh C M, Kraemer W J.et al Tennis: a physiological profile during match play. Int J Sports Med 199112447–479. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Groppel J L, Roetert E P. Applied physiology of tennis. Sports Med 199214260–268. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Morgan L, Jordan D, Baeyens D.et al Heart rate responses during singles and doubles tennis competition. Physician Sportsmed 19871567–74. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Elliot B, Dawson B, Pyke F. The energetics of single tennis. J Hum Mov Stud 19851111–20. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Seliger V, Ejem M, Pauer M.et al Energy metabolism in tennis. Int Z Angew Physiol 197331333–340. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Akutagawa S, Jojima T. Trunk rotation torques through the hip joints during the one‐ and two‐handed backhand tennis strokes. J Sports Sci 200523781–793. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Elliot B, Fleisig G, Nicholls R.et al Technique effects on upper limb loading in the tennis serve. J Sci Med Sport 2003676–87. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Chow J, Shim J‐h, Lim Y‐t. Lower trunk muscle activity during the tennis serve. J Sci Med Sport 20036512–518. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Fleisig G, Nicholls R, Elliott B.et al Kinematics used by world class tennis players to produce high‐velocity serves. Sports Biomech 2002251–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Reid M, Elliott B. The one‐ and two‐handed backhands in tennis. Sports Biomech 2002147–68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Bahamonde R. Changes in angular momentum during the tennis serve. J Sports Sci 200218579–592. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Elliott B, Takahashi K, Noffal G. The influence of grip position on upper limb contributions to racket head velocity in a tennis forehand. J Appl Biomech 199713182–196. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Elliott B C, Marshall R N, Noffal G J. Contributions of upper limb segment rotations during the power serve in tennis. J Appl Biomech 199511433–442. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Sprigings E, Marshall R, Elliott B.et al A three‐dimensional kinematic method for determining the effectiveness of arm segment rotations in producing racket head speed. J Biomech 199427245–254. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Knudson D. Intra‐subject variability of upper extremity angular kinematics in the tennis forehand drive. Int J Sport Biomech 19906415–421. [Google Scholar]
- 28.Elliott B C, Overheu P, Marsh P. The service line and net volleys in tennis: a cinematographic analysis. J Sci Med Sport 19882010–18. [Google Scholar]
- 29.Groppel J L. The biomechanics of tennis: an overview. Int J Sport Biomech 19862141–155. [Google Scholar]
- 30.Roetert E P, Brown S W, Piorkowski P A.et al Fitness comparisons among three different levels of elite tennis players. J Strength Cond Res 199610139–143. [Google Scholar]
- 31.Chandler T J, Kibler W B, Uhl T L.et al Flexibility comparisons of junior elite tennis players to other athletes. Am J Sports Med 199018134–136. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Kibler W B, Chandler T J. Grip strength and endurance in elite tennis players. Med Sci Sports Exerc 198921S65 [Google Scholar]
- 33.Kibler W B, McQueen C, Uhl T. Fitness evaluations and fitness findings in competitive junior tennis players. Clin Sports Med 19887403–416. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Pluim B M, Staal J B, Windler G E.et al Tennis injuries: occurrence, aetiology, and prevention. Br J Sports Med 200640415–423. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Montalvan B, Parier J, Brasseur J L.et al Extensor carpi ulnaris injuries in tennis players: a study of 28 cases. Br J Sports Med 200640424–429. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Van der Hoeven H, Kibler W B. Shoulder injuries in tennis players. Br J Sports Med 200640435–440. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Maquirriain J, Ghisi J P. The incidence and distribution of stress fractures in elite tennis players. Br J Sports Med 200640454–459. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Tsur A, Gillson S. Brachial biceps tendon injuries in young female high‐level tennis players. Croat Med J 200041184–185. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Bylak J, Hutchinson M R. Common sports injuries in young tennis players. Sport Med 199826119–132. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Faraj A, Rahman H, Norton R. Acute calcific tendonitis of abductor pollicis longus in a tennis player. Sports Exerc Inj 19984138–139. [Google Scholar]
- 41.Leone M, Lariviere G, Comtois A S. Discriminant analysis of anthropometric and biomotor variables among elite adolescent female athletes in four sports. J Sports Sci 200220443–449. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Elliot B C, Ackland T R, Blanksby B A.et al A prospective study of physiological and kinanthropometric indicators of junior tennis performance. Australian J Sci Med Sport 19902287–92. [Google Scholar]
- 43.Elliot B C, Ackland T R, Blanksby B A.et al Profiling junior tennis players part 1: morphological, physiological and psychological normative data. Australian J Sci Med Sport 19892114–21. [Google Scholar]
- 44.Powers S K, Walker R. Physiological and anatomical characteristics of outstanding female junior tennis players. Res Quart Exerc Sport 198253172–175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Sanchis‐Moysi J, Dorado‐Garcia C, Calbet J A L. Regional body composition in professional tennis players. In: Lees A, Maynard I, Hughes M, et al eds. Science and racket sports II. London: E & FN Spon, 1998
- 46.Leone M, Larivière G. Caractéristiques anthroométriques et biomotrices d'adolescents athlètes élites de disciplines sportives différentes. Sci Sports 19981326–33. [Google Scholar]
- 47.Ross W D, Marfell‐Jones M J. Kinanthropometry. In: Mac Dougall JD, Wenger HA, Green HJ, eds. Physiological testing of the high performance athlete. Champaign, Illinois, USA. Human Kinetics 1991
- 48.Durnin J V, Womersley J. Body fat assessed from total body density and its estimation from skinfold thicknesses measurements on 481 men and women aged 16–72 years. Br J Nutr 19743277–97. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Siri W E. The gross composition of the body. In: Lawrence JH, Tobias CA, eds. Advances in biological and medical physics. New York, USA: Academic Press, Inc, 1956 [DOI] [PubMed]
- 50.Poortmans J R, Boisseau N, Moraine J J.et al Estimation of total‐body skeletal muscle mass in children and adolescents. Med Sci Sports Exerc 200537316–322. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Carter J E L, Heath B H.Somatotyping: development and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990
- 52.Chin M ‐ K, Steininger K, So R C H.et al Physiological profiles and sport specific fitness of Asian elite squash players. Br J Sports Med 199529158–164. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Majumdar P, Khanna G L, Malik V.et al Physiological analysis to quantify training load in badminton. Br J Sports Med 199731342–345. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Jaski A, Bale P. The physique and body composition of top class squash players. J Sports Med 198727114–118. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]