Table 1 Notational analysis in tennis.
| Reference | Level (sex) | Rallytime (s) | Effectiveplayingtime (%) | Work torest ratio | Surface |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| O'Donoghue & Ingram4 | International (M and F) | 6.3 (1.8) | – | – | Hard |
| 7.7 (1.7) | Clay | ||||
| 4.3 (1.6) | Grass | ||||
| 5.8 (1.9) | Hard | ||||
| Smekal et al2 | National (M) | 6.4 (4.1) | 16.3 (6.6) | 1:3.4 | Clay |
| Reilly & Palmer10 | Top club‐standard (M) | 5.3 (1.0) | 27.9 (3.9) | 1:2.5 | Hard |
| Christmass et al11 | State (M) | 10.2 | 23.3 (1.4) | 1:1.7 | Hard |
| Elliot et al12 | College (M) | 4.0–4.3 | 26.5 (3.5) | 1:3.1 | Hard |
| Girard & Millet6* | Regional (M) | 7.2 (1.7) | – | – | Clay |
| 5.9 (1.2) | Hard | ||||
| Docherty13 | Range of abilities (M) | 10.0 | – | 1:1.8 | Hard |
| Fernandez et al14 | International (M) | 7.5 (7.3) | 18.2 (5.8) | 1:2.2 | Clay |
| Weber et al15 | National (M) | 5.08 | 16.4 | – | Hard |
| Kovacs16 | International (M) | 5.99 | – | 1:2.6 | Hard |
Values are mean or mean (SD).
–, No study variable; *young tennis players.