Impact of a competition with two consecutive matches in a day on physical performance in young tennis players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to analyze the effects of playing 2 tennis matches on the same day on physical performance in young tennis players. Twelve well-trained young tennis players took part in a simulated tennis competition consisting of 2 tennis matches on the same day (morning and afternoon sessions). Before and the day after the competition, physical performance was measured using a battery of countermovement jumps; a 10 m sprint; the 5-0-5 agility test; hip, grip and shoulder maximal isometric strength; shoulder range of motion; and a serve velocity test. Postcompetition results showed reduced performance in 10 m (-3.3%, effect size (ES) = small), dominant and nondominant 5-0-5 agility test (-4.6%, ES = moderate; -4.2%, ES = moderate, respectively), bilateral (-5.2%, ES = small), and unilateral countermovement jumps (dominant leg: -7.2%, ES = small; non-dominant leg: -9.1%, ES = small). Both dominant and nondominant shoulder external rotation range of motion increased (12.2%, ES = moderate; 5.6%, ES = small), whereas internal rotation decreased (-4.2%, ES = small; -3.3%, ES = small) in the postcompetition tests, together with the dominant shoulder external rotation (-10.7%, ES = moderate) and internal rotation (-9.3%, ES = small) strength. Physical impairments occurred in neuromuscular performance variables involving lower (e.g., jumping, sprinting, and change of direction) and upper (e.g., isometric strength and range of motion) limbs the day after playing a competition with 2 consecutive matches on the same day. These alterations in neuromuscular and sport-specific performance need to be taken into consideration when planning tournament schedules for young tennis players, as well as preparing match and recovery strategies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".