Effects of combined recovery intervention on match characteristics, physiological load and markers of fatigue during a male singles tennis tournament

Wiewelhove T, Raeder C, Döweling A, Busch M, Szwajca S & Ferrauti A.

Zusammenfassung

INTRODUCTION: A survey of national and international elite tennis players showed that especially a combina-tion of active recovery (AR), stretching (S), cold-water immersion (CWI) and massage (M) appears to be most popular among athletes to improve recovery following tennis training and competition. However, scientific evidence of the efficiency of combined recovery intervention is limited. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the effects of a combined use of the aforementioned recovery strategies on match characteristics, physiological variables and performance during a singles tennis tournament. METHODS: In a crossover design nine male tennis players (age: 24.1±4.6 years) with a national ranking position were divided into two groups. During a first five-day clay-court tennis tournament, group A received a combined recovery intervention (CRI) that consisted of AR, S, CWI and M, followed by no recovery intervention (passive recovery, PR) for a second five-day clay-court tournament. Group B did not receive a recovery intervention during the first tournament and received the CRI during the second contest. Match characteristics were determined by filming each competitive match with video cameras. Blood lactate concentration (LAC), heart rate (HR) and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were recorded during each match. In addition, markers of fatigue (countermovement jump height, CMJ; serum concentration of creatine kinase, CK; delayed onset muscle soreness, DOMS) were measured 24 h before, during as well as 24, 48 and 72 h after the tournament. RESULTS: No significant intervention x time interactions (p=0.29–0.86) were found for markers of fatigue. DOMS and CK significantly (p<0.05) elevated during the tournament peaking after the 3rd and 4th match and returning to baseline values 48 h after the tournament. Mean LAC [2.26±0.78 vs. 2.45±0.94 mmol•l-1 (data in brackets are presented as CRI vs. PR)] and HR (142±13 vs. 146±14 b•min-1) as well as RPE values [5.3±0.9 vs. 5.1±1.4 (i.e., hard)] and match characteristics [i.e., total net running distance (2526±1061 vs. 2558±1068 m), number of sprints (98±51 vs. 119±68), total distance that has been covered sprinting (273±139 vs. 321±158 m), total points won, percentage of first serves, number of aces, double faults, errors, and winners] were not significantly different (p=0.24–0.92) between conditions. DISCUSSION: The results suggest that a five-day tennis tournament induces significant changes in markers of fatigue. This is in line with previous research showing increased muscle damage and soreness following a tennis tournament (Ojala & Häkkinen, 2013). Furthermore, the main finding of the study was that a CRI as applied in our study is not able to contribute to a faster recovery during and after a tennis tournament compared to PR and does not affect both match performance variables and physiological responses associated with match play. REFERENCES: Ojala, T. & Häkkinen, K. (2013). J Sports Sci Med, 12, 240-248