Int J Sport Stud Health. 2023 April; 6(1):e138396. https://doi.org/10.5812/intjssh-138396.

Published online 2023 August 12. Research Article

Anthropometric and Physical Profile Among the Different Age Groups

of Tunisian Tennis Players

Saeed Meflah Alshahrani 1, 2 , Atef Salem 1, 3, *

, Anis Zribi 1, 4 , Khaled Trabelsi 5, 1 , Achraf Ammar 6 and
Hamdi Chtourou 1, 3
1
High Institute of Sport and Physical Education of Sfax, University of Sfax, Sfax, Tunisia
2
Saudi Ministry of Sports, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
3
Physical Activity, Sport, and Health, National Observatory of Sport, Tunis, Tunisia
4
Research Laboratory of Exercise Physiology and Pathophysiology: from Integral to Molecular "Biology, Medicine and Health", Faculty of Medicine of Sousse, University of
Sousse, Sousse, Tunisia
5
Research Laboratory: Education, Motricity, Sport and Health, University of Sfax, Sfax, Tunisia
6
Department of Training and Movement Science, Institute of Sport Science, Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany
*
Corresponding author: High Institute of Sport and Physical Education of Sfax, University of Sfax, Sfax, Tunisia. Email: [email protected]

Received 2023 June 25; Revised 2023 July 18; Accepted 2023 July 27.

Abstract

Background: The popularity of Tunisian tennis is on the rise, due to emerging players gaining global recognition, leading to growth
and evolution in the sport. In order to optimize training and performance, coaches need valuable information on physical fitness
and player profiling.
Objectives: The study aimed to investigate the physical profile of Tunisian tennis players in different age groups ranging from 7 to
17 years.
Methods: One hundred and one tennis players from the same team were assigned to six age groups (U9-U18); U9 (7.89 ± 0.32), U10
(8.88 ± 0.34), U11 (9.78 ± 0.43), U12 (10.81 ± 0.4), U14 (12.3 ± 0.73), and U18 (14.69 ± 0.95) and were assessed for standing long jump (SLJ),
countermovement jump, medicine ball throw (MBT), various sprint distances, agility drills, 20m Shuttle run (20mSRT), and Sit and
reach tests.
Results: The results showed that U14 and U18 age groups demonstrated better performance than U9 and U10 in jump tests, while
U18 and U14 outperformed only U9 in the MBT test. U11 showed better performance than U9 and U10 in sprints, sideways shuffle,
and spider drill tests. U9 and U10 had lower performance than U12 in SLJ, 20m sprint, sideways shuffle, and zigzag tests, and U11
outperformed U9 in the SLJ test. U18 and U14 had higher VO2 max than U10 and U11, while U12 was higher than U11 only. No difference in
flexibility was reported. The centile estimates of physical performances among Tunisian tennis players provide a means to compare
individual player test results with the standard performance levels of the group.
Conclusions: In conclusion, this study found that 11–17-year-old players exhibited greater physical performance than 7–10-year-old
players. However, no age effect was found for flexibility.

Keywords: Tennis, Physical Profile, Anthropometric, Age

1. Background and encompasses power, speed, and agility (4, 5). These
physical traits have been found to have a positive
To achieve optimal performance in tennis, skill is a correlation with performance on the court (5, 6). Power
key factor, and the sport requires the intricate interplay is the result of combining strength and velocity with
of various physical components such as strength and upper body power utilized for fastballs and lower body
agility (1). The intermittent nature of the game places power for explosive movements during gameplay (5, 7, 8).
demands on the energy supply, which suggests that a Moreover, since tennis matches can last up to five hours
combination of the aerobic and anaerobic energy systems and rallies involve sprints of 8 - 15 m and 3 - 4 changes
is utilized to meet these demands (1-3). Additionally, of direction (2, 9), tennis-specific endurance, speed, and
physical fitness development is crucial for tennis players. agility are essential. Typically, rallies last less than 3 -
Physical fitness development is crucial for tennis players, 10 seconds to score a point (4, 10). Functional tests are

Copyright © 2023, International Journal of Sport Studies for Health. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits copy and redistribute the material
just in noncommercial usages, provided the original work is properly cited.
 Alshahrani SM et al.

considered the most useful for tennis players, with a 3. Methods

measurement of power preferred over a measurement of
strength (11). Knowledge of anthropometric and physical
3.1. Participants
performance levels, and the relationship between various
physical characteristics, including speed, agility, flexibility,
The sample for this study consisted of 101 Tunisian
endurance, upper and lower body power, relevant to tennis
tennis players, including 71 boys and 30 girls, who
performance can help identify such measures.
belonged to the same team and volunteered to participate.
To optimize individual performance and training Table 1 presents the general characteristics of the
efficiency, it is crucial to define goals and content participants. All participants were recruited from a
based on the specific workload for each age group, as tennis-training club in Sfax city, Tunisia, and were engaged
well as the technical and physical requirements of the in weekly physical education sessions at school for
competition level (1). Conducting adequate fundamental approximately 50 minutes. Additionally, they participated
and representative research is essential to provide general in five sessions of tennis training per week, with each
guidelines for players and coaches, enabling them to session lasting around 90 minutes. This training regimen
obtain objective information on the players’ physical was maintained for a minimum of two years, with
performance. This information helps to make adjustments an average duration of 2.5 ± 0.5 years. Prior to their
to short-term and long-term training programs that are involvement in the study, all participants received both
beneficial and motivating for both players and coaches verbal and written instructions explaining the procedures
(12). and potential risks involved. They were also informed of
Tennis in Tunisia is experiencing constant growth their right to withdraw from the trial at any point. The
and evolution according to the latest international study was approved by the ethics committee of Farhat
results. The emergence of Tunisian tennis players who Hached Hospital in Sousse, Tunisia, and adhered to the
have achieved international recognition, such as Malek guidelines set forth in the declaration of Helsinki prior to
Jaziri and Ons Jabeur, has contributed to this progress. commencing the assessments.
They have made significant strides on the Association of None of the participants exhibited any observable
Tennis Professionals (ATP) and Women Tennis Association symptoms of dysfunction in their musculoskeletal
(WTA) tours. Therefore, evaluating the physical fitness or cardio-pulmonary systems. They were specifically
characteristics and profiling of Tunisian tennis players instructed to refrain from consuming any antioxidants
can provide valuable information for coaches and trainers (e.g., vitamins E, A, C) or anti-inflammatory medication
to optimize their training and performance. However, from one month before the experimentation. Also, they
previous research has not adequately examined the were asked to avoid participating in any high intensity
profiling and physical fitness characteristics of Tunisian sessions prior to the experimentation period.
tennis players.

3.2. Procedures
2. Objectives
The testing procedure for this study took place at the
start of the season, and all participants were introduced
This study aimed to address the limited research on to the overall setting and testing protocols during the
the profiling of Tunisian tennis players by evaluating their orientation phase. The tests were conducted over the
physical fitness characteristics in different age categories. course of three different days. On the first day, height
The physical fitness characteristics of the tennis players and body mass measurements were recorded, along with
were measured using basic tests for upper and lower flexibility assessments using the Sit-and-Reach test (SAR),
body power, namely the Medicine-ball throw (MBT) test, the medicine ball throw test, and the 20m shuttle run
standing long jump (SLJ), and countermovement jump test (Luc Leger Test). The following day, participants
(CMJ) tests. Linear sprints of 5, 10, and 20m were performed the jump tests (Countermovement jump (CMJ)
also conducted, and the endurance ability was assessed and standing long jump (SLJ)), as well as the sprint tests
using the 20m shuttle run test (20mSRT). Additionally, (5, 10, and 20 m) on an outdoor tennis court. There was a
tennis-specific agility tests such as the sideway shuffle, 15-minute break between the two sets of tests. On the final
spider drill, and Zig-zag tests were used to assess agility. day, players completed the spider drill, sideway shuffle,
Lastly, the Sit-and-Reach test was used to evaluate flexibility and Zig-zag tests in the same sequence, all conducted on
ability. an outdoor tennis court.

2 Int J Sport Stud Health. 2023; 6(1):e138396.

 Alshahrani SM et al.

Table 1. The Anthropometric Characteristics of Tunisian Tennis Players in Different Age Groups a

U9 (n = 18) U10 (n = 17) U11 (n = 14) U12 (n = 16) U14 (n = 20) U18 (n = 16)

Age, y 7.89 ± 0.32 [7 – 8] 8.88 ± 0.34 [8 – 9] 9.78 ± 0.43 [9 – 10] 10.81 ± 0.4 [10 – 11] 12.3 ± 0.73 [11 – 13] 14.69 ± 0.95 [14 – 17]

Height, m 1.28 ± 0.06 [1.18 – 1.38] 1.34 ± 0.06 [1.25 – 1.48] 1.39 ± 0.06 [1.3 – 1.49] 1.44 ± 0.04 [1.37 – 1.51] 1.53 ± 0.09 [1.32 – 1.65] 1.69 ± 0.09 [1.5 – 1.81]

Body mass, kg 26.39 ± 4.76 [20.3 – 36.5] 28.71 ± 5.04 [20 – 40.3] 31.64 ± 3.38 [25.6 – 38.6] 34.37 ± 4.29 [27.6 – 43.7] 46.16 ± 10.38 [26.9 – 60.2] 56.28 ± 7.49 [45.6 – 69.8]

BMI, kg/m2 16.1 ± 2.12 [12.3 – 20.9] 15.83 ± 2.23 [12.6 – 21.8] 16.46 ± 1.68 [13.4 – 20.2] 16.67 ± 1.82 [14.1 – 21.4] 19.61 ± 3.08 [13.7 – 24.7] 19.78 ± 2.01 [16.9 – 24.4]

Abbreviation: BMI, body mass index.

a Values are expressed as mean ± SD.

3.3. Testing Procedures period, participants performed two maximal sprints with
a 3-minute rest interval between each sprint. The best time
Anthropometrics: Anthropometric measurements from the two sprints was used for analysis. The sprints
were taken using a portable stadiometer (Seca Model were timed using three infrared photoelectric cells (Cell
225, Hanover, MD) and a digital scale (Tanita, Tokyo, Kit Speed Brower, USA) placed at 0.4 meters above the
Japan). Participants were measured in stocking feet and ground at the start line and at 5-, 10-, and 20-meter marks.
underwear, with height rounded to the nearest 5 mm
Sideway Shuffle Test: The Sideway Shuffle Test involved
and body mass to the nearest 100 g. The body mass index
participants shuffling along the center service line at the
(BMI), a measure of body composition, was calculated by
T, starting with one foot on each side of the line and
dividing the body mass (in kilograms) by the square of
facing the net. They shuffled to touch the doubles sideline
the height (in meters). The BMI values were then used to
and then shuffled to the opposite doubles sideline before
assess the participants’ weight status based on established
returning to the center. Crossover steps were not allowed
BMI categories.
during the test. The trial time was recorded using a
Countermovement-Jump (CMJ): The
stopwatch.
Countermovement Jump (CMJ) test was conducted using
an infrared jump system (Optojump Microgate—Italy) Zig-Zag Test: The Zig-zag sprint test involved
connected to a computer. Participants stood between participants starting from point A and finishing at point
two infrared sensor bars and executed a rapid downward F, while cutting around markers without running over
movement, followed by an upward jump, keeping their them. Participants were instructed to complete the test as
hands on their iliac crests. Three trials were performed quickly as possible. Sprint times were recorded using two
with a 2-minute rest period between each trial, and the infrared photoelectric cells (Cell Kit Speed Brower, USA)
highest jump height was used for analysis. placed at 0.4 meters above the ground at the start point
(A) and the finish point (F) (Figure 1).
Standing long jump (SLJ): The Standing Long Jump
(SLJ) test was performed according to Ab Rahman (13). Spider Drill Test: The Spider Drill test involved
Participants started from a standing position, swung their participants breaking the beam of the timing gates to
arms, and jumped with both feet. The distance between officially start the assessment. They then performed
the take-off line and the heel of the closest foot at landing sprints in a specific pattern, starting with a sprint to
was measured in centimeters. Three trials were conducted the right and progressing anticlockwise. The distances
with a 2-minute rest period between each trial, and the best covered varied for each sprint. After completing the
jump distance was recorded. last sprint, participants turned right 90° and sprinted
Medicine Ball Throw Test (MBT): The overhead through the timing gates to finish the test. Sprint times
medicine ball throw test was conducted by having were recorded using an infrared photoelectric cell (Cell Kit
participants stand behind a designated line. They used a Speed Brower, USA) placed at 0.4 meters above the ground
1-kg or 2-kg medicine ball, depending on their assigned at the start line (Figure 2).
group. The ball was brought back behind the head using Aerobic maximal power: The maximum oxygen uptake
both hands and then released as far as possible without (VO2 max) was estimated using the 20-meter shuttle run
any foot movement or crossing the line. The distance from test. The VO2 max is a measure of the maximum amount
the starting line to the ball’s landing point was measured. of oxygen that an individual can consume during exercise
Each participant completed two repetitions, and the best and is often used as an indicator of aerobic fitness. To
performance was recorded. estimate the VO2 max, the equations formulated by Leger
Sprint Tests: Running performance was evaluated over et al. were utilized (14).
a 20-meter distance, with intermediate phases at 0 - 5 Sit and reach test (SAR): The Sit and Reach test was
meters and 0-10 meters. After a standardized warm-up conducted according to Ayala et al. (15). Participants sat

Int J Sport Stud Health. 2023; 6(1):e138396. 3

 Alshahrani SM et al.

Figure 1. Schematic of the Zig-zag Test.

3.4. Statistical Analyses

The R programming language (version 4.2.1, R

Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria)
was used for all statistical analyses. Descriptive statistics
were presented as Mean ± standard deviation (SD) for
parametric data and Median (25th; 75th percentiles)
for nonparametric data. The normality of data sets
was checked using the Shapiro-Wilk test and confirmed
for all data sets. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)
was performed using the “afex” package (version 1.2-0)
for normally distributed data, and post-hoc pairwise
comparisons with the Bonferroni adjustment were
conducted using the “emmeans” package (version
1.8.4-1) to determine differences between age groups.
For non-normally distributed data, the Kruskal-Wallis
Figure 2. Schematic of the Spider Drill Test. test was performed, followed by the Dunn’s test with
the Bonferroni adjustment, using the “rstatix” package
(version 0.7.0). The effect size statistic (ηp2 ) was used to
on the floor with their legs together, knees extended, and evaluate the magnitude of difference between age groups,
the soles of their feet against the edge of the box. With with a small effect size defined as 0.01, a moderate effect
arms extended forward and palms down, they reached as size as 0.06, and a large effect size as 0.14. Correlations
far as possible along the measuring scale without bending between dependent variables were assessed using
their knees. The position of the heel and knee extension Spearman and Pearson tests with the “rstatix” package
was monitored throughout the test to ensure proper (version 0.7.0). Significance was accepted for all analyses
technique and accurate measurement. at a p-value threshold of less than 0.05 (P < 0.05).

4 Int J Sport Stud Health. 2023; 6(1):e138396.

 Alshahrani SM et al.

Table 2. Muscle Power, Sprint, Change of Direction, Endurance, and Flexibility Results by Age Groups a

U9 U10 U11 U12 U14 U18

Muscle Power

SLJ, m 1.17 ± 0.2 1.24 ± 0.08 1.37 ± 0.19 A 1.49 ± 0.25 A, B 1.55 ± 0.2 A, B 1.84 ± 0.14 A, B, C, D, E

CMJ, cm 15.87 ± 4.86 20.51 ± 2.32 20.11 ± 3.88 24.47 ± 5.71 A 23.88 ± 5.62 A 39.08 ± 8.45 A, B, C, D, E

MBT, m 3.83 (3.05; 4) 4.6 (4.3; 5.3) A 3.85 (3.54; 4.18) 3.72 (3.54; 3.87) B 5.53 (4.58; 6.26) A, C, D 6.7 (5.98; 7.51) A, C, D

Sprint Ability

5m sprint, s 1.87 ± 0.19 1.9 ± 0.24 1.66 ± 0.17 A, B 1.69 ± 0.21 B 1.61 ± 0.18 A, B 1.41 ± 0.15 A, B, C, D, E
A, B A A, B
10m sprint, s 3.25 (3.09; 3.48) 3.25 (3.2; 3.58) 2.62 (2.55; 2.74) 2.3 (2.45; 2.75) 2.54 (2.44; 2.61) 2.33 (2.29; 2.4) A, B

20m sprint, s 5.55 (5.19; 5.81) 5.69 (5.3; 6.21) 4.56 (4.25; 4.8) A, B 3.46 (4.44; 4.92) A, B 4.63 (4.32; 4.71) A, B 3.96 (3.6; 4.18) A, B

Change of Direction Ability

Sideway shuffle, s 7.39 (7.04; 8.04) 7.3 (7.18; 7.69) 6.23 (6.02; 6.42) A, B 5.18 (5.66; 6.33) A, B 6.25 (6.14; 6.33) A, B 5.6 (5.3; 6.07) A, B

Spider drill, s 25.3 ± 1.65 24.94 ± 1.62 22.54 ± 1.11 A, B 23.85 ± 2.3 22.92 ± 1.7 A, B 19.5 ± 1.36 A, B, C, D, E
B A, B A, B
Zig-zag, s 7.34 (7.24; 7.88) 8.05 (7.65; 8.2) 7.09 (6.39; 7.34) 13.73 (6.36; 6.91) 6.46 (6.21; 6.75) 6.25 (5.54; 6.3) A, B, C

Aerobic Maximal Power and Flexibility Performances

VO2 max, mL/kg/min 49.5 (47.5; 49.7) 45.7 (43.4; 48) 46.3 (45.7; 48.7) 24.58 (49.5; 52) C 50.5 (49; 51.6) B, C 50.25 (48.8; 52.9) B, C

SAR, cm 2.75 (2; 5) 2 (-1; 3) -0.5 (-4.25; 0.75) 6.3 (-5.25; 6.75) 2 (-0.5; 4.88) 2 (0.75; 3.5)

Abbreviations: SLJ, standing long jump; CMJ, countermovement jump; MBT, medicine ball throw test; VO2 max, the maximum oxygen uptake; SAR, sit and reach test.
a
Values were presented as mean ± SD for parametric variables or as median (25th; 75th percentiles) for non-parametric variables. A, significantly different from U9 at P <
0.05; B, significantly different from U10 at P < 0.05; C, significantly different from U11 at P < 0.05; D, significantly different from U12 at P < 0.05; E, significantly different
from U14 at P < 0.05.

4. Results for 10m sprint, there was a significant effect of age groups
(H5 = 76.88; P < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.75) with higher performance
The statistical analysis presented in Table 2 shows that in U14 and U18 compared to U9 and U10 (P < 0.001 for
there were significant age group differences in muscle all comparisons), in U12 compared to U9 (P = 0.001), and
power, sprint, change of direction performances, and in U11 compared to U9 (P = 0.003) and U10 (P = 0.001).
flexibility among tennis players. Specifically, in the Moreover, a significant effect of age groups was found for
Standing Long Jump (SLJ) test, there was a significant 20m sprint (H5 = 74.27; P < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.73) with higher
difference between age groups (F5.95 = 28.29; P < 0.001; ηp2 performance in U18 compared to U9 and U10 (P < 0.001 for
= 0.6) with higher values in U18 compared to all other age both comparisons), in U14, U11, and U12 compared to U9 (P
groups, in U14 compared to U9 and U10, in U12 compared = 0.001, P < 0.001, p 0.004, respectively) and U10 (P < 0.001
to U9 and U10, and in U11 compared to U9. In the for all comparisons).
Countermovement Jump (CMJ) test, there was a significant
difference between age groups (F5.95 = 35.05; P < 0.001; ηp2 Age groups significantly differed in sideway shuffle
= 0.65) with higher performance in U18 compared to all test performance (H5 = 65.3; P < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.63) with
other age groups and in U14 and U12 compared to U9. For lower performance in U9 and U10 compared to U11 (P
the Modified Agility T-Test (MBT) performance, there was a = 0.002 and P = 0.001, respectively), U12 (P < 0.001 for
significant difference between age groups (H5 = 67.37; P < both comparisons), U14 (P = 0.001 for both comparisons),
0.001; ηp2 = 0.66) with higher performance in U14 and U18 and U18 (P < 0.001 for both comparisons). Also, there
compared to U9 and U11, in U10, U14, and U18 compared to was a significant effect of age group for the spider drill
U12, and in U10 compared to U9. performance (F5.95 = 25.97; P < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.58) with higher
For the 5m sprint performance, a significant effect of performance in U18 compared to all other age groups (P <
age group was found (F5.95 = 15.07; P < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.44) with 0.001 for all comparisons) and in U11 and U14 compared to
higher performance in U18 compared to U9 (P < 0.001), U10 U9 (P < 0.001 for both comparisons) and U10 (P = 0.002 and
(P < 0.001), U11 (P = 0.006), U12 (P = 0.001), and U14 (P = P = 0.007, respectively). For the Zig-zag test performance, a
0.039), in U14 compared to U9 and U10 (P < 0.001 for both significant effect of age groups was found (H5 = 65.03; P <
comparisons), in U12 compared to U10 (P = 0.035), and in 0.001; ηp2 = 0.63) with higher performance in U18 compared
U11 compared to U9 (P = 0.039) and U10 (P = 0.016). Also, to U9 (P < 0.001), U10 (P < 0.001), and U11 (P = 0.003), in U14

Int J Sport Stud Health. 2023; 6(1):e138396. 5

 Alshahrani SM et al.

compared to U9 and U10 (P < 0.001 for both comparisons), 4.2. Centiles
and in U11 compared to U10 (P = 0.017), as well as Zig-zag test
A summary of the estimated centiles of physical
performance was lower for U12 compared to U9 (P = 0.005)
performances for Tunisian tennis players aged 7 – 17 years
and U10 (P < 0.001). Additionally, there was a significant
is presented in the Supplementary File, appendices 1 -
effect of age groups for VO2 max (H5 = 38.29; P < 0.001; ηp2
11. These tables and the corresponding centile charts
= 0.35) with higher performance in U18 compared to U10
(see the Supplementary File, appendices 12 - 22) allow a
and U11 (P < 0.001), in U14 compared to U10 (P < 0.001)
particular tennis player’s test values to be compared to
and U11 (P = 0.003), and in U12 compared to U11 (P = 0.002).
the norms for the group. The interpretation of centiles
However, non-significant effect of age groups was detected
is straight-forward, for example in the case of the CMJ
for SAR (H5 = 9.31; P = 0.097; ηp2 = 0.05).
performance with particular age group, if that player’s
performance is on the 25th centile, it means that for every
4.1. Correlation 100 players in the same age group, 25 would have a lower
CMJ performance and 75 a higher CMJ performance.
Height was significantly correlated with SLJ test (U12:
r = 0.71, P = 0.002 and U18: r = 0.64, P = 0.006), sideway 5. Discussion
shuffle test (U12: r = -0.74, P < 0.001 and U18: r = -0.52, P =
0.033), and SAR test (U18: r = 0.62, P = 0.014). Body mass was The purpose of the present study was to investigate
significantly correlated with CMJ (r = -0.51, P = 0.037) and the physical profile of Tunisian tennis players across
sideway shuffle test in U10 (r = 0.54, P = 0.025), with VO2 max different age groups (8 to 17 years) using various physical
in U12 (r = 0.59, P = 0.017), and with MBT in U18 (r = 0.64, P = performance measures, including horizontal jump,
0.008). vertical jump, sprints, change of direction, endurance, and
SLJ test was significantly correlated with CMJ (U9: r = flexibility performances. The results indicated that there
0.57, P = 0.013; U12: r = 0.68, P = 0.004; U14: r = 0.71, P < 0.001; were significant age group differences in most physical
and U18: r = 0.72, P = 0.001), sideway shuffle test (U10: r = performance measures, with U18 and U14 categories
-0.51, P = 0.038; U12: r = -0.74, P < 0.001), VO2 max (U11: r = generally performing better than U9 and U10 in all
0.86, P < 0.001; U12: r = 0.53, P = 0.034; and U14: r = 0.6, P measured parameters, except for MBT where U14 and
= 0.006), Zig-zag test (U12: r = -0.53, P = 0.035), Spider drill U18 were better than U9. In terms of sprint distances, U9
test (U18: r = -0.52, P = 0.033), and SAR test (U12: r = 0.73, P = and U10 were inferior to U11 in all distances, the sideways
0.014). Additionally, CMJ was significantly correlated with shuffle test, and the spider drill ability test, and were also
MBT test (U9: r = 0.69, P = 0.002; U14: r = 0.49, P = 0.029), inferior to U12 in SLJ, 20m sprint, the sideways shuffle
5m sprint (U12: r = -0.58, P = 0.17), 10m sprint (U18: r = -0.5, test, the zigzag test, and VO2 max. U11 was better than U9
P = 0.041), Sideway shuffle test (U10: r = -0.61, P = 0.022; U12: and U10 in SLJ and Zig-zag test, respectively, while U12 was
r = -0.65, p =0.007), VO2 max (U14: r = 0.59, P = 0.006 and better than U9 in CMJ and 10m sprint and better than
U18: r = 0.51, P = 0.046), Spider drill test (U9: r = -0.49, P = U10 in MBT and 5m sprint. U9 was inferior to U10 in MBT.
0.041; U12: r = -0.59, P = 0.039; and U18: r = -0.57, P = 0.17), Additionally, there were significant correlations between
and SAR test (U12: r = 0.57, P = 0.027). Moreover, MBT was anthropometric measures, muscle power, sprint, change
significantly correlated with 20m sprint (U12: r = -0.52, P = of direction, and endurance abilities in almost all age
0.037) and Zig-zag test (U18: r = -0.5, P = 0.04). groups.
5m sprint was significantly correlated with 20m sprint Regarding the anthropometric characteristics,
(U10: r = 0.64, P = 0.006), Spider drill test (U9: r = 0.58, P Myburgh et al. (16) anthropometric data of 91 elite
= 0.011 and U12: r = 0.69, P = 0.003), and VO2 max (U12: r British junior tennis players (47 male and 44 female) of 8
= -0.57, P = 0.021). 10m sprint was significantly correlated - 17 years of age, classified by gender and age groups into
with 20m sprint (U10: r = 0.55, P = 0.024) and SAR test (U14: 4 groups. In agreement with the results of Myburgh et al.
r = -0.56, P = 0.01). (16), the tennis players in the present study were smaller
Sideway shuffle test was significantly correlated with and lighter than those in all age groups for both gender,
Zig-zag test (U12: r = 0.53, P = 0.33 and U14: r = 0.53, P = 0.017), U9, U10, and U11 vs U10, U12 vs U12, U14 vs U14, and U18 vs U16.
VO2 max (U12: r = -0.64, P = 0.007), and SAR test (U12: r = Moreover, Palaiothodorou et al. (17) involved 48 children
-0.57, P = 0.025). Additionally, Zig-zag test was significantly tennis players (24 boys and 24 girls) aged 7 - 13 years,
correlated with SAR test (U10: r = -0.55, P = 0.022; U12: r divided in four age groups (U9: 8.2 ± 0.44, U10: 9.5 ± 0.13,
= -0.65, P = 0.008; and U14: r = -0.47, P = 0.037) and with U11: 10.5 ± 0.33, U12: 12.2 ± 0.58). Where, children’s players
VO2 max in U10 (r = 0.65, P = 0.005). in our study were smaller and lighter in U9 and taller and

6 Int J Sport Stud Health. 2023; 6(1):e138396.

 Alshahrani SM et al.

lighter in U10 compared to U9. Indeed, U11 participants performance of 78 young tennis players aged 15.4 ± 0.8
were taller but lighter than U10. Indeed, U12 and U14 were and 15.3 ± 0.8, respectively for boys and girls, outlined
both smaller and lighter than U11 and U12. Olcucu and better performance of SLJ, CMJ, MBT, 20m sprint, SAR, and
Vatansever (18) studied 30 Turkish female tennis players 20mSRT (this study reported the total distance during this
aged 8.75 ± 0.83 years, and those players were taller and test, making this comparison possible by estimating the
heavier than U9 and U10 tennis players in the present total distance for U18) for boys, but not for girls, than our
study. However, Yıldız (19) involved 28 Turkish male tennis results of U18.
players of 9.6 ± 0.7 years of age, where those players were In terms of strength, Tunisian players in the U12, U14
smaller than U11 and heavier than U10 players. Moreover, and U18 age groups showed better physical performance
Berdejo del Fresno et al. (20) measured body composition compared to the U9-U11 age group, in addition to flexibility,
for 7 elite tennis players in two moments separated by which was determined by sitting and reaching tests,
10 month, where in month 1 were aged 10.83 ± 0.39 and where no significant differences were observed in all
in month 11 were aged 11.58 ± 0.39, and those players in age groups. Furthermore, Tunisian players showed
month 1 and after 11 were heavier compared to U12 but not promising physical performance, indicating potential
neither taller nor heavier compared to U14. Rice et al. (21) talent and development, compared to previous studies
studied 237 elite junior and professional tennis players of child tennis players. However, weaknesses can also be
affiliated with the United States Tennis Association, aged identified. When compared to international standards
9–27 years (14.6 ± 3.7 years), but they did not discriminate and studies conducted on elite junior and professional
by age group. Our participants in U18 were taller (1.69 ± tennis players, Tunisian players generally exhibit smaller
0.09 U14 vs 1.67 ± 0.13 m) but not heavier (56.28 ± 7.49 kg stature and lighter body weight. In addition, their physical
vs 56.5 ± 13.8 kg). Furthermore, three studies investigated fitness performance, particularly in areas such as agility,
anthropometric data of Spanish (22, 23) and Polish tennis vertical jump, and sprinting, may lag behind international
players (24) aged 14 - 16, 14.8 - 17.6, and 15 - 17 years, presented standards. It is worth noting that these differences could
contradictory results compared to U18 data in this present be influenced by factors such as the level of players, gender,
study. Tennis players involved in these three studies and the specific measurement protocols employed in the
(22-24) were taller and heavier than U18 tennis players. studies. Overall, while Tunisian tennis players show
With respect to our study’s results of physical fitness promise in certain aspects of physical fitness, there is
tests among Tunisian tennis players, U12, U14, and U18 age room for improvement in terms of size, strength, and
groups almost showed a greater performance compared overall athleticism to match international standards.
to U9 – U11 age groups, expect in flexibility test assessed
with the sit and reach test, no difference between all 5.1. Conclusions
age groups. Only two studies investigated basic physical This study aimed to investigate the physical
fitness in children tennis players (18, 20). The first study performance of Tunisian tennis players across different
explored physical fitness performance among 8.87 ± 0.83 age groups. The findings revealed that players aged 11 - 17
years female tennis players, were assessed for SAR, SLJ, performed better in muscle power, sprinting, agility, and
vertical jump, 10 and 30m sprints tests (18), reporting endurance compared to those aged 8 - 10. However, there
better performance than U9 and U10 age groups in our was no significant difference in flexibility between the age
study. The second study (20) measured SAR, agility, and SLJ groups. It is important to note that this study had some
performance in two different moments, the first where all limitations, such as the use of standard fitness tests and
participants aged 10.83 ± 0.39 and the second at the age a relatively small sample size. Therefore, future research
of 11.58 ± 0.39, separated by 10-month period. Our tennis with a larger sample size and equal representation of male
players’ performances were lower compared to the latter and female participants is recommended to strengthen
study results (20), as well as players in Berdejo del Fresno the findings. Overall, it was observed that the body
et al. (20) study presented better VO2 max compared composition and physical fitness profile of Tunisian
to our players, this contradiction might be explained tennis players aged 8-17 were lower compared to their
by the level of tennis players, gender, and the usage counterparts worldwide.
of different measures protocols. Regarding 5m sprint
performance, resent study used a mixed-longitudinal
Supplementary Material
design, measuring players from 10 to 15 years old, reported
greater performance in comparison to our results of U11 Supplementary material(s) is available here [To read
to U14, even their performance outperformed our results supplementary materials, please refer to the journal
of U18. Luna-Villouta et al. (25) has examined physical website and open PDF/HTML].

Int J Sport Stud Health. 2023; 6(1):e138396. 7

 Alshahrani SM et al.

Footnotes Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(12). [PubMed ID: 34204221]. [PubMed
Central ID: PMC8296339]. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126512.
11. Alricsson M, Harms-Ringdahl K, Werner S. Reliability of sports related
Authors’ Contribution: Study concept and design: S.
functional tests with emphasis on speed and agility in young athletes.
M. A., A. Z. and H. C.; Analysis and interpretation of data: Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2001;11(4):229–32. [PubMed ID: 11476428].
A. S.; Drafting of the manuscript: S. M. A., A. S., and https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0838.2001.110406.x.
A. Z.; Critical revision of the manuscript for important 12. Svensson M, Drust B. Testing soccer players. J
Sports Sci. 2005;23(6):601–18. [PubMed ID: 16195009].
intellectual content: K. T., A. A., and H. C.; Statistical
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410400021294.
analysis: A. S.; Administrative, technical, and material 13. Ab Rahman Z. Reliability, Validity, and Norm References of Standing
support: A. Z. and H. C.; Study supervision: A.Z. and H. C.. Broad Jump. Rev Gest Inovac Tecnol. 2021;11(3):1340–54.
14. Leger LA, Mercier D, Gadoury C, Lambert J. The multistage 20 metre
Conflict of Interests: The authors certify that there
shuttle run test for aerobic fitness. J Sports Sci. 1988;6(2):93–101.
is no conflict of interest with any financial organization [PubMed ID: 3184250]. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640418808729800.
regarding the material discussed in the manuscript. 15. Ayala F, Sainz de Baranda P, De Ste Croix M, Santonja
F. Criterion-related validity of four clinical tests used to
Ethical Approval: The study was approved by the ethics
measure hamstring flexibility in professional futsal players.
committee of Farhat Hached Hospital in Sousse (Tunisia) Phys Ther Sport. 2011;12(4):175–81. [PubMed ID: 22085711].
and was carried out in accordance with the declaration of https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ptsp.2011.02.005.
Helsinki before the commencement of the assessments. 16. Myburgh GK, Cumming SP, Coelho EM, Cooke K, Malina RM.
Growth and maturity status of elite British junior tennis
Funding/Support: The authors report no involvement in players. J Sports Sci. 2016;34(20):1957–64. [PubMed ID: 26930031].
the research by the sponsor that could have influenced the https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1149213.
outcome of this work. 17. Palaiothodorou D, Antoniou T, Vagenas G. Bone asymmetries
in the limbs of children tennis players: testing the combined
effects of age, sex, training time, and maturity status. J
Sports Sci. 2020;38(20):2298–306. [PubMed ID: 32543283].
References https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2020.1779490.
18. Olcucu B, Vatansever S. Correlation Between Physical
1. Fernandez-Fernandez J, Sanz-Rivas D, Mendez-Villanueva A. A
Fitness and International Tennis Number (ITN) Levels
Review of the Activity Profile and Physiological Demands of Tennis
Among Children Tennis Players. Anthropol. 2017;21(1-2):137–42.
Match Play. Strength Cond J. 2009;31(4):15–26. [PubMed ID: 19197208].
https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.2015.11891803.
https://doi.org/10.1519/SSC.0b013e3181ada1cb.
19. Yıldız S. Relationship between Functional Movement Screen and
2. Fernandez J, Mendez-Villanueva A, Pluim BM. Intensity of tennis
Athletic Performance in Children Tennis Players. Univ J Educ Res.
match play. Br J Sports Med. 2006;40(5):387–91. discussion 391.
2018;6(8):1647–51. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2018.060803.
[PubMed ID: 16632566]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC2653872].
20. Berdejo del Fresno D, Vicente Rodríguez G, González Ravé JM,
https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2005.023168.
Moreno LA, Rey López JP. Body composition and fitness in elite
3. Gomes RV, Ribeiro SML, Veibig RF, Aoki MS. [Food intake and
Spanish children tennis players. J Hum Sport Exerc. 2010;5(2):250–64.
anthropometric profile of amateur and professionals tennis players].
https://doi.org/10.4100/jhse.2010.52.13.
Rev Bras de Medicina do Esporte. 2009;15(6):436–40. Portuguese.
21. Rice RP, Roach K, Kirk-Sanchez N, Waltz B, Ellenbecker TS, Jayanthi
https://doi.org/10.1590/s1517-86922009000700007.
N, et al. Age and Gender Differences in Injuries and Risk Factors
4. Kovacs MS. Tennis physiology: training the competitive
in Elite Junior and Professional Tennis Players. Sports Health.
athlete. Sports Med. 2007;37(3):189–98. [PubMed ID: 17326695].
2022;14(4):466–77. [PubMed ID: 35037501]. [PubMed Central ID:
https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200737030-00001.
PMC9214903]. https://doi.org/10.1177/19417381211062834.
5. Kovacs MS. Applied physiology of tennis performance. Br J Sports Med.
22. Sanchez-Munoz C, Sanz D, Zabala M. Anthropometric characteristics,
2006;40(5):381–5. discussion 386. [PubMed ID: 16632565]. [PubMed
body composition and somatotype of elite junior tennis players. Br J
Central ID: PMC2653871]. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2005.023309.
Sports Med. 2007;41(11):793–9. [PubMed ID: 17957016]. [PubMed Central
6. Ulbricht A, Fernandez-Fernandez J, Mendez-Villanueva A, Ferrauti
ID: PMC2465306]. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2007.037119.
A. Impact of Fitness Characteristics on Tennis Performance in Elite
23. Torres G, Alacid F, Ferragut C, Villaverde C. Estudio
Junior Tennis Players. J Strength Cond Res. 2016;30(4):989–98. [PubMed
cineantropométrico del jugador de tenis adolescente. (Cinematic
ID: 26605803]. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001267.
anthropometric study of adolescent tennis players). Cult Cienc
7. Reid M, Duffield R, Dawson B, Baker J, Crespo M. Quantification of
Deporte. 2006;2(4):27–32. https://doi.org/10.12800/ccd.v2i4.172.
the physiological and performance characteristics of on-court tennis
24. Karnia M, Garsztka T, Rynkiewicz M, Rynkiewicz T, Zurek P,
drills. Br J Sports Med. 2008;42(2):146–51. discussion 151. [PubMed ID:
Łuszczyk M, et al. Physical Performance, Body Composition
17681984]. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2007.036426.
and Body Balance in Relation to National Ranking Positions
8. Kramer T, Huijgen B, Elferink-Gemser MT, Lyons J, Visscher C. Physical
in Young Polish Tennis Players. Balt J Health Phys Act. 2010;2(2).
development of young talented tennis players. Digitalis. 2010:93–114.
https://doi.org/10.2478/v10131-0011-z.
https://doi.org/10.14195/978-989-26-0506-7_7.
25. Luna-Villouta P, Paredes-Arias M, Flores-Rivera C,
9. Kurtz JA, Grazer J, Alban B, Martino M. Ability for tennis specific
Hernandez-Mosqueira C, Souza de Carvalho R, Faundez-Casanova C,
variables and agility for determining the Universal Tennis Ranking
et al. Anthropometric Characterization and Physical Performance by
(UTR). Sports J. 2019.
Age and Biological Maturation in Young Tennis Players. Int J Environ
10. Dobos K, Novak D, Barbaros P. Neuromuscular Fitness Is Associated
Res Public Health. 2021;18(20). [PubMed ID: 34682639]. [PubMed
with Success in Sport for Elite Female, but Not Male Tennis Players. Int J
Central ID: PMC8535686]. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010893.

8 Int J Sport Stud Health. 2023; 6(1):e138396.