Effects of Static and Dynamic Stretching on Agility Performance in Tennis Players

Abstract

Background & purpose: Most sports individuals or athletes including tennis players perform stretching during warm-up prior to physical activity in order to prevent injuries and enhance sports performance by improving flexibility. Traditionally static stretching exercises have been a prominent feature of warm up routines. On the other hand, dynamic stretching improves knee joint position sense, increases oxygen uptake and lowers lactate concentration. Hamstring and calf muscle group play a significant role in agility function in tennis players. So the study is conducted to check the effect of static and dynamic stretching of hamstring and calf muscle on agility performance in tennis players. Objective: To check the effect of static and dynamic stretch on agility functions in tennis players. Method:36 tennis players were taken for the study and the three different stretch protocols (no stretch, static stretch and dynamic stretch) were performed on each of them and time taken for the two agility drills were recorded in a pre and post stretch interventions. Outcome measures: Shuttle run test, Tennis specific agility test Result: Results show that there was a significant decrease in time taken to complete the agility drill for the players performing dynamic stretching than those compared to no stretch and static stretching of the hamstrings and calf muscles. Conclusion: Static stretching neither improves nor reduces performance and that dynamic stretching enhances performance of tennis players.

Full text

International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN (Online): 2319-7064
Index Copernicus Value (2013): 6.14 | Impact Factor (2013): 4.438
Volume 4 Issue 8, August 2015
www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Effects of Static and Dynamic Stretching on Agility
Performance in Tennis Players
Vishwas Vaghela1, Dharmesh Parmar2
1Senior Lecturer, Ahmedabad Physiotherapy College
2Lecturer, Ahmedabad Physiotherapy College
Abstract: Background & purpose: Most sports individuals or athletes including tennis players perform stretching during warm-up
prior to physical activity in order to prevent injuries and enhance sports performance by improving flexibility. Traditionally static
stretching exercises have been a prominent feature of warm up routines. On the other hand, dynamic stretching improves knee joint
position sense, increases oxygen uptake and lowers lactate concentration. Hamstring and calf muscle group play a significant role in
agility function in tennis players. So the study is conducted to check the effect of static and dynamic stretching of hamstring and calf
muscle on agility performance in tennis players. Objective: To check the effect of static and dynamic stretch on agility functions in
tennis players. Method:36 tennis players were taken for the study and the three different stretch protocols (no stretch, static stretch and
dynamic stretch) were performed on each of them and time taken for the two agility drills were recorded in a pre and post stretch
interventions. Outcome measures: Shuttle run test, Tennis specific agility test Result: Results show that there was a significant decrease
in time taken to complete the agility drill for the players performing dynamic stretching than those compared to no stretch and static
stretching of the hamstrings and calf muscles. Conclusion: Static stretching neither improves nor reduces performance and that
dynamic stretching enhances performance of tennis players.
Keywords: Agility, Tennis, Static Stretching (SS), Dynamic Stretching (DS), No Stretching (NS)
1. Introduction
Most sports individuals or athletes including tennis players
perform stretching during warm up prior to physical activity
in order to prevent injuries and enhance sports performance
by improving flexibility.1,2,3,4 Various techniques of
stretching including static, ballistic, proprioceptive
neuromuscular facilitation techniques, dynamic stretching
etc. are used for the same.5,6,7 Static stretching is a type of
stretching in which a relaxed position is held without
moving for a significant period of time. As opposed to
dynamic stretching in which the limb is moved vigorously to
stretch.
Traditionally static stretching exercise has been a prominent
feature of warm up activities.7,8,9 But now researches in
particular suggest that a regiment of static stretching
provides an active inhibition of maximal force production by
the stretched muscle.9,10 The most common held concept for
the decrement of performance is that passive stretching
causes musculotendinous (MTU) unit to become more
compliant.11,12 These reductions in MTU stiffness leads to
acute neural inhibition and decrease in neural drive to
muscle resulting in reduction in power output.11,13
Practical implication of dynamic stretching (DS) protocols
during warm-up are increasing because several
investigations have shown that SS degrades performance on
vertical jumps, short sprints, task requiring maximal
voluntary contraction, muscle strength, endurance
performance, balance challenges and reaction time.7,8,14,15
DS has shown to improve knee joint position sense, increase
O2 uptake, lowers lactate concentration and to improve
efficiency of thermo regulation.7,8,16 Tennis is a sport
requiring speed power and functional strength movements
over an extended period of time. In tennis players, strength
and flexibility of hamstring as well as calf muscle have a
significant effect on agility performance. Agility may be
defined as requirement of a participant to change direction in
response to a given stimuli. So any stretching protocol
during warm up needs to be emphasized on these two
muscle groups. Objective of this study was to check and
compare effects static and dynamic stretching on agility
performance in tennis players.
Study Design/Technique – Experimental design/Purposive
sampling technique
Samples and Age Group– 36 male tennis players with the
age of 12-18 years were selected from Balbhavan, Vadodara
Inclusion Criteria
Subjects have participated in regular training program and
had been playing tennis for at least 1 year
Exclusion Criteria
1) Acute impairment of spine or lower extremity.
2) H/O surgery in either lower extremity
3) H/O neurological disorder affecting upper and lower
extremities
4) BMI above 25 and below 20
2. Methodology
Paper ID: 01081501
581

International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN (Online): 2319-7064
Index Copernicus Value (2013): 6.14 | Impact Factor (2013): 4.438
Volume 4 Issue 8, August 2015
www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
3. Procedures
All the subjects were assessed on the same tennis court at
three non consecutive days to avoid fatigability taking place.
Agility test were performed in the morning time only
between 8 am – 11 am in the same order on the test days.
The individual performed the warm-up stretch for 10
minutes and the time difference between the warm-up
session and performance of agility was not more than 2
minutes. 4 subjects were excluded (3 because of any injury
and 1 because of fatigue). It was an assessor blinded study.
The individuals taking the data of the agility performance
were not aware of the different warm up protocols used for
the study. Static and dynamic warm-up stretches were
performed by the same person who had experience in sports
fitness for more than 1 year.
4. Assessment of Agility Function
Shuttle run test17: To administer shuttle run we placed 2
cones on the tennis court 5 m apart. Subjects were told to
sprint from 1 cone to other, touch it with hands by bending
down and sprint back to starting line twice for a total of
20m.
Tennis specific agility test18: Players begin at center mark
on the base line of tennis court. Upon the command “go” of
the assessor, players sprint to doubles side line to touch a
cone placed at the center of the line, then they return back to
the starting position on centre mark. From the center mark
they then run to the singles sideline and again touch the cone
before returning to the starting position. Next sprint is to the
short diagonal at the intersection of singles sidelines and
service lines on the right hand side, again returning back to
starting position. Players then spring forwards to touch the
net and return back to baseline keeping and eye on their
opponent (backward sprint). Long diagonal to the left is the
next direction here players sprints from centre to intersection
of net and left singles sideline and returns in side sprint to
the centre point. It is then along the baseline to the left single
sideline and back to the centre point. Finally last sprint is out
to doubles sidelines as fast as possible. Stopwatch is stopped
as player crosses doubles sideline.
Procedures of static stretching of target muscles:
Hamstrings: The experimenter flexes the hip joint while the
patient is in supine lying with the knees fully extended.
Plantar flexors: the experimenter dorsiflexed the ankle joint
of the subject while the subject remained in the supine lying
position with the knee fully extended.
Procedure of dynamic stretching of target muscles:
Hamstrings: The subject contracted the hip flexors
intentionally with knee extended and flexed his hip joint so
that his leg was swung up to the anterior aspect of his body.
Plantar flexors: First, the subject raised one foot from the
floor and fully extended the knee. Then the subject
contracted his dorsiflexors intentionally and dorsiflexed his
ankle joint so that his toe was pointing upwards.
5. Results
Shuttle Run Test:
Table 1: Comparison of means of NS & SS
PRE (MEAN±SD)
POST (MEAN±SD)
NS
10.07±0.66
10.13±0.70 ¥
SS
9.99±0.60
9.96±0.61 ¥
Paper ID: 01081501
582

International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN (Online): 2319-7064
Index Copernicus Value (2013): 6.14 | Impact Factor (2013): 4.438
Volume 4 Issue 8, August 2015
www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Table 2: Comparison of means of NS & DS
PRE
(MEAN±SD)
POST
(MEAN±SD)
NS
10.07±0.66
10.13±0.70*
DS
9.95±0.63
9.45±0.60*
Table 3: Comparison of means of SS & DS
PRE
(MEAN±SD)
POST(MEAN±SD)
SS
9.99±0.60
9.96±0.61*
DS
9.95±0.63
9.45±0.60*
Tennis Specific Agility Test:
Table 4: Comparison of means of NS & SS
PRE(MEAN±SD)
POST(MEAN±SD)
NS
33.31±1.60
33.1±1.35 ¥
SS
33.7±1.39
33.89±1.15 ¥
Table 5: Comparison of means of NS & DS
PRE(MEAN±SD)
POST(MEAN±SD)
NS
33.31±1.60
33.1±1.35*
DS
33.69±1.52
32.35±1.38*
Table 6: Comparison of means of SS & DS
PRE(MEAN±SD)
POST(MEAN±SD)
SS
33.7±1.39
33.89±1.15*
DS
33.69±1.52
32.35±1.38*
¥ - p value > .0001 (statistically insignificant)
* - p value < .0001 (statistically significant)
Descriptive statistics representing the performance on each
dependent variable based on warm-up conditions are
presented above in table 1-6. The main effects after
application of various warm up protocols were significant.
Paired t-test revealed that subjects performed better after
application of DS than compared to NS and SS on both
agility drills ( shuttle run test and tennis specific agility
test)(p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference seen
between NS and SS for both the agility drills.
6. Discussion
The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of DS,
SS AND NS on selected measures of agility functions.
Result indicated that DS conferred a modest performance
enhancement for both the two agility test relative to SS and
NS. A decrease in performance with the use of SS has been
established in a number of studies8,11,14,19,20 while a positive
effect of dynamic stretches, though not researched to the
same degree as static stretch, have also been shown.21 In a
review of the warm-up literature, Bishop22 cites several
reasons why an active warm-up such as DS used in this
study might improve short term performance. Most factors
are related to temperature and include decreased stiffness of
the muscles and joints, increased transmission rate of nerve
impulses. When sprint running is analyzed, the need for a
rapid switch from eccentric to concentric contraction is
paramount. Studies found that there was a decrease in
muscle activation. This is a vital component in the drop
jumps Cornwell et al.14 explains that the decreased in the
performance in the counter movement jumps they employed,
caused by SS, was the result of decreased ability of the MTU
to store elastic energy. Interestingly the amount of elastic
energy that can be stored in the MTU is the function of the
unit stiffness 23,24 and so less energy stored in eccentric
phase. The phenomenon of DS enhancing performance has
been linked to the rehearsal of specific movement patterns,
helping proprioception and preactivation, allowing as
optimum switch from the eccentric to the concentric muscle
contraction required to generate high running speeds.19,20
The subjects in this study were young tennis players; male
tennis players might respond differently to the warm-up
protocols used in this study and also only agility
performance was observed, subjects could have also
evaluated for vertical jump test etc.
Future clinical research should continue to investigate not
only the optimal warm-up parameters for duration and
intensity but also the interplay of DS and SS component,
based on other sports specific skills, and psychological
factors.
7. Conclusion
Static stretching neither improves nor reduces agility
performance and that dynamic stretching enhances agility
performance of tennis players.
8. Clinical Implementation
The agility performance seems to be optimized by the use of
dynamic stretching in warm-up compared to Static
Stretching. Static stretching although have shown to improve
the flexibility of the subject does not improve or benefit in
the sprint performance as done by the dynamic stretching.
Thus it can be concluded that for tennis players wishing to
optimize sprint performance immediately before starting of a
game can perform dynamic stretching and on the other hand
during usual warm-up during practice sessions dynamic
stretching and static stretching both should be included.
References
[1] Alter, M.J. Sports stretch. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinematics, 1997.
[2] Shellock, et al. Warm-up and stretching for improved
physical performance and prevention of sports related
injuries. Sports Med. 2:267-278. 1985.
[3] Taichi Yamaguchi et al. Effects of static stretching for
30 seconds and dynamic stretching on leg extension
power. J. Strength Cond. Res. 19:677-683.2005.
[4] Hedrick, A. Dynamic flexibility training. Strength
Cond. J. 22:33-38. 2000.
[5] Taichi Yamaguchi et al. Effects of static stretching for
30 seconds and dynamic stretching on leg extension
power. J. Strength Cond. Res. 19:677-683.2005.
[6] Church, J.B., M.S. Wiggins, F.M. Moode, and R.
Christ. Effect of warm-up and flexibility treatment on
vertical jump performance. J. Strenght Cond. Res.
15:332-336. 2001
[7] Thomas Little and Alum G. Williams. Effects of
differential stretching protocols during warm-ups on
Paper ID: 01081501
583

International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN (Online): 2319-7064
Index Copernicus Value (2013): 6.14 | Impact Factor (2013): 4.438
Volume 4 Issue 8, August 2015
www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
high speed motor capacities in professional soccer
players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 20:203-207. 2006.
[8] Fletcher, et al. The effect of different warm-up stretch
protocol on 20 meter sprint performance in trained
rugby players. J. Strenth Cond. Res. 18;885-888.2004.
[9] Fowels J.R., et al. Reduced strength after passive stretch
of the human plantarflexors. J. Appl. Physiol. 89:1179-
1188. 2000.
[10] Rosenbaum, D., and E.M. Hennig. The influence of
stretching and warm-up exercises on achillies tendon
reflex activity. J. Sports Sci. 13:481-490. 1995
[11] Behm, D.G., D.C. Button and J.C. Butt. Factors
affecting force loss with prolonged stretching. Can.
Appl.. Physiol. 26:262-272.2001.
[12] Herbert, R.D. and M. Gabriel. Effects of stretching
before and after exercising on muscle soreness and risk
of injury: Systemic review. BMJ. 325:468. 2002.
[13] Smith, C.A. The warm-up procedure: To stretch or not
to stretch. A brief review. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther.
19:12-17. 1994.
[14] Cornwell, A., A.G. Nelson, G.D. Heise, and B. Sidawat.
Acute effects of passive stretching on vertical jump
performance. J. Hum. Mov. Stud. 40:307-324. 2001.
[15] Siatras, et al. static and dynamic acute stretching effect
on gymnastic speed in vaulting. Pediatr. Exerc. Sci.
15:381-391. 2003.
[16] Danny J. McMillian, et al. Dynamic vs. static stretching
warm-up: The effect on power and agility performance.
J. Strength Cond. Res. 20:492-499. 2006.
[17] Leger, L.A.; Mercier, D.; Gadoury, C.; Lambert, J.
(1988). The multistage 20 metre shuttle run test for
aerobic fitness. J Sports Sci 6 (2): 93–101
[18] Cooke, Quinn. Testing speed and Agility in Elite Tennis
players. Strength and conditioning journal. 33(4):pp 69-
72
[19] Young, W., and S. Elliot. Acute effect of static
stretching, proprioception neuromuscular facilitation
stretching and maximum voluntary contraction on
explosive force production and jumping performance.
Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 3:273-279. 2001.
[20] Young, W.B. and D.G. Behm. Effects of running, static
stretching and practice jumps on explosive force
production and jumping performance. J. Sports. Med.
PHYS. Fitness 34;119-124. 2002.
[21] Iain M. Fletcher and Ruth Anness. The acute effects of
combined static and dynamic stretch protocols on fifty
meter sprint performance in track and filed athletes. J.
Strenth Cond. Res.21(3): 784-787. 2007.
[22] Bishop, D. Warm up II – Performance changes
following active warm-up and how to structure the
warm-up. Sports Med. 33:483-498.2003
[23] Wilson, G.J., G.A. Wood, and B.C. Elliot. The
relationship between stiffness of the musculature and
static flexibility: an alternative explanation for the
occurrence of musculat injury. Int. J. Sports. Med.
12:403-407. 1991.
[24] Moore, J.C. The Golgi tendon organ: a review and
update. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 38:227-236. 1984.
Paper ID: 01081501
584