Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Page 1/12
Determining shot effectiveness in padel: Exploring differences between
winning and losing teams
Rafael Conde-Ripoll
European University of Madrid
Iván Martín-Miguel
University of Extremadura
Bernardino J. Sánchez-Alcaraz
University of Murcia
Adrián Escudero-Tena
University of Extremadura
Research Article
Keywords: racquet sport, performance analysis, game actions, ecacy
Posted Date: June 28th, 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4564927/v1
License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Read Full License
Additional Declarations: No competing interests reported.
Page 2/12
Abstract
The aims were to (i) analyze winners, forced errors, unforced errors, and forced error generators based on set results and serve, (ii) examine differences
between set winning and losing pairs regarding shot types and effectiveness, and (iii) investigate differences between set winning and losing pairs in shot
types that generate forced errors. Data were collected from 41 professional matches (men and women) at the World Padel Tour Finland Padel Open website.
The results reveal that pairs generate more winners and forced error generators at serve, while forced errors are more prominent at return. The winning pair
achieved more winners (men: CSR = 7.7; women: CSR = 7.4), whereas the losing pair committed more errors (men: forced errors (CSR = 4.3) and unforced
errors (CSR = 3.8); women: forced errors (CSR = 4.8) and unforced errors (CSR = 2.8)). Additionally, the winning pair generated more forced errors (men:
56.5%; women: 60.0%) than the losing pair did (men: 43.5%; women: 40.0%). These ndings are crucial for coaches and players as they offer insights into
sex-specic technical aspects, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of training strategies.
Introduction
Padel is currently played in more than 70 countries (International Padel Federation, 2023), which in recent years has led to a signicant increase in the
number of scientic studies (Martín-Miguel et al., 2023; Sánchez-Alcaraz et al., 2023), with the most studied topic being analysis of performance. In
professional padels, there are several tournament circuits (A1-Padel Tour, Premier Padel, and World Padel Tour (WPT)), with the WPT standing among them
all, which organizes more than 20 events in different cities around the world each season. Thus, the players in this circuit have been the subject of several
research studies that have identied the differences that exist in the parameters of play between men’s and women’s padel (Escudero-Tena, Almonacid et al.,
2022; Escudero-Tena, Courel-Ibáñez et al., 2021; Lupo et al., 2018) or the differences that exist between the winning and losing pairs (Escudero-Tena,
Sánchez-Alcaraz et al., 2021; Sánchez-Alcaraz, Courel-Ibáñez et al., 2020).
The effectiveness of the last shot of the point has been analyzed in professional men and women (Courel-Ibáñez et al., 2017a; Escudero-Tena, Courel-Ibáñez
et al., 2021; Mellado-Arbelo et al., 2019; Sánchez-Alcaraz et al., 2021). These studies concluded that the point can end with a winner, forced error, or unforced
error. A winning shot is the action where a player wins the point with a direct shot (i.e., after bouncing on the other side of the net correctly, the ball bounces
once again; or the ball is hit on the body of the opponent before being out), a forced error is the action where the player loses the point due to an error in a
highly dicult shot, and with a poor position for its execution due to the opponent’s prior shot. Finally, an unforced error is the action where the player loses
the point due to an error in a situation of little diculty and with good space-temporal disposition for execution (Sánchez-Alcaraz et al., 2021). It is worth
noting that among men's professional padel players, the percentage of winning shots (44.4%) was higher than that of unforced errors (30.9%) and forced
errors (24.7%). However, in women, the percentage of unforced errors (39.6%) is higher than that of winning shots (35.3%) and forced errors (25.0%)
(Sánchez-Alcaraz et al., 2021).
In their study, Mellado-Arbelo et al. (2019) indicated that in men’s professional padel, the smash is the predominant shot contributing to winning shots, while
the backhand volley is linked to the highest incidence of forced errors, and the backhand results in the highest number of unforced errors. Winning pairs
typically win relatively long points and do not commit unforced errors in the rst shots of a point (Sánchez-Alcaraz, Courel-Ibáñez et al., 2020). However,
losing pairs, apart from losing long points, commits unforced errors in the rst shots of the point.
The padel serve offers the possibility of taking the initiative of the point, as it allows the serving pair to reach the net position before the opponents, and it has
been shown that approximately 80% of the points are won in this area (Courel-Ibáñez et al. 2017b). A gender-based analysis revealed that men exploit this
scenario to a greater extent, achieving more points while serving, while women excel in point acquisition during the return phase (Sánchez-Alcaraz, Muñoz et
al., 2020). Notably, the serve advantage wanes for men around the 9th or 10th shot (Miguel et al., 2023) and for women by the 8th shot (Sánchez-Alcaraz,
Muñoz et al., 2020). However, to date, no study on men´s and women´s professional padel has related the serving situation to the effectiveness of the last
shot or to the shot that generates the forced error.
After analyzing the existing scientic literature on men´s and women´s professional padel of the effectiveness of the last shot (winners, unforced errors, and
forced errors), several studies have analyzed this variable (Courel-Ibáñez et al., 2017a; Escudero-Tena, Courel-Ibáñez et al., 2021; Mellado-Arbelo et al., 2019).
However, a more in-depth analysis is necessary, relating it to the serve and typology of the shot, among other variables. In addition, the concept of a forced
error generator or shot that induces a forced error in an opposing pair has been considered in other racket sports studies (Condel-Ripoll & Genevois, 2022;
Martínez-Gallego et al., 2013). However, to the best of our knowledge, this concept has not been studied in padels, and it is necessary to analyze shots that
generate forced errors in men's and women's professional pads. The aims were (i) to analyze the winners, forced errors, unforced errors, and forced error
generators according to the set result and to the serve, (ii) to analyze the differences between the winning and losing pairs of the set according to the type of
shots and their effectiveness, and (iii) to analyze the differences between the winning and losing pairs of shots that generate forced errors according to the
typology of shots.
Method
Research design
The design of this research is framed under an empirical methodology, and more specically, it is a descriptive study. Likewise, it is included within the
observational category and is nomothetic, punctual, and multidimensional (Thomas et al., 2022).
Sample
Page 3/12
The data were collected from 41 matches (comprising 4829 points in total) of the professional men qualifying draw (n = 9; 2 rst round, 3 second round, and
4 third round) and main draw (n = 13; four rst round, three second round, three quarternals, two seminals, and one nal) and women qualifying draw (n = 8;
3 rst round, 3 s round, and 2 third) and main draw (n = 11; three rst round, second round, two quarternals, two seminals, and one nals) WPT Finland
Padel Open tournament. The matches took place in the PadelOne Arena in Nokia, Finland. The men players (N = 62; age = 27.49 ± 6.86 years; height = 180.26
± 6.75 cm; laterality = 7 left-handed + 55 right-handed) and the women players (N = 57; age = 26.21 ± 6.47 years; height = 168.20 ± 5.81 cm; laterality = 3 left-
handed + 54) had professional experience competing in WPT tournaments, with a mean of 258.29 ± 173.37 matches played for men and a mean of 176.77 ±
139.56 matches played for women and no injuries were reported during the matches under study. All procedures were conducted according to the ethical
standards in sports and exercise science research (Harriss et al., 2019) and the local Ethics Commission.
Study variables
The following variables were dened and analyzed based on their categorical core and degree of openness (Anguera & Hernández-Mendo, 2016):
Sex: Men’s and women’s categories were established.
Serving situation: A difference was made between serving and returning.
- Set result: A difference was made between the pair that won the set and the pair that lost the set. Prior investigations have examined facets of scoring
within professional panels (Sánchez-Alcaraz, Courel-Ibáñez et al., 2019; Sánchez-Alcaraz, Siquier-Coll et al., 2019). These studies used the set as a unit
of measurement, instead of the match, owing to substantial data discrepancies when considering the play of two versus three sets. As per regulations
(IPF, 2023), securing victory in a pad match entails a pair winning two sets before their opponents. Thus, in the context of a three-set match, outcomes
might incite confusion because each pair would claim a set win and loss prior to the decisive third set.
- Effectiveness of the last shot: effectiveness of the last shot; a difference was made between winner, forced error, and unforced error. Each of these
categories was dened based on previous studies (Sánchez-Alcaraz et al., 2021).
- Forced error generators: shots that induce a forced error in the opposing pair. This variable was used in previous studies (Conde-Ripoll & Genevois,
2022).
- Typology of the shot: A difference was made among bandeja, smash, recovery smash, forehand volley, backhand volley, forehand bajada, backhand
bajada, forehand, backhand, back wall forehand, back wall backhand, side wall forehand, side wall backhand, double wall forehand, double wall
backhand, serve, contrapared, out of court, and others (cadete, willy...). Each category was dened based on previous studies (Escudero-Tena,
Almonacid et al., 2022; Escudero-Tena, Muñoz et al., 2022).
Process
An observer, a PhD student in Sports Sciences, certied padel coach, and with a large amount of published scientic research related to the topic of study,
observed the matches live and recorded the study variables through an ad-hoc instrument. At the end of the collection process, an intra-observer reliability
analysis was performed to ensure the veracity of the collected data. The observer reanalyzed a random sample of six matches (matches were hosted on the
WPT TV website; https://www.worldpadeltourtv.com/) to ensure sucient relevant data to represent 10–20% of the study sample (Igartua, 2006). The mean
intraobserver reliability was 0.90, which was considered almost perfect (Landis & Koch, 1977). In addition, another observer, a PhD student in Sports
Sciences, certied padel coach, and with a large amount of published scientic research related to the topic of study, also analyzed a random sample of six
matches to calculate the average inter-observer reliability, which was 0.84 (Landis & Koch, 1977).
Statistical analysis
Descriptive analysis was performed to obtain information on the number of times the categories of each study variable occurred (frequency and percentage).
An inferential analysis was continued to develop contingency tables, including the chi-square (χ2) statistical test, to obtain the association between variables.
The strength of the association between variables was also calculated using Cramer's V coecient (Vc) was used (Field, 2018). Crewson (2006)
differentiates the strength of association according to the value, considering a small (< 0.100), low (0.100-0.299), moderate (0.300-0.499) or high (> 0.500)
association. In addition, subsequent Z-tests were performed to compare column proportions, adjusting for p values < 0.05, according to the Bonferroni
correction. Contingency tables allow for the identication of associations between variable categories through corrected standard residuals (CSR). Residuals
> |1.96| betrayed cells with more or fewer cases than expected (Field, 20∂18). The signicance level was set at p < 0.05, and statistical analysis was
performed using SPSS 27.0 statistical package for Windows.
Results
***Insert Table1 Here***
Page 4/12
Table 1
Winners, forced errors, unforced errors and forced error generators according to the set result. Serve vs. return.
Men
Winning pair Losing pair
At serve At return At serve At return
N % CSR N % CSR N % CSR N % CSR
Winner 416 57.6a 9.8 209 31.4b -9.8 309 42.6a 9.8 126 18.4b -9.8
Forced error 115 15.9a -8.4 236 35.4b 8.4 153 21.1a -9.5 306 44.8b 9.5
Unforced error 191 26.5a -2.7 221 33.2b 2.7 263 36.3a -0.2 251 36.7a 0.2
Forced error generator 306 66.7 153 33.3 236 67.3 115 32.7
Women
Winning pair Losing pair
At serve At return At serve At return
N % CSR N % CSR N % CSR N % CSR
Winner 244 48.7a 4.8 159 33.5b -4.8 166 29.2a 2.8 106 21.7b -2.8
Forced error 82 16.4a -5.4 147 30.9b 5.4 143 25.1a -5.9 206 42.2b 5.9
Unforced error 175 34.9a -0.2 169 35.6a 0.2 260 45.7a 3.2 176 36.1b -3.2
Forced error generator 206 59.1 143 40.9 147 64.2 82 35.8
Note.
N: number; %: percentage; CSR: corrected standard residuals; CSR > 1.96: Bold; a, b: indicate signicant differences in the Z tests for comparison of
column proportions from p < 0.05 adjusted according to Bonferroni.
There was a relationship between the serving situation and effectiveness of the last shot in the winning pair (X2 = 110.375; df = 2; p < 0.001; V = 0.282) and in
the losing pair (X2 = 127.127; df = 2; p < 0.001; V = 0.300) in men and winning pairs (X2 = 35.815; df = 2; p < 0.001; V = 0.192) and in losing pairs (X2 = 34.788;
df = 2; p < 0.001; V = 0.181) in women (Table1). Winning and losing pairs make more winners at serve in men (CSR = 9.8) and women (CSR = 4.8; CSR = 2.8)
and more forced error generators (winning pair, men: 66.6%; winning pair, women: 59.1%; losing pair, men: 67.3%; losing pair, women: 64.2%). The winning and
losing pairs commit more forced errors at return in men (CSR = 8.4; CSR = 9.5) and women (CSR = 5.4; CSR = 5.9). The winning pair commits more unforced
errors at return in men (CSR = 2.7), and the losing pair commits more unforced errors at serve in women (CSR = 3.2).
***Insert Table2 Here***
Page 5/12
Table 2
Winners, forced errors, unforced errors and forced error generators according to the serve. Winning vs. losing pair.
Men
At serve At return
Winning pair Losing pair Winning pair Losing pair
N % CSR N % CSR N % CSR N % CSR
Winner 416 57.6%a 5.7 309 42.6%b -5.7 209 31.4a 5.5 126 18.4b -5.5
Forced error 115 15.9%a -2.5 153 21.1%b 2.5 236 35.4a -3.5 306 44.8b 3.5
Unforced error 191 26.5%a -4.0 263 36.3%b 4.0 221 33.2a -1.4 251 36.7a 1.4
Forced error generator 306 56.5 236 43.5 153 57.1 115 42.9
Women
At serve At return
Winning pair Losing pair Winning pair Losing pair
N % CSR N % CSR N % CSR N % CSR
Winner 244 48.7a 6.6 166 29.2b -6.6 159 33.5a 4.1 106 21.7b -4.1
Forced error 82 16.4a -3.5 143 25.1b 3.5 147 30.9a -3.6 206 42.2b 3.6
Unforced error 175 34.9a -3.6 260 45.7b 3.6 169 35.6a -0.2 176 36.1a 0.2
Forced error generator 206 58.4 147 41.6 143 63.6 82 36.4
Note.
N: number; %: percentage; CSR: corrected standard residuals; CSR > 1.96: Bold; a, b: indicate signicant differences in the Z tests for comparison of
column proportions from p < 0.05 adjusted according to Bonferroni.
There was a relationship between the set results and the effectiveness of the last shot at serve (X2 = 32.592; df = 2; p < 0.001; V = 0.150) and at return (X2 =
31.302; df = 2; p < 0.001; V = 0.152) in men, and at serve (X2 = 43.842; df = 2; p < 0.001; V = 0.202) and at return (X2 = 20.431; df = 2; p < 0.001; V = 0.146) in
women (Table2). The winning pair makes more winners at serve and at return in men (CSR = 5.7; CSR = 5.5) and women (CSR = 6.6; CSR = 4.1) and more
forced error generators (at serve, men: 56.5%; at serve, women: 58.4%; at return, men: 57.1%; at return, women: 63.6%). Losing pairs commit more forced
errors at serve and at return in men (CSR = 2.5; CSR = 3.5) and women (CSR = 3.5; CSR = 3.6). Losing pairs commit more unforced errors at serve in men (CSR
= 4.0) and women (CSR = 3.6).
***Insert Table3 Here***
Page 6/12
Table 3
Differences between the winning and losing pair in men's professional padel according to the type of shot and its effectiveness.
Winner Forced error Unforced error
Winning pair Losing pair Winning pair Losing pair Winning pair Losing pair
N % CSR N % CSR N % CSR N % CSR N % CSR N % CSR
Total shots 625 59.0a 7.7 435 41.0b -7.7 351 43.3a -4.3 459 56.7b 4.3 412 44.5a -3.8 514 55.5b 3.8
Bandeja 79 12.6a -0.3 58 13.3a 0.3 0 0.0a -0.9 1 0.2a 0.9 79 19.2a -0.7 108 21.0a 0.7
Smash 274 43.8a -0.6 199 45.7a 0.6 19 4.6a -1.1 32 6.2a 1.1
Recovery
smash 20 3.2a -0.8 18 4.1a 0.8 6 1.7a 2.8 0 0.0b -2.8
Forehand
volley 94 15.0a 1.4 52 12.0a -1.4 29 8.3a -2.3 61 13.3b 2.3 67 16.3a 0.8 74 14.4a -0.8
Backhand
volley 86 13.8a 0.9 52 12.0a -0.9 88 25.1a 1.1 100 21.8a -1.1 53 12.9a -0.3 69 13.4a 0.3
Forehand
bajada 8 1.3a -2.0 13 3.0b 2.0 22 5.3a -0.2 29 5.6a 0.2
Backhand
bajada 2 0.3a 0.3 1 0.2a -0.3 1 0.3a 1.1 0 0.0a -1.1 3a 0.7a 0.7 2 0.4a -0.7
Forehand 21 3.4a 1.7 7 1.6a -1.7 20 5.7a -1,9 43 9.4a 1.9 49 11.9a -0.2 63 12.3a 0.2
Backhand 11 1.8a 0.5 6 1.4a -0.5 28 8.0a -0.8 44 9.6a 0.8 59 14.3a 0.5 68 13.2a -0.5
Back wall
forehand 4 0.6a -0.5 4 0.9a 0.5 29 8.3a -2.0 58 12.6b 2.0 24 5.8a 0.8 24 4.7a -0.8
Back wall
backhand 3 0.5a -1.9 7 1.6a 1.9 34 9.7a 1.5 31 6.8a -1.5 13 3.2a 0.2 15 2.9a -0.2
Side wall
forehand 11 3.1a 0.6 11 2.4a -0.6 4 1.0a -0.3 6 1.2a 0.3
Side wall
backhand 1 0.2a -0.9 2 0.5a 0.9 15 4.3a 0.8 15 3.3a -0.8 9 2.2a -0.3 13 2.5a 0.3
Double wall
forehand 8 1.3a -0.1 6 1.4a 0.1 25 7.1a 0.7 27 5.9a -0.7 6 1.5a 0.7 5 1.0a -0.7
Double wall
backhand 3 0.5a -1.2 5 1.1a 1.2 27 7.7a 1.3 35 5.4a -1.3 4 1..0a 0.7 3 0.6a -0.7
Contrapared 24 6.8a 0.6 27 5.9a -0.6 1 0.2a 1.1 0 0.0a -1.1
Out of the
court 6 1.0a 0.1 4 0.9a -0.1 10 2.8a 1.8 5 1.11a -1.8 0 0.0a -0.9 1 0.2a 0.9
Serve 5 0.8a 1.2 1 0.2a -1.2 0 0.0a -1.3 2 0.4a 1.3
Other 4 1.1a -1.3 11 2.4a 1.3
Note.
N: number; %: percentage; CSR: corrected standard residuals; CSR > 1.96: Bold; a, b: indicate signicant differences in the Z tests for comparison of
column proportions from p < 0.05 adjusted according to Bonferroni.
There was a relationship between the set result and effectiveness of the last shot (X2 = 59.552; df = 2; p < 0.001; V = 0.146) in men (Table3). The winning pair
achieves more winners (CSR = 7.7) and the losing pair commits more errors (forced errors (CSR = 4.2) and unforced errors (CSR = 3.9)). Regarding the type of
shot, there is no specic shot with which the winning pair of the set makes more winners or errors than the losing pair, and vice versa. Except for the
forehand bajada, where the losing pair commits more winners than the winning pair (CSR = 2.0), recovery smash, where the winning pair makes more forced
errors than the losing pair (CSR = 2.8), and forehand volley and back wall forehand, where the losing pair makes more forced errors than the winning pair
(CSR = 2.3 and 2.0).
***Insert Table4 Here***
Page 7/12
Table 4
Differences between the winning and losing pair in women's professional padel according to the type of shot and its effectiveness.
Winner Forced error Unforced error
Winning pair Losing pair Winning pair Losing pair Winning pair Losing pair
N % CSR N % CSR N % CSR N % CSR N % CSR N % CSR
Total shots 403 59.7a 7.4 272 40.3b -7.4 229 39.6a -4.8 349 60.4b 4.8 344 44.1a -2.8 436 55.9b 2.8
Bandeja 81 20.1a 0.0 55 20.2a 0.0 0 0.0a -0.8 1 0.3a 0.8 93 27.0 0.2 115 26.4a -0.2
Smash 104 25.8a 0.3 67 24.6a -0.3 11 3.2a -1.3 22 5.0a 1.3
Recovery
smash 1 0.2a -1.4 3 1.1a 1.4 0 0.0a -0.8 1 0.3a 0.8
Forehand
volley 77 19.1a -1.4 64 23.5a 1.4 18 7.9a -1.3 39 11.2a 1.3 46 13.4a -1.2 72 16.5a 1.2
Backhand
volley 68 16.9a 3.3 22 8.1b -3.3 48 21.0a 0.8 64 18.3a -0.8 48 14.0a 0.9 51 11.7a -0.9
Forehand
bajada 23 5.7a 1.0 11 4.0a -1.0 27 7.8a 2.4 17 3.9b -2.4
Backhand
bajada 1 0.2a -0.3 1 0.4a 0.3 2 0.6a -0.8 5 1.1a 0.8
Forehand 18 4.5a -0.6 15 5.5a 0.6 25 10.9a 2.1 21 6.0b -2.1 40 11.6a 1.1 40 9.2a -1.1
Backhand 10 2.5a -1.4 12 4.4a 1.4 17 7.4a -2.1 45 12.9b 2.1 34 9.9a -0.5 48 11.0a 0.5
Back wall
forehand 6 1.5a -1.3 8 2.9a 1.3 26 11.4a 1.2 29 8.3a -1.2 17 4.9a 0.5 18 4.1a -0.5
Back wall
backhand 5 1.2a -1.3 7 2.6a 1.3 16 7.0a -1.7 39 11.2a 1.7 10 2.9a 0.3 11 2.5a -0.3
Side wall
forehand 1 0.2a 0.8 0 0.0a -0.8 14 6.1a 1.0 15 4.3a -1.0 6 1.7a -0.3 9 2.1a 0.3
Side wall
backhand 15 6.6a 2.1 10 2.9b -2.1 5 1.5a -1.6 14 3.2a 1.6
Double wall
forehand 1 0.2a -0.9 2 0.7a 0.9 18 7.9a -0.9 35 10.0a 0.9 0 0.0a -2.0 5 1.1b 2.0
Double wall
backhand 3 0.7a -0.9 4 1.5a 0.9 19 8.3a -0.2 31 8.9a 0.2 4 1.2a -0.5 7 1.6a 0.5
Contrapared 10 4.4a 0.0 15 4.3a 0.0 1 0.3a 1.1 0 0.0a -1.1
Serve 4 1.0a 0.9 1 0.4a -0.9 0 0.0a -0.9 1 0.2a 0.9
Out of the
court 2 0.9a 0.4 2 0.6a -0.4
Other 1 0.4a -0.2 2 0.6a 0.2 0 0.0a -0.9 1 0.2a 0.9
Note.
N: number; %: percentage; CSR: corrected standard residuals; CSR > 1.96: Bold; a, b: indicate signicant differences in the Z tests for comparison of
column proportions from p < 0.05 adjusted according to Bonferroni.
There was a relationship between the set result and effectiveness of the last shot (X2 = 58.053; df = 2; p < 0.001; V = 0.169) in women (Table4). The winning
pair achieves more winners (CSR = 7.4), and the losing pair commits more errors (forced errors (CSR = 4.8) and unforced errors (CSR = 2.8)). Regarding the
type of shots, with the backhand volley the winning pair make more winners than the losing pair (CSR = 3.3), with the forehand and side wall backhand the
winning pair commits more forced errors than the losing pair (CSR = 2.1), with the backhand the losing pair commits more forced errors than the winning pair
(CSR = 2.1), with the forehand bajada the winning pair commits more unforced errors than the losing pair (CSR = 2.4) and with the double wall forehand the
losing pair commits more unforced errors than the winning pair (CSR = 2.0).
***Insert Table5 Here***
Page 8/12
Table 5
Forced error generators. Differences between the winning pair and losing pair in men's professional padel according to the type of shot.
Winning pair Losing pair
N % CSR N % CSR
Total forced error generators 458 56.5 352 43.5
Bandeja 147 32.1a -0.3 116 33.0a 0.3
Smash 35 7.6a -2.3 44 12.5b 2.3
Recovery smash 1 0.2a 0.9 0 0.0a -0.9
Forehand volley 86 18.8a -0.7 73 20.7a 0.7
Backhand volley 89 19.4a 1.8 51 14.5a -1.8
Forehand bajada 15 3.3a -1.7 20 5.7a 1.7
Backhand bajada 3 0.7a -0.7 4 1.1a 0.7
Forehand 17 3.7a 1.2 8 2.3a -1.2
Backhand 16 3.5a -0.2 13 3.7a 0.2
Back wall forehand 11 2.4a 1.0 5 1.4a -1.0
Back wall backhand 7 1.5a 1.3 2 0.6a -1.3
Side wall forehand 2 0.4a 0.4 1 0.3a -0.4
Double wall forehand 4 0.9a 0.0 3 0.9a 0.0
Double wall backhand 5 1.1a 1.3 1 0.3a -1.3
Contrapared 1 0.2a -0.2 1 0.3a 0.2
Serve 17 3.7a 1.2 8 2.3a -1.2
Out of the court 2 0.4a 0.4 1 0.3a -0.4
Note.
N: number; %: percentage; CSR: corrected standard residuals; CSR > 1.96: Bold; a, b: indicate signicant differences in the Z tests for comparison of
column proportions from p < 0.05 adjusted according to Bonferroni.
The winning pair achieves more forced error generators (56.5%) than the losing pairs (43.5%) (Table5). Regarding the type of shot, there is no specic shot
with which the winning pair of the set generates more forced error generators than the losing pair, and vice versa. Except for the smash, where the losing pair
generates more forced error generators than the winning pair (CSR = 2.3).
***Insert Table6 Here***
Page 9/12
Table 6
Forced error generators. Differences between the winning pair and losing pair in women's professional padel according to the type of shot.
Winning pair Losing pair
N % CSR N % CSR
Total forced error generator 348 60.0 232 40.0
Bandeja 107 30.7a 1.0 62 26.7a -1.0
Smash 40 11.5a 1.5 18 7.8a -1.5
Forehand volley 76 21.8a -0.2 52 22.4a 0.2
Backhand volley 37 10.6a -1.2 32 13.8a 1.2
Forehand bajada 20 5.7a -1.0 18 7.8a 1.0
Backhand bajada 6 1.7a 0.4 3 1.3a -0.4
Forehand 23 6.6a 1.9 7 3.0a -1.9
Backhand 7 2.0a -0.5 6 2.6a 0.5
Back wall forehand 5 1.4a -1.0 6 2.6a 1.0
Back wall backhand 4 1.1a -0.6 4 1.7a 0.6
Side wall forehand 1 0.3a -0.3 1 0.4a 0.3
Side wall backhand 2 0.6a 0.2 1 0.4a -0.2
Double wall forehand 1 0.3a -1.8 4 1.7a 1.8
Double wall backhand 1 0.3a -2.2 5 2.2b 2.2
Contrapared 1 0.3a 0.8 0 0.0a -0.8
Serve 16 4.6a -0.5 13 5.6a 0.5
Out of the court 1 0.3a 0.8 0 0.0a -0.8
Note.
N: number; %: percentage; CSR: corrected standard residuals; CSR > 1.96: Bold; a, b: indicate signicant differences in the Z tests for comparison of
column proportions from p < 0.05 adjusted according to Bonferroni.
The winning pair achieves more forced error generators (60.0%) than the losing pairs (40.0%) (Table6). Regarding the type of shot, there is no specic shot
with which the winning pair of the set generates more forced error generators than the losing pair, and vice versa. Except for the double-wall backhand, where
the losing pair generates more forced error generators than the winning pair (CSR = 2.2).
Discussion
The aims were (i) to analyze the winners, forced errors, unforced errors, and forced error generators according to the set result and the serving situation, (ii)
to analyze the differences between the winning and losing pairs of the set according to the type of shots and their effectiveness, and (iii) to analyze the
differences between the winning and losing pairs of shots that generate forced errors according to the shot typology.
To date, no study has related the serving situation to the effectiveness of the last shot or to the shot that generates a forced error. The results of this study
indicate that professional male and female players make more winners and shots that generate forced errors in their opponents when serving, while they
commit more forced errors when returning. This can be attributed to the fact that the serve provides the possibility of reaching the net position before the
opponent, and it has been shown that a higher percentage of points are won in this area (Courel-Ibáñez et al., 2017b; Escudero-Tena, Gómez-Ruano et al.,
2023). Therefore, the serving pair should make an offensive serve and try to win the point quickly, avoiding losing the net position, whereas the returning pair
should try to extend the point and obtain the net position to win. Previous studies have observed that when serving pairs nished the rally at the net, they had
many chances to win the rally, especially when there were no net exchanges or two net exchanges (Escudero-Tena, Gómez-Ruano et al., 2023). When a team
serves, the probability of winning a point is higher at the beginning of the rally (Chacoma & Billoni, 2023). These and other authors observed that the
advantage of having the service disappears after shot number seven (Chacoma & Billoni, 2023; Sánchez-Alcaraz, Muñoz, et al., 2020).
The winning pair of the set makes more winners and shots that generate forced errors, whereas the losing pair of the set commits more errors (forced and
unforced) in both the serving and returning situations. To the best of our knowledge, there are no studies that analyze the winners, the errors (forced and
unforced), and the shots that generate forced errors according to the situation of serve or return in such a specic way, so this information is very new.
Previous studies that have conducted similar studies have differentiated winners from errors, without differentiating between forced and unforced errors, and
without taking into account the shot that generates forced errors (Ramón-Llín et al., 2020; Lupo et al., 2018; Escudero-Tena, Muñoz et al., 2022 Escudero-
Tena, Almonacid et al., 2022). In all cases, these studies conclude that winning pairs make more winners and losing pairs commits more errors.
As for the sex of the players, men seem to take more advantage of the serving situation, since men make more winners and shots that generate forced errors
than women when serving. Women make more winners and shots that generate forced errors than men do when returning. The results obtained seem
Page 10/12
logical, as they can be attributed to the differences between the characteristics of the professional game of men and women (Escudero-Tena, Courel-Ibáñez
et al., 2021; Lupo et al., 2018), as well as to the anthropometric differences between male and female padel players (Muñoz et al., 2022; Pradas et al., 2021).
In addition, Sánchez-Alcaraz, Muñoz et al. (2020) indicated in their study that men gain more points than women when serving, whereas women gain more
points than men when returning. The sex of the players should be considered as a factor to be considered by padel coaches to perform specic training
tasks in which the aim is to win in serving and returning situations.
According to the results of this study, bandeja and smash are the most characteristic shots with which men's and women's padel players achieve more
winners and generate forced errors. However, bandeja is one of the most characteristic shots in which players commit more unforced errors. Previous
studies reported that bandejas and smashes constitute between 52 and 58% of the winning actions in professional padel (Escudero-Tena, Almonacid et al.,
2022; Escudero-Tena, Muñoz et al., 2022; Sánchez-Alcaraz et al., 2022), being these types of shots the technical-tactical actions with which players perform
more winners. For their part, Escudero-Tena, Parraca et al. (2023) indicated that players usually nish their smashes successfully when their shots are at or
topspin, down the line, when the ball leaves the court by three or four meters and when they are made close to the net, while their shots usually end in error
when they are hit with backspin (bandejas), cross-court, where the ball remains in their own court (the ball does not pass the net) or in the opponent's court
(the ball hits directly on the fence or glass), and when they are made far away from the net. In addition, Sánchez-Alcaraz, Pérez-Puche et al. (2020) indicated
that bandeja is the type of shot most used by padel players, representing a percentage of continuity of almost 90%, while at and topspin smashes were the
shots with which they achieved the most winners. Therefore, padel players should treat bandeja as a more conservative approach, trying to reduce the
number of unforced errors. Players should treat smashes as nishing shots to obtain winners and generate forced errors for the opponent.
Volleys (forehand and backhand), technicaltactical actions that are performed without bouncing, usually in areas close to the net when the ball comes
straight from the opponent, are another of the most characteristic shots with which men´s and women´s padel players make the most winners and generator
forced errors. However, volleys (forehand and backhand) were the most characteristic shots in which players committed the most unforced and forced
errors. Previous research that has conducted similar studies on the effectiveness of different types of shots in men's and women's professional padel also
indicates that volleys are one of the technicaltactical actions with which players perform more winners, although equally are one of the gestures with which
players commit more errors (both forced and unforced) (Escudero-Tena, Muñoz et al., 2022 Escudero-Tena, Almonacid et al., 2022). Hence, when being at the
net, players should try to volley to keep the initiative and, only under easy circumstances (e.g., high ball with respect to the net or easy incoming ball with
opponents in a bad position), players should try to look for a forced error generator or a winner. On the other hand, in dicult situations (e.g., low ball with
respect to the net, or very fast incoming ball to the body), players should adopt a more conservative approach in order to avoid committing errors (forced and
unforced). Previous studies also indicate that when men and women execute forehand or backhand shots, they commit more errors (both forced and
unforced), which tend to be shots from the middle and back of the court than any other type of point conclusion. (Escudero-Tena, Almonacid et al., 2022;
Escudero-Tena, Muñoz et al., 2022). Thus, pad players should reduce the number of unforced errors by specically training backhand and forehand shots
from the middle and back of the court. For instance, under easy tactical scenarios, players should look to gain the dominance of the point (e.g., by hiding the
intention, faking that they are going to play a
chiquita
and, instead, playing a deep lob to overpass the opponents) with enough margin to reduce the number
of unforced errors.
The present study has a series of limitations that must be considered when interpreting the results. First, the difference in the score between the pairs during
the game and the set can be a factor affecting the results obtained, since the behavior of the players could vary with an even or unequal score, and even at
decisive moments, such as break points. In addition, it is possible that the volume of the sample analyzed and the characteristics of the places where the
game is played (contextual parameters such as altitude, humidity, outdoors, indoor surface, etc.) should be situational variables to be controlled. Future
research should increase the sample size and consider certain contextual parameters that allow extrapolation and drawing even more decisive conclusions.
Conclusions
The professional players of men and women are very aggressive when serving, making winners, and shots that generate forced errors in the opponent. In
addition, the winning pair makes more winners and forced error generators, while the losing pair commits more forced and unforced errors when serving and
returning.
On the other hand, in men´s and women´s professional padel, there are no signicant differences regarding the types of shots with which winning pairs
achieve more winners and generate more forced errors, with which losing pairs commit more forced and unforced errors. Thus, players are encouraged to
improve their shots in order to become better competitors.
Bandejas, smashes, and volleys (forehand and backhand) are the most characteristic shots with which men´s and women´s paddel players make the most
winners and forced error generators. However, the backhand volley is also the shot with which players commit the most forced errors, and bandejas, volleys
(forehand and backhand), and forehand and backhand are the shots with which players commit the most unforced errors.
Declarations
Author Contribution
R.C-R. and A.E.T. wrote the main manuscript text.B.J.S-A and I.M-M. analyzed data and prepared tables. All authors reviewed the manuscript.
References
Page 11/12
1. Anguera, M. T., & Hernández-Mendo, A. (2016). Avances en estudios observacionales de Ciencias del Deporte desde los mixed methods. Cuadernos de
psicología del deporte,
16
(1), 17–30.
2. Chacoma, A., Billoni, O. V. (2023). Probabilistic model for padel games dynamics. Chaos, Solitons, and Fractals,
174
, 113784.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2023.113784
3. Conde-Ripoll, R., Muñoz, D., Sánchez-Alcaraz, B. J., & Escudero-Tena, A. (in press). Analysis and prediction of unforced errors in men’s and women’s
professional padel. Biology of Sport.
4. Conde-Ripoll, R., & Genevois, C. (2022). Forehand footwork variability in the attacking situation at elite level. ITF Coaching & Sport Science Review,
30
(88), 22–24.
5. Courel-Ibáñez, J., Sánchez-Alcaraz, B. J., & Cañas, J. (2017a). Game performance and length of rally in professional padel players. Journal of Human
Kinetics,
55
(1), 161–169. https://doi.org/10.1515/hukin-2016-0045
. Courel-Ibáñez, J., Sánchez-Alcaraz, J. B., & Cañas, J. (2017b). Effectiveness at the net as a predictor of nal match outcome in professional padel
players. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport,
15
(2), 632–640. https://doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2015.11868820
7. Crewson, P. (2006). Applied statistics handbook. AcaStat Software,
1
, 103–123.
. Escudero-Tena, A., Almonacid, B., Martínez, J., Martínez-Gallego, R., Sánchez-Alcaraz, B. J., & Muñoz, D. (2022). Analysis of nishing actions in men’s and
women’s professional padel.
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching
,
in press
. https://doi.org/10.1177/17479541221139970
9. Escudero-Tena, A., Courel-Ibáñez, J., García-Rubio, J., & Ibáñez, S. J. (2021). Sex differences in professional padel players: Analysis across four seasons.
International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport,
21
(5), 651–662. https://doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2021.1930363
10. Escudero-Tena, A., Gómez-Ruano, M. A., Ibáñez, S. J., Sánchez-Alcaraz, B. J., & Muñoz, D. (2023). Importance of maintaining net position in men’s and
women’s professional padel. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
130
(5), 2210–2225. https://doi.org/10.1177/00315125231194026
11. Escudero-Tena, A., Muñoz, D., Sánchez-Alcaraz, B. J., García-Rubio, J., & Ibáñez, S. J. (2022). Analysis of errors and winners in men’s and women’s
professional padel. Applied Sciences,
12
(16), 8125. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12168125
12. Escudero-Tena, A., Parraca, J. A., Sánchez-Alcaraz, B. J., Muñoz, D., Sánchez-Pay, A., García-Rubio, J., & Ibáñez, S. J. (2023). Análisis de los remates
nalistas en pádel profesional. E-balonmano Com,
19
(2), 117–126. https://doi.org/10.17398/1885-7019.19.117
13. Escudero-Tena, A., Sánchez-Alcaraz, B. J., García-Rubio, J., & Ibáñez, S. J. (2021). Analysis of game performance indicators during 2015–2019 World
Padel Tour seasons and their inuence on match outcome. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
18
(9), 4904.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094904
14. Field, A. (2018) Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. 5th Edition,
SAGE Publications
Ltd., London.
15. Harriss, D. J., Macsween, A., & Atkinson, G. (2019). Ethical standards in sport and exercise science research: 2020 Update. In
International Journal of
Sports Medicine
(Vol. 40, Issue 13, pp. 813–817). Georg Thieme Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1015-3123
1. Igartua, J. J. P. (2006). Métodos cuantitativos de investigación en comunicación. Bosh
17. International Padel Federation. (2023). List of countries associated with the International Padel Federation, https://www.padelp.com/es/
1. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics,
33
(1) 159–174.
19. Lupo, C., Condello, G., Courel-Ibáñez, J., Gallo, C., Conte, D., & Tessitore, A. (2018). Effect of gender and match outcome on professional padel
competition. RICYDE. Revista Internacional de Ciencias del Deporte,
14
(51), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.5232/ricyde2018.05103
20. Martínez-Gallego, R., Guzmán, J. F., James, N., Ramón-Llin, J., Crespo, M., & Vuckovic, G. (2013). The relationship between the incidence of
winners/errors and the time spent in different areas of the court in elite tennis. Journal of Human Sport and Exercise,
8
(3), S601-S607.
21. Martín-Miguel, I., Escudero-Tena, A., Muñoz, D., & Sánchez-Alcaraz, B. J. (2023). Performance analysis in padel: A systematic review. Journal of Human
Kinetics,
89
, 213–230. https://doi.org/10.5114/jhk/168640
22. Mellado-Arbelo, Óscar, Baiget-Vidal, E., & Vivès-Usón, M. (2019). Análisis de las acciones de juego en pádel masculino profesional. Cultura, Ciencia y
Deporte,
14
(42), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.12800/ccd.v14i42.1332
23. Miguel, I. M., Muñoz, D., Lupo, C., & Alcaraz, B. J. (2023). Absence of association between serve and winning point in professional padel. The Journal of
sports medicine and physical tness, 10.23736/S0022-4707.23.15291-1. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0022-4707.23.15291-1
24. Muñoz, D., Toro-Román, V., Courel-Ibáñez, J., Sánchez-Pay, A., & Sánchez-Alcaraz, B. J. (2022). La altura como factor de rendimiento en pádel profesional:
Diferencias entre géneros.
Acciónmotriz
, (29), 93–103.
25. Pradas, F., Sánchez-Pay, A., Muñoz, D., & Sánchez-Alcaraz, B. J. (2021). Gender differences in physical tness characteristics in professional padel
players. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
18
(11), 5967. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18115967
2. Ramón-Llín, J., Guzmán, J., Martínez-Gallego, R., Muñoz, D., Sánchez-Pay, A., & Sánchez-Alcaraz, B. J. (2020). Stroke analysis in padel according to match
outcome and game side on court. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
17
(21), 7838.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217838
27. Sánchez-Alcaraz, B. J., Canovas, J., Sánchez-Pay, A., & Muñoz, D. (2023) Research on padel. A systematic review. Padel Scientic Journal,
1
(1), 71–105.
https://doi.org/10.17398/2952-2218.1.71
2. Sánchez-Alcaraz, B. J., Courel-Ibáñez, J., Díaz, J., Grijota, F. J., & Muñoz, D. (2019). Efectos de la diferencia en el marcador e importancia del punto sobre
la estructura temporal en pádel en primera categoría. Journal of Sport and Health Research.
11
(2), 151–160.
29. Sánchez-Alcaraz, B. J., Courel-Ibáñez, J., Muñoz, D., Infantes-Córdoba, P., de Zumarán, F. S., & Sánchez-Pay, A. (2020). Análisis de las acciones de ataque
en el pádel masculino profesional. Apunts Educación Física y Deportes,
36
(142), 29–34. https://doi.org/10.5672/apunts.2014-0983.es.(2020/4).142.04
Page 12/12
30. Sánchez-Alcaraz, B., Jiménez, V., Muñoz, D., & Ramón-Llin, J. (2021). Diferencias en los parámetros de carga externa entre el pádel masculino y femenino
profesional. Journal of Sport & Health Research,
13
(3), 445–454
31. Sánchez-Alcaraz, B. J., Muñoz, D., Pradas, F., Ramón-Llin, J., Cañas, J., & Sánchez-Pay, A. (2020). Analysis of serve and serve-return strategies in elite
male and female padel. Applied Sciences,
10
(19), 6693. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10196693
32. Sánchez-Alcaraz, B. J., Pérez-Puche, D. T., Pradas, F., Ramón-Llín, J., Sánchez-Pay, A., & Muñoz, D. (2020). Analysis of performance parameters of the
smash in male and female professional padel. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
17
(19), 7027.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197027
33. Sánchez-Alcaraz, B. J., Ramón Llin, J., González, R., Martínez-Gallego, R., & Sánchez-Pay, A. (2022). Análisis de la acción del globo en pádel masculino y
femenino profesional: Estudio piloto. Padel Scientic Journal,
1
(1), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.17398/2952-2218.1.39
34. Sánchez-Alcaraz, B. J., Siquier-Coll, J., Toro-Román, V., Sánchez-Pay, A., & Muñoz, D. (2020). Análisis de los parámetros relacionados con el marcador en
el circuito world padel tour 2019: diferencias por género, ronda y tipo de torneo.
Retos Digital
,
29
, 200–204. https://doi.org/10.47197/restos.v0i39.78402
35. Thomas, J. R., Martin, P., Etnier, J. L., & Silverman, S. J. (2022).
Research methods in physical activity
. Human kinetics.
