Content uploaded by Adrián Escudero Tena
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Adrián Escudero Tena on Sep 25, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Strategic Analysis of Net Exchanges in Professional Padel:
Insights From Different Competition Phases of the World Padel
Tour Finland Padel Open Tournament
Adrián Escudero-Tena,
1
Rafael Conde-Ripoll,
2
Corrado Lupo,
3
and Alexandru Nicolae Ungureanu
3
1
Sport Sciences Faculty, University of Extremadura, Cáceres, Spain;
2
Sport Sciences Faculty, Universidad Europea de Madrid, Madrid, Spain;
3
Neuromuscular Function Research Group, School of Exercise and Sport Sciences (SUISM), Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
Purpose:This study analyzed the effectiveness of net exchanges (ie, number of times the pairs exchange their zone on the court
from the net zone to the back zone or vice versa) in men’s and women’s professional padel depending on the competition phase.
Methods:Data were collected from 41 matches, comprising a total of 4829 points, from both the qualifying and the main draws of
the World Padel Tour Finland Padel Open tournament. Descriptive analysis (frequency and percentage) and inferential tests
(Pearson chi-square [χ
2
], Cramer V coefficient [Vc], corrected standardized residuals, and chi-squared automatic interaction
detection) were carried out. Results:There were significant differences (P<.05) in net exchanges between the main and
qualifying draws, both in men’s (79.6% vs 72.1% for no exchanges) and women’s (62.2% vs 57.6% for no exchanges) padel.
Additionally, differences in the likelihood of winning points based on whether the serving pair or the returning pair finished the
rally at the net were highlighted. Indeed, finishing rallies at the net for the serving pairs increased the probability of scoring a
winning shot (ie, in even-numbered net exchanges), while finishing rallies away from the net (ie, in odd-numbered net exchanges)
was more likely to result in errors, for both male and female players and main and qualifying draws. Conclusion:This study
provides valuable insights into the strategic behavior of professional padel matches, highlighting the importance of net
dominance and its impact on match outcomes, particularly in relation to gender differences and phase of competition.
Keywords:racket sports, sex, efficacy, game analysis, notational analysis
Padel originated in Mexico in 1969 and quickly gained popu-
larity across the world.
1
It is played on a 20-m ×10-m enclosed
synthetic court with walls that allow for rebounds, while it features
variations from tennis in rules, equipment, and court layout.
2
From
a research perspective, padel has experienced exponential growth
across various topics, including technical and tactical performance,
anthropometric and biomechanical characteristics, physiological
attributes, and psychological aspects of the game over the past
15 years, for both elite and subelite players (2007–2022)
3,4
Regard-
ing the selection of Key Performance Indicators, previous studies
have taken both narrow and broader approaches.
5,6
Narrow focuses
typically examine technical–tactical indicators, such as shot types,
contact with opponents’wall, shot height, and shot trajectory.
7,8
In
contrast, broader focuses consider contingencies of shots, including
players’court location, hitting side, distance to the net when hitting,
serve impact of match outcome,
9
and tactical perspectives aiming at
achieving an offensive position effectively.
10,11
In professional padel, WPT operates on an elimination system
in which pairs losing a match are promptly eliminated from the
tournament. The main draw typically features top-ranked players
that are often more experienced and skilled, making matches in the
main draw highly competitive and mentally demanding.
12
In fact,
the style of play and the technical and tactical performance were
reported to be different across players’competition levels as well as
gender (eg, different rate of shots per second, rate of play, number
of shots per point, distance covered, and speed during active
play).
13
Both time-motion (eg, the duration of rallies) and technical
and tactical performance (eg, shots per rally, position on the field,
and type of shot) are different between female and male players.
14
Specifically, rallies in women’s matches last longer compared
with men’s, with more shots per rally and a higher frequency of lobs,
unforced errors, and slice overhead shots.
14–16
Additionally, female
players tend to execute fewer shots close to the net while favoring
shots from the middleor back of the court. In fact, benefits of playing
close to the net and occupying that area as long as possible were
investigated by several studies.
14–16
Players tend to win rallies if they
end up close to the net while more errors and ineffective smashes
occur when they move away.
14
In particular, match-winning players
score 34% more points at the net compared with match-losing
counterparts, and they also commit 49% fewer unforced errors.
15
Therefore, the area close to the net is considered more favorable than
the backcourtone and this implies that players who can occupy it for
longer have a greater chance of winning matches.
However, only few studies investigated the technical–tactical
aspects of the game, such as the net dominance,
14,15
according to
the players’competition level,
17
despite the crucial nature of this
kind of analysis based on the “game model”in padel. Indeed,
within this tactical framework, a combination of technical profi-
ciency and psychophysical abilities is paramount.
18
This occurs
within what is termed a “tactical context,”where players consis-
tently need to make appropriate decisions in response to a variety
of game situations. Moreover, these aspects are even more critical
in elite players, where players demonstrate tactical specializa-
tion depending on their playing position.
11
In particular, it was
highlighted how players base their success on both technical
superiority when executing offensive smashes or volleys,
19–21
as
Escudero-Tena https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7196-5606
Lupo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1546-8573
Ungureanu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8780-1737
Conde-Ripoll (conderipoll.r@gmail.com) is corresponding author, https://
orcid.org/0000-0003-1272-5255
1
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, (Ahead of Print)
https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2024-0173
© 2024 Human Kinetics, Inc. ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION
First Published Online: Sept. 25, 2024
well as on tactical formations.
11
Additionally, these aspects have
implications on the time-motion variables, as movement patterns
(eg, service tactic formation) are associated with quicker displace-
ments, longer distances, and higher work-to-rest ratios during the
matches.
6,11
Finally, understanding the nuances in technical–tacti-
cal performance between main draw and qualifying draw matches
is a pursuit esteemed by every professional team. To the best of
our knowledge, our study represents the pioneering effort in
directly comparing such performance aspects between these 2
draw categories.
Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyze the net
exchanges in men’s and women’s professional padel, both in the
qualifying and main draws. The following hypotheses were estab-
lished: (1) the number of net exchanges would be higher in
women’s than in men’s professional padel, (2) the number of net
exchanges would be higher in qualifying draw than in main draw,
regardless of the gender, and (3) the pair that finishes the point
dominating the net area would win a higher proportion of points,
mainly produced by winners.
Methods
Research Design
The design of this research followed empirical methodology and,
more specifically, a descriptive strategy. In addition, this research
falls within an observational category and is nomothetic, punctual,
and multidimensional.
22
Data Sample
The data were collected from 41 matches (comprising 4829 points
in total [2796 male and 2033 female]) of the professional men’s
qualifying (n =9; 2 first round, 3-s round, and 4 third round)
and main draw (n =13; 4 first round, 3-s round, 3 quarterfinals,
2 semifinals, and 1 final) and women’s qualifying (n =8; 3 first
round, 3-s round and 2 third round) and main draw (n =11; 3 first
round, 3-s round, 2 quarterfinals, 2 semifinals, and 1 final) WPT
Finland Padel Open tournament. The male players (n =62; age =
27.49 [6.86] y; height =180.26 [6.75] cm; laterality =7 left-
handed +55 right-handed) and the female players (N =57; age =
26.21 [6.47] y; height =168.20 [5.81] cm; laterality =3 left-
handed +54 right-handed) 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 sport and exercise science research and the local Ethics
Commission and following approval from the Bioethics Committee
of the University of Extremadura (reference 157/2022).
Study Variables
In conducting this study, the following variables were analyzed,
14
as defined here, based on their categorical nucleus and degree of
openness:
Independent Variables
•Gender: men or women.
•Phase: a distinction was made between matches belonging to
the main draw and those belonging to the qualifying draw.
Dependent Variables
•Number of net exchanges: number of times the pairs exchange
their zone on the court from the net zone to the back zone or
vice versa (Figure 1).
Figure 1 —Net exchanges.
14
2Escudero-Tena et al
(Ahead of Print)
•Number of even or odd net exchanges: even-numbered ex-
changes occurred when the serving pair concluded the rally
within the net zone, while the returning pair occupied the back
zone of the court. Conversely, odd-numbered exchanges
occurred when the serving pair terminated the rally in the
back zone, while the returning pair occupied the net zone
(Figure 1).
•Number of shots per rally (whether even or odd): a count of the
number of shots in a rally, categorized as “even”when the last
shot was made by the receiving pair (eg, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 ::: shots
per rally) and “odd”when the last shot was made by the
serving pair (eg, 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 ::: shots per rally).
•Effectiveness of the last shot: a distinction was made between
winners and errors.
•Efficiency of the pair on serve: a difference was made between
rallies in which the winning pair served and rallies in which the
winning pair returned the serve.
Process
An observer, a PhD student in sport sciences, certified padel coach
and with a large number of published scientific 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 intraobserver reliability analysis was performed to
ensure the veracity of the data collected. The observer reanalyzed
a random sample of 6 matches (matches were hosted on the WPT
television website; https://www.worldpadeltourtv.com/) to ensure
enough relevant data to represent 10% to 20% of the study
sample.
23
The mean intraobserver reliability was .90 (Table 1),
considered almost perfect.
24
In addition, another observer, also a
PhD student in sport sciences, certified padel coach and with a large
number of published scientific research related to the topic of study,
analyzed a random sample of 6 matches to calculate average
interobserver reliability, which was .84 (Table 1).
24
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive analysis of the data was performed to obtain frequency
counts within each categorical variable, which we reported as both
absolute numbers and percentages. Inferential tests, including
Pearson chi-square (χ
2
), were performed to compare data categories
and develop crosstabs commands. This allowed us to assess
the associations between variables. The strength of association
between the variables was calculated using Cramer V coefficient
(Vc).
25
Crewson
26
recommended differentiating the strength of the
association, based on the value, and he considered association
strengths as follows: small (<0.100), low (0.100–0.299), moderate
(0.300–0.499), or high (>0.500). In addition, the crosstabs com-
mands made it possible to identify the associations between the
categories of the variables through the corrected standardized
residuals (CSRs). Residuals >|1.96| revealed boxes with more or
fewer cases than there should be.
25
Finally, chi-square automatic
interaction detection, a classification method to generate decision
trees with chi-square statistics, was used to identify optimal divi-
sions. P<.05 was established as the level of statistical significance,
and statistical analysis was performed with IBM SPSS (version
27.0) for Windows.
Results
The results show that gender is associated with the number of net
exchanges in the main (χ
2
[6] =134.393; P<.001; Vc =0.216) and
qualifying draw (χ
2
[9] =205.410; P<.001; Vc =0.206) in profes-
sional padel (Table 2).
In women’s padel, there were no net exchanges in 62.2%
(main draw) and 57.6% (qualifying draw) of the rallies, whereas in
men’s padel, servers maintained the net in 79.6 % (main draw) and
72.1% (qualifying draw) of the rallies. In addition, women’s padel
exhibited a higher percentage of net exchanges (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9,
and 11).
The phase is associated with the number of net exchanges in
men’s professional padel (χ
2
[7] =26.251; P<.001; Vc =0.097).
Table 1 Intraobserver and Interobserver Reliability
Study variables
K
Intraobserver Interobserver
Gender 1.00 .96
Phase 1.00 .96
Number of net exchanges .83 .78
Number of even or add net
exchanges
.83 .78
Number of shots per rally .89 .80
Effectiveness of the last shot .88 .81
Efficiency of the pair on serve .88 .81
Table 2 Number of Net Exchanges in Main
and Qualifying Draws in Professional Padel
by Player Sex
Draw
Men Women
n%CSR n %CSR
Main
0 1430 79.6
a
10.1*667 62.2
b
−10.1
1 261 14.5
a
−4.6 228 21.3
b
4.6*
2 80 4.5
a
−5.6 105 9.8
b
5.6*
3 21 1.2
a
−5.0 43 4.0
b
5.0*
4 3 0.2
a
−4.9 20 1.9
b
4.9*
5 2 0.1
a
−1.5 4 0.4
a
1.5
6 0 0.0
a
−2.9 5 0.5
b
2.9*
Qualifying
0 720 72.1
a
6.7*554 57.6
b
−6.7
1 204 20.4
a
−2.5 241 25.1
b
2.5*
2 52 5.2
a
−3.7 92 9.6
b
3.7*
3 15 1.5
a
−3.9 43 4.5
b
3.9*
4 4 0.4
a
−2.6 15 1.6
b
2.6*
5 1 0.1
a
−2.2 7 0.7
b
2.2*
6 2 0.2
a
−1.5 6 0.6
a
1.5
7 1 0.1
a
0.0 1 0.1
a
0.0
9 0 0.0
a
−1.0 1 0.1
a
1.0
11 0 0.0
a
−1.0 1 0.1
a
1.0
Abbreviation: CSR, corrected standard residual. Note: Superscripts a and b
indicate significant differences in the Ztests for comparison of column proportions
from P<.05 adjusted according to Bonferroni.
*>1.96.
Strategic Analysis of Net Exchanges in Padel 3
(Ahead of Print)
However, it is not associated in women’s professional padel
(χ
2
[9] =10.270; P=.329; Vc =0.071; Table 3).
In the main draw, there was no exchange in 79.6 % of the
rallies for men and 62.2% for women. Conversely, in the qualifying
draw, servers maintained the net in 72.1% of the rallies for men and
57.6 % for women. In addition, in the qualifying draw there were
more cases of one-net-exchange than expected (men: CSR =4.0
and women: CSR =2.0).
The winning pair serving situation was associated with net
exchanges in the main draw (χ
2
[5] =122.762; P<.001; Vc =
0.261) and qualifying draw (χ
2
[7] =102.952; P<.001; Vc =
0.321) in men’s padel (Table 4).
In both the main draw and the qualifying draw, male serving
pairs saw an increased likelihood of winning a point when they
finished the rally at the net. The same happened to the receivers
when they concluded the rally at the net. Additionally, men’s
professional padel rallies typically involved 0, 1, 2, or 3 net
exchanges, with instances of >3 net exchanges being exceedingly
rare.The winning pair serving situation was associated with net
exchanges in the main draw (χ
2
[6] =80.571; P<.001; Vc =0.274)
and qualifying draw (χ
2
[9] =56.294; P<.001; Vc =0.242) in
women’s padel (Table 5).
In both the main draw and the qualifying draw, female serving
pairs experienced an increased probability of winning a point when
they ended the rally at the net. A similar trend was noted for
receivers who finished the rally at the net. Furthermore, women’s
Table 3 Number of Net Exchanges in Men’s
and Women’s Professional Padel According
to Phase (Main Draw and Qualifying Draw)
Main draw Qualifying draw
n%CSR n %CSR
Men
0 1430 79.6
a
4.5*720 72.1
b
−4.5
1 261 14.5
a
−4.0 204 20.4
b
4.0*
2 80 4.5
a
−0.9 52 5.2
a
0.9
3 21 1.2
a
−0.7 15 1.5
a
0.7
4 3 0.2
a
−1.2 4 0.4
a
1.2
5 2 0.1
a
0.1 1 0.1
a
−0.1
6 0 0.0
a
−1.9 2 0.2
a
1.9
7 0 0.0
a
−1.3 1 0.1
a
1.3
Women
0 667 62.2
a
2.1*554 57.6
b
−2.1
1 228 21.3
a
−2.0 241 25.1
b
2.0*
2 105 9.8
a
0.2 92 9.6
a
−0.2
3 43 4.0
a
−0.5 43 4.5
a
0.5
4 20 1.9
a
0.5 15 1.6
a
−0.5
5 4 0.4
a
−1.1 7 0.7
a
1.1
6 5 0.5
a
−0.5 6 0.6
a
0.5
7 0 0.0
a
−1.1 1 0.1
a
1.1
9 0 0.0
a
−1.0 1 0.1
a
1.0
11 0 0.0
a
−1.0 1 0.1
a
1.0
Abbreviation: CSR, corrected standard residuals. Note: Superscripts a and b
indicate significant differences in the Ztests for comparison of column proportions
from P<.05 adjusted according to Bonferroni.
*>1.96.
Table 4 Number of Net Exchanges Based
on Whether the Pair Won the Rally at Serve or Return
in Men’s Padel (Main Draw and Qualifying Draw)
Draw
At serve At return
n%CSR n %CSR
Main
0 960 85.9
a
8.5*470 69.2
b
−8.5
1 86 7.7
a
−10.5 175 25.8
b
10.5*
2 61 5.5
a
2.6*19 2.8
b
−2.6
3 10 0.9
a
−1.4 11 1.6
a
1.4
4 1 0.1
a
−1.0 2 0.3
a
1.0
5 0 0.0
a
−1.8 2 0.3
a
1.8
Qualifying
0 505 81.3
a
8.4*215 56.9
b
−8.4
1 67 10.8
a
−9.7 137 36.2
b
9.7*
2 38 6.1
a
1.7 14 3.7
a
−1.7
3 7 1.1
a
−1.2 8 2.1
a
1.2
4 2 0.3
a
−0.5 2 0.5
a
0.5
5 0 0.0
a
−1.3 1 0.3
a
1.3
6 2 0.3
a
1.1 0 0.0
a
−1.1
7 0 0.0
a
−1.3 1 0.3
a
1.3
Abbreviation: CSR, corrected standard residuals. Note: Superscripts a and b
indicate significant differences in the Ztests for comparison of column proportions
from P<.05 adjusted according to Bonferroni.
*>1.96.
Table 5 Number of Net Exchanges Based
on Whether the Pair Won the Rally at Serve or Return
in Women’s Padel (Main Draw and Qualifying Draw)
At serve At return
n%CSR n %CSR
Main
0 414 70.2
a
4.6*253 52.5
b
−4.6
1 73 12.4
a
−4.8 155 32.2
b
4.8*
2 70 11.9
a
−0.9 35 7.3
a
0.9
3 16 2.7
a
−0.8 27 5.6
a
0.8
4 15 2.5
a
1.4 5 1.0
a
−1.4
5 1 0.2
a
−0.2 3 0.6
a
0.2
6 1 0.2
a
0.4 4 0.8
a
−0.4
Qualifying
0 347 67.0
a
6.3*207 46.7
b
−6.3
1 87 16.8
a
−6.4 154 34.8
b
6.4*
2 54 10.4
a
1.0 38 8.6
a
−1.0
3 18 3.5
a
−1.6 25 5.6
a
1.6
4 7 1.4
a
−0.6 8 1.8
a
0.6
5 3 0.6
a
−0.6 4 0.9
a
0.6
6 2 0.4
a
−1.0 4 0.9
a
1.0
7 0 0.0
a
−1.1 1 0.2
a
1.1
9 0 0.0
a
−1.1 1 0.2
a
1.1
11 0 0.0
a
−1.1 1 0.2
a
1.1
Abbreviation: CSR, corrected standard residuals. Note: Superscripts a and b
indicate significant differences in the Ztests for comparison of column proportions
from P<.05 adjusted according to Bonferroni.
*>1.96.
4Escudero-Tena et al
(Ahead of Print)
professional padel points commonly featured 0, 1, 2, or 3 net
exchanges, with occurrences of >3 net exchanges being exception-
ally uncommon.
Results indicate that when the number of net exchanges was
even and the serving pair made the last shot of the rally, it was
usually a winner in both men’s (main draw: CSR =10.7; qualifying
draw: CSR =8.5) and women’s padel (main draw: CSR =10.1;
qualifying draw: CSR =7.8; Figures 2–5). Similarly, when the
returning pair finished the rally at the net (odd net exchanges) and
made the last shot of the rally, it was typically a winner in both
men’s (main draw: CSR =10.7; qualifying draw: CSR =8.5) and
women’s padel (main draw: CSR =10.1; qualifying draw: CSR =
7.8; Figures 2–5).
On the contrary, when the number of net exchanges was even
and the returning pair made the last shot of the rally, it was usually
an error in both men’s (main draw: CSR =4.7; qualifying draw:
CSR =5.6) and women’s padel (main draw: CSR =3.6; qualifying
draw: CSR =2.9). Furthermore, when the number of net exchanges
was odd and the serving pair made the last shot of the rally, it was
typically an error in both men’s (main draw: CSR =4.7; qualifying
draw: CSR =5.6) and women’s padel (main draw: CSR =3.6;
qualifying draw: CSR =2.9; Figures 2–5).
Discussion
The aim of this study was to analyze the net exchanges in men’s
and women’s professional padel according to the rally outcome and
the serve turns, both in the main and qualifying draw. Thus, in the
main draw, “0 net exchanges”occur more frequently, while in the
qualifying draw, “1 net exchange”occurs more frequently. In
addition, among male padel players, “0 net exchanges”occur more
frequently, while among female padel players, “1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6
net exchanges”occur more frequently. Finally, finishing rallies at
the net for the serving pairs increases the probability of scoring a
winner shot, while finishing rallies away from the net is more likely
to result in errors, for both male and female players, and main, and
qualifying draws. The novelty of this study stems from its pioneer-
ing comparison of technical–tactical aspects between main draw
and qualifying draw matches, a previously unexplored area in
the field.
The initial hypothesis suggesting that the number of net
exchanges would be higher in women’s professional padel com-
pared to men’s is supported by our findings. The study found that
net exchanges differed between men’s and women’s padel, with
women’s matches generally exhibiting a higher frequency of net
exchanges compared with men’s matches (Table 2), as confirmed
by previous research.
14
In fact, there were no net exchanges in
79.6% for men’s compared with 62.2% for women’s matches in the
main draw, whereas this trend accounted for 72.1% versus 57.6%
in the qualifying draw. These differences may be attributed to
various factors, including differences in playing style, shot selec-
tion, and court positioning between male and female players.
Previous research has also noted disparities in technical and tactical
performance between men’s and women’s padel, with women’s
matches often featuring longer rallies and more shots per rally
compared with men’s matches.
10,13,14
The second hypothesis suggested that there would be a higher
number of net exchanges in the qualifying draw compared to the
main draw, regardless of gender. This hypothesis was confirmed by
the findings, which showed significant differences in net exchanges
between the main and qualifying draws for both men and women
(Table 3). The phase of the competition (ie, main vs qualifying
Figure 2 —Classification-tree analysis of winners and errors based on shots per rally and net exchanges in men’s padel main draw.
Strategic Analysis of Net Exchanges in Padel 5
(Ahead of Print)
Figure 4 —Classification-tree analysis of winners and errors based on shots per rally and net exchanges in women’s padel main draw.
Figure 3 —Classification-tree analysis of winners and errors based on shots per rally and net exchanges in men’s padel qualifying draw.
6(Ahead of Print)
draw) was found to be associated with the number of net exchanges
in men’s, although such association was not evident in women’s
matches. It is worth highlighting that in women’s padel main draw,
there were no net exchanges in 62.2% of rallies, whereas in the
qualifying draw, this percentage was 57.6%. Similarly, in men’s
padel, the absence of net exchanges was more prevalent in the main
draw, with 79.6% of rallies compared to 72.1% in the qualifying
draw. The discrepancy in the numbers of net exchanges between
the main and qualifying draws may reflect the differences in skill
level and competitiveness between matches featuring top-ranked
players in the main draw and matches involving lower ranked
players in the qualifying draw. To the best of our knowledge, there
is no other documented evidence within the realm of padel
indicating discernible disparities in technical–tactical performance
across varying levels within the professional category. However,
analogous studies have shown notable variations in technical–
tactical performance metrics between different levels of play.
17
The last hypothesis suggested that the pair that finished the
point dominating the net area would win a higher proportion of
points, and that these would be mainly produced by winners. This
hypothesis was accepted. Actually, when the number of the net
exchanges was 0 (the serving pair dominated the net area) or 1 (the
returning pair dominated the net area), and it is worth mentioning
that this occurred in the majority of the points, the pair that finished
the rally dominating the net area won the point, both in the main
draw and in qualifying draw, irrespective of the sex (Tables 4and
5). In addition, when the pair that finished the rally dominating the
net area executed the last shot, it often resulted in a winner shot
(Figures 2–5). On the contrary, when the pair that finished the rally
not dominating the net executed the last shot, it often resulted in an
error. According to previous studies that emphasized the benefits of
playing close to the net and occupying that area as long as
possible,
14,15
these results suggest the importance of net dominance
in winning points through producing winners. Players who can
maintain control of the net (ie, even number of exchanges) or
successfully gain the net (ie, odd number of exchanges) have a
higher chance of winning rallies, as demonstrated by the lower
percentage of errors and higher percentage of winners observed in
net exchanges where the pairs ended the rally at the net (Figures 2–
5). Based on these findings, to enhance their success in matches,
athletes should work closely with their coaches to develop strate-
gies that maximize the control maintenance over the net area. For
instance, coaches and players could watch competitive or practice
matches, identify when the net is won/lost, and find out ways to
improve.
27
Moreover, coaches could also propose exercises in
which the dominance of the net is monitored, and rewarded or
penalized, depending on the serving situation.
28,29
Additional
research in this field is necessary due to the limited availability
of information concerning the impacts of particular drills and
training protocols on improving technical–tactical skills in padel.
30
Overall, this study provides valuable insights into the strategic
behavior of professional padel players, emphasizing the signifi-
cance of net dominance and its impact on match outcomes. The
findings underscore the importance of tactical proficiency and
decision making in padel, particularly in relation to the phase of
competition and gender differences. Future research could further
explore the factors influencing net exchanges and their implications
for performance in padel (eg, influence on the external and internal
training load), as well as investigate additional technical–tactical
and psychological aspects of the game related to the net exchanges
(eg, type of shots, anxiety level when the opponents gain the
control of the net), to enhance understanding and inform coaching
Figure 5 —Classification-tree analysis of winners and errors based on shots per rally and net exchanges in women’s padel qualifying draw.
Strategic Analysis of Net Exchanges in Padel 7
(Ahead of Print)
and training practices. Margins of victory (ie, final score difference
between teams) or advantage (ie, current score difference between
teams), which are not considered in the present study, could offer
new information by means of further investigations specifically
focused on it. Finally, another possible limitation to take into
account could be the ranking, as a relevant parameter in the results
obtained. A greater difference in the classification could affect the
results, because the best pairs usually earn more points regardless
of the occupation of areas close to the network.
Practical Applications
These findings stress the strategic elements of padel and highlight
the importance of technical and tactical proficiency, particularly at
elite levels, to guide coaching and training practices effectively. As
a consequence, the findings of this study can support padel coaches
in planning technical–tactical, and fitness coaches in planning
physical workouts to properly stimulate players to gain and/or
keep the net dominance. From a technical–tactical point of view,
players could be trained to recognize specific situations during a
point where trying to gain the net dominance could lead to winning
points (eg, with opponents far from net or after the serving).
Coherently, physical workouts could focus on improving players’
ability to reach the net position by means of quick accelerations,
eventually repeated within the same rally. However, this study
opens scenarios for investigating potential differences in psycho-
physical workload across different stages of international tourna-
ments, thus providing specific insights for coaching and training
strategies.
Conclusions
This study analyzed the influence of net exchanges in professional
padel matches, revealing differences between competition phases (in
the main draw, “0 net exchanges”occur more often, while in the
qualifying draw, “1 net exchange”occurs more often) and between
male and female padel players (in the male padel players, “0net
exchanges”occur more often, while in the female padel players, “1,
2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 net exchanges”occur more often) suggesting
differences in skill level and competitiveness. Additionally, the study
emphasized the importance of net dominance in producing winners,
as well as committing errors from the back area of the court.
References
1. International Padel Federation. List of associated countries associated
with the International Padel Federation. 2024. Accessed February 28,
2024. https://www.padelfip.com/es/federations/
2. International Padel Federation. Regulations of the padel game by
the International Padel Federation. 2024. Accessed February 28,
2024. https://www.padelfip.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/2-
game-regulations.pdf
3. Denche-Zamorano A, Escudero-Tena A, Pereira-Payo D, et al.
Scientific mapping of the state-of-the-art in padel. A bibliometric
analysis. Int J Sports Sci Coach. 2024;19(3):1275–1285. doi:10.
1177/17479541231161993
4. Martín-Miguel I, Escudero-Tena A, Mu ˜noz D, Sánchez-Alcaraz BJ.
Performance analysis in padel: a systematic review. J Hum Kinet.
2023;89:213–230. doi:10.5114/jhk/168640
5. Sánchez-Alcaraz BJ, Martínez-Gallego R, Ramo´n-Llin Mas J, et al.
Professional padel tennis: Characteristics and effectiveness of the
shots played to the fence. Int J Sports Sci Coach. 2024;19(3):
1324–1331. doi:10.1177/17479541221093765
6. Ungureanu AN, Lupo C, Contardo M, Brustio RP. Decoding the
decade: analyzing the evolution of technical and tactical performance
in elite padel tennis (2011–2021). Int J Sports Sci Coach. 2024;19(3):
1306–1313. doi:10.1177/17479541241228059.
7. Conde-Ripoll R, Mu˜noz D, Escudero-Tena A, Courel-Ibá˜nez J.
Sequential mapping of game patterns in men and women professional
padel players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2024;19(5):454–462.
doi:10.1123/ijspp.2023-0484
8. Conde-Ripoll R, Mu˜noz D, Sánchez-Alcaraz BJ, Escudero-Tena A.
Analysis and prediction of unforced errors in men’s and women’s
professional padel. Biol Sport. 2024;41(4):3–9. doi:10.5114/biolsport.
2024.134763
9. Martín-Miguel I, Mu˜noz D, Lupo C, Sánchez-Alcaraz BJ. Absence
of association between serve and winning point in professional padel.
J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2023;64(2):103–110. doi:10.23736/
s0022-4707.23.15291-1
10. Escudero-Tena A, Ibá˜nez SJ, Parraca JA, et al. Influence of the
importance of the point and service tactical position in the shot
following the return in men’s and women’s professional padel.
Int J Sports Sci Coach 2024;19(3):1357–1365. doi:10.1177/
17479541231163535
11. Ramo´n-Llin J, Guzmán JF, Martínez-Gallego R, et al. Comparison of
service tactic formation on players’movements and point outcome
between national and beginner level padel. PLoS One. 2021;10:
e0250225. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0250225
12. Díaz‐García J, Habay J, Rubio‐Morales A, et al. Mental fatigue
impairs padel‐specific psychomotor performance in youth‐elite male
players. Eur J Sport Sci. 2024;24:508–517. doi:10.1002/ejsc.12039
13. García-Giménez A, Pradas de la Fuente F, Castellar Otín C, Carrasco
Páez L. Performance outcome measures in padel: a scoping review.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(7):4395. doi:10.3390/
ijerph19074395
14. Escudero-Tena A, Go´mez-Ruano MÁ, Ibá˜nez SJ, et al. Importance of
maintaining net position in men’s and women’s professional padel.
Percept Mot Skills. 2023;130(5):2210–2225. doi:10.1177/00315125
231194026
15. Courel-Ibá˜nez J, Sánchez-Alcaraz BJ, Ca ˜nas J. Effectiveness at the
net as a predictor of final match outcome in professional padel
players. Int J Perform Anal Sport. 2015;15(2):632–640. doi:10.
1080/24748668.2015.11868820
16. Courel-Ibá˜nez J, Sánchez-Alcaraz BJ, Ca˜nas J. Game performance
and length of rally in professional padel players. J Hum Kinet. 2017;
55(1):161–169. doi:10.1515/hukin-2016-0045
17. Fernández de Osso´A, Pecci J, Sánchez-Trigo H, et al. Differences
between genders and competitive levels on technical-tactical param-
eters in padel: implications for training. Int J Sports Sci Coach. 2024;
19(3):1349–1356. doi:10.1177/17479541231211667
18. Tee JC, Ashford M, Piggott D. A Tactical periodization approach for
rugby union. Strength Cond J. 2018;40(5):390. doi:10.1519/SSC.
0000000000000390
19. Martínez-Gallego R, Crespo M, Ramo´n-Llin J, et al. Men’s doubles
professional tennis on hard courts: game structure and point ending
characteristics. J Hum Sport Exerc. 2020;15(3):633–642. doi:10.
14198/jhse.2020.153.13
20. Escudero-Tena A, Conde-Ripoll R, Amaya C, et al. Analysis of the
finalist smashes of Qatar Major Premier Padel 2023. Padel Sci J.
2024;2(2):185–198. doi:10.17398/2952-2218.2.185
21. Escudero-Tena A, Parraca JA, Sánchez-Alcaraz BJ, et al. Analysis of
the finalists smashes in professional padel. E-Balonmano Com. 2023;
19(2):117–126. doi:10.17398/1885-7019.19.117
8Escudero-Tena et al
(Ahead of Print)
22. Ato M, Lo´pez J, Benavente A. A classification system for research
designs in psychology introduction a conceptual framework for re-
search. Ann Psychol. 2013;29(3):1038–1059. doi:10.6018/analesps.
29.3.178511
23. Igartua J. Quantitative communication research methods. 2006. Ac-
cessed March 20, 2024. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/230794660.
pdf
24. Landis J, Koch G. The measurement of observer agreement for
categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–174. doi:10.2307/
2529310
25. Field M, Golubitsky M. Symmetry in Chaos: A Search for Pattern
in Mathematics, Art, and Nature. SIAM; 2009.
26. Crewson P. Applied statistics handbook. AcaStat Soft. 2006;1:
103–123.
27. García-González L, Moreno A, Gil A, et al. Effects of decision
training on decision making and performance in young tennis players:
an applied research. J Appl Sport Psychol. 2014;26(4):426–440. doi:
10.1080/10413200.2014.917441
28. Low WR, Freeman P, Butt J, et al. The role and creation of pressure in
training: perspectives of athletes and sport psychologist. J Appl Sport
Psychol. 2023;35(4):710–730. doi:10.1080/10413200.2022.2061637
29. Stoker M, Lindsay P, Butt J, et al. Elite coaches´ experiences of
creating pressure training environments. Int J Sport Psychol. 2016;
47(3):262–281.
30. Sánchez-Pay A, García-Castejo´n A, Courel-Ibá ˜nez J, Sánchez-
Alcaraz BJ. Influence of low-compression balls in padel initiation
stage. Int J Med Sci Phys act Sport. 2020;20(79):419–434. doi:10.
15366/rimcafd2020.79.003
Strategic Analysis of Net Exchanges in Padel 9
(Ahead of Print)