Performance Analysis (PA) and Performance Development ...qualifications.pearson.com/content/dam/pdf/A Level/Physical... · and Performance Development Programme (PDP): Tennis

Performance Analysis (PA) and Performance

Development Programme (PDP): Tennis

AS and A Level Physical Education

Pearson Edexcel Level 3 Advanced GCE in Physical Education (9PE0)

Pearson Edexcel Level 3 Advanced Subsidiary GCE in Physical Education (9PE0)

1 © Pearson Education Ltd 2016

AS and A Level Physical Education 2016

Performance Analysis – Tennis

Components of fitness

These can be split into two: health-related – cardiovascular endurance, muscular

endurance, strength, speed, flexibility and body composition; and skill-related,

including agility, balance, coordination, power, reaction time and speed. In tennis,

all components are required to meet the demands of the sport. The three

components of fitness I have selected are: Agility, Power and Acceleration.

Component 1 – Agility:

This is the ability to change the direction and orientation of the body quickly. This is

vital in tennis as players constantly change direction; players need to be agile and

light on their feet to maximise the time you have to hit the ball and recover to a

central position. A lack of agility means players not reaching the ball quickly enough

or you constantly playing defensively. Agility is crucial, as fast footwork is important

in tennis. Wrong footing an opponent is a major tactics in tennis, aided by

deception. You have to build rallies; moving a player around the court and forcing

them out of the centre position is fundamental to winning points.

Speed Gate T-test

The test requires ‘maximum’ exertion.


Pre training

Right Left Average

10.55 s 10.66 s 10.60 s

Male Female

Excellent < 9.5 < 10.5

Good 9.5 to 10.5 10.5 to 11.5

Average 10.5 to 11.5 11.5 to 12.5

Poor > 11.5 > 12.5

[Source: http://www.topendsports.com/testing/tests/t-test.htm]

Validity:

Questions have been raised as to the validity of this test. There is some application

to tennis in that the test involves speed, changes of direction and distances which

are found in tennis. It is an industry-established standard test. One advantage of

multi users taking this test is that it allows comparisons between sports and

performers. Undertaking the test holding a tennis racket would have been more valid.

10.60 seconds ranked me average, close to good, suggesting this is a key part of

future training as it would improve my ability. Fluency, responding to changes in

direction and movement to and from the net is essential. Trained testers used timing

gates to produce accurate scores unlike using stop watches. Having exact

measurements for the layout, being fully briefed, and having a practice all made the

result valid.

Reliability:

The test was considered reliable with some issues. I undertook the test indoors on

a flat and non-affected surface (by factors such as moisture). I was well prepared

with a warm up, took the test at the same time on three occasions, with an

appropriate interval after eating. I was familiar with the test and using timing

gates, results were reliable. I wore appropriate footwear and was not affected by

the presence of others. Staff supervision was supportive and I am sure the test

environment over the three separate occasions at intervals of 1 week each time

was conducive to factors of reliability. My only observation would become better at

the test the more you do it, with improved turning technique dramatically lowering

times.

http://www.topendsports.com/testing/tests/t-test.htm


Component 2 – Power:

This is being able to generate strength at speed. This is necessary for tennis shots – especially serving. You are trying to hit the ball with ballistic strength quickly to

impart pace and depth. You need good power in your legs to push into every shot. In addition, to get good height your arms generate pace on the ball as you accelerate your racquet head through the ball.

Tests:

Serve Speed Test – this is a weakness in my game and an aim for my PDP.

Radar Tracked Serve

82 mph

I undertook the Sargent Jump Test as it tests leg power in an explosive movement.

Three tests were completed, with a rest to overcome fatigue; tennis serve speed

used a radar speed measurer.

However, this does not test upper body

power. Rallies can last from a few seconds to

over a minute – power in a rally is needed,

then you rest between points. You can’t use

maximal power on every shot, some require

‘touch’. I scored 36 cm, which is below

average on the tables. This indicates power

needs significantly improving.

Gender Excellent Above average Average Below average Poor

Male >65 cm 50–65 cm 40–49 cm 30–39 cm <30 cm

Female >58 cm 47–58 cm 36–46 cm 26–35 cm <26 cm

National norms for 16 to 19 year olds (Davis 2000)

[Source: http://www.brianmac.co.uk/sgtjump.htm#ref]

Validity:

My tests had validity. Involving a simple maximal action, I warmed up to allow

several attempts with suitable rest periods x three tests. I took a best score or the

average of the two best scores. The ‘protocols’ are simple. The test was not

affected by external factors e.g. weather. One potential limiting factor is the

accuracy of the observer spotting the touch point at maximum height, However, video recording and freeze-framing the exact point of the height

overcame this. The Radar Speed Test uses a simple ball tracker and has 100%

validity and reliability.

http://www.brianmac.co.uk/sgtjump.htm#ref


Reliability:

Using fixed equipment and the universal slider to set the start point aided

reliability. I was fully prepared for the test environment and the pressures of

performing in front of a group helped to produce my best score. Knowing the test

protocols and the tester’s skills in teaching technique aided reliability. I took the

tests at the best time of day for me – late morning/not after eating.

Component 3 – Acceleration to maximal speed:

Acceleration and leg speed is vital in tennis because you need to reach each ball as

quickly as possible. Speed is linked with agility because the quicker you are, the

more time you have to prepare for your shot. The ability to make short repeated

bursts of speed with each foot with changes over different distances is paramount.

Test:

30 metre test undertaken three times. My score was not high and is an area I need

to improve. My training will include interval training/plyometrics. 30 m time - 4.40 s

places me average in this component.


Male <4.0 secs 4.0–4.2 secs 4.3–4.4 secs 4.5–4.6 secs >4.6 secs

Female <4.5 secs 4.5–4.6 secs 4.7–4.8 secs 4.9–5.0 secs >5.0 secs

Table adapted from Davis et al. (2000)

[Source: http://www.brianmac.co.uk/30accel.htm#ref]

Validity:

We used speed timing gates. The surface was clean;

administration, organisation and environment produced

accurate results. The testers were competent.

Reliability:

Reliability was achieved using electronic timing with no

human/stop watch error. The test was undertaken indoors

on the same surface and conditions. A

warm up and knowledge of protocols were effective. I performed before eating; with experience the test was simple to complete. I wore appropriate footwear and

in a maximal test there were no tactical considerations other than that we did the

30 m with a 1 minute rest between, however no data indicators were available for this factor. I warmed up, had the best preparation in terms of focus and an average

score from the best of two from three trials.

http://www.brianmac.co.uk/30accel.htm#ref


Technical – serve

Preparation

Knee flexion:

to load up

power, this

comes from

leg drive

through the

whole body,

not just the

upper

Left arm should be

directly up and pointing

at the ball. Sharapova’s

arm is pointing slightly

more up than mine –

this is due to the

position of the ball.

Eyes focus on ball.

body. Posture should be

upright with the upper

Flexion –

back leg:

Sharapova

and I have

‘loaded’ the

back leg. This

allows us

more power

when we

jump, getting

more power

on the ball.

body. Both of us have

good posture.

Throw up should be in

front and high enough to

make contact at peak

height.

Tick shape at the

elbow. My position is

better than Sharapova’s

because she hasn’t got

her elbow low enough so

her limited racket

pathway will limit power.

Analysis:

Head – good position, looking at the ball.

Left arm – following the ball path and extended. It should be further behind the baseline than the hips but that can be altered when I change the

angle of my hips so they are further forward.

Right arm – should be more bent. This will allow the racquet to face upwards as it is slightly tilted to one side and needs to be flatter in order to hit a flat serve.

If the right arm was lower it would open the body more and allow more rotation through the core and hips.

Hips – not right. In the elite image, they are pushed forward and slightly turned so they are facing towards the back of the


court more. This allows you to explode through the motion and rotate on

serve. Knees – need to be sunk lower. I am upright in the preparation phase of the

serve. If my knees were flexed I would push more when I jump and hit with more power. With knees lower my hips will be further forward, turned and more balanced.

Stance – is serve similar to Sharapova but my feet need to get closer

together in the preparation phase.

Execution

Jump for a

higher contact

point and

power. Both

are doing this

well to land

inside the

court in the

recovery stage

showing

forward

momentum.

Racket angle/head

speed: racket angle

should be down and

wrist snapping when

hitting the ball. Racket

head speed should be

maximal at point of

contact.

Left arm comes into the

body to allow shoulder

rotation. Sharapova’s left

arm is closer to her body

than mine allowing better

shoulder rotation.

Knee

extension to

get power

coming up

through the

lower body.

Both of us

have

extended

knees.

Posture is upright; I am more upright than

Sharapova. Being tall means you get a higher

contact point, so that you can hit the ball down

with a snapping wrist, to increase power.

Contact point at the

highest point, slightly

out in front so that you

can jump into the serve.

We are jumping and at

full stretch –both have

good contact points.

Straight arm for a

high contact point.

© Pearson Education Ltd 2016

Analysis:

Head – looking at the ball. This indicates the throw should be further forward

to aid fluency in the shot .

Left arm – coming down from the serve as I hit the ball. It is too close to the

body but at the right level in comparison to the body.

Right arm – fully extended but should be further out in front of the body to

make contact with the ball. It limits the power in the serve. As in the elite image, it should be in front of my head.

Hips – in a similar position to the elite; they have rotated and so are more front-on with the court.

Knees – too flexed; I should have extended them more. This would enable a

higher jump, and a more powerful serve.

Result/recovery

Straight line

between left

knee and

shoulder:

Sharapova’s

posture is

stable; I

haven’t held a

strong

position - I am

off balance.

Land on left

leg: to provide

forward

movement or

back to strong

ready

position.

Looking down the

court to see where the

ball is returned in

preparation for next

shot.

Left knee slight

flexion when landing

absorbs impact, then

preparation for the

ready position.

Racket follow through

provides power on the

ball and continuing the

pathway guides the ball

in the direction you

want it to go.

Land inside the court:

momentum enable

power on the ball. We

have both performed

this effectively.


Analysis:

Head – good: looking down the court to where the ball lands; leading the

rest of body upwards. Right arm – extended to the opposite side of body. My racquet is higher than

the elite and my arm slightly more extended. Back – I am leaning forward and have a smaller body range than

Sharapova. She has forward momentum.

Left leg – landing leg is strong position, aids balance. My body is ready to change direction for the next shot. I should push through this leg more, for a better jump, landing further into court.

Right leg – could be extended more to enable a more powerful serve. It should

be more extended and higher.

Word count: 1795 excluding references, bibliography and tables of data.

References

1. DAVIS, B. et al. (2000) Physical Education and the Study of Sport. 4th ed. Spain: Harcourt. p.129

2. DAVIS, B. et al. (2000) Physical Education and the Study of Sport. 4th ed. Spain: Harcourt. p. 123

3. DAVIS, B. et al. (2000) Physical Education and the Study of Sport. UK: Harcourt

Publishers Ltd. p. 125, Table 4.6

Bibliography/webliography

BEASHEL, P. and TAYLOR, J. (1997) The World of Sport Examined. Croatia: Thomas

Nelson and Sons

BEASHEL, P. and TAYLOR, J. (1999) Advanced Studies in Physical Education and

Sport. UK: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd

DAVIS, B. et al. (2000) Physical Education and the Study of Sport. 4th ed. Spain:

Harcourt

BROWN, J. and SOULIER, J. (2014) Tennis: Steps to Success. 4th Edition. eBook Human Kinetics

HILL, M. and MASKERY, C. et al. (2007) Edexcel AS/A2 Physical Education. UK: Pearson

www.brianmac.co.uk

www.topendsports.com/testing

http://www.brianmac.co.uk/

http://www.topendsports.com/testing


Performance Development Programme – Tennis

‘For my PDP I am going to focus on Power’

Power is the combination of strength and speed. Strength is required to add force

to a shot and speed is key for movement and racket head dynamics.

Goal setting – SMARTER

The main purpose of setting goals is to increase motivation, to create aims and to

aid in planning.

Specific – directly related to the sporting situation. For tennis, this would be

increasing my core strength so that I can rotate my torso better and with more

control in order to allow for better controlled shots.

Measurable – progress can be assessed. For tennis, this would be measuring the

speed of serve to see if training has had a negative or positive effect. This will allow

for a more effective training programme to be developed.

Accepted – by both performer and coach. This would involve agreeing on a specific

shot with your coach in order to work on improving it.

Realistic – challenging but within the capability of performer. An example of this

would be setting a goal that is not impossible to achieve. An impossible goal would

involve asking someone who can bench 50 kg one week to be able to bench 200 kg

the following week.

Time – a date is set for each periodised phase and for the completion. Having a

time frame for a goal is key. This is because it pushes the performer to start to

train and gives them a specific amount of time to achieve their goal.

Exciting/evaluated – inspiring and rewarding to the performer. Having goals that

feel good to achieve is key. If the goal is something that you want to achieve, you

will be willing to work hard to complete that goal.

Recorded – writing down your goals makes them real. They become something

that you must do and avoids confusion. Recording your progress helps you to

analyse if the goal is achievable or not.

Source: A2 revise PE for Edexcel, Jan Roscoe publications/ISBN 978-1-901424-55-

3 Edexcel A2 PE textbook/ISBN 978-0-435500-60-3


Principles of training

Specificity is defined as ‘the

relevance of the choice of exercise to

the activity to be improved’.

I shall be working on both upper and

lower muscle groups with high

intensity training to meet the aim of

power.

Overload is described as ‘training activities that

are harder, more intense and/or lengthier than

the normal physical activity undertaken by an

individual’. To use overload in my development

plan I would have to increase the frequency at

which I train, the intensity I train at and the

duration of training.

Progression is

defined as ‘a state of moving onwards, which implies an increase in

training load as time goes on’. Progression is the

process of improving performance over a period of

time through training.

Over-training

is defined as ‘when the intensity of training

and/or volume of training are increased to an

extreme level, which results in a lack of

recovery within or between training sessions

leading to an associated decline in

physiological function’. I shall have full rest

days and x one 36 hour rest period per

week.

Reversibility or regression is defined as ‘when

training loads are reduced or removed completely, the

state of fitness or performance returns to a normal

untrained state’.

Variance refers to the need to vary or change training

exercises each mesoscycle, and even session by

session while not detracting from the aim(s), in order to avoid tedium and a potential 'plateau' in my

programme. This will result in a decrease in

the improvement of performance and will

become mentally challenging because you are

likely to become bored with the training

session.

Recovery refers to how your body deals with the stress of training after training has finished and how

it repairs itself. I will need to undertake a cool down, eat for recovery, use foam

rollers and possibly use compression clothing/socks.


F.I.T.T – applied

Frequency refers to how often I will train – x 3 per week.

Intensity refers to how hard I will train – my session will involve high

intensity/anaerobic at 90 per cent IRM.

Type refers to the type of training in my PDP – dynamic weights/plyometrics.

Time refers to how long I will train for – my sessions x 1 hour.

http://www.brianmac.co.uk/trnprin.htm

http://www.topendsports.com/fitness/basic-principles.htm

AS revise PE for Edexcel, Jan Roscoe publications/ISBN 978-1-901424-54-6

Training undertaken

I will be using dynamic resistance training and plyometric training. This is because these methods are the most applicable to me being able to achieve my goal of

increasing my whole body power.

Power training

Muscular power is determined by how long it takes for strength to be converted into

speed. The ability to convert strength into speed in a very short time allows the

athlete to exert a greater force than their strength level alone would allow. My lift

speed will be fast out, hold and slow recovery.

Dynamic resistance: fixed and free weights

Weight training involves exercising by varying the intensity and duration of the

exercise. It can be used to improve muscular endurance, dynamic and maximal

strength, and power and body composition.

The exercises

Session one based on 90% IRM Exercise Weight Working at

90% Sets Reps Lift speed

Back squat 70 kg 60 kg 4 5 1.1.2

Bench-press 75 kg 67.5 kg 4 5 1.1.2

Shoulder

press

45 kg 40 kg 4 5 1.1.2

To progress this session I will increase the amount of reps that I do each week until I can do 6 to 7 reps for four sets.




Session two based on 90% IRM Exercise IRM Working at

90%

Sets Reps Lift speed

Deadlifts 110 kg 100 kg 4 5 1.1.2

Dumbbell flys 18 kg 16 kg 4 5 1.1.2

Bent over

rows

70 kg 60 kg 4 5 1.1.2

Barbell

upright rows

45 kg 40 kg 4 5 1.1.2

To progress this session I will increase the weight I am lifting once I am able to do

four sets of the designated amount of reps for each weight. I will do this every

week.

Plyometric sessions

Front box jumps

Lateral box jumps

Scissor jumps


Overhead throws

Vertical scoop toss

Explosive push-ups

Sessions:

Plyometric sessions Exercise Sets Potential

increase

Reps Potential

increase

Front box jumps 3 4 10 12

Lateral box jumps 3 4 10 12

Explosive push-

ups

3 4 10 12

Vertical scoop toss

3 4 10 12

Scissor jumps 3 4 10 12

Overhead throws 3 4 10 12


To increase the intensity of this training session I will increase the amount of sets

and repetitions that I do. I am planning to increase at four weeks on the completion

of testing.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/beginner_weight_training.htm

http://www.bodybuilding.com/exercises/finder/lookup/filter/exercisetype/id/6/exer

cisetype/olympic-weightliftingEA2 revise PE for edexcel, Jan Roscoe

publications/ISBN 978-1-901424-55-3

Edexcel A2 PE textbook/ISBN 978-0-435500-60-3

AS revise PE for Edexcel, Jan Roscoe publications/ISBN 978-1-901424-54-6

Fitness testing – normative results

One rep bench press

Rating Score (per body

weight)

My results

Excellent > 1.60 pre mid post

Good 1.30–1.60 Average 1.15–1.29 115 123 Below average 1.00–1.14 Poor 0.91–0.99 Very poor < 0.90

Sargent Jump Test

% Rank Females Males My results

91–100 76.20–81.30 cm 86.35–91.45 cm pre mid post

81–90 71.11–76.19 cm 81.30–86.34 cm 71–80 66.05–71.10 cm 76.20–81.29 cm 61–70 60.95–66.04 cm 71.10–76.19 cm 51–60 55.90–60.94 cm 66.05–71.09 cm 41– 50 50.80–55.89 cm 60.95–66.04 cm 31–40 45.71–50.79 cm 55.90–60.94 cm 57 59 21–30 40.65–45.70 cm 50.80–55.89 cm 11–20 35.55–40.64 cm 45.70–50.79 cm 1–10 30.50–35.54 cm 40.65–45.69 cm

Press Up Test

Age Excellent Good Average Fair Poor My score 20 – 29 >54 45–54 35–44 20–34 <20 48 51 30 – 39 >44 35–44 25–34 15–24 <15 40 – 49 >39 30–39 20–29 12–19 <12 50 – 59 >34 25–34 15–24 8–14 <8 60+ >29 20–29 10–19 5–9 <5




Body Fat Analysis

My results

Pre Post

9% 8.3%

Speed Gate T-test

My score

Pre training Post training

Right Left Average Right Left Average

10.55 10.66 10.60 9.49 9.45 9.47

Normative table:

Male Female Excellent < 9.5 < 10.5

Good 9.5 to 10.5 10.5 to 11.5

Average 10.5 to 11.5 11.5 to 12.5

Poor > 11.5 > 12.5

[Source: http://www.topendsports.com/testing/tests/t-test.htm]

Serve Speed Test

My results

Pre Post

82 mph 88 mph

Acceleration to maximal speed 0–30 m

Pre Post Gain

4.40 s 4.19 s 0.21 s


Male <4.0 secs 4.0–4.2 secs 4.3–4.4 secs 4.5–4.6 secs >4.6 secs Female <4.5 secs 4.5–4.6 secs 4.7–4.8 secs 4.9–5.0 secs >5.0 secs

Table adapted from David et al. (2000) [3]

http://www.topendsports.com/testing/tests/t-test.htm


Review and evaluation

The achieved aim of my PDP was to increase body power and all my specific goals.

This is shown by improved test results - my Sargent Jump score went from 57 to

63 and my serve speed increased by 6 mph from 82 to 88 mph thus reflecting

increased power into my shots and my ability to move around the tennis court

more quickly and with more control. I could accelerate faster, being able to push off

more quickly when changing direction, and I was able to ‘jump’ (push in the up

phase) with more force meaning that I am higher when I hit the ball so I can get

more power and a better angle.

I also increased all my one rep max scores for every exercise except upright rows –

my training has improved my dynamic strength and power. The decreased time for

the Speed Gate T-test has shown an improvement in speed and my Sergeant Jump

score also shows success as the 6 cm with the subsequent improvement in leg

power. The combination of speed and strength produces power – improving both

has improved my body power.

Positives and negatives

Negatives come from deadlifts and squats – these exercises were the two that I

was most unfamiliar with and did the least of in previous training.

I was the most uncomfortable doing these exercises at the start but in the first few sessions became more used to doing them and so saw some quick improvements. This was a positive as it provided motivation in the training

sessions. Because of this, these two exercises were the ones which improved

the most.

I think that the main aspect that I would keep the same is that I would keep the same routine of when I do my training and how I record my training sessions. This seemed to work well for me. Having the same routine every two weeks and doing the same exercises on the same day did become boring but I feel that

doing this allowed me to get into a good mind-set so I would be in a good

mental state and would find it easy to get my training done and wouldn’t forget

to do a session.

Borg Scale – used to assess my training intensity


My Borg rating for every session increased and decreased from one session to the

next during the course of my training programme. I completed 23 out of the 24

sessions.

For the first half of the training programme my rating would decrease as the

session became easier, due to initial adaptations and familiarity with the exercises,

and then increase as I applied overload to my exercises. After half-term I found

that the sessions were increasingly more difficult – the first three sessions were all

rated 18 out of 20. This reflects the higher workloads and demands, with an

increased need to cool down effectively. Towards the end of the training

programme my rating dropped as I became demotivated to increase the difficulty of

the session. This was inevitable as I experienced increased tiredness, micro trauma

and some ‘DOMS’ from improper cool downs.

What I would change and what I would keep the same

I would change the length of each session and the number of exercises in each session. I would give myself more time to do these sessions thus helping prevent injury.

My sessions were an hour – I would increase this to 75 mins. I could obtain

more focus and pacing. This will help my motivation.

I could undertake a better warm up/cool down without feeling rushed and

pressed for time.

Do more exercises to work on specific muscle groups more intensely and obtain

better adaptations – incorporate and focus on the core exercises.

What I have learned

I have gained a greater understanding of the science behind how training works and why it leads to adaptations, e.g. a reduced chance of injury comes from an

increase in the strength of supporting tendons and ligaments due to

resistance/weight training and some increase in bone density.

I now have a better understanding of the key components of fitness for tennis and what I should be training the most to get the best advantages when playing.

I feel that I was able to effectively apply my knowledge of the principles of training to my training programme to get the most out of my sessions.

Even though my body fat has decreased my body weight has increased. This means that I have gained lean muscle mass. This is good because this is one of my expected adaptations.

Effect on my performance

I have found that during and since doing my programme I am able to hit shots with

more power. This has meant that I have more control over points and have a better

presence on court as I am more confident in my ability to hit winners and force

opponents into making errors. Given increased power, I can be more consistent.

Increased power means that I am able to change direction more quickly with better

control – I have better movement around the court so reach more shots such as

drop shots. Doing my PDP has resulted in better core strength and better balance.

It has also resulted in more controlled movement around my hips giving me more

control when I hit through shots.


Final test scores

Test Final weight Level compared with

national average

Bench press 80 kg Intermediate

Deadlift 120 kg Intermediate

Bent over row 80 kg Intermediate

Shoulder press 50 kg Intermediate

Squat 77.5 Below average

Body fat 8.3 Fits many brackets such as

professional cyclist

Sargent jump 63 Above average

Press up 55 Excellent

Server Speed Test 88 mph N/A

Speed T-gate Test 9.47 s Above average/Excellent

Body weight 63 kg N/A

Acceleration Max. Speed

Test

4.19 s Above average

Exercise Starting weight Overload 1 Overload 2

Box squat 60 kg 26/1/2016 65 kg 9/2/2016 70kg

Bench press 67.5 kg 9/2/2016 70 kg Shoulder press 40 kg 2/2/2016 45 kg Deadlift 80 kg 29/1/2016 100 kg Bent over row 60 kg 29/1/2016 65 kg 5/2/2016 70kg

Barbell upright row 40 kg 11/3/2016 45 kg Dumbbell flys 16 kg 12/2/2016 18 kg

Final test scores

Test Final weight Level compared with

national average

Bench press 80 kg Intermediate

Deadlift 120 kg Intermediate

Bent over row 80 kg Intermediate

Shoulder press 50 kg Intermediate

Squat 77.5 Below average

Body fat 8.3 Fits many brackets such as

professional cyclist

Sargent jump 63 Above average

Press up 55 Excellent

Server Speed Test 88 mph N/A

Speed Gate Test 6.47 sec Excellent

Body weight 63 kg N/A


Graphs of test results:



Word count for PDP = 1707

Total word count: 3536 - Excluding tables, graphs, diagrams and bibliography

Bibliography

Components of fitness http://www.crossfitlaketahoe.com/about-

crossfit/crossfit-journal/ http://www.brianmac.co.uk/conditon.htm

AS revise PE for edexcel, Jan Roscoe publications/ISBN 978-1-901424-54-6

A2 revise PE for edexcel, Jan Roscoe publications/ISBN 978-1-901424-55-3


Goal setting



Overload


Periodisation



Principles of training




Recovery

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/3-energy-systems-help-trainer.htm

http://breakingmuscle.com/health-medicine/understanding-energy-systems-atp-

pc-glycolytic-and-oxidative-oh-my



Training programme



cisetype/olympic-weightlifting




http://www.crossfitlaketahoe.com/about-crossfit/crossfit-journal/

http://www.crossfitlaketahoe.com/about-crossfit/crossfit-journal/

http://www.brianmac.co.uk/conditon.htm



http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/3-energy-systems-help-trainer.htm

http://breakingmuscle.com/health-medicine/understanding-energy-systems-atp-




Performance Analysis and Performance

Development Programme – Commentary for Tennis

Performance Analysis: activity requirements

‘In the Performance Analysis (PA), in either the role of player/performer or coach,

students will investigate two components of a physical activity (one physiological

component and either a technical or a tactical component) in order to analyse and

evaluate the effectiveness of their own performance. Students will demonstrate

knowledge and understanding of performance analysis in order to produce an

evaluation to demonstrate strengths and weaknesses and areas for development of

a performance’.

Context

The candidate is a very good school’s performer who has identified three

components and appropriate tests and reviewed the validity and reliability of each.

A full analysis of the serve is undertaken with elite comparisons, which links nicely

to their speed tests in the Performance Development Programme (PDP).

Assessment commentary: physiological component

This is a very good attempt to fulfil the requirements of a Level 4 mark submission.

The candidate has identified three relevant components that are at their discretion

and are appropriate to a tennis player while considered ‘most important’ to the

candidate themselves. The components have explanations but these could have

been referenced when used as or taken as a quote, e.g. as in explaining agility. The

inclusion of diagrams are a welcomed addition.

The use of normative data is a very good inclusion and the references add validity

but these apply to the general population and in order to access the Level 5 band

specific tennis-related data would be suggested as more appropriate. The candidate

has made comments on the relevance of the data but would have benefitted from

showing their three test results as a highlight in the work. This would then allow for

a ‘within tennis’ analysis and reflect the comment to the effect that performers

inevitably get improved test results as they become more familiar with testing

protocols.

The candidate selected three appropriate tests for each component with a detailed

review of their validity and reliability but at times some confusion exists between

the two, as in the Sargent Jump Tests. The level of interpretation of the data is

simplistic but the candidate has attempted to contextualise their results and

identify why this will affect their future training needs. This section would have

benefitted from being related to how other tennis performers contextualised their

physiological standing/performance.


Mark: 8/10

Level 4 Mark Description: 7–8

Selection of the three most important components of fitness are substantially

justified and fully relevant to the demands of the activity.

An appropriate fitness test is selected and performed for each component of fitness and each is substantially justified based on the validity and reliability of

the test.

Correct interpretation of quantitative data for each component of fitness demonstrates a very good level of understanding.

Correct identification of priorities for training and future development based on

very good analysis of test results.

Assessment commentary: technical component

This component was completed to a very good standard with a suitable skill

identified. The images were appropriate and comparisons to an elite performer

made with some of the images matching almost perfectly, thereby allowing for

detailed technical analysis. However, in order to access a Level 5 mark it would be

expected for the candidate to make use of greater technical language related

specifically to tennis and tennis coaching and thereby to be using better quality

textual comment. The candidate could have also considered the use of technical

developments in coaching skills in order to access a Level 5 mark and how the aid

of ‘apps’ enable performers to superimpose/blend their image over a perfect model.

This would have allowed for greater technical data on, for instance, joint angles and

lever lengths to be included for a higher and more accurate level of technical

analysis.

The candidate has made a very good effort overall to fulfil the task with annotated

images covering the three phases of preparation, execution and recovery/result.

The comparisons are informative demonstrating very good knowledge and

understanding with qualitative data/comment suggesting the candidate has a very

good understanding of the strengths and weaknesses in their serve. However, there

is little on how to improve the skill being analysed. If possible within the word

count, the candidate could offer brief suggestions for remedial actions to any

identified faults. Some referencing is made but this is limited in the task and the

use of technical journals would have helped in this respect to achieve a Level 5. A

bibliography is included.

Mark: 8/10

Level 4 Mark Description: 7

An appropriate core skill is correctly identified.

Appropriately-annotated images of the performer are used to make an accurate analysis of the technical detail for each of the three phases and result.

Appropriately-annotated images are used to make a comparison between the student and a higher level performer for the three phases and result, demonstrating a very good level of understanding of the core skill.


Qualitative data supports a very good analysis of the strengths and weaknesses

of the core skill in order to identify and fully justify key areas for development.

Performance Development Programme: activity

requirements

‘As a player/performer, students will identify one of the components of a physical

activity they worked on in their Performance Analysis (physiological, technical or tactical). They will then plan, perform and record their performance in this

component of the physical activity over 8–10 weeks. They will apply appropriate

principles and methods of training and SMART(ER) targets to a plan designed to

optimise performance. They will then critically evaluate the outcomes of their

programme against its original aims.’

Context

The candidate is a very good schools performer who has identified power as an

area of development in order to improve their playing performance.

Assessment commentary: planning

The candidate has taken relevant information derived from their PA and, based on

both the quantitative and qualitative data achieved, has been able to construct a

PDP at Level 4 on enhancing the component of power.

The candidate uses applied smarter targets to demonstrate an understanding of

how to construct a realistic PDP and applies the principles of training to the PDP.

However, they could have included more specific comment on this, e.g. the

application of variance, and how the selection of appropriate methods of training for

the development of power were made with valid justifications. Data on pre-testing

performances of the proposed training exercises and the outline working

percentages, reps/sets and, more crucially, the lift speeds to be used adds

creditability to the intentions. Planned loading increases at a mid-way point are

made but should have been dependent on any early progressions made and the

testing schedule. The lift speeds to be undertaken was also a valid inclusion and

added value to the programme, however, references for these would have been

welcome. The training programme has validity in terms of the work to be

undertaken.

A range of suitable tests to validate the training are included, however questions

could be asked as to the relevance of all of these to the testing identified, e.g.

bench press (although the inclusion of data from tennis performers and specific

referencing would have added ‘academic‘ credibility to the task). The inclusion of a

speed test on serving was a welcomed addition but this could have been extended

to other shots, such as the baseline ground strokes and the smash. Some of the

tests selected have further validity and reliability with the use of sports testing

technology. Normative tables do help contextualise the candidate’s abilities but

refer to a ‘general population’ and are not tennis specific: this would have helped

achieve a level 5 mark. The component identified would when enhanced clearly


improve the candidate’s performance as detailed in the PA. With more information

on how the candidate would be applying the principle of overload, justification for a

% increase in lifting loads or increased reps/sets, and the inclusion of a testing schedule then a Level 5 mark would have been possible. Lift speeds are included in

the review and evaluation but should also have been included in the planning

section.

Mark GCE: 8/10


An appropriate component of performance is correctly identified based on the

outcomes of the PA.

Accurate analysis and justification of SMART(ER) targets as appropriate to the student.

Correct application and accurate use of the principles and methods of training.

Accurate selection of appropriate test(s) to monitor progress demonstrates a very good level of understanding.

Assessment commentary: review and evaluation

The review and evaluation has been completed successfully and to a very good

standard. The comments contained reflect a very good level of understanding of the

candidate’s performance needs and the effect of their training. Although not part of

the assessment, the candidate has included the recorded training sessions and such

detail for analysis.

The candidate has included a significant amount of data by way of performance

tables, test results and subsequent analysis. While specific tests are used to

highlight the success of the training undertaken, the section would have benefitted

from a more comprehensive analysis of all the test results in order to achieve a

Level 5 mark. The summary of the candidate’s Borg rating of each training session

was pleasing. Although subjective, it did allow the candidate to draw conclusions as

to the intensities and motivational issues of the sessions. Completing 23 out of 24

sessions was commendable and supports the completion of the programme. The

inclusion of the final lift weight achieved in some of the exercises undertaken was

only additional information and, as such, formed no part of the conclusions. The

final test tables would have benefitted from both initial pre-tests, mid testing and

then the final testing in order to present a more readable review of the

progressions made. These can be deduced by reading the final graphs of test

results. The candidate could also have drawn on the lift speeds undertaken and

their impact on training adaptations.

The level of analysis is very good, with comment on both the changes that would

be made to the programme if repeated and also to the learning achieved by the

candidate. Further analysis of the effects of the PDP on actual playing performance

is inevitably subjective unless supported by test data and, to this effect, an

increase in serve speed was recorded. The candidate could, for instance, have

recorded the increase in first serve points won or ‘aces’ achieved. Notational

exercises, while subject to issues of validity and reliability, can be useful in

providing outcome match data. A coach validation on the improvement in


performance could have helped this section. Both of these last two points would

once again help lift the section into a Level 5 mark.

Mark GCE: 7/10


Appropriate qualitative and quantitative data supports a well-developed critical

evaluation as to the effectiveness of the programme in achieving its aim. Accurate analysis and clear evaluation of the reasons for changes in test scores,

linking to the aim.

Well-chosen recommendations for future development are based on the correct interpretation of the outcomes and demonstrate a very good level of understanding of the context of the student.

Documents

Performance Analysis (PA) and Performance Development ...qualifications.pearson.com/content/dam/pdf/A Level/Physical... · and Performance Development Programme (PDP): Tennis