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)
52
Embed
Performance Analysis (PA) and Performance Development ...qualifications.pearson.com/content/dam/pdf/A Level/Physical... · and Performance Development Programme (PDP): Tennis ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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)
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)
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
Level 4 Mark Description: 7–8
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
Level 4 Mark Description: 7–8
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.