Essay --

The purpose of the present study Stanley 46 (1999) was to pen competitive junior egg-producing(prenominal) tennis players and encounter if differences in fittingness exist between press out (n = 13, age=16.23 yrs) and district (n = 10, age = 17.10 yrs) commonplace female tennis players. The fitness components measured included maximal oxidative capacity (graded treadmill test to volitional exhaustion with direct oxygen analysis), strength (grip strength), power (vertical jump), speed (20 yard dash), muscular endurance (60second sit-up), high spirits (spider test), flexibility (sit and reach) and body composition (restricted anthropometric profile). A questionnaire was also administered to determine fitness fosterage habits and attitudes to fitness. A series of unpaired t-tests found no significant differences between the groups on any of the body composition or fitness variables. The only significant difference occurred with the subjects playing age where the state group ha d been playing tennis for a significantly longer duration (8.46 yrs) than the district group (6.55 yrs). The results of the present study showed that the fitness level of the girls was sub-standard. This may partly explain the current lull in the performance of Australias female tennis players. Questionnaire results showed that most girls were spending considerable time doing fitness training each week however, the questionnaire also showed that most of the girls did not have a fitness program to follow and would like a program write for them. To succeed at the highest level the tennis player must be proficient in all three beas of skill, psychology and fitness.Graetzer., & Shultz. 47 (1995) assessed aerobic and anaerobic power and capacity, muscular strength, flexibility, balance, and blood ... ...yers (4,063 m and 4,050 m vs. 3,866 m), respectively. However, in light of the distance-covered values (i.e., 2066-5251 m) found by Manchado. et al. (2008), the study was not actua lly clear on the basis of the practical significance of these differences is unclear. The wing players are also engaged in more than high intensity work, than the back-court players (1.35%) and pivots (2.32%). On offense, wing players received less tackles (7.5 per match) than back-court players (15.9) and pivots (25.4). On defence, wing players performed less tackles (11.8 per match) than back-court players (24.6) and pivots (27.4). locomote players also engaged in more quick runs (4.4 per game) compared to back-court players (1.35) and pivots (2.47). In, summary, wing players did more high intensity work, covered greater distances and engaged in fewer tackles than both back court players and pivots.