Determining Shot Effectiveness in Padel: Exploring Differences Between Winning and Losing Teams

Abstract

Background: Padel is currently played in more than 150 countries, leading to a substantial increase in performance analysis research in recent years. Examining shot effectiveness (winners vs. errors) provides valuable information for players and coaches to better understand match and competition performance. Objectives: This study aimed to (i) analyze winners, forced errors, unforced errors, and forced error generators according to set results and serving situation; (ii) examine differences in shot types and effectiveness between set-winning and set-losing pairs; and (iii) identify differences in shot types that generate forced errors between set-winning and set-losing pairs. Methods: Data were collected from 41 professional matches (men’s and women’s) available on the World Padel Tour Finland Padel Open website. Descriptive (frequency and percentage) and inferential analyses (chi-square (χ²), Cramer’s V coefficient (Vc), subsequent Z-tests, and corrected standardized residuals (CSR)) were performed. Results: Pairs produced more winners and forced error generators when serving, while forced errors were more frequent when returning. Winning pairs achieved more winners (men: CSR = 7.7; women: CSR = 7.4), whereas losing pairs committed more errors (men: forced errors, CSR = 4.3; unforced errors, CSR = 3.8; women: forced errors, CSR = 4.8; unforced errors, CSR = 2.8). Additionally, winning pairs generated a higher proportion of forced errors (men: 56.5%; women: 60.0%) compared with losing pairs (men: 43.5%; women: 40.0%). Conclusions: These findings are crucial for coaches and players, as they provide insights into sex-specific technical and tactical patterns, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of training design and match preparation strategies.

1. Introduction

Padel is a doubles racket sport that follows the tennis scoring system but is played on an enclosed synthetic glass and metal court (10 × 20 m), which allows the use of side and back walls [1]. Currently played in over 150 countries, the sport has grown rapidly in popularity and in scientific attention, particularly within performance analysis [2,3,4]. Among the various professional circuits, the World Padel Tour (WPT) stands out as the most prominent, organizing more than 20 international events per season. Consequently, WPT players have become the main focus of recent research, with studies highlighting sex-based performance differences [5,6,7] and variations in shot effectiveness [8,9].

The effectiveness of the last shot in a point has been analyzed in professional men’s and women’s padel [9,10]. These studies have concluded that points typically end with a winning shot, a forced error, or an unforced error. The distribution of these outcomes differs between sexes. For example, in men’s padel, winners (44.4%) occur more frequently than unforced (30.9%) or forced errors (24.7%), whereas in women’s padel, unforced errors (39.6%) are most common, followed by winners (35.3%) and forced errors (25.0%) [11].

Differences between winning and losing pairs regarding effectiveness, considering winners, forced and unforced errors, and forced error generators, as well as shot type, have only been reported by Conde-Ripoll, Sánchez-Alcaraz et al. [12] in local men’s tournaments in Finland. They observed small differences: the winning pair produced more winners using the forehand double-wall shot, forced errors were more often caused by counter-wall shots, and the losing pair committed more unforced errors with the backhand volley. However, this research was limited to high-level male players and did not consider the serving situation. Therefore, a research gap remains regarding how shot effectiveness and shot type differ between set-winning and set-losing pairs in both professional men’s and women’s padel, especially in relation to the serve.

Moreover, previous research has identified distinctions between winning and losing pairs in professional padel in terms of winners and errors [13]. However, that study did not differentiate between forced and unforced errors, examine forced error generators, or account for the serving situation, leaving an important gap in the literature. Additionally, Sánchez-Alcaraz, Courel-Ibáñez et al. [14] reported that winning pairs tend to succeed in relatively long rallies and avoid committing unforced errors in the early stages of the point, whereas losing pairs struggle in extended exchanges and frequently commit early unforced errors. Although that research differentiated between forced and unforced errors, it focused exclusively on male professional players and did not consider either the serving situation or shot typology. Hence, additional research is warranted to explore how specific shot types, including forced error generators, affect match outcomes in both men’s and women’s professional padel.

The serve is a strategically decisive shot, as it enables them to reach the net position before their opponents, a position associated with the highest point-winning probabilities. This emphasizes the tactical importance of the serve in establishing early dominance. Men tend to capitalize on this advantage more effectively, winning more points while serving, whereas women perform better when returning [15]. Moreover, the serving advantage diminishes for men around the ninth or tenth shot and for women around the eighth [15]. Despite this, the relationship between the serving situation and the effectiveness of the final shot or the shot that generates a forced error remains underexplored. Given the tactical relevance of the serve, there is a clear need to examine how serving situations influence shot effectiveness, including forced error generators, in professional padel.

After reviewing the existing scientific literature on the effectiveness of the final shot in men’s and women’s professional padel (winners, unforced errors, and forced errors), [10], it seems further, more detailed analysis is needed. This analysis should incorporate the relationships between effectiveness, serving situation, shot typology, and other contextual variables. Furthermore, the concept of the forced error generator—a shot that induces a forced error in the opposing pair—has been studied in other racket sports [16], but has received limited attention in padel [12]. This concept is particularly relevant because forced error generators can produce outcomes similar to winners: in both cases, the player secures the point either by hitting an unreturnable shot or by forcing an opponent’s mistake through the shot’s high difficulty. Identifying and analyzing the shot types that generate forced errors in professional padel is therefore essential for a deeper understanding of shot effectiveness.

In light of the limited research examining the interplay between shot effectiveness, forced error generators, and contextual variables such as the serving situation and set outcome in professional padel, this study aimed to address these gaps. Specifically, the objectives were to: (i) analyze winners, forced errors, unforced errors, and forced error generators according to set results and serving situation in both men’s and women’s padel; (ii) examine differences in shot types and effectiveness between set-winning and set-losing pairs; and (iii) investigate differences in shot types that generate forced errors between set-winning and set-losing pairs.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample

Data were collected from 41 matches (comprising a total of 4829 rallies) from the professional men’s qualifying draw (n = 9; two first-round, three second-round, and four third-round matches) and main draw (n = 13; four first-round, three second-round, three quarterfinal, two semifinal, and one final match), as well as from the women’s qualifying draw (n = 8; three first-round, three second-round, and two third-round matches) and main draw (n = 11; three first-round, two second-round, two quarterfinal, two semifinal, and one final match) at the WPT Finland Padel Open tournament.

All matches were held at the PadelOne Arena in Nokia, Finland. The venue featured indoor courts with artificial grass and silica sand infill, fully compliant with WPT technical standards. Matches were played using official Head Padel Pro balls under controlled environmental conditions (temperature ≈ 22 °C, no wind or sunlight interference, and uniform LED lighting). These standardized indoor conditions ensured consistent ball behavior, bounce, and visibility across matches, thereby minimizing the influence of environmental variability on technical–tactical performance.

The male players (n = 62; age = 27.49 ± 6.86 years; height = 180.2 ± 6.7 cm; laterality: 7 left-handed, 55 right-handed) and female players (n = 57; age = 26.21 ± 6.47 years; height = 168.2 ± 5.8 cm; laterality: 3 left-handed, 54 right-handed) were professional athletes with WPT experience, having competed in an average of 258.29 ± 173.37 matches for men and 176.77 ± 139.56 matches for women. No injuries were reported during the matches analyzed.

All procedures complied with the ethical standards for research in sports and exercise sciences [17] and were approved by the local Ethics Commission.

2.2. Study Variables

The following variables were defined and analyzed based on their categorical core and degree of openness [18]:

-

Sex: Two categories were established, men and women.

-

Serving situation: This variable distinguishes between the serving pair and the returning pair. Each point begins with a serve from one player of a pair, designating them as the serving pair, while their opponents are identified as the returning pair.

-

Set result: Distinguishes between the pair that won the set and the pair that lost it. The set was used as the unit of analysis instead of the match, due to substantial data discrepancies between two- and three-set matches. According to regulations [1], winning a padel match requires a pair to win two sets before their opponents. Therefore, in three-set matches, considering the entire match as the unit of measurement could generate confusion, as each pair would have both a set won and a set lost before the decisive third set.

-

Effectiveness of the last shot: This refers to the way each point ended, based on the outcome of the final stroke in the rally. It was classified into three categories: winner, forced error, and unforced error. These categories were defined according to Sánchez-Alcaraz et al. [11]. A winner occurs when a player wins the point with a direct shot (i.e., the ball bounces correctly on the opponent’s court and then bounces again, or hits the opponent’s body before going out). A forced error occurs when a player loses the point due to a mistake while attempting a difficult shot or from an unfavorable position caused by the opponent’s previous stroke. An unforced error occurs when a player loses the point due to an error made under low difficulty conditions, with sufficient spatial and temporal control for proper execution.

-

Forced error generators: refer to the strokes that induced a forced error in the opposing pair. These actions did not necessarily end the rally directly but created tactical, spatial, or temporal constraints that led the opponents to commit an error (e.g., deep or angled shots, volleys, or smashes that forced defensive responses).

-

Typology of the shot: the following shot types were distinguished: bandeja, smash, recovery smash, forehand volley, backhand volley, forehand bajada, backhand bajada, forehand, backhand, back wall forehand, back wall backhand, side wall forehand, side wall backhand, double wall forehand, double wall backhand, serve, contrapared, out of court, and others (e.g., cadete, willy). Each category was defined according to previous studies [6]. Table 1 provides the definition of each shot type.

Table 1. Shot type and its definition.

Shot Type	Definition
Forehand	Shot executed after the ball bounces on the body area of the dominant side.
Backhand	Shot executed after the ball bounces on the body area of the non-dominant side.
Side wall forehand	A shot in which the ball, after bouncing on the ground, impacts on one of the side glass walls of the court before being hit with the dominant side.
Side wall backhand	A shot in which the ball, after bouncing on the ground, impacts on one of the side glass walls of the court before being hit with the non-dominant side.
Back wall forehand	A shot in which the ball, after bouncing on the ground, hits one of the bottom panes of glass before being hit by the dominant side.
Back wall backhand	A shot in which the ball, after bouncing on the ground, hits one of the bottom panes of glass before being hit from the non-dominant side.
Double wall forehand	A shot in which the ball, after bouncing on the ground, impacts first on one glass and then on another (side-bottom or bottom-side) before being hit with the dominant side.
Double wall backhand	A shot in which the ball, after bouncing on the ground, impacts first on one glass and then on another (side-bottom or bottom-side) before being hit with the non-dominant side.
Contrapared	A shot intentionally executed against the back or side glass of one’s own court, seeking to redirect the ball into the opponent’s court.
Forehand bajada	Offensive shot in which the ball, after bouncing on the ground and bouncing on the glass, is hit with the dominant side at chest height or above.
Backhand bajada	Offensive shot in which the ball, after bouncing on the ground and bouncing on the glass, is hit with the non-dominant side at chest height or above.
Forehand volley	Shot made from the dominant side without a previous bounce.
Backhand volley	Shot made on the non-dominant side without a previous bounce.
Bandeja	Aerial shot similar to the forehand volley, with an impact range of 1:30 to 3 o’clock.
Smash	A high-powered aerial shot, typically struck between 11:30 and 1 o’clock, which aims to return the ball to one’s own court after bouncing on the ground and bouncing off the back wall of the opponent’s court.
Recovery smash	A smash that is taken after an opponent’s power smash. That is, the opposing player makes a smash, the ball bounces on the ground and bounces on the wall(s) of the home field and then the player makes a smash.
Serve	The serve is carried out from behind the serving line and is the initial hit that is made to start each point. Once the serving player throws the ball on the ground, he/she will hit the ball below the waist.
Out of court	Any shot where a player hits the ball out of the court, both the ball and the player being out of the court.
Other (cadete, willy…)	Any other shot that has not been defined above as a shot between the legs (Willy) or any other shot not categorized.

2.3. Process

This study follows an empirical research methodology and is classified as a descriptive study. It belongs to the category of observational research and is characterized as nomothetic, punctual, and multidimensional [19]. A trained observer, a PhD student in Sports Sciences, certified padel coach, and experienced researcher in the field, conducted live observations of the matches and recorded the study variables using an ad hoc observational instrument.

To ensure data accuracy, an intra-observer reliability analysis was conducted at the end of the data collection process. The observer reanalyzed a random sample of six matches, representing 10–20% of the total study sample, as recommended by Igartua [20]. This second analysis was carried out three weeks after the initial coding to minimize recall bias and ensure an independent assessment.

In addition, a second trained observer, also a PhD student in Sports Sciences, certified padel coach, and experienced researcher, independently analyzed the same set of six matches without access to the first observer’s records to assess inter-observer reliability.

Table 2 presents the intra- and inter-observer reliability coefficients (Cohen’s κ) for all coded variables. The mean intra-observer reliability value was 0.95, and the inter-observer reliability was 0.93 [21]. These results confirm the robustness of the observational instrument and the reliability of the coding procedure.

Table 2. Cohen’s Kappa coefficient (κ) for each of the study variables.

Study Variables	Cohen’s κ
	Intra-Observer	Inter-Observer
Sex	1.00	1.00
Serving situation	1.00	1.00
Set result	0.98	0.94
Effectiveness of the last shot	0.93	0.90
Forced error generators	0.90	0.87
Typology of the shot	0.92	0.89
Total	0.95	0.93

2.4. Statistical Analysis

A descriptive analysis was conducted to determine the frequency and percentage of occurrences for each study variable. An inferential analysis was then performed using contingency tables and the chi-square (χ²) test to assess the associations between variables (shot effectiveness with set result and serve situation). The strength of these associations was evaluated using Cramer’s V coefficient (Vc) [22]. According to Crewson [23], the strength of association is classified as small (<0.100), low (0.100–0.299), moderate (0.300–0.499), or high (>0.500).

Additionally, Z-tests were used to compare column proportions, with p-values adjusted to <0.05 using the Bonferroni correction. Contingency tables were also used to identify associations between variable categories through corrected standardized residuals (CSR), where residuals > |1.96| indicated cells with significantly more or fewer cases than expected [22]. The significance level was set at p < 0.05, and all statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 27.0 for Windows (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

3. Results

Significant associations were found between the serving situation and the effectiveness of the last shot for both winning (χ² = 110.38, df = 2, p < 0.001, V_(c) = 0.282) and losing pairs (χ² = 127.13, df = 2, p < 0.001, V_(c) = 0.300) in men, as well as for winning (χ² = 35.82, df = 2, p < 0.001, V_(c) = 0.192) and losing pairs (χ² = 34.79, df = 2, p < 0.001, V_(c) = 0.181) in women.

Both winning and losing pairs produced more winners and forced errors when serving (men: CSR = 9.8; women: CSR = 4.8, 2.8), whereas more forced errors occurred when returning (men: CSR = 8.4, 9.5; women: CSR = 5.4, 5.9). Winning pairs committed more unforced errors when returning in men (CSR = 2.7), and losing pairs did so when serving in women (CSR = 3.2).

The set result was significantly associated with the effectiveness of the last shot when serving (men: χ² = 32.59, df = 2, p < 0.001, V_(c) = 0.150; women: χ² = 43.84, df = 2, p < 0.001, V_(c) = 0.202) and when returning (men: χ² = 31.30, df = 2, p < 0.001, V_(c) = 0.152; women: χ² = 20.43, df = 2, p < 0.001, V_(c) = 0.146). Winning pairs recorded more winners when serving and returning (men: CSR = 5.7, 5.5; women: CSR = 6.6, 4.1) and generated more forced errors, whereas losing pairs committed more forced and unforced errors in both conditions (men: CSR = 2.5–4.0; women: CSR = 3.5–3.6).

When considering all situations, the set result was significantly related to shot effectiveness (χ² = 59.55, df = 2, p < 0.001, V_(c) = 0.146). Winning pairs produced more winners (CSR = 7.7), while losing pairs made more forced (CSR = 4.2) and unforced errors (CSR = 3.9). No specific stroke type was systematically linked to these outcomes, except for isolated cases: losing pairs achieved more winners with the forehand bajada (CSR = 2.0), while winning pairs generated more forced errors with the recovery smash (CSR = 2.8), and losing pairs did so with the forehand volley (CSR = 2.3) and back-wall forehand (CSR = 2.0).

Similarly, a significant relationship was observed between set result and shot effectiveness (χ² = 58.05, df = 2, p < 0.001, V_(c) = 0.169). Winning pairs produced more winners (CSR = 7.4), while losing pairs made more forced (CSR = 4.8) and unforced errors (CSR = 2.8). The backhand volley was the only stroke associated with more winners among winning pairs (CSR = 3.3). Forced errors were more frequent for winning pairs using the forehand (CSR = 2.1) and side-wall backhand (CSR = 2.1), and for losing pairs using the backhand (CSR = 2.1). Unforced errors were higher for winning pairs with the forehand bajada (CSR = 2.4) and for losing pairs with the double-wall forehand (CSR = 2.0).

Overall, men’s winning pairs generated a higher proportion of forced errors (56.5%) than losing pairs (43.5%). The smash was the only stroke significantly associated with this difference, with losing pairs producing more forced errors (CSR = 2.3). In a similar pattern, women’s winning pairs produced 60.0% of all forced errors compared with 40.0% by losing pairs, with only the double-wall backhand showing significant differences (CSR = 2.2).

4. Discussion

The aim of this study was to analyze shot effectiveness in padel in relation to set outcomes. The main results revealed differences in shot effectiveness between winning and losing pairs, both in men’s and women’s padel.

Data on serving situations (Table 3) indicate that professional players of both sexes perform better when serving than when returning, producing more winners and inducing more forced errors in their opponents. Conversely, when returning, players tend to commit more forced errors. This pattern reflects the strategic advantage of the serve, which allows the serving pair to reach the net before their opponents [24]. Given that a greater proportion of points are won from this area [9], an aggressive serve strategy appears advantageous. Serving players should therefore adopt an offensive approach, while returning players should focus on avoiding soft returns that allow opponents to hit winners or forced error-generating shots easily.

Table 3. Winners, forced errors, unforced errors and forced error generators according to the set result in men and women (serve vs. return).

	Men
	Winning Pair						Losing Pair
	At Serve			At Return			At Serve			At Return
	N	%	CSR	N	%	CSR	N	%	CSR	N	%	CSR
Winner	416	57.6 a	9.8	209	31.4 b	−9.8	309	42.6 a	9.8	126	18.4 b	−9.8
Forced error	115	15.9 a	−8.4	236	35.4 b	8.4	153	21.1 a	−9.5	306	44.8 b	9.5
Unforced error	191	26.5 a	−2.7	221	33.2 b	2.7	263	36.3 a	−0.2	251	36.7 a	0.2
Forced error generator	306	66.7		153	33.3		236	67.3		115	32.7
	Women
	Winning pair						Losing Pair
	At Serve			At Return			At serve			At return
	N	%	CSR	N	%	CSR	N	%	CSR	N	%	CSR
Winner	244	48.7 a	4.8	159	33.5 b	−4.8	166	29.2 a	2.8	106	21.7 b	−2.8
Forced error	82	16.4 a	−5.4	147	30.9 b	5.4	143	25.1 a	−5.9	206	42.2 b	5.9
Unforced error	175	34.9 a	−0.2	169	35.6 a	0.2	260	45.7 a	3.2	176	36.1 b	−3.2
Forced error generator	206	59.1		143	40.9		147	64.2		82	35.8

Note. N: number; %: percentage; CSR: corrected standardized residuals; CSR > 1.96: bold; a, b: indicate significant differences in the Z tests for comparison of column proportions at p < 0.05 adjusted using the Bonferroni correction.

The findings also show that set winners consistently produce more winners and forced error-generating shots (Table 4), whereas set losers commit more forced and unforced errors in both serving and returning situations. To the best of our knowledge, no previous study has simultaneously examined winners, forced and unforced errors, and the specific shots generating forced errors in relation to both set outcomes and serving situations in men’s and women’s padel. Earlier research typically distinguished only between winners and errors, without separating forced from unforced errors or identifying the shot that caused the forced error [5,6]. Nevertheless, these studies consistently report that winning pairs produce more winners, whereas losing pairs commit more errors, which aligns with our results.

Table 4. Winners, forced errors, unforced errors and forced error generators according to the serving situation in men and women (winning vs. losing pair).

	Men
	At Serve						At Return
	Winning Pair			Losing Pair			Winning Pair			Losing Pair
	N	%	CSR	N	%	CSR	N	%	CSR	N	%	CSR
Winner	416	57.6% a	5.7	309	42.6% b	−5.7	209	31.4 a	5.5	126	18.4 b	−5.5
Forced error	115	15.9% a	−2.5	153	21.1% b	2.5	236	35.4 a	−3.5	306	44.8 b	3.5
Unforced error	191	26.5% a	−4.0	263	36.3% b	4.0	221	33.2 a	−1.4	251	36.7 a	1.4
Forced error generator	306	56.5		236	43.5		153	57.1		115	42.9
	Women
	At serve						At Return
	Winning Pair			Losing Pair			Winning Pair			Losing Pair
	N	%	CSR	N	%	CSR	N	%	CSR	N	%	CSR
Winner	244	48.7 a	6.6	166	29.2 b	−6.6	159	33.5 a	4.1	106	21.7 b	−4.1
Forced error	82	16.4 a	−3.5	143	25.1 b	3.5	147	30.9 a	−3.6	206	42.2 b	3.6
Unforced error	175	34.9 a	−3.6	260	45.7 b	3.6	169	35.6 a	−0.2	176	36.1 a	0.2
Forced error generator	206	58.4		147	41.6		143	63.6		82	36.4

Note. N: number; %: percentage; CSR: corrected standardized residuals; CSR > 1.96: bold; a, b: indicate significant differences in the Z tests for comparison of column proportions at p < 0.05 adjusted using the Bonferroni correction.

The results of this study further indicate that the bandeja and smash are the primary shots through which both male and female padel players achieve winners and induce forced errors (Table 5 and Table 6). However, the bandeja also accounts for a large share of unforced errors. Previous research has shown that bandejas and smashes together represent about half of all winning actions in professional padel [9], underscoring their pivotal role in successful technical-tactical execution. Moreover, Escudero-Tena, Parraca et al. [25] reported that smashes are most effective when executed flat or with topspin, down the line, when the ball exits the court by three or four meters, and when hit close to the net. In contrast, errors are more common when smashes are played with backspin (bandejas), directed cross-court, fail to clear the net, or strike the opponent’s fence or glass. Distance from the net also increases error probability. Based on these insights, players should use the bandeja as a controlled, rally-sustaining stroke focused on precision to limit unforced errors. Smashes, conversely, should be employed as decisive point-ending actions aimed at producing winners or forcing opponent errors.

Table 5. Differences between the winning and losing pairs in men’s professional padel according to the type of shot and its effectiveness.

	Winner						Forced Error						Unforced Error
	Winning Pair			Losing Pair			Winning Pair			Losing Pair			Winning Pair			Losing Pair
	N	%	CSR	N	%	CSR	N	%	CSR	N	%	CSR	N	%	CSR	N	%	CSR
Total shots	625	59.0 a	7.7	435	41.0 b	−7.7	351	43.3 a	−4.3	459	56.7 b	4.3	412	44.5 a	−3.8	514	55.5 b	3.8
Bandeja	79	12.6 a	−0.3	58	13.3 a	0.3	0	0.0 a	−0.9	1	0.2 a	0.9	79	19.2 a	−0.7	108	21.0 a	0.7
Smash	274	43.8 a	−0.6	199	45.7 a	0.6							19	4.6 a	−1.1	32	6.2 a	1.1
Recovery smash	20	3.2 a	−0.8	18	4.1 a	0.8	6	1.7 a	2.8	0	0.0 b	−2.8
Forehand volley	94	15.0 a	1.4	52	12.0 a	−1.4	29	8.3 a	−2.3	61	13.3 b	2.3	67	16.3 a	0.8	74	14.4 a	−0.8
Backhand volley	86	13.8 a	0.9	52	12.0 a	−0.9	88	25.1 a	1.1	100	21.8 a	−1.1	53	12.9 a	−0.3	69	13.4 a	0.3
Forehand bajada	8	1.3 a	−2.0	13	3.0 b	2.0							22	5.3 a	−0.2	29	5.6 a	0.2
Backhand bajada	2	0.3 a	0.3	1	0.2 a	−0.3	1	0.3 a	1.1	0	0.0 a	−1.1	3	0.7 a	0.7	2	0.4 a	−0.7
Forehand	21	3.4 a	1.7	7	1.6 a	−1.7	20	5.7 a	−1.9	43	9.4 a	1.9	49	11.9 a	−0.2	63	12.3 a	0.2
Backhand	11	1.8 a	0.5	6	1.4 a	−0.5	28	8.0 a	−0.8	44	9.6 a	0.8	59	14.3 a	0.5	68	13.2 a	−0.5
Back wall forehand	4	0.6 a	−0.5	4	0.9 a	0.5	29	8.3 a	−2.0	58	12.6 b	2.0	24	5.8 a	0.8	24	4.7 a	−0.8
Back wall backhand	3	0.5 a	−1.9	7	1.6 a	1.9	34	9.7 a	1.5	31	6.8 a	−1.5	13	3.2 a	0.2	15	2.9 a	−0.2
Side wall forehand							11	3.1 a	0.6	11	2.4 a	−0.6	4	1.0 a	−0.3	6	1.2 a	0.3
Side wall backhand	1	0.2 a	−0.9	2	0.5 a	0.9	15	4.3 a	0.8	15	3.3 a	−0.8	9	2.2 a	−0.3	13	2.5 a	0.3
Double wall forehand	8	1.3 a	−0.1	6	1.4 a	0.1	25	7.1 a	0.7	27	5.9 a	−0.7	6	1.5 a	0.7	5	1.0 a	−0.7
Double wall backhand	3	0.5 a	−1.2	5	1.1 a	1.2	27	7.7 a	1.3	35	5.4 a	−1.3	4	1.0 a	0.7	3	0.6 a	−0.7
Contrapared							24	6.8 a	0.6	27	5.9 a	−0.6	1	0.2 a	1.1	0	0.0 a	−1.1
Out of the court	6	1.0 a	0.1	4	0.9 a	−0.1	10	2.8 a	1.8	5	1.11 a	−1.8	0	0.0 a	−0.9	1	0.2 a	0.9
Serve	5	0.8 a	1.2	1	0.2 a	−1.2							0	0.0 a	−1.3	2	0.4 a	1.3
Other							4	1.1 a	−1.3	11	2.4 a	1.3

Note. N: number; %: percentage; CSR: corrected standardized residuals; CSR > 1.96: bold; a, b: indicate significant differences in the Z tests for comparison of column proportions at p < 0.05 adjusted using the Bonferroni correction.

Table 6. Differences between the winning and losing pairs in women’s professional padel according to the type of shot and its effectiveness.

	Winner						Forced Error						Unforced Error
	Winning Pair			Losing Pair			Winning Pair			Losing Pair			Winning Pair			Losing Pair
	N	%	CSR	N	%	CSR	N	%	CSR	N	%	CSR	N	%	CSR	N	%	CSR
Total shots	403	59.7 a	7.4	272	40.3 b	−7.4	229	39.6 a	−4.8	349	60.4 b	4.8	344	44.1 a	−2.8	436	55.9 b	2.8
Bandeja	81	20.1 a	0.0	55	20.2 a	0.0	0	0.0 a	−0.8	1	0.3 a	0.8	93	27.0	0.2	115	26.4 a	−0.2
Smash	104	25.8 a	0.3	67	24.6 a	−0.3							11	3.2 a	−1.3	22	5.0 a	1.3
Recovery smash	1	0.2 a	−1.4	3	1.1 a	1.4	0	0.0 a	−0.8	1	0.3 a	0.8
Forehand volley	77	19.1 a	−1.4	64	23.5 a	1.4	18	7.9 a	−1.3	39	11.2 a	1.3	46	13.4 a	−1.2	72	16.5 a	1.2
Backhand volley	68	16.9 a	3.3	22	8.1 b	−3.3	48	21.0 a	0.8	64	18.3 a	−0.8	48	14.0 a	0.9	51	11.7 a	−0.9
Forehand bajada	23	5.7 a	1.0	11	4.0 a	−1.0							27	7.8 a	2.4	17	3.9 b	−2.4
Backhand bajada	1	0.2 a	−0.3	1	0.4 a	0.3							2	0.6 a	−0.8	5	1.1 a	0.8
Forehand	18	4.5 a	−0.6	15	5.5 a	0.6	25	10.9 a	2.1	21	6.0 b	−2.1	40	11.6 a	1.1	40	9.2 a	−1.1
Backhand	10	2.5 a	−1.4	12	4.4 a	1.4	17	7.4 a	−2.1	45	12.9 b	2.1	34	9.9 a	−0.5	48	11.0 a	0.5
Back wall forehand	6	1.5 a	−1.3	8	2.9 a	1.3	26	11.4 a	1.2	29	8.3 a	−1.2	17	4.9 a	0.5	18	4.1 a	−0.5
Back wall backhand	5	1.2 a	−1.3	7	2.6 a	1.3	16	7.0 a	−1.7	39	11.2 a	1.7	10	2.9 a	0.3	11	2.5 a	−0.3
Side wall forehand	1	0.2 a	0.8	0	0.0 a	−0.8	14	6.1 a	1.0	15	4.3 a	−1.0	6	1.7 a	−0.3	9	2.1 a	0.3
Side wall backhand							15	6.6 a	2.1	10	2.9 b	−2.1	5	1.5 a	−1.6	14	3.2 a	1.6
Double wall forehand	1	0.2 a	−0.9	2	0.7 a	0.9	18	7.9 a	−0.9	35	10.0 a	0.9	0	0.0 a	−2.0	5	1.1 b	2.0
Double wall backhand	3	0.7 a	−0.9	4	1.5 a	0.9	19	8.3 a	−0.2	31	8.9 a	0.2	4	1.2 a	−0.5	7	1.6 a	0.5
Contrapared							10	4.4 a	0.0	15	4.3 a	0.0	1	0.3 a	1.1	0	0.0 a	−1.1
Serve	4	1.0 a	0.9	1	0.4 a	−0.9							0	0.0 a	−0.9	1	0.2 a	0.9
Out of the court							2	0.9 a	0.4	2	0.6 a	−0.4
Other							1	0.4 a	−0.2	2	0.6 a	0.2	0	0.0 a	−0.9	1	0.2 a	0.9

Note. N: number; %: percentage; CSR: corrected standardized residuals; CSR > 1.96: bold; a, b: indicate significant differences in the Z tests for comparison of column proportions at p < 0.05 adjusted using the Bonferroni correction.

Volleys (forehand and backhand) are also among the most characteristic strokes with which male and female players achieve winners and generate forced errors (Table 7 and Table 8). However, they also display the highest rates of forced and unforced errors among all shot types. Consistent with prior studies, volleys are highly effective for producing winners but prone to error [6]. When positioned at the net, players should use volleys to maintain rally control, attempting winners or forced errors only in clearly advantageous situations (e.g., high balls near the net or easily attackable shots when opponents are out of position). In more demanding scenarios (e.g., low or fast incoming balls), adopting a conservative approach reduces error likelihood. Previous research has also found that both male and female players are more likely to commit forced and unforced errors when hitting forehand or backhand strokes from the middle or back of the court compared with other point-ending shots [6]. To address this, training should emphasize reducing unforced errors through technical refinement of forehand and backhand execution from deeper court positions. In favorable tactical contexts, players should aim to gain control of the point while maintaining a safety margin—for instance, by feinting a soft, low shot to the opponent’s feet (known as a chiquita in padel) and instead executing a deep lob. This combination of deception and depth reflects the importance of shot selection and variation identified in the present study.

Table 7. Forced error generators according to shot type and match result in men’s professional padel.

	Winning Pair			Losing Pair
	N	%	CSR	N	%	CSR
Total forced error generators	458	56.5		352	43.5
Bandeja	147	32.1 a	−0.3	116	33.0 a	0.3
Smash	35	7.6 a	−2.3	44	12.5 b	2.3
Recovery smash	1	0.2 a	0.9	0	0.0 a	−0.9
Forehand volley	86	18.8 a	−0.7	73	20.7 a	0.7
Backhand volley	89	19.4 a	1.8	51	14.5 a	−1.8
Forehand bajada	15	3.3 a	−1.7	20	5.7 a	1.7
Backhand bajada	3	0.7 a	−0.7	4	1.1 a	0.7
Forehand	17	3.7 a	1.2	8	2.3 a	−1.2
Backhand	16	3.5 a	−0.2	13	3.7 a	0.2
Back wall forehand	11	2.4 a	1.0	5	1.4 a	−1.0
Back wall backhand	7	1.5 a	1.3	2	0.6 a	−1.3
Side wall forehand	2	0.4 a	0.4	1	0.3 a	−0.4
Double wall forehand	4	0.9 a	0.0	3	0.9 a	0.0
Double wall backhand	5	1.1 a	1.3	1	0.3 a	−1.3
Contrapared	1	0.2 a	−0.2	1	0.3 a	0.2
Serve	17	3.7 a	1.2	8	2.3 a	−1.2
Out of the court	2	0.4 a	0.4	1	0.3 a	−0.4

Note. N: number; %: percentage; CSR: corrected standardized residuals; CSR > 1.96: bold; a, b: indicate significant differences in the Z tests for comparison of column proportions at p < 0.05 adjusted using the Bonferroni correction.

Table 8. Forced error generators according to shot type and match result in women’s professional padel.

	Winning Pair			Losing Pair
	N	%	CSR	N	%	CSR
Total forced error generator	348	60.0		232	40.0
Bandeja	107	30.7 a	1.0	62	26.7 a	−1.0
Smash	40	11.5 a	1.5	18	7.8 a	−1.5
Forehand volley	76	21.8 a	−0.2	52	22.4 a	0.2
Backhand volley	37	10.6 a	−1.2	32	13.8 a	1.2
Forehand bajada	20	5.7 a	−1.0	18	7.8 a	1.0
Backhand bajada	6	1.7 a	0.4	3	1.3 a	−0.4
Forehand	23	6.6 a	1.9	7	3.0 a	−1.9
Backhand	7	2.0 a	−0.5	6	2.6 a	0.5
Back wall forehand	5	1.4 a	−1.0	6	2.6 a	1.0
Back wall backhand	4	1.1 a	−0.6	4	1.7 a	0.6
Side wall forehand	1	0.3 a	−0.3	1	0.4 a	0.3
Side wall backhand	2	0.6 a	0.2	1	0.4 a	−0.2
Double wall forehand	1	0.3 a	−1.8	4	1.7 a	1.8
Double wall backhand	1	0.3 a	−2.2	5	2.2 b	2.2
Contrapared	1	0.3 a	0.8	0	0.0 a	−0.8
Serve	16	4.6 a	−0.5	13	5.6 a	0.5
Out of the court	1	0.3 a	0.8	0	0.0 a	−0.8

Note. N: number; %: percentage; CSR: corrected standardized residuals; CSR > 1.96: bold; a, b: indicate significant differences in the Z tests for comparison of column proportions at p < 0.05 adjusted using the Bonferroni correction.

This study has several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. First, its observational design and the use of data from a single professional tournament limit the generalizability of the findings. Although the large rally sample and inclusion of both sexes strengthen the analysis, some degree of intra-pair and intra-match dependence may still exist, as multiple rallies were recorded from the same pairs within matches. Score differences between pairs during games or sets might also influence player behavior, particularly in decisive moments such as break points. Moreover, certain contextual variables—including score state, court side, serve sequence, and momentum—were not included in the analysis, yet they may influence tactical choices and error patterns. Situational factors such as sample size and playing conditions (e.g., altitude, humidity, or indoor versus outdoor surfaces) should also be controlled in future work. Specifically, all matches were played in a controlled indoor environment, which ensured consistent conditions but may differ from outdoor tournaments where environmental variability (e.g., wind, temperature, sunlight) can affect ball trajectory and tactical decisions.

Future research should increase the sample size and include a broader range of contextual variables, such as score differentials, critical points (e.g., break or match points), and final match outcomes. Employing multilevel or hierarchical models could also help account for rally clustering within pairs and matches, thereby improving inference accuracy. Examining how shot effectiveness varies across score-related contexts would provide deeper insight into performance strategies and decision-making under pressure. Similarly, expanding the dataset to enable advanced modeling approaches (e.g., predictive analytics or temporal sequence analysis) could contribute to more comprehensive and integrated frameworks for performance analysis in padel. Furthermore, in future studies, the Kappa coefficient could be supplemented with Bland–Altman analysis or intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analysis to quantify agreement and bias.

These findings can inform the design of specific training tasks, video-feedback sessions, and match simulations that reproduce the tactical and cognitive demands of professional play.

Since serving players produce more winners and force a greater number of errors, training should emphasize serve optimization through variations in direction, spin, and speed, aiming to disrupt the opponent’s return and facilitate net dominance. Conversely, receivers should prioritize the use of deep lobs, low shots aimed at the opponent’s feet (chiquitas), or fast balls directed toward the body to neutralize the server’s initial advantage and regain positional balance.

It is also advisable to include simulation exercises with differentiated roles that mimic real match situations or score dynamics. For example, training tasks could award double points to the “winning” pair for rallies won through winners or forced errors, while the “losing” pair could lose points or reset their score when committing forced or unforced errors. Such designs increase competitive pressure, foster effective decision-making, and reduce error frequency, particularly in service-related situations.

Stroke selection is another determinant of padel performance. Although the bandeja and the smash are key strokes for winning points, the bandeja involves a higher risk of error and should therefore be used strategically and contextually. Similarly, volleys play a decisive role in constructing points but require precise decision-making to balance offensive intent with execution consistency.

Minimizing unforced errors is essential, especially for strokes played from the baseline and during net exchanges under pressure. Coaches should replicate these scenarios in training to develop automatic and effective responses in high-demand contexts. For instance, drills may be designed in which the net pair is not allowed to finish the rally with a winner, focusing instead on sustaining the exchange and inducing errors from opponents. This approach enhances consistency in the bandeja, volleys, and net play under pressure, while baseline players improve regularity and rhythm control.

Training programs should also be adjusted according to sex. Male players tend to generate more winners through smashes, whereas point conclusions among female players rely more heavily on forehand and backhand volleys. Therefore, for men, it is recommended to promote the use of the smash in offensive situations, coupled with technical work focused on precision and effectiveness. For women, greater emphasis should be placed on volley execution and variation, particularly in scenarios requiring control and the creation of finishing opportunities.

Adopting this differentiated approach, grounded in technical–tactical and contextual game analysis, allows coaches to design more specific, effective, and evidence-based training interventions, ensuring the practical application of scientific knowledge to optimize padel performance.

5. Conclusions

Professional male and female padel players adopt an aggressive strategy when serving, frequently producing winners and shots that force errors from their opponents. Set-winning pairs consistently achieve more winners and forced error-generating shots, whereas set-losing pairs commit more forced and unforced errors in both serving and returning situations.

Regarding shot types, no overall differences were found in the distribution of strokes leading to winners, forced errors, or unforced errors. However, distinct sex-based patterns emerged.

Women: Winning players more often produced winners with the backhand volley, while losing players relied more on the double-wall backhand to generate forced errors. Winning players committed more forced errors with the backhand volley and more unforced errors with the forehand bajada, whereas losing players made more unforced errors with the double-wall forehand.

Men: Losing players more frequently produced winners with the forehand bajada and generated forced errors with the smash. They also committed more forced errors with the recovery smash, while winning players made more forced errors with the forehand volley and back-wall forehand.

Overall, the most decisive strokes, those most strongly associated with winners and forced error generation, were the bandeja, smash, and forehand and backhand volleys. The backhand volley also accounted for the highest number of forced errors, whereas unforced errors most commonly occurred with the bandeja, volleys (forehand and backhand), and groundstrokes from both sides.