The Influence of Hitting Locations on Shot Outcomes in Professional Men’s Padel

Abstract

In padel, there exists four possible outcomes after hitting: into play, winners, forced errors and unforced errors. Courts are divided into three zones: baseline, transition and net. The objective of this study was to analyse how shot outcomes may vary based on the hitting location where they were executed. A total of 10,321 shots from the Premier Padel 2022 circuit were assessed through systematic observation. Type of shots, hitting locations and final outcomes were analysed. Significant differences (p < 0.001 to 0.005) were found in shot outcomes across hitting locations. At the baseline, into-play forehands, backhands, and lobs were performed more frequently than at the net (p < 0.001) and resulted more often in unforced errors compared to the transition zone (p = 0.003–0.026). Overhead shots were performed more frequently at the transition zone compared with the others, specifically in into play (p ≤ 0.001 to 0.026), winners (p = 0.008 to 0.026) and unforced errors (p = 0.005 to 0.038). The net was the only zone where all types of outcomes were observed, with volleys being the most frequently performed shot. These results confirm that shot outcomes vary significantly according to their hitting location.

1. Introduction

Padel is a racket sport that has experienced constant growth since the 2000s [1,2], with over 25 million participants across more than 130 countries worldwide (https://www.padelfip.com/about/ (accessed on 20 of April 2023). This increasing popularity has attracted considerable scientific interest, leading to studies analysing different game parameters, such as players’ activity profiles [3,4,5,6], technical–tactical actions [7,8,9,10,11,12], and internal load responses [13,14,15] among other aspects aimed to enhance the player’s performance on court [5,16,17,18,19,20]. Recent evidence highlights that padel has evolved into a more physically demanding discipline, moving towards a more explosive and fast-played sport [21]. Furthermore, due to its popularity, it has been analysed and compared with other major developed racket sports (i.e., tennis, badminton, squash and table tennis) [22], particularly with double-tennis, where similarities in match load were found [23].

In padel, three different post-hitting outcomes can be identified: continuity, when the point continues (into play); winner shots, strokes that directly result in a point; and errors, when a point is lost due to a missed shot [24]. Errors can also be further classified into forced errors—produced by the opponent’s action resulting in a challenging hitting position—and unforced errors, which occur when the player makes a mistake despite being in full control of the shot [3,4,25]. Simultaneously, a padel court is divided into three main zones: baseline, middle or transition, and net. Several studies report that the most common outcome during professional male padel matches is maintaining the ball into-play, with consistent values across studies (≈85%) [4,12,24,26]. On the other hand, different behaviours were found depending on the players’ playing side, with right-side players achieving a higher percentage of into-play shots (46.4%; p < 0.05) compared to the left-side (43.4%), as long as they were both right-handed [7].

Studies have been found describing that the baseline (commonly referred to as the “defensive zone”) is the most frequent hitting location [4,7,12,26]. At this location, players tend to adopt a more alert stance [27,28], and shot outcomes are commonly into play and errors [20]. In contrast, it has been found that performing more effective shots at the net position could produce significant differences in the final match result and between the winning pair and the losers [11,25,29,30]. Even at this hitting location, there are important movements that players normally perform as coordinated actions to maintain their offensive behaviours [28]. Therefore, winner shots are most likely to be performed closer to the net [21,24,26,30].

There is considerable and extensive literature which has analysed and described the shot effectiveness and the technical–tactical factors (i.e., losing or winning pair, type of shot and game situation) that might possibly change their final outcome [8,31,32,33]. For example, it has been determined that in men’s professional padel, most of the points are finished by errors. And going even deeper, the more the points increase, the greater the chances are that the point is won by an error (60%) rather than a winner shot [32]. In addition, there is a clear difference between the winning and losing pair of a match regarding shot effectiveness, where the winning pair performs more winner shots and fewer errors than the losing team [26]. All this information has set up a practical background that has immensely helped both coaches and professional players to have a better approach and understanding of the sport’s technical–tactical parameters, which results in better-planned and organised practical sessions that target these game dynamics indicators. With the objective of advancing with the existing literature, the authors present the enquiry into how shot performance may differ across the different hitting locations, thereby leading to varying outcomes. This is why the present study centred its full attention to examine and outline the impact and influence of the hitting locations in the shots’ final result and how these outcomes may vary, considering where it was performed.

2. Materials and Methods

An observational design was used in this investigation, being multidimensional due to the inclusion of multiple parameters and participants that were analysed throughout the process. This study was conducted under the framework of descriptive observation, and the observer did not interact or affect the players’ behaviour [34]. Since data were obtained under natural conditions of public diffusion (official padel competition), individual informed consent was not required.

With the Ethics Committee for Clinical Research of the Catalan Sports Council’s approval (023/CEICGC/2023), the sample included 10321 shots corresponding to eight matches from different quarterfinals (n = 4), semifinals (n = 3) and final (n = 1) from the 2022 Premier Padel tournament, which features the best players on the circuit and is held annually across eight cities around the world (Madrid–Paris–Mendoza–Rome–Milan–Doha–Monterrey–Giza). Sixteen different right-handed male professional padel players (age: 27.4 ± 4.9 years; height: 180 ± 6.5 cm; ranked: 20.3 ± 18.1 [according to the International Padel Federation]) performed all the matches following the international padel regulations (https://www.padelfip.com/documentation/ (accessed on 20 of April 2023). To avoid potential investigation bias, only pairs composed of right-handed players (for racket manipulation) were included, which does not necessarily determine their dominant laterality.

All the matches were obtained from the official Premier Padel site on YouTube and analysed through a systematic observation process using the Lince Plus video analysis software (version 3.2.3) [35]. An ad hoc observational instrument was specifically designed for this research (

Table 1. Instrument employed for observation.

CRITERIA	CATEGORIES	DESCRIPTION
	FH	Forehand
	BH	Backhand
	VL	Volley
Type of	TR	Tray
Shot	LO	Lob
	SM	Smash
	FS	Fake smash
Shot	IP	Into play
outcome	W	Winner
	UNF	Unforced error
	FE	Forced error
Hitting	BL	Baseline
zone	TRA	Transition
	N	Net

) and validated based on parameters previously used in related studies [7,12]. The instrument included three main criteria for data collection: type of shot, outcomes, and hitting zones. Lines were drawn delimiting the court so it could be divided into three hitting zones as shown in Figure 1. The observer focused his attention to observe and determine which shot was performed, in which hitting location it was executed and noted the final result of each shot. Players’ body positioning (feet) at ball impact was the specific criterion used to determine in which hitting location the shots were performed. Finally, shot outcomes were defined under the frames of the current scientific literature (see Section 1, Introduction).

Statistical Analyses

Data are reported as median and interquartile range (IQR). Normality of distributions and homogeneity of variances were assessed with the Shapiro–Wilk test. Non-parametric analyses and Friedman signed rank tests were used to assess differences between hitting zones (baseline, transition and net) with Dunn–Bonferroni post hoc tests to look for differences between pairs. Effect sizes (r) were calculated following Fritz et al. [36], where values of 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5 indicate small, medium, and large effects, respectively. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 25.0 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Intra- and inter-observer reliability were determined with 200-game actions agreement. For inter-observer reliability, comparisons between the study’s primary observer and another researcher specialising in padel yielded high Cohen’s Kappa coefficient values (0.95). Intra-observer also resulted in similarly high coefficient values (0.99) [37].

3. Results

Table 2. Shots and their final outcome according to their hitting locations.

	Baseline								Transition								Net
Type of stroke	IP		W		FE		UNF		IP		W		FE		UNF		IP		W		FE		UNF
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Forehand	568	5.5	4	0	15	0.1	29	0.3	230	2.2	3	0	6	0.1	12	0.1	126	1.2	7	0.1	9	0.1	3	0
Backhand	591	5.7	2	0	5	0	32	0.3	193	1.9	2	0	7	0.1	9	0.1	89	0.9	6	0.1	6	0.1	3	0
Volleys	36	0.3	0	0	1	0	0	0	321	3.1	5	0	10	0.1	19	0.2	2569	25	144	1.4	52	0.5	116	1.1
Trays	510	4.9	6	0.1	1	0	23	0.2	1117	10.8	21	0.2	1	0	35	0.3	27	0.3	4	0	0	0	0	0
Lobs	1962	19	1	0	11	0.1	62	0.6	513	5	0	0	2	0	20	0.2	162	1.6	0	0	2	0	4	0
Smash	9	0.1	9	0.1	0	0	3	0	169	1.6	127	1.2	0	0	19	0.2	45	0.4	139	1.3	0	0	4	0
Fake smash	3	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	59	0.6	2	0	0	0	0	0	13	0.1	3	0	0	0	2	0

n, absolute value; %, respective value; IP, into play; W, winner; FE, forced error; UNF, unforced error.

shows the absolute (n) and relative (%) frequencies of shot types and their outcomes specifically performed in every hitting zone. The most frequently performed shots per zone were lobs at the baseline, trays at transition, and volleys at the net.

3.1. Into-Play Shots Comparisons Between Hitting Locations

As shown in

Table 3. Comparison between into-play shots according to different hitting locations.

Variable	IP-BL Median (IQR)	IP-TRA Median (IQR)	IP-N Median (IQR)	Within Group
				p-Value	Contrast	Pairwise Comparison
Forehand	78 (55)	32.50 (19.75)	16.50 (9.25)	<0.001	16	IP-N < IP-BL = <0.001 (r = 0.71)
Backhand	74.50 (51.50)	21 (20.75)	11.50 (10.50)	<0.001	15.55	IP-N < IP-BL = <0.001 (r = 0.68)
Volley	4.50 (2.50)	38.50 (24.75)	295.50 (189.25)	<0.001	16	IP-BL < IP-N = <0.001 (r = 0.71)
Tray	64.50 (60.50)	172 (144.25)	4 (4.25)	<0.001	16	IP-N < IP-TRA = <0.001 (r = 0.71)
Lob	262 (228.25)	77 (62.50)	23.50 (19.25)	<0.001	16	IP-N < IP-BL = <0.001 (r = 0.71)
Smash	1 (1.75)	19.50 (11.25)	5 (2.50)	<0.001	16	IP-BL < IP-TRA = <0.001 (r = 0.71)
Fake smash	0 (0.75)	6.50 (8.75)	1 (2.75)	0.001	13.86	IP-BL < IP-TRA = 0.002 (r = 0.60) IP-N < IP-TRA = 0.026 (r = 0.46)

IQR, interquartile range; r, effect size; IP, into play; BL, baseline; TRA, transition; N, net.

, all into-play shots showed statistical differences between the hitting zones (p < 0.001 to 0.001). Forehands (p < 0.001; r = 0.71), backhands (p < 0.001; r = 0.68), and lobs (p < 0.001; r = 0.71) were performed more frequently at the baseline in comparison with the net, showing large significant differences. Trays also showed more large significant differences being produced at the transition zone in comparison with the net (p < 0.001; r = 0.71). Smashes were more frequently performed at the transition zone compared with the baseline (p < 0.001; r = 0.71). Large and medium differences were found for into-play-transition fake smashes, which were produced more frequently compared to baseline (p = 0.002; r = 0.60) and the net (p = 0.026; r = 0.46). Finally, volleys at the net were significantly performed more in comparison with the baseline, showing a large effect size (p < 0.001; r = 0.71).

3.2. Winner Shots Comparisons Between Hitting Locations

Significant differences were observed for winner shots in volleys, trays and smashes (p = 0.001 to 0.002) (

Table 4. Comparison between winner shots according to different hitting locations.

Variable	W-BL Median (IQR)	W-TRA Median (IQR)	W-N Median (IQR)	Within Group
				p-Value	Contrast	Pairwise Comparison
Forehand	0 (0.75)	0 (0.75)	1 (1.00)	0.440	1.62	-
Backhand	0 (0.75)	0 (0.75)	0.50 (1.00)	0.305	2.37	-
Volley	0 (0)	0 (1.75)	17.50 (7.00)	0.001	14.89	W-BL < W-N = 0.002 (r = 0.60) W-TRA < W-N = 0.026 (r = 0.46)
Tray	0 (1.50)	2.50 (2.50)	0 (1.00)	0.002	12.78	W-BL < W-TRA = 0.026 (r = 0.46) W-N < W-TRA = 0.026 (r = 0.46)
Lob	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0.368	2	-
Smash	1 (1.50)	15 (15.00)	17 (11.25)	0.002	12	W-BL < W-TRA = 0.008 (r = 0.53) W-BL < W-N = 0.008 (r = 0.53)
Fake smash	0 (0)	0 (0.75)	0 (0.75)	0.264	2.67	-

IQR, interquartile range; r, effect size; W, winner; BL, baseline; TRA, transition; N, net.

). Pairwise comparisons revealed medium and large differences, noting that winner–net volleys were performed more frequently in comparison with the baseline (p = 0.002; r = 0.60) and transition (p = 0.026; r = 0.46). Trays were performed more at the transition zone compared to those at the baseline (p = 0.026; r = 0.46) and net (p = 0.026; r = 0.46), proving both medium differences. Smashes were executed more frequently at both the transition and net compared to the baseline, showing a large effect (p = 0.008; r = 0.53). No differences were found for forehands, backhands, lobs and fake smashes.

3.3. Forced-Errors Shots Comparisons Between Hitting Locations

As noted in

Table 5. Comparison between forced error shots according to different hitting locations.

Variable	FE-BL Median (IQR)	FE-TRA Median (IQR)	FE-N Median (IQR)	Within Group
				p-Value	Contrast	Pairwise Comparison
Forehand	2 (1.75)	1 (1.00)	1 (2.00)	0.130	4	-
Backhand	0.50 (1.00)	1 (0.75)	0.50 (1.00)	0.589	1.06	-
Volley	0 (0)	0.50 (2.75)	6.50 (3.75)	0.001	14.86	FE-BL < FE-N = 0.001 (r = 0.62) FE-TRA < FE-N = 0.037 (r = 0.44)
Tray	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0.607	1	-
Lob	1.50 (1.75)	0 (0)	0 (0.75)	0.032	6.91	FE-BL < FE-TRA = 0.046 (r = 0.28)
Smash	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1	0	-
Fake smash	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	1	0	-

IQR, interquartile range; r, effect size; FE, forced error; BL, baseline; TRA, transition; N, net.

, significant differences in forced errors were observed only for volleys and lobs across hitting zones (p = 0.001 to 0.032). Post hoc analysis showed that volleys at the net were performed more frequently than at the baseline (p = 0.001; r = 0.62) and at the transition zone (p = 0.037; r = 0.44), showing large and medium effects, respectively. More lobs were performed at the transition zone in comparison with the baseline, showing medium effects (p = 0.046; r = 0.28).

3.4. Unforced-Errors Shots Comparisons Between Hitting Locations

Table 6. Comparison between unforced error shots according to different hitting locations.

Variable	UNF-BL Median (IQR)	UNF-TRA Median (IQR)	UNF-N Median (IQR)	Within Group
				p-Value	Contrast	Pairwise Comparison
Forehand	4 (3.25)	1 (1.00)	0 (1.00)	0.002	12.29	UNF-N < UNF-BL = 0.003 (r = 0.57)
Backhand	4 (1.75)	0.50 (2.75)	0 (0.75)	0.001	13.86	UNF-TRA < UNF-BL = 0.026 (r = 0.46) UNF-N < UNF-BL = 0.002 (r = 0.60)
Volley	0 (0)	2 (1.00)	14 (8.00)	0.001	16	UNF-BL < UNF-N = < 0.001(r = 0.71)
Tray	3 (3.00)	3.50 (5.50)	0 (0)	0.002	12.50	UNF-N < UNF-BL = 0.037 (r = 0.44) UNF-N < UNF-TRA = 0.005 (r = 0.55)
Lob	7 (5.00)	2 (2.50)	0 (1.00)	0.002	12.62	UNF-N < UNF-BL = 0.002 (r = 0.60)
Smash	0 (1.00)	2 (0.75)	0 (1.00)	0.005	10.57	UNF-BL < UNF-TRA = 0.018 (r = 0.49) UNF-N < UNF-TRA = 0.037 (r = 0.44)
Fake smash	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0.75)	0.223	3	-

IQR, interquartile range; r, effect size; UNF, unforced error; BL, baseline; TRA, transition; N, net.

shows that most of unforced-error shots differed significantly across hitting zones (p = 0.001 to 0.005), with the exception of the fake smashes. Pairwise comparisons revealed large differences for forehands and lobs at the baseline, which were performed more frequently than at the net (p = 0.003; r = 0.57; p = 0.002; r = 0.60). Similarly, backhands at the baseline were executed more often than at the transition zone, showing a medium effect (p = 0.026; r = 0.46), and more than at the net, showing a large effect (p = 0.002; r = 0.60). Trays were performed more at the baseline than at the net, showing medium differences (p = 0.037; r: 0.44), while unforced error trays at the transition location were produced more than at the net, with a large effect (p = 0.005; r = 0.55). Smashes were performed more frequently at the transition zone than at the baseline (p = 0.018; r = 0.49) and net (p = 0.037; r = 0.44), showing medium effects. Finally, volleys at the net occurred significantly more than at the baseline, showing a large effect (p < 0.001; r = 0.71).

4. Discussion

This study focused its attention on highlighting the impact of hitting locations in men’s professional padel players and examined how it affected the final outcome of each shot. The findings revealed significant differences for all outcomes, into play; winners; forced errors and unforced errors (p < 0.001 to 0.005) across all the different locations. At the baseline, both into-play (forehands, backhands and lobs) and unforced errors (forehands, backhands, and lobs) were produced most frequently. At the transition zone, overhead shots (trays, smashes, fake smashes) were performed more often, showing significant differences in into play, winners and unforced errors compared to both net and baseline zones, while forced error lobs were also more frequent than at the baseline. At the net location, volleys were the most frequently executed shot type across all outcomes (into play, winners, forced errors, and unforced errors), with winner smashes additionally being more common than at the baseline.

Prior studies have demonstrated that the most frequent outcome in men’s professional padel is keeping the ball into play [15,17,28,31]. Into-play shots such as forehands, backhands and lobs were consistently performed significantly more at the baseline compared with other zones. As the baseline is primarily a defensive zone [30], these three shots are commonly used to not only defend but also create opportunities to regain an offensive position closer to the net. Both forehands and backhands are mainly defensive shots used to maintain the ball into play, but they can also be employed to pass the opponent’s line [8,17]. These shots are often returned with volleys, which can result in short balls, providing the defending pair a chance to re-attack. Similarly, lobs are both used to defend against continuous offensive shots and to move the opponent’s pair from an offensive to a defensive position [8,17]. Likewise, it is noteworthy to consider that in professional men’s padel, there is a remarkable chance (76–86%) that the points include at least two to three lobs shots [5]. Considering this, it is important to mention that lobs are performed more at the baseline not just for a tactical reason but also due to a logistic one, in which the ball has a larger trajectory (especially cross-court) to get into a depth zone (near the glass) of the opponent’s court [30]. This explains why into-play lobs are less commonly executed near the net, where trajectory margins are smaller; the chances of making a mistake grow higher (i.e., hitting the opponent’s glass or hitting a short lob that could get easily responded to by an aggressive overhead shot).

Taking into account these into play shots, there is a close relationship with the unforced-error shots, which were also produced significantly more at this hitting location. It is important to consider that these shots are performed after the ball bounces on the court (indirect shots); therefore, the closer the players get to the net, the less likely these shots are executed. This also explains why forced error lobs were performed more frequently at the transition zone in comparison with the baseline, where players would have less space and reaction time to execute an effective lob. Overall, both into-play and unforced-error shots performed significantly more at baseline, which is in line with the findings of the current literature [11].

Overhead shots were performed more frequently at the transition zone compared to the others, which aligns with previous investigations [2,30,38]. Specifically, the following shots were performed more at this hitting location: into-play, trays, smashes, fake smashes; winner, trays, smashes; unforced error, trays, smashes. Referred to as the ‘transition to the net’ is where these shots are predominantly performed due to the continuous lobs executed by the opponents as a defensive strategy, allowing them to move towards the net [10,26]. Therefore, this hitting location concentrated significantly more these three different shots, where the offensive pair would seek to hit back these lobs without any bounce so they could keep at a more favourable position for performing more aggressive actions, which would increase the chances to win the point, either through errors made by the opponent or by direct winner shots.

Finally, the net was the only hitting zone that showed statistical differences in all of the possible outcomes. Into-play, winner, forced-error and unforced-error volleys were the most performed shot. As a multitask shot, volleys are performed to maintain the net position when the opposite pair is constantly trying to pass their centre line with different shots, sometimes aggressive ones, which explains why forced errors predominantly occurred at this zone. Volleys are also produced to generate offensive actions aimed at winning a rally. This supports the results previously found indicating that volleys are primarily produced at this hitting location [3,21,26,30]. Additionally, it is remarkable to note that this shot is a non-bouncing shot, meaning that the ball does not bounce on the court before being hit. This explains the tactical behaviour differences with the other hitting zones, especially with the baseline, where players would wait for the ball to bounce (also off the glass) so they provide themselves with more reaction time to execute another kind of shot. Furthermore, winner smashes showed differences compared to the baseline. According to the current literature, winner smashes are more likely to be executed closer to the net [30,38]. Consequently, this shot is not commonly produced at a further point from the net (i.e., baseline), due to the high demands of power and precision; an ineffective smash could provide the opponent pair with an opportunity to counterattack or even win the point.

Although this aspect of the game has been studied previously, mainly in terms of the shot effectiveness, it is important to emphasise once again that this study focused exclusively on analysing and describing how the hitting locations can possibly influence the outcome of each shot. The significant differences reported in this study may enhance comprehension of the sports’ technical and tactical aspects, offering valuable guidance for both coaches and players seeking to improve performance. These valuable indicators suggest the importance of implementing training sessions targeting specified actions across the three hitting zones. Defensive behaviour drills should be performed from the baseline, in which constant pressure is exerted in order to practise and implement certain shots (forehands, backhands and lobs) with minimal errors despite the continuous strain. This can potentially generate greater defensive stability aiming to develop this technical–tactical aspect. Overhead shots remain of paramount importance to be practised at the transition zone, not only to sustain an offensive position closer to the net but also to seek greater chances to win a point. Moreover, at this hitting zone, it is important to emphasise that volleys should be addressed not only for aiming to be aggressive and winning shots but also to maintain a solid defensive position when the opponents are trying to outplay with faster and more difficult shots to return.

Finally, it is crucial to highlight the role of error reduction—most notably the reduction of unforced errors—in contributing to players’ overall performance. Evidence from current gameplay dynamics suggests that winning pairs distinguish themselves not by executing more winning shots, but by consistently keeping their error count to a minimum.

It is important to clarify that the analysed sample consisted solely of elite male players, considering the final rounds at play; therefore, the findings obtained cannot be generalised to the entire padel population. Results may be altered if other study samples are considered, such as pairs composed of left-handed players, mixed-hand players and/or lower-level players. It is also noteworthy to add that if similar research was ever conducted analysing professional women players, completely different results could be obtained.

5. Conclusions

This study examines the impact of hitting locations on shot outcomes and their variations in men’s professional padel. Significant differences were observed across all shot outcomes when comparing the three different hitting locations, indicating that the effectiveness of each shot depends on where they were executed. At the baseline, the most performed shots are the forehands, backhands, and lobs, resulting primarily in into-play and unforced-error outcomes, emphasising the importance of practising these defensive shots in every practical training session and highlighting the need to perform them flawlessly. The transition zone is characterised by a higher frequency of the overhead shots (smashes, trays and fake smashes) compared to the baseline, resulting in into-play, winners and unforced-error shots. More forced error lobs are produced at the transition zone, suggesting that training should address situations with limited space and time reaction. Offensive shots are more likely to be executed closer to the net (transition and net), increasing the probability to win the point due to an opponent’s error (unforced or forced) or through a direct winner shot. Finally, the net zone is the hitting location where volleys are most performed, in which every outcome is produced.