Technical Statistics And Biomechanical Analysis Of The Serve Of Women’s Singles Final In Australian Open2011

Objective: Statistical analysis by Li Na and Kim Clijsters serve in the game, and thepositive return of serve, backhand, such as technology, sports biomechanics research servingtechnology to explore the different characteristics of various technologies, for technicalspecification tennis player action structure, effectively improve the technical level of tennishas a very important significance.Methods: This paper selects2011Australian Open women’s singles final, Li Na and KimClijsters as the research object, through literature, mathematical statistics, comparativeanalysis, image analysis and so on, Li Na and Kim Clijsters serve, return of serve, the prosand cons of the initiative, the net score, total score and other comparative statistical analysis;against Li Na and Kim Clijsters’s serve biomechanical motion analysis technology.Conclusions: technical and tactical aspects of the statistical conclusions are mainly (1) Lifirst serve success rate than the opponent, while scoring rate is less than the opponent; Li’ssecond serve was significantly slower than the average speed of the opponent, from the firstserve to the second serve The average rate of decline was particularly evident. this is one ofthe important reasons for its defeat.(2) Clijsters return of serve quality than Li Na, receivingscoring rate is also higher than Li.(3) Although Li’s winning points slightly higher thanClijsters, but unforced errors is far higher than the opponent, and this is also one of theimportant reasons for its defeat.(4) the ability to grasp Li are higher than before theopportunity to network Clijsters.(5) Li Na has all scores in the whole game by winning69%of the points and the opponent scores unforced errors, in a sense reflects the way Li battingand batting technique is more offensive.(6) through the whole game data, compared to Li’sphysical Clijsters has a gap. The main conclusion of the service motion analysis:(1) Clijstershitting fast-paced than Li, so serve more coherent action; compared with Kim Clijsters, Li Nain the sweet spot more reasonable height.(2) In the process of kicking knee, Li supportkicking leg is greater than the magnitude of Clijsters, to create more favorable conditions forthe later action.(3) Li Na and Kim Clijsters forced to serve in the main part of the order of thebody in line with the law of whipping action.