PofoliaShared via Pofolia

International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching· 2026Q1

Wearable technology in tennis: Player willingness, use and application

Xi Yang, Anna Fitzpatrick, Mark A. King, Stuart A. McErlain‐Naylor

Short summary

Tennis players are willing to wear up to 5 sensors during training but fewer during matches, prioritizing performance and injury prevention applications over comfort and non-interference.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • 96 tennis players surveyed across UK, China, Australia, and Ireland.
  • Heart rate monitors and GPS trackers are most used in training; inertial measurement units are less common.
  • Players accept more sensors during training (median 5) than match play (median 3).
  • Top application interests include stroke-load monitoring, technical feedback, and injury prevention.
  • Preferred sensor placements: upper-back, shoe, lower-back; least acceptable: hand, wrist, racket-mounted.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

Understanding players’ acceptance of wearable technologies is essential for translating research advancements into practical use in tennis. This study therefore aimed to characterise tennis players’ current wearable use, application interests, acceptable sensor numbers and locations, and factors shaping their willingness to wear sensors during training and match play. The study also examined whether the maximum acceptable number of sensors differed according to current wearable-use status, playing context, and playing level. Ninety-six tennis players from university to professional levels, currently training in the United Kingdom, China, Australia and Ireland, completed the survey. Heart rate monitors and GPS-based trackers dominated training adoption, whereas inertial measurement units were less used; reported use was lower during match play across all device types. Players exhibited strong interest in performance-oriented applications, particularly stroke-load monitoring, technical feedback, and injury prevention. Acceptance was context-dependent, with higher tolerance for multiple sensors during training than match play. Sensor-experienced players reported a higher maximum acceptable sensor number during training than sensor-inexperienced players (median [IQR]: 5 [3-8] vs 3 [2-6]), whereas match play acceptability was similar between groups. Upper-back, shoe, and lower-back placements were preferred, whereas hand-, wrist-, and racket-mounted sensors were the least acceptable. Movement interference, discomfort and wearability, and sensor placement concerns were the main reasons for non-use. These findings highlight player-valued features and constraints that should inform wearable technology design and future on-court sensor research.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 2026 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Orthopedics and Sports MedicineMedicine