The purpose of this study was to analyse and compare the match characteristics of wheelchair PTT （Para table tennis） classes that played in the team tournament at the Rio 2016 Paralympic. Eight PTT matches of each s...The purpose of this study was to analyse and compare the match characteristics of wheelchair PTT （Para table tennis） classes that played in the team tournament at the Rio 2016 Paralympic. Eight PTT matches of each selected class （1, 2, 4 and 5） were analysed.The variables analysed were DR （duration of rally） and RT （rest time）. In observing the characteristics of the matches in Classes 1, 2, 4 and 5, the DR corresponded to 3.4 ± 1.2, 4.2 ± 1.5, 4.5 ± 1.6 and 5.2 ± 1.2 seconds, and RT to 13.8 ± 3.5, 14 ± 3.5, 13.3 ± 3.1 and 12.3± 3.3 seconds. In Classes 1 and 2, significant differences in DR were found, but none in RT （p 〉 0.05）. In the DR and RT of classes 4 and 5 there were significant differences （p 〈 0.05）. The results indicated that the DR in Classes 1 and 2 were different because of sitting balance due to severe reduction of function in Class 1 playing arm, interfering in the rally and rest. In Classes 4 and 5 the differences in DR and RT were caused by little sitting balance in Class 4. These characteristics should be used by coaches to check the disadvantages that Class 1 presents against Class 2, and the physical limitations of Class 4 that can directly influence DR in the team tournament against athletes with normal trunk muscle function （Class 5）. Planned training prescriptions between classes would aim at achieving better sport performance in training and team tournaments.展开更多
文摘The purpose of this study was to analyse and compare the match characteristics of wheelchair PTT （Para table tennis） classes that played in the team tournament at the Rio 2016 Paralympic. Eight PTT matches of each selected class （1, 2, 4 and 5） were analysed.The variables analysed were DR （duration of rally） and RT （rest time）. In observing the characteristics of the matches in Classes 1, 2, 4 and 5, the DR corresponded to 3.4 ± 1.2, 4.2 ± 1.5, 4.5 ± 1.6 and 5.2 ± 1.2 seconds, and RT to 13.8 ± 3.5, 14 ± 3.5, 13.3 ± 3.1 and 12.3± 3.3 seconds. In Classes 1 and 2, significant differences in DR were found, but none in RT （p 〉 0.05）. In the DR and RT of classes 4 and 5 there were significant differences （p 〈 0.05）. The results indicated that the DR in Classes 1 and 2 were different because of sitting balance due to severe reduction of function in Class 1 playing arm, interfering in the rally and rest. In Classes 4 and 5 the differences in DR and RT were caused by little sitting balance in Class 4. These characteristics should be used by coaches to check the disadvantages that Class 1 presents against Class 2, and the physical limitations of Class 4 that can directly influence DR in the team tournament against athletes with normal trunk muscle function （Class 5）. Planned training prescriptions between classes would aim at achieving better sport performance in training and team tournaments.
