Assessing the Probability of Winning a Point in Men’s Padel: A Comprehensive Analysis

Abstract

Background—The number of studies on padel has grown significantly in recent years, reflecting the growing importance of the sport. However, more research is still needed on a comprehensive analysis of performance indicators. This study had a double objective: on the one hand, to analyze the probability of winning a point as a function of several variables and, on the other hand, to develop a match analysis. Methods—A total of 980 points from the Menorca 2020 World Padel Tour Master Final Men’s category were examined using observational methodology. The participants were the eight pairs who competed in the final rounds of the tournament. To obtain the results, various analytical techniques were used, such as descriptive analysis and the chi-square test, with a significance level of p < 0.05. Results—The results indicated that most points were initiated on the first serve (88.5%) and were most often won by the serving pair (59.3%). Short rallies predominated (42.2%), with the serving pair most likely to win the point (71%). As the rally became longer, the probability of winning the point decreased, reaching 57% for medium rallies and 47% for long rallies. Almost half of the points were completed in less than 10 s, with an average point duration of 15 s. Most points were finished from the middle area and near the net (41.4% and 36%, respectively), mainly by smashes (25.9%) or volleys (28.9%), with the cross-court trajectory being the most effective. Conclusions—Short rallies (0–6 shots) were the most common, with an average point duration of approximately 15 s. Most points ended with a shot from the middle of the court, using a volley or a smash with a cross-court trajectory. There is a clear relationship between proximity to the net on the final shot and an increased probability of winning the point.

1. Introduction

Padel, a racket sport that originated in Acapulco (Mexico) in 1969, has expanded significantly in recent years [1]. It currently has 50 national federations around the world [2]. Padel is played by individuals of various ages and competitive levels thanks to its straightforward rules and the sport’s ability to adapt its physical demands to different skill levels [3]. In recent years, several professional circuits (A1 Padel, World Padel Tour, and Premier Padel) have coexisted. However, in 2024, the World Padel Tour and Premier Padel merged, with the latter becoming the most prestigious among professionals.

Despite its remarkable growth in the last decade, the sport has received limited attention from the scientific community [4]. It is therefore crucial to carry out a constant analysis of the factors influencing performance as the sport may be changing at a faster pace compared to other more established racket sports such as tennis, badminton or squash, which have also seen substantial variations in their performance indicators since the 2000s [5].

In the field of sport performance, research has been carried out that has focused on various aspects such as the validation of observational instruments [6,7,8], the time structure of the match [9,10,11], the anthropometric characteristics and physiological requirements of the athletes [12,13,14], and the analysis of the game at a technical–tactical level [15,16,17,18,19,20,21].

Knowledge of the structure of the game is essential to design tasks and training sessions aimed at optimizing players’ performance. Unlike tennis [22,23], in padel, the serve (in reference to winning the point with this stroke) and the dominance from the back of the court are not determining factors for performance. Previous research has indicated that up to 80% of points are won from a position close to the net, using a variety of strokes, such as the volley (20–25%) and the tray and the smash (12–18%) [13,17,24]. From the start of the point, there is a constant battle for a position near the net as maintaining this position gives a tactical advantage over the opponent. Numerous studies have highlighted that the probability of winning the point increases when players maintain a position close to the net [11,25,26]. Although aces are rare in this sport, it has been shown that serving is more effective than returning as the serving pair wins approximately 62.5% of the points in the men’s category [1].

As for the number of shots in each rally, an average of between nine and ten shots per point has been observed in both the men’s and women’s categories [26,27]. Research on time structure has revealed that padel is an intermittent sport, with an average duration in elite players of 9.30 ± 4.00 s per point and 9.38 ± 1.72 shots per point in matches of a 57.4 ± 11.6 min duration [11]. These studies have also shown that in the first few seconds of the rally, more points are lost due to unforced errors whereas as the rally progresses, unforced errors decrease and winners or forced errors increase [10]. As for the variety of strokes and their direction, volleys predominate (25.0–26.8%), as do ground strokes (15.5%), which tend to be mostly cross hits (62.5–65.5%) [17].

However, despite the information gathered in previous research, there has been a notable absence of studies that thoroughly address the probability of winning a point, taking into account different combinations of the most influential performance indicators in the sport. Therefore, the main purpose of this paper is to analyze the probability of winning a point in elite men’s padel, considering factors such as the type of rally, the location of the players on the court where the last shot is played, the type of final shot, and the finishing area. This comprehensive approach will provide valuable information to deepen the understanding of padel performance and to improve match strategy in this sport.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design

For the purpose of this research on high-level men’s padel, we adopted an observational methodology [28]. The observational design [29] was characterized by being nomothetic as it covered all the points played in the final rounds of the World Padel Tour Master Final in Menorca in 2020. Moreover, it was a follow-up, as it analyzed a tournament from the quarter-finals onwards, and focused on a unidimensional dimension, with no concurrence of simultaneous behaviors.

2.2. Sample

Considering that the unit of analysis of this study comprised the points played in the World Padel Tour Master Final 2020 in the men’s category, the final sample was made up of a total of 980 points. Participants included the 8 pairs competing in the quarter-final, semi-final, and final rounds. A total of seven matches were analyzed. Informed consent of the participants was not required because the data were not generated by experimentation and the video material was obtained secondarily [30]. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Education and Sport Sciences of the University of Vigo (application 07-280722).

2.3. Instruments

To carry out this study, we used the OBSPADEL-S20, an observation instrument designed to analyze the different actions present in the game of padel. The observation instrument was created ad hoc for this research and was based on criteria and categories previously used in padel studies (see

Table 1. OBSPADEL observation instrument.

Criteria	Code	Description
Service	FS	The point is played with first serve
	SS	The point is played with second serve
	DF	Double fault
Rally lenght	SH	Short rally (0–6 shots).
	MD	Medium rally (7–12 shots).
	LN	Long rally (13+ shots).
Strike zone (see Figure 1)	SZ1	Zone between the end wall and the service line
	SZ2	Zone between the service line and three meters before the net
	SZ3	Zone between 3 meters in front of the net and the net
	SZ	Service zone
The finish zone (see Figure 1)	PST	Zone of the court parallel to the final stroke (player’s parallel stroke)
	MST	The player hits the ball to the middle of the court
	CST	Zone of the court crossed to the final stroke (player’s cross-court stroke)
	SNT	Final shot to the net
	SSC	Final shot to the opponent’s side of the court directly
	SEC	Final shot to the end of the court directly
Winner	SW	The serving pair wins the point
	RW	The returning pair wins the point
Point Ending	SWW	The serving team wins with a winner
	SWFE	The serving team wins with a forced error by the opponent
	SWUE	The serving team wins with an unforced error by the opponent
	RWW	The returning team wins with a winner
	RWFE	The returning team wins with a forced error by the opponent
	RWUE	The returning team wins with an unforced error by the opponent
Final Stroke	ACE	Direct serve
	FHW	Forehand wall outlet
	BHW	Backhand wall outlet
	FHG	Forehand groundstroke
	BHG	Backhand groundstroke
	FHV	Forehand volley
	BHV	Backhand volley
	SM	Smash
	TR	Tray
	LB	Lob
	DS	Drop shot
	OT	Other (counter-wall, double wall, special stroke...)
Time	T	Duration of the point in seconds

Note: PST, MST, and CST (finish zone criterion) refer to the trajectory of the stroke in both winners and forced error points. (Acronyms in Table 1.)

and Figure 1) [8,15,31].

The OBSPADEL-S20 consists of eight criteria that form a category system that meets the requirements of completeness and mutual exclusivity. Data recording was carried out using LINCE PLUS software version 2.1.0 [32].

2.4. Procedure

The data collection was carried out by downloading the matches from the official World Padel Tour YouTube channel. Subsequently, all the files were combined into a single video of 12 h and 23 min. The editing of the matches was achieved using Wondershare Filmora software version X. These matches were downloaded in high definition (1080p, 1920 × 1080) and viewed on 27-inch monitors for analysis.

To ensure the quality and consistency of the data, a rigorous protocol was followed. Prior to the data quality check, carried out by two experts in padel and observation methodology, a comprehensive training program was conducted. One of the experts was a national paddle tennis coach with a degree in Physical Education and Sports Science while the other was a university professor specializing in racquet sports and observational methodology. This training consisted of nine two-hour sessions over a three-week period and used videos of men’s padel matches from the 2020 season for the experts to become familiar with the observation tool.

In order to reinforce the integrity of the recording process [33], the quality of the recorded data was assessed by calculating intra-observer and inter-observer concordance using the Kappa coefficient [34]. The LINCE PLUS program facilitated this analysis. Both concordances were performed on points from padel matches that did not belong to the final sample (n = 300; 1/3 final sample). The intra-observer kappa was 0.96 for the first observer and 0.95 for the second observer while the inter-observer kappa was 0.94. Subsequently, observer 1 proceeded to analyze all items in the research sample.

Once the meticulous recording of all data was completed, an Excel file was generated documenting the sequence of actions at each of the points analyzed. The versatility of this Excel file allowed the data to be transferred to an SPSS file (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences), the software used to carry out various statistical analyses essential to the research.

2.5. Data Analysis

All statistical analyzes were carried out using SPSS version 25.0 (IBM-SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered to be reached at p < 0.05.

First, a descriptive analysis of the study variables was carried out. To assess the differences between the categories of each criterion used (intra-criterion analysis), the chi-square test (χ²) was used. The analysis of the probability of winning a point, as influenced by the combination of performance indicators selected by the research team, was carried out using the case selection and frequency analysis technique.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Analysis

Table 2. Distribution of points played in the World Padel Tour Menorca Master Final 2020 and χ² intra-criterion analysis.

Criterion	Cat.	n	%	χ2	Criterion	Cat.	n	%	χ2
Service *	FS	867	88.5	χ2 = 582.252	Winner	SW	581	59.3	χ2 = 34.207
	SS	112	11.4	p < 0.001		RW	399	40.7	p < 0.001
	DF	1	0.1		Final Stroke	FHW	117	11.9	χ2 = 593.011
Rally length	SH	414	42.2	χ2 = 34.525		BHW	54	5.5	p < 0.001
	MD	283	28.9	p < 0.001		FHG	55	5.6
	LN	283	28.9			BHG	41	4.2
Strike zone *	SZ1	220	22.4	χ2 = 56.276		FHV	151	15.4
	SZ2	406	41.4	p < 0.001		BHV	132	13.5
	SZ3	353	36.0			SM	254	25.9
	SZ	1	0.1			TR	107	10.9
The finish zone	PST	162	16.5	χ2 = 182.236		LB	46	4.7
	MST	124	12.7	p < 0.001		OT	6	0.6
	CST	262	26.7			DS	16	1.6
	SNT	250	25.5
	SSC	73	7.4		Point duration	1–10 s	439	44.8	χ2 = 287.698
	SEC	109	11.1			11–20 s	294	30.0	p < 0.001
Point ending	SWW	268	27.3	χ2 = 230.113		21–30 s	145	14.8
	SWFE	75	7.7	p < 0.001		31+	102	10.4
	SWUE	237	24.2
	RWW	154	15.7
	RWFE	52	5.3
	RWUE	194	19.8

* Note: The category with the lowest frequency value was eliminated for the χ² test. Acronyms are given in Table 1.

presents a descriptive analysis of the study, including the intra-criterion χ² test performed for the categories of each criterion.

During the investigation, it was observed that most of the points were initiated with the first service, reaching 88.5%. In addition, short rallies were predominant, accounting for 42.2%. The middle area of the court was the location from where most of the final shots were executed, comprising 41.4% of the total number of cases. Almost 60% of the points were won by serving. In terms of how the points were completed, it is worth noting that points won on serve by winners (27.3% of the total) and unforced errors (24.2%) predominated. Points won by the receiving team through unforced errors constituted 19.8% of the total while winners accounted for 15.7%. The most commonly used finishing stroke was the smash (which included the smash ×3, smash ×4, fake smash, and smash over the back wall), with a percentage of 25.9%. Forehand and backhand volleys were also commonly observed, with percentages of 15.4% and 13.5%, respectively. In terms of the finishing area, it was evident that the predominant way of winning points was by cross-court shots (26.7%) while the majority of errors were made after hitting the net. Regarding the duration of the points, the most common time interval was 1 to 10 s, accounting for 44.8% of the cases, followed by 11 to 20 s, which made up 30%. The average point duration was 15.23 ± 11.6 s.

Statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed between the categories of each of the criteria studied according to the results of the intra-criterion χ² test.

3.2. Analysis of the Probability of Winning a Point

The following is a detailed analysis of the probability of winning a point in padel, taking into account several variables of the game. This analysis has focused exclusively on points played on the first serve as they accounted for approximately 90% of the total in this study (see

Table 3. Analysis of the probability of winning a point as a function of service, type of rally, and strike zone.

		Serving Team				Returning Team
	Fr. (%)	Total	Won	Lost	Prob.	Total	Won	Lost	Prob.
First service	88.5	867	521	346	60	867	346	521	40
Second service	11.5	112	60	52	54	112	52	60	46
First Service–Short rally	42.9	372	264	108	71	372	108	264	29
First Service–Medium rally	28.1	244	139	105	57	244	105	139	43
First Service–Long rally	29.0	251	118	133	47	251	133	118	53
First Service–Short rally–Strike zone 1	12.6	30	12	18	40	79	4	75	5
First Service–Short rally–Strike zone 2	14.8	106	78	28	74	22	8	14	36
First Service–Short rally–Strike zone 3	15.6	89	73	16	82	46	34	12	74
First Service–Medium rally–Strike zone 1	5.3	15	3	12	20	31	4	27	13
First Service–Medium rally–Strike zone 2	13.0	62	35	27	56	51	20	31	39
First Service–Medium rally–Strike zone 3	9.8	47	33	14	70	38	28	10	74
First Service–Long rally–Strike zone 1	4.4	15	3	12	20	23	8	15	35
First Service–Long rally–Strike zone 2	13.8	53	32	21	60	67	41	26	61
First Service–Long rally–Strike zone 3	10.7	54	39	15	72	39	36	3	92

Note: Fr—frequency; Total—total points occurred in that match situation; Prob—probability (%).

).

Firstly, our findings indicate that the serving team wins 71% of the points in short rallies (0–6 shots). This percentage decreases to 57% in medium-length rallies (6–12 shots) and further drops to 47% in long rallies (13+ shots).

During a short rally, it is interesting to note that zone 3 is where you have the highest probability of winning a point, both on serve (82%) and on return (74%). In zone 2, the probabilities are somewhat lower in the service (74%) but considerably lower in the return (36%). Finally, in zone 1, the probabilities of winning the point are low in both pairs (4% for service and 0.5% for the return).

In medium-length rallies, we see a similar pattern although the odds of winning the point vary. The final hit from zone 3 gives the highest odds to both the serving team (70%) and the receiving team (74%), followed by zone 2 (56% to the serve and 39% to the return) and, finally, zone 1 (20% and 13%, respectively).

In the long rally, the same pattern is repeated. Zone 3 has the highest probability of success in both pairs (72% for service and 92% for the return), followed by zone 2 (60% and 61%) and finally zone 1 (20% and 35%).

3.3. Match Analysis

Table 4. Match analysis of points with first serve and according to rally length, strike zone, the finish zone, winner, and point ending.

Pattern	n = 980			Pattern	n = 980
	Fr.	%			Fr.	%
FS-SH-SW-SWFE	26	7.0		FS-SH-RW-RWFE	6	1.6
FS-SH-SW-SWUE	101	27.2		FS-SH-RW-RWUE	62	16.7
FS-SH-SW-SWW	137	36.8		FS-SH-RW-RWW	40	10.8
FS-MD-SW-SWFE	25	10.2		FS-MD-RW-RWFE	14	5.7
FS-MD-SW-SWUE	67	27.5		FS-MD-RW-RWUE	53	21.7
FS-MD-SW-SWW	46	18.9		FS-MD-RW-RWW	39	16.0
FS-LN-SW-SWFE	19	7.6		FS-LN-RW-RWFE	27	10.8
FS-LN-SW-SWUE	44	17.5		FS-LN-RW-RWUE	48	19.1
FS-LN-SW-SWW	55	21.9		FS-LN-RW-RWW	58	23.1
FS-SH-ST1-SW	87 (109)	(11.1)	79.8	FS-SH-ST1-RW	22 (109)	(11.1)	20.2
FS-SH-ST1-SEC-SW	26	29.9	75 (87) 86.2	FS-SH-ST1-SEC-RW	4	18.2	18 (22) 81.8
FS-SH-ST1-SSC-SW	7	8.0		FS-SH-ST1-SSC-RW	2	9.1
FS-SH-ST1-SNT-SW	42	48.3		FS-SH-ST1-SNT-RW	12	54.5
FS-SH-ST1-PST-SW	3	3.4	12 (87) 13.8	FS-SH-ST1-PST-RW	1	4.5	4 (22) 18.2
FS-SH-ST1-MST-SW	4	4.6		FS-SH-ST1-MST-RW	3	13.6
FS-SH-ST1-CST-SW	5	5.7		FS-SH-ST1-CST-RW	-	-
FS-SH-ST2-SW	92 (128)	(13.1)	71.9	FS-SH-ST2-RW	36 (128)	(13.1)	28.1
FS-SH-ST2-SEC-SW	3	3.3	14 (92) 15.3	FS-SH-ST2-SEC-RW	4	11.1	28 (36) 77.8
FS-SH-ST2-SSC-SW	3	3.3		FS-SH-ST2-SSC-RW	5	13.9
FS-SH-ST2-SNT-SW	8	8.7		FS-SH-ST2-SNT-RW	19	52.8
FS-SH-ST2-PST-SW	27	29.3	78 (92) 84.7	FS-SH-ST2-PST-RW	4	11.1	8 (36) 22.2
FS-SH-ST2-MST-SW	22	23.9		FS-SH-ST2-MST-RW	1	2.8
FS-SH-ST2-CST-SW	29	31.5		FS-SH-ST2-CST-RW	3	8.3
FS-SH-ST3-SW	85 (135)	(13.8)	63.0	FS-SH-ST3-RW	50 (135)	(13.8)	37.0
FS-SH-ST3-SEC-SW	-	-	12 (85) 14.1	FS-SH-ST3-SEC-RW	4	8.0	16 (50) 32.0
FS-SH-ST3-SSC-SW	3	3.5		FS-SH-ST3-SSC-RW	4	8.0
FS-SH-ST3-SNT-SW	9	10.6		FS-SH-ST3-SNT-RW	8	16.0
FS-SH-ST3-PST-SW	24	28.2	73 (85) 85.8	FS-SH-ST3-PST-RW	12	24.0	34 (50) 68.8
FS-SH-ST3-MST-SW	16	18.8		FS-SH-ST3-MST-RW	7	14.0
FS-SH-ST3-CST-SW	33	38.8		FS-SH-ST3-CST-RW	15	30.0
FS-MD-ST1-SW	30 (46)	(4.7)	65.2	FS-MD-ST1-RW	16 (46)	(4.7)	34.8
FS-MD-ST1-SEC-SW	9	30.0	27 (30) 90.0	FS-MD-ST1-SEC-RW	4	25.0	12 (16) 75.0
FS-MD-ST1-SSC-SW	4	13.3		FS-MD-ST1-SSC-RW	-	-
FS-MD-ST1-SNT-SW	14	46.7		FS-MD-ST1-SNT-RW	8	50.0
FS-MD-ST1-PST-SW	1	3.3	3 (30) 10.0	FS-MD-ST1-PST-RW	1	6.3	4 (16) 25.0
FS-MD-ST1-MST-SW	-	-		FS-MD-ST1-MST-RW	1	6.3
FS-MD-ST1-CST-SW	2	6.7		FS-MD-ST1-CST-RW	2	12.5
FS-MD-ST2-SW	66 (113)	(11.5)	58.4	FS-MD-ST2-RW	47 (113)	(11.5)	41.6
FS-MD-ST2-SEC-SW	6	9.1	31 (66) 47.0	FS-MD-ST2-SEC-RW	7	14.9	27 (47) 57.5
FS-MD-ST2-SSC-SW	6	9.1		FS-MD-ST2-SSC-RW	6	12.8
FS-MD-ST2-SNT-SW	19	28.8		FS-MD-ST2-SNT-RW	14	29.8
FS-MD-ST2-PST-SW	8	12.1	35 (66) 53.0	FS-MD-ST2-PST-RW	3	6.4	20 (47) 42.5
FS-MD-ST2-MST-SW	6	9.1		FS-MD-ST2-MST-RW	6	12.8
FS-MD-ST2-CST-SW	21	31.8		FS-MD-ST2-CST-RW	11	23.4
FS-MD-ST3-SW	43 (85)	(8.7)	50.6	FS-MD-ST3-RW	42 (85)	(8.7)	49.4
FS-MD-ST3-SEC-SW	2	4.7	10 (43) 23.4	FS-MD-ST3-SEC-RW	3	7.1	14 (42) 33.3
FS-MD-ST3-SSC-SW	2	4.7		FS-MD-ST3-SSC-RW	3	7.1
FS-MD-ST3-SNT-SW	6	14.0		FS-MD-ST3-SNT-RW	8	19.0
FS-MD-ST3-PST-SW	8	18.6	33 (43) 76.6	FS-MD-ST3-PST-RW	10	23.8	28 (42) 66.7
FS-MD-ST3-MST-SW	4	9.3		FS-MD-ST3-MST-RW	3	7.1
FS-MD-ST3-CST-SW	21	48.8		FS-MD-ST3-CST-RW	15	35.7
FS-LN-ST1-SW	18 (38)	(3.9)	47.4	FS-LN-ST1-RW	20 (38)	(3.9)	52.6
FS-LN-ST1-SEC-SW	3	16.7	15 (18) 83.3	FS-LN-ST1-SEC-RW	3	15.0	12 (20) 60.0
FS-LN-ST1-SSC-SW	1	5.6		FS-LN-ST1-SSC-RW	3	15.0
FS-LN-ST1-SNT-SW	11	61.1		FS-LN-ST1-SNT-RW	6	30.0
FS-LN-ST1-PST-SW	2	11.1	3 (18) 16.7	FS-LN-ST1-PST-RW	2	10.0	8 (20) 40.0
FS-LN-ST1-MST-SW	-	-		FS-LN-ST1-MST-RW	2	10.0
FS-LN-ST1-CST-SW	1	5.6		FS-LN-ST1-CST-RW	4	20.0
FS-LN-ST2-SW	58 (120)	(12.2)	48.3	FS-LN-ST2-RW	62 (120)	(12.2)	51.7
FS-LN-ST2-SEC-SW	8	13.8	26 (58) 44.8	FS-LN-ST2-SEC-RW	7	11.3	21 (62) 33.9
FS-LN-ST2-SSC-SW	4	6.9		FS-LN-ST2-SSC-RW	6	9.7
FS-LN-ST2-SNT-SW	14	24.1		FS-LN-ST2-SNT-RW	8	12.9
FS-LN-ST2-PST-SW	8	13.8	32 (58) 55.2	FS-LN-ST2-PST-RW	11	17.7	41 (62) 66.1
FS-LN-ST2-MST-SW	8	13.8		FS-LN-ST2-MST-RW	8	12.9
FS-LN-ST2-CST-SW	16	27.6		FS-LN-ST2-CST-RW	22	35.5
FS-LN-ST3-SW	42 (93)	(9.5)	45.2	FS-LN-ST3-RW	51 (93)	(9.5)	54.8
FS-LN-ST3-SEC-SW	-	-	3 (42) 7.2	FS-LN-ST3-SEC-RW	3	5.9	15 (51) 29.4
FS-LN-ST3-SSC-SW	1	2.4		FS-LN-ST3-SSC-RW	3	5.9
FS-LN-ST3-SNT-SW	2	4.8		FS-LN-ST3-SNT-RW	9	17.6
FS-LN-ST3-PST-SW	15	35.7	39 (42) 92.8	FS-LN-ST3-PST-RW	12	23.5	36 (51) 70.6
FS-LN-ST3-MST-SW	6	14.3		FS-LN-ST3-MST-RW	10	19.6
FS-LN-ST3-CST-SW	18	42.9		FS-LN-ST3-CST-RW	14	27.5

Note: Acronyms are given in Table 1.

presents a match analysis taking into account different performance indicators.

After analyzing all the matches, we observed that 11.1% of the points ended with a short rally and a final hit from zone 1. In these cases, the serving pair won 13.8% of those points through winners while the returning team (RT) won 18.2%. It is important to note that there was a high rate of points won on serve due to unforced errors (86.2% serving and 81.8% returning), with a predominance of hitting the net errors.

A total of 13.1% of the points culminated in a short rally and a final hit from zone 2. In this situation, the serving pair achieved 84.7% of the points by winners (22.2% RT) and there was a balance between those obtained with cross and parallel strokes in both pairs.

A total of 13.8% of the points ended with a short rally and a final hit from zone 3. The values were very similar to those observed in zone 2 for the serving pair (85.8% won by winners) but different in the defending pair (68.8% winners). In both cases, winners with crossed trajectories predominated.

Although the situation where the point ended with a medium rally and a hit from zone 1 only occurred on 4.7% of occasions, it is interesting to note that the serving pair managed to win the point in 10% of the cases by a winner while the defending pair did so in 25% of the cases. Unforced errors were more common from hitting the net.

When the final shot was executed from zone 2 and ended in a medium rally, it was observed that the serving pair achieved 53% of points through winners (42.5% RT), with a predominance of cross-court shots as the final trajectory in both teams. This situation occurred 11.5% of the time. It is interesting to note that the percentage of service winners decreased significantly compared to the short rally in the same zone but increased for the defending pair.

A total of 8.7% of the points ended after a medium rally and a final hit from zone 3. In this situation, up to 76.6% of the points won on serve were won by a winner (66.7% RT), again with a predominance of crossed shots in both teams. A decrease in the percentage of points won by winners was observed for the serving pair compared to the points won from this area in the case of short rallies, but no such decrease was observed for the defending pair.

When the point ended after a long rally and a stroke executed from zone 1, although this only occurred in 4% of the cases, the same tendency observed in the case of a medium rally was repeated. In this situation, there were higher percentages of winners for the pair receiving the service (16.7% and 40%, respectively).

A total of 12.2% of the points ended after a long rally and a final shot executed from zone 2. In this case, the serving pair won 55.2% of the points through winners (66.1% RT), predominantly with cross-court shots in both cases. In both pairs, the points won by unforced errors were mostly due to shots directed to the net.

Finally, points ending after a long rally and a final hit from zone 3 accounted for 9.5% of the points analyzed. In this situation, winners clearly predominated as a way of finishing the point, with 92.8% in the serving pair and 70.6% in the defending pair. Again, there was a high proportion of winners with cross-court shots although there was also a considerable percentage of winners with parallel shots.

4. Discussion

The aim of the research was to assess the probability of winning a point by considering a number of variables that affect performance as well as by providing a comprehensive analysis of matches. The data showed that the probability of winning a point by serving was higher in short rallies and decreased in medium and long rallies. A position close to the net increases the probability of winning the point. The research revealed that the most common type of rally is the short rally and that the average duration of points is 15 s. In addition, the most common trajectory of the final shots is the cross-court shot, executed over the middle of the court. Smashes and volleys predominate as final shots.

In the match analysis in this research, it was observed that the first serve is used on 90% of occasions and that double faults are infrequent, a result that coincided with previous research [1]. The probability of winning the point by serving the first serve was somewhat higher than by returning (60%), with rates similar to those observed in this sport previously [35].

Although it is uncommon to obtain direct points (aces) or indirect points with the serve [1], probably due to the regulatory restrictions of padel compared to racket sports such as tennis [18,36], this technical action allows one to secure an offensive position near the net [9]. This, according to experts [18,25], provides a tactical advantage to win the point. Previous research supports that a position close to the net favors winners or increases the likelihood of errors being made by the opposing team [15,26,37], a finding that we also confirmed in our study. The results of this research indicate that proximity to the net, whether serving or returning, increases the chances of winning the point.

Short rallies (0–6 shots) were the most common type of rally detected. However, analysis of the duration of the points revealed an average of 15 s, in line with recent studies [27] but marking a change from older research that reported a duration of 7–12 s [9,10,11,38]. It is possible that the technical–tactical and physical improvement of padel pairs is making it difficult to finish points quickly, a relevant aspect to consider in the planning of training sessions, especially from a conditional approach.

The type of rally plays a crucial factor in the chances of winning the point. In short rallies, the service pair won 73% of the points; however, this value dropped to 57% in medium rallies and dropped even further to 47% in long rallies. This pattern supports the idea that the tactical advantage in serving fades after the first six shots [1,36]. Consequently, in order to optimize training, it is suggested that the serving pair should seek to conclude the point quickly, taking advantage of their initial position close to the net, while the defending pair should prolong the rally, as following these guidelines significantly increases the chances of winning the point. In another sense, it is essential that coaches consider the option of creating training routines that cover both the return of serves to the server and the execution of defensive shots such as deep lobs to the corners of the court [39]. Previous studies have demonstrated that the lob is the most frequently utilized technique for reaching the net, a position on the court that subsequently increases the likelihood of winning points [20,39,40].

Points ending with shots from the middle area of the court were the most frequent in this study, as had been shown previously [15,41], although they did not represent the area with the highest percentage of winners, as has been observed recently [18]. From the middle zone, except in short rallies, where there was a predominance of winners in the serving pair, similar numbers of points won by winners and unforced errors were recorded. In contrast, from the area furthest from the net, more unforced errors were observed in any type of rally. On the other hand, in shots close to the net, regardless of the type of rally, a higher proportion of winners was evident. Once again, it was confirmed that the probability of winning the point increases as the pair gets closer to the net as they have more chances to get a winner. On the other hand, hitting from the back of the court increases the likelihood of errors [15]. This is because when players play close to the net, they generally try to finish the point with a winner [42] whereas when they play from areas away from the net, they have less of an angle to play the ball to the fence [43]. Although previous research did not establish an explicit probability, it did highlight the tactical importance of getting close to the net or shortening–lengthening the length of the rally depending on whether the team was on serve or return. It is relevant to note that a higher percentage of winners was observed in long rallies compared to medium-length rallies. This discrepancy could have been due to accumulated fatigue during the prolongation of the point.

As for the final hit, in our research, smashes (25.9%) stood out as the main option. This phenomenon can be attributed to the effectiveness of this stroke in padel, which is characterized by a relatively low rate of unforced errors. This stroke, aggressive and confident when the technique is mastered, is presumed to be a fundamental skill in professional players [3,8]. It is clear that players are looking for opportunities throughout the point to execute a smash, but training this shot from less comfortable positions could be a valuable training strategy, given its high performance as a finishing stroke. The combination of forehand and backhand volleys (28.9%) outperformed the smash as the final shot, highlighting the importance of also optimizing this technical skill to close out points [44].

In relation to the direction of the final stroke, our study confirmed that the majority of points end with cross-court strokes, almost twice as often as parallel strokes and three times as often as strokes aimed at the center of the court. Although we did not carry out an analysis of all rally points, as was achieved in other research [8,17], we can affirm that there is a clear tendency for the cross-court shot to be more effective in finishing a point. This observation aligns with previous findings [15] and is related to the difficulty of returning shots that bounce off the metal fence, the side wall, or the corner between the back wall and the side wall. This creates greater uncertainty for the opponent and increases the likelihood of mistakes [17].

Limitations and Future Perspectives

Only matches from the WPT Master Final, which brings together the eight best pairings on the men’s tour, were analyzed. It is important to note that if the analysis had been carried out for one or more complete tournaments on the World Padel Tour circuit, with more rounds and participating pairings, the results could have been different. Furthermore, it is relevant to note that this observational study did not take into account aspects such as the positioning of the players and the strokes used throughout the rally, but focused only on the final stroke. This choice was based on the specific objective of the study, but future research could approach the analysis from other perspectives. It would be equally interesting to replicate this study in the female category to compare performance indicators between men and women.

5. Conclusions

This research enriches the knowledge about men’s professional padel and provides valuable information to improve strategy and coaching.

The analysis revealed that nearly all points were played on the first serve, with a slightly higher probability of winning the point compared to starting with a second serve. It was observed that the probability of winning a point by serving was highest in short rallies and decreased progressively in medium and long rallies.

Regarding finishing shots, the smash was identified as the most frequently used technique to close points, followed by forehand and backhand volleys. Cross-court shots were more commonly used to finish points, either through winners or forced errors. Additionally, nearly half of the points concluded with a short rally, lasting between 1 and 10 s. The average duration of a point was estimated to be 15.23 s.

The probability of winning a point is influenced by factors such as service possession, type of rally, and court positioning. Generally, it was observed that in short rallies, the serving pair had a higher chance of winning the point while the chances diminished as the rally lengthened. Furthermore, the pair dominating the net had a higher probability of securing the point. The combination of a first serve, short rally, and a shot from zone 3 was found to be the most advantageous for the serving pair, with an 82% success rate. Conversely, the combination of a first serve, long rally, and a final shot from zone 3 offered the defending pair the highest chances of winning the point, with a 92% success rate.

For the serving pair, the highest probability of winning the point is achieved when the point ends with a short rally and the pair positions themselves close to the net to execute a cross-court finishing shot. Therefore, it is beneficial for the serving partner to show intensity from the start of the point, looking for winners from the middle area or near the net while keeping the opposing partner away from the net.

For the returning pair, it is crucial to initially focus on keeping the serving pair away from the net. As the rally progresses, the chances of winning the point increase significantly. In short and medium rallies, points are more likely to be won by forcing an error rather than hitting a winner. However, as the rally lengthens, the likelihood of winning the point with a winner increases, especially when utilizing cross-court trajectories.

These results have significant potential for enhancing both training and match strategies, providing a data-driven approach to improving performance on the court.