Search

The ability to change direction rapidly is a key fitness quality especially in invasive sports where young players perform approximately 300 changes of direction in a game. There iscurrently limited understanding of how anthropometric characteristics and maturation status influence change of direction ability in adolescent. Therefore, the purpose of this investigation is to assess the influence of anthropometrics and maturation status on change of direction ability in young people. The study involved 706 adolescents (367 girls) aged 14 19-yearold attending the same high school in Northern Italy. Stature, body mass, seated height and leg length were measured to determine the anthropometrics and maturation status of the participants. Repeated change of direction ability (10×5 m shuttle run test), lower limb power and muscle strength were evaluated using field tests from the Eurofit test battery. Maturity offset was calculated separately for boys and girls, in accord with the equation proposed by Mirwald. Preliminary analysis with 10×5 m as a dependent variable and sex and PHV as a fixed factor, suggests a significant difference between sex (p < 0.001; d = 0.35) but not with PHV (p = 0.986; d = 0.000) and interaction PHV×sex (p = 0.836; d = 0.000). Our results suggested that repeated change of direction performance wasinfluenced by anthropometrics, maturation and muscle qualitiesin adolescent boys and girls.

Purpose: The isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP) is commonly used to assess maximal and rapid (i.e., explosive) strength in athlete populations. The conventional IMTP instruction is to pull “as hard and fast as possible” (CON). However, previous studies using other isometric tests indicate that the use of ‘hard’ and ‘fast’ independently can result in different test outcomes. This investigation assessed the impact of a ‘hard’ only (HARD) and ‘fast’ only (FAST) instruction on IMTP kinetics when compared to the conventional combined instruction. Methods: Over three separate testing sessions, 17 National level, male, youth footballers (age: 16.4±1.3yr, mass: 69.7±8.0kg, height: 1.75±0.07m) completed three trials of the IMTP under each instruction. Peak force (N) and rapid force production, measured as impulse (N.s-1) over 50ms, 75ms, 100ms, 150ms, and 200ms were extracted and brought forward for analysis. To determine the presence of a statistical difference between conditions, a repeated measures ANOVA was employed while Cohen’s d effects sizes were used to quantify the magnitude of practical difference between each condition. Results: There was no significant or practically relevant impact of instruction condition on peak force (P > 0.05, d=0.08-0.27), or impulse over any time frame (P > 0.05, d=0.01-0.16). Conclusion: Practitioners can be confident that the conventional IMTP instruction is suitable for continued use in this athlete population.

Agility is a complex skill that is influenced by several physical, technical and cognitive factors. In this position stand, we discuss agility as it relates to invasion sports such as the many football codes. An important concept when conceptualising agility is understanding how it is applied on the field or court. Agility is particularly important in contests between attackers and defenders. For example, an attacker needs to create space or separation from defenders, in order to evade or to maintain possession of the ball. Conversely, defenders may require agility to reduce time and space in relation to the attacker, thereby applying pressure with the intention of achieving a turnover of possession. The movements performed in an agility scenario are diverse, and may involve an isolated deceleration, or a range of actions to produce a lateral displacement of the body at various angles and speeds. To create novel insights into agility, the interactions between predators and prey are explored in the animal world and reveal that successful pursuit (like a defender) or escape (like an attacker) is influenced by the ability to accelerate and attain high speeds, decelerate, and manoeuvre with control at optimum speeds, as well as expressing perceptual and cognitive skills. A plethora of sports literature claiming to discuss agility actually refers to pre-planned change-of-direction (COD) movements, known as COD ability. There are several differences between agility and COD ability, which should be considered when testing and prescribing agility activities. The characteristics of different agility techniques are presented and discussed with consideration to performance and the risk of injury such as anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture, with the aim of creating multiple movement solutions for the athlete. Due to the diversity of agility actions performed in invasion sports, physical development should include tissue strengthening as well as fast and slow stretch-shortening cycle exercises to cater for different speeds and angles of agility movements. The speed and accuracy of decision-making in agility contests (cognitive component) are determined by the athlete’s ability to anticipate opponent’s actions, visually scan the environment, recognise patterns of play, and predict movement strategies based on knowledge of situations. One versus one contests, small-sided games, and video perceptual training can enhance the cognitive component of agility. Finally, there is no single coaching strategy or method that should be used to develop agility. Instead, the appropriate methodology must fit the individual needs of athletes, and therefore a mixed multicomponent approach is needed as part of an agility framework. Training examples to develop agility are presented throughout this position statement.

Complex training where a high-load conditioning stimulus (CS) is performed prior to a biomechanically similar plyometric movement has been demonstrated to acutely enhance the performance of the plyometric movement in a phenomenon called post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE). Despite the positive influence PAPE can have on power production, the abundance of research has only investigated PAPE locally while comparing biomechanically similar movements. The purpose of this study was to determine if a heavy barbell bench press could elicit PAPE in a lower body plyometric movement. Eight (n = 8) resistance-trained males performed one set of countermovement jumps (CMJs) before (pre-CS) and three sets of CMJs after (post-CS) a heavy bench press set. Changes in muscle activation, jump height, work, power output, and rate of force development (RFD) during the early (E-RFD) and late (L-RFD) stages were compared between pre-CS and post-CS. The level of significance was set at p < .05. There were no significant differences in muscle activation, jump height, work, power output, or E-RFD (p > .05). There was a significant increase in L-RFD between pre-CS and the final set of jumps post-CS (p = .01). These results suggest that an upper body CS may not influence PAPE in the lower body. However, pairing a high-load upper body exercise with a lower body plyometric does not seem disadvantageous, and could be implemented as a strategy to maximize workout time efficiency with proper fatigue management incorporation.

Jumps occur frequently in basketball and can be executed from a single-leg take-off following a run-up or bilaterally from a standing start. Understanding the type of jumps performed in competition and how different muscular qualities influence their performance, informs training prescription. Firstly, to quantify the occurrence of different jump types performed in competition an analysis of 15 semi-professional basketball games was undertaken. Secondly, to understand the influence of muscular qualities on performance of different jump types, Semi-professional male basketball players (N=17) performed jump tests; standing vertical jump, running vertical jumps with a double leg take-off (RVJ2) and a single leg take-off (RVJ1) and tests of lower-body speed-strength; reactive strength index (RSI) from a drop jump, counter movement jump (CMJ) and squat jump. A stationary approach was employed for 69%, a running approach for 26% and a one-step approach for 5%. RVJ1 displayed non-significant (P=0.07) moderate correlation with jump height attained from the CMJ (r=0.439) and a very large (r =.806) significant (P