This final article concludes the series of articles discussing the application of training principles as created by Anatoliy Bondarchuk. The topic to be discussed is the training of competition exercises in soccer which are defined as mimics in form and function of the exercises performed in competition (Bondarchuk, 2007). As soccer is such an open game there are a multitude of exercises and specific movements to choose from. Agility is a skill that is critical to successful performance in numerous situations in the game. There is a lot to consider when coaching agility not least selecting the appropriate exercises and methods to use.
It is difficult to find a strict definition on what agility is and moreover, what constitutes successful agility performance in high-level sport. Sheppard and Young (2006) state that there is no consensus opinion within the training literature although these authors created categories that account for the simple, spatial, temporal and universal. Soccer fits the universal category as multiple changes of direction are required in response to external stimuli. There is a clear link from some definitions on agility between the physical basis of movements and the perceptual-cognitive skills required to interpret external cues. In an overview of agility training, Turner (2011) distinguishes between change of direction (COD) speed and perceptual recognition of context-specific stimuli. In support of this, Paul, Gabbett and Nassis (2016) suggest that cognitive skills are a distinguishing factor between high and low-level performers. In their meta-analysis Paul et al (2016) found that on average high-level performers were 7.5% faster in perceptual agility task than their lower-level counterparts.
To further distinguish the two aspects of agility, Matlak, Tihanyi and Racz (2015) found low common variance between COD speed and reactive agility emphasising the influence of cognitive skills. Eke, Cain and Stirling (2017) examined the differences in physical outputs measured by inertial sensors between the same agility task that had planned and unplanned elements. Faster players displayed less foot contacts, greater stride lengths and greater stride frequency in both conditions compared to medium and slow participants. Even though it is clear that better performances are characterized by enhanced running patterns, Henry, Dawson, Lay and Young (2013) observed that measures of decision making time were significantly lower for higher-skilled participants in the same agility task. Based on these findings it appears that cognitive ability drives successful motor performance. In relation to this, Scanlan, Humphries, Tucker and Dalbo (2014) correlated physical performance values, including sprint and COD time, with reactive agility times in a cutting task. Scanlan et al (2014) found that the only significant and strong correlating measures were response time and decision-making time to a cueing stimulus. This shows that training should include multifaceted exercises that account for both key elements of agility.
Henry et al (2013) suggests that the prescription of reactive agility training should incorporate a level of uncertainty that increases as the athlete progresses. Studies that examine COD and reactive agility training programmes have tended to show that when cognitive elements are included, improvements in reactive agility are observed. For example, Born, Zinner, Duking and Sperlich (2016) conducted a study with under-fifteen soccer players, where two groups performed the same volume of training; one group running pre-planned shuttles with 180-degree turn and the other running unplanned courses in response to an external stimulus. After six training sessions both groups improved in a closed agility task (Illinois agility) whereas only the group that performed unplanned training improved in a reactive agility test (a running cut in response to external cue). Interestingly, Milanovic, Trajkovic, James and Samija (2013) showed that closed-skill agility training, by method of SAQ training programmes, elicits categorical and significant improvements in multiple COD tasks amongst under-nineteen soccer players. This shows that if agility training is closely related to the monitoring test then athletes are very likely to improve. However, with open agility training there are too many degrees of freedom to allow for this fixed improvement.
Young and Rogers (2014) compared, two training interventions with twenty-five elite Australian football players; one group used small-sided games (SSG) and the other used COD skills as means of agility training. The COD group made small to trivial improvements in all variables measured, including a pre-planned AFL test and a reactive COD test. However, the SSG group showed a significant improvement in the reactive agility test which was entirely attributable to a reduction in decision making time. In another study that compared COD and SSG training, Chaouachi et al (2014) only observed improvements in multiple closed-skill agility tests from both groups and no improvements were made in a reactive agility test, that involved cutting on cue. What these studies display is the unpredictable nature that SSG offer as a method agility training. Moreover, unpredictability in other types of agility training may or may not lead to improvement in agility skills but instead COD performance.
In order to implement successful agility training programmes, it is clear that the athlete in question must have a fundamental level of COD ability. As the athlete increases their technical competency, they should then look to incorporate reactive or unpredictable elements in to training that challenge perceptual-cognitive abilities. It is recognised that high-level athletes are distinguished by their ability to perform reactive agility tasks enhanced by reduced decision-to-movement time. Reactive agility training can include SSG although it appears that this type of training alone may not lead to improvements in specific reactive agility tests. In order to see improved reactive agility skills transfer to performance then training should isolate a specific game situation and then the physical, perceptual and cognitive skills can be exposed at an appropriate level for the athlete in question.
Video giving examples of different types of agility training in soccer. Small-sided games, change of direction practice and reactive agility.
This series of articles have attempted to discuss training methods that fit the categories of training exercises written about by Antoliy Bondarchuk. Evidence of different training interventions and training aids have been evaluated as a way of showing how these exercises within these categories can be trained optimally. The scope of Bondarcuk’s training principles may discriminate against some training aids and methods available to the strength and conditioning coach. However, these articles have given recommendations to coaches that looking to train exercises within the rules of these exercise categories.
References
Bondarchuk. A. (2007). Transfer of training in sports. Michigan, USA: Ultimate Athlete Concepts.
Born, D-P., Zinner, C., Duking, P., & Sperlich, B. (2016). Multi-directional sprint training improves change-of-direction speed and reactive agility in young highly training soccer players. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 15, 314-319.
Chaouachi, A., Chtara, M., Hammami, R., Chtara, H., Turki, O., & Castanga, C. (2014). Multiderctional sprints and small-sided games training effect on agility and change of direction abilities in youth soccer. Journal Strength and Conditioning Research, 28, 3121-3127.
Eke, C. U., Cain, S. M., & Stirling, L. A. (2017). Strategy Quantification using body worn inertial sensors in a reactive agility task. Journal of Biomechanics, 219-225.
Henry, G. J., Dawson, B., Lay, B. S., & Young, W. B. (2013). Decision-making accuracy in reactive agility: quantifying the cost of poor decisions. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 27, 3190-3196.
Matlak, J., Tihanyi, J., & Racz, L. (2015). Relationship between reactive agility and change of direction speed in amateur soccer players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 30, 1547-1552.
Milanovic, Z., Sporis, G., Trajkovic, N., James, N., & Samija, K. (2013). Effects of a 12-week SAQ training programme on agility with and without the ball among young soccer players. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 12, 97-103.
Paul, D. J., Gabbett, T. J., & Nassis, G. P. (2016). Agility in team sports: testing, training and factors affecting performance. Sports Medicine, 46, 421-422.
Scanlan, A., Humphries, B., Tucker, P. S., & Dalbo, V. (2014). The influence of physical and cognitive factors on reactive agility performance in men basketball players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 32, 367-374.
Sheppard, J. M., & Young, W. B. (2006). Agility literature review: classifications, training and testing. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24, 919-932.
Turner, A. (2011). Defining, developing and measuring agility. Professional Strength and Conditioning, 22, 26-28.
Young, W., & Rogers, N. (2014). Effects of small-sided game and change of direction training on reactive agility and change of direction speed. Journal of Sports Sciences, 32, 307-314.
コメント