Linear sprints and 505 change of direction (COD) tests were complete using single-beam light gates (Smartspeed, USA) on an indoor 3G pitch. Tests were initiated with a falling start, whereby the player starts 0.5 m before the first gate, with the feet in line. In both linear and COD assessments, players were informed to run beyond the final gate to prevent early deceleration. In the COD, light gates were placed at 10 m, with test markings produced at 15 m for players to change direction on. The assessed foot was required to be placed beyond the 15 m marking before returning through the light gate. Three trials were used for the linear sprints, and two trials per turning leg in the 505, using the best trials for further analysis..
Jumping tasks were performed using two force plates (Pasco, USA) set to 1000 Hz, and a compatible analysis software package (Capstone, USA). For both the countermovement- and squat jumps (CMJ and SQJ), players placed one foot on each force plate and were asked to remain stationary to capture bodyweight. In both jumps, players used a self-prescribed jump depth with the arms on the hips until the completion of each jump and were asked to jump ‘as high as you can’. During the SQJ, players were asked to hold the dipped position for at least 2 s before initiating the jump. Players were required to land back on the plates, whilst absorbing the landing forces. Three trials of each jump were collected, with the best trial being used for further analysis.
Whilst this research undertakes an ethnographic approach, previous research has reported good test retest reliability (10 m, ICC = 0.91, CV = 2.3%; 20 m, ICC = 0.91, CV = 2.9%; 30 m, ICC = 0.99, CV = 0.9%) in linear sprints [40 ], likewise good test–retest reliability (ICC > 0.899) [3 (link)] and validity (ICC = 0.77, CV = 2.80%) [43 (link)] in the 505 agility test. Furthermore, to determine the reliability of the data, the coefficient of variation (CV) was calculated for each objective variable. Participants who demonstrated CV > 10% were deemed poor for reliability and, therefore, excluded from further analysis within each variable [6 (link), 18 (link)].
Jumping tasks were performed using two force plates (Pasco, USA) set to 1000 Hz, and a compatible analysis software package (Capstone, USA). For both the countermovement- and squat jumps (CMJ and SQJ), players placed one foot on each force plate and were asked to remain stationary to capture bodyweight. In both jumps, players used a self-prescribed jump depth with the arms on the hips until the completion of each jump and were asked to jump ‘as high as you can’. During the SQJ, players were asked to hold the dipped position for at least 2 s before initiating the jump. Players were required to land back on the plates, whilst absorbing the landing forces. Three trials of each jump were collected, with the best trial being used for further analysis.
Whilst this research undertakes an ethnographic approach, previous research has reported good test retest reliability (10 m, ICC = 0.91, CV = 2.3%; 20 m, ICC = 0.91, CV = 2.9%; 30 m, ICC = 0.99, CV = 0.9%) in linear sprints [40 ], likewise good test–retest reliability (ICC > 0.899) [3 (link)] and validity (ICC = 0.77, CV = 2.80%) [43 (link)] in the 505 agility test. Furthermore, to determine the reliability of the data, the coefficient of variation (CV) was calculated for each objective variable. Participants who demonstrated CV > 10% were deemed poor for reliability and, therefore, excluded from further analysis within each variable [6 (link), 18 (link)].
