Table 1.
Summary of research that has investigated the effects of COD technique modification and COD speed and footwork training on COD biomechanics
| Study | Subjects | Training intervention | COD task | Results (post-intervention) | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COD technique modification drills | |||||
| Dempsey et al. [22] |
Twelve male non-elite team sport (6 Australian football, 5 rugby union, and 1 soccer) athletes *3 withdrawals |
6-week COD technique modification 2 × a week (15-min sessions) With immediate feedback (visual and oral) |
45° ± 5° side-step. PP and UP ~5 m.s−1 |
At IC: ↓ lateral foot plant distance (p = 0.039) PP (ES = 0.55), UP (ES = 0.58) ↓ lateral trunk flexion (p = 0.005) PP (ES = 1.09), UP (ES = 0.14) At WA: ↓ peak KAM (p = 0.034) PP (ES = 0.58) and UP (ES = 0.78) Both postural changes were correlated with the change in KAM change in lateral foot plant distance (r = –0.468, p = 0.025) lateral trunk flexion (r = − 0.377, p = 0.135) ↔ in approach speed, knee flexion IC, and torso rotation |
No CG Did not establish reliability, measurement error, or meaningful difference Implications on performance unclear Controlled approach velocity |
| Jones et al. [56] | Ten female netball players |
6-week COD technique modification 2 × a week Technique drills that encouraged PFC braking, backwards trunk inclination, and neutral foot position. Weeks: 1 and 2—deceleration emphasis; 3 and 4—randomly with greater entry velocity; 5 and 6—drills performed randomly at speed unanticipated stimulus |
180° turn –PP ~3 m.s−1 |
↓ completion time (p < 0.05, ES = 0.74) ↓ peak KAM (p < 0.001, ES = 0.73) ↓ initial foot progression angle (p < 0.001, ES = 2.60) ↓ initial trunk angle at FFC (p < 0.05, ES = 0.58) ↔ in approach velocity or horizontal GRF ratio (ES = 0.10–0.15) Changes in initial foot progression angle and KAM (r2 = 37%, p = 0.028) |
Athletes were not fast to begin with No CG Did not establish reliability, measurement error, or meaningful difference Conference proceeding format |
| Change of direction speed and footwork | |||||
| Wilderman et al. [57] | 30 female basketball players |
6-week agility (COD speed, footwork, and manoeuvrability drills)—4 × a week (N = 15) plus a CG (N = 15) |
45° side-step Sidesteps—PP 3.3–4.3 m.s−1 |
↑ medial hamstring EMG activation for IG (ES = 0.94) ↔ in knee flexion angle and vertical GRF (p > 0.05, ES ≤ 0.15) |
Lack of feedback regarding COD technique Absence of specific side-stepping drills |
↑ increase, ↓ decrease, ↔ no significant change, KAM knee abduction moment, IC initial contact, WA weight acceptance, IRM internal rotation moment; ROM range of motion, GCT ground contact time, BW body weight, GRF ground reaction force, PP pre-planned, UP unplanned, BW body weight, EMG electromyography, PFC penultimate foot contact, FFC final foot contact, ES effect size, CG control group, IG intervention group, COD change of direction, GRF ground reaction force