Table 2.
Summary of studies investigating biomechanical determinants of horizontal deceleration ability
| Study | Subjects | Deceleration task | Biomechanical determinants of deceleration | Magnitude of determinant | Performance implications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cesar and Sigward [95] | 16 male adults and 15 male physically active children | Sprint to stop at 13-m known distance boundary (Qualisys 3D motion cameras, 250 Hz) | Increased COM posterior position | R2 = 46–52% |
Increased COM posterior position increases whole-body stability during DEC and posterior force generation Increased DEC demand requires increased COM posterior position If DEC demand greater than strength capacity, COM position adjusted to control magnitude of braking force through having less posterior and higher vertical COM position Different braking strategies in individuals with greater approach momentum prior to DEC |
| Increased COM posterior position and lower COM vertical position in children | R2 = 52–64% | ||||
| Dos’ Santos et al. [22] | 40 male sub-elite rugby league and collegiate team sport players | 505Mod COD test (AMTI force plates 1200 Hz) | Peak HBF (N/kg) in PFC (right leg FFC): fast = 12.4, slow = 12.4 | ES = 0.01 (T) |
Greater HBF with reduced GCT (i.e. tall-thin impulse) in PFC associated with faster COD performance Lower HBF ratio means greater momentum reduced prior to COD facilitating faster COD performance Increased inter-limb asymmetry in HBF may reduce COD performance and increase injury risk |
| Peak HBF (N/kg) in PFC (left leg FFC): fast = 14.2, slow = 11.3 | ES = 1.08 (M) | ||||
| PFC GCT (s) (right leg FFC): fast = 0.35, slow = 0.39 | ES = − 0.68 (M) | ||||
| PFC GCT (s) (left leg FFC): fast COD 0.39, slow COD 0.44 | ES = − 2.43 (VL) | ||||
| HBF ratio (right leg FFC): fast = 1.11, slow = 1.20 | ES = − 0.31 (S) | ||||
| HBF ratio (left leg FFC): fast = 0.82, slow = 1.19 | ES = − 1.50* (L) | ||||
| Dos’Santos et al. [84] | 61 male team sport athletes | 505Tra and 505Mod COD test (Qualisys 3D motion cameras (240 Hz); AMTI force plates 1200 Hz) | PFC H-VBF mean ratio 505Mod: fast = − 0.70 slow = − 0.61 | ES = − 1.72 (L) |
Increased technical ability to apply HBF associated with more rapid DEC prior to COD and faster COD performance times Greater PFC hip, knee and ankle flexion angles increases COM lowering, facilitating greater technical ability to generate high braking impulse (i.e. more horizontal braking and duration) Forward trunk inclination could help increase lowering of COM during DEC Increased braking capacity prior to COD enables higher approach velocities to be achieved prior to COD Increased braking likely due to increased eccentric strength Importance of braking late and rapidly for faster COD times |
| PFC H-VBF peak ratio 505Mod: fast = − 0.71, slow = − 0.59 | ES = − 1.43 (L) | ||||
| PFC RBF angle (°) of peak 505Mod: fast = − 55, slow = − 59 | ES = 1.48 (L) | ||||
| PFC peak hip flexion angle (°) 505Mod: fast = 100, slow = 81 | ES = − 1.56 (L) | ||||
| PFC peak knee flexion angle (°) 505Mod: fast = 119, slow = 106 | ES = 1.34 (L) | ||||
| PFC H-VBF mean ratio 505Tra: fast = − 0.73, slow = − 0.60 | ES = − 2.41 (VL) | ||||
| PFC H-VBF peak ratio 505Tra: fast = − 0.74, slow = − 0.65 | ES = − 1.13 (M) | ||||
| PFC RBF angle (°) of peak 505Tra: fast = − 54, slow = − 57 | ES = 1.35 (L) | ||||
| PFC peak hip flexion angle (°) 505Tra: fast = 97, slow = 81 | ES = − 1.24 (L) | ||||
| PFC peak knee flexion angle (°) 505Tra: fast = 118, slow = 104 | ES = 1.31 (L) | ||||
| Δ PFC-FFC velocity (m·s−1) 505Tra: fast = − 3.71, slow = − 3.47 | ES = − 0.64 (M) | ||||
| Dos Santos et al. [21] | 20 male university soccer players | 505Tra COD test (AMTI force plates 1200 Hz) | APFC angle (°) of peak RBF to 505 time | r = 0.74 (VL) |
Greater HBF and impulse application during DEC increases ability to rapidly reduce COM velocity and momentum APFC pivotal role in braking prior to COD Increased importance on preparatory deceleration steps when approaching COD from higher sprint velocities Better technical ability to apply HBF associated with faster DEC and COD performance To improve a player’s 180° COD ability, coaches should look to develop players' ability to brake rapidly (magnitude and orientation of braking force) from varied sprint velocities, whilst coaching a multi-step strategy |
| APFC peak H-VBF ratio to 505 time | r = − 0.74 (VL) | ||||
| APFC mean H-VBF ratio to 505 time | r = − 0.78 (VL) | ||||
| APFC peak HGRF to 505 time | r = − 0.63 (L) | ||||
| APFC mean HGRF to 505 time | r = − 0.74 (VL) | ||||
| APFC peak RBF to 505 time | r = − 0.52 (L) | ||||
| APFC mean RGRF to 505 time | r = − 0.64 (L) | ||||
| APFC horizontal total impulse | r = − 0.53 (L) | ||||
| PFC mean H-VGRF ratio to 505 time | r = − 0.57 (L) | ||||
| PFC peak H-VBF ratio to 505 time | r = − 0.49 (M) | ||||
| PFC angle (°) of peak RBF to 505 time | r = − 0.48 (M) | ||||
| Falch et al. [75] | 25 female team sport players (16 handball and 9 soccer) | 20-m maximal ACC to DEC followed by backpedal (MUSCLELAB Laser) | ACC power during 20-m ACC-to-DEC test (W/kg): 8.39 |
Significantly greater HBP in the fast 180° COD group despite lower HBF than the slow 180° COD group is indicative of faster production of net GRF to reduce momentum and less time spent braking Moderate to large differences in HBF and HBP, respectively, in fast compared to slow 45° COD highlight ability to reduce braking time and maintain velocity throughout the COD |
|
| HBP during 20-m ACC-to-DEC test: − 10.51 | |||||
| HBP to ACC power ratio: 1.25 | |||||
| HBP (W/kg): fast 180° COD = − 11.58, slow 180° COD = − 9.73 | ES = 1.34 (L) | ||||
| HBF (N/kg): fast 180° COD = − 2.88, slow 180° COD = − 3.34 | ES = 0.09 (T) | ||||
| HBP (W/kg): fast 45° COD = − 11.33, slow 45° COD = − 9.49 | ES = 1.44 (L) | ||||
| HBF (N/kg): fast 45° COD = − 3.27, slow 45° COD = − 2.81 | ES = 1.07 (M) | ||||
| Kaneko et al. [23] | 70 male youth soccer players | 505Tra COD test (Laveg, LDM 300C Sport laser, 100 Hz) | Peak DEC (m·s−2): fast COD = − 11.02, slow = − 9.60 | ES = -0.98 (M) |
Increased peak DEC prior to COD associated with better overall COD performance Poorer DEC ability associated with higher peak DEC closer to COD turn line potentially meaning more time spent during transition to re-acceleration and higher injury risk Fast COD group had higher DEC potential 1 m prior to turn line, resulting in a lower approach velocity that may facilitate less time turning and quicker transition to re-acceleration |
| Position of peak DEC (m·s−2): fast COD = 4.53 m, slow = 4.78 m | ES = − 1.13 (M) | ||||
| DEC 1 m prior to COD (m·s−2): fast COD = − 7.71, slow = − 6.14 | ES = − 1.15 (M) | ||||
| DEC significant association with total 505 COD speed time | P = 0.041 | ||||
| Santoro et al. [97] | 40 college basketball players (32 were male and 8 were female) | 505Mod COD test (AMTI force plates 2400 Hz, 5-m Optojump) |
505Mod descriptive data Average 505Mod completion time (s): 2.77 Turning phase duration (s): 1.22 (44% of 505Mod completion time) Total number of steps (n): 8–10 Velocity at last foot contact prior to turn (m·s−1): 5.40 |
Players with faster COD can generate higher braking forces and impulses in PFC to enable DEC from faster approach velocities PFC characterised with a single braking phase, highlighting the importance of eccentric strength to enhance DEC and COD performance Players with faster COD have longer step lengths and ground contact times in PFC, indicating greater anterior foot placement relative to COM and the importance of this braking step in positioning body for re-acceleration |
|
| Players with braking/propulsive forces in first re-acceleration step | |||||
| Approach velocity (m·s−1): fast = 5.72, slow = 5.13 | ES = 1.51 (L) | ||||
| PFC step length (cm): fast = 126, slow = 92 | ES = 0.92 (M) | ||||
| Braking horizontal impulse (N.s/kg): fast = 1.5, slow = 1.2 | ES = 1.3 (L) | ||||
| PFC ground contact time (s): fast = 0.392, slow = 0.355 | ES = 0.48 (S) | ||||
| Players with propulsive-only forces in first re-acceleration step | |||||
| PFC step length (cm): fast = 123, slow = 98 | 0.75 (M) | ||||
| Braking horizontal GRF (N/kg): fast = 16.7, slow = 12.9 | 1.06 (M) | ||||
| PFC ground contact time (s): fast = 0.403, slow = 0.352 | 0.58 (M) |
3D three-dimensional, 505Mod modified 505 change of direction test with 5-m approach distance, 505Tra traditional 505 change of direction test with 15-m approach distance, ACC horizontal acceleration, APFC ante-penultimate foot contact, COD change of direction, COM centre of mass, DEC horizontal deceleration, ES effect size [interpreted as: T trivial (0–0.19), S small (0.20–0.59), M moderate (0.60–1.19), L large (1.20–1.99), VL very large (2.0–4.0)], r correlation [interpreted as: M moderate (0.30–0.49), L large (0.50–0.69), VL very large (0.70–0.89)], FFC final foot contact, GCT ground contact time, HBF horizontal braking force, HBP horizontal braking power, H-VBF horizontal-to-vertical braking force, H-VGRF horizontal-to-vertical ground reaction force, PFC penultimate foot contract, RBF resultant braking force, RGRF resultant ground reaction force