Session outline
• Differences between agility and change-of-direction speed
• Nature & importance of decision-making in agility
• Training for agility in footy • Design of agility activities
Agility • Defensive – pressure & turnover• Offensive
• AFL game analysis: successful agility more likely to maintain possession
• Evasion…
Cognitive Physical Technical
Decision‐making speed & accuracy
Visual
scanning
Anticipation Pattern recognition
Knowledge of
situations
Core strength
Leg muscle qualities
Straightspeed
Feet placement
Adjustment of steps to accelerate & decelerate
Body lean & posture
Strength Power Reactive strength
Agility in invasion sports
Definition of agility: “A rapid whole-body movement with change of velocity or direction in response to a stimulus”(Sheppard & Young, 2006)• “agility” not “reactive agility”• Open skill
• Activities involving deceleration & changing direction around a course defined by obstacles is “change-of-direction speed” (CODS)
• Pre-planned• Closed skill
• Does not exist in footy
Agility and CODS are different skills:
• Correlations between agility (with reaction) and CODS (with same movement)• r=0.70 (Farrow et al, 2005)
• r=0.321 (Sheppard et al, 2006) mean r=0.567• r=0.68 (Henry et al, 2011)
CODS Agility
• 32 % commonality• 68% differences
(Cognitive)
Thought processes:CODS: • Where do I put my feet? • When do I change direction?• Pre-planned, predictable, rehearsed
Thought process - agility:Attacking• Am I protected from a tackle?• Is there someone behind me?• Can I give off to a team mate?• Should I take him on?• Should I fake a handball or step?
Defending• Which way will he go?• Is this a genuine COD or a fake?• Should I corale or commit to a
tackle?• What part of the body should I
focus on?
• Studies showing higher-level players better than lower-level at agility (with reaction) but not planned COD speed:
Authors Athletes
Young, Farrow, PyneMcGregor, Handke, 2011
Australian football –elite junior
Henry, Dawson, Lay, Young, 2011
Australian football
Sheppard, Young, Doyle, Sheppard, Newton, 2006
Australian football ‐WAFL
Serpell , Ford, Young, 2009 Rugby league ‐Pro
Gabbett, Kellly, Sheppard, 2008
Rugby league
So is CODS or agility more important?
• Agility with decision-making more relevant to performance
So why do CODS training?
Attractions:1. Easy to design & organise2. Control over movement & training load
(reps, intensity)3. All players receive prescribed loadDisadvantages of COD activities:1. Movements can be un-natural…2. Perception & decision-making
completely ignored
Agility decision-making
• Higher-level players react faster & more accurately in rugby league (Serpell et al, 2010), netball (Farrow et al, 2005) and soccer (Williams & Davids, 1998).
• Higher-level players less susceptible to fakes in agility manoeuvres in footy (Henry et al, 2012) & rugby union (Jackson et al, 2006)
AFL players were 6% faster and 6% more accurate than elite juniors (Carlon et al, 2013)
The agility stimulus to react must be footy-specific• Higher-level players faster than lower-level
when reacting to video footage of “opponents” but not when reacting to generic stimulus eg. arrow (Young et al, 2011) or flashing light (Henry et al, 2011)
• Video clips include a lateral “cut” after an attacker:• 2 opponents• Marks • Picks up ball• Fakes handball• Weaves (behind)
Visual search• Higher-level players look for & extract
different cues to anticipate opponents actions (Savelsbergh et al, 2005)
Strength & power training may be over-rated• Some evidence for strength, power and plyometric
training to enhance CODS. No evidence for agility
• 2013 study. Correlation between reactive strength, CODS and agility:
Change ‐of‐direction speed Agility
Reactive strength ‐0.645 (large) ‐0.101 (small)
Fast & accurate decision-making may dominate speed & power eg. Robert Harvey, Sam Mitchell
Conclusions & training applications• Training should focus on agility, not change-
of-direction speed• Stimulus to react should be game-like
• Avoid whistle, pointing, calling out, lights
Training• Can practice technique without using cones/poles• 1 v 1
• Agility belt • Get around opponent
• Encourage evasive skill eg. split-step
• 2 (attackers v 1 defender)
Small-sided games
• Advantages • Simulates agility game-demands
• specific movements & variety• footwork• decision-making• Complexity
• Can simultaneously train other fitness components, skills and tactics (time-efficiency)
Comparison of SSG (Davies et al, 2013)
30x20m5v5
All games 3 x 45 s
Game1. Game 2. Game 3. Game 4.
45x30m5v5
(more space)
20x23.2m3v3
30x20m(tag only)5v5
Game 1 Game 2 Game 3 Game 4
Agility events per player(mean)
8.8 7.2 11.3 7.8 (more handballs, decision‐making)
2D player load 10.7 8.8 13.9 11.2
Agility (Min‐Max) 2‐15 5‐10 4‐21 4‐12
Evidence for SSG training (Young & Rogers, J Sports Sciences)
• TAC Cup footballers• 11x15 min sessions
over 7 weeks in-season• Two groups:
• CODS training• SSG (handball only)
• Restrict # handballs to 4• Score by attempting evasion• Each 30-45s bout, same team maintained possession
(equal attacking and defending)• Tests:
• Planned AFL agility test (change-of-direction speed)• Video-based agility test (agility)
Results (% changes from training) Change‐of‐direction group
Small‐sided games group
Planed AFL agility test < 1% < 1%
Video‐based agility test (reactive)
0% 4% improvement(significantly better than COD group)
Reaction/decision time in agility test
4% improvement 31% improvement(significantly better than COD group)
• Mean number of changes of direction in SSG = 25/session
• Powerful training stimulus
Coaching agility in SSG• Decision-making speed developed
“implicitly” (Young & Rogers, In press; Serpell et al , 2011)• Don’t need to provide rules about where to look eg. hips
• May not be effective (Farrow et al, 2002)• Useful cues??
How do many indigenous playerslearn?
• Design an agility activity or SSG • For SSG, consider:
• Amount of agility activity in time available• Engagement from all participating players• Number of players in teams• Equal or unequal team numbers• Match-ups in teams• Rules eg. tackling, scoring, disposal• Field dimensions• Duration of bouts and work/rest ratio• Other goals besides agility (fitness, skills,
tactics)