0:06

Thanks tuned into this episode of

0:08

Page to performance by size. So this

0:10

clip comes from episode number three hundred and

0:12

eighty one with Alastair McBernie and

0:15

Tom DeSanto and we have little chat around

0:17

testing for change direction

0:19

and agility. So a bit of

0:21

a contentious topic that has come

0:23

up a couple of times in podcast, but we'll get

0:25

an expert view. We'll just

0:28

follow you dive into this episode with

0:30

Alastair and Tom. I wanna say a big thanks

0:32

to rock daisy for sponsoring this episode today.

0:34

So if you're looking for a free solution to

0:36

be able to collect, analyze, visualize,

0:39

and present days to coaches, Check

0:41

out AMS live from rock daisy

0:43

at rock daisy dot com.

0:48

So I'm gonna dive in to move things on a

0:50

little bit, but dive into the testing side.

0:52

And this is something that's

0:54

surprise surprise me. It surprised

0:56

me a little bit, I suppose, in the last probably year

0:59

when change direction and agility has been

1:02

the topic of discussion. People

1:04

have and we're basso people,

1:06

probably three or four. have said, no,

1:08

no, no, we don't do any change direction testing at

1:10

all now. Used to move away

1:12

from it because we didn't get the information

1:14

that we wanted. are needed,

1:16

and we've we've kind of moved away from

1:18

it. So coming back to you,

1:20

Tom, and Alastair, feel free to jump in

1:23

whenever whenever

1:25

you feel appropriate. Testing

1:27

in an applied setting.

1:31

Just to caveat that. Just to caveat that.

1:34

I spoke I spoke to Ian Jeffries again more

1:36

recently. That was a thing another theme

1:39

of the discussion was the lack of

1:41

change

1:41

direction testing that was being done with

1:44

how

1:44

how he was coaching coaches

1:47

and also in his own practice. So

1:49

with all that said, is

1:52

change direction testing losing

1:54

its place in an applied

1:56

setting. understand us.

2:01

I suppose it is, but I don't think it

2:03

should be. I still think there's a time and place

2:05

for it. Obviously, I suppose it

2:07

comes down to the needs analysis in the multidirectional

2:10

demands of the sport. Most

2:12

multidirectional dashboards will

2:14

require agility. people

2:17

I don't know, preplanned change direction testing

2:19

and training seems to get bashed at the moment because they say,

2:22

oh, it's not small specific. There's an agility.

2:24

There's an involved perception and competent. However,

2:27

we test and train well,

2:29

particularly, train sprinting in a preplanned environment.

2:32

Everyone's okay. Cut addressing sprint

2:34

mechanics in a pre planned environment. Everyone's

2:36

okay, addressing land mechanics in a pre planned

2:38

environment. By soon as we wanna do a change

2:40

direction drill, we immediately must throw a ball and a defender

2:43

in. where most athletes probably don't

2:45

warrant the right for it because they can't mask the mechanics

2:47

in a preplanned. We don't go

2:49

from our plyometric landing drills from

2:51

fifty centimeter box and thinking about overhead target.

2:53

We do it in a controlled manner. And I think that's

2:56

why Alastair was highlighting it

2:58

really well. We still want those preplanned

3:01

elements into it. we're not saying completely

3:03

remove the unplanned element in terms of our

3:05

training, but just think about the volumes and dosages

3:07

and emphasize things at different densities.

3:10

I suppose the issue is we've changed the direction

3:12

is I what I said to you earlier, we've got

3:14

six maybe five or six different change direction actions.

3:17

and the biomechanical demands and the are

3:20

all kinda task dependent, entry velocity

3:22

dependent, and angle dependent. I'd

3:24

argue in most sports, our culture philosophy

3:27

is we want robust three hundred and sixty degree

3:29

athletes who are proficient at change direction of

3:31

left and right limbs from low, medium,

3:33

and high velocities. If we start breaking

3:35

it down into our tests, okay, we want an athlete

3:37

to be up to sidestep at forty five

3:39

degrees, ninety degrees, do some aggressive

3:41

pivots. But then we need to make sure

3:44

that you could be provisioned on both left and right limbs.

3:46

So from a kind of time and gate perspective,

3:49

that means they needed to do at least two trials

3:51

on the left, two trials on the right at forty fives,

3:53

nineties, one hundred and eight degrees,

3:55

but that's five meters. So that shows that they're good

3:57

at decelerating the change direction from

3:59

a low entry velocity. Do I now repeat

4:01

the same same thing at the high? Entry

4:04

velocity. Before you know it, we probably need

4:06

thirty change of direction. trials

4:08

to build up this multidirectional speed

4:10

profile just for a a side

4:12

step or lateral foot plan. Cut

4:15

cut in action. The issue is

4:17

with the time engaged as well, we're getting to no

4:19

insight into movement strategy. We're just

4:21

getting the indication from how quickly we get from

4:23

a to b. which is fine when the objective

4:26

is in most sports get from a to b, but we

4:28

need to be getting a bit more insight into

4:30

movement strategy. particularly

4:32

how are they entering, how are they changing direction,

4:35

and then how are they exiting. So again, with

4:37

the advancements in wearable technologies and it's

4:39

not evasive, technologies. We

4:41

are starting to get a bit more insight into

4:43

it. But time against providing limited

4:46

information because we can mascar

4:48

deficiencies and change direction with superior

4:51

acceleration and linear speed capabilities.

4:55

But to counter that point, I'm a really

4:57

big fan of building like this change direction angle

4:59

profile. So I thinking if you wanna know how well

5:01

an athlete changed direction from a

5:03

range different entry speeds and angles we need to build

5:05

this profile. We do load velocity profile

5:07

in with our jump spots, which takes forty five

5:09

minutes. Probably, why can't

5:12

we do the same thing on on the pitch

5:14

and actually view this testing session

5:16

as an item as later training session

5:19

to elicit some training stimulus. because

5:21

we all do multidirectional speed sessions. Just

5:23

view that testing session as a

5:25

conditioning session as well to

5:28

elicit that training stimulus. So I

5:30

would probably want to build a picture of their forty

5:32

five degree, maybe ninety degree because the

5:34

tenings required for forty five degrees, slightly

5:36

different to ninety. and a

5:39

ninety degree cuts gonna be completely different

5:41

for one eighty. But

5:43

I do appreciate it will take some time.

5:45

But and that's only applicable for one isolated

5:48

change direction task with

5:50

that and perform that sidestep cutting action.

5:52

In terms of agility assessments, I

5:55

don't think there will ever be a perfect agility

5:57

assessment because sport is

5:59

chaotic again, it will only be reflective of that

6:02

specific entry velocity and that specific

6:04

angle of change direction. I know there's been

6:06

this big push on this 1V1

6:09

testing. So we

6:11

how successful are they a leading opponent?

6:13

Is there one hand touch? Is there two hand touch?

6:16

I think it's quite flawed that approach personally.

6:19

because we're still not getting insight to the perceptual

6:21

cognitive speed. And how do we

6:23

standardize that

6:25

defender for the attacker? how

6:28

do we standardize the starter position? That

6:31

that attack will eventually start getting used to

6:33

that defenders position. And then

6:35

if we try to use are we doing the same defender

6:37

across all tasks with our standardizing there.

6:39

We can't use unplanned arrows or flashing

6:41

lights or a non generic or a generic stimulus

6:44

because they don't differentiate skill level apart

6:46

from Formula One and maybe swim it,

6:48

I can't think of any other sport where they might have to react

6:50

to a flashing light or flashing arrow. And

6:53

actually, you are increasing the potential

6:56

knee joint loading. So you do need that kind of sport

6:58

specific stimulus. I don't think we'll

7:00

ever be able to fully do that in the pitch.

7:03

In terms of monitoring it though, I think we do

7:05

need to be evaluating movement quality

7:07

during a whole range of tasks, so not only

7:10

just accept looking at the completion type,

7:12

which is is flawed and even change the direction

7:14

deficit. It's flawed in my opinion.

7:16

I'll come back to that in Yeah. So we'll come back to that.

7:19

I think I think we should

7:21

be monitoring. We should

7:23

be filming, I think, his technique joined his range of tasks

7:25

to see how they're executing is particularly with

7:27

our aggressive change directions, are they adopting double

7:29

foot contact in? Do are

7:32

they properly dominant loads of one limb? What's their

7:34

trunk position? Like, we could be doing that. as

7:37

a minimum. Whether it's drawing a tested

7:39

session or drawing our actual field based

7:41

conditioning sessions, There

7:44

is, however, a no player

7:46

maker are working on the change direction

7:49

angle. I think algorithm working

7:51

on turning angle and change direction time.

7:53

I know, spotlight are using Lira technology,

7:57

which I'm currently doing a little bit of stuff

7:59

with at the moment, looking at their products.

8:01

So they're hoping they look at turn

8:04

and angle and change direction time, which could be

8:06

used for player track and joint match

8:08

play, and then let's react

8:10

as well. are starting because

8:12

the issues with radar, we can start assessing

8:14

instantaneous velocity. I

8:17

know we want to examine As

8:20

far as the issues with change of direction performance,

8:23

we can examine ground contact time, but

8:26

we can manipulate our ground contact time by performance,

8:28

shallower change of direction making the task easier.

8:31

We can examine exit velocity. But

8:33

again, we can manipulate our strategy

8:35

and just perform a shallow angle change direction

8:37

to get this inflated exit

8:39

velocity. So there's a whole range of things we need

8:41

to consider when evaluating change direction

8:44

ability, which probably makes people shy away

8:46

from evaluating change direction ability

8:48

because it's very difficult to monitor exit

8:51

velocity without a kind of radar device

8:53

or three d motion analysis. I

8:55

know some people views a radar device.

8:58

For a one hundred and eighty degree tonnage is quite easy. We

9:00

can assess instantaneous velocity going in and

9:02

out of the change direction. but for our kind of more

9:04

multi planar movements. It's

9:06

like a ninety degree cut you'd need to. I

9:09

know I think, hey, DermaVu, O'Shea,

9:11

you've done some work with that, but the

9:13

reliability wasn't great. So I think it's

9:15

where the wearable technology comes into

9:18

it. and Ledge React have

9:20

got really good products at the moment. They

9:22

haven't validated it just yet, but

9:25

If it works, I think it could potentially revolutionize

9:27

change direction testing because they're able

9:29

to track the x y coordinates drawing

9:32

tasks So isn't just limited

9:34

to linear task? It could just be more on

9:36

our curve linear and change direction task.

9:38

However, we need to factor in ideally,

9:41

the trajectory joined this chain to actually

9:43

see how they're performing that action because our athletes

9:45

can start rounding to manipulate

9:47

and maintain speed, but that's what

9:49

we kind of need to build that picture.

9:53

So I could talk about change direction definitely. We'll

9:55

come back to that in a second, Alastair. Have you

9:57

have you got this to add for a very much

9:59

on field

9:59

applied perspective day to day when

10:02

it comes to testing. Do you guys do any

10:03

sort

10:04

of generation testing? Again, move your way

10:06

through it.

10:07

No. So

10:10

at the at the first team,

10:12

it's a bit different in terms of the testing situation.

10:15

I think it's a lot more lab based, a

10:17

lot of the strength and power testing, and

10:20

it's almost done as part of the training session

10:22

as well.

10:23

So can use your force platforms,

10:25

horizontal, hops, and jumps. There's

10:28

variety of different athletic assessments

10:30

that are just a form part

10:33

of the the strength of power test in

10:35

battery, which are also used to

10:37

to kind of as a a training session

10:39

as well. So

10:41

in the same regard, I think that will be

10:44

the

10:44

way to go with the multidirectional

10:46

speed testing and the change direction testing.

10:49

because like Tom said, if you're wanting

10:51

to get an overall multidirectional speed

10:53

profile, you're essentially going

10:55

to have them to potentially do

10:57

twenty different tests to

11:00

to actually get what you want because

11:02

not only do you want to evaluate change direction

11:04

abilities, you want to evaluate acceleration

11:07

abilities, maximum speed capabilities

11:09

and, you

11:10

know, curve sprinting capability. So

11:13

there's just so many different maneuvers

11:16

that require assessment in order for

11:18

you to then target individualized training

11:20

with. So I think the way to go really

11:22

is having these technologies in

11:24

place that allow you to perform

11:27

testing in the field as part of your

11:30

affiliate development sessions. And

11:32

like Tom said with Les

11:35

react, that's something that I

11:37

think it can test up to four athletes

11:40

at

11:40

the same time. And

11:41

I mean, we're not

11:44

we're not employees of Liberty Act, so we're not

11:46

actually just trying to promote or anything. But

11:48

essentially, you can you can test

11:50

for roughly the same time within

11:52

a standard standardized drill, and

11:54

that can almost inform part of

11:56

each player's individualized more directional

11:59

speed profile and that can be collected not

12:01

just in one session. You don't have to

12:03

just go right this Tuesday, we're

12:05

going to do every single multidirectional

12:07

speed. drill to get profile

12:10

that can be collected longitudinally, you

12:12

know, the the same way that we we collect

12:15

some fourth platform data. We might get them

12:17

to do HOPs on the fourth

12:19

platforms one week. Next week,

12:21

it might be right. Let's get some Nordics

12:23

done for

12:26

that specific element. So it's

12:28

almost like as long as you can longitudinally track

12:30

it from part of a database, which

12:32

you can then use to to inform

12:35

when players have maybe reduced

12:37

their capabilities or,

12:39

you know, you almost

12:41

want it to be point where it's relative to an

12:43

individual. on their capabilities, but also

12:46

relative to a squad, an age group.

12:49

And then you're able to kind of produce

12:53

standards from this as well for the different actions,

12:56

but they are being collected

12:58

as part of the day to day practices. So

13:00

it's not a case of going round. We

13:02

want this this group of

13:04

players or this team to do a testing session

13:06

here and ask him for time of the coaches

13:08

It's a case of it's just ongoing

13:11

every

13:12

opportunity that you get to to measure

13:14

certain quality as long as it's standardized. then

13:17

you are getting a

13:19

almost a dynamic

13:22

or a there and then more directional speed

13:24

profile that is getting updated each

13:26

time you do

13:28

a drill. So

13:31

I think, again, we're talking about technology

13:33

that is in its infancy still. it still

13:35

needs to be validated and

13:38

it's it still needs to have

13:40

the work done empirically before

13:42

we we'll all jump on and go that is a

13:44

technology that we want to use. But hopefully,

13:46

when it gets to that point, and we have these

13:49

different technologies, whether it's through

13:51

radar, whether it's through IMUs,

13:54

These are the kind of devices

13:57

that are gonna give us the insights that we

13:59

want and need. but also

14:02

give it us in appropriate time

14:05

frames, which is also something that we want because

14:07

I have a discussion of time before and

14:10

I know what best practice is in terms of

14:12

what I want to evaluate with

14:14

certain players, but we just don't have

14:16

the time. You just you're constantly

14:18

having a battle between. If you're in an academy setting,

14:20

it's not just a case of asking the football

14:23

coach for a certain time slot.

14:25

You've also got the the fact that these kids

14:28

are coming in from school and they might be,

14:30

you know, you have a training session dedicated

14:32

for it. And