3.8 Article

Comparison of dynamic and static balance among professional male soccer players by position

Journal

JOURNAL OF BODYWORK AND MOVEMENT THERAPIES
Volume 36, Issue -, Pages 307-312

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2023.03.001

Keywords

Football; Force; Y balance test; Leg dominance; Youth

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compares static and dynamic balance in soccer players in different positions and finds that goalkeepers have better static and dynamic balance, while midfielders have better dynamic balance. Therefore, the evaluation of balance and postural control performance should be considered in the position-specific functional evaluation of soccer players.
Purpose: Balance is an important performance aspect of all athletes. The aim of this study was to compare static and dynamic balance in soccer players in different positions.Methods: Forty youth and young adult professional soccer players were divided into four groups according to their playing positions: goalkeepers (GK), defenders (DF), midfielders (MF) and forwards (FW) (10 per position). Static and dynamic balance assessed on the dominant and non-dominant legs were measured using a force platform for 30s (static one-leg stand), and Y Balance Test (dynamic balance).Results: GK exhibited greater ML static balance (less ML sway) compared with other players (p < 0.02-0.001). Moreover, results demonstrated better GK dynamic balance compared to DF and FW (p < 0.04-0.006). MF showed better dynamic balance than DF and FW (p < 0.019-0.007) and lower dynamic balance scores were found among DF and FW (p < 0.05).Conclusion: In conclusion, these results affirm position-specific balance performance with greater static and dynamic balance of GK and dynamic balance with MF. It is suggested that evaluation of balance and postural control performance should be considered a relevant part of the position-specific functional evaluation of soccer players.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available