INFLUENCE OF CLOSED SKILL AND OPEN SKILL
WARM-UPS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF SPEED,
CHANGE OF DIRECTION SPEED, VERTICAL JUMP,
AND REACTIVE AGILITY IN TEAM SPORT ATHLETES
TIM J. GABBETT,1 JEREMY M. SHEPPARD,2 KELLIE R. PRITCHARD-PESCHEK,1 MICHAEL D. LEVERITT,3
1
AND MURRY J. ALDRED
1
Brisbane Broncos Rugby League Club, Brisbane, Queensland; 2Australian Institute of Sport, Canberra; 3Griffith University,
Gold Coast, Australia
ABSTRACT
Gabbett, TJ, Sheppard, JM, Pritchard-Peschek, KR, Leveritt, MD,
and Aldred, MJ. Influence of closed skill and open skill warm-ups
on the performance of speed, change of direction speed, vertical
jump, and reactive agility in team sports athletes. J Strength
Cond Res 22(5): 1413–1415, 2008—In this study, we evaluated
the efficacy of two different dynamic warm-up conditions, one
that was inclusive of open skills (i.e., reactive movements) and
one that included only preplanned dynamic activities (i.e., closed
skills) on the performance of speed, change of direction speed,
vertical jump, and reactive agility in team sport athletes. Fourteen
(six male, eight female) junior (mean 6 SD age, 16.3 6 0.7 year)
basketball players participated in this study. Testing was
conducted on 2 separate days using a within-subjects cross-
over study design. Each athlete performed a standardized
7-minute warm-up consisting of general dynamic movements and
stretching. After the general warm-up, athletes were randomly
allocated into one of two groups that performed a dynamic
15-minute warm-up consisting entirely of open or closed skills.
Each of the warm-up conditions consisted of five activities of
3 minute duration. At the completion of the warm-up protocol,
players completed assessments of reactive agility, speed (5-, 10-,
and 20-m sprints), change of direction speed (T-test), and vertical
jump. No significant differences (p . 0.05) were detected among
warm-up conditions for speed, vertical jump, change of direction
speed, and reactive agility performances. The results of this study
demonstrate that either open skill or closed skill warm-ups can be
used effectively for team sport athletes without compromising
performance on open skill and closed skill tasks.
KEY WORDS anticipation, game-specific
Address correspondence to Dr. Tim Gabbett, timg@broncos.com.au
22(5)/1413–1415
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2008 National Strength and Conditioning Association
INTRODUCTION
S
uccessful team sport performance depends on well-
developed physical qualities and superior anticipa-
tion and decision-making skills (1). Given that
athletes are required to perform physical skills, such
as sprints and changes of direction in response to cognitive
stimuli, agility has recently been defined as a rapid, whole-
body movement with change of velocity or direction in
response to a stimulus (5). However, assessments of agility
performance have typically utilized change-of-direction
speed tests (e.g., zigzag running), that encompass preplanned,
closed skill movements (5). Although it is recognized that
preplanned movements are important to team sport
performance, a limitation of change-of-direction speed tests
is that they fail to assess the perceptual component of agility.
An adequate dynamic warm-up encompassing closed skill
movements (e.g., callisthenics, running, lunging) has been shown
to improve performance in sprint and power tasks (2,3,7).
Although studies have demonstrated a positive benefit of warm-
up on sprint and power tasks, no studies have assessed the effect
of different warm-up protocols on open skill agility tasks. Intui-
tively, it may be expected that performance in an open skill task
requiring a large degree of anticipation would be enhanced by
a warm-up that included these demands. However, it is also
unclear whether a warm-up consisting predominantly of open
skill tasks is adequate in preparing athletes for closed skill activities
(e.g., jumping, sprinting, preplanned changes of direction). With
this in mind, the purpose of the present study was to evaluate the
efficacy of two different dynamic warm-up conditions: one that
was inclusive of open skills (i.e., reactive movements) and one that
included only preplanned dynamic activities (i.e., closed skills) on
the performance of speed, change of direction speed, vertical
jump, and reactive agility in team sport athletes.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
A within-subjects cross-over study design was used to evaluate
the efficacy of two different dynamic warm-up conditions
VOLUME 22 | NUMBER 5 | SEPTEMBER 2008 | 1413
Warm-up and Performance in Team Sports
(open skill versus closed skill) on the performance of speed,
change of direction speed, vertical jump, and reactive agility in
team sport athletes. It was hypothesized that a warm-up
encompassing open skill tasks would enhance performance in
open skill activities (e.g., reactive agility), whereas performance
in closed skill tasks (i.e., speed, change of direction speed, and
vertical jump) would be enhanced using a warm-up consisting
predominantly of closed skill activities.
Subjects
Fourteen (six male, eight female) junior basketball players
(mean 6 SD age, 16.3 6 0.7 years) participated in this study.
Athletes were scholarship holders with the Queensland
Academy of Sport high-performance basketball program, and
at the time of testing had undergone approximately 9 months of
strength and conditioning and basketball-specific skills training.
Warm-Up Protocol
Each athlete performed a standardized 7-minute warm-up
consisting of general movements and dynamic and static
stretching. After the general warm-up, athletes were
randomly allocated into one of two groups that performed
a dynamic 15-minute warm-up consisting entirely of open or
closed skills. Each of the warm-up conditions consisted of five
activities of 3 minutes’ duration (Table 1). At the completion
of the warm-up protocol, players performed, in random
order, assessments of reactive agility, speed, change-of-
direction speed, and vertical jump.
Vertical Jump
Vertical jump height was assessed using a Yardstick vertical
jump device (Swift Performance Equipment, New South
Wales, Australia). Vertical jump height was measured to the
nearest 1 cm, with the highest jump from three trials used as
the vertical jump score. The intraclass correlation coefficient
TABLE 1. Activities performed in the open skill and closed skill warm-ups
Open skill
1. Players dribble at each other, execute designated move
within 1 m of each other, and rapidly change pace.
2. As above, but progressed to groups of 2, 4, and 6 players.
3. Offensive player steps to the pass and squares up aiming
to score. Defensive player attempts to close out
attempted shot. Defensive players are
encouraged to read cues before the offensive
player receiving the ball.
4. As above, but progressed to 1 on 1 game.
5. 4 vs. 4 game, where teams must complete 30 passes.
Each player is only permitted one dribble per
possession. Changes of possession occur for
every fumble, violation, dribble, or unassertive play (e.g.,
not squaring up).
the TM
1414 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
for test-retest reliability and typical error of measurement
for the vertical jump test were 0.98 and 1.4 cm, respectively.
Speed
The running speed of players was evaluated with 5-, 10-, and
20-m sprint efforts using dual-beam electronic timing gates
(Swift Performance Equipment). Speed was measured to the
nearest 0.01 second, with the fastest score from three trials
used as the speed score. The intraclass correlation coefficient
for test-retest reliability and typical error or measurement
for the 5-, 10-, and 20-m sprint tests were 0.83, 0.88, and 0.96
and 0.03, 0.04, and 0.03 seconds, respectively.
Change-of-Direction Speed
The change-of-direction speed of subjects was evaluated
using a T-test (4) using dual-beam electronic timing gates
(Swift Performance Equipment). Change-of-direction speed
was measured to the nearest 0.01 second, with the fastest
score from three trials used as the change-of-direction speed
score. The intraclass correlation coefficient for test-retest
reliability and typical error of measurement for the T-test
were 0.92 and 0.19 seconds, respectively.
Reactive Agility
The reactive agility test (RAT) has been described in detail
elsewhere (6). The tester (researcher) stood opposite and facing
the participants. The tester stood behind a set of timing lights.
Each test trial involved the tester initiating movement, thereby
beginning the timing. The athlete reacted to the movements of
the tester by moving forward, then to the left or right in
response to, and in the same direction as, the left or right
movement of the tester. The timing stopped when the athlete
triggered the timing beam on either side. The participants were
instructed to emphasize decision-making accuracy and speed
Closed skill
Skipping forward and backward over a 20-m distance.
Carioca with an emphasis on foot speed, alternately
crossing the left and right foot in front of the body,
while moving in a lateral direction.
Acceleration sprints with progressively increasing
pace over a 20-m distance.
Maximal effort sprints over a 20-m distance.
Change of direction (zigzag) activities, including
rapidly moving toward a marker, decelerating,
stopping, and changing direction.

TABLE 2. Speed, change-of-direction speed, vertical jump, and reactive agility results
after an open skill or closed skill warm-up in high-performance junior basketball
players
Open skill
Sprint (s)
5m 1.17 60.06
10 m 1.95 6 0.09
20 m 3.34 6 0.15
Change-of-direction speed (s) 10.47 6 0.53
Vertical jump (cm) 50.9 6 11.0
Reactive agility (s) 2.21 6 0.08
No significant differences (p. 0.05) existed between open skill and closed skill warm-up
conditions. Data are mean 6 SD.
of movement. The intraclass correlation coefficient for test-
retest reliability and typical error of measurement for the RAT
were 0.88 and 0.05 seconds, respectively.
Statistical Analyses
Differences in reactive agility, speed, change-of-direction
speed, and vertical jump performances between the two
warm-up conditions were compared using a paired t-test. The
level of significance was set at p , 0.05, and all data are
reported as mean 6 SD.
RESULTS
The speed, vertical jump, change-of-direction speed, and
reactive agility results for the open skill and closed skill warm-
up conditions are shown in Table 2. No significant differences
(p . 0.05) were detected between warm-up conditions for
any of the performance tests.
DISCUSSION
The present study evaluated the efficacy of two different
dynamic warm-up conditions: one that was inclusive of open
skills (i.e., reactive movements) and one that included only
preplanned dynamic activities (i.e., closed skills) on the per-
formance of speed, change-of-direction speed, vertical jump,
and reactive agility in team sport athletes. The results of this
study demonstrate that either open skill or closed skill warm-
ups can be used effectively for team sport athletes without com-
promising performance on open skill and closed skill tasks.
The reactive agility test used in the present study encompassed
perceptual, decision-making, and movement response compo-
nents that required players to read and react to game-specific cues
(6). We hypothesized that a warm-up that included a large degree
of open skill activities and required a large degree of anticipation
would enhance performance in the reactive agility test. However,
in contrast to our hypothesis, no differences in reactive agility
performance were observed between the open and closed skill
warm-up conditions. The ability to recognize advanced cues and
extract meaning from those cues is a characteristic of expert
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
decision-makers (1). Although
studies have shown that short-
term perceptual training may
improve decision-making and
anticipation skills in team sport
Closed skill players, it is generally recognized
that the ability to develop expert
anticipatory skill requires long-
1.18 6 0.06
1.97 6 0.10 term exposure to game-specific
3.36 6 0.18 scenarios (1). Therefore, it is likely
10.48 6 0.61 that longer-term perceptual train-
50.8 6 10.3 ing, rather than a single acute
2.20 6 0.14
exposure to perceptual activities,
is required to refine information
extraction strategies and enhance
reactive agility performances.
Performances in the vertical
jump, sprinting, and preplanned change-of-direction speed tests
were maintained with both the open and closed skill warm-up
conditions. However, it should be recognized that none of the
performance tests assessed game-specific technical skill (e.g.,
dribbling, passing, and shooting). Although a closed skill warm-
up did not compromise performances on game-specific move-
ment tasks (i.e., reactive agility, sprinting, jumping, change-of-
direction speed), it is likely that the technical skill of players
would be enhanced through the use of open and closed skill
activities that included a ball.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The results of this study provide important practical applications
for the team sport coach and the strength and conditioning
coach. The similar speed, change-of-direction speed, vertical
jump, and reactive agility performances in response to an open
or closed skill warm-up demonstrate that either of these two
warm-up activities can be used by team sport athletes without
compromising performance in game-specific physical tasks.
Note: At the time of this study, the first author was employed
by the Queensland Academy of Sport, Brisbane, Australia.
REFERENCES
1. Abernethy, B. Expertise, visual search, and information pick-up in
squash. Perception 19: 63–77, 1990.
2. Devore, P and Hagerman, P. A pregame soccer warm-up. Strength
Cond J 28(1): 14–18, 2006.
3. Fletcher, IM and Jones, B. The effect of different warm-up stretch
protocols on 20 meter sprint performance in trained rugby union
players. J Strength Cond Res 18: 885–888, 2004.
4. Gabbett, T and Georgieff, B. Physiological and anthropometric
characteristics of Australian junior national, state, and novice
volleyball players. J Strength Cond Res 21:902-908, 2007.
5. Sheppard, JM and Young, WB. Agility literature review: classifica-
tions, training and testing. J Sports Sci 24: 919–932, 2006.
6. Sheppard, JM, Young, WB, Doyle, TA, Sheppard, TA, and Newton, RU.
An evaluation of a new test of reactive agility, and its relationship to sprint
speed and change of direction speed. J Sci Med Sport 9: 342–349, 2006.
7. Stewart, M, Adams, R, Alonso, A, Van Koesveld, B, and Campbell, S.
Warm-up or stretch as preparation for sprint performance? J Sci Med Sport
10: 403–410, 2007.
VOLUME 22 | NUMBER 5 | SEPTEMBER 2008 | 1415