See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260683669

Offensive and Defensive Agility: A Sex Comparison of Lower Body Kinematics

and Ground Reaction Forces

Article  in  Journal of applied biomechanics · March 2014

DOI: 10.1123/jab.2013-0259 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

19 789

3 authors:

Tania Spiteri Nicolas Hart

University of Notre Dame Australia Edith Cowan University
44 PUBLICATIONS   615 CITATIONS    78 PUBLICATIONS   557 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sophia Nimphius
Edith Cowan University
117 PUBLICATIONS   2,032 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Subjective Training Load and Performance in Open & Closed Skill Sports View project

Cluster sets View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nicolas Hart on 03 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 2014, 30, 514-520
http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jab.2013-0259 An Official Journal of ISB
© 2014 Human Kinetics, Inc. www.JAB-Journal.com
ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Offensive and Defensive Agility: A Sex Comparison of

Lower Body Kinematics and Ground Reaction Forces
Tania Spiteri, Nicolas H. Hart, and Sophia Nimphius
Edith Cowan University

The aim of this study was to compare biomechanical and perceptual-cognitive variables between sexes during an offensive and
defensive agility protocol. Twelve male and female (n = 24) recreational team sport athletes participated in this study, each
performing 12 offensive and defensive agility trials (6 left, 6 right) changing direction in response to movements of a human
stimulus. Three-dimensional motion, ground reaction force (GRF), and impulse data were recorded across plant phase for domi-
nant leg change of direction (COD) movements, while timing gates and high-speed video captured decision time, total running
time, and post COD stride velocity. Subjects also performed a unilateral isometric squat to determine lower body strength and
limb dominance. Group (sex) by condition (2 × 2) MANOVAs with follow-up ANOVAs were conducted to examine differ-
ences between groups (P ≤ .05). Male athletes demonstrated significantly greater lower body strength, vertical braking force
and impulse application, knee and spine flexion, and hip abduction, as well as faster decision time and post COD stride velocity
during both agility conditions compared with females. Differences between offensive and defensive movements appear to be
attributed to differences in decision time between sexes. This study demonstrates that biomechanical and perceptual-cognitive
differences exist between sexes and within offensive and defensive agility movements.

Keywords: change of direction, force production, impulse, decision-making, performance, human stimulus

Many team sports require athletes to make appropriate deci-
sions as well as possess the physical and technical ability to execute
the chosen response with a successful outcome. Possibly the most
common athletic maneuvers requiring a combination of physical
capacity, technical ability, and tactical awareness are agility move-
ments, performed by athletes to evade and pursue opponents during
competition.1,2 These agility movements occur during both offensive
and defensive orientations, requiring athletes to be equally efficient
at producing a fast physical and perceptual-cognitive performance
through constantly changing spatial and temporal conditions.3 The
ability to rapidly identify and extract cues to predict upcoming
movements from an opposition during a compatible (defensive)
stimulus response condition has been assessed by several studies.1,4,5
While these findings provide insight into the multidimensional
physical and perceptual-cognitive components of a defensive agil-
ity performance, the biomechanical mechanisms associated with
faster changes of direction during an offensive and defensive agility
performance have yet to be investigated.
Currently, the investigation of lower body biomechanics for
agility performance is minimal,6 with research focusing on sex
differences in lower body kinematics from an injury prevention
perspective.7–9 A critical finding of this research is the demonstration
of a significant difference between preplanned change of direction
(COD) tasks and a defensive agility movement. Increased medial
ground reaction forces (GRFs), larger hip abduction, and knee valgus
angles have been reported for both sexes during defensive agility
movement,3 suggesting reactive environments elicit a comparable
Tania Spiteri, Nicolas H. Hart, and Sophia Nimphius are with the School
of Exercise and Health Science at Edith Cowan University in Joondalup,
Australia. Address author correspondence to Tania Spiteri at t.spiteri@
ecu.edu.au.
kinematic response between sexes. Altered lower body biomechan-
ics during agility movements appear to result from increased spatial
uncertainty and perceptual-cognitive stress experienced by athletes,
reducing the time to implement appropriate postural strategies,3,10
increasing injury risk and decreasing performance outcomes.
When the goal is to produce a faster agility performance,
research has observed differences in both total running time and
decision time between sexes during defensive and offensive agility
movements.2 This suggests greater differences in biomechanical
strategies may be observed when a faster decision-making time
and agility performance is achieved. When examining performance
enhancement strategies, the magnitude of GRF, impulse, and lower
body kinematics have been identified as critical factors during
straight-line sprinting and preplanned COD movements to detect
differences between sexes11 and faster and slower sprinters.12,13
However, the major difference between sprinting and agility move-
ments is the application of GRF and greater knee flexion and hip
abduction angle to promote rapid deceleration and reacceleration
in response to a sensory perturbation. This may result in a unique
kinetic and kinematic pattern that has yet to be investigated between
sexes from a performance perspective.
Therefore, to understand the kinetic and kinematic strategies
required during agility performance, the primary purpose of this
study is to quantify vertical force and impulse and lower body kine-
matic variables during an offensive and defensive agility movement
between sexes. The second purpose of this study is to compare the
differences in the magnitude of the GRF and kinematic variables
between offensive and defensive agility conditions. As a result of
physical characteristics and strength capacity, it was hypothesized
that males would produce greater force and impulse and perform
the agility movement in a more advantageous lower body position
(ie, greater knee flexion, hip abduction, spine flexion) compared
with females, resulting in a faster agility movement (exit velocity).

514

It was also hypothesized that differences in kinetics and kinemat-
ics between offensive and defensive agility movements would be
evident, as a result of differences in decision-making and informa-
tion processing strategies employed between the two conditions.
Methods
Subjects
Twelve male (n = 12) and 12 female (n = 12) semiprofessional team
sport (soccer: n = 8; basketball: n = 8; and netball: n = 8) athletes
(Table 1) with no previous history of major lower limb injury (ie,
ligament sprains, muscle strains, or bone fractures) and no sig-
nificant vision problems participated in this study. Subjects were
required to partake in a minimum of two competitive games and one
structured skills training session for their chosen sport each week
to be included in the study. All testing and familiarization sessions
occurred during their particular team sport season. The Human
Research Ethics Committee at Edith Cowan University approved
all test procedures, with written informed consent obtained from
all subjects before the commencement of the study.
Experimental Design
The current study used a cross-sectional design to compare GRF,
impulse, lower body kinematics, strength, decision time, post
COD stride velocity, and total running time between sexes during
offensive and defensive agility tests, and compared performance
between agility conditions. All testing procedures took place during
1 session with anthropometrical measurements (height, body mass)
being recorded for each subject, followed by the completion of
three unilateral left leg and right leg isometric back squats to ascer-
tain peak force values as a measure of strength. Participants then
completed a total of 24 agility trials; 12 offensive and 12 defensive
trials, changing direction in response to movements of a human
stimulus. Specific kinematic, vertical GRF, and impulse variables
were measured for the COD step during each agility trial. Subjects
completed a 10 minute dynamic warm up before any testing. Each
testing procedure was separated with a minimum recovery period
of 10 minute to ensure any fatigue did not influence the results.
Isometric Strength Testing
Lower body strength was assessed with a unilateral maximal
isometric back squat performed on a portable force plate (400
Series Performance Plate; Fitness Technology, Adelaide, Australia)
sampling at 600 Hz. The subject pushed against an immovable bar
position across the shoulders with both the knee and hip angle set at
approximately 140°.14 Subjects were instructed to position the leg
to be assessed under their center of mass while the other limb was
unsupported and flexed at an angle of 90°. Subjects were required
Table 1  Subject characteristics
Male Female P ES
Age (years) 22.50 ± 3.61 20.58 ± 2.15 .13 0.65
Height (cm) 178.30 ± 8.67 170.57 ± 9.72 .05 0.84
Body mass (kg) 77.14 ± 13.69 65.85 ± 13.99 .05 0.82
UL strength dominant 18.52 ± 3.93 14.21 ± 5.80 .04 0.87
(N⋅kg–1)
Abbreviations: UL, unilateral strength; ES, effect size.
Kinematics and Ground Reaction Forces During Agility  515
to perform a total of three trials for each limb, for 5 seconds in
duration.15 Each trial was separated by a 2 minute recovery period.
Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variation
(CV) for strength were as follows: left leg (ICC = 0.95; CV = 7.0%)
and right leg (ICC = 0.95; CV = 5.5%). The highest peak force of
the three trials was used and presented as a value relative to body
mass (N·kg–1). These results are presented in Table 1.
Reactive Agility Protocol
Each subject performed 12 sidestepping maneuvers under reactive
offensive and defensive conditions, changing direction in response
to movements performed by a human stimulus. The four movement
patterns performed by the human stimulus have previously been
used to create a reliable stimulus during reactive agility protocols
(ICC = 0.71–0.99; CV = 1.11%–4.77%; TE = 0.15–0.59).4,5,16 Each
movement pattern was presented in a randomized order and con-
sisted of three offensive and three defensive trials of the following:
1. Two-step left: Step forward with the left leg, then right leg,
then change direction to the left.
2. One-step left: Step forward with the right leg, then change
direction to the left.
3. Two-step right: Step forward with the right leg, then left leg,
then change direction to the right.
4. One-step right: Step forward with the left leg, then change
direction to the right.
Before the commencement of each trial, the human stimulus
was informed of the movement pattern and direction to move (left
or right), while the subjects were instructed to move either in the
same direction as the human stimulus during a defensive trial or in
the opposite direction during an offensive trial. Subjects began on a
marked line 9 m opposite the human stimulus facing them and were
instructed to run in a straight line toward the stimulus. Once the sub-
ject reached a marked line placed 3 m from the starting position, the
human stimulus initiated one of the four movement patterns. After
changing direction in response to the human stimulus, subjects were
then required to sprint 2 m to the left or right completing the trial.
Subjects were instructed to run toward and respond to move-
ments of the human stimulus at a speed of 4.5 ± 0.5 m·s–1, which
was monitored using a dual beam infrared timing light system
(Speedlight Timing System; Swift Performance Equipment, Old,
Australia), over a 3 m distance to determine approach velocity
(displacement divided by time) for each trial. Approach velocity
was controlled to ensure any differences observed in the data could
not be attributed to velocity variations between subjects. Subjects
were also required to change direction at an angle of 45° ± 5°,
which was monitored by tape markings placed 45° from the center
of all three force plates (Kistler Quattro, Type 9290AD; Victoria,
Australia) and visual inspection from high-speed video recording of
each trial (Sony HDD Camcorder HDRXR550V; Sony, Australia).
Three force plates were used in the study to account for variations
in decision-making time, and therefore, the initiation of the change
of direction movement between subjects. For a trial to be deemed
successful, subjects were required to contact their whole foot on
one of the three force plates without targeting the plate, run at the
set approach speed, cut at the required angle, have performed a
side-step cut only, and responded in the correct movement direc-
tion as indicated at the beginning of each trial. If the subject did not
correctly meet one of these conditions, the trial was reattempted. A
minimum 1 minute recovery period was enforced between trials.
516  Spiteri, Hart, and Nimphius
Ground reaction forces were recorded at 1000 Hz using a 600
× 900 mm triaxial force plate with Bioware software (Ver. 1.08;
Kistler, Victoria, Australia). Raw mediolateral, anteroposterior,
and vertical GRF data were exported to MATLAB programing
software (R2010a; The Mathworks Inc., Chatswood, Australia) to
examine specific vertical force variables during the COD step for
the dominant limb only. Limb dominance was defined as the limb
that produced the greater amount of force during the unilateral
isometric strength assessment. Variables of interest include peak
braking and propulsive force (N·kg–1), time to peak braking and
propulsive force (s), contact time (s), time between peak braking
and propulsive peaks (s), and relative braking impulse, propulsive
impulse, and total impulse (m·s–1). All force and impulse variables
were calculated relative to body mass (kg) and analyzed over the
stance phase, with heel strike defined as the instance the verti-
cal GRF data exceeds 10 N, and toe off defined as the instance
the vertical GRF data are below 10 N.3,13 Braking impulse was
calculated from heel strike to the minimum of the midsupport
phase, and propulsive impulse was calculated from minimum of
midsupport phase to toe off.
To record three-dimensional movements, 37 retroreflective
markers were fixed to anatomical landmarks of the athlete in
accordance with the previously validated Vicon Plug-In Gait
model, with movements captured using a 10 camera, 250 Hz
Vicon motion analysis system (Oxford Metrics Ltd., Oxford,
United Kingdom). Before data collection, a static calibration for
each athlete was performed to locate anatomical landmarks and
define segment and joint coordinate systems to the kinematic
model.17 All trials were processed in Vicon Nexus (Ver. 1.6.1;
Oxford Metrics Ltd., Oxford, United Kingdom) through a custom
pipeline to obtain filtered marker trajectories using a zero-lag
fourth order 18 Hz, low-pass Butterworth filter.17 Joint kinematic
data for each trial was interpolated and time normalized to 100%
of stance (heel strike to toe off). Variables of interest include
maximum and minimum spine flexion, hip flexion, hip abduction
and knee flexion (degrees), and post COD stride velocity (m·s–1).
Post COD stride velocity was determined as the time from toe
off of the COD step to heel strike of the first step after changing
direction of the athlete’s center of mass.13,18
Statistical Analysis
All results are represented as means ± SD. Independent t tests
were conducted to examine differences in subject demographics
(height, body weight, age, and unilateral strength) and response
times (approach speed, decision time, post stride velocity, and
total running time) between sexes. A 2 × 2 multivariate analysis
(MANOVA) was conducted to examine differences between sexes
and condition (offensive: one-step, two-step; defensive: one-step,
two-step) across all variables. A follow up 1-way analysis of vari-
ance (ANOVA) was conducted on each dependent variable to
determine precisely where significant differences occurred, with
sequential Bonferroni corrections19 made to reduce type I errors. A
significance level of P ≤ .05 was employed throughout all statistical
analysis unless otherwise stated. Effect sizes (ES) were calculated
for group comparisons by dividing the difference between groups by
the pooled standard deviation.20 The magnitude of ES calculations
were interpreted following Hopkins’21 guidelines, with trivial = ≤
0; small = 0 to 0.2; moderate = 0.2 to 0.6; large = 0.6 to 1.2; very
large = 1.2 to 2.0; nearly perfect = 2.0 to 4.0; perfect = ≥ 4.0. All
statistical computations were performed using a statistical analysis
program (SPSS, Version 17.0; Chicago, Illinois).
Results
Males demonstrated an overall faster decision time (P = .001; ES
= 1.29–1.37) and post stride velocity (P = .001; ES = 0.75–0.83)
when compared with females during both offensive and defensive
conditions (Figure 1). Males also demonstrated a significantly faster
post stride velocity during the offensive condition compared with
the defensive condition (P = .004; ES = 0.48). As approach speed
was controlled during the testing protocol, no significant differences
were observed between sexes (males: 4.33 ± 0.4 m⋅s–1; females: 4.08
± 0.8 m⋅s–1, P = .12; ES = 0.38) and conditions (offensive: 4.26 ±
0.32 m⋅s–1; defensive: 4.25 ± 0.51 m⋅s–1, P = 1.12; ES = 0.01).
MANOVA revealed that significant differences occurred
between sexes for vertical (Pillai’s trace ≤ 0.01) GRF and impulse
variables (Table 2). Males demonstrated significantly greater maxi-
mum braking force, propulsive force, braking impulse, propulsive
impulse, and total impulse compared with females during one-step
and two-step offensive trials and one-step defensive trials. During
two-step defensive trials, significantly greater braking impulse
was observed for male subjects, while females produced greater
propulsive impulse and total impulse; however, this difference was
nonsignificant. No significant differences were observed in timing
variables between sexes during both defensive and offensive trials.
Differences between offensive and defensive conditions were
only observed for between two-step trials (Table 2). Females pro-
duced significantly greater braking force (P = .02; ES = 0.98) and
propulsive force during defensive trials. Males produced signifi-
cantly greater propulsive force (P = .01; ES = 1.13), braking impulse
(P = .04; ES = 0.86), propulsive impulse (P = .01; ES = 1.48), and
total impulse (P = .01; ES = 1.52) during offensive trials. Time to
maximum propulsive force and time between maximum braking
and propulsive peaks were significantly faster for males during the
offensive condition (P = .01–0.03; ES = 0.63–1.00).
Mean joint rotations presented as a function of stance (Figure
2) reveal males demonstrated significantly greater knee flexion
(P = .03–0.05; ES = 0.97) and spine flexion (P = .01; ES = 1.47)
compared with females during one- and two-step offensive and
defensive trials. In addition, males produced greater hip abduction
(P = .01; ES = 1.14) during two-step offensive and defensive trials
compared with females. No significant differences were observed
between offensive and defensive conditions within sexes.
Figure 1 — Sex differences in reaction time (RT) and post stride velocity
(PSV) between offensive and defensive conditions. *Significant difference
in means between males and females (P ≤ .05). ^Significant difference in
means between offensive and defensive conditions (P ≤ .05).
 Kinematics and Ground Reaction Forces During Agility  517

Table 2  Mean stance phase ground kinetics for male and female subjects during
offensive and defensive agility trials
Defensive Offensive
Variable Male Female P ES Male Female P ES
One-step Trials
Braking force (N⋅kg–1) 48.85 ± 13.05 25.08 ± 2.85 .01 2.53 46.73 ± 13.05 22.47 ± 3.52 .01 2.54
Propulsive force (N⋅kg–1) 26.81 ± 5.20 19.78 ± 1.51 .01 1.84 26.68 ± 7.09 18.72 ± 1.97 .01 1.53
Braking impulse (m⋅s–1) 1.42 ± 0.39 0.88 ± 0.17 .01 1.80 1.25 ± 0.43 0.85 ± 0.20 .01 1.19
Propulsive impulse (m⋅s–1) 3.25 ± 0.63 2.39 ± 0.27 .01 1.77 3.34 ± 0.57 2.34 ± 0.24 .01 2.28
Total impulse (m⋅s–1) 4.67 ± 0.98 3.27 ± 0.37 .01 1.89 4.58 ± 0.89 3.17 ± 0.38 .01 2.06
Time to peak braking force (ms) 0.03 ± 0.01 0.04 ± 0.01 .08 1.00 0.03 ± 0.01 0.04 ± 0.01 .28 1.00
Time to peak propulsive force (ms) 0.10 ± 0.01 0.11 ± 0.01 .59 1.00 0.11 ± 0.02 0.11 ± 0.02 .91 0.00
Time between B:P force (ms) 0.07 ± 0.01 0.07 ± 0.01 .11 0.00 0.08 ± 0.02 0.08 ± 0.01 .61 0.00
Contact time (s) 0.25 ± 0.02 0.25 ± 0.02 1.00 0.00 0.24 ± 0.02 0.26 ± 0.02 .08 1.00
Two-step Trials
Braking force (N⋅kg–1)a 35.00 ± 8.52 22.52 ± 4.17 .01 1.86 42.32 ± 12.32 19.12 ± 2.60 .01 2.61
Propulsive force (N⋅kg–1)a, b 18.93 ± 3.42 19.11 ± 1.68 .87 0.06 25.20 ± 7.09 16.36 ± 1.43 .01 1.73
Braking impulse (m⋅s–1)b 1.05 ± 0.15 0.78 ± 0.14 .01 1.86 1.26 ± 0.31 0.80 ± 0.09 .07 2.01
Propulsive impulse (m⋅s–1)b 2.06 ± 0.67 2.43 ± 0.14 .06 0.76 2.93 ± 0.49 2.31 ± 0.19 .01 1.67
Total impulse (m⋅s–1)b 3.10 ± 0.69 3.19 ± 0.24 .69 0.17 4.19 ± 0.74 3.11 ± 0.20 .01 1.99
Time to peak braking force (ms) 0.03 ± 0.01 0.04 ± 0.01 .06 1.00 0.03 ± 0.01 0.04 ± 0.01 .34 1.00
Time to peak propulsive force (ms)b 0.09 ± 0.01 0.10 ± 0.02 .06 0.63 0.10 ± 0.01 0.11 ± 0.02 .29 0.63
Time between B:P force (ms)b 0.06 ± 0.01 0.07 ± 0.01 .55 1.00 0.07 ± 0.01 0.08 ± 0.01 .59 1.00
Contact time (s) 0.23 ± 0.03 0.25 ± 0.02 .16 0.78 0.24 ± 0.02 0.25 ± 0.01 .16 1.00

Note. Significant differences (P ≤ .05) between defensive and offensive conditions for a females and bmales. B:P, braking and propulsive.

Discussion
The current study is the first to quantify and examine the differences
in lower body kinematics, vertical GRF, and impulse variables
between sexes during offensive and defensive agility conditions
and compare differences in kinematic and kinetic variables between
agility conditions. The findings from this study demonstrated that
males produced significantly faster defensive and offensive agil-
ity movements as characterized by a faster decision time and post
stride velocity; producing greater force, impulse, and trunk and knee
flexion angles when compared with females. Differences between
offensive and defensive movements were only observed during
two-step movement trials. Significantly greater force and impulse
were produced during the agility condition for each sex where a
faster decision time was recorded. These observed differences in
kinematics and kinetics between sexes and agility conditions might
be attributed to numerous factors, including decision-making abil-
ity, strength, and neuromuscular variables, which have been shown
to cause variations in rate of force development capabilities, force
application, and postural strategies employed when changing direc-
tion.3,22,23
Sex differences associated with the production of force during
high-velocity athletic movements have been attributed to differ-
ences in perceptual-cognitive speed,24 neuromuscular properties
of the lower limbs,8,25 and lower body strength characteristics.13
The combination of a faster decision time to identify specific kine-
matic cues available from the human stimulus and greater lower
body strength, as observed by male athletes in the current study,
increases the time available to apply more force and impulse during
the braking phase of the movement,13 enabling a faster exit veloc-
ity to be achieved.12,13,18 This may be due to a “faster” or “more
refined” neuromuscular system, whereby the interaction between
higher cognitive function and muscle (neural and morphological)
characteristics is required during high-velocity movements involv-
ing a temporal sensory perturbation such as agility for a faster post
COD stride velocity to be achieved. Differences in muscle fiber
type, size, and elasticity23,26 have been reported to influence rate
of force development capabilities and produce variations in lower
body kinematics and kinetics between sexes during eccentric and
concentric phases of a jump.22,27 Specifically, a greater percentage
of slow twitch muscle fibers and reduced tendon stiffness have been
found to increase electromechanical delay and time to activation,
resulting in a longer movement time in females during a lower body
reaction time test.24 This apparent delay in neuromuscular activation
between sexes, coupled with longer decision-making time evident
in female athletes, may explain the differences observed in maximal
braking (eccentric) and propulsive (concentric) force and impulse
production between sexes in the current study.
An important component of agility performance is an ath-
lete’s ability to rapidly decelerate and reaccelerate, which requires
sufficient lower body strength to both stop and then increase the
momentum and velocity of the center of mass to successfully avoid
518  Spiteri, Hart, and Nimphius

Figure 2 — Mean stance phase joint rotations for male (n = 12) and female (n = 12) subjects during defensive and offensive agility trials. Data are rep-
resented for: one-step trials including (a) knee flexion-extension, (b) hip flexion-extension, (c) hip abduction-adduction, and (d) spine flexion-extension;
and two-step trials including (e) knee flexion-extension, (f) hip flexion-extension, (g) hip abduction-adduction, and (h) spine flexion-extension.

or pursue opponents. Increased GRF production is a commonly
observed feature of faster running speeds28 in athletes who have
greater lower body strength to rapidly apply force throughout the
duration of the movement. In particular, increasing GRF during
the braking phases of sprinting or COD movements,13 as observed
by males during offensive and defensive movements, has been
identified as contributing to the storage and utilization of elastic
energy,12 enabling an increased propulsive force output improving
acceleration ability. Many studies have reported mixed findings
regarding improvements in strength and subsequent translation to
COD performance.29,30 Recent research has reported strong and sig-
nificant correlations between propulsive force, propulsive impulse,
and post COD stride velocity during COD movements for stronger
athletes.31 These findings, in conjunction with the current study,
indicate that a higher level of strength capacity enables athletes to
rapidly and systematically coordinate force application throughout
the movement. This is required to increase impulse production,
which involves a time component in which to apply force, in order
to increase an athlete’s momentum out of directional changes.
Differences in lower body kinematics between sexes during
COD movements have been well documented.3,7,9,10 While a major-
ity of kinematic differences are attributed to anthropometrical

characteristics,32 findings of the current study are similar to previous
performance-based research,6,13 reporting significantly greater knee
flexion and spine flexion angle in starter or male athletes who dem-
onstrated significantly greater lower body strength and subsequently
produced faster COD and agility performance. While no significant
differences were observed for hip flexion angle between sexes, the
upright body position and unfavorable kinematic chain adopted by
female athletes not only increases the risk of lower limb injury,3,7
but also reduces the ability to produce and direct force application
to improve post COD stride velocity. For example, during a move-
ment such as a sprint start, an athlete is permitted to adjust their
hip, knee, and ankle angle out of the start blocks; enabling triple
extension of the lower limbs and lengthening of the muscle-tendon
complex to optimize the force-length relationship, resulting in a
greater force output and acceleration.33 Agility movements however,
require athletes to possess greater lower body strength to enter a
lower body position across stance phase13,30 to improve mechanical
functioning of the lower limbs to increase acceleration.
When changing direction to opposition movements, an ath-
lete’s perception regarding the amount of time and space available
may compromise postural preparation, increasing injury risk and
compromising performance outcomes. During two-step movement
trials, the human stimulus initiated movement closer to the COD,
resulting in a significantly greater hip abduction angle observed in
male athletes. Previous research has also observed a greater lateral
foot plant during agility movements3,34 due to an athlete’s perceived
need to rapidly decelerate and enable rapid reacceleration in the
new direction. Executing the COD movement with a prominent
lateral foot plant increases the acceleration of the center of mass to
the contralateral side,35 as a greater approach angle and lower body
position creates an optimal kinematic chain to better direct force
application. As no significant difference in hip abduction angle was
observed during one-step movement trials between sexes, we can
conclude that males had a greater ability to overcome the increased
spatial demand by demonstrating a faster decision time in response
to the human stimulus, enabling a more optimal body position to
be adopted during stance phase.
Reactive movements during team sports are often in response
to opponent’s actions, either in offensive (incompatible) or defen-
sive (compatible) situations. Stimulus-response compatibility,
determined by the spatial correlation between the stimulus and the
appropriate response,36 is known to affect the rate of information
processing and the speed of the upcoming motor response depend-
ing on the tactical situation. While previous research has observed
faster reaction times during compatible conditions, as the required
response is processed within intrahemispheric nervous circuits,36,37
results of the current study partly contradict pervious findings, with
males producing a faster decision time during incompatible (offen-
sive) agility movements. It can be assumed that during defensive
movements, greater attentional demand and tracking of kinematic
cues is constantly required to defend the opposition, whereas
offensive movements require athletes to locate and identify relevant
cues at that one point in time to successfully evade the opposition.
This may explain why males produced a faster agility performance
during the offensive condition, as they displayed a greater ability to
anticipate the upcoming action by eliciting a higher percentage of
negative decision time results. Despite males and females respond-
ing differently, it is clear that differences between offensive and
defensive movements appear to be attributed to perceptual-cognitive
factors, with both sexes producing greater force and impulse during
the condition where a faster decision time was observed.
Kinematics and Ground Reaction Forces During Agility  519
Previous research has also identified that preactivation of the neu-
romuscular system is advantageous during competition by enabling
a quicker motor response.22 Faster movement times, specifically a
significantly faster time between braking and propulsive peaks and
time to peak propulsive force, coupled with greater force and impulse
produced by males, resulted in a significantly faster post COD stride
velocity during offensive agility movements. This could be due to their
faster decision time, where preactivation and preparation enables a
reduction in the natural electromechanical delay (EMD) of the body
that occurs before heel strike, which has been demonstrated previously
in other high-velocity movements.22,38 While the current study did not
measure muscle activation, previous research has demonstrated that a
shorter EMD is associated with a higher magnitude of initial muscle
activation and force production.39,40 This enables a higher aggregate
of force to be produced in an equivalent time period.39,40 Improved
timing and greater force production as a result of increased preparation
time may explain the faster exit velocity observed in males during
offensive movements and females during defensive movements.
While there were kinematic differences between sexes, no differences
were observed between offensive and defensive maneuvers within
each sex. This could further implicate decision time and strength
as trainable factors to improve the kinetics profile of offensive and
defensive agility movements.
While the findings of the current study provide understanding of
the significant biomechanical variables contributing to a faster agility
performance, the current study did not directly measure lower body
muscle activation, EMD, or visual gaze strategies that may have been
employed throughout the movement. These contributing factors may
further distinguish agility performance between sexes. In addition, these
factors may provide a greater understanding of the perceptual-cognitive
and neuromuscular factors required to achieve faster offensive and
defensive agility movements. To address these limitations and expand
on the findings of the current study, future research should directly
quantify these variables between male and female athletes and offensive
and defensive agility movements in order to advance the understanding
of the limiting factors of agility to improve performance.
While differences were observed between male and female
athletes, which can be attributed to the various anthropometrical,
neuromuscular, and neurophysiological differences between sexes, it
appears differences between offensive and defensive movements are
largely a result of neuromuscular and neurophysiological qualities.
Therefore, it appears based upon the present data that testing, training,
and developing agility should be specifically designed for both offensive
and defensive movements, as distinctive biomechanical and perceptual-
cognitive differences are evident between movement scenarios.
References
1. Serpell BG, Ford M, Young WB. The development of a new test of agility
for rugby league. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(12):3270–3277. PubMed
2. Spiteri T, Nimphius S, Wilkie J. Comparision of running times during
reactive offensive and defensive agility protocols. J Aus Strength Cond.
2012;20(Suppl 1):73–78.
3. McLean SG, Lipfert SW, van den Bogert AJ. Effect of gender and
defensive opponent on the biomechanics of sidestep cutting. Med
Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36(6):1008–1016. PubMed doi:10.1249/01.
MSS.0000128180.51443.83
4. Sheppard JM, Young WB, Doyle TL, Sheppard TA, 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.
2006;9(4):342–349. PubMed doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2006.05.019
520  Spiteri, Hart, and Nimphius
5. Young WB, Willey B. Analysis of a reactive agility field test. J Sci Med
Sport. 2010;13(3):376–378. PubMed doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2009.05.006
6. Green BS, Blake C, Caulfield BM. A comparison of cut-
ting technique performance in rugby union players. J Strength
Cond Res. 2011;25(10):2668–2680. PubMed doi:10.1519/
JSC.0b013e318207ed2a
7. Ford KR, Myer GD, Toms HE, Hewett TE. Gender differences
in the kinematics of unanticipated cutting in young athletes. Med
Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37(1):124–129. PubMed doi:10.1249/01.
MSS.0000150087.95953.C3
8. Landry SC, McKean KS, Hubley-Kozey CL, Stanish WD, Deluzio KJ.
Gender differences exist in neuromuscular control patterns during the
pre-contact and early stance phase of an unanticipated side-cut and
cross-cut maneuver in 15–18 years old adolescent soccer players. J
Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2009;19(5):e370–379. PubMed doi:10.1016/j.
jelekin.2008.08.004
9. Sigward SM, Powers CM. The influence of gender on knee kinematics,
kinetics and muscle activation patterns during side-step cutting. Clin
Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2006;21(1):41–48. PubMed doi:10.1016/j.
clinbiomech.2005.08.001
10. Pollard CD, Davis IM, Hamill J. Influence of gender on hip and knee
mechanics during a randomly cued cutting maneuver. Clin Biomech
(Bristol, Avon). 2004;19(10):1022–1031. PubMed doi:10.1016/j.
clinbiomech.2004.07.007
11. Cheuvront SN, Carter R, DeRuisseau KC, Moffatt RJ. Running perfor-
mance differences between men and women: an update. Sports Med.
2005;35(12):1017–1024. PubMed doi:10.2165/00007256-200535120-
00002
12. Hunter JP, Marshall RN, McNair PJ. Relationships between ground
reaction force impulse and kinematics of sprint-running acceleration.
J Appl Biomech. 2005;21(1):31–43. PubMed
13. Spiteri T, Cochrane JL, Hart NH, Haff GG, Nimphius S. Effect of
strength on plant foot kinetics and kinematics during a change of
direction task. Eur J Sport Sci. 2013;13(6):646–652. PubMed
14. Requena B, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ, de Villareal ES, Ereline J, Garcia I,
Gapeyeva H, Paasuke M. Functional performance, maximal strength,
and power characteristics in isometric and dynamic actions of lower
extremities in soccer players. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(5):1391–
1401. PubMed doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181a4e88e
15. Nuzzo JL, McBride JM, Cormie P, McCaulley GO. Relationship
between countermovement jump performance and multijoint isometric
and dynamic tests of strength. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22(3):699–
707. PubMed doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31816d5eda
16. Spiteri T, Cochrane JL, Nimphius S. Human stimulus reliability during
an offensive and defensive agility protocol. J Aus Strength Cond.
2012;20(4):20–27.
17. Besier TF, LLoyd DG, Cochrane JL, Ackland TR. External loading of
the knee joint during running and cutting maneuvers. Med Sci Sports
Exerc. 2001;33(7):1168–1175. PubMed doi:10.1097/00005768-
200107000-00014
18. Glaister BC, Orendurff MS, Schoen JA, Bernatz GC, Klute GK.
Ground reaction forces and impulses during a transient maneuver.
J Biomech. 2008;41(14):3090–3093. PubMed doi:10.1016/j.jbio-
mech.2008.07.022
19. Holm S. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand
J Stat. 1979;6(2):65–70.
20. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. 2nd
ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
21. Hopkins WG. A new view of statistics. Internet Society for Sport Sci-
ence; 2002. Available: http://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats
22. McBride JM, McCaulley GO, Cormie P. Influence of preactivity and
eccentric muscle activity on concentric performance during verti-
cal jumping. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22(3):750–757. PubMed
doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31816a83ef
23. Perez-Gomez J, Rodriduez GV, Ara I, et al. Role of muscle mass
on sprint performance: gender differences? Eur J Appl Physiol.
2008;102(6):685–694. PubMed doi:10.1007/s00421-007-0648-8
24. Spiteri T, Cochrane JL, Nimphius S. The evaluation of a new lower-
body reaction time test. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27(1):174–180.
PubMed doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e318250381f
25. Bencke J, Zebis MK. The influence of gender on neuromuscular pre-
activity during side-cutting. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2011;21(2):371–
375. PubMed doi:10.1016/j.jelekin.2010.10.008
26. Staron RS, Hagerman FC, Hikida RS, et al. Fiber type com-
position of the vastus lateralis muscle of young men and
women. J Histochem Cytochem. 2000;48(5):623–629. PubMed
doi:10.1177/002215540004800506
27. Kubo K, Kanehisa H, Fukunaga T. Gender differences in the
viscoelastic properties of tendon structures. Eur J Appl Physiol.
2003;88(6):520–526. PubMed doi:10.1007/s00421-002-0744-8
28. Brughelli M, Cronin J, Levin G, Chaouachi A. Understanding change
of direction ability in sport: a review of resistance training studies.
Sports Med. 2008;38(12):1045–1063. PubMed doi:10.2165/00007256-
200838120-00007
29. Negrete R, Brophy J. The relationship between isokinetic open and
closed kinetic chain lower extremity strength and functional perfor-
mance. J Sport Rehabil. 2000;9(1):46–61.
30. Young WB, Hawken M, McDonald L. Relationship between speed,
agility, and strength qualities in Australian rules football. Strength
Cond Coach. 1996;4(4):3–6.
31. Baker DG, Newton R. Comparison of lower body strength, power,
acceleration, speed, agility, and sprint momentum to describe and
compare playing rank among professional rugby league players.
J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22(1):153–158. PubMed doi:10.1519/
JSC.0b013e31815f9519
32. Malinzak RA, Colby SM, Kirkendall DT, Yu B, Garrett WE. A compar-
ison of knee joint motion patterns between men and women in selected
athletic tasks. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2001;16(5):438–445.
PubMed doi:10.1016/S0268-0033(01)00019-5
33. Mero A, Kuitunen S, Harland M, Kyrolainen H, Komi PV.
Effects of muscle–tendon length on joint moment and power
during sprint starts. J Sports Sci. 2006;24:165–173. PubMed
doi:10.1080/02640410500131753
34. Sigward SM, Powers CM. Loading characteristics of females
exhibiting excessive valgus moments during cutting. Clin Biomech
(Bristol, Avon). 2007;22(7):827–833. PubMed doi:10.1016/j.clinbio-
mech.2007.04.003
35. Patla AE, Adkin A, Ballard T. Online steering: coordination and control
of body center of mass, head and body reorientation. Exp Brain Res.
1999;129(4):629–634. PubMed doi:10.1007/s002210050932
36. Kato Y, Endo H, Kizuka T, Asami T. Automatic and imperative motor
activations in stimulus-response compatibility: magnetoencephalo-
graphic analysis of upper and lower limbs. Exp Brain Res. 2006;168(1-
2):51–61. PubMed doi:10.1007/s00221-005-0090-2
37. Adam JJ. The additivity of stimulus-response compatibility with
perceptual and motor factors in a visual choice reaction time task.
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2000;105(1):1–7. PubMed doi:10.1016/S0001-
6918(00)00042-1
38. Gabriel DA, Boucher JP. Effects of repetitive dynamic contractions
upon electromechanical delay. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol.
1998;79(1):37–40. PubMed doi:10.1007/s004210050470
39. Cavanagh PR, Komi PV. Electromechanical delay in human skeletal
muscle under concentric and eccentric contractions. Eur J Appl
Physiol Occup Physiol. 1979;42(3):159–163. PubMed doi:10.1007/
BF00431022
40. Winter EM, Brookes FB. Electromechanical response times and
muscle elasticity in men and women. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup
Physiol. 1991;63(2):124–128. PubMed doi:10.1007/BF00235181
 Copyright of Journal of Applied Biomechanics is the property of Human Kinetics Publishers,
Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.

View publication stats