+Model

SCISPO-3211; No. of Pages 7 ARTICLE IN PRESS

Science & Sports (2018) xxx, xxx—xxx

Disponible en ligne sur

ScienceDirect
www.sciencedirect.com

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Force-velocity muscular profiles and

jumping performances of soccer goalkeeper
Profils musculaires force-vitesse et performance en saut des
gardiens de but de football

T. Hervéou ∗, A. Rahmani , F. Chorin , J. Frère ,

M. Ripamonti , S. Durand

Laboratoire Motricité, Interactions, Performance, MIP - EA 4334, Le Mans Université, avenue Olivier
Messiaen, 72085 Le Mans cedex 9, France

Received 14 July 2016; accepted 31 October 2017

KEYWORDS
Muscle assessment;
Explosive capacities
Summary
Aims. — The aim of the study was to assess mechanical muscle capacities and profiles of well-
trained soccer goalkeepers playing at a national amateur level.
Methods. — Eleven goalkeepers (from 4th French division) performed vertical jump tests and
series of loaded half squat and bench throw tests to assess lower and upper limbs force-velocity
profiles, respectively. Force, velocity and power produced during each exercise were deter-
mined using a guided barbell. Maximal theoretical velocity and maximal theoretical force were
determined from the force-velocity profiles. Slopes of those profiles were also calculated.
Results. — Vertical jump performances were 38.5 ± 4.5 cm for the squat jump and 41.6 ± 5.5 cm
for the countermovement jump. Lower limbs stiffness was 304.2 ± 55.1 N.m−1 .kg−1 . Lower limbs
force-velocity profile was described by a slope of −11.5 ± 4.0 N.s.m−1 .kg−1 , with maximal the-
oretical force and velocity reaching 34.3 ± 5.9 N.kg−1 and 3.2 ± 0.2 m.s−1 , respectively. Upper
limbs muscular profile was described by a slope of −3.7 ± 1.1 N.s.m−1 .kg−1 , with maximal the-
oretical force and velocity of 13.6 ± 3.7 N.kg−1 and 3.7 ± 0.6 m.s−1 , respectively. These values
reveal that goalkeepers’ muscles profiles are oriented towards velocity.
Conclusion. — This suggests that whatever the goalkeepers’ level, specific and conditioning
trainings should mainly focus on velocity to optimize the performance of this specific soccer
player.
© 2018 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: thibaut.herveou.etu@univ-lemans.fr (T. Hervéou).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2017.10.008
0765-1597/© 2018 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Hervéou T, et al. Force-velocity muscular profiles and jumping performances of soccer
goalkeeper. Sci sports (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2017.10.008
+Model
SCISPO-3211; No. of Pages 7 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 T. Hervéou et al.

Résumé
MOTS CLÉS Objectifs. — Le but de l’étude était de déterminer les capacités et profils musculaires
Exploration mécaniques de gardiens de but de football très entraînés jouant au niveau national amateur.
musculaire ; Matériels et méthodes. — Onze gardiens de but (de 4e division) ont réalisé des tests de sauts ver-
Capacités explosives ticaux et, à l’aide d’une barre guidée, des séries de demi-squats et développé-couchés chargés
pour définir, respectivement, les profils force-vitesse des membres inférieurs et supérieurs. La
force, la vitesse et la puissance produites lors de chaque exercice étaient déterminées. La
vitesse maximale théorique et la force maximale théorique ont été calculées depuis les profils
force-vitesse. Les pentes des profils ont également été mesurées.
Résultats. — Les performances en saut vertical sont 38,5 ± 4,5 cm pour le squat jump et
41,6 ± 5,5 pour le saut en contre-mouvement. La raideur globale des membres inférieurs
est de 304,2 ± 55,1 N.m−1 .kg−1 . Le profil musculaire des membres inférieurs a une pente de
−11,5 ± 4,0 N.s.m−1 .kg−1 , avec une force maximale théorique de 34,3 ± 5,9 N.kg−1 et une
vitesse maximale théorique de 3,2 ± 0,2 m.s−1 . Le profil musculaire des membres supérieurs
présente une pente de −3,7 ± 1,1 N.s.m−1 .kg−1 , avec une force maximale théorique de
13,6 ± 3,7 N.kg−1 et une vitesse maximale théorique de 3,7 ± 0,6 m.s−1 .
Conclusion. — Ces valeurs révèlent que les profils musculaires des gardiens de but de football
sont orientés vers la vitesse. Quel que soit le niveau des gardiens de but, leur entraînement
physique général et spécifique doit être tourné principalement vers la vitesse pour optimiser
leurs performances.
© 2018 Elsevier Masson SAS. Tous droits réservés.

1. Introduction training program in field conditions compared to the other

The goalkeeper has a singular and key role in a soccer team.
In opposition to his teammates, the goalkeeper can use his
whole body including upper limbs (UL) inside the penalty
area to catch the ball. Jumps, dives, sprints, throws are
part of the actions that the goalkeeper can use to fulfil his
main mission: to prevent the ball to go completely across
his own goal line. Consequently, this position requires speed
and explosive capacities both from UL and lower limbs (LL)
[1], associated to agility and a good reaction velocity/time.
Since goalkeepers must have specific muscular capacities
[2], only a dedicated muscular training will allow him to
optimize these capacities.
Despite the importance of the goalkeeper, very few pub-
lications focused on this specific player. Nevertheless, it is
known that physical and anthropometrics differences exist
between players from different positions on the field [3—5].
For example, goalkeepers are usually taller and heavier than
the other players [6]. Moreover, their jumping performances
are among the best ones if you categorize players by their
position (i.e., Goalkeepers, Center backs, Midfielders, Full
backs, Strickers) [3,5]. Several other studies focused on
biomechanical analyses of goalkeeper’s diving [7], cognitive
demands [8,9] or injury [10]. But none of them interested
in physical profile of soccer goalkeepers. Consequently, the
present study focused both on (i) the description of soccer
goalkeepers’ LL and UL muscular profiles and (ii) the identi-
fication of some specific muscular qualities of these players
such as LL global stiffness. In this aim we performed a series
of physical test based on jumps and hopping tests and also
explored the force-velocity (F-V) profiles of LL and UL. Such
as never been performed in the literature. Determination
of these specific muscular qualities could help coaches and
athletes to maximize upper limb performance and manage
soccer players referring their position on the pitch. Dur-
ing the game, goalkeepers have regularly to produce LL
push off and to kick the ball with their hands as far as
possible when they cannot catch it. These movements are
performed with high velocity. We then hypothesised that for
both LL and UL, the F-V profile is rather oriented towards
velocity.
2. Methods
2.1. Subjects
Eleven well-trained goalkeepers (from 4th French division)
with more than ten years of experience participated to this
study. They trained 3 times per week, 2 hours per training
session. All the participants gave their informed consent
prior the measurements. Their mean age, height, body
mass and training experience were 24.3 ± 2.6 years old,
182.5 ± 6.4 cm, 78.2 ± 8.5 kg and 14.4 ± 3.6 years respec-
tively. Testing was carried out in accordance with the ethical
guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki (2013 version), and
was approved by the local ethics committee.
2.2. Testing protocol
2.2.1. Warm-up
Testing protocol was separated in two parts, begin-
ning by jumping capacities assessment. The F-V profiles
were evaluated after a rest period of 10 min. Before
the testing session, a typical pre-match warm-up has
been performed by goalkeepers. It was concluded by
specific jump exercises and presentation of the jump
tests.

Please cite this article in press as: Hervéou T, et al. Force-velocity muscular profiles and jumping performances of soccer
goalkeeper. Sci sports (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2017.10.008
+Model
SCISPO-3211; No. of Pages 7 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Muscular profiles of soccer goalkeepers
Then, before F-V assessment, subjects were acclimated
to the protocol by performing some squats and bench throws
with light loads.
2.2.2. Vertical jump
Vertical jumping capacities were assessed using an
®
OPTOJUMP apparatus (Microgate, Bolzano-Bozen, Italy)
®
connected to a laptop. The OPTOJUMP apparatus is an elec-
tronic chronometer which monitors time of flight (Tf ) and
contact time (Tc ) in seconds. It is validated for all types of
jump assessments [11]. Then, the heights of the jumps (h, in
®
cm) were calculated by the OPTOJUMP ’s software applying
ballistic laws:
1 the lightest loads, the subjects took off from the ground. No
h= g T2f
8 counter movement jump was allowed. The barbell was main-
where g is the acceleration of gravity (9.81 m.s−2 ).
Subjects performed series of Squat Jump (SJ) and CMJ
(Counter Movement Jump). These tests are common max-
imal vertical jumps and inform about the leg extension
ability. The SJ was performed from knee-joints preset at
90 degrees. No counter-movement was authorized. For the
CMJ, subject started from an erect standing position on
the ground and the end of the eccentric phase corresponds
approximately to the starting position of the SJ. For both SJ
and CMJ, goalkeepers were instructed to jump as high as pos-
sible, keeping their hands on their hips throughout the trial.
A 1 min resting period was respected between two trials.
The best of the three trials (highest jump) was considered
for further analysis.
2.2.3. Lower limbs stiffness
Goalkeepers’ lower limbs stiffness was estimated from a
rebound test of 5 s. Goalkeepers were instructed to hope
®
maximally between OPTOJUMP ’s barbells keeping their legs
as straight as possible and their hands on their hips.
Stiffness was then calculated by using the equation devel-
oped by Dalleau et al. [12]:
␲ (Tf + Tc )
K= T  pled at 1000 Hz) over the entire sampling period. Only
c+Tf
Tc 2 ␲
− Tc
4
K was calculated for each jump of the trial and the final
value considered was the mean of all jumps.
2.3. Force-velocity relationships
2.3.1. Data acquisition
When performing half-squats, the subjects stood directly
®
over a force-plate (type 9286BA, Kistler ). Charge ampli-
®
fiers (type 5691, Kistler ) amplified analog signals from the
force-plate. The amplifiers were reset to zero before the
subject stood on the force-plate. One force-plate was set
under subject’s feet for the squat. For the bench press, two
force-plates were set below bench’s feet in order to record
ground reaction forces.
Please cite this article in press as: Hervéou T, et al. Force-velocity muscular profiles and jumping performances of soccer
goalkeeper. Sci sports (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2017.10.008
3
2.3.2. Lower limbs force-velocity profile
These relationships were determined using a protocol similar
to the one defined by Rahmani et al. [13] during half-squat
exercises on guided barbell (Smith Machine Coaxial, Panatta
France, Rueil-Malmaison, France), which allows only vertical
movements. Subjects performed two maximal dynamic half
squats against load barbell ranging from 20 kg to 120 kg. The
loads were increased by 10 kg increments. At the start of the
movement, the knee angles were fixed at 90◦ . Angles were
measured with a manual goniometer to reproduce the same
position on each trial. Once the position was determined,
mechanical stops were placed below the guided horizontal
barbell to preserve this angle. Subjects were instructed to
lift the barbell as explosively as possible. Subjects had to
provide the fastest acceleration they could. Therefore, for
tained in contact with the shoulders throughout the motion.
Each trial was followed by a 3 min resting period. The trial
with the fastest LL extension was retained for statistical
analysis.
2.3.3. Upper limbs force-velocity profile
Subjects performed maximal bench throws as described by
Newton et al. [14]. The barbell was set skimming the trunk
stud-level. Once the position was determined, mechanical
stops were placed below the guided horizontal barbell to
preserve this position and allow the subject to execute
movement in the same position during consecutive trials.
Subject’s hands were set for each trial to make a 90 degrees
elbow angle. As it was done for half-squat, subject had to lift
the barbell as explosively as possible. To assure the maximal
velocity of the motion whatever the load, goalkeepers were
asked to throw the barbell that was secondly retained during
the drop phase by a manually-held rope. For each load, sub-
jects performed two maximal dynamic bench throws with
loaded barbell from 20 kg to the maximum of their capac-
ities. The loads were increased by 10 kg increments. Each
trial was separated by a 3-min resting period.
2.3.4. Data processing
Force was calculated from ground reaction force data (sam-
vertical force (Fz ) was used. To analyse the vertical force
®
curve, a customized script was developed on Matlab in
order to calculate, for each trial, the mean force and
the mean velocity of the subject. Force and velocity were
extracted from vertical force using the same procedure than
Rahmani et al. [13]: the force-time curve gave the instan-
taneous velocity from the acceleration, provided by the
force signal (Fz ), divided by the whole moving mass (body
mass plus lifted mass for the loaded squat, upper limb mass
plus lifted mass for the bench press), after subtraction of
the gravitational acceleration. The integration constant was
zero because there was no initial movement. The instanta-
neous power was the product of force and the velocity at
any given time. F-V relationships for squat and bench press
exercises were described by linear regression and coefficient
of determination R2 . F0 , the theoretical maximal isometric
force, and V0 , the theoretical maximal velocity, correspond-
ing to the intercept of the F-V curve with the force and
+Model
SCISPO-3211; No. of Pages 7 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 T. Hervéou et al.

the velocity axes, respectively, were extrapolated from the

linear regression.
SF-V allows identifying the orientation of the profile
towards force or velocity according to the muscular capac-
ities of the subject. The optimal LL profile LL SF-V opt has
been calculated using the formula described in Samozino
et al. [15]. Finally, F-VIMB (in percentage) represents the gap
between the optimal profile LL SF-V opt calculated and the
observed profile LL SF-V . A positive value of F-VIMB represents
a deficit of force and a negative value represents a deficit
of velocity. Based on training and field considerations, we
deliberately decided to compute Sfvopt and F-VIMB solely
for LL. Indeed, force and velocity are both important perfor-
mance factors for the LL that can affect the running velocity
of the goalkeeper, his height of jump. . . However, this is less
the case for UL. Considering that the weight of the ball is
incomparable with the body weight supported by the LL, it is
preferable for the UL to be oriented towards velocity (field
observation) to stop the shots of the offending team. Con-
sequently, it makes no sense to us to determine an optimal
profile between force and velocity for the UL.

2.4. Statistics

Results are given as means and standard deviations. Coef-

ficients of variation (CV) were used to describe the
homogeneity of the results. In agreement with statistical
norms [17], coefficients of determination (R2 ) were used to
describe the F-V profiles. The level of statistical significance
was set at P < 0.05 for all procedures.

3. Results Figure 1 1A. Mean value and standard deviation of Lower

Limbs Force-Velocity profiles during half-squat exercise. 1B.
Mean SJ, CMJ and LL stiffness were 38.5 ± 4.5 cm for SJ, Mean value and standard deviation of Upper Limbs Force-
41.6 ± 5.5 cm for CMJ and 304.2 ± 55.1 N.m−1 .kg−1 , respec- Velocity profiles during bench press exercise.
tively (Table 1). Coefficients of variation (CV) were 11.8%,
13.3% and 18.1% for SJ, CMJ and K, respectively. (from 0 to 70 kg for UL and from 0 to 120 kg for LL). This
The mean F-V profile of goalkeepers is extracted from mean F-V profile exhibited significant linear relationships
the mean of Force and Velocity for each level of load in both LL (Fig. 1A, R2 = 0.92, P < 0.05) and UL (Fig. 1B,
R2 = 0.98, P < 0.05). The mean coefficient of determination
R2 extracted from the eleven profiles of each goalkeeper is
Table 1 Individual jumping performances (in cm) for Squat
for the UL R2 = 0.82 ± 0.12 and for the LL R2 = 0.83 ± 0.17.
Jump (SJ), Countermovement Jump (CMJ) and lower limbs
Regarding LL, the mean of F0 was equal to 34.3 ± 5.9
musculotendinous stiffness (K).
N.kg−1 and the mean V0 was equal to 3.2 ± 0.6 m.s−1
Subjects SJ (cm) CMJ (cm) LL K (N·m−1 ·kg−1 ) (Table 2). For UL, mean F0 was equal to 13.6 ± 4.3 N.kg−1
and mean V0 was equal to 3.7 ± 0.6 m.s−1 (Table 2). The
1 41.4 42.2 201.5 mean LL SF-V was equal to −11.5 ± 4.0 N.s.m−1 .kg−1 and the
2 49.6 53.6 257.3 mean UL SF-V was equal to −3.7 ± 1.1 N.s.m−1 .kg−1 (Table 2).
3 34 35.6 266.6
4 37.5 41.5 314
5 39.8 43.4 317.8
4. Discussion
6 34.8 33.3 378.3
7 34.2 36.8 284.6 This study is the first focusing on soccer goalkeepers’ mus-
8 34.8 38.9 294.7 cular capacities in both UL and LL. We confirm that both are
9 38.9 45 400.2 oriented towards velocity, not towards force. This appears
10 38.2 42.4 300.2 in accordance with the functions associated to goalkeepers’
11 40.7 45 330.6 playing position, namely to act explosively to stop the ball by
Average 38.5 41.6 304.2 diving, to sprint on short distance and to move quickly their
SD 4.5 5.5 55.1 arms towards the ball. Jumping capacities performances,
CV % 11.8 13.3 18.1 the LL stiffness values in addition to LL and UL F-V profiles
confirm this trend.

Please cite this article in press as: Hervéou T, et al. Force-velocity muscular profiles and jumping performances of soccer
goalkeeper. Sci sports (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2017.10.008
+Model
SCISPO-3211; No. of Pages 7 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Muscular profiles of soccer goalkeepers 5

Table 2 Individual lower (LL) and upper limbs (UL) values determined from force-velocity (F-V) profiles during half-squat and
bench press exercises.

Subjects LL F0 LL V0 LL SF-V LL SF-V F-VIMB (%) UL F0 UL V0 UL SF-V

(N/kg) (m/s) (N/s/m/kg) opt (N/s/m/kg) (N/kg) (m/s) (N/s/m/kg)

1 33.6 3.3 −10.3 −11.9 20 12.4 4 −3.1

2 35.5 4 −8.8 −14,3 38.3 12.9 4.4 −2.9
3 33.3 2.8 −11.9 −13.4 11.7 13 3.3 −4
4 27.5 3.1 −8.8 −14.1 37.4 9.5 3.4 −2.8
5 35.7 3.1 −11.4 −13.2 13.6 11.9 3.7 −3.2
6 31.5 3.2 −9.7 −15.2 36.4 10.3 3.8 −2.7
7 42 3.8 −11 −13.5 19.1 25.8 4.4 −5.9
8 23.1 4.1 −5.7 −17.6 67.5 13.9 2.4 −5.7
9 44.7 2.1 −21.3 −14.4 −48.1 13.2 3.6 −3.7
10 35.6 2.4 −15.2 −13.6 −11.4 12.8 3.6 −3.5
11 34.8 3 −11.8 −14.8 20.1 13.9 4.3 −3.2
Average 34.3 3.2 −11.5 −14.3 29.4 13.6 3.7 −3.7
SD 5.9 0.6 4 1.3 17.8 4.2 0.6 1.1
CV % 17.3 19.9 35.2 9.10 60.4 31.5 15.4 29.8

Jumping performance is considered as one of the key
quality of goalkeepers. It can be noticed that goalkeep-
ers’ jumping performances in the present study are close
to the one reported by Hoff et Helgerud [17] for Norwe-
gian professional soccer players. These authors studied the
jumping capacities of all the members of a soccer team
(field players and goalkeepers) and reported performances
of 41.1 cm for CMJ and 38.6 cm for SJ. Nevertheless, these
results were obtained for a soccer population with no differ-
entiation between field and goalkeepers players. Focusing
on the physiological and anthropometric characteristics of
young soccer players, Gil et al. reported CMJ and SJ perfor-
mances of 42.6 cm and 41.5 cm for goalkeepers, respectively
[6]. These values are in the range of those reported in
our study but contrast slightly with the one revealed for
elite goalkeepers by Sporis et al. (46.8 ± 1.4 cm for SJ and
48.5 ± 1.5 cm for CMJ) [3]. Boone et al. reported higher val-
ues for goalkeepers from the teams that competed in the
first league of Belgian championship (45.6 ± 2.6 cm for the
CMJ and 42.2 ± 2.9 cm for the SJ) [5]. Jumping performance
depends both on intrinsic physiological capacities [18] and
on training experience and frequency [19]. Consequently,
the fact that Sporis et al. [3] studied high level goalkeep-
ers submitted to extreme selection and important specific
training, while our subjects are well-trained but not at a high
level (4th French division) could explain this difference.
Even if CMJ and SJ do not exactly correspond to goal-
keepers specific jump produced on the pitch to catch the
ball, they bring important information on LL abilities.
Nevertheless, goalkeepers usually perform split-steps
before diving or stopping the ball. This movement gives
the goalkeepers better muscular reactivity and prepares
the LL muscles to the immediate next action. Split-steps’
quality can be related to the LL stiffness. Split-steps allow
LL muscles pre-activation just before extension. They will
enhance goalkeepers’ jump and dive performances, and
explosivity. Accordingly, a high LL stiffness seems necessary
for an optimal performance of the goalkeepers. Using the
Dalleau et al.’s method to assess global musculotendinous
K of LL [12], and to our knowledge, values reported in
the present study (304.2 ± 55.1 N.m−1 .kg−1 ) are lower than
the ones for second and third series ranking tennis players
(478.7 ± 181.7 N.m−1 .kg−1 ) [20]. This result suggests that
the importance of specific LL stiffness workout in soccer
goalkeepers’ training program is under-estimated while such
workout could improve the efficiency of their split-steps.
Furthermore, explosive ability can also be revealed
thanks to the F-V profile. For LL, goalkeepers present equiv-
alent F0 values compared to throwers or young rowers
[23,24]. This is not the case for V0 since the values reported
for young rowers are lower. One major difference in these
three activities is the cyclic performance of the rowers who
have to repeat their performance continuously during sev-
eral minutes when goalkeepers, most of the times, and
throwers have to perform at their best in less than one sec-
ond. This observation conforms with the idea that in these
three physical activities, the ‘‘LL force’’ factor contributes
significantly to the waited global performance, but that the
specificity of the activity prevents the rowers to perform as
fast as goalkeepers or throwers.
For UL, to the best of our knowledge, only Bourdin et al.
exhibited F0 and V0 values extracted from bench press test-
ing but for a group of athletic throwers [23]. Goalkeepers
presented higher F0 (13.6 ± 4.3 N.kg−1 vs. 11.8 ± 1.1 N.kg−1 )
and V0 (3.7 ± 0.6 m.s−1 vs. 2.5 ± 0.3 m.s−1 ) values. F0 being
reported relatively to the body mass, it is not absolutely
surprising to observe higher F0 in goalkeepers. When con-
sidering absolute values, throwers present in fact higher F0
values. Again, for these two populations, explosive abilities
of UL appear like a factor of performance yet, the weight
of the shot is much higher than the one of the soccer ball
(7.260 vs. 0.800 kg, respectively). This likely explains the
higher V0 that we are reporting for goalkeepers.
In our study, the slope value of the mean LL profile
was −11.5 ± 4 N.s.m−1 .kg−1 , suggesting that the goalkeep-
ers studied have a LL F-V profile more oriented towards
velocity as it is obviously the case in events like sprint-
ing and jumping (−8.06 ± 1.91 N.s.m−1 .kg−1 ) [25] and also

Please cite this article in press as: Hervéou T, et al. Force-velocity muscular profiles and jumping performances of soccer
goalkeeper. Sci sports (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2017.10.008
+Model
SCISPO-3211; No. of Pages 7 ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 T. Hervéou et al.
during physical activities including intermittent explosive
efforts (−9.3 ± 3.3 N.s.m−1 .kg−1 for athletes practising bas-
ketball, rugby, soccer) [26]. As a comparison, a SF-V value of
−24.1 ± 9.7 N.s.m−1 .kg−1 was reported for high-level rugby
players from the Australian league [27]. This value oriented
toward force can be explained by the resistance and force
trainings usually used in rugby. SF-V depends on athletes’
level and training background. In contrast, goalkeepers have
to sprint, to jump and to dive quickly. To the best of our
knowledge, only Buccheit et al. [28] and Nikolaïdis et al.
[29] have specifically described LL soccer players F-V profile,
but for young players. Furthermore, F-V profiles presented
by these authors were obtained from a sprint task [28] or
following an incremented cycling task [29]. Consistently,
our data are uneasily comparable with the different values
reported but have the undeniable advantage to be obtained
from a task specific to goalkeepers. It is valuable to note that
goalkeepers’ SF-V value (−11.5 ± 4 N.s.m−1 .kg−1 ) is close to
the value (−11.6 ± 7.36 N.s.m−1 .kg−1 ) reported by Samozino
et al. [15] for a population composed mainly of soccer play-
ers (31 soccer players from 4th French division, 11 sprinters
and 6 rugby players). These results suggest that goalkeep-
ers present a similar profile than a population constituted
by sportsmen for whom the velocity is preponderant in their
activity.
In the literature, compared to LL, there is few data
concerning UL F-V profile. The UL SF-V value reported in
our study (−3.7 ± 1.1 N.s.m−1 .kg−1 ) is nearer than the val-
ues extrapolated from Bourdin et al. [23] in throwers
(−4.7 N.s.m−1 .kg−1 ). These authors have reported a signif-
icant relationship between the UL maximal power and the
throwing performance. The UL profile and the importance of
the release velocity, which is considered as the main deter-
minant of throwing performance, seems to orient the F-V
profile towards a velocity profile. The slope obtained if the
present study for soccer goalkeepers confirms a muscular
profile oriented preferentially towards velocity. As afore-
mentioned, this is in accordance with the specificity of their
activities.
Determination of LL and UL profiles seems to be an inter-
esting way to evaluate precisely muscular capacities, using
F0 and V0 , and the orientation of the profile. Morin et al.
have published a vade mecum to use F-V profiles for indi-
vidualised and specific training [30]. Using SF-V , Samozino
et al. revealed that in order to obtain the best ballistic
performance possible, the F-V profile has to be balanced
between force and velocity for a given maximal power [31].
Values of F-VIMB showed a lack of force for the subjects prob-
ably due to the weak muscular training background of these
goalkeepers. To obtain the best ballistic performance in LL
extension, strength exercise, progressive as function of age,
should be prescribed during young goalkeepers’ trainings.
This confirms that goalkeepers’ training plan should be a
compromise between the enhancement of velocity and the
preservation of an optimal level of force. If subjects are
not well trained, the first aim of the training will be to
improve their level of force to optimise their maximal power
and then enhance their vertical jump capacities. Such train-
ing plan could include combination of jump exercises (using
hurdles, stairs of weights) and specific resistance training
using optimal loads in addition to the usual training on the
pitch.
Please cite this article in press as: Hervéou T, et al. Force-velocity muscular profiles and jumping performances of soccer
goalkeeper. Sci sports (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2017.10.008
Results of this study lead to training practical considera-
tions and applications, Determination of F-V profiles should
help coaches and athletes for fitness level follow-up in a
prophylactic perspective of training plans. Muscular training
will specifically benefit from F-V profiles-based training pro-
gram since individual adapted training load will limit injuries
and muscular damages associated to practice.
5. Conclusion
In conclusion, results of the present study showed that
the goalkeepers’ muscular LL and UL profiles are oriented
towards velocity, in line with their jumping abilities. Soccer
goalkeepers have to react to opponent actions with velocity
and precision to defend their goal. Sometimes they have to
sprint, sometimes to jump horizontally or vertically. Due to
the variety of their interventions soccer goalkeepers must
have appropriate muscular capacities but the force factor
does not initially appear as a major element of performance.
LL and UL profiles seem to be an interesting way to evaluate
precisely these muscular capacities, using F0 and V0 , and the
orientation of the profile, using SF-V . The imbalance of the
profile F-VIMB has to be verified and the coaches should take
it into account to design the training plan. To optimise ballis-
tic performance, training should be a compromise between
the enhancement of the maximal power and the reduction
of the F-VIMB percentage. We recommend the assessment of
F-V profile to be included in the physical follow-up of soccer
goalkeepers.
Disclosure of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interest.
References
[1] Di Salvo V, Benito PJ, Calderón FJ, Di Salvo M, Pigozzi F. 2008
Activity profile of elite goalkeepers during football match-play.
J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2008;48:443—6.
[2] Knoop M, Fernandez-Fernandez J, Ferrauti A. Evaluation of a
specific reaction and action speed test for the soccer goal-
keeper. J Strength Cond Res 2013;27:2141—8.
[3] Sporis G, Jukic I, Ostojic SM, Milanovic D. Fitness profiling in
soccer: physical and physiologic characteristics of elite play-
ers. J Strength Cond Res 2009;23:1947—53.
[4] Zig G, Lidor R. Physical characteristics, physiological
attributes, and one-field performances of soccer goalkeeper.
Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2011;6:509—24.
[5] Boone J, Vaeyens R, Steyaert A, Vanden Bossche L, Bourgois
J. Physical fitness of elite Belgian soccer players by players
position. J Strength Cond Res 2012;28:2051—7.
[6] Gil SM, Gil J, Ruiz F, Irazusta A, Irazusta J. Physiological
and anthropometric characteristics of young soccer players
according to their playing position: relevance for the selection
process. J Strength Cond Res 2007;21:438—45.
[7] Spratford W, Mellifont R, Burkett B. The influence of dive
direction on the movement characteristics for elite football
goalkeepers. Sport Biomech 2009;8:235—44.
[8] Piras A, Vickers JN. The effect of fixation transitions on quiet
eye duration and performance in the soccer penalty kick:
instep inside kick. Cognitive Process 2011;12:245—55.
+Model
SCISPO-3211; No. of Pages 7 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Muscular profiles of soccer goalkeepers
[9] Savelsbergh GJ, Williams AM, Van der Kamp J, Ward P. Visual
search, anticipation and expertise in expert soccer goalkeep-
ers. J Sport Sci 2005;20:279—87.
[10] Dunsmuir RA, McGarrity G, Barnes S. ‘‘Goalkeeper’s hip’’:
acute haematogenous osteomyelitis secondary to apophyseal
fractures. Br J Sports Med 2009;40:808—9.
[11] Glatthorn JF, Gouge S, Nussbaumer S, Stauffacher S, Impel-
lizzeri FM, Maffiuletti NA. Validity and reliability of optojump
photoelectric cells for estimating vertical jump height. J
Strength Cond Res 2011;25(2):556—60.
[12] Dalleau G, Belli A, Viale F, Lacour JR, Bourdin M. A simple
method for field measurements of leg stiffness in hopping. Int
J Sports Med 2004;25:170—6.
[13] Rahmani A, Viale F, Dalleau G, Lacour JR. Force/velocity and
power/velocity relationships in squat exercise. Eur J Appl Phys-
iol 2001;84:227—32.
[14] Newton RU, Kraemer WJ, Häkkinen K, Humphries BJ, Murphy
AJ. Kinematics, kinetics, and muscle activation during explo-
sive upper body movements. J Appl Biomech 1996;12:31—43.
[15] Samozino P, Edouard P, Sangnier S, Brughelli M, Gimenez P,
Morin JB. Force-velocity profile: imbalance determination and
effect on lower limb ballistic performance. Int J Sports Med
2014;35(6):505—10.
[17] Hoff J, Helgerud J. Maximal strength training enhances run-
ning economy and aerobic endurance performance. In: Hoff
J, Helgerud J, editors. Football (soccer): new developments in
physical training research. Trondheim: Norwegian University of
Science and Technology; 2002. p. 39—55.
[18] Rabita G, Couturier A, Lambertz D. Influence of training back-
ground on the relationships between plantarflexor intrinsic
stiffness and overall and muskuloskeletal stiffness during hop-
ping. Eur J Appl Physiol 2008;103:163—71.
[19] de Villareal ES, Kellis E, Kraeme WJ, Izquierdo M. Determining
variables of plyometric training for improving vertical jump
Please cite this article in press as: Hervéou T, et al. Force-velocity muscular profiles and jumping performances of soccer
goalkeeper. Sci sports (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2017.10.008
7
height performance: a meta analysis. J Strength Cond Res
2009;23:495—506.
[20] Durand S, Ripamonti M, Beaune B, Rahmani A. Leg ability fac-
tors in tennis players. Int J Sports Med 2010;31:882—6.
[23] Bourdin M, Rambaud O, Dorel S, Lacour JR, Moyen B, Rahmani
A. Throwing performance is associated with muscular perfor-
mance. Int J Sports Med 2010;31:505—10.
[24] Giroux C, Maciejewski H, Ben-Abdessamie A, Chorin F, Lardy J,
Ratel S, et al. Relationship between Force-Velocity profiles and
1500-m ergometer performance in young rowers. Int J Sports
Med 2017;38:992—1000.
[25] Jiménez-Reyes P, Samozino P, Cuadrado-Peñafiel V, Conceição
F, González-Badillo JJ, Morin JB. Effect of countermove-
ment on power-force-velocity profile. Eur J Appl Physiol
2014;114:2281—8.
[26] Samozino P, Morin JB, Hintzy F, Belli A. A simple method for
measuring force, velocity and power output during squat jump.
J Biomech 2008;41:2940—5.
[27] de Lacey J, Brughelli M, McGuigan M, Hansen K, Samozino
P, Morin JB. The effects of tapering on Power-Force-Velocity
profiling and jump performance in professional rugby league
players. J Strength Cond Res 2014;28:3567—70.
[28] Buchheit M, Samozino P, Glynn JA, Michael BS, Al Haddad H,
Mendez-Villanueva A, et al. Mechanical determinants of accel-
eration and maximal sprinting speed in highly trained young
soccer players. J Sports Sci 2014;32(20):1906—13.
[29] Nikolaidis PT. Age-related differences in force-velocity charac-
teristics in youth soccer. Kinesiol 2012;44(2):130—8.
[30] Morin JB, Samozino P. Interpreting power-force-velocity pro-
files for individualized and specific training. Int J Sports Physiol
Perform 2016;11:267—72.
[31] Samozino P, Rejc E, Di Prampero PE, Belli A, Morin JB. Optimal
force-velocity profile in ballistic movements — altius: citius or
fortius? Med Sci Sports Exerc 2012;44:313—22.