NUMBER 1 OF 1

AUTHOR QUERIES
DATE 2/3/2022
JOB NAME JSCR
ARTICLE JSCR-08-17541
QUERIES FOR AUTHORS S. Zabaloy et al.

THIS QUERY FORM MUST BE RETURNED WITH ALL PROOFS FOR CORRECTIONS

Please confirm the given names (pink) and surnames (blue) of authors have been identified correctly.
Please check and confirm whether all authors and their respective affiliations are appropriate.

AU1) Please provide the Department/Unit (if any) in affiliations “1–5 and 7.”
AU2) Please provide the book chapter name for the references 2, 15–17.
AU3) Please provide page range for the reference 16.
AU4) Please update the references 21 and 30.
 Original Research

Strength Deficit in Elite Young Rugby Players:

Differences Between Playing Positions and
Associations With Sprint and Jump Performance
Santiago Zabaloy,1,2 Julián Giráldez,1 Braian Fink,1 Pedro E. Alcaraz,3,4 Lucas A. Pereira,5,6
Tomás T. Freitas,3,5,6 and Irineu Loturco5,6,7
1
Faculty of Physical Activity and Sports, University of Flores, Buenos Aires, Argentina; 2Faculty of Sports Sciences, Pablo de Olavide
University, Seville, Spain; 3Research Center for High Performance Sport, Catholic University of Murcia (UCAM), Murcia, Spain; 4Faculty
AU1 of Sport Sciences, Catholic University of Murcia (UCAM), Murcia, Spain 5Nucleus of High Performance in Sport (NAR), São Paulo,
Brazil; 6Department of Human Movement Sciences, Federal University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil; and 7University of South Wales,
Pontypridd, Wales, United Kingdom

Abstract
Zabaloy, S, Giráldez, J, Fink, B, Alcaraz, PE, Pereira, LA, Freitas, TT, and Loturco, I. Strength deficit in elite young rugby players:
Differences between playing positions and associations with sprint and jump performance. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000–000,
2022—The aims of this study were twofold: to compare the strength-related performance between young forwards and backs
rugby players and to examine the correlations between strength deficit (SDef), strength parameters, and sprint and jump perfor-
mance. Fifty-seven male rugby players (mean 6 SD: age, 17.4 6 1.3 years) performed anthropometric and body composition
assessments, vertical jumps, 30-m sprint, and squat (SQ) and bench press (BP) 1-repetition maximum tests (1RM SQ and BP). The
differences in the tested variables between positions were analyzed through an independent t-test. A Pearson’s correlation
coefficient was used to assess the relationships among the variables. Significant differences were observed for anthropometric and
body composition measures and jump and sprint performance between positions (p , 0.05; effect size [ES]: 0.60–1.34), except for
5-m velocity (p 5 0.080; ES: 0.57). Backs demonstrated higher relative 1RM than forwards in both exercises (p 5 0.009 and p 5
0.008; ES 5 0.88 and 0.91, for SQ and BP, respectively). In addition, backs demonstrated lower SDef from 70 to 90% 1RM (p ,
0.048) but small-to-moderate nonsignificant lower SDef against lighter loads compared with forwards (50–60% 1RM). Overall, SDef
across all loads (r: 20.378 to 20.529) and 1RM SQ (r: 0.504 to 20.590) were significantly related to sprint performance. Therefore,
young rugby players who present lower magnitudes of SDef and superior 1RM SQ performance tend to be faster in linear sprints.
Key Words: muscle strength, youth athletes, team sports, resistance training, athletic performance

Introduction (Vmax) being a discriminant factor across age categories (7,31).

Regarding strength, published data indicate that forwards possess
Rugby union is characterized by high-intensity intermittent ac-
greater absolute values in comparison to backs, which may be
tivities consisting of sprints, collisions, accelerations, decelera-
partially explained by their larger body mass (BM) (29,32).
tions, and high-speed running interspersed with periods of lower-
However, in general, strength capacity, expressed either in ab-
intensity activity and recovery (26). Playing positions in rugby can
solute or relative terms (normalized to BM), is essential to rugby
be generalized into forwards and backs, each one of them re-
union success (12) because its expression and generation is critical
quiring different physical and anthropometric profiles
for contact and confrontational situations (5).
(6,7,29,32) owing to their different game demands. For instance,
More specifically, strength is a basic quality that affects nu-
although the primary tasks of forwards are to gain and retain ball
merous physical and technical skills, which is usually assessed by
possession (usually in contact situations involving multiple
the 1-repetition maximum (1RM) test (21). Accordingly, relative
players), backs are regularly required to move fast in the field and
strength in the squat exercise (SQrel) was reported to be a dis-
avoid contact, which demands greater levels of acceleration and
criminating factor for sprinters and rugby players (21), whereas
speed (1).
1RM squat (SQ) was found to be significantly different between
The contrasting physical profiles of the different rugby playing
backs and forwards in collegiate rugby athletes (23). Following
positions have been extensively documented in the literature
the latter evidence, strength deficit (SDef), previously defined and
(7,9,29,32). For example, forwards are usually heavier, taller,
described as the difference (expressed in percentage) between the
and exhibit a greater body fat percentage than backs (7,9,13).
force produced when the resistance is the maximum that can be
Moreover, previous research (7) in young rugby players reported
lifted (i.e., 1RM) and any other force value achieved against
greater sprint velocities for backs compared with forwards, in
submaximal loads (15–17,21), seems to be another critical vari-
different split distances from 10 to 40 m, with maximum velocity
able to analyze players’ performance. To date, only Loturco et al.
Address correspondence to Santiago Zabaloy, cszab1@alu.upo.es. (21) have reported that sprinters present lower SDef (p , 0.03)
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 00(00)/1–7 when compared with rugby players across a comprehensive range
ª 2022 National Strength and Conditioning Association of loads (40–70% 1RM). From a practical perspective, lower

Copyright © 2022 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Strength Deficit and Physical Performance in Rugby (2022) 00:00
levels of SDef imply that an athlete is able to use greater per-
centages of his or her ability against lighter loads (e.g., 40% 1RM)
(17,21). Therefore, it can be expected that athletes with lower
levels of SDef may also be able to apply greater amounts of force
against their own BM (21).
Indeed, the superior capacity of sprinters to apply force against
lighter loads (when compared with rugby players) seems to be
connected to their superior sprint and jump performance (21). In
this context, it can be assumed that in sports where sprinting and
jumping abilities are decisive and discriminating aspects
(i.e., rugby) (7,29,32), SDef may also be considered a relevant
factor. Research in this regard is essential to understand more
deeply the influence of maximum strength and its derived pa-
rameters on rugby performance (21). No studies have simulta-
neously examined the differences in maximum strength and SDef
across a range of loads and their possible associations with var-
ious physical qualities in young rugby players. Therefore, the aims
of this study were 2-fold: (a) to compare the strength-related
performance between young forwards and backs and (b) to ex-
amine the correlations between SDef (from 40 to 90% RM
[SDef40 to SDef90]), strength parameters (i.e., 1RM SQ, SQrel),
sprint and jump performance. Because backs are usually faster
than forwards, we hypothesized that they would display lower
levels of SDef (21). Additionally, based on previous research
(17,21), we also expected that SDef would negatively correlate
with SQrel, sprint speed, and vertical jump height.
Methods
Experimental Approach to the Problem
This cross-sectional study aimed to examine the differences in
various strength-derived parameters, vertical jumping ability, and
30-m sprint performance between young backs and forwards.
Players were assessed on a range of anthropometric (height, BM,
and + 3 skinfolds) and physical (5-, 30-m sprint, 1RM in SQ and
bench press [BP]; and countermovement [CMJ], squat [SJ], and
rebound 10-to-5 jumps [RJT]) assessments. The testing sessions
were conducted over a 2-week period on separate days, with a
recovery time of 48–72 hours between sessions. On week 1, at the
first testing session, players were tested for anthropometrics and
body composition. At the second and third testing sessions,
players were assessed for jumping ability and 30-m sprint per-
formance. On week 2, rugby players performed the SQ and BP
1RM tests. All measurements were performed at the same time of
the day (61 hour), under similar environmental conditions
(20–25° C and 55–65% humidity) and supervised by a certified
and experienced strength and conditioning coach.
Subjects
Fifty-seven amateur male rugby players (mean 6 SD: age, 17.4 6
1.3 years; age range, 16–19 years; anthropometric measures
provided in Table 1) competing at junior level volunteered to
T1 participate in this study (backs, n 5 30; forwards, n 5 27).
Subjects had a minimum of 5 years of playing experience and
played in the most important Argentinean junior league
(i.e., Buenos Aires Rugby Union first division). They regularly
participated in approximately 6 weekly training sessions (3
strength training and speed sessions and 3 technical and tactical
sessions) and played once a week. No physical limitations or
musculoskeletal injuries that could affect testing were reported by
the clubs’ medical staff. The study met the ethical standards and
Copyright © 2022 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
was approved by an Institutional Research Ethics Committee,
conformed to the recommendations of the Declaration of Hel-
sinki. After being informed of the purpose and experimental
procedures, subjects and their legal guardians signed a written
informed consent form before participation.
Procedures
Anthropometric and Body Composition. All anthropometric and
skinfold measurements were performed twice by a level-II prac-
titioner certified by the International Society for the Advancement
of Kinanthropometry (ISAK). Body mass was measured using an
electronic scale (HD-366, Tanita Corporation, Japan); height was
measured using a height rod and a vertex (Rosscraft Innovations,
Vancouver, Canada), following the protocol recommended by
the ISAK. Regarding skinfolds measurements, the protocol sug-
gested by Jackson and Pollock (20) was used, as previously de-
scribed (8). Skinfold measurements were obtained from pectoral,
abdominal, and midthigh, always on the right side of the body,
with a skinfold caliper (Rosscraft Innovations, Vancouver, Can-
ada). Afterward, fat mass absolute (FM), percentage (FMrel), and
lean mass absolute (LM) were calculated using BM and the for-
mula provided by Jackson and Pollock (19). The intraclass cor-
relation coefficients (ICC) and coefficients of variation (CV) for
relative and absolute reliability across all measures were as fol-
lows: ICC . 0.99 and CV , 4.0%.
Sprinting Speed. Subjects performed two 30-m sprints on a rugby
pitch (natural turf), with 3 minutes of recovery between each trial.
The warm-up protocol consisted of 5 minutes of low-intensity
running, joint mobility, multidirectional displacements, and
progressive 10- to 30-m sprints, with an overall duration of 20
minutes. Timing gates (Chronojump; Boscosystem, Barcelona,
Spain) were placed at 0-, 5-, 10-, 20-, and 30 m. The test started on
a 2-point staggered position, just behind a line 0.5-m away from
the first timing gate. Maximum velocity (Vmax) was calculated by
dividing the ratio of 10-m and the fastest 10-m split time (i.e., time
10-20-m or time 20-30-m), whereas sprint velocity at 5 m (V5)
and 30 m (V30) was calculated as the total distance traveled
(i.e., 5 and 30 m, respectively) over a specific time interval (21). In
addition, initial (SMini) and maximal sprint momentum (SM)
were calculated by multiplying players BM by their respective
velocity (i.e., V5 and Vmax) (30). The best 30-m sprint was
retained for further analysis. The ICC and CV for relative and
absolute reliability in the variables assessed varied between 0.75
and 0.99 and between 1.6 and 5.9%, respectively.
Jump Tests. Jump tests were performed using a portable jump mat
(Chronojump; Boscosystem), as previously described (3). The
specific warm-up protocol consisted of bodyweight lunges and
squats and finally 3 sets of 2 repetitions of each jump (CMJ, SJ,
and RJT 10 to 5). Three repetitions of each jump were completed
separated by 15 seconds of recovery. The CMJ started with
players placing both hands on their hips and performed a coun-
termovement to approximately 90° of knee flexion before im-
mediately extending into a maximal vertical jump. The SJ was
performed afterward, from a squatting position with knees flexed
to approximately 90° for 2 seconds; and then, upon a verbal
command, they jumped for maximal height with the hands on the
hips. Subsequently, players performed the RJT 10 to 5 following
the guidelines proposed elsewhere (4). Briefly, subjects were
instructed to keep hands on hips to avoid upper-body
 Strength Deficit and Physical Performance in Rugby (2022) 00:00
Table 1
Comparison of anthropometric traits and body composition variables between playing positions.*,†,‡
Variables Fwd (n 5 27) Back (n 5 30)
Height (m) 1.80 6 0.07 1.76 6 0.06
Body mass (kg) 85.05 6 12.58 71.33 6 8.67
Pectoral SF (mm) 11.76 6 6.87 6.25 6 2.94
Abdominal SF (mm) 22.71 6 9.00 12.11 6 6.29
Thigh SF (mm) 17.09 6 6.78 13.16 6 6.12
Sum 3 SF (mm) 51.56 6 19.71 31.52 6 13.95
FM (%) 13.95 6 5.65 8.03 6 4.20
FM (kg) 12.36 6 6.46 5.91 6 3.70
LM (kg) 72.81 6 8.19 65.42 6 6.85
*CI 5 confidence interval; SF 5 skinfold; FM 5 fat mass; LM 5 lean mass.
†Data are presented as mean 6 SD.
‡ES and CI (90%): effects sizes and 90% CIs.
interference, jump and land on the same spot, land with legs ex-
tended and then flex them and to look ahead at a fixed point at all
times (4). In addition, subjects were also asked to maximize jump
height and minimize ground contact times. Eleven jumps were
completed in total, but the first was excluded because it was a
“CMJ” that initiated the “bounce” technique for the remaining
10 repeated jumps. To obtain RJT height (in centimeters) and
reactive strength index (RSI) authors followed previous research
guidelines (10). A 2-minutes rest interval was allowed between all
trials, and the best trial of each jump was used for analysis. The
following ICCs and CVs were obtained: CMJ (ICC: 0.990 and
CV: 2.17%), SJ (ICC: 0.992 and CV: 1.96%), RJT (ICC: 0.947
and CV: 6.51%), and RSI (ICC: 0.957 and CV: 6.93%).
Isoinertial Squat Loading Test. The 1RM SQ and BP were esti-
mated using a linear position transducer (Chronojump) for
measuring movement velocity. Recently, Weakley et al. (27)
reported that for accurate measurement of mechanical outputs
during resistance training, linear velocity or position transducers
should be used. The peak force (PF) was continuously assessed
during all attempts in the SQ at a sample frequency of 1,000 Hz by
a linear position transducer (Chronojump) attached to the bar-
bell. The assessment began after a specific warm-up protocol
previously used (24). Both exercises were assessed using a squat
rack, a bench, and an Olympic barbell (Taurus, Argentina). The
players performed the SQ from an upright position, descending at
a controlled velocity until the thighs surpassed the horizontal
plane, with the barbell resting freely on the upper part of the back.
The players were instructed to perform concentric actions at
maximal intended velocity and were not allowed to jump or take
the bar off of the shoulders. The initial load in the SQ was set at 30
kg and gradually increased by 5–10 kg. Three repetitions were
performed with each load with a 3-minute rest interval between
each set. The test concluded when players reached a mean pro-
pulsive velocity (MPV) close to approximately 0.5–0.6 m·s⁻1
(i.e., ;80–85% RM). Afterward, BP was performed starting from
a complete extension of the elbows until the barbell touched the
chest. To avoid bouncing, a pause of approximately 1 second
between the eccentric and concentric phases was interposed. The
initial load of the test was set at 20 kg and gradually increased by
5–10 kg. Three repetitions were performed with each load with a
3-minute rest interval between each set, and when players reached
a MPV close to approximately 0.5 m·s⁻1, the test concluded.
Once the assessment concluded, the 1RM values were esti-
mated in each exercise. The strong relationship between force and
velocity enables practitioners to rapidly estimate relative load
Copyright © 2022 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
| www.nsca.com
p % Difference (95% CI) ES (90% CI)
0.013 2.6 (0.6–4.6) 0.69 (0.24–1.14)
,0.001 16.1 (9.3–23.0) 1.25 (0.80–1.70)
,0.001 46.9 (22.6–71.1) 1.02 (0.56–1.48)
,0.001 46.7 (28.1–65.2) 1.34 (0.89–1.80)
0.030 23.0 (2.4–43.6) 0.60 (0.15–1.05)
,0.001 38.9 (20.9–56.9) 1.15 (0.70–1.61)
,0.001 42.5 (23.1–61.9) 1.17 (0.72–1.62)
,0.001 52.2 (29.2–75.20) 1.20 (0.75–1.66)
,0.001 10.1 (4.5–15.8) 0.96 (0.51–1.41)
(i.e., % 1RM), by simply monitoring movement velocity, while
avoiding time consuming and higher risk (especially in young
athletes) assessment of a direct 1RM test (22). In addition, because
SDef is calculated from PF against 1RM SQ (100%) and PF at
distinct relative intensities (i.e., from 40 to 90% 1RM), the fol-
lowing steps were implemented to obtain PF: first, a linear equation
was created from the relationship between the last 3 to 4 loads and
their respective PF values (transducer estimates a PF value for each
absolute load) that was used to estimate PF at 1RM SQ; second a
second degree polynomial equation was created from the re-
lationship between PF (from the lowest load to 1RM) and the
percent of 1RM estimated for each load (from the proposed
equation for men) that was used to estimate PF values between 40
and 90% of 1RM; and third once PF between 40 and 100% 1RM
were estimated, SDef was calculated as the percentage differences
between PF at distinct percent of 1RM and PF at 1RM. Example,
(SDef at 40% of 1RM) 5 ([PF at 100% 2 PF at 40%]/PF at 100%)
3 100. Coefficient of determination (R2) and standard error of
estimate (SEE) were as follows: 0.99 6 0.01 and 39.25 6 24.02 (N)
for the forwards and 0.99 6 0.01 and 31.48 6 14.78 (N) for the
backs, respectively. No differences were observed between posi-
tions with regards to the respective SEE (p 5 0.329). Relative
strength values for the SQ and BP were reported as the ratio be-
tween absolute 1RM and BM (SQrel and BPrel), and PF values were
also normalized to the athletes’ BM (RPF [N·kg21]).
Statistical Analyses
Data are presented as means and standard deviation (SD). The
distribution of each variable was verified by the Shapiro-Wilk
normality test. An independent Student’s T-test was used to ex-
amine differences between playing positions. In addition, Cohen’s
d effect size (ES) with a 90% confidence interval (CI) was calcu-
lated. Threshold values for Cohen’s ES statistics were given as
follows: .0.2 small, .0.6 moderate, .1.2 large, .2.0 very large,
and .4.0 nearly perfect (18). Relationships between variables were
determined using the Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r). The r
values were interpreted as weak (#0.39), moderate ($0.40–0.69),
or strong ($0.70) (2). Statistical significance was established at the
P # 0.05 level. SPSS (Vrsion 24.0; SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL) for
Microsoft Windows was used for the rest of analysis.
Results
Comparisons of anthropometrics and body composition mea-
sures between backs and forwards are reported in Table 1.
 Strength Deficit and Physical Performance in Rugby (2022) 00:00
Table 2 shows the comparisons between vertical jump perfor-
T2 mance and 30-m sprint velocity between playing positions. Backs
presented significantly greater performance for all jumping con-
ditions (p , 0.006; ES: 0.92–1.13). With regards to sprint per-
formance, backs displayed greater V30, Vmax, and lower
SMini (p 5 0.002, 0.001, and 0.019; ES: 1.10, 1.20, and 0.80,
respectively), in comparison to forwards.
Table 3 shows the comparisons of strength parameters between
T3 forwards and backs. Backs showed higher BPrel (p 5 0.009; ES [90%
CI]: 0.88 [0.35–1.42]) and SQrel (p 5 0.008; ES [90% CI]: 0.91
[0.37–1.45]) than forwards. In Figure 1, regarding PF in the SQ across
F1 the load spectrum (from 40 to 100% RM), no differences were ob-
served between playing positions (p . 0.05; % difference [95% CI]:
0.8 [227.2 to 28.9] to 7.0 [27.2 to 21.2]; ES [90% CI]: 0.01 [20.53
to 0.50] to 0.32 [20.80 to 0.20]). Conversely, RPF was greater for
backs in the load range 60–80% 1RM (p , 0.05; % difference [95%
CI] . 12.0 [2.3–25.0]; ES [90% CI]: 0.79 [0.25–1.33] to 0.87
[0.33–1.42]) with nonsignificant differences noticed for 90 and 100%
1RM (p . 0.05; % difference [95% CI]: 9.3 [20.8 to 21.4] and 5.6
[25.9 to 17.8]; ES [90% CI]: 0.59 [0.0321.15] and 0.31 [20.25 to
0.88], respectively). In addition, forwards demonstrated higher SDef
at 70–90% 1RM (p: 0.048–0.023; % difference [95% CI]: 21.6
[0.2–43.0] to 35.0 [5.0–64.9]; ES [90% CI]: 21.01 [21.56 to 20.46]
to 20.77 [21.31 to 20.23]) than backs (Figure 1). Finally, Table 4
T4 reports the correlation coefficients between SDef at 40% 1RM to
SDef at 90% 1RM, vertical jumps, 30-m sprint performance, and
strength-derived values.
Discussion
The aims of this study were to compare the strength-related per-
formance between forwards and backs and examine the associ-
ations between strength parameters (i.e., SDef, SQ 1RM, SQrel),
sprint, and jump performance in young rugby players. Our main
findings were as follows: (a) SDef was significantly lower in the
backs at higher loads (i.e., 70 and 90% 1RM) and (b) overall, for
all relative loads, SDef was significantly related to sprint perfor-
mance (i.e., V5, V30, and Vmax). In practical terms, this means
that faster rugby players present lower magnitudes of SDef.
Backs differed significantly from forwards in both anthropo-
metric and body composition parameters (Table 1). These results
are in line with previous studies (7,9,13,32), which reported that
positional differences in anthropometrics reveal that backs are
shorter, lighter, and have lower +SF. Moreover, backs presented
lower skinfold measures, FM, and greater FMrel and LM. Overall,
Table 2
Comparison of jump and sprint performance variables playing positions.*,†,‡
Variables Fwd (n 5 27) Back (n 5 30)
CMJ (cm) 34.05 6 5.32 39.03 6 5.13
SJ (cm) 31.56 6 4.65 35.84 6 4.49
RJT 10/5 (cm) 26.62 6 5.00 31.94 6 4.14
RSI 1.35 6 0.33 1.63 6 0.25
V5 (m·s21) 5.07 6 0.19 5.20 6 0.25
V30 (m·s21) 6.93 6 0.37 7.28 6 0.24
Vmax (m·s21) 7.96 6 0.54 8.52 6 0.35
SMini (kg·m·s21) 421.68 6 62.92 374.18 6 52.25
SM (kg·m·s21) 660.93 6 95.12 613.10 6 87.24
*CI 5 confidence interval; MJ 5 counter movement jump; SJ 5 squat jump; RJT 10/5 5 rebound jump test; RSI 5 reactive strength index. Vmax 5 maximum velocity attained during the 30-m sprint test;
SMini 5 sprint momentum attained during the 5-m sprint; SM 5 maximum sprint momentum attained during the 30-m sprint test.
†Data are presented as mean 6 SD.
‡ES and CI (90%): effects sizes and 90% CIs.
Copyright © 2022 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
these results have relevant implications because BM was reported
to be an important predictor of positional classification, in-
dicating that players with higher BM were twice as likely to be
classified as forwards (9). Hence, anthropometric and body
composition measures should be frequently monitored during the
prospective development of young rugby players, specially to
avoid the risk of unwanted and non-functional increases in BM.
In terms of vertical jump and sprint performance (Table 2), our
results indicated that backs performed better than forwards
across all measures, with the exception of CT during RJT 10 to 5
and V5, whereas the latter showed a greater SMini. These findings
suggest that regardless of the jump task, backs outperformed
forwards not only with regards to jumping height but also with
regards to RSI. Therefore, because vertical jumping ability was
reported to be significantly related to sprint performance in rugby
players (14,29,32), it is not surprising that backs showed greater
V30 and Vmax than forwards, although nonsignificant (p 5 0.08),
moderate differences were observed for short sprints (i.e., V5).
These findings agree with previous evidence indicating that senior
and young backs (i.e., 16–20 years old) outperformed forwards in
5, 10, and 30-m sprint tests (1,28,32). Nonetheless, it is worth
emphasizing that forwards showed a greater SMini than backs,
which is possibly related to their distinct game demands. Specif-
ically, in rugby union, forwards should be taller and heavier to
cope with the contact situations (e.g., tackles, rucks, and scrums),
which frequently occur during competitions (11).
Regarding absolute strength (i.e., 1RM values), no significant
differences were observed between playing positions (Table 3).
Nevertheless, when the 1RM values were corrected to BM
(i.e., SQrel and BPrel), backs presented higher values than for-
wards. These data are in accordance with those reported in pre-
vious studies, suggesting that faster and more powerful athletes
are able to apply greater amounts of force against their own BM
(21). This is also reflected in terms of relative force because backs
produced greater values of RPF from 60 to 80% 1RM SQ,
whereas no significant differences were observed in absolute PF.
As recently reported (21), this might explain why backs are able to
achieve superior performance during explosive unloaded motor
tasks, such as sprint and jump tests. In senior rugby players,
Zabaloy et al. (32) reported that forwards showed greater abso-
lute 1RM values in both SQ and BP, but no differences were
observed when these values were normalized to BM. Another
important aspect to consider is that high values of absolute
strength and BM are essential to achieve superior performances in
contact and collisional situations (11). As such, coaches are
p % Difference (95% CI) ES (90% CI)
0.005 214.6 (224.6 to 24.7) 20.93 (21.46 to20.40)
0.006 213.6 (222.9 to 24.2) 20.92 (21.45 to 20.39)
,0.001 220.0 (231.2 to 28.8) 21.13 (21.66 to 20.60)
0.006 220.4 (234.4 to 26.3) 20.92 (21.45 to 20.39)
0.080 22.6 (25.6 to 0.4) 20.57 (21.11 to 20.04)
0.002 25.1 (28.0 to 22.1) 21.10 (21.66 to 20.55)
,0.001 27.0 (210.8 to 23.3) 21.20 (21.76 to 20.64)
0.019 11.3 (2.2 to 20.4) 0.80 (0.25 to 1.35)
0.123 7.2 (22.0 to 16.5) 0.51 (20.04 to 1.06)
 Strength Deficit and Physical Performance in Rugby (2022) 00:00 | www.nsca.com

Table 3
Comparison of strength performance variables between youth rugby players according to playing positions.*,†,‡
Fwd (n 5 27) Back (n 5 30) p % Difference (95% CI) ES (90% CI)
BP1RM (kg) 94.69 6 20.68 94.02 6 19.12 0.917 0.7 (212.8 to 14.2) 0.03 (20.50 to 0.57)
BPrel (kg·kg21) 1.15 6 0.20 1.32 6 0.17 0.009 214.5 (225.4 to 23.6) 20.88 (21.42 to 20.35)
SQ1RM (kg) 109.83 6 24.57 110.63 6 22.52 0.919 20.7 (214.9 to 13.5) 20.03 (20.58 to 0.52)
SQrel (kg·kg21) 1.35 6 0.21 1.55 6 0.22 0.008 216.3 (228.3 to 24.4) 20.91 (21.45 to 20.37)
*CI 5 confidence interval; BP1RM 5 1-repetition maximum in the bench press exercise; BPrel 5 relative to body mass BP performance; SQ1RM 5 1-repetition maximum in the squat; SQrel 5 relative to body
mass squat performance.
†Data are presented as mean 6 SD.
‡ES and CI (90%): effects sizes and 90% CIs.

advised to prevent nonfunctional variations in BM during the

Figure 1. Comparison of strength deficit (A), peak force (B,
and relative peak force (C) at the distinct relative loads in the
squat exercise between young forwards and backs rugby
players. The figures present means and their respective SDs
(*p , 0.05), in addition to the ESs for each comparison. 1RM
5 1-repetition maximum; SQ 5 squat exercise; ES 5 effect
size.
specialization process of young forwards, balancing the chronic
increases in BM with substantial increases in lower-limb strength
(1) because in the present study, forwards and backs presented
similar 1RM values.
Increases in lower-limb strength (as well as in other strength-
derived measures) have been directly related to improvements
in sprint and jump performance (21,25). Accordingly, Loturco
et al. (21) revealed that SDef can discriminate between elite
sprinters and rugby players. However, to date, no studies have
analyzed the differences in SDef in the SQ exercise across a
wide range of loads (from 40 to 90% 1RM). Our results in-
dicated that backs are able to apply significantly higher (p ,
0.048, ES moderate) relative force against loads from 70 to
90% 1RM. In addition, SDef from 40 to 60% 1RM showed a
clear trend toward increased ES and reduced p value with in-
creasing loads. In practical terms, this implies that backs dis-
played lower SDef against high loads when compared with
forwards. Therefore, as hypothesized, SDef can discriminate
between the 2 main positional roles in youth rugby union.
Notably, the differences in SDef between positions indicate
that forwards are progressively applying lower relative forces
against higher %1RM and, consequently, moving these rela-
tive loads at slower velocities (21).
Regarding the correlations analysis (Table 4), present re-
sults indicated that sprint variables (i.e., V5, V30 and Vmax)
were small to moderately (r 5 20.378; 0.529) associated with
SDef across the load-velocity spectrum, from 40 to 90% 1RM.
Additionally, SDef for lighter loads (i.e., SDef40 to SDef70)
were also moderately correlated to other jump- and strength-
derived measures (i.e., RSI). These findings reinforce the im-
portance of reducing SDef (and improving the ability to apply
greater amounts of force at higher velocities) to achieve higher
sprint performance in young rugby players. The aforemen-
tioned results are in agreement with those recently reported in
elite sprinters and professional rugby players (21), suggesting
that these findings are not “exclusive” to young rugby players.
This study is limited by its cross-sectional design and by the
impossibility of conducting a complete (i.e., until the failure)
1RM assessment because of time constraints. Therefore, 1RM
in SQ and BP as well as force-derived variables were in-
dividually estimated. Despite these limitations, our findings
shed light on the importance of considering a more compre-
hensive and detailed strength assessment in young athletes. As
recently reported (21), these parameters may be easily collected
and may help coaches and sports scientists to better evaluate
athletes and design more effective and tailored resistance-
training schemes.

Copyright © 2022 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Strength Deficit and Physical Performance in Rugby (2022) 00:00

Table 4
Correlation coefficients (r) between strength deficit, vertical jump, sprint velocity, and different strength-derived variables in young rugby
players.*,†
Variable SDef90 SDef80 SDef70 SDef60 SDef50 SDef40 RJT RSI V5 V30 Vmax SM SQ1RM
SDef80 0.986‡
SDef70 0.962‡ 0.986‡
SDef60 0.876‡ 0.920‡ 0.973‡
SDef50 0.681‡ 0.751‡ 0.849‡ 0.949‡
SDef40 0.369§ 0.460‖ 0.599‡ 0.768‡ 0.931‡
RJT 20.257 20.269 20.292 20.307 20.302 20.264
RSI 20.336 20.334 20.371§ 20.395§ 20.394§ 20.348§ 0.817‡
V5 20.405§ 20.419§ 20.448§ 20.464‖ 20.447§ 20.378§ 20.624‡ 20.581‡
V30 20.423§ 20.432§ 20.475‖ 20.504‖ 20.500‖ 20.438§ 20.746‡ 20.694‡ 0.769‡
Vmax 20.456§ 20.475‖ 20.509‖ 20.529‖ 20.513‖ 20.437§ 0.718‡ 0.672‡ 0.648‡ 0.971‡
SM 20.198 20.233 20.283 20.336 20.380§ 20.389§ 0.042 20.037 0.297 0.239 0.222
SQ1RM 0.002 20.015 20.079 20.156 20.240 20.305 0.518‖ 0.382§ 0.504‖ 0.590‡ 0.539‖ 0.772‡
SQrel 20.127 20.114 20.153 20.187 20.211 20.207 0.626‡ 0.525‖ 0.388§ 0.593‡ 0.563‖ 0.197 0.764‡
*RJT 10 to 5: rebound jump test. RSI: reactive strength index. V5 and V30: mean velocity attained during 5 and 30-m sprint. Vmax: maximum velocity attained during the 30-m sprint test. SM: maximum sprint
momentum attained during the 30-m sprint test. SQ1RM: 1 repetition maximum in the squat. SQrel: relative to body mass squat performance.
†SDef90 to SDef40: strength deficit obtained during the SQ exercise from 90 to 40% RM.
‡p , 0.001.
§p , 0.05.
‖p , 0.01.

5. Crewther BT, Lowe T, Weatherby RP, Gill N, Keogh J. Neuromuscular

Practical Applications
The present study is the first to analyze and compare the dif-
ferences in anthropometric characteristics and strength-
derived parameters between young backs and forwards.
Overall, SQrel and SDef were shown to be closely related to a
number of speed-related measures and be able to differentiate
between playing positions. Rugby coaches are encouraged to
use this testing approach and its derived parameters together
with the more traditional strength measures (i.e., 1RM value)
to obtain a more complete view of the strength characteristics
of their athletes. Additionally, practitioners may consider the
implementation of training strategies capable of reducing the
magnitude of SDef among rugby players because this proba-
bly results in an increased ability to rapidly apply force against
submaximal loads, which may be relevant for achieving
higher sprint velocities. The prescription of resistance exer-
cises performed with light-to-moderate loads moved as fast as
possible during the concentric phase of the movement can be a
good alternative in this regard. Future studies should be
conducted to investigate the effects of different strength-
power training regimens on the SDef assessed across a com-
prehensive range of loads, as well as to examine the relation-
ships between the variations in SDef and sprint performance.
References
1. Casserly N, Neville R, Ditroilo M, Grainger A. Longitudinal changes in
the physical development of elite adolescent rugby union players: Effect of
playing position and body mass change. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 15:
520–527, 2020.
2. Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, Aiken LS. Applied Multiple Regression/
Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
AU2 Routledge, 2013. pp. 536.
3. Comfort P, Stewart A, Bloom L, Clarkson B. Relationships between
strength, sprint, and jump performance in well-trained youth soccer
players. J Strength Cond Res 28: 173–177, 2014.
4. Comyns TM, Flanagan EP, Fleming S, Fitzgerald E, Harper DJ. Interday
reliability and usefulness of a reactive strength index derived from 2
maximal rebound jump tests. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 14: 1200–1204,
2019.
performance of elite rugby union players and relationships with salivary
hormones. J Strength Cond Res 23: 2046–2053, 2009.
6. Darrall-Jones JD, Jones B, Till K. Anthropometric and physical profiles of
English academy rugby union players. J Strength Cond Res 29:
2086–2096, 2015.
7. Darrall-Jones JD, Jones B, Till K. Anthropometric, sprint, and high-
intensity running profiles of English academy rugby union players by
position. J Strength Cond Res 30: 1348–1358, 2016.
8. Dawes JJ, Orr RM, Siekaniec CL, Vanderwoude AA, Pope R. Associations
between anthropometric characteristics and physical performance in male
law enforcement officers: A retrospective cohort study. Ann Occup En-
viron Med 28: 26, 2016.
9. Delahunt E, Byrne RB, Doolin RK, et al. Anthropometric profile and body
composition of Irish adolescent rugby union players aged 16–18.
J Strength Cond Res 27: 3252–3258, 2013.
10. Doyle B, Browne D, Horan D. Differences in anthropometric and physical
performance characteristics between U17, U19, and Senior Irish female
international football players. Int J Sports Sci Coach 16: 352–359, 2021.
11. Duthie G, Pyne D, Hooper S. Applied physiology and game analysis of
rugby union. Sport Med 33: 973–991, 2003.
12. Duthie GM. A framework for the physical development of elite rugby
union players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 1: 2–13, 2006.
13. Fontana FY, Colosio A, De Roia GF, Da Lozzo G, Pogliaghi S. Anthro-
pometrics of Italian senior male rugby union players: From elite to second
division. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 10: 674–680, 2015.
14. Furlong L-AM, Harrison AJ, Jensen RL. Measures of strength and jump
performance can predict 30-m sprint time in rugby union players.
J Strength Cond Res 35: 2579–2583, 2021.
15. González-Badillo JJ, Gorostiaga Ayestarán E. Fundamentos del entrena-
miento de la fuerza. Aplicación al alto rendimiento deportivo [in Spanish].
Barcelona, Spain: Inde, 1995. pp. 1–321.
16. González-Badillo JJ, Ribas J. Bases de la programación del entrenamiento
de fuerza [in Spanish]. Barcelona, Spain: Inde, 2002. AU3
17. González-Badillo JJ, Sánchez-Medina L, Pareja-Blanco F, Rodrı́guez-
Rosell D. Fundamentals of Velocity-Based Resistance Training. Murcia,
Spain: Ergotech, 2017. pp. 7–25.
18. Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, Hanin J. Progressive sta-
tistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 41: 3–13, 2009.
19. Jackson AS, Pollock ML. Generalized equations for predicting body
density of men. Br J Nutr 40: 497–504, 1978.
20. Jackson AS, Pollock ML. Practical assessment of body composition. Phys
Sportsmed 13: 76–90, 1985.
21. Loturco I, Pereira LA, Freitas TT, et al. Maximum strength, relative
strength, and strength deficit: Relationships with performance and dif-
ferences between elite sprinters and professional rugby union players. Int J
Sports Physiol Perform 2021. Epub ahead of print.

Copyright © 2022 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Strength Deficit and Physical Performance in Rugby (2022) 00:00
22. Loturco I, Suchomel T, Bishop C, et al. One-repetition-maximum mea-
sures or maximum bar-power output: Which is more related to sport
performance? Int J Sports Physiol Perform 14: 33–37, 2019.
23. La Monica MB, Fukuda DH, Miramonti AA, et al. Physical differences
between forwards and backs in American collegiate rugby players.
J Strength Cond Res 30: 2382–2391, 2016.
24. Sánchez-Medina L, Pallarés J, Pérez C, Morán-Navarro R, González-
Badillo JJ. Estimation of relative load from bar velocity in the full back
squat exercise. Sport Med Int Open 1: E80–E88, 2017.
25. Seitz LB, Reyes A, Tran TT, de Villarreal ES, Haff GG. Increases in lower-
body strength transfer positively to sprint performance: A systematic re-
view with meta-analysis. Sport Med 44: 1693–1702, 2014.
26. Tierney P, Blake C, Delahunt E. Physical characteristics of different professional
rugby union competition levels. J Sci Med Sport 24: 1267–1271, 2021.
27. Weakley J, Morrison M, Garcı́a-Ramos A, et al. The validity and re-
liability of commercially available resistance training monitoring devices:
A systematic review. Sports Med 51: 443–502, 2021.
Copyright © 2022 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
| www.nsca.com
28. Wood DJ, Coughlan G, Delahunt E. Fitness profiles of elite adoles-
cent Irish rugby union players. J Strength Cond Res 32: 105–112,
2018.
29. Zabaloy S, Alcaraz PE, Pereira LA, et al. Anthropometric and physical
performance of amateur rugby players within specific playing positions.
Isokinet Exerc Sci 29: 429–441, 2021.
30. Zabaloy S, Freitas TT, Carlos-Vivas J, et al. Estimation of maximum
sprinting speed with timing gates: Greater accuracy of 5-m split
times compared to 10-m splits. Sport Biomech 2021. Epub ahead of
print. AU4
31. Zabaloy S, Giraldez J, Gazzo F, Villaseca-Vicuña R, Gálvez-González J.
In-season assessment of sprint speed and sprint momentum in rugby
players according to the age and playing position. J Hum Kinet 77:
274–286, 2021.
32. Zabaloy S, Pareja-Blanco F, Carlos-Vivas J, Gálvez González J. De-
terminant factors of physical performance in rugby specific playing posi-
tions. Sci Sports 36: 308.e1, 2021.