You are on page 1of 6

STRENGTH, POWER, AND SPEED QUALITIES IN

ENGLISH JUNIOR ELITE RUGBY LEAGUE PLAYERS


JOHN KIRKPATRICK1,2 AND PAUL COMFORT2
1
St Helens Rugby League Football Club Academy, St Helens, Merseyside, United Kingdom; and 2Human Performance
Laboratory, Directorate of Sport, Exercise and Physiotherapy, University of Salford, Salford, Greater Manchester, United
Kingdom

ABSTRACT strength in academy rugby league athletes and highlight that


Kirkpatrick, J and Comfort, P. Strength, power, and speed differences in sprint performance between positions may be
qualities in English junior elite rugby league players. J Strength attributable to the differences in relative strength levels
Cond Res 27(9): 2414–2419, 2013—The aim of this study was between positions.
to compare strength, power, and speed characteristics of elite KEY WORDS performance, positional differences, sprint,
junior English rugby league forwards and backs. A squad of males relationships
under 20’s (n = 24; age 18.70 6 0.90 years; body mass 86.4 6
9.93 kg; height 178.47 6 6.97 cm) players from a Super League INTRODUCTION

R
team performed a range of assessments, including 10-, 20-, and
ugby league is a multiple sprint collision sport.
40-m sprints; vertical jump; and 1 repetition maximum (1RM)
Rugby league athletes require high levels of
bench press and 1-RM back squat. Independent t-tests revealed speed, strength, power, and agility to play the
no significance between body mass and height (180.13 6 game at a semiprofessional or professional level
7.65 cm, 176.83 6 6.10 cm; p . 0.05) or body mass (90.08 6 (3,4,6,20,22,27,28). These attributes are essential in helping
11.72 kg, 82.75 6 6.28 kg; p . 0.05) for the forwards and the athlete deal with the variety of movement patterns within
backs, respectively. Backs were significantly quicker over the the game, which includes short sprints, quick changes in direc-
10-m sprints (1.99 6 0.60 seconds, 2.06 6 0.10 seconds; tion, jumping and landing, spinning the body in and out of
p = 0.011), 20-m sprints (3.26 6 0.70 seconds, 3.39 6 0.17 tackles, upper- and lower-body tackling, and short bouts of
seconds; p = 0.002), and 40-m sprints (5.55 6 0.13 seconds, wrestling (10,24–26).
5.80 6 0.26 seconds; p = 0.0001) compared with the forwards. Rugby league players use both aerobic (to provide adeno-
No significant difference (p . 0.05) was observed for the vertical sine triphosphate (ATP) for the duration of the game,
including recovery between anaerobic bouts) and anaerobic
jump performances between the forwards (50.58 6 7.06 cm) and
energy systems (for each high-intensity activity) (1,22), with
the backs (50.60 6 5.02 cm). In addition, forwards demonstrated
the game lasting for 80 minutes and players covering distances
a higher 1RM bench press and 1RM back squat (110.00 6
of 7–10 km depending on position and the pace of the game
15.8 kg and 140.21 6 26.21 kg) compared with the backs (25,26). These distances are made up of short-duration high-
(101.67 6 9.13 kg and 132.71 6 9.38 kg), although this was intensity efforts followed by longer periods of low-intensity
not statistically significant (p . 0.05); when expressed relative to activities (25,26). Athletes must perform multiple short sprints
body mass the differences between forwards and backs was ranging from 6–8 m for forwards and 8–12 m for backs, the
reduced further for both bench press (1.22 6 0.10 kg/kg, 1.23 frequency of these sprints ranges from 43 to 50.6% per game
6 0.08 kg/kg, respectively; p . 0.05) and back squat (1.61 6 between forwards and backs, respectively (1,25). Up to 40
0.13 kg/kg, 1.56 6 0.20 kg/kg, respectively; p . 0.05). In addi- high force collisions have to be absorbed by each player per
tion, relative squat strength demonstrated moderate inverse cor- game, followed by short durations of wrestling with their
relations between relative squat strength sprint times (r = 20.45, opponent, which demands high levels of concentric, eccentric,
20.46, and 20.44; p , 0.01) across 10, 20, and 40 m, respec- and isometric force production (9).
A body of normative data covering amateur, junior
tively. These findings highlight the importance of maximizing squat
sub-elite and elite, and senior sub-elite and elite rugby
league players has been mainly carried out in Australia
Address correspondence to Paul Comfort, p.comfort@salford.ac.uk. (1,3,4,6,10,13,20,22,24,26–28), with only 1 published study
27(9)/2414–2419 on English Senior Super League players (11). In the under-
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 19 age group, average sprint times for the backs over dis-
Ó 2013 National Strength and Conditioning Association tances of 10, 20, and 40 m, range from 2.19 6 0.09 seconds,
the TM

2414 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

3.53 6 0.12 seconds, and 6.01 6 0.16 seconds, respectively, opposition, and team competitiveness. King et al. (24) and
with the forwards demonstrating similar 10-m and 20-m per- Sykes et al. (30) reported similar trends between forwards
formances (2.19 6 0.09 seconds and 3.57 6 0.11 seconds, and backs with forwards are involved in a greater number
respectively), but slower 40-m sprints (6.20 6 0.19 seconds) of tackles per game than backs. In contrast, backs spend more
(14). In the second grade age group (19 years and older), time sprinting over larger distances as their position on the
average sprint times for the backs (2.08 6 0.11 seconds, 3.34 field allows them to use more space (24,30). It is also worth
6 0.12 seconds, and 5.81 6 0.17 seconds) over 10, 20, and noting that even though forwards cover less distance than the
40 m were consistently faster than the forwards (2.14 6 0.05 backs, the greater number of involvements in tackles is likely
seconds, 3.50 6 0.07 seconds, and 6.09 6 0.15 seconds) (15). to add to their total work resulting in high levels of fatigue.
The times recorded for the under 19 group and the over 19 These positional differences between forwards and backs are
group showed an increase in speed for the over 19 suggesting evident in the physiological makeup of the 2 groups. Forwards
improved speed and power gains as the athlete matures. tend to have greater body mass and higher absolute strength
This trend was also observed in jump performances of the 2 levels compared with backs. Backs tend to be faster and have
age groups (under 19 range 37.9–40.0 cm, over 19 ranges superior jump ability; these differences are likely because of
41.0–42.9 cm) (15) showing an increase in height jumped with the previously discussed variations between the playing
age. Positional differences within a rugby league team equate positions (3,4,9,10,14,15,23,24,26). In addition, research corre-
to changes in physiology between individual playing posi- lating maximal squat strength with improved sprint and jump
tions. King et al. (24) reported that backs covered the greatest height capabilities has indicated that the greater an athlete’s
distance (6,265 6 318 m), adjustables covered 5,908 6 158 m, relative squat strength the better sprint and jump performance
and forwards covered the least distance with (4,310 6 251 m). the athlete can achieve (11,25).
In contrast, however, Sykes et al. (30) reported that English Because of the absence of research regarding English junior
forwards covered a greater distance per game than backs rugby league players, the aim of the research was to identify
(8,688 6 405 m vs. 8,142 6 630 m), possibly highlighting any differences in strength, power, and speed performance
different characteristics between the games in Australia and between forwards and backs in English junior elite rugby
England. The discrepancies in distances recorded between the league players and to determine any relationships between
2 studies may be partly explained by the different match anal- strength and sprint and jump performances. In addition, these
ysis protocols (hand notation compared with a semiautomated data will be useful for coaches and strength and conditioning
system), weather conditions, team tactics, playing style of coaches when conducting a needs analysis of their junior

Figure 1. Comparison of sprint times between forwards and backs.

VOLUME 27 | NUMBER 9 | SEPTEMBER 2013 | 2415

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Strength, Power, and Speed Qualities

associations between perfor-


mance measures for the whole
squad.
Subjects
A squad of 24 elite junior rugby
league players (age 18.70 6 0.90
years, body mass 86.4 6 9.93
kg, height 178.47 6 6.97 cm)
playing in the under 20 Super
League competition were inves-
tigated, comprising 12 forwards
and 12 backs. All subjects had
just completed an off season
period comprising 2 weeks of
complete rest followed by
2 weeks of training before re-
Figure 2. Relationship between back squat strength and jump height. turning for preseason training.
Ethical approval was granted
from the university and written,
athletes, especially in England. It was hypothesized that informed consent was provided by the participants. Parents’
forwards’ absolute strength would be greater than the backs’ approval was gained for participants under the age of 18.
as a result of greater stature, but that relative strength would
be comparable and that backs would demonstrate a higher Procedures
jump height and faster sprint performances in comparison to During the initial testing session, body mass, height, counter-
the forwards, in line with previous research. movement jump (CMJ), and sprint tests (10, 20, and 40 m)
were performed, with maximal strength testing performed
METHODS 48 hours later. Previous testing within this population had
revealed a high reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients
Experimental Approach to the Problem [ICCs]) for countermovement vertical jump (r $ 0.91), sprint
High-level under 20 English rugby league forwards and backs (r $ 0.97), and 1RM (r $ 0.97) performances. Data were
performed a range of performance tests, over 2 days (previous divided into two groups (forwards and backs) to permit posi-
testing had determined reliability of these measures), to tional comparisons and pooled to determine relationships
determine maximal sprint (10, 20, and 40 m), jump, 1 repetition between performance characteristics.
maximum (1RM) bench press, and 1RM back squat perform-
ances. This permitted both comparisons of performances Power Testing
between forwards and backs and the determination of A countermovement jump (CMJ) was performed as an
indicator of power output, using
a contact mat (Just Jump;
Probotics, Inc., Huntsville, AL,
USA). Subjects were asked to
perform the jump with their
hands on their hips, throughout
the movement, to rapidly
descend to a self-selected depth
and then to jump as high as
possible from that position, with
no pause between the eccentric
and concentric phases of the
movement. If an obvious pause
occurred, the athlete performed
a tuck jump, or their hands left
their hips, they were instructed
to rest for 90 seconds and then
Figure 3. Relationship between relative strength and 10-m-sprint performance. repeat the trial. Subjects per-
formed 3 trials with 90 seconds
the TM

2416 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

Strength Testing
The 1RM bench press and back
squat were selected as they are
commonly acknowledged as
reliable and valid measures of
strength and were exercises that
all athletes were accustomed to.
During the bench press, athletes
were instructed to lower the bar
down to the chest and then
push the barbell off the chest
to lock the arms out to return to
the start position, in one
smooth continuous motion, fol-
lowing a standardized protocol
(2), using a standard bench
(Olympic flat bench) and Olym-
Figure 4. Relationship between relative strength and 20-m-sprint performance. pic bar (7 ft Olympic bar and
weights; York Barbell Com-
pany, York, PA, USA). In addi-
of rest between each effort to establish repeatability. The tion, lifts were recorded using a camcorder (JVC Model:
athlete’s best score was used for further analysis. GZ-MG21EK, JVC, London, UK), from the sagittal plane,
to confirm that each subject had achieved the 908 angle
Speed Testing
required for the test.
Subjects performed a 40-m sprint on a third generation
Astroturf sports pitch surface (Astroturf, AMB Sports Ltd, Statistical Analyses
Kent, UK) wearing regular running trainers. Each sprint was All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version
performed with subjects instructed to ensure maximal effort; 16.0 (SPSS version 16.0, IBM, Portsmouth, Hampshire, UK).
before this, participants performed a 15-minute dynamic Reliability of the CMJ tests was determined via ICCs.
warm-up and 3 practice sprints at approximately 70, 80, and Independent t-tests were carried out to identify differences
90% of maximum sprints. Times for 10, 20, and 40 m were in performances between backs and forwards. Pearson’s cor-
recorded using Brower timing gates (Brower TC-timing relations were performed to identify relationships between
system; Brower Timing Systems 12660, Draper, UT, USA). jump height and absolute and relative squat strength; further-
A standardized starting position of 0.5 m behind the line was more, Pearson’s correlations were performed to identify rela-
used for the sprints to prevent any early triggering of the tionships between sprint performances and absolute and
timing gates, and no countermovements were permitted. relative squat strength.

RESULTS
The ICCs confirmed a high
degree of reliability between trials
for the vertical jump test (r =
0.964, p , 0.001). Although
backs were slightly shorter and
lighter than the forwards, the
t-tests revealed that there were
no significant (p . 0.05) differen-
ces in body mass, height, and age
of forwards (90.08 6 11.72 kg,
180.13 6 7.65 cm, and 18.75 6
1.06 years) and backs (82.75 6
6.28 kg, 176.83 6 6.10 cm, and
18.67 6 0.78 years).

Sprint and Jump Performance


Figure 5. Relationship between relative strength and 40-m-sprint performance. Backs were significantly faster
than the forwards over 10 m

VOLUME 27 | NUMBER 9 | SEPTEMBER 2013 | 2417

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Strength, Power, and Speed Qualities

(1.99 6 0.06 seconds, 2.06 6 0.10 seconds; p = 0.011), 20 m (Backs, 6.01 seconds; Forwards 6.20 seconds) in Australian
(3.26 6 0.07 seconds, 3.39 6 0.17 seconds; p = 0.002), and 40 m under 19 players, although they were described as sub-elite.
(5.55 6 0.13 seconds, 5.80 6 0.26 seconds; p = 0.0001) Forwards’ and backs’ mean vertical jump heights were
(Figure 1). There were no significant differences (p . 0.05) in almost identical (50.58 6 7.06 cm vs. 50.60 6 5.02 cm, respec-
CMJ height between backs (50.60 6 5.02 cm) and forwards tively). These data are in contrast to the findings of Gabbett
(50.58 6 7.06 cm). (15) and Comfort et al. (12) who showed backs to have greater
vertical jump performances compared with forwards, although
Strength this may be explained by the lack of differences in squat
Comparisons of absolute bench press strength and squat strength between forwards and backs in this study. In addition,
strength between the 2 groups demonstrated greater bench the vertical jump height of the English elite under 20 forwards
press and squat (110.00 6 15.80 kg, 140.21 6 26.21 kg) in the and backs were superior to the performances reported by
forwards compared with backs (101.67 6 9.13 kg, 132.71 6 Gabbett (15) for Australian sub-elite under 19 forwards and
9.38 kg), although this was not statistically significant (p . backs (37.9 6 4.8 cm and 40.0 6 4.9 cm, respectively). Both
0.05). Further evaluation of squat strength relative to body mass groups performed a CMJ; however, Gabbett (15) used a chalk
also revealed no significant differences (p . 0.05) between mark on the wall to assess jump height, which may have
backs (1.61 6 0.13 kg/kg) and forwards (1.56 6 0.20 kg/kg). affected the heights recorded in their study.
Pearson’s correlations revealed a moderate correlation Strength performance revealed that the forwards were
(r = 0.42, p = 0.01) between relative back squat strength stronger in the bench press and squat (110.00 6 15.8 kg and
and jump height, but a stronger correlation (r = 0.57, p , 140.21 6 26.21 kg, respectively) in comparison to the backs
0.001) between absolute strength and jump height (Figure 2). (101.67 6 9.13 kg and 132.71 6 9.38 kg, respectively), although
Relationships between absolute strength and sprint times this was not statistically significant (p . 0.05). When strength
over 10, 20, and 40 m, were weak and nonsignificant (r = performances were scaled for body mass, the observed differ-
20.25, 20.28, and 20.2; p , 0.05, respectively). In contrast, ences between positions were reduced further for both the
there were moderate inverse correlations between relative bench press (Forwards, 1.23 6 0.08 kg/kg; Backs, 1.22 6
squat strength sprint times (r = 20.45, 20.46, and 20.44; 0.10 kg/kg) and the squat (Forwards, 1.61 6 0.13 kg/kg; Backs,
p , 0.01) (Figures 3–5). 1.56 6 0.20 kg/kg). Comparisons with bench press (143.3 6
15.4 kg) and squat (182.5 6 23.6 kg) strength in young (,24
DISCUSSION years) Australian athletes competing in the National Rugby
In contrast to previous research and the hypotheses, the only League (7) revealed a deficit in strength in the athletes in this
statistically significant differences observed within the cur- study; this difference in strength may be explained by age
rent study were the quicker sprint times of the backs difference which may be as much as 6 years, along with a sim-
compared with the forwards, with no significant differences ilar difference in years of training between athletes in both
in physical stature, strength, or jump performance. studies. The lack of differences between positions in this group
Despite positional differences and in contrast to the may be because of the fact that Sykes et al. (30) identified
hypothesis body mass and height were very similar between similar distances covered by English forwards covered a greater
forwards (90.08 6 11.72 kg; 80.13 6 7.65 cm) and backs (82.75 distance per game than backs (8,688 6 405 m vs. 8,142 6 630
6 6.28 kg; 176.83 6 6.10 cm). In comparison, Australian data m, respectively), which is in stark contrast to the distances
on under 19 sub-elite rugby league forwards show a similar reported by King et al (24) in Australian athletes, with backs
body mass to their English counterparts (89.4 6 10.8 kg), covering the greatest distance (6,265 6 318 m) compared with
although in contrast Australian backs tend to be considerably the forwards (4,310 6 251 m). The authors acknowledge that
lighter than the English backs (74.2 6 6.5 kg) (14). This dis- this study is limited in the fact that direct comparisons between
parity may be due in part to different strength and condition- Australian and English athletes, using identical protocols fitness
ing practices and altered match characteristics and intensities tests and that time motion analysis data has not been included.
between northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere It is suggested that future research should compare both phys-
rugby leagues. In addition, differences in growth and matura- ical characteristics and match analysis data, using the same
tion rates between players of this group may skew the results protocols to identify differences in physical performance to
in comparison to a senior squad. identify if these are related to match analysis data; furthermore,
Sprint performances showed backs to be significantly (p # direct comparisons between rugby league performances in the
0.011) quicker over all 3 distances, (10 m, 1.99 6 0.6 seconds; northern and southern hemisphere is recommended.
20 m, 3.26 6 0.7 seconds; 40 m, 5.55 6 0.13 seconds), com- Interestingly, correlation analysis revealed a stronger cor-
pared with the sprint performances of the forwards (2.06 6 relation (r = 0.57, p , 0.001) between absolute strength and
0.10 seconds, 3.39 6 0.17 seconds, and 5.80 6 0.26 seconds). jump height than relative strength (r = 0.42, p = 0.01), even
In comparison, Gabbett (15) reported slower 10-m (Backs, though the athlete has to accelerate their body mass when
2.08 seconds; Forwards, 2.19 seconds), 20-m (Backs, 3.53 sec- jumping which would imply a stronger relationship to rela-
onds; Forwards, 3.57 seconds), and 40-m sprint performances tive strength. In contrast, relationships between absolute
the TM

2418 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

strength and sprint times over 10, 20, and 40 m were weak 12. Comfort, P, Graham-Smith, P, Matthews, MJ, and Bamber, C.
and nonsignificant (r = 20.25, 20.28, and 20.2; p , 0.05, Strength and power characteristics in English elite rugby league
players. J Strength Cond Res 25: 1374–1384, 2011.
respectively), whereas relative strength demonstrated mod-
13. Gabbett, TJ. Physiological and anthropometric characteristics of
erate inverse correlations between relative squat strength amateur rugby league players. Br J Sports Med 34: 303–307, 2000.
sprint times (r = 20.45, 20.46, and 20.44; p , 0.01) across 14. Gabbett, TJ. Influence of physiological characteristics on selection in
10, 20, and 40 m, respectively. This is in line with the pre- a semi-professional first grade rugby league team: A case study.
vious research correlating maximal squat strength improved J Sports Sci 20: 399–405, 2002.
sprint performances (11,25,33), which is likely explained 15. Gabbett, TJ. Physiological characteristics of junior and senior rugby
league players. Br J Sports Med 36: 334–339, 2002.
because of the fact that high ground reaction forces are
16. Gabbett, TJ. Incidence of injury in junior and senior rugby league
associated with sprint performance (31,32,34).
players. Sports Med 34: 849–859, 2004.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS 17. Gabbett, TJ. Changes in physiological and anthropometric
characteristics of rugby league players during a competitive season.
The importance of lower limb strength in improving both J Strength Cond Res 19: 400–408, 2005.
jump and sprint performance is crucial in enhancing 18. Gabbett, TJ. Science of rugby league football: A review. J Sports Sci
acceleration over short distances (11,25,33). Developing 23: 961–976, 2005.
squat strength relative to body mass is a fundamental 19. Gabbett, TJ and Domrow, N. Risk factors for injury in sub elite
rugby league players. Am J Sports Med 33: 428–434, 2005.
requirement of multiple sprint sports where acceleration is
20. Gabbett, TJ, Kelly, J, and Pezet, T. Relationship between physical
a key component. In conclusion, it is recommended that fitness and playing ability in rugby league players. J Strength Cond
strength and conditioning coaches develop training pro- Res 21: 1126–1133, 2007.
grams that maximize squat strength, as part of a periodized 21. Gabbett, TJ, Kelly, JN, and Sheppard, JM. Speed, change of direction
training regime, to enhance the acceleration capabilities over speed, and reactive agility of rugby league players. J Strength Cond
distances of 10–40 m, irrespective of playing position, espe- Res 22: 174–181, 2008.
cially in developing athletes as relative strength seems to 22. Gabbett, TJ, King, T, and Jenkins, D. Applied physiology of rugby
league. Sports Med 38: 119–138, 2008.
differentiate between sprint and jump performance.
23. Gissane, C, White, J, Kerr, K, and Jennings, D. Physical collisions in
professional super league. The demands of different player positions.
REFERENCES Cleve Med J 4: 137–146, 2001.
1. Austine, DJ, Gabbett, TJ, and Jenkins, DJ. Repeated high-intensity 24. King, T, Jenkins, D, and Gabbet, TJ. A time-motion analysis of
exercise in a professional rugby league. J Strength Cond Res 25: 1898– professional rugby league match-play. J Sports Sci 27: 213–219, 2009.
1904, 2011. 25. McBride, JM, Blow, D, Kirby, TJ, Haines, TL, Dayne, AM, and
2. Baechle, TR, Earle, RW, and Wathen, D, eds. Resistance Training. Triplett, NT. Relationship between maximal squat strength and five,
Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. National Strength and ten, and forty yard sprint times. J Strength Cond Res 23: 1633–1636,
Conditioning Association (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2009.
2008. pp. 381–412. 26. Meir, R, Arthur, D, and Forrest, M. Time and motion analysis of
3. Baker, D. A comparison of running speed and quickness between professional rugby league: A case study. Strength Cond Coach 1: 24–
elite professional and young rugby league players. Strength Cond 29, 1993.
Coach 7: 3–7, 1999. 27. Meir, R, Newton, R, Curtis, E, Fardell, M, and Butler, B. Physical fitness
4. Baker, D. A series of studies on the training of high-intensity muscle qualities of professional rugby league football players: Determination of
power in rugby league football players. J Strength Cond Res 15: 198– positional differences. J Strength Cond Res 15: 450–458, 2001.
209, 2001. 28. O’Connor, D. Physiological characteristics of professional rugby
5. Baker, D. Differences in strength and power between junior-high, league players. Strength Cond Coach 4: 21–26, 1996.
senior-high, college-aged and elite professional rugby league 29. Ronnestad, BR, Kvamme, NH, Sunde, A, and Raastad, T. Short-
players. J Strength Cond Res 16: 581–585, 2002. term effects of strength and plyometric training on sprint and jump
6. Baker, D. The effects of systematic strength and power training during performance in professional soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 22:
the formative training years: A comparison between younger and older 773–780, 2008.
professional rugby league players. Strength Cond Coach 11: 9–11, 2003. 30. Sykes, D, Twist, C, Hall, S, Nicholas, C, and Lamb, K. Semi-
7. Baker, D and Nance, S. The relationship between running speed and automated time-motion analysis of senior elite rugby league. Int
measures of strength and power in professional rugby league players. J Perform Anal Sport 9: 47–59, 2009.
J Strength Cond Res 13: 230–235, 1999. 31. Weyand, PG, Lin, JE, and Bundle, MW. Sprint performance
8. Baker, D and Newton, R. Comparison of lower body strength, duration relationships are set by the fractional duration of external
power, acceleration, speed, agility and sprint momentum to describe force application. Am J Physiol 290: R758–R765, 2006.
and compare playing rank among professional rugby league players. 32. Weyand, PG, Sternlight, DB, Bellizzi, MJ, and Wright, S. Faster top
J Strength Cond Res 22: 153–158, 2008. running speeds are achieved with greater ground forces not more
9. Brewer, J and Davis, J. Applied physiology of rugby league. Sports rapid leg movements. J Appl Physiol 89: 1991–1999, 2000.
Med 20: 129–135, 1995. 33. Wisloff, U, Castagna, C, Helgerud, J, Jones, R, and Hoff, J. Strong
10. Brewer, J, Davis, J, and Kear, J. A comparison of the physiological correlation of maximal squat strength with sprint performance and
characteristics of rugby league forwards and backs. J Sport Sci 12: vertical jump height in elite soccer players. Br J Sport Med 38: 285–
158, 1994. 288, 2004.
11. Comfort, P, Bullock, N, and Pearson, SJ. A comparison of maximal squat 34. Wright, S and Weyand, PG. The application of ground force
strength and five, ten and twenty meter sprint times in athletes and explains the energetic cost of running backward and forward. J Exp
recreationally trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res 26: 937–940, 2012. Biol 204: 1805–1815, 2001.

VOLUME 27 | NUMBER 9 | SEPTEMBER 2013 | 2419

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

You might also like