This article was downloaded by: [Monash University Library]

On: 30 September 2013, At: 12:25

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Sport Science

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tejs20

Influence of a 2-year strength training programme on

power performance in elite youth soccer players
a b b b
André Sander , Michael Keiner , Klaus Wirth & Dietmar Schmidtbleicher
a
Bobsleigh and Luge Federation Germany , Berchtesgaden , Germany
b
Institute of Sport Science, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University Frankfurt , Frankfurt ,
Germany
Published online: 13 Nov 2012.

To cite this article: André Sander , Michael Keiner , Klaus Wirth & Dietmar Schmidtbleicher (2013) Influence of a 2-year
strength training programme on power performance in elite youth soccer players, European Journal of Sport Science, 13:5,
445-451, DOI: 10.1080/17461391.2012.742572

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2012.742572

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 European Journal of Sport Science, 2013
Vol. 13, No. 5, 445
451, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2012.742572

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Influence of a 2-year strength training programme on power

performance in elite youth soccer players

ANDRÉ SANDER1, MICHAEL KEINER2, KLAUS WIRTH2,

& DIETMAR SCHMIDTBLEICHER2
1
Bobsleigh and Luge Federation Germany, Berchtesgaden, Germany, 2Institute of Sport Science, Johann Wolfgang Goethe
University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 12:25 30 September 2013

Abstract
In soccer, strength, power and speed are very important because of the large number of power actions performed during the
game. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the influence of periodised strength training for power performance
more than 2 years. In this study, 134 elite youth soccer players were recruited from two youth training centres. The cohorts
were arranged as follows: A (under 19 years), B (under 17 years) and C (under 15 years). The participants in each cohort
were divided into two groups. One group (Strength training group [STG]) was subjected to regular soccer training in
addition to strength training twice a week for 2 years. The other group (Control group [CG]) completed only the regular
soccer training. The strength training was periodised with hypertrophy and intramuscular coordination blocks. For strength
training, both the front squat and the back squat were performed once a week. The subjects were tested on the one-
repetition maximum (1RM) of the front and back squat and a linear sprint over 30 m. There was significantly better
performance from the STG on 1RM (p B0.001). In the sprint, the STG displayed significantly better improvements (p B
0.05 to p B0.001) of up to 6%. The effects of strength training are reflected in the sprint performance. Therefore, it seems
beneficial for youth to perform strength training to exploit the reserve capacity in sprint performances.

Keywords: Adolescents, squat exercise, sprint, 1RM

Introduction Several studies have shown a moderate-to-high

In soccer, a player’s conditioning in terms of
strength, power and speed is of great importance.
A soccer game is characterised by 1000
1400 speed
and power actions, depending on age, playing
position and class (Stolen, Chamari, Castagna, &
Wisloff, 2005). Therefore, a soccer player must not
only manage technical and tactical tasks, but also
must have the necessary athletic skill for a large
number of power actions. These power actions may
be crucial for win/loss duels, winning the ball and
scoring or preventing a goal (Reilly, 2007; Verheijen,
1998).
The prerequisites for good sprint performance are
the degree of muscle mass and the degree of neural
control mechanisms of performance-limiting muscle
slings, which are the basis for maximal strength.
correlation between strength measurements and
sprint performances (Baker & Newton, 2008; Bissas
& Havenentidis, 2008; Dowson, Nevill, Lakomy,
Nevill, & Hazeldine, 1998; Harris, Cronin, Hopkins,
& Hansen, 2008; Hori et al., 2008; Kukolj, Ropret,
Ugarkovic, & Jaric, 1999, McBride et al., 2009;
Requena et al., 2009; Smirniotou et al., 2008;
Wisloff, Castagna, Helgerud, Jones, & Hoff, 2004;
Young, McLean, & Ardagna, 1995). Various meth-
ods have been used to assess strength by investigat-
ing its relationship to athletic performance. These
methods include isokinetics, machine squats and
free-weight squats (Baker & Newton, 2008; Harris et
al., 2008; McBride et al., 2009; Wisloff et al., 2004).
Strong correlations between sprint performance and
strength have been found in the use of free-weight
squats. Young, Benton, Duthie, and Pryor (2001)

Correspondence: André Sander, Bobsleigh and Luge Federation Germany, An der Schiesstätte 6, 83471 Berchtesgaden, Germany. E-mail:
a.sander@bsd-portal.de

# 2013 European College of Sport Science

 446 A. Sander et al.
recommended free weights in strength training to
improve sprint performance over the acceleration
phase.
These authors determined that sprint performance
could be improved through strength training. Stu-
dies show that strength training interventions can
lead to faster sprint times for distances of up to 60 m
(Ronnestad, Kvamme, Sunde, & Raastad, 2008;
Tsimahidis et al., 2010). However, other studies
have been unable to confirm the positive effects of
strength training on sprint performance (McBride,
Triplet-McBride, Davie, & Newton, 2002). These
varying results may be due to an intervention period
of less than one year. It is difficult to measure the
influence of strength training methods for sprint
performance for periods of less than one year
because many factors limit sprint performance. In
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 12:25 30 September 2013
the literature, no strength training interventions in
competitive sports extend beyond one year. There-
fore, the aim of this study is to show the development
of sprint performances over 30 m in youth soccer
after two years of strength training intervention.
Methods
This study included volunteer elite youth soccer
players (n 134) at the junior level. The soccer
players were recruited from two youth training
centres affiliated with professional teams in the
second and third divisions in Germany. The subjects
were informed of the experimental risks involved in
the research. All subjects provided written informed
consent to participate. Informed consent was also
obtained from the subject’s parents if the subject was
younger than 18 years old. The research was
approved by the Institutional Sport Science Ethics
Committee of the Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Univer-
sity in Frankfurt, Germany. At the pre-test time, the
age range of soccer players of the A, B and C cohorts
were 17, 15 and 13, respectively. The anthropo-
metric data are presented in Table I. The soccer
players in each cohort were divided into two
subgroups: those who participated in strength train-
Table I. The means9standard deviations of the anthropometric data and the per cent change between the two test times.
T1 body-mass T2 body-mass
Cohort Group (kg) (kg)
A STG (n 13) 69.995.6 73.294.8
CG ( n 15) 72.798.1 76.496.7
B STG (n 30) 63.297.7 70.199.1
CG ( n 25) 60910.1 69.898.7
C STG (n 18) 46.4911.6 54.5910
CG ( n 33) 48.3910.2 58.1910.4
T1 pre-test; T2 post-test; kg kilogramme; cm centimetre.
Significant difference between the groups: *p 50.01.
ing in addition to their routine soccer training
Strength training group (STG) and those who
only performed routine soccer training (CG). An
additional CG of youths who were not engaged in
competitive sports was not included because this
group was too difficult to organise.
In addition to the four soccer training sessions,
strength training in the STG was performed weekly
twice. The strength training sessions were performed
on non-consecutive days. Subjects in the A, B, and C
cohorts varied their exercises between the parallel
front and back squats during the week. Additionally,
the players in these cohorts performed bench
presses, deadlifts, neck presses and exercises for the
trunk muscles as well as the standing row. The
strength training for the parallel squat was periodised
in different blocks (see Figure 1), and the subjects
performed technique training for squats during the
first 4 weeks. During the following 8 weeks, the
subjects performed hypertrophy training, which
consisted of five sets of 10 repetitions with 3-minutes
rest between each set. The third training block (4
weeks) consisted of five sets of six repetitions with 3-
minutes rest between each set followed by an
additional training block (4 weeks) of five sets of
four repetitions with 5-minutes rest between each
set. The amount of weight lifted in the training
sessions was determined by the ability of each
individual. All subjects lifted their maximum weight
while using the correct technique for the given
number of repetitions (4, 6 or 10RM). The amount
of weight was increased at the next training session if
the subject could lift the given weight with the proper
technique in the respective squat variant. The
training for the trunk muscles and the upper
extremities consisted of 3
5 sets of 10RM with 3-
minutes rest between each set. The subjects per-
formed a rotation of three of the previously men-
tioned exercises for the upper body and one exercise
for the trunk muscles in addition to the squat
exercise during every training session. The described
periodisation was repeated twice during one season
(see Figure 1). Therefore, the subjects performed the
Changes between T1 body-height T2 body-height Changes between
T1 and T2 (%) (cm) (cm) T1 and T2 (%)
4.7695.22 174.796.1 176.995.9 1.2790.64
5.3395.63 177.996.2 179.596.4 0.9290.57
11.196.9* 172.497.4 177.496.1 3.092.1
17.298.8* 171.798.0 178.496.8 4.091.8
19910.2 155.999.4 166.598.4 6.892.2
21.8913 160910.9 169.698.9 6.294.2
 Training programme on power performance in soccer players
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 12:25 30 September 2013
Figure 1. The study design for the two-year duration.
periodisation model four times in two years. The CG
only participated in four regular soccer training
sessions per week, and none of the subjects from
either the STG or CG groups participated in an
additional strength training routine.
The pre-test (T1) was performed in early July
2009, and the post-test (T2) was performed at the
end of May 2011. The subjects completed the sprint
test over 30 m. The maximum strength measure-
ments (one-repetition maximum 1RM) for the
front and back squats were completed one week
after the sprint test. The athletes of the STG and the
CG groups completed a two-week technical training
for both squat variations before they were tested.
The 1RM strength was tested again after one year.
Sprint testing
The 30-m linear sprint was measured using seven
double-light barriers. The barriers were installed at a
distance of 5 m each. Time measurement began after
the subject had passed through the first light barrier.
The subjects independently chose when the mea-
surement began according to the activation of the
barriers. Thus, the reaction time was excluded from
the measurement. The starting point was set to 0.75
m before the starting light barrier; thus, an early
release due to a hand movement or a forward-leaning
position of the upper body was avoided. Time was
calculated at each of the 5-, 10-, 15-, 20-, 25- and
30-m marks. Each athlete had three attempts at the
sprint. Between each completed sprint, the athletes
received a 5-minute break. The sprint with the best
447
end time was used. The intra-correlation classes for
the linear sprint parameters were 0.94
0.97.
1RM testing
The 1RM measurement is recommended for soccer
and is an appropriate way to determine maximum
strength during childhood and adolescence (Faigen-
baum et al., 2009). The warm-up (two sets of 6
8
reps) was performed with a submaximal, non-
fatiguing amount of weight for the squat. Then,
the 1RM was determined that could be achieved in a
maximum of five attempts. The 1RM front squat
was tested first, and then the back squat was
determined. The depth of the squat was standar-
dized approximately where top of the thigh was
parallel to the floor. The depth of the squats was
visually assessed by the coach during all training and
testing. The CG completed a technical training of
the squat variants two weeks before they were tested.
At least 2 days before the test time, there were no
fatiguing training sessions.
Data and statistical analyses
The data were analysed using the SPSS 19.0 soft-
ware. The Kolmogorov
Smirnov test for distribu-
tion was used. Due to the different sample sizes
within individual age groups, an additional homo-
geneity test was applied according to Levene’s test. A
two-way (treatment time) analysis of variance with
repeated measurements was performed. When a
significant main effect was obtained, a Bonferroni
post-hoc correction was applied. Descriptive data (%
 448 A. Sander et al.

Table II. The means9standard deviations of the maximum strength (A) and sprint performance (B) with the per cent change between the
two test times.

Changes Changes
T1 front squat T2 front squat between T1 back squat T2 back squat between
Cohort Group (kg) (kg) T1 and T2 (%) (kg) (kg) T1 and T2 (%)

A STG (n 13) 53.896.8 106.2910 101.6943* 61.2910 120.4911.4 101.6937*

CG ( n 15) 54.596.9 65910 20.9922.9 69.5912.9 87.7910.1 29.2922.7
B STG (n 30) 46.297.4 97.8913.3 115.1934.4* 52910.7§§ 113915.2 123938.5*
CG ( n 25) 35.697.5 51.5910.1 49.8939.6 41.7911.6 65911.2 67951.4
C STG (n 18) 21.498.5 81.4914.4 312.59118.6* 2599.6 90913.5 290.99107.8*
CG ( n 33) 25.7913.3 36.196.6 62.3953.8 32.9916.1 46.8910.9 59.7943.4

T1 pre-test; T2 post-test; kg kilogramme.

Significant difference relative to CG: *p 50.001. Significant difference relative to CG: §§p 50.05

B
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 12:25 30 September 2013

Cohort Group Test-time 5 m (s) 10 m (s) 15 m (s) 20 m (s) 25 m (s) 30 m (s)

A STG ( n 13) T1 1.02290.032 1.74690.042 2.39890.049 3.02090.067 3.61790.083 4.21190.103

T2 0.98790.030 1.71290.045 2.34690.057 2.96190.058 3.54890.075 4.14690.078
% 3.193.0** 1.992.9** 2.192.7** 1.991.9** 1.892.2* 1.592.0*
CG ( n15) T1 1.01990.037 1.74390.052 2.39290.055 3.00490.067 3.60490.081 4.19490.093
T2 1.04690.059 1.77590.076 2.42690.092 3.03890.100 3.63190.127 4.22790.132
% 2.896.3 1.994.1 1.493.1 1.192.6 0.892.8 0.892.5
B STG ( n 30) T1 1.04390.053 1.80290.082 2.47790.110 3.12090.140 3.74490.178 4.37190.203
T2 1.00490.058 1.73190.078 2.37590.102 2.98490.126 3.57790.155 4.16690.183
% 3.892.9** 3.992.4* 4.192.2 4.392.2* 4.492.2* 4.692.0
CG ( n25) T1 1.03890.050 1.79890.084 2.48290.111 3.12990.145 3.76390.181 4.40490.222
T2 1.03190.053 1.76190.075 2.38690.244 3.04590.124 3.64890.149 4.24690.177
% 0.694.3 2.093.8 3.899.5 2.692.8 3.092.5 3.592.9
C STG ( n 18) T1 1.08590.043 1.91790.056 2.65190.078 3.37590.101 4.08190.128 4.78890.158
T2 1.02690.034 1.81390.078 2.51790.105 3.19490.142 3.85490.174 4.51190.213
% 5.394.6*** 5.493.9*** 5.193.0*** 5.493.0*** 5.693.0** 5.893.1**
CG ( n33) T1 1.09890.042 1.89690.066 2.62490.087 3.32590.112 4.01390.146 4.69190.179
T2 1.10790.061 1.87890.075 2.58390.097 3.24790.120 3.89990.144 4.54890.174
% 0.895.0 0.993.2 1.592.8 2.392.7 2.892.7 3.092.9

T1 pre-test; T2 post-test; s seconds.

Significant difference relative to CG: *p 50.05; **p 50.01; ***p 50.001.

change) and Cohen’s effect sizes were also used to 1RM

identify the magnitude of the effect between the
treatments. Cohen’s effect sizes and thresholds were
interpreted as follows: 0.5 was large, from 0.5 to
0.3 was moderate and from 0.3 to 0.1 and B0.1
were trivial (Bortz & Döring, 2006). Additionally,
a Cohen’s correlation analysis was used between
sprint performance over the first 15 m and 1RM
of back and front squats in relation to body weight.
The significance level was set at p B0.05, and the
data are presented as the mean values9standard
deviations.
Results
The Kolmogorov
Smirnov test determined that the
data were normally distributed. The Levene’s test of
homogeneity displayed the homogeneity of the
respective groups.
The results of the maximum strength measurements
are given in Table II and show a significant difference
in the front squat (p B0.001, d1.7) and the back
squat (pB0.001, d 1.7) between the two groups in
the A cohort. The B cohort shows the same
statistical significance; however, the front squat had
an effect size of d 1.2, and the back squat had an
effect size of d 0.9. The STG was significantly
better than the CG at T1, and the difference was
further increased at T2. The C cohort also showed
significant differences (p B0.001) between the two
groups, with effect sizes of d1.9 for the front squat
and d2.0 for the back squat. Therefore, each effect
size can be described as large.
The various analyses within the groups between
T1 and T2 demonstrate significant results for the
STG in all cohorts for both squat variations (p B
0.001). In the CG, significance was only determined
 Training programme on power performance in soccer players
for the B cohort. For the A cohort, there were no
significant differences between T1 and T2. The C
cohort displayed significant differences between T1
and T2 (pB0.01). Thus, both groups improved
their performance in the maximum strength of front
and back squat during the 2 years of the study (see
Figure 2).
Sprint
The results of the analyses of the 30-m sprint are
given in Table II. The comparison between the two
groups, STG and CG, demonstrates that the STG A
cohort was significantly better than the CG in all
sub-sections (p B0.01
p B0.05, d 0.7
0.9). In the
B cohort, there was a significant difference at 5 m
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 12:25 30 September 2013
(pB0.01, d0.6), 10 m (p B0.05, d 0.4), 20 m
(pB0.05, d0.5) and 25 m (pB0.05, d 0.5). The
C cohort displayed a significant difference between
the two groups in all sub-sections (p B0.001
pB
0.01, d 0.7
0.9).
Figure 2. Longitudinal course in lifted weights of 1RM front
squat (A) and back squat (B) over 2 years.
449
Within the STG, the A cohort displayed signifi-
cantly better values from T1 to T2 at the 5
30 m (p B
0.01
p B0.05) sub-sections, with effect sizes of
d 0.6
0.8. In the B and C cohorts, there were
significant differences at all distances (p B0.001). In
this measurement, the effect sizes were d 0.7
1.1.
The CG showed no significant differences between
T1 and T2 in the A cohort. In the B cohort,
significant differences were found from T1 to T2
only at 10
30 m (p B0.01
p B0.05) sub-sections
with effect sizes of d 0.3
0.5. In the C cohort, a
significant difference was measured at the 15
30 m
(p B0.001
p B0.05, d 0.3
0.6) sub-sections.
Correlation analysis
The correlation analysis shows a significant positive
moderate relationship between strength gains in
1RM/body weight and improvement in sprint per-
formance in all cohorts. The relation coefficients are
between r  0.45 and r  0.53 over 5 m,
between r  0.38 and r  0.52 over 10 m and
between r  0.48 and 0.59 over 15 m. These
results suggest the positive influence of strength level
on sprint performance for the first 15 m.
Discussion
This investigation illustrates the positive influence of
strength training on maximum strength and sprint-
ing performances in adolescent soccer players. The
results presented in Table II give a positive develop-
ment of maximum strength for the STG in all
cohorts. Both the front and back squats in the A
and B cohorts demonstrated strength development
of 100
120%. For the C cohort, a strength
increase of 300% in 1RM was detected. The real
percentage increase in strength caused by the train-
ing programme (%STG
%CG) was estimated at
56
80% in the A and B cohorts. The C cohort
showed an increase of 230
250%. Other studies
have not shown such large percentage changes in
maximum strength after strength training (Blimkie,
1992). Chelly et al. (2009) recorded an increase of
25% after 8 weeks in 17-year-old soccer players.
Ronnestad et al. (2008) demonstrated an increase of
19% for the back squat in adult professional soccer
players after 10 weeks. Hartmann et al. (2012)
demonstrated front and back squat increases from
25 to 30% after a 10-week strength training pro-
gramme (Ronnestad et al., 2008). Blimkie (1992)
found strength gains of up to 50% after strength
training interventions from 8 to 20 weeks. The STG
and CG for the C cohort, however, show greater
strength gains than for the A or B cohorts. It is
hypothesised that neural adaptations do not vary
significantly in the three age cohorts because all of
 450 A. Sander et al.
these cohorts performed the same periodised train-
ing. Therefore, the reason for the greater strength
gains must be morphological or anthropometric
changes. In the anthropometric data, the C cohort
displays the greatest changes in body weight and
body size of the three cohorts. This larger growth in
both width and length provides a greater increase in
strength due to the increase in muscle fibres. This
finding confirms the hypothesis that there is a
significant impact of changes in body size and body
weight on the maximum strength performance. How-
ever, this finding is based on data obtained without an
additional CG of untrained adolescents. Therefore,
these data do not filter out the impact of soccer
training versus pure biological evolution for the
gains in maximum strength. Furthermore, the STG
has significantly greater strength gains in all cohorts
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 12:25 30 September 2013
compared to the CG. It can be speculated that
strength training exploits the adaptations of the neural
mechanisms better than regular soccer training alone
does. However, it should be noted that gains in
strength from 56 to 250% caused by the training
programme have not been found in the literature.
This finding may be the result of our longer inter-
vention period compared to other investigations, or it
may be attributed to the same requirements for the
training and testing exercises.
STG leads to a significant improvement in sprint
times between T1 and T2 in all cohorts in the 30-m
sprint across all intervals (5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30
m). However, the A cohort was almost significant
(pB0.056) at 10 m due to a high standard deviation.
However, the percentages show improvements of up
to 5.8%. Comfort, Haigh, and Matthews (2012)
demonstrated similar changes of 5.9
7.6% in the
sprint performance (5, 10 and 20 m) of elite rugby
players after an 8-week strength training programme.
This finding is justified by the coordinative difficulty
of the sprint movement. During the sprint, in
addition to the power level, technical elements
influence performance. Because of the long training
intervention, we assume that sprint improvements
would be higher than the results of Comfort et al.
(2012). One reason for the differing results may be
the intervention time point. Comfort et al. con-
ducted their study in the preseason and tested
subjects at the beginning and the end of preseason.
In this study, the subjects were tested after the long
season (T2). The CG in the C cohort also displayed
significant improvements in sprint performance from
15 to 30 m. The B cohort showed significant
improvements at 10, 20, 25 and 30 m. The A cohort
showed no improvement in sprint performance. This
finding is justified by maturation. The C cohort and
the B cohort experienced changes in body size and
body weight during the two-year period. Williams,
Oliver, and Faulkner (2011) also showed similar
changes in body size, body weight and sprint
performance for the maturation age cohorts (U14

U16) during a season. Body size has a significant
impact on sprint performance because step length, as
one of the performance-limiting factors of the sprint,
is positively influenced. Because body length growth
was largely complete in the A cohort (Table I), no
further increase in performance due to the change in
body size occurred. Therefore, improvements in
sprint performance during regular soccer training
over a season cannot be expected (Caldwell & Peters,
2009; La Torre, Vernillo, Rodigari, Maggioni, &
Merati, 2007). When the two groups are compared,
the STG and CG also reflect the advantage of
strength training for sprint performance. For the A
cohort, a significant difference was observed in all
sections of the sprint despite the lower percentage
change in the sprint times of the STG and the
decreased performance of the CG. This finding
demonstrates the importance of strength training. In
the C cohort, significant differences were measured in
all sections despite improvements in the CG over the
2-year study period. The B cohort displayed signifi-
cant differences in all sections, except at the 15 and 30
m marks. This result demonstrates that strength
training has a positive effect on performance during
the acceleration phase (Young et al., 2001). This
effect apparently decreases with the length of the
sprint as the contact times are shorter and a power
transfer to the surface is more difficult. Therefore, we
assume that power and strength have a significant
impact on the first few metres of a sprint (start),
where they are used to produce a high horizontal force
pulse (Young, 2006). If the distance of the sprint is
longer, other factors, such as step frequency, seem to
limit performance (Young et al., 2001).
The correlation analysis between acceleration
sprint gains and body mass-specific strength gains
shows negative moderate significant correlations.
Requena et al. (2009) demonstrate similar results
of approximately r  0.47 between half squat and
15-m sprint performance. Nimphius, Mc Guigan,
and Newton (2010) show higher correlations (r  
0.75 to 0.87) between 1RM/body weight and
sprint performance for 10 and 20 m in female
softball players. The reason for the higher correla-
tions than in our study may be the different body
composition of female softball players and young
soccer players. Ronnestad et al. (2008) reported
similar correlations (r  0.40) between 1RM/body
weight and sprint performance for 10 m in profes-
sional soccer players (Hori et al., 2008). The results
of the correlation analysis in this study are in
accordance with other studies that used similar
volunteers, tests and sports.
 Training programme on power performance in soccer players
Conclusion
This study is the first to include a strength training
intervention for youth sport over 2 years. This study
shows that a strength training programme with front
and back squats results in a positive effect on the
sprinting performances of young soccer players.
Strength training in addition to regular soccer
training shows better results than regular soccer
training alone over 2 years. Furthermore, complex
weightlifting exercises are suitable for training young
soccer athletes and increasing the level of perfor-
mance of the sprint.
References
Baker, D. G., & Newton, R. U. (2008). Comparison of lower body
strength, power, acceleration, speed, agility, and sprint mo-
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 12:25 30 September 2013
mentum to describe and compare playing rank among profes-
sional rugby league players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 22, 153
158.
Bissas, A. I., & Havenentidis, K. (2008). The use of various
strength-power tests as predictors of sprint running perfor-
mance. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 48, 49

54.
Blimkie, J. R. (1992). Resistance training during preadolescence.
Sports Medicine, 15(6), 389
407.
Bortz, J., & Döring, N. (2006). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation:
für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler [Research methods and
evaluation for human and social scientists]. Heidelberg:
Springer.
Caldwell, B. P., & Peters, D. M. (2009). Seasonal variation in
physiological fitness of a semiprofessional soccer team. Journal
of Strength and Conditioning Research, 23(5), 1370
1377.
Chelly, M. S., Fathloun, M., Cherif, N., Amar, M. B., Tabka, Z.,
& VanPraagh, E. (2009). Effects of a back squat training
program on leg power, jump, and sprint performances in junior
soccer players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,
23(8), 2241
2249.
Comfort, P., Haigh, A., & Matthews, M. J. (2012). Are changes in
maximal squat strength during preseason training reflected in
changes in sprint performance in rugby league players. Journal
of Strength and Conditioning Research, 26, 772
776.
Dowson, M. N., Nevill, M. E., Lakomy, H. K, Nevill, A. M., &
Hazeldine, R. J. (1998). Modelling the relationship between
isokinetic muscle strength and sprint running performance.
Journal of Sport Science, 16, 257
265.
Faigenbaum, A. D., Kraemer, W. J., Blimkie, C. J. R., Jeffreys, I.,
Micheli, L. J., Nitka, M., et al. (2009). Youth resistance
training: Up dated position statement paper from the national
strength and conditioning association. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 23, 60
79.
Harris, N. K., Cronin, J. B., Hopkins, W. G., & Hansen, K. T.
(2008). Relationship between sprint times and the strength/
power outputs of a machine squat jump. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 22, 691
698.
Hartmann, H., Wirth, K., Klusemann, M., Dalic, J., Matuschek,
C., & Schmidtbleicher, D. (2012). Influence of squatting depth
on jumping performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research. [Epub ahead of print]
Hori, N., Newton, R. U., Andrews, W. A., Kawamori, N.,
McGuigan, M. R., & Nosaka, K. (2008). Does performance
of hang power clean differentiate performance of jumping,
451
sprinting and changing of direction. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 22(2), 412
418.
Kukolj, M., Ropret, R., Ugarkovic, D., & Jaric, S. (1999).
Anthropometric, strength, and power predictors of sprinting
performance. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 39,
120
122.
La Torre, A., Vernillo, G., Rodigari, A., Maggioni, M., & Merati,
G. (2007). Explosive strength in female 11-on-11 versus 7-on-
7 soccer players. Sport Science and Health, 2, 80
84.
McBride, J. M., Blow, D., Kirby, T. J., Haines, T. L., Dayne, A.
M., & Triplett, N. T. (2009). Relationship between Maximal
Squat Strength and five, ten, and forty Yard Sprint Times.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 23(6), 1633

1636.
McBride, J. M., Triplett-McBride, T., Davie, A., & Newton, R. U.
(2002). The effect of heavy- vs. light-load jump squats on the
development of strength, power, and speed. Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research, 16(1), 75
82.
Nimphius, S., Mc Guigan, M. R., & Newton, R. U. (2010).
Relationship between strength, power, speed, and change of
direction performance of female softball players. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(4), 885
895.
Reilly, T. (2007). Science of training: Soccer. London: Routledge.
Requena, B., Gonzalez-Badillo, J. J., DeVillareal, E. S., Ereline, J.,
Garcia, I., Gapeyeva, H., et al. (2009). Functional perfor-
mance, maximal strength and power characteristics in iso-
metric and dynamic actions of lower extremities in soccer
players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 23(5),
1391
1401.
Ronnestad, B. R., Kvamme, N. H., Sunde, A., & Raastad, T.
(2008). Short-term effects of strength and plyometric training
on sprint and jump performance in professional soccer players.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22(3), 773
780.
Smirniotou, A., Katsikas, C., Paradisis, G., Argeitari, P., Zachar-
ogiannis, E., & Tziortzis, S. (2008). Strength-power para-
meters as predictors of sprinting performance. Journal of Sports
Medicine and Physical Fitness, 48, 447
454.
Stolen, T., Chamari, K., Castagna, C., & Wisloff, U. (2005).
Physiology of soccer: An update. Sports Medicine, 35(6), 501

536.
Tsimahidis, K., Galazoulas, C., Skoufas, D., Papaiakovou, G.,
Bassa, E., Patikas, D., et al. (2010). The effect of sprinting after
each set off heavy resistance training on the running speed and
jumping performance of young basketball players. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(8), 2102
2108.
Verheijen, R. (1998). Conditioning for Soccer. Leeuwarden: Red-
swain.
Williams, C. A., Oliver, J. L., & Faulkner, J. (2011). Seasonal
monitoring of sprint and jump performance in a soccer youth
academy. International Journal of Sports Physiology and
Performance, 6, 264
275.
Wisloff, U., Castagna, C., Helgerud, J., Jones, R., & Hoff, J.
(2004). Strong correlation of maximal squat strength with
sprint performance and vertical jump height in elite soccer
players. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 38, 285
288.
Young, W. (2006). Transfer of strength and power training to
sports performance. International Journal of Sports Physiology
and Performance, 1, 74
83.
Young, W., Benton, D., Duthie, G., & Pryor, J. (2001). Resistance
training for short sprints and maximum-speed sprints. Strength
and Conditioning Journal, 23(2), 7
13.
Young, W., McLean, B., & Ardagna, J. (1995). Relationship
between strength qualities and sprinting performance. Journal
of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 35, 13
19.