ORIGINAL PAPER
An assessment of static and dynamic balance effectiveness in one-leg stance of young footballers
1
Academic doctor’s higher education program ‘Sports Science’, Latvian Academy of Sport Education, Latvia
2
Department of Sports Education, University of Riau, Indonesia
3
Department of Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry, Biomechanics, Hygiene and Informatics, Latvian Academy of Sport Education, Latvia
4
Department of Sport Games, Latvian Academy of Sports Education, Latvia
Submission date: 2023-08-01
Acceptance date: 2024-04-03
Publication date: 2024-06-28
Corresponding author
Andrew Rinaldi Sinulingga
Academic doctor's higher education program "sports science", Latvian Academy of Sports Education, Latvia
Academic doctor's higher education program "sports science", Latvian Academy of Sports Education, Latvia
Hum Mov. 2024;25(2):97-104
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Purpose:
Balance allows multidirectional lower limb movements that improve technical football skills and reduce injury caused by match activities. This study aimed to evaluate the static and dynamic balance of preferred and nonpreferred legs during unipedal stance in young footballers and investigate correlations between the two types of balance across each parameter.
Methods:
Forty-three youth players (mean age = 15.81 ± 1.33 years, height = 179.50 ± 6.14 cm, body mass = 69.73 ± 9.35 kg) were involved in this study. Static balance was assessed via ellipse area (EA), perimeter length (P), anterior-posterior deviation (APD), medial-lateral deviation (MLD), trunk deviation (TD), average anterior-posterior speed (AAPS), and average medial-lateral speed (AMLS). The total stability index (TSI) and trunk total deviation (TT D) dynamic parameters were also examined.
Results:
None of the static balance parameters showed significant differences between standing on the preferred and nonpreferred legs. Similarly, no meaningful distinctions were observed between the preferred and nonpreferred legs in terms of dynamic balance parameters. Overall, static and dynamic balances indicated no correlation, although minor connections were found between parameters: TT D and EA (r = 0.332; p = 0.03), TT D and MLD (r = 0.335; p = 0.02), and TT D and TD (r = 0.423; p = 0.01)
Conclusions:
The balance evaluation in young football players should incorporate dynamic and static assessments because the postural control outcomes in these two tasks are independent. Participants underwent testing for both static and dynamic balance, revealing no noticeable differences between their preferred and nonpreferred legs.
Balance allows multidirectional lower limb movements that improve technical football skills and reduce injury caused by match activities. This study aimed to evaluate the static and dynamic balance of preferred and nonpreferred legs during unipedal stance in young footballers and investigate correlations between the two types of balance across each parameter.
Methods:
Forty-three youth players (mean age = 15.81 ± 1.33 years, height = 179.50 ± 6.14 cm, body mass = 69.73 ± 9.35 kg) were involved in this study. Static balance was assessed via ellipse area (EA), perimeter length (P), anterior-posterior deviation (APD), medial-lateral deviation (MLD), trunk deviation (TD), average anterior-posterior speed (AAPS), and average medial-lateral speed (AMLS). The total stability index (TSI) and trunk total deviation (TT D) dynamic parameters were also examined.
Results:
None of the static balance parameters showed significant differences between standing on the preferred and nonpreferred legs. Similarly, no meaningful distinctions were observed between the preferred and nonpreferred legs in terms of dynamic balance parameters. Overall, static and dynamic balances indicated no correlation, although minor connections were found between parameters: TT D and EA (r = 0.332; p = 0.03), TT D and MLD (r = 0.335; p = 0.02), and TT D and TD (r = 0.423; p = 0.01)
Conclusions:
The balance evaluation in young football players should incorporate dynamic and static assessments because the postural control outcomes in these two tasks are independent. Participants underwent testing for both static and dynamic balance, revealing no noticeable differences between their preferred and nonpreferred legs.
REFERENCES (51)
1.
Shumway-Cook A, Woollacott MH. Motor Control. Translating Research into Clinical Practice. 5th ed. Wolters Kluwer. Philadelphia; 2017.
2.
Winter DA. Human balance and posture control during standing and walking. Gait Posture. 1995; 3(4):193–214; doi: 10.1016/0966-6362(96)82849-9.
3.
Palmieri RM, Ingersoll CD, Stone MB, Krause BA. Center-of-pressure parameters used in the assessment of postural control. J Sport Rehabil. 2002;11(1):51–66; doi: 10.1123/jsr.11.1.51.
4.
Bishop C, Turner A, Read P. Effects of inter-limb asymmetries on physical and sports performance: a systematic review. J Sports Sci. 2018;36(10): 1135–44; doi: 10.1080/02640414.2017.1361894.
5.
Paillard T, Noé F. Does monopedal postural balance differ between the dominant leg and the nondominant leg? A review. Hum Mov Sci. 2020;74: 102686; doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2020.102686.
6.
Eriksrud O, Federolf PA, Cabri J. Influence of anthropometry, age, sex, and activity level on the hand reach star excursion balance test. Front Psychol. 2019;10:756; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00756.
7.
Alonso AC, Luna NMS, Mochizuki L, Barbieri F, Santos S, Greve JMDA. The influence of anthropometric factors on postural balance: the relationship between body composition and posturographic measurements in young adults. Clinics. 2012;67(12):1433–41; doi: 10.6061/clinics/2012 (12)14.
8.
Stanković M, Radenković O. The status of balance in preschool children involved in dance program. Res Kinesiol. 2012;40(1):113–6.
9.
Jadczak Ł, Grygorowicz M, Wieczorek A, Śliwowski R. Analysis of static balance performance and dynamic postural priority according to playing position in elite soccer players. Gait Posture. 2019;74: 148–53; doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2019.09.008.
10.
Ondra L, Nátĕsta P, Bizovská L, Kuboňová E, Svoboda Z. Effect of in-season neuromuscular and proprioceptive training on postural stability in male youth basketball players. Acta Gymn. 2017; 47(3):144–9; doi: 10.5507/ag.2017.019.
11.
Bressel E, Yonker JC, Kras J, Heath EM. Comparison of static and dynamic balance in female collegiate soccer, basketball, and gymnastics athletes. J Athl Train. 2007;42(1):42–6.
12.
Hrysomallis C. Balance ability and athletic performance. Sports Med. 2011;41(3):221–32; doi: 10.2165/11538560-000000000-00000.
13.
Macpherson, JM, Horak FB. Posture. In: Kandel ER, Schwartz JH, Jessell TM, Siegelbaum SA, Hudspeth AJ (eds.) Principles of neural science. 5th ed. Part VI, Chapter 41. New York: McGraw Hill Medical; 2013, pp. 935–959.
14.
Paillard T. Relationship between sport expertise and postural skills. Front Psychol. 2019;10:1428; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01428.
15.
Davlin CD. Dynamic balance in high level athletes. Percept Mot Skills. 2004;98(3):1171–6; doi: 10.2466/pms.98.3c.1171-1176.
16.
Butler RJ, Southers C, Gorman PP, Kiesel KB, Plisky PJ. Differences in soccer players’ dynamic balance across levels of competition. J Athl Train. 2012;47(6):616–20; doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-47. 5.14.
17.
Bekris E, Georgios K, Konstantinos A, Gissis I, Papadopoulos C, Aristomenis S. Proprioception and balance training can improve amateur soccer players’ technical skills. J Phys Educ Sport. 2012;12(1):81–9.
18.
Paillard T. Plasticity of the postural function to sport and/or motor experience. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2017;72:129–52; doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev. 2016.11.015.
19.
Zemková E, Zapletalová L. The role of neuromuscular control of postural and core stability in functional movement and athlete performance. Front Physiol. 2022;13:796097; doi: 10.3389/fphys.2022. 796097.
20.
Brown SR, Brughelli M, Lenetsky S. Profiling single- leg balance by leg preference and position in rugby union athletes. Motor Control. 2018;22(2): 183–98; doi: 10.1123/MC.2016-0062.
21.
Paillard T, Noé F, Rivière T, Marion V, Montoya R, Dupui P. Postural performance and strategy in the unipedal stance of soccer players at different levels of competition. J Athl Train. 2006;41(2):172–6.
22.
Chew-Bullock TS-Y, Anderson DI, Hamel KA, Gorelick ML, Wallace SA, Sidaway B. Kicking performance in relation to balance ability over the support leg. Hum Mov Sci. 2012;31(6):1615–23; doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2012.07.001.
23.
Barone R, Macaluso F, Traina M, Leonardi V, Farina F, Di Felice V. Soccer players have a better standing balance in nondominant one-legged stance. Open Access J Sport Med. 2011;2:1–6; doi: 10.2147/oajsm.s12593.
24.
Zouhal H, Abderrahman AB, Dupont G, Truptin P, Le Bris R, Le Postec E et al. Laterality influences agility performance in elite soccer players. Front Physiol. 2018;9:807; doi: 10.3389/fphys. 2018.00807.
25.
Vieira O, Coelho DB, Teixeira LA. Asymmetric balance control between legs for quiet but not for perturbed stance. Exp Brain Res. 2014;232(10): 3269–76; doi: 10.1007/S00221-014-4018-6.
26.
Promsri A, Haid T, Werner I, Federolf P. Leg dominance effects on postural control when performing challenging balance exercises. Brain Sci. 2020; 10(3):128; doi: 10.3390/brainsci10030128.
27.
Rahnama N, Lees A, Bambaecichi E. Comparison of muscle strength and flexibility between the preferred and non-preferred leg in English soccer players. Ergonomics. 2005;48(11–14):1568– 75; doi: 10.1080/00140130500101585.
28.
Cığalı BS, Uluçam E, Yilmaz A, Cakiroglu M. Comparison of asymmetries in ground reaction force patterns between normal human gait and football players. Biol Sport. 2004;21(3):241–8.
29.
Yildiz M, Kale M. The effects of kicking leg preference on the bilateral leg strength asymmetries of amateur football players. Isokinet Exerc Sci. 2018;26(1):37–42; doi: 10.3233/IES-171159.
30.
Weber FS, da Silva BGC, Radaelli R, Paiva C, Pinto RS. Isokinetic assessment in professional soccer players and performance comparison according to their different positions in the field. Rev Bras Med Esporte. 2010;16(4):264–8; doi: 10.1590/ s1517-86922010000400006.
31.
Pau M, Arippa F, Leban B, Corona F, Ibba G, Todde F, Scorcu M. Relationship between static and dynamic balance abilities in Italian professional and youth league soccer players. Phys Ther Sport. 2015;16(3):236–41; doi: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2014.12.003.
32.
van Melick N, Meddeler BM, Hoogeboom TJ, Nijhuis- van der Sanden MWG, van Cingel REH. How to determine leg dominance: The agreement between self-reported and observed performance in healthy adults. PLOS ONE. 2017;12(12): e0189876; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189876.
33.
Mauch M, Kälin X, Rennbahn P. Reliability of the ProKin Type B Line System (TechnoBodyTM) Balance System. Internal Project Report; 2011.
34.
Meiners KM, Loudon JK. Dynamic and static assessment of single-leg postural control in female soccer players. J Sport Rehabil. 2020;29(2):174– 8; doi: 10.1123/jsr.2018-0072.
35.
Pizzigalli L, Cremasco M, Cremona E, Rainoldi A. Human postural adaptation to earthly and atypical gravitational environment effects of sport training on stabilometric parameters. Adv Anthropol. 2013;3(4):229–36; doi: 10.4236/aa.2013.34032.
36.
Donath L, Roth R, Zahner L, Faude O. Testing single and double limb standing balance performance: comparison of COP path length evaluation between two devices. Gait Posture. 2012;36(3): 439–43; doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2012.04.001.
37.
Asseman F, Caron O, Crémieux J. Is there a transfer of postural ability from specific to unspecific postures in elite gymnasts?. Neurosci Lett. 2004; 358(2):83–6; doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2003.12.102.
38.
Toprak Celenay S, Mete O, Coban O, Oskay D, Erten S. Trunk position sense, postural stability, and spine posture in fibromyalgia. Rheumatol. Int. 2019;39(12):2087–94; doi: 10.1007/S00296-019- 04399-1.
39.
Sawilowsky SS. New effect size rules of thumb. J Mod Appl Stat Methods. 2009;8(2):26; doi: 10.22237/jmasm/1257035100.
40.
Hoffman M, Schrader J, Applegate T, Koceja D. Unilateral postural control of the functionally dominant and nondominant extremities of healthy subjects. J Athl Train. 1998;33(4):319–22.
41.
Teixeira LA, de Oliveira DL, Romano RG, Correa SC. Leg preference and interlateral asymmetry of balance stability in soccer players. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2011;82(1):21–7; doi: 10.1080/02701367. 2011.10599718.
42.
King AC, Wang Z. Asymmetrical stabilization and mobilization exploited during static single leg stance and goal directed kicking. Hum Mov Sci. 2017;54;182–90; doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2017.05.004.
43.
Huurnink A, Fransz DP, Kingma I, Hupperets MDW, van Dieën JH. The effect of leg preference on postural stability in healthy athletes. J Biomech. 2014;47(1):308–12; doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013. 10.002.
44.
Ateş BA. Dynamic balance performance of professional turkish soccer players by playing position, Phys Educ Stud. 2019;23(5):223–8; doi: 10.15561/20755279.2019.0502.
45.
Cug M, Duncan A, Wikstrom E. Comparative effects of different balance–training–progression styles on postural control and ankle force production: a randomized controlled trial. J Athl Train. 2016;51(2):101–10; doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-51. 2.08.
46.
Sabin MJ, Ebersole KT, Martindale AR, Price JW, Broglio SP. Balance performance in male and female collegiate basketball athletes: influence of testing surface. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(8): 2073–8; doi: 10.1519/jsc.0b013e3181ddae13.
47.
Matsuda S, Demura S, Uchiyama M. Centre of pressure sway characteristics during static onelegged stance of athletes from different sports. J Sports Sci. 2008;26(7):775–9; doi: 10.1080/026 40410701824099.
48.
Atkins SJ, Bentley I, Hurst HT, Sinclair JK, Hesketh C. The Presence of bilateral imbalance of the lower limbs in elite youth soccer players of different ages. J Strength Cond Res. 2016;30(4):1007– 13; doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182987044.
49.
Takakusaki K, Takahashi M, Obara K, Chiba R. Neural substrates involved in the control of posture. Adv Robot. 2017;31(1–2):2–23; doi: 10.1080/ 01691864.2016.1252690.
50.
Karimi MT, Solomonidis S. The relationship between parameters of static and dynamic stability tests. J Res Med Sci. 2011;16(4):530–5.
51.
Sell TC . An examination, correlation, and comparison of static and dynamic measures of postural stability in healthy, physically active adults. Phys Ther Sport. 2012;13(2):80–6; doi: 10.1016/j.ptsp. 2011.06.006.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 1899-1955 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
