Jump training in football is commonly utilised by strength & conditioning (S&C) coaches within football (soccer). In the past this would often be referred to as plyometrics training, but more recently the term jump training is preferred to indicate that not all these activities are sufficiently using the stretch-shortening cycle (SSC), which is an essential element to classify movements as plyometrics training. This means non-plyometric activities, such as for instance jumps with long contact time, all have their place within the training. It should however be clear that plyometrics is an essential part of a footballers training regime.
So why should a player participate in jump training? Let’s look at the demands of the sport. Football has a vast number of explosive activities such as sprinting, changes of direction, tackling and jumping itself. As such, it can be argued that for younger players jumping is needed to develop good motor control skills activities and force application (Plyometrics and Jump Training: Progressions, Regressions And Recovery Circuits With Boo Schexnayder, 2018). Secondly, it should not be forgotten that jumping itself is a sport-specific activity, with Mohr et al. (2003) reporting as many as 36 jumps in a match. In a similar way that sprint training has an injury prevention element to it, one could argue that jump training is an essential part of training from a performance and injury prevention point of view. After all, if a player is only exposed at activities which require a very high rate of force development during matches, they are much more likely to injure themselves. Finally, there are clear links between plyometrics and – among other things - improved sprint performance. Plenty of reasons to offer well-structured jump training and plyometrics to our athletes.
But while this type of training is a low hanging fruit - after all the cost of implementation is rather low (a few boxes, hurdles, …) – the challenge for the S&C coach is to provide the before mentioned structure within a session and on a micro-, meso- and macro-level. As with any training, progressive overload is needed to lead to positive training adaptation. With this in mind, S&C coaches are often asked about their classification of plyometric exercises. One way of delivering progressive overload is by an increase of intensity. This means exercises would need to be grouped into different (intensity) categories. In the past few decades, classification of plyometrics has evolved to help with such exercise selection of plyometrics in training. Yuri Verkhoshansky is often seen as one of the founders of plyometrics. Verkhoshansky (2011) would classify his jump work in four levels as seen in figure 1:
- Level 1: bounds + jumps without weight
- Level 2: barbell exercises
- Level 3: consecutive barbell jumps + kettlebell squat jumps + CM barbell jumps
- Level 4: depth jumps
This framework was seen as a multi-year training program for athletes. Only very high-level athletes would be able to do the top-level jumps. This makes sense given the vast forces that need to be absorbed and generated. However, for not all S&C coaches active within football have access to extensive gym facilities or by extension kettlebells and barbells. This would eliminate levels two and three. It could be argued that the jump – no pun intended – from level one to level four is too big and would lead to increased injury risk. Obviously, the S&C coach could work towards drop jumps by adding exercises such as derivatives (controlled drops, sub-maximal drop-jumps, …). But it would still require an experienced coach to bridge this gap.
Figure 1 - Classification of Plyometrics by Y. Verkoshansky
Figure 2 - Adaptation of plyometric claasifaction by N. Verkoshansky
In a later work, Natalia Verkhoshansky (2012), who continued her father’s work, moved to a system with two major classifications: impact and non-impact plyometric exercises. In this classification, impact plyometrics are defined as” exercises with a reversible regime of muscle work with additional external force impact.” A further sub-classification of the impact-plyometrics is made in for example multiple-impact plyometrics, combined plyometrics and classic shock method exercises. An example of this framework can be seen in figure 2. Still, in essence this is still very much in line with the earlier classification as shown in figure 1.
Verkhoshansky’s classification is often rewritten in an attempt to simplify it, for instance by EXOS as part of their Sport Performance Specialist qualification course as shown in figure 3 or more recently by Lachlan Wilmot (2023) as shown in figure 4.
Figure 3 - Classification of plyometric jumps by EXOS as adapted from the SPS-course
Above classification is based on the forces impacting on and created by the player. The higher the forces involved, the higher the classification. More recently, some researchers and coaches (Flanagan & Comyns, 2008) have been advocating to use the reactive-strength index (RSI) to estimate the intensity of an exercise. The rational behind this is that both contact time and flight time are included in RSI so an indication of both landing forces and jump forces are taken into account. The other main advantage of this method is that coaches would be able to tailor the load not only towards the training goal, but also consider the actual neuro-muscular recovery state of the athletes in a more individualised way (Bishop et al., 2023). However, it should be clear there are some practical issues to be addressed before this method can be used by S&C coaches. While some reliable cost-efficient measuring devices are available to coaches (Montalvo et al., 2021), these solutions are often geared towards an individual gym-based environment rather than use for a team setting out on a football pitch.
Figure 4 - lower body vertical jump progression by Lachlan Wilmot adapted from Sportsmith
Figure 5 - plyometric progression plan for reactive strength development by E. Flannagan
The use of force plates has the same limitations. Another limit to the use of RSI method is its inability to measure jumps with a horizontal component (such as hurdle jumps) or multiple repeated jumps. And these are jumps which are often used within football. Interestingly, Eamonn Flanagan (Flanagan, 2016) recently shared a plyometric progression plan for reactive strength development as seen in figure 5. This progression plan is quite similar to some of the earlier shared classifications, with the big difference being the Fast SSC single leg jumps being placed above depth jumps. This seems to be a progression of his earlier work on this topic (Flanagan & Comyns, 2008). In contrast to RSI, the use of rate of perceived exertion (RPE) questionnaires have been proven to be a poor indicator of training intensity regarding plyometrics and should be firmly avoided.
Finally, there seems to be a trend to move away from a classification just by intensity. Experienced coaches now tend to developed their own structure tailored to their own sport-specific needs. These coaches work back from the demands from the sport and implement their structure around the training goals. Boo Schexnayder (2018) shared his adapted framework which uses four categories to divide his plyometrics work. He has a distinct purpose for each category as can be seen in table 1. Similar work was recently shared by Yoeri Pegel (2024).
It could be said that the need for classification of the exercises in different categories is twofold. On the one hand, it gives the S&C coach help in designing the training session towards specific training goals such as maximal vertical height or increased acceleration ability.
| Category | Training goal |
|---|---|
| In place jumps | Volume (often done in circuits) |
| Short bounces | Sports related skill production / education |
| Extended bounces | Power sustenance (particularly important in intermittent sports) |
| Depth jumps | High end training |
Tabel 1 – Classification of jumps & plyometrics by Boo Schexnayder as summarized from Pacey Performance Podcast 212
On the other hand, the classification can help to periodise the different sessions across a period of time. But in the end, classification is no more than a tool to develop good exercise selection. If the classification is based on intensity, some sources might even attach a fixed range of training variables such as sets, reps, rest, etc.
Periodisation however requires a good understanding of all the different training variables And this seems to be the biggest problem with the application of jump training. A review of the available research on the different training variables can be found in the various meta-analysis made on jump training such as the ones by de Villareal et al. (2009), by Ramirez-Campillo et al. (2018) as well as more recently by Montoro-Bombú et al. (2023). The conclusion by Ramirez-Campillo et al. (2018) states the vast inconsistency between the different studies in program duration, volume, methods to measure intensity, training surface, influence of concurrent training programs, variability in exercise selection, rest time, etc. This inconsistency might be understandable given the vast number of research that has been conducted on jump training the past few years. It is however, because of this inconsistency that it is almost impossible to provide general guidance on the training variables.
So, what does this mean for the S&C coach who wants to improve his football players using plyometrics? It shows the need for the coach to have a very good understanding of his own situation. To understand plyometrics in the context he is working in. There is no lack of resources available. But the coach needs to grasp the context he/she works in to make the correct decisions. The below questions might help with this, but are by no means a complete list:
- Which part of the season do I want to train? Volume and intensity might be quite different during pre-season compared to in-season.
- Is there concurrent training to be taken into account?
- How many sessions can I organise per week, per month…?
- What surroundings will I be training my players in? What surface will be used?
- What is the training experience of my players?
- Is differentiation needed due to large differences in experience or physical abilities amongst the players?
- How many players will be training simultaneously? Are more coaches available to support a full squad training?
- Which training aids and materials are available to me?
- What is my training aim? Are these in line with the demands of the sport?
- What reliable method is available to me to measure exercise intensity and quantify volume? Does this method include room for individual differences and maybe even allow individual load management?
Figure 6 - use of metrics by training goal as adapted from Bishop et al. (2023)
Montoro-Bombú et al. (2023) not only identify some of the challenges a S&C coach might face, from their research they provide nineteen training recommendations that can be taken away to support when designing sessions and a periodisation model. The recommendations can be found in the document below.
A second useful reference is the research by Bishop et al. (2023), especially their recommendations on the various metrics to use linked to a specific training goal. These recommendations can be found in figure 6.
The aim of this article is not so much to provide ready-made answers to the S&C coach. One could even argue that these are not available. But for the S&C coach to challenge and question his own context and workings. To critically review them and find the potential wins that are available by implementing scientific findings applicable within his own surroundings.
References
Bishop, C., Jordan, M., Torres-Ronda, L., Loturco, I., Harry, J., Virgile, A., Mundy, P., Turner, A., & Comfort, P. (2023). Selecting Metrics That Matter: Comparing the Use of the Countermovement Jump for Performance Profiling, Neuromuscular Fatigue Monitoring, and Injury Rehabilitation Testing. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 45(5), 545-553. https://doi.org/10.1519/SSC.0000000000000772
de Villarreal, E. S., Kellis, E., Kraemer, W. J., & Izquierdo, M. (2009). Determining Variables of Plyometric Training for Improving Vertical Jump Height Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 23(2), 495-506. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e318196b7c6
Flanagan, E. (2016, 4 juni). A plyometric progression plan for reactive strength development. X. Geraadpleegd op 20 maart 2024, van https://twitter.com/EamonnFlanagan/status/739038650852364288
Kargarfard, M., Tajvand, S., Rabbani, A., Clemente, F. M., & Jalilvand, F. (2020). Effects of combined plyometric and speed training on change of direction, linear speed, and repeated sprint ability in young soccer players: a pilot study. Kinesiology (Zagreb, Croatia), 52(1), 85-93. https://doi.org/10.26582/k.52.1.11
Montalvo, S., Gonzalez, M. P., Dietze-Hermosa, M., Eggleston, J. D., & Dorgo, S. (2021). Common Vertical Jump and Reactive Strength Index Measuring Devices: A Validity and Reliability Analysis. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 35(5), 1234-1243. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003988
Montoro-Bombú, R., Sarmento, H., Buzzichelli, C., Moura, N. A., Gonzáles Badillo, J. J., Santos, A., & Rama, L. (2023). Methodological considerations for determining the volume and intensity of drop jump training. A systematic, critical and prepositive review. Frontiers in Physiology, 14, 1181781. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2023.1181781
Pacey Performance Podcast; aflevering 212: Plyometrics and Jump Training: Progressions, Regressions and Recovery Circuits with Boo Schexnayder. (2018). Geraadpleegd op 12 november 2023, van https://www.sportsmith.co/listen/pacey-performance-podcast-212-boo-schexnayder/
Pegel, Y. (2024). Jump and plyometric training in team sports [Video]. Sportsmith. Geraadpleegd op 20 maart 2024, van https://www.sportsmith.co/videos/jump-and-plyometric-training-in-team-sports/
Ramirez-Campillo, R., Álvarez, C., García-Hermoso, A., Ramírez-Vélez, R., Gentil, P., Asadi, A., Chaabene, H., Moran, J., Meylan, C., García-de-Alcaraz, A., Sanchez-Sanchez, J., Nakamura, F. Y., Granacher, U., Kraemer, W., & Izquierdo, M. (2018). Methodological Characteristics and Future Directions for Plyometric Jump Training Research: A Scoping Review. Sports Medicine (Auckland), 48(5), 1059-1081. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-018-0870-z
Verkhoshansky, N. (2012). Shock Method and plyometrics: updates and an in-depth examination. www.verkhoshansky.com. Geraadpleegd op 13 maart 2024, van https://www.verkhoshansky.com/Portals/0/Presentations/Shock%20Method%20Plyometrics.pdf
Verkhoshansky, Y. (2006). Special Strength Training: a Practical Manual for Coaches/ Yuri V Verkoshansky; translated and edited by Michael Yessis. Ultimate Athelete Concepts.
Wilmot, L. (2023). Implementing the Plyometric Continuum to individualise jump and land training. Sportsmith.co. Geraadpleegd op 7 maart 2024, van https://www.sportsmith.co/articles/implementing-the-plyometric-continuum-to-individualise-jump-and-land-training/
Reactie plaatsen
Reacties