Effects of In-Season Plyometric Training Within Soccer Practice on Explosive Actions of Young Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In soccer, explosive actions such as jumping, sprinting, and changes of direction are essential to optimal performance not only in adults, but also in children's games. The purpose of the present investigation was to determine the influence of a short-term plyometric training within regular soccer practice on explosive actions of early pubertal soccer players during the in-season. Fourteen children (13.3 +/- 0.6 years) were selected as the training group (TG) and 11 children (13.1 +/- 0.6 years) were defined as the control group (CG). All children were playing in the same league and trained twice per week for 90 minutes with the same soccer drills. The TG followed an 8-week plyometric program (i.e., jumping, hurdling, bouncing, skipping, and footwork) implemented as a substitute for some soccer drills to obtain the same session duration as CG. At baseline and after training, explosive actions were assessed with the following 6 tests: 10-meter sprint, agility test, 3 vertical jump tests (squat jump [SJ], countermovement jump [CMJ], contact test [CT] and multiple 5 bounds test [MB5]). Plyometric training was associated with significant decreases in 10-m sprint time (-2.1%) and agility test time (-9.6%) and significant increases in jump height for the CMJ (+7.9%) and CT (+10.9%). No significant changes in explosive actions after the 8-week period were recorded for the CG. The current study demonstrated that a plyometric program within regular soccer practice improved explosive actions of young players compared to conventional soccer training only. Therefore, the short-term plyometric program had a beneficial impact on explosive actions, such as sprinting, change of direction, and jumping, which are important determinants of match-winning actions in soccer performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".