Are there any differences in the agility performance tests among goalkeepers depending on the type of surface? A crossover study

Abstract

PurposeThe aims of the study were: (a) to compare agility in the T-test (TT) and square test (ST) on different surfaces (natural grass vs. wood); (b) to compare agility performance in soccer and futsal young male goalkeepers.MethodsIn a crossover study, 8 soccer (age: 16 ± 2 years, body mass: 68.5 ± 10.5 kg, height: 1.69 ± 0.4 m, relative body fat mass: 22.4 ± 6.5%) and 8 futsal (age: 16 ± 1 years, body mass: 67.7 ± 8.4 kg, height: 1.70 ± 0.4 m, relative body fat mass: 21.0 ± 6.1%) goalkeepers randomly performed TT and ST on both surfaces. All comparisons were adjusted for body mass and relative body fat mass.ResultsSurface had a slight effect (0.066 d 0.163) on agility in both tests irrespective of the sport (TT<sub>grass</sub>: 10.90 ± 1.04 s, TT<sub>wood</sub>: 10.80 ± 0.96 s, ST<sub>grass</sub>: 5.82 ± 0.32 s, ST<sub>wood</sub>: 5.87 ± 0.36 s, p > 0.05). No differences were found in agility performance between soccer (TT<sub>grass</sub>: 11.10 ± 0.23 s, TT<sub>wood</sub>: 11.10 ± 0.28 s, ST<sub>grass</sub>: 5.75 ± 0.08 s, ST<sub>wood</sub>: 5.85 ± 0.14 s) and futsal (TT<sub>grass</sub>: 10.60 ± 1.07 s, TT<sub>wood</sub>: 10.50 ± 0.90 s, ST<sub>grass</sub>: 5.81 ± 0.31 s, ST<sub>wood</sub>: 5.84 ± 0.31 s) goalkeepers, regardless of the test or surface (<i>p</i> > 0.05). There were strong relationships among the conditions (0.69 ≤ <i>r</i> ≤ 0.96). Moreover, the tests applied on different surfaces systematically produced similar results, and interchange of test surfaces was supported by parallel reliability.ConclusionsSurface effect for both tests does not seem enough to induce statistical differences in the agility of soccer and futsal young male goalkeepers. Goalkeepers’ agility performances were similar in both sports.