sports

Article
Can Countermovement Jump Neuromuscular
Performance Qualities Differentiate Maximal
Horizontal Deceleration Ability in Team
Sport Athletes?
Damian J. Harper 1, * , Daniel D. Cohen 2,3 , Christopher Carling 4 and John Kiely 1
1 Institute of Coaching and Performance, School of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Central
Lancashire, Preston PR1 2HE, UK; [email protected]
2 Masira Research Institute, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Santander (UDES), Bucaramanga 680005,
Colombia; [email protected]
3 Mindeporte (Colombian Ministry of Sport) High Performance Centre, Bogota 111071, Colombia
4 Centre for Elite Performance, French Football Federation, 75015 Paris, France; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]




Received: 24 April 2020; Accepted: 19 May 2020; Published: 27 May 2020


Abstract: This investigation aimed to determine the countermovement jump (CMJ) neuromuscular
performance (NMP) qualities that differentiate between athletes with high or low horizontal
deceleration ability. Twenty-seven male university team sport athletes performed a CMJ on vertical
axis force plates and a maximal horizontal deceleration following a 20 m maximal horizontal
sprint acceleration. The instantaneous velocity throughout the maximal horizontal deceleration
test was measured using a radar device. The deceleration ability was evaluated using the average
deceleration (HDEC, m·s−2 ) and change in momentum—referred to as the horizontal braking impulse
(HBI, N·s·kg−1 ). Participants were dichotomised into high and low HDEC and HBI according to a
median-split analysis, and CMJ variables calculated for the overall eccentric, eccentric-deceleration
and concentric phases. When horizontal deceleration ability was defined by HDEC, the CMJ
concentric (effect size (ES) = 0.95) and eccentric (ES = 0.72) peak forces were the variables with the
largest difference between groups. However, when defined using HBI, the largest difference was the
concentric (ES = 1.15) and eccentric (ES = −1.00) peak velocities. Only the concentric mean power was
significantly different between the high and low groups for both HDEC (ES = 0.85) and HBI (ES = 0.96).
These findings show that specific eccentric and concentric NMP qualities may underpin the horizontal
deceleration abilities characterised by HDEC and HBI. Specific NMP training interventions may be
beneficial to target improvements in either of these measures of horizontal deceleration abilities.

Keywords: eccentric; concentric; force; impulse; velocity

1. Introduction
High-intensity accelerations and decelerations are fundamental components of powerful
movement actions in team sports and are integral to successful performance outcomes [1].
When compared to accelerations, high-intensity decelerations exhibit a greater rate of velocity change
and subsequently occur more frequently in many team sports [2]. As an example, rapid decelerations
are a pre-requisite for the many fast change of direction (COD) movements performed during team sport
activities and can serve to enhance COD performance [3]. Additionally, high-intensity decelerations
impose greater mechanical loads than comparable accelerations and demand that players withstand
high eccentric braking forces [4,5]. Consequently, high-intensity decelerations are a component of

Sports 2020, 8, 76; doi:10.3390/sports8060076 www.mdpi.com/journal/sports

Sports 2020, 8, 76 2 of 16

the external load that disproportionately drives neuromuscular fatigue and thereby simultaneously
escalating the risk of tissue damage [6].
However, despite this apparent importance, only a small number of studies have
attempted to profile players’ maximal horizontal deceleration abilities using a horizontal sprint
acceleration-to-deceleration task that requires players to fully stop before a specific boundary [7] or
after covering a pre-determined acceleration distance [8,9]. All these previous studies used deceleration
distance-to-stop or deceleration time-to-stop to calculate the horizontal deceleration abilities. As with
maximal sprint acceleration profiling, radar and laser devices have been recommended as a means
to profile the maximal horizontal deceleration abilities in substantially greater detail than previously
possible [10]. Furthermore, deceleration demands are elevated in players with higher body mass as,
for comparable changes in velocity, they inevitably achieve higher horizontal sprint momentums
before commencing deceleration. Therefore, it also seems important to take into consideration how
well a player changes their momentum.
Currently, the key underlying neuromuscular performance (NMP) qualities that potentially
differentiate between athletes of varying deceleration abilities remain largely unexplored. It has been
suggested that deceleration ability is underpinned by four major NMP qualities, namely dynamic
balance, eccentric strength, reactive strength and power [11]. However, only a limited number of
empirical studies have investigated the importance of these NMP qualities regarding horizontal
deceleration abilities [3,7–9]. Interestingly though, these investigations all concluded that a greater
eccentric strength of the quadriceps or hamstrings was beneficially associated with various measures
of horizontal deceleration ability (i.e., negative change in velocity, deceleration gradient, time to stop
or distance to stop). Additionally, in the study by Harper et al. [8], concentric peak torque measured at
higher knee joint angular velocities had the strongest association with both the deceleration distance
and time to stop, suggesting that this NMP quality is also an important determinant of horizontal
deceleration ability.
The countermovement jump (CMJ) is commonly used within athletic performance settings to
assess lower limb dynamic NMP capabilities [12]. When the CMJ is measured using force plates,
deeper insights into an athlete’s NMP can be obtained by examining kinetic variables derived from
the force–time curve captured during the eccentric (descent) and concentric (ascent) phases of the
jump [13]. The eccentric phase can be further divided into two sub-phases: unloading or eccentric
acceleration, and eccentric deceleration [14], also referred to as the eccentric-braking phase [13].
Eccentric performance is principally evaluated within the eccentric-deceleration phase, during which,
the ability to decelerate the centre of mass (COM) immediately before the concentric phase is
assessed [14]. Variables typically measured within this phase include the eccentric-deceleration rate
of force development (RFD), eccentric-deceleration impulse, eccentric peak force and eccentric peak
power. Eccentric-deceleration RFD, eccentric peak force and eccentric peak power are responsive to
strength, power and plyometric training [14–16], with values differing for eccentric-deceleration RFD by
sport [17,18], strength level [15] and type of strength exercises used within the training programme [19].
Eccentric-deceleration impulse has been shown to discriminate between developmental level within a
sport [20,21] and gender [22], but seems less sensitive than eccentric-deceleration RFD to detecting
inter-limb asymmetries following return-to-sport [23] and short-term strength and power training [16].
It is also important to consider that eccentric variables significantly contribute to performance in
the subsequent concentric phase [15,17,24,25]. For example, increased force and COM velocity in
eccentric phases have been associated with increased neural contractile capacity, leading to less fascicle
lengthening and the enhanced contribution of tendon tissue to the force output in the concentric
phase [15]. Consequently, there are a variety of eccentric variables in the CMJ that may reflect unique
performance adaptations and movement capabilities; however, these have not been explored in the
context of their association with maximal horizontal deceleration ability.
Nevertheless, it has also been suggested that athletes demonstrating superior eccentric force
production capabilities during the CMJ, possess expanded repertoires of potential horizontal
Sports 2020, 8, 76 3 of 16

deceleration strategies [24]. Potentially, NMP qualities quantifiable during the different phases
of the CMJ may provide insights into some of the critical qualities underpinning maximal horizontal
deceleration ability. This information could be valuable in the design of training interventions that
target the development of a team sport player’s maximal horizontal deceleration ability and to
determine whether training is promoting the desired NMP adaptations that may lead to improvements
in horizontal deceleration ability. Additionally, identifying indirect indices of horizontal deceleration
ability in the CMJ, an assessment commonly employed in weekly monitoring within team sports,
could provide valuable snapshots of neuromuscular status, specifically relating to NMP characteristics
associated with the ability to produce and attenuate high eccentric forces during rapid decelerations [6].
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate whether athletes determined to have high
or low horizontal deceleration ability displayed differences in CMJ eccentric and concentric NMP
variables. Additionally, since the purpose of deceleration in team sports contexts is to decrease
the body’s momentum (mass × velocity) [26], we aimed to determine whether CMJ NMP variables
differ according to whether horizontal deceleration ability is quantified using a negative change in
momentum (referred to as “horizontal braking impulse”) versus a negative change in velocity (referred
to as “horizontal deceleration”). We hypothesized that both CMJ eccentric and concentric phase NMP
variables would differ between athletes with a high versus low horizontal deceleration ability and that
these associations would vary when this ability was defined by horizontal deceleration compared to
horizontal braking impulse.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants
Twenty-seven male university sports athletes (age: 19.7 ± 1.7 years, height: 176 ± 10 cm, body mass:
73.0 ± 14.7 kg) who participated primarily in team sports (soccer, rugby league, rugby union)
volunteered to participate. To be eligible for inclusion in the study, all participants had to take part
in regular (three times per week) moderate to high-intensity exercise and be familiar with COD
movements that involve high-intensity accelerations and decelerations. Participants were excluded
from the study if they had suffered any kind of musculoskeletal injury that had prevented participation
in sport or physical activity within the previous 3 months. All testing was conducted in December,
which is mid-way through the University competitive sports season. The institutional ethics review
committee at the University of Central Lancashire granted ethical approval in accordance with the
recommendations of the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants received a clear written and verbal
explanation of the study, including the benefits and risks of participation. Participants were also
allowed to ask any questions prior to testing before providing voluntary, informed, written consent.

2.2. Experimental Design

A cross-sectional research design was used to investigate differences in CMJ NMP characteristics
between athletes determined to have high and low horizontal deceleration ability. All experimental
procedures took place over two weeks, in which participants were required to complete three testing
sessions with at least 48 h recovery between them. Participants were asked to refrain from exercise in
the 48 h before testing. In the first session, all participants had anthropometric measurements taken,
completed a 20 m linear sprint and were familiarised with the protocols of the maximal horizontal
deceleration test. In the second session, participants completed the maximal horizontal deceleration
test. In the final session, participants completed CMJ testing. All testing was completed at the same time
of the day (9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.) on an indoor artificial sports surface. Before testing, all participants
completed the same 15-min standardised warm-up that included forward and backward jogging,
dynamic stretching and test-specific exercises (i.e., horizontal accelerations and decelerations, CMJ)
following a progressive increase in intensity (70%, 80% and 100% perceived effort).
 Sports2020,
Sports 2020,8,8,76x FOR PEER REVIEW 44ofof1618

2.3. Testing Procedures

2.3. Testing Procedures
2.3.1. Anthropometrics
2.3.1. Anthropometrics
Standing height was measured to the nearest cm using a stadiometer (Seca 217, Hamburg,
Germany) andheight
Standing was measured
body mass to the
was measured nearest
to the cm0.1
nearest using a stadiometer
kg using electronic (Seca 217,scales
weighing Hamburg,
(Seca,
Germany) and body
Hamburg, Germany). mass was measured to the nearest 0.1 kg using electronic weighing scales (Seca,
Hamburg, Germany).
2.3.2. Maximal Horizontal Sprint Test
2.3.2. Maximal Horizontal Sprint Test
Sprint times were recorded over a 20 m distance using timing gates (Witty, Microgate, Bolzano,
Sprint times were recorded over a 20 m distance using timing gates (Witty, Microgate, Bolzano,
Italy) set to a height of 0.8 m [27]. Times were recorded to the nearest 0.01 s. Each sprint commenced
Italy) set to a height of 0.8 m [27]. Times were recorded to the nearest 0.01 s. Each sprint commenced
from a stationary split stance position with the front foot positioned 30 cm behind the timing gate to
from a stationary split stance position with the front foot positioned 30 cm behind the timing gate to
prevent a false trigger. Participants were instructed to initiate their start with no backward step or
prevent a false trigger. Participants were instructed to initiate their start with no backward step or
“rocking motion” and to sprint as fast as possible. Each participant was allowed two trials with at
“rocking motion” and to sprint as fast as possible. Each participant was allowed two trials with at
least a 2 min recovery period. The best 20 m split was recorded as a “criterion” time for the maximal
least a 2 min recovery period. The best 20 m split was recorded as a “criterion” time for the maximal
horizontal deceleration test.
horizontal deceleration test.
2.3.3.Maximal
2.3.3. MaximalHorizontal
HorizontalDeceleration
DecelerationTest Test
Maximalhorizontal
Maximal horizontal deceleration
deceleration ability
ability was assessed
was assessed using a acceleration–deceleration
using a horizontal horizontal acceleration–
ability (ADA) test [8]. Participants were instructed to use the same start protocolthe
deceleration ability (ADA) test [8]. Participants were instructed to use same start
employed protocol
for the linear
employed for the linear sprint test and to sprint maximally over 20 m before performing
sprint test and to sprint maximally over 20 m before performing a maximal horizontal deceleration. a maximal
horizontal deceleration.
Immediately following theImmediately
deceleration,following the deceleration,
players backpedalled to theplayers backpedalled
20 m line to the
to create a clear 20 m
“stop”
line to create a clear “stop” event and to signify the end of the deceleration phase
event and to signify the end of the deceleration phase (Figure 1). Any 20 m time that was 5% greater (Figure 1). Any 20
m time
than that 20
the best wasm 5%
splitgreater than theduring
time achieved best 20the
mhorizontal
split time sprint
achieved
test during the horizontal
was considered sprint test
an unsuccessful
was considered an unsuccessful trial. The player was subsequently asked to repeat
trial. The player was subsequently asked to repeat the test following at least a 3 min recovery the test following
period.
at least a 3 min recovery period. Players were asked to perform a maximum of
Players were asked to perform a maximum of five trials, with the best two successful trials used forfive trials, with the
best two[28].
analysis successful trials used for analysis [28].

Figure 1. Acceleration–deceleration ability (ADA) test layout used to assess players’ maximal horizontal
deceleration ability.
Figure 1. Acceleration–deceleration ability (ADA) test layout used to assess players’ maximal
Instantaneous horizontal
horizontal deceleration velocity was measured throughout the maximal horizontal deceleration
ability.
test using a radar device (Stalker ATS II, Applied Concepts, Inc., Dallas, TX, USA) sampling at 47 Hz.
Instantaneous
The radar device washorizontal
mounted on velocity was measured
a heavy-duty tripod andthroughout
positioned 5the maximal
m behind horizontal
the start line,
deceleration
which test
is within theusing
4.6 to a9.6radar devicerecommended
m distance (Stalker ATS by II, the
Applied Concepts,
manufacturer for Inc., Dallas,
recording TX, USA)
acceleration
sampling
and brakingatrun
47 tests.
Hz. TheTheradar
radardevice
device was mounted
was set on a1heavy-duty
to a height m above thetripod
ground and positioned 5 m
to approximately
behind the start line, which
align with the participant’s COM. is within the 4.6 to 9.6 m distance recommended by the manufacturer for
recording acceleration and braking run tests. The radar device was set to a height 1 m above the
ground to approximately align with the participant’s COM.
Sports 2020, 8, 76 5 of 16

2.3.4. Radar Data Analyses

Raw instantaneous velocity–time data captured with the radar was manually processed using
the Stalker ATS system software (Version 5.0, Applied Concepts, Inc., Dallas, TX, USA) following
procedures outlined by Simperingham et al. [28] and then exported to Microsoft Excel (version 14.6.4,
Microsoft, Redmond, DC, USA). Using processed data, the start of the deceleration phase was defined
as the time point immediately following maximum velocity (Vmax ). The end of the deceleration
phase was defined as the lowest velocity (Vlow ) following Vmax . The maximal horizontal deceleration
ability was assessed using two methods: (1) average horizontal deceleration (HDEC) and (2) average
horizontal braking impulse (HBI). Both of these variables were calculated from the average of the
instantaneous HDEC and HBI data points captured from the start to the end of the deceleration phase.
The instantaneous horizontal deceleration was calculated between each data point throughout the
entire deceleration phase using the following equation:
 
  v f − vi
−2
Deceleration m·s =  , (1)
t f − ti

where v is the velocity, t is the time, f indicates the final velocity or time and i indicates the initial
velocity or time.
The instantaneous HBI was calculated between each data point throughout the entire deceleration
phase using the following equation to calculate the change in momentum:

J ( t ) = M f − Mi (2)

where J is the impulse, Mf is the final momentum and Mi is the initial momentum.
The instantaneous momentum was calculated for each data point throughout the entire deceleration
phase using the following equation:

Momentum (t) = v × mass (3)

The coefficient of variation (CV%) values calculated from the two best trials were 4.3% for HDEC
and 3.7% for HBI, demonstrating excellent absolute reliability.

2.3.5. Countermovement Jump (CMJ)

CMJs were performed with each foot positioned on a portable vertical axis force plate (35 × 35 cm,
PASPORT force plate, PS-2141; PASCO Scientific, Roseville CA) that simultaneously sampled at a rate
of 1000 Hz. To ensure the safety of participants during the CMJ landing phase, the force platforms
were positioned within a heavy-duty foam surround. This portable dual force platform system has
been shown to obtain valid measures of CMJ force–time variables in comparison to a laboratory
ground-based force platform system [29]. Participants were instructed to perform a series of five CMJs
interspersed with a 20 s recovery period. Before each jump participants were instructed to keep still
and following a “3-2-1” countdown to jump for maximal height following a fast countermovement to
the self-selected depth. All CMJs were performed with hands positioned on the hips. If hands were
removed from the hips or knees flexed following takeoff, the jump was ruled invalid, and participants
were asked to perform additional jump(s) at the end of the series.

2.3.6. Force Platform Analyses

CMJ force–time data were acquired and analysed using commercially available software
(ForceDecks, Vald Performance Pty Ltd., Brisbane, Australia), which calculates a range of NMP
variables that characterise performance during the jump. The definition and absolute reliability
(coefficient of variation, CV%) for each CMJ NMP variable are reported in Table 1. All CMJ kinetic
Sports 2020, 8, 76 6 of 16

variables were divided by body mass to enable normalization amongst participants. Sample force–,
power– and velocity–time curves during the eccentric and concentric phases of the CMJ are shown in
Figure 2. Before each CMJ test being performed, the force-plates were zeroed using the manufacturer’s
software. The start of the CMJ (movement onset) was defined using a 20 N offset from the measured
body mass. Body mass was measured using the dual force plates over at least one second, in which the
participant was asked to stand upright and as still as possible [13]. The CMJ takeoff was defined as the
time point in which the vertical force dropped below a threshold of 20 N. The best and worst score for
SportsCMJ
each 2020, variable
8, x FOR PEER
wasREVIEW 7 of 18
removed and the average of the remaining three scores was used for analysis.

Figure 2.2. Force–, power– and velocity–time curves captured throughout each phase of the CMJ.
Figure
Note: 1—start
Note: 1—start ofof movement,
movement, 2—eccentric
2—eccentric peak
peak velocity
velocity (start of eccentric-deceleration
eccentric-deceleration phase),
phase),
3—eccentricpeak
3—eccentric peakpower,
power,4—concentric
4—concentricpeak
peakpower,
power,5—concentric
5—concentricpeak
peakvelocity.
velocity.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Table 1. Definitions of countermovement jump neuromuscular performance variables and absolute
The mean
reliability ± SD was calculated for all CMJ variables. Participants were dichotomised into high-
values.
and low-horizontal-deceleration-ability
CMJ Variables
groups based on a median split of the HDEC performance
Description CV%
and separately split based on HBI performance. ConcentricThe differences in mean CMJ NMP variables
between Peakhigh- and
Force (N·kg −1 ) low-deceleration-ability groups
Greatest force weretheexamined
achieved during using the independent
concentric phase 2.7 samples
Mean Force (N·kg−1 ) Mean force during the concentric phase 1.5
t-test and Cohen’s
Peak Power (W·kg−1 ) d s effect size with 90% confidence intervals, calculated
Greatest power achieved during the concentric phase using an online1.8Microsoft
−1 )
Excel spreadsheet
Mean Power (W·kg [30]. The magnitude of the effect size was interpreted using thresholds as
Mean power during the concentric phase 2.1
Impulse (N·s·kg−1 ) Concentric force exerted multiplied by the time taken 1.4
suggested by (m·s
Peak Velocity Cohen
−1 ) [31]: 0.0 toGreatest 0.19—trivial;
velocity achieved0.20 to concentric
during the 0.49—small;
phase 0.50 to 0.79—moderate;
1.1
Duration (ms) Duration of the concentric phase 2.6
>0.80—large. The common language (CL) effect size was also calculated using the online Microsoft
Eccentric
Excel spreadsheet
Peak Force (N·kg−1 )
to provide a percentage probability of a player from the high-deceleration-ability
Greatest force achieved during the eccentric phase 3.0
−1 )
groupPeakhaving a greater
Power (W·kg
−1
measurement
Greatest power duringthan someone
the eccentric phase fromfrom
the startthe
of thelow-deceleration-ability
movement to zero velocity group
8.8 [30].
Mean Power (W·kg ) Mean power during the eccentric phase from the start of the movement to zero velocity 4.7
Statistical significance
Peak Velocity −1
(m·s ) was set at p < 0.05. Greatest velocity achieved during the eccentric phase 5.6
Duration (ms) Time from the start of the movement to zero velocity 3.4
Eccentric Deceleration
3. Results
Mean force from the greatest negative velocity to zero velocity at the end of the eccentric
Mean Force (N·kg−1 ) 3.2
phase
Descriptive −1information showing
Force exerted differences
multiplied by the time takenbetween thenegative
from the greatest high-
-HBI and
velocity low-HDEC and
to zero
Impulse (N·s·kg ) 3.0
velocity at the end of the eccentric phase
groups are reported
−1 −1
in Table 2. The high-deceleration-ability group reported significantly (p <
0.01)
Rate of force development from the greatest negative velocity to zero velocity at the end of
RFD (N·s ·kg ) 9.3
higher values for HDEC (−4.99 vs. −4.24 m·s−2, the ds =eccentric
2.21)phase
and HBI (−8.43 vs. −6.26 N·s·kg−1, ds =
2.30)
Duration (ms) Time from the maximum negative velocity to zero velocity at the end of the eccentric phase 4.1
than the low-deceleration-ability group. Participants in the high-HDEC-ability group had a
significantly higher approach velocity (7.80 vs. 7.37 m·s−1, ds = 1.18) compared to the low-HDEC
group, whereas participants in the high-HBI group had a significantly greater body mass (85.2 vs.
68.1 kg, ds = 1.47), height (183 vs. 176 cm, ds = 1.04) and approach momentum (651 vs. 507 kg·m·s−1, ds
= 1.83) than participants in the low-HBI group.
Sports 2020, 8, 76 7 of 16

Table 1. Cont.
CMJ Variables Description CV%
Other
CMJ-Height (cm) Maximal jump height computed using the flight time 2.9
CMJ-Depth (cm) Maximal displacement of countermovement 2.9
RSI-Mod Jump height (calculated from flight time) divided by contraction time 4.3

CV%—Coefficient of Variation Percentage, CMJ—Countermovement Jump, RFD—Rate of Force Development,

RSI—Reactive Strength Index.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The mean ± SD was calculated for all CMJ variables. Participants were dichotomised into high-
and low-horizontal-deceleration-ability groups based on a median split of the HDEC performance and
separately split based on HBI performance. The differences in mean CMJ NMP variables between high-
and low-deceleration-ability groups were examined using the independent samples t-test and Cohen’s
ds effect size with 90% confidence intervals, calculated using an online Microsoft Excel spreadsheet [30].
The magnitude of the effect size was interpreted using thresholds as suggested by Cohen [31]: 0.0 to
0.19—trivial; 0.20 to 0.49—small; 0.50 to 0.79—moderate; >0.80—large. The common language (CL)
effect size was also calculated using the online Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to provide a percentage
probability of a player from the high-deceleration-ability group having a greater measurement than
someone from the low-deceleration-ability group [30]. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

3. Results
Descriptive information showing differences between the high- and low-HDEC and -HBI groups
are reported in Table 2. The high-deceleration-ability group reported significantly (p < 0.01) higher
values for HDEC (−4.99 vs. −4.24 m·s−2 , ds = 2.21) and HBI (−8.43 vs. −6.26 N·s·kg−1 , ds = 2.30) than
the low-deceleration-ability group. Participants in the high-HDEC-ability group had a significantly
higher approach velocity (7.80 vs. 7.37 m·s−1 , ds = 1.18) compared to the low-HDEC group, whereas
participants in the high-HBI group had a significantly greater body mass (85.2 vs. 68.1 kg, ds = 1.47),
height (183 vs. 176 cm, ds = 1.04) and approach momentum (651 vs. 507 kg·m·s−1 , ds = 1.83) than
participants in the low-HBI group.

Table 2. Descriptive information showing the differences between the high- and
low-horizontal-deceleration (HDEC) and -horizontal-braking-impulse (HBI) groups.
Variable High HDEC (n = 13) Low HDEC (n = 14) ES (ds ) High HBI (n = 14) Low HBI (n = 13) ES (ds )
Age (y) 19.7 ± 1.6 20.4 ± 2.3 0.35 20.1 ± 2.2 19.1 ± 1.1 0.57
Body Mass (kg) 72.7 ± 16.0 80.7 ± 12.4 0.56 85.2 ± 12.5 68.1 ± 10.6 1.47 **
Height (cm) 180 ± 9 180 ± 8 0.00 183 ± 8 176 ± 5 1.04 **
Approach Velocity (m·s−1 ) 7.80 ± 0.44 7.37 ± 0.28 1.18 ** 7.66 ± 0.45 7.49 ± 0.38 0.41
Approach Momentum (kg·m·s−1 ) 566 ± 123 594 ± 94 0.26 651 ± 90 507 ± 64 1.83 **
HDEC (m·s−2 ) −4.99 ± 0.24 −4.24 ± 0.41 2.21 ** −4.72 ± 0.39 −4.48 ± 0.59 0.48
HBI (N·s·kg−1 ) −7.56 ± 1.66 −7.22 ± 1.24 0.23 −8.43 ± 1.15 −6.26 ± 0.65 2.30 **

ES—Effect Size (Cohen’s ds ); ** p ≤ 0.01.

Table 3 reports comparisons between the high- and low-HDEC groups for all CMJ NMP variables.
Only the concentric phase CMJ variables: peak force (25.87 vs. 23.53 N·kg−1 , p = 0.02, ds = 0.95),
mean force (20.07 vs. 18.86 N·kg−1 , p = 0.03, ds = 0.91) and mean power (28.72 vs. 25.92 W·kg−1 ,
p = 0.04, ds = 0.85) were significantly higher in the high- compared to low-HDEC group. For the
CMJ eccentric phase, the eccentric peak force (24.66 vs. 22.89 N·kg−1 , p = 0.07, ds = 0.72) was the only
variable with a CL effect size ≥70% in the high- compared to low-HDEC group.
Sports 2020, 8, 76 8 of 16

Table 3. Countermovement jump (CMJ) neuromuscular performance qualities that differentiate

between athletes with a high and low horizontal deceleration (HDEC).
Variable High HDEC (n = 13) Low HDEC (n = 14) ES (90% CI) CL-ES Descriptor p-Value
Concentric
Peak Force (N·kg−1 ) 25.87 ± 2.42 23.53 ± 2.50 0.95 (0.71, 1.20) 75% Large 0.02 *
Mean Force (N·kg−1 ) 20.07 ± 1.27 18.86 ± 1.39 0.91 (0.67, 1.14) 74% Large 0.03 *
Peak Power (W·kg−1 ) 51.81 ± 7.17 46.98 ± 5.68 0.75 (0.54, 0.95) 70% Moderate 0.06
Mean Power (W·kg−1 ) 28.72 ± 2.84 25.92 ± 3.66 0.85 (0.62, 1.08) 73% Large 0.04 *
Impulse (N·s·kg−1 ) 2.57 ± 0.27 2.44 ± 0.24 0.51 (0.34, 0.68) 64% Moderate 0.20
Peak Velocity (m·s−1 ) 2.71 ± 0.25 2.58 ± 0.21 0.57 (0.39, 0.75) 65% Moderate 0.15
Duration (ms) 249 ± 39 271 ± 39 −0.56 (−0.39, −0.73) 66% Moderate 0.16
Eccentric
Peak Force (N·kg−1 ) 24.66 ± 2.42 22.89 ± 2.47 0.72 (0.52, 0.92) 70% Moderate 0.07
Peak Power (W·kg−1 ) 17.47 ± 3.82 16.38 ± 4.86 0.25 (0.12, 0.38) 57% Small 0.53
Mean Power (W·kg−1 ) 6.35 ± 1.10 6.17 ± 1.16 0.16 (0.03, 0.29) 54% Trivial 0.68
Peak Velocity (m·s−1 ) −1.22 ± −0.21 −1.18 ± 0.24 −0.18 (−0.31, −0.05) 55% Trivial 0.65
Duration (ms) 485 ± 58 514 ± 88 −0.39 (−0.24, −0.54) 61% Small 0.33
Eccentric Deceleration
Mean Force (N·kg−1 ) 18.10 ± 1.41 17.30 ± 2.10 0.44 (0.28, 0.60) 62% Small 0.26
Impulse (N·s·kg−1 ) 2.88 ± 0.48 2.90 ± 0.44 −0.04 (−0.16, 0.08) 51% Trivial 0.91
RFD (N·s−1 ·kg−1 ) 98.7 ± 34.4 81.3 ± 25.4 0.58 (0.40 to 0.76) 66% Moderate 0.15
Duration (ms) 160 ± 30 170 ± 30 −0.33 (−0.19, −0.47) 59% Small 0.40
Other
CMJ Height (cm) 35.7 ± 7.8 31.5 ± 6.3 0.59 (0.41, 0.77) 66% Moderate 0.14
CMJ Depth (cm) 31.7 ± 7.9 32.4 ± 6.7 0.11 (−0.02, 0.23) 53% Trivial 0.94
RSI-Mod (m·s−1 ) 0.45 ± 0.11 0.42 ± 0.09 0.27 (0.13, 0.40) 58% Small 0.44

ES—Effect Size (Cohen’s ds ); CL—Common Language; CI—Confidence Interval; RFD—Rate of Force Development;
RSI-Mod—Reactive Strength Index Modified. * p < 0.05.

Table 4 shows comparisons between the high- and low-HBI groups for all CMJ NMP variables.
Both CMJ concentric (2.76 vs. 2.52 m·s−1 , p = 0.01, ds = 1.15) and eccentric (−1.30 vs. −1.10 m·s−1 ,
p = 0.02, ds = −1.00) peak velocity had the largest phase-specific difference between the high- and
low-HBI groups. Concentric peak power (−52.39 vs. 45.98 W·kg−1 , p = 0.01, ds = 1.06), mean power
(28.76 vs. 25.67 W·kg−1 , p = 0.02, ds = 0.96) and impulse (2.62 vs. 2.38 N·s·kg−1 , p = 0.01, ds = 1.06)
were also significantly higher in the high- compared to low-HBI group. The only other eccentric phase
variables reporting a CL effect size ≥ 70% in the high- compared to low-HBI group was eccentric peak
power (18.34 vs. 14.94 W·kg−1 , p = 0.04, ds = 0.86) and eccentric mean power (6.46 vs. 5.72 W·kg−1 ,
p = 0.07, ds = 0.73). CMJ height was also significantly higher (36.8 vs. 29.9 cm, p = 0.01, ds = 1.07) in
the high- compared to low-HBI group.

Table 4. Countermovement jump (CMJ) neuromuscular performance qualities that differentiate

between athletes with a high and low horizontal braking impulse (HBI).
Variable High HBI (n = 14) Low HBI (n = 13) ES (90% CI) CL-ES Descriptor p-Value
Concentric
Peak Force (N·kg−1 ) 25.19 ± 2.56 24.09 ± 2.82 0.41 (0.26, 0.56) 61% Small 0.30
Mean Force (N·kg−1 ) 19.72 ± 1.15 19.14 ± 1.71 0.40 (0.25, 0.55) 61% Small 0.31
Peak Power (W·kg−1 ) 52.39 ± 7.12 45.98 ± 4.63 1.06 (0.79, 1.32) 77% Large 0.01 *
Mean Power (W·kg−1 ) 28.76 ± 3.67 25.67 ± 2.65 0.96 (0.71, 1.21) 75% Large 0.02 *
Impulse (N·s·kg−1 ) 2.62 ± 0.28 2.38 ± 0.15 1.06 (0.79, 1.32) 78% Large 0.01 *
Peak Velocity (m·s−1 ) 2.76 ± 0.25 2.52 ± 0.15 1.15 (0.87, 1.43) 79% Large 0.01 **
Duration (ms) 262 ± 27 259 ± 51 0.07 (−0.05, 0.19) 52% Trivial 0.85
Eccentric
Peak Force (N·kg−1 ) 24.37 ± 2.71 23.07 ± 2.30 0.52 (0.35, 0.69) 64% Moderate 0.19
Peak Power (W·kg−1 ) 18.34 ± 3.45 14.94 ± 4.46 0.86 (0.63, 1.09) 73% Large 0.04 *
Mean Power (W·kg−1 ) 6.46 ± 0.68 5.72 ± 1.27 0.73 (0.53, 0.93) 70% Moderate 0.07
Peak Velocity (m·s−1 ) −1.30 ± 0.14 −1.10 ± 0.25 −1.00 (−0.75, −1.25) 76% Large 0.02 *
Duration (ms) 493 ± 55 507 ± 95 −0.18 (−0.05, −0.31) 55% Trivial 0.64
Eccentric Deceleration
Mean Force (N·kg−1 ) 18.25 ± 1.96 17.08 ± 1.48 0.67 (0.48 to 0.86) 68% Moderate 0.09
Impulse (N·s·kg−1 ) 2.99 ± 0.30 2.79 ± 0.56 0.45 (0.29 to 0.61) 62% Small 0.25
RFD (N·s−1 ·kg−1 ) 93.6 ± 34.4 85.6 ± 27.2 0.26 (0.12 to 0.39) 57% Small 0.51
Duration (ms) 160 ± 20 160 ± 30 0.00 (−0.12 to 0.12) 50% Trivial 1.00
Sports 2020, 8, 76 9 of 16

Table 4. Cont.
Variable High HBI (n = 14) Low HBI (n = 13) ES (90% CI) CL-ES Descriptor p-Value
Other
CMJ Height (cm) 36.8 ± 7.8 29.9 ± 4.5 1.07 (0.80, 1.34) 78% Large 0.01 *
CMJ Depth (cm) −33.4 ± 5.7 −30.1 ± 8.2 −0.47 (−0.31, −0.63) 63% Small 0.23
RSI-Mod (m·s−1 ) 0.43 ± 0.09 0.43 ± 0.11 0.00 (−0.12, 0.12) 50% Trivial 1.00

ES—Effect Size (Cohen’s ds ); CL-ES—Common Language; CI—Confidence Interval; RFD—Rate of Force

Development; RSI-Mod—Reactive Strength Index Modified. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

Figure 3 shows a comparison of the CMJ NMP variables that best (CL effect size: ≥70%)
differentiated high and low HDEC and HBI. Only CMJ concentric mean and peak power had a CL
effect size ≥70% for both HDEC and HBI. For the CMJ eccentric phase, only eccentric peak force had a
moderate effect size difference for both HDEC (ds = 0.72) and HBI (ds = 0.52). For HDEC, both the CMJ
eccentric (ds = 0.72) and concentric (ds = 0.52) peak forces represented the largest difference between the
high- and low-deceleration-ability groups. However, for HBI, the largest difference was the eccentric
(ds = −1.00) and concentric (ds = 1.15) peak velocities.
Sports 2020, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 18

Small Moderate Large HDEC

HBI

JH

CPV

CI

CMP

CPP

CMF

CPF

EPV

EMP

EPP

EPF
0

6
0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

1.

1.

1.

1.

Figure 3. Comparison between the countermovement Effect Size (Cohen’s ds)

jump neuromuscular performance variables
that best (CL effect size: ≥70%) differentiated athletes with “high” and “low” horizontal deceleration
Figure 3. Comparison between the countermovement jump neuromuscular performance variables
(HDEC, m·s−2 ) and horizontal braking impulse (HBI, N·s·kg−1 ). For simplicity, the eccentric peak
that best (CL effect size: ≥70%) differentiated athletes with “high” and “low” horizontal deceleration
velocity is shown
(HDEC, as−2)aand
m·s positive effect
horizontal size. impulse
braking The grey area
(HBI, represents
N·s·kg a trivial effect
−1). For simplicity, size. JH—jump
the eccentric peak
height, CPV—concentric peak velocity, CI—concentric impulse, CMP—concentric
velocity is shown as a positive effect size. The grey area represents a trivial effect size. JH mean
—jumppower,
CPP—concentric peak
height, CPV power, CMF—concentric
—concentric peak velocity, CImean force, CPF—concentric
—concentric peak force,
impulse, CMP—concentric EPV—eccentric
mean power,
CPP — concentric peak power, CMF — concentric mean force,
peak velocity, EMP—eccentric mean power, EPP—eccentric peak power, EPF—eccentric peakCPF — concentric peak force,
force.
EPV—eccentric peak velocity, EMP—eccentric mean power, EPP—eccentric peak power,
EPF—eccentric peak force.

4. Discussion
The main finding of this study, in agreement with our hypothesis, was that specific CMJ
concentric- and eccentric-phase NMP variables differentiated athletes with high versus low
Sports 2020, 8, 76 10 of 16

4. Discussion
The main finding of this study, in agreement with our hypothesis, was that specific CMJ concentric-
and eccentric-phase NMP variables differentiated athletes with high versus low horizontal deceleration
abilities. Interestingly, within both phases, the CMJ force variables had the largest effect size differences
when using HDEC, while CMJ velocity variables best differentiated between high- and low-HBI
athletes, with the latter being a deceleration measure that includes body mass in the calculation.
These results suggest that heavier athletes, who perform horizontal decelerations with a higher
approach momentum (high HBI = 651 kg m·s−1 vs. high HDEC = 566 kg m·s−1 ) may benefit from the
development of different NMP qualities than the lower body mass (high HDEC = 73 kg vs. high HBI =
85 kg) high-HDEC-ability athletes.
In elite team sports competitive match-play, high-intensity decelerations are most commonly
classified as a velocity change greater than −3 m·s−2 [2]. In the present study, when HDEC was
used to define high and low horizontal deceleration ability, the average deceleration was −4.99 and
−4.24 m·s−2 , respectively. The CMJ NMP variables with the largest effect size difference between the
high- and low-HDEC-ability groups were the concentric peak (ds = 0.95) and the mean force (ds = 0.91).
While it may appear counterintuitive that concentric variables show greater significance to horizontal
deceleration ability than eccentric variables, these findings agree with prior work in elite male youth
soccer players demonstrating that concentric knee flexor and extensor peak torques at faster knee joint
angular velocities were strongly correlated with horizontal deceleration ability [8].
There are a number of possible explanations regarding why the ability to produce concentric
force at higher angular velocities may contribute to an improved HDEC ability. First, as suggested by
Harper et al. [8] concentric muscle contractions can develop force more rapidly (RFD) than eccentric or
isometric muscle actions, particularly at faster joint angular velocities [32]. Second, in both adolescent
and senior athletes, the ability to produce high concentric forces at high joint angular velocities
is associated with greater thickness and pennation angle of the leg extensor muscles, which are
factors associated with greater isometric force, RFD and eccentric leg stiffness [33–36]. Increases in
early (<100 ms) RFD, which are representative of explosive strength, become extremely important
when high eccentric forces need to be produced when decelerating and could represent an ability to
pre-activate muscles prior to ground contact [37]. Based on these findings interventions that enhance
concentric force at fast joint angular velocities may provide important NMP adaptations that lead to
an enhanced HDEC ability. Future research is needed to explore chronic adaptations to fast velocity
resistance training and their transfer to horizontal deceleration abilities. Additionally, the ability to
pre-activate muscles and produce high eccentric phase muscle activity augments the force output
capabilities during the concentric phase [38]. As such, concentric outputs assessed during the CMJ
are not independent of eccentric qualities and the ability to transfer force, and therefore represent
important NMP characteristics underpinning a high HDEC ability.
Similar to the CMJ concentric phase variables, the eccentric peak force demonstrated the largest
effect size difference (24.66 vs. 22.69 N·kg−1 , ds = 0.72) between the high- and low-HDEC-ability groups.
The CL effect size was 70%, indicating that 7 times out of 10, an athlete with a high HDEC ability would
also possess high eccentric peak force capabilities in the CMJ. Additionally, the high-HDEC-ability
group showed a moderate effect size difference in eccentric-deceleration RFD (98.7 vs. 81.30 N·s−1 ·kg−1 ,
ds = 0.52). Collectively, these eccentric NMP qualities have also been associated with heightened leg
stiffness [14,15,17,20,22], “stretch-load” tolerance [15], reactive strength [39] and the ability to rapidly
unload the COM [14,15,24], which depends on rapid agonist relaxation and high lower limb joint
flexion velocities [13]. Furthermore, a higher leg stiffness has also been associated with the ability
to use a greater proportion of maximal isometric strength (calculated using the dynamic strength
deficit (DSD)) [33], which is particularly important for enhancing eccentric-deceleration (braking)
characteristics [40].
Previous studies have also found that higher eccentric peak torque capability in the knee
extensors [3,8] and flexors [9] have strong associations with rapid horizontal deceleration abilities.
Sports 2020, 8, 76 11 of 16

However, to the present authors’ knowledge, no previous study has examined the associations
between RFD and rapid horizontal deceleration ability. A significant increase in CMJ eccentric
peak force was observed after only 5 weeks of ballistic jump squat (0% to 30% one repetition squat
maximum-to-body-mass ratio (1RM/BM)) or heavy back squat training (75%–90% 1RM) in strong
and weak athletes, respectively, with strength characterised by 3RM. Furthermore, these changes
had a large and significant correlation (r = 0.92) with changes in CMJ total RFD [15]. Interestingly,
in this study, the eccentric peak force (22.6 N·kg−1 ) values of the stronger athletes in the jump squat
intervention were lower than those recorded in the current study (24.66 N·kg−1 ), but were higher
following 5 and 10 weeks of jump squat training (27.6 and 30.6 N·kg−1 , respectively). It is therefore
possible that increases in maximal eccentric peak force have a significant influence on rapid eccentric
force production capabilities (i.e., eccentric-deceleration RFD), which subsequently influence rapid
HDEC ability.
On the basis of these findings and for the purpose of enhancing rapid HDEC ability,
practitioners should identify training interventions targeting development of lower limb eccentric
peak force and eccentric-deceleration RFD. For example, for the purposes of developing eccentric
peak force, eccentric training methods that are not constrained by concentric strength levels, such as
accentuated eccentric loading (AEL), have been shown to be superior than traditional resistance training
methods [41,42]. Additionally, to target eccentric-deceleration RFD, training approaches that require
the athlete to quickly decelerate the COM following a rapid acceleration should be utilised. In this
context, the specificity of training would include fast eccentric only squats, where participants are
instructed to “squat fast and stop rapidly at a half-squat position”, a modality shown in untrained
subjects to induce greater adaptations to fast-twitch type IIX muscle fibres and explosive isometric RFD
than slow eccentric-only squats [43]. Furthermore, these enhancements were also evident following
low volume (4 × 8 reps, twice per week) interventions in moderately trained individuals [44].
Another key and novel finding of the current study was that when horizontal deceleration
ability was defined using the change in momentum (HBI) instead of the HDEC method, the CMJ
variables that best differentiated horizontal deceleration ability switched emphasis from force-based
to velocity-based. For instance, the greatest differences between the high- and low-HBI groups were
the CMJ concentric and eccentric peak velocities (2.72 vs. 2.52 m·s−1 , ds = 1.15; −1.30 vs. −1.10,
ds = 1.00) and peak power (52.39 vs. 45.98 W·kg−1 , ds = 1.06, and 18.34 vs. 14.94 W·kg−1 , ds = 0.86,
respectively). A switch from a more force- to velocity-orientated power output has previously been
associated with a CMJ strategy that utilises a greater countermovement depth (i.e., a more compliant
strategy) [45,46]. Indeed, in the current study, the high-HBI athletes used a greater CMJ depth than
the low-HBI athletes (−33.4 vs. −30.1 cm, respectively). Furthermore, the high-HBI athletes also
produced significantly higher CMJ heights in comparison to the low-HBI athletes (36.8 vs. 29.9 cm,
respectively). These findings agree with previous studies that have reported a deeper and faster
countermovement to be crucial to jump performance outcomes, such as jump height, concentric peak
velocity and impulse [46,47]. It is also possible that the greater CMJ depth and COM velocities deployed
by the high-HBI group compared to the low-HBI group is indicative of a different deceleration strategy
that is required to control higher forward momentum, and subsequently the greater deceleration
demands [48]. Indeed, whilst there was only a small difference in the approach velocity (0.17 m·s−1 )
between the high- and low-HBI groups, the high-HBI group was on average 18 kg heavier than the
low-HBI group, resulting in a 22% greater approach momentum prior to decelerating. In accordance
with the findings of Cesar and Sigward [48,49] it is therefore possible that the high-HBI athletes
adopted a lower (knee-dominant) and more posterior COM position compared to the low-HBI peers to
maintain stability and decelerate effectively, which is reflective in their CMJ movement strategy and
NMP qualities. Therefore, to enhance the ability to quickly reduce their momentum (i.e., high HBI),
these findings suggest that training interventions should focus upon maximising the mechanical
power output through fast velocity eccentric-to-concentric movement actions. Furthermore, whilst it
is common practice to evaluate the effect of training on concentric peak power, only a few studies
Sports 2020, 8, 76 12 of 16

have investigated training-induced changes in eccentric peak power [15,16]. Since the findings of this
study identify the potential importance of eccentric peak power for HBI performance, future studies
should evaluate this component in other athletic populations and determine whether improvements in
eccentric peak power correlate with improvements in HBI.
Based on a large number of studies reporting large correlations between maximal strength and
external mechanical power output, the development of maximal strength is considered to be the
foundation upon which external mechanical power output is built [50]. This suggests (as discussed
previously) that the development of maximal strength should be prioritised in the early phases of a
training program aimed at developing rapid HBI performance. Consequently, it is possible that the
high-HBI athletes had a higher maximal strength potential than the low-HBI athletes, enabling them to
generate higher velocities, and in turn, greater eccentric and concentric power. However, it should
be highlighted that despite stronger (squat 1RM/BM) and more powerful (jump squat peak power)
athletes having superior sprint acceleration momentum and jumping ability, they may not also be
superior in movements that involve a significant horizontal deceleration component, such as when
performing a more severe COD task [51,52]. This apparent discrepancy may be associated with an
over-emphasis on the development of horizontal sprint acceleration performance, in tandem with an
under-emphasis on the development of the technical skills and mechanical capabilities underpinning
horizontal deceleration ability. Given the demonstrated frequency and intensities of decelerations [2]
and deceleration-dependent COD activities during team sports match play, addressing this imbalance
has potential performance and injury resilience benefits to players.
Indeed evidence is accumulating showing that strength training interventions that incorporate and
effectively manipulate AEL could enhance HBI and COD ability [53]. Accordingly, in a recent review,
AEL and plyometric training was considered as having the best theoretical potential for enhancing
mechanical power output [42]. Subsequently, recommendations on how best to implement these have
also been suggested [54]. Additionally, other eccentric exercise modalities, such as flywheel inertial
resistance training [55], that were not included in this review have also been shown to be effective in
enhancing AEL and mechanical power output, and should therefore also be considered in a training
schedule that is focused upon developing HBI performance.
A limitation of the current study was the cross-sectional research design, thus conclusions cannot
be made on whether the NMP characteristics found to differentiate between high and low horizontal
deceleration abilities will actually transfer to enhanced horizontal deceleration ability following a
long-term training period. Therefore, future long-term training studies should evaluate this potential
transfer. Furthermore, the current study used a sample of young male university athletes, and therefore,
the NMP qualities identified to be most important for horizontal deceleration may not be generalizable
to female athletes, or to male and female athletes with different performance characteristics, levels and
sports. Future research should examine these associations across and within other populations. Finally,
given that the CMJ test was performed both bilaterally and in the vertical plane, it would also be useful
to examine performance and kinetic variables in jump tests with either (or both of) a unilateral and
horizontal braking GRF component. NMP tests with a progressively greater eccentric demand, such as
loaded jumps and drop jumps, may show greater importance for horizontal deceleration abilities and
should be evaluated in future research. Additionally, in this study, eccentric-deceleration RFD was
averaged across the entire eccentric-deceleration phase, as previously described [16,17]. Given the
potential importance of this metric as an indicator of horizontal deceleration ability, the evaluation of
time-constrained eccentric-deceleration RFD should also be examined in future investigations, such as
the first 50 to 100 ms [14] or as a percentage of the phase.

5. Conclusions
This study aimed to determine whether NMP qualities determined using the CMJ could
differentiate team sport athletes characterised with high or low horizontal deceleration abilities.
Importantly, greater eccentric and concentric peak velocities differentiated athletes with high change in
Sports 2020, 8, 76 13 of 16

momentum abilities, defined as horizontal braking impulse, whereas eccentric and concentric peak
force differentiated athletes with high average deceleration abilities. The analysis notably highlighted
the importance of quantifying the change in momentum ability, particularly for heavier athletes,
when evaluating horizontal deceleration ability.
Essentially, these results demonstrated a switch in emphasis from force-based to velocity-based
power production when athletes were categorised using HBI in comparison to the HDEC approach,
which could be indicative of different horizontal deceleration strategies. Subsequently, when measuring
a player’s maximal horizontal deceleration ability, we recommend that practitioners should consider
both the HDEC and HBI performances. These are derived from the same test and do not require
additional data collection, and both may inform decisions based on the individual’s deceleration profile
relative to group-based normative data. For the purposes of obtaining an indirect neuromuscular
indicator of a player’s horizontal deceleration capacity, concentric mean power was the only variable that
differentiated both higher and lower performers characterized with both HDEC and HBI. Accordingly,
based on currently available evidence, this metric would seem to be the best overall indicator.
Despite the significance of the eccentric phase to horizontal deceleration ability, our findings
demonstrate that concentric phase variables had the largest differences between both high and low
horizontal deceleration abilities (HDEC and HBI). Subsequently, these findings suggest concentric force
and velocity should also be considered important NMP determinants of horizontal deceleration ability.
These findings, accordingly, have important implications for coaches and sport science professionals
tasked with preparing team sport athletes for competition demands. Given the significance of maximal
horizontal deceleration ability to team sport performance [2], injury risk [6] and the effectiveness of
return-to-play protocols [56], future research should (a) investigate the NMP determinants of horizontal
deceleration ability across different sports and performance levels, and (b) seek to determine the efficacy
of training interventions specifically focused on improving maximal horizontal deceleration ability.

Author Contributions: All authors contributed to this research and subsequent manuscript. D.J.H. was involved
in study design, data collection, data analysis and writing of the manuscript. D.D.C., C.C. and J.K. were involved
in supervision, interpretation of data and manuscript writing and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: No funding or financial support was received for the preparation of this manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the context of
this article.

References
1. Murtagh, C.F.; Naughton, R.J.; McRobert, A.P.; O’Boyle, A.; Morgans, R.; Drust, B.; Erskine, R.M. A Coding
System to Quantify Powerful Actions in Soccer Match Play: A Pilot Study. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 2019, 90,
234–243. [CrossRef]
2. Harper, D.J.; Carling, C.; Kiely, J. High-Intensity Acceleration and Deceleration Demands in Elite Team Sports
Competitive Match Play: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies. Sport. Med.
2019, 49, 1923–1947. [CrossRef]
3. Jones, P.; Thomas, C.; Dos’Santos, T.; McMahon, J.; Graham-Smith, P. The Role of Eccentric Strength in 180◦
Turns in Female Soccer Players. Sports 2017, 5, 42. [CrossRef]
4. Dalen, T.; Ingebrigtsen, J.; Ettema, G.; Hjelde, G.H.; Wisløff, U. Player Load, Acceleration, and Deceleration
during Forty-Five Competitive Matches of Elite Soccer. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2016, 30, 351–359. [CrossRef]
5. Vanrenterghem, J.; Nedergaard, N.J.; Robinson, M.A.; Drust, B. Training Load Monitoring in Team Sports:
A Novel Framework Separating Physiological and Biomechanical Load-Adaptation Pathways. Sport. Med.
2017, 47, 2135–2142. [CrossRef]
6. Harper, D.J.; Kiely, J. Damaging Nature of Decelerations: Do We Adequately Prepare Players? BMJ Open
Sport Exerc. Med. 2018, 4, e000379. [CrossRef]
Sports 2020, 8, 76 14 of 16

7. Graham-Smith, P.; Rumpf, M.; Jones, P. Assessment of Deceleration Ability and Relationship to Approach
Speed and Eccentric Strength. In Proceedings of the ISBS-Conference Proceedings Archive, Auckland,
New Zealand, 10–14 September 2018; Available online: https://commons.nmu.edu/isbs/vol36/iss1/3/ (accessed
on 7 September 2018).
8. Harper, D.J.; Jordan, A.R.; Kiely, J. Relationships between Eccentric and Concentric Knee Strength Capacities
and Maximal Linear Deceleration Ability in Male Academy Soccer Players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2018.
[CrossRef]
9. Naylor, J.; Greig, M. A Hierarchical Model of Factors Influencing a Battery of Agility Tests. J. Sports Med.
Phys. Fitness 2015, 55, 1329–1335.
10. Simperingham, K.D.; Cronin, J.B.; Ross, A. Advances in Sprint Acceleration Profiling for Field-Based
Team-Sport Athletes: Utility, Reliability, Validity and Limitations. Sport. Med. 2016, 46, 1619–1645. [CrossRef]
11. Kovacs, M.S.; Roetert, E.P.; Ellenbecker, T.S. Efficient Deceleration: The Forgotten Factor in Tennis-Specific
Training. Strength Cond. J. 2008, 30, 58–69. [CrossRef]
12. Eagles, A.N.; Sayers, M.G.L.; Bousson, M.; Lovell, D.I. Current Methodologies and Implications of Phase
Identification of the Vertical Jump: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sport. Med. 2015, 45, 1311–1323.
[CrossRef]
13. McMahon, J.J.; Suchomel, T.J.; Lake, J.P.; Comfort, P. Understanding the Key Phases of the Countermovement
Jump Force-Time Curve. Strength Cond. J. 2018, 40, 1. [CrossRef]
14. Jakobsen, M.D.; Sundstrup, E.; Randers, M.B.; Kjær, M.; Andersen, L.L.; Krustrup, P.; Aagaard, P. The Effect of
Strength Training, Recreational Soccer and Running Exercise on Stretch-Shortening Cycle Muscle Performance
during Countermovement Jumping. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2012, 31, 970–986. [CrossRef]
15. Cormie, P.; McGuigan, M.R.; Newton, R.U. Changes in the Eccentric Phase Contribute to Improved
Stretch-Shorten Cycle Performance after Training. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2010, 42, 1731–1744. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
16. Kijowksi, K.N.; Capps, C.R.; Goodman, C.L.; Erickson, T.M.; Knorr, D.P.; Triplett, N.T.; Awelewa, O.O.;
McBride, J.M. Short-Term Resistance and Plyometric Training Improves Eccentric Phase Kinetics in Jumping.
J. Strength Cond. Res. 2015, 29, 2186–2196. [CrossRef]
17. Laffaye, G.; Wagner, P.P.; Tombleson, T.I.L. Countermovement Jump Height: Gender and Sport-Specific
Differences in the Force-Time Variables. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2014, 28, 1096–1105. [CrossRef]
18. Chalitsios, C.; Nikodelis, T.; Panoutsakopoulos, V.; Chassanidis, C.; Kollias, I. Classification of Soccer and
Basketball Players’ Jumping Performance Characteristics: A Logistic Regression Approach. Sports 2019,
7, 163. [CrossRef]
19. Mayberry, J.K.; Patterson, B.; Wagner, P. Improving Vertical Jump Profiles Through Prescribed Movement
Plans. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2018, 32, 1619–1626. [CrossRef]
20. Jordan, M.J.; Aagaard, P.; Herzog, W. A Comparison of Lower Limb Stiffness and Mechanical Muscle Function
in Anterior Cruciate Ligament–Reconstructed, Elite, and Adolescent Alpine Ski Racers/Ski Cross Athletes.
J. Sport Health Sci. 2018, 7, 416–424. [CrossRef]
21. McMahon, J.J.; Murphy, S.; Rej, S.J.E.; Comfort, P. Countermovement-Jump-Phase Characteristics of Senior
and Academy Rugby League Players. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2017, 12, 803–811. [CrossRef]
22. McMahon, J.J.; Rej, S.; Comfort, P. Sex Differences in Countermovement Jump Phase Characteristics. Sports
2017, 5, 8. [CrossRef]
23. Hart, L.M.; Cohen, D.; Patterson, S.D.; Springham, M.; Reynolds, J.; Read, P. Previous Injury Is
Associated with Heightened Countermovement Jump Force-time Asymmetries in Professional Soccer
Players. Transl. Sport. Med. 2019, 2, 256–262. [CrossRef]
24. Barker, L.A.; Harry, J.R.; Mercer, J.A. Relationships between Countermovement Jump Ground Reaction
Forces and Jump Height, Reactive Strength Index, and Jump Time. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2018, 32, 248–254.
[CrossRef]
25. Secomb, J.L.; Nimphius, S.; Farley, O.R.; Lundgren, L.; Tran, T.T.; Sheppard, J.M. Lower-Body Muscle
Structure and Jump Performance of Stronger and Weaker Surfing Athletes. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform.
2016, 11, 652–657. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Hewit, J.; Cronin, J.; Button, C.; Hume, P. Understanding Deceleration in Sport. Strength Cond. J. 2011, 33,
47–52. [CrossRef]
Sports 2020, 8, 76 15 of 16

27. Cronin, J.B.; Templeton, R.L. Timing Light Height Affects Sprint Times. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2008, 22,
318–320. [CrossRef]
28. Simperingham, K.D.; Cronin, J.B.; Pearson, S.N.; Ross, A. Reliability of Horizontal Force-Velocity-Power
Profiling during Short Sprint-Running Accelerations Using Radar Technology. Sport. Biomech. 2019, 18,
88–99. [CrossRef]
29. Lake, J.; Mundy, P.; Comfort, P.; McMahon, J.J.; Suchomel, T.J.; Carden, P. Concurrent Validity of a Portable
Force Plate Using Vertical Jump Force-Time Characteristics. J. Appl. Biomech. 2018, 34, 410–413. [CrossRef]
30. Lakens, D. Calculating and Reporting Effect Sizes to Facilitate Cumulative Science: A Practical Primer for
t-Tests and ANOVAs. Front. Psychol. 2013, 4, 863. [CrossRef]
31. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences; Routledge Academic: New York, NY, USA, 1988.
32. Tillin, N.A.; Pain, M.T.G.; Folland, J.P. Contraction Speed and Type Influences Rapid Utilisation of Available
Muscle Force: Neural and Contractile Mechanisms. J. Exp. Biol. 2018, 221. [CrossRef]
33. Secomb, J.L.; Lundgren, L.E.; Farley, O.R.L.; Tran, T.T.; Nimphius, S.; Sheppard, J.M. Relationships between
Lower-Body Muscle Structure and Lower-Body Strength, Power, and Muscle-Tendon Complex Stiffness.
J. Strength Cond. Res. 2015, 29, 2221–2228. [CrossRef]
34. Secomb, J.L.; Nimphius, S.; Farley, O.R.L.; Lundgren, L.E.; Tran, T.T.; Sheppard, J.M. Relationships between
Lower-Body Muscle Structure and, Lower-Body Strength, Explosiveness and Eccentric Leg Stiffness in
Adolescent Athletes. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2015, 14, 691–697.
35. Earp, J.E.; Kraemer, W.J.; Cormie, P.; Volek, J.S.; Maresh, C.M.; Joseph, M.; Newton, R.U. Influence of
Muscle-Tendon Unit Structure on Rate of Force Development during the Squat, Countermovement, and
Drop Jumps. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2011, 25, 340–347. [CrossRef]
36. Earp, J.E.; Joseph, M.; Kraemer, W.J.; Newton, R.U.; Comstock, B.A.; Fragala, M.S.; Dunn-Lewis, C.;
Solomon-Hill, G.; Penwell, Z.R.; Powell, M.D.; et al. Lower-Body Muscle Structure and Its Role in Jump
Performance during Squat, Countermovement, and Depth Drop Jumps. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2010, 24,
722–729. [CrossRef]
37. Welch, N.; Richter, C.; Franklyn-Miller, A.; Moran, K. Principal Component Analysis of the Biomechanical
Factors Associated With Performance During Cutting. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2019, 1. [CrossRef]
38. McBride, J.M.; McCaulley, G.O.; Cormie, P. Influence of Preactivity and Eccentric Muscle Activity on
Concentric Performance during Vertical Jumping. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2008, 22, 750–757. [CrossRef]
39. McMahon, J.J.; Jones, P.A.; Suchomel, T.J.; Lake, J.; Comfort, P. Influence of the Reactive Strength Index
Modified on Force– and Power–Time Curves. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2018, 13, 220–227. [CrossRef]
40. McMahon, J.J.; Jones, P.A.; Dos’Santos, T.; Comfort, P. Influence of Dynamic Strength Index on
Countermovement Jump Force-, Power-, Velocity-, and Displacement-Time Curves. Sports 2017, 5, 72.
[CrossRef]
41. Douglas, J.; Pearson, S.; Ross, A.; McGuigan, M. Chronic Adaptations to Eccentric Training: A Systematic
Review. Sport. Med. 2017, 47, 917–941. [CrossRef]
42. Suchomel, T.J.; Wagle, J.P.; Douglas, J.; Taber, C.B.; Harden, M.; Haff, G.G.; Stone, M.H. Implementing
Eccentric Resistance Training—Part 1: A Brief Review of Existing Methods. J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2019,
4, 38. [CrossRef]
43. Stasinaki, A.-N.; Zaras, N.; Methenitis, S.; Bogdanis, G.; Terzis, G. Rate of Force Development and Muscle
Architecture after Fast and Slow Velocity Eccentric Training. Sports 2019, 7, 41. [CrossRef]
44. Zacharia, E.; Spiliopoulou, P.; Methenitis, S.; Stasinaki, A.-N.; Zaras, N.; Papadopoulos, C.; Papadimas, G.;
Karampatsos, G.; Bogdanis, G.C.; Terzis, G. Changes in Muscle Power and Muscle Morphology with Different
Volumes of Fast Eccentric Half-Squats. Sports 2019, 7, 164. [CrossRef]
45. Ripley, N.; Mcmahon, J.; Ripley, N.; Rej, S. Effect of Modulating Eccentric Leg Stiffness on Concentric
Force-Velocity Characteristics Demonstrated in the Countermovement Jump. J. Sport Sci. 2016, 34, S19.
46. Pérez-Castilla, A.; Rojas, F.J.; Gómez-Martínez, F.; García-Ramos, A. Vertical Jump Performance Is Affected
by the Velocity and Depth of the Countermovement. Sport. Biomech. 2019, 1–16. [CrossRef]
47. Sánchez-Sixto, A.; Harrison, A.; Floría, P. Larger Countermovement Increases the Jump Height of
Countermovement Jump. Sports 2018, 6, 131. [CrossRef]
48. Cesar, G.M.; Sigward, S.M. Dynamic Stability during Running Gait Termination: Predictors for Successful
Control of Forward Momentum in Children and Adults. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2016, 48, 37–43. [CrossRef]
Sports 2020, 8, 76 16 of 16

49. Cesar, G.M.; Sigward, S.M. Dynamic Stability during Running Gait Termination: Differences in Strategies
between Children and Adults to Control Forward Momentum. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2015, 43, 138–145. [CrossRef]
50. Suchomel, T.J.; Nimphius, S.; Stone, M.H. The Importance of Muscular Strength in Athletic Performance.
Sport. Med. 2016, 46, 1419–1449. [CrossRef]
51. Freitas, T.T.; Pereira, L.A.; Alcaraz, P.E.; Arruda, A.F.S.; Guerriero, A.; Azevedo, P.H.S.M.; Loturco, I.
Influence of Strength and Power Capacity on Change of Direction Speed and Deficit in Elite Team-Sport
Athletes. J. Hum. Kinet. 2019, 68, 167–176. [CrossRef]
52. Fernandes, R.; Bishop, C.; Turner, A.N.; Chavda, S.; Maloney, S.J.; Kingdom, U.; Maloney, S.; Kingdom, U.
Train the Engine or Train the Brakes? Influence of Momentum on Change of Direction Deficit. Available online:
http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/29691/ (accessed on 20 April 2020).
53. Chaabene, H.; Prieske, O.; Negra, Y.; Granacher, U. Change of Direction Speed: Toward a Strength Training
Approach with Accentuated Eccentric Muscle Actions. Sport. Med. 2018, 48, 1773–1779. [CrossRef]
54. Suchomel, T.J.; Wagle, J.P.; Douglas, J.; Taber, C.B.; Harden, M.; Haff, G.G.; Stone, M.H. Implementing
Eccentric Resistance Training—Part 2: Practical Recommendations. J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2019, 4, 55.
[CrossRef]
55. Petré, H.; Wernstål, F.; Mattsson, C.M. Effects of Flywheel Training on Strength-Related Variables:
A Meta-Analysis. Sport. Med. Open 2018, 4, 55. [CrossRef]
56. Marques, J.B.; Paul, D.J.; Graham-Smith, P.; Read, P.J. Change of Direction Assessment Following Anterior
Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Review of Current Practice and Considerations to Enhance Practical
Application. Sport. Med. 2020, 50, 55–72. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).