This review explores the differences between agility in invasion sports (defined as including reactive decision-making) and change-of-direction speed (CODS), and highlights the implications for training. Correlations between agility tests and CODS tests indicate that they represent independent skills. Agility tests discriminate higher- from lower-standard athletes better than CODS tests, indicating that the cognitive element of agility is important to performance. Training studies have shown that the development of strength qualities can transfer to gains in CODS, but this has never been shown for agility. There is some evidence that the importance of physical qualities is greater for CODS than for agility. It was concluded that the reactive element should be included in agility training, testing and research. While there appears to be no research evidence for the benefits of strength and power training, there is some support for the use of small-sided games for improving agility.

Agility is an important skill for both attackers and defenders in invasion sports such as codes of football. On the sporting field, agility requires reacting to a stimulus, often presented by an opponent’s movement, before a change of direction or speed. There is a plethora of research that examines the movement component of agility in isolation, which is described as change-of-direction (COD) ability, and this is thought to underpin agility performance. This opinion article proposes that COD ability should not be researched as the only or primary outcome measure when the objective is to inform agility performance in invasion sports. It is argued that pre-planned COD movements and tests lack ecological validity because they lack perception-action coupling and involve movement out of context from the game. The movement techniques and strength qualities required for the performance of COD tests can be quite different to those required for agility. It is suggested that COD tests can be applied to sports that involve pre-planned COD movements, but researchers should endeavour to use agility tests when studying invasion sports. Some new methods for assessing one-on-one agility contests are reported as potentially valuable for future research, and examples of research questions are provided.

Direction (COD) speed, and defensive agility performance in Australian Rules football players. Twenty-four male community-level players were assessed on sprint acceleration (10-m time), maximum strength (3 repetition-maximum half squat), leg power (countermovement jump), reactive strength (drop jump), and a single COD speed test and a defensive agility test. Change-of-direction speed was correlated with reactive strength (r = −0.645, p = 0.001) and sprint acceleration (r = 0.510, p = 0.011). Multiple regression indicated that the combined physical qualities explained 56.7% of the variance associated with COD speed (adjusted R2 = 0.567, p ≤ 0.05). Participants were median split into faster and slower COD speed groups, and these were compared by independent t-tests. The faster group was significantly better (p ≤ 0.05) on the sprint acceleration and reactive strength tests (large effect size). The correlations between physical qualities and agility were trivial to small (r = −0.101 to 0.123, p > 0.05) and collectively explained only 14.2% of the variance associated with agility performance (adjusted R2 = −0.142, p > 0.05). When faster and slower agility groups were compared, there were trivial to moderate differences (p > 0.05) in all physical qualities. It was concluded that reactive strength and sprint acceleration are important for COD speed, but the physical qualities assessed are not associated with defensive agility performance. For agility tasks similar to those in this study, sprint and resistance training should not be emphasized, and training other factors, such as the development of sport-specific technique and cognitive skill, is recommended....

Agility is a complex skill that is influenced by several physical, technical and cognitive factors. In this position stand, we discuss agility as it relates to invasion sports such as the many football codes. An important concept when conceptualising agility is understanding how it is applied on the field or court. Agility is particularly important in contests between attackers and defenders. For example, an attacker needs to create space or separation from defenders, in order to evade or to maintain possession of the ball. Conversely, defenders may require agility to reduce time and space in relation to the attacker, thereby applying pressure with the intention of achieving a turnover of possession. The movements performed in an agility scenario are diverse, and may involve an isolated deceleration, or a range of actions to produce a lateral displacement of the body at various angles and speeds. To create novel insights into agility, the interactions between predators and prey are explored in the animal world and reveal that successful pursuit (like a defender) or escape (like an attacker) is influenced by the ability to accelerate and attain high speeds, decelerate, and manoeuvre with control at optimum speeds, as well as expressing perceptual and cognitive skills. A plethora of sports literature claiming to discuss agility actually refers to pre-planned change-of-direction (COD) movements, known as COD ability. There are several differences between agility and COD ability, which should be considered when testing and prescribing agility activities. The characteristics of different agility techniques are presented and discussed with consideration to performance and the risk of injury such as anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture, with the aim of creating multiple movement solutions for the athlete. Due to the diversity of agility actions performed in invasion sports, physical development should include tissue strengthening as well as fast and slow stretch-shortening cycle exercises to cater for different speeds and angles of agility movements. The speed and accuracy of decision-making in agility contests (cognitive component) are determined by the athlete’s ability to anticipate opponent’s actions, visually scan the environment, recognise patterns of play, and predict movement strategies based on knowledge of situations. One versus one contests, small-sided games, and video perceptual training can enhance the cognitive component of agility. Finally, there is no single coaching strategy or method that should be used to develop agility. Instead, the appropriate methodology must fit the individual needs of athletes, and therefore a mixed multicomponent approach is needed as part of an agility framework. Training examples to develop agility are presented throughout this position statement.

The primary purpose of this study was to determine if a difference existed between peak speed attained when performing a sprint with maximal acceleration versus from a gradual build-up. Additionally, this investigation sought to compare the actual peak speed achieved when instructed to reach 75% and 90% of maximum speed. Field sport athletes (n = 21) performed sprints over 60 m under the experimental conditions, and the peak speed was assessed with a radar gun. The gradual build-up to maximum speed (8.30 ± 0.40 m∙s⁻¹) produced the greater peak speed (effect size = 0.3, small) than the maximum acceleration run (8.18 ± 0.40 m∙s⁻¹), and the majority of participants (62%) followed this pattern. For the sub-maximum runs, the actual mean percentage of maximum speed reached was 78 ± 6% for the 75% prescribed run and 89 ± 5% for the 90% prescription. The errors in attaining the prescribed peak speeds were large (~15%) for certain individuals, especially for the 75% trial. Sprint training for maximum speed should be performed with a gradual build-up of speed rather than a maximum acceleration. For sub-maximum interval training, the ability to attain the prescribed target peak speed can be challenging for field sport athletes, and therefore where possible, feedback on peak speeds reached should be provided after each repetition.

The main purpose of this study was to determine the association between leg power and sprint technique with 20-m sprint performance. Seventy-seven elite junior Australian Rules football players were assessed on a 20-m sprint test, a countermovement jump (CMJ) and a two bound test, and on a new method of quantifying sprint technique from simple video recordings. Technique assessment involved rating 14 points on a scale from 1–5. Players were median-split into faster and slower groups based on their 20-m times, and they were compared for differences in leg power and technique. The faster group was significantly better (p0.05). A multiple regression indicated that the two-bound test and technique accounted for 37.7% of the variance associated with the 20-m sprint time (p<0.05). It was concluded that the technique assessment tool captured some important characteristics of 20-m sprint performance and could potentially be used to profile or monitor athletes. Further the two-bound test is a more relevant test for developing athletes because of its specificity to sprinting, compared to the CMJ.