Prescreening evaluations are useful tools for strength and conditioning professionals in determining player readiness, and particular areas of concern, going into a season. Poor performance on mobility and flexibility screenings are associated with higher injury risk in a variety of sports. Evaluating player mobility, stability, and balance asymmetries is of particular importance in soccer, where players are often tasked with placing their bodies at the functional limit of their ranges of motion to reach for a ball or avoid a tackle. Additionally, each position group on the field may have different demands, or susceptibilities in movement patterns, which could increase their risk of injury during the course of a season. Purpose: To determine overall performance of, and positional differences in, a mobility, stability, and asymmetry screening battery among professional male soccer players. Methods: 20 professional male soccer players (2 Goalkeepers [GK], 5 Defenders [D], 9 Midfielders [MF], 4 Forwards [F]) underwent the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) protocol under the direction of an FMS certified administrator. The composite score (cFMS) and individual scores of each test [deep squat (DS), left (L)/right (R) hurdle step (HS), L/R inline lunge (IL), L/R shoulder mobility (SM), L/R active straight leg raise (ASLR), trunk stability push-up (TSPU), and L/R rotary stability (RS)] were collected by the administrator. Prior to the test, all players were shown a demonstration of each test and allowed a maximum of 3 attempts to complete the test. Scores on each test were given in accordance to established FMS criteria. All data was analyzed via a Friedman Test to determine differences in performance of each FMS test as a team and Kruskal-Wallis Tests separated by position group with significance set at a = 0.05, and presented as Median ± IQR. Results: There was a significant difference in the team score obtained with each FMS test (?2 = 54.98; p < 0.01). Post-hoc analyses (Wilcoxon Signed-Rank) revealed that players performed worse on the DS, LRS, and RRS tests compared to RHS, LHS, RIL, LIL, RSM, and TSPU (all p < 0.004 [Bonferroni adjusted]). cFMS scores were not significantly different between position groups (GK: 16.5 ± 0.5, D: 17.0 ± 2.0, M: 16.0 ± 1.0, F: 15 ± 2.5; p = 0.40). A significant main effect was noted for LASL (?2 = 7.99; p = 0.04). Post-hoc analyses revealed that F had lower LASL values than D (F: 1.5 ± 1.0, D: 3.0 ± 0.5; p = 0.04). No other positional group differences were present for any other FMS test, nor were there differences in asymmetries between positions (all p > 0.05). Conclusions: While there was individual variability around each test, the majority of professional soccer players (16 of 20) were above the "at risk" threshold for injury. There was minor positional variability in individual tests, with the only difference noting that LASL was worse in F than D. However, of particular note is the poor, relative to other tests, team performance in the DS and RS tests. Practical Applications: The poorer scores on the DS and RS tests may indicate that soccer player ability to squat is compromised due to inability to dorsiflex and inadequate core strength. Strength and conditioning coaches may choose to implement ankle mobility pre-activation exercises and increased core stability work in their programs for soccer players to improve performance and minimize injury risk during the course of the season.
© Copyright 2021 The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. National Strength & Conditioning Association. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.