International Journal of
Therapies and Rehabilitation Research [E-ISSN: 2278-0343]
http://www.scopemed.org/?jid=12
IJTRR 2015, 4: 4 I doi: 10.5455/ijtrr.00000087
Original Article
Open Access
THE EFFECT OF SIX WEEKS PLYOMETRIC TRAINING ON AGILITY IN MALE
BASKETBALL PLAYERS
Aashish kumar Jain, Madhusudan Tiwari, Saleem Akhtar Naqvi, Aakanksha Jain
ARTICLE INFO
____________________________
Article History:
Received: July 07, 2015
Accepted: Aug 04, 2015
Published: Sep 01, 2015
____________________________
Key Words:
Stroke, trunk control and ventilatory function
____________________________
AUTHORS AFFILIATIONS
Aashish kumar Jain – Assisstant Professor, Mahatma Gandhi
Universty of Medical Science and Technology, Sitapura Jaipur
Madhusudan Tiwari - Associate Professor, Mahatma Gandhi
Universty of Medical Science and Technology, Sitapura Jaipur
Saleem Akhtar Naqvi - Associate Professor, Mahatma Gandhi
Universty of Medical Science and Technology, Sitapura Jaipur
Aakanksha Jain – Lecturar, Mahatma Gandhi Universty of
Medical Science and Technology, Sitapura Jaipur
Introduction
Basketball is one of the sports characterized by many of the
basic and variable skills. The skillful performance is relatively
associated with the special physical motor abilities as the
perfection of the skillful performance depends on the range of
the development of the special physical abilities to perform
such requirements, such as muscular power, endurance, agility
and others. The skillful performance is often measured by the
level of the player to acquire physical abilities 1.
Agility is the ability to maintain and control correct body
positions while quickly changing direction through a series of
movements 2. Agility has classically been defined as simply
the ability to change direction rapidly3 but also the ability to
change direction rapidly and accurately 4. In more recent
publications, some authors have defined agility to include
whole-body change of direction as well as rapid movement and
direction change of limbs5. Agility may be classified as simple,
temporal, spatial and universal skill6.
Plyometrics consists of a rapid stretching of a muscle (eccentric
action) immediately followed by a concentric or shortening
action of the same muscle and connective tissue (Baechle and
Earle, 2000).7 The sequence of events is known as “stretch
shortening cycle”. It is a form of exercise which links strength
with speed of movement. There are basically two phases of
muscle contraction during the running or jumping motion.
Muscles go through a stretch phase, and then a contraction
phase. Plyometric training can contribute to improvements in
vertical jump performance, acceleration, leg strength, muscle
power,
increased
joint
awareness
and
overall
proprioception.8,9,10 Plyometric drills usually involve stopping,
starting, and changing directions in an explosive manner. These
movements are components that can assist in developing
agility11,12. By enhancing balance and control of body positions
during movement, agility theoretically should improve13.
Plyometric training program for pubescent athletes should
begin as gross motor activities of low intensity. They should be
introduced into warm ups and then added to sport specific
skills. When designing the program an effective program
accomplishes specific goals through manipulation of four
variables: intensity, volume, frequency, and recovery13.
Intensity is the effort involved in performing a given task, in
Plyometrics this means the type of exercise used, beginning
with easy (skipping drills) and progressing to more difficult
(alternate bounding).
Volume is the total work performed in a single workout
session. This number will increase as the season progress. For
lower body exercises a repetition is a ground contact.
Frequency is the number of repetitions performed as well as
the number of times a session during a training cycle takes
place. Typically 2-3 sessions of Plyometrics can be completed in
a week.
Recovery is a key variable in determining whether
Plyometrics will succeed in developing power or muscular
endurance. For power training, longer recovery periods is
needed (45 to 60 seconds).A work to rest ratio of 1:5 to 1:10 is
required to assure proper execution and intensity of the
exercise.
Jain A et al., International Journal of Therapies and Rehabilitation Research 2015; 4 (4): 183-190
Plyometrics can help players strengthen the skills. Plyometrics are training techniques used by athletes in all types of sports to increase
strength and explosiveness13. Researches have suggested that Plyometric exercises were initially utilized to enhance sport performance
and are more recently being used in the rehabilitation of injured athletes to help in preparation for a return to sport participation13.
Although plyometric training has been shown to increase performance variables, little scientific information is available to determine if
plyometric training actually enhances agility. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the effects of a 6-week plyometric
training program on agility in basketball players.
Aim and objectives:
To evaluate the effect of 6 weeks Plyometric training on the agility performance among male basketball players.
Need of the study:
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of Plyometric training on the agility performance among basketball players. If this is
found to be helpful for basketball players, this training could be made a part of their training routine so that the improvement in the
agility may be gained along with getting the other beneficial effects of the plyometric training which in turn could be helpful for the
overall improved basketball sports performance.
Hypothesis:
There is significant effect of six weeks plyometric training on agility in male basketball players.
Null Hypothesis:
There is no significant effect of six weeks plyometric training on agility in male basketball players.
Methodology:Sample:
A sample of 30 male basketball players age range between 18 to 24 years, who were undergone professional training for at least past one
year & who met the inclusion criteria & passed the screening test were randomly selected from two basketball academies in Jaipur
region- Ashta academy & Ryan school.
Those who expressed interest for participation were evaluated for the screening test which comprised of High intensity lower body &
upper body plyometric activity.
Screening- Functional pre-requisite tests for polymeric activity14.
(1) 5 squats repetitions at 60% body wt. in 5 secs. (High intensity lower body pylometric)
1.
Athlete wt:________________________
2.
Given wt for the lift__________________
3.
Result:____________________________
(2) 5 repetitions of bench press at 60% body weight in 5 secs.(High intensity upper body plyometric)
1.
Athlete wt:________________________
2.
Given wt for the lift__________________
3.
Result:____________________________
Design of study: Experimental Design.
Inclusion criteria:

Healthy male basketball players 18-24 years age group.

All subjects should agree not to change or increase their current exercise habits during study, differently from the protocol of
study.

All the subjects should clear 1 and 2 screening tests.
Exclusion criteria:

Impairment of spine and lower extremities.

Participated in Plyometric training – program in last six months.

History of any surgery or injury in either lower extremities or spine.

History of any neurological disorder affecting the upper or lower extremities.

History of edema, limited range of motion and inadequate joint stability.
Instruments used:- Stop watch, Measuring tape & Cones
Jain A et al., International Journal of Therapies and Rehabilitation Research 2015; 4 (4): 183-190
Variables:
Dependent variables: - Agility tests based on Barrow zigzag run test & T-test
Independent variable: - Plyometric training protocol by Miller et al.
Procedure: Training protocol
Group A: 6 weeks plyometric training (Experimental Group)
The experimental group was subjected to six weeks plyometric training protocol, on twice per week basis to allow for sufficient recovery
between workouts as recommended by researchers (Adams et al., 1992). For remaining four days, the participants were allowed to
perform their basketball specific training as per their academy routines similar to control group.
Plyometric 6-week training protocol10
Training
Training
week
volume
Week-1
Week-2
Week-3
Week-4
Week-5
Week-6
90
120
120
140
140
120
Sets
Plyometric drill
x
Training
reps
intensity

Side to side ankle hops
2x15
Low

Standing jump and reach
2x15
Low

Front cone hops
5x6
Low

Side to side ankle hops
2x15

Standing long jump
5x6

Lateral jump over barrier
2x15

Double leg hops
5x6

Side to side ankle hops
2x12

Standing long jump
4x6

Lateral jump over barrier
2x12

Double leg hops
3x8

Lateral cone hops
2x12

Diagonal cone hops
4x8
Low

Standing long jump with lateral sprint
4x8
Medium

Lateral cone hops
2x12
Medium

Single leg bounding
4x7
High

Lateral jump single leg
4x6
High

Diagonal cone hops
2x7
Low

Standing long jump with lateral sprint
4x7
Medium

Cone hops with 180 degree turns
4x7
Medium

Single leg bounding
4x7
Medium

Lateral jump single leg
2x7
High
Diagonal cone hops
2x12
Low

Hexagon drill
2x12
Low

Cone hops with change of direction sprint
4x6
Medium


Double leg hops
Lateral jump single leg
3x8
Medium

4x6
High
Low
Low medium
Medium
Low
Low medium
Medium
Medium
Miller et al.
Group B: Basketball traditional training
Jain A et al., International Journal of Therapies and Rehabilitation Research 2015; 4 (4): 183-190
The control group received traditional training by the coach which included firstly warm up and stretching of major muscles for 10
minutes, then basketball specific exercises which included leg raise, cross leg, one leg jump and two leg jump, drills with balls dribbling,
shooting, passing, footwork and Team practice with two men, three men, four men and five men.
Method of data collection :
The study was designed as a pre and post intervention randomized controlled trial, where the measurement of the dependent variables
(agility) before training and after six weeks.
Testing Procedure:
Preliminary measurements were taken at baseline prior to beginning of the study, which included T-test and barrow’s zigzag run test in
seconds.
T- Agility test154 cones in the form of “T” were placed as shown in the diagram. The subject started at cone A, on getting command of the timer, the
subject sprinted to cone B, and touched the base of cone with their right hand. They then turned left and shuffle sideways to cone C, and
also touched its base, this time with their left hand. Then shuffling sideways to the right to cone D, and touching the base with the right
hand. They then shuffled back to cone B touched with the left hand, and ran backwards to cone A. The stop watch was stopped as they
pass cone A.
Diagram:- 1. T-test
Barrow’s zigzag Agility test16The participants began at cone 1 with his hand in contact with the cone and feet behind the baseline, then he sprintes to cones 2, 3 and 4,
2, 5 and then back to cone 1 (each cone must be touched). The best time of two trials was recorded.
Diagram:-2. Barrow’s zigzag test.
Each test was explained and demonstrated to the subjects before testing, the subjects were undergone two practical trials to become
familiar with the testing procedure. Pre-test reading was taken after giving a rest of at least 10 minutes following the practical trials. Each
variables testing is done on the same day with a rest period of 10 minutes between each consecutive test for both the groups. Each test is
performed two times and the best performance of each participant is taken as his score in seconds.
Data Analysis
Jain A et al., International Journal of Therapies and Rehabilitation Research 2015; 4 (4): 183-190
Statistically the characteristics of the subjects and results were analyzed using student t- test. Data were managed on a Excel spread
sheet, SPSS statistical software was used for data analysis.
ResultIn the present study Paired t- test was done for all the two variables, namely T-test & Barrow’s Zigzag Test.
TABLE 1. COMPARISON OF MEAN VALUE FOR AGE, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT BETWEEN GROUP A AND GROUP B
P value( paired t
Parameter
Group 1 (n=15)
Group 2 (n=15)
test)
Age (years ± SD)
20.60 + 1.29
20.07 + 1.28
0.438
Height (cm ± SD)
175.36 + 7.52
174.63 + 6.01
0.300
Weight (kg ± SD)
67.06 + 4.83
66.33 + 5.91
0.656
Height
age
weight
DIAGRAM 3. COMPARISON OF MEAN VALUE FOR AGE, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT BETWEEN GROUP A AND GROUP B
TABLE 2. COMPARISON OF MEAN VALUE OF AGILITY: - BARROW’S ZIGZAG TEST BETWEEN GROUPS (IN SECONDS)
Group
Pre ZigZag test
Post ZigZag test
P value
Group A
7.83
7.23
.000*
Group B
7.55
7.13
0.055
Post z test
DIAGRAM 4. COMPARISON OF MEAN VALUE OF AGILITY: - BARROW’S ZIGZAG TEST BETWEEN GROUPS (IN SECONDS)
TABLE 6.4 COMPARISON OF MEAN VALUE OF AGILITY:- T-TEST BETWEEN GROUPS (IN SECONDS)
Jain A et al., International Journal of Therapies and Rehabilitation Research 2015; 4 (4): 183-190
Group
Pre T-Test
Post T-Test
P value
Group A
10.50
9.17
0.001*
Group B
10.33
10.16
0.272
Pre t rest
post t test
TABLE 6.4 COMPARISON OF MEAN VALUE OF AGILITY:- T-TEST BETWEEN GROUPS (IN SECONDS)
Discussion
The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of 6 weeks of plyometric training for improving the agility performance among male
basketball players the result shown that the plyometric training for 6 weeks was effective in improving agility in male basketball players,
as seen by the difference in the t-test and zigzag test.
Comparison between the two groups using paired t-test for the scores of T-test of agility and Barrow’s zigzag tests of agility shown that
the performance scores were not significantly different from each other at the baseline, thus both groups were similar at baseline.
However Comparison between the two groups at post-training session shown that there was significant difference between the scores of
T-agility test and Barrow’s Zigzag agility test.
The age of participants included in this study was 18-24 years. Various authors conducted studies of plyometric training on young athletes
those age ranged between18-25 13,17,18,19. This shows that plyometric training programs are safe methods in males between age groups
18-25.
In this study the mean height of the participants in group A was 175.36 + 7.52 and group B was 174.63 + 6.01. the mean weight of group A
was 67.06 + 4.83 and group B was 66.33 + 5.91 the mean age of group A was 20.60 + 1.29 and group B was 20.07 + 1.28. in the present
there was no statistically difference between the groups and hence did not contribute to any variation in the results of the study.
In this study group A received plyometric training protocol given by Miller et al study 10 and group B received traditional coach’s protocol
for training which included Dribbling, Shooting, passing, lay out and footwork etc.
The improvement in agility was tested by t-test for agility and barrow zigzag test. Significant Difference in pre and post training was seen
in group A which received plyometric training for 6 weeks. And there was not much improvement of agility in group B which received
traditional coach’s protocol therefore the result suggests that plyometric training for 6 weeks significantly improve agility in basketball
players.
In another study which measured agility using the T-test with Plyometric training, Some researchers used vertical, lateral and horizontal
Plyometric jumps and showed improvements in agility. Researcher examined the effects of a 6-week Plyometrics on agility. They
compared the Plyometric group with the controlled group and found significant improvement in Plyometric trained group but no
significant improvement in control group for the agility performance (T-test and Illinois Agility test). For the T-test, times were improved
by 4.86%, for the Illinois agility test, 2.93% and for the force plate, subjects improved by over 10%. By finding significant differences for all
three tests, results indicate that the plyometric training improved times in the agility test measures because of either better motor
recruitment or neural adaptations. In the previous study of plyometric training, the authors speculated that improvements were a result
of enhanced motor unit recruitment patterns (Potteiger et al. 1999)20. Neural adaptations usually occur when athletes respond or react as
a result of improved coordination between the CNS signal and proprioceptive feedback (Craig, 2004)21. However, they could not
determine if neural adaptations occurred via synchronous firing of the motor neurons or better facilitation of neural impulses to the
spinal cord which also supports the suggestions of Potteiger et al. (1999) 20. Therefore, more studies are needed to determine neural
adaptations as a result of plyometric training and how it affects agility. They chose to use a force plate test to determine ground contact
Jain A et al., International Journal of Therapies and Rehabilitation Research 2015; 4 (4): 183-190
time when preparing to change direction, which is a major component of agility and a benefit of plyometric training. Roper (1998)22 used
a four-point drill, which is very similar to the test they implemented using the force plate, since the movement patterns require forward,
backward and lateral changes in direction in a rapid succession. They stated that the relationship between plyometric exercise and
increased performance in agility tests may be high due to their similar patterns of movement to facilitate power and movement efficiency
by the immediate change in direction upon landing. Their results using the force plate test support Roper’s claims that a plyometric
training program can decrease ground reaction test times because of increases in muscular power and movement efficiently. In their
study, subjects who underwent plyometric training were able to improve their times significantly on both the T-test and Illinois agility
test. Therefore, they found a positive relationship between plyometric training and improvements of both agility tests. This improvement
in agility is beneficial for athletes who require quick movements while performing their sport and support results from other studies. In a
study of Parsons and Jones23, on tennis players, the authors used a T-test and dot drill test to determine speed and agility. They found
that the players became quicker and more agile; enabling them to get to more balls and be more effective tennis players. Renfro (1999)24
measured agility using the T-test with plyometric training while Robinson and Owens (2004)25 measured performance in activities which
involved acceleration, deceleration and change of direction. In addition, the plyometric training program may have improved the
eccentric strength of the lower limb, a prevalent component in changes of direction during the deceleration phase26. It is well document
that agility requires development of muscle factors to improve change of direction speed and it appears that, agility has high relationship
with strength and power26. Perhaps increases in the power performance become one of the important variables for the enhancement of
agility. Also, neural adaptations and enhancement of motor unit recruitment are other mechanisms can lead to increase for the agility
tests. However, we could not exactly determine that neural adaptations occurred or better facilitation of neural impulse to spinal cord27;
therefore, further studies are needed to determine mechanisms of agility improvement by plyometric training. . In our study, subjects
who underwent plyometric training were able to improve their times significantly on both the T-test and Barrow’s zigzag test. Therefore,
we found a positive relationship between Plyometric training and improvements of both agility tests. This improvement in agility is
beneficial for athletes who require quick movements while performing their sport and support results from other studies.
Conflict of Interest: None
References
1. Abdel-Khalek, E., 1992. Sports Coaching (Theories -Applications). Monshaat El-Maaref ,Alexandria, Egypt, pp: 7, 17, 141. (In Arabic)
2. Twist, PW and Benicky, D. (1996) Conditioning lateral movements for multi-sport athletes: Practical strength and quickness drills.
Strength and Conditioning 17:43-51, 1995
3. Bloomfield, J., Ackland, T. R., & Elliot, B. C. (1994). Appliedanatomy and biomechanics in sport. Melbourne, VIC: Blackwell Scientific.
4. Barrow, H., & McGee, R. (1971). A practical approach to measurement in physical education. Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.
5. Baechle, T. R. (1994). Essentials of strength and conditioning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
6. Chelladurai, P. (1976). Manifestations of agility. Canadian Association of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, 42, 36 – 41.
7. Baechle, T.R. and Earle, R.W. (2000) Essentials of strength training and conditioning. 2 nd edition. Champaign, IL: National Strength and
Conditioning Association.
8. Adams, K., O’Shea, J.P., O’Shea, K.L. and Climstein, M.(1992) The effects of six weeks of squat, plyometrics, and squat plyometric
training on power production. Journal of Applied SportsScience Research 6, 36-41.
9. Anderst, W.J., Eksten, F. and Koceja, D.M. (1994) Effects of plyometric and explosive resistance training on lower body power. Medicine
and Science in Sport and Exercise 26, S31.
10. Miller, M.G., Berry, D.C., Bullard, S. and Gilders, R. (2002) Comparisons of land-based and aquatic-based plyometric programs during
an 8-week training period. Journal of Sports Rehabilitation 11, 269-283.
11. Craig, B.W. (2004) what is the scientific basis of speed and agility? Strength and Conditioning 26(3), 13-14.
12. Young, W.B., McDowell, M.H. and Scarlett, B.J. (2001) Specificity of spring and agility training methods. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research 15, 315-319.
13. CHU, D. A. Jumping into plyometrics. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1998.
14. Jonathan Ross: Plyometrics for Everyone, www.Aion Fitness.com; www.Abs Revealed.com.
15. Pauole, K., Madole, K. and Lacourse, M. (2000) Reliability and validity of the T-test as a measure of agility, leg power and leg speed in
college aged men and women. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 14, 443-450.
16. Barrow, H.M., Motor Ability Testing for College Minneapolis, Burgess, 1957, p.15.
17. Effects of a four week plyometric training program on measurements of power in male collegiate hockey players Corey M. Reyment,
Megan E. Bonis, Jacob C. Lundquist, Brent S. Tice.
18. Comparative Analysis of Plyometric Training Program and Dynamic Stretching on Vertical Jump and Agility in Male Collegiate
Basketball Player John Shaji * and Saluja Isha Dept. of Sports Physiotherapy, Manav Rachna International University, Haryana.
19. The effect of 6 week plyometric training program on agility of collegiate soccer players, Raj kumar Research scholar, Department of
Physical Education, BHU, Varanasi,India
Jain A et al., International Journal of Therapies and Rehabilitation Research 2015; 4 (4): 183-190
20. Potteiger, J.A., Lockwood, R.H., Haub, M.D., Dolezal, B.A., Alumzaini, K.S., Schroeder, J.M. and Zebas, C.J. (1999) Muscle power and
fiber characteristic following 8 weeks of plyometric training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 13, 275- 279.
21. Craig, B.W. (2004) what is the scientific basis of speed and agility? Strength and Conditioning 26 (3), 13-14.
22. Roper, R.L. (1998) Incorporating agility training and backward movement into a plyometric program. Strength and Conditioning 20
(4), 60-63.
23. Parsons, L.S. and Jones, M.T. (1998) Development of speed, agility and quickness for tennis athletes. Strength and Conditioning 20(3),
14-19.
24. Renfro, G. (1999) Summer plyometric training for football and its effect on speed and agility. Strength and Conditioning 21(3), 42-44.
25. Renfro, G. (1999) Summer plyometric training for football and its effect on speed and agility. Strength and Conditioning 21(3), 42-44.
26. J. M. Sheppard & W. B. Young, Agility literature review: Classifications, training and testing, Journal of Sports Sciences, September
2006; 24(9): 919 – 932.
27. Asadi, A; Arazi, H. (2012). Effects of high-intensity plyometric training on dynamic balance, agility,vertical jump and sprint
performance in young male basketball players. Journal of Sport and HealthResearch.4 (1):35-44.
Jain A et al., International Journal of Therapies and Rehabilitation Research 2015; 4 (4): 183-190