Menu

HomeHow it worksContact UsContact Us

An Analysis of Curved and Linear Sprint Performance Scores Based on Playing Positions in the U17 Football Team

Efecan Berber, Ömer Özer, Veli Volkan Gürses, Alberto Fílter, Ali Tatlıcı, Osman UYHAN · Journal of Physical Education and Sports Studies · 2026

Researchers timed 30 U17 soccer players from one club on linear sprints and curved sprints to both the strong and weak sides, then compared results across playing positions. Times were similar across the board (roughly 2.6 s), curved sprint times on the two sides were strongly correlated, and no significant differences were found between positions.
Takeaway: Train both curved and linear sprinting, and don't assume a player's position dictates their sprint profile at youth level.
Abstract (source)

This study aimed to examine the curved and linear sprint performance scores of the U17 soccer team according to player positions. A total of 30 volunteer soccer players playing for Göztepe Football Club (GFK) U-17 team participated in the study. The average right side curved sprint weak side (RSCS-WS) performance time of the GFK U-17 team was found to be 2.65±0.10 s, the average left side curved sprint good side(LSCS-GS) performance time was 2.61±0.10 s and the average LS performance time was 2.65±0.06 s. The average performance times of GFK U-17 players according to their positions were as follows: RSCS-WS forwards 2.61±0.08 s, Stoppers 2.66±0.07 s, midfielders 2.64±0.12 s, fullbacks 2.59±0.10 s, wingers 2.69±0.07 s, and goalkeepers 2.74±0.13 s, and the total average value was determined to be 2.65±.10. The average sprint performance times measured by LSCS-GS for the curved were: forwards, 2.64±0.09 s; Stoppers, 2.59±0.07 s; midfielders, 2.62±0.13 s; fullbacks, 2.55±0.06 s; wingers, 2.61±0.05 s; goalkeepers, 2.67±0.11 s, and the total average value was determined to be 2.61±.09. LS performance times were determined as follows: forwards 2.64±0.06 s, stoppers 2.68±0.07 s, midfielders 2.64±0.06 s, fullbacks 2.64±0.05 s, wingers 2.63±0.05 s, goalkeepers 2.68±0.08 s, and the total average value was determined to be 2.65±.06. When examining the relationship between CS and LS performances, a high level of correlation was found between RSCS-WS and LSCS-GS (r: 0.737, p0.05). When examined according to the positions played by the participants, no statistically significant difference was found between the groups (p>.05).

Primary studyOpen accessResistance Training & Hypertrophy
Read the original →

Related in Resistance Training & Hypertrophy

The Resistance Training Dose Response: Meta-Regressions Exploring the Effects of Weekly Volume and Frequency on Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength GainsEffects of Advanced Resistance Training Systems on Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength in Recreationally Trained Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisCreatine supplementation and resistance training: a comparison between novice and experienced lifters — a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysisThe effects of velocity-based vs. percentage-based resistance training on sports performance in trained individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysisPower in the flow: how menstrual experiences shape women's strength training performanceEffectiveness of Whole-Body Vibration Therapy on Handgrip Strength: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.