Evaluation and comparison of the technical

abilities of élite and sub-élite players

measured through Loughborough Soccer

Passing Test

UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI MILANO

SCUOLA DI SCIENZE MOTORIE

Corso di Laurea Magistrale in “Scienza, Tecnica e Didattica dello Sport”

Relatore: Giampietro Alberti ANNO ACCADEMICO 2015/2016

Prova finale di Laurea di:

Florind Korriku

Matr. 863594

1

ORIGIN

We see with our brain, not with our eyes

This scientific truth is central to the thought that in the last 20

years has allowed the origins and development of Cogi

Training method

The main objective was to better understand how the brain

is organized and how the human performance can be

improved

2

PRINCIPLES

3

IDEA

VS

Fascinated by this new way of training is born the idea to put a comparison

between 2 teams of the same age categories: U16 but different youth

sectors.

• .

Team thatDOESN’T USES

Cogi Training

Team thatUSES

Cogi Training

4

PURPOSE

• If there are significant differences in the skills-technical specifications between the elite and sub-elite at the beginning, during and at the end of the study

•To evaluate in a comparative manner the performance of these skills over the medium-to long-term period (5 months)

They compared the two groups of players to check :

MILAN CIMIANO

5

SUBJECTS, MATERIALS AND METHODS

Participated in this study :

Loughborough Soccer Passing Test

•22 playersof AC MilanÈlite

•18 players of Cimiano

Sub-èlite

Teams Gennuary 2016

1° session

March 2016

2° session

May 2016

3° session

Milan 2000 3 TRIALS 3 TRIALS 3 TRIALS

Cimiano 2000 3 TRIALS 3 TRIALS 3 TRIALS

Planning test LSPT nel periodo sperimentale

6

MILAN CIMIANOIntraclass Correlation Coefficienta

Month Measures

Intraclass

Correlation

F Test with True

Value 0 Intraclass

Correlation

F Test with

True

Value 0

Sig Sig

Gennuary Average ,824 ,000 ,438 ,078

March Average ,500 ,026 ,151 ,332

May Average ,805 ,000 ,523 ,030

Tes

t-re

test

Rel

iab

ilit

y

RESULTS 7

Observing the results, we can see how the players of Milan to be able to repeat

the same results during the test in several months, and instead the subject of the

Cimiano they are not able to repeat the test always in the same way.

Thanks to this result, we are forced to use the lowest value of the test, and not

their media since the media may be influenced by data outliers.

MILAN CIMIANOIntraclass Correlation Coefficienta

Month Measures

Intraclass

Correlation

F Test with True

Value 0 Intraclass

Correlation

F Test with

True

Value 0

Sig Sig

Gennuary Average ,824 ,000 ,438 ,078

March Average ,500 ,026 ,151 ,332

May Average ,805 ,000 ,523 ,030

Tes

t-re

test

Rel

iab

ilit

y

Mea

nL

SP

T b

est

per

form

an

ce

Team Best test

Gennuary 2016

Best Test

March 2016

Best Test

May 2016

Milan

LSPT (T)

Penalità (P)

LSPT (G)

(n=19)

41,5 (2,7)

2,7 (6,7)

44,1 (7,8)

(n=22)

40,8 (2,2)

2,7 (3,5)

43,5 (4,2)

(n=23)

40,8 (1,8)

1,2 (3,3)

42 (3,9)

Cimiano

LSPT (T)

Penalità (P)

LSPT (G)

(n=17)

42,2 (2,8)

7,5 (4,3)

49,6 (5,1)

(n=17)

40,9 (2,2)

8,4 (3,4)

49,4 (3,8)

(n=18)

41,2 (2,1)

8,4 (4,6)

49,7 (5)

RESULTS 8

Mean LSPT best performance

41,4742,17

2,68 *

7,47 *LSPT (G) = 44,15 *

LSPT (G) = 49,64 *

30

35

40

45

50

55

MILAN CIMIANO

Tem

po (

s)

GENNUARY 2016

PENALITA'

LSPT (T)

t-test con P<0.05 = *

t-test con P<0,01=**

Team Best test

Gennuary 2016

Best Test

March 2016

Best Test

May 2016

Milan

LSPT (T)

Penalità (P)

LSPT (G)

(n=19)

41,5 (2,7)

2,7 (6,7)

44,1 (7,8)

(n=22)

40,8 (2,2)

2,7 (3,5)

43,5 (4,2)

(n=23)

40,8 (1,8)

1,2 (3,3)

42 (3,9)

Cimiano

LSPT (T)

Penalità (P)

LSPT (G)

(n=17)

42,2 (2,8)

7,5 (4,3)

49,6 (5,1)

(n=17)

40,9 (2,2)

8,4 (3,4)

49,4 (3,8)

(n=18)

41,2 (2,1)

8,4 (4,6)

49,7 (5)

9

Team Best test

Gennuary 2016

Best Test

March 2016

Best Test

May 2016

Milan

LSPT (T)

Penalità (P)

LSPT (G)

(n=19)

41,5 (2,7)

2,7 (6,7)

44,1 (7,8)

(n=22)

40,8 (2,2)

2,7 (3,5)

43,5 (4,2)

(n=23)

40,8 (1,8)

1,2 (3,3)

42 (3,9)

Cimiano

LSPT (T)

Penalità (P)

LSPT (G)

(n=17)

42,2 (2,8)

7,5 (4,3)

49,6 (5,1)

(n=17)

40,9 (2,2)

8,4 (3,4)

49,4 (3,8)

(n=18)

41,2 (2,1)

8,4 (4,6)

49,7 (5)

Mean LSPT best performance

40,80 40,95

2,73 **

8,41 **LSPT (G)= 43,53**

LSPT (G)= 49,36 **

30

35

40

45

50

55

MILAN CIMIANO

Tem

po (

s)

MARCH 2016

PENALITA'

LSPT (T)

t-test con P<0.05 = *

t-test con P<0,01=**

10

Team Best test

Gennuary 2016

Best Test

March 2016

Best Test

May 2016

Milan

LSPT (T)

Penalità (P)

LSPT (G)

(n=19)

41,5 (2,7)

2,7 (6,7)

44,1 (7,8)

(n=22)

40,8 (2,2)

2,7 (3,5)

43,5 (4,2)

(n=23)

40,8 (1,8)

1,2 (3,3)

42 (3,9)

Cimiano

LSPT (T)

Penalità (P)

LSPT (G)

(n=17)

42,2 (2,8)

7,5 (4,3)

49,6 (5,1)

(n=17)

40,9 (2,2)

8,4 (3,4)

49,4 (3,8)

(n=18)

41,2 (2,1)

8,4 (4,6)

49,7 (5)

Mean LSPT best performance

40,79 41,24

1,23 *

8,44 *

LSPT (G)= 42,02 **

LSPT (G)= 49,68 **

30

35

40

45

50

55

MILAN CIMIANO

Tem

po (

s)

MAY 2016

PENALITA'

LSPT (T)

t-test con P<0.05 = *

t-test con P<0,01=**

11

Two wayANCOVA

*

P< 0,05 = *

12

We found an interaction statistically significant!

This could mean that the two groups have got

adaptations that differ from the two types of

training.

SKILL PERFORMANCE IN THE LONG RUN

50,13 49,84 49,96

44,15 43,67

41,84 *

35

37

39

41

43

45

47

49

51

53

55

GENNAIO MARZO MAGGIOT

empo (

s)

LSPT (G)

MILAN-CIMIANO

CIMIANO (G)

MILAN (G)

One way ANOVA repeated measures

LSD post-hoc con p < 0,05 = *

13

It is seen that both for Milan and for the

Cimiano there are no statistically significant

differences between the various tests

However, using the least significant

difference (LSD) post-hoc it is seen that only

the Milan at the end of the training, has

obtained statistically significant

improvements

SKILL PERFORMANCE IN THE LONG RUN

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Tem

po

(s)

Milan-Cimiano Gennuary

DISCUSSION

CIMIANO

Legenda

MILAN

14

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Tem

po

(s)

Milan-Cimiano Gennuary

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Milan-Cimiano March

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Milan-Cimiano May

DISCUSSION

CIMIANO

Legenda

MILAN

15

CONCLUSIONS

“Two way ANCOVA” e “one way ANOVA’’

The Cogi Training Metod has a tendency to bring improvements in the technical skills that are higher than the classical methodology of training adopted by Cimiano.

Unpaired t-test

Milan scores in the LSPT statistically lower than the team Cimiano in all three occasions of testing.

“Test-retest reliability”

The elite only need a short period of familiarization in order to be repeatable

Sub-elite need a long period of time in order to be repeatable

16

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION 17