Effects of Different Post Warm-Up Strategies for Non-Starter Players in Futsal

Abstract

Futsal warm-ups are crucial pre-match routines designed to enhance players' readiness. However, non-starter players inevitably face longer periods of inactivity. This study aimed to investigate the effects of various post warm-up strategies on physical performance of non-starter players in futsal. Thirteen highly trained male futsal players participated in this study during the in-season period. All players performed three distinct post warm-up strategies over consecutive days: REST, dynamic stretching (DYS), and a combination of plyometrics with change of direction drills (PLY-COD). After performing a standard warm-up, players remained inactive for 10 min, mirroring the traditional time window leading up to the start of the match. Subsequently, post warm-up strategies were implemented. Testing included a countermovement-jump, a reactive strength index, 5- and 10-m sprints, and a 505 COD test. Players were tested 10 min after the conclusion of the warm-up and immediately after the post warm-up strategy. The PLY-COD strategy yielded positive effects across all variables. Running performance improved with small to moderate effect in both sprint (-2.2 ± 1.9%), (-1.6 ± 1.7%), and COD (-2.9 ± 3.5%) tests. Conversely, both DYS and REST strategies had a detrimental impact on running and jumping performances, with this impairment being more pronounced in running following REST strategy, particularly in the 10-m linear sprint (1.4 ± 1.7%). These results suggest that remaining inactive or exerting limited effort after a warm-up may be detrimental to physical performance of futsal non-starter players. On the other hand, PLY-COD drills could be effective strategies to maintain or even enhance physical performance following the warm-up.

Keywords: jumping; potentiation; running.

Figure 1

Schematic representation of the experimental design. Both pre-test (10 min after the end of the warm-up) and post-test (immediately after the post warm-up strategy) evaluation tests were included to assess differences in protocols.

Figure 2

Paired data showing means and 95% confidence intervals of pre-test and post-test measures for the 5-m linear sprint, the 10-m linear sprint and the 505 test according to each protocol. The mean paired difference is shown with its 95% confidence interval against a floating difference axis, of which zero is lined up with the pre-test mean. The paired data are shown as small circles joined by lines. The differences are shown as triangles on the difference axis.

Figure 3

Paired data showing means and 95% confidence intervals of pre-test and post-test measures for the countermovement jump and the reactive strength index according to each protocol. The mean paired difference is shown with its 95% confidence interval against a floating difference axis, of which zero is lined up with the pre-test mean. The paired data are shown as small circles joined by lines. The differences are shown as triangles on the difference axis.

Figure 4

Cohen’s d_unbiased for within comparison of the % variation from the pre- to post-test protocols. Error bars indicate uncertainty in true mean changes with 95% confidence intervals. Note: Since higher negative % of variation from the pre- to post-test in the 5-m sprint, the 10-m sprint and the 505-time test is related with better performance, the corresponding outcomes were changed from negative to positive, and vice-versa.