Dynamic stretching versus plyometric push up training on upper body performance in cricketers

Abstract

Background: The cricketers may enhance their upper-body performance through dynamic stretching and plyometric push-up training. For tasks specific to cricket, plyometric push-up training promotes explosive strength and power, while dynamic stretching enhances flexibility, muscle activation, and coordination.

Objective: To compare the effects of dynamic stretching and plyometric push-ups on upper body performance tests in cricketers.

Methodology: A randomized control trial was conducted in which initially n=22 cricketers were enrolled.  Out of them, two participants dropped out of the study after two weeks due to which a total number of n=20 participants participated in the six-week study. Participants were divided into two groups, one group performed upper body dynamic stretching exercises along with their usual warm-up routine and the other group did plyometric push-ups along with some variation of exercises. They performed the exercises for three days a week on alternate days. Upper body fitness tests were performed, i.e. one arm tests, Upper quadrant Y- y-balance test, and Medicine ball throw tests every week to gather data regarding participants' upper body fitness.

Results: there was no significant difference (p≥0.05) between the groups from the baseline to the 6th week in all variables except in upper quadrant Y balance tests left hand showed significant improvement (p=0.01) at the end of the 6th week. While in the one-arm hop test was not comparable at baseline due to a significant difference, so compared the mean of mean difference, which was also not statistically significant (4.18±0.79 vs 4.03±0.67, p=0.65).

Conclusion: The study concludes that both dynamic stretching and plyometric push-up exercises showed equal effects upper body performance among cricketers.

Keywords: dynamic stretching; plyometric push-up; upper body performance.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05516706 

INTRODUCTION

Cricket is one of the popular and oldest noncontact bat and ball sports, which engages the players in running, throwing, and catching during bowling, fielding, wicket keeping, and batting these things make an athlete more prone to the risk of overuse and impact injuries to the head, back, upper, and lower extremities [1, 2]. The efficacy and capability of the upper limb in carrying out different movements necessary for cricket, like batting, bowling, throwing, and fielding is referred to as performance. It includes factors like power, strength, endurance, flexibility, and coordination [3]. Increased upper limb performance is essential for producing bat speed, accurate bowling, precise throwing, and quick fielding movements, all of which have a significant effect on a player's overall performance on the field[4]. Training programs that concentrate on upper limb performance seek to maximize these attributes, which will enhance a cricket player's capacity to carry out crucial movements and achieve success in the game [5].

Plyometric and dynamic stretching exercises are the exercises that help fulfil the demands placed by a game on an athlete. Plyometrics involve a sudden stretching of eccentric (lengthening) load of muscle followed by a concentric (shortening) action of the same muscle and connective tissue. Plyometric exercises involve skips, hops, jumps, throws, and bounds. All these exercises improve the agility of an athlete, which is defined as the capability of a body to diligently change the position and direction of a body and move towards another position [6,7,8]. At first plyometric exercises were used for the enhancement of sports performance and rehabilitation of sports injuries numerous sports performance [9]. Different types of plyometric exercise with diverse levels of intricacies in the musculoskeletal system are applied in rehabilitation [10, 11]. 

Dynamic stretching is a type is stretching that is applicable at both physical and functional levels in preparation for a sporting activity it gives considerable results in the enhancement of sprinting speed, power, and force[12, 13]. Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation is a flexibility training that is proven to be effective in active and passive range of motion exercises [13, 14].

A vast amount of work can be found on the effect of plyometric exercises on lower body performance while a scant amount of literature was found on the enhancement of upper body performance by including plyometric training exercises as well as dynamic stretching exercises. Because cricket requires certain upper body movements, training techniques that mimic these motions are necessary for maximum adaptation. The goal of plyometric push-up training is to improve upper body power by emphasizing explosive movements. On the other hand, dynamic stretching may not fully address overall performance even while it increases flexibility. Cricket players in Pakistan don't follow a set training schedule. To help with well-informed training decisions across the nation, this study compares the effectiveness of these two approaches on upper body performance in cricket players.

METHODOLOGY

Study Design: A randomized clinical trial (NCT05516706) was conducted at Quaid-e-Azam University Sports Club Islamabad, Pakistan, for a time duration of 6 weeks i.e. from 3rd January to 13th February 2022. The study was initiated after approval from the Institutional Review Board and Ethics Committee of Quaid-e-Azam University (IRB #. D.S/2021-126). Written informed consent was taken from the participants before the study.

Participants: A total number of n=22 participants of Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were recruited in the current study through a nonprobability convenient sampling technique. The inclusion criteria were male cricket players, who were currently playing cricket on the field, aged between 18 to 25 years. However, cricketers with a history of musculoskeletal injuries i.e. fracture, sprain, or strain were excluded from the study. The participants were randomly divided into two groups i.e. group A received dynamic stretching exercises (n=10); group B received plyometric push-up exercises (n=10). There were two dropouts from each group in the study, due to the inability to come for follow-up training and assessment after the second week. (Figure 1)

Randomization: Random allocation of the participants was done through the coin toss method in which the subjects tossed a coin in the air. Heads mean the subject was allocated in group A (dynamic stretching group) and tail meant the subject to be allocated in group B (Plyometric push up). It was a single-blind in which the participant was kept blinded by the intervention. Informed consent was given to the participant and were guided about their participation in the research study.

Intervention: All participants received a total of 18 sessions, 3 sessions were performed a week for 6 weeks. Each session lasted for 20-25 minutes. Before the training, all participants were explained and taught the exercises that they were going to perform in their training session. 

Figure 1: CONSORT diagram

Group A (Dynamic stretching): Participants in this group performed a 10-minute warmup followed by 15 minutes of dynamic stretching exercises i.e. arm cross-over, Walking lunges, Upper body twist, Cat cow pose, Rotator cuff movements, Scapular retraction, Pectoral mobility with a dowel, 

Table 1:  Detailed description of 6-week dynamic stretching

Group B (Plyometric push-up): Participants of this group performed 10 minutes of warm-up followed by plyometric push-up exercises (table 2)

Plyometric Push-up: Plyometric push-up was performed with the participant in plank position in which the participant was prone facing the group with his body weight supported on both hands and feet with back straight. The participant started by pushing his body forward by flexing his elbows coming up with a jump in his upper body clapping his hands and then coming back to the starting position and repeating the exercise.

 One Arm Plyometric Push-up: One arm plyometric push-up was performed with the participant in plank position. Participant kept one hand on his back with his body weight supported on both feet and one hand. The participant started by pushing his upper body forward and coming back with a jump repeating the same procedure for the arm.

Depth Push-up: Participants began by placing two six-inch blocks shoulder-width apart. The participant should be in plank position and initiate the exercise by bending his elbows and pushing his body forward while straightening his elbows the participant placed both his hands on the block come back to start, and repeat the procedure.

Arm Cross-Over: Arm cross-over was performed with a participant in a standing position with feet shoulder-width apart. Keeping his back straight participants crossed his arm and brought it back as far as possible stretching his chest and arm.

Walking Lunges: Walking lunges were performed with the participant stepping forward putting weight on the forward leg pausing for one second and then coming backward.

Cat-Cow Pose: Participants began the exercise in a quadrupled position with their body weight supported in both hands and knees during inhalation he raised his back while in exhalation he curved his back inward.

Scapular Scaption: Scapular scaption was performed with a participant in a standing position with his back straight and feet shoulder-width apart he began to lift both arms to shoulder level with his thumb facing upward.

Rotator Cuff Movements using Thera band: Participant began with standing positioning his feet shoulder width apart with medium resistance Thera-band in his hands doing rotator cuff movement i.e.  Abduction, internal and external rotations. (table 2)

Table 2. Detailed description of 6-week plyometric training

Outcome Measures: The tests used to assess upper body performance were the One arm hop test, Upper quadrant Y balance test, and Medicine Ball throw test all these tests have good reliability. One arm hop test was used to assess upper body stability, power, and strength. Upper Quadrant Y balance strength was used to assess upper body stability and mobility while 3 Kg Medicine ball throw was used to assess upper body power and strength. Data was collected on the baseline, after 3rd week, and after 6^th week by a physiotherapist. 

Statistics: For gender and age frequency and mean ± SD were calculated. The normality of data was tested through the Shapiro-Wilk test according to which all variables were normally distributed except the One Arm Hop Test Non-Dominant Hand that's why the parametric test was applied to variables. For within-group analysis repeated measure ANOVA with pairwise comparison was applied.  Independent test was used for between-group analyses. As the One Arm Hop Test Non-Dominant Hand was not comparable at the baseline Mean of the mean difference was compared. The level of significance was set at p<0.05, and SPSS ver 22 was used for data analysis. 

RESULTS

The mean age of the study participants is 21.1 ± 2.02 years. The mean BMI was 20.03±1.65 kg/m² repeated measure ANOVA test was applied for the within-group analysis while an independent t-test was used for the analysis of between-group analysis. 

As the sphericity was not assumed, the repeated measure ANOVA with the greenhouse Geisser effect showed that within-group changes were significant (p<0.001) in groups A and B from baseline to 6^th week at each level of assessment. (table 3) 

Table 3: Within-group comparison

For between the group comparisons, there was no significant difference (p≥0.05) between the groups from the baseline to the 6^th week in all variables except in upper quadrant Y balance tests left hand showed significant improvement (p=0.01) at the end of the 6^th week. While in the one-arm hop test was not comparable at baseline due to a significant difference. So compared the mean of mean difference, was also not statistically significant (4.18±0.79 vs 4.03±0.67, p=0.65). (table 4)  

Table 4:   Between-group comparisons

DISCUSSION

The objective of this study was to determine the effects of dynamic stretching and plyometric push-up training on upper-body performance tests in cricketers. The within-group comparison showed significant improvement in the results in both the Dynamic stretching group and the plyometric push-up group. While comparative analysis of the group revealed that no significant difference in all variables except in the Upper Quadrant Y Balance Test Left hand.

The participants who performed plyometric training showed improved, power, strength, and stability. A previous study in which the effect of plyometric training on muscle power and athlete’s performance was done also showed an increase in muscle power and ball throw velocity [15]. A study by Vossen JF in which the comparative effect of plyometric push-ups and dynamic push-up training was observed for six weeks showed more significant results in the plyometric push-up group in the medicine ball put to test (p<0.05) [16]. Improved results in the plyometric training group may have occurred due to its physiological effects on both structural and neurological levels. The performance enhancement could have been visible due to improvement in physical function. At the neurological level, increased neural drive to agonist muscle and changes in muscle activation occur as a part of physiological adaptations [17, 18]. Improvement in the medicine ball throw test could have occurred due to enhanced throwing velocities due to increased peak power output in the upper extremity, it could have been caused by to possible increase in the cross-sectional area of fast twitch fiber along with neural activation, changes in intrinsic muscle properties, improved synchronization of motor units, increased firing frequency [19, 20]. 

In plyometric push-up training as the muscle undergoes an eccentric movement followed by a rapid concentric movement, the stored elastic energy emits additional force to facilitate muscle contraction due to the stretch reflex the additional force production is proportionate to the rate of the stretch rather than the amount of stretch applied [21]. It has been seen in previous literature that the muscle tendon complex stretch phase activity is the causative factor for change in tendon length which leads to change in muscle length [22].

Participants also showed improvement in dynamic balance which was seen in upper quadrant Y balance test results and one arm hop test.  Cagri Guzelsoy did a study on volleyball players to see the effect of plyometric training on speed and dynamic balance and showed a significant difference in the speed and dynamic balance (p<0.05) of the volleyball players [23]. A study by Ramerriz Campillo et al. which commenced a six-week plyometric training program on young soccer players showed that anteroposterior and Medio lateral balance was improved by plyometric training (p ≤ 0.05), As balance is controlled by coordinated movement of brain muscle nerves and joint receptors. The enhancement in balance could have occurred due to changes in neuromuscular and proprioceptive control or co-contraction of muscles [24]. Proprioceptive control is described as a specialized type of sensation of touch that controls the sensation of joint position and joint movement i.e. kinesthesia while neuromuscular control is an innate efferent motor response to afferent sensory i.e. proprioceptive stimulus[25]. Co-contraction of muscles can be described as a sudden muscle activation on the opposite side of the joint [26]. All these mechanisms work in combination to provide movement accuracy and stability of joint and body positioning which result in improved balance and stability and decreased chances of injury.

The within-group analysis also showed the dominant showed more significant improvement than the non-dominant hand. This could have occurred due to repeated use of the dominant hand and shoulder for bowling and batting. In a study of junior tennis players results showed that a high level of isokinetic strength and the average internal rotation peak torque was higher in the dominant hand as compared to non - the dominant hand. A significant difference was found in dominant and non-dominant hands [27].

 On the other hand, the Dynamic stretching group also showed improvement from the third to sixth week, research participants who performed dynamic stretching showed improved Range of Motion, balance, and flexibility. A study was conducted in which the acute effect of static and dynamic stretching on balance agility reaction time and movement time was observed on thirty-one female high school athletes showed that the Dynamic stretching group had improved agility and balance and enhanced upper body movement as compared to the Static stretching group. This enhancement could have occurred due to increased electromyography amplitude [28].

A study done by Brad S. Curry to assess the acute effect of dynamic stretching, static stretching, and light aerobic activity on muscular performance in women showed that the dynamic stretching group had enhanced power which led to enhanced muscle performance as compared to the static stretching group [29]. The improvement could have occurred due to physiological changes which led to improved speed of impulse conduction, neuromuscular facilitation, and receptor sensitivity [30]. Neuromuscular facilitation is the best technique used for muscle strengthening it's a string of movements that leads to the activation of neurological and muscular function it also facilitates in stretching of shortened soft tissues which leads to improved muscle strength and function [31].

Between-group comparisons the results only showed a significant difference in, the upper quadrant y balance test while a non-significant difference was found in the medicine ball throw test and one arm hop test dominant hand two groups which means both groups had similar effectiveness regarding these two tests. The ability of these tests to recognize variations or differences in outcome measures may vary. Between the medicine ball throw test and one arm hop test, the upper quadrant Y balance test may be more sensitive to detect the changes in the balance performance of the intervention under study [32]. 

Both dynamic stretching and plyometric push-up training were found to be equally helpful in improving upper body performance in test cricket players' upper limbs. The comparatively small sample size of 22 participants is one factor that could be responsible for the lack of significant changes; a bigger sample size may show more subtle variations. The intervention's six-week duration may have been insufficient to produce detectable differences; a longer time frame would have been beneficial. Variations in cricket players' individual fitness levels and training responses could potentially conceal disparities.

CONCLUSION

The study concludes that both dynamic stretching and plyometric push-up exercises showed equal effects on upper body performance among cricketers. Further research with a larger sample size and prolonged follow-up of at least for 12 weeks are recommended to see differences in the efficacy of these training programs.

DECLARATIONS & STATEMENTS

Author’s Contribution

MS: substantial contributions to the conception and design of the study.

MS and AA: acquisition of data for the study.

AA and AA: interpretation of data for the study.

AA: analysis of the data for the study.

SA: drafted the work.

MS, AA, AA, and SA: revised it critically for important intellectual content.

MS, AA, AA, and SA: final approval of the version to be published and agreement to be accountable for all aspects.

Of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Ethical Statement

The study was initiated after approval from the Institutional Review Board and Ethics Committee of Quaid-e-Azam University (IRB #. D.S/2021-126). 

Consent Statement

The written informed consent was obtained from participants in the study. 

Data Availability Statement 

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data is not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

Acknowledgments 

Thanks to the participants of this study for sharing their personal experiences.

Conflicts of Interest 

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

 Funding

No Funding.

REFERENCES

1. Vijayakumar P, Varatharajan R, Paul J. Effect of star excursion balance training program on agility among young men cricket players. Int. J. Med.Exerc. Sci, Vol 6 (3), 784-798, September 2020. [CrossRef] 
2. Orchard JW, Kountouris A, Sims K. Risk factors for hamstring injuries in Australian male professional cricket players. J Sport Health Sci. 2017;6(3):271-4.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Hydar Abbas SA, Karvannan H, Prem V. Effect of neuromuscular training on functional throwing performance and speed in asymptomatic cricket players. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2019;23(3):502-7.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Ahmed S, Brown J, Gray J. Predictors of throwing performance in amateur male cricketers: A musculoskeletal approach. Eur J Sport Sci. 2021;21(8):1119-28. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Lim J, Wong S, McErlain-Naylor SA, Scanlan A, Goggins L, Ahmun R, et al. Strength and conditioning for cricket fielding: a narrative review. Strength Cond J. 2023;45(5):509-24. [CrossRef] 
6. Gherghel A, Badau D, Badau A, Moraru L, Manolache GM, Oancea BM, et al. Optimizing the explosive force of the elite level football-tennis players through plyometric and specific exercises. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(15). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Hartmann H, Wirth K, Keiner M, Mickel C, Sander A, Szilvas E. Short-term periodization models: effects on strength and speed-strength performance. Sports Med. 2015;45(10):1373-86. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Ali K, Gupta S, Hussain ME, Alzhrani M, Manzar MD, Khan M, et al. Effect of plyometric versus complex training on core strength, lower limb, and upper limb power in male cricketers: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2023;15(1):160. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Eraslan L, Castelein B, Spanhove V, Orhan C, Duzgun I, Cools A. Effect of plyometric training on sport performance in adolescent overhead athletes: a systematic review. Sports Health. 2021;13(1):37-44. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10. Al Attar WSA, Bakhsh JM, Khaledi EH, Ghulam H, Sanders RH. Injury prevention programs that include plyometric exercises reduce the incidence of anterior cruciate ligament injury: a systematic review of cluster randomised trials. J Physiother. 2022;68(4):255-61. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Huang CC, Lee MC, Ho CS, Hsu YJ, Ho CC, Kan NW. protective and recovery effects of resveratrol supplementation on exercise performance and muscle damage following acute plyometric exercise. Nutrients. 2021;13(9). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Opplert J, Babault N. Acute effects of dynamic stretching on muscle flexibility and performance: an analysis of the current literature. Sports Med. 2018;48(2):299-325. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Kilit B, Arslan E, Soylu Y. Effects of different stretching methods on speed and agility performance in young tennis players. Science & Sports. 2019;34(5):313-20. [CrossRef] 
14. Kannas TM, Stefanis G, Kousinas A, Chalatzoglidis G, Arabatzi F. Vertical jumping performance: recording the effects of proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching at different plantar flexor lengths. Cureus. 2023;15(8):e43346. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Chelly MS, Hermassi S, Aouadi R, Shephard RJ. Effects of 8-week in-season plyometric training on upper and lower limb performance of elite adolescent handball players. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(5):1401-10. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. VOSSEN JF, KRAMER JE, BURKE DG, VOSSEN DP. Comparison of Dynamic Push-Up Training and Plyometric Push-Up Training on Upper-Body Power and Strength. J Strength Cond Res. 2000;14(3):248-53. [CrossRef]
17. Booth MA, Orr R. Effects of Plyometric Training on Sports Performance. Strength Cond J. 2016;38(1):30-7. [CrossRef] 
18. Hewett TE, Stroupe AL, Nance TA, Noyes FR. Plyometric training in female athletes. Decreased impact forces and increased hamstring torques. Am J Sports Med. 1996;24(6):765-73. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Gorostiaga EM, Granados C, Ibañez J, González-Badillo JJ, Izquierdo M. Effects of an entire season on physical fitness changes in elite male handball players. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38(2):357-66. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. van den Tillaar R. Effect of different training programs on the velocity of overarm throwing: a brief review. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18(2):388-96. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Goodwin JE, Jeffreys I. Plyometric training: theory and practice. 2016-p;1-37 ISBN; 9780203852286.
22. Vishen PKS, Sen S. Comparision of dynamic push-up training and plyometric push-up training on upper body performance test in cricket Player. 2015. 
23. Kanbak ÇG, Dağlıoğlu Ö. Effect of plyometric training program on speed and dynamic balance performances in volleyball players. Eur. J. Phys. Educ.. 2020;6(9). 
24. Ramírez-Campillo R, Burgos CH, Henríquez-Olguín C, Andrade DC, Martínez C, Álvarez C, et al. Effect of unilateral, bilateral, and combined plyometric training on explosive and endurance performance of young soccer players. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29(5):1317-28. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Spargoli G. The acute effects of concentric versus eccentric muscle fatigue on shoulder active repositioning sense. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2017;12(2):219-26. [PubMed]
26. Coobs BR, Wijdicks CA, Armitage BM, Spiridonov SI, Westerhaus BD, Johansen S, et al. An in vitro analysis of an anatomical medial knee reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(2):339-47. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Ellenbecker TS, Roetert EP, Riewald S. Isokinetic profile of wrist and forearm strength in elite female junior tennis players. Br J Sports Med. 2006;40(5):411-4. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Chatzopoulos D, Galazoulas C, Patikas D, Kotzamanidis C. Acute effects of static and dynamic stretching on balance, agility, reaction time and movement time. J Sports Sci Med. 2014;13(2):403-9. [PubMed]
29. Curry BS, Chengkalath D, Crouch GJ, Romance M, Manns PJ. Acute effects of dynamic stretching, static stretching, and light aerobic activity on muscular performance in women. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(6):1811-9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Anderson BL, Harter RA, Farnsworth JL. The Acute Effects of Foam Rolling and Dynamic Stretching on Athletic Performance: A Critically Appraised Topic. J Sport Rehabil. 2020;30(3):501-6. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
31. Lempke L, Wilkinson R, Murray C, Stanek J. The effectiveness of pnf versus static stretching on increasing hip-flexion range of motion. J Sport Rehabil. 2018;27(3):289-94. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Schwiertz G, Bauer J, Muehlbauer T. Upper Quarter Y Balance test performance: Normative values for healthy youth aged 10 to 17 years. PLoS One. 2021;16(6):e0253144. [CrossRef] [PubMed]