Content uploaded by Thomas Dos'Santos
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Thomas Dos'Santos on Feb 19, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
P a g e | 1
BIOMECHANICAL COMPARISON OF CUTTING TECHNIQUES: A REVIEW
AND PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Review article
Thomas Dos’Santos1, Alistair McBurnie1, Christopher Thomas1,2, Paul Comfort1, and Paul
Jones1
1Human Performance Laboratory, Directorate of Sport, Exercise, and Physiotherapy,
University of Salford, Greater Manchester, United Kingdom
2 Aspire Academy, Doha, Qatar.
#Corresponding Author: Thomas Dos’Santos
Telephone: +447961744517
Email: t.dossantos@edu.salford.ac.uk
Thomas Dos’Santos is a PhD student in Biomechanics and Strength and Conditioning at the University of
Salford, UK.
Alistair McBurnie is a graduate in Sports Science: Strength and conditioning and works as a Sports Scientist in
soccer.
Christopher Thomas is a football biomechanist at Aspire academy.
Paul Comfort is a Reader in Strength and Conditioning and program leader of the MSc Strength and
Conditioning at the University of Salford, UK.
Paul A. Jones is a Lecturer in Biomechanics and Strength and Conditioning at the University of Salford, UK.
Abstract word count: 100 words
Manuscript word count: 4463 words
Number of tables and figures: 4 Tables, 2 Figures
P a g e | 2
ABSTRACT
Cutting actions are important maneuvers in multidirectional sport and are also key actions
associated with non-contact anterior cruciate ligament injury; however, it is important to note
that three primary cutting techniques have been studied within the literature: the side-step,
crossover cut, and split-step. These cutting techniques demonstrate kinetic and kinematic
P a g e | 3
differences which have distinct implications for both performance and potential injury risk. In
this review, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the three cutting techniques and
provide cutting technical guidelines, verbal coaching cues, and change of direction speed and
agility programming recommendations to enhance performance and promote safer
mechanics.
Key words: side-step; split-step; crossover cut; anterior cruciate ligament; change of
direction
INTRODUCTION
The ability to change direction is an important action associated with successful performance
in multidirectional sports (8, 27, 49, 74, 86, 90, 102, 114). Change of direction (COD)
maneuvers are frequently performed in sports such as soccer (8, 86), netball (29, 102), and
rugby (33, 89, 109, 116), and are linked to decisive actions in these sports, such as evading
an opponent to penetrate the defensive line in rugby (tackle-break success in rugby) (72, 109,
116), or getting into space to receive a pass in netball (29). Furthermore, COD actions which
are then followed by sprints are also linked to goal scoring and assists in soccer (27). As
such, COD proficiency along with an athlete’s ability to select the most effective COD
maneuver is integral for successful COD speed and agility performance in multidirectional
sports (75, 114).
Changing direction, however, has also been identified as a key action associated with non-
contact anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries in numerous multidirectional sports (soccer,
rugby, handball, netball, AFL, and American football) (9, 14, 16, 26, 55, 67, 79, 107). This
finding is attributed to the propensity to generate high multiplanar knee joint loading (flexion,
transverse, and abduction loading) (6, 19, 20, 46, 57) when the foot is planted during the cut,
thus increasing ACL strain (3, 52, 62, 77, 93). Therefore, understanding the optimal
techniques for performance (COD speed and agility) and minimizing injury risk (joint
loadings) are of great interest to coaches and practitioners working with multidirectional
athletes.
The “cutting action”, defined as a directional change from a few degrees to 90˚ (change in
direct of motion) (2), is commonly performed in sports (8, 29, 49, 67, 86, 102, 116), and the
execution of such actions can vary substantially between individuals and contexts of sports
(2). Three different cutting techniques have been primarily identified within the literature: the
P a g e | 4
side-step, crossover cut (XOC), and split-step (Figure 1), which are typically performed in
multidirectional sport and in training. However, the three cutting techniques display
biomechanical differences which have their own distinct advantages and disadvantages from
both performance and injury risk perspectives (6, 11, 17, 53, 73, 83-85, 100, 101, 103-105).
The optimal cutting strategy is dependent on the task (i.e. COD scenario, pre-planned vs
unplanned), sport, and physical capacity of the athlete. Thus, strength and conditioning
coaches (and other practitioners from different disciplines who may also have to coach and
deliver COD speed and agility training) should be conscious of these factors when planning
and programming effective COD speed or agility drills and creating strength and
conditioning programs (10, 24). To our knowledge, no review has comprehensively
compared the different cutting techniques, outlining the advantages and disadvantages of the
cutting strategies, and made practical applications regarding the integration of these
maneuvers into COD speed and agility training programs. It is important that coaches and
practitioners understand the differences and implications of these aforementioned cutting
techniques and know which strategies are optimal for velocity maintenance, COD angle
evasive agility (deception), while considering the injury risk implications. Thus, the purpose
of this article is to evaluate and biomechanically compare the different cutting techniques and
discuss the advantages and disadvantages of these techniques from performance and injury
risk perspectives, while providing practical applications to sport, COD speed, and agility
training. Furthermore, to assist coaches and practitioners in the coaching and delivery of
cutting training, technical guidelines for cutting actions, cutting verbal coaching cues,
example cutting COD speed and agility drills, and COD speed and agility programming
recommendations will also be presented.
THREE PRIMARY CUTTING TECHNIQUES
Cutting and COD actions can be sub-divided into four phases: initial acceleration (positive
acceleration), preliminary deceleration (negative acceleration: to reduce momentum into the
COD over penultimate contact and prior steps), cut/COD (weight-acceptance and push-off
leading to change in direct of motion), and finally reacceleration (2, 10, 23, 24, 38, 75).
Undoubtedly, cutting is a multi-step action with the steps preceding and following push-off
involved in facilitating effective directional changes (23, 24, 46). However, the preliminary
deceleration and redirection requirements during directional changes will be governed by the
approach velocity, intended COD angle, sporting scenario (i.e. pre-planned, offensive, or
P a g e | 5
defensive agility), and the athletes’ physical capacity (neuromuscular control and ability to
rapidly produce force) (23, 24).
Three primary cutting techniques have been studied within the literature: the side-step,
crossover cut, and split-step (6, 11, 17, 53, 73, 83-85, 100, 101, 103-105). Side-step cuts are
described as an athlete planting their foot laterally opposite to the direction of travel (Figure
1) to create a propulsive impulse into the new intended direction. The body is typically
rotated towards the intended direction of travel, and the athlete accelerates towards the
direction opposite of the planted leg (2, 16, 85, 101). The crossover cut (XOC) (Figure 1)
involves positioning the plant foot on the same side (ipsilateral) of the new direction (or
sometimes medially across the pelvic midline) and then crossing the opposite leg
(contralateral) in front of the body for the new step in the new direction, accelerating in the
same direction of the push-off leg (2, 16, 85, 101, 110). Finally, the split-step involves the
athlete performing a small jump (amplitude jump) prior to push-off, landing with both feet
greater than or equal to shoulder width apart, and then, upon landing, the contralateral limb is
used for push-off into the intended direction of travel (11, 17, 29).
***Insert Figure 1 around here***
Side-step vs crossover cut: performance implications
Side-steps and XOCs are commonly performed by athletes in various sports (16, 116);
however, researching examining the biomechanical differences between the two tasks is
limited (6, 53, 65, 83-85, 100, 101). Andrews et al. (2) qualitatively described the differences
between side-steps and XOCs, indicating internal pelvic rotation was demonstrated during the
side-step by the plant leg, whereas external pelvic rotation for the plant leg was displayed
during the XOC. Rand and Ohtsuki (85) conducted a quantitative comparison of cutting
techniques, reporting significantly greater (p < 0.05) cutting angles, ground contact times
(GCT), and vastus medialis and gluteus medius muscle activation in side-steps compared to
XOCs. Greater braking and propulsive forces (vertical and medio-lateral) have also been
observed during side-steps compared to a XOCs (53, 78, 101) which, in turn, may explain the
longer GCTs and greater angled COD observed by Rand and Ohtsuki (85). Taken together, in
order to execute a sharper COD, a side-step cutting strategy is advocated because longer
GCTs are necessary to apply greater braking and propulsive impulses to decelerate (reduce
momentum prior to acceleration) and accelerate into the new intended direction (24, 36).
P a g e | 6
Suzuki et al. (101) found greater (ES = 0.96) cutting angles were demonstrated by athletes
with a side-step (40.5 ± 8.7˚) technique compared to a XOC (33.0 ± 6.8˚), during an intended
90° COD. Additionally, the authors observed greater medio-lateral (ML), posterior, and
vertical ground reaction forces (GRF) in the side-step compared to XOC, supporting the
results of previous research (53, 78). However, at the expense of cutting angle, XOCs
maintained velocity to a greater extent than side-steps (-0.31 ± 0.23 vs. -0.63 ± 0.23 m.s-1, ES
= 1.39, respectively). This result supports previous research (100) that also demonstrated
greater velocity maintenance during 60˚ and 90˚ zig-zag runs with a XOCs compared to side-
steps, reporting velocity decreases at 60° of -0.74 ± 0.45 vs -1.10 ± 0.28 m.s-1 (ES = -0.96),
and at 90° -1.13 ± 0.49 vs -1.65 ± 0.88 m.s-1 (ES = 0.73), respectively. Based on these
findings, there appears to be an angle-velocity trade-off when executing cuts which should be
acknowledged when coaching and prescribing COD training (10, 24).
Because velocities are maintained to a greater extent and shorter GCTs are achieved with
XOCs (85, 100, 101), this technique appears to be an effective cutting strategy for pre-
planned COD tests or pre-planned tasks. This finding is pertinent for scenarios whereby
velocity maintenance is integral, and the aim is to complete a COD test or cover a distance as
fast as possible (35). Conversely, a side-step is recommended when cutting angle is a priority
(85, 101), and in attacking evasive agility situations to create separation from an opponent,
due to the lateral foot plant (false-step) and exaggerated head and trunk positions can help
deceive opponents (12, 13, 41, 42, 68, 109, 116); however, there may be a concurrent
reduction in velocity. The XOC may also be important when an acute COD is required, and
velocity maintenance is essential in evasion sports, such as collision sports where high
momentums are required to penetrate defensive lines.
Side-step vs crossover cut: injury risk implications
It is also pertinent to understand the knee joint loading and potential injury risk implications
of the cutting techniques. Andrews et al. (2) hypothesized that side-steps would impose
greater stress on the medial knee ligaments, whereas the XOC would induce greater stress on
the lateral knee ligaments; however, the authors did not quantify joint moments. Besier et al.
(6) conducted a biomechanical comparison of side-step and XOC techniques and found the
side-step elicited combined loads (moments) of knee flexion, valgus, and internal rotation,
whereas XOCs elicited combined loads of knee flexion, varus and external rotation.
Similarly, Kim et al. (53) observed greater hip flexor, knee flexor, and knee valgus moments
P a g e | 7
during side-steps compared to XOCs. Consequently, side-step techniques evoke tri-planar
knee joint loading which can increase strain on the ACL and medial collateral ligament (6,
52, 53, 62, 77, 93), thus increasing injury risk (39). Conversely, the presence of an external
rotation moment during the XOC may moderate ACL loading (62, 81), though the
combination of an extended knee position (34) and large knee varus and external rotation
moments during XOCs may have the potential to increase loading on the lateral collateral
ligament (6, 62, 81).
The finding that side-steps elicit greater knee valgus loading (6, 53) is unsurprising due to the
postures and kinematics associated with the task (20, 37, 45, 47, 57, 66, 94, 95), which can
increase ACL strain (62, 63, 92, 112). Specifically, side-step techniques with a wide lateral
foot plant (20, 37, 45, 57), greater hip abduction angles (95), increased internal foot
progression angles (initial posture) (47, 95), increased hip internal rotation angles (initial
posture) (37, 66, 94, 95), greater peak knee valgus angles (45, 47, 57, 66, 94), greater lateral
trunk flexion or rotation over the plant leg (20, 30, 43, 45), and greater GRFs (46, 94, 95)
over weight acceptance are associated with greater knee valgus moments and thus injury risk
(39, 62, 63, 92, 112). Moreover, several studies have also reported higher risk postures and
mechanics during side-steps compared to XOCs (65, 83, 101), such as greater hip abductor
moments, greater knee valgus, greater hip internal rotation and abduction angles, and less hip
and knee flexion. These findings are concerning because the such kinematics are commonly
reported in observation studies regarding non-contact ACL injuries (14, 16, 32, 44, 54, 55,
58, 79, 98, 107), and are postures associated with greater knee joint loading (45, 47, 57, 66,
94).
The XOC typically results in a foot plant crossing the midline of the body, leading to the
GRF vector positioned medial to the knee joint during the early stages of weight acceptance;
thus, creating a knee varus moment (adduction) (Figure 2). Conversely, during side-stepping,
the GRF vector is positioned lateral to the knee joint creating a knee valgus moment
(abduction) (Figure 2). Additionally, the XOC involves hip external rotation, whereas the
side-step involves internal rotation of the plant leg (18) which may explain the differences in
rotation moments observed by Besier et al. (6). Moreover, Queen et al. (84) reported greater
medial foot loading (foot pressure) during side-steps in contrast to greater lateral foot loading
observed for XOCs. These foot loading implications should be acknowledged when exposing
athletes to COD training who are rehabilitating from foot injuries. Furthermore, it is also
pertinent to understand that the XOC involves external rotation and eversion at the foot (1, 7,
P a g e | 8
15), which may have the propensity to create high eversion angular velocities, thus potential
risk of sustaining a medial ankle sprains (106). Conversely, the side-step can involve
internally rotated foot positions and supination which has the potential to generate high
inversion angular velocities, potentially resulting in lateral ankle sprains (28, 56). Irrespective
of the cutting maneuvers, it is essential that athletes have sufficient neuromuscular control at
the ankle and foot to reduce injury risk.
***Insert Figure 2 around here***
In relation to ACL injury risk, the side-step cutting technique appears to be a higher risk
technique compared to XOCs due to the kinetics and kinematics associated with greater knee
joint loading (6, 53, 65, 83, 101). This, in turn, may explain the higher reported incidences of
non-contact ACL injuries occurring during side-step actions compared to XOCs in sport (16,
67). However, it should be noted that the higher frequencies of non-contact ACL injuries
from side-steps may also be attributed to the action being performed more frequently in
sports (16, 109, 116), and potentially performed more aggressively from an evasive
perspective to create a sharper COD (medio-lateral force propulsion) to reaccelerate into the
intended direction. Nevertheless, Montgomery et al. (67) reported 67% of non-contact ACL
injuries in rugby occurred during side-step evasive maneuvers, and only one non-contact
ACL injury involved a XOC action. Cochrane et al. (16) reported 37% of non-contact ACL
injuries occurred during a side-step, while only 5% occurred during a XOC in AFL players.
Interestingly, the authors described the mechanism of injury as knee external rotation which
supports the findings of Besier et al. (6) that demonstrated knee external rotation moments
and varus during XOC. This observation is in contrast to knee valgus (14, 16, 32, 44, 55, 58,
79, 98, 107) and internal rotation (16, 55, 79) observed during side-steps which are
commonly described characteristics of non-contact ACL injuries.
Although the majority of retrospective observation analysis studies of non-contact ACL
injury have not specified whether the cutting action was a side-step or a XOC (14, 44, 54, 55,
79, 107), the qualitative descriptions of the injury inciting event indicate a side-step (lateral
foot plant) is the primary cutting maneuver connected with non-contact ACL injuries. With
this in mind, a side-step is potentially a “riskier” cutting action in comparison to the XOC due
to the higher incidences of injury (16, 67) and greater knee joint loading associated with this
maneuver (6, 53). Although the XOC cut maintains velocity to a greater extent (100, 101),
the side-step could be more a more evasive strategy due to the lateral “false-step” (31)
P a g e | 9
performed which helps deceive an opponent (12, 13, 41, 42, 68, 109, 116). Thus, practitioners
must consider the implications of side-step and XOC on velocity, COD angle, evasion, and
knee joint loading when prescribing and coaching COD and agility drills.
Side-step vs split-step: performance implications
A paucity of studies has biomechanically compared side-step and split-step techniques (11,
69, 103, 104). It has been reported that the split-step resulted in greater lateral velocity, but
also longer GCTs in comparison to side-stepping (104). Conversely, using high-speed video
analysis and timing lights, Bradshaw et al. (11) reported side-stepping was faster than the
split-stepping during a pre-planned COD speed task in AFL players, resulting in faster total
times (1.57 ± 0.10 s vs. 1.71 ± 0.10 s, ES = 1.34, respectively), shorter preparation times
(time between the second pair of timing lights and initial ground contact of the foot used to
change direction) (0.66 ± 0.07 s vs. 0.75 ± 0.07 s, ES = 1.29, respectively), and faster
approach times (1.07 ± 0.08 s vs. 1.17 ± 0.10 s, ES = 1.10, respectively). The longer
preparation and approach times observed for the split-step is most likely attributed to the time
the athlete spends airborne prior to COD initiation (Figure 1).
During a video reactive test, Bradshaw et al. (11) found AFL players made slower (ES =
2.33) decisions in response to split-steps compared to side-steps (0.19 ± 0.03 s vs. 0.12 ± 0.03
s, respectively), and a greater number of decision errors were also made when reacting to
video footage of the split-step (16 vs. 1, respectively). Similarly, Connor et al. (17), also
demonstrated the split-step was harder to anticipate than side-steps. The greater difficulty in
anticipating and responding to split-stepping is attributed to the small jump prior to COD
initiation, with similarly positioned legs, and delays in kinematic cues relating to the intended
direction of travel (11, 17). As a result, the defender/ responder is less likely to make an
accurate judgement or detect any postural kinematic cues until the attacker has landed over
weight acceptance.
Consequently, for COD speed tasks (pre-planned), a side-step strategy is a faster technique
than the split-step (11); however, from a deception and evasive aspect (i.e. attacking 1 v 1
agility situation), a split-step technique could be more advantageous due to the difficulties
observed in identifying kinematic cues and responding to this technique as reported in
previous research (11, 17). Though it is emphasized that the side-step can still be effective
evasive technique to exploit an opponent’s psychological refractory period (Hick’s law), in
order to attain a performance advantage (109, 116). Moreover, coaches and athletes must
P a g e | 10
consider the longer split-step preparation times versus the benefit of a potentially more
deceiving maneuver when performing evasive agility techniques. As such, coaches and
practitioners should acknowledge the task- and context-specific nature associated with cutting
techniques. A limitation of prior research is that it is primarily laboratory based and
individual diversity (athletes’ physical qualities and anthropometrics) has not been accounted
for. Further research is required to understand whether particular cutting techniques are
effective for individuals of different physical qualities and anthropometrics (i.e. stronger,
stiffer or more compliant).
Side-step vs split-step: injury risk implications
There is a lack of research which has conducted three-dimensional motion and GRF analysis
comparing split-step and side-step techniques (69, 103, 104). Trewartha et al. (103, 104)
found the split-step produced lower knee joint loads (frontal and transverse) compared to
side-stepping. This finding could be could explained by the bilateral symmetrical landing
observed with split-steps which dissipates forces more evenly across both limbs, compared to
the unilateral lading associated with side-stepping (6). As such, the split-step technique may
protect the ACL to a greater extent due to the lower associative knee joint loading.
Munro et al. (69) compared the muscle activation differences between the split-step and side-
step, finding all the monitored muscles (quadriceps and hamstrings) were recruited
simultaneously during side-stepping, reflecting co-contraction. During split-stepping,
however, the rectus femoris was initially recruited, followed by synchronous vasti and medial
hamstrings onset and then lateral hamstring muscle onset. The lack of preactivity observed
with the hamstrings during the split step, particularly the medial hamstrings, in combination
with greater proportion of lateral quadricep recruitment may compress the lateral joint, open
the medial joint, increase knee valgus, increase anterior shear force, thus increased ACL
loading (40, 59, 61, 71, 87). It is important to note that the abovementioned studies are
limited only to male rugby players, have possessed low sample sizes (n = 7-10), and are only
published in supplement formats or conference proceedings. As such, further work is
warranted comparing the biomechanics and muscle activation differences between side-step
and split-step techniques in larger sample sizes and in different athletic populations, for a
more comprehensive understanding of these cutting actions.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
P a g e | 11
As previously discussed, it is evident that the three cutting techniques (Figure 1) outlined in
this article demonstrate kinetic and kinematic differences which have different implications
for both performance and injury risk when changing direction. Therefore, the optimal cutting
strategy appears to be dependent on the task demands (i.e. pre-panned vs. attacking agility),
sporting demands, and physical capacity of the athlete. Table 1 outlines the advantages,
disadvantages, and suggested applications of the cutting techniques in sport, COD speed, and
agility training.
***Insert Table 1 around here***
The determinants of COD speed and agility performance are multifaceted and are influenced
by technical, physical qualities, perceptual-cognitive, and linear speed factors (90, 91, 114,
115). In particular, shorter GCTs (22, 60, 64, 88, 97) and braking and propulsive forces and
impulses (22, 37, 96, 97) have been identified as determinants of faster COD speed
performance. In light of these determinants, coaches and practitioners should seek to develop
their athletes’ physical qualities (e.g. concentric, reactive, isometric, eccentric strength, rate
of force development) and ability to rapidly produce and accept force (time limited force-
expression), across the whole force-velocity spectrum (10, 21, 24, 75, 108). Improving these
physical qualities has been shown to positively enhance COD speed and agility performance
(10, 21, 50, 75, 76, 99, 108), but will also be beneficial in reducing injury risk and promoting
safer mechanics (21, 51, 70, 75, 80, 99). It is beyond the scope of this article to provide
specific resistance training and plyometric training guidelines for COD and as such, readers
are directed to the excellent recommendations provided in previous reviews and chapters (10,
21, 24, 75, 108). The following section will focus on the coaching and delivery of cutting
COD speed and agility training by providing technical guidelines and verbal cues for
coaching faster and safer cutting (i.e. reduced knee joint loading), example COD speed and
agility drills, and COD speed and agility programming recommendations.
Cutting technical guidelines and coaching cues
Table 2 provides side-step cutting technique guidelines for faster and safer side-step cutting
(Figure 1a). Technical guidelines for the “side-step” should ensure frontal plane lower limb
alignment, rapid transition from weight acceptance to push-off, trunk lean, and whole-body
P a g e | 12
rotation towards the intended direction of travel (Table 2). The same strategies can generally
be applied to “XOC” and “split-step” techniques; however, the main difference is foot
placement (medial for XOC, bilateral symmetrical for split-step). Subject to the approach
velocity and angle of COD, preliminary deceleration (braking) may occur during the
penultimate foot contact (PFC) and potentially steps prior to the COD (23, 24). Nonetheless,
the PFC is considered a “preparatory step” to facilitate an optimal whole-body position for
effective weight acceptance and push-off during the plant and cut phase of the COD (23).
Coaches are encouraged to read the PFC braking strategy technique guidelines outlined in a
previous review for a comprehensive overview of PFC braking (23).
***Insert Table 2 around here***
Coaching cues for cutting technique
Table 3 presents verbal coaching cues for enhancing cutting performance and to promote
safer mechanics. The cues presented are in line with the recommendations of previous
research (4, 5, 82, 111) which advocate the use of external cues and encouragement of
externally directed attention to improve performance outcomes, promote safer mechanics,
and improved skill acquisition and retention. Specifically, external cues focus on the
environment and goal-relevant dimensions of the task, and in some cases, analogies are used
(5, 111). Regular cueing between repetitions has been suggested to be beneficial for
performance (5), while regular feedback regarding COD technique has been reported to be
beneficial in eliciting positive changes in technique (19, 48, 80). However, it strongly advised
that coaches limit cues and instructions to 1 or 2, and select cues relevant to the goal of the
drill, or technical element being emphasized (111). This approach will eliminate memory
recall problems, permitting the athlete to concentrate on the 1 or 2 cues (111).
***Insert Table 3 around here***
Programming to improve cutting COD speed and agility
To provide athletes with a range of different cutting “movement solutions” that can be used
in their sport (75), coaches and practitioners are recommended to program and incorporate
the three primary cutting techniques into their athletes’ COD speed and agility drills and
P a g e | 13
overall holistic training program (21, 23, 75). Concentrating on COD technique will
positively enhance performance and address biomechanical and neuromuscular deficits
associated with increased injury risk (19, 48, 80). As such, a cutting development framework
is presented in Table 3, for the structuring and periodization of cutting COD speed and agility
training. Coaches and practitioners are encouraged to include two to three 15-30 minutes
COD speed and agility training sessions per week, separated by at least 48 hours recovery
between sessions (19, 21, 48).
***Insert Table 4 around here***
The cutting development framework (Table 4) focuses on three phases (mesocycles) adapted
from previous work (21, 23, 48, 75): technique acquisition, technique retention and integrity,
and movement solutions. The three phases shift from block, to serial, to random practice (25,
75), with progressive increases in intensity (via approach velocity and COD angle) (24),
specificity (introduction of sport-specific stimuli), complexity, and contextual interference
(10, 75, 113). The primary objective of the technique acquisition phase (phase 1) is to
initially introduce and coach the cutting techniques, reinforcing and modifying optimal
mechanics using block-practice (performing consecutive repetitions of the same task) and
closed drills that are low in intensity (i.e. low approach velocity, shallow COD angle) (19, 24,
48). Over time, intensity is increased via increases in approach velocity and COD angle (10,
24, 75), with the primary objective of the technique retention and integrity phase (phase 2) to
maintain optimal cutting mechanics and technique under high mechanical loading. Finally,
the movement solutions phase is the most complex, with the use of open-drills utilising
sports-specific scenarios, stimuli, and implements (if applicable) (75, 113). The primary
focus of this phase is to provide a random environment for athletes to retrieve, select, and
perform the different cutting maneuvers, under high cognitive load and constraints (i.e. time,
environment, rule adjustment) to improve skill retention and transfer (25, 75, 113).
The recommended phases are not to be performed exclusively, but are the primary focus for
that phase (largest proportion of training volume/percentage dedicated) (75). As such, it is
important that coaches still incorporate drills from the other phases, but at smaller training
volumes (and reduced intensity where applicable). Additionally, coaches and practitioners are
recommended to conduct a needs analysis for the sport and perform qualitative and
quantitative assessments of cutting COD speed and agility, while also creating a
strength/power diagnostic profile for the athlete and taking into account the athletes’ training
P a g e | 14
history. This information can then be used to identify strengths and deficiencies to
subsequently better inform future training prescription for that athlete in context of the
sporting demands (74, 75). The volume of time spent on a phase should be individualized
based on the athlete’s training status, strength capacity, and movement mechanics (74, 75).
CONCLUSIONS
Side-step, crossover cut, and split-step cutting techniques demonstrate clear biomechanical
differences which have distinct implications for both performance and potential injury risk
which should be acknowledged when coaching and conditioning athletes for cutting. Coaches
and practitioners should develop their multidirectional athletes’ capacity to perform all three
cutting techniques, implementing the technical guidelines, verbal coaching cues, and
programming guidelines provided in the article. This will subsequently provide athletes with
different “movement solutions” so each maneuver can be performed effectively, when
required, in sport.
Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding: The authors report no conflicts of interest and no
source of funding.
REFERENCES
1. Alt T, Heinrich K, Funken J, and Potthast W. Lower extremity kinematics of athletics curve
sprinting. J Sports Sci 33: 552-560, 2015.
2. Andrews JR, McLeod WD, Ward T, and Howard K. The cutting mechanism. Am J Sport Med 5:
111-121, 1977.
3. Bates NA, Myer GD, Shearn JT, and Hewett TE. Anterior cruciate ligament biomechanics
during robotic and mechanical simulations of physiologic and clinical motion tasks: a
systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Biomech 30: 1-13, 2015.
4. Benjaminse A, Gokeler A, Dowling AV, Faigenbaum A, Ford KR, Hewett TE, Onate JA, Otten B,
and Myer GD. Optimization of the anterior cruciate ligament injury prevention paradigm:
novel feedback techniques to enhance motor learning and reduce injury risk. J Orthop Sport
Phys 45: 170-182, 2015.
5. Benz A, Winkelman N, Porter J, and Nimphius S. Coaching instructions and cues for
enhancing sprint performance. Strength Cond J 38: 1-11, 2016.
6. Besier TF, Lloyd DG, Cochrane JL, and Ackland TR. External loading of the knee joint during
running and cutting maneuvers. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33: 1168-1175, 2001.
7. Beukeboom C, Birmingham TB, Forwell L, and Ohrling D. Asymmetrical strength changes and
injuries in athletes training on a small radius curve indoor track. Clin J Sport Med 10: 245-
250, 2000.
8. Bloomfield J, Polman R, and Donoghue P. Physical demands of different positions in FA
Premier League soccer. J Sport Sci Med 6: 63-70, 2007.
9. Boden BP, Dean GS, Feagin JA, and Garrett WE. Mechanisms of anterior cruciate ligament
injury. Orthopedics 23: 573-578, 2000.
P a g e | 15
10. Bourgeois F, McGuigan MR, Gill ND, and Gamble G. Physical characteristics and performance
in change of direction tasks: a brief review and training considerations J Aust Strength
Conditioning 25: 104-117, 2017.
11. Bradshaw RJ, Young WB, Russell A, and Burge P. Comparison of offensive agility techniques
in Australian Rules football. J Sci Med Sport 14: 65-69, 2010.
12. Brault S, Bideau B, Kulpa R, and Craig CM. Detecting deception in movement: the case of the
side-step in rugby. PloS one 7: e37494, 2012.
13. Brault Sb, Bideau B, Craig C, and Kulpa R. Balancing deceit and disguise: How to successfully
fool the defender in a 1 vs. 1 situation in rugby. Hum Movement Sci 29: 412-425, 2010.
14. Brophy RH, Stepan JG, Silvers HJ, and Mandelbaum BR. Defending puts the anterior cruciate
ligament at risk during soccer: a gender-based analysis. Sports health 7: 244-249, 2015.
15. Churchill SM, Trewartha G, Bezodis IN, and Salo AI. Force production during maximal effort
bend sprinting: Theory vs reality. Scand J Med Sci Spor 26: 1171-1179, 2016.
16. Cochrane JL, Lloyd DG, Buttfield A, Seward H, and McGivern J. Characteristics of anterior
cruciate ligament injuries in Australian football. J Sci Med Sport 10: 96-104, 2007.
17. Connor JD, Crowther RG, and Sinclair WH. Effect of Different Evasion Maneuvers on
Anticipation and Visual Behavior in Elite Rugby League Players. Motor Control 22: 18-27,
2018.
18. Cross MJ, Gibbs NJ, and Bryant GJ. An analysis of the sidestep cutting manoeuvre. Am J Sport
Med 17: 363-366, 1989.
19. Dempsey AR, Lloyd DG, Elliott BC, Steele JR, and Munro BJ. Changing sidestep cutting
technique reduces knee valgus loading. Am J Sport Med 37: 2194-2200, 2009.
20. Dempsey AR, Lloyd DG, Elliott BC, Steele JR, Munro BJ, and Russo KA. The effect of technique
change on knee loads during sidestep cutting. Med Sci Sports Exerc 39: 1765-1773, 2007.
21. DeWeese BH and Nimphius S. Program Design Technique for Speed and Agility Training, in:
Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning. GG Haff, NT Triplett, eds. Champaign:
Human Kinetics, 2016, pp 521-558.
22. Dos'Santos T, Thomas C, Jones AP, and Comfort P. Mechanical determinants of faster change
of direction speed performance in male athletes. J Strength Cond Res 31: 696-705, 2017.
23. Dos’Santos T, Thomas C, Comfort P, and Jones P. The Role of the Penultimate Foot Contact
During Change of Direction: Implications on Performance and Risk of Injury. Strength Cond J:
Published ahead of print, 2018.
24. Dos’Santos T, Thomas C, Comfort P, and Jones PA. The effect of angle and velocity on change
of direction biomechanics: an angle-velocity trade-off. Sports Med 48: 2235-2253, 2018.
25. Farrow D and Robertson S. Development of a skill acquisition periodisation framework for
high-performance sport. Sports Med 47: 1043-1054, 2017.
26. Faude O, Junge A, Kindermann W, and Dvorak J. Injuries in female soccer players a
prospective study in the german national league. Am J Sport Med 33: 1694-1700, 2005.
27. Faude O, Koch T, and Meyer T. Straight sprinting is the most frequent action in goal
situations in professional football. J Sports Sci 30: 625-631, 2012.
28. Fong DT-P, Hong Y, Shima Y, Krosshaug T, Yung PS-H, and Chan K-M. Biomechanics of
supination ankle sprain: a case report of an accidental injury event in the laboratory. Am J
Sport Med 37: 822-827, 2009.
29. Fox A, Spittle M, Otago L, and Saunders N. Offensive agility techniques performed during
international netball competition. Int J Sports Sci Coach 9: 543-552, 2014.
30. Frank B, Bell DR, Norcross MF, Blackburn JT, Goerger BM, and Padua DA. Trunk and hip
biomechanics influence anterior cruciate loading mechanisms in physically active
participants. Am J Sport Med 41: 2676-2683, 2013.
31. Golden GM, Pavol MJ, and Hoffman MA. Knee joint kinematics and kinetics during a lateral
false-step maneuver. J Athl Training 44: 503-510, 2009.
P a g e | 16
32. Grassi A, Smiley SP, Roberti di Sarsina T, Signorelli C, Marcheggiani Muccioli GM, Bondi A,
Romagnoli M, Agostini A, and Zaffagnini S. Mechanisms and situations of anterior cruciate
ligament injuries in professional male soccer players: a YouTube-based video analysis. Eur J
Orthop Surg Traumatol 27: 697-981, 2017.
33. Green BS, Blake C, and Caulfield BM. A comparison of cutting technique performance in
rugby union players. J Strength Cond Res 25: 2668-2680, 2011.
34. Grood E, Noyes F, Butler D, and Suntay W. Ligamentous and capsular restraints preventing
straight medial and. J Bone Joint Surg Am 63: 1257-1269, 1981.
35. Hader K, Palazzi D, and Buchheit M. Change of Direction Speed in Soccer: How Much Braking
is Enough? Kineziologija 47: 67-74, 2015.
36. Havens K and Sigward SM. Whole body mechanics differ among running and cutting
maneuvers in skilled athletes. Gait Posture 42: 240-245, 2014.
37. Havens K and Sigward SM. Cutting mechanics: relation to performance and anterior cruciate
ligament injury risk. Med Sci Sports Exerc 47: 818-824, 2015.
38. Havens K and Sigward SM. Joint and segmental mechanics differ between cutting maneuvers
in skilled athletes. Gait Posture 41: 33-38, 2015.
39. Hewett T, Myer GD, Ford KR, Heidt RS, Colosimo AJ, McLean SG, Van den Bogert AJ, Paterno
MV, and Succop P. Biomechanical measures of neuromuscular control and valgus loading of
the knee predict anterior cruciate ligament injury risk in female athletes a prospective study.
Am J Sport Med 33: 492-501, 2005.
40. Hewett TE, Zazulak BT, Myer GD, and Ford KR. A review of electromyographic activation
levels, timing differences, and increased anterior cruciate ligament injury incidence in female
athletes. Br J Sports Med 39: 347-350, 2005.
41. Holding R and Meir R. Applying Biomechanical Research to Coaching Instruction of Stepping
Movements in Rugby Football. Strength Cond J 36: 8-12, 2014.
42. Jackson RC, Warren S, and Abernethy B. Anticipation skill and susceptibility to deceptive
movement. Acta Psychol 123: 355-371, 2006.
43. Jamison ST, Pan X, and Chaudhari AMW. Knee moments during run-to-cut maneuvers are
associated with lateral trunk positioning. J Biomech 45: 1881-1885, 2012.
44. Johnston JT, Mandelbaum BR, Schub D, Rodeo SA, Matava MJ, Silvers HJ, Cole BJ, ElAttrache
NS, McAdams TR, and Brophy RH. Video analysis of anterior cruciate ligament tears in
professional American football athletes. Am J Sport Med 46: 862-868, 2018.
45. Jones P, Herrington L, and Graham-Smith P. Technique determinants of knee joint loads
during cutting in female soccer players. Hum Movement Sci 42: 203-211, 2015.
46. Jones P, Herrington L, and Graham-Smith P. Braking characteristics during cutting and
pivoting in female soccer players. J Electromyogr Kines 30: 46-54, 2016.
47. Jones P, Herrington L, and Graham-Smith P. Technique determinants of knee abduction
moments during pivoting in female soccer players. Clin Biomech 31: 107-112, 2016.
48. Jones PA, Barber OR, and Smith LC. Changing pivoting technique reduces knee valgus
moments. Free Communication. Journal of Sports Sciences. Presented at BASES Annual
Conference, 2015.
49. Karcher C and Buchheit M. On-court demands of elite handball, with special reference to
playing positions. Sports Med 44: 797-814, 2014.
50. Keiner M, Sander A, Wirth K, Caruso O, Immesberger P, and Zawieja M. Strength
performance in youth: trainability of adolescents and children in the back and front squats. J
Strength Cond Res 27: 357-362, 2013.
51. Khayambashi K, Ghoddosi N, Straub RK, and Powers CM. Hip muscle strength predicts
noncontact anterior cruciate ligament injury in male and female athletes: a prospective
study. Am J Sport Med 44: 355-361, 2016.
52. Kiapour AM, Demetropoulos CK, Kiapour A, Quatman CE, Wordeman SC, Goel VK, and
Hewett TE. Strain response of the anterior cruciate ligament to uniplanar and multiplanar
P a g e | 17
loads during simulated landings: implications for injury mechanism. Am J Sport Med 44:
2087-2096, 2016.
53. Kim JH, Lee K-K, Kong SJ, An KO, Jeong JH, and Lee YS. Effect of anticipation on lower
extremity biomechanics during side-and cross-cutting maneuvers in young soccer players.
Am J Sport Med 42: 1985-1992, 2014.
54. Kimura Y, Ishibashi Y, Tsuda E, Yamamoto Y, Tsukada H, and Toh S. Mechanisms for anterior
cruciate ligament injuries in badminton. Br J Sports Med 44: 1124-1127, 2010.
55. Koga H, Nakamae A, Shima Y, Iwasa J, Myklebust G, Engebretsen L, Bahr R, and Krosshaug T.
Mechanisms for noncontact anterior cruciate ligament injuries knee joint kinematics in 10
injury situations from female team handball and basketball. Am J Sport Med 38: 2218-2225,
2010.
56. Kristianslund E, Bahr R, and Krosshaug T. Kinematics and kinetics of an accidental lateral
ankle sprain. J Biomech 44: 2576-2578, 2011.
57. Kristianslund E, Faul O, Bahr R, Myklebust G, and Krosshaug T. Sidestep cutting technique
and knee abduction loading: implications for ACL prevention exercises. Br J Sports Med 48:
779-783, 2014.
58. Krosshaug T, Nakamae A, Boden BP, Engebretsen L, Smith G, Slauterbeck JR, Hewett TE, and
Bahr R. Mechanisms of anterior cruciate ligament injury in basketball video analysis of 39
cases. Am J Sport Med 35: 359-367, 2007.
59. Li G, Rudy TW, Sakane M, Kanamori A, Ma CB, and Woo S-Y. The importance of quadriceps
and hamstring muscle loading on knee kinematics and in-situ forces in the ACL. J Biomech
32: 395-400, 1999.
60. Maloney SJ, Richards J, Nixon DG, Harvey LJ, and Fletcher IM. Do stiffness and asymmetries
predict change of direction performance? J Sports Sci 35: 547-556, 2016.
61. Maniar N, Schache AG, Sritharan P, and Opar DA. Non-knee-spanning muscles contribute to
tibiofemoral shear as well as valgus and rotational joint reaction moments during
unanticipated sidestep cutting. Sci Rep 8: 2501, 2018.
62. Markolf KL, Burchfield DM, Shapiro MM, Shepard MF, Finerman GAM, and Slauterbeck JL.
Combined knee loading states that generate high anterior cruciate ligament forces. J Orthop
Res 13: 930-935, 1995.
63. Markolf KL, Gorek JF, Kabo JM, and Shapiro MS. Direct measurement of resultant forces in
the anterior cruciate ligament. An in vitro study performed with a new experimental
technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72: 557-567, 1990.
64. Marshall BM, Franklyn-Miller AD, King EA, Moran KA, Strike S, and Falvey A. Biomechanical
factors associated with time to complete a change of direction cutting maneuver. J Strength
Cond Res 28: 2845-2851, 2014.
65. McGovern A, Dude C, Munkley D, Martin T, Wallace D, Feinn R, Dione D, and Garbalosa JC.
Lower limb kinematics of male and female soccer players during a self-selected cutting
maneuver: Effects of prolonged activity. Knee 22: 510-516, 2015.
66. McLean SG, Huang X, and van den Bogert AJ. Association between lower extremity posture
at contact and peak knee valgus moment during sidestepping: implications for ACL injury.
Clin Biomech 20: 863-870, 2005.
67. Montgomery C, Blackburn J, Withers D, Tierney G, Moran C, and Simms C. Mechanisms of
ACL injury in professional rugby union: a systematic video analysis of 36 cases. British Journal
of Sports Medicine: bjsports-2016-096425, 2016.
68. Mori S and Shimada T. Expert anticipation from deceptive action. Atten Percept Psychophys
75: 751-770, 2013.
69. Munro B, Trewartha G, and Steele J. Does lower limb neuromuscular control differ during
side-step and split-step cutting manoeuvres? J Sci Med Sport 12: e180-e181, 2010.
P a g e | 18
70. Myer GD, Ford KR, Foss KDB, Liu C, Nick TG, and Hewett TE. The relationship of hamstrings
and quadriceps strength to anterior cruciate ligament injury in female athletes. Clin J Sport
Med 19: 3-8, 2009.
71. Myer GD, Ford KR, and Hewett TE. The effects of gender on quadriceps muscle activation
strategies during a maneuver that mimics a high ACL injury risk position. J Electromyogr
Kines 15: 181-189, 2005.
72. Nedelec M, McCall A, Carling C, Legall F, Berthoin S, and Dupont G. The influence of soccer
playing actions on the recovery kinetics after a soccer match. J Strength Cond Res 28: 1517-
1523, 2014.
73. Nieminen MJ, Piirainen JM, Salmi JA, and Linnamo V. Effects of neuromuscular function and
split step on reaction speed in simulated tennis response. Eur J Sports Sci 14: 318-326, 2014.
74. Nimphius S. Increasing Agility, in: High-Performance Training for Sports. D Joyce, D
Lewindon, eds. Champaign, IL.: Human Kinetics, 2014, pp 185-198.
75. Nimphius S. Training change of direction and agility, in: Advanced Strength and Conditioning.
A Turner, P Comfort, eds. Abdingdon, Oxon, United Kingdom: Routledge, 2017, pp 291-308.
76. Nimphius S, McGuigan MR, and Newton RU. Relationship between strength, power, speed,
and change of direction performance of female softball players. J Strength Cond Res 24: 885-
895, 2010.
77. Oh YK, Lipps DB, Ashton-Miller JA, and Wojtys EM. What strains the anterior cruciate
ligament during a pivot landing? Am J Sport Med 40: 574-583, 2012.
78. Ohtsuki T and Yanase M. Mechanical verification of the effectiveness of the first step for
quick change of the forward running direction. J Biomech 22: 1065, 1989.
79. Olsen O-E, Myklebust G, Engebretsen L, and Bahr R. Injury mechanisms for anterior cruciate
ligament injuries in team handball a systematic video analysis. Am J Sport Med 32: 1002-
1012, 2004.
80. Padua DA, DiStefano LJ, Hewett TE, Garrett WE, Marshall SW, Golden GM, Shultz SJ, and
Sigward SM. National Athletic Trainers' Association Position Statement: Prevention of
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury. J Athl Training 53: 5-19, 2018.
81. Piziali RL, Rastegar J, Nagel DA, and Schurman DJ. The contribution of the cruciate ligaments
to the load-displacement characteristics of the human knee joint. J Biomech Eng 102: 277-
283, 1980.
82. Porter J, Nolan R, Ostrowski E, and Wulf G. Directing attention externally enhances agility
performance: A qualitative and quantitative analysis of the efficacy of using verbal
instructions to focus attention. Front Psychol 1: 216, 2010.
83. Potter D, Reidinger K, Szymialowicz R, Martin T, Dione D, Feinn R, Wallace D, and Garbalosa
JC. Sidestep and crossover lower limb kinematics during a prolonged sport like agility test.
Int J Sports Phys Ther 9: 617-627, 2014.
84. Queen RM, Haynes BB, Hardaker WM, and Garrett Jr WE. Forefoot loading during 3 athletic
tasks. Am J Sport Med 35: 630-636, 2007.
85. Rand MK and Ohtsuki T. EMG analysis of lower limb muscles in humans during quick change
in running directions. Gait Posture 12: 169-183, 2000.
86. Robinson G, O'Donoghue P, and Nielson P. Path changes and injury risk in English FA Premier
League soccer. Int J Perf Anal Spor 11: 40-56, 2011.
87. Rozzi SL, Lephart SM, Gear WS, and Fu FH. Knee joint laxity and neuromuscular
characteristics of male and female soccer and basketball players. Am J Sport Med 27: 312-
319, 1999.
88. Sasaki S, Nagano Y, Kaneko S, Sakurai T, and Fukubayashi T. The relationship between
performance and trunk movement during change of direction. J Sport Sci Med 10: 112-118,
2011.
89. Sayers M and Washington-King J. Characteristics of effective ball carries in Super 12 rugby.
Int J Perf Anal Spor 5: 92-106, 2005.
P a g e | 19
90. Sheppard JM, Dawes JJ, Jeffreys I, Spiteri T, and Nimphius S. Broadening the view of agility: A
scientific review of the literature. J Aust Strength Conditioning 22: 6-25, 2014.
91. Sheppard JM, Young WB, Doyle TLA, Sheppard TA, and Newton RU. An evaluation of a new
test of reactive agility and its relationship to sprint speed and change of direction speed. J Sci
Med Sport 9: 342-349, 2006.
92. Shin CS, Chaudhari AM, and Andriacchi TP. The effect of isolated valgus moments on ACL
strain during single-leg landing: a simulation study. J Biomech 42: 280-285, 2009.
93. Shin CS, Chaudhari AM, and Andriacchi TP. Valgus plus internal rotation moments increase
anterior cruciate ligament strain more than either alone. Med Sci Sports Exerc 43: 1484-
1491, 2011.
94. Sigward SM, Cesar GM, and Havens KL. Predictors of frontal plane knee moments during
side-step cutting to 45 and 110 degrees in men and women: implications for anterior
cruciate ligament injury. Clin J Sport Med 25: 529-534, 2015.
95. Sigward SM and Powers CM. Loading characteristics of females exhibiting excessive valgus
moments during cutting. Clin Biomech 22: 827-833, 2007.
96. Spiteri T, Cochrane JL, Hart NH, Haff GG, and Nimphius S. Effect of strength on plant foot
kinetics and kinematics during a change of direction task. Eur J Sports Sci 13: 646-652, 2013.
97. Spiteri T, Newton RU, Binetti M, Hart NH, Sheppard JM, and Nimphius S. Mechanical
determinants of faster change of direction and agility performance in female basketball
athletes. J Strength Cond Res 28: 2205–2214, 2015.
98. Stuelcken MC, Mellifont DB, Gorman AD, and Sayers MG. Mechanisms of anterior cruciate
ligament injuries in elite women's netball: a systematic video analysis. J Sports Sci 34: 1516-
1522, 2016.
99. Suchomel TJ, Nimphius S, and Stone MH. The Importance of Muscular Strength in Athletic
Performance. Sports Med 46: 1419-1449, 2016.
100. Suzuki Y, Ae M, and Enomoto Y. A kinematic analysis of cutting motion with side-step and
cross-step techniques. Japan J Phys Educ Hlth Sport Sci 55: 81-95, 2010.
101. Suzuki Y, Ae M, Takenaka S, and Fujii N. Comparison of support leg kinetics between side-
step and cross-step cutting techniques. Sport Biomech 13: 144-153, 2014.
102. Sweeting AJ, Aughey RJ, Cormack SJ, and Morgan S. Discovering frequently recurring
movement sequences in team-sport athlete spatiotemporal data. J Sports Sci 35: 2439-2445,
2017.
103. Trewartha G, Munro B, and Steele J. Split-step vs side-step: what is the difference in lower
limb loads? J Biomech 40: S238, 2007.
104. Trewartha G, Munro B, and Steele J. Can the split-step cutting technique reduce loading and
maintain performance? Presented at ISBS-Conference Proceedings Archive, Seoul, S. Korea,
2008.
105. Uzu R, Shinya M, and Oda S. A split-step shortens the time to perform a choice reaction step-
and-reach movement in a simulated tennis task. J Sports Sci 27: 1233-1240, 2009.
106. Wade FE, Mok K-M, and Fong DT-P. Kinematic analysis of a televised medial ankle sprain. J
Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Techno 12: 12-16, 2018.
107. Walden M, Krosshaug T, Bjorneboe J, Andersen TE, Faul O, and Hagglund M. Three distinct
mechanisms predominate in non-contact anterior cruciate ligament injuries in male
professional football players: a systematic video analysis of 39 cases. Br J Sports Med 49:
1452-1460, 2015.
108. Watts D. A brief review on the role of maximal strength in change of direction speed. J Aust
Strength Cond 23: 100-108, 2015.
109. Wheeler KW, Askew CD, and Sayers MG. Effective attacking strategies in rugby union. Eur J
Sports Sci 10: 237-242, 2010.
P a g e | 20
110. Whyte EF, Richter C, O’connor S, and Moran KA. The effect of high intensity exercise and
anticipation on trunk and lower limb biomechanics during a crossover cutting manoeuvre. J
Sports Sci: 1-12, 2017.
111. Winkelman NC. Attentional Focus and Cueing for Speed Development. Strength Cond J 40:
13-25, 2018.
112. Withrow TJ, Huston LJ, Wojtys EM, and Ashton-Miller JA. The effect of an impulsive knee
valgus moment on in vitro relative ACL strain during a simulated jump landing. Clin Biomech
21: 977-983, 2006.
113. Young W and Farrow D. The importance of a sport-specific stimulus for training agility.
Strength Cond J 35: 39-43, 2013.
114. Young WB, Dawson B, and Henry GJ. Agility and change-of-direction speed are independent
skills: Implications for training for agility in invasion sports. International Journal of Sports
Science and Coaching 10: 159-169, 2015.
115. Young WB, James R, and Montgomery I. Is muscle power related to running speed with
changes of direction? J Sports Med Phys Fitness 42: 282-288, 2002.
116. Zahidi NNM and Ismail SI. Notational analysis of evasive agility skills executed by attacking
ball carriers among elite rugby players of the 2015 Rugby World Cup. Movement Health Ex 7:
99-113, 2018.
P a g e | 21
Figure 1. Photo sequences of the three cutting techniques: A) Side-step; B) Crossover cut; C) Split-step
P a g e | 22
Figure 2 – Ground reaction force vector (blue line) in relation to the knee between crossover cuts (left) and side-
step cuts (right)
P a g e | 23
Table 1 – Advantages, disadvantages, and practical applications of the side-step, crossover cut, and split-step cutting techniques
Cutting technique
Evidence
Advantages
Disadvantages
Practical applications to sport, COD speed, or agility
training
Side-step
Besier et al. (2001); Suzuki
et al. (2014); Suzuki et al.
(2010); Queen et al. (2007);
Rand & Ohtsuki (2000);
Kim et al. (2014); Potter et
al. (2014); Cochrane et al.
(2007); Montgomery et al.
(2016); Andrews et al.
(1977); McGovern et al.
(2015); Kristianslund et al.
(2011); Fong et al. (2009)
• Sharper angled cut executed vs XOC
• Key action for lateral propulsion
• Successful manoeuvre in deceiving and feinting
opponent(s) via lateral foot plant (false step) and
trunk and head positioning
• Faster than split-step for pre-planned COD speed
tasks
• Faster approach velocities and shorter preparation
times vs split-step during evasive actions
• Reduced exit velocity vs XOC
• Longer GCT vs XOC
• Propensity to generate large KVMs and internal
rotation moments which increases ACL strain
(performance-injury conflict)
• Greater incidents of non-contact ACL injuries vs
XOC
• Greater medial foot loading (foot pressure) vs XOC
• Risk of lateral ankle sprain injury due to foot and
ankle kinematic postures (internal rotation,
inversion, supination)
• Attacking agility – 1 vs 1 situations in sport to get
past an opponent or to get into space
• Evasive manoeuvres in sport to feint and deceive an
opponent e.g. tackle break success in rugby,
American football, soccer, etc.
• Situations when sharp cut and lateral propulsion is
warranted
XOC
Besier et al. (2001); Suzuki
et al. (2014); Suzuki et al.
(2010); Queen et al. (2007),
Rand & Ohtsuki (2000);
Kim et al. (2014); Potter et
al. (2014); Andrews et al.
(1977); McGovern et al.
(2015); Wade et al. (2018)
• Greater maintenance of velocity during COD
• Greater exit velocity vs side-step
• Shorter GCT vs side-step
• Potentially reduced risk of sustaining non-contact
ACL injury due to the reduced knee valgus loading
• Acute angled cut executed vs side-step
• Limited deception or feinting – potentially limited
application from evasive perspective
• Propensity to generate knee varus moment and load
lateral component of knee
• Greater lateral foot loading (foot pressure) vs side-
step
• Risk of Medial ankle sprain injury due to foot and
ankle kinematic postures (external rotation,
eversion, pronation)
• Situations where velocity maintenance and
momentum with a subtle COD is warranted such as
collision sports i.e. to break through tackles in
rugby and American football
• Pre-planned COD tasks in sports such as running
around the bases in softball and baseball
• Pre-planned COD speed tests where completion
time is fundamental; especially when acute cuts are
performed
Split-step
Trewartha et al. (2007);
Trewartha et al. (2008);
Nieminen et al. (2014); Uzu
et al. (2009); Connor et al.
(2018); Bradshaw et al.
(2006); Munro et al. (2008)
• Amplitude jump prior to push-off engages SSC in
both limbs
• Difficult for opponent(s) to anticipate kinematic
cues early
• COD is executed late during manoeuvre– choice of
two directions
• Bilateral strategy dissipates forces and loading
across two limbs
• Lower transverse and abduction loading in knee
compared to side-step
• Potentially greater lateral velocity vs side-step
• Longer preparation time in order to execute COD
compared to side-step and XOC
• Most likely reduced approach velocity prior to COD
• Longer GCT compared to side-step
• Athletes must time amplitude jump in evasive
situations
• Slowest strategy for pre-planned COD speed vs
side-step
• Attacking agility – 1 vs 1 situations in sport to get
past an opponent or to get into space
• Evasive manoeuvres in sport to feint and deceive an
opponent e.g. rugby, American football, soccer, etc.
• Could be an effective strategy during situations with
low approach velocity as small amplitude jump
prior to push-off will engage SSC and subsequently
increase lateral propulsion
Key: XOC: Crossover cut; COD: Change of direction; GCT: Ground contact time; KVMs: Knee valgus moment (synonymous with knee abduction moments); SSC: Stretch-shortening cycle; ACL: Anterior cruciate ligament
P a g e | 24
Table 2. Side-step cutting guidelines
Preliminary
deceleration prior to
plant and cut
• Athletes should lower their COM, emphasizing a large anterior placement of the foot relative to the COM to create posteriorly directed braking force,
and a backwards trunk lean (23).
• Athletes should also ensure strong frontal plane alignment of the ankle, knee, and hip to avoid generation of large frontal plane moments. Some pre-
rotation of the pelvis and the trunk may occur to align themselves in the new intended direction (24).
Plant and cut
Vision
• Athletes should direct their attention towards the intended direction of travel to facilitate whole-body rotation and alignment, and promoting earlier
visual scanning (23) (Figure 1a).
Trunk, torso, and
pelvis
• During weight acceptance and push-off, athletes should adopt an upright trunk, and ideally encourage trunk lean and rotation towards the intended
direction of travel (37, 64). Athletes may also rotate their pelvis towards the direction of travel (24, 38).
• From a performance aspect, trunk lean and rotation towards the intended direction of travel is associated with faster COD performance (37, 64), and
also minimising lateral trunk flexion over the plant foot contact reduces hazardous knee joint loading (19, 20, 30, 43, 45) (Figure 1a).
Lower-limb
• Athletes should lower their COM via hip, knee, and ankle dorsi-flexion to increase stability, and should ensure strong frontal plane alignment of the
ankle, knee, and hip for effective force transmission (21) and to reduce knee joint loading (23, 24). Specifically, internally rotated hip (37, 66, 94, 95),
abducted knee (45, 47, 56, 66, 94), and internally rotated foot postures (47, 95) should be avoided to reduce knee joint loading, thus injury risk
(Figure 1a).
• Athletes should adopt a wide lateral foot plant for effective ML propulsion forces/impulse and exit velocity into the new intended direction (24, 37,
45) via hip abduction and adopting a neutral foot position (19) (Figure 1a). However, coaches should acknowledge that encouraging a wide lateral
foot plant concurrently elevates hazardous knee joint loading (20, 37, 45, 57), thus indicating a potential performance-injury conflict (24, 37). As
such, it is imperative that athletes have the physical capacity (neuromuscular control, ability to rapidly apply force, and muscle co-contraction) and
optimal mechanics when adopting these wide foot plant techniques (24, 57, 75, 80, 99).
P a g e | 25
• When adopting the wide foot plant, athletes are encouraged to display an active limb, encouraging knee flexion (avoiding an extended knee postures ≤
30˚ knee flexion) (21, 55, 62, 63) with a rapid transition from weight acceptance (triple flexion) to push-off (triple extension) (Figure 1a). This will
minimize GCT and optimize the stretch reflex during the SSC (33, 60). High levels of force and power generation from the lower-limb musculature
(ankle, knee, and hip) have been reported to be important biomechanical factors linked to faster COD performance (37, 64); thus, athletes should be
encouraged to transmit forcefully through the ground, and “push/punch the ground away”, while also encouraging a powerful arm drive to facilitate a
power leg drive (21).
Key: GCT: Ground contact time; SSC: Stretch shortening cycle; COD: Change of direction; COM: Center of mass; ML: Medio-lateral
P a g e | 26
Table 3. Example verbal coaching cues for faster and safer cutting performance
Verbal coaching cue
Outcome and rationale
When making the cut….
“Push/punch the ground away”
“Attack the ground”
“Drive/explode towards the goal as fast as possible”
To promote ML force propulsion, COD trajectory, and subsequent exit velocity.
“Lean/face/look towards the finish/goal/ intended direction
of travel”
To promote optimal alignment of the trunk and whole-body over the stance phase. Trunk lean and
rotation towards direction of travel associated with faster performance and reduced knee joint
loading.
“Push yourself as hard and fast as possible off the ground”
“Release/launch/explode yourself like a spring / rocket”
“Pretend you are a spring becoming smaller and greater/
shrinking and recoiling”
To promote short GCT, increased knee flexion ROM, emphasize rapid transition from weight
acceptance to push-off. Emphasize stretch reflex during SSC and forceful generation of lower-limb
triple extensor musculature.
“Try to minimize noise”
“Cushion/Absorb”
To promote softer weight acceptance, and reduce GRF and joint loading.
“Minimise GCT during plant step” – “imagine the surface is
hot lava”
Putting time constraints on the FFC will encourage earlier braking during the PFC, to reduce knee
joint loading during plant step.
“Slam on the brakes – early”
Promote effective braking during penultimate step and steps prior (preliminary deceleration) to
reduce momentum prior to changing direction.
Key: ML: Medio-lateral; COD: Change of direction; GCT: Ground contact time; ROM: Range of motion; GRF: ground reaction force; FFC: Final foot contact;
PFC: Penultimate foot contact.
P a g e | 27
Table 4. Cutting development framework
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Technique acquisition
Technique retention and integrity
Movement solutions
Aims
Introduce and teach different cutting techniques
and reinforce and modify mechanics using
closed, pre-planned drills of low intensity (low
approach velocity and COD angle).
Cutting drills performed maximally, with increased intensity,
to maintain and reinforce optimal mechanics under high
mechanical loading.
Increased complexity and sports-specificity to
provide random environment for athletes to retrieve,
select, and perform the different cutting maneuvers.
Performed under high cognitive load and constraints
to improve decision making.
Intensity
Progressive increases in intensity via increases in approach velocity, angle, incorporating sports-specific implements, and stimuli.
Progressive increases in cognitive load via changes in skill practice and increased contextual interference.
Example drills
Closed-, pre-planned drills, performed sub
maximally
1. 20-45˚ XOC: 5-m entry and exit
2. 30-90˚ side-step: 5-m entry and exit
3. 30-90˚ split-step: 2.5-m entry and exit
Closed, pre-planned drills performed maximally.
1. 20-45˚ XOC: 5-10-m entry and exit
2. 30˚ XOC to 60˚ side-step: 5-m entry and exit between cuts
3. 30-90˚ split-step: 2.5-m entry and exit
Increased complexity with the addition of several CODs and
combinations of different cuts
Introduction of sports-specific drills that incorporates an
implement/object and open-drills performed sub maximally.
1. Y-agility drill past an opponent/response to ball
2. Mirror drill versus an opponent
3. Cut in response to a pass from a team mate
Evasive open-drills, and simulated sports-specific
scenarios such as small sided games, conditioned
games, etc.
Example:
Conditioned evasive SSGs i.e. pitch dimensions and
rules
1. Touch rugby 3 vs 3 – limit number of passes to
encourage evasive cutting actions
2. Y-agility drill past an opponent from various
approach distances and environmental
constraints
Note: drills will be dependent on the task- and
sporting-demands, and should be designed
P a g e | 28
accordingly
Practice
structure
Block - serial
Serial and Random
Random, differential, variance
Key: COD: Change of direction; XOC: Crossover cut
