Intl. j. Basic. Sci. Appl. Res. Vol., 2 (3), 253-256, 2013
International Journal of Basic Sciences & Applied Research. Vol., 2 (3), 253-256, 2013
Available online at http://www.isicenter.org
ISSN 2147-3749 ©2013 VictorQuest Publications
Comparison of Static and Dynamic Balance in Sepak takraw Male Elite Players
Mahdi Rezaei1*, Raghad Mimar2, Ahmad Azad3
1Deparment
of Physical Education and Sport Science (Sports Biomechanics), Karaj branch, Islamic Azad University of Karaj, Iran
2University of Kharazmi, Tehran, Iran
3University of Zanjan, Iran
*Corresponding Author Email: [email protected]
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the static and dynamic balance in Sepak
takraw male elite players. The game consists of three positions: feeder, server and
spiker. Thirty Iranian male elite sepak takraw players were divided into three game
position categories of server, feeder and spiker, with mean age (21.43±3.8), height
(179.13 cm ±5.34) and weight (68.48 kg ±6.38) participated in this study. Standing
stork test and star excursion balance test (SEBT) were used to assess the static&
dynamic balance; respectively. Significant (p ≤ 0.05) differences were found in the
SEBT in all 8 directions between spikers and the others and also significant
differences were observed in 7 directions (except posterior direction) between servers
and feeders, No significant differences were found in the Stork test among all groups.
Statistical differences may be caused by the different duties &training methods which
are specified for each position.
Keywords: Sepak takraw, Stork, SEBT, Feeder, Server, Spiker.
Introduction
Sepak takraw is one of the most popular sports in South East Asia and in other countries in the world. This sport has been
included in the Asian Games since 1990 in Beijing. Sepak takraw is a complex net-barrier sport that players are allowed to use all
part of the body except hands or arms to kick the ball. In sepak takraw a team consists of three players with different role: feeder,
server and spiker. Due to the players' role, there are feeding, serving, spiking and blocking. Thus, the players need to have immense
agility, precision, leg muscle strength, timing and skill (Aziz, 2003). As in sport such as volleyball, badminton, squash, and tennis, the
intensity of the game is intermittent, depending on the length of rallies following a serve (Singh, 2005). Balance is a key component
of postural stability and motor skills. It has also key role for complex sports performing. Balance is one of biomechanical parameters
that can affect sepak takraw players' performance and can be used as one of the important parameter for talent identification in
sepak takraw. Despite extensive research in other sport's talent identification, there is inadequate research to identify biomechanical
indicators, especially about static and dynamic balance. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the static and dynamic
balance between sepak takraw elite players by considering three different positions of the game.
Methodology
Thirty male, sepak takraw players from the Iranian national team, were divided into three game position categories of
server, feeder and spikier, with at least 5 years of international competition playing experience of mean age (21.43±3.8), height
(179.13 cm ±5.34) and weight (68.48 kg ±6.38) participated in this study. All subjects provided an informed consent. Standing Stork
test was used to assess static balance and SEBT test was used to assess dynamic balance.
Measurement tools
Stork test: Subjects were asked to stand on their dominant leg and place the hands on the hips and set the sole of the
other foot against the side of the supporting kneecap, then subject were asked to raises the heel of the supporting foot after the
command "Go". The stopwatch is started as soon as heel is raised from the floor. The stopwatch is stopped if : hands come off the
hips, the supporting foot swivels or moves in any direction , the non-supporting foot loses contact with the knee, or the heel of the
352
Intl. j. Basic. Sci. Appl. Res. Vol., 2 (3), 253-256, 2013
support foot touches the floor, hop skipping and staying away from position for more than 5 seconds. Total time in seconds is
recorded and the highest value is used for the analysis.
SEBT (star excursion balance test): in the SEBT subject tries to maintain balance on single-leg stance (dominant foot)
whilst trying to reach as far as they can with the non-dominant foot. The subjects stand in at the centre of the grid with 8 lines
extending from the centre with 45° degree (Figure 1).
Anterior
Anterior-medial
Anterior-lateral
Medial
Posterior-medial
Centre of Grid
Lateral
Posterior
Posterior-lateral
Figure 1. The 8 lines of the Star Excursion Balance Test (SEBT).
The eight directions included: anterior (A), anterior-lateral (AL), anterior-medial (AM), medial (M), posterior-medial (PM),
posterior (P), posterior-lateral (PL) and lateral (L). A standard tape measure (cm) was used to measure the distance the subject had
reached along each line. Subjects were asked to kick the ball on the ground to identify their dominant foot. The test was explained to
the subjects verbally, allowing to practices the test for 6 times to learn the procedure. After 5 minutes warm-up, the test was
performed while subject stand in the center with both hands on the side. Each subject performed the SEBT for 3 times which each
time consisted of 3 reaches (trials) in each of the 8 directions. Subjects were given a 5 second rest between each reach. To
normalize the result of the test, the length of the leg (from anterior superior iliac spine to medial malleolus) is measured. Average of
three performance are calculated and divided by the length of the leg (cm) then multiplied by 100 to obtain the reaching distance by
the foot. Errors that subjects must avoid during the test are described to the subjects. These errors include: The subject lifted the
supporting leg from the centre of the grid, losing their balance, not touching the line with the reach foot, unable to hold for 1 second
when the subject return to the starting position (Hertel, 2002). (r o.96 ‫ و‬0.78, reported by Hertel, 2002).
Statistical analysis
An ANOVA was used to compare differences between three playing position: feeder, server and spiker. A Tukey post-hoc
test was used to locate difference. Level of significant was P<0.05 for all analyses. All data are presented as mean and standard
deviation (SD). The statistical package for social science (SPSS 14) was used for all statistical analysis.
Results
Descriptive statistics and result of ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc test of dynamic and static balance in three sepak takraw
playing position between Iranian elite male players are shown in table 1. Statistically significant (P≤0.05) differences were found in
the dynamic balance in all 8 directions between spikers and the others (servers and feeders). Despite the posterior direction in
dynamic balance, other the directions showed significant differences between servers and feeders. No significant differences were
found between the static balance among all groups.
352
Intl. j. Basic. Sci. Appl. Res. Vol., 2 (3), 253-256, 2013
Table 1.Descriptive statistics and result of ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc test of dynamic and static balance in three sepaktakraw
playing position between Iranian male. elite players
Playing
Differences between three
N
Mean
SD
p*
Result
position
groups*
Static
Spiker 10
41.1
7.65
Spiker (0.6) with the feeder
No significant difference
balance
Server 10
38.9
5.57
Server
(0.7)
with
the
spiker
No significant difference
(BESS)
Feeder 10
38.3
8.11
Feeder
(0.9)
with
the
server
No significant difference
Total
30 39.43 7.05 0. 6
No significant difference between groups
Dynamic
Spiker 10 103.4
0.7
Spiker (0.02) with the feeder
Significant difference
balance
Server 10 100.4
0.3
Server
(0.02)
with
the
spiker
Significant difference
(A)
Feeder 10
97.7
0.7
Feeder
(0.02)
with
the
server
Significant difference
Total
30 100.5
2.5 0.02
Significant difference between groups
Dynamic
Spiker 10 103.4
0.7
Spiker (0.02) with the feeder
Significant difference
balance
Server 10 100.5
0.4
Server
(0.02)
with
the
spiker
Significant difference
(AL)
Feeder 10
98.3
1.2
Feeder
(0.02)
with
the
server
Significant difference
Total
30 100.7
2.3 0.00
Significant difference between groups
Dynamic
Spiker 10 102.1
1.9
Spiker (0.00) with the feeder
Significant difference
balance
Server 10
99.5
0.4
Server
(0.00)
with
the
spiker
Significant difference
(AM)
Feeder 10
97.2
1.0
Feeder
(0.01)
with
the
server
Significant difference
Total
30
99.9
2.1 0.00
Significant difference between groups
Dynamic
Spiker 10 103.7
0.6
Spiker (0.02) with the feeder
Significant difference
balance
Server 10 100.8
0.6
Server (0.02) with the spiker
Significant difference
(M)
Feeder 10
98.2
1.0
Feeder (0.01) with the server
Significant difference
Total
30 100.9
2.8 0.02
Significant difference between groups
Dynamic
Spiker 10 102.7
0.6
Spiker (0.04) with the feeder
Significant difference
balance
Server 10
99.9
0.9
Server (0.02) with the spiker
Significant difference
(PM)
Feeder 10
96.7
0.7
Feeder (0.02) with the server
Significant difference
Total
30
99.8
1.3 0.04
Significant difference between groups
Dynamic
Spiker 10 100.2
2.0
Spiker (0.0) with the feeder
Significant difference
balance
Server 10
98.8
1.1
Server (0.02) with the spiker
Significant difference
(P)
Feeder 10
97.7
0.7
Feeder (0.7) with the server
No significant difference
Total
30
98.9
1.7 0.00
Significant difference between groups
Dynamic
Spiker 10 102.1
1.9
Spiker (0.02) with the feeder
Significant difference
balance
Server 10 100.1
2.0
Server (0.02) with the spiker
Significant difference
(PL)
Feeder 10
97.7
0.7
Feeder (0.02) with the server
Significant difference
Total
30 100.0
2.4 0.03
Significant difference between groups
Dynamic
Spiker 10 102.1
1.9
Spiker (0.0) with the feeder
Significant difference
balance
Server 10 102.7
2.6
Server (0.0) with the spiker
Significant difference
(L)
Feeder 10
97.7
0.7
Feeder (0.01) with the server
Significant difference
Total
30 100.8
2.9 0.02
Significant difference between groups
*Significant level at p ≤ 0.05 .A=Anterior, AL=Anterior- lateral, M=Medial, PM=posterior-medial, P=Posterior, PL=posterior lateral, L=
lateral, ST.D=standard deviation.
indicator
Discussion and Conclusion
The results showed that the spikers in comparing with servers and feeders had better dynamic balance in all of the 8
directions and also servers had better dynamic balance in the 7 directions (except in the posterior direct) than the feeders. There is
no significant difference among all groups in the static balance. Evaluation of balance isn’t new subject in sport but in this study,
dynamic and static balance were evaluated with considering three playing position (feeder, server and spiker) which have different
roles and different balance condition while they experience their duties. Statistical differences that observed in the dynamic balance
between players may be caused by the different roles and duties while playing their specific game's position. These Statistical
differences also could be the result of different training methods which are specified for each position. For example, players
(especially spikers) in order to block or spike must jump frequently and sometimes consecutively during the game, in consequent
they have to keep their balance while they are playing. Servers also need their balance in order to perform proper service and
feeders must run after the ball and feed the ball to the teammates (especially spikers) to spike the ball. The results of this study
showed that , presumably playing in the different position affect the balance of the players. It seems the postural changes due to
exercise is different by nature of sport and each sport developed specific postural adaptations (Bressel, 2007).
355
Intl. j. Basic. Sci. Appl. Res. Vol., 2 (3), 253-256, 2013
For example, judo training can cause an increase in the importance of sensory-physical information, whereas the ballet is
causing more attention to visual information (Gerbino, 2007). Because of the nature of sepak takraw game, jumping in order to block
or spike, serve, feed and control the ball, etc. The players need high level of static and dynamic balance to have successful
achievement beside of the other necessary components of the game such a fitness characteristics and playing skills. The data
presented in this study carry considerable practical applications. Static and dynamic balance can be used as the predictor of
performance in sepak takraw. This can be useful in the future to investigate players' selection, talent identification in the field of
sepak takraw and training program development.
Acknowledgment
Authors are thankful to the authorities of Iran sepak takraw association, education department of Zanjan city, and the
participant sepak takraw players of the Iranian National team for their cooperation in collecting the data.
References
Aziz AR, 2003. Sepak Takraw:A Descriptive Analysis of Heart Rate and Blood Lactate Response and Physiological Profile of Elite
Palyer. International Journal of Applied Sport Sciences. 15(1): 1-10.
Bressel, 2007. comparison of static and dynamic balance in female collegiate soccer,basketball and gymnastics athlates. journal of
athlate training. 42: 42-46.
Gerbino, 2007. comparison of standing balance between female collegiate dancers and soccer players. journal of ‫ۀ‬ait and Posture .
26(94): 501-507.
Hertel, 2002. Differences in postural control during single – leg stance among healthy individuals with different foot types. Journal of
Athletic Training. 41(1): 41-46.
Singh, 2005. Anthropometric and physiological profiles of sepak takraw. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 39(11): 825-829.
352