ISSN: 2516-6190 (Print) 2516-7219 (Online) http://sevenbridges.ncl-coll.ac.uk

Ankle taping and strapping in soccer: do ankle supporting techniques affect agility? Peter Carey

Seven Bridges, Vol. 2 (2014)

Published on: 01/07/2014

To cite this article: Carey, P. (2014) Ankle taping and strapping in soccer: do ankle supporting techniques affect agility? Seven Bridges, 2, pp.89-106.

• View the full issue • Submit to Seven Bridges

Seven Bridges is published by: Newcastle College Rye Hill Campus Scotswood Road NE4 7SA

89    

Ankle taping and strapping in soccer: do ankle supporting techniques affect agility?

Peter Carey

Abstract

This research project aimed to investigate the effects of external ankle supports on agility in the

uninjured soccer player. Twenty-six amateur soccer players (twenty-two male and four female),

without any previous lower limb injuries, performed three Illinois agility course runs per control group.

All testing was preceded by a familiarisation session. Participants were randomly assigned a

predetermined sequence of variable experiences via the Latin square to ensure randomisation. The

support groups used were: Tape Support Group (TS) (using a three-layer closed-basket weave ankle

taping technique with heel locks; the tape was none-elastic and closure was completed with

elasticated tape.) A Re-usable Elasticated ankle support group (RES) (using a Lonsdale Elastic Ankle

Support) and a control group with No Support applied (NS). Participants were not informed of the

purpose of the study to ensure blinding. The Illinois agility run was completed three times per variable

and a mean score was calculated. No significant agility effects of any ankle support was observed

(p=<0.814) when compared to the control group. External ankle supports do not significantly affect the

agility of the uninjured soccer player and therefore agility performance cannot be influenced either

positively or negatively.

Introduction

External ankle supports are a frequently used intervention in the sporting world. Ankle supporting is

used to prevent injury and support the joint after a trauma. There is disagreement and conflicting

opinions regarding the usefulness of ankle supports in current research. Many discussions amongst

Sports Therapists and Athletic Trainers explain their use as a prophylactic intervention (preventative

treatment) and use them to improve performance. Current research provides inconclusive evidence

that ankle supports effect performance. Despite this, many therapists and players continue to use

taping and bracing at the ankle joint to prevent injury and to aid performance. This highlights a need

for more research in this field to try and establish if ankle supports have a positive or negative effect

on athlete’s performance and injury prevention within sport.

Review of the Literature

Prevention of Injury

Raymond, Nicholson, Hiller, and Refshauge (2012) do support the use of ankle taping for injury

prevention but state that this is not due to an increase in proprioception. Re-usable ankle supports are

also advised to be a useful prophylactic intervention method to prevent injury in high-risk sporting

90    

activities (Handoll, Rowe, Quinn and DeBie, 2008). Other research also suggests that different types

of ankle supports provide additional structural support and improvement during injury (Boyce, Quigley,

& Campbell, 2005). The study by Quackenbush et al (2008) showed that there is still adequate

support provided by ankle taping despite its loosening during activity; which still provided injury

prevention properties. This does not correspond with the findings by Abian-Vicen et al (2008) who

believe that taping of the ankle could increase the risk of injury due to decreased range of motion

leading to an increased peek force on landing.

Ankle Supports

Basket-Weave

Wilkerson (1991; cited in Abian-Vicen et al, 2008) explains that the closed-basket weave ankle taping

technique was designed to restrict ankle inversion in the uninjured athlete. The closed basket weave

ankle taping technique was stated as being a frequently used supporting technique for the ankle that

encompasses the entire joint and was shown to be the most stable form of ankle support. (Abian-

Vicen et al, 2008; Ratick et al, 1962 cited in Constantinou & Brown, 2010).

Basket-weave ankle taping is claimed to provide the greatest level of strength and continuity at the

ankle (Hyde & Gengenbach, 2007). These positive reviews of the technique have led to its popularity

in studies such as those by Riley & Atkinson (2009), Sanioglu et al (2009), Hyde & Gengenbach

(2007), Wilkerson (1991; cited in Abian-Vicen et al, 2008) and MacDonald (1994, cited in Riley &

Atkinson, 2009).

Re-Usable

It was found that the re-usable ankle supports and semi-rigid supports have injury prevention

properties in the study by Tang, Wu, Liao, and Chan (2010). Here, the semi-rigid, re-usable was

found to reduce supination angular displacement and their conclusion supported the use of reusable

braces as a prophylactic brace.

Cordova et al (2010) used re-usable ankle bracing to examine any affects it had on the lower

extremity. Athletic tape and braces were found to reduce ankle range of motion equally. This study

supports the use of re-usable bracing due to costs. This reduction in range of motion is strongly

considered to be an injury prevention technique (Hume and Gerrard, 1998). Hume and Gerrard

(1998) state that there is no reduction among Rugby Union players using external ankle supports. A

limitation exists here because their statement generalised the abilities into the category of

‘performance’. Strength is said to improve with ankle supports in the study by Hyde and Gengenbach

(2007) but vertical jump performance was found to decrease in the study of Taekwondo athletes by

Sanioglu et al (2009). This disagrees with the statement made by Hume and Gerrard (1998).

91    

Athletic Tape

Bot et al (2003) concluded from a meta-analysis that two studies did show how athletic taping allowed

participants to complete agility courses faster. This would indicate possible advantageous effects of

athletic taping on agility but ten other studies reported no effect and three others reported that agility

performance decreased. Ambegaonkar et al (2011) found that athletic tape hindered agility but had no

effect on balance or jump performance. Sanioglu et al (2009) however, found that using the closed

basket-weave ankle taping technique with athletic tape decreased vertical jump performance. The

non-elastic properties of the tape may have caused a restriction in range of motion (which would

compromise the muscles ability to operate throughout the full range of the articulation) and therefore

allow less momentum and force to affect the movement. However, the reduction in range of motion

may increase joint stability which could aid balance. It would therefore be unsuitable to conclude that

athletic taping can positively or negatively affect agility as balance and jump are both components of

agility (Sheppard & Young, 2006).

Kinesiotape

A study of kinaesthetic taping by Csapo et al (2012) found it did not affect drop-jump performance nor

muscle endurance. There is a similar study to that by Bicici et al (2012) who also look at kinaesthetic

tapings effects on functional performance of Basketball players. The participants completed testing

four times with a different variable applied each time - a placebo tape, no tape, athletic tape and

Kinesiotape. It was found that athletic taping of the ankle joint decreased performance in standard

heel rise and vertical jump tests. Athletic tape was shown to have no other significant effects. Bicici et

al (2012) disagrees with the findings of Csapo et al (2012) because here, strength was found to

increase.

Spatting

Spatting is an ankle supporting technique that involves applying athletic tape to the ankle over the

players’ footwear (Reuter, Dahl & Senchina, 2011). In the study by Reuter et al (2011) it was

discovered that ankle spatting had no additional benefits or drawbacks in terms of athlete

performance during agility tests.

Performance Factors

Speed

Bot et al (2003) critically reviewed eighteen studies from 1988-2003, to find that the majority of studies

concluded that ankle taping had little or no effect on any aspects of performance. A study by Hume

92    

and Gerrard (1998) looked at ankle taping and bracing to see if performance could be affected. The

research found ankle taping was unable to affect speed, and concluded that their research provided

no evidence of performance enhancement.

Agility

A study by Ambegaonkar et al (2011) found that ankle supporting increased agility run completion

times. The study found that ankle supports hindered the participant’s ability to perform quick

directional changes as well as not affecting balance or jump performance. This study is argued by

Jerosch and Schoppe (2000) who found that ankle supports improved agility in injured athletes.

Vertical Jump

Abian-Vicen et al (2008) found that ankle taping has almost no effect on jump performance in healthy

participants; a claim supported by Hume and Gerrard (1998). In a study involving taekwondo athletes,

Sanioglu et al (2009) found that vertical jump performance decreased with ankle taping. The closed

basket-weave taping technique was used here.

Quackenbush, Barker, Stone-Fury and Behm (2008) compared a group who received ankle taping

supports to a group receiving no supports. Findings showed that vertical jump performance did not

differ between the groups. Bicici et al (2012) disagreed with this by concluding that athletic taping of

the ankle joint showed a decrease in vertical jump performance. Bot et al (2003) concluded that there

are no clear benefits of using ankle supports to improve vertical jump performance but some studies

(Ambegaonkar et al, 2011) have found that ankle supports can influence vertical jump performance.

Strength, Power and Endurance

Other factors that can influence agility are strength and power (Sheppard and Young, 2006). Kenny et

al (2011) concluded that taping of the ankle joint does not affect strength and power. Csapo et al

(2012) found that isometric strength could be improved at the ankle joint with kinaesthetic taping

supports applied, but only when the ankle is in a state of full dorsi-flexion. This conclusion suggested

that kinaesthetic taping is only effective at the end of joint range and may not have influencing

properties in smaller soccer-specific movements.

Range of Motion

Another factor that can influence agility is range of motion (Sheppard and Young, 2006).

Quackenbush et al (2008) stated that ankle taping was effective at reducing range of motion although

loosening of the tape was found during sustained activity.

93    

If agility is negatively affected by ankle supports, as suggested by ten studies in the review by Bot et

al (2003), this could be caused by the restriction of the ankles range of movement which could restrict

the muscles function and ability to contract through the full range.

Purcell et al (2008) conducted a study of three ankle taping conditions (white cloth, adhesive tape and

no tape) and their effects on range of motion. Findings concluded that the adhesive tape was more

effective as it maintained range of motion restrictions when the cloth tape had failed. The study does

not mention if restriction of range of movement is beneficial.

Other studies show range of motion reduction using semi-rigid, re-usable ankle supports (Zhang,

Wortley, Silvernail, Carson & Paquette, 2012). The reduction resulted in a greater peak eversion and

plantar flexion motion during landing. As studies suggest, this restriction is thought to be effective at

injury prevention and protection, due to the reduction in movement and the structural integrity

increases at the ankle (Raymond et al, 2012; Chang et al, 2010: Boyce et al, 2005). It is apparent that

there is an increase in load and peek forces through the ankle joint when supports are applied, which

may lead to an increased risk of injury, providing a contra-indication to this prophylactic support.

Stability

Lohkamp, Craven, Walker-Johnson, and Greig (2009) investigated whether ankle taping can have

any effect on ankle stability. They found that it is possible that the tape can increase ankle stability

which aids performance, but the effectiveness of the tape diminishes with exercise during soccer

specific activities. The study concluded that there was no significant advantage of taping within the

first twenty two and a half minutes of activity but did observe that reaction times increased with

extended activity durations. Despite this, research concluded that any potential benefit is negated

after fifteen minutes, including ligamentous support due to loosening of the tape.

Diminishing support effects during activity

More research into ankle taping is found by Reuter et al (2011) who looked to see if ankle taping,

bracing and spatting had any effect on performance during maximal effort sprint drills. The study

found that the participants perceived that having no tape applied was the least stable, indicating

participant’s preconceived bias, which of course could affect their performance and results. A

qualitative study of ankle supports may be beneficial in future research to better understand this

possible effect. Reuter et al (2011) found that the prophylactic benefits of ankle taping decreased after

just fifteen minutes of activity. These findings agree with Lohkamp et al (2009) who also state that

taping benefits diminish but only after twenty two and a half minutes of exercise. Although the study

by Reuter et al (2011) cannot support the use of ankle spatting because the results are clinically

insignificant, they do conclude that, due to costs, a reusable brace is advised because it is more cost-

effective and is equally effective as taping and spatting.

94    

Neurological

Balance

Balance and proprioception are considered some of the most key components of agility and co-

ordination skills (Sheppard & Young, 2006; Kostopoulous, Bekris, Apostolidis, Kavroulakis &

Kostopoulos, 2012). A study by Kenny, Wu, and McEvoy (2011) found that ankle joint taping was

found to neither interfere with, nor enhance balance performance. Knight and Weimar (2012)

contradict and find that single leg balance is actually negatively affected by taping but did find that it

affected double leg balance. This contradicts findings of Ambegaonkar, Redmond, Winter, Cortes,

Ambegaonkar, Thompson, and Guyer (2011), who found balance was not affected by ankle taping at

all.

The studies by Kenny et al (2011) and Ambegaonka et al (2011) did not look at single leg balance

which could be why they have conflicting results. However, both studies are in agreement that double

leg balance is not affected while Knight and Weimar (2012) reports that negative effects are present.

Chang et al (2010) observed no benefits of ankle taping on standing balance. Interestingly, these

findings indicated that ankle taping improved balance on unstable surfaces, suggesting that the

workload on the ankle can determine the influence that tape has. Abian-Vicen et al (2008) and

Ambegaonkar et al (2011) conclude that ankle taping has no effect on balance. Conflicting literature

makes conclusion impossible.

Proprioception

Proprioception is the nervous system providing sensory information to the brain and spinal cord about

movement and position which plays a vital role in agility (DeLisa and Walsh, 2005). Halseth,

McChesney, DeBeliso, Vaughn, and Lien, (2004) conducted a research project to see if taping could

improve proprioception at the ankle joint. The primary research focus was to see if kinesio-taping

could have an effect on ankle performance compared to a no-tape control group. The results showed

no significant difference between the taped group and the control group and conclusions that

kinesiotape is not likely to enhance ankle proprioception were made. Raymond et al (2012) looked at

ankle tapings effect on proprioception in people with a history of ankle instability via a meta-analysis.

Raymond et al (2012) concluded that ankle taping did not affect proprioception. This contradicts the

opinion of Chang et al (2012) who state that proprioception and range of motion at the ankle will be

affected more on unstable surfaces.

95    

Illinois Agility Run

It is apparent that a valid agility test should encompass as many components of the sport for which it

is testing; as described by Sheppard and Young (2006). The Illinois Agility Test was found to

encompass more aspects and movements that are involved in Soccer while being a widely used and

valid test of agility that has been proven over the decades (Gambetta, 2007). The test involves speed,

acceleration proprioception and reaction to a stimulus, as well as balance, power, rapid directional

and velocity changes (Sheppard & Young, 2006). Kutlu et al (2012) note that the Illinois Agility Test is

a good measurement tool to choose because it requires little learning, therefore reduces any effect

repetition could have on results. The test also uses multi-directional movements lending to reasoning

that bias may be removed by ensuring the test is bilateral. (Hoffman et al, 2007).

Methodology

All ethical permissions were sought and consideration taken to anonymise participants throughout the

research.

Subjects

Twenty six mixed ability amateur football players (nineteen males and seven females) were recruited

from local football (soccer) teams to participate in the study. (Mean values: Height 176.7cm, Weight

76.6kg, Age: 25.5 years.) Participants screening was completed prior to the study and participants

with any pre-existing lower limb injuries within the previous twelve months, or participants with chronic

injuries affecting their ability to complete agility runs were excluded.

Study Design

The study was a quantitative design with repeated measures (ANOVA.) To eliminate personal bias,

subjects were not given details of what the study was measuring or testing. All supports were applied

by the same therapist and all run timing was performed by the same person.

Subjects were briefed with session instructions and participants had their relevant support variable

applied as per the results of the randomisation technique employed to randomise taping application

and prevent familiarity. The conditions were: The Closed Basket-weave Ankle Taping Technique with

Heel Locks (TS), Re-usable Elasticated Ankle Supports (RES) using a Lonsdale Elasticated Ankle

Support or No Support (NS).

All testing was conducted in an indoor sports hall to negate fluctuating factors such as weather,

temperature (19°C), surface friction, surface integrity (wood) and lighting. Testing was carried out over

four sessions; the first being a familiarisation session, to help reduce the learning effect.

96    

The warm-up was based on research by Samson et al (2012) and consisted of five minutes of running

followed by dynamic stretching. The stretching movements were completed through hip extension

(forward lunge walk), hip flexion (straight leg walk and knee-ups), abduction and adduction (side

lunge walks), knee flexion and extension (knee heel-to-gluteal kicks; each side), trunk circles and

ankle rotations. All movements were taken through the full range of motion for three sets of thirty

repetitions each. Run times were recorded using manual stopwatches by the same therapists for each

session and the participants ran the course individually. Participants completed the Illinois Agility

Course. The mean times of the three agility runs were taken to ensure that all effects were

considered.

Following completion of the runs, participants performed a cool-down consisting of a five minute run

followed by static stretching of the hamstring, quadriceps, abductor, adductor and calf muscle groups

as advised in the standard model by Schnitzer and Trela (2012). Each stretch was held at the end of

the range for thirty seconds each and once completed; the participants then had their supports

removed if applicable.

Tape and taping technique used

Five centimetre wide, Vulkan® none elasticated, and seven and a half centimetre wide, Vulkan®

elasticated tape was used in condition one (TS). The closed basket weave with heel locks was

applied with none elasticated tape and closing off was applied with elasticated tape. (See Figure: 1).

Application began by applying Mueller Tuffner® Pre-Tape adhesive spray to the area. Two Lewis-

Plast® heel pads were then placed over the Achilles tendon and the tibiotalar join areas to provide

protection. A layer of Mueller® seven centimetre wide, pre-wrap was applied followed by two anchors

that were then placed just under the belly of the gastrocnemius muscle. Stirrup taping techniques

where then alternated with horse shoe taping techniques until they had both been applied three times

each; creating the closed basket-weave. Two heel locks where then applied. The taping was then

closed off by enclosing the support with horizontal strips of elasticated tape. This technique was

applied to both ankles.

97    

Figure 1: Taping Ankle Support

The other condition involved an elasticated reusable ankle supports. (See figure 2). These Supports

were also applied by the same therapist to both ankles. The support application began on the by

placing the in-build looped over the foot. The support was taken from the lateral foot to the medial

ankle were it passed around the Achilles tendon area. It then passed from the distal posterior tibial

area to the medial aspect of the foot. Once more, it passed under the foot and back to the medial

aspect of the ankle. The support then completed one horizontal loop around the distal tibial area and

secured via Velcro.

Figure 2: Re-Usable Elasticated Ankle Support

Results

Using SPSS software a repeated measures ANOVA was used involving three variable conditions,

consisting of a Tape Support group (TS), a Re-usable Elasticated Support group (RES) and a control

group with No Support (NS).

Using SPSS; the Mauchly’s Test of Sphericity revealed a p value of >0.547 which indicated an

insignificant difference between variables. The Greenhouse Geiser results also show how the study

could not find any significance effects of the variables on agility; (F(1.903,45.664) = 0.193, p= <0.814,

partial η² = 0.0008).

98    

When gender was considered in the analysis of results, there was a greater significance between

variables but not enough significance to conclude that supports affect agility. The Mauchly’s Test of

Sphericity showed a low significance of >0.580 as did the Greenhouse Geiser: (F(1.903,45.664) =

0.881, p= <0.417, partial η² = 0.0035). Statistical analysis does not provide significant evidence that

agility was affected by the variables. The effect size was very small, indicating no difference between

the mean values. Also, there was no significant differences found between variables (regardless of

gender consideration) and therefore, a post-hoc test was not required.

Figure 3 gives each participant’s results and shows how the variables affected individual

performances. Figures 4 and 5, displays the insignificant results from SPSS analysis. Figure 4 shows

the combined run times for each group while figure 5 shows the combined mean scores of each

group. The visual representation of results allows the differences to be observed which were not

possible using SPSS because of the lack of a post-hoc analysis.

13

13.5

14

14.5

15

15.5

16

16.5

17

17.5

18

Tim

e (s

ecs)

Participant

Fig 3 :Graph showing individual partcipant results with each of the three conditions

TS

RES

NS

99    

Discussion

The Illinois Agility Test was found to be the most relatable to soccer in the current literature (Draper &

Lancaster, 1985, cited in Sheppard and Young, 2006; Cureton, 1951, cited in Sheppard and Young,

2006; Hastad & Lacey, 1994, cited in Sheppard & Young, 2006; Asadi, 2012; Hoffman et al, 2007;

Gambetta, 2007 & Kutlu et al, 2012). There were no significant relationships found between each

variable and agility times. When results considering gender were analysed, no significant

399.7 399.8 399.9

400 400.1 400.2 400.3 400.4 400.5

TS RES NS

Tim

e (s

ec)

Group

Fig 4: Graph showing total run times combined for each variable group

TOTAL

15.36

15.37

15.38

15.39

15.4

15.41

TS RES NS

Tim

e (s

ec)

Group

Fig 5: Graph showing mean run times combined for each variable group

TOTAL

100    

relationships could be discovered. SPSS was used to analyse the results and neither the effect size

nor the power indicated any influence of ankle supports on agility. The present data supports the

findings of other research which state that agility is not affected, either positively or negatively, by any

type of external ankle support. (Hume & Gerrard, 1998; Rosenbaum et al, 2005 and Reuter et al,

2011)

Figure 3 shows individual run times. It can be observed that the Tape Support (TS) group

outperformed the other conditions nine times, Re-usable Elasticated Support (RES) outperformed

other groups six times and the No Support group (NS) eight times. The graph also shows that the

differences between each of the groups are minimal. However, it can be observed that the RES

group was more frequently slower than the others with this being the case eleven times (more than

TS at six and NS at seven).

More differences can be observed in Figures 4 and 5, but again they are not large enough to be

considered significant. Here, the results show that the RES group performed slower when looking at

both mean results and total results, even though the differences are small. Ambegaonka et al (2011)

found that re-usable ankle supports negatively affect agility. A study by Bot et al (2003) suggested

agility is improved with ankle supports but then concluded differently by stating that the supports had

no significant influence because only two of the eighteen articles were found to allow participants

(with functional ankle instability) to complete an agility course faster. The results displayed in figures 4

and 5 agree with that research but show that both support groups failed to outperform the NS group

but only with a p value of <0.814. Bot et al (2003) highlighted insignificant trends in much the same

way as this study.

A greater correlation is present with the studies that suggested that no effects of ankle supports were

present (Rosenbaum et al, 2005; Cordova et al, 2010 and Hume & Gerrard, 1998). Hyde and

Grengenbach (2007) stated that strength improved with ankle supports. There is no evidence in this

research project to support this claim, but as strength was not individually observed, any strength

increases may have been masked by decreases in other factors affecting agility. Other such factors

that can affect agility are balance and proprioception (Sheppard & Young, 2006). Taping or re-usable

ankle supports were found to have no effects on balance according to Kenny et al (2011), Hardy et al

(2008), Ambegaonka et al (2011) or Chang et al (2010). However, the study cannot conclude with any

significance that the supports negatively affected balance or agility which leaves it in disagreement

with Knight and Weimar (2012). Chang et al (2012) found that proprioception may be improved with

ankle supports on unstable surfaces. As this study was completed on a stable surface to control

limitations, it may be acknowledged that, in a genuine soccer environment, the surface may be

unstable and ankle supports may have then affected proprioception agility.

In the studies that concluded that ankle supports had influential properties; different agility tests where

used including the Shuttle Run and the Figure of Eight agility test (Bot et al, 2003). Ambeogonka et al

101    

(2011) found that agility was negatively affected with ankle supports, used the Right Boomerang

agility test. It is possible that using a different agility test could produce different results based on the

findings of these research articles. The study by Rosenbaum et al (2005) also used a different agility

test (which was a custom agility course involving many factors of agility) and found that ankle

supports could not positively or negatively influence agility. Results from SPSS analysis find this study

in agreement with this research, with agility neither being positively or negatively affected.

Furthermore, no significant differences were found between the types of variables. Figures 4 and 5

both show how differences between the variables are insignificantly similar.

Limitations

This study only involved participation from Soccer players. A study looking at different participants

may produce alternative results. The conclusion is only applicable to the particular age range of

participants used in this study. The mean age was 25.46 years. All participants in this study were

uninjured. Some studies found that injured participants reacted differently to ankle supports (Haldeth

et al, 2004 and Raymond et al, 2012). Conclusions are therefore limited and are only applicable to

uninjured participants.

Reaction times of participants may affect the results and provided a limitation to this study. A

countdown allowed the participants to anticipate the start command; reducing reaction time

influences.

Participants in this project also gained more experience of the course as they completed variables;

which may have influenced their results due to the learning effect. The Illinois Agility Run was

acknowledged as a valid agility test that is the least influenced by learning effects (Kutlu et al, 2012).

This study used an unequal sample size (nineteen males and seven females.) Body structures may

cause males and female to react differently. It is possible that female ligament laxity is increased

during menstruation and would therefore affect agility (Heitz, Eissenman, Beck & Walker, 1999). The

effects of this were not considered during the study and may have altered female performance and

results.

Sources of Error

Although every measure was taken to ensure taping was applied equally to each participant, a

possible source of error exists here. Taping may have been unequal because of possible differences

in length, position, and tension of the tape between participants and between ankles.

Timing of the runs was not completely accurate due to the stopwatch operator having a poor reaction

time and judgement being done by eye. Course completion was achieved in a short duration and split

102    

seconds become more influential, which allows the use of stopwatches to be scrutinised as mean

scores were given to two decimal places. Future research may consider using electronic timing gates

increase measurement accuracy.

Conclusion & Recommendations

Neither re-usable, elasticated ankle supports nor the closed basket-weave ankle taping technique

with heel locks significantly affected agility in the uninjured Soccer player during the Illinois Agility Test

(p=<0.814). When the results were analysed considering gender; more significance was present

(p=<0.417). The effect of gender was not analysed in this study and future research should consider

this. It was also observed that participants made regular comments about how the RES was

uncomfortable. Reuter et al (2011) stated that their participants reported ankle spatting felt

uncomfortable but also more stable. Therefore psychological influences of ankle supports may be

studied in a qualitative study to determine how they affect run times.

As the Illinois Agility Test is only short in duration, it may be considered that group variations cannot

be fully observed within a short time frame. A longer agility test may also provide a more suitable test

for Soccer athletes due to the normal time period of a match and because taping loosens over time

(Quackenbush et al, 2008).

The results of this research project showed that there are no significant effects of ankle supports on

agility using a stable surface. However, Chang et al (2012) found that proprioception can be affected

on unstable surfaces. Proprioception was stated to be a performance factor in agility (Sheppard &

Young, 2006). Future studies may also wish to look into surface integrity in their research.

Bibliography & References

Abhishek, S., Deepack, M., Davinder, K., Waseem, M. & Rajiv, S. (2012) ‘Correlation of femoral shaft

length and tibia length with the performance of athletes in speed, agility and strength’. Sports

Medicine Journal. 8(3), pp. 1922-1927.

Abian-Vicen, J., Alegre, L., Fernandez-Rodriguez, M., Lara, A., Meana, M. & Aguado, X. (2008) Ankle

taping does not impair performance jump or balance test. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine.

7(1), pp. 350-356.

Ambegaonkar, J., Redmond, C., Winter, C., Cortes, N., Ambegaonkar, S., Thompson, B. & Guyer, S.

(2011) Ankle stabilizers affect agility but not vertical jump or dynamic balance performance. Foot &

Ankle Specialist. 4(6), pp. 354-360.

103    

Asadi, A. (2012) Effects of six weeks depth jump and countermovement jump training on agility

performance. Sport Science. 5(1), pp. 67-71.

Bennell, K. & Goldie, P. (1994) The differential effects of external ankle support on postural control.

The Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy. 20 (6), pp. 287-295.

Bicici, S., Karatas. N. & Baltaci, G. (2012) Effect of athletic taping and Kinesiotaping™ on

measurements of functional performance in Basketball players with chronic inversion ankle sprains.

The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy. 7(2), pp. 154-165.

Bishop, D. (2003) Warm up II: performance changes following active warm up and how to structure

the warm up. Sports Medicine. 33(7), pp. 483-498.

Bot, S., Verhagen, E. & Van-Mechelen, W. (2003) The effect of ankle taping and bracing on functional

performance: A review of the literature. International Sports Medicine Journal. 4(5), pp. 1-14.

Boyce, S., Quigley, M. & Campbell, S. (2005) ‘Management of ankle sprains: a randomised controlled

trial of the treatment of inversion injuries using an elastic support bandage or an Air cast ankle brace’.

British Journal of Sports Medicine. 39(2), pp. 91-96.

Chang, Y., Wu, H., Hung, W. & Chiu, Y. (2010) Effect of ankle taping on standing balance in the

individuals with functional ankle instability. International Symposium on Biomechanics in Sports:

Conference Proceedings Archive. 28(1), pp. 1-2.

Constantinou, M. & Brown, M. (2010) Therapeutic Taping for Musculoskeletal Conditions. Elseiver,

Australia.

Cordova, M., Takahashi, Y., Kress, G., Brucker, J. & Finch, A. (2010) Influence of

External Ankle Support on Lower Extremity Joint Mechanics During Drop Landings. Journal of Sport

Rehabilitation. 19(2), 136-149.

Csapo, R., Herceg, M., Alegre, L., Crevenna, R. & Pieber, K. (2012) Do kinaesthetic tapes affect

plantar flexion muscle performance? Journal of Sports Science. 30(14), pp. 1513-1519.

DeLisa, J. & Walsh, N. (2005) Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation: Principles and Practice, Volume

1. Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

 Forbes, H., Thrussell, S., Haycock, N., Lohkamp, M. & White, M. (2013) The Effect of

Prophylactic Ankle Support During Simulated Soccer Activity. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation. 22(1),

pp 1-14.

 

104    

Gambetta, V. (2007) Athletic Development, The Art & Science of Functional Sports Conditioning.

Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL, USA.

Halseth, T., McChesney, J., DeBeliso, M., Vaughn, R. & Lien, J. (2004) The effects of Kinesio™

taping on proprioception at the ankle. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine. 3(1), pp. 1-7.

Handoll, H., Rowe, B., Quinn, K. & DeBie, R. (2008) Interventions for preventing ankle ligament

injuries: Review. Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews. 4(1), pp. 1-67.

Hardy, L., Huxel, K., Brucker, J. & Nesser, T. (2008) Prophylactic Ankle Braces and Star Excursion

Balance Measures in Healthy Volunteers. Journal of Athletic Training. 43(4), pp. 347-352.

Heitz, N., Eissenman, P., Beck, C. & Walker, J. (1999) Hormonal Changes Throughout the Menstrual

Cycle and Increased Anterior Cruciate Ligament Laxity in Females. Journal of Athletic Training. 34

(2), pp. 144-149.

Hinkelmann, K. & Kempthorne, O. (2008) Design and Analysis of Experiments; Volume 1, Introduction

to Experimental Design. John Wiley and Sons Ltd, Hoboken, NJ, USA.

Hoffman, J., Ratamess, N., Klatt, M., Faigenbaum, A. & Kang, J. (2007) Do bilateral power deficits

influence directional- specific movement patterns? Research in Sports Medicine. 15(2) pp. 125-133.

Hume, P. & Gerrard, D. (1998) Effectiveness of external ankle support: bracing and taping in rugby

union. Sports Medicine. 25(5), pp. 285-312.

Hyde, T. & Gengenbach, M. (2007) Conservative Management of Sports Injuries; Second Edition.

Jones & Bartlett Learning, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada.

Jerosch, J. & Schoppe, R. (2000) Midterm effects of ankle joint supports on sensomotor and sport-

specific capabilities. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 8(4), pp. 252-259.

Kenny, I., Wu, C. & McEvoy, J. (2011) Influence of ankle taping on dynamic balance performance.

Portuguese Journal of Sports Science. 11 (2), pp. 659-662.

Kim Geok S., Yusof, A., Kim Lam S., Mohd, S. & Hiong Kwong M. (2012) Agility and leg power

comparison between University indoor and beach Volleyball players. Asian Journal of Physical

Education & Recreation. 18(1), pp. 31-36.

Kirkby, R. (2000) Sports medicine: strapping, wrapping, taping and bracing. Official Journal of the

South African Academy of Family Physicians. 22(6), pp. 46-48.

105    

Knight, A. and Weimar, W. (2012) Effects of ankle taping on single and double leg balance. Sports

Science Review. 19(2), pp. 5-19.

Kostopoulous, N., Bekris, E., Apostolidis, N., Kavroulakis, E. & Kostopoulos, P. (2012) The effect of

a balance and proprioception training program on amateur basketball players' passing skills. Journal

of Physical Education & Sport. 12(3), pp. 316-324.

Kutlu, M., Yapici, H., Yoncalik, O. & Celik, S. (2012) Comparison of a new test for agility and sills in

Soccer with other agility tests. Journal of Human Kinetics. 33(1), pp. 143-151.

Lin, W., Liu, Y., Hsieh, C. and Lee, A. (2009) Ankle eversion to inversion strength ratio and static

balance control in the dominant and non-dominant limbs of young adults. Journal of Science &

Medicine in Sport. 12(1), pp. 42-49.

 Lohkamp, M., Craven, S., Walker-Johnson, C. & Greig, M. (2009) The Influence of Ankle Taping on

Changes in Postural Stability During Soccer-Specific Activity. Journal of Sports Rehabilitation. 18(1),

pp. 482-492.

Malliou, P., Rokka, S., Beneka, A., Mavridis, G. & Godolias, G. (2007) Reducing risk of injury due to

warm up and cool down in dance aerobics instructors. Journal of Back & Musculoskeletal

Rehabilitation. 20(1), pp. 29-36.

Purcell, S., Schuckman, B., Docherty, C., Schrader, J. & Poppy, W. (2008) Differences in ankle range

of motion before and after exercise in 2 tape conditions. Journal of Sports Medicine. 37 (2), pp. 383-

389.

Quackenbush, K., Barker, P., Stone-Fury, S. and Behm, D. (2008) The effect of two ankle taping

method’s on strength, power and range of motion in female athletes. North American Journal of

Sports Physical Therapy. 3(1), pp. 25-32.

Radcliffe, J. (2007) Functional training for athletes at all levels. Ulysses Press, Berkeley, CA, USA.

Raymond, J., Nicholson, L., Hiller, C. & Refshauge, K. (2012) The effect of ankle taping or bracing on

proprioception in functional ankle instability: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of

Science & Medicine in Sport. 15(5), pp. 386-392.

Reuter, G., Dahl, A. & Senchina, D. (2011) Ankle spatting compared to bracing or taping during

maximal-effort sprint drills. International Journal of Exercise Science. 4(1), pp. 305-321.

Riley, T. & Atkinson, G. (2009) Contemporary, Sport, Leisure and Ergonomics. Taylor & Francis,

Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK.

106    

Rosenbaum, D., Kamps, N., Bosch, K., Thorwesten, L., Volker, K. & Eils, E. (2005) The influence of

external ankle braces on subjective and objective parameters of performance in a sports-related

agility course. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 13(5), pp. 419-426.

Samson, M., Button, D., Chaouachi, A. & Behm, D. (2012) Effects of dynamic and static stretching

within general and activity specific warm-up protocols. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine. 11(2),

pp. 279-286

Sanioglu, A., Ergun, S., Erkmen, N., Taskin, H., Goktepe, S. & Kaplan, T. (2009) The effect of ankle

taping on isokinetic strength and vertical jumping performance in elite taekwondo athletes. Isokinetics

and Exercise Science. 17(1), pp. 73-78.

Schnitzer, C. & Trela, P. (2012) Communicate the value of warm-up, cool-down and stretching.

Functional U. 1(4), pp. 7-13.

Sefton, J., Hicks-Little, C., Koceja, D. & Cordova, M. (2007) Effect of inversion and ankle bracing on

peroneus longus Hoffmann reflex. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports. 17(5), pp.

539-546.

Sheppard, J. & Young, W. (2006) Agility literature review: Classification, training and testing. Journal

of Sports Sciences. 24(9), pp. 919-938.

Tang, YM., Wu, ZH., Liao, WH. & Chan, KM. (2010) A study of semi-rigid support on ankle supination

sprain kinematics. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports. 20(6), pp. 822-827.

Undermann, B., Miller, K., Doberstine, S., Reineke, D., Murray, S. & Pettitt, R. (2009) Spatting

Restricts Ankle Motion more Effectively than Taping During Exercise. International Journal of Exercise

Science. 2(2), pp. 72-82.

Verhagen, E., Van Der Beek, A. & Van Mechelen, W. (2001) The effect of tape, braces and shoes on

ankle range of motion. Sports Medicine. 31(9), pp. 667-677.

Woods, K., Bishop, P. & Jones, E. (2007) Warm-up and Stretching in the Prevention of Muscular

Injury. Sports Medicine. 37(12), pp. 1089-2000.

Zhang, S., Wortley, M., Silvernail, J., Carson, D. & Paquette, M. (2012) Do ankle braces provide

similar effects on ankle biomechanical variables in subjects with and without chronic ankle instability

during landing? Journal of Sport and Health Science. 1(2), pp. 114-120.