ArticleBiology of sport2025
Female football players' key physical qualities: playing-position specific comparison between national-team selected and non-selected players.
Article in Biology of sport, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The effects of menstrual cycle phase on jumping performance in women's football players: a systematic review.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Pooled it
- Comprehensive multivariate insights into external training load in women's football: four session clusters to optimize weekly periodization.Biology of sport · 2026Article
- Differences in isometric strength and sprinting speed of academy soccer players: a special interest in transition between the age groups and national team selected players.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated 1) possible differences in physical qualities between national team selected and non-selected female football players specific to playing position and 2) possible between-position differences in physical qualities specific to competition level (national team selected and non-selected players separately). One-hundred eight-six female players from Finland's senior and youth national teams (n = 85) and Finland's national league teams (n = 101) participated in this cross-sectional study. The following field tests were used to characterize physical qualities of the players: 30-meter sprint test with 10-meter split time for speed, countermovement jump (CMJ) for lower-body power, and 1200-meter shuttle running test (i.e. Bronco test) was used to calculate maximal aerobic speed (MAS). National team selected central- and wide-defenders and central-midfielders were faster (g = 0.74-0.94, p = 0.042-0.007) in 10-meter sprint-time and central-midfielders and forwards were faster in 30-meter sprint-time (g = 0.73-0.81, p = 0.047-0.033) compared to non-selected counterparts. Selected wide-midfielders jumped higher in CMJ (g = 0.72, p = 0.048) than non-selected counterparts. Selected central- and wide-midfielders and forwards had higher MAS (g = 0.63-1.68, p = 0.037-0.001) than non-selected counterparts. Between-position analysis revealed that selected wide-midfielders reached higher CMJ height than central-midfielders and achieved higher MAS than central-defenders. Non-selected wide-defenders were faster for 30-meter sprint time than central-defenders, central-midfielders, and forwards. Physical qualities, especially speed, differentiate national team selected players from non-selected players. Between-position differences varied between groups, but players with better physical qualities played in wide-positions in both groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.