Sprinting in football is rarely as simple as running in a straight line.
Players curve their runs to stay onside, recover around opponents, press from different angles, overlap on the outside, or attack space behind the defensive line. These actions still require speed, but they also demand body control, limb coordination, force reorientation, and the ability to maintain velocity while moving along a curved path.
This is why curvilinear sprinting is becoming an interesting area for football practitioners.
Traditional sprint training often focuses on linear acceleration and maximum velocity. These qualities are clearly important, but they may not fully reflect the way sprinting occurs in football match play. If many decisive sprint actions happen on curved paths, then it makes sense to ask whether we should deliberately train players to sprint on curves.
A recent study by Solleiro-Duran and colleagues examined whether six weeks of curvilinear sprint training improved performance in youth soccer players.
The study involved 18 male academy players. They were randomly allocated into two groups.
One group performed narrow curvilinear sprint training using a 5.15 m radius. The other group performed wide curvilinear sprint training using an 11.15 m radius.
Both groups completed the same training volume. This involved two sessions per week for six weeks, giving a total of 12 sessions. Each sprint repetition was 17 m, and players completed equal repetitions in both directions.
Before and after the intervention, the researchers assessed linear sprint performance, curvilinear sprint performance, change of direction performance, and sprint mechanical variables from the horizontal force velocity profile.
The main finding was that both groups improved.
There were no significant differences between the narrow and wide radius groups. In other words, neither method was clearly superior.
Both groups improved curvilinear sprint performance, particularly on the weak side and across the tighter 7.15 m curve.
Interestingly, players improved even when the testing radius did not exactly match the training radius. This suggests that coaches may not need to obsess over perfectly recreating every curved sprint action from match play.
The players also improved their 5 m and 20 m linear sprint times.
This is useful because it shows that curvilinear sprint training can still provide a meaningful speed stimulus, even though the movement pattern is not purely linear.
Both groups also improved maximal power output and the ability to orient force horizontally during sprinting.
Finally, both groups improved change of direction performance and reduced their change of direction deficit.
This may be because curvilinear sprinting sits somewhere between linear sprinting and sharper change of direction actions.
Curvilinear sprint training can be a useful addition to a football speed programme.
This does not mean it should replace linear sprinting. Players still need straight line acceleration, maximum velocity exposure, and high speed running.
However, curved sprinting may provide a more football specific way to develop sprint qualities that relate to common match actions.
A simple starting point would be to include curved sprint exposure once or twice per week, depending on the wider microcycle.
This type of work probably fits best on higher intensity training days, where the aim is to expose players to sprinting, acceleration, and change of direction demands.
The quality of the work matters.
Players should sprint with intent, receive enough recovery between efforts, and complete repetitions in both directions.
Over time, coaches can vary the curve radius, starting position, entry speed, and finishing action.
For example, a curved sprint can finish with a shot, cross, recovery run, or pressing action.
There are some important study limitations.
The sample size was small, with only 18 youth players from one academy.
There was also no non-training control group, which means we cannot fully separate the effects of curvilinear sprint training from normal football training, maturation, or seasonal development.
The intervention lasted six weeks, so we only know the short term effects.
The study also measured physical performance tests, not match outcomes. Future research should examine whether better curvilinear sprint performance transfers to pressing, recovery runs, attacking movements, or decisive match actions.
Curvilinear sprinting appears to be a useful addition to a football speed programme, especially because many sprint actions in match play happen on curved paths rather than in straight lines.
Six weeks of curvilinear sprint training improved curved sprint performance, short linear sprint performance, change of direction ability, and some sprint mechanical qualities in youth soccer players.
The exact radius did not seem to be the key factor. Both narrow and wide curve sprint training produced similar improvements.
Linear sprinting should still remain in the programme, but curved sprint exposure may help players prepare for more football specific sprint actions such as overlapping runs, pressing angles, recovery runs, and movements to stay onside.
If you’re serious about growing your career in football, join a global community of 70+ physical performance and sport science practitioners inside the Football Performance Network.
As a member, you’ll get:
✅ Direct 1:1 support and community feedback
✅ Live events with elite-level experts
✅ Practical, research-informed learning you can use immediately
✅ A supportive network that understands your journey
⚽️ Our next cohort opens next week and limited to 25 spaces.
🔗 Join the waitlist today to be first in line when applications open.
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.