The document summarizes a study that evaluated and compared the technical soccer skills of elite and sub-elite youth players over 5 months. Two teams were compared - an elite U16 team from AC Milan that used Cogi training, and a sub-elite U16 team from Cimiano that did not. Both teams were tested using the Loughborough Soccer Passing Test at the beginning, middle, and end of the study period. The results showed that while the Cimiano team scored better on average, their performances were less consistent over time. In contrast, the Milan players improved their skills significantly by the end of the study period. This suggests that Cogi training may lead to greater long-term improvements in technical skills compared

1. Evaluation and comparison of the technical
abilities of élite and sub-élite players
measured through Loughborough Soccer
Passing Test
UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI MILANO
SCUOLA DI SCIENZE MOTORIE
Corso di Laurea Magistrale in “Scienza, Tecnica e Didattica dello Sport”
Relatore: Giampietro Alberti ANNO ACCADEMICO 2015/2016
Prova finale di Laurea di:
Florind Korriku
Matr. 863594
1

2. ORIGIN
We see with our brain, not with our eyes
This scientific truth is central to the thought that in the last 20
years has allowed the origins and development of Cogi
Training method
The main objective was to better understand how the brain
is organized and how the human performance can be
improved
2

3. PRINCIPLES
3

4. IDEA
VS
Fascinated by this new way of training is born the idea to put a comparison
between 2 teams of the same age categories: U16 but different youth
sectors.
• .
Team that
DOESN’T USES
Cogi Training
Team that
USES
Cogi Training
4

5. PURPOSE
•If there are significant differences in the skills-technical
specifications between the elite and sub-elite at the beginning,
during and at the end of the study
•To evaluate in a comparative manner the performance of these
skills over the medium-to long-term period (5 months)
They compared the two groups of players to check :
MILAN CIMIANO
5

6. SUBJECTS, MATERIALS AND METHODS
Participated in this study :
Loughborough Soccer Passing Test
•22 players
of AC MilanÈlite
•18 players of
Cimiano
Sub-
èlite
Teams Gennuary 2016
1° session
March 2016
2° session
May 2016
3° session
Milan 2000 3 TRIALS 3 TRIALS 3 TRIALS
Cimiano 2000 3 TRIALS 3 TRIALS 3 TRIALS
Planning test LSPT nel periodo sperimentale
6

7. MILAN CIMIANO
Intraclass Correlation Coefficienta
Month Measures
Intraclass
Correlation
F Test with True
Value 0 Intraclass
Correlation
F Test with
True
Value 0
Sig Sig
Gennuary Average ,824 ,000 ,438 ,078
March Average ,500 ,026 ,151 ,332
May Average ,805 ,000 ,523 ,030
Test-retestReliability
RESULTS 7
Observing the results, we can see how the players of Milan to be able to repeat
the same results during the test in several months, and instead the subject of the
Cimiano they are not able to repeat the test always in the same way.
Thanks to this result, we are forced to use the lowest value of the test, and not
their media since the media may be influenced by data outliers.

8. MILAN CIMIANO
Intraclass Correlation Coefficienta
Month Measures
Intraclass
Correlation
F Test with True
Value 0 Intraclass
Correlation
F Test with
True
Value 0
Sig Sig
Gennuary Average ,824 ,000 ,438 ,078
March Average ,500 ,026 ,151 ,332
May Average ,805 ,000 ,523 ,030
Test-retestReliability
MeanLSPTbestperformance
Team Best test
Gennuary 2016
Best Test
March 2016
Best Test
May 2016
Milan
 LSPT (T)
 Penalità (P)
 LSPT (G)
(n=19)
41,5 (2,7)
2,7 (6,7)
44,1 (7,8)
(n=22)
40,8 (2,2)
2,7 (3,5)
43,5 (4,2)
(n=23)
40,8 (1,8)
1,2 (3,3)
42 (3,9)
Cimiano
 LSPT (T)
 Penalità (P)
 LSPT (G)
(n=17)
42,2 (2,8)
7,5 (4,3)
49,6 (5,1)
(n=17)
40,9 (2,2)
8,4 (3,4)
49,4 (3,8)
(n=18)
41,2 (2,1)
8,4 (4,6)
49,7 (5)
RESULTS 8

9. Mean LSPT best performance
41,47
42,17
2,68 *
7,47 *LSPT (G) = 44,15 *
LSPT (G) = 49,64 *
30
35
40
45
50
55
MILAN CIMIANO
Tempo(s)
GENNUARY 2016
PENALITA'
LSPT (T)
t-test con P<0.05 = *
t-test con P<0,01=**
Team Best test
Gennuary 2016
Best Test
March 2016
Best Test
May 2016
Milan
 LSPT (T)
 Penalità (P)
 LSPT (G)
(n=19)
41,5 (2,7)
2,7 (6,7)
44,1 (7,8)
(n=22)
40,8 (2,2)
2,7 (3,5)
43,5 (4,2)
(n=23)
40,8 (1,8)
1,2 (3,3)
42 (3,9)
Cimiano
 LSPT (T)
 Penalità (P)
 LSPT (G)
(n=17)
42,2 (2,8)
7,5 (4,3)
49,6 (5,1)
(n=17)
40,9 (2,2)
8,4 (3,4)
49,4 (3,8)
(n=18)
41,2 (2,1)
8,4 (4,6)
49,7 (5)
9

10. Team Best test
Gennuary 2016
Best Test
March 2016
Best Test
May 2016
Milan
 LSPT (T)
 Penalità (P)
 LSPT (G)
(n=19)
41,5 (2,7)
2,7 (6,7)
44,1 (7,8)
(n=22)
40,8 (2,2)
2,7 (3,5)
43,5 (4,2)
(n=23)
40,8 (1,8)
1,2 (3,3)
42 (3,9)
Cimiano
 LSPT (T)
 Penalità (P)
 LSPT (G)
(n=17)
42,2 (2,8)
7,5 (4,3)
49,6 (5,1)
(n=17)
40,9 (2,2)
8,4 (3,4)
49,4 (3,8)
(n=18)
41,2 (2,1)
8,4 (4,6)
49,7 (5)
Mean LSPT best performance
40,80 40,95
2,73 **
8,41 **
LSPT (G)= 43,53**
LSPT (G)= 49,36 **
30
35
40
45
50
55
MILAN CIMIANO
Tempo(s)
MARCH 2016
PENALITA'
LSPT (T)
t-test con P<0.05 = *
t-test con P<0,01=**
10

11. Team Best test
Gennuary 2016
Best Test
March 2016
Best Test
May 2016
Milan
 LSPT (T)
 Penalità (P)
 LSPT (G)
(n=19)
41,5 (2,7)
2,7 (6,7)
44,1 (7,8)
(n=22)
40,8 (2,2)
2,7 (3,5)
43,5 (4,2)
(n=23)
40,8 (1,8)
1,2 (3,3)
42 (3,9)
Cimiano
 LSPT (T)
 Penalità (P)
 LSPT (G)
(n=17)
42,2 (2,8)
7,5 (4,3)
49,6 (5,1)
(n=17)
40,9 (2,2)
8,4 (3,4)
49,4 (3,8)
(n=18)
41,2 (2,1)
8,4 (4,6)
49,7 (5)
Mean LSPT best performance
40,79 41,24
1,23 *
8,44 *
LSPT (G)= 42,02 **
LSPT (G)= 49,68 **
30
35
40
45
50
55
MILAN CIMIANO
Tempo(s)
MAY 2016
PENALITA'
LSPT (T)
t-test con P<0.05 = *
t-test con P<0,01=**
11

12. Two wayANCOVA
*
P< 0,05 = *
12
We found an interaction statistically significant!
This could mean that the two groups have got
adaptations that differ from the two types of
training.
SKILL PERFORMANCE IN THE LONG RUN

13. 50,13 49,84 49,96
44,15 43,67
41,84 *
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
GENNAIO MARZO MAGGIOTempo(s)
LSPT (G)
MILAN-CIMIANO
CIMIANO (G)
MILAN (G)
One way ANOVA repeated measures
LSD post-hoc con p < 0,05 = *
13
It is seen that both for Milan and for the
Cimiano there are no statistically significant
differences between the various tests
However, using the least significant
difference (LSD) post-hoc it is seen that only
the Milan at the end of the training, has
obtained statistically significant
improvements
SKILL PERFORMANCE IN THE LONG RUN

14. 30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Tempo(s)
Milan-Cimiano Gennuary
DISCUSSION
CIMIANO
Legenda
MILAN
14

15. 30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Tempo(s)
Milan-Cimiano Gennuary
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Milan-Cimiano March
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Milan-Cimiano May
DISCUSSION
CIMIANO
Legenda
MILAN
15

16. CONCLUSIONS
“Two way ANCOVA” e “one way ANOVA’’
The Cogi Training Metod has a tendency to bring improvements in the technical skills
that are higher than the classical methodology of training adopted by Cimiano.
Unpaired t-test
Milan scores in the LSPT statistically lower than the team Cimiano in all three occasions
of testing.
“Test-retest reliability”
The elite only need a short period of familiarization in order to be repeatable
Sub-elite need a long period of time in order to be repeatable
16

17. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION 17