Martín-García, A, Gómez Díaz, A, Bradley, PS, Morera, F, and Casamichana, D. Quantification of a professional football team's external load using a microcycle structure. J Strength Cond Res 32(12): 3520-3527, 2018-The aims of this study were to (a) determine the external load of a football team across playing position and relative to competition for a structured microcycle and (b) examine the loading and variation the day after competition for players with or without game time. Training and match data were obtained from 24 professional football players who belonging to the reserve squad of a Spanish La Liga club during the 2015/16 season using global positioning technology (n = 37 matches and n = 42 training weeks). Training load data were analyzed with respect to the number of days before or after a match (match day [MD] minus or plus). Training load metrics declined as competition approached (MD-4 > MD-3 > MD-2 > MD-1; p < 0.05; effect sizes [ES]: 0.4-3.1). On the day after competition, players without game time demonstrated greater load in a compensatory session (MD + 1C) that replicated competition compared with a recovery session (MD + 1R) completed by players with game time (MD + 1C > MD + 1R; p < 0.05; ES: 1.4-1.6). Acceleration and deceleration metrics during training exceeded 50% of that performed in competition for MD + 1C (80-86%), MD-4 (71-72%), MD-3 (62-69%), and MD-2 (56-61%). Full backs performed more high-speed running and sprint distance than other positions at MD-3 and MD-4 (p < 0.05; ES: 0.8-1.7). The coefficient of variation for weekly training sessions ranged from ∼40% for MD-3 and MD-4 to ∼80% for MD + 1R. The data demonstrate that the external load of a structured microcycle varied substantially based on the players training day and position. This information could be useful for applied sports scientists when trying to systematically manage load, particularly compensatory conditioning for players without game time.

No abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the effect of playing formation on high-intensity running and technical performance during elite soccer matches. Twenty English FA Premier League games were analysed using a multiple-camera computerized tracking system (n = 153 players). Overall ball possession did not differ (P < 0.05) between 4-4-2, 4-3-3 and 4-5-1 formations (50%, s = 7 vs. 49%, s = 8 vs. 44%, s = 6). No differences were observed in high-intensity running between 4-4-2, 4-3-3 and 4-5-1 formations. Compared with 4-4-2 and 4-3-3 formations, players in a 4-5-1 formation performed less very high-intensity running when their team was in possession (312 m, s = 196 vs. 433 m, s = 261 vs. 410 m, s = 270; P 5 0.05) but more when their team was not in possession (547 m, s = 217 vs. 461 m, s = 156 vs. 459 m, s = 169; P < 0.05). Attackers in a 4-3-3 performed ~30% more (P < 0.05) high-intensity running than attackers in 4-4-2 and 4-5-1 formations. However, the fraction of successful passes was highest in a 4-4-2 (P < 0.05) compared with 4-3-3 and 4-5-1 formations. The results suggest that playing formation does not influence the overall activity profiles of players, except for attackers, but impacts on very high-intensity running activity with and without ball possession and some technical elements of performance.

The aim of this study was to examine the effects of high (HPBPT) and low percentage ball possession teams (LPBPT) on physical and technical profiles in elite soccer matches. Match performance data were collected from players in the English FA Premier League (n = 810) using a multiple-camera computerised tracking system. Physical indicators such as the total (10690 ± 996 vs 10778 ± 979 m; effect size [ES] = 0.11) and high-intensity running distance covered in matches (931 ± 299 vs 938 ± 311 m; ES = 0.13) did not differ between HPBPT and LPBPT. However, high-intensity running with ball possession in HPBPT was 31% higher (P < 0.01) than LPBPT (449 ± 266 vs 343 ± 236 m; ES = 0.42) but 22% lower without ball possession (423 ± 153 vs 539 ± 177 m; ES = 0.73). Players in HPBPT performed 44% more (P < 0.01) passes than those in LPBPT (35.3 ± 14.2 vs 24.6 ± 11.2; ES = 0.83). This trend was also evident (P < 0.05) for successful passes, received passes, touches per possession, shots, dribbles and final-third entries (ES range of 0.20-0.94). Central defenders of LPBPT covered 33% less (P < 0.01) high-intensity running with ball possession than central defenders of HPBPT. While fullbacks, attackers, central and wide midfielders of LPBPT covered more (P < 0.01) high-intensity running without and less with ball possession than their HPBPT counterparts (ES range of 0.91-1.23). Technical indicators such as total passes and passes received were higher (P < 0.01) across all positions in HPBPT than LPBPT (ES range of 0.82-1.52). The data demonstrate that percentage ball possession does not influence the overall activity profile of a team but impacts on the composition of high-intensity running efforts (with and without ball) and some technical elements of performance. Positionspecific changes in physical and technical profiles were evident for teams employing different ball possession percentages and this information could aid training preparation.

The main aim was to determine the differences between four training games and competitive matches (CM) according to position and compared to the most demanding passages (MDP) of competitive match play. Global Positioning System data were obtained from 21 football players belonging to the reserve squad of a Spanish La Liga club during the 2015/16 season. The training games were small-sided games (SSGs) with 5 and 6 and large-sided games with 9 and 10 outfield players per team. The players were categorized based on positional groups: full back (FB), central defender (CD), midfielder (MF), offensive midfielder (OMF), and forward (FW). The variables recorded were the distance covered (DIS), DIS at high speed (HSR; >19.8 km·h -1 ), DIS at sprint (SPR; >25.2 km·h -1 ), high metabolic load distance (HMLD; >25.5 W·kg -1 ) all in m·min -1 , average metabolic power (AMP; W·kg -1 ) and number of high-intensity accelerations (ACC; >3 m·s -2 ) and decelerations (DEC; <-3 m·s -2 ), both in n·min -1 . The MDP was analysed using a rolling average method for AMP as a criterion variable, where maximal values were calculated for time windows of 5 and 10 minutes of CM and after that compared with the training game formats. As the SSG format increases, all the rest of the variables increase and the number of cases with significant interposition differences also increases (effect size [ES]: DIS: 0.7-2.2; HSR: 0.7-2.1; SPR: 0.8-1.4; HMLD: 0.9-2.0; AMP: 0.8-1.9; ACC: 0.8-1.7; DEC: 0.5-1.7). The large-sided game 10v10 + 2 goalkeepers over-stimulates sprint values relative to MDP (all: 121.0% of MDP, ES=0.5-1.8). This study provides useful information for coaching staff on the heightened impact of different training game formats on physical load, considering positional differences in relation to the MDP of competitive match play.

The purpose of this investigation was to determine the differences between halves in the most demanding passages of play in football players according to playing position and duration-specific activity. Global positioning system data were collected from twenty-three football players from a reserve squad of the Spanish La Liga. A total of 265 individual match half data were analysed across the competitive season. Players were categorised based on positional groups: full-back (FB), central defender (CD), midfielder (MF), offensive midfielder (OMF) and forwards (FW). The most demanding passage of match play was analysed using a rolling average method, where maximal values were calculated for five different time durations (1, 3, 5, 10 min and half completed) using distance (m·min-1), high metabolic load distance (HMLD; m·min-1) and average metabolic power (AMP; W·kg-1) as variables of interest. The differences between the first and second half increased as the rolling duration increased, reaching the greatest difference between halves in the complete half (45 min) in all the variables studied (ES = 0.54 ± 0.15, 0.75 ± 0.15 and 0.76 ± 0.15 in distance, HMLD and AMP). The CDs were the players that presented the greatest differences, and it was in the AMP variable where the greatest differences between the first and second half were found. Large decreases in AMP were found for CD (ES = -1.30 ± 0.36) and moderate decreases were found in AMP for FB (ES = -0.84 ± 0.30) and OMF (ES = -0.78 ± 0.37). These results provide insight into the most demanding passages of play to inform training practices for specific football playing positions.

No abstract

No abstract