Movement Demands of Elite Under-20s and Senior International Rugby Union Players

Abstract

This study compared the movement demands of elite international Under-20 age grade (U20s) and senior international rugby union players during competitive tournament match play. Forty elite professional players from an U20 and 27 elite professional senior players from international performance squads were monitored using 10Hz global positioning systems (GPS) during 15 (U20s) and 8 (senior) international tournament matches during the 2014 and 2015 seasons. Data on distances, velocities, accelerations, decelerations, high metabolic load (HML) distance and efforts, and number of sprints were derived. Data files from players who played over 60 min (n = 258) were separated firstly into Forwards and Backs, and more specifically into six positional groups; FR–Front Row (prop & hooker), SR–Second Row, BR–Back Row (Flankers & No.8), HB–Half Backs (scrum half & outside half), MF–Midfield (centres), B3 –Back Three (wings & full back) for match analysis. Linear mixed models revealed significant differences between U20 and senior teams in both the forwards and backs. In the forwards the seniors covered greater HML distance (736.4 ± 280.3 vs 701.3 ± 198.7m, p = 0.01) and severe decelerations (2.38 ± 2.2 vs 2.28 ± 1.65, p = 0.05) compared to the U20s, but performed less relative HSR (3.1 ± 1.6 vs 3.2 ± 1.5, p < 0.01), moderate (19.4 ± 10.5 vs 23.6 ± 10.5, p = 0.01) and high accelerations (2.2 ± 1.9 vs 4.3 ± 2.7, p < 0.01) and sprint•min-1 (0.11 ± 0.06 vs 0.11 ± 0.05, p < 0.01). Senior backs covered a greater relative distance (73.3 ± 8.1 vs 69.1 ± 7.6 m•min-1, p < 0.01), greater High Metabolic Load (HML) distance (1138.0 ± 233.5 vs 1060.4 ± 218.1m, p < 0.01), HML efforts (112.7 ± 22.2 vs 98.8 ± 21.7, p < 0.01) and heavy decelerations (9.9 ± 4.3 vs 9.5 ± 4.4, p = 0.04) than the U20s backs. However, the U20s backs performed more relative HSR (7.3 ± 2.1 vs 7.2 ± 2.1, p <0.01) and sprint•min-1 (0.26 ± 0.07 vs 0.25 ± 0.07, p < 0.01). Further investigation highlighted differences between the 6 positional groups of the teams. The positional groups that differed the most on the variables measured were the FR and MF groups, with the U20s FR having higher outputs on HSR, moderate & high accelerations, moderate, high & severe decelerations, HML distance, HML efforts, and sprints•min-1. For the MF group the senior players produced greater values for relative distance covered, HSR, moderate decelerations, HML distance and sprint•min-1. The BR position group was most similar with the only differences seen on heavy accelerations (U20s higher) and moderate decelerations (seniors higher). Findings demonstrate that U20s internationals appear to be an adequate ‘stepping stone’ for preparing players for movement characteristics found senior International rugby, however, the current study highlight for the first time that certain positional groups may require more time to be able to match the movement demands required at a higher playing level than others. Conditioning staff must also bear in mind that the U20s players whilst maintaining or improvin...

Comparison of Game Movement Positional Profiles Between Professional Club and Senior International Rugby Union Players

“…Furthermore, when looking at relative meterage, our results showed higher numbers for all positions compared to a northern hemisphere senior international team (FRF: 67.1 vs. 61.1 m.min − 1 , SRF: 70.4 vs. 67.6 m.min − 1 , BRF: 72.4 vs. 69.9 m.min − 1 , HB: 78.5 vs. 77.4 m.min − 1 , C: 76.4 vs. 71.9 m.min − 1 , and OB: 82.4 vs. 70.8 m. min − 1 ) [11]. Whereas our current study found slightly lower figures than all positions from a southern hemisphere Super-15 team [19] with the exception of OB (82.5 vs. 82.5 m.min − 1 ) which may show the reliance on the different tactical roles between the teams.…”

“…At the start of season, each GPS-IMU unit was attributed for a given player to avoid any inter-device variability [9] between club and international games. Players were categorized into 6 different positions as per Cunningham et al [11]; front row forwards, FRF (n = 38; props (No. 1 and 3) and hooker; 30.1 ± 4.3 years, 1.86 ± 0.03 m, 116.3 ± 6.6 kg); second row forwards, SRF (n = 29; second rowers (No.…”

The ball in play demands of international rugby union

“…6 The assessment of in-game demands provides coaches with an understanding of what is required from players 7 , and helps establish physical standards to work on or towards. 8 Only two studies have attempted to quantify the physical demands of international rugby using Global Positioning Systems (GPS). 5,8 This method allows the measurement of in game movement patterns and velocities, whilst also monitoring these same metrics during training sessions.…”

“…8 Only two studies have attempted to quantify the physical demands of international rugby using Global Positioning Systems (GPS). 5,8 This method allows the measurement of in game movement patterns and velocities, whilst also monitoring these same metrics during training sessions. This allows the potential to monitor training with the aim of matching or superseding match-play demands, providing a physical and tactical stimulus 7 likely to positively transfer to competition.…”

“…The majority of club and international level studies have reported whole match or per half demands of rugby matches. 4,8,9 However, it is noteworthy that whole match averages may not reflect fluctuations in running or playing intensity that occur throughout match-play. 6,10,11 It has been suggested that team sport athletes should be exposed to training at 'worst-case scenario' (WCS) intensities, which align to the highest recorded intensity recorded within match-play.…”