Physical and technical demands of offence, defence, and contested phases of play in Australian Football

Abstract

Background This study compared the physical demands and effect of field location for different phases of play (offence, defence and contested), and examined the physical and technical demands of successful and unsuccessful phases of play during Australian Football matches. Methods Global positioning system (GPS) and technical performance data were collected from 32 male Australian Football players in one club over 19 games in the 2019 season. The GPS data was aligned with phases of play acquired using Champion Data. Linear mixed models were used to detect differences between phases of play and field location which were further contextualized using Cohen’s d effect size. Results Physical demands were greatest (p < 0.001) in defensive phases for backs (ES 0.61 to 1.42), and offensive phases for midfielders (ES 0.65 to 0.96) and forwards (ES 0.84 to 1.94). Additionally, distance and high-speed running were lowest in contested phases irrespective of playing position. Distance and high-speed running were greatest in larger field locations (e.g., full ground). No pattern was evident for accelerations or decelerations. Successful offensive plays demonstrated greater physical and technical outputs for midfielders and forwards, whereas the opposite was found for backs. Physical output was largely greater in unsuccessful defensive plays for all positions; however, the rate of tackles and marks was greater during successful defence. Conclusion These findings enable a greater understanding of the demands of Australian Football matches, and can be utilized to inform both representative training design, and the evaluation of player performance.

Effects of Physical Training on Speed and Strength in Long-Distance Runners

“…It can be seen from Table 1 that, a total of 40 students were included in the study and were randomly divided into two groups, 20 in the experimental group and 20 in the control group, all of whom were boys, with an average age of 21.4 ± 0.9 years old, the mean values of the control group and the experimental group were 0.8 and 0.7, respectively, and the corresponding p value was 0.250; In terms of height, the mean values of the control group and the experimental group were 4.0 and 3.9, respectively, and the corresponding p value was 0.665; In terms of body weight, the mean values of the control group and the experimental group were 4.3 and 6.9, respectively, and the corresponding p value was 0.763; In terms of BMT, the mean values of the control group and the experimental group were 1.48 and 1.44, respectively, and the corresponding p value was 0.636; On the index of exercise years, the mean values of the control group and the experimental group were 1.1 and 1.3, respectively, and the corresponding p value was 0.254; In the special data, the p values of the control group and the experimental group were 0.723, 0.363, 0.212, 0.723, 0.677, and 0.723, respectively. 9 The corresponding p values of these six indicators were all greater than 0.05, and there was no significant difference between the control group and the experimental group in the six indicators of age, height, weight, BMI, years of exercise, and specialties.…”

Factors Affecting Physical and Technical Performance in Australian Football

“…After the completion of a match, the microsensor technology data were downloaded onto the proprietary software (Playertek Cloud). In-line with previous research (48,49), periods of BiP and successful offence and defence (Table 1) were identified through a timeline of events provided by Champion Data (Melbourne, Australia)-a commercial company that codes events with associated time stamps for the AF League (AFL) and WAFL-and manually entered on the microsensor technology data.…”

“…Maximum BiP phases (e.g., the one with the highest meters per minute) were then obtained for each of the 3 microsensor technology metrics for every player, in every game. Periods of successful offense and defense were cleaned in-line with previous research (49) by removing all phases where the player did not complete the full phase of play (e.g., were rotated off) and were then summed so that each player had a total for each phase in each match. Periods of successful offense and defense were then contextualized with technical data, based on previously described definitions, and expressed per minute of playing time (7,27):…”

“…Recently, match analysis methods have shifted from a wholegame approach (e.g., total distance travelled) to specific phases of play such as the assessment of maximum periods of play, either through using rolling time frames (14,28) or the ball in play (BiP) method (48), as well as periods of offense and defense (20,36,49).…”

“…It has been also demonstrated that significant differences in physical and technical performance exist between successful and unsuccessful phases of offense and defense (49). Despite the breadth of information available concerning factors that may affect whole-game running performance, it may be useful to understand those that affect specific phases of play.…”