Strength and Power Development in Professional Rugby Union Players Over a Training and Playing Season

Gannon, Edward A.; Stokes, Keith; Trewartha, Grant

doi:10.1123/ijspp.2015-0337

Cited by 25 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For the backs improvement in 5 m sled drive time and SL CMJ PPO (6.8–14%) improved number of carries (by one). In elite level rugby union players, improvements of ~4% in power have been reported over the course of ~33 weeks (Pre to mid-season) [ 46 ]. Similar improvements in peak power output (4.4%) along with large improvements in strength (14.8%) have been reported during a preseason training period [ 47 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationships between physical qualities and key performance indicators during match-play in senior international rugby union players

Cunningham

Shearer

Drawer³

et al. 2018

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of physical tests to profile physical capabilities, and provide training direction to athletes is common practice. Likewise, in professional team sports, notational analysis codes the key contributions of each player during competition. Limited studies have however investigated relationships between physical capabilities and key performance indicators (KPIs) of rugby union match-play. Elite professional players, categorised as forwards (n = 15) or backs (n = 14), from an international rugby union squad (n = 29) undertook assessments of isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP), bilateral and unilateral countermovement jumps (CMJ) and drop jumps (DJ; from 40 and 20 cm, respectively), and assessment of acceleration (10 m), a 5 m weighted sled drive, and a Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test level 1 (Yo-Yo IRTL1). Game statistics of the same players from 92 matches (~23 matches per player) during the 2014–15 season were analysed for effort and performance-based metrics. For forwards, Yo-Yo IRTL1 correlated significantly with; number of tackles made (r = 0.717), first three players at a ruck in both attack (r = 0.568) and defence (r = 0.581), number of effective rucks (r = 0.630), total possessions (r = 0.522), passes made (r = 0.651), percentage of carries over the gainline (r = 0.610), effective ruck success (r = 0.600), tackle success (r = 0.540), and the number of turnovers made (r = 0.518). Drop jump performance in forwards was associated with; the number of clean breaks (r = 0.558), dominant collisions (r = 0.589), and offloads (r = 0.594). For backs, the sled-drive test correlated with; number of carries (r = -0.751), first three players at an attacking ruck (r = -0.613), effective attacking rucks (r = -0.584), number of dominant collisions (r = -0.792) and offloads (r = -0.814). Likewise, for backs, IMTP peak force was related to; the number of possessions (r = 0.793), passes made (r = 0.792), effective attacking ruck percentage (r = 0.628), and the number of offloads (r = 0.621) whilst relative peak force correlated with; the percentage of carries over the gainline (r = 0.533), percent tackle success (r = 0.603) and effective attacking ruck percentage (r = 0.584). Regression analyses highlighted that only a small number of variables (i.e., carries, tackles, attacking and defensive first three at ruck) returned practically achievable changes (<20%) in physical qualities. In spite of this, and while leaving scope identification of further physical and/or performance predictors, greater strength, power and intermittent running performance were positively related to match-derived KPIs during competition. This may provide a basis for better integrating the strategies used by physical and technical performance-focused coaching staff to improve key performance indicators, and thus match performance, of rugby union players.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationships between physical qualities and key performance indicators during match-play in senior international rugby union players

Cunningham

Shearer

Drawer³

et al. 2018

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They reported a progressive increase between the groups on mass, strength, power and momentum, however no differences were found on aerobic endurance or speed times. Recent work by Gannon et al [27] showed improvements in strength and power measures over the course of a season in a professional club environment. The largest improvements were seen in the early to mid-season period with a drop off towards the end of the season but still achieving an overall gain from the start of the season.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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...

show abstract

“…However, the increased requirement for stability has been shown to decrease the force output of agonists and when combined with the lower external resistance possible, suggests that unilateral exercises are perhaps less effective for the development of maximal strength (376,386). However, the results from this investigation support previous work (511) and suggest that unilateral exercises can effectively develop strength and also transfer strength to bilateral performance (Table 10. Previous research has reported that one resistance training session per week is sufficient to maintain strength (14,24,224,467). In the current investigation, although much shorter in duration than the previously mentioned studies, both intervention groups remained relatively Whilst rigorous planning was implemented, in a training study involving "real-world" athletes, it is not possible to control every aspect.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

Kinetics and Kinematics of the Squat and Step-up in Well-Trained Rugby Players

Appleby

Newton

Cormack

2019

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to examine the development of lower body strength using either bilateral or unilateral resistance training developmental rugby players (n = 33; mean training age = 5.4 ± 2.9 years; one repetition maximum (1RM) 90° squat = 178 ± 27 kg;) completed an 18-week randomised controlled training design (Bilateral group (BIL), n = 13; Unilateral group (UNI), n = 10; Comparison, n = 10). The 8-week training phase involved two lower body, volumeload matched resistance sessions per week (6-8 sets x 4-8 reps at 45-88% one repetition maximum [1RM]), differing only in the prescription of a bilateral (back squat) or unilateral (step-up) resistance exercise. Maximum strength was assessed by a randomised order of 1RM back squat and step-up testing and analysed for within-and between group differences using effect sizes (ES ± 90% confidence limits [CL]). Both training groups showed practically important improvements in their trained exercise (ES ± 90% CL: BIL = 0.67 ± 0.48; UNI = 0.74 ± 0.38) with transfer to their non-trained resistance exercise (BIL step-up = 0.27 ± 0.39: UNI squat = 0.42 ± 0.39). The difference between-groups in adaptation of squat strength was unclear (BIL ES =-0.34 ± 0.55), whilst the UNI group showed an advantage in step-up training (ES = 0.41 ± 0.36). The results demonstrate practically important increases in lower body strength can be achieved using bilateral or unilateral resistance training and development of that strength may be expressed in the movement not trained, supporting the transfer of strength training between exercises of similar joint movements and muscles. Coaches may choose to incorporate unilateral strength training where the prescription of bilateral training may be inhibited.

show abstract

Strength and Power Development in Professional Rugby Union Players Over a Training and Playing Season

Cited by 25 publications

References 27 publications

Relationships between physical qualities and key performance indicators during match-play in senior international rugby union players

Relationships between physical qualities and key performance indicators during match-play in senior international rugby union players

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

Kinetics and Kinematics of the Squat and Step-up in Well-Trained Rugby Players

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About