Technical and Tactical Training Load in Professional Volleyball Players

Abstract

Purpose: To analyze the technical and tactical training load in professional volleyball players, using subjective internal training load (session rating of perceived exertion [SRPE]) and objective internal training load (training impulse of the heart rate [HR]) and the relationship between them. Methods: The sample was composed of 15 male professional volleyball players. They were monitored during 37 training sessions that included both technical (n = 23) and tactical (n = 14) training. Technical and training load was calculated using SRPE and training impulse of the HR. Results: Significant correlations were found between the methods in tactical (r = .616) and technical training (r = −.414). Furthermore, it was noted that technical training occurs up to 80% of HRmax (zone 3) and tactical training between 70% and 90% of HRmax (zones 3–4). Conclusions: The training impulse of the HR method has proved to be effective for training-load control during tactical training. However, it was limited compared with technical training. Thus, the use of SRPE is presented as a more reliable method in the different types of technical training in volleyball.

Untitled

“…heart rates at very low intensities (40-70% of the maximum HR). Duarte, et al [8] [4,6,18]. Interestingly, the average ATL value (technical + strength training) in the present study (3.332 ± 1.297 AU), which did not include the tactical training load, was very similar to the TWTL values of the mentioned studies.…”

“…The TECTL showed significant differences between the measured periods, with the highest value during CPI and the lowest value during CPIII, in which the team participated in the second phase [8,26]. Bara Filho, et al [17] identified that professional volleyball players maintained heart rates (HR) around 35.8% of the general training in zone 2 (60-70% of maximum HR), while Gabbett, et al [26] demonstrated with junior athletes of Australian volleyball that most of the time (57.4%) in the most analytical technical training athletes maintained to Wave Periodization (WP), with predominance and alternation of maximum strength, explosive strength, and strength speed between weeks and training sessions [24].…”

“…Athletes were usually divided into small groups (G1, G2, G3) based on activities to be performed, or based on the needed development areas of each athlete. Before the first strength or technical speed, rapid movements in various directions, dives on the court, and successive vertical jumps, all integrated with the execution of specific technical skills of volleyball [4,[6][7][8][9]. Despite countless factors that can influence an athlete's success, it is essential that athletes have physical, technical, and tactical proficiency for optimal sports performance [5].…”

“…The simplicity of the method, the ease of use with large groups of athletes, in addition to its economic viability, make it an extremely practical method for programming resistance training for sports teams [12,15]. In volleyball, confirmation of the method's validity (RPE session) has already been demonstrated in several studies with the most different approaches in relation to monitoring the training load [4,[6][7][8][16][17][18][19][20]. However, most of the aforementioned approaches used global training load analyses, with a unified record of physical, technical, and tactical work performed by athletes in their routines in a single score.…”

“…the training load [8]. In addition, the registration of the different workloads applied can be interpreted with results of physical, technical and tactical performance in training and games more accurately.…”