Cargando…
Comparison of the Physical Demands of Friendly Matches and Different Types On-Field Integrated Training Sessions in Professional Soccer Players
The aim of this study was to investigate the relationships among physical demands of two friendly matches (FMs) and three task training sessions (TS(1,2,3)) combining in a different way: a Small-Sided Game (SSG), Mini-Goals (MG), a ball Circuit Training (CT) and a Large-Sided Game (LSG): SSG+MG+LSG...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7215886/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32331459 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17082904 |
Sumario: | The aim of this study was to investigate the relationships among physical demands of two friendly matches (FMs) and three task training sessions (TS(1,2,3)) combining in a different way: a Small-Sided Game (SSG), Mini-Goals (MG), a ball Circuit Training (CT) and a Large-Sided Game (LSG): SSG+MG+LSG (TS(1)), SSG+CT+LSG (TS(2)) and MG+CT+LSG (TS(3)). The TS and match demands in running intensities were monitored in fourteen professional soccer players (age = 23.2 ± 2.7 years, height = 178 ± 6 cm, body mass = 73.2 ± 6.9 kg, mean and SD, respectively) using 10-Hz global positioning system devices, and players’ perception of exertion was recorded after each session or match using a visual analogue scale. A one-way repeated measures ANOVA with a Bonferroni correction coupled with magnitude-based inferences were used. A principal component (PC) analysis was conducted on all variables to account for covariance. Three PCs were retained, explaining 76% of the variance: Component 1 explained 46.9% with the associated variables: Total Distance (TD) and distance covered in ranges of speed from >2.2 to <5 m/s, Player Load and Work Rest Ratio; component 2 explained 19.7% and was composed of TD at > 5 m/s and maximal running speed (MRS); and component 3 explained 9.5% and was represented by TD < 2.2 m/s, decelerations and accelerations. The ANOVA results showed significant differences (p < 0.05) among TS vs. FM in TD3, TD4, TD5, and TD > 5, TD, deceleration rate, acceleration rate, maximal running speed, exertion index, work rest ratio, and self-reported exertion. Therefore, the training routines did not replicate the main set of high intensity efforts experienced in competitive conditions. Additionally, PC analysis could be applied in order to select the most representative training and competitive conditions. |
---|