Comparison of the Physical Demands of Friendly Matches and Different Types On-Field Integrated Training Sessions in Professional Soccer Players

Datos Bibliográficos

ID15479220
AutoresJesús Giménez (Universitat de València, autor de correspondencia), Jesus Vicente Gimenez (0000-0002-0794-4042, Universidad Europea de Madrid), Julen Castellano (0000-0001-5167-5284, University of the Basque Country), Patrycja Lipińska (0000-0002-8752-2623, Kazimierz Wielki University in Bydgoszcz), Mariusz Zasada (0000-0003-3941-7455, Kazimierz Wielki University in Bydgoszcz), Miguel‐ángel Gómez (0000-0002-9585-3158, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid)
Año2020
Volumen17
Número8
Páginas2904-2904
Fecha de publicación2020-04-22
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 1661-7827 • E-ISSN: 1660-4601
EditorialMultidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (PUBLISHER • CH)
DOI10.3390/ijerph17082904
PMID32331459
OpenAlexW3019479146
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas2
Referencias citadas23

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 and maximal running speed (MRS); and component 3 explained 9.5% and was represented by TD p 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

Analysis of variance · Bonferroni correction · Perceived exertion · Repeated measures design · Session (web analytics · Simulation · Statistics · Computer Science · Mathematics · Medicine · Psychology · Sport Psychology and Performance · Sports injuries and prevention · Sports Performance and Training · Internal Medicine