Physical and technical demands of Australian football: an analysis of maximum ball in play periods.
Accelerations
GPS
High-intensity activity
High-speed running
Microsensor technology
Journal
BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation
ISSN: 2052-1847
Titre abrégé: BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101605016
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Jan 2022
25 Jan 2022
Historique:
received:
21
09
2021
accepted:
18
01
2022
entrez:
26
1
2022
pubmed:
27
1
2022
medline:
27
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study compares ball in play (BiP) analyses and both whole game (WG) and quarter averaged data for physical and technical demands of sub-elite Australian football (AF) players competing in the West Australian Football League across playing positions. Microsensor data were collected from 33 male AF players in one club over 19 games of the 2019 season. BiP time periods and technical performance data (e.g., kicks) were acquired from the Champion Data timeline of statistics, and time matched to the microsensor data. Linear mixed modelling was utilised to establish differences between maximum BiP periods and averaged data. The analyses indicated significant differences (p < 0.0001) between maximum BiP and WG data for all metrics and all playing position (half-line, key position, and midfielders). The percentage difference was greatest for very high-speed running (171-178%), accelerations (136-142%), high-intensity efforts (128-139%), and high-speed running (134-147%) compared to PlayerLoad™ (50-56%) and total running distance (56-59%). No significant (p > 0.05) differences were evident for maximum BiP periods when they were compared between playing positions (i.e., half line vs key position vs midfield). Significant (p < 0.0001) differences were also noted between maximum BiP phases and averaged data across all 4 quarters, for each microsensor metric, and all playing positions. Technical actions (e.g., kicks and handballs) were observed in 21-48% of maximum BiP phases, depending on playing positions and microsensor metric assessed, with kicks and handballs constituting > 50% of all actions performed. These results show the BiP analysis method provides a more accurate assessment of the physical demands and technical actions performed by AF players, which are underestimated when using averaged data. The data presented in this study may be used to inform the design and monitoring of representative practice, ensuring that athletes are prepared for both the physical and technical demands of the most demanding passages of play.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
This study compares ball in play (BiP) analyses and both whole game (WG) and quarter averaged data for physical and technical demands of sub-elite Australian football (AF) players competing in the West Australian Football League across playing positions.
METHODS
METHODS
Microsensor data were collected from 33 male AF players in one club over 19 games of the 2019 season. BiP time periods and technical performance data (e.g., kicks) were acquired from the Champion Data timeline of statistics, and time matched to the microsensor data. Linear mixed modelling was utilised to establish differences between maximum BiP periods and averaged data.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The analyses indicated significant differences (p < 0.0001) between maximum BiP and WG data for all metrics and all playing position (half-line, key position, and midfielders). The percentage difference was greatest for very high-speed running (171-178%), accelerations (136-142%), high-intensity efforts (128-139%), and high-speed running (134-147%) compared to PlayerLoad™ (50-56%) and total running distance (56-59%). No significant (p > 0.05) differences were evident for maximum BiP periods when they were compared between playing positions (i.e., half line vs key position vs midfield). Significant (p < 0.0001) differences were also noted between maximum BiP phases and averaged data across all 4 quarters, for each microsensor metric, and all playing positions. Technical actions (e.g., kicks and handballs) were observed in 21-48% of maximum BiP phases, depending on playing positions and microsensor metric assessed, with kicks and handballs constituting > 50% of all actions performed.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
These results show the BiP analysis method provides a more accurate assessment of the physical demands and technical actions performed by AF players, which are underestimated when using averaged data. The data presented in this study may be used to inform the design and monitoring of representative practice, ensuring that athletes are prepared for both the physical and technical demands of the most demanding passages of play.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35078517
doi: 10.1186/s13102-022-00405-5
pii: 10.1186/s13102-022-00405-5
pmc: PMC8790884
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
15Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2007 Aug;29(4):457-78
pubmed: 17968048
J Sci Med Sport. 2017 Jul;20(7):689-694
pubmed: 28131505
Sci Med Footb. 2021 Feb;5(1):72-78
pubmed: 35073233
J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2015 Sep;55(9):931-9
pubmed: 26470636
Int J Sports Med. 2012 Feb;33(2):89-93
pubmed: 22095328
Sports Med. 2018 Jul;48(7):1673-1694
pubmed: 29633084
J Strength Cond Res. 2019 Dec;33(12):3374-3383
pubmed: 30694964
J Sci Med Sport. 2018 Oct;21(10):1090-1094
pubmed: 29559318
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2011 Sep;6(3):367-79
pubmed: 21911862
Front Sports Act Living. 2020 Dec 23;2:608939
pubmed: 33426520
J Sci Med Sport. 2018 Jun;21(6):635-639
pubmed: 29126659
J Strength Cond Res. 2016 May;30(5):1470-90
pubmed: 26439776
Hum Mov Sci. 2019 Aug;66:621-630
pubmed: 31326736
J Sci Med Sport. 2010 Sep;13(5):543-8
pubmed: 19853508
J Sci Med Sport. 2015 Mar;18(2):219-24
pubmed: 24589369
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2011 Sep;6(3):311-21
pubmed: 21911857
J Strength Cond Res. 2016 Aug;30(8):2129-37
pubmed: 26808858
J Strength Cond Res. 2021 Oct 1;35(10):2818-2823
pubmed: 31268988
J Sports Sci. 2019 Jul;37(14):1600-1608
pubmed: 30747582
J Sports Sci. 2021 Oct;39(19):2232-2241
pubmed: 34000962
Sports Med. 2018 Nov;48(11):2549-2575
pubmed: 30088218
J Strength Cond Res. 2022 Dec 1;36(12):3415-3421
pubmed: 32898037
J Sports Sci. 2016 Oct;34(19):1893-900
pubmed: 26853070
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2018 Apr 1;13(4):434-441
pubmed: 28872377
J Sports Sci. 2020 Jul;38(14):1682-1689
pubmed: 32342727
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2012 Jun;7(2):183-5
pubmed: 22634968