Abstract
ABSTRACT This study compared weekly training-load (TL), training-monotony (TM), and training-strain (TS) in 80 professional football players (28.1 ± 3.2 yrs, 78.0 ± 5.9 kg, and 182.0 ± 4.8 cm), considering two lengths (6 and 7 days between matches), two types of periodization strategies (placing the compensatory session in MD+1 [P1] or MD+2 [P2] post-match-day) and two players’ status, starters, and non-starters. Using Global Positioning Technology, the monitored variables were: Player Load (PL), Total Distance (TD), distances at various speeds (>21 [HSR], >24 [VHSR], and > 27 [SPR] km·h−1), number of accelerations (>2 m·s−2, ACC), and decelerations (<-2 m·s−2, DEC). Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney non-parametric statistical tests were used for loading strategy differences. In both lengths and periodization strategies of the micro-cycles, non-starters trained more than starters. There were differences in the quantity (TL) and distribution (TM and TS) demand considering the micro-cycle’s length and periodization strategy. In MD+1 (P1), non-starters accumulated higher TL, showing moderate to large Cohen’s d magnitudes in HSR, VHSR, SPR, PL, and TD. For starters, training in MD+2 (P2) resulted in higher values (p < 0.05) of TL, TM and TS. The coaching staff needs to anticipate TL, TM, and TS by considering players’ status, periodization strategy, and the number of training sessions between matches.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
