Abstract
Soccer players perform a variety of training drills to develop the physical, technical and tactical qualities required for match-play. The role of coaches in prescribing training suggests that players may not always meet physical targets set by conditioning staff. To quantify the physical outputs elicited by different training drill types, 183 professional soccer players were monitored over 8 seasons using Microelectromechanical Systems during normal training, yielding 65,825 drill observations [362 ± 341 observations·player−1]. Linear mixed models assessed the influence of drill type, head coach and playing position on physical output. Drills lasted ~14 min, eliciting total distances and high speed running of ~1000 m and 40 m, respectively. Conditioning drills elicited substantially greater relative high-speed running [18.8 ± 27.2 m.min−1] and Sprint [3.5 ± 9.4 m.min−1] distances than all other drill types. The proportion of training drill types used and external outputs elicited per drill were affected by the head coach. Midfielders recorded the highest total distance [77.3 ± 36.1 m.min] and PlayerLoad™ [8.29 ± 3.54] of any playing position, whilst the lowest outputs were recorded by goalkeepers. This study provides reference data for practitioners when seeking to manipulate training prescription to achieve physical output targets whilst also meeting the team’s technical and tactical objectives.
Highlights
Soccer is an intermittent, primarily aerobic activity [1], with bouts of high intensity efforts such as high speed running (HSR) Sprinting and accelerations/decelerations performed throughout [2].To ensure that players are prepared to cope with the physical demands of match-play whilst minimizing the risk of injury, it is imperative that training sessions provide a stimulus, such as training load, that is sufficient to elicit adaptations [3]
This study aimed to quantify the external physical outputs elicited by different types of training drills performed by professional soccer players
Pairwise comparisons highlighted that duration [all p ≤ 0.001; ES: 0.08–1.46, trivial to large], absolute [all p ≤ 0.001, except for p = 0.031 for PS versus POS; ES: 0.05–1.09, trivial to moderate] and relative [all p ≤ 0.001; ES: 0.02–2.70, trivial to very large] total distance, relative PlayerLoadTM all [p ≤ 0.001; ES: 0.14–0.99, trivial to moderate], the relative number of high accelerations [all p ≤ 0.001; ES: 0.06–0.63, trivial to moderate] and the relative number of high decelerations [all p ≤ 0.001; ES: 0.06–0.97, trivial to moderate] differed for all between-drill comparisons
Summary
Primarily aerobic activity [1], with bouts of high intensity efforts such as high speed running (HSR) Sprinting and accelerations/decelerations performed throughout [2]. To ensure that players are prepared to cope with the physical demands of match-play whilst minimizing the risk of injury, it is imperative that training sessions provide a stimulus, such as training load, that is sufficient to elicit adaptations [3]. Excessive training loads or large fluctuations in a player’s. Sci. 2020, 10, 8149 physical loading patterns can increase injury-risk in team sport players [4,5,6]. Ongoing monitoring and manipulation of a player’s physical loads within the context of a periodized preparation program represents a fundamental task for applied practitioners working in soccer [7]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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.
