Search

The aims of this study were to: a) examine the relationships between high-intensity distances covered above generic and relative speed thresholds in English Premier League (EPL) matches across two consecutive seasons and b) analyze the effects of playing position and team possession. Sixteen elite male soccer players (seven defenders, six midfielders and three forwards) participated in this study (age 27.8 ± 3.5 years, height 183.7 ± 5.4 cm, body mass 83.9 ± 7.1 kg). An Optical Tracking System was used to collect the following variables: total distance covered; high-speed running distance (HSRD) (> 5.5 m/s); high-intensity running distance (HIRD) (5.5--7 m/s); sprint distance (> 7 m/s); total distance covered above Maximal Aerobic Speed (MAS); distance covered > 85% peak speed (PS); and distance > 30% Anaerobic Speed Reserve (ASR). All measures were analyzed as whole match totals and as distances covered in the periods of the team in possession (TIP), opponent team in possession (OTIP), and ball out of play (BOP). Analysis by position based on defenders, midfielders and forwards was also performed. Distance > 30% ASR was almost perfectly correlated with HSRD (r = 0.98), while distances > MAS were highly correlated with both HIRD (r = 0.91) and HSRD (r = 0.91), and distance > 85% PS were highly correlated with SD (r = 0.70). Although the generic and relative speed thresholds show almost perfect correlation, the differences between HSRD, HIRD and distance > MAS indicate that players may be exposed to more HIRD when using relative thresholds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aims of this study were to: a) examine the relationships between high-intensity distances covered above generic and relative speed thresholds in English Premier League (EPL) matches across two consecutive seasons and b) analyze the effects of playing position and team possession. Sixteen elite male soccer players (seven defenders, six midfielders and three forwards) participated in this study (age 27.8 ± 3.5 years, height 183.7 ± 5.4 cm, body mass 83.9 ± 7.1 kg). An Optical Tracking System was used to collect the following variables: total distance covered; high-speed running distance (HSRD) (> 5.5 m/s); high-intensity running distance (HIRD) (5.5–7 m/s); sprint distance (> 7 m/s); total distance covered above Maximal Aerobic Speed (MAS); distance covered > 85% peak speed (PS); and distance > 30% Anaerobic Speed Reserve (ASR). All measures were analyzed as whole match totals and as distances covered in the periods of the team in possession (TIP), opponent team in possession (OTIP), and ball out of play (BOP). Analysis by position based on defenders, midfielders and forwards was also performed. Distance > 30% ASR was almost perfectly correlated with HSRD ( r = 0.98), while distances > MAS were highly correlated with both HIRD ( r = 0.91) and HSRD ( r = 0.91), and distance > 85% PS were highly correlated with SD ( r = 0.70). Although the generic and relative speed thresholds show almost perfect correlation, the differences between HSRD, HIRD and distance > MAS indicate that players may be exposed to more HIRD when using relative thresholds.

The present study aimed to determine the physical-tactical profiles of elite football teams and individual players according to final league rankings. A total of 50 English Premier League matches (n = 100 match and 583 player observations) were analysed by coding the player's physical-tactical actions through synchronising tracking data and video. Final league rankings were categorised into Tiers: (A) 1st-5th ranking (n = 25), (B) 6th-10th ranking (n = 26), (C) 11th-15th ranking (n = 26), and (D) 16th-20th ranking (n = 23). One-way analyses of variance were used to compare match performances between different Tiers, and effect size (ES) was determined for the meaningfulness of the difference. Tier A teams covered 39-51% more high-intensity distance for 'Move to Receive/Exploit Space' (ES: 1.3-1.6, P < 0.01) and 'Run with Ball' (ES: 0.9-1.0, P < 0.05) than Tier C and D, and 23-94% more distance for 'Over/Underlap' (ES: 1.0, P < 0.01), 'Run in Behind/Penetrate' (ES: 0.7, P < 0.05), and 'Break into Box' (ES: 0.9, P < 0.05) compared to Tier C. Central and Wide Defensive Players in Tier A covered 65-551% more high-intensity 'Move to Receive/Exploit Space' distance compared to other Tiers (ES: 0.6-1.0, P < 0.01). Moreover, the additional options within the physical-tactical actions and zonal differences unveiled more meaningful insights into 'HOW' the top Tier teams physically and tactically perform. Thus, the amalgamated physical-tactical data help improve our understanding of a team's playing style relative to their competitive standard. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study aimed to determine the physical-tactical profiles of elite football teams and individual players according to final league rankings. A total of 50 English Premier League matches (n = 100 match and 583 player observations) were analysed by coding the player’s physical-tactical actions through synchronising tracking data and video. Final league rankings were categorised into Tiers: (A) 1st–5th ranking (n = 25), (B) 6th–10th ranking (n = 26), (C) 11th–15th ranking (n = 26), and (D) 16th–20th ranking (n = 23). One-way analyses of variance were used to compare match performances between different Tiers, and effect size (ES) was determined for the meaningfulness of the difference. Tier A teams covered 39–51% more high-intensity distance for ‘Move to Receive/Exploit Space’ (ES: 1.3–1.6, P < 0.01) and ‘Run with Ball’ (ES: 0.9–1.0, P < 0.05) than Tier C and D, and 23–94% more distance for ‘Over/Underlap’ (ES: 1.0, P < 0.01), ‘Run in Behind/Penetrate’ (ES: 0.7, P < 0.05), and ‘Break into Box’ (ES: 0.9, P < 0.05) compared to Tier C. Central and Wide Defensive Players in Tier A covered 65–551% more high-intensity ‘Move to Receive/Exploit Space’ distance compared to other Tiers (ES: 0.6–1.0, P < 0.01). Moreover, the additional options within the physical-tactical actions and zonal differences unveiled more meaningful insights into ‘HOW’ the top Tier teams physically and tactically perform. Thus, the amalgamated physical-tactical data help improve our understanding of a team’s playing style relative to their competitive standard.

The present study aimed to contextualise physical metrics with tactical actions according to general and specialised tactical roles. A total of 244 English Premier League players were analysed by coding player’s physical-tactical actions via the fusion of tracking data and video. Data were analysed across 5 general (Central Defensive Players = CDP, Wide Defensive Players = WDP, Central Midfield Players = CMP, Wide Offensive Players = WOP, Central Offensive Players = COP) and 11 specialised positions (Centre Backs = CB, Full-Backs = FB, Wing-Backs = WB, Box-to-Box Midfielders = B2BM, Central Defensive Midfielders = CDM, Central Attacking Midfielders = CAM, Wide Midfielders = WM, Wide Forwards = WF, Centre Forwards = CF). COP covered more distance at high-intensity (> 19.8 km· h-1) when performing actions such as ‘Break into Box’, Run in Behind/Penetrate’, and ‘Close Down/Press’ than other positions (ES: 0.6–5.2, P < 0.01). WOP covered more high-intensity ‘Run with Ball’ distance (ES: 0.7–1.7, P < 0.01) whereas WDP performed more ‘Over/Underlap’ distance than other positions (ES: 0.9–1.4, P < 0.01). CDP and WDP covered more high-intensity ‘Covering’ distances than other positions (ES: 0.4–2.4, P < 0.01). Nonetheless, data demonstrated that implementing specialised positional analysis relative to a generalised approach is more sensitive in measuring physical-tactical performances of players with the latter over or underestimating the match demands of the players compared to the former. A contextualised analysis may assist coaches and practitioners when designing position or even player-specific training drills since the data provides unique physical-tactical trends across specialised roles.

The present study aimed to contextualise physical metrics with tactical actions according to general and specialised tactical roles. A total of 244 English Premier League players were analysed by coding player's physical-tactical actions via the fusion of tracking data and video. Data were analysed across 5 general (Central Defensive Players = CDP, Wide Defensive Players = WDP, Central Midfield Players = CMP, Wide Offensive Players = WOP, Central Offensive Players = COP) and 11 specialised positions (Centre Backs = CB, Full-Backs = FB, Wing-Backs = WB, Box-to-Box Midfielders = B2BM, Central Defensive Midfielders = CDM, Central Attacking Midfielders = CAM, Wide Midfielders = WM, Wide Forwards = WF, Centre Forwards = CF). COP covered more distance at high-intensity (> 19.8 km ⋅ h-1) when performing actions such as 'Break into Box', Run in Behind/Penetrate', and 'Close Down/Press' than other positions (ES: 0.6--5.2, P < 0.01). WOP covered more high-intensity 'Run with Ball' distance (ES: 0.7--1.7, P < 0.01) whereas WDP performed more 'Over/Underlap' distance than other positions (ES: 0.9--1.4, P < 0.01). CDP and WDP covered more high-intensity 'Covering' distances than other positions (ES: 0.4--2.4, P < 0.01). Nonetheless, data demonstrated that implementing specialised positional analysis relative to a generalised approach is more sensitive in measuring physical-tactical performances of players with the latter over or underestimating the match demands of the players compared to the former. A contextualised analysis may assist coaches and practitioners when designing position or even player-specific training drills since the data provides unique physical-tactical trends across specialised roles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study aimed to determine the physical-tactical trends of elite players/teams during peak 1-, 3- and 5-min periods of match-play. A total of 50 English Premier League matches (n = 583 player observations) were analysed by coding the players’ physical-tactical activities through the synchronisation of tracking data and video. The contextualised data showed that during the peak periods (i.e., the most demanding passage of play), players/teams covered the largest distances for ‘Recovery Run’ (28–37%) out of possession and ‘Support Play’ (9–13%) in possession. In the following periods, players covered less high-intensity distance versus the average with a more pronounced decline in the next 1-min period than longer duration 3- and 5-min periods (48% vs ~25–30%, ES: 0.4–0.5, P < 0.01); team data showed similar trends with different relative patterns (31% vs 17–30%, ES: 0.5–0.8, P < 0.01). After peak periods, players/teams performed 20–53% less high-intensity distances for ‘Covering’ and ‘Recovery Run’ (ES: 0.2–0.7, P < 0.01) out of possession. However, players covered 28–91% less distance for ‘Run with Ball’ (ES: 0.1–0.5, P < 0.05) when in possession. Some physical-tactical actions exhibited inconsistency in different time durations of the next periods; however, these physical-tactical data were position-specific. This may signify that each position has certain physical-tactical actions to execute even after the peak periods, especially when they are tactically required to do so. As the data demonstrates unique physical-tactical trends of players/teams during the peak and next periods of play, this could help practitioners prescribe position- and player-specific drills, and better understand transient decrements in high-intensity running after intense passages of play.

The present study aimed to determine the physical-tactical trends of elite players/teams during peak 1-, 3- and 5-min periods of match-play. A total of 50 English Premier League matches (n = 583 player observations) were analysed by coding the players' physical-tactical activities through the synchronisation of tracking data and video. The contextualised data showed that during the peak periods (i.e., the most demanding passage of play), players/teams covered the largest distances for 'Recovery Run' (28--37%) out of possession and 'Support Play' (9--13%) in possession. In the following periods, players covered less high-intensity distance versus the average with a more pronounced decline in the next 1-min period than longer duration 3- and 5-min periods (48% vs ~25--30%, ES: 0.4--0.5, P < 0.01); team data showed similar trends with different relative patterns (31% vs 17--30%, ES: 0.5--0.8, P < 0.01). After peak periods, players/teams performed 20--53% less high-intensity distances for 'Covering' and 'Recovery Run' (ES: 0.2--0.7, P < 0.01) out of possession. However, players covered 28--91% less distance for 'Run with Ball' (ES: 0.1--0.5, P < 0.05) when in possession. Some physical-tactical actions exhibited inconsistency in different time durations of the next periods; however, these physical-tactical data were position-specific. This may signify that each position has certain physical-tactical actions to execute even after the peak periods, especially when they are tactically required to do so. As the data demonstrates unique physical-tactical trends of players/teams during the peak and next periods of play, this could help practitioners prescribe position- and player-specific drills, and better understand transient decrements in high-intensity running after intense passages of play. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of the present study was to analyse the influence of congested periods of matches on the acceleration (Acc) and deceleration (Dec) profiles of elite soccer players. Twenty-three elite male professional soccer players participated in the study across 31 official matches. Assessed periods included: (i) congested periods (three to four days between games), and (ii) non-congested periods (more than four days between games). Physical activity during matches was recorded during games using a 10Hz global positioning system device, coupled with a 100 Hz accelerometer, and was analysed according to the periods. Maximal Acc- (73.2 ± 20.3 vs. 84.918.5 m), high Acc- (244.0 ± 49.5 vs. 267.0 ± 37.8 m), maximal Dec- (139.0 ± 44.8 vs. 152.039.3 m) and the total decelerating- distance (5132 ± 690 vs. 5245 ± 552 m) were lower in congested than in non-congested periods (p 0.05). It was concluded that Acc and Dec match activities were significantly affected during congested periods compared to non-congested highlighting a possible fatigue accumulation being responsible for the observed decrement in physical activity. Monitoring Acc and Dec metrics throughout particular periods of congested fixtures amongst professional soccer teams is advised and may be a way to assess physical and fatigue status.

The aim of the present study was to analyse the influence of congested periods of matches on the acceleration (Acc) and deceleration (Dec) profiles of elite soccer players. Twenty-three elite male professional soccer players participated in the study across 31 official matches. Assessed periods included: (i) congested periods (three to four days between games), and (ii) non-congested periods (more than four days between games). Physical activity during matches was recorded during games using a 10Hz global positioning system device, coupled with a 100 Hz accelerometer, and was analysed according to the periods. Maximal Acc- (73.2 ± 20.3 vs. 84.918.5 m), high Acc- (244.0 ± 49.5 vs. 267.0 ± 37.8 m), maximal Dec- (139.0 ± 44.8 vs. 152.039.3 m) and the total decelerating- distance (5132 ± 690 vs. 5245 ± 552 m) were lower in congested than in non-congested periods (p < 0.05, effect size 0.31--0.70). Neither a main effect of playing position nor a period*playing position interaction on Acc and Dec were observed (p > 0.05). It was concluded that Acc and Dec match activities were significantly affected during congested periods compared to non-congested highlighting a possible fatigue accumulation being responsible for the observed decrement in physical activity. Monitoring Acc and Dec metrics throughout particular periods of congested fixtures amongst professional soccer teams is advised and may be a way to assess physical and fatigue status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]