Search

Purpose: To quantify the frequencies and timings of rugby union match-play phases (ie, attacking, defending, ball in play [BIP], and ball out of play [BOP]) and then compare the physical characteristics of attacking, defending, and BOP between forwards and backs. Methods: Data were analyzed from 59 male rugby union academy players (259 observations). Each player wore a microtechnology device (OptimEye S5; Catapult, Melbourne, Australia) with video footage analyzed for phase timings and frequencies. Dependent variables were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model and assessed with magnitude-based inferences and Cohen d effect sizes (ES). Results: Attack, defense, BIP, and BOP times were 12.7 (3.1), 14.7 (2.5), 27.4 (2.9), and 47.4 (4.1) min, respectively. Mean attack (26 [17] s), defense (26 [18] s), and BIP (33 [24] s) phases were shorter than BOP phases (59 [33] s). The relative distance in attacking phases was similar (112.2 [48.4] vs 114.6 [52.3] m·min−1, ES = 0.00 ± 0.23) between forwards and backs but greater in forwards (114.5 [52.7] vs 109.0 [54.8] m·min−1, ES = 0.32 ± 0.23) during defense and greater in backs during BOP (ES = −0.66 ± 0.23). Conclusions: Total time in attack, defense, and therefore BIP was less than BOP. Relative distance was greater in forwards during defense, whereas it was greater in backs during BOP and similar between positions during attack. Players should be exposed to training intensities from in-play phases (ie, attack and defense) rather than whole-match data and practice technical skills during these intensities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To identify which combination metrics of external and internal training load (TL) capture similar or unique information for individual professional players during skills training in rugby union using principal-component (PC) analysis. Methods: TL data were collected from 21 male professional rugby union players across a competitive season. This included PlayerLoad™, total distance, and individualized high-speed distance (>61% maximal velocity; all external TL) obtained from a microtechnology device (OptimEye X4; Catapult Innovations, Melbourne, Australia) that was worn by each player and the session rating of perceived exertion (RPE) (internal TL). PC analysis was conducted on each individual to extract the underlying combinations of the 4 TL measures that best describe the total information (variance) provided by the measures. TL measures with PC loadings (PCL) above 0.7 were deemed to possess well-defined relationships with the extracted PC. Results: The findings show that from the 4 TL measures, the majority of an individual's TL information (first PC: 55–70%) during skills training can be explained by session RPE (PCL: 0.72–0.95), total distance (PCL: 0.86–0.98), or PlayerLoad (PCL: 0.71–0.98). High-speed distance was the only variable to relate to the second PC (PCL: 0.72–1.00), which captured additional TL information (+19–28%). Conclusions: Findings suggest that practitioners could quantify the TL of rugby union skills training with one of PlayerLoad, total distance, or session RPE plus high-speed distance while limiting omitted information of the TL imposed during professional rugby union skills training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To quantify and compare the maximum running intensities during rugby union match-play. Running intensity was quantified using micro-technology devices (S5 Optimeye, Catapult) from 202 players during 24 matches (472 observations). Instantaneous speed was used to calculate relative distance (m·min−1) using a 0.1 s rolling mean for different time durations (15 and 30 s and 1, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, and 10 min). Data were analysed using a linear mixed-model and assessed with magnitude-based inferences and effect sizes (ES). Running intensity for consecutive durations (e.g., 15 s vs. 30 s, 30 s vs. 1 min, etc.) decreased as time increased (ES = 0.48-2.80). Running intensity was lower in forwards than backs during all durations (−0.74 ±0.21 to −1.19 ±0.21). Running intensity for the second row and back row positions was greater than the front row players at all durations (−0.58 ±0.38 to −1.18 ±0.29). Running intensity for scrum halves was greater (0.46 ±0.43 to 0.86 ±0.39) than inside and outside backs for all durations besides 15 and 30 s. Front rowers and scrum halves were markedly different from other sub-positional groups and should be conditioned appropriately. Coaches working in academy rugby can use this information to appropriately overload the intensity of running, specific to time durations and positions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to compare the physical and movement demands between training and matchplay in schoolboy and academy adolescent rugby union (RU) players. Sixty-one adolescent male RU players (mean ± SD; age 17.0 ± 0.7 years) were recruited from four teams representing school and regional academy standards. Players were categorised into four groups based on playing standard and position: schoolboy forwards (n = 15), schoolboy backs (n = 15), academy forwards (n = 16) and academy backs (n = 15). Global positioning system and accelerometry measures were obtained from training and matchplay to assess within-group differences between conditions. Maximum data were analysed from 79 match files across 8 matches (1.3 ± 0.5 matches per participant) and 152 training files across 15 training sessions (2.5 ± 0.5 training sessions per participant). Schoolboy forwards were underprepared for low-intensity activities experienced during match-play, with schoolboy backs underprepared for all movement demands. Academy forwards were exposed to similar physical demands in training to matches, with academy backs similar to or exceeding values for all measured variables. Schoolboy players were underprepared for many key, position-specific aspects of match-play, which could place them at greater risk of injury and hinder performance, unlike academy players who were better prepared. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim was to compare the physical characteristics of under-18 academy and schoolboy rugby union competition by position (forwards and backs). Using a microsensor unit, match characteristics were recorded in 66 players. Locomotor characteristics were assessed by maximum sprint speed (MSS) and total, walking, jogging, striding and sprinting distances. The slow component (<2 m · s-1) of PlayerLoadTM (PLslow), which is the accumulated accelerations from the three axes of movement, was analysed as a measure of low-speed activity (e.g., rucking). A linear mixed-model was assessed with magnitude-based inferences. Academy forwards and backs almost certainly and very likely covered greater total distance than school forwards and backs. Academy players from both positions were also very likely to cover greater jogging distances. Academy backs were very likely to accumulate greater PLslow and the academy forwards a likely greater sprinting distance than school players in their respective positions. The MSS, total, walking and sprinting distances were greater in backs (likely-almost certainly), while forwards accumulated greater PLslow (almost certainly) and jogging distance (very likely). The results suggest that academy-standard rugby better prepares players to progress to senior competition compared to schoolboy rugby. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]