PURPOSE: To test the interchangeability of 2 match-analysis approaches for external-load detection considering arbitrary selected speeds and metabolic power (MP) thresholds in male top-level soccer. METHODS: Data analyses were performed considering match physical performance of 60 matches (1200 player cases) of randomly selected Spanish, German, and English first-division championship matches (2013-14 season). Match analysis was performed with a validated semiautomated multicamera system operating at 25 Hz. RESULTS: During a match, players covered 10,673 ± 348 m, of which 1778 ± 208 m and 2759 ± 241 m were performed at high intensity, as measured using speed (≥16 km/h, HI) and metabolic power (≥20 W/kg, MPHI) notations. High-intensity notations were nearly perfectly associated (r = .93, P < .0001). A huge method bias (980.63 ± 87.82 m, d = 11.67) was found when considering MPHI and HI. Very large correlations were found between match total distance covered and MPHI (r = .84, P < .0001) and HI (r = .74, P < .0001). Player high-intensity decelerations (≥-2 m/s2) were very largely associated with MPHI (r = .73, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The speed and MP methods are highly interchangeable at relative level (magnitude rank) but not absolute level (measure magnitude). The 2 physical match-analysis methods can be independently used to track match external load in elite-level players. However, match-analyst decisions must be based on use of a single method to avoid bias in external-load determination.
PURPOSE: To test the interchangeability of 2 match-analysis approaches for external-load detection considering arbitrary selected speeds and metabolic power (MP) thresholds in male top-level soccer. METHODS: Data analyses were performed considering match physical performance of 60 matches (1200 player cases) of randomly selected Spanish, German, and English first-division championship matches (2013-14 season). Match analysis was performed with a validated semiautomated multicamera system operating at 25 Hz. RESULTS: During a match, players covered 10,673 ± 348 m, of which 1778 ± 208 m and 2759 ± 241 m were performed at high intensity, as measured using speed (≥16 km/h, HI) and metabolic power (≥20 W/kg, MPHI) notations. High-intensity notations were nearly perfectly associated (r = .93, P < .0001). A huge method bias (980.63 ± 87.82 m, d = 11.67) was found when considering MPHI and HI. Very large correlations were found between match total distance covered and MPHI (r = .84, P < .0001) and HI (r = .74, P < .0001). Player high-intensity decelerations (≥-2 m/s2) were very largely associated with MPHI (r = .73, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The speed and MP methods are highly interchangeable at relative level (magnitude rank) but not absolute level (measure magnitude). The 2 physical match-analysis methods can be independently used to track match external load in elite-level players. However, match-analyst decisions must be based on use of a single method to avoid bias in external-load determination.
Entities:
Keywords:
association football; high intensity; match analysis; metabolic power
Authors: Eduard Pons; Tomás García-Calvo; Ricardo Resta; Hugo Blanco; Roberto López Del Campo; Jesús Díaz García; Juan José Pulido Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-08-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Cristian Savoia; Johnny Padulo; Roberto Colli; Emanuele Marra; Allistair McRobert; Neil Chester; Vito Azzone; Samuel A Pullinger; Dominic A Doran Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-12-20 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: José Luis Arjol-Serrano; Miguel Lampre; Adrián Díez; Daniel Castillo; Fernando Sanz-López; Demetrio Lozano Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-14 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: José E Teixeira; Pedro Forte; Ricardo Ferraz; Miguel Leal; Joana Ribeiro; António J Silva; Tiago M Barbosa; António M Monteiro Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-08 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Filipe Manuel Clemente; Pantelis Theodoros Nikolaidis; Thomas Rosemann; Beat Knechtle Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2019-04-17 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Mauro Miguel; Rafael Oliveira; Nuno Loureiro; Javier García-Rubio; Sergio J Ibáñez Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-08 Impact factor: 3.390