Rugby game performances and weekly workload: Using of data mining process to enter in the complexity.

This study aimed to i) identify key performance indicators of professional rugby matches, ii) define synthetic indicators of performance and iii) analyze how weekly workload (2WL) influences match performance throughout an entire season at different time-points (considering WL of up to 8 weeks prior to competition). This study uses abundant sports data and data mining techniques to assess player performance and to determine the influence of 2WL on performance. WL, locomotor activity and rugby specific actions were collected on 14 professional players (26.9 ± 1.9 years) during training and official matches. In order to highlight key performance indicators, a mixed-linear model was used to compare the players' activity relatively to competition results. This analysis showed that defensive skills represent a fundamental factor of team performance. Furthermore, a principal component analysis demonstrated that 88% of locomotor activity could be highlighted by 2 dimensions including total distance, high-speed/metabolic efforts and the number of sprints and accelerations. The final purpose of this study was to analyze the influence that WL has on match performance. To verify this, 2 different statistical models were used. A threshold-based model, from data mining processes, identified the positive influence (p<0.05) that chronic body impacts has on the ability to win offensive 1 on 1 duels during competition. This study highlights practical implications necessary for developing a better understanding of rugby match performance through the use of data mining processes.

Introduction

Rugby union (RU) became a professional sport in 1995 and has since come across multiple ethical and financial issues. The incessant increase in game intensity and competitive demands (i.e. promotion-relegation championships), among other factors, has greatly contributed to enhanced risks of injury and non-functional adaptations [1,2,3]. Optimizing physical preparedness has, therefore, become the main concern for team staffs. Workload (WL) monitoring, its’ management and developing optimal adaptational capabilities are important parameters to consider in elite team-sport environments [4,5]. Indeed, many studies demonstrate the influence of weekly workloads (2WL) on acute and chronic physical performance, physiological adaptations and injury risks in elite rugby players [6,7].

In spite of the correlations between WL, performance, and more particularly physical performance, which are commonly accepted in team sports, very few studies have successfully established these relationships in a competitive context [8,9]. One of the main reasons certainly resides in the difficulty to identify and evaluate the key performance indicators (individual and collective) in team-sports. Nevertheless, for some time now, various studies succeed to reveal some tactical, technical and physical key performance indicators during RU games at different age categories and level of play [10,11,12]. Furthermore, elements of research outline some individual technical skills as being directly correlated to playing performance. Ortega et al. [13] and Den Hollander et al. [14] demonstrated that the percentage of successful tackles, the amount of defensive line breaks and the number of offensive duels won (tackle breaks) positively influenced individual and team performance during RU matches.

Other reason for the complexity of studying WL and its’ effect on game performance is the elaboration of a valid and reliable longitudinal monitoring protocol (training and competition). Indeed, according to Fernandez et al. [15], “Physical performance has not yet taken much attention from the research community, due to the difficulty of accessing this information with the same devices during training and competition”. For a few years now, microtechnology (GPS and inertial sensors) used in rugby has monitored activity during training and matches with acceptable accuracy [16]. Novel technology has provided the possibility of collecting sport specific data; individual (internal and external parameters) and team (match analysis) statistics. These tracking means provide staff with a large amount of data to analyze. Appropriate modelling of training WL and performance (in a competitive context) is necessary to give a practical meaning to this data [17].

The main objective of this study is to demonstrate how WL influences game performance (individual and collective) in short and moderate terms during a professional RU season. However, as mentioned above, studying the relationships between WL and match performance requires preliminary steps. Hence, the intermediate objectives will be i) to identify key performance indicators during professional RU matches, ii) to elaborate synthetic indicators of performance as to facilitate data analysis, iii) and finally to analyze the influence of 2WL on changes of match performance during an entire season.

Material and methods

Participants

Fourteen professional RU players (6 forwards and 8 backs) (age: 26.9 ± 1.9 years; height: 185 ± 7.9 cm and weight: 97.6 ± 13.2 kg) volunteered to participate in this study. All players had been playing professionally for several years (experience: 137.1 ± 73.4 professional matches) and were active members of the same team (CA Brive Correze which took part at the 1st professional division of French championship—Top 14). All subjects gave informed consent to participate in the experiment in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The study protocol was conducted with the support of medical and technical staffs of the professional team. Finally, the study respected the ethical guidelines of the Rennes university and research laboratory associated at this study.

Procedure

WL and match activity of 14 players were monitored throughout a professional RU season. WL parameters were obtained from different methods (S-RPE, heart-rate (HR) based methods, and GPS tracking). WL parameters were analyzed with different weekly rolling averages (up to 8 previous weeks). Rugby match activity was assessed by GPS tracking (locomotor activity) and completed with video analysis to identify sport-specific activity (tackle count, duels won, … See Table 1). Team performance (victory vs defeat and positive vs negative) was analyzed to highlight the key performance indicators during elite RU matches. Data mining and data mining processes were used once data collection was completed. This strategy was elaborated to identify key performance indicators and to underline the influence of WL parameters (acute and chronic) on RU performance.

Table 1

Listing of specific actions recorded and qualified by video analysis.

Actions	Abbr	Units abbr	Description
Tackle attempted	T	n	Number of tackles attempted during the match.
Successful tackle	ST	n	Number of tackles completed, when the players block the opposite player who carried the ball.
% of tackle successes	% ST	%	The percentage of tackle completed.
Offensive tackle	OT	n	Number of tackles where the player, in defensive context, pushes back the ball carrier.
Ruck participation	Ruck	n	Number of times where the player arrived in ruck to allow the attacking team to conserve the ball. Only the 3 first ruck participants were count.
% of ruck participation	% Ruck	%	Ruck participation relativized to the number of rucks performed by all the team.
Number of balls played	BP	n	Number of balls played by the player.
Meters won	M won	m	Number of meters covered by the ball carrier in direction to the try line (only when the player gains grounds).
Offensive dual won	ODW	n	Number of times where the players beat the defender in breaking the tackle.
Line break	LB	n	Number of times where the ball carrier breaks the defensive line.
Penalty	Pen	n	Number of penalties conceded by the player, signaled by the referee of the match.
Activity score	Act Sc	n.min-1	Number of specific actions mentioned above relativized to the ball-in-play time.

n: number; min: minutes; %: percentage, m: meters, n.min-1: number of actions by minute.

Raw data collection

The general organization and WL distribution during this season was presented in a previous study [6]. The season lasted 48 weeks including 8 pre-season microcycles. The competitive phase (40 weeks) contained 32 official matches. To reach the objectives of this present study, internal and external WL were quantified during training and matches. During matches, performance and physical activity were assessed by a microtechnological system (SPI-HPU, 5 Hz, GPSport, Australia), and though video analysis. Video analysis was used to record rugby-specific activity: attempted tackles, successful tackles, defensive line breaks, ruck participation, etc (Table 1). Team performance was identified from match results (victory vs defeat) to which was added another type of classification (cf. “Britannic Ranking”, see below) which considers the influence of match location on results [18].

Workload quantification: Throughout the season, WL was quantified during each training session using different monitoring methods: session-RPE (S-RPE = RPE (CR-10 Scale) x session duration (expressed in min)) [19], HR-based methods (i.e, TRIMPS; Polar T34, Polar Electro, Finland). External WL was assessed with the use of electronic performance and tracking systems which included GPS and microsensor technology (accelerometers, gyroscopes and magnetometers). 2WL was defined as the sum of WL of each session included in the microcyle (in the present case, all matches were held on Saturdays and a 1-week microcycle corresponds to a Monday-Sunday working week) [6]. The different parameters used to analyze WL during training are specified in Table 2.

Table 2

Parameters used to quantify the workload during training phases.

Parameters	Abbr	Units	Type	Description
Sessions RPE	S-RPE	AU	Internal	WL quantification method obtained in multiplying the intensity of training (CR-10 scale) by the volume of training [19].
Volume	Vol	h	External	Number of practice hours (trainings and games) during the week.
Total distance	TD	m	External	Assessed from GPS technology, corresponds to the total distance covered by the players during the training and/or the matches.
High-speed running	HSR	m	External	Sum of the distance covered above 14.4 km.h-1[20].
High-metabolic power distance	HMPD	m	External	Sum of the distance covered above 20 W.kg-1[20].
Sprint distance	Sp Dist	m	External	Sum of the distance covered above 25 km.h-1.
Sprint Number	Sp N	n	External	Number of times the player has run morethan 25 km.h-1.
Accelerations	Acc	n	External	Number of accelerations performed above 2.5 m.s-2.
Sprint and accelerations	Sp+Acc	n	External	Number of sprints (>25 km.h-1)and high-accelerations (>4 m.s-2).
Severe and high impacts	HI	n	External	Number of impacts measured by inertial captors, with an intensity greater than 8G.
New Body Load	NBL	AU	External	Manufacturer indicator calculated from accelerometer data aiming to reflect both the volume and intensity of these accelerations in three planes (X,Y,Z).
Training impulses	TRIMPS	AU	Internal	HR-based method to evaluate WL during training [20].
Low heart rate effort	LHRE	min	Internal	Time spent under 85% of HRmax.
High heart rate effort	HHRE	min	Internal	Time spent above 85% of HRmax.

AU: Arbitrary units; h: Hour; m: meters; n: number; min: minutes; WL: workload; HR: heart rate; HRmax: maximal heart rate

Locomotor activity and performance during matches: During the 32 official matches of the season, locomotor activity of players was tracked by microtechnology using the same parameters than those used during training. HR recordings were nevertheless different between matches and training (Table 2). Additional rugby specific actions were recorded by video analysis. This permitted quantification and qualification of rugby specific actions. A qualified video analyst was responsible for collecting data for each rugby match. The specific actions analyzed during the matches are presented in Table 1. In order to accurately normalize data, GPS data and sport specific actions were expressed relatively to playing time. Data corresponding to less than 10 min of playtime was not used for this study. In the aim to focus on individual variations (and to remove inter-individual differences from the performance potential), a Z-score specific to each player was calculated for all performance and locomotor activity parameters. This Z-score is based on the average and standard deviation (SD) of the full season for each parameter.

In order to consider the influence of match location on results, the “Britannic Ranking” was used to determine positive, negative and neutral performance. More precisely, a bonified victory (offensive bonus) during a home match, a defensive bonus or a victory during an away match will be considered as “positive performance”. Defeat during a home match will be considered as “negative performance”, and finally, a victory during a home match and a defeat during an away match will be considered as “neutral performance”. This type of ranking is often used by French rugby teams’ staff to predict final standings when considering the number of remaining matches to be played at home and/or away.

Data contextualization and transformation:

As demonstrated in other studies, 2WL and match performance are influenced by different contextual factors such as: the period of the season, player status (starter, substitute), playing position and match location, among other factors [6,21]. Therefore, the player’s status (starter or substitute) and position (forward or back) on the field was taken in account for this study.

To study the effects at short and moderate terms, all WL parameters were analyzed on a rolling average. The rolling average for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th previous weeks was analyzed for each parameter. A weighted average, to increase the impact of recent WL, was also used with similar time lags. Variability of training was considered by analyzing the SD of previous weeks (2nd to 8th). Finally, for each WL parameter (Table 2), 21 other parameters were added: 7 for average at 7 different weekly considerations, 7 for weighted average and 7 for SD.

After one year of data collection, an important analysis was performed in an attempt to analyze how WL influences match performance in successive matches for an elite RU team. This study provides a methodology based on data mining to relate physical performance variations of players during time-framed training sessions and their performance throughout the following matches. The study is structured by three major steps, each one being associated to different analysis methodologies. The first part focuses on constructing an informative dataset from GPS measurements and specific data on WL, match activity and performance indicators. The second part analyses this information to identify rugby specific actions in terms of player status (starter or substitute). The third part aims at identifying links between performance and match activity. Difficulties were encountered on the two previous parts. Indeed, it was necessary to identify useful information from such large amounts of dataset as to optimally interpret the data.

Statistical analysis

As shown in Fig 1, the methodological process can be divided into three steps. As a preliminary step, descriptive statistics were computed. Prior to the main analysis, the level and the variability (mean ± SD) of each training parameter were calculated relatively to playing position and the player’s status using a linear mixed model. Effect size (ES) was then calculated using Cohen’s d statistics where an ES <0.2 was considered non-significant (NS), 0.2–0.6 small, 0.6–1.2 moderate, 1.2–2.0 large and > 2.0 very large [22,23].

Fig 1

Multivariable statistical approach.

Because performance is measured through a set of several variables and not a unique response variable, multivariate statistical approaches were carried out. With the same constraints and objectives, Haghighat et al. [24] propose a review of several methods to allow an automatic selection of the most significant features based on data mining techniques. We favor a dimensional reduction approach as it facilitates analysis during the third part, makes storage/computation less expensive and allows for easier interpretation [17]. For this purpose, a linear dimension reduction method called Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was used on the performance dataset to reduce the dimension of analysis [17]. A normalized PCA was used in the second part to reduce the high-dimensional raw feature [17,25]. PCA is a descriptive multivariate statistical analysis that explores a set of quantitative variables in order to improve collinearity between them and to discuss the importance of each variable in terms of variability. It is a mathematical tool used for computing a set of new synthetic variables. These variables, also called dimensions, aim at identifying high variability components based in bigger dimensional datasets. Subsequently, choosing a small number of new dimensions allows to create a discriminative sub-space based on informative features in terms of variability to map the high-dimensional data set.

Finally, in the third step, we tried to explain the relationships between different WL parameters at short and moderate terms (x-factors) and the performance/locomotor activity indicators (y-factors). A cross-correlation analysis was used to assess the level of cross-collinearity between performance descriptors (response variables) and training locomotor activity descriptors (descriptive variables). However, there exists a certain limit for linear models to highlight relationships between WL and performance (no significant correlation was found between the two groups). Regression trees are also applied during this third step to extract discriminative information for performance and (potentially) to further reduce the dimension. A regression tree is a data mining process which is based on decision induction analysis. It estimates a regressive relationship through binary partitioning (splitting) by testing the link between a set of explanatory variables and a quantitative response variable. Classical and conditional regression trees were used to identify non-linear link through a graphical binary tree. This results in a discrete model based on a set of rules given by a categorical pattern of dependence computed on interaction between categorical explanatory variable and categorized quantitative explanatory ones. In this part, the different response variables used are successively the first two dimensions of the PCA above. All analysis was conducted with R Statistical Software (R. 3.3.3, R Foundation for Statistical Computing).

Results

Workload description, collective performance and specific indicators of team performance:

Table 3 shows the 2WL of players depending on their position and their playing status. Regarding the playing position, our results show no significant difference concerning the internal WL when the S-RPE method was used. However, backs covered a greater TD (p<0.001, d = 0.8) and have higher NBL (p<0.001; d = 0.8) than forwards. This is more pronounced in faster speed (p<0.001, d = 1.6) and metabolic zone (p<0.001, d = 0.5). No other significant differences were observed between backs and forwards concerning the other 2WL parameters. Table 3 also highlighted that players who started the upcoming match were exposed to greater WL regardless of their position. This was true for the weekly S-RPE (p<0.001, d = 1.4), HSR and HMP distances (p<0.001, d = 0.5, respectively) and TRIMPS (p<0.05, d = 0.3).

Table 3

Weekly workload parameters depending on playing position and players status during matches.

Playing position and players status groups	S-RPE(AU)	Volume(h)	Strain(AU)	TD(m)	HSR distance(m)	HMPdistance(m)	TRIMPS(AU)	TS > 85% HRmax(min)	Heavy impacts(n)	NBL(AU)
Forwards(n = 116)	2369.6± 475.3	8.0± 1.5	2418.9± 697.7	11481.5± 3238.7	1148.1± 468.4	2713.4± 1871.6	807.5± 434.9	22.9± 13.2	32.8± 36.0	219.0± 70.6
Backs(n = 164)	2277.5± 525.9	7.8± 1.6	2270.8± 776.5	14382.2± 4041.8***	2515.6± 785.2***	3620.7± 2049.5***	834.5± 382.3	26.4± 15.7	37.2± 51.0	320.6± 162.2***
E.S.	NS	NS	NS	0.8	1.6	0.5	NS	NS	NS	0.8
Starters(n = 244)	2276.5± 361.6	7.6± 1.3	2256.5± 657.6	12534.7± 3316.8	2011.8± 796.1	2574.6± 860.6	764.0± 329.0	22.9± 12.6	26.5± 32.7	262.0± 106.9
Substitutes(n = 84)	1660.2± 466.7***	7.0± 1.8	1158.3± 443.2***	11769.3± 3168.3	1613.5± 665.0***	2189.4± 761.3***	681.0± 301.0*	21.3± 14.0	23.2± 32.5	231.6± 115.5
E.S.	1.4	0.5	1.1	NS	0.5	0.5	0.3	NS	NS	NS

S-RPE: Session of rating perceived exertion; TD: Total distance; HSR: High-speed running; HMP: High-metabolic power; TRIMPS: Training impulses; TS: Time spent; HRmax: Maximal heart rate; NBL: New body load; E.S.: Effect size.

* p<0.05

*** p<0.001; significant differences between forwards and backs or between starters and substitutes

Table 4 provides information about the 2WL parameters, at short and moderate terms, depending on the team’s performance (victory vs defeat or positive vs negative) during official matches. It shows that, when the team studied won, some 2WL parameters were greater during the week prior to competition. Indeed, the acute S-RPE was greater (p<0.001, d = 0.4), as well as acute:chronic S-RPE (p<0.05, d = 0.3) and acute TD (p<0.05 d = 0.3). When using the British ranking system to analyze collective performance, other significant differences were observed concerning the influence of 2WL parameters on collective performance. In particular, acute HI (p<0.001, d = 1.0) and chronic HI (p<0.001, d = 0.8) were significantly greater during the weeks with negative results (defeat at home).

Table 4

Weekly workload parameters depending on team performance during matches.

Collective performance	AcuteS-RPE(AU)	ChronicS-RPE(AU)	Acute:chronic S-RPE(AU)	AcuteTD(m)	ChronicTD(m)	Acute:chronic TD(AU)	AcuteTRIMPS(AU)	ChronicTRIMPS(AU)	AcuteH.I.(n)	ChronicH.I.(n)
Victory(n = 97)	2396.4± 404.5	2043.7± 356.9	1.19± 0.2	13066.4± 3095.7	10824.5± 3139.9	1.29± 0.6	769.0± 258.0	720.7± 273.7	24.6± 29.5	23.9± 28.3
Defeat(n = 147)	2197.3± 489.0***	1980.7± 348.3	1.12± 0.2*	12191.2± 3418.6*	10898.9± 2663.8	1.14± 0.4	760.7± 368.4	704.6± 224.1	27.7± 34.7	29.1± 30.2
E.S.	0.4	NS	0.3	0.3	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
Positive(n = 53)	2324.2± 384.1	2037.4± 364.6	1.16± 0.2	12507.1± 2408.4	10766.6± 3193.2	1.22± 0.3	804.5± 289.2	781.3± 304.6	20.4± 20.3	25.7± 29.7
Negative(n = 26)	2294.7± 441.3	2165.7± 366.0	1.07± 0.2	11518.2± 2471.5	11848.1± 3131.2	1.04± 0.3	768.8± 342.0	741.4± 228.9	42.2± 26.6***	50.1± 31.1***
E.S.	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	1.0	0.8

S-RPE: Session of rating perceived exertion; TD: Total distance; TRIMPS: Training impulses; H.I.: Heavy impacts; NBL: New body load; E.S.: Effect size

* p<0.05

**p<0.01

***p<0.001; significant differences between victory and defeat or between positive or negative result.

Table 5 highlights the individual indicators of match performance according to the player’s position and match results. It reveals that backs have a greater average speed (m.min-1) during matches won (p<0.05, d = 0.4). In contrast, the relative distance traveled in HMP zone is significantly greater in backs (p<0.5, d = 1.0) during lost matches. Concerning specific activities, forwards performed a bigger defensive performance during successful matches by totalizing more completed tackles (p<0.05, d = 0.8) and more offensive tackles (p<0.05, d = 0.6) compared to matches that were lost. Moreover, forwards have a greater activity index during successful matches (p<0.05, d = 0.5). On the contrary, backs played the ball significantly less during victories (p<0.05, d = 0.4). Table 5 also highlights other significant differences between backs and forwards concerning physical and rugby specific actions during matches.

Table 5

Individual indicators of match's performance depending on the positions and match final results.

Playing position	Collective performance	Avg. Speed(m.min-1)	Relative HSR(m.min-1)	RelativeVHSR(m.min-1)	RelativeHMPD(m.min-1)	Sprints(n)	H.I(n)	ST(n)	OT(n)	ODW(n)	PenaltyConc.(n)	Ruck(n)	LB(n)	Ball hit(n)	Activity index
Forwards	Victory(n = 43)	57.4± 7.1	21.6± 9.4	5.3± 5.8	32.8± 9.5	0.5± 1.1	31.5± 30.8	10.1± 3.7	2.1± 1.2	1.1± 2.4	0.73± 7.1	17.4± 5.4	0.17± 0.8	9.2± 9.4	39.9± 13.4
	Defeat(n = 58)	58.6± 6.6	23.8± 8.8	6.2± 5.5	41.1± 9.1	0.4± 0.8	30.1± 27.4	7.3± 3.4*	1.3± 1.1*	1.9± 2.1	0.61± 0.9	16.3± 5.0	0.17± 0.7	6.7± 8.8	33.7± 12.6*
	E.S.	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	0.8	0.6	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	0.5
Backs	Victory(n = 52)	67.6± 6.4$	33.2± 8.6$	13.8± 5.3$	35.3± 8.4$	4.1± 3.2$	24.5± 29.6	5.3± 3.3$	1.1± 1.0$	1.5± 2.2	0.18± 0.86$	5.3± 4.9$	0.39± 0.7	10.3± 8.6$	24.6± 12.2$
	Defeat(n = 88)	65.3± 6.2*,$	35.7± 8.4$	15.5± 5.2$	44.2± 8.4*,$	4.9± 3.1$	32.7± 27.4	4.8± 3.3$	0.8± 1.0$	1.9± 2.1	0.31± 0.83$	5.6± 4.8$	0.47± 0.7$	13.6± 8.4*$	27.6± 11.9$
	E.S.	0.4	NS	NS	1.0	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	0.4	NS
Position E.S.		1.2	1.4	1.7	0.4	1.3	NS	1.0	0.6	NS	0.5	2.3	0.4	0.5	0.8
Forwards	Positive(n = 18)	57.1± 5.3	23.9± 6.2	6.2± 5.1	35.5± 6.4	0.2± 0.8	30.4± 28.4	8.4± 2.1	2.1± 1.1	1.4± 2.0	0.56± 0.6	19.5± 4.8	0.40± 0.8	10.6± 9.4	42.6± 11.7
	Negative(n = 10)	58.5± 5.8	23.1± 10.2	5.8± 4.7	34.6± 10.5,	0.2± 0.9	42.8± 31.1	5.2± 3.5*	1.3± 1.0*	3.2± 2.1*	0.90± 0.6*	16.7± 5.3	0.10± 0.9	8.3± 9.1	32.8± 12.8*
	E.S.	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	1.1	0.6	0.9	0.6	NS	NS	NS	0.8
Backs	Positive(n = 27)	66.5± 5.3$	33.9± 5.5$	20.3± 4.9$	42.6± 5.6$	4.2± 2.6$	24.5± 28.4	4.0± 1.9$	1.2± 1.1$	1.9± 1.3	0.04± 0.6$	4.9± 4.8$	0.56± 0.8	14.4± 8.3	27.2± 11.7$
	Negative(n = 14)	69.9± 5.5*,$	44.7±10.9*,$	13.8±4.7$	55.8±11.2*,$	5.7± 2.7$	55.7± 29.4*	4.1± 3.7	0.9± 1.1	3.9± 2.0*	0.16± 0.6$	6.0± 5.0$	0.54± 0.8	14.3± 8.7$	29.5± 10.2
	E.S.	0.5	1.2	1.4	1.2	NS	0.4	NS	NS	1.0	NS	NS	NS	0.4	NS

Avg. speed: Average speed; HSR: High-speed running; VHSR: Very high-speed running; HMPD: High-metabolic power distance; H.I.: Heavy impacts; ST: Successful tackles; OT: Offensive tackles; ODW: Offensive duel won; Penalty conc.: Penalty conceded; LB: Defensive line breaks. E.S.: Effect size.

* p<0.05; significant differences between victory-defeat and positive and negative results from Britannic Ranking.

$ p<0.05; significant differences between forwards and backs.

Table 6 shows the influence of player status on playing activity during matches. Playing activity indexes were greater for substitutes independently of the player’s position (p<0.05, d = 1.0 & d = 1.9, respectively for forwards and backs). Furthermore, forward substitutes conceded less penalties (relatively to ball-in-play time—when the player played) compared to starting forwards (p<0.05, d = 0.9).

Table 6

Individual indicators of match's performance depending on the player's status (starters vs substitutes).

Playing position			Collective performance	Avg. Speed(m.min-1)	Relative HSR(m.min-1)	RelativeVHSR(m.min-1)	RelativeHMPD(m.min-1)	Sprints(m.min-1)X 10	H.I (n.min-1)	ST(n.min-1)X 10	OT(n.min-1)X 10	ODW(n.min-1)X 10	PenaltyConc.(n.min-1)X 10	Ruck(n.min-1)X 10	LB(n.min-1)X 10	Ball hit(n.min-1)X 10	RelativeActivity index
Forwards	Starters(n = 78)	58.3± 8.8	23.1± 9.8	5.8± 5.9	34.4± 9.4	0.16± 0.1	1.1± 0.9	3.1± 1.3	0.59± 0.38	0.59± 0.73	0.25± 0.29	6.1± 1.8	0.06± 0.09	2.8± 1.5	0.47± 0.18
	Substitutes(n = 16)	59.0± 8.8	25.0± 9.8	6.6± 5.9	35.9± 9.4,	0.33± 0.1	1.2± 0.9	3.6± 1.4*	0.37± 0.38*$	0.23± 1.0	0.08± 0.02*	6.0± 1.7	0.16± 0.10	3.3± 1.6	0.85± 0.25*
	E.S.	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	0.5	NS	0.9	NS	NS	NS	1.0
Backs	Starters(n = 121)	66.1± 8.7$	34.8± 9.7$	14.9± 5.9$	43.1± 9.6$	1.55± 1.0$	1.0± 0.9	1.7± 1.2$	0.32± 0.35$	0.60± 0.72	0.09± 0.03$	1.9± 1.8$	0.06± 0.8 $	4.4± 1.5$	0.45± 0.17
	Substitutes(n = 26)	65.7± 8.6,$	37.2± 9.6$	15.3± 5.8$	43.1± 9.3$	5.7± 2.7$	1.4± 0.9	2.0± 1.3 $	0.10± 0.3*$	0.63± 0.71	0.10± 0.05	1.8± 1.8$	0.34± 0.11*$	6.2± 1.5*$	1.14± 0.30*$
	E.S.	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	0.6	NS	NS	NS	0.4	0.6	1.9
Position E.S.		0.9	1.2	1.7	0.9	1.9	NS	1.1	0.7	NS	0.4	2.4	0.4	0.6	0.5

Avg. speed: Average speed; HSR: High-speed running; VHSR: Very high-speed running; HMPD: High-metabolic power distance; H.I.: Heavy impacts; ST: Successful tackles; OT: Offensive tackles; ODW: Offensive duel won; Penalty conc.: Penalty conceded; LB: Defensive line breaks. E.S.: Effect size.

* p<0.05; significant differences between starters-substitutes.

$ p<0.05; significant differences between forwards and backs.

Summary of individual performance:

Characteristics of individual speed are used in this analysis. Fig 2 shows more important collinearity for three variables (HMPD.min, HSR.min and TD.min) with Dim1 and that only sprint and accelerations (Sp+Acc) are highly correlated with Dim2. One can consider that the three variables of Dim1 measure the same aspect of performance, while Sp+acc measure another aspect which is not correlated with the others. With these two new synthetic dimensions, around 88% of variability for the measures can be explained. The first dimension (Dim1) contained 65.43%, while 23.22% was explained by the 2nd dimension (Fig 2). The heterogeneity between the observations is meanly due to the variables contained in Dim1 called “running.performance” and can be interpreted as follow: a negative value means “low performance” and a high positive value means “high performance”.

Fig 2

First principal plane from PCA on normalized (Z-score) individual speed descriptors.

Ten characteristics of match playing activities are used in this analysis but only the meaningful ones can explain the variability of observations (cos2>0.5). They are shown on Fig 3. A larger degree of collinearity was seen between Tack and Tack.suc than in activity rate and Ms.win. Moreover, these 2 groups show no correlation. However, the PCA is not very efficient here because only 38.51% of total variability is explained through these 2 dimensions. The first dimension (Dim1) contained 21.6%, while 16.91% was measured by the 2nd dimension. It outlines the fact that the 10 characteristics have no signs of correlation between each other. Other links may exist but these are not detectable by linear methods such as PCA.

Fig 3

First principal plane from PCA on specific activities.

Performance insights from descriptors of training activity

As a preliminary analysis, several correlational matrices were calculated to assess the level of collinearity between WL indicators (explanatory variables gathered into a matrix called X), performance indicators (variables to be explained gathered into a matrix called Y) and the cross-correlation between X and Y. The results are presented using a black and grey colored gradient where dark colors represent strong correlations, positive or negative (Fig 4). No significant collinearity is noted in the cross-correlational matrix thus encouraging the use of nonlinear statistics analytical tools to study potential links between WL and performance indicators.

Fig 4

Correlation matrices between the variables “X” of the weekly workload and the parameters “Y” of the game’s activity.

“Running.performance”, the first principal component of PCA corresponding to a performance descriptor, is analyzed hereby (Fig 5). On the left-hand side of the tree, node number 2 characterizes the mean level of performance of backs which is logically lower than forwards in terms of offensive activity. Node 19 contains observations on backs with greater levels of offensive performance. This is due to an acute amount of speed exertion > 21e+3 combined with a 4-week rolling average of heavy impacts (Hi.4weeks.SD) < 9.4 heavy impacts. Node 8 contains observations on backs with lower levels of offensive activity which is due to a Hi.4weeks.SD > = 9.4. According to the right branch of the tree, the higher level of offensive performance for forwards is due to a 6-week average of low running speed (LSR.moy.6) < = 8421. This regression tree illustrated that several parameters appear to influence running performance but have no significant effect according to a statistical test (conditional regression tree). Concerning the other significant effects observed on the relationships between WL parameters and activity indicators, Fig 6 reveals that the normalized (Z-score) number of sprints and accelerations was significantly and negatively affected when the average time spent under 85% HRmax was above 218.992min (Fig 6A). Similarly, the normalized number of offensive duels won was significantly and positively affected by the chronic (4 week rolling average) number of HI (Fig 6B).

Fig 5

Traditional decision tree illustrating the level of “Running performance”.

Fig 6

Conditional regression trees showing the influence of workload parameters on some activity indicators during the matches: a) number of sprints and accelerations, b) number of offensive duals won.

Table 7 presents the summary of all the conditions tested when using this method.

Table 7

Overview of the different analysis perform to observe if some workload indicators influence (positively or negatively) the different performance/locomotor activity indicators.

TYPE OF INDICATORS	PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS	POSITIVE INFLUENCING FACTOR(S)	NEGATIVE INFLUENCING FACTOR(S)
SYNTHETIC INDEX OF RUNNING PERFORMANCE	« Running.Performance »	/	/
	Sprint.Acc	Weighted average of time spent under 85% of HRmax≤ 219 min.	Weighted average of time spent under 85% of HRmax> 219 min.
SYNTHETIC INDEX OF SPECIFIC ACTIVITY	Defensive performance	Forwards	Backs8 weeks average for number of severe impacts <19.62 impacts.
INDIVIDUAL NORMALIZED(Z-SCORE) PERFORMANCE INDICATORS	Tackle attempted	/	/
	Tackle succeed	/	/
	% Tackle succeed	/	/
	Offensive tackle	/	/
	Offensive duals win	Average of HI for the 4th last weeks > 22.62 impacts.	Average of HI for the 4th last weeks ≤ 22.62 impacts.
	Ruck participation	/	/
	Meters win	/	/
	Number of balls played	/	/
	Line break	/	/
	Penalty conceded	/	/
	Activity index	/	/

HRmax: maximal heart rate; HI: heavy impacts.

Discussion

The main goal of this study was to detect the existing relationships between WL at short and moderate terms and performance or locomotor activity during matches of professional RU players throughout a season. Several preliminary steps were necessary to accomplish this: i) understanding the different factors that might influence WL and team performance, ii) synthesizing activity indicators to facilitate and simplify the modelling/definition of individual performance and iii) analyzing, with different statistical models (linear and threshold-based), the influence of different WL parameters on performance. The main findings showed that 2WL was influenced by playing position and player status. Indeed, backs presented greater external WL (GPS-based data) during training sessions than forwards (p<0.001), while starters expressed greater internal (S-RPE and TRIMPS methods) and external WL (p<0.001). Furthermore, when team performance was analyzed considering home advantage (using Britannic ranking classification), the findings demonstrated that collision load (number of heavy impacts) at short and moderate terms negatively influenced team performance (p<0.001). Positive team performance was noticed when backs covered greater relative distance (m.min-1) and when forwards successfully tackled more. Furthermore, forwards also had a greater (p<0.05) activity index during victory. Concerning our attempt to define performance with new synthetic variables, we found that one can construct a synthetic index based on individual GPS data (individual Z-score, based on the average and SD for each player and for each GPS parameters throughout the season) regrouping the HMPD.min, HSR.min, TD.min, on one side, and Sp+Acc on the other. No synthetic index was found concerning specific activity parameters. Finally, the first method conducted to highlight the relationships between 2WL and individual locomotor activity/performance indicators, based on a linear model, did not allow for any observation of significant effect. The use of a threshold model, from data mining processes, permitted us to illustrate some significant effects of WL parameters on individual performance indicators. Indeed, the chronic (4-week rolling average) number of heavy impacts influenced positively the number of duels won during matches (p<0.05). Finally, these results highlight the difficulty to identify and synthesize physical performance in RU and also point out the high level of complexity encountered when establishing models to establish relationships between WL and physical performance/locomotor activity during matches.

Before analyzing the influence of WL on performance, it was important to underline the different factors which influence 2WL. Indeed, several studies reported significant differences between forwards and backs concerning the internal and external WL of training weeks during preseason and in-season for professional rugby players [6,26]. The present findings confirmed, in part, the results arguing that backs have greater external WL than forwards. These differences were mainly explained by the difference in locomotor activity during training sessions. Nevertheless, no significant differences were observed regarding the internal WL indicators (S-RPE & TRIMPS). The scrum and lineout training sessions for forwards, which account for 20 to 30% of weekly training, do not generate running activity. Thus, external WL during this type of training cannot be recorded by GPS technology. Therefore, the differences observed in external WL between forwards and backs, do not reflect the difference in quantity of training. It is also important to note that the external load estimate by GPS technology may presents some limitations about the accuracy and the reliability of some variables like the accelerations and the metabolic power approach variables [27]. These limitations lead us to remain cautious about the indiscriminate analysis of data derived from GPS signals [27]. Playing position was not the only factor that explained the observed differences among WL parameters. In a similar way to a study carried out in soccer [21], we have analyzed the relationships between players’ status and WL. Our findings demonstrate that substitute players, regardless of their position, had lower internal and external WL than starting players during weekly training. These results must be considered in moderate and long-term training processes. Indeed, players who substitute regularly were exposed to a lower internal and external WL. This trend may conduct to undertraining. Thus, team staffs should propose complementary training to these players to expose them to high intensity running and HR efforts. In their recent study, Dalton-Barron et al. [28] demonstrated that WL perception was influenced by different factors: playing position, previous match results, phase of the season and the time lapse between matches. Therefore, results from this study and prior ones, point out to the need for applying a multifactorial approach to plan and monitor the rugby players' WL during the different phases of the season (Tables 3 & 4).

Dalton-Barron’s [28] study also reflects the significant impact of the competitive context on the perception of difficulty of training sessions during a “competitive-phase” week. Indeed, these results corroborate other studies which also demonstrated an effect of competitive stress on physiological adaptations, especially on endocrine responses [6,8,29]. In our findings, significant differences were found when comparing WL parameters during weeks with a match victory (Table 4). The differences were mainly observed in the subjective perception (S-RPE) method and may suggest that stress before key matches of the season could induce an increase in WL perception. Indeed, in RU, home advantage was statistically demonstrated [30,31]. The team studied here was a bottom ranked team for which home matches were of crucial importance. Indeed, during season studied, the team won 14 of their 16 home matches and only won one away game (out of 16). Thus, the team studied prepared home matches with particularly high pressure. Subjective perception of difficulty of training sessions seems to be influenced by the competitive context (p<0.001, d = 0.4). Thus, a greater acute total distance (p<0.05, d = 0.3) was also observed and may signal a greater WL exposition during the weeks of victory. Trainers seemed to have a tendency (maybe unconsciously) to increase the external WL by increasing tactical and strategical situations to prepare for a challenging match. In an attempt to minimize the influence of match location on team performance (especially with the bottom ranking team), the Britannic ranking classification was applied to highlight the “positive” results (defensive bonus, draw and victory during away matches and bonified victories for home and away venues). With this filter of team performance, it appears that an important number of heavy impacts at short and moderate terms influenced performance negatively. This result could suggest that neuromuscular fatigue induced by repetitive heavy impacts [32,33] may also affect team performance during matches. However, because of our relatively small dataset, great caution should be taken when analyzing these results. Moreover, it is crucial to specify that all these results depend on multiple contextual factors (score, domiciliation, level of the opposition, climatic conditions, …) [34]. Indeed, studying one team during a unique season represents a complex protocol. Therefore, the results observed are highly linked to the context and specifity of the team.

In terms of performance, it also seems that different individual locomotor activity parameters influence team performance (Table 5). Thus, the specific activity (number of actions normalized by ball-in-play time) and defensive performance of forwards (number of completed and offensive tackles) were greater during matches won (p<0.05). Thus, the number and percentage of completed tackles seemed to be a good indicator of defensive performance which contributes to team performance. These results confirmed the results presented in other studies [13,23] which attested the importance of defensive performance on match results. Our results also show that running activity (relative distance) of backs was significantly greater (p<0.05) during matches. Nevertheless, with the Britannic ranking classification, running activity was greater during negative results, especially for distance covered at high speed/power intensity (p<0.05). These results are similar to those reported in other studies for which, in other team sports, running activity at high intensity was significantly greater for losing teams [35,36,37]. Time spent on defense and the number of defensive line-breaks conceded may require the necessity to realize more high intensity running efforts. This could explain the differences observed between positive and negative results. However, these results demonstrate the complexity of using GPS based data to identify a valid and reliable key performance indicator in RU throughout a season.

The main aim of this study was to identify how 2WL influences the activity/performance in professional RU players throughout a season. Thus, to analyze this influence, and to avoid comparing the inter-individual differences during matches, we chose to apply an individual normalized score (Z-score) based on the mean and the SD of all matches, individualized for each player and for each parameter over the entire season. Individual indicators, normalized by ball-in-play time, permitted to smoothen activity differences induced by the players’ position and profile. By using this methodology, we expected to observe the intra-individual fluctuation of performance throughout the season. Therefore, we highlighted the performance peaks and performance drops throughout the season. From this data transformation, a reduction dimension of data was performed in order to summarize running and specific performance. Fig 2 shows that running performance could be synthesized into 2 dimensions. One regrouped total distance, high speed and high-power metabolic distances, while the other dimension included the number of sprints and accelerations. These results partially corroborate those of Weaving et al. [17] who also show that GPS data may be presented by total distance ran and by distance travelled at high-speed. In our study, we used more variables than Weaving et al. [17]. This is probably why the analysis carried out in the present study demonstrated the importance for including the number of very-high intensity efforts (sprint and high acceleration) in WL quantification in addition to “traditional” variables. The data collected for specific skills shows that no variable contains a sufficient linear co-variability that can be resumed by a synthetic index (Fig 3). These results prove that each action analyzed seems to be independent of another and should be studied separately. Indeed, at professional level, specific tasks and player profiles have a significant importance. The individual performance analysis, based on an individual normalized score, demonstrates that physical performance in RU is complex to summarize, especially in terms of sport specific actions. Finally, using a high-dimensional feature for performance identification seems to be relevant for collecting high quantities of relevant information. Difficulties will nevertheless arise during storage, computation and, consequently, on the understanding of the phenomenon.

The final objective of our study was to highlight the influence of 2WL, at short and moderate terms, on individual performance/locomotor activity during matches. The first method (Fig 4) was based on a linear model analyzing the correlation between variables of WL (X) and activity parameters (Y). The use of this method did not reveal any significant effect of WL on the activity/performance during matches. This first result outlines the limitation of linear models to analyze the interactions between WL and performance. Data mining processes made it possible to reveal significant effects of WL variables on some locomotor activity/performance parameters (Figs 5 & 6 and Table 7). Indeed, data mining processes demonstrated that the number of sprints and high accelerations were negatively influenced when the weighted average of the time spent in low HR intensity (>85% HRmax) was superior to 218.9 min (Fig 6A). This result emphasizes that too much time spent at low-intensity efforts during training sessions may negatively impact sprinting/accelerating ability. These results are in agreement with those observed in other studies showing the negative effect that training spent in low intensity zones has on the reduction of neuromuscular performance during a professional team-sport season [29,38]. Indeed, Dubois et al. [29] observed significant correlations between % of moderate and high-speed running distances and drop jump testing performance at short term. This demonstrated the negative influence of low-intensity training sessions on neuromuscular performance. Nevertheless, these results do not suggest that training spent at low intensity should be completely ignored. Indeed, during a typical competitive week, the first session of the week (36h after a match) was devoted to technical and tactical training and was performed at low intensity according to a tactical periodization approach [39]. Therefore, the present results seem to show more interest in devoting training to high intensity efforts during other training sessions of the week, even if it means reducing training volume.

In the present study, another significant correlation was observed between chronic load (4 week rolling average), the number of severe impacts (>8G) and the number of successful offensive duels (Fig 6B). In fact, a chronic number of severe impacts greater than 22.6 per week positively impacted this performance parameter. Indeed, the capacity to beat a defender represents an important aspect of offensive performance and contributes to positive team performance [14]. In our study, a greater number of impacts was reached during small-sided training situations. This type of situation, which resembles competitive situations because of increased space-time pressure conditions, enhanced a player’s ability to beat his direct opponent. The results concerning the number of severe impacts also illustrates training complexity and the particular difficulty to balance training loads between over-reaching and under-training [1,40]. Indeed, Table 4 shows the negative effects that high quantities of severe impacts during training has on performance at short and moderate terms. This result could be explained by neuromuscular collisions-induced fatigue [32,33]. Dubois et al. [6] also showed a possible negative effect of low exposure to impacts during training sessions on injury rate at short term. However, this study did not specify the effect of this parameter on the types and severity of injuries. Nevertheless, all these results demonstrate the necessity to include specific-training situations including high-intensity actions combined with an “optimal” number of contacts to promote the optimization of individual and team performance. Finally, data mining processes seem to be a “new” method that may contribute to a better understanding of the underlying interactions between practice dosage of locomotor activity/performance in a competitive context [41]. However, despite a high-dimensional approach including an important number of variables, only a few interactions were significantly observed. This indicates that team and individual performance remains difficult to model and identify. Furthermore, the contextual factors (social, psychological, motivational, …) were not considered in WL quantification. These factors could interfere in the “dose-response” relationships between training “dose” and physiological adaptations or performance (response). Finally, it would be interesting to study these interactions individually. Indeed, an individual’s physical capacity profile may alter how the player copes with the physiological stress induced from practice [8].

Conclusion and practical applications

The study highlighted the importance of defensive skills for team performance during elite RU matches. Indeed, the number of tackles completed and the number of offensive tackles, especially involving forwards, seemed to be a positive indicator of performance in elite RU, thus corroborating the results of other studies [13,23]. Moreover, forwards presented a greater (p<0.05) activity index (number of coded actions normalized to ball-in-play time) when matches were won, demonstrating the importance of developing a player’s ability to repeat high-intensity rugby-specific actions. As for backs, the locomotor activity (GPS data) seems to be an indicator of performance. Nevertheless, all these results must be considered cautiously as they were obtained from analysis based on a single team. Therefore, all these results were largely influenced by the team’s tactical and strategical preferences as well as its’ mindset. Secondly, this study pointed out that locomotor activity during matches can be summarized by 2 dimensions: one including the total distance travelled, high-speed and high-metabolic running efforts and a second one which corresponds to the number of sprints and fast accelerations. Unfortunately, it was not possible to resume the different specific actions into a synthetic index relating the influence of positional demands and activity profiles in elite rugby players. Finally, the last purpose of this study was to model the influence of WL at different terms (acute, chronic and up to 8 previous weeks) on match performance. The first method based on colinear analysis did not provide significant relationships between WL parameters and performance variables. The use of a threshold-based model, from data mining processes, permitted to identify the influence of WL parameters on different performances variables. Thus, the chronic number of severe impacts seemed to be one of the most influential factors of specific performance, and more specifically on the number of offensive duels won. Therefore, the specific drills/skills including contacts/collisions seems to increase the player’s ability to beat the opposition. However, other studies revealed that a high exposure to collision may induce neuromuscular fatigue [6,32,33]. This parameter illustrates perfectly the complexity of training: i.e. how to tune WL as to be between the too much and the not-enough. To conclude, we think that data mining processes will help scientists and sports practitioners develop a better understanding of the underlying relationships between 2WL and match performance. This will undeniably contribute to the ever-striving quest of reaching peak performance by optimizing training processes.

11 Nov 2019

PONE-D-19-23206

Game performances and weekly workload: using of data mining process to enter in the complexity

PLOS ONE

Dear Mr Romain,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Dec 26 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Cristina Cortis, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your original submission form you indicated that ‘Oral permission of ethical comitte of Rennes university’ was obtained form this study, could you provide documentation from Rennes university (e.g. in the form of a letter from the ethics committee) with your revised manuscript confirming the study is exempt from the need for ethical review in your setting?

3. In your data statement you indicate the following ‘However, data access requests from researchers will be possible with the agreement of the club (SASP Club Athletique Brive Correze) by contacting the corresponding author (romain.dubois55@orange.fr).’ please note that we cannot accept having the author as the sole point of contact to access the data, please provide an additional independent contact for data access (e.g. another contact from your institution, but independent from those listed as authors), as well as confirmation that the club agrees to make the data available to other interested researchers if the manuscript is published’.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Please provide an amended Funding Statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support received during this specific study (whether external or internal to your organization) as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study aimed to identify key performance indicators of professional rugby matches, also analyzing how weekly workload (2WL) can influence match performance throughout an entire season at different time-points.

Introduction

In this section, it has been reported that individual and/or collective performance during RU matches have never been categorized by a key performance indicator (lines 36-38). Actually, literature reported recent and interesting data about KPIs in RU. In particular, the following two studies (Ungureanu et al., 2019a,b) should be considered to better provide the state of the art about this specific topic.

Ungureanu A.N., Brustio P.R., Mattina L., Lupo C. (2019). “How” is more important than “how much” for game possession in elite northern hemisphere rugby union. Biology of Sport. 36(3), 265-272.

Ungureanu A.N., Condello G., Pistore S., Conte D., Lupo C. (2019). Technical and tactical aspects in Italian youth rugby union in relation to different academies, regional tournaments, and outcomes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 33(6), 1557-1569.

Lines 47-53. Less absolute considerations should be reported about the accuracy (and reliability) of GPS data. In fact, according to Buchheit et al. 2014 (“Monitoring accelerations with GPS in football – Time to Slow Down?”) and Malone et al., 2017 (“Unpacking the Black Box: Applications and Considerations for Using GPS Devices in Sport”), not all parameters downloaded by means of GPS devices are able to provide reliable results and strong funding (especially for time motion parameters such as acceleration, deceleration and changes of direction).

Lines 77-78. “sport-specific activity (tackle count, duels won, …).” the list of technical and tactical parameters should be more exhaustively reported or linked to a table.

Discussion

Lines 359-364. As reported, several factors can determine different outcomes of matches in team sports according to previous comment paper which could be cited (Lupo C., Tessitore A. (2016). How important is the final outcome to interpret match analysis data: the influence of scoring a goal, and difference between close and balance games in elite soccer. Comment on Lago-Penas and Gomez-Lopez. Perceptual & Motor Skills. 122(1). 280-285).

At the end of the Discussion section, same experimental limitations should be reported. In particular, the above mentioned limitations related to the GPS reliability (Lines 47-53) as well as the potential influences of session-RPE applied to game/tactical training in team sports could be reported (Lupo C., Tessitore A., Gasperi L, Gómez MA. (2017). Session-RPE for quantifying the load of different youth basketball training sessions. Biology of Sport. 34, 11-17)

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting new approach to a old question. My criticism is minor.

In Table 2, the intensity and sRPE should use ref 16

In Figure 2, the font should be larger. If the journal photo reduces the size, the text will not be legible. Similarly, in Fig 6, the font is too small.

In Table 3, your first data column lists sRPE. The usual manner of recording would be in RPE units (0-10), and there should be an additional column LOAD, which is the product of sRPE and volume (which in most of the literature is reported in minutes). Likewise, in Table 4, the acute and chronic sRPE that you reoport is more like load (e.g. sRPE x duration). I do find it interesting that you report comparatively modest acute;chronic sRRPE (e.g. LOAD) ratios. This is a topic that has been of some interest, and some controversy, but is potentially an important measure.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

21 Dec 2019

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

I thought I had met your criteria. I changed the title layout for the figures. After checking I think everything it is ok. However, if something else don’t match, please tell me what's not exactly right. Thank you very much for your help and patience.

2. In your original submission form you indicated that ‘Oral permission of ethical comitte of Rennes university’ was obtained form this study, could you provide documentation from Rennes university (e.g. in the form of a letter from the ethics committee) with your revised manuscript confirming the study is exempt from the need for ethical review in your setting?

I sincerely apologize. I was confused when I noted that this study has been validated by an ethics committee. Indeed, this study was conducted under the control and the approbation of the M2S laboratory (RENNES university laboratory) (see the attached attestation). Moreover, this protocol did not require the opinion of an Ethics Committee because the data collected are those usually collected routinely during training sessions and matches in close cooperation with technical and tactical staffs of the club. As, no biological sampling or psychological assessment was conducted, no prior evaluation by an ethics committee was mandatory (see the attestation of the director of the laboratory involved in this study, attached document).

3. In your data statement you indicate the following ‘However, data access requests from researchers will be possible with the agreement of the club (SASP Club Athletique Brive Correze) by contacting the corresponding author (romain.dubois55@orange.fr).’ please note that we cannot accept having the author as the sole point of contact to access the data, please provide an additional independent contact for data access (e.g. another contact from your institution, but independent from those listed as authors), as well as confirmation that the club agrees to make the data available to other interested researchers if the manuscript is published’.

We have added 2 other contacts, independent from those listed as authors in article. Likewise, we also confirm that the club agrees to make the data available to other interested researchers if the manuscript is published.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

We made the change in cover letter in funding section.

5. Please provide an amended Funding Statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support received during this specific study (whether external or internal to your organization) as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

We made the change in cover letter in funding section.

6. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

We made the change in cover letter.

7. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions

At the moment, I am a physical coach inside SASP Club Athletique Brive Correze. Contractually, I don’t have the right to share the individual data before June 2021. The club accept, as part of my thesis, I publish collective data but my contract blocks me to make public the individual data before June 2021. If I gave a public access before this date, the club can fine me. Nevertheless, for scientific study I can send the data.

8. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

In the previous paragraphs, I explain why the data cannot be make public before the June 2021. In the same time, I give different contact to have and anticipated access to the data.

Reviewer #1:

Introduction;

In this section, it has been reported that individual and/or collective performance during RU matches have never been categorized by a key performance indicator (lines 36-38). Actually, literature reported recent and interesting data about KPIs in RU. In particular, the following two studies (Ungureanu et al., 2019a,b) should be considered to better provide the state of the art about this specific topic.

Ungureanu A.N., Brustio P.R., Mattina L., Lupo C. (2019). “How” is more important than “how much” for game possession in elite northern hemisphere rugby union. Biology of Sport. 36(3), 265-272.

Ungureanu A.N., Condello G., Pistore S., Conte D., Lupo C. (2019). Technical and tactical aspects in Italian youth rugby union in relation to different academies, regional tournaments, and outcomes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 33(6), 1557-1569.

Thank you for your good remark ! We added these references. We also added the Cunningham’s reference which also analysis the key performance indicators in rugby union.

Lines 47-53. Less absolute considerations should be reported about the accuracy (and reliability) of GPS data. In fact, according to Buchheit et al. 2014 (“Monitoring accelerations with GPS in football – Time to Slow Down?”) and Malone et al., 2017 (“Unpacking the Black Box: Applications and Considerations for Using GPS Devices in Sport”), not all parameters downloaded by means of GPS devices are able to provide reliable results and strong funding (especially for time motion parameters such as acceleration, deceleration and changes of direction).

We are fully agreed with this remark. However, we have chosen to present this material limitation in discussion section which is for us, a better place to treat about the material accuracy. We also respond to your last comment in the same time. See Lines 341-344.

Lines 77-78. “sport-specific activity (tackle count, duels won, …).” the list of technical and tactical parameters should be more exhaustively reported or linked to a table.

Thank for this advice. We have chosen to link the table to avoid adding too much text.

Discussion

Lines 359-364. As reported, several factors can determine different outcomes of matches in team sports according to previous comment paper which could be cited (Lupo C., Tessitore A. (2016). How important is the final outcome to interpret match analysis data: the influence of scoring a goal, and difference between close and balance games in elite soccer. Comment on Lago-Penas and Gomez-Lopez. Perceptual & Motor Skills. 122(1). 280-285).

In line 378-379, we underline the importance of contextual factors (score, weather, level of the opposition, …) on game performance and we added the recommended reference.

At the end of the Discussion section, same experimental limitations should be reported. In particular, the above mentioned limitations related to the GPS reliability (Lines 47-53) as well as the potential influences of session-RPE applied to game/tactical training in team sports could be reported (Lupo C., Tessitore A., Gasperi L, Gómez MA. (2017). Session-RPE for quantifying the load of different youth basketball training sessions. Biology of Sport. 34, 11-17)

Thank you for your remark. In our opinion we have already discuss about the factors may affecting the S-RPE session during tactical/technical training session. And the reference which we used, speak about these factors in rugby. Therefore, we estimated that is enough to support our discussion.

Reviewer #2:

This is an interesting new approach to a old question. My criticism is minor.

In Table 2, the intensity and sRPE should use ref 16

Thank you. That is true. We changed the reference with the good one.

In Figure 2, the font should be larger. If the journal photo reduces the size, the text will not be legible. Similarly, in Fig 6, the font is too small.

We increased the size of the font. Thank you for this good remark.

In Table 3, your first data column lists sRPE. The usual manner of recording would be in RPE units (0-10), and there should be an additional column LOAD, which is the product of sRPE and volume (which in most of the literature is reported in minutes). Likewise, in Table 4, the acute and chronic sRPE that you reoport is more like load (e.g. sRPE x duration). I do find it interesting that you report comparatively modest acute;chronic sRRPE (e.g. LOAD) ratios. This is a topic that has been of some interest, and some controversy, but is potentially an important measure

I think there is a misunderstanding because the S-RPE is “the LOAD”. The S-RPE is obtain by multiplying the RPE quotation in CR-10 Scale by the duration of the session expressed in minutes, in accordance with Foster et al. (2001) and as explain in the table. To avoid a misunderstanding, we suppressed the intensity variable because we did not use in our results and discussion, hoping that allow to increase the clarity about this point.

Likewise, we made the choice to keep in the table, the volume duration expressed in hour to give at the lecturer a pract

Submitted filename: Response to reviwers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

8 Jan 2020

Game performances and weekly workload: using of data mining process to enter in the complexity

PONE-D-19-23206R1

Dear Dr. Romain,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Cristina Cortis, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: all of my comments have been adequately addressed. I have no other comments relative to this paper.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

15 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-23206R1

Game performances and weekly workload: using of data mining process to enter in the complexity

Dear Dr. Romain:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Cristina Cortis

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE