| Literature DB >> 35979454 |
Kosta Goranović1, Rašid Hadžić1, Jovica Petković1, Marko Joksimović1,2.
Abstract
The practical value of monitoring is that well-chosen performance indicators can help coaches identify the good and bad performance of individuals or teams. External monitoring of matches is useful in establishing the physiological requirements of the sport and assessing how a player compares to the requirements of the event in this regard. This study aimed to analyze the trend component of running performance during a game of professional soccer in Montenegro. The research included a sample of 82 professional soccer players. The first subsample included 44 professional soccer players of the club Budućnost from Podgorica, height 185.89 ± 6.29 cm, mass 81.06 ± 5.47 kg, BMI 23.47 ± 0.96 kg/m2, age 28.86 ± 3.85 yrs. The second subsample included 38 professional soccer players from the Sutjeska club from Nikšić, height 181.88 ± 6.35 cm, mass 77.28 ± 6.78 kg, BMI 23.32 ± 1.08 kg/m2, age 29.43 ± 5.68 yrs. The InStat kinematic system captured the outfield players by using six cameras placed around the perimeter of the field at the minimal height of 12 m. The frame frequency was 25 frames per second; data were centralized for further analysis. Statistically significant differences were noted only in the variable sprint distance in the 2017 season. The results of the current research indicate that the soccer players who compete in Montenegro are below the values achieved by those who compete in Europe.Entities:
Keywords: external monitoring; high intensity running; performance analysis; soccer; time-motion analysis
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35979454 PMCID: PMC9377456 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.966578
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Descriptive data of performance running.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ||||
| TD (m) | Budućnost | 8.274 ± 3.87 | 8.041 ± 3.40 | 9.129 ± 2.46 | 0.760 | 0.541 |
| Sutjeska | 9.441 ± 3.11 | 7.081 ± 3.12 | 7.019 ± 3.45 | |||
| WD (m) | Budućnost | 2.776 ± 1.23 | 2.899 ± 1.23 | 3.431 ± 0.85 | 0.004 | 0.996 |
| Sutjeska | 3.194 ± 0.99 | 2.995 ± 1.04 | 2.498 ± 1.28 | |||
| JD (m) | Budućnost | 3.436 ± 1.67 | 3.175 ± 1.39 | 3.589 ± 1.15 | 1.168 | 0.422 |
| Sutjeska | 3.841 ± 1.46 | 3.070 ± 1.37 | 2.795 ± 1.50 | |||
| RD (m) | Budućnost | 1.378 ± 0.71 | 1.281 ± 0.72 | 1.395 ± 0.53 | 1.585 | 0.339 |
| Sutjeska | 1.552 ± 0.72 | 1.283 ± 0.63 | 1.155 ± 0.64 | |||
| HSRD(m) | Budućnost | 719 ± 0.44 | 583 ± 0.30 | 617 ± 0.28 | 5.389 | 0.102 |
| Sutjeska | 794 ± 0.30 | 538 ± 0.23 | 461 ± 0.26 | |||
| SD (m) | Budućnost | 92.75 ± 93.2 | 437 ± 0.32 | 119 ± 0.09 | 0.401 | 0.010 |
| Sutjeska | 105 ± 72.1 | 347 ± 0.23 | 66 ± 0.05 |
2017 vs. 2015, 2020;
2017 vs. 2015, 2020; TD, total distance; WD, walk distance; JD, jog distance; RD, run distance; HSRD, high speed runs distance; SD, sprint distance.
Figure 1Trend in mean total distance by years.
Figure 2Trend in mean walk distance by years.
Figure 3Trend in mean jog distance by years.
Figure 4Trend in mean run distance by years.
Figure 5Trend in mean high speed runs distance by years.
Figure 6Trend in mean sprint distance by years.