Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
---|---|---|---|---|
651.53 KB | Adobe PDF |
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
Abstract: The aims of this study were to compare the external workload in win, draw and defeat
matches and to compare first and second halves in the Iranian Premier League. Observations on
individual match performance measures were undertaken on thirteen outfield players (age, 28.6 ±
2.7 years; height, 182.1 ± 8.6 cm; body mass, 75.3 ± 8.2 kg; BMI, 22.6 ± 0.7 kg/m2) competing in the
Iranian Premier League. High‐speed activities selected for analysis included total duration of
matches, total distance, average speed, high‐speed running distance, sprint distance, maximal
speed and GPS‐derived body load data. In general, there were higher workloads in win matches
when compared with draw or defeat for all variables; higher workloads in the first halves of win
and draw matches; higher total distance, high‐speed running distance and body load in the second
half in defeat matches. Specifically, lower average speed was found in matches with a win than with
draw or defeat (p < 0.05). Sprint distance was higher in the first half of win than defeat matches and
high‐speed running distance was lower in draw than defeat matches (all, p < 0.05). In addition, first
half presented higher values for all variables, regardless of the match result. Specifically, high‐speed
running distance was higher in the first half of matches with a win (p = 0.08) and total distance was
higher in the first half of matches with a draw (p = 0.012). In conclusion, match result influences the
external workload demands and must be considered in subsequent training sessions and matches.
Description
Keywords
association football performance load monitoring high-speed running match match result
Citation
Nobari H, Oliveira R, Brito JP, Pérez-Gómez J, Clemente FM, Ardigò LP. (2021).Comparison of Running Distance Variables and Body Load in Competitions Based on Their Results: A Full-Season Study of Professional Soccer Players. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(4):2077. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18042077
Publisher
MDPI