Comparison of the Physical Demands of Friendly Matches and Different Types On-Field Integrated Training Sessions in Professional Soccer Players

Jesus Vicente Giménez, Julen Castellano, Patrycja Lipinska, Mariusz Zasada and Miguel-Ángel Gómez
Additional contact information
Jesus Vicente Giménez: School of Sport Sciences, Universidad Europea de Madrid, 28670 Villaviciosa de Odón (Madrid), Spain
Julen Castellano: Department of Physical Education and Sport, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Vitoria, 48940 Leioa, Spain
Patrycja Lipinska: Institute of Physical Education, Kazimierz Wielki University, 85-064 Bydgoszcz, Poland
Mariusz Zasada: Institute of Physical Education, Kazimierz Wielki University, 85-064 Bydgoszcz, Poland
Miguel-Ángel Gómez: Faculty of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences, Technical University of Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain

IJERPH, 2020, vol. 17, issue 8, 1-10

Abstract: The aim of this study was to investigate the relationships among physical demands of two friendly matches (FMs) and three task training sessions (TS 1,2,3 ) combining in a different way: a Small-Sided Game (SSG), Mini-Goals (MG), a ball Circuit Training (CT) and a Large-Sided Game (LSG): SSG+MG+LSG (TS 1 ), SSG+CT+LSG (TS 2 ) and MG+CT+LSG (TS 3 ). The TS and match demands in running intensities were monitored in fourteen professional soccer players (age = 23.2 ± 2.7 years, height = 178 ± 6 cm, body mass = 73.2 ± 6.9 kg, mean and SD, respectively) using 10-Hz global positioning system devices, and players’ perception of exertion was recorded after each session or match using a visual analogue scale. A one-way repeated measures ANOVA with a Bonferroni correction coupled with magnitude-based inferences were used. A principal component (PC) analysis was conducted on all variables to account for covariance. Three PCs were retained, explaining 76% of the variance: Component 1 explained 46.9% with the associated variables: Total Distance (TD) and distance covered in ranges of speed from >2.2 to <5 m/s, Player Load and Work Rest Ratio; component 2 explained 19.7% and was composed of TD at > 5 m/s and maximal running speed (MRS); and component 3 explained 9.5% and was represented by TD < 2.2 m/s, decelerations and accelerations. The ANOVA results showed significant differences ( p < 0.05) among TS vs. FM in TD3, TD4, TD5, and TD > 5, TD, deceleration rate, acceleration rate, maximal running speed, exertion index, work rest ratio, and self-reported exertion. Therefore, the training routines did not replicate the main set of high intensity efforts experienced in competitive conditions. Additionally, PC analysis could be applied in order to select the most representative training and competitive conditions.

Keywords: task performance; athletic performance; analysis; soccer (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/8/2904/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/8/2904/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:8:p:2904-:d:349066

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().