4.4 Article

Training and Competition Workloads and Fatigue Responses of Elite Junior Cricket Players

出版社

HUMAN KINETICS PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1123/ijspp.8.5.517

关键词

fast bowling; GPS; well-being; neuromuscular; endocrine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: This study investigated key fatigue and workload variables of cricket fast bowlers and nonfast bowlers during a 7-wk physical-preparation period and 10-d intensified competition period. Methods: Twenty-six elite junior cricketers (mean +/- SD age 17.7 +/- 1.1 y) were classified as fast bowlers (n = 9) or nonfast bowlers (n = 17). Individual workloads were measured via global positioning system technology, and neuromuscular function (countermovement jump [relative power and flight time]), endocrine (salivary testosterone and cortisol concentrations), and perceptual well-being (soreness, mood, stress, sleep quality, and fatigue) markers were recorded. Results: Fast bowlers performed greater competition total distance (median [interquartile range] 7049 [3962] m vs 5062 [3694] m), including greater distances at low and high speeds, and more accelerations (40 [32] vs 19 [21]) and had a higher player load (912 [481] arbitrary units vs 697 [424] arbitrary units) than nonfast bowlers. Cortisol concentrations were higher in the physical-preparation (mean +/- 90% confidence intervals, % likelihood; d = -0.88 +/- 0.39, 100%) and competition phases (d = -0.39 +/- 0.30, 85%), and testosterone concentrations, lower (d = 0.56 +/- 0.29, 98%), in the competition phase in fast bowlers. Perceptual well-being was poorer in nonfast bowlers during competition only (d = 0.36 +/- 0.22, 88%). Differences in neuromuscular function between groups were unclear during physical preparation and competition. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate differences in the physical demands of cricket fast bowlers and nonfast bowlers and suggest that these external workloads differentially affect the neuromuscular, endocrine, and perceptual fatigue responses of these players.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据