4.6 Article

Validation of a Video-Based Performance Analysis System (Mediacoach®) to Analyze the Physical Demands during Matches in LaLiga

期刊

SENSORS
卷 19, 期 19, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s19194113

关键词

time-motion analysis; GPS; match-tracking; football; physical demands

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of the present study was to assess the accuracy of a multi-camera tracking system (Mediacoach (R)) to track elite football players' movements in real time. A total of 207 observations of 38 official matches from Liga 1, 2, 3 (TM) (2nd Spanish Division, season 2017/18) were included in the study (88 defenders, 84 midfielders, and 35 attackers of the same team). Total distance (TD, m) distance in zone 4 (DZ4) at a speed of 14-21 km/h, distance in zone 5 (DZ5) at a speed of 21-24 km/h (DZ5), distance in zone 6 (DZ6) at a speed of >= 24 km/h, maximum speed (km/h), and number of sprints (actions above 24 km/h) were registered with the Apex (R) GPS system (STATSports (TM), Newry, N. Ireland) and Mediacoach (R) semi-automatic tracking system (LaLiga (TM), Madrid, Spain). The level of agreement between variables estimated by the two systems was analyzed. Bias was also calculated by deducting the GPS estimated value from the video estimated value, and then dividing the difference score by the GPS estimated value. All variables showed high ICC values (>0.75) and very large correlations (r > 0.70). However the video-based performance analysis system overestimated the results obtained in the different speed zones (DZ5: +16.59 +/- 62.29 m; LOA95%: -105.49 to 138.68; DZ6: +93.26 +/- 67.76 m; LOA95%: -39.55 to 226.07), the number of sprints (+2.27 +/- 2.94; LOA95%: -3.49 to 8.02), and the maximum speed (+0.32 +/- 1.25 km/h; LOA95%: -2.13 to 2.77). The maximum bias was found in DZ6 (47%). This demonstrates that Mediacoach (R) is as accurate as a GPS system to obtain objective data in real time, adapted to physical and movement demands of elite football, especially for total distance and distances traveled at medium speeds.

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

4.6
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