4.6 Article

Acceleration and sprint profiles of professional male football players in relation to playing position

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 15, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236959

关键词

-

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities [FPU18/04434]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aims were to describe positional differences in the acceleration and sprint profiles of professional football players in match-play, and analyse start speeds required based on the intensity of accelerations and decelerations. This longitudinal study was conducted over thirteen competitive microcycles in a professional football team from LaLiga 123. Data were collected through electronic performance tracking systems. Every player was categorised based on the playing position: central defender (CD), full-back (FB), forward (FW), midfielder (MF), and wide midfielder (WMF). In respect of acceleration profile, positional differences were found for all variables (p< 0.05), except average magnitude of accelerations (ACC(AVG),p= 0.56) and decelerations (DECAVG,p= 0.76). The sprint profile also showed positional differences for all variables (p< 0.05), apart from sprint duration (p= 0.07). In addition, although low-intensity accelerations required significantly greater start speeds (Vo) than high-intensity accelerations in WMF (0.4 +/- 0.2 km/h;p< 0.05) and FW (0.4 +/- 0.2 km/h;p< 0.05), no significant differences (p> 0.05) were found in CD, FB, and MF. However, high-intensity decelerations were performed at significantly higher Vo than low-intensity decelerations in MF (2.65 +/- 0.1 km/h;p< 0.05), FW (3.3 +/- 0.1 km/h;p< 0.05), FB (3.9 +/- 0.4 km/h;p< 0.05), WMF (4.3 +/- 0.3 km/h;p< 0.05), and CD (4.1 +/- 0.7 km/h;p< 0.05). Therefore, positional differences exist for most variables of the acceleration and sprint profiles. In addition, different Vo were observed between high-intensity and low-intensity accelerations as well as high-intensity and low-intensity decelerations.

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