4.6 Article

Seasonal training and match load and micro-cycle periodization in male Premier League academy soccer players

期刊

JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES
卷 39, 期 16, 页码 1838-1849

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2021.1899610

关键词

Player development; load monitoring; GPS; periodization; LTAD

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study revealed an increase in the absolute weekly training volume among EPL academy soccer players, with U16-U18 players capable of achieving similar training and match volumes as adult EPL players but not yet reaching the absolute intensities of the adult players.
We quantified on pitch external loading of English Premier League (EPL) academy soccer players (n=76; U12-U18 age groups) over an entire competitive season. Mean accumulative weekly duration and total distance, respectively, was similar in the U12 (329 +/- 29 min; 19.9 +/- 2.2 km), U13 (323 +/- 29 min; 20.0 +/- 2.0 km) and U14 (339 +/- 25 min; 21.7 +/- 2.0 km; P>0.05 for all comparisons) age-groups, though all teams were less than U15 (421 +/- 15 min; 26.2 +/- 2.1 km), U16 (427 +/- 20 min; 25.9 +/- 2.5 km) and U18 (398 +/- 30 min; 26.1 +/- 2.6 km) players (P<0.05 for all comparisons). Mean weekly high-speed running and sprint distance was not different between U12 (220 +/- 95 m and 6 +/- 9 m respectively), U13 (331 +/- 212 m and 6 +/- 27 m) and U14 (448 +/- 193 m and 21 +/- 29 m) age-groups (P>0.05 for all pairwise comparisons) though all squads were less than U15 (657 +/- 242 m and 49 +/- 98 m), U16 (749 +/- 152 m and 95 +/- 55 m) and U18 (979 +/- 254 m and 123 +/- 56 m) age-groups (P<0.05 for all pairwise comparisons). Data demonstrate that absolute weekly training volume in EPL academy soccer players increases throughout the academy pathway. Furthermore, although U16-U18 players are capable of achieving similar training and match volumes as previously reported in adult EPL players, they do not yet achieve the absolute intensities of adult EPL 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

4.6
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