4.6 Article

Video analysis of selected game activities in Australian rules football

期刊

JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND MEDICINE IN SPORT
卷 5, 期 2, 页码 129-142

出版社

SPORTS MEDICINE AUSTRALIA
DOI: 10.1016/S1440-2440(02)80034-2

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The frequency and outcome of common game activities during Australian football matches have not previously been reported. The aim of this investigation was to determine the frequency and outcome of marking opportunities (MO), ruck contests (RC) and kick-ins (KI), for the purpose of potentially refining current training methods to better replicate common game occurrences. Video footage of all 24 Australian Football League (AFL) matches in which the West Coast Eagles (WCE) participated during the 1997 premiership season was viewed. Notational analysis was used to record information for both the WCE and the opposition during MO, RC and KI. There was an average of 259 MO per game, of which 42.5% were unopposed by either team (1/0 or 0/1) and 45.0% involved one player from each team (1/1). The average success rate of unopposed marks (1/0 and 0/1) was 88.3%, opposed (1/1) 29.3% and, for all MO's combined, 53.5%. There was an average of 99 RC per game, of which 48 were bounce-downs (28 centre bounces) and 51 boundary throw-ins. The clearance rates from RC for WCE and the opposition were not associated with winning the match or each quarter (p > 0.05, R = 0.000), nor did the clearance rate correlate with other measures of game success (scoring shots, team quarter score, the difference in score between teams or the lead change each quarter). There was an average of 21 KI per game. For both teams combined, long kicks (over 50 metres) were the most preferred form of KI (49%) compared to medium (between 25 and 50 metres) (30%) and short (under 25 metres) (21%). Long kicks were the most ineffective at directly retaining possession (29.0%) whilst short kicks were the most effective (93.4%). Some practical (training) implications, based on these results, are discussed.

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