4.6 Article

What is the extent of exposure to periods of match congestion in professional soccer players?

期刊

JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES
卷 33, 期 20, 页码 2116-2124

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2015.1091492

关键词

match congestion; recovery; fatigue; injury

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated exposure to periods of match congestion in regular starter players in a professional soccer team across 4 competitive seasons (2009-2013). Players were divided into 2 groups: club players (club match exposure only, n=41) and national team players (club and national team exposure, n=22). The frequency of congested periods that players were potentially exposed to per season was initially determined: 2-match cycles - potential exposure to 2 successive matches separated by a 3-day interval calculated immediately from the end of play in match 1 to the start of play in match 2 occurred on 12.5 +/- 5.1 and 16.0 +/- 4.7 occasions for club and national team players, respectively. Multiple-match cycles: potential exposure to 3-, 4-, 5- or 6-matches played successively within a 4-day period commencing from the day after each match occurred on 8.5 +/- 2.1, 4.3 +/- 1.7, 3.0 +/- 0.8 and 1.8 +/- 0.5 occasions for club and 11.5 +/- 2.4, 6.5 +/- 0.6, 4.5 +/- 1.9 and 3.0 +/- 1.4 occasions for national team players, respectively. With regard to actual exposure in club and national team players, respectively, participation in both matches in 2-match cycles attained 61.2% and 59.3% while 90-min play in both matches was only completed on 38.2% and 40.5% of occasions and 75-min play on 47.6% and 50.0% of occasions, despite availability to play in both groups being >86%. While availability to play in all players was frequently >70% for multiple-match cycles, a trend was observed for a sharp decline in participation as the number of matches in the cycles increased. Therefore, the present players were not extensively exposed to periods of fixture congestion.

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