Search Results

The aims of this study were to describe the internal and external match loads (ML) of refereeing activity during official soccer matches and to investigate the relationship among the methods of ML quantification across a competitive season. A further aim was to examine the usefulness of differential perceived exertion (dRPE) as a tool for monitoring internal ML in soccer referees. Twenty field referees (FRs) and 43 assistant referees (ARs) participated in the study. Data were collected from 30 competitive matches (FR = 20 observations, AR = 43 observations) and included measures of internal (Edwards’ heart-rate-derived training impulse [TRIMP_EDW]) ML, external (total distance covered, distance covered at high speeds, and player load) ML, and ML differentiated ratings of perceived respiratory (sRPE_res) and leg-muscle (sRPE_mus) exertion. Internal and external ML were all greater for FRs than for ARs (–19.7 to –72.5), with differences ranging from very likely very large to most likely extremely large. The relationships between internal-ML and external-ML indicators were, in most cases, unclear for FR (r < .35) and small to moderate for AR (r < .40). The authors found substantial differences between RPE_res and RPE_mus scores in both FRs (0.6 AU; ±90% confidence limits 0.4 AU) and ARs (0.4; ±0.3). These data demonstrate the multifaceted demands of soccer refereeing and thereby highlight the importance of monitoring both internal and external ML. Moreover, dRPE represents distinct dimensions of effort and may be useful in monitoring soccer referees’ ML during official matches.

Objectives: To examine the moderating effect of familiarization on the relationship between external load and ratings of perceived exertion (RPEs) in elite youth soccer players. Methods: Thirty-five elite male youth soccer players were monitored over a 31-week period. Players had no previous experience using the centiMax scale (arbitrary units [AU]). The final sample included familiarized (blackness test; n = 20) and nonfamiliarized players (n = 15) with the Borg centiMax scale. Players recorded a global RPE and differential RPEs (dRPE) for breathlessness (RPE-B) and leg-muscle exertion (RPE-L) 15 to 30 minutes following training sessions and competitive matches. Separate multivariable-adjusted random-effects generalized additive models with restricted maximum likelihood quantified familiarization versus no-familiarization differences in actual perceived exertion score (in AU) by number of accelerations, decelerations, and high-speed running distance (in meters) as predictor variables, respectively. Results: Players improved their blackness test score from 39% to 78%. For explorations by number of accelerations, familiarization effects were not practically relevant for the RPE and RPE-B variables. The width and sign of the effects for the RPE-L variable at 30 efforts of 10 AU (95% CI, 4–16 AU) suggested that scores were lower for players who underwent familiarization versus players who did not. Familiarization effects were not practically relevant for any RPE variable irrespective of the number of deceleration efforts and high-speed running distance covered. Conclusion: Improved performance on the blackness test did not have a moderating effect on the relationship between proxy measures of external load and RPEs.

Purpose: To understand the validity of differential ratings of perceived exertion (dRPE) as a measure of girls’ training and match internal loads. Methods: Using the centiMax scale (CR100), session dRPE for breathlessness (sRPE-B) and leg muscle exertion (sRPE-L) were collected across a season of training (soccer, resistance, and fitness) and matches from 33 players (15 [1] y). Differences and associations between dRPE were examined using mixed and general linear models. The authors’ minimal practical important difference was 8 arbitrary units (AU). Results: Mean (AU [SD] ∼16) sRPE-B and sRPE-L were 66 and 61 for matches, 51 and 49 for soccer, 86 and 67 for fitness, and 45 and 58 for resistance, respectively. Session RPE-B was rated most likely harder than sRPE-L for fitness (19 AU; 90% confidence limits: ±7) and most likely easier for resistance (−13; ±2). Match (5; ±4) and soccer (−3; ±2) differences were likely to most likely trivial. The within-player relationships between sRPE-B and sRPE-L were very likely moderate for matches (r = .44; 90% confidence limits: ±.12) and resistance training (.38; ±.06), likely large for fitness training (.51; ±.22), and most likely large for soccer training (.56; ±.03). Shared variance ranged from 14% to 35%. Conclusions: Practically meaningful differences between dRPE following physical training sessions coupled with low shared variance in all training types and matches suggest that sRPE-B and sRPE-L represent unique sensory inputs in girls’ soccer players. The data provide evidence for the face and construct validity of dRPE as a measure of internal load in this population.

Purpose: Overuse injury risk increases during periods of accelerated growth, which can subsequently impact development in academy soccer, suggesting a need to quantify training exposure. Nonprescriptive development scheme legislation could lead to inconsistent approaches to monitoring maturity and training load. Therefore, this study aimed to communicate current practices of UK soccer academies toward biological maturity and training load. Methods: Forty-nine respondents completed an online survey representing support staff from male Premier League academies (n = 38) and female Regional Talent Clubs (n = 11). The survey included 16 questions covering maturity and training-load monitoring. Questions were multiple-choice or unipolar scaled (agreement 0–100) with a magnitude-based decision approach used for interpretation. Results: Injury prevention was deemed highest importance for maturity (83.0 [5.3], mean [SD]) and training-load monitoring (80.0 [2.8]). There were large differences in methods adopted for maturity estimation and moderate differences for training-load monitoring between academies. Predictions of maturity were deemed comparatively low in importance for bio-banded (biological classification) training (61.0 [3.3]) and low for bio-banded competition (56.0 [1.8]) across academies. Few respondents reported maturity (42%) and training load (16%) to parent/guardians, and only 9% of medical staff were routinely provided this data. Conclusions: Although consistencies between academies exist, disparities in monitoring approaches are likely reflective of environment-specific resource and logistical constraints. Designating consistent and qualified responsibility to staff will help promote fidelity, feedback, and transparency to advise stakeholders of maturity–load relationships. Practitioners should consider biological categorization to manage load prescription to promote maturity-appropriate dose–responses and to help reduce the risk of noncontact injury.

Athlete case studies have often focused on the training outcome and not the training process. Consequently, there is a dearth of information detailing longitudinal training protocols, yet it is the combined assessment of both outcome and process that enhances the interpretation of physical test data. We were provided with a unique opportunity to assess the training load, physical match performance, and physiological fitness of an elite soccer referee from the referee’s final season before attaining full-time, professional status (2002) until the season when he refereed the 2010 UEFA Champions League and FIFA World Cup finals. An increased focus on on-field speed and gym-based strength training was observed toward the end of the study period and longitudinal match data showed a tendency for decreased total distances but an increased intensity of movements. Laboratory assessments demonstrated that VO₂max remained stable (52.3 vs 50.8 mL-kg^–1-min^–1), whereas running speed at the lactate threshold (14.0 vs 12.0 km-h^-1) and running economy (37.3 vs 43.4 mLkg^–1min^–1) both improved in 2010 compared with 2002.

The ability to repeatedly perform sprints has traditionally been viewed as a key performance measure in team sports, and the relationship between repeated-sprint ability (RSA) and performance has been explored extensively. However, when reviewing the repeated-sprint profile of team-sports match play it appears that the occurrence of repeated-sprint bouts is sparse, indicating that RSA is not as important to performance as commonly believed. Repeated sprints are, however, a potent and time-efficient training strategy, effective in developing acceleration, speed, explosive leg power, aerobic power, and high-intensity-running performance—all of which are crucial to team-sport performance. As such, we propose that repeated-sprint exercise in team sports should be viewed as an independent variable (eg, a means of developing fitness) as opposed to a dependent variable (eg, a means of assessing fitness/performance).