The impact of sport-science support on an athlete’s performance can be mutually rewarding, especially when working hands-on with athletes, particularly at elite and Olympic levels. Nevertheless, fully leveraging the impact on athlete performance requires practical experience, theoretical understanding, wisdom, commitment, and ability to organize support effectively. Sport scientists often encounter challenges in obtaining comprehensive, trustworthy, and useful data to satisfy the agreed aims, particularly with logistical constraints, specialized equipment requirements, limited personnel, and financial resources. Even expert teams with access to comprehensive data often find it challenging to identify and prioritize the important aspects of performance problems and solutions that need addressing.1 Given that athletes strive to achieve the highest level of performance, it is essential that the performance support for coaches and athletes retains its meaningfulness and relevance.2
We introduce and describe the approach of “minimal, adequate, and accurate” for sports science support to ensure that programs of work and solutions are both economical and effective (Table 1). This approach is essential in high-performance sport settings (Figure 1), where the resources must be optimized without compromising the quality or effectiveness. To apply this approach, effective services or monitoring should consider measuring (1) what is necessary (important), (2) usability (immediately actionable), and (3) sustainability (consistently implementable), while emphasizing data accuracy for effective performance-related decisions.3,4 In this context, support provision involves using “minimal” resources (eg, least amount of time, tools, personnel, and funding) necessary to achieve desired outcomes. Correspondingly, “adequate” information refers to data that provide acceptable outcomes or meet objectives based on critical performance elements. Both aspects must adhere to the requirement that methods used and data generated are “accurate,” within contemporary standards used to obtain valid and reliable data. This approach ensures streamlined support and resources, avoiding excessive, arbitrary, or noncrucial information, and simplifying coaching and athlete interventions. Importantly, the formulation and implementation of this approach must be planned, evaluated, and refined on a regular basis to facilitate effective decision making in sport-science support.
Application of a “Minimal, Adequate, and Accurate” Approach Within the Overall Context of Performance Support for Sprinters, 10 Days Before and During Competition
| Minimal | Adequate | Accurate | Remarks | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Facet 1: Neuromuscular readiness | Objective data (regular + alternative) | Assessed pretravel, and precompetition (alternative) | Using standard and established protocols | Use of regular monitoring and training (priming session) data. |
| Facet 2: Wellness monitoring | Subjective monitoring tool with holistic assessment | Individual dimensions and overall score; assessed multiple times | Validated tool | Incorporable with Facet 1. Avoids overwhelming athlete with excessive data collection. |
| Facet 3: Movement observation | Direct and subjective observation | Technical, body language, and behavioral assessments | Recorded (drills, blocks, etc) and discussed with coach | Facilitates discussions; integratable with objective data. |
| Facet 4: Motivation | Single-item questionnaires | Guided and planned conversation | Genuine feedback (personal conversation) | Personal interaction is an irreplaceable way for a deeper understanding. |
| Facet 5: Biomechanics and performance analysis | Use of known track markers, video camera, or smartphone | Objective data for acceleration, max velocity, and maintenance | Use of high-speed camera (proper synchronization) and motion software | Performance/actionable feedback (what to do next?). |
| Facet 6: Qualitative feedback | Conversational feedback with tablet computer or smartphone | Use of slow-motion function, zooming, and annotation, shareable via mobile phone | Use of multiple views (or cameras) and consecutive movements | Complements Facet 5 and captures nuanced aspects (technical). |
—The constituents of sport-science support provision (for sprinters) in high-performance sports involving a network of sport-science specialists in support of the athlete and coach for both training and competition settings. This approach encompasses roles in assessing and managing factors that determine and influence performance, as well as arranging key support areas for optimizing performance during competition. Identifying these factors is the first step in determining which specific parameters or tools to consider in the context of a “minimal, adequate, and accurate” approach.
Citation: International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 20, 2; 10.1123/ijspp.2024-0227
Coaches rely on specific information from sports scientists to enable a targeted focus and implementation of advice and training strategies. Here, we offer an example of how this approach is applied in the real world, focusing on an individual sport, track and field (100-m sprint). Briefly, the 100-m sprint is typically divided into 3 phases: acceleration, maximal velocity, and deceleration. Key factors in sprinting include power, technique, and sprint-specific endurance (for “maintenance”), and where maximal velocity is highly correlated with 100-m sprint performance.5 Technically, front- and back-side mechanics, touchdown, and lift-off patterns (among others) are the most commonly assessed variables in sprinting.5,6 In essence, the 100-m dash is ∼10-s race (elite men), thus in a matter of short time, every aspect of physical, technical, and mental execution is accomplished in perfect harmony. Therefore, a sprinter needs to be in top condition (physically and mentally), and performance support (monitoring, recovery, motivation, etc) can be a valuable adjunct to expert coaching (eg, Figure 1).
Integrative Knowledge and Support Provision
In team dynamics, leadership style, supportive team behavior, communication, and performance feedback are 4 key variables critical to the effectiveness of a high-performance team.7 These elements are crucial for creating meaningful interdisciplinary connections within the team8 and are often manifested through collaborative communication and expertise sharing among 2 or more team members9 (see Figure 2). A combination of formal arrangements (team structure, roles and responsibilities, meetings and networking, and communication processes) and informal networking needed in team sports and for supporting individual elite athletes and their coach.
—Examples of an integrative approach (interdisciplinary) in sport-science support provisions with particular facets. For competition readiness (a), both neuromuscular (physiology and S&C) and wellness (psychology) are priorities. For sprint performance (b), the areas of performance analysis, biomechanics, and psychology warrant specific attention. As shown, monitoring and assessment results are integrated (see small arrows) between disciplines to provide a more holistic view regarding performance (see large arrows). The specific parameters identified or used in these models are within the context of a “minimal, adequate, and accurate” approach to facilitate efficient and effective services. CMJ indicates countermovement jump; DJ, drop jump; S&C, strength and conditioning.
Citation: International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 20, 2; 10.1123/ijspp.2024-0227
To support sprint athletes and coaches effectively, a high-performance team requires a collective and specific plan centered on both key performance determinants (eg, reactive strength, 60-m sprint, and specific sprint endurance) and influential or moderating factors (eg, technique, wellness, and motivation). This plan must clearly articulate the methods of service delivery, particularly under constraints such as limited in-house services during away events (eg, overseas competitions where personnel, financial, or access [accreditation] limitations must be managed). Consequently, performance teams may need to adopt more inclusive strategies, possibly from an experienced member who can perform multiple tasks across subdisciplines (ie, “minimal” cost/resource), thus integrating knowledge and avoiding siloed activities. An integrated approach employs a “minimal, adequate, and accurate” framework for optimizing resources to enhance overall performance. Such a simple and effective framework is vital for linking outcomes to key principles that scientists and coaches could adopt to better organize their coaching and support practices and better address the specific needs of athletes.8 In a multidisciplinary (nonintegrative) approach, specialists work independently with minimal collaboration, each providing separate assessments and recommendations. In an integrated approach, specialists collaborate closely, sharing information, discussing strategies, and making collective decisions to create a unified, holistic plan and direction for the coach/athlete,10 thus enhancing performance through a more personalized intervention.11 As depicted in Figure 2, when the goal is to identify “competition readiness,” both neuromuscular (physiology) and wellness (psychology) monitoring can be implemented. Likewise, to better understand “sprint performance,” a comprehensive evaluation should include sprinting phases (acceleration, maximal velocity, and maintenance); technical elements (blocks, posture, strides, foot strikes, and arm swings); and psychological aspects (prerace confidence and motivation) (see Figure 2).
We briefly discuss the support provision deemed appropriate for sprinters in the 10 days leading up to (and during) a major competition by applying the “minimal, adequate, and accurate” approach in service delivery; examples are given in Table 1. For this context, the “minimal” approach employs simple tools, settings, and methods that are easy to implement and do not take much time to complete. This configuration provides the level of generated information that is “adequate” to understand performance, while methods used are broadly valid and reliable (Table 1). In order to achieve the “minimal, adequate, and accurate” approach, a sports scientist should evaluate, customize, and implement each of the facets as required in their sport setting. In this case, the event was held overseas, and accessibility to essential resources was limited.
Facet 1: Neuromuscular Readiness and Status
Assessment of neuromuscular readiness and status can be implemented consistently to provide data that serve as a benchmark for long-term comparison or daily review and corrective actions. Objective data can be obtained using common test protocols and simple devices. The countermovement jump and drop jump are used frequently to monitor neuromuscular status and predict performance.12,13 Metrics, such as relative peak power and jump height during countermovement jump testing and reactive strength index during the drop jump are reliable and useful.14 Table 2 illustrates the status of a sprinter measured 7 days prior to a competition, showing 3% to 14% observed improvements, with each raw change exceeding the smallest worthwhile change and coefficient of variation. The same data can be used to identify changes or performance improvements in vertical jumps (eg, power and reactive strength). When traveling for competitions, other tools such as GymAware or Flex can assess explosive performance and readiness. In this example, the “hang snatch” exercise, often employed in a sprinter’s training, can effectively monitor movement (barbell) speed during this whole-body compound movement. Changes in the lifting velocity can provide direct feedback on an athlete’s performance and fatigue levels.15 In this case, the barbell average velocity (external load of ∼40% of 1-repetition maximum) was 1.44 m/s (6 d prior) and 1.52 m/s (3 d prior), representing improvements of 6% and 12%, respectively, compared with the average of the 3 previous sessions (1.36 m/s) assessed over 3 weeks prior. As a result, these positive outcomes should further reinforce the previous regular monitoring data, indicating the athlete’s improvement in explosive performance and readiness to compete.
Changes in Neuromuscular Performance in an Elite Track Sprinter 7 Days Prior to an International Competition
| Countermovement jump | Drop jump, RSI, a.u. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Peak power, W/kg | Jump height, cm | ||
| Best attempt | 75.3 | 60.0 | 2.97 |
| Average of the 5 previous tests conducted | 72.8 | 56.3 | 2.60 |
| SWC | 0.44 | 0.65 | 0.05 |
| CV | 1.5 | 2.2 | 0.18 |
| Raw difference | 2.5 | 3.7 | 0.37 |
| %Difference | 3.4 | 6.6 | 14.2 |
Abbreviations: a.u., arbitrary units; CV, coefficient of variation (for multiple individual testing sessions over time; average/100 × CV%); previous 5 average, average of the 5 previous tests conducted; RSI, Reactive Strength Index (jump height/contact time); SWC, smallest worthwhile change (0.3 × SD). Note: Drop jump from 40-cm height.
Facet 2: Wellness Monitoring
Athletes’ subjective wellness is often tracked to evaluate fatigue, recovery, readiness, and training effectiveness.16,17 This practice helps in guiding the athletes and coaches on appropriate actions (eg, the need for recovery). Self-reported responses to simple questions (5-point scale; scores of 1–5) can be used to evaluate fatigue, sleep quality, muscle soreness, stress, and mood (Figure 3), using a mobile phone. Each item involves categorical descriptors (eg, for fatigue; “always tired” = 1, “more tired than normal” = 2, “normal” = 3, “fresh” = 4, and “very fresh” = 5)18 that facilitate the rating from athletes. Overall wellness is then determined by summing the 5 scores (maximum of 25), and then converting to a percentage (multiplied by 4). Based on Figure 3, moderate scores were achieved initially, implying elevated fatigue due to an intensive training period. In this case (eg, fatigue), athletes/coaches were advised accordingly (eg, need to perform recovery, good rest, massage, ice bath). Progressively higher scores denote successful physiological adaptation and recovery efficiency. In Figure 3, as the competition nears, the athlete’s improving wellness scores (64%–84%), reflected a well-managed balance between training load and recovery; this feedback can be supplemented by “a traffic light system” to report the results.19 Improvement is likely a result of reduced training load and tapering, which mitigates fatigue and optimizes physiological state and readiness for peak performance.
—Wellness scores of an athlete leading up to a main competition. Briefly, lower scores of self-reported fatigue, soreness, or stress indicate higher levels of fatigue, soreness, or stress, respectively. Note. A traffic-light system is used for the color version of the figure (see online publication); green (dark shade). and orange (light gray shade) colors represent the level of scores.
Citation: International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 20, 2; 10.1123/ijspp.2024-0227
Facet 3: Movement Observation
A sprinter’s movement and skills can be evaluated subjectively by observing training sessions with drills or block starts to assess effort and intensity against expectations. While technical familiarity is crucial for certain movements, a sports scientist can simplify the process by videoing sessions to facilitate discussion. Moreover, a seasoned scientist who regularly works with the same coach/athletes will be more acquainted with athletes’ routines and physical “condition/appearance.” These qualitative observations can be integrated with objective data, including video feedback (Table 1). In the context of movement observation, the scientist plays multiple roles (eg, analyst and social facilitator). An analyst needs to address key questions including “Is he/she giving his/her full effort, or does he/she seem fatigued?” Signs of physical readiness such as posture, alertness, confidence, and energy levels should be monitored. Athletes could experience competitive stressors because of (among others) the size and importance of the competition that might warrant support facilitation.20 When performing a specific task (eg, block start), a scientist can also perform a similar observation for the athletes. Here, immediate feedback can be provided (via coaching staff or directly) in a constructive manner, as this can lead to awareness on ideal movement execution and better learning (and boosting confidence). A subjective categorical scale can be used for this type of assessment (eg, 1 = poor energy ... 10 = highly energetic). Remedial actions, such as interaction, recovery, and/or a physiotherapy/massage session, can be implemented as necessary.
Facet 4: Motivation
Self-confidence and motivation are 2 factors that could enhance sporting performance.21 An athlete can be asked 2 simple questions as part of the conversation: On a scale of 1 to 10 (1–2 = unmotivated ... 9–10 = extremely motivated), “How motivated do you feel right now about the competition?” and “rate your current level of confidence” on a scale from 1 to 10 (1–2 = very low ... 9–10 = very high confidence). These single-item questions are not uncommon in sports.22 Depending on answers from the athletes, follow-up questions can be asked: “What do you think could help make it closer to a 10? Is there anyway we/I can help?” This approach provides a quick quantitative assessment of the athlete’s motivational state, as well as needs, allowing for a meaningful discussion. This personal interaction is an irreplaceable way to gain a deeper understanding on athlete’s present situation. It is important to keep the conversation positive and supportive, reinforcing their current strengths (eg, recent monitoring results, testing, or execution of a semifinal race) and past successes.
Facet 5: Biomechanics and Performance Analysis
A suite of video cameras coupled with readily available markers at key distances (eg, 10, 30, and 60 m) on the running track yields useful biomechanics and performance data.23 However, a comprehensive sprinting analysis may not always be possible in this situation.24 To provide useful information, high-speed cameras (∼100 fps) can be utilized to record split times (at key distances), providing insights into the athlete’s performance during different phases of the sprint race: acceleration, maximal velocity, and speed maintenance. To ensure accuracy in setup and interpretation, high-speed cameras should be positioned parallel to key distances along the track and synchronized with a starter gun (signal/smoke) to allow for precise split analysis and interpretation.23 Parameters such as frame rate (eg, 100 Hz) and shutter speed (eg, 1/1000 s) need to be set appropriately. As such, a smartphone might be utilized to yield the same information if the setup is appropriate (placement, distance, exposure settings, etc).
In Table 3, actual performance data are presented for 7 sprinters, each with their split times at key distances. In Figure 4, the gap for reaching the set timing standard (ie, 100 m: 10.10 s) is illustrated (in percentages). This visualization is simple and allows immediate identification of areas where an athlete may be lacking (needs improvement), as well as demonstration of their strengths. For example, athlete 3 (against the 10.10 s standard) would be highlighted as having some issues in the early acceleration (examples only: overstriding, understriding, improper torso, and insufficient arm “pumps”) and at the top-end speed. This information enables coaches to provide specific feedback and instruction to athletes for subsequent races (or competitions), and make informed decisions regarding training strategies. Such information can be produced within minutes and promptly provided to athletes/coaches (along with video footage), further highlighting the impactful role of sports scientists in enhancing sport performance.
Sprint Times (s) of 7 Sprinters With Split Times at 10, 30, and 60 m
| Athlete | 100 m | Reaction | 10 m | 30 m | 60 m | 30–60 m | 60–100 m |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 9.97 | 0.148 | 1.90 | 3.86 | 6.44 | 2.58 | 3.53 |
| 2 | 10.02 | 0.162 | 1.92 | 3.91 | 6.51 | 2.60 | 3.51 |
| 3 | 10.11 | 0.149 | 1.92 | 3.91 | 6.51 | 2.60 | 3.60 |
| 4 | 10.14 | 0.156 | 1.94 | 3.92 | 6.53 | 2.61 | 3.61 |
| 5 | 10.15 | 0.174 | 1.94 | 3.98 | 6.63 | 2.65 | 3.52 |
| 6 | 10.16 | 0.160 | 1.89 | 3.86 | 6.49 | 2.63 | 3.67 |
| 7 | 10.34 | 0.153 | 1.88 | 3.88 | 6.57 | 2.69 | 3.77 |
| Sub-10.10 | 0.15 | 1.90 | 3.90 | 6.53 | 2.63 | 3.55 |
Note: The split times are analyzed using freely available motion-analysis software, and the 100-m sprint and reaction times are from the official results.
—Performance gaps (in percentage) of each sprinter during early (10 m), 30 m, and extended acceleration (60 m), maximal velocity (30–60 m), and maintenance phase (60–100 m). A traffic-light system is employed for interpretation in the color version of the figure (see online publication) to indicate performance status relative to the benchmark.
Citation: International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 20, 2; 10.1123/ijspp.2024-0227
Facet 6: Qualitative Feedback (Competition Data)
When applying the approach, sports scientists can employ field-based information to facilitate conversations (alongside quantitative data above) with athletes and coaches. Technical information helps to understand how the quantitative parameters (eg, time, velocity) are being influenced.25 Qualitative aspects such as starting block technique, sprint posture, braking actions, arm swings, and step/stride parameters can be observed and analyzed using tools (motion software analysis) such as Dartfish Express (Dartfish USA, Inc.) on a tablet computer. This method is also effective to identify areas (eg, technical flaws) for improvement. This combination of software and hardware allows for simple, but informative analysis of recorded footage, with functionalities such as replay, zoom, and slow motion, enabling instant sharing with athletes and coaches.
Successful Implementation of Performance Support
The successful implementation of the support strategies necessitates thorough planning and preparation: specific objectives, performance determinants, delivery methods (how to do it), feedback and information delivery, and potential challenges (if the plan does not work). Common barriers to performance support are limited time, expertise, and resources,4 which could be partly mitigated by collaboration, and using the “minimal, adequate, and accurate” approach. Securing athlete and coach buy-in for sports science services is essential but can be complicated. Thus, the 3-element approach of “minimal, adequate, and accurate” in support provision should be designed collaboratively and supported by the athletes, coaches, and staff for successful implementation. Sports scientists must be aware of factors that could impede effective support delivery, such as limited access to specific locations for data collection or equipment malfunction, prompting the need for alternative plans. Assistance from available colleagues can help alleviate personnel constraints, particularly with tasks requiring basic handling such as video recording. It must be noted that online communication tools can substantially enhance user experience, and consequently, the interaction between coaching staff members and athletes, further streamlining the exchange of information and feedback.
As sports scientists are tasked with preparing information to be communicated with stakeholders, basic skills of “information delivery,” for example, effective “visualization, reporting, and storytelling” methods are necessary,26 while prioritizing key information conveyed in a timely manner to support better understanding and decision making (Table 4). The overall monitoring outcomes (services) can be concluded in a concise manner that integrates all the key information to enhance priority and effective solution (recommendation); see Table 4 for example.
Summary of Performance, Determinants, and Influencing Factors for a 100-m Track Sprinter Based on the Assessed Facets
| Poor | Below average | Average | Good | Excellent | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
| Performance | ||||||||||
| 100-m time | • | |||||||||
| Determinants | ||||||||||
| Early acceleration | • | |||||||||
| Acceleration | • | |||||||||
| Maximal velocity | • | |||||||||
| Maintenance | • | |||||||||
| Reactive strength | • | |||||||||
| Countermovement jump power (relative) | • | |||||||||
| Influencing factors | ||||||||||
| Technique | • | |||||||||
| Neuromuscular status | • | |||||||||
| Wellness | • | |||||||||
| Motivation | • | |||||||||
| Confidence | • | |||||||||
Note: The ratings from “poor” to “excellent” (based on a scale of 1–10) can be interpreted as far from achieving the target, not achieving the target, nearly achieving the target, achieving the target, and exceeding the target, respectively. In this “performance summary,” a sport scientist might create a narrative such as, for example, “The athlete has primarily ‘achieved’ the targeted time, performance, and position (rating 7/10—good) and demonstrated a high level of ‘maximal speed’ (9/10—excellent), as well as ‘good’ (8/10) technique, that is, foot-strike patterns during upright positions. The key issues were in early acceleration (suboptimal ‘drive’ form) and speed maintenance. Clearly, these are the areas to work on to improve overall sprint performance. Just prior to competition, the athlete’s relative power (9/10) and reactive strength (9/10) had improved and reached excellent levels, while the status for neuromuscular was rated ‘excellent’ (9/10), indicating a high level of readiness to compete. In addition, the athlete reported an ‘excellent’ wellness status (9/10) and was observed to have high motivation (8/10) and confidence (9/10), evidence of a high level of psychological readiness.”
Furthermore, newer technologies, including AI-based systems27 in sports science could refine data collection and athlete management strategies. More advanced performance monitoring systems (valid and reliable), potentially based on wearable sensors, could be applied or developed to track key physiological and biomechanical metrics, which enable immediate and effective interventions. To support these advancements, an “easy-to-use” integrated management platform can be developed to allow specialists (eg, physiologists, biomechanists, and psychologists) to input and access data. These platforms typically include functionality that can suggest suitable recommendations based on user input and communication tools that facilitate real-time discussions and rapid strategy adjustments among interdisciplinary teams and coaching staff, which are invaluable during competitions.
Practical Applications
Supporting elite sprinters can be actioned by prioritizing the allocation of “minimal” resources—that is, the least amount of time, tools, personnel, and budgets—to obtain “adequate” outcomes for decision making, while ensuring that all procedures and data are “accurate.” An integrated approach is recommended across 6 key facets (but not limited to)—neuromuscular readiness, wellness monitoring, movement observation, motivation, biomechanics and performance analysis, and qualitative feedback—to ensure that important aspects of an athlete’s preparation (including performance determinants and influencing factors) are closely monitored and optimized. Planning and continuously refining strategies that address both challenges and opportunities should include athletes, coaches, and support staff.
Conclusions
Performance support encompassing a “minimal, adequate, and accurate” approach can assist sport scientists in establishing effective programs to work within resource constraints, while serving multiple athletes and providing useful and trustworthy information on different factors of sport performance in a timely manner. This interdisciplinary approach delivers essential and adequate information for decision making in real-world settings—in terms of neuromuscular status of an athlete, readiness, motivation to compete, and overall sprint performance, among other considerations. While detailed analysis is encouraged whenever possible, applying the “minimal, adequate, and accurate” approach offers sport scientists effective options to optimize the performance of elite athletes.
References
- 1.↑
Wagle JP, Cunanan AJ, Sams ML, Driggers AR. On the limits of high-performance support. Strength Cond J. 2024;46(1):69–73. doi:
- 2.↑
Clubb J, Allen SV, Yung KK. Selection of key performance indicators for your sport and program: proposing a complementary process-driven approach. Strength Cond J. 2024;46(1):90–97. doi:
- 3.↑
McGuigan H, Hassmén P, Rosic N, Stevens CJ. Training monitoring methods used in the field by coaches and practitioners: a systematic review. Int J Sports Sci Coach. 2020;15(3):439–451. doi:
- 4.↑
Timmerman WP, Abbiss CR, Lawler NG, Stanley M, Raynor AJ. Athlete monitoring perspectives of sports coaches and support staff: a scoping review. Int J Sports Sci Coach. Published online May 16, 2024. doi:
- 5.↑
Haugen T, Seiler S, Sandbakk Ø, Tønnessen E. The training and development of elite sprint performance: an integration of scientific and best practice literature. Sports Med Open. 2019;5:1–6. doi:
- 6.↑
Mero A, Komi PV, Gregor RJ. Biomechanics of sprint running: a review. Sports Med. 1992;13:376–392. doi:
- 7.↑
Salcinovic B, Drew M, Dijkstra P, Waddington G, Serpell BG. Factors influencing team performance: what can support teams in high-performance sport learn from other industries? A systematic scoping review. Sports Med Open. 2022;8(1):25. doi:
- 8.↑
Secomb JL. Interdisciplinary sport science in individual sports—a framework for implementation. Strength Cond J. 2024;46(1):82–9. doi:
- 9.↑
Suchomel T, McMahon EL. The state of sport science around the world: a roundtable discussion. Strength Cond J. 2024;46(1):106–16. doi:
- 10.↑
Glazier PS. Towards a grand unified theory of sports performance. Hum Mov Sci. 2017;56:139–56. doi:
- 11.↑
Piggott B, Müller S, Chivers P, Papaluca C, Hoyne G. Is sports science answering the call for interdisciplinary research? A systematic review. Eur J Sport Sci. 2019;19(3):267–286. doi:
- 12.↑
Claudino JG, Cronin J, Mezêncio B, et al. The countermovement jump to monitor neuromuscular status: a meta-analysis. J Sci Med Sport. 2017;20(4):397–402. doi:
- 13.↑
Washif JA, Kok LY. Relationships between vertical jump metrics and sprint performance, and qualities that distinguish between faster and slower sprinters. J Sci Sport Exerc. 2022;4(2):135–144. doi:
- 14.↑
Washif JA, Hébert-Losier K, Gill N, et al. Reliability, interrelationships, and minimal detectable changes in strength and power metrics among well-trained rugby sevens players. Biol Sport. 2024;41(3):231–241. doi:
- 15.↑
Sanchez-Medina L, González-Badillo JJ. Velocity loss as an indicator of neuromuscular fatigue during resistance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(9):1725–1734. doi:
- 16.↑
Taylor KL, Chapman D, Cronin J, Newton M, Gill N. Fatigue monitoring in high performance sport: a survey of current trends. J Aust Strength Cond. 2012;20(1):12–23.
- 17.↑
McGuigan HE, Hassmén P, Rosic N, Stevens CJ. Monitoring of training in high-performance athletes: what do practitioners do? J Sport Exerc Sci. 2021;5(2):121–129. doi:
- 18.↑
McLean BD, Coutts AJ, Kelly V, McGuigan MR, Cormack SJ. Neuromuscular, endocrine, and perceptual fatigue responses during different length between-match microcycles in professional rugby league players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2010;5(3):367–383. doi:
- 19.↑
McMahon JJ, Ripley NJ, Comfort P. Force plate-derived countermovement jump normative data and benchmarks for professional rugby league players. Sensors. 2022;22(22):8669. doi:
- 20.↑
Kristiansen E, Roberts GC. Young elite athletes and social support: coping with competitive and organizational stress in “Olympic” competition. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2010;20(4):686–695. doi:
- 21.↑
Sari I, Ekici S, Soyer F, Eskiler E. Does self-confidence link to motivation? A study in field hockey athletes. J Hum Sport Exerc. 2015;10(1):24–35. doi:
- 22.↑
Duignan C, Doherty C, Caulfield B, Blake C. Single-item self-report measures of team-sport athlete wellbeing and their relationship with training load: a systematic review. J Athl Train. 2020;55(9):944–953. doi:
- 23.↑
Graubner R, Nixdorf E. Biomechanical analysis of the sprint and hurdles events at the 2009 IAAF World Championships in Athletics. New Stud Athl. 2011;26(1/2),19–53.
- 24.↑
Seidl T, Russomanno TG, Stöckl M, Lames M. Assessment of sprint parameters in top speed interval in 100 m sprint—a pilot study under field conditions. Front Sports Act Living. 2021;3:689341. doi:
- 25.↑
Glazier PS, Wheat JS. An integrated approach to the biomechanics and motor control of cricket fast bowling techniques. Sports Med. 2014;44:25–36. doi:
- 26.↑
Torres-Ronda L, Curtis, RM. Building the foundations for information communication in sports science and its use in decision making. Strength Cond J. 2023;46(1):74–81. doi:
- 27.↑
Tam CK, Yao Z-F. Advancing 100 m sprint performance prediction: a machine learning approach to velocity curve modeling and performance correlation. PLoS One. 2024;19(5):e0303366. doi:
