4.4 Article

Relationship Between a Standardized Tackling Proficiency Test and Match-Play Tackle Performance in Semiprofessional Rugby League Players

Journal

Publisher

HUMAN KINETICS PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1123/ijspp.2015-0044

Keywords

defense; wrestle; contact; collision; football; strength

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: This study examined the relationships between tackling ability, playing position, muscle strength and power qualities, and match-play tackling performance in semiprofessional rugby league players. Methods: Sixteen semiprofessional rugby league players (mean +/- SD age 23.8 +/- 1.9 y) underwent tests for muscle strength and power. Tackling ability of the players was tested using video analysis of a standardized 1-on-1 tackling drill. After controlling for playing position, players were divided into good tackler or poor tackler groups based on the median split of the results of the 1-on-1 tackling drill. A total of 4547 tackles were analyzed from video recordings of 23 matches played throughout the season. Results: Maximal squat was significantly associated with tackling ability (r(S) =.71, P < .05) and with the proportion of dominant tackles (r(S) = .63, P < .01). Forwards performed more tackles (P = .013, ES = 1.49), with a lower proportion of missed tackles (P = .03, ES = 1.38) than backs. Good tacklers were involved in a larger proportion of dominant tackles and smaller proportion of missed tackles than poor tacklers. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate that lower-body strength contributes to more effective tackling performance during both a standardized tackling assessment and match play. Furthermore, players with good tackling ability in a proficiency test were involved in a higher proportion of dominant tackles and missed a smaller proportion of tackles during match play. These results provide further evidence of the practical utility of an off-field tackling assessment in supplying information predictive of tackling performance in competition.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available