4.4 Article

Impairment of Sprint Mechanical Properties in an Actual Soccer Match: A Pilot Study

出版社

HUMAN KINETICS PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1123/ijspp.2015-0567

关键词

fatigue; laser; power; GPS; acceleration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To assess soccer-specific impairment of mechanical properties in accelerated sprinting and its relation with activity profiles during an actual match. Methods: Thirteen male field players completed 4 sprint measurements, wherein running speed was obtained using a laser distance-measurement system, before and after the 2 halves of 2 soccer matches. Macroscopic mechanical properties (theoretical maximal horizontal force [F0], maximal horizontal sprinting power [Pmax], and theoretical maximal sprinting velocity [V0]) during the 35-m sprint acceleration were calculated from speed time data. Players' activity profiles during the matches were collected using global positioning system units. Results: After the match, although F0 and Pmax did not significantly change, V0 was reduced (P =.038), and the magnitude of this reduction correlated with distance (positive) and number (negative) of high-speed running, number of running (negative), and other low-intensity activity distance (negative) during the match. Moreover, Pmax decreased immediately before the second half (P =.014). Conclusions: The results suggest that soccer-specific fatigue probably impairs players' maximal velocity capabilities more than their maximal horizontal force production abilities at initial acceleration. Furthermore, long-distance running, especially at high speed, during the match may induce relatively large impairment of maximal velocity capabilities. In addition, the capability of producing maximal horizontal power during sprinting is presumably impaired during halftime of a soccer match with passive recovery. These findings could be useful for players and coaches aiming to train effectively to maintain sprinting performance throughout a soccer match when planning a training program.

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

4.4
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