Aller au contenu principal
Accès ouvert déclaré 2023 article

Physical testing and strength and conditioning practices differ between coaches working in academy and first team soccer

9Citations signalées, ce qui n’est pas une note de qualité
3Institutions déclarées
1Pays d’affiliation déclarés

Rattachement africain : gb. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.

Le résumé fourni par la source

Scientific guidelines exist regarding strength and conditioning (S&C) best practice, for both first team and academy level soccer. However, it is not known if these research-informed guidelines are followed in such applied settings. The aim of this study was to investigate current S&C practice in first team and academy level (men's and women's) soccer, in multiple countries/continents. A total of 170 participants, who were involved with the delivery of S&C support at their soccer club, completed a comprehensive survey, describing their training methods. Data were analysed using Pearson's chi-square test of independence and independent t-tests. Statistical significance was set to p < 0.05. A greater proportion of academy compared to first team coaches assessed acceleration/sprint (92% vs. 83%, p=0.026), jump (95% vs. 83%, p=0.023) and change of direction performance (77% vs. 61%, p=0.031). The weekly training structure differed between groups, particularly within women's squads, with women's academy coaches reporting the lowest session frequency of all groups (1.59 ± 0.62 session per week, 44 ± 17 min duration). A greater proportion of academy (54%) versus first team (35%) coaches prioritised bodyweight training ( p=0.031), despite a similar distribution of movement patterns trained. Overall, 44% S&C coaches reported using training intensities below strength training guidelines (≥80% 1RM). To conclude, there were many differences in S&C practice between S&C coaches working with first team and academy squads but particularly noteworthy was the greater proportion of academy coaches prioritising bodyweight training compared to first team coaches, which may limit physical development in academy players.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.

Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert

DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.

Titre Crossref
Physical testing and strength and conditioning practices differ between coaches working in academy and first team soccer
Date Crossref
09/02/2023
Éditeur
SAGE Publications
Type
journal-article

Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.

Où se fait cette recherche

  • Liverpool John Moores University pays non établi dans la notice
    Université ou école supérieure
  • University College London Institute of Sport pays non établi dans la notice
    Université ou école supérieure
  • University of Birmingham pays non établi dans la notice
    Université ou école supérieure
  • School of Sport and Exercise Sciences pays non établi dans la notice
    Université ou école supérieure

Liverpool John Moores University, Institute of Sport — University College London et University of Birmingham, avec 1 autre affiliation.

Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.

Les sujets associés

Sports Performance and TrainingSports injuries and preventionSport Psychology and Performance

BNTIC News n’est pas le producteur de ces données. Les publications sont interrogées à la demande dans Crossref, OpenAIRE, DOAJ, Europe PMC, HAL, DataCite, AfricArXiv, ROR et la Banque mondiale, sans clé d’accès. OpenAlex reste optionnel. Aucun service payant n’est nécessaire et aucune donnée externe n’est enregistrée en base. Consulter les sources et leurs limites.