Contextual considerations using the 'control-chaos continuum' for return to sport in elite football - Part 1: Load planning

On-field rehabilitation in football: current practice and perceptions. A survey of the English Premier League and Football League

INTRODUCTION

Return to play related research is increasing rapidly, with two recent competency-based frameworks offering conceptualised support for on-field rehabilitation (OFR) decision-making. It is still unknown, however, who is responsible for OFR and how they typically select, monitor, and progress OFR processes.

AIMS

The purpose of this study was to investigate current OFR practice within English professional football to support practitioners with decision-making and highlight opportunities for future research related to the design, monitoring, and progression of OFR.

METHODS

Sixty-nine practitioners responsible for the design and implementation of OFR at 69 clubs (75% of the English Premier League and Football League) responded to a survey containing 30 questions (14 open and 16 closed).

RESULTS

The main findings were that therapists (physiotherapists/sports therapists) have the largest influence on OFR, followed by physical performance coaches (sports scientists/strength and conditioning coaches), technical coaches and medical doctors. There was more agreement for the ordering of specific OFR drills earlier in the process when activities are easier to control. The most frequently reported objective monitoring tool was global positioning systems (GPS), with functional/clinical experience/expertise remaining subjectively vital. GPS outputs (e.g., sprint metrics and accelerations/decelerations) were most used for between session decision-making, with verbal communication being key for within session decision-making.

CONCLUSION

Future research should use evidence of current practice, such as drill design and monitoring techniques, to explore drill-level analysis and give practitioners greater insights into which stage of current OFR frameworks specific drills fall, and how they might be more objectively progressed/regressed.

Interchangeability of optical tracking technologies: potential overestimation of the sprint running load demands in the English Premier League

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess the agreement between match-derived running load outputs; total distance (TD), high-speed running (HSR) and sprint distance (SPR) obtained by two optical tracking systems.

METHODS

Data were collected from 31 elite footballers from the first team and under-21 squads of an English Premier League (EPL) football club across three competitive matches. One EPL game (game 2) and one under-21 Premier League game (game 3) were played at the team's home stadium and one EPL game (game 1) at an away venue. All matches were tracked concomitantly using eight colour cameras sampling at 10 Hz (PROZONE®) and six high-definition motion cameras sampling at 25 Hz (TRACAB®).

RESULTS

TD displayed a perfect (r = 0.99) correlation while HSR and SPR displayed very large (r = 0.81 and r = 0.73) correlations between TRACAB® and PROZONE®. Mean biases were 5% for TD, -3% for HSR and 61% for SPR. Between games, mean biases for TD were 6% for game 1, and 5% for game 2 and game 3. For HSR, 9% for game 1, -5% for game 2 and 6% for game 3 and for SPR, 31% for game 1, 71% for game 2 and 84% for game 3.

CONCLUSION

TD and HSR can be interchanged between PROZONE® and TRACAB®, to allow accurate interpretation between the two optical systems. PROZONE® overestimated SPR compared to the TRACAB®, with the magnitude of difference considered meaningful, altering interpretation of historical match outputs, sprint volume trends in the EPL and forecasts of the modern game.