comparison of training activities and game demands in the australian football league

Comparison of training activities and game demands in the Australian Football League

B Dawson 1,3, R Hopkinson 1, B Appleby 2,3, G Stewart 3 & C Roberts 4

1School of Human Movement and Exercise Science, The University of Western Australia. 2Western Australian institute of Sport. 3West Coast Eagles Football Club. 4Western Australia Football

Commission.

his paper serves as a companion to our recent study of the movement patterns and game activities of players (from five different positions) during matches in the 2000 Australian Football League season. Using lapsed-time video analysis, the same individual players {n= 11) as filmed in matches were also monitored during 21 in-season, main training sessions conducted by their clubs in order to assess the degree to which training activities matched game demands. In general, the training sessions did not involve physical pressure; therefore there were very few contested marks and ground balls or tackles, shepherds and spoils, thereby not matching these game demands. Players typically had more possessions (kicks and handballs) at training than in games. They also spent a greater percentage of total time standing and less time walking at training than in games. Fast-running and sprinting efforts at training were almost all for durations of <6 sees, which matched game demands, as did changes of direction when sprinting, which were almost all in a 0-90 ° arc. However, across all players filmed, high intensity (fast-running and sprinting) movements were not performed as frequently at training (one every 76 sees) as in games (one every 51 sees). Therefore, while some game demands were adequately replicated at training, others were not closely simulated, suggesting that, after careful interpretation of these results, some improvements in training practices could be made.

(J Sci Med Sport 2004;7:3:292-301)

Introduction A time-honoured coaching adage in team sports is that "you should train as

you play". Sports scientists and coaches spend a great deal of time planning training drills and programs that are designed to simulate game demands by rep l ica t ing the physiological skill a n d d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s of ac tua l compet i t ion. With p a r t i c u l a r regard to the physiological r e qu i r e me n t s , a t h o r o u g h knowledge a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the m o v e m e n t p a t t e r n s a n d game activit ies per formed by p layers in m a t c h e s is n e c e s s a r y in order to p l a n re levan t a n d effective t r a i n i n g drills. In A u s t r a l i a n Football , th is i n f o r ma t i on ha s b e e n lacking, as m o s t of the game ana ly se s date b a c k to the 1970s a n d 1980s 1,2,3 a n d were l imited in the i r appl ica t ion, as the s a m e players were never a n a l y s e d in more t h a n one game (or in some cases, only pa r t s of a game) a n d different pos i t iona l roles were no t s tudied . Also, there is now good scientif ic evidence 4 to s u p p o r t the p o p u l a r no t ion t h a t the game is now fas ter t h a n 20 or 30 years ago.

In a c o m p a n i o n pape r to th is one, we have p r e se n t e d the f ind ings of a comprehens ive video ana lys i s of the m o v e m e n t p a t t e r n s a n d game activit ies of AFL players (from five different posit ions), who were each filmed in two games played in the 2000 season .

292

Comparison of training activities and game demands...

This information describes the game demands of Austral ian Football and provides a useful f ramework from which to develop relevant and appropriate training p rograms to bet ter prepare players to meet game requirements . As par t of this project, we also filmed the same players at training (in-season) in order to provide some information on whether the training activities matched the game demands . Studies of this type have not been commonplace in Austral ian Football. Only Davis and Fitzclarence 5 and, to a m u c h lesser extent, Smith et al 6 have publ ished analyses on the training activities of senior t eams and a t t empted to expand the practical link between game demands and training practices.

MethOds The methods used in the s tudy are fully described in the companion paper, including the player posit ions used, the video analysis procedures and the variables assessed for the movement pa t t e rns and activities of the players. The additional details on the methodology used for analysing training are outlined here; otherwise the reader is referred to the companion paper for other information.

The same players as filmed in games were also filmed in two complete in- season mid week (main) training sess ions conducted by their clubs in the week after being videotaped in a game. Once again, prior intention to film on a given day was not given to any players, ensur ing tha t da ta collection remained single blind. Filming was commenced after the w a r m - u p was concluded and was con t inued dur ing dr ink b r eaks and coaching ins t ruct ions . All p layers completed each training session, therefore no "substitute" players (as were required in par ts of some games) were needed for filming during sessions.

No control was possible over the activities performed at each training session. It is possible tha t the player being filmed on a given day was training at less t han "top speed" due to soreness a n d / o r minor injury suffered in the preceding game. Additionally, their motivation to t rain may have varied from week to week. Similarly, the dura t ion and intensi ty of each session was determined by the coaching staff. The session may have been influenced by factors such as recent m a t c h resul ts and performances , the n u m b e r of days between games, and also the training cycle phase tha t the t eam may have been in (ie, light or heavy volume/ in tens i ty , etc) at the time. Further, m a n y clubs and coaches are unwilling to r isk fur ther injury to their players by having ma tch practice or contest ing drills at mid-week training, therefore it was not anticipated tha t the activities per formed within the training sessions would closely s imulate those experienced in games. However, of major interest was whether the movement pa t t e rns recorded during games would be replicated at training.

Finally, as in the companion paper, only descriptive stat ist ics were applied to the training data, as our intent was only to describe the activities and movemen t pa t t e rns seen at training and compare these to the recorded game demands .

Results The dura t ion of the training sessions filmed (n= 21, as one midfielder could only be videotaped in one session) was 47-66 rains, whereas the games ranged in t ime from 118-126 mins. The resul ts included here are the means_+SD (and

293

Comparison of t ra ining activit ies and game demands...

Position/Movement Number Time (seconds) Time (min) % of TOtal Game Time %

FF/FB - Standing 82 + 30 825 _+ 334 13.8 29 24 (58-125) (529-1304)

- Walking 144 _+ 33 1341 _+ 352 22.3 48 53 (126-193) (993-1774)

- Jogg ing 93 __ 15 574 + 89 9.6 20 19 (80-111) (459-646)

- Fast Run 30 -+ 7 74 -+ 44 1.2 2.8 3 (21-37) (15-115)

- Spr int 5 + 3 8 -+ 6 0.1 0.2 1 (2-9) (2-16)

Midf ie ld

Ruck

Small F/B

CHF/CHB

- Standing 96 + 39 972 _+ 346 16.2 30 11 (53-159) (623-1508)

- Walking 178 + 59 1403 _+ 576 23.4 43 48 (98-257) (679-2257)

- Jogg ing 146 _+ 42 750 _+ 117 12.5 23 34 (88-187) (585-893)

- Fast Run 47 + 18 109 --- 62 1.8 3.6 6.3 (21-68) (29-171)

- Spr int 5 -+ 3 11 + 9 0.2 0.4 0.7 (0-9) (0-24)

- Standing 93 _+ 16 1381 _+ 335 23.0 35 14 (73-112) (965-1780)

- Walking 176 + 53 1545 + 462 25.8 39 47 (128-247) (1136-2015)

- Jogg ing 141 + 55 936 -+ 241 15.6 23 35 (104-223) (756-1276)

- Fast Run 37 --- 12 128 + 113 2.1 3 3.4 (29-55) (54-296)

- Spr int 1 -+ 1 2 -+ 3 0.0 0 0.6 (0-2) (0-6)

- Standing 73 -+ 16 643 + 131 10.7 21 16 (51-90) (522-815)

- Walking 178 -+ 77 1289 -+ 460 21.5 42 52 (86-248) (793-1864)

- Jogging 171 -+ 104 907 -+ 433 15.1 29.5 25 (69-287) (602-1543)

- FaSt Run 61 -+ 37 220 + 265 3.7 7.3 6 (30-104) (63-616)

- Spr int 4 + 2 8 _+ 6 0.1 0.2 I (2-6) (3-15)

- Standing 105 _+ 21 1127 + 223 18.8 37 11 (78-128) (868-1359)

- Walking 169 _+ 31 1009 _+ 374 16.8 33 49 (139-211) (664-1534)

- Jogging 126 _+ 51 766 + 399 12.8 25.5 34 (98-202) (385-1324)

- FaSt Run 45 + 31 93 _+ 87 1.6 3.1 5.4 (22-91) (43-223)

- Spr int 7 + 4 41 +- 50 0.7 1.4 0.6 (1-10) (2-114)

FF = full forward, FB = full back, F = forward, B = back, CHF = centre half forward, CriB = centre half back, No. = number of occasions, Time is recorded in seconds unless otherwise specified

Table 1: Movement patterns in training for dif ferent positions. Means (+SD) and ranges (in brackets) are presented. Also included is the percentage of game total t ime spent in each movement pattern (taken from the companion paper).

294

Comparison o f t ra in ing act iv i t ies and game demands...

Position/Range (seconds) FaSt Running Sprinting

FF/FB 0-3.0 22 -+ 2 4 -+ 3 (19-24) (2-8)

3.1-6.0 7 _+ 5 1 _+ 1 (1-12) (0-1)

6.1-9.0 2 _+ 1 0 (0-3) (0-0)

9.1+ 1 _+ 1 0 (0-1) (0-0)

Total (32) iS)

Midfleld 0-3.0 37 _+ 15 4 _+ 3 (18-58) (0-8)

3.1-6.0 7 -+ 5 1 -+ I (2-14) (0-2)

6.1-9.0 2 _+ 1 0 (1-3) (0-0)

9.1+ 1 _+ 1 0 (0-2) (0-0)

Total (47) (S)

RUCk 0-3.0 30 -+ 14 1 -+ 1 (16-48) (0-1)

3.1-6.0 4 _+ 2 0 -+ 0 (2-6) (0-1)

6.1-9.0 1 -+ 1 0 (0-2) (0-0)

9.1+ 3 +- 4 0 (0-9) (0-0)

TOtal (38) (1)

Small F/B 0-3.0 47 -+ 29 4 -+ 2 (21-75) (2-6)

3.1-6.0 7 -+ 3 1 -+ 1 (5-11) (0-2)

6.1-9.0 4 -+ 4 0 (0-9) (0-0)

9.1+ 3 _+ 4 0 (0-9) {0-0)

TOtal (61) i5)

CHF/CHB 0-3.0 39 + 27 6 _+ 3 (17-78) (1-8)

3.1-6.0 5 _+ 5 2 _+ 1 (2-12) (0-3)

6.1-9.0 1 _+ 1 0 (0-2) (0-0)

9.1+ 0 0 (0-0) (0-0)

Total (45) (8)

FF = full forward, FB = full back, F = forward, B = back, CHF = centre half forward, CHB = centre half back

Table 2: Fast running and sprint ing movements in training for d i f ferent positions separated into ranges. Means (+SD) and ranges (in brackets) are presented.

ranges) of the five positional cate- gories used, which represent the average of four training sessions (ie, 2 players x 2 sessions each), except for the midfielders, where the average is of f ive sessions. The data have been a r r anged into tables which are replicas of those included in the companion paper, and have been numbered accordingly for ease of compar ison (eg, Table 1 here presents da ta similar to those in Table 1 in the companion paper, and so on).

M o v e m e n t P a t t e r n s

Table 1 shows the resul ts for standing, walking, jogging, fas t - running and sprint ing movements at training. Due to the training sessions being m u c h shor ter in durat ion than the games, the percentage of time spent in each movement pa t te rn provides the bes t method for compar ison between training and games. As in games, the majori ty (>90%) of t ime was spen t in low intensi ty movements , with high intensity fast running and sprinting accounting for only a small percentage of total movement time. However, all pos- i t ional types (but par t i cu la r ly midfielders , r u c k m e n and CHF/ CHB) stood more and walked less at t r a in ing t h a n in games . The percentage of t ime spent jogging was also somewhat lower at training for midfielders, r u c k m e n and CHF/CHB and in general all posit ions did less f a s t - r u n n i n g (except SF/B) and spr in t ing (except CHF/CHB) at t raining t h a n in games. Table 2 shows that, for all positions, the majori ty of the fas t - runs and spnn t s at t raining were <3 secs (73-89%) and a lmos t all were comple ted within 6 secs (90-100%) which closely ma tches the breakdown found in games. Sprints comprised 3-15% of high intensi ty movements at train-

2 9 5


Angle (degrees) Position 0-45 46-90 91-135 136-180 Total Left TOtal Right

FF/FB 1 2 0 0 2 _+ 1 1 _+ 1 (0-3) (0-2) (0-0) (0-0) (0-3) (0-2)

Midfield 2 2 0 0 2 _+ 2 2 _+ 2 (0-7) (0-2) (0-0) (0-1) (0-4) (0-5)

Ruck 1 1 0 1 2 _+ 2 1 _+ 1 (0-2) (0-1) (0-0) (0-1) (0-3) (0-1)

Small F/B 1 1 0 0 0 _+ 0 2 _+ 1 (0-3) (0-2) (0-0) (0-1) (0-1) (0-3)

CHF/CHB 3 2 0 0 2 _+ 2 3 _+ 3 (1-4) (1-3) (0-0) (0-0) (0-4) (1-7)

FF = full forward, FB = full back, F = forward, B = back, CHF = centre half forward, CHB = centre half back.

Table 3: Changes of direction in sprinting in training. Means (+_SD) and ranges (in brackets) are presented.

Ranges (frequency) Position Overall Average 0-20 21.40 41-60 61-90 91.120 121+

FF/FB 84 -+ 111 6 5 5 7 0 5 (0-681) (4-9) (3-8) (0-9) (4-12) (0-1) (4-6)

Midfield 70 _+ 102 16 10 5 5 2 6 (0-584) (1-24) (4-15) (1-9) (3-7) (1-3) (3-8)

Ruck 100 _+ 146 8 7 4 6 3 8 (0-862) (4-14) (4-10) (1-6) (5-7) (1-5) (5-15)

Small F/B 53 _+ 61 27 17 8 5 1 6 (0-338) (4-63) (6-30) (5-16) (3-6) (0-3) (5-8)

CHF/CHB 75 _+ 118 17 6 7 4 2 4 (0-656) (2-41) (4-11) (4-13) (1-9) (1-4) (3-6)

FF = full forward, FB = full back, F = forward, B = back, CHF = centre half forward, Crib = centre half back.

Table 4: Time (in seconds) between high intensity movements (fast running or sprinting) for each of the positional types in training, also separated into frequency of ranges of times. Means (+_SD) and ranges (in brackets) are presented.

ing, in comparison to 10-19% in games, with ruckmen in both cases recording the lower percentages. Table 3 shows that, similar to games, almost all of the changes of direction in sprinting were in the 0-90 ° arc. Table 4 presents that the average time between high intensity movements at training for all positions (53-100 secs; Y~ = 76 secs) were greater than calculated for games (41-69 secs; K = 51 secs) with ruckmen recording the greatest and SF/B the smallest differences. The frequencies of the range of times between high intensity movements were similar to games for the midfielders, SF/B and CHF/CHB, as approximately 40% fell between 0-20 secs (36-42%) and 75% (70-81%) between 0-60 secs. However, FF/FB and ruckmen had lower percentages, with only

296


approximately 20% falling between 0-20 sees and 55% falling between 0-60 sees.

Game Activities Table 5 shows tha t generally more m a r k s were taken and fewer were missed at training t han in games for all positions. Similarly, as would be anticipated, more kicks and handbal ls were made at training than in games. Ball possess ions were most ly uncontested, as training generally did not involve physical pressure . Therefore, as seen in Table 6, for all posit ions there were very few ruck duels and t eam involvements (tackles, bumps , spoils, shepherds , etc.) at the training sessions filmed (although it is possible tha t these activities may have been performed at other training sessions). Likewise, ins tances of going to ground and ground ball contests were very low for all posit ions at t raining in compar ison to games. The only ins tances recorded of ground ball contes ts a t t raining were one each for a CHF/CHB and ruckman.

DiSCuSSiOn Almost 25 years ago, Davis and Fitzclarence 5 publ ished a brief report on 10 in- season training sessions of the North Melbourne (now Kangaroos) football club. While they did not have a comprehensive knowledge of game demands (at tha t time) against which to compare training, they did report tha t all the training drills us ing footballs had work:rest rat ios which were higher t han the average recorded in ma tch practice. They also commented tha t several t raining drills could have been more specific to the game situation. To our knowledge, their s tudy remains the only publ ished critical analysis of Austral ian Football training at an elite level. Since their da ta were collected, the game has evolved into a fully professional sport and is now faster t han in the 1970s or 1980s 4. The weekly training program for AFL clubs is now planned and influenced by m a n y factors. Some of these are the n u m b e r of days between games, the ground ha rdness and climate experienced when playing the last game, effects of inters tate travel, the perceived intensi ty of the last and next games, the phase of training (pre-season prepara t ion or in-season and h igh/ low volume and intensity) tha t the t eam is current ly in and individual player (form and fitness) considerations. While these (and other) factors are relevant and important , it remains the case tha t training should a t t empt to ma tch game demands , so tha t players are bet ter p repared for the requi rements of actual competition. In particular, as commented on by Davis and Fitzclarence 5, the work:rest ratios permit ted in training drills should replicate the game demands as m u c h as possible.

In the presen t study, as reported in the methods, no control over the activities performed at t raining at the two clubs involved was possible, or desired. Also, for a variety of reasons, it was not ant icipated tha t the activities would necessari ly closely s imulate those experienced in games. Of most interest was whether the movement pa t t e rns recorded during games would be replicated at training.

All positional types stood more and walked less (as a percentage of total movement time) at t raining t han in games, pe rhaps as a resul t of stopping and s tanding to listen to coaching instructions, waiting their tu rn to perform a drill and taking a drink break. However, more importantly, the durat ion of the fast

297


Position

Category

Marks Taken

Overhead Chest Overhead Chest Mark Overhead Mark Chest Mark Overhead Chest Mark Mark Mark Contested Contested Uncontested Uncontested Mark Mark

FF/FB 13 9 3 0 10 9 6 2 (8-15) (4-14) (0-10) (0-0) (4-14) (4-14) (2-9) (0-3)

CHF/CHB 15 29 0 0 15 29 3 1 (8-20) (1-90) (0-1) (0-0) (8-20) (1-90) (1-6) (0-1)

Midfield 7 4 0 0 7 4 1 0 (1-12) (3-6) (0-1) (0-0) (1-12) (3-6) (0-3) (0-0)

Ruck 11 4 2 0 9 4 3 1 (6-21) (0-7) (0-7) (0-0) (6-14) (0-7) (0-7) (0-2)

Small F/B 3 4 0 0 3 4 1 0 (1-9) (2-5) (0-0) (0-0) (1-9) (2-5) (0-2) (0-1)

FF = full forward, FB = full back, F = forward, B = back, CHF = centre half forward, Crib = centre half back

Table 5: Training Activities for Different Positions (Marks, Kicks and Handballs). Means and ranges (in bracketi

Position Ruck Duels

Category Bounce Downs Throw Ins Bounce Downs ThrOW Ins Tackles Tackles Shepherds Shepherds Contested Contested uncontested Uncontested Given Received Given Received

FF/FB 0 0 0 0 0 1 I 0 (0-0) (0-0) (0-0) (0-0) (0-0) (0-3) (0-2) (0-1)

CHF/CHB 2 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 (0-7) (0-10) (0-0) (0-0) (0-2) (0-1) (0-1) (0-0)

Midfield 0 0 0 0 4 4 1 1 (0-0) (0-0) (0-0) (0-0) (0-14) (0-11) (0-3) (0-1)

Ruck 6 1 0 0 4 4 0 0 (0-16) (0-5) (0-1) (0-0) (0-7) (0-7) (0-0) (0-1)

Small F/B 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 1 (0-0) (0-0) (0-0) (0-0) (0-6) (0-9) (0-3) (0-3)

FF = full forward, FB = full back, F = forward, B = back, CHF = centre half forward, CHB = centre half ba¢l

Table 6: Training Activities for Different Positions (Ruck duels and team involvements). Averages and ranges t

runs and sprints were almost all <6 secs, which closely matches the breakdown seen in games. Therefore, the high intensity movement pat terns of the players in games were adequately replicated in the training drills used. Further, changes of direction in sprinting at training also matched the usual game demands, as almost all were in the 0-90 ° arc. However, for all positions the average time between high intensity movements at training (76 secs) was longer than in the games (51 secs), suggesting that more recovery time between efforts than would be usual in games was commonly allowed. This was most apparent for the ruckmen who had more than twice as m u c h recovery time at training than in games. This may be a reflection of their specialised role within the game (ie, ruck duels) and the relative infrequency of this task being performed at

2 9 8


Marks MISSed Kicks Handballs

Overhead Chest Mark Overhead Mark Chest Mark Total KICKS KicKS Total Handballs Handballs Mark Contested Contested Uncontested Uncontested Kicks Contested Uncontested Handballs Contested Uncontested

5 1 2 0 37 0 37 17 2 15 (0-8) (0-2) (1-2) (0-1) (21-76) (0-1) (21-76) (3-22) (0-6) (3-21)

2 0 1 1 23 1 22 40 0 40 (0-6) (0-0) (0-2) (0-1) (14-34) (0-1} (14-34) (2-104) (0-1) (2-104)

1 0 0 0 20 1 19 21 1 20 (0-3) (0-0) (0-1) (0-0) (11-29) (0-4) (11-25) (6-49) (0-3) (5-49)

3 0 0 1 18 0 18 30 1 29 (0-7) (0-1) (0-0) (0-2) (4-40) (0-0) (4-40) (7-63) (0-2) (6-63)

0 0 1 0 17 0 17 23 3 20 (0-1) (0-0) (0-2) (0-1) (7-29) (0-1) (6-29) (3-67) (0-9) (3-67)

~,sented.

Team Involvements

Smothers Smothers Spoils SpOilS Bumps Bumps KnOck Ons Going to Ground Given Received Given Received Given Received Given (No. of times)

0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 (0-0) (0-0) (0-3) (0-0) (0-0) (0-0) (0-0) (0-2)

1 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 (0-1) (0-0) (0-3) (0-0) (0-0) (0-0) (0-0) (0-10)

1 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 (0-4) (0-4) (0-1) (0-2) (0-1) (0-2) (0-4) (0-7)

0 0 2 1 2 1 0 1 (0-0) (0-I) (0-3) (0-3) (0-5) (0-2) (0-0) (0-2)

1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 (0-3) (0-0) (0-0) (0-0) (0-0) (0-4) (0-0) (0-3)

~ts) are presented.

training (an average of seven ruck duels were contested at training compared to 67 in a game). The ruckmen also had a lower percentage frequency of the range of times between high intensity movements at training than in games, these values being only 20% between 0-20 secs and 55% between 0-60 secs, whereas in games these values were approximately 50% and 70% respectively. The FF/FB were similar to the ruckmen in these comparisons between training and playing. These two positional types represent the most specialised playing roles within Australian Football and these results might suggest that a close inspection be kept on players performing these respective duties in specific training drills, as their work:recovery ratios may be longer than those normally experienced in games.

299


In respect of game activities, it was seen that players had more possessions of the ball at training than in games (as would be expected). However, it may be noteworthy that the great majority were uncontested, as training generally did not involve physical pressure. In games, most marking opportunities and handballs are contested, while most kicks are uncontested. Because of the absence of physical pressure at training, very few team involvements (tackles, bumps, shepherds and spoils) and ground ball contests were also performed, which does not adequately match the game demands: In particular, midfielders, who average 21 ground ball contests per game, did not perform this activity at all in training (three players filmed in five sessions), and only two examples, one each for a ruckman and CHF/CHB) were recorded across all 21 training sessions filmed. It is possible that these activities were performed at other training sessions (not filmed) conducted during the week, al though this is unlikely, as earlier in the week training is generally of lower intensity as players recover from the last game and, later in the week, training is usually of lower volume, as players prepare for the next game. Therefore, if team involvements, ruck duels, marking and ground ball contests were performed during the week, they were most likely to have been conducted at the midweek main training session which was filmed. It is more likely that the absence of physical contact at training was a deliberate choice made by the coaching staff, in order to reduce injury risk. Such a philosophy is somewhat at odds with the "train as you play" notion, bu t will always be a consideration for coaches, particularly in contact team sports such as Australian Football.

In conclusion, this descriptive comparison of training against game demands for Australian Football has shown that the game movement pat terns were adequately replicated at training as the duration of high intensity fast runs and sprints in training drills was generally <6 secs. However, the time between high intensity movements at training was generally longer than in games and many common game activities were not practised at training, largely because most possessions were uncontested. While training sessions cannot (and should not) always simulate actual games, after careful interpretation of these results, some improvements in training practices for Australian Football might be made.

Acknowledgements The generous assistance of the AFL in funding this project is gratefully acknowledged, as is the cooperation of the West Coast Eagles and Fremantle football clubs.

References 1. Jacques TD and Pavia GR. An analysis of the movement patterns of players in an Australian Rules league football match. Aust J Sport Med 1974;5:10-21. 2. Hahn A, Taylor N, Hunt B, Woodhouse T and Shultz G. Physiological relationships between training activities and match play in Australian Football rovers. Sport Coach 1979;3(3):3-8. 3. McKenna M., Patrick JD, Sandstrom ER and Chennells MHD. Computer-video analysis of activity patterns in Australian Rules football. In Reilly et al (eds.), Science and Football: Proceedings o f the First World Congress of Science and Football (274-281). Liverpool. E. & F.N. Spon. 1988. 4. Norton KI, Craig NP and Olds TS. The evolution of Australian Football. J Sci Med Sport 1999;2(4):389-404. 5. Davis K. and Fitzclarence L. A critical analysis of on-field training of a leading AFL team.

300


Sports Coach 1979;3(2):8-13. 6. Smith RG, Nettleton B and Briggs CA. Game analysis and the design of praetice. Sports Coach 1982;6(3): 13-20.

301

comparison of training activities and game demands in the australian football league

Documents