Some TESTING results

[Guddi]

@sprinterouge

You understand that you can get a feedback from Monday to Wednesday, and then, from Thursday to Sunday, they all pretend to feel great because they want to play the match; that the first time they get an adductor strain because they went to fuck a girl the day before the game in a town 200Km from your place, drove 5 hours total, slept 3 hours, ate like crap, let alone the energy “wasted” (well… not so badly wasted…), they will blame the squat you had them doing 5 days earlier because they have never done it before in their career, because it’s hard and because they’d rather play with the ball all the time than have you bust their balls with weights and sprints and runs. This is the real world… how reliable is their feedback?

LOL, so true. I did this myself when I was 18 I didn’t blame the strength coach though

Regarding the subject of this thread I have to say that I am pro testing. The experiences I’ve had with tests are that they are appreciated by both the coach and the players. Soccer players very seldom have the discipline and work ethics to just work hard if there’s now way of showing them that what they are doing is really helping their performance and test can really help to show the players this.

I personally prefer when the progress from practice is shown as an entire team performance instead of individual players since some of them do get worst results in some test sometimes. A positive performance gain for the entire team also promotes a positive mental boost to the team when they know that they are stronger as a unit than what they were before.

[sprinterouge]

The experiences I’ve had with tests are that they are appreciated by both the coach and the players.

Generally I have the same experience, except for some coaches or some tests that the players don’t like to do almost on a daily basis (Omega Wave or simple HRV). A (pro) individual sport athlete, on the opposite, is eager to know how things are going and is never bothered by frequent testing.

Soccer players very seldom have the discipline and work ethics to just work hard if there’s no way of showing them that what they are doing is really helping their performance and test can really help to show the players this.I personally prefer when the progress from practice is shown as an entire team performance instead of individual players since some of them do get worst results in some test sometimes. A positive performance gain for the entire team also promotes a positive mental boost to the team when they know that they are stronger as a unit than what they were before.

I agree, same experience.

LOL, so true. I did this myself when I was 18 I didn’t blame the strength coach though

Too busy bragging about the previous night?

[duxx]

@joconnor

The tests were done at the local university. We used electronic timing gates for the sprints. A mat was used for the jumps. Im not sure what it was called.

We didnt test for any weight lifting. My sport doesnt believe in it yet.

That was a great quote about “reading the game”. Its so true. Blocking an opponents path to the ball without fouling him is a skill unto itself. It is not taught enough, maybe it is not possible to teach such things. I have only learned it by playing games over and over again, and watching for repeating patterns of play. Im constantly surprised at how often the same 3 or 4 plays occur.

Thanks for the link and this thread. It been great reading. I hope to get under 4seconds for the 30m next year and over 90cm in my VJ. Although i am due for a knee operation on damaged cartilege in december at the end of our season so that might slow me down

I found one book you might be interested in:
Horst Wein. Developing Game Intelligence in Soccer. 2004. Reedswain.
I plan to order it too…

Sprinterouge, can you suggest couple of good books on soccer, both technical/tactical development and strength and conditioning?
My last read was Ian Jeffreys new book (Total Soccer Conditioning) which is one of the best books on the subject along with Reymond Verheijen’s book… Nothing fancy, but rather ‘normal’ book which have some great ideas in it…

[duxx]

Sprnterouge,

Just one more question. Is the low result in yoyo a sign that a player must do more general/aerobic conditioning or less? What do you do with the result in general (applied on the whole team) and specific (applied to a group of players with simmilar values)?

I guess if the result is low, (talking in general here), athlete should try to aim at general/aerobic development, but at the same time be joined to group of lower aerobic/g. conditioning stress/volume? Does this make any sense?

[sprinterouge]

The approach I use with my volleyball players is more clear cut:

• Very low result -> more steady state runs at the end of the regular training + double Yo-yo on metabolic day

• Lower than optimal result -> double Yo-yo in the metabolic day

• Optimal result -> single Yo-yo on metabolic day

Hope this helps a little.

It’s actually slightly more complex than this, but this is all I am willing to share

[duxx]

Wait… you use yoyo for ‘metabolic conditioning’? Isn’t this ‘training for testing’ approach?
On a side note, how do you know what is ‘optimal’?

I know that it is mostly tradition that athletes who show lack of ‘aerobic power’ (evaluated trough testing) engage into additional ‘conditioning’ compared to other players…
…but contrary I suggest doing lower level of conditining for this guys!

It would be the same thing like forcing guys with low strength to squat more than guys with greater strength.

I guess that if whole team shows low aerobic power, the training emphasis may switch toward more conditioning, while group of players with lower than average values will actually perform less of the volume/intensity of conditioning due their lower work capacity. Again, this depends of evaluated strenght/weaknesses of the players.

So, during the block of general conditining emphasis, I would split the team into 3 groups based on Z-value of yoyo test. The best group would do greater load of conditioning (greater volume, shorter rest) while poorest group will do the opposite. Yet again this depends on the training emphasis, ‘optimal’ values determined, strength and weaknesses of whole team and individuals. The load for the all three groups would be ‘stimulating’ (not maintenance nor detraining load), while the load would be selected based on their individual characteristics…

[sprinterouge]

Wait… you use yoyo for ‘metabolic conditioning’? Isn’t this ‘training for testing’ approach?
On a side note, how do you know what is ‘optimal’?

Given the not as high specificity of the Yo-yo test for volleyball it is just a “monitored” training mean, so no training for testing.

Optimal is average value for the team, in that specific case. Keep in mind that sport ergogenesis is less varied among positions in volleyball compared to soccer (and those slight variations are taken into account anyway).

I know that it is mostly tradition that athletes who show lack of ‘aerobic power’ (evaluated trough testing) engage into additional ‘conditioning’ compared to other players…
…but contrary I suggest doing lower level of conditining for this guys!

It would be the same thing like forcing guys with low strength to squat more than guys with greater strength.

It all comes down to the whys they are poor performers: metabolic undertraining, metabolic overreaching or genetically challenged. In two cases out of three I would have them perform more aerobic work.

I don’t get too pumped up by going against the tradition if there is no sound reason behind it.

Aerobic conditioning is much more linked to training volume than strength, that’s why I don’t find your example so explanatory of your approach.

I guess that if whole team shows low aerobic power, the training emphasis may switch toward more conditioning, while group of players with lower than average values will actually perform less of the volume/intensity of conditioning due their lower work capacity. Again, this depends of evaluated strenght/weaknesses of the players.

Again, you can have an undertrained midfielder and a genetically challenged (for endurance) forward, the approach cannot be the same.

Also, the extra metabolic work doesn’t necessarily have to expressed by more volume in the single training unit, it might get spread throughout the week.

The best group would do greater load of conditioning (greater volume, shorter rest) while poorest group will do the opposite.

So that your 3000m guys will still lift like wimps

while poorest group will do the opposite

And the midfielder coming from a forced lay off, for istance, will take forever to regain his shape and the forward will be optimally trained.

---

Given soccer training tradition and season characteristics, I think there is more to gain by spending time doing neural training than the metabolic one, thus, as soon as optimal levels are reached in the metabolic department I see no need to do more than maintenance training.

As I already wrote, each role needs certain physical qualities upon which tactical models can call upon to a higher or lower extent, but a player has to have them developped at least to a point (can be more, but it cannot be less) to compete at a certain level.

[duxx]

Thanks for your reply sprinterouge.
We may agree that EVERYTHING depends on CONTEXT under which testing is evaluated and training is directed.
I must say you made me think… …and I love that

@sprinterouge

Given the not as high specificity of the Yo-yo test for volleyball it is just a “monitored” training mean, so no training for testing.

Optimal is average value for the team, in that specific case. Keep in mind that sport ergogenesis is less varied among positions in volleyball compared to soccer (and those slight variations are taken into account anyway).

Wouldn’t it be more effective to utilize training intervals at the speed where they failed at yoyo testing, rather than repeating whole test (going from low speed where there is no training effect but rather accumulation of un-neccessary volume)?

@sprinterouge

It all comes down to the whys they are poor performers: metabolic undertraining, metabolic overreaching or genetically challenged. In two cases out of three I would have them perform more aerobic work.

I don’t get too pumped up by going against the tradition if there is no sound reason behind it.

What do you mean by ‘genetically challenged’? Can you expand on these three factors?

@sprinterouge

Aerobic conditioning is much more linked to training volume than strength, that’s why I don’t find your example so explanatory of your approach.

Aerobic conditioning is linked both to the intensity (more) and volume (less). My logic is that less ‘aerobically’ fit individuals should performs ‘aerobic’ training where rest intervals are LONGER and total volume is LOWER (daily), due the fact that they can’t recover during shorter rest periods or tolerate greater training volume compared to more aerobically fit individuals…

@sprinterouge

Again, you can have an undertrained midfielder and a genetically challenged (for endurance) forward, the approach cannot be the same.

Also, the extra metabolic work doesn’t necessarily have to expressed by more volume in the single training unit, it might get spread throughout the week.

How can you differ between the two, when their yoyo test results (for example) are the same? Should this mean that ‘genetically challenged’ should be ‘left alone’, while ‘metabolicaly undertrained’ should perform more WEEKLY volume of conditioning (greater frequency — greater emphasis)? I guess that the individual daily training load in the ‘metbolicaly undertrained’ should be fitted toward individual abilty (see previous part on rest periods and daily volume)? Mine only concern is how to differ between the genetically challenged and metabolicaly undertrained.

@sprinterouge

So that your 3000m guys will still lift like wimps

I don’t get your point? So they should have less weekly emphasis (frequency) [cause they don’t need it] on ‘aerobic conditioning’ but have the greatest daily load when performing ‘aerobic conditioning’ [due the fact that they demand greater load to maintain/futher improve]?
One interesting fact is that we have a GK who had greater yoyo results than couple of MFs :eek: The question is what to do with this guy… he certainly don’t need more aerobic work, but yet is able to recover well during one…
You brought great points sprinterouge!!!

@sprinterouge

And the midfielder coming from a forced lay off, for istance, will take forever to regain his shape and the forward will be optimally trained.

Yet again the proof that everything is CONTEXT-dependent!

@sprinterouge

Given soccer training tradition and season characteristics, I think there is more to gain by spending time doing neural training than the metabolic one, thus, as soon as optimal levels are reached in the metabolic department I see no need to do more than maintenance training.

Fully agree! But the questions still remains — WHAT IS OPTIMAL LEVEL and HOW TO ADRESS INDIVIDUAL NEEDS (base of player’s strengths and weaknesses) in team settings?

@sprinterouge

As I already wrote, each role needs certain physical qualities upon which tactical models can call upon to a higher or lower extent, but a player has to have them developped at least to a point (can be more, but it cannot be less) to compete at a certain level.

So, would you base your conditioning on position played or on individual characteristics (and yet take into account positon played)???

Once again thanks for such though provocing response

[duxx]

On a side note… how to implement all of what is being said into small-side games approach to metabolic conditioning? Basically, even if you have (a) metabolically fit, (b) metabolically fatigued and © genetically challenged players they will all play the same small-sided game…
Talking to more than one coach, they all support the idea that BOTH small-sided games and more ‘athletic dry’ conditionign should take place in training…

[duxx]

Basically, this is what my brain figured during this time…

[sprinterouge]

We may agree that EVERYTHING depends on CONTEXT

I think in reality we pretty much think the same way.

Starting from your table: emphasis is correct, IMO. Regarding training unit load, it could be objectively high but relatively moderate, or it could be just moderate if we are in real maintenance/switch of emphasis mode.

In the case of the goal keeper, I don’t know why they do metabolic training AT ALL. They should be power beasts, but more often than not, they aren’t. They are still trained like “lazy soccer players” rather than anaerobic animals.

Genetically endurance challenged players can be forwards and central defensors. These can be the sprinters’ like players in a team. What they do is they don’t run as much during the game, they very much rely on ATP-CP in their game actions and accumulate more lactate during high intensity metabolic training. For them lower volume and longer rest intervals are paramount, but they also have the tendency to skip metabolic training whenever possible, so if they get in really poor shape, at the start of the preparation phase, for istance, they should do metabolic training more often. An undertrained midfielder can progress much faster toward higher load per training unit.

Wouldn’t it be more effective to utilize training intervals at the speed where they failed at yoyo testing, rather than repeating whole test (going from low speed where there is no training effect but rather accumulation of un-neccessary volume)?

Yes it would probably be a more efficient way, but for the sake of practicality (the whole team is doing the same, in the case of Yo-yo training, or we have finished the session, in the case of extra steady state runs), and given the fact that I don’t mind extra volume in aerobic training, I do what I do.

So, would you base your conditioning on position played or on individual characteristics (and yet take into account positon played)???

Position according to tactical demand is the starting point, they gotta be able to cope with what the coach is asking them to do, otherwise they won’t get on the field on Sundays. Individual characteristics are taken into account for the modalities to get to that point.

[duxx]

@sprinterouge

In the case of the goal keeper, I don’t know why they do metabolic training AT ALL. They should be power beasts, but more often than not, they aren’t. They are still trained like “lazy soccer players” rather than anaerobic animals.

My opinion too. I like to do medball and BW circuits with GKs along with maybe less than 1600-1800 tempo work (with only 100s intervals).

@sprinterouge

Genetically endurance challenged players can be forwards and central defensors. These can be the sprinters’ like players in a team. What they do is they don’t run as much during the game, they very much rely on ATP-CP in their game actions and accumulate more lactate during high intensity metabolic training. For them lower volume and longer rest intervals are paramount, but they also have the tendency to skip metabolic training whenever possible, so if they get in really poor shape, at the start of the preparation phase, for istance, they should do metabolic training more often. An undertrained midfielder can progress much faster toward higher load per training unit.

Interesting points. I must admit that my favourite position to work with are central defenders, due their more ‘stable’ psychological characteristic compred to strikers (talking in general, there are allways exception to the rule).

@sprinterogue

Position according to tactical demand is the starting point, they gotta be able to cope with what the coach is asking them to do, otherwise they won’t get on the field on Sundays. Individual characteristics are taken into account for the modalities to get to that point.

This again comes to ‘adapt playing system to players or players to playing system’ issue. You brought some very interesting points and my brain is struggling to understand it and apply it in team settings (when it comes to organization). If you are willing to share some info on organization (testing, evaluation, grouping…) please to, cause I am struggling at the moment how to apply all of what is being said…

[sprinterouge]

My opinion too. I like to do medball and BW circuits with GKs along with maybe less than 1600-1800 tempo work (with only 100s intervals).

That’s what i would do if I was allowed to work with GKs; usually you are not allowed to do so in professional settings, unless the GK coach asks you to.

I must admit that my favourite position to work with are central defenders, due their more ‘stable’ psychological characteristic compred to strikers (talking in general, there are allways exception to the rule).

Agree, no prima donna syndrome among defenders.

This again comes to ‘adapt playing system to players or players to playing system’ issue.

The idea is to have players that can do a playin’ system; they were bought with such characteristics to do so, and they MUST.

If you are willing to share some info on organization (testing, evaluation, grouping…) please to, cause I am struggling at the moment how to apply all of what is being said…

I’ll leave you with some homework,

[duxx]

@sprinterouge

I’ll leave you with some homework

Damn you
You gave me some good points to consider. I am sure my brain will use it… Thanks again.

[sprinterouge]

Very good synthesis