Two periodization strategies in professional football and their influence on accumulated training load and its distribution: Differences between starters and non-starters

ABSTRACT

This study compared weekly training-load (TL), training-monotony (TM), and training-strain (TS) in 80 professional football players (28.1 ± 3.2 yrs, 78.0 ± 5.9 kg, and 182.0 ± 4.8 cm), considering two lengths (6 and 7 days between matches), two types of periodization strategies (placing the compensatory session in MD+1 [P1] or MD+2 [P2] post-match-day) and two players’ status, starters, and non-starters. Using Global Positioning Technology, the monitored variables were: Player Load (PL), Total Distance (TD), distances at various speeds (>21 [HSR], >24 [VHSR], and > 27 [SPR] km·h⁻¹), number of accelerations (>2 m·s⁻², ACC), and decelerations (<-2 m·s⁻², DEC). Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney non-parametric statistical tests were used for loading strategy differences. In both lengths and periodization strategies of the micro-cycles, non-starters trained more than starters. There were differences in the quantity (TL) and distribution (TM and TS) demand considering the micro-cycle’s length and periodization strategy. In MD+1 (P1), non-starters accumulated higher TL, showing moderate to large Cohen’s d magnitudes in HSR, VHSR, SPR, PL, and TD. For starters, training in MD+2 (P2) resulted in higher values (p < 0.05) of TL, TM and TS. The coaching staff needs to anticipate TL, TM, and TS by considering players’ status, periodization strategy, and the number of training sessions between matches.

KEYWORDS:

• Football
• team sport
• monitoring
• training demand
• GPS

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplemental material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2024.2318061

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.