RESUMO
Ideally an athlete would continue to improve performance indefinitely over time, however improvement slows as the athlete approaches their genetic limits. Measuring performance is complex-performance may be temporarily depressed following aggressive training for multiple reasons, physiological and psychosocial. This reality may be vexing to the strength and conditioning coach, who, as a service provider, must answer to sport coaches about an athlete's progress. Recently an evaluation mechanism for strength and conditioning coaches was proposed, in part to help coaches establish their effectiveness within the organization. Without formal guidance and realistic expectations, if an athlete is not bigger, leaner, stronger, etc. as a result of training within a specified timeframe, blame is often placed upon the strength and conditioning coach. The purpose of this article is to explore possible causes of what may be perceived as athlete non-responses to training and to provide guidance for the coach on how to handle those issues within their domain. A process of investigation is recommended, along with resources to assist coaches as they consider a broad range of issues, including enhancing existing testing methods, improving athlete behaviors, and adjusting processes designed to bring about performance improvement.
RESUMO
Gleason, BH, Sams, M, Salley, JT, Pustina, A, and Stone, MH. Global positioning system analysis of a high school football scrimmage. J Strength Cond Res 31(8): 2183-2188, 2017-The purpose of this study was to examine the physical demands of a high school American football scrimmage. Male high school football players (N = 25) participated in a spring scrimmage. Global positioning system data and game film were recorded throughout the entirety of the scrimmage to determine the total distance covered, the distance covered in different velocity bands, the number of accelerations and decelerations performed, and the work-to-rest ratio of the scrimmage. The athletes were divided into 2 groups: linemen (L) (N = 7) vs. nonlinemen (NL) (N = 8) for statistical analysis, and independent T-tests with Holm's sequential Bonferroni adjustment were used to determine differences in movement characteristics between the L and NL groups. Average play duration was 5.7 ± 2.1 seconds, whereas the rest interval was 33.4 ± 13.6 seconds between plays, for an overall exercise-to-rest ratio of 1:5.9. Total distance, standing and walking distance, running distance, striding distance, sprinting distance, and total high-speed running distance covered by NL was greater than L (statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05). Distances traveled in each velocity band by position and by play are also included to provide context of our findings. Data from the present study add to the pool of support for the use of position-specific training in preparing high school football players for competition.
