Relative Training Load and Match Outcome: Are Professional Soccer Players Actually Undertrained during the In-Season?

Abstract

Previous studies examined training/match ratios (TMr) to determine the training load relative to the match load, but the influence of the relative training load (RTL) on success in soccer is still unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the possible influence of RTL on final match outcome in soccer (win, draw, and loss). Running performances (RP) of soccer players (n = 21) in the Croatian highest national soccer competition were analyzed during the season 2020-2021. Data were measured by the global positioning system in 14 official matches and 67 training sessions. RTL was assessed by TMr, which were calculated as the ratio of RP during training and match in the same week, evaluating the following measures: TDr (total distance ratio), LIDr (low-intensity distance ratio), RDr (running distance ratio), HIDr (high-intensity distance ratio), ACCr (total accelerations ratio), DECr (total decelerations ratio), HI-ACCr (high-intensity accelerations ratio), HI-DECr (high-intensity decelerations ratio). All TMr were examined separately for each training session within in-season microcycles (categorized as days before the match day, i.e., MD minus). Spearman correlations were used to identify association between match outcome and TMr. The results indicated negative associations between match outcome and TDr, LIDr, ACCr and DECr on MD-1 and MD-2). In contrast, positive associations were evidenced between match outcome, and HIDr on MD-3 and TDr, LIDr, ACCr and DECr on MD-5 (p < 0.05; all moderate correlations). These findings demonstrate that final match outcome in soccer was associated with greater RTL of (i) high-intensity running three days before the match, (ii) total and low-intensity running, accelerations and decelerations five days before the match, and (iii) lower RTL of total and low-intensity running, accelerations and decelerations one and two days before the match.

Keywords: external load; football; match running performance; monitoring; success.

Figure 1

Differences between microcycles with five and four field-based training sessions (TE-TA = technical tactical, SSG = small sided games, LSG = large sided games, MD = Match day).

Figure 2

Descriptive statistics (means ± standard deviations), and results of the parametric (F-test), or non-parametric (ANOVA Chi sqr.) analysis of variance (*** p < 0.001) among training days (MD-1, MD-2, MD-3, MD-4, MD-5) for total distance ratio (TDr; (A)), low-intensity distance ratio (LIDr; (B)), running distance ratio (RDr; (C)) and high intensity distance ratio (HIDr; (D)).

Figure 3

Descriptive statistics (means ± standard deviations), and results of the analysis of the variance (F-test, *** p < 0.001) among training days (MD-1, MD-2, MD-3, MD-4, MD-5) for total accelerations ratio (ACCr; (A)), total accelerations ratio (DECr; (B)), high intensity accelerations ratio (HI-ACCr; (C)) and high intensity decelerations ratio (HI-DECr; (D)).