An interesting article about distance covered per game in the EPL from 2006.
In 2005/06, the average EPL midfielder ran 11.49 kilometres per game. The average EPL centre-back covered 9.96 kilometres per game.
From the article, "the average distance covered by players in matches has changed little [between 2002 and 2006] but the amount done at top speed has almost doubled. What ProZone class as “high-intensity activities” — runs made by players at three-quarters of sprint pace or faster — have increased from 627 per team per match in 2002-03 to 1,209 in 2005-06, and the ground covered by players while sprinting has increased by 40% over four years. A sprint is classed as a run made at quicker than seven metres per second, equivalent to running 100m in a sharp 14 seconds."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
this goes against the conventional thought that football is an anaerobic sport because running a rough 10k in one match surely works the aerobic energy system more than the anaerobic systems? i understand that short sprints work the anaerobic systems more... anyones opinion?
bit late, but I don't see how soccer is anaerobic. generally you're anaerobic systems give out after a few minutes, soccer games last 90 minutes and with covering distance of 10km, it's certainly aerobic.
It is misleading to call an activity aerobic or anerobic, since there is a continuous blending of the two systems.
At low intensity most of the energy is derived from aerobic (fat burning) sources. But even here glycogen is needed to help release energy from fat.
As the intensity is raised, a higher proportion of energy is derived from anaerobic sources.
The balance shifts with intensity so much of the time energy is provided by both.
If Footballers sprint and then walk to recover, most of the energy comes from anaerobic sources.
Sprint + rest is much more intense than slowly jogging the same distance for an hour. The stresses involved are much higher.
How many times have you heard of a pulled hamstring on a jog?
DAVID BECKHAM
Soccer is primarily an aerobic sport purely due to the duration of the sport (90mins).
Many studies have conducted research into the energy systems required for soccer, but due to the stochastic, accyclical and intermittend, with uniqueness through its unpredictability and un-replicablity of game play, soccer uses both aerobic and anaerobic systems. Sure, as I stated, soccer is primarily an aerobic sport, but the predominant amount of decisive moments within a game, are anaerobically fuelled. This ranges from high intensity leg power in a kick, jumping for a header, ball jostling or sprinting. I think studies show the game is roughly 80% aerobic, 20% anaerobically powered. Obviously there are differences within position. however the modern game has evolved so much, that physiological and physcial demands are pretty similar between positions nowadays. For instance, midfielders have always been associated with covering longer distances. Not the case within the last century (research proposes and demonstrates).
Football is overwhelmingly an aerobic sport. Nearly all energy used at slower speeds is aerobic, and a large percentage of the energy used in "high intensity" actions also comes from the aerobic system.
The drive off the last few years to deride aerobic training in favour of anaerobic training is based on a misunderstanding of the Tabata study.