I’ve looked at total distance run and sprint statistics from several pro leagues around the world so now I’d like to look at high intensity efforts. High intensity efforts are classified as anything above 5.5 m/s. This corresponds to any running over 12.3 miles per hour or just a little under 5 minute mile pace. It includes the sprint efforts discussed in my previous post. Over the course of a game, field players in the MLS cover 1,097m at a high intensity effort. FAPL players cover slightly more (1,082m) with nPC players covering more than 12km over the course of a match at that pace (1,206m). Given what was covered in my first 2 posts in this series, that means these guys are covering roughly 10% of their total distance at 5 minute mile pace or faster.
Here are the other 2 installments in this series:
Futbol Fitness Statistics (sprint statistics)
Futbol Fitness Statistics (total distance run)
Mike Young
Latest posts by Mike Young (see all)
- Brilliant Hamstring Injury Observations from Dave Joyce - September 26, 2018
- Sprint exposure for speed enhancement AND injury reduction - April 4, 2018
- Variance in the Soccer Warmup - April 3, 2018
Hi Mike,
is this your top velocity band that you utilize? Or efforts that reach a higher velocity separated into a different band?
I was actually comparing some of the bands we utilize for velocity & acceleration with some of the current research then read this post and thought you might have an opinion.
Alex
I’m not really sure I follow. This data is for anything about 5.5m/s running. The data included in the sprint efforts post is part of this data (and not excluded as separate).
An elite soccer player with elite speed will probably have a maximum velocity of greater than 9 m/s, as such your high intensity efforts begin from 55% of their potential. In fact an elite soccer player with elite aerobic power is probably going to have a vV02max of near 5.5m/s. So to me it’s just a bit misleading thats all, which is why I wondered if you further classified into maximal intensity efforts.
As an example our bands our high intensity efforts begins at 5.5m/s, but we than have a maximal intensity effort that is begins at 7.5m/s (>80% maximal speed).
Agreed. I think you’re not following the way it’s set up. High intensity runs includes everything upwards of 5.5 m/s. Maximal intensity efforts was discussed in the blog linked at the bottom of this one about sprint statistics. The sprint statistics are a subset of high intensity efforts. The bands are set up by Prozone. I wouldn’t be able to have league wide data otherwise. I have the ability to set different thresholds for different players or positions on my team but not for those on other teams.
Mike, I completely understand what you are saying. This is what I am trying to establish – At what velocity does Prozone recognize a sprint? You haven’t specified in this article or the other.
“The average combined total for field player?s on a team in the MLS is making an average of 500 sprint efforts in a game”
What is a considered a sprint effort?
Thanks. I see what you mean. Sprints are runs of 7 m/s or above. I’ve put a note on the previous posting.
The problem here is that the information manually picked up by Prozone is not distilled to more granular outputs. While GPS tools are great, they don’t capture the true work as the system is not looking at unilateral loading with enough detail to detect the true faults that can create injury.
An example of this is the reporting by both systems (Prozone and GPS companies). How it matches true mechanical and biochemical load I don’t buy it, but it’s good enough for general fatigue, similar to TRIMPs. Until I see intervention decision trees mapped out it’s just another way for us to fee like we are control of the situation. Threshold risk zones, Arbitrary units, and estimated work mainly based on crude weight and meters per second estimation are not valid.
The good news is that the equipment is evolving and we can start matching the playing profile of the teams players with their unique structural and injury history.
Great points Carl. I’ve come to the conclusion that we’re in the bronze age now for this type of thing. What we have is ‘better than nothing’ but still has many limitations. I think many coaches don’t recognize these limitations and place too much stake in data or have trouble actually making use of the data they have. Data with no application is worthless and over estimating the value of current data above and beyond a coaches intellect is foolish.