To minimize underperformance, injury and illness, and to enhance readiness for training and matchplay, post-match responses are commonly monitored within professional rugby. As no clear consensus exists regarding the magnitude and duration of post-match recovery, this review summarized literature (17 studies yielded from literature searching/screening) reporting neuromuscular (countermovement jump; CMJ: peak power output; PP, flight-time; FT), biochemical (creatine kinase; CK), endocrine (cortisol; C, testosterone; T concentrations) and subjective (wellness questionnaire, muscle soreness) indices following rugby match-play. For neuromuscular responses (11 studies), reductions in PP <31.5% occurred <30 min post-match, returning to baseline within 48-72 h. Post-match reductions in FT of <4% recovered after 48 h. For biochemical and endocrine responses (14 studies), increases in CK, ranging from 120-451%, peaked between 12-24 h, returning to baseline within 72 h of match-play. Initial increases of <298% in C, and reductions in T concentrations (<44%), returned to pre-match values within 48-72 h. Mood disturbances (six studies) required 48-72 h to normalize after peak decrements of <65% at 24 h. This review highlights that 72 h were needed to restore perturbations in neuromuscular, biochemical and endocrine, and subjective/perceptual responses following competitive rugby match-play. Notably, only four studies reported responses in more ecologically valid scenarios (i.e., those in which regular training and recovery strategies were employed) whilst also reporting detailed match demands. A lack of research focusing on youth players was also evident, as only three studies profiled post-match responses in younger athletes. Deeper insight regarding post-match responses in ecologically valid scenarios is therefore required.

In professional academy rugby league (RL) players, this two-part study examined; (A) the within- and between-day reliability of isometric mid-thigh pulls (IMTP), countermovement jumps (CMJ), and a wellness questionnaire (n = 11), and (B) profiled the responses with acceptable reliability (no between-trial differences and between-day coefficient of variation (CV) ≤10% and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) ≥0.8) for 120 h (baseline: −3, +24, +48, +72, +96, +120 h) following RL match-play (n = 10). In part A, force at 200, and 250 ms, and peak force (PF) demonstrated acceptable within- (CV%: 3.67–8.41%, ICC: 0.89–0.93) and between-day (CV%: 4.34–8.62%, ICC: 0.87–0.92) reliability for IMTP. Most CMJ variables demonstrated acceptable within-day reliability (CV%: 3.03–7.34%, ICC: 0.82–0.98), but only six (i.e., flight-time, PF, peak power (PP), relative PP, velocity at take-off (VTO), jump-height (JH)) showed acceptable between-day reliability (CV%: 2.56–6.79%, ICC: 0.83–0.91). Only total wellness demonstrated acceptable between-day reliability (CV%: 7.05%, ICC: 0.90) from the questionnaire. In part B, reductions of 4.75% and 9.23% (vs. baseline; 2.54 m∙s−1; 0.33 m) occurred at +24 h for CMJ VTO, and JH, respectively. Acceptable reliability was observed in some, but not all, variables and the magnitude and time-course of post-match responses were test and variable specific. Practitioners should therefore be mindful of the influence that the choice of recovery monitoring tool may have upon the practical interpretation of the data.

No abstract