Differences between match and training situations for water polo goalkeepers

Clément, Julien; Croteau, Félix; Oliveira, Justin

doi:10.1007/s12283-022-00375-4

Cited by 1 publication

(4 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, IMU metrics measured in training had the highest values, followed by match, then match warmup, except for the duration which was highest for matches. In contrast, Clément et al (7) had previously found higher IMU metrics in matches compared with training ( 7 ). However, their sample included only seven matches and seven practices, and hence this difference may be due to under-sampling.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…Tri-axial accelerations and angular velocities were measured with an IMU (Xsens Dot, Xsens Technologies, Enschede, Netherlands) placed on the lower back by a staff member prior to water polo sessions. The IMU signals were filtered and analyzed with a custom Matlab® script (MathWorks, Natick, USA) to create training volume metrics according to previous methods from Clément et al ( 7 ). These included overall player-load (summation of change of accelerations) ( 19 ), high-intensity activity counts such as number of jumps and kicks, as well as an index score based on the weighted time spent in different intensity zones.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This range of skills can be trained in different manners, for which the readers are referred to more specific publications available on the topic of water polo physical preparation ( 5 , 6 ). However, much less literature is available on the monitoring methods available to track water polo goalkeepers' training loads ( 7 ). While other team sports have embraced global positioning systems (GPS) and heart rate (HR) monitoring technologies to track training over time, water polo provides a unique challenge for using electronic devices given its partaking in an aquatic environment (often indoors) ( 8 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Consequently, the authors conclude that further work is necessary to develop methods that can serve to also quantify training volume and intensity in water polo in terms of swimming and shooting. Preliminary work has shown the potential for wearable inertial measurement units (IMU) to accomplish this goal ( 7 , 17 ). Therefore, the purpose of this case report is to examine the outcomes of a monitoring strategy implemented for water polo goalkeepers using tools to document perceived exertion from training as well as estimates of training volume or intensity extracted from wearable IMU.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Case study of IMU loads and self-reported fatigue monitoring of water polo goalkeepers preparing for the Olympic games

Croteau

Gaudet²,

Briand³

et al. 2023

Front. Sports Act. Living

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionMeasurement of training in water polo goalkeepers has focused first on psycho-physiological variables, but also on external volume estimated with wearable sensors. However, there are limited studies exploring training monitoring in water polo goalkeepers longitudinally.MethodsThree female senior national team goalkeepers participated in this study from May to August 2021. Internal loads were defined using session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE). Tri-axial accelerations and angular velocities were measured with an inertial measurement unit (IMU) placed on the lower back to measure external loads. Relationships between self-reported and IMU-derived metrics were explored using Spearman correlations. Two-way ANOVAs were used to assess differences between session types and between athletes.ResultsIn total, 247 sessions were collected (159 practices, 67 matches and 21 game warm up), with 155 sessions having complete data. IMU metrics, such as number of kicks, number of jumps or player-load showed high correlation with each other (ρ = 0.80–0.88). There was also a moderate correlation (ρ = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.33–0.58) between sRPE and player-load measured with the IMU. ANOVA tests showed that there were significant differences between athletes for sRPE (p < 0.01) but not for player load (p = 0.47). There were no interactions between athletes and training types, except for index score (p < 0.01).ConclusionsThis study shows that monitoring of training loads can be performed successfully in water polo goalkeepers using a combination of self-reported and IMU measures. Self-reported outcomes can be expected to vary significantly across athletes within the same session, while IMU metrics vary across training situations. Finally, coaches should be mindful of missing data, as they can skew the interpretation of training loads.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%