Quantifying positional and temporal movement patterns in professional rugby union using global positioning system

Abstract

This study assessed the positional and temporal movement patterns of professional rugby union players during competition using global positioning system (GPS) units. GPS data were collected from 33 professional rugby players from 13 matches throughout the 2012-2013 season sampling at 10 Hz. Players wore GPS units from which information on distances, velocities, accelerations, exertion index, player load, contacts, sprinting and repeated high-intensity efforts (RHIE) were derived. Data files from players who played over 60 min (n = 112) were separated into five positional groups (tight and loose forwards; half, inside and outside backs) for match analysis. A further comparison of temporal changes in movement patterns was also performed using data files from those who played full games (n = 71). Significant positional differences were found for movement characteristics during performance (P < 0.05). Results demonstrate that inside and outside backs have greatest high-speed running demands; however, RHIE and contact demands are greatest in loose forwards during match play. Temporal analysis of all players displayed significant differences in player load, cruising and striding between halves, with measures of low- and high-intensity movement and acceleration/deceleration significantly declining throughout each half. Our data demonstrate significant positional differences for a number of key movement variables which provide a greater understanding of positional requirements of performance. This in turn may be used to develop progressive position-specific drills that elicit specific adaptations and provide objective measures of preparedness. Knowledge of performance changes may be used when developing drills and should be considered when monitoring and evaluating performance.

Impact of Fatigue on Positional Movements During Professional Rugby Union Match Play

“…Roberts et al 7 reported no difference in total distance or high intensity running distance between match halves for all players. Jones et al 8 also reported no difference in total, high or low speed distance per half, although there were reductions in cruising (2.7 to 3.8 m.s -1 ) and striding (3.8 to 5.0 m.s -1 ) distance for all players. The large differences the physical requirements of players in different positions has been regularly documented 13,14 , and it is possible that important information was missed in these studies due to the heterogeneity of the player groups.…”

“…Roberts et al 7 reported that high intensity running distance remained consistent throughout match segments. In contrast, Jones et al 8 showed large reductions (~50%) in high intensity running in periods 30-40 minutes and 50-60 minutes during match play. Lacome et al 6 found no change in exercise to rest ratios from 1 st to 2 nd half in international rugby players, concluding that there was not an obvious decrease in performance due to fatigue 6 , indicating a 'flat' pacing strategy.…”

“…Accordingly, acute fatigue in team sports has been evidenced by a decline in total and high-intensity (>3.6 m.s -1 ) running distance across progressive game segments in soccer 2 , rugby league 3 , Australian rules football 4 , rugby sevens 5 and rugby union [6][7][8] .…”

“…Analysis from successive 10 minutes periods of matches indicate that rugby union players typically adopt a 'slow-positive' pacing strategy in terms of total distance covered, starting games at higher running intensities with a gradual decline (~10%) throughout each half 7,8 . Roberts et al 7 reported that high intensity running distance remained consistent throughout match segments.…”

Physical Demands of Representative Match-Play in Adolescent Rugby Union

“…The locomotive demands of senior professional players have recently been quantified using global positioning systems (GPS) technology (4,5,30). Cahill et al (4) found that in senior players, backs covered greater total (6545 ± 1055 vs. 5850 ± 1101 m) and relative (71.1 ± 11.7 vs. 64.6 ± 6.3 m.min -1 ) distances than forwards in addition to recording a higher maximum velocity (8.4 ± 0.9 vs. 7.3 ± 1.1 m.s -1 ) during sprinting.…”