feature
‘BRIDGING THE GAP’ – THE ROLE OF INDIVIDUALISATION IN MANAGING THE PHYSICAL TRANSITION BETWEEN ‘PART-TIME’ AND ‘FULL-TIME’ ACADEMY FOOTBALL FEATURE / FRANCES HUNTER & JONATHAN TAYLOR Introduction In English academies the transition between the under 16 (u16) and under 18 (u18) age-groups (also representative of the part-time to full-time transition) observes a ‘two-fold’ increase in required coaching hours in accordance with the Elite Player Performance Plan (EPPP). Additional coaching contact times come s with greater physical and physiological demands, and if this transition is not managed correctly, overuse injuries and under performance are highly likely as a consequence (Gabbett et al. 2017). This is significant given that injury is negatively associated with player progression in academies (Larruskain et al. 2021). The substantial differences in training loads between u16, u18 and u23 age-groups in a Category 1 EPL academy were recently demonstrated (Taylor et al. 2022). Weekly total distance, high-speed running, ‘sprint’ distance (>25.2km.hr1), mechanical load and RPE-Loads were substantially higher in u18 in comparison to u16 players (Taylor et al. 2022) further highlighting the increased physical demand. Evidence around injury incidence age-group comparisons is equivocal in high-level youth football. However, in a recent systematic review, u17 to u21 players were reported to have the highest injury incidence per 1000/h (7.9), with the probability of sustaining a time-loss injury 51-91% in u18 players, in comparison to wider probability range of 1-96% in u9-16 players (Jones et al. 2019). Evidence around Injury burden (time-loss) is clearer, with u18 players reported to suffer the most severe injuries (Materne et al. 2021). Data on seasonal variation of injuries indicates that two ‘injury peaks’ occur (Read et al. 2017). The first peak occurs immediately post ‘pre-season’ during which physical stress is elevated (September), and the second following the ‘winter break’ where ‘deconditioning’ may occur (January). Interventions Effectively managing the ‘transition’ requires an individualised approach to player development. This is of particular
28
relevance during pre-season - immediately following the transition, and other periods where training load ‘spikes’ occur. Various approaches are used to mitigate the potential negative effects of the transition phase. Here we outline some of the strategies that can be used, whilst providing case-examples. ‘Pre loading’ within the final months (i.e., Apr-May) of the U16 training programme has been highlighted as a strategy to ‘bridge the gap’ (Taylor et al. 2022). This refers to the systematic build-up of training load in the months preceding the transition. However, academic pressures and low training adherence once player scholarships are awarded, might limit effectiveness of this method. Here, two alternative methods of individualising training that may facilitate the transition are detailed. The use of individualised speed zones has received increased attention over recent years and may be of use to help solve this puzzle. However, for the purpose of this article, we are going to focus on two interventions only. Fitness Testing Results & Training Age: Physical testing batteries are commonplace in Academies that operate within the EPPP framework. Therefore, with appropriate test selection, testing data can be used to create sub-groups within the U18 age-group to individualise training prescription for players. It is widely accepted that players aerobic fitness (Gabbett et al, 2018; Malone
et al, 2017) and the age of athlete (Gabbett et al, 2017; Blanch et al; 2015) are moderators to tolerating training load. Therefore, accounting for these factors within a given intervention is intuitive. Table 1 demonstrates how Clubs may categorise players into groups based on Aerobic Fitness and age (training age). In this example, the 30:15 Intermittent Fitness Test termination speed (VIFT) and training age score (see below), is used: •
U17 (recruited externally as a 1st year scholar) = 1
•
U17 (recruited internally as a 1st year scholar) or U18 (recruited externally from a part-time model) = 2
•
U18 (Graduated from U17s; or recruited from a full time Academy model) = 3
In this example, Group 2 players could complete the standard training programme employed by the coach and MDT staff at the start of the U18 season. Players in Group 1 and 3 would complete a modified & progressed programme respectively. The example below (table 2) presents what this could look like at Middlesbrough Football Club (we appreciate the nature of these modifications are club and resource specific). It should be noted that effective communication of these training differentiators and agreement between MDT is critical to the success of this model.
Table 1. Use of training age score (see above) and Aerobic Fitness to group player.
info@fmpa.co.uk
