RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INDICATORS
LOAD IN SOCCER PLAYERS
DAVID CASAMICHANA,1 JULEN CASTELLANO,1 JULIO CALLEJA-GONZALEZ,1 JAIME SAN ROMÁN,1
2
AND CARLO CASTAGNA
1
Faculty of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences, University of the Basque Country (EHU/UPV), Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain; and
2
Football Training and Biomechanics Laboratory, Italian Football Federation (FIGC), Technical Department, Coverciano
(Florence), Italy
ABSTRACT
Casamichana, D, Castellano, J, Calleja-Gonzalez, J, San Román, J,
and Castagna, C. Relationship between indicators of training load
in soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 27(2): 369–374,
2013—This study examined the relationship between work load
indicators used to quantify full training sessions in soccer. The
participants were 28 semiprofessional male soccer players age
22.9 6 4.2 years, height 177 6 5 cm, body mass 73.6 6 4.4 kg.
Players’ physical and physiological work load was monitored over
44 training sessions using global positioning system devices (10
Hz) and heart rate, respectively. After each training session,
players’ training perceived-exertion (rating of perceived exertion
[RPE]) was assessed using the Borg CR-10 scale. Players’
internal training load was assessed using the session-RPE and the
Edwards methods. Total distance, distances covered at arbitrary
selected high-intensity speed zones ($18 and 21 kmh21), bout
frequency at speed .18 and 21 kmh21, and work:rest ratio
during training drills were considered as signs of physical work
load. Furthermore, player load assumed as reflection of total
center-of-mass acceleration was considered as representative of
players’ external load. Very-large association of player load with
Edwards and session-RPE methods was found. Total distance
covered was large to very large associated with Player Load,
Session-RPE, and Edwards methods. The findings of this study
provided evidence for the safe use of session-RPE, Edwards
methods, and Players Load as valid indicators of training
responses in soccer.
KEY WORDS association football, training control, session-RPE,
heart rate, GPS technology
Address correspondence to Julen Castellano, julen.castellano@ehu.es.
27(2)/369–374
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2013 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
OF TRAINING
INTRODUCTION
T
o develop physical fitness and team skills, an
extensive use of group training (i.e., specific
training) drills is considered in soccer (13). Specific
training in soccer assumes the form of small-sided
games using different number of players, pitch dimensions,
and game rules to promote the requested adaptations (21).
Team-skill training load (TL) quantification is of importance
when the objective is to evaluate magnitude compliance
between planned and performed training drills. This enables
TL to be modulated according to seasonal training aims. This
assumes value as efficient training prescription is work load
dependent (29).
In soccer, the individual training response (internal load) to
a given imposed training program (external load) may result
in being different among players, and consequently, training
individualization may result problematic (12). Therefore, the
development of valid methods for TL assessment is
paramount in soccer because extreme training responses
may result in training maladaptations and injuries (17,18).
With the aim to profile the internal load, a number of
methods have been proposed using effort perception or heart-
rate (HR) responses to training (3). Recently, the session–
rating of perceived exertion method (sRPE) has been the
object of studies that examined its validity assuming as
construct HR methods (24), which has been correlated with
other internal and external TL (8).
Despite the practical interest provided by these studies,
a conclusive response as per sRPE method criterion validity is
yet to be reported in soccer. Indeed, HR methods were based
on theoretical construct and consequently cannot be
considered as TL gold-standard criteria.
A viable procedure to assess the criterion validity of the
supposed indicators of internal load may result in the compari-
son with variables representing the imposed TL. This assumes
the training work load as reflection of the coach-imposed
external load hypothesizing a cause-effect relationship (25).
In soccer, this procedure gains logical validity because
specific training (i.e., small-sided games and ball-drills) may
induce differences in accumulated external load because of
the random intermittency of this training method (12). The
VOLUME 27 | NUMBER 2 | FEBRUARY 2013 | 369
 Indicator of Training Load in Soccer
Figure 1. Relationship between the Edwards indicator and the total
distance covered for the 210 recordings made (r = 0.72; p , 0.01). ‘‘AU’’
is arbitrary unit.
profile of those activities performed during training such as
distance accumulated in arbitrary categories was considered
as criteria to track players’ external load in team sports (5).
This procedure is now made feasible in the training setup by
the advancement in global position system (GPS) technology
allowing individual tracking of external load to be a reality.
The external load during specific training in soccer can be
objectively assessed (7,10,19,26,34,35) and easily analyzed
with dedicated software (11,28). As a result, GPS systems
offer a highly practical way of monitoring players’ move-
ments during training (20).
Figure 2. Relationship between player load (determined by acceler-
ometry) and the training load indicator obtained via the Edwards method
for the 210 recordings made (r = 0.70; p , 0.01). ‘‘AU’’ is arbitrary unit.
the TM
370 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
To the best of this study author’s knowledge, no study has
addressed the association between the external and internal
load variables experienced during soccer training.
As a result, information gained studying the possible
relationship between internal and external loads may have
a great practical impact on the development of scientific
coaching in soccer.
Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the
relationships of common indicators of internal TL with
objective measures of the external TL in soccer (i.e., criterion
validity). As a work hypothesis was assumed the association
between internal and external load variables.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
In this study, a descriptive correlational design was used. Two
popular indicators of internal load were used: the Edward and
the sRPE method. The former is an HR-based method that
assumes as individual TL the sum of time spent in arbitrary
HR-zones weighted multiplying the accumulated time in
each HR zone (in minutes) by a relative factor (50–60%
HRmax = 1; 60–70% HRmax = 2; 70–80% HRmax = 3; 80–
90% HRmax = 4; and 90–100% HRmax = 5). The sRPE, is
obtained by multiplying the duration of each training session
(in minutes) by the intensity assigned to that session on the
RPE scale (15). Despite the practical interest of these
indicators of individual response to TL, no study verified
their sensibility in tracking variation in training work load
(i.e., external load). Indeed, the published articles only
assessed the validity of sRPE assessing the relationship with
HR-based indicators of internal TL (1,2,16,24,29). Therefore,
the association of internal load indicators and criteria of work
load produced as a result of training is yet to be investigated.
In this study, players’ training activities were monitored
using GPS technology, and the resulting activity categories
were assumed as constructs representing individual external
load. Convergent construct validity of sRPE and Edwards
methods was assessed examining their association with
objective measures of training activities.
Subjects
The participants were 28 semiprofessional soccer players
(age 22.9 6 4.2 years, height 177 6 5 cm, body mass 73.6 6
4.4 kg) of a Spanish Third Division team and possessing
a mean of 12.5 years of playing experience in competitive
soccer. All the players were notified of the research design
and its requirements and the potential benefits and risks.
Each player gave his written informed consent before the
commencement of this study. The Ethics Committee of the
University of the Basque Country (CEISH) gave its
institutional approval before the procedures of this study
took place.
Procedures
The players’ external load was monitored and quantified by
means of portable GPS devices (MinimaxX, v.4.0, Catapult

Figure 3. Relationship between the session-rating of perceived exertion
indicator and the total distance covered for the 210 recordings made (r =
0.76; p , 0.01). ‘‘AU’’ is arbitrary unit.
Innovations) operating at a sampling frequency of 10 Hz and
incorporating a 100-Hz triaxial accelerometer. Each player
wore a special harness that enabled this device to be fitted to
the upper part of his back. The GPS devices were activated 15
minutes before the start of each training session, in
accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. After
recording, the data were downloaded to a PC and analyzed
using the software package Logan Plus v.4.4 (Catapult
Innovations, 2010). The reliability and validity of the devices
used in this study were reported elsewhere (6,38).
Training HR was assessed using a short-range telemetry
system (Polar Team System, Polar Electro Oy, Finland).
Individual maximal HR (HRmax) was assessed before
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 ffi.
Player load ¼ ðaca t ¼i þ1  aca t ¼1 Þ2 þðact t ¼i þ1  act t ¼1 Þ2 þðacvt ¼i þ1  acvt ¼1 Þ2
commencing the study using the Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery
Test Level 1 (27).
The sRPEs were obtained using the 10-point Borg scale by
having players rating their training perceived effort 30
minutes after the end of training according to the procedures
suggested by Foster (14).
A total of 44 training sessions were monitored between
January and April of the 2009–2010 competitive season. The
monitored training sessions took place at least 48 hours
between each other and were all performed on the same
outdoor artificial grass pitch and at similar times of day
(20:00 PM). Each training session began with a 15-minute
standard warm-up (running, stretching, and contact with the
ball), followed by different drills (small-sided games, running
exercises, technical and tactical drills). During the period of
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
this study, no strength-training session was performed by the
players.
Two to 3 sessions per week were monitored, with a mean
duration of 90.4 6 23.0 minutes per session. The mean
number of GPS devices used per training session was 4.6
(61.8), with a maximum of 9 players being monitored in any
single session. All the observed sessions were designed by the
team’s head coach and fitness trainer, who supervised all
the training sessions. Data analysis included all the
activities performed during the training sessions including
the recovery periods.
During rest periods, the players were allowed to drink fluids
‘‘at libitum.’’ The players were advised to maintain their
normal diet, with special emphasis being placed on a high
intake of water and carbohydrates.
The indicators of external load were as follows: (a) TD,
total distance covered; (b) DHS, distance covered at high
speed ($18 kmh21); (c) DSS, distance covered at sprint
speed ($21 kmh21); (d) WRR, work:rest ratio, defined as the
distance covered by the player at a speed $4 kmh–1 (period
of activity or work) divided by the distance covered at
a speed ,3.9 kmh–1 (period of recovery or rest); (e) FEHS,
frequency of efforts at high speed ($18 kmh21); and (f )
FESS, frequency of efforts at sprint speed ($21 kmh21).
A further indicator used was player load, obtained via
accelerometry (4,9,31), combining the accelerations pro-
duced in 3 planes of body movement by means of a 100-Hz
triaxial accelerometer. Player load is a new indicator of the
external load, which showed to be highly correlated with
both HR and blood-lactate levels (31) and possessing high
both interdevice and intradevice reliabilities. This suggesting
accelerometers as a viable tool to track activity changes
during exercise (4,38). Player load was calculated using the
following formula:
100 ;
where aca is the acceleration in the anteroposterior or
horizontal axis, act is the acceleration in the transverse or
lateral axis, acv is the acceleration in the vertical axis, i is the
current time, and t is time.
Familiarization with the used procedures and devices took
place during the week preceding the study.
Statistical Analyses
The data are presented as mean 6 SD. The homogeneity of
variances was examined with Levene’s test. Association
between variables was assessed using Pearson correlation
coefficients. Magnitude of correlation coefficients was
considered as trivial (r , 0.1), small (0.1, r ,0.3), moderate
(0.3 , r ,0.5), large (0.5 , r ,0.7), very large (0.7 , r ,0.9),
and nearly perfect (r . 0.9) and perfect (r = 1) (22). All the
VOLUME 27 | NUMBER 2 | FEBRUARY 2013 | 371
 Indicator of Training Load in Soccer
Figure 4. Relationship between player load (determined by acceler-
ometry) and the session-rating of perceived exertion indicator for the 210
recordings made (r = 0.74; p , 0.01). ‘‘AU’’ is arbitrary unit.
statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 16.0 for
Windows, with significance being set at p # 0.05.
RESULTS
Mean values for Player load, sRPE, and Edward method were
789.2 6 224.9, 462.4 6 237.9, and 216.3 6 72.6 arbitrary units
(AU), respectively. During the training session, players’ TD,
DHS, and DSS were 6,385.4 6 1,713.2 m; DHS: 191.3 6 147.7
m; DSS: 62.6 6 68.4 m, respectively. The mean training bouts
for FEHS and FESS were 39.1 6 30.1 and 4.8 6 4.8 bouts,
respectively. The mean value for WRR was 0.89 6 0.41.
Figure 5. Relationship between the session-rating of perceived exertion
indicator and the training load indicator obtained via the Edwards method
for the 210 recordings made (r = 0.57; p , 0.01). ‘‘AU’’ is arbitrary unit.
the TM
372 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Large and very large correlations were reported between
Player load and TD (r = 0.70, p , 0.01, Figure 1) and Edwards
indicator (r = 0.72, p , 0.01, Figure 2).
The FEHS, DHS, and FESS were moderate to trivially
correlated with Edwards values (r = 0.37, 0.25, and 0.18,
respectively, p , 0.01, n = 210).
The sRPEs were very large associated with TD (r = 0.74, p ,
0.01, Figure 3) and Player load (r = 0.76, p , 0.01, Figure 4).
The FEHS and WRR showed large and small correlations
with sRPE (r = 0.64 and 20.29, respectively, p , 0.01, n = 210).
A large correlation (r = 0.57, p , 0.01) was found between
sRPE and Edwards methods (Figure 5).
DISCUSSION
This is the first study that examined the relationships between
indicators of external and internal load in soccer. The main
finding of this study was the reported significant association
between sRPE and Edwards methods with variables
representing the activity performed by players during soccer
training. This supports this study’s work hypothesis.
The sRPE method has been considered as a viable method
to track internal load using no cost and easily accessible
procedures as the individual global perception of training
effort and total training session time (8). Despite the practical
interest of the sRPE method for scientific coaching, the
studies that examined method validity considered HR-based
indicators as construct of athletes’ internal load only.
Borresen and Lambert (2) reported a very-large correlation
(r = 0.84) between the sRPE indicator and that obtained via
the Edwards method. Studying the intersubject variability in
female soccer players TL, Alexiou and Coutts (1) found
a similar correlation (r = 0.85) between Edwards and sRPE
methods. This adds to what reported by Manzi et al. (29) that
monitored eight professional basketball players over 40
training sessions reporting a very large association (r = 0.85).
In young soccer player, a very large association but of lower
magnitude (r = 0.71) was reported by Impellizzeri et al. (24).
In this study, only a large association between sRPE and the
Edwards methods (r = 0.57, p , 0.01) was reported.
These discrepancies could be because of the different type
of training tasks used in these studies (24). However, the
reported association between the 2 indicators of internal TL
suggests at best method equivalence only.
The finding of this study showed that the sRPE method
was significantly (p , 0.01) related with several indicators of
external physical load during training. Indeed, the sRPE was
related to TD, Players load, and frequency of efforts provided
at high intensity during training. Interestingly, sRPE showed
moderate to trivial association with variables representing the
activities performed at high intensity and sprinting. This
finding partially supports the notion of sRPE as a global
measure of TL with limited influence of casual effort
provided at high intensity. This confirms the internal validity
of the procedures used in this study to assess effort
perception (i.e., RPE timing).

The Edwards method uses the individual HR response to
training to estimate the internal load of athletes. Although it is
popular, the method was not addressed for construct validity
in soccer. Furthermore, the strategy used in this method for
accounting for differences in exercise strain considers linearity
of the HR responses when usually they are nonlinear (30).
Despite these limitations, the Edwards method has been used
as indicator of TL in several articles. This study results
revealed that several indicators of external TL were
correlated with the Edwards method. However, similarly
to what was found for sRPE, the variables that represented
activities performed at high intensity showed small to trivial
correlation with the Edwards method. This occurrence may
be partly explained by the inherent limitation of HR
monitoring in tracking exercise bouts that are eliciting
intensities exceeding the individual maximal HR (37).
Team sports involve rapid and nonlinear accelerations and
decelerations; consequently, a variable quantifying this
momentary variations in work rate may result in being of
great interest (36). Game accelerations was reported to be of
importance in tracking soccer players’ energetic expenditure
because they can provide an instantaneous report of activity
perturbation during the game (33). However, no study has
provided evidence as per validity of acceleration measures
during the game or training in soccer against accepted gold
standards.
In the attempt to account for instantaneous variation in
training activity, the Player load was considered in this study.
The results showed that Player load was large to very large
associated with both the indicators of internal load used in
this study. Those findings are similar to those reported by
Montgomery et al. (31) that showed high correlations
between Player load and both HR and blood-lactate levels.
Despite the Player load not being examined for criterion
validity, the findings of this study provide evidence for the
interest of this variable in monitoring training effort in soccer
players. Furthermore, in the literature, there are studies that
showed the validity and reliability of this variable obtained
from the accelerometer in MinimaxX v.4.0 devices (4,38).
In the present analysis, Player load was large to very large
associated with either indicator of external load (i.e., TD,
r = 0.70; Figure 1) and internal load (Edwards and sRPE,
r = 0.70 and 0.74, respectively; Figures 2 and 4). These finding
may suggest that internal load is related to the volume of
accelerations produced by the external load. Interestingly,
sRPE showed to be very large associated with Player load
supporting the assumption of sRPE as global indicator of
exercise intensity (32).
Future studies should examine the validity, reliability, and
sensitivity and responsiveness of Player load indicator in
different training setup (Impellizzeri and Marcora [23]). In
this regard, one of the main limitations of this study was that
it did not examine the correlation between TL indicators at
different points in the season or across different training
sessions (with different content, different work load levels, or
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
on different days of the week), these being factors that
could influence TL and alter the relationships between
indicators (24,29).
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The results of this study provide evidence for considering
the sRPE as a global indicator of individual training response
in soccer. Being easy to be performed and inexpensive
compared with HR-based methods, sRPE should be
regarded as a viable way to track internal load in training
setup in soccer (24).
Interestingly, sRPE showed to be related to frequency of
effort performed at high intensity during the training sessions
compared with the Edward method that is based on HR
record and analysis.
In this study, a novel measurement of external load
considering accelerations was used. The very-large associa-
tions reported between Player load and indicators of internal
load suggest the interest of accelerations monitoring in soccer.
Training load analysts should take advantage of GPS
technology and sRPE and or Edward methods for post hoc
TL monitoring in soccer.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study is part of the project entitled Avances Tecnolo´gicos
y Metodolo´gicos en la Automatizacio´n de Estudios Observacio-
nales en Deporte, funded by Spain’s Dirección General
de Investigación, Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación
(PSI2008-01179) in 2008–2011. In addition, the authors
thank the Basque Country University (EHU/UPV) and the
Department of Physical Education and Sport provided
funding. No conflicts of interest exist for this research.
REFERENCES
1. Alexiou, H and Coutts, A. A comparison of methods used for
quantifying internal training load in women soccer players. Int J
Sports Physiol Perform 3: 320–330, 2008.
2. Borresen, J and Lambert, MI. Quantifying training load: A
comparison of subjective and objective methods. Int J Sports Physiol
Perform 3: 16–30, 2008.
3. Borresen, J and Lambert, MI. The quantification of training load, the
training response and the effect on performance. Sports Med 39:
779–795, 2009.
4. Boyd, LK, Ball, K, and Aughey, RJ. The reliability of MinimaxX
accelerometers for measuring physical activity in Australian football.
Int J Sports Physiol Perform 6: 311–321, 2011.
5. Carling, C, Bloomfield, J, Nelsen, L, and Reilly, T. The role of motion
analysis in elite soccer: Contemporary performance measurement
techniques and work rate data. Sports Med 38: 839–962, 2008.
6. Castellano, J, Casamichana, D, Calleja-González, J, San Román, J,
and Ostojic, S. Reliability and accuracy of 10 Hz GPS devices for
short-distance exercise. J Sports Sci Med 10: 233–234, 2011.
7. Coutts, A and Duffield, R. Validity and reliability of GPS devices for
measuring movement demands of team sports. J Sci Med Sport 13:
133–135, 2010.
8. Coutts, A, Lovell, T, Sirotic, AC, and Impellizzeri, FM. Efficacy of
using session-RPE to quantify training load in rugby league. 7th
World Congress on Science and Football, Nagoya, Japan, May 26–30,
2011.
VOLUME 27 | NUMBER 2 | FEBRUARY 2013 | 373
 Indicator of Training Load in Soccer
9. Cunniffe, B, Proctor, W, Baker, J, and Davies, B. An evaluation of the
physiological demands of elite rugby union using global positioning
system tracking software. J Strength Cond Res 23: 1195–1203, 2009.
10. Duffield, R, Reid, M, Baker, J, and Spratford, W. Accuracy and
reliability of GPS devices for measurement of movement patterns in
confined spaces for court–based sports. J Sci Med Sport 13: 523–525,
2010.
11. Edgecomb, SJ and Norton, KI. Comparison of global positioning
and computer-based tracking systems for measuring player
movement distance during Australian football. J Sci Med Sport 9:
25–32, 2006.
12. Flanagan, T and Merrick, E. Quantifying the work–load of soccer
players. In: Science and Football IV. W. Spinks, T. Reilly, and A.
Murphy, eds. London, United Kingdom: Routledge, 2002. pp.
341–349.
13. Ford, PR, Yates, I, and Williams, AM. An analysis of practice
activities and instructional behaviours used by youth soccer coaches
during practice: Exploring the link between science and application.
J Sports Sci 28: 483–495, 2010.
14. Foster, C. Monitoring training in athletes with reference to
overtraining syndrome. Med Sci Sports Exerc 30: 1164–1168, 1998.
15. Foster, C, Daines, E, Hector, L, Snyder, AC, and Welsh, R. Athletic
performance in relation to training load. Wis Med J 95: 370–374,
1996.
16. Foster, C, Florhaug, JA, Franklin, J, Gottschal, L, Hrovatin, LA,
Parker, S, Doleshal, P, and Dodge, C. A new approach to monitoring
exercise training. J Strength Cond Res 15: 109–115, 2001.
17. Gabbet, T. Reductions in pre-season training loads reduce training
injury rates in rugby league players. Br J Sports Med 38: 743–749,
2004.
18. Gabbet, T and Jenkins, DG. Relationship between training load and
injury in professional rugby league players. J Sci Med Sport 14:
204–209, 2011.
19. Gray, AJ, Jenkins, D, Andrews, MH, Taaffe, DR, and Glover, ML.
Validity and reliability of GPS for measuring distance traveled in
field-based team sports. J Sports Sci 28: 1319–1325, 2010.
20. Hartwig, TB, Naughton, G, and Searl, J. Motion analyses of
adolescent rugby union players: A comparison of training and game
demands. J Strength Cond Res 25: 966–972, 2011.
21. Hill-Haas, S, Dawson, B, Impellizzeri, FM, and Coutts, A. Physiology
of small-sided games training in football. Sports Med 41: 199–220,
2011.
22. Hopkins, WG. A scale of magnitudes for effect statistics. 2002.
Available at: http://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/index.html.
Accessed March 7, 2009.
23. Impellizzeri, FM and Marcora, SM. Test validation in sport
physiology: Lessons learned from clinimetrics. Int J Sports Physiol
Perform 4: 269–277, 2009.
the TM
374 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
24. Impellizzeri, FM, Rampinini, E, Coutts, AJ, Sassi, A, and Marcora,
SM. Use of RPE-based training load in soccer. Med Sci Sports Exerc
36: 1042–1047, 2004.
25. Impellizzeri, FM, Rampinini, E, and Marcora, SM. Physiological
assessment of aerobic training in soccer. J Sports Sci 23: 583–592,
2005.
26. Jennings, D, Cormack, S, Coutts, AJ, Boyd, L, and Aughey, RJ. The
validity and reliability of GPS units for measuring distance in team
sport specific running patterns. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 5:
328–341, 2010.
27. Krustrup, P, Mohr, M, Amstrup, T, Rysgaard, T, Johansen, J,
Pedersen, PK, and Bangsbo, J. The yo-yo intermittent recovery test:
Physiological response, reliability, and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc
35: 697–705, 2003.
28. MacLeod, H, Morris J, Nevill, A, and Sunderland, C. The validity of
a non–differential global positioning system for assessing player
movement patterns in field hockey. J Sports Sci 27: 121–128, 2009.
29. Manzi, V, D’Ottavio, S, Impellizzeri, FM, Chaouachi, A, Chamari, K,
and Castagna, C. Profile of weekly training load in elite male
professional basketball players. J Strength Cond Res 24: 1399–1406,
2010.
30. Manzi, V, Iellamo, F, Impellizzeri, F, D’Ottavio, S, and Castagna, C.
Relation between individualized training impulses and performance
in distance runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41: 2090–2096, 2009.
31. Montgomery, PG, Pyne, DB, and Minahan, CL. The physical and
physiological demands of basketball training and competition. Int J
Sports Physiol Perform 5: 75–86, 2010.
32. Morgan, WP. Psychological components of effort sense. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 26: 1071–1077, 1994.
33. Osgnach, C, Poser, S, Bernardini, R, Rinaldo, R, and Prampero, PE.
Energy cost and metabolic power in elite soccer: A new match
analysis approach. Med Sci Sports Exerc 42: 170–178, 2010.
34. Petersen, C, Pyne, D, Portus, M, and Dawson, B. Validity and
reliability of GPS units to monitor cricket-specific movement
patterns. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 4: 381–393, 2009.
35. Portas, MD, Harley, JA, Barnes, CA, and Rush, CJ. The validity and
reliability of 1-Hz and 5-Hz global positioning systems for linear,
multidirectional, and soccer-specific activities. Int J Sports Physiol
Perform 5: 448–458, 2010.
36. Sheppard, JM, Young, WB, Doyle, TL, Sheppard, TA, and Newton,
RU. An evaluation of a new test of reactive agility and its relationship
to sprint speed and change of direction speed. J Sci Med Sport 9:
342–349, 2006.
37. Stølen, T, Chamari, K, Castagna, C, and Wisløff, U. Physiology of
soccer: An update. Sports Med 35: 501–536, 2005.
38. Varley, MC, Fairweather, IA, and Aughey, RA. Validity and reliability
of GPS for measuring instantaneous velocity during acceleration,
deceleration, and constant motion. J Sports Sci 30: 121–127, 2012.