Elite German rugby players Essay

essay A+
  • Words: 2584
  • Category: Crime

  • Pages: 10

Get Full Essay

Get access to this section to get all the help you need with your essay and educational goals.

Get Access

Speed and Strength of Elite and Sub-elite GermanRugbyUnion Players

Introduction

Speed and strength are of import physiological features of hit athleticss such as ruggers brotherhood. Specific strength preparation activities are necessary to guarantee that the lower-leg musculuss of rugger participants has the capacity to lend to acceleration public presentation ( 8 ) .

Strength, or the ability to show force, is a basic physical feature that determines public presentation efficiency in athletics. Each athletics varies in its strength demands and, in the involvement of specificity, we should analyze its relationship to rush and endurance. In rugger brotherhood, a forward must hold high maximal strength and organic structure weight, but must besides be able to run fast over short distances ( 15 ) .

Strength is the maximum sum of force that a musculus or musculus group can bring forth at a given velocity, and is required in rugger for the public presentation of tackles, herds, sledges, and scrums ( 12 ) . The most effectual method of finding muscular strength is by executing 1 repeat upper limit ( 1RM ) trials, which measure the upper limit sum an person can raise in one repeat ( 14 ) . 1RM testing is recommended for the nucleus lifts of the back knee bend and bench imperativeness ( 17 ) .

Sprinting requires force production ( 19 ) . On the footing of this cognition, strength and power preparation methods are about universally advocated as a signifier of preparation to better running velocity ( 9 ) . Thus the relation between strength and running velocity are of considerable involvement for research workers and managers trying to place possible mechanisms of public presentation sweetening ( 9, 13, 21, 22 ) .

Speed and acceleration are indispensable demands of rugger brotherhood. Rugby participants typically sprint between 20-40 m ( 10 ) and therefore acceleration is critical. In add-on, ( 11 ) found that most dashs do non affect a alteration of way ( forwards 92 % , backs 78 % ) . Therefore, rugby players’ rush should be tested between 20-40 m, without the ball, from a standing start and with no alterations of way.

The intent of this survey was to find, if the dash times over 10 and 30m and maximal strength ( 1RM ) could be distinguished between elect and sub-elite German rugger brotherhood participants. Besides if there was a relationship between one repeat upper limit bench imperativeness and back knee bend as a strength step for upper and lower organic structure musculuss and 10 and 30m running velocity.

Methods

Capable

Twenty-five elite ( national squad ) and 26 sub-elite ( U19 national squad ) German rugger brotherhood participants took portion in this survey. Elite participants showed a mean ( ±SD ) of 22.60 ( 3.65 ) old ages for age, 1.81 ( 0.07 ) m for tallness, 90.29 ( 13.26 ) kilogram for weight and 27.54 ( 3.06 ) kg/m2for organic structure mass index. Sub-elite participants showed a mean ( ±SD ) of 18.81 ( 1.10 ) old ages for age, 1.82 ( 0.07 ) m for tallness, 90.23 ( 11.69 ) kilogram for weight and 27.13 ( 3.12 ) kg/m2for organic structure mass index. The topics were tested for sprinting of ( 10m, 30m ) and one repeat upper limit for bench imperativeness and back knee bend.

Testing protocols

Measurements were conducted over two yearss ( first twenty-four hours the first professional squad and 2nd twenty-four hours U19 squad ) . All participants warmed up for 20 proceedingss, so the proving session began with the velocity ( 10 and 30 m dash ) followed by 1 RM for upper organic structure strength ( bench imperativeness ) and lower organic structure strength ( back-squat ) .

Speed

Clocking Gatess ( © TDS werther athletics company, Austria ) were placed at start, 10m, and 30m. Get downing place was standardized for all topics. Athletes started in a 2- point crouched place with the back pes about 40cm behind the start line on the starting home base and the front pes at the get downing line. When the participant left the get downing plate the clip steps started. All topics used rugger places.

Measurement of Strength

After a warm-up period affecting specific stretches and the lifting of comparatively light tonss, participants were required to finish foremost a 1RM bench imperativeness and subsequently back knee bend. All participants had experiences in strength preparation and proficient proficiency. Pauses between bench-press and back-squat for all participants were equalled. Relative maximal strength was calculated by spliting 1RM through the players’ weight.

Upper Body Strength Test

Players started with a weight selected on the footing of old bench imperativeness preparation tonss. Players lowered the saloon down to the thorax and so pushed the saloon out until weaponries were to the full extended. After a successful lift the weight was increased until participants was unable to raise his maximal burden. Rest period between lifts was 3 proceedingss ( 18 ) .

Lower Body Strength Test

Maximal lower organic structure strength was assessed by the 1 repeat upper limit back chunky utilizing free weights. Players started with a weight selected on the footing of old back chunky preparation tonss and harmonizing to methods outlined in ( 1, 7 ) . The deepness of knee bend was determined as top of thigh analogue to the floor, which was visually determined by the research worker. After a successful lift the weight was increased until participants was unable to raise his maximal burden. Rest period between lifts was 3 proceedingss.

Statistical Analysiss

Descriptive statistics were derived for all trial variables utilizing SPSS ( 15.1 ) . Differences in velocity and strength variables between both squads were assessed by an independent samples t-test. Pearson merchandise minute correlativities (R) were used to measure the relationships between dash times and strength steps, different dash distances and strength steps. Statistical significance was accepted at an alpha degree ofp-value? 0.05.

Consequences

The consequences for the dash and strength measurings are outlined in Table 1. The relation between the dash times and strength steps and between different dash distances and strength steps are outlined in Table 2.

Table 1:Consequences for the assorted steps of velocity and strength ( values are average ± SD ) .

Variable

Elites

Sub-elite ( U19 )

( n = 25 )

( n = 26 )

Speed ( sec )

10 m

1.95 ± 0.15

2.11 ± 0.10*

30m

4.51 ± 0.28

4.67 ± 0.27*

1RM Strength

Bench imperativeness ( Absolute in kilogram )

102.80 ± 15.01

94.23 ± 12.06*

Bench imperativeness ( comparative in per centum of organic structure weight )

115.45 ± 20.70

105.74 ± 16.75

Back knee bend ( Absolute in kilogram )

211.40 ± 39.30

182.31 ± 36.91*

Back knee bend ( comparative in per centum of organic structure weight )

235.77 ± 40.97

204.55 ± 44.89*

* Significant difference between First and U19 professional squads at0.05degree ( 2-tailed )

Table 2:The relationship between assorted steps of velocity and strength.

Variable

Elite ( n = 25 )

Sub-elite ( n = 26 )

Correlation (R)

Speed ( sec )

10 m vs. 30m

0.94**

0.97**

1RM Strength ( Kg )

Bench imperativeness vs. Back knee bend ( Absolute )

0.65**

0.34

Bench imperativeness vs. Back knee bend ( comparative to personify mass )

0.65**

0.52**

Speed vs. 1RM Strength ( Kg )

10m V. Bench imperativeness absolute

– 0.35

0.09

10m V. Bench imperativeness relation to organic structure mass

– 0.35

– 0.22

30m V. Bench imperativeness absolute

– 0.37

0.02

30m V. Bench imperativeness relation to organic structure mass

– 0.52**

– 0.29

10m vs. Back knee bend absolute

– 0.35

– 0.26

10m vs. Back knee bend relation to organic structure mass

– 41*

– 44*

30m vs. Back knee bend absolute

– 0.40

– 0.29

30m vs. Back knee bend relation to organic structure mass

– 61**

– 49*

* Correlation is important at0.05degree ( 2-tailed )

** Correlation is important at0.01degree ( 2-tailed )

The consequences of this survey show that elect participants presented better sprinting times over 10m and 30m and maximal upper and lower organic structure strength whether absolute or comparative to organic structure mass than sub-elite.

Correlation between 10 and 30m dash public presentation is high for both elect and sub-elite (R= 0.94 and 0.97,P ? 0.01) . 1RM bench imperativeness vs. back squat whether absolute or comparative to personify mass for elite was extremely related (R= 0.65 and 0.65,P ? 0.01) . For sub-elite participants correlation between bench imperativeness and back knee bend is merely important comparative to personify mass (R= 0.52,P ? 0.01) .

There are no important relation between 10m and 1RM bench imperativeness for both squads. Correlation between 30m and 1 RM bench imperativeness relation to organic structure mass is merely important for elect participants (R= -0.52,P ? 0.01) . Although no absolute back knee bend was significantly related to either dash public presentation. Further on all tonss relative to organic structure was significantly related to 10m and 30m for elite (R= -0.41,P ? 0.05and -0.61,P ? 0.01) , severally, and sub-elite (R= -0.44, and -0.49,P ? 0.01) , severally.

Discussion

The intent of this survey was to measure the dash and strength public presentation in rugger brotherhood participants which may originate as a consequence of the conditioning consequence of rugger brotherhood preparation. It was examined by comparing the velocity and strength features of the elect and sub-elite participants. Dash and strength ( 1RM ) measurings as described in this survey are widely used in rugger brotherhood ( 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 13, 18, 21, 22 ) . As measurings were conducted on back-to-back yearss under similar fortunes consequences between both groups ( elect vs. sub-elite ) can be compared. Harmonizing to scientific databases ( e.g. Pubmed ) more surveies on the public presentation of rugger participants are executed with rugby conference participants so with ruggers brotherhood participants.

The consequences of this survey show that elect participants have better dash times over 10m and 30m and upper and lower musculuss strength whether absolute or comparative to personify mass. Previous surveies have shown similar consequences in sprint times between senior A and U19/18 participants. It is reported that senior degree participants performed significantly better than U19/18 on the 30m dash times ( 20 ) . Other surveies in strength reported higher upper and lower organic structure strength in first-grade rugger participants when compared to second-grade and third-grade rugger participants ( 2, 3, 4 ) . In ( 16 ) a important consequence of age and playing degree on organic structure mass, muscular power, velocity, legerity, and maximum aerophilic power is reported. Physiological capacities of participants increasingly better as the playing degree additions ( 16 ) . The steps of dash times for 10m, 30m and maximal strength ( 1RM ) for upper and lower organic structure are of import factors for the choice of rugger brotherhood squads in Germany.

The relationship between 10 and 30m dash times in this survey demo a high correlativity for elect and sub-elite squads (R= 0.94 and 0.97,P ? 0.01) . Previous surveies have shown similar correlativity consequences in sprint public presentation for rugger participants ( 5 ) .

The present consequences show high dealingss between 10m and 30 sprinting times for both elect and sub-elite participants, those participants who were fast over 10m were besides the fast over 30m. This indicates that a good start and rapid acceleration are critical for rugger brotherhood participants to make a good dash public presentation. As consequences for sub-elite participants show a higher correlativity in dash public presentation for 10m vs. 30m than elect participants, these findings may be due to differences in the preparation methodological analysiss or doctrines between ruggers brotherhood squads. Elite and sub-elite dash public presentation show a high correlativity for both squads and hence sprint public presentation might be a good predicator for a participants playing ability on elect degree.

The relationship between 1RM bench imperativeness vs. back squat whether absolute or comparative to personify mass for elite was extremely related (R= 0.65 and 0.65,P ? 0.01) , but for sub-elite merely was extremely related to relative to organic structure (R= 0.52,P ? 0.01) , severally. These consequences support the findings in ( 6 ) and may be due to methods of power preparation by sub-elite and their age degree or organic structure mass. These consequences besides support the findings in ( 2 ) . Further probe on this subject is necessary.

The survey shows no important relation between 10m and 1RM bench imperativeness for both squads. On the other manus a correlativity for comparative to personify mass and 30m for elite participants (R= -0.52,P ? 0.01) is found. Although no absolute back knee bend was significantly related to either dash public presentation, about all the tonss relative to personify mass was significantly related to 10m and 30m for elite (R= -0.41,P ? 0.05and -0.61,P ? 0.01) , severally, and sub-elite (R= -0.44, and -0.49,P ? 0.01) , severally. Previous surveies ( 5 ) have shown similar relationships between strength wether absolute or comparative and sprint 10m for both squads. When the steps were expressed comparative to personify mass, the strength steps were found to correlate to sprint public presentation.

Therefore may be explained by the fact that sprinting involves high force production with support of the organic structure mass. In support of this determination, ( 21 ) reported that steps of force or power comparative to personify mass were most likely to correlate to sprint public presentation, irrespective of the distance.

Practical Application

Elect German rugger brotherhood participants show a better public presentation in both, strength and velocity when compared to sub-elite participants. The differences in public presentations may be explained with different preparation in the two groups. Elite participants train about four times a hebdomad whereas sub-elite participants train merely three times a hebdomad. Therefore managers in sub-elite squads should concentrate on bettering velocity and strength in an extra preparation and adept their preparation. The sub-elite participants chiefly focus on velocity preparation whereas the elect participants focus on strength preparation. A good strength public presentation is widely recommended as the underlying physiological ability and hence preparation should concentrate on strength preparation. Besides the sprinting running and strength steps may supply utile information for achieving high elite ruggers brotherhood participants and measuring, measuring preparation plans and practical methods in preparation.

Mentions

  1. Baker, D. Comparison of lower organic structure strength and power between national, province and metropolis degree rugby conference football participants. Strength Cond Coach 8:3-7, 2000.
  2. Baker, D. Comparison of Upper-Body Strength and Power Between Professional and College-Aged Rugby League Players. The Journal of Strength & A ; Conditioning Research. 15:30-35, 2001.
  3. Baker, D. The Effects of an In-Season of Concurrent Training on the Maintenance of Maximal Strength and Power in Professional and College-Aged Rugby League Football Players. The Journal of Strength & A ; Conditioning Research. 15:172-177, 2001.
  4. Baker, D. Differences in Strength and Power Among Junior-High, Senior-High, College-Aged, and Elite Professional Rugby League Players. The Journal of Strength & A ; Conditioning Research. 16:581-585, 2002.
  5. Baker, D. , and S. Nance. The relationship between strength and power in professional rugger conference participants. J. Strength Cond. Res. 13:224–229, 1999.
  6. Baker, D. , and S. Nance. The Relation Between Running Speed and Measures of Strength and Power in Professional Rugby League Players. The Journal of Strength & A ; Conditioning Research. 13:230-235, 1999.
  7. Baker, D. , Wilson, G, and Carlyon, R. Generality versus specificity: a comparing of dynamic and isometric steps of strength and speed-strength. Eur J Appl Physiol. 68 350–355, 1994.
  8. Christopher. , D. , A.J. Murphy, W.L. Spinks, and R.G. Lockie. The Effects of Resisted Sprint Training on Acceleration Performance and Kinematics in Soccer, Rugby Union, and Australian Football Players. The Journal of Strength & A ; Conditioning Research. 21:77-85, 2007.
  9. Delecluse C, V.C.H. , Willems E, Van Leemputte M, Diels R, Goris M. Influence of high-resistance and high-velocity preparation on dash public presentation. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 27:1203-1209, 1995.
  10. Deutsch, M.U. , Maw, G.J. , Jenkins, D. and Reaburn, P. Heart rate, blood lactate and kinematic informations of elect colts ( under-19 ) rugby brotherhood participants during competition. Journal of Sports Sciences. 16 561-570, 1998.
  11. Duthie, G.M. Descriptive analysis of dash forms in Super 12 rugger. In: Victorian Institute of Sport: International Science and Football Symposium. 2005.
  12. Duthie GM, P.D. , Hooper S. The applied physiology and game analysis of rugger brotherhood. Sports Medicine. 33:973-991, 2003.
  13. Farrar M, T.W. Relationship between isokinetic strength and dash times in college-age work forces. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 27:368-372, 1987.
  14. Fleck, S.J.a.K. , W.J. Planing Resistance Training. 3rd Edition, Champaign, IL: Human Dynamicss. 2004.
  15. Frank, D. Sports Training rules. 3rd Edition, A & A ; C Black Publishers Ltd. 2007.
  16. Gabbett, T.J. Physiological features of junior and senior rugger conference participants. Br. J. Sports Med. 36:334–339, 2002.
  17. Harman, E. , J. Garhammer, and C. Pandorf. Administration, hiting, and reading of selected trials. In: Necessities of Strength Training and Conditioning. T.R. Baechle and R.W. Earle, eds. Plain: Human Kinetics.287-317, 2000.
  18. Ian, T. The RFU Guide for Coaches: Fitness and Conditioning. A & A ; C Black Publishers Ltd. 2005.
  19. Mero A, K.P. , Gregor RJ. Biomechanics of dash running. Sports Med. 13:376-392, 1992.
  20. Quarrie K L, P.H. , M J Toomey, and A E Waller. The New Zealand rugby hurt and public presentation undertaking. IV. Anthropometric and physical public presentation comparings between positional classs of senior A rugger participants. Br J Sports Med. 30:53–56, 1996.
  21. Young, W. , M. Hawken, and L. Mcdonald. Relationship between velocity, legerity and strength qualities in Australian Rules football. Strength Cond. Coach. 4:1996, 1996.
  22. Young W, M.B. , Ardagna J. Relationship between strength qualities and sprinting public presentation. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 35:13-19, 1995.

Get instant access to
all materials

Become a Member
unlock