| Summary: | The aim of this study was to apply a training plan to four different-length microcycles (MIC) in soccer and analyze (a) the load within the training weeks and (b) the short-term effect on the matches that were played at the end of each microcycle. An intervention training program applied to microcycles of five, six, seven and nine days during two seasons of the Cypriot Fist Division. The GPS technology and subjective (wellness, RPE) assessments were used to monitor the load throughout trainings and games. In weekly external load, there were differences between the four microcycles, with a lower load in MIC5 for all the parameters and higher on MIC9 in the most of them (<i>p</i> < 0.05). In RPE, MIC9 (229 ± 60 arbitrary units (au)) differed significantly from MIC5 (229 ± 60 au, <i>p</i> < 0.001), MIC6 (281 ± 67 au; <i>p</i> < 0.001) and MIC7 (297 ± 48 au, <i>p</i> = 0.009). MIC5 also differed from MIC6 (<i>p</i> = 0.001) and MIC7 (<i>p</i> < 0.001). In the game external load, the only differences found in GDEC2 (game decelerations) were between MIC7 (68 ± 10 number (n)), MIC5 (61 ± 11 n, <i>p</i> = 0.035) and MIC6 (60 ± 10 n, <i>p</i> = 0.002); in GSPEF (game speed efforts), between MIC5 (40 ± 17 n), MIC7 (48 ± 14 n, <i>p</i> = 0.004) and MIC9 (48 ± 16 n, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and between MIC6 (41 ± 14 n), MIC7 (<i>p</i> = 0.009), and MIC9 (<i>p</i> = 0.009); in GMPW5 (game metabolic power efforts), between MIC7 (1307 ± 271 n), MIC5 (1201 ± 340 n, <i>p</i> = 0.035) and MIC6 (1178 ± 261 n, <i>p</i> = 0.001). No differences were found for wellness and perceived exertion. It is important for performance coaches to adapt the training load to the length of the microcycle, applying a lower load to short training weeks and manage the load fluctuation on long training weeks in terms of volume, intensity and recovery. In our study, the results confirmed that this strategy could result in similar performance in the games, regardless of microcycle length.
|
|---|