Athlete Monitoring in Rugby Union: Is Heterogeneity in Data Capture Holding Us Back?
In an effort to combat growing demands on players, athlete monitoring has become a central component of professional sport. Despite the introduction of new technologies for athlete monitoring, little is understood about the practices employed in professional rugby clubs. A questionnaire was circulat...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2019-04-01
|
| Series: | Sports |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4663/7/5/98 |
| _version_ | 1811187697063034880 |
|---|---|
| author | Stephen W. West Sean Williams Simon P. T. Kemp Matthew J. Cross Keith A. Stokes |
| author_facet | Stephen W. West Sean Williams Simon P. T. Kemp Matthew J. Cross Keith A. Stokes |
| author_sort | Stephen W. West |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | In an effort to combat growing demands on players, athlete monitoring has become a central component of professional sport. Despite the introduction of new technologies for athlete monitoring, little is understood about the practices employed in professional rugby clubs. A questionnaire was circulated amongst conditioning staff across the 12 Premiership rugby clubs to capture the methods used, relative importance, perceived effectiveness and barriers to the use of multiple different athlete monitoring measurements. Previous injury, Global Positioning System (GPS) metrics, collision counts and age were deemed the most important risk factors for managing future injury risk. A wide range of GPS metrics are collected across clubs with high-speed running (12/12 clubs), distance in speed zones (12/12 clubs) and total distance (11/12 clubs) the most commonly used. Of the metrics collected, high-speed running was deemed the most important for managing future injury risk (5/12 clubs); however, there was considerable variation between clubs as to the exact definition of high-speed running, with both absolute and relative measures utilised. While the use of such monitoring tools is undertaken to improve athlete welfare by minimising injury risk, this study demonstrates the significant heterogeneity of systems and methods used by clubs for GPS capture. This study therefore questions whether more needs to be done to align practices within the sport to improve athlete welfare. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-11T14:07:52Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-4d8af4af74614052bce834362f4c60d6 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2075-4663 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-11T14:07:52Z |
| publishDate | 2019-04-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Sports |
| spelling | doaj.art-4d8af4af74614052bce834362f4c60d62022-12-22T04:19:49ZengMDPI AGSports2075-46632019-04-01759810.3390/sports7050098sports7050098Athlete Monitoring in Rugby Union: Is Heterogeneity in Data Capture Holding Us Back?Stephen W. West0Sean Williams1Simon P. T. Kemp2Matthew J. Cross3Keith A. Stokes4Department for Health, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UKDepartment for Health, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UKRugby Football Union, Twickenham TW2 7BA, UKPremier Rugby Limited, Twickenham TW1 3QS, UKDepartment for Health, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UKIn an effort to combat growing demands on players, athlete monitoring has become a central component of professional sport. Despite the introduction of new technologies for athlete monitoring, little is understood about the practices employed in professional rugby clubs. A questionnaire was circulated amongst conditioning staff across the 12 Premiership rugby clubs to capture the methods used, relative importance, perceived effectiveness and barriers to the use of multiple different athlete monitoring measurements. Previous injury, Global Positioning System (GPS) metrics, collision counts and age were deemed the most important risk factors for managing future injury risk. A wide range of GPS metrics are collected across clubs with high-speed running (12/12 clubs), distance in speed zones (12/12 clubs) and total distance (11/12 clubs) the most commonly used. Of the metrics collected, high-speed running was deemed the most important for managing future injury risk (5/12 clubs); however, there was considerable variation between clubs as to the exact definition of high-speed running, with both absolute and relative measures utilised. While the use of such monitoring tools is undertaken to improve athlete welfare by minimising injury risk, this study demonstrates the significant heterogeneity of systems and methods used by clubs for GPS capture. This study therefore questions whether more needs to be done to align practices within the sport to improve athlete welfare.https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4663/7/5/98rugbyathletemonitoringwelfareGPStraininginjuryperformance |
| spellingShingle | Stephen W. West Sean Williams Simon P. T. Kemp Matthew J. Cross Keith A. Stokes Athlete Monitoring in Rugby Union: Is Heterogeneity in Data Capture Holding Us Back? Sports rugby athlete monitoring welfare GPS training injury performance |
| title | Athlete Monitoring in Rugby Union: Is Heterogeneity in Data Capture Holding Us Back? |
| title_full | Athlete Monitoring in Rugby Union: Is Heterogeneity in Data Capture Holding Us Back? |
| title_fullStr | Athlete Monitoring in Rugby Union: Is Heterogeneity in Data Capture Holding Us Back? |
| title_full_unstemmed | Athlete Monitoring in Rugby Union: Is Heterogeneity in Data Capture Holding Us Back? |
| title_short | Athlete Monitoring in Rugby Union: Is Heterogeneity in Data Capture Holding Us Back? |
| title_sort | athlete monitoring in rugby union is heterogeneity in data capture holding us back |
| topic | rugby athlete monitoring welfare GPS training injury performance |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4663/7/5/98 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT stephenwwest athletemonitoringinrugbyunionisheterogeneityindatacaptureholdingusback AT seanwilliams athletemonitoringinrugbyunionisheterogeneityindatacaptureholdingusback AT simonptkemp athletemonitoringinrugbyunionisheterogeneityindatacaptureholdingusback AT matthewjcross athletemonitoringinrugbyunionisheterogeneityindatacaptureholdingusback AT keithastokes athletemonitoringinrugbyunionisheterogeneityindatacaptureholdingusback |