Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
ISSN: 1303 - 2968   
Ios-APP Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
Androit-APP Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
©Journal of Sports Science and Medicine (2015) 14, 494 - 500

Research article
Game and Training Load Differences in Elite Junior Australian Football
Brendan Henderson1, Jill Cook1,3, Dawson J. Kidgell2, Paul B. Gastin1, 
Author Information
1 Centre for Exercise and Sport Science, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Burwood, Victoria, Australia
2 Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia
3 Department of Physiotherapy, Monash University – Peninsula Campus, Victoria, Australia

Paul B. Gastin
✉ Assoc. Prof. Paul Gastin, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood VIC 3125, Australia
Publish Date
Received: 12-09-2014
Accepted: 17-04-2015
Published (online): 11-08-2015
Share this article

Game demands and training practices within team sports such as Australian football (AF) have changed considerably over recent decades, including the requirement of coaching staff to effectively control, manipulate and monitor training and competition loads. The purpose of this investigation was to assess the differences in external and internal physical load measures between game and training in elite junior AF. Twenty five male, adolescent players (mean ±SD: age 17.6 ± 0.5 y) recruited from three elite under 18 AF clubs participated. Global positioning system (GPS), heart rate (HR) and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) data were obtained from 32 game files during four games, and 84 training files during 19 training sessions. Matched-pairs statistics along with Cohen’s d effect size and percent difference were used to compare game and training events. Players were exposed to a higher physical load in the game environment, for both external (GPS) and internal (HR, Session-RPE) load parameters, compared to in-season training. Session time (d = 1.23; percent difference = 31.4% (95% confidence intervals = 17.4 – 45.4)), total distance (3.5; 63.5% (17.4 – 45.4)), distance per minute (1.93; 33.0% (25.8 – 40.1)), high speed distance (2.24; 77.3% (60.3 – 94.2)), number of sprints (0.94; 43.6% (18.9 – 68.6)), mean HR (1.83; 14.3% (10.5 – 18.1)), minutes spent above 80% of predicted HRmax (2.65; 103.7% (89.9 – 117.6)) and Session-RPE (1.22; 48.1% (22.1 – 74.1)) were all higher in competition compared to training. While training should not be expected to fully replicate competition, the observed differences suggest that monitoring of physical load in both environments is warranted to allow comparisons and evaluate whether training objectives are being met.

Key words: Adolescent, youth athlete, GPS, time motion analysis, rating of perceived exertion, training prescription

           Key Points
  • Physical loads, including intensity, are typically lower in training compared to competition in junior elite Australian football.
  • Monitoring of player loads in team sports should include both internal and external measures.
  • Selected training drills should look to replicate game intensities, however training is unlikely to match the overall physical demands of competition.
Home Issues About Authors
Contact Current Editorial board Authors instructions
Email alerts In Press Mission For Reviewers
Archive Scope
Supplements Statistics
Most Read Articles
  Most Cited Articles
JSSM | Copyright 2001-2020 | All rights reserved. | LEGAL NOTICES | Publisher

It is forbidden the total or partial reproduction of this web site and the published materials, the treatment of its database, any kind of transition and for any means, either electronic, mechanic or other methods, without the previous written permission of the JSSM.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.