ArticlePloS one2022
Evaluating the influence of a constraint manipulation on technical, tactical and physical athlete behaviour.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evaluating practice design is an important component of supporting skill acquisition and improving team-sport performance. Constraint manipulations, including creating a numerical advantage or disadvantage during training, may be implemented by coaches to influence aspects of player or team behaviour. This study presents methods to evaluate the interaction between technical, tactical and physical behaviours of professional Australian Football players during numerical advantage and disadvantage conditions within a small-sided game. During each repetition of the game, team behaviour was manually annotated to determine: repetition duration, disposal speed, total disposals, efficiency, and disposal type. Global Positioning System devices were used to quantify tactical (surface area) and physical (velocity and high intensity running) variables. A rule association and classification tree analysis were undertaken. The top five rules for each constraint manipulation had confidence levels between 73.3% and 100%, which identified the most frequent behaviour interactions. Specifically, four advantage rules involved high surface area and medium high intensity running indicating the attacking team's frequent movement solution within this constraint. The classification tree included three behaviour metrics: surface area, velocity 1SD and repetition duration, and identified two unique movement solutions for each constraint manipulation. These results may inform if player behaviour is achieving the desired outcomes of a constraint manipulation, which could help practitioners determine the efficacy of a training task. Further, critical constraint values provided by the models may guide practitioners in their ongoing constraint manipulations to facilitate skill acquisition. Sport practitioners can adapt these methods to evaluate constraint manipulations and inform practice design.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.