Skill and Physiological Demands of Open and Closed Training Drills in Australian Football

Damian Farrow, David Pyne, Tim Gabbett

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    This study compared the skill and physiological demands of open-and closed-skill drills commonly used in Australian football. Junior male players (n=30, age 16.7 +/- 0.5 y, height 1.88 +/- 0.07 m, mass 79.7 +/- 6.5 kg; mean +/- SD) completed two different training sessions involving a series of three open and closed training drills. Movement demands were quantified with global positioning system (GPS) technology, while physiological responses were assessed with heart rate, blood lactate concentration and self-reported ratings of physical exertion. Skill demands were quantified by video analysis and self-reported ratings of perceived cognitive complexity. Two of the three open drills were substantially more demanding in terms of distance (metres) covered (p < .05), rating of perceived physical exertion (p < .05), and relative intensity (p < .05). All open drills had significantly more moderate velocity efforts (p < .05) than their closed counterparts. There were no differences in post-session lactate concentration between the drills or formats, but heart rate was higher in the open format for the third drill. Analysis of skill demands revealed that while the number of ball disposals were equivalent in two of the three open and closed drill formats, there was a significantly larger volume of game-like decisions required of the participants in all open drills. Higher cognitive complexity scores were reported in the open drills (p < .05). In conclusion, the open drills were generally more physically and cognitively demanding than the closed drills commonly used in Australian Football. Coaches and conditioning staff should prescribe open drills to elicit higher physical and cognitive training loads in a game-specific context.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)489-499
    Number of pages11
    JournalInternational Journal of Sports Science and Coaching
    Volume3
    Issue number4
    Publication statusPublished - Dec 2008

    Cite this

    @article{c44fcee4f28f4a73b42e1f99fd3081bb,
    title = "Skill and Physiological Demands of Open and Closed Training Drills in Australian Football",
    abstract = "This study compared the skill and physiological demands of open-and closed-skill drills commonly used in Australian football. Junior male players (n=30, age 16.7 +/- 0.5 y, height 1.88 +/- 0.07 m, mass 79.7 +/- 6.5 kg; mean +/- SD) completed two different training sessions involving a series of three open and closed training drills. Movement demands were quantified with global positioning system (GPS) technology, while physiological responses were assessed with heart rate, blood lactate concentration and self-reported ratings of physical exertion. Skill demands were quantified by video analysis and self-reported ratings of perceived cognitive complexity. Two of the three open drills were substantially more demanding in terms of distance (metres) covered (p < .05), rating of perceived physical exertion (p < .05), and relative intensity (p < .05). All open drills had significantly more moderate velocity efforts (p < .05) than their closed counterparts. There were no differences in post-session lactate concentration between the drills or formats, but heart rate was higher in the open format for the third drill. Analysis of skill demands revealed that while the number of ball disposals were equivalent in two of the three open and closed drill formats, there was a significantly larger volume of game-like decisions required of the participants in all open drills. Higher cognitive complexity scores were reported in the open drills (p < .05). In conclusion, the open drills were generally more physically and cognitively demanding than the closed drills commonly used in Australian Football. Coaches and conditioning staff should prescribe open drills to elicit higher physical and cognitive training loads in a game-specific context.",
    keywords = "Australian Football, Game-Based Conditioning, Global Positioning System, Movement Patterns, Skill Drills",
    author = "Damian Farrow and David Pyne and Tim Gabbett",
    year = "2008",
    month = "12",
    language = "English",
    volume = "3",
    pages = "489--499",
    journal = "International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching",
    issn = "1747-9541",
    publisher = "Multi-Science Publishing Co. Ltd.",
    number = "4",

    }

    Skill and Physiological Demands of Open and Closed Training Drills in Australian Football. / Farrow, Damian; Pyne, David; Gabbett, Tim.

    In: International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, Vol. 3, No. 4, 12.2008, p. 489-499.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Skill and Physiological Demands of Open and Closed Training Drills in Australian Football

    AU - Farrow, Damian

    AU - Pyne, David

    AU - Gabbett, Tim

    PY - 2008/12

    Y1 - 2008/12

    N2 - This study compared the skill and physiological demands of open-and closed-skill drills commonly used in Australian football. Junior male players (n=30, age 16.7 +/- 0.5 y, height 1.88 +/- 0.07 m, mass 79.7 +/- 6.5 kg; mean +/- SD) completed two different training sessions involving a series of three open and closed training drills. Movement demands were quantified with global positioning system (GPS) technology, while physiological responses were assessed with heart rate, blood lactate concentration and self-reported ratings of physical exertion. Skill demands were quantified by video analysis and self-reported ratings of perceived cognitive complexity. Two of the three open drills were substantially more demanding in terms of distance (metres) covered (p < .05), rating of perceived physical exertion (p < .05), and relative intensity (p < .05). All open drills had significantly more moderate velocity efforts (p < .05) than their closed counterparts. There were no differences in post-session lactate concentration between the drills or formats, but heart rate was higher in the open format for the third drill. Analysis of skill demands revealed that while the number of ball disposals were equivalent in two of the three open and closed drill formats, there was a significantly larger volume of game-like decisions required of the participants in all open drills. Higher cognitive complexity scores were reported in the open drills (p < .05). In conclusion, the open drills were generally more physically and cognitively demanding than the closed drills commonly used in Australian Football. Coaches and conditioning staff should prescribe open drills to elicit higher physical and cognitive training loads in a game-specific context.

    AB - This study compared the skill and physiological demands of open-and closed-skill drills commonly used in Australian football. Junior male players (n=30, age 16.7 +/- 0.5 y, height 1.88 +/- 0.07 m, mass 79.7 +/- 6.5 kg; mean +/- SD) completed two different training sessions involving a series of three open and closed training drills. Movement demands were quantified with global positioning system (GPS) technology, while physiological responses were assessed with heart rate, blood lactate concentration and self-reported ratings of physical exertion. Skill demands were quantified by video analysis and self-reported ratings of perceived cognitive complexity. Two of the three open drills were substantially more demanding in terms of distance (metres) covered (p < .05), rating of perceived physical exertion (p < .05), and relative intensity (p < .05). All open drills had significantly more moderate velocity efforts (p < .05) than their closed counterparts. There were no differences in post-session lactate concentration between the drills or formats, but heart rate was higher in the open format for the third drill. Analysis of skill demands revealed that while the number of ball disposals were equivalent in two of the three open and closed drill formats, there was a significantly larger volume of game-like decisions required of the participants in all open drills. Higher cognitive complexity scores were reported in the open drills (p < .05). In conclusion, the open drills were generally more physically and cognitively demanding than the closed drills commonly used in Australian Football. Coaches and conditioning staff should prescribe open drills to elicit higher physical and cognitive training loads in a game-specific context.

    KW - Australian Football

    KW - Game-Based Conditioning

    KW - Global Positioning System

    KW - Movement Patterns

    KW - Skill Drills

    M3 - Article

    VL - 3

    SP - 489

    EP - 499

    JO - International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching

    JF - International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching

    SN - 1747-9541

    IS - 4

    ER -