Game sense or game nonsense?

Recently, there has been an increase in scientific research regarding team sports.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Surprisingly however, there has been little research about the best training methods to improve “physical performance” (e.g., number of sprints) during actual team-sport competitions. This is undoubtedly related to the difficulty in conducting training studies and in measuring “physical performance” during team sports. In the absence of strong scientific evidence, one concept that has emerged is “train as you play”. While such a concept appeals to common sense, the scientific evidence in support of this approach is lacking.

The improvement of team-sport-specific physical performance is an important goal of anyone who works with team-sport athletes. However, in the absence of more specific team-sport research, we should also ask, is there any evidence that “training as you play” better improves physiological qualities important for team-sport-related physical performance than other types of training? Some of the more important physiological qualities for team-sport athletes are aerobic fitness, muscle buffer capacity and the ability to rapidly resynthesise phosphocreatine (PCr).7

In the only study to date, soccer-specific training (using small-sided games) was not more effective than interval training for improving aerobic fitness in soccer players.8 Similarly, we have recently found that, when matched for total training load, increases in VO2max are similar following intermittent sprint or aerobic interval training (unpublished findings). In contrast, Mohr et al. 9 reported greater improvements in incremental test and yo-yo test performance following speed-endurance training when compared with more team-sport-specific intermittent sprint training.

When considering adaptations following different training programs, it is important to consider the mechanisms responsible. For example, it is a common belief that the flux through a metabolic pathway or a transport system may be a crucial factor determining subsequent adaptations in the contracting muscle. It is therefore important to ask whether “training as you play” is likely to provoke the metabolic perturbations required to stimulate adaptations which will improve team-sport performance. In the only study to date, it has been reported that changes in muscle metabolites (ATP, PCr lactate, etc.) during a soccer match are quite small.10 This probably helps to explain the observation that changes in hydrogen-regulating proteins are greater following speed-endurance than intermittent sprint training9 and why intermittent sprint training does not improve muscle buffer capacity.11

There is also little evidence that “training as you play” will result in greater improvements in the ability to resynthesise PCr. Mohr et al.9 have reported no difference in the rate of PCr resynthesis between groups that performed speed-endurance or intermittent sprint training. Similarly, Stathis et al.12 have reported no significant changes in the rate of PCr resynthesis following training involving repeated 30-s sprints. These results can probably be attributed to the absence of changes in muscle oxidative capacity with these types of training. Thus, rather than game-specific training, training designed to improve muscle oxidative capacity may be required to improve this important physiological quality in team-sport athletes.

In conclusion, there is a distinct lack of evidence that “training as you play” is the best method for improving team-sport physical performance or those physiological qualities important for team-sport performance. This should not be interpreted to indicate that there is no place for game-specific training within a periodised training plan. However, proponents of “train as you play” need to provide more scientific evidence that this is indeed a superior method of training for team-sport athletes.