Validity and Reliability of Polar Team Pro and Playermaker for Estimating Running Distance and Speed in Indoor and Outdoor Conditions.

Although global positioning systems and inertial measurement unit systems are often used to quantify physical variables in training, both types of systems need to be compared, considering their frequent use in measuring physical loads. Thus, the purpose of our study was to test the reliability and validity of speed and distance run measurements at different intensities in indoor and outdoor conditions made by Polar Team Pro and Playermaker. Four participants (age = 30.0 ± 5.1 years, body mass = 76.3 ± 5.3 kg, height = 1.79 ± 0.09 m), each wearing three Polar Team Pro and two Playermaker sensors, performed 100 m runs with different prescribed intensities (i.e., criterion measure) varying from 8 to 24 km h-1, in a straight line and/or rectangle under indoor and outdoor conditions. Both systems underestimated total distance; Playermaker underestimated speed, the extent of which increased as speed increased, while Polar Team Pro overestimated mean speed at 8 km h-1 for the straight-line condition. No differences emerged in mean speed estimated by Polar Team Pro at any intensities other than 20 km h-1, which was underestimated by 2%. The reliability of the sensors was good, given a coefficient of variation (CV) of <2% for all conditions except when measuring indoor conditions with Polar Team Pro (CV ≈ 10%). Intraclass correlations (ICCs) for consistency within the sensors varied from 0.47 to 0.99, and significantly lower ICCs were documented at 8, 10, and 12 km h-1. Both systems underestimated distance measured in indoor and outdoor conditions, and distance validity in different intensities seemed to worsen as speeds increased. Although Polar Team Pro demonstrated poor validity and reliability in indoor conditions, both systems exhibited good reliability between their sensors in outdoor conditions, whereas the reliability within their sensors varied with different speeds.

Differences in Acceleration and High-Intensity Activities Between Small-Sided Games and Peak Periods of Official Matches in Elite Soccer Players.

ABSTRACT: Dalen, T, Sandmæl, S, Stevens, TGA, Hjelde, GH, Kjøsnes, TN, and Wisløff, U. Differences in acceleration and high-intensity activities between small-sided games and peak periods of official matches in elite soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 35(7): 2018-2024, 2021-The purpose of this study was to compare whether the physical performance of players during 4 vs. 4 + goalkeeper (4 vs. 4) and 6 vs. 6 + goalkeeper (6 vs. 6) small-sided games (SSGs) is equivalent to those experienced during the most intense 5-minute period of soccer match play. Twenty-six male soccer players from an elite Norwegian league team took part. Players were monitored during 18 matches, 56 SSGs: twenty-eight 4 vs. 4 and twenty-eight 6 vs. 6 games. The ZXY Sport Tracking System was used to measure for each player the total distance covered, high-intensity running distance, sprint distance, number of accelerations, and player load (all expressed per minute). To compare the physical performance variables on players during the SSGs formats and match play, a 1-way analysis of variance with repeated measures was used. Players performed the same number of accelerations and player load in 4 vs. 4 (1.7 and 248, respectively) as in peak match (1.6 and 227, respectively), whereas in 6 vs. 6, there were 63% fewer accelerations and 15% lower player load (1.2 and 198, respectively), than in peak match. High-intensity running and sprint distance were significantly lower than mean match values in both 4 vs. 4 (4.1 and 0.2 m vs. 8.2 and 1.7 m) and 6 vs. 6 games (2.7 and 0.21 m vs. 8.2 and 1.7 m) (p < 0.05). In conclusion, only 4 vs. 4 SSGs are highly valuable, and in that, they elicit player load and accelerations to a level that is (at least) equivalent with peak periods of official match play.