The Running Performance of Elite Under-19 Football Players in Matches with a 1-4-2-3-1 Formation in Relation to Their Playing Position
Over the past 20 years, the use of the global positioning system (GPS) in football has become widespread. This technology has facilitated the tracking of external load both during training sessions and matches. Creating an external load profile for each playing position within specific formations ca...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2025-06-01
|
| Series: | Applied Sciences |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/15/13/6961 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Over the past 20 years, the use of the global positioning system (GPS) in football has become widespread. This technology has facilitated the tracking of external load both during training sessions and matches. Creating an external load profile for each playing position within specific formations can assist the coaching staff in shaping the training load of the microcycle according to the demands of each position. The purpose of this study was to create the running performance profile for high-level young football players based on their playing position in the 1-4-2-3-1 formation and to investigate potential differences between positions. Additionally, the study aimed to compare the players’ running performance across the two halves of the match. The study involved 22 Under-19 players from the academy of a professional football team. Only matches where the team used the 1-4-2-3-1 formation were analyzed (10 matches). The playing positions were categorized as: Central Defensive Fielders (CDFs), Central Midfielders (CMFs), Forwards (FWDs), Wide Defensive Fielders (WDFs), and Wide Midfielders (WMFs). Player movement was tracked using GPS devices and categorized into four velocity zones: (Zone 1: 3.6–10.8 km/h, Zone 2: 10.9–18.0 km/h, Zone 3: 18.1–25.2 km/h, Zone 4: >25.2 km/h). Depending on whether normality was present in our data, either a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) or a Kruskal–Wallis test was conducted. A subsequent analysis was performed to compare the performance between the first and second halves of the match, using either the independent samples t-test or the Mann–Whitney U test. The results showed that CMF players covered the greatest total distance and had the highest movement velocity (distance/min) compared to all other positions (<i>p</i> = 0.001). In high-speed running (>18 km/h), CMF again covered the greatest distance, followed by WDF. In sprinting, CDF covered the shortest distance and reached the lowest maximum speed (<i>p</i> = 0.001). CMF performed the most accelerations and decelerations across all positions (<i>p</i> = 0.001). As for the entire team, total distance, movement rate, and the number of accelerations and decelerations decreased in the second half. All players except the WDF also showed a decrease in total distance, while midfielders experienced a notable drop in sprint distance. In conclusion, this study underscores the positional specificity of physical demands in elite football and the systematic decline in physical output as matches progress. While all positions demonstrated some level of second-half performance deterioration, midfielders experienced the most significant decreases in both volume and intensity-related metrics. These insights offer valuable implications for position-specific physical condition, recovery planning, and substitution strategies, helping to optimize performance and manage player load in elite football environments. It should be reiterated that the results of the present study apply exclusively to the 1-4-2-3-1 formation. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2076-3417 |