Periodization and Programming for Team

Sports (Supplement)
Benjamin H. Gleason

The purpose of this supplemental chapter is to explore further the concept of periodization for team sports. This
chapter will highlight advanced concepts relating to the implementation and approach to specific periodization
strategies for training sport teams. Training periods and phases within the training year will be identified and
discussed. For each training phase, general concerns, issues, and potential challenges will be presented. Strategies
for programming mesocycles will be explored for various populations, including sequencing of programming and
modifications during the season. Types of microcycle programming throughout the competitive season concludes
the periodization programming concepts. Finally, this supplemental chapter will provide additional programming
considerations for agility, speed, repeated sprint ability, conditioning, sport skills, and tactical populations.

Application of Periodization and the Role of Sport Science

From youth leagues to elite sport, periodization strategies have been applied by coaches in professional practice for
many decades, indicating widespread cultural acceptance (126,127). Various periodization strategies (traditional,
block, etc.) have been proposed over the years, ranging widely in recommended structure to meet performance
demands (126). In addition, formal guidance has been available to support learning and discussion of periodization
and programming for some time, through the NSCA (50) and parallel international organizations. For the sake of
brevity, the reader is referred to Haff (51) and Cunanan and colleagues (23) for detailed discussion of terms and
clarification surrounding critical concepts of periodization. The discussion in this supplement is focused upon
information, strategies, and processes for use by sport science practitioners seeking to optimize performance (and
reduce injury risk) in team sport athletes under their care, along with highlighting specific areas of research and
practice that warrant further investigation by these individuals. Specific issues of interest at a variety of levels of
sport are also discussed that may warrant investigation by sport scientists.
Due to methodological issues with studying athletic populations (selection bias, limited opportunities for
control groups, etc.), providing an information base upon which to inform training methods requires comparative
and confirmational study with team sport athletes competing at various levels (competitive youth, intermediate,
advanced, professional, and elite). This cannot be done well without researcher access to team sports because of
the specialized training required (typically skills taught in sport science doctoral programs) to obtain valid and
reliable information, analyze it correctly, and report it responsibly. This point highlights two important elements of
process and infrastructure: 1) the critical application of research programs within sport organizations, a common
discussion within sport science circles, and 2) the necessity to establish formal agreements among coaches,
administrators, and scientists within a framework where team problems—and even sport-wide problems—may be
solved by applying scientific methods from multiple disciplines over the course of short-term and long-term
investigations (4,41,109). Long-term financial support is required to nurture and sustain research programs, and, as
highlighted previously in the sport science context by Stone and colleagues (125), many obstacles remain to this
day. As a result, the available research base that explores athlete adaptation to training is thin, mired by practical
challenges of obtaining information and the time limitations of an athlete’s career (40,126).

The above issues bring to the fore the importance of convergence of research and practitioner ideas in the
processes of forming training programs, and illuminate the evolution and identity of the sport scientist role as one
that supports the coach-athlete relationship (40). Such infrastructure is necessary to optimize training programs and
explore fruitful and rational paths that may be adjusted. This infrastructure—which may need to include a larger
support staff in team sports compared to individual sports—is referred to in this supplement as the integrated
support team (IST) (12,39,122). The IST is constructed and integrated specifically to support the athlete (19,122). A
research and development element has also been recommended for inclusion (109) that in some ways may need to
operate at a slower pace for certain projects than other operations within the sport organization (22). Coaches and
administrators may rely upon this infrastructure to problem-solve, and adjust practice and policy, affecting both
periodization and programming.

Periodization Strategies
To overview prior guidance for all levels of competitive sport, the training year is scheduled based upon known
competitive events (scheduled games), likely competitive events (playoffs and tournaments), any physically
demanding or critical events involved in the team or sport’s selection process (e.g., Major League Baseball’s spring
training), league or governing body limitations on pre-season practice scheduling and team activities, and long-term
development objectives (9,48,51). This information provides the frame for the annual plan (macrocycle) and its
component phases, constructed of targeted mesocycles and their component microcycles.

Several authors have also recommended construction of multi-year training plans for high school,
collegiate, and Olympic athletes (9,48,51,67,69). Though multi-year training plans are long-term in nature, they may
be interrupted by the typical coaching cycle or the nature of professional sport. When coaches are replaced or
management decisions are implemented, resulting changes in organizational goals may affect the individual athlete
(e.g., athlete role changes, traded to another team, etc.). Nonetheless, the practice of long-term planning
(periodization) over periods of at least a year remains an optimal strategy to guide programming, and has been
executed with apparent success for decades in various sports (46,104,127). As such, the reader is recommended to
review the well-structured planning process provided by Haff and Haff (see Table 1) for use in constructing their
own plan.

Table 1. Basic Steps in the Planning Process

Step Objective
1 a. Determine the athlete’s long-term goals in order to develop a multiyear plan. Typically, this is
accomplished with a quadrennial plan.
b. Outline the basic structure for the multiyear plan.
2 a. Prioritize the major objectives to be targeted by the annual training plan.
b. Evaluate the previous year’s training plan, including competitive and performance results, and
consult with the athlete or team about the training plan.
c. Create a working structure for the next annual training plan based upon the competitive
requirements of the team.
d. Determine the number of macrocycles contained in the annual training plan.
e. Establish the macrocycle lengths in the context of the structure established for the annual training
plan.
3 a. Break the annual training plan into preparatory, competitive, and transitional phases based upon
the schedule of the athlete or team.
b. Divide the preparatory phases into general and specific subdivisions.
c. Create precompetitive and main competitive phases within the competitive phase of the annual
training plan.
d. Insert testing days into the annual training plan at key time points.
4 a. Determine the lengths of the individual mesocycles.
b. Select and sequence the various structures of the mesocycles into the annual plan.
c. Prioritize the focus of the training factors for each mesocycle, considering how the factors are
sequenced across each phase of training in the annual plan.
 d. Establish the loading patterns in each mesocycle and determine how loading will progress across
the macrocycles in the annual plan.
5 a. Construct each microcycle.
b. Divide the microcycle into training and recovery days according to the athlete’s level of
development and overall goals.
c. Establish which factors will be trained on each training day and how many training sessions will be
contained during each day.
d. Create loading structures used throughout the microcycle.
6 a. Design the individual training sessions.
b. Determine the loading structures for the training session.
c. Select the activities for the training plan.
7 a. Implement the training plan.
b. Continually monitor and evaluate the training plan and process.
(48)
As noted repeatedly by Haff (51) and others (23,61,127), the periodization framework is not rigid, but is
instead informed by the monitoring program. Individual or team-wide workload adjustments may be warranted at
times due to various reasons, such as athlete fatigue (23) related to training or actual playing time, or unexpected
challenges, such as an upcoming match against a surprisingly high-performing opponent (74). This highlights the
importance of the monitoring program, which informs the programming process (including recovery strategies)
alongside careful discussion and coordination with sport coaches and other elements of the IST (11,110). Further,
this process requires the involvement of individual employees who are appropriately trained to quantify and
account for reliability and validity issues (measurement error, etc.) and identify meaningful change (47), and also
capable of using specific tools appropriately —in that they possess sufficient knowledge and experience with similar
tools or are at least able to obtain knowledge and experience within that setting while keeping testing results in the
appropriate context.

One example of a common monitoring tool that can be poorly applied is countermovement jump (CMJ)
testing. Use of jump height alone, for example, may be considered an incomplete practice because an athlete may
be able to maintain jump height by modifying technique (e.g., increasing time to take-off and countermovement
displacement). This reduces the tool’s sensitivity to changes in athlete status. Another excellent example from CMJ
testing is in bilateral asymmetry force comparisons. Asymmetry may vary between trials and days, and must be kept
in the appropriate context. For a monitoring program to provide sufficient detail to inform the training process,
selection of variables to monitor is shaped by critical discussion and informed by extant literature, training, and
experience with the tool. Appropriate background work is an essential process for the IST to complete before they
decide to implement any monitoring tool.

The nature of competitive team sports includes the goal of winning as many games as possible during the
season to earn a place and advance in post-season play (51). In addition, practitioners may be challenged to actually
bring the athletes to a physiological peak due to the brief duration (up to 2-3 weeks) of the phenomenon as it may
be observed in individual sport athletes (9,126). As a result, team needs (roster-based, technical, tactical, etc.) may
outweigh optimal programming for the individual athlete at times, as a balance is struck between available
resources and ability to implement selected training strategies in the pursuit of achieving team performance goals
across the competitive season. However, the impact of a certain amount of accumulated fatigue must be accounted
for in programming activity. Sport science practitioners are thus charged with the responsibility of evaluating fatigue
and its contributing variables, and helping athletes and coaches manage training over the course of the training year
in order to maximize individual player availability and performance. It should be noted that fatigue—as an
underpinning concept within training theory (23)—is a regular byproduct of training; sources may be complex and
multiple. Therefore, fatigue should not be considered by the practitioner as unconditionally and explicitly “bad;”
instead, fatigue is viewed as a phenomenon that assists in driving adaptation. As such, fatigue may accumulate at
certain times as a deliberate consequence of programming included within the periodized training plan, designed to
achieve team performance goals, just as fatigue is sought to be minimized at times where optimal readiness is
desired.

While several authors have previously discussed periodization strategies for team sports (9,44,48,127),
most of the available comparative studies involve evaluation of performance responses and adaptations to
resistance training programs with minimal evaluation of the collective effects of other factors (sleep, motivation,
nutrition, etc.) upon recovery-adaptation (79,87). In fairness to researchers, many variables are difficult or
cumbersome to control or monitor (e.g., nutrition, energy expenditure), particularly in ecologically valid settings (in
situ). Further, many variables are arguably subjective (e.g., motivation), introducing possible measurement error.
Unfortunately, little long-term detailed observation has occurred in team sports for other important elements of
performance such as agility and speed, for example. Part of this is due to the aforementioned access obstacles for
sport scientists seeking to employ research programs, but also worthy of mention is that often ecologically valid
observation of performance is context-specific and can be resource-intensive, making thorough study difficult. For
the sport scientist, some amount of experience in the sport may be necessary in order to problem-solve in this
manner; to identify and investigate specific performance issues efficiently may require sport-specific technical and
tactical knowledge, which may, in turn, be necessary to deliver quality information for the team coaches or the
coaching community at large. Further, building relationships with a coaching staff takes time, and value must both
be consistently sought by the sport coach and demonstrated by the practitioner and/or researcher in order to
sustain effective working relationships. This issue is typically revisited whenever a coaching staff is replaced.

Periodization concepts of preparatory, competitive, and transition periods should be applied to the training
year to organize training (51,124). Each period has distinct goals that are based upon the present status of the
athlete and the process the IST needs to apply in order to improve the athlete’s preparedness for the competitive
phase.

Because team sports typically include one competitive season in their design, a monocycle periodization
framework is optimal (9,124), which is intended to prepare the athlete for the various demands of the season and
(ideally) related post-season play (9,127). In several sports, physical training requires modification to include a short
maintenance phase during off-season training events where sport training volume increases dramatically (e.g.,
collegiate American football) (127). Depending on the importance of winning and the per-athlete volume and
intensity of competitive exposure, this may require modification to a two-cycle model, which has the potential of
negatively impacting the effectiveness of the preparatory phase by limiting the duration and exposure to training.
This issue is discussed later in further detail (see Further Issues and Additional Considerations for Preparatory Period
Training). It is important to note that while they may seem independent on the surface, various biomotor abilities
(agility, speed, throwing, etc.) are underpinned in part by strength due to the necessity to produce sufficient
impulse to maximize performance (129); greater strength has been associated with better performance in change of
direction and certain sport-specific tasks in team sport athletes (121,145). Further, an athlete’s rapid force
production capability (rate of force development [RFD]) within sport-relevant timeframes (i.e., 100-300 ms, similar
to ground contact time during fast locomotion) (137) may be enhanced in the short term (120). Through
appropriate programming, strength may be increased and tuned to optimize impulse during athletic movement
(138), making strength a critical training target for team sport athletes in order to transfer training effects to
performance (128). As a result, both out-of-season and in-season programming likely to preserve or enhance
strength is necessary to make a training plan comprehensive. In addition, a certain amount of training time is
necessary for enhancement of muscular strength; suboptimal competition scheduling may undermine development
of athletes.

Because multiple biomotor abilities (strength, agility, etc.) are critical in team sports, the periodization
framework is required to be multi-factor (e.g., high ability of fast running, changing direction, and throwing, etc., as
required in baseball), compared to individual sports that emphasize a single factor (e.g., running very fast, as seen in
sprinters) (127). Recent modifications to periodization strategies have been made by training theorists to better fit
the needs of intermediate and advanced (loosely defined) team sport athletes, providing likely more effective
training structure to develop and maintain high capacities in multiple sport-relevant biomotor abilities compared to
traditional strategies (68). Termed “block periodization” strategies (66), these modifications include mesocycles of
2-4 weeks emphasizing concentrated loading of multiple targeted compatible biomotor abilities that are linked
across accumulation, transmutation, and realization stages (68). In context of the team sport, each 2-month
sequence of a mesocycle ends with [performance testing or] competition (68). Challenges have been noted in sports
demanding conflicting biomotor abilities which are theoretically at odds in terms of likely physiological training
adaptations. For example, soccer requires running endurance and high-power output events, such as top speed. To
address this issue, sequencing periods of training emphasizing specific qualities, while other qualities are retained
with maintenance loading may be advantageous. For example, a competitive period phase emphasizing strength-
speed, followed by a phase emphasizing speed-strength may pair well with sport tactical and technical training
structured to ensure sufficient duration and intensity to prevent aerobic capacity from decaying.

Evidence suggests that certain tools may be added to the programming mix to elicit specific adaptations.
For example, the findings of Helgerud and colleagues (56) suggest that high-intensity interval training (HIIT)
programming may be tolerated well by soccer athletes, despite substantial training demands. In this 8-week in-
season study of high-level (Nardo and Strindheim clubs) junior soccer athletes, twice per week HIIT programming
(4x4 minutes running at 90-95% HRmax with 3 minutes rest between sets at 50-60% HRmax) was effective in
stimulating performance enhancement in a broad range of physiological variables (higher VO 2max, lactate
threshold, and improved running economy) and performance metrics (greater distance covered in a match, greater
number of sprints, more involvements with the ball, higher average work intensity during a match) in combination
with soccer practices (4 x 1.5 hr/week) and games (1/week) (56). Within the programming decision making process,
if (following testing) a theoretical IST in the above example decided that the greatest training priority should be
placed upon development of aerobic capacity, then strength may be maintained to allow for greater focus upon
aerobic development. This may be necessary due to the realities of in-season demands and athletes’ finite (yet
individual) recovery ability. In contrast with soccer, many strength-power sports have the benefit of requiring
complementary biomotor abilities, with a major emphasis on power. For example, American football requires great
strength, power, and acceleration, but not slower-paced running endurance (46,49) due to brief, intense demands
and frequent breaks inherent in the game.

Periods Applied to the Team Sport Training Year

Preparation Period
Following adequate recovery time and activity (discussed below in Transition), progressively aggressive physical
training is proposed to begin with a general physical training emphasis, with reduced time devoted to directly sport-
related training (9). Drawing from traditional periodization theory, at least one mesocycle of general preparation
training is necessary in order to restore and enhance fitness qualities (9). Remaining within the preparatory phase,
the emphasis shifts to specific preparation, which builds upon recovered fitness qualities and works to improve the
athlete’s skills using more sport-relevant training, optimally inducing gains in sport-relevant biomotor abilities. Initial
introduction to skill work may best occur for team sport athletes early in the preparation period, where the athlete
may have more time to explore intricacies of basic movements to set the foundations for more complex ones—or in
order to maintain fundamental skills by applying a retaining load. The phases of the preparatory period are detailed
below.
General Preparation Phase
Physical training objectives for the general preparation (GP) phase begin with building tolerance to training volume
via physiological adaptations and the restoration or improvement of strength (Table 2). In a simplistic view, team
sport training ideally begins using less complex modes of training during GP, with primary emphasis upon
physiological adaptations and lesser emphasis on sport-specific skills. As training progresses, stressors are increased,
particularly in terms of intensity. A minimum of 25% of the time allocated to the preparatory phase is suggested to
be allocated to GP, with no more than 40% of training considered intensive (high intensity) (9). The foundation for
additional biomotor abilities such as agility and speed (discussed later) may be introduced during this phase
progressively. Theoretically, activities involving less stressful changes of direction and speed are advisable until a
general fitness base has been re-established (46,111). Because of the likelihood of substantial fatigue resulting from
GP training sessions, any skill-intensive programming should occur early in the training session. Due to available time
in the preparation period, as opposed to the competitive phase, additional programming to ensure holistic athlete
development (e.g., knowledge of practical nutrition strategies, citizenship training, etc.) is ideally scheduled here,
beginning in the GP phase (Table 2).
Table 2. Objectives of the Preparatory Period
Overarching Preparatory Period Objectives
 Improve physical capacity  Develop, improve, or perfect technique
 Improve sport-relevant biomotor abilities  Familiarize athletes with strategic maneuvers to be
 Cultivate desirable physiological traits mastered in the following phase
 Develop individualized and sport-specific  Teach sport-specific theory and methodology of
nutrition plan training
 Optimize body mass

General Preparation Phase(s) Objectives Specific Preparation Phase(s) Objectives

 Enhance basic technical skills  Apply technical elements in game situations
 Improve knowledge of individual and team  Practice team tactics
tactics  Improve tactical awareness
 Gradually expose athlete to high-intensity  Improve biomotor abilities: power, strength,
exercise agility, speed, repeat sprint ability, and specific
 Improve strength endurance
 Improve knowledge of applicable mental skills  Refine in-game mental skills routines and habits
 Improve nutrition knowledge  Refine nutritional strategies
 Increase/reduce body mass  Make small changes to body mass (if applicable)
 Integrate sleep education, drug and alcohol  Refine recovery strategies
education, character education, citizenship
and social awareness programs
Adapted from (10,47,97)

For younger athletes (assessed by biological/developmental age, training age, or training history), training
theorists have long recommended that a greater proportion of the training year be allocated to general preparation
compared to the seasoned advanced or professional athlete in order to develop physical capacity and skills (9).
Because of accumulated fatigue as a result of aggressive training, Bompa and Buzzichelli (9) firmly recommended
that coaches specifically avoid competition during this phase. Of note, this presents a direct conflict with policies of
many competitive travel team leagues operating in youth sport (e.g., in baseball this is an issue yet unresolved in the
United States [U.S.]) (3). Many studies have observed injury rates resulting from year-round single-sport competition
(75); instead, parents are advised to prioritize preparatory training and competition in several sports to present
diversity in stress through the early teen years (17,99).

Issues and Challenges Specific to General Preparation

In some contrast with training theory developed from practical experience with individual sports, holistic
development of the team sport athlete may be challenging to achieve if multiple components of sport skill work are
substantially limited during any part of the training year. This issue may be worsened if a long season is typical.
Indeed, concurrent development of multiple biomotor abilities (e.g., strength, agility, speed, etc.) is necessary, in
light of the short preparatory period available for many professional team sports (e.g., Premier League, National
Basketball Association), the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I revenue sports, or even some
scholastic-level sports (particularly for multi-sport athletes) (Figure 1). Considering the extent of skills and physical
development required for many high-level sports, off-season training has become a practice of great importance
that is readily acknowledged by most sport coaches, but in many sports it is not truly prioritized over competition at
any time of the year.
Figure 1. Percentage of the Training Year for U.S. Men’s Basketball

100

90

80

70
Percentage of Year

60 Post-season

50 Competitive

40 Pre-season
Off-season
30

20

10

0
NBA College HS (TN)

While the practice is rare overseas, some U.S. sport associations forbid coaches to be involved in
sport-relevant skills practice in certain sports (but not others) during the preparation phase. For
example, NCAA policy allows for college basketball players to scrimmage year-round, and even
with un-signed athletes during recruiting visits, but the practice is not allowed in most other sports
(100). One of the most restrictive sports, American football, forbids coach contact with athletes for
technical and tactical instructional purposes for most of the off-season, and limits coach contact
hours during training periods (100). Instead, in order to help develop athletes, low volumes of
modified intensity, modified contact, position-specific skill-intensive drills (e.g., hawk tackle drills,
ball catching and handling, grappling, etc.) may be applied during the GP phase, in addition to
holistic development programming in order to reduce involution (decay) of important skills, and
enhance retention and development later in the specific preparation phase. The optimal ranges of
drills, volumes, and intensities of skill work have yet to be explored formally. Of course, caution
must be taken to minimize chances of acute and overuse injuries that may affect the athlete’s
progress; however, helping sport coaches and strength and conditioning coaches to integrate
training tools smoothly is arguably well within the job description of the sport scientist. In addition,
this example also highlights areas where the work of sport scientists may influence positive
changes upon sport policy and positively influence athlete performance outcomes.

Specific Preparation Phase

After targeting important physical adaptations during the GP phase, the specific preparation (SP) phase is designed
to tailor the athlete’s training gains toward the various needs of the upcoming competitive season. Objectives for SP
are listed in Table 2. In contrast to the GP phase, higher volumes of sport-specific training are applied in the SP
phase (9) with progressively greater intensity, while lesser amounts of general training occur compared to GP.
Competition-related training assumes the major emphasis during this phase, accounting for 70-80% of the total
physical programming, with a secondary emphasis upon maintenance of broad athlete development (roughly 20%
of programming) (9). Programming includes technical and tactical work in order to improve on-field/court
performance. Because of increased intensity over the course of this phase, practitioners should monitor volume
when programming activities to simultaneously improve multiple biomotor abilities; accumulated fatigue may
negatively affect training gains if volume is not kept in check (Figure 2). Balancing increased sport-specific training
time with fatigue management may prove challenging. Excessive volume may outpace adaptive biological resources
and require a microcycle or two of unloading before the competitive season begins to permit the dissipation of
fatigue and allow for sufficient preparedness to perform optimally; doing so may be difficult to accomplish without
reducing fitness and sharpness of skills, however.

Figure 2. Theoretical Effects of Excessive Training Volume from Late Specific Preparation Phase
to Pre-Season Phase

Bompa and Buzzichelli (9) noted that a coach should expect to see improvement in testing toward the end of this
phase, and suggested that some form of competition toward the end of the phase would be appropriate to evaluate
the athlete as the competitive season approaches. As a result, strength and conditioning coaches and sport scientist
practitioners are advised to coordinate testing batteries and monitoring programs to collect data at strategic points
in order to optimize availability of important information that may influence programming and guide process
development.

Issues and Additional Considerations for Preparatory Period Training

Performance-enhancement goals for the developing athlete may require more time to reach than those of the elite
athlete, due to expected timeframes for physical gains to mature; therefore, a longer preparatory period is
consistently recommended for younger athletes (9) with specific emphases likely necessary at certain times of
development (80), including year-round resistance training (37). Whatever the athlete’s level of play, a sufficient
duration of training time is necessary to achieve performance goals, the duration of which is likely to depend on the
athlete’s training history, work habits, and talent level.

The rate of performance adaptation is important to consider. Stone and colleagues (126) observed that: 1)
the average intensity of a training program is inversely related to the duration of a performance peak, and 2) the
average intensity of a training program is also inversely related to the height of the peak (Figure 3) (33,53). Restated,
“slow cooking,” or patiently developing an athlete, may provide sufficient time for a variety of qualities to mature
better and stabilize for a longer period. In contrast, if an athlete is rushed to regain or develop fitness, then the
duration of retention may be shorter and they may not perform as well. Further research is necessary to confirm
this for various biomotor abilities.

Figure 3. Theoretical Rates of Performance Adaptation

Adapted from (126)

Similar to the practice of scheduling “friendly” games in European soccer during Preparation and General
Preparation, several U.S. collegiate sports (i.e., baseball, soccer, American football) have adopted the practice of
playing exhibition games or scrimmages in-house or against other teams during the preparatory period. At this time,
games do not count against the team’s season record, so these games (in theory) serve as a chance to provide
developmental players additional competitive opportunities to promote skill development and for coaches to
evaluate their progress. This situation presents an opportunity for sport scientists to work with athletes to design
and refine a variety of athlete strategies (warm-up, nutritional, psychological, etc.) in order to enhance performance
outcomes during later countable games, or refine internal processes of the IST (e.g., global positioning system [GPS]
data collection). It should be noted that due to the non-countable nature of off-season games, playing time could
theoretically be spread across the roster more than usual, which may allow off-season training volumes and
intensities to require minor alteration, in essence “training through” the events. Provided training loads do not
exceed moderate levels, a single periodization model may still be most appropriate for application unless 1) winning
these developmental games becomes a priority or 2) the volume of technical-tactical development demands
warrants adjustment of training loads, and therefore alters periodization structure. Practical experience with sports
at this level suggests modification is typically necessary, which may reduce the effectiveness of the preparatory
period. The effect upon athlete skills development, however, is unclear.

Indeed, an important value a sport scientist provides is to help coaches quantify sport-specific demands
and outcomes of specific types and mixes of programming to a greater extent so that the particular programming
may be applied more effectively in the future. This idea extends to sport skill and beyond (38). Of great value in the
sport management area, investigation of the timing of scrimmages and high-volume sport skill developmental work
is necessary. If several weeks of heavy sport technical-tactical development would be better placed in a longer pre-
season phase, then scheduling adjustment would appear appropriate in this example. At this time, no investigation
appears to have occurred, and the policies allowing “fall ball” in baseball and spring soccer scrimmages in NCAA
sports appear to be arbitrary.

Competitive Period
The competitive phase is separated by three subphases: precompetitive, main, and taper (9). Objectives for the
competitive phase are listed in Table 3 (9). Duration of the competitive phase (also termed “in-season” in coaching
circles) may extend from about three months in many youth sports to 10 months in some professional sports (84).
In addition, opportunities may exist for representative play at a higher level (Tri-Nations, World Cup, etc.). During
the competitive phase, priority is placed upon activities that directly enhance performance, with secondary and
tertiary emphases upon maintenance of supportive elements of fitness, fatigue management, and psychological
strategies. Around 90% of activity during this phase is recommended to be sport-specific activity (skill-based
conditioning, tactical drills, etc.), and roughly 10% of activity dedicated to active rest or indirectly related activities
(9), both of which may induce psychological as well as physiological benefits. Coaches and IST members are advised
to be mindful about the volume and intensity of restorative activities during this phase, as what constitutes a
recovery emphasis in another phase may supply additional fatigue due to the accumulative nature of fatigue during
a sport season.

Table 3. Objectives of the Competitive Period

Competitive Period Objectives
 Improve or maintain sport-specific biomotor  Optimize team synergy
abilities  Gain competitive experience
 Maintain sport-specific fitness  Enhance sport-relevant psychological traits
 Dissipate fatigue and elevate readiness  Optimize nutrition habits & refine nutrition plan
 Perfect and consolidate technique  Maintain body mass
 Perfect technical and tactical maneuvers
Adapted from (9,10)

Precompetition Phase

Commonly referred to as “training camp” and the “pre-season,” the precompetition phase begins with focused on-
field/court sport training practices to prepare the team for scheduled competition. Proposed durations for this
phase vary among training theorists, from vague recommendations of inclusion (9) to nine weeks in duration
(84,107). The critical concept is that the phase should be of sufficient duration to prepare athletes for adequate
performance in games. A sufficient volume of competitive events such as scrimmages and unofficial games are
theoretically proposed that provide coaches with ample athlete evaluation opportunities and do not interfere with
the progress of training; however, sport practices may contribute substantial fatigue, and physical training volumes
must be modified accordingly by practitioners. Additional brief application of mental skills and strategic nutritional
interventions are very important during this timeframe, as the athlete is challenged to manage stress, and maintain
physical mass and biomotor abilities due to an abrupt increase in practice time (in many sports). In the
precompetition phase, training volume is high, and can be some of the highest in the year, depending on the sport.
Optimally, the architecture of training during the precompetition phase involves a progressive transition of
biomotor abilities developed in the GP and SP phases, which ready the athlete to excel in the competitive phase.
Issues in the Precompetitive Phase

Challenges presently may be seen in many high-level sports in application of optimal strategies with respect to
awkwardly-aligned training architecture and the effect upon training loads. For example, in high-level collegiate
American football, Wellman and colleagues (142) observed an enormous early spike in sport practice training load
during the precompetitive phase (Figure 4). This presents an example of what constitutes two consecutive “shock”
microcycles (weeks Pre1 and Pre2) of sport training that may induce great risk of injury for athletes unprepared to
withstand the stressors (note: this strategy was proposed by Verkhoshansky for use by advanced athletes following
sufficient preparation). While associations between training load and injury are still developing
(32,42,63,64,70,119), rapid increases in training load have been associated with injuries in various sports (31),
suggesting patience for adaptation may be warranted at times, following initiation of a set of stimuli. In the U.S.
college football context, the initial week of “pre-season” is when athletes are first allowed to wear equipment
(helmets and pads), and as such, are adapting to equipment in what is typically the hottest weather of the year.
From a safety perspective alone, this is not an ideal time to program the highest training loads of the year. This
example would also be ill-advised from a skill development perspective, due to substantial environmental stress as a
confounding factor (131).

Figure 4. Training Loads in High-Level Division I Collegiate American Football

600.0

Tuesday
550.0 Wednesday
Thursday
Week avg
500.0 Practice avg

450.0
Arbitrary Units

400.0

350.0

300.0

250.0

200.0
Pre1 Pre2 Pre3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Week

Adapted from (142)

A better strategy to introduce semi-novel tasks (sport practice in pads) may be to program an adaptation
microcycle during the initial week of training camp, and follow a progressive increase in volume, achieving normal
loads in competitive week 1. Practical experience in American football indicates enormous challenges in managing
recovery—let alone adaptation—due to current schedule restrictions by many leagues. In addition, for most
programs, intravenous fluid infusions are frequent interventions necessary for some athletes due to aggressive
training in harsh environmental conditions with little time allocated between sport practices. To this point, no
research has investigated the effects of changing practice strategies and scheduling upon injuries or skill
development or retention. As such, the common structure of sport practices in American football remains primarily
based upon coaching knowledge, fertile ground for exploration by qualified research teams.

Of similar concern to the issues above in American football, Ishida and colleagues (65) observed a rapid and
brief pre-season increase to a high external training load in female collegiate soccer players following an
uncontrolled summer training period. The precompetition phase for these athletes was two weeks long, and it also
included some of the highest GPS training (and match) loads of the year. The authors noted a longer precompetitive
phase and better controlled preparation period (particularly regarding summer training between semesters) would
be of great benefit to athletes, from an injury prevention perspective.

Main Competitive Phase

The main competitive phase is when scheduled, competitive games are played. As team sports must win as many
games as possible, a balance between recovery-adaptation and technical and tactical development and refinement
must be struck by coaches, with the assistance of the IST. As the research base grows for each sport and reports of
training loads (TL) and game loads using passive tracking tools (GPS, etc.) are published, sport training sessions may
be constructed based upon a well-informed range of typical training and game loads during a sport season. It is
important to note that the movement profile of each level of play has been shown to differ within and across
different sports (132); therefore, research exploring every level is important in order to inform practice.

Due to recent technological advances (GPS, heart rate monitors, etc.) and low-tech subjective tools (sRPE,
etc.) and their applications in many sports, training loads can be deliberately set jointly by sport coaches and other
members of the IST to cover substantial detail. For example, the characteristics of specific drills may be evaluated
(velocity ranges, etc.) over time so that the sport scientist can advise coaches on matching training content with
training load targets (acceleration and velocity profile, percentage of time in heart rate ranges, etc.). The sport
scientist in charge of monitoring provides information quickly using visual representations to coaches and athletes in
order to ensure goals are met; in addition, the practitioner may identify any acute variable of concern, such as an
atypical acute high volume in a high velocity range (10,135). A recently-developed practice from professional soccer
and rugby is to manage training loads of bench players and nonstarters by applying a tailored amount and type of
extra physical training in an attempt to balance out the time the individual athlete did not spend playing the game,
including evaluation of specific intensities, so as to maintain fitness throughout the season (15,143). Because HIIT
training and small-sided games (SSG) may be applied very efficiently, such programming tools appear optimal for
this purpose (15,76).

Taper Phase
In the late competition period, training is narrowly focused upon maximizing sport performance, with specific
programming intended to bring about the athlete’s peak performances of the year. Due to the nature of team sport
playoffs and tournaments, the most difficult competition of the season is often encountered in this timeframe.
Psychological stress is expected to be high. In addition, accumulated fatigue is expected due to the effects of the
competitive season, in which variation in training loads may need to be minor in order to maintain fitness. Overuse
injuries and lingering issues may also be observed, requiring further management and creative modifications from
the IST in order to keep players available.

For many sports, the practice of tapering has been proposed as a best-practice to dissipate accumulated
fatigue and bring about peak performance before critical competition (97). Tapering may be executed by reducing
intensity, volume, and/or frequency of training in some fashion as the important competitive event draws near
(95,96). Recommendations for optimal taper structure and duration vary, and may indeed be complicated by travel,
equipment access, and other variables that introduce complexity to the team sport context. A tapering strategy for
team sport athletes is conceptually applied in order to: 1) (ideally) induce a supercompensation effect bringing
about improved performance capacity, or a “peak” (96), or 2) (at a minimum) reduce accumulated fatigue in order
to restore performance capacity (95). Exploration of tapering in individual sports indicates functional overreaching
(FOR), which typically involves an increased training load for a microcycle, and is necessary to bring about a
supercompensation effect in the short term (96). Due to accumulated fatigue in team sport athletes, the realities of
a long season, and likely existence of overuse injuries, practitioners may be challenged to safely implement
deliberate FOR in some team sports late in the season, limiting available programming options to volume (by
reduced duration of certain activities and strategic exercise deletion) and/or intensity reductions. However,
evidence of improved physical performances have been observed following pre-season tapering in team sports. For
example, Coutts and colleagues (21) reported six weeks of progressive overload training depressed performance
during testing (as part of FOR), but performance improvements were observed following a 7-day stepwise taper.
This demonstrates that fatigue is not always an issue if planned and managed appropriately. Additionally, tapering
strategies have been used successfully by teams before international tournaments (i.e., World Cup) that follow club
seasons (95), though little research is available to specifically demonstrate their effects.

More recently, Vachon and colleagues (139) observed that team sport athletes have responded favorably
to tapering programs of 7-21 days, with favorable changes reported in repeat sprint ability (RSA), maximal power,
change of direction speed, and maximal oxygen uptake. The authors endorsed the practice of tapering; however,
they noted that coaches tend to use previously validated tapering methods, which leads to “circular thinking” with
regard to strategies that may hamper innovation (139).

Coaches should note, certain physiological changes have been observed from a taper that do not coincide
with reduced performance. For example, Bazyler and colleagues (5) observed slight reduction in muscle thickness,
but not jumping performance after a 4-week taper in collegiate volleyball players. The authors also suggested a FOR
phase may be necessary to preserve muscle thickness; however, further research is necessary to confirm this idea,
and if it is necessary—both from a performance and injury prevention standpoint.

Additional Concerns for a Taper

Bompa and Buzzichelli (9) recommend additional time (3-7 days) and refer to it as a “special preparation period,”
which is time allocated to tactical refinement prior to a championship. Because some of this time may be spent in
sedentary activity such as watching film or minimally-fatiguing activity such as strategic tactical walk-throughs
intended to enhance athlete awareness and application of tactics, this programming strategy may fill practice time
typically allocated to demanding physical activity (e.g., scrimmaging, SSG).

Stone and colleagues suggested that peak performance may only be obtained for a 2-3 week timeframe
(126); therefore, questions remain as to the appropriate timing, sequencing, and length of playoffs and tournaments
from a sport management perspective.

Issues in the Competitive Phase

Duration of competition tends to last most of the year in high-level sport. In Australian professional rugby union, for
example, a Super Rugby player that is selected for an international squad would play relatively consistently from
February to October, or until November in a World Cup year. This is indeed an extensive season, similar in length to
the National Basketball Association season (including finals). Much of the rationale for such long seasons is fueled by
financial opportunities for leagues, teams, and athletes alike; however, human physiological and psychological
limitations must still be accounted for when establishing the season length and density in order to responsibly
manage athlete health. Of concern to all stakeholders, a very long, congested season may foster higher rates of
overuse injuries and present challenges for athletes to maintain physical and mental capacities that support high-
performance outcomes, particularly when combined with regular travel and impaired sleep (117,141).

Bompa and Buzzichelli (9) observed the number of games required to achieve optimal performance (in-
season form) may be 7-10; while an interesting idea, this figure appears arbitrary and is likely to vary according to
sport, training age, and the training and competitive history of the individual athletes involved. At this time, research
and debate regarding the optimal duration and nature of the competitive phase is warranted. The question at hand
for high-level sport coaches, athletes, and administrators alike is the balance between league revenue, athlete
salaries, and viewership, and the physiological and psychological limits of team sport athletes. Optimal competitive
phase duration and density may vary due to the physical demands of the particular sport; major considerations
include collisions (rugby, American football), high-intensity contacts (e.g., repetitive jumping and landing in
basketball or volleyball), and typical time available between games.

Few researchers have evaluated schedule density, with studies taking solely epidemiological lens (105,123),
or based upon GPS data (98). Time available between games has been demonstrated to influence in-game position-
specific movement profile (98), but qualitative nature of the game (competition quality, tactical situations, etc.)
must also be accounted for by embedded researchers familiar with typical athlete evaluation processes. Therefore,
both determining performance effects and the rate of injuries is a complex interdisciplinary issue requiring holistic
research. Though it may appear obvious from coaches’ and athletes’ perspectives, excessive congestion may limit
time available for tactical preparation and prevent many athletes from recovering performance capacity to prior
levels before the next competition. In addition, excessive season length can potentially compromise the time
dedicated to the very-necessary preparatory training period. With an insufficient preparatory period, athletes may
not be able to recover from the prior season and return to sporting form by the next competitive phase.

As a result of condensed schedules and long seasons, athletes may feel pressured to use performance-
enhancing drugs (PED) in order to recover and sustain performance capacity throughout the competitive phase and
beyond (91). Indirect survey methods have revealed concerning rates of PED use among high-level athletes,
extending up to 48% in some samples (35). In contrast, World Anti-Doping Association testing results consistently
return about 2% positive tests, the majority of which are anabolic agents (8,35). Ample examples exist of successful
athletes who have succumbed to restorative drug use. One of the most public in recent years is Major League
Baseball (MLB) all-star Mark McGwire’s public admission of steroid use to sustain his career, as he admitted steroids
had become a necessary tool to overcome injuries (36). From an ethical standpoint, league administrators and
coaches must provide an environment that allows for sufficient athlete restoration and training time, in balance
with competitive opportunities. This requires long-term researcher access to the sport and a strong context-specific,
evidence-based sport performance sport medical influence upon policy. Due to obstacles in studying the acute and
long-term health effects of performance enhancing drugs, little is known about the long-term health implications
(physiological or psychological) of PED use in support of athletic careers (7,8,60). Ultimately, prevalence of doping
remains an uncomfortable topic with unclear implications for high-level sport, particularly in light of the many
challenges that reduce the effectiveness of drug testing programs (i.e., funding, information).

Scheduling restorative breaks in a long season may provide some advantage to foster high performance
levels. Professional athletes competing in international sport competitions such as a World Cup may benefit from a
restoration mesocycle in order to improve recovery for the international competition. Mujika (95) discussed
scheduling challenges in elite soccer, when time was provided between the professional club season and the World
Cup. Recommendations included initial team training several weeks prior to the first game, beginning with a
recovery microcycle, an accommodation microcycle, then a taper microcycle with low training volume and high
intensity (95).
Transition
Aligned with periodization theory, what most coaches, athletes, and media refer to as the “off-season”
encompasses the transition and preparatory phases (51); typical objectives of these phases are listed in Table 4. As
Bompa and Buzzichelli cautioned (9), the term “off-season” may be one to avoid, in that it implies minimal activity;
for the serious athlete there is never an off-season, only training, competition, and deliberate recovery. Sport
scientists and coaches are advised to consider the transition phase not as the last and least important section in
sequence of a linear training year, but as one critical sequential part of the whole training cycle. The preparatory
phase should follow some form of programmed rest and activity intended to promote recovery from the
accumulated physiological, psychological, and social stress imposed upon an athlete by a sport season (9,127),
preparing the athlete to embark upon aggressive training. The transition phase continues the momentum of the
annual plan in a circular (not linear) nature, as a part of the multi-year plan; therefore, the deliberate emphasis on
recovery paired with training aligns with the perpetual nature of planning training, not restarting a repetitive annual
process. Practitioners must take care to prevent omission of time allocated to restoration as they plan the ebb and
flow of year-round training due to the likely decay of biomotor abilities.

Table 4. Objectives of Transition Period

Transition Period Objectives
 Rehabilitate injuries  Recover psychological status
 Maintain basic fitness  Maintain body mass
 Dissipate accumulated fatigue  Explore social interests

HOW CAN A SPORT SCIENTIST AFFECT SPORT POLICY?

Some sport association policies, such as the NCAA, restrict training for several weeks following an
American football season (100). While the exact origins of this rule are unclear, it was likely
arranged to allow athletes to return home during the Christmas break and minimize housing costs
to athletic departments. Timing of this cessation of directed training is questionable, as substantial
detraining of many biomotor abilities may be seen over a three-week period (92), particularly in
consideration that many biomotor abilities may also decay some during a long season (93) and
decay rate of biomotor abilities may differ based upon task (136). Because acute overtraining
injuries (e.g., rhabdomyolysis) are commonly reported when teams resume training by American
football programs participating in Division I NCAA athletics (118), in the interest of athlete welfare
a modification to policy may be warranted, allowing strength and conditioning coaches to help
athletes maintain a certain level of fitness year-round. This point demonstrates how a sport science
perspective may be integrated to optimize sport policy in order to reduce preventable training
injuries.

After conclusion of the competitive season, generally two options are available for coaches to choose
from—stop training temporarily or change training. While some coaches opt for a several weeks of uncontrolled
(likely sedentary) time away from the team environment, an approach aligned with certain league rules (e.g., NCAA),
several weeks of active rest is recommended by many sport physiologists and coaches (26,53,108,126) before
starting aggressive training within the preparatory period. Because necessary recovery typically includes
rehabilitation of injuries (acute and/or overuse) and overcoming psychological impacts of a long season, such as
under-recovery, burnout, impaired motivation, or the impact of the prior season’s competitive outcome (78),
programming deliberately designed to address those issues may provide substantial value to the athlete.

For team sports, the transition phase spans a brief 2-6 weeks, in which team physical activity may remain
planned and organized or individual. “Active rest” (synonymous with active recovery) is a broad equivalent term for
submaximal activities thought to enhance return to homeostasis or a prior performance level (77). Recovery
strategies may be applied during the training session (e.g., intra-set, such as walking between running intervals),
immediately after (e.g., cool-down), or include weeks of time off from typical training while strategies are applied
over days or weeks to counteract fatigue-related consequences of aggressive training (126). Additional passive
recovery techniques may also be of benefit during this timeframe, depending on the training goals (97).
Programming during the transition phase is general in nature, deliberately lower impact, lower volume, and
different in nature to typical training that the athlete is exposed to (26,53,62,126). In addition, active rest may
include leisure activities for the athlete during transition.

Though direct research support is lacking at this time for team sport athletes to remain in team training
environments during transition, the practice may provide opportunities for the athlete to stay engaged, nurture
social connections with teammates, and improve compliance, thereby preventing substantial physiological loss of
fitness qualities (intramuscular enzyme concentrations, mitochondrial concentration, etc.) that have been shown to
result from short-term sedentary rest (92). Indeed, many authors have cautioned coaches to avoid allowing
sedentary rest for their athletes (53), as hard-earned training gains decay within weeks of training cessation
(92,93,94), likely due to their biological expense for the athlete to maintain.

Complete recovery indicates readiness to resume typical training effectively in the next preparation
macrocycle (26). Recovery may be indicated by several internal and external tools: survey, force plate data from
common tasks such as countermovement jumps, or submaximal set-intensity tasks; practitioners are discouraged
from using maximal-effort, sport-specific tasks due to fatigue implications (73). Practitioners are recommended to
explore how much active rest—and what modes, intensities, and volumes of activities within it—appears to be of
value for each sport and level of athlete, along with the effectiveness and proper application of recovery indices.

Demonstrating some acute physiological effects of a transition phase, one study is available with
weightlifters (n=7 regional and national-level) who completed a 1-week overreaching microcycle, 3-week peaking
phase, and 2-week transition phase between testing sessions (62). Females’ isometric mid-thigh pull testing results
showed temporary decreases in peak force (PF) (5.23%, Cohen’s d effect size [d]=0.29) and RFD (10.14%, d=0.70),
while males’ testing results showed decreases of PF (10.53%, d=2.89) and RFD (16.43%, d=1.28). Contrasting these
results to those of team sport athletes, physiological detraining due to uncontrolled time off may be variable
between athletes due to individual athlete compliance with an away training program.

Further research is necessary to explore what constitutes between-phase meaningful changes and
thresholds of concern in sport-relevant biomotor abilities, in addition to exploring between-athlete and between-
sport differences. To clarify, some range of performance of biomotor abilities is to be expected throughout the
training year; the observation of a reduction may not constitute a concerning event, while a reduction beyond a
certain threshold, according to a published industry-wide or internal team precedent, would indicate a problem for
the sport scientist to investigate (47).

Coaches should exercise caution in programming activities during the transition phase, as athletes are
naturally competitive. As such, selecting a different activity to what they compete in is important. For example, it
would be naive to assume that a soccer team would play soccer at a reduced intensity—play will naturally become a
full-go scrimmage. Instead, for example, the team might play 20-30 minutes of water polo in the shallow end of a
pool. This provides an environment that may allow for restoration of affected joints and musculature in an intensity
and impact-restricted manner, and the duration of activity is controlled to minimize fatigue. A theoretical sample
week of transition programming is provided in Table 5.
Table 5. Sample Active Rest Week Programming for Collegiate Soccer
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
AM: Rehabilitation AM: Rehabilitation Rehabilitation AM: Rehabilitation with AM: Rehabilitation
with sport medicine; with sport medicine; with sport sport medicine with sport medicine
20-30 min of water medicine or off
20-30 min of cycling polo in shallow end 20-30 min of cycling at 20-30 min of water
at 64-76% age- of pool 64-76% age-predicted polo in shallow end
predicted max HR max HR of pool

followed by 3 rounds followed by 4 rounds of: PM: team mini-golf

of: asymmetrically- asymmetrically-loaded
loaded overhead overhead squat x6 (light),
squat x6 (light), kettlebell hang clean,
kettlebell hang clean squat and press (6/side),
and press (6/side), superset with 1-arm
superset with 1-arm staggered-stance cable
staggered-stance high-row; moderate
cable mid-row at intensity; 30 seconds
light-moderate between rounds
intensity; 30 seconds
between rounds

Mesocycle-level Programming Strategies

Mesocycles (42 week phases) are classified based upon their purpose, which guides their content emphases
(primary, secondary, tertiary). Several authors have presented a variety of around nine mesocycle purposes
(48,126), which may be adapted to suit the goals of novice and intermediate team sport athletes. For example,
“build up” enhances general conditioning, while “stabilization” is intended to establish sport-specific fitness and
skills, and “competitive build-up” is intended as a brief increase in TL to improve sport-specific fitness during a long
season (48). Recently, as a modification to block periodization strategies, these strategies were reduced to three
types: accumulation, transmutation, and realization (67) for use with advanced athletes.

Sequencing Programming for Novice Athletes

As Haff and Haff observed (48), early work exploring the effectiveness of traditional periodization included beginner
athletes. In this model, a wide array of biomotor abilities can be developed concurrently in a progressive manner
(126). An inverse relationship between intensity and volume is observed in traditional periodization; volume is
higher during the GP phase, and gradually reduced as intensity increases during the SP phase (126). Parallel
development of targeted training variables in simple progression (51) has been identified as a potential strategy for
novice athletes, and may particularly suit younger athletes due to necessity of training a variety of skills. One basic
premise of this concept is that athletes demonstrate sufficient mastery of skills over a period of time before
progressing to more advanced stressors with greater complexity.
Sequencing Programming for Intermediate Athletes
As the team sport athlete progresses toward intermediate and advanced level (loosely-defined), transitioning to an
emphasis training model may be ideal due to greater time allocation for development of specific skills and biomotor
abilities (126,148). The emphasis training model (51) increases variation via emphasis and de-emphasis of biomotor
abilities and sport skills over time. Suiting the needs of a team sport athlete, this strategy allows for training multiple
targeted abilities in parallel. For example (Figure 5), one 4-week training block in the GP phase may primarily
emphasize strength development (80-95% 1RM), while change of direction training (short and hard; 5-10 m, 45-
180 turns) and acceleration (short; 5-20 m) are placed in secondary emphasis, and retaining loads are applied for
power exercises, basic sport skills, repeat sprint ability (RSA), and mental skills. To guide practitioners, the majority
of in-session training time is devoted to the primary emphasis, which occurs earlier in the session.

Figure 5. Theoretical Emphasis Training Model: Speed and Change of Direction Programming

Modified from (148)

Across the mesocycle, Stone and colleagues (126) recommended implementing summated microcycles of
resistance training, increasing the degree of workload contrast within and between cycles. In this method, emphasis
of the mesocycle remains consistent for about four weeks, while average loading of each successive microcycle is
gradually increased, then decreased (three up, one down) to accommodate fatigue. On a cautionary note, as
intensity of workloads increases through the third week of the 4-week training block, coaches and practitioners
should be cautious about fatigue accumulation that could negatively affect other activities with high-neurological
demands (i.e., top speed programming). Because of their equivalent reliance on the neuromuscular system, other
modes of training may also be implemented either progressively or in sequential manner during this stage of
development, depending on the athlete’s level of mastery and training goals.

A second strategy to begin exposing the intermediate athlete to is concentrated loading, which (again at
the mesocycle level) is characterized by an initial aggressive concentrated load (typically 1 microcycle) intended to
saturate the athlete with the primary targeted ability (48). Following the concentrated loading microcycle (FOR), TL
returns to a normal level (2 up), and finally TL is reduced in the last microcycle (1 down). Here performance is briefly
depressed as a result of the FOR microcycle, and a long-term delayed (improved) training effect is observed later in
the mesocycle (126). The intermediate athlete is also recommended to begin exposure to additional strategies such
as exercise deletion and representation strategies, cluster loading, and post-activation potentiation complexes, in
order to present further variation (126). Certainly exercise deletion and representation strategies may be used in
progression of various sport skills.

Sequencing Programming for Advanced Athletes

At the mesocycle level, programming of activity for the advanced athlete has been recommended to include use of
the above strategies of summated microcycles and concentrated loading, along with a conjugated sequencing
model (48) to elicit adaptations. In the conjugated sequencing model, delayed physiological adaptations are
anticipated to occur following strategic sequential application of particular training stressors (48). Stressors are
organized into three mesocycles: accumulation, transmutation (each 2-4 weeks), and realization (1-2 weeks),
intended to be applied in order (67). As discussed at the mesocycle level below, modification of the concept has
been recommended for application to team sport athletes as a multi-targeted block periodization strategy (68).
Compatible biomotor abilities are developed concurrently (e.g., short sprints and power), while non-compatible
biomotor abilities (e.g., strength endurance and max speed) are recommended to be separated into different blocks
according to compatibility (67,68).

Accumulation

The accumulation mesocycle is 2-4 weeks in length, and it includes a concentrated load of a particular biomotor
ability, with secondary and tertiary emphases upon other complementary biomotor abilities to prevent decay (68).
In order to force adaptation, the volume targeted within the concentrated loading period is particularly stressful and
challenges recovery mechanisms, which depresses performance capability. From a practical coaching perspective,
fatigue induced by this strategy may negatively influence technique in complex motor tasks (i.e., strength-
endurance training inappropriately paired with top speed running), therefore all programming options may not be
available to the coach during this mesocycle in light of temporary performance decrement induced by accumulated
fatigue. It is implied that the workloads applied during training sessions within the accumulation mesocycle can be
expected to impair complex skill acquisition due to late session fatigue.

Transmutation

The transmutation mesocycle is also 2-4 weeks in length. Here the athlete resumes a normal training load and shifts
priority of the mesocycle to a sport-specific biomotor ability, with adjustment of secondary and tertiary priorities
(48). The athlete is still unlikely to demonstrate major improvement in the targeted biomotor ability during this
timeframe, as it is likely to require several weeks of reduced training loads to observe due to the delayed training
effect and impact of the stressful sport-specific training loads occurring in this phase (67).

Realization

The realization mesocycle is shorter in duration (1-2 weeks) and consists of a reduced training load (also referred to
as deload and taper) compared to prior mesocycles in order to allow for recovery-adaptation (68). Primary
emphases of prior mesocycles are now allocated to secondary or tertiary emphases during this mesocycle in order
to retain developing technical skills and important biomotor abilities (48). Because of sport specificity, power is a
likely primary emphasis for this mesocycle at some point throughout the training year. Reduction of training load
allows fatigue to dissipate and expression of training gains emphasized in the accumulation phase to be observed
(measured).

Modification of Block Periodization Strategies for the Competitive Period

Because of the importance of winning games, performance cannot be depressed frequently due to training loads, as
seen in FOR. As a result, Issurin (67) recommended mini-cycles of specific qualities to retain certain physiological
adaptations during the transmutation mesocycle. Targeted brief microcycles are recommended to span several days
(67); this concept may also be applied at strategic points if gaps in team sports competition schedule are observed
(bye weeks, etc.). For example, in collegiate basketball during the holiday break, many teams do not compete for
over a week. During this time, coaches may briefly emphasize maximal strength, for example, a quality difficult to
maintain in the face of a dense competitive season.

Summary of Mesocycle-level Strategies

To overview the above concepts, more gradual exposure to intensity is recommended for the beginner athlete, and
more severe stimuli are applied as the athlete achieves advanced status. Due to the increasing severity of stimuli
required to drive adaptation, restorative strategies (e.g., realization phase and intra-microcycle TL modifications)
become more important for inclusion in programming. Additionally, monitoring strategies are key to ensure the
athlete progresses properly. Intra-athlete and situational differences in recovery ability are important to consider—
as is adaptive potential—in application of programming. Of note, Issurin (67) suggested modifications for
experienced (older) athletes, including a longer transition period and less training volume (10-30% less) than their
younger peers; presumptively, this is due to greater training stress applied to force adaptation with
accommodations made for a reduced rate of recovery-adaptation seen in older athletes.

Microcycle-level Programming Strategies

Several authors have proposed a diverse range of microcycles (1 week in duration) intended for specific purposes
across the training year (9,51,126). For application to team sports here, Issurin’s terminology is used (67):
adjustment, loading, impact, pre-competitive, competitive, and restoration microcycles. This set of strategies may
be applied across the training year as the IST adjusts the programming puzzle to drive adaptation and foster
recovery-adaptation.

Adjustment Microcycle
The adjustment microcycle is intended to foster initial adaptation or adjustment to training (67) so that soon-to-be-
applied higher training loads are tolerated well. Here TLs are proposed to be “medium,” often with a gradual
increase of TL from one microcycle to the next (126). These are typically arranged in a series of progressively intense
adjustment microcycles (as in summated microcycles), followed by a restoration microcycle (see below) that in
order to provide time for recovery-adaptation (126).
Loading Microcycle
The loading microcycle is intended to improve a certain set of biomotor abilities using a range of workloads from
substantial to high (67). Particularly necessary for advanced athletes is the connection of restoration microcycles
following a series of loading microcycles, as accumulated fatigue is expected to be high.

Impact Microcyle
Fitness improvements are intended to result from the impact microcycle, with extreme stimuli applied to the
training athlete (67). Also referred to as a “stress,” “impact,” or “shock” microcycle (126,148), this strategy is
recommended to be limited to advanced and elite athletes, as younger athletes are unlikely to tolerate such
increases of intensity and/or volume without undue risk of injury (140). Further guidance suggests use of the
strategy no more than 3-4 times per year; two sequential stress microcycles may be considered for elite athletes,
but no more than once per year (148). Of interest, Verkoshansky noted the initial “shock regime” method of training
was not exclusively used for plyometrics (e.g., depth jumps), but also included a variety of loading methods involving
a rapid stretch of tissues followed by a vigorous muscle action (140). Siff (116) suggested a broad menu of special
strength training that may be used to provide major training stress for advanced athletes, including: plyometrics,
supramaximal methods (e.g., accentuated eccentric loading), repeated single 1RM training, contrast methods,
forced repetitions, electrical stimulation, and maximal eccentric methods. Notably, not all of these methods have
been explored formally in athletic populations, and further research is required to substantiate efficacy. Because of
higher fitness in advanced athletes, a stress microcycle may be applied in an abrupt manner, and performance will
be expected to be depressed temporarily (weeks) as a result of the severity of the training stress. This demonstrates
the concept of the long-term delayed training effect (126) and highlights the necessity for more complex
programming for advanced athletes in comparison to beginners.

Pre-Competitive Microcycle
Specifically intended to improve performance in sport-specific tasks, the pre-competitive microcycle is intended to
include a medium training load and be scheduled prior to beginning of the competitive subphase (67). This
microcycle may include a wide array of content from multiple specialties in order to help prepare the athlete for
improved performance.

Competitive Microcycle
Training loads in the competitive microcycle are high or very high and focused upon activities that prepare the
athlete for improved performance (67) and maintain fitness (126). Programming may narrow in focus over the
course of the season; an early season microcycle may vary substantially from programming in a late season
microcycle, as training is modified to optimize physiological and psychological outcomes by reduction of monotony.
Less priority may be placed upon retention of certain biomotor abilities due to accumulated fatigue. Depending on
the goals of the IST, and the level of sport, a particular consistent training load range may be observed throughout
much of a competitive period. Studies have reported little between-week TL variation (83) in reserve La Liga soccer
players, and some between-week TL variation in Premier League soccer players (85). It should be noted that
creativity is important to avoid monotony.
Restoration Microcycle
Consisting of active recovery, the recovery microcycle contains intentionally lower training loads in order to allow
for recovery-adaptation (67). Programming may be sport-specific and of reduced intensity/volume, or sport non-
specific, depending on the placement within the training year and the developmental needs of the athlete. Duration
of this microcycle may be shorter late in the competitive season, with a smaller reduction in selected training
variables (i.e., intensity, volume, etc.) in order to avoid loss of fitness. Targeted recovery methods (e.g., muscle
temperature manipulation) may vary throughout the year; for instance, cold application strategies may be used
during the season, but not used during the preparatory phase due to primary emphasis upon the influence of
recovery upon on-field performance versus driving long-term physiological adaptation (73,97,110,130).

Setting Loads Within the Microcycle

Due to the fatigue aftereffects of loading, most resources suggest a wave-like approach to resistance training
loading across the microcycle, with reductions of 10-20% intensity recommended later in the microcycle for
resistance training (115). Though other loading strategies have been proposed, such as intensity-predominant
loading featuring chronic high intensities with volume manipulation (126), few of those strategies appear to have
been explored in team sport athletes. Sport-specific conditioning modes and sport training also require regular
loading modification to optimize the stimuli, manage fatigue, and prevent staleness (24,25,38). Therefore, the
microcycle is recommended to include a particular range of TL targeted for each training session (67). For the sport
scientist, this provides an opportunity to 1) help set TL and 2) confirm the strength and conditioning coach, or sport
coach, and the athlete are able to achieve the targeted load in accordance with the training plan (143). To foster
quality of stimuli, modifications may be necessary if regular deviation from prescribed loads occurs.

Programming Workloads and Variation

Practitioners involved in planning programming and managing training loads are advised to consider the short-term
(where are we now?), medium-term (where are we going soon?) and long-term (where are we ideally going in the
next few months or so?) realities when planning and adjusting programming (108). In addition, recent and long-term
training history of the individual athlete are important to evaluate in order to optimize transition between phases.
Within the process of constructing programming designed to improve and maintain performance, coaches and sport
scientists will deliberately select modes of training (activity, exercise, or drill) and plan training variables, such as
frequency, target intensity range, target volume range, and complexity of the activity (9,16); further considerations
include nuanced changes to small-sided games, for example, in order to modify the range of stressors (15), density,
and order of exercises or drills. The above programming decisions are optimally linked with appropriate nutritional,
psychological, and recovery strategies (97,110), and appropriate adjustment of modifiable variables is performed
according to goals of the period. At any level of sport, challenges are introduced to the training process that warrant
adjustment for the individual athlete, such as accommodations for new players obtained by free agency, and acute
stressors such as educational demands of the athlete (82); therefore, some modification is to be expected.

A range of intensity variation is also necessary for other activities. For example, sprint tempo work has
been proposed for speed athletes at a range of 60-85% of maximum sprinting speed (24). It is important to note
that popular guidance such as the “10% rule,” where training increases of any variable should not exceed 10% per
week is purely anecdotal (43), and clearly not considered in programming at intermediate or advanced levels due to
long-held strategies of training theorists that reflect more aggressive training load changes. Further, such
conservative increases may be difficult to apply to the limited time available for preparatory training with high-level
athletes.

Loading variation has become a contemporary concept in resistance training, included in most coaching
resources (50). Additionally important, recommendations for employing restorative microcycles and loading
variation is not exclusive to resistance training, and may be applied in programming the training of various biomotor
abilities in order to improve the chances of progress as athletes develop. Stone and colleagues (127) noted one
benefit of loading variation is that the athlete is exposed to a broader range of velocities (and stressors), which may
enhance power adaptations. The same may be true for other modes of training. For example, in change of direction
training, skill retention may be enhanced by exposing the athlete briefly to retaining loads of less demanding
movements, in addition to targeted drills.

Another element to consider in programming TL is exercise variation. Indeed, prior discussion of the idea
(108) suggested optimal program design involves “multilevel diversification” analogous to investing. Applied to sport
training, this analogy holds that as an investor deliberately selects a fruitful market that is likely to produce financial
yield, so does the coach or sport scientist select activities in order to expose the athlete to training modalities that
are likely to improve performance. For team sport athletes, a wide array of activities may provide benefit, and many
variables must be considered in order to improve a wide array of performance variables that the team sport athlete
must command. Each new idea should be vetted for effectiveness, however, before application.

Variation in programming is important to consider as coaches select processes for exercise inclusion,
replacement, and deletion. In theory, an athlete’s skill development in any area may become stagnant without some
amount of novelty, leading to monotony and a lesser neurological adaptation as the nervous system faces little
challenge with non-novel activities (126). To complicate this idea, specificity to the athlete’s performance
requirements is important, particularly with respect to the cognitive-perceptual elements of agility that appear to
separate athletes at the highest levels (147).

Considerations for Agility

Agility is defined as a “rapid whole-body movement with change of velocity or direction in response to a stimulus”
(113). Clearly implicated as a quality of great importance in higher caliber performance during invasion games (147),
multiple considerations in the development of agility are important for team sport athletes, both physical and
cognitive-perceptual in nature. Evaluation of integral components of agility demonstrates multiple interlinked
programming targets (Figure 6) (146). Further work in this genre indicates that sport-specific cues are important for
athletes to recognize and adjust to during training in order to prepare them for better performances in competition
(147). As such, in development of multi-year performance curricula and thorough testing methods, practitioners
must consider performance of both closed skills (i.e., change of direction speed demonstrated by an athlete
navigating a cone drill) and open skills (i.e., recognizing and responding to a variable stimulus during movement)
(114). Recent developments in agility involve reactive tests using sport-specific visual cues in sport-relevant
situations (144). It is important to note that the integration of reactive stimuli change many qualities of a change of
direction (COD) technique, and ideally are accounted for in a training curriculum and annual plan.
Figure 6. Components of Agility

Agility

Perceptual and
Change of direction
decision making
speed
factors

Straight sprinting
Visual Scanning Technique Leg muscle qualities
speed

Anticipation Foot placement Strength

Adjustment of
Pattern Recognition strides to accelerate Power
and decelerate

Knowledge of Body lean and

situations Reactive strength
posture

Reprinted by permission of Edizioni Minerva Medica from: The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2002:
42(3), 282-288.

Athletes may choose between split-step (straddle), side-step, and crossover cutting techniques in order to
optimize situational performance (29). Indeed, faster athletes demonstrate shorter ground contact time and greater
force application during the critical steps of the COD (27), indicating the importance of technical and physical
development of COD skills. Of note, different COD angles present specific biomechanical demands, providing more
to consider in programming training (30). Coaches should be mindful for skill preparation, as angle and velocity have
been identified to impact skill application—both variables are modifiable by the coach (28). Recent
recommendations offer guidance on how to best construct programming. A “traffic light system” (Figure 7) provided
by Dos’Santos and colleagues (28) seeks to optimize technique application for CODs of specific angle ranges,
indicating that technique is likely to affect the performance outcome of a COD.
Figure 7. Change of Direction Traffic Light System

From (29)

Nimphius classified agility/change-of-direction (ACOD) drills and offered a progression strategy, suggesting
that drills are considered in terms of movement pattern, velocity, and cognitive demands (101). Beginners are
advised to focus on skill mastery in basic drills with lower entry velocity, bends and less-demanding cuts, and
progress toward greater entry velocities and more diverse and demanding cuts, as appropriate. Further
recommendations involved adjusting programming based upon diverse testing procedures, with a greater
percentage of programming devoted to skill development in areas that testing identified as requiring improvement
(i.e., below normative average) (101).

Dos’Santos and colleagues (29) provided coaching points and proposed a process or how to best program
(off-season) activities for three mesocycles within a periodized plan (Table 6). Further development of sport-specific
ACOD curricula is recommended by practitioners; of great relevance to development is exactly how much general
skill is important in comparison with specific skill development.
Table 6. Cutting Development Framework
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Technique acquisition Technique retention and integrity Movement solutions
Aims Introduce and teach Cutting drills performed maximally, Increased complexity and
different cutting with increased intensity, to maintain sports specificity to
techniques and reinforce and reinforce optimal mechanics provide random
and modify mechanics under high mechanical loading. environment for athletes
using closed, preplanned to retrieve, select, and
drills of low intensity (low perform the different
approach velocity and cutting maneuvers.
COD angle). Performed under high
cognitive load and
constraints to improve
decision-making.

Intensity Progressive increases in intensity through increases in approach velocity, angle, incorporating
sports-specific implements, and stimuli.

Progressive increases in cognitive load through changes in skill practice and increased
contextual interference.
Example Closed, preplanned drills, Closed, preplanned drills performed Evasive open drills, and
Drills performed sub-maximally. maximally. simulated sports-specific
1. 20-45 XOC: 5m entry 1. 20-45° XOC: 5-10m entry and exit scenarios such as small-
and exit 2. 30° XOC to 60° side-step: 5m sided games, conditioned
2. 2. 30-90 side-step: entry and exit between cuts games, etc.
5m entry and exit 3. 30-90° split-step: 2.5m entry and Example:
30-90 split-step: 2.5m exit Conditioned evasive SSDs,
entry and exit Increased complexity with the that is, pitch dimensions
addition of several CODs and and rules:
combinations of different cuts. 1. Touch rugby 3 versus
3—limit number of
Introduction of sports-specific drills passes to encourage
that incorporate an evasive cutting actions
implement/object and open drills 2. Y-agility drill past an
performed sub-maximally. opponent from various
1. Y-agility drill past an approach distances
opponent/response to ball and environmental
2. Mirror drill versus an opponent constraints
3. Cut in response to a pass from a Note: drills will be
teammate dependent on the task
and sporting demands,
and should be designed
accordingly
Practice Block-serial Serial and random Random, differential,
Structure variance

COD = change of direction; XOC = crossover cut

From (30)
Considerations for Periodization and Programming of Speed and
Repeated Sprint Ability
Similar to agility, speed is an essential biomotor ability for athletes in most team sports. RSA is another biomotor
ability with clear speed underpinnings. Like agility training, speed training and RSA are ubiquitous in off-season
training sessions across team sports. Because of the common roots in linear acceleration, speed training is often
applied in some combination with agility training. Little formal guidance is available for applying periodization
strategies to many sports. Hansen (52) recommended a short-to-long approach for speed development in team
sport athletes, due to greater opportunities for technical improvement supporting later expression of speed and
better synergy with resistance training strategies used in block periodization. In this model, the athlete begins the
GP phase with [a secondary emphasis upon] short acceleration (15 m), and progresses in distance over sequential
training phases toward sprints up to 40 m (52) (as a secondary or tertiary emphasis for most team sport athletes).
Applying this concept to team sports may require following top speed emphasis with RSA emphasis, matured from a
tertiary emphasis, then a secondary emphasis in prior phases. In a practical sense, this approach pairs well with
secondary or tertiary emphasis of acceleration and retaining loads of technical drills during high-volume resistance
training of the early GP phase. Acute and residual fatigue has been demonstrated to negatively affect sprinting
technique by increasing ground contact time due to reduced force production, particularly in repeat sprinting
(34,45). While neurological fatigue has been proposed (but not directly confirmed), clear evidence implicates muscle
damage as one variable associated with changes in repeat sprint performance capacity (89). Muscle damage is
certainly expected to occur with high-volume resistance training (112), but has also been observed following
repeated sprint activity (72), and team sport game play (90,120). As a result, anything greater than retaining loads of
speed training may be best placed outside the competitive season, with RSA training cautiously applied at times in
the season when recovery is feasible (retaining load or during FOR microcycle). Research is necessary to validate this
notion; studies with well controlled methods and multi-dimensional, monitored training programs are rare in high-
level athletes.

Considerations for Traditional Aerobic Conditioning Methods, SSGs, and

Conditioned Games
For team sports that require endurance and strength, concurrent training (resistance training and aerobic
development), may be a necessary reality (18). Concurrent training has long been observed to impair strength gains,
beginning with the early work of Hickson (59). Muted strength adaptations are thought to result from conflicting
intracellular messaging, however training history may play a role in exactly how much the athlete is affected, as does
training volume and structure (88). For example, performing continuous aerobic training for over 20 minutes at
moderate intensity (<85% maximal heart rate) has been proposed to elicit the most substantial effect upon strength
training effects (88). In their review, Petre and colleagues (106) observed that the concurrent training effects were
focused upon lower body and were greater in well-trained subjects; they also noted some moderately-trained
subjects appeared to have been affected more. This was proposed to result from unfavorable cell signaling for
strength development or higher fatigue that accompanies a more well-trained status.

Separating resistance training from aerobically-targeted training may aid in minimizing intracellular conflict
(106). These two methods of training may be separated by as much time as possible (alternating days) or by a
number of hours in the day, with resistance training occurring before endurance training (102). Further, due to the
importance of strength and power for team sport athletes, greater reliance upon sprint interval training and HIIT
may be advantageous for endurance development, as opposed to steady-state aerobic training (88). O’Sullivan (102)
provides further recommendations for concurrent training across the training year.

In professional soccer, a variety of HIIT and SSG are common as part of the “tactical periodization”
approach (14) (discussed further below). Of note, it is likely that little traditional resistance training occurs within
this paradigm due to current cultural norms in European soccer. The reader is referred to Laursen and Buchheit (76)
for a survey of HIIT-related programming strategies from practitioners working in a variety of high-level sports
settings and Buchheit and Laursen (16) for further discussion of application.

Considerations for Periodization and Programming of Sport Skills

Recent attention has been placed upon updating skill acquisition knowledge for application in high performance
sport. In their seminal work, Farrow and Robertson (38) proposed the Skill Acquisition Periodization framework.
Similar to resistance training, sport skills may be programmed progressively (easier to harder), varied, and
monitored throughout the training year. Effectiveness of sport skills sessions may be improved—just like in
resistance training—by quality observation during execution of specific skills. For example, following a practice
session, a soccer coach or sport scientist may review video of a passing drill with variables (e.g., rating of pass
complexity, successful and unsuccessful attempts, number of passes), which may be graphically represented and
tracked over time. This process allows for the coach to modify future practice activities to address specific needs,
thereby refining the training process based upon data. This model provides the coach and sport scientist the ability
to account for specificity, progression, overload, reversibility, and tedium, and identify issues and provide specific
recommendations to improve each area of sport practice sessions. Farrow and Robertson (38) recommended
researchers explore intensity, volume, and density effects, reversibility of skills (by level of athlete), if wearable
technology may be used to improve efficiency of data collection, and if monotony and strain may be included
effectively into the model.

Various monitoring tools have recently been developed to quantify skill challenge, which may be used to
guide coaches and sport scientists in programming sport skills as part of the annual plan. For example, Hendricks
and colleagues proposed the rating of perceived challenge (RPC) for athletes to subjectively assess the difficulty of a
technical skill and produce a marker of internal load using a 0-10 scale, similar to rate of perceived exertion (57).
This was applied to a framework Hendricks and colleagues (58) designed to recommend an age- and skill-dependent
structure to coaching rugby tackling skills.

Additional developments in structuring training sessions have been made in the area of specialist coaching
(defined as coaches who typically work independently with smaller groups). Otte and colleagues (103) used the
example of training soccer goalkeepers to illustrate how a specialist coach could structure skills training in a
progressive way, with game-representativeness of the task, level of perceived task complexity, and the athlete’s
level of skill development major areas of consideration, along with planned focus of the individual training session,
and the mesocycle emphasis. In addition, the number of athletes involved in the session may influence possible
programming. Through the training year, and similar to a theme of traditional periodization, programming can be
ordered from easier to harder over time, through the coordination training, skill adaptability training, and
performance training phases. Certainly applicable in other areas of team sport, elements of the model are designed
for adaptation to the skill development efforts required by those serving in assistant coach roles.

Literature has emerged within the last several decades from European team sport exploring the effects of
SSG for conditioning (76). A great benefit of this type of training includes greater exposure to technical and tactical
scenarios, which may lead to improved (or maintained) ball handling skills and decision making, in addition to
enhancing in-session training motivation. Of note, both evasion games and SSG have been recommended to help
sport athletes develop cognitive-perceptual skill (147).

Taking physical development and merging it with technical and tactical performance remains a frontier
with little academic exploration. One broader skill development strategy was developed by soccer coach and
academic, Vitor Frade, which he termed “tactical periodization.” Detailed analysis suggests “tactical periodization” is
more correctly defined as a pedagogical technical-tactical programming strategy involving deliberate sequential
manipulation of tactical and technical scenarios, rather than targeting a broad range of physiological variables and
skills in a holistic and sequential manner, as seen in periodization strategies; however, the skill development
strategies developed in soccer (by Frade and others) and adapted to other football codes (86,133,134) are eloquent
ideas whose effectiveness has been minimally evaluated thus far. The strategies of what is referred to as “strength,”
“endurance,” “speed,” and recovery programming employed in this approach (14) do appear to provide differing
stimuli between sessions (13,71,81). Karlsson (71) observed training and match loads across a season of a high-level
(Toppserien) Norwegian women’s team, and noted that most TL values (total distance covered, high speed running,
etc.) were much higher in games compared to practice. While results should be interpreted cautiously due to pre-
and early season schedule interruptions, negligible or unclear changes were observed across the season, with some
significant changes observed between pre-season and in-season or between in-season and post-season testing
sessions. The authors observed a reduction in training loads across the second part of the season, with a moderate
effect size (d=0.3-0.5) observed for most variables. Only one training load variable (number of accelerations and
decelerations) was greater in the second part of the season, on match day (MD)-3. In the tactical periodization
philosophy, the hardest training days of a standard week are MD-4 and MD-3; a key programming point is that a
reduced training load during these days in particular may elicit an insufficient physiological response to sustain
fitness, which in turn may explain any undesirable changes in fitness over a season, if they occur. Initial evidence
suggests that further investigation is warranted to explore the capability of Frade’s strategy to maintain fitness
compared to other programming methods, particularly in relation to performance testing and training load. Of
concern, as the approach is purportedly used in soccer, is the limited ability to offer progressive overload, and
limitations upon strength and power development.

Recently, Frade’s concept was applied in principle to rugby union; researchers suggested a game phase-
based multi-disciplinary model of applying of tactical/technical training strategies that is more pertinent to
gameplay, and applied during the competitive period (133). As Tee and colleagues (133) suggested, efficacy of this
strategy requires great planning and communication between the sport coach and the strength and conditioning
coach (or perhaps as described more likely a sport scientist with strength and conditioning skills), and offers quality
control for team drills and practices, which represents a promising intra-organizational alliance ripe for future
exploration in high level sport. Tee and colleagues (133) posed several excellent questions yet to be resolved:
optimal level of play (youth through adult professional/international) for the model’s application, optimal timeline of
installation of this approach, effectiveness of related physiological adaptations compared to traditional means, and
is decision-making actually improved compared to other pedagogical strategies? Each of these answers may be
provided by specialists within the field of sport science.

Considerations for Periodization and Programming in Tactical

Populations
Because many tactical units resemble sport teams in some ways at the operational level (e.g., a 12-person Special
Forces Operational Detachment Alpha that trains and deploys together), periodization and programming of training
for tactical populations may also be constructed in a similar manner to team sports. In the absence of a standalone
chapter, this genre is discussed briefly here, as tactical performance is another promising frontier for sport science.
Particularly as a result of the establishment of human performance and rehabilitation programs within military units
(THOR3, POTFF, H2F, etc.), performance and rehabilitation program infrastructure has recently grown in what has
been arguably the most rapid growth in the strength and conditioning and rehabilitation fields to date.

While service-based programs have been previously described in the literature (6), the industry has been
challenged to provide consistent service and demonstrate value to military populations due to training-related and
other unpredictable occupational demands. Early evidence in military populations shows some value in using short-
term programming strategies consistent with existing periodization models (2,54,55). In military personnel, limited
research is available to evaluate the long-term effects of contemporary programming thought to enhance
performance in sporting populations, nor is there yet substantial evidence to highlight any particular periodization
strategy that appears to be most effective. Similar to athletic populations, skill development progression, common
injury sources, and fatigue are all factors to be accounted for, along with limited access to equipment and
longstanding popularity of cultural training methodologies. Due to the above issues, optimizing performance in
military populations remains a frontier for training theorists and practitioners alike. At this time, practitioners are
bound to working around military obligations in most organizations, often with isolated responsibilities (e.g.,
strength and conditioning coach, not IST). Further development in the tactical sector requires more holistic
considerations such as long-term development of military personnel (including skills). Like in sports, organizations
with sufficient resources are encouraged to evaluate long-term processes and match resources accordingly.

Summary
Best-practices in training for all levels of athletes involve periodization and deliberate programming to enhance
elements of sport performance; however, many frontiers remain for researchers and practitioners alike. Block
periodization strategies appear valuable for team sport athletes; resistance training can be integrated with other
training modes within this paradigm. Because biomotor abilities and skills are interdependent, coaches and sport
science practitioners are charged to choose training methods deliberately and monitor athletes carefully. The team
sport setting provides many opportunities and challenges to planning training. Guided by a monitoring program,
structured training may be modified according to need by coaches, and refined over time to elicit greater
effectiveness. Further, sport organizations are encouraged to look through a sport science lens at their competitive
schedule in the interest of athlete safety and to foster an environment favorable for high performance.
Acknowledgement
The author graciously thanks Dr. Paul Comfort and Dr. Tim Suchomel for their helpful suggestions and feedback
during the editing process.
References
1. Aagaard, P, Andersen, JL, Dyhre‐Poulsen, P, et al. A mechanism for increased contractile strength of human
pennate muscle in response to strength training: changes in muscle architecture. J Physiol 534(2): 613-623,
2001.
2. Abt, JP, Oliver, JM, Nagai, T, et al. Block-periodized training improves physiological and tactically relevant
performance in Naval Special Warfare Operators. J Strength Cond Res 30(1): 39-52, 2016.
3. Arnold, AJ, Thigpen, CA, Beattie, PF, et al. Sport specialization and increased injury frequency in youth baseball
players: a prospective study. J Athletic Training 54(10): 1115-1122, 2019.
4. Balagué, N, Torrents, C, Hristovski, R, Kelso, JAS. Sport science integration: An evolutionary synthesis. Eur J Sport
Sci 17(1): 51-62, 2017.
5. Bazyler, CD, Mizuguchi, S, Sole, CJ, et al. Jumping performance is preserved but not muscle thickness in collegiate
volleyball players after a taper. J Strength Cond Res 32(4): 1020-1028, 2018.
6. Bear, R, Sanders, M, Pompili, J, et al. Development of the tactical human optimization, rapid rehabilitation, and
reconditioning program military operator readiness assessment for the special forces operator. Strength Cond J
38(6): 55-60, 2016.
7. Black, T, Pape, A. The ban on drugs in sports: The solution or the problem? J Sport Social Issues 21(1): 83-92, 1997.
8. Bird, SR, Goebel, C, Burke, LM, Greaves, RF. Doping in sport and exercise: anabolic, ergogenic, health and clinical
issues. Annals Clin Biochem 53(2): 196-221, 2016.
9. Bompa, T, Buzzichelli, CA. Periodization: Theory and methodology of training (6th ed). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics, 2019.
10. Bourdon, PC, Cardinale, M, Murray, A, et al. Monitoring athlete training loads: consensus statement. Int J Sports
Physiol Performance 12(s2): S2-161, 2017.
11. Brewer, C. Performance interventions and operationalizing data. In: NSCA’s Essentials of Sport Science. D. French
and L. Torres-Ronda, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2021, pp. 339-351.
12. Brocherie, F, Beard, A. All alone we go faster, together we go further: The necessary evolution of professional
and elite sporting environment to bridge the gap between research and practice. Front Sports Act Living 2: 221,
2021.
13. Buchheit, M, Lacome, M, Cholley, Y, Simpson, BM. Neuromuscular responses to conditioned soccer sessions
assessed via GPS-embedded accelerometers: Insights into tactical periodization. Int J Sports Physiol
Performance 13(5): 577-583, 2018.
14. Buchheit, M, Lacome, M, & Simpson, B. Soccer. In: Science and Application of High-Intensity Interval Training. P.
Laursen and M. Buchheit, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2019, pp. 547-564.
15. Buchheit M., & Laursen, P. (2019). Using HIIT weapons. In: Science and Application of High-Intensity Interval
Training. P. Laursen and M Buchheit, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2019, pp. 73-117.
16. Buchheit, M, Laursen, P. (2021). Periodization and programming of team sports. In: NSCA’s Essentials of Sport
Science. D. French and L. Torres-Ronda, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2021, pp. 43-56.
17. Carder, SL, Giusti, NE, Vopat, LM, et al. The concept of sport sampling versus sport specialization: Preventing
youth athlete injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med 48(11): 2850-2857, 2020.
18. Chadd, N. An approach to the periodization of training during the in-season for team sports. Professional
Strength Cond 18: 5-10, 2010.
19. Collins, D, Trower, J, Cruickshank, A. Coaching high performance athletes and the high performance team. In:
Managing High Performance Sport. P. Sotiriadou and V. De Bosscher, eds. New York NY: Routledge, 2013. pp.
205-220.
20. Comfort, P, Jones, PA, Thomas, C, et al. Changes in early and maximal isometric force production in response to
moderate-and high-load strength and power training. J Strength Cond Res 36(3): 593-599, 2022.
21. Coutts, A, Reaburn, P, Piva, TJ, Murphy, A. Changes in selected biochemical, muscular strength, power, and
endurance measures during deliberate overreaching and tapering in rugby league players. Int J Sports
Med 28(2): 116-124, 2007.
22. Coutts, A. Working fast and working slow: The benefits of embedding research in high-performance sport. Int J
Sports Physiol Performance 11: 1-2, 2016.
23. Cunanan, AJ, DeWeese, BH, Wagle, JP, et al. The general adaptation syndrome: A foundation for the concept of
periodization. Sports Med 48(4): 787-797, 2018.
24. DeWeese, BH, Wagle, JP, & Bingham, GE. Let the rhythm hit them: Adjusting the tempo to skillfully surf the
intensity curve. Techniques 10(4): 52-59, 2017.
25. DeWeese, BH, Nimphius, S. Program design and technique for speed and agility training. In: Essentials of
Strength Training and Conditioning (4th edition), G. G. Haff & N. T. Triplett, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics,
2015. pp. 521-557.
26. Dick, FW. Sports Training Principles (6th edition). New York, NY: Bloomsbury Sport, 2015.
27. Dos’Santos, T, Thomas, C, Jones, PA, Comfort, P. Mechanical determinants of faster change of direction speed
performance in male athletes. J Strength Cond Res 31(3): 696-705, 2017.
28. Dos’Santos, T, Thomas, C, Comfort, P, Jones, PA. The effect of angle and velocity on change of direction
biomechanics: An angle-velocity trade-off. Sports Med 48(10): 2235-2253, 2018.
29. Dos’Santos, T, McBurnie, A, Thomas, C, Comfort, P, & Jones, PA. Biomechanical comparison of cutting
techniques: A review and practical applications. Strength Cond J 41(4): 40-54, 2019.
30. Dos’Santos, T, Thomas, C, & Jones, PA. The effect of angle on change of direction biomechanics: Comparison and
inter-task relationships. J Sports Sci 39(22): 2618-2631, 2021.
31. Drew, MK, Finch, CF. The relationship between training load and injury, illness and soreness: a systematic and
literature review. Sports Med 46(6): 861-883, 2016.
32. Eckard, TG, Padua, DA, Hearn, DW, Pexa, BS, Frank, BS. The relationship between training load and injury in
athletes: A systematic review. Sports Med 48(8): 1929-1961, 2018.
33. Edington, DW, Edgerton, VR. Biology and Physical Activity. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1976.
34. Edouard, P, Mendiguchia, J, Lahti, J, et al. Sprint acceleration mechanics in fatigue conditions: compensatory role
of gluteal muscles in horizontal force production and potential protection of hamstring muscles. Front Physiol 9:
1706, 2018.
35. Erickson, K, Blackhouse, SH. Prevalence of doping in sport. In: Drugs in Sport (7th edition), D.R. Mottram and N.
Chester, eds. New York, NY: Routledge, 2018. pp. 39-49.
36. ESPN.com news services. McGwire apologizes to La Russa, Selig. Jan 11, 2010. Available from:
https://www.espn.com/mlb/news/story?id=4816607.
37. Faigenbaum, AD, MacDonald, JP, Haff, GG. Are young athletes strong enough for sport? DREAM On. Current
Sports Med Reports 18(1): 6-8, 2019.
38. Farrow, D, Robertson, S. Development of a skill acquisition periodisation framework for high-performance
sport. Sports Med 47(6): 1043-1054, 2017.
39. Fricker, P. Support services in athletic development: Good practices from the field. In: Managing High
Performance Sport. P. Sotiriadou & V. De Bosscher, eds. New York, NY: Routledge, 2013. pp. 183-204.
40. Foster, C, Rodriguez-Marroyo, JA, De Koning, JJ. Monitoring training loads: the past, the present, and the
future. Int J Sports Physiol Performance 12(S2): S2-2, 2017.
41. Fullagar, HH, McCall, A, Impellizzeri, FM, Favero, T, Coutts, AJ. The translation of sport science research to the
field: A current opinion and overview on the perceptions of practitioners, researchers and coaches. Sports
Med 49(12): 1817-1824, 2019.
42. Gabbett, TJ. The training—injury prevention paradox: Should athletes be training smarter and harder? Brit J
Sports Med 50(5): 273-280, 2016.
43. Gabbett, TJ. Debunking the myths about training load, injury and performance: Empirical evidence, hot topics
and recommendations for practitioners. Brit J Sports Med 54(1): 58-66, 2020.
44. Gamble, P. Periodization of training for team sports. Strength Cond J 28(5): 56-66, 2006.
45. Girard, O, Micallef, JP, Millet, GP. Changes in spring-mass model characteristics during repeated running
sprints. Eur J Applied Physiol 111(1): 125-134, 2011.
46. Gleason, BH, Kramer, JB, Stone, MH. Agility training for American football. Strength Cond J 37(6): 65-71, 2015.
47. Gleason, BH, Hornsby, WG, Suarez, DG, Nein, MA, Stone, MH. Troubleshooting a nonresponder: Guidance for
the strength and conditioning coach. Sports 9(6): 83, 2021.
48. Haff, GG, Haff, EE. Training integration and periodization. In: NSCA’s Guide to Program Design. J.R. Hoffman, ed.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2012. pp. 213-258.
49. Haff, GG, Stone, MH. Methods of developing power with special reference to football players. Strength Cond
J 37(6): 2-16, 2015.
50. Haff, GG, Triplett, NT, eds. Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning (4th edition). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics, 2015.
51. Haff, GG. Periodization and programming for individual sports. In: NSCA’s Essentials of Sport Science. D. French,
L. Torres-Ronda, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2021. pp. 27-41.
52. Hansen, DM. Successfully translating strength into speed. In: High-Performance Training for Sports. D. Joyce and
D. Lewindon, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2014. pp.145-164.
53. Harre, D. Principles of Sports Training. Berlin, Germany: Sportverlag, 1982.
54. Heard, C, Willcox, M, Falvo, M, Blatt, M, Helmer, D. Effects of linear periodization training on performance gains
and injury prevention in a garrisoned military unit. J Mil Veterans Health 28(3): 23-34, 2020.
55. Heilbronn, BE, Doma, K, Gormann, D, Schumann, M, Sinclair, WH. Effects of periodized vs. nonperiodized
resistance training on army-specific fitness and skills performance. J Strength Cond Res 34(3): 738-753, 2020.
56. Helgerud, J, Engen, LC, Wisloff, U, Hoff, JAN. Aerobic endurance training improves soccer performance. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 33(11): 1925-1931, 2001.
57. Hendricks, S, Till, K, Oliver, JL, et al. Rating of perceived challenge as a measure of internal load for technical skill
performance. Brit J Sports Med 53(10): 611-613, 2019.
58. Hendricks, S, Till, K, Oliver, JL, et al. Technical skill training framework and skill load measurements for the rugby
union tackle. Strength Cond J 40(5), 44-59, 2018.
59. Hickson, RC. Interference of strength development by simultaneously training for strength and endurance. Eur J
Appl Physiol 45: 255-263, 1980.
60. Hoffman, JR, Ratamess, NA. Medical issues associated with anabolic steroid use: Are they exaggerated? J Sci Med
Sport 5: 182-193, 2006.
61. Hornsby, WG, Fry, AC, Haff, GG, Stone, MH. Addressing the confusion within periodization research. J Functional
Morphol Kinesiol 5(3): 68, 2020.
62. Hornsby, WG, Gentles, JA, MacDonald, CJ, et al. Maximum strength, rate of force development, jump height, and
peak power alterations in weightlifters across five months of training. Sports 5(4): 78, 2017.
63. Impellizzeri, FM, Woodcock, S, McCall, A, Ward, P, Coutts, AJ. (2019, June 3). The acute-chronic workload ratio-
injury figure and its ‘sweet spot’ are flawed. https://doi.org/10.31236/osf.io/gs8yu
64. Impellizzeri, FM, Woodcock, S, Coutts, AJ, et al. What role do chronic workloads play in the acute to chronic
workload ratio? Time to dismiss ACWR and its underlying theory. Sports Med 51(3): 581-592, 2021.
65. Ishida, A, Bazyler, CD, Sayers, AL, Stone, MH, Gentles, JA. Seasonal changes and relationships in training loads,
neuromuscular performance, and recovery and stress state in competitive female soccer players. Front Sports
Act Living 3: 757253, 2021.
66. Issurin, V. Block periodization versus traditional periodization theory: A review. J Sports Med Physical Fitness
48(1): 65-75, 2008.
67. Issurin, V. Block Periodization: Breakthrough in Sport Training. Muskegon, MI: Ultimate Athletic Concepts, 2008.
68. Issurin, V. Benefits and limitations of block periodization approaches to athletes’ preparation: A review. Sports
Med 46(3): 329-338, 2016.
69. Jeffreys, I. Quadrennial planning for the high school athlete. Strength Cond J 30(3): 74-83, 2008.
70. Jones, CM, Griffiths, PC, Mellalieu, SD. Training load and fatigue marker associations with injury and illness: A
systematic review of longitudinal studies. Sports Med 47(5): 943-974, 2017.
71. Karlsson, UB. Training/match load and physical performance in an elite female football team utilizing a tactical
periodization model: A one-season long prospective cohort study. Master's thesis, Norwegian School of Sport
Sciences, 2021.
72. Keane, KM, Salicki, R, Goodall, S, Thomas, K, Howatson, G. Muscle damage response in female collegiate athletes
after repeated sprint activity. J Strength Cond Res 29(10): 2802-2807, 2015.
73. Kellmann, M, Bertollo, M, Bosquet, L, et al. Recovery and performance in sport: Consensus statement. Int J
Sports Physiol Performance 13(2): 240-245, 2018.
74. Kelly, VG, Coutts, AJ. Planning and monitoring training loads during the competition phase in team sports.
Strength Cond J 29(4): 32-37, 2007.
75. Kerut, EK, Kerut, DG, Fleisig, GS, Andrews, JR. Prevention of arm injury in youth baseball pitchers. J Louisiana
State Med Soc 160(2): 95-98, 2008.
76. Laursen, P, Buchheit, M. Science and Application of High-Intensity Interval Training. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics, 2019.
77. Le Meur, Y. Hausswirth, C. Active recovery. In: Recovery for Performance in Sport. C. Hausswirth and I. Mujika,
eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2013. pp. 29-42.
78. Lemyre, P-N, Fournier, J. Psychological aspects of recovery. In: Recovery for Performance in Sport. C. Hausswirth
and I. Mujika, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2013. pp. 43-52.
79. Lievens, M, Bourgois, JG, Boone, J. Periodization of plyometrics: Is there an optimal overload principle? J
Strength Cond Res 35(10): 2669-2676, 2021.
80. Lloyd, RS, Oliver, JL. The youth physical development model: A new approach to long-term athletic
development. Strength Cond J 34(3): 61-72, 2012.
81. Lopategui, IG, Paulis, JC, Escudero, IE. Physical demands and internal response in football sessions according to
tactical periodization. Int J Sports Physiol Performance 16(6): 858-864, 2021.
82. Lopes Dos Santos, M, Uftring, M, Stahl, CA, et al. Stress in academic and athletic performance in collegiate
athletes: A narrative review of sources and monitoring strategies. Front Sports Act Living 2: 42, 2020.
83. Los Arcos, A, Mendez-Villanueva, A, Martínez-Santos, R. In-season training periodization of professional soccer
players. Biol Sport 34(2): 149-155, 2017.
84. Lyakh, V, Mikołajec, K, Bujas, P. Periodization in team sport games: A review of current knowledge and modern
trends in competitive sports. J Human Kin 54: 173-180, 2016.
85. Malone, JJ, Di Michele, R, Morgans, R, et al. Seasonal training-load quantification in elite English premier league
soccer players. Int J Sports Physiol Performance 10(4): 489-497, 2015.
86. Mangan, S, Collins, K, Burns, C, O’Neill, C. A tactical periodisation model for Gaelic football. Intl J Sports Sci
Coaching 17(1): 208-219, 2022.
87. Mann, JB, Thyfault, JP, Ivey, PA, Sayers, SP. The effect of autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise vs. linear
periodization on strength improvement in college athletes. J Strength Cond Res 24(7): 1718-1723, 2010.
88. Methenitis, S. A brief review on concurrent training: From the laboratory to the field. Sports 6: 127, 2018.
89. Minett, GM, Duffield, R. Is recovery driven by central or peripheral factors? A role for the brain in recovery
following intermittent-sprint exercise. Front Physiol 5: 24, 2014.
90. Moreira, A, Nosaka, K, Nunes, JA, et al. Changes in muscle damage markers in female basketball players. Biol
Sport 31(1): 3, 2014.
91. Mottram, DR. Drugs and their use in sport. In: Drugs in Sport (7th edition). D.R. Mottram and N. Chester, eds.
New York, NY: Routledge, 2018. pp. 3-20.
92. Mujika, I, Padilla, S. Detraining: Loss of training-induced physiological and performance adaptations. Part
I. Sports Med 30(2): 79-87, 2000.
93. Mujika, I, Padilla, S. Detraining: Loss of training-induced physiological and performance adaptations. Part
II. Sports Med 30(3): 145-154, 2000.
94. Mujika, I, Padilla, S. Physiological and performance consequences of training cessation in athletes: Detraining. In:
Rehabilitation of Sports Injuries: Scientific Basis. W.R. Frontera, ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell Science, Ltd., 2003.
pp. 117-138.
95. Mujika, I. Thoughts and considerations for team sport peaking. Olympic Coach 18(4): 9-11, 2007.
96. Mujika, I. Intense training: The key to optimal performance before and during the taper. Scand J Med Sci Sports
20(Suppl 2): 24-31, 2010.
97. Mujika, I, Halson, S, Burke, LM, Balagué, G, Farrow, D. An integrated, multifactorial approach to periodization for
optimal performance in individual and team sports. Int J Sports Physiol Performance 13(5): 538-561, 2018.
98. Murray, NB, Gabbett, TJ, Chamari, K. Effect of different between-match recovery times on the activity profiles
and injury rates of national rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res 28(12): 3476-3483, 2014.
99. Myer, GD, Jayanthi, N, Difiori, JP, et al. Sport specialization, part I: Does early sports specialization increase
negative outcomes and reduce the opportunity for success in young athletes? Sports Health 7(5): 437-442,
2015.
100. NCAA. 2020-21 NCAA Division I Manual, 2020. https://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4605-2020-2021-ncaa-
division-i-manual.aspx
101. Nimphius, S. Increasing agility. In: High-Performance Training for Sports. D. Joyce and D. Lewindon, eds.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2014. pp.185-197.
102. O’Sullivan, D. Concurrent strength/power and endurance training of players in elite football codes: A brief
review. J Australian Strength Cond 21(1): 52-57, 2013.
103. Otte, FW, Millar, SK, & Klatt, S. Skill training periodization in “specialist” sports coaching—an introduction of the
“PoST” framework for skill development. Front Sports Act Living 1: 61, 2019.
104. Parker, J, Miller, A, Panariello, R. The System: Soviet periodization adapted for the American strength coach.
Apton, CA: On Target Publications, 2018.
105. Perez, JR, Burke, J., Zalikha, AK, et al. The effect of Thursday night games on in-game injury rates in the National
Football League. Am J Sports Medi 48(8): 1999-2003, 2020.
106. Petré, H, Hemmingsson, E, Rosdahl, H, Psilander, N. Development of maximal dynamic strength during
concurrent resistance and endurance training in untrained, moderately trained, and trained individuals: A
systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med 51(5): 991-1010, 2021.
107. Platonov, V. Sports Training Periodization. General Theory and its Practical Application. Kiev, Ukraine: Olimpic
Literature, 2013.
108. Plisk, SS, Stone, MH. Periodization strategies. Strength Cond J 25(6): 19-37, 2003.
109. Rothwell, M, Davids, K, Stone, J, et al. A department of methodology can coordinate transdisciplinary sport
science support. J Expertise 3(1): 55-65, 2020.
110. Sands, WA, Apostolopoulos, N, Kavanaugh, AA, & Stone, MH. Recovery-adaptation. Strength Cond J 38(6): 10-
26, 2016.
111. Schelling, X, Torres-Ronda, L. Conditioning for basketball: Quality and quantity of training. Strength Cond
J 35(6): 89-94, 2013.
112. Schoenfeld, BJ. Does exercise-induced muscle damage play a role in skeletal muscle hypertrophy? J Strength
Cond Res 26(5): 1441-1453, 2012.
113. Sheppard, JM, Young, WB. Agility literature review: Classifications, training and testing. J Sports Sci 24(9): 919-
932, 2006.
114. Sheppard, JM, Dawes, JJ, Jeffreys, I, Spiteri, T, Nimphius, S. Broadening the view of agility: A scientific review of
the literature. J Australian Strength Cond 22(3): 6-25, 2014.
115. Sheppard, JM, Triplett, NT. Program design for resistance training. In: Essentials of Strength Training and
Conditioning (4th edition), G. G. Haff & N. T. Triplett, eds. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2015. pp. 439-470.
116. Siff, MC. Supertraining (6th edition). Denver, CO: Supertraining Institute, 2003.
117. Singh, M, Bird, S, Charest, J, Huyghe, T, Calleja-Gonzalez, J. Urgent wake up call for the National Basketball
Association. J Clin Sleep Med 17(2): 243-248, 2021.
118. Smoot, MK, Amendola, A, Cramer, E, et al. A cluster of exertional rhabdomyolysis affecting a Division I football
team. Clin J Sport Med 23(5): 365-372, 2013.
119. Soligard, T, Schwellnus, M, Alonso, JM, et al. How much is too much?(Part 1) International Olympic Committee
consensus statement on load in sport and risk of injury. Brit J Sports Med 50(17): 1030-1041, 2016.
120. Souglis, A, Bogdanis, GC, Chryssanthopoulos, C, Apostolidis, N, Geladas, ND. Time course of oxidative stress,
inflammation, and muscle damage markers for 5 days after a soccer match: effects of sex and playing
position. J Strength Cond Res 32(7): 2045-2054, 2018.
121. Spiteri, T, Nimphius, S, Hart, NH. Contribution of strength characteristics to change of direction and agility
performance in female basketball athletes. J Strength Cond Res 28(9): 2415-2423, 2014.
122. Sporer, BC, Windt, J. Integrated performance support: facilitating effective and collaborative performance
teams. Brit J Sports Med 52: 1014-1015, 2018.
123. Stephenson, S, Gissane, C, Jennings, D. Injury in rugby league: A four year prospective survey. Brit J Sports
Med 30(4): 331-334, 1996.
124. Stone, MH, O’Bryant, HS, Schilling, BK, et al. Periodization: effects of manipulating volume and intensity. Part
1. Strength Cond J 21(2): 56-62, 1999.
125. Stone, MH, Sands, WA, Stone, ME. The downfall of sports science in the United States. Strength Cond J 26(2):
72-75, 2004.
126. Stone, MH, Stone, ME, and Sands, WA. Principles and Practice of Resistance Training. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics, 2007.
127. Stone, MH, Hornsby, WG, Haff, GG, et al. Periodization and block periodization in sports: emphasis on strength-
power training—a provocative and challenging narrative. J Strength Cond Res 35(8): 2351-2371, 2021.
128. Suarez, DG, Wagle, JP, Cunanan, AJ, Sausaman, RW, Stone, MH. Dynamic correspondence of resistance training
to sport: A brief review. Strength Cond J 41(4): 80-88, 2019.
129. Suchomel, TJ, Nimphius, S, Stone, MH. The importance of muscular strength in athletic performance. Sports
Med 46(10): 1419-1449, 2016.
130. Tavares, F, Walker, O, Healey, P, Smith, TB, Driller, M. Practical applications of water immersion recovery
modalities for team sports. Strength Cond J 40(4): 48-60, 2018.
131. Taylor, L, Watkins, SL, Marshall, H, Dascombe, BJ, Foster, J. The impact of different environmental conditions on
cognitive function: A focused review. Front Physiol 6: 372, 2016.
132. Taylor, JB, Wright, AA, Dischiavi, SL, Townsend, MA, Marmon, AR. Activity demands during multi-directional
team sports: a systematic review. Sports Med 47(12): 2533-2551, 2017.
133. Tee, JC, Ashford, M, & Piggott, D. A tactical periodization approach for rugby union. Strength Cond J 40(5): 1-13,
2018.
134. Tee, J, Diamandis, B, Vilk, A, Owen, C. Utilising a tactical periodization framework to simulate match demands
during rugby sevens training. SportRxiv, 2020. https://doi.org/10.31236/osf.io/d4jpm
135. Thornton, HR, Delaney, JA, Duthie, GM, Dascombe, BJ. Developing athlete monitoring systems in team sports:
Data analysis and visualization. Int J Sports Physiol Performance 14(6): 698-705, 2019.
136. Travis, SK, Mujika, I, Zwetsloot, KA, et al. The effects of 3 vs. 5 days of training cessation on maximal strength. J
Strength Cond Res 36(3): 633-640, 2022.
137. Turner, AN, Comfort, P, McMahon, J, et al. Developing powerful athletes, Part 1: Mechanical
underpinnings. Strength Cond J 42(3): 30-39, 2020.
138. Turner, AN, Comfort, P, McMahon, J, et al. Developing powerful athletes, Part 2: Practical applications. Strength
Cond J 43(1): 23-31, 2021.
139. Vachon, A, Berryman, N, Mujika, I, et al. Effects of tapering on neuromuscular and metabolic fitness in team
sports: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Sport Sci 21(3): 300-311, 2021.
140. Verkoshanky, Y, Verkoshansky, N. Special Strength Training Manual for Coaches. Rome, Italy: Verkoshansky
SSTM, 2011.
141. Vitale, KC, Owens, R, Hopkins, SR, Malhotra, A. Sleep hygiene for optimizing recovery in athletes: review and
recommendations. Int J Sports Med 40(08): 535-543, 2019.
142. Wellman, AD, Coad, SC, Flynn, PJ, Climstein, M, & McLellan, CP. Movement demands and perceived wellness
associated with preseason training camp in NCAA Division I college football players. J Strength Cond
Res 31(10): 2704-2718, 2017.
143. West, SW, Clubb, J, Torres-Ronda, L, et al. More than a metric: How training load is used in elite sport for
athlete management. Int J Sports Med 42(4): 300-306, 2021.
144. Wheeler, KW, Sayers, MG. Modification of agility running technique in reaction to a defender in rugby union. J
Sports Sci Med 9(3): 445-451, 2010.
145. Wing, CE, Turner, AN, Bishop, CJ. Importance of strength and power on key performance indicators in elite
youth soccer. J Strength Cond Res 34(7): 2006-2014, 2020.
146. Young, WB, James, R, Montgomery, I. Is muscle power related to running speed with changes of direction? J
Sports Med Physical Fitness 42(3): 282-288, 2002.
147. Young, W, Farrow, D. The importance of a sport-specific stimulus for training agility. Strength Cond J 35(2): 39-
43, 2013.
148. Zatsiorsky, VM, Kraemer, WJ. Science and Practice of Strength Training (2nd edition). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics, 2006.