Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Short to Long with Team Sports

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    New Castle, Pa
    Posts
    14

    Short to Long with Team Sports

    In "Inside the SPP" Charlie breaks down the short to long approach and details the series of special endurance 60m runs with incomplete recovery. It is apparent that team sport athletes should follow short to long rather than long to short because as Charlie has said, there is no reason for them to be running 600s and the like.

    On the other hand, the High Intensity Training for Sport graphic shows that special endurance is not a quality needed for team sport athletes. Therefore, how should the short to long program be altered to account for this?

    There seem to be some issues here. First, due to mandates by the governing bodies of the sport and/or collective bargaining agreements, there is simply not enough time to perform all runs with complete recovery without sacrificing volume substantially.

    If sticking with 60 meter runs with recoveries approaching 10 minutes between reps, it is only feasible to perform perhaps 3 to 4 reps (factoring in the warm-up and assuming there is also a lift that day because again, time is limited). If the distance is reduced to 40m and rest between reps is dropped to 5 minutes, you're probably looking at something like 2x4x40 at the most.

    These volumes may be fine for sports like soccer which will have a lower ratio of high intensity to low intensity training. But for sports with a large speed component like football, would these low volumes be enough to stimulate adaptation or would you be better off with higher volumes and incomplete recovery (2-3 min) but thus entering the special endurance zone?

    Also, what might be the very lower limit of "complete recovery"? Could you perhaps get away with 60m runs with 5 min between reps, so that sufficient volume is achieved without pushing too much lactate?

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Charlotte N.C.
    Posts
    2,249

    Re: Short to Long with Team Sports

    Quote Originally Posted by Swogger View Post
    In "Inside the SPP" Charlie breaks down the short to long approach and details the series of special endurance 60m runs with incomplete recovery. It is apparent that team sport athletes should follow short to long rather than long to short because as Charlie has said, there is no reason for them to be running 600s and the like.

    On the other hand, the High Intensity Training for Sport graphic shows that special endurance is not a quality needed for team sport athletes. Therefore, how should the short to long program be altered to account for this?

    There seem to be some issues here. First, due to mandates by the governing bodies of the sport and/or collective bargaining agreements, there is simply not enough time to perform all runs with complete recovery without sacrificing volume substantially.

    If sticking with 60 meter runs with recoveries approaching 10 minutes between reps, it is only feasible to perform perhaps 3 to 4 reps (factoring in the warm-up and assuming there is also a lift that day because again, time is limited). If the distance is reduced to 40m and rest between reps is dropped to 5 minutes, you're probably looking at something like 2x4x40 at the most.

    These volumes may be fine for sports like soccer which will have a lower ratio of high intensity to low intensity training. But for sports with a large speed component like football, would these low volumes be enough to stimulate adaptation or would you be better off with higher volumes and incomplete recovery (2-3 min) but thus entering the special endurance zone?

    Also, what might be the very lower limit of "complete recovery"? Could you perhaps get away with 60m runs with 5 min between reps, so that sufficient volume is achieved without pushing too much lactate?
    I have lectured and written on this extensively Swogger (regarding the application of CFTS to team sports). In my Applied Sprint training book you can see outlines for a variety of sports where I've integrated Charlie's protocols into the preparation (including split 60m special endurance sprints).

    What's more, the concept of S-L, L-S, and aggregate approaches should ultimately be applied to the concept of sport practice itself in which all modes of preparation are accounted for in the scheme just as you see Charlie outline in the Inside the SPP in which the schematic accounts for all work done, not just sprinting.

    In this way, the sport coaches must educate themselves to the point where all work, not just sport practice, is part of their acumen.

    As for only the speed work, which you are asking about, the predominance of pure sprint work will come in the form of acceleration development. In this way, a S-L scheme would begin with the GPP using a hill or sled and not exceed 30-40m per rep and as the end of the GPP approaches you then transition the athlete to the flat yet need not exceed the 30-40m mark save for moderate volumes of work either in the max V range or flying sprints.

    Remember, that it's not a best of 10 contest regarding the volume required to advance speed- particularly regarding team sport athletes who are virtually uneducated in the realm of actual alactic speed work. The magnitude of stimulus necessary to advance the organism is largely proportional to the event requirements and task specific work history/trainedness of the athlete. In this way, the predominance of team sport athletes, due to their limited experience with high quality pure speed work, are fine with total speed work volumes that are much smaller than what a season track sprinter requires to advance their own speed.

    I suggest that you always respect quality over quantity so do not be afraid of small volume workloads of pure speed work because the intensity is what is required to advance speed and if you limit the recoveries too much the athletes will be too fatigued to hit their max acceleration or velocity and at that point you cease to develop speed.

    Lastly, don't be too quick to make your living off of 60m work alone because very few team sport athletes are fast enough to accelerate out to that mark and, as a result, will hit their max V long before they reach 60m.

  3. #3
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    3,048

    Re: Short to Long with Team Sports

    The exact ‘team sport’ in question is a critical factor.
    NFL is completely different from soccer as is hockey, this will affect the need (if any for ‘special endurance’ and/or anaerobic power & capacity).

    Alactic ‘power’, is shared by all sports however.

    The main consideration that differentiates training in team sport and training for individual sports is the nature of the total training effect. In team sports you have less control than track for example. IMO the key is to add in your own time the quality, in the optimal (i.e. minimal) dosage using the optimal method for you.

    As James said above, straight line 60m is not relevant in any team sport.

  4. #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    New Castle, Pa
    Posts
    14

    Re: Short to Long with Team Sports

    Thanks for the insight. James, you bring up a good point about sport practice. Clearly, the first priority should be to complement the practice schedule so that even the best-laid plan will likely need adjusted. But broadly speaking, due to the decreased need for pure speed volume compared to a track athlete, would that then allow for the inclusion of more plyos, explosive med ball throws, and olympic lifts for team sports? Just as Charlie supplemented the 60m split runs with increasing amounts of starts and accels, in a similar way for team sports the starts and accels could be the main ingredient and the plyos, med balls, olympic lifts be the "extra" that increases throughout the SPP to maintain a somewhat constant volume as speed intensity rises.

    So perhaps the total training load throughout the SPP would be similar for the sprinter (made up almost entirely of speed work) and team athlete (much less speed volume but supplemented with more plyo, med ball, olympic lifts). In this way, a more appropriate training means is used as the primary component (accels and short distance speed as opposed to speed endurance) while the supplementary provides additional volume towards the left of the F/T curve.

    Of course, as No23 points out, this is all context-specific but I'm just speaking in general terms.

    I wasn't aware your Applied Sprint Training book was directed toward team sports, I will certainly be purchasing a copy.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Charlotte N.C.
    Posts
    2,249

    Re: Short to Long with Team Sports

    Quote Originally Posted by Swogger View Post
    Thanks for the insight. James, you bring up a good point about sport practice. Clearly, the first priority should be to complement the practice schedule so that even the best-laid plan will likely need adjusted. But broadly speaking, due to the decreased need for pure speed volume compared to a track athlete, would that then allow for the inclusion of more plyos, explosive med ball throws, and olympic lifts for team sports? Just as Charlie supplemented the 60m split runs with increasing amounts of starts and accels, in a similar way for team sports the starts and accels could be the main ingredient and the plyos, med balls, olympic lifts be the "extra" that increases throughout the SPP to maintain a somewhat constant volume as speed intensity rises.

    So perhaps the total training load throughout the SPP would be similar for the sprinter (made up almost entirely of speed work) and team athlete (much less speed volume but supplemented with more plyo, med ball, olympic lifts). In this way, a more appropriate training means is used as the primary component (accels and short distance speed as opposed to speed endurance) while the supplementary provides additional volume towards the left of the F/T curve.

    Of course, as No23 points out, this is all context-specific but I'm just speaking in general terms.

    I wasn't aware your Applied Sprint Training book was directed toward team sports, I will certainly be purchasing a copy.
    Regarding the training load components, we must go further and pursue all inclusive discourse related to sport performance. Think of this as an "on balance" discussion that is unicorn of sports related dialogue. This mandates, that we speak from the standpoint of global authority and therefore postulate that we are the despots of a sports organizations and the head coach is simply just one of our assistants.

    In this way, we may classify all preparatory actions (psychological, analytical/intellectual, sensorimotor, technical, tactical, physical, physiotherapeutic) according to movement based or not. We then ensure that the programming and organization of all movement preparation is consistent with the logic, for example, laid out in the SPP such that the primary load component is the basis from which perspective is gained and all additional load components serve their supportive roles.

    Thus I encourage you to think globally and recognize that the "more appropriate training means used as the primary component" will then become the designated specialized movement forms that both constitute and contribute to advanced sport form. sprint work is surely a large part of this; however, in no way constitutes the movement preparation required to advance the spectrum of sport skills.

    If you're not already aware, I have a lecture site (globalsportconcepts.net) in which I discuss such matters at length; having already posted over 60 distinct lectures and my next book addresses this directly.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Charlotte N.C.
    Posts
    2,249

    Re: Short to Long with Team Sports

    Quote Originally Posted by Swogger View Post
    Thanks for the insight. James, you bring up a good point about sport practice. Clearly, the first priority should be to complement the practice schedule so that even the best-laid plan will likely need adjusted. But broadly speaking, due to the decreased need for pure speed volume compared to a track athlete, would that then allow for the inclusion of more plyos, explosive med ball throws, and olympic lifts for team sports? Just as Charlie supplemented the 60m split runs with increasing amounts of starts and accels, in a similar way for team sports the starts and accels could be the main ingredient and the plyos, med balls, olympic lifts be the "extra" that increases throughout the SPP to maintain a somewhat constant volume as speed intensity rises.

    So perhaps the total training load throughout the SPP would be similar for the sprinter (made up almost entirely of speed work) and team athlete (much less speed volume but supplemented with more plyo, med ball, olympic lifts). In this way, a more appropriate training means is used as the primary component (accels and short distance speed as opposed to speed endurance) while the supplementary provides additional volume towards the left of the F/T curve.

    Of course, as No23 points out, this is all context-specific but I'm just speaking in general terms.

    I wasn't aware your Applied Sprint Training book was directed toward team sports, I will certainly be purchasing a copy.
    Regarding the training load components, we must go further and pursue all inclusive discourse related to sport performance. Think of this as an "on balance" discussion that is unicorn of sports related dialogue. This mandates, that we speak from the standpoint of global authority and therefore postulate that we are the despots of a sports organizations and the head coach is simply just one of our assistants.

    In this way, we may classify all preparatory actions (psychological, analytical/intellectual, sensorimotor, technical, tactical, physical, physiotherapeutic) according to movement based or not. We then ensure that the programming and organization of all movement preparation is consistent with the logic, for example, laid out in the SPP such that the primary load component is the basis from which perspective is gained and all additional load components serve their supportive roles.

    Thus I encourage you to think globally and recognize that the "more appropriate training means used as the primary component" will then become the designated specialized movement forms that both constitute and contribute to advanced sport form. sprint work is surely a large part of this; however, in no way constitutes the movement preparation required to advance the spectrum of sport skills.

    If you're not already aware, I have a lecture site (globalsportconcepts.net) in which I discuss such matters at length; having already posted over 60 distinct lectures and my next book addresses this directly.

  7. #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    New Castle, Pa
    Posts
    14

    Re: Short to Long with Team Sports

    Good stuff. I want to get deeper into this concept so I'll check out your site. Thinking in these global terms makes me realize how much more control and potential for improvement there is over a track or swimming athlete where the coach handles all load components at all times.

  8. #8
    Administrator Angela Coon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,739

    Re: Short to Long with Team Sports

    Preseason Training Week 1 of 6

    Monday Speed work ( J. M . Wide Receiver Kansas City May 2002)

    Warm up
    Stretching / Strides to warm up 4 x 100meters
    Spikes
    3 x 20 meters , 2 x 30 meters, 2 x 40 meters , 2 x 50 meters
    2 m rest ( 4) 2.5 m rest (5) 3.5 m rest (7) 4.5 m rest

    Wednesday Speed Work

    Warm up same as Monday
    Spikes
    4 x 30 m, 2 x ( 3 x 60m)
    2 m rest between runs for 30 meters / take 5 minutes rest before 60’s
    3.5 m rest between 60m runs, 7 minutes

    FAST FORWARD TO WEEK 6 same athlete ( J.M.) and the same program

    Monday
    Warm up same
    Spikes
    30m , 40m, 50m, 50m
    4m, 6m, 8m rest

    Wednesday
    Warm up same
    Spikes
    30m, 40m, 50m, 60 m, 80m
    4,6,8, 10 or 11m rest between sets

    Friday
    Warm up same
    3x20m, 3. 30 meters, 3x 60 meters
    3.5 m (5) 4.5 m ( 10 ) 8 min
    Last edited by Angela Coon; 11-25-2015 at 02:05 PM.

  9. #9
    Administrator Angela Coon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,739

    Re: Short to Long with Team Sports

    Quote Originally Posted by no23 View Post
    The exact ‘team sport’ in question is a critical factor.
    NFL is completely different from soccer as is hockey, this will affect the need (if any for ‘special endurance’ and/or anaerobic power & capacity).

    Alactic ‘power’, is shared by all sports however.

    The main consideration that differentiates training in team sport and training for individual sports is the nature of the total training effect. In team sports you have less control than track for example. IMO the key is to add in your own time the quality, in the optimal (i.e. minimal) dosage using the optimal method for you.

    As James said above, straight line 60m is not relevant in any team sport.
    Take a look at this speed work regarding how 'relevant" 60 meter sprints may or may not be.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Charlotte N.C.
    Posts
    2,249

    Re: Short to Long with Team Sports

    Quote Originally Posted by Swogger View Post
    Good stuff. I want to get deeper into this concept so I'll check out your site. Thinking in these global terms makes me realize how much more control and potential for improvement there is over a track or swimming athlete where the coach handles all load components at all times.
    Precisely! The global load management presented by Charlie in all of his products must be assimilated by all coaches regardless if it's over 100 collegiate American football athletes on a team or a single sprinter; the premise is exactly the same.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •