“Physical Demands of Match-Play in Successful and Less-Successful Elite Rugby League Teams”
by Hulin BT, Gabbett TJ, Kearney S, Corvo A
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2014 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Note. This article will be published in a forthcoming issue of the
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. The
article appears here in its accepted, peer-reviewed form, as it was
provided by the submitting author. It has not been copyedited,
proofread, or formatted by the publisher.
Section: Original Investigation
Article Title: Physical Demands of Match-Play in Successful and Less-Successful Elite
Rugby League Teams
Authors: Billy T. Hulin1,2, Tim J. Gabbett1,3, Simon Kearney4 and Alex Corvo4
Affiliations: 1School of Exercise Science, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane,
Australia. 2School of Medicine, The University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.
3
School of Human Movement Studies, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
4
Melbourne Storm Rugby League Club, Melbourne, Australia.
Journal: International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
Acceptance Date: August 13, 2014
©2014 Human Kinetics, Inc.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2014-0080
“Physical Demands of Match-Play in Successful and Less-Successful Elite Rugby League Teams”
by Hulin BT, Gabbett TJ, Kearney S, Corvo A
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2014 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Running Title: PHYSICAL DEMANDS OF RUGBY LEAGUE
Physical demands of match-play in successful and less-successful elite rugby league
teams
Billy T. Hulin1,2, Tim J. Gabbett1,3, Simon Kearney4 and Alex Corvo4
1
School of Exercise Science, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, Australia
2
3
School of Medicine, The University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia
School of Human Movement Studies, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
4
Melbourne Storm Rugby League Club, Melbourne, Australia
Correspondence to:
Dr. Tim Gabbett
School of Exercise Science,
Australian Catholic University,
Brisbane, 4014, AUSTRALIA
Email: [email protected]
Submission Type: Original Investigation
Abstract Word Count: 250 Words
Text-Only Word Count: 3445 Words
Number of Figures and Tables: 1 Table, 3 Figures
“Physical Demands of Match-Play in Successful and Less-Successful Elite Rugby League Teams”
by Hulin BT, Gabbett TJ, Kearney S, Corvo A
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2014 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Abstract
Purpose: This study: (1) quantified activity profiles in approximately 5-minute periods to
determine if the intensity of rugby league match-play changes following the most intense
period of play, and (2) examined if the intensity of activity during predefined periods of
match-play differed between successful and less-successful teams playing at an elite standard.
Methods: Movement was recorded using a minimaxX global positioning system (GPS) unit
(Catapult Innovations, Melbourne, Australia) sampling at 10 Hz during 25 rugby league
matches, equating to 200 GPS files. Data for each half of match-play were separated into 8
equal periods. These periods represented: (1) the most intense phase of match-play (peak
period), (2) the period following the most intense phase of match-play (subsequent period),
and (3) the average demands of all other periods within a match (mean period). Two rugby
league teams were split into a ‘high-success’ or ‘low-success’ group based on their success
rates throughout their season. Results: Compared with their less-successful counterparts,
adjustables, and hit-up forwards from the high-success team covered less total distance
(P<0.01), less high-intensity running distance (P<0.01), and were involved in a greater
number of collisions (P<0.01) during the mean period of match-play.
Conclusions:
Although a greater number of collisions during match-play is linked with a greater rate of
success, greater amounts of high-intensity running and total distance are not related to
competitive success in elite rugby league. These results suggest that technical and tactical
differences, rather than activity profiles, may be the distinguishing factor between successful
and less successful rugby league teams.
Keywords: winning; losing; activity profiles; team sport; time-motion analysis
“Physical Demands of Match-Play in Successful and Less-Successful Elite Rugby League Teams”
by Hulin BT, Gabbett TJ, Kearney S, Corvo A
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2014 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Rugby league is an international team sport that is 80 minutes (2 x 40-minute halves)
in duration.1,2 Like Australian football,3,4 soccer,5-7and hockey,8 rugby league involves brief
periods of high-intensity running interspersed with longer periods of low-intensity activity.911
Rugby league players are often required to perform collisions, accelerations, and high-
speed running efforts with minimal recovery between efforts.11 Three or more sprints, highintensity accelerations, or tackles with less than 21 seconds recovery between high-intensity
efforts has been defined as a repeated high-intensity effort bout.9,11 Interestingly, 70% of all
repeated high-intensity effort bouts occur in the 5-minute period preceding a try.9 Clearly,
even though high-intensity exercise represents the minority of rugby league match-play,9-11
success (or lack of success) may be influenced by a team’s ability (or inability) to perform
repeated bouts of high-intensity activity.
In soccer, temporary reductions in high-intensity activity follow the most intense
passages of play.5,6,12-14 Mohr et al14 established that in the 5-minute period following the
greatest amount of high-intensity running, there was a 12% reduction in high-intensity
running compared with the average demands of a match. A more recent study has also
shown that high-intensity running decreases below the match average in the 5-minute period
subsequent to the most intense phase of the game, and then recovers in the following 5minute period.6 However, it has also been demonstrated that ‘ball-in-play’ time can differ
between 5-minute periods of match-play, therefore limiting the opportunity to perform
physical work.15 Given that rugby league also has periods of intermittent high-intensity
running coupled with collisions,11 these methods of investigating temporary reductions in
performance within a match could offer valuable insight into the performance fluctuations of
rugby league match-play. Furthermore, given that recent evidence has demonstrated that the
phase of play (i.e. attacking or defending) can affect the physical demands of match-play,16
“Physical Demands of Match-Play in Successful and Less-Successful Elite Rugby League Teams”
by Hulin BT, Gabbett TJ, Kearney S, Corvo A
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2014 Human Kinetics, Inc.
this factor must be considered, along with other confounding variables such as ball-in-play
time.17
Kempton et al18 examined the effect of the most intense period of match-play on
physical and technical performance in elite senior and junior ‘ball-playing’ positions (i.e.
hooker, halfback, five-eighth, and fullback) within rugby league teams having low success
rates (elite, 36% of matches won; junior elite, 13% of matches won). These ‘ball-playing’
positions have an important role of providing team structure and coordinating attacking
movements,19 and the number and quality of their skill performances have been shown to
reduce in the 5-minute period following the peak intensity period of match-play.18 However,
given that the ability to execute a range of skills under fatigue is able to discriminate between
players competing at different levels of competition,20 these findings18 may not be
representative of the fatigue response of players from teams with higher success rates.
There is currently a lack of evidence relating to differences in the intensity of matchplay between successful and less successful teams in rugby league. Although one study
demonstrated increases in total distance were related to greater competitive success of one
team,21 there is a paucity of evidence comparing separate teams with high- and low-success
rates. Studies from soccer have demonstrated that teams finishing in the bottom five ladder
positions cover greater high-intensity running distance than teams finishing in the top five
positions.22 In contrast with earlier studies14 it has been highlighted that teams competing in
higher divisions of competition cover less total distance and less high-speed distance than
teams competing in lower divisions of competition.23 One of the few studies that have
investigated match intensities between successful and less-successful rugby league teams was
conducted by dividing first and second half data into quartiles.24 The results demonstrated
that playing intensities during the selected quartiles of match-play differed between winning
and losing semi-elite rugby league teams, with winning teams producing higher intensities
“Physical Demands of Match-Play in Successful and Less-Successful Elite Rugby League Teams”
by Hulin BT, Gabbett TJ, Kearney S, Corvo A
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2014 Human Kinetics, Inc.
than losing teams.24 Although this study24 only investigated these relationships amongst
hookers, second-rowers, and locks (i.e. backs and props were excluded), the findings clearly
show that match intensities differ between successful and less-successful semi-elite rugby
league teams. However, whether these relationships remain consistent amongst elite teams
and all positional groups remains unclear.
Further additions to the understanding of rugby league activity profiles could be
offered by investigating differences in segmental activity profiles of: (1) all positional groups
during a rugby league match, and (2) successful and less-successful rugby league teams.
Given that differences have been shown between whole-match activity profiles of winning
and losing teams,21,25 differences in the within-match activity profiles may also exist between
successful and less-successful teams.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to: (1)
quantify activity profiles in approximately 5-minute periods to determine if the intensity of
rugby league match-play changes following the most intense period of play, and (2) examine
if the intensity of activity during predefined periods of match-play differs between successful
and less-successful teams playing at an elite standard. In addition, we aimed to account for
contextual factors such as ball-in-play and time in attack and defense.
Methods
Participants
Thirty-one players (mean ± SD age; 24.8 ± 3.1 yr) from two elite rugby league teams
participated in this study. Participants were competing in the Australian National Rugby
League competition. All participants received a clear explanation of the study, including
information on the risks and benefits, and written consent was obtained. All experimental
procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board for Human Investigation.
“Physical Demands of Match-Play in Successful and Less-Successful Elite Rugby League Teams”
by Hulin BT, Gabbett TJ, Kearney S, Corvo A
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2014 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Comparison of High- and Low-Success Teams
Teams were split into ‘high-success’ and ‘low-success’ groups based on the
percentage of matches won throughout the team’s season. The high-success team won 71%
of matches played, whereas the low-success team won 58% of matches played. Although the
difference in the percentage of matches won between the high- and low-success teams (71%
vs. 58%) may be considered small in a numerical sense, a difference of 13% in the most
recent (2013) rugby league season, differentiated between teams finishing with a final ladder
position of 13th and 6th, with the former being excluded from the finals series and the latter
being rewarded with a finals series match played on their home ground. Therefore, although
these differences may be considered small, the consequences of such a difference could be
quite large.
Global Positioning System Analysis
Global positioning system (GPS) analysis was completed during 25 elite matches (15
for the high-success team, 10 for the low-success team), equating to 200 GPS files. The
mean (± SD) satellite availability for GPS data samples was 12 ± 1 (high-success team) and
11 ± 2 (low-success team). Positional groups were categorized into adjustables (hooker,
halfback, five-eighth, and fullback), hit-up forwards (props, second-rowers, and locks), and
outside backs (centre and wing).9 As this study intended to quantify differences between
successful and less-successful teams, interchange players were included in the analysis in
order to investigate the activity profiles of each team as a whole.
Movement was recorded using a minimaxX GPS unit (Team S4, Catapult
Innovations, Melbourne, Australia) sampling at 10 Hz. The GPS signal provided information
on velocity, distance, position, and acceleration. The GPS unit also included a tri-axial
accelerometer and gyroscope sampling at 100 Hz, which provided information on physical
“Physical Demands of Match-Play in Successful and Less-Successful Elite Rugby League Teams”
by Hulin BT, Gabbett TJ, Kearney S, Corvo A
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2014 Human Kinetics, Inc.
collisions and repeated high-intensity efforts. The unit was worn in a small vest, on the upper
back of the players.
While recommendations for reporting GPS data have been presented,26 there is
generally a wide range of reporting methods employed in the scientific literature.11,27,28 To
date, there are no standardized methods for reporting velocity ‘zones’, and several definitions
of what constitutes an ‘effort’ 3,11,26 Previous studies of team sport demands have employed 5
Hz technology,11,28 and as such have employed broad movement velocity bands due to the
larger measurement error with lower sampling frequencies.29,30 To allow comparisons with
other researchers,11 data were categorized into: (1) movement velocity bands corresponding
to low (0-5 m.s-1) and high (>5 m.s-1) intensities, with total distance covered being
represented by the summation of distances covered at these 2 intensity bands, (2) number of
collisions; and (3) repeated high-intensity effort bouts. A repeated high-intensity effort bout
was defined as 3 or more high acceleration (≥2.79 m.s-2),3 high velocity, or contact efforts
with less than 21 seconds recovery between efforts.11 All data were analyzed using Catapult
Sprint software (version 5.1.0.1). The 10 Hz minimaxX units have been shown to have
acceptable validity and reliability for measuring sprinting velocities and accelerations.30,31
The minimaxX units have also been shown to offer a valid measurement of collisions32 and
repeated high-intensity efforts33 commonly observed in rugby league.
Segmental Data Analysis
Commercially available match footage was coded for activity and recovery cycles by
a member of the research team. Time when the ball was continuously in play was considered
activity, while any stoppages during the match (e.g., for scrums, penalties, line drop-outs,
tries, and video referee decisions) were considered recovery. The intra-observer reliability
was assessed by coding 10 randomly selected matches. The intraclass correlation coefficients
“Physical Demands of Match-Play in Successful and Less-Successful Elite Rugby League Teams”
by Hulin BT, Gabbett TJ, Kearney S, Corvo A
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2014 Human Kinetics, Inc.
and typical error of measurement for the coding of activity and recovery cycles was 0.95 and
1.2%, and 0.83 and 4.5%, respectively.
First and second half GPS and ball-in-play data for each match were separated into 8
equal periods (mean ± SD; 340 ± 28 seconds). Thus, each match was separated into 16
periods, of approximately 5-minutes, based on the duration of each half. All GPS variables
were analyzed in relation to the duration of each period.
Periods which contained the greatest ball-in-play time, total distance, high-intensity
running distance, number of collisions, and number of repeated high-intensity effort bouts
were identified and compared with the subsequent period, and the mean period (minus the
peak and subsequent period). These periods represented: (1) the most intense phase of
match-play (peak period), (2) the period following the most intense phase of match-play
(subsequent period), and (3) the average demands of all other periods within a match (mean
period). For the analysis of the peak, subsequent, and mean periods, files were eliminated
from the analysis when the peak period occurred before half-time, full-time, or the player
being interchanged.
These files were maintained in the dataset for the comparison of
predefined periods between the two teams with high- and low-success rates.
Statistical Analysis
Independent t-tests were used to compare means of high- and low-success teams for
the percentage of time spent in possession. Factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests
were used to identify differences between the peak, subsequent, and mean periods for the
same team and to identify differences between peak, subsequent, and mean periods of highand low-success teams. Any significant differences involving the two teams were followed
up using a Tukey honestly significant difference post hoc test. As multiple comparisons were
being made, a practical approach determining the scale of difference between high- and low-
“Physical Demands of Match-Play in Successful and Less-Successful Elite Rugby League Teams”
by Hulin BT, Gabbett TJ, Kearney S, Corvo A
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2014 Human Kinetics, Inc.
success teams was utilized for the analysis of the physical demands across pre-defined
periods. Specifically, Cohen’s effect size (ES) statistic and 90% confidence intervals (CI)
were used to determine the magnitude of any differences.34 The magnitude of the ES was
classified as trivial (<0.2), small (0.21–0.6), moderate (0.61–1.2), large (1.21–2.0) and very
large (>2.1).35 Statistical significance was set at P<0.05. Data are reported as mean ±
standard deviation.
Results
Ball-in-play
The high- and low-success teams peak period of ball-in-play was significantly
different from their subsequent (P = 0.002, ES = 1.4 ± 0.2, P = 0.001, ES = 1.4 ± 0.3,
respectively), and mean period (P = 0.001, ES = 1.9 ± 0.7, P = 0.001, ES = 1.7 ± 0.2,
respectively).
No significant differences were found between the peak (P = 0.558),
subsequent (P = 0.654), and mean ball-in-play periods (P = 0.867) of high- and low-success
teams (Figure 1A). Trivial to small differences (ES = 0.1–0.3 ± 0.2) were found between
ball-in-play periods of high- and low-success teams across pre-defined periods of match-play
(Figure 1B).
Percentage of match-play spent in possession of the ball
No significant difference (51.1% ± 4.9 vs. 49.9% ± 5.2, P = 0.569) was found
between the amount of time high- and low-success teams spent in possession of the ball (i.e.
in attack) (Table 1).
Peak, Subsequent, and Mean Periods
Figure 2 shows the total distance covered, high-intensity running distances covered,
number of collisions per minute, and number of repeated high-intensity effort bouts per
minute in the high-, and low-success teams during the peak, subsequent, and mean periods.
“Physical Demands of Match-Play in Successful and Less-Successful Elite Rugby League Teams”
by Hulin BT, Gabbett TJ, Kearney S, Corvo A
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2014 Human Kinetics, Inc.
The peak period contained higher total distance for less-successful adjustables (126 ±
14 m.min-1 vs. 92 ± 12 m.min-1, P = 0.001, ES = 1.5 ± 0.4), hit-up forwards (126 ± 23 m.min-1
vs. 97 ± 10 m.min-1, P = 0.001, ES = 1.8 ± 0.6), and outside backs (121 ± 15 m.min-1 vs. 106 ±
17 m.min-1, P = 0.041, ES = 0.9 ± 0.7), compared with the successful adjustables, hit-up
forwards, and outside backs, respectively. Compared with their less-successful counterparts,
adjustables, hit-up forwards, and outside backs from the high-success team covered lower
total distance during the mean periods of match-play (69 ± 10 m.min-1 vs. 91 ± 14 m.min-1, P
= 0.001, ES = 1.4 ± 0.5), (67 ± 9 m.min-1 vs. 92 ± 9 m.min-1, P = 0.001, ES = 2.0 ± 0.3), and
(68 ± 12 m.min-1 vs. 88 ± 11 m.min-1, P = 0.001, ES = 1.3 ± 0.6), respectively .
High-intensity running distance was greater during the peak period for less-successful
adjustables (17 ± 7 m.min-1 vs. 8 ± 5 m.min-1, P = 0.001, ES = 1.1 ± 0.7), and hit-up forwards
(17 ± 7 m.min-1 vs. 9 ± 5 m.min-1, P = 0.001, ES = 1.4 ± 0.4), compared with successful
adjustables, and hit-up forwards, respectively. The mean period for high-intensity running
distance for adjustables, hit-up forwards, and outside backs from the high-success team
contained less high-intensity running distance, compared to the same positional groups with
lower success rates (adjustables, 2 ± 2 m.min-1 vs. 6 ± 2 m.min-1, P = 0.001, ES = 1.4 ± 0.6;
hit-up forwards, 3 ± 2 m.min-1 vs. 6 ± 2 m.min-1, P = 0.001, ES = 1.7 ± 0.4; outside backs, 5 ±
2 m.min-1 vs. 7 ± 2 m.min-1, P = 0.001, ES = 1.2 ± 0.7).
Adjustables from the high-success team were involved in more collisions per minute
than adjustables from the low-success team during the peak period (1.6 ± 0.5 vs. 1.1 ± 0.4, P
= 0.03, ES = 1.0 ± 0.5), and the mean period (0.8 ± 0.3 vs. 0.4 ± 0.3, P = 0.025, ES = 1.1 ±
0.6).
Successful hit-up forwards were involved in more collisions on average when
compared with less-successful hit-up forwards (0.8 ± 0.2 vs. 0.7 ± 0.2, P = 0.005, ES = 0.5 ±
0.3).
“Physical Demands of Match-Play in Successful and Less-Successful Elite Rugby League Teams”
by Hulin BT, Gabbett TJ, Kearney S, Corvo A
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2014 Human Kinetics, Inc.
In the peak period, hit-up forwards and outside backs with higher success rates were
involved in a smaller number of repeated high-intensity effort bouts per minute, compared
with hit-up forwards, and outside backs with low success rates (hit-up forwards, 0.3 ± 0.1 vs
0.5 ± 0.1, P = 0.008, ES = 0.7 ± 0.4; outside backs 0.2 ± 0.1 vs 0.4 ± 0.1, P = 0.009, ES = 1.2
± 0.7).
Physical Demands of Successful and Less-Successful Teams during Predefined
Periods
Figure 3 shows the physical demands of selected periods of match-play for the high-,
and low-success teams, for total distance covered (TD), high-intensity running distance
(HIR), number of collisions per minute, and number of repeated high-intensity effort bouts
per minute.
Adjustables from the low-success team covered greater total distance in periods 1, 3-9
and 11-16 (ES = 0.6-1.4 ± 0.5-1.0), greater high-intensity running distance in periods 1-5, 916 (ES = 0.8-1.4 ± 0.6-1.4) and were involved in fewer collisions during periods 3, 5, 7, 9-11
and 13 (ES = 0.8-1.0 ± 0.6-0.7) than adjustables from the high-success team.
Compared with hit-up forwards from the high-success team, low-success hit-up
forwards covered greater total distance in periods 2-16 (ES = 0.7-1.7 ± 0.4-0.5), greater highintensity running distance in periods 1, 3, 5, 6 and 8-16 (ES = 0.9-1.5 ± 0.8-1.1) and were
involved in fewer collisions during periods 1, 2 and 10 (ES = 0.6-0.7 ± 0.3-0.5).
Outside backs from the low-success team covered greater total distance in periods 2,
3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13 and 16 (ES = 1.0-1.3 ± 0.6-0.7), and greater high-intensity running distance
in periods 5, 8 and 16 (ES = 1.0-1.1 ± 0.6-0.7) than outside backs from the high-success
team.
“Physical Demands of Match-Play in Successful and Less-Successful Elite Rugby League Teams”
by Hulin BT, Gabbett TJ, Kearney S, Corvo A
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2014 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Discussion
This study is the first to investigate the activity profiles of rugby league match-play in
two elite teams with differing success rates. The present study provides conflicting results
with previous research.21 In a study of one rugby league team, it was demonstrated that
greater total distance was covered when winning than when losing, with the greater total
distance achieved through greater low-intensity (0-5m.s-1) distances (i.e. no differences
existed in high-intensity running distance between winning or losing).21 However, it should
be noted that the contrasting methods of the previous and present studies may explain these
conflicting results. Specifically, the present study investigated the activity profiles of two
separate teams with differing success rates (i.e. high-success team vs low-success team),
whereas others21 investigated the results of one team (i.e. one team when winning vs the same
team when losing). Therefore, our conflicting results may reflect: (1) technical and tactical
differences representing a greater distinguishing factor between successful and less successful
teams, or (2) success being the result of a multifactorial relationship between technical and
tactical effectiveness and activity profiles, more so than merely activity profiles in isolation.
In contrast to some14,21 but not all22,23,25 studies, our results highlight that an ability to
cover greater total distance, or greater high-intensity distance, does not result in greater
competitive success.
Moreover, our findings demonstrate that less-successful teams are
subjected to a greater running workload in terms of total distance covered and distance
covered at high-intensities.
Given that no significant differences were found for the
percentage of time the two teams spent in possession of the ball, the differences in the
average running demands is unlikely to be the result of a greater amount of time spent
defending, which has been shown to elicit greater running demands than attacking.16.
Furthermore, it has previously been hypothesized that the poorer match performance of
losing teams results in a greater amount of scrambling in defense, which in turn, increases the
“Physical Demands of Match-Play in Successful and Less-Successful Elite Rugby League Teams”
by Hulin BT, Gabbett TJ, Kearney S, Corvo A
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2014 Human Kinetics, Inc.
amount of high-intensity running performed.21 Indeed, poor defense and missed tackles in
rugby league may result in the need for players to cover-defend and pursue members of the
opposition, therefore resulting in greater high-intensity running distance.
Another novel finding of this study is that lower running workloads achieved by the
high-success team were coupled with a greater number of collisions than the low-success
team. Recent evidence may offer possible explanations for our results. Firstly, it has recently
been demonstrated that the inclusion of collisions to small-sided games challenges a player’s
ability to maintain running performance36,37,38 and results in elevated markers of muscle
damage.39 Therefore, the high-success team’s involvement in a greater number of collisions
may have resulted in a fatiguing effect, which reduced running performance. Secondly, we
would suggest a more plausible explanation is that the high-success cohort were able to
effectively slow the ‘play-the-ball’ while defending. This could be achieved by tactical
strategies that employ more players to complete each tackle on more occasions (i.e. 2 and 3
players per tackle on a greater number of occasions), effectively resulting in: (1) a greater
number of collisions, as more players are involved in each tackle and (2) a slower ‘play’ that
may not require the need for players to cover greater total distance or high-intensity distance.
In addition to the more successful cohort being involved in a greater number of
collisions, the more successful hit-up forwards were involved in a moderately greater number
of collisions during the initial periods of play (periods 1 and 2). These findings are not
surprising given that RHIE bouts that contain a greater number of contact efforts are more
likely to occur in higher level competitors.40 Collectively, these data highlight that to ensure
competitive success, not only is a player’s ability to be involved in repeated collisions vital,
but also these collisions must occur in greater numbers during the initial stages of a match.
Furthermore, the fact that our results demonstrated the greatest differences amongst hit-up
“Physical Demands of Match-Play in Successful and Less-Successful Elite Rugby League Teams”
by Hulin BT, Gabbett TJ, Kearney S, Corvo A
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2014 Human Kinetics, Inc.
forwards and adjustables may suggest that the workload of these positional groups have a
greater effect on team success than that of the outside backs.
The analysis of the physical demands throughout predefined periods demonstrates a
trend for the total distance and high-intensity running distance of the low-success team to
increase during the latter periods of the second half (Figure 2A,D,E,F). These findings
provide conflicting results to previous studies that have highlighted that physical output
decreases in the second half of match-play.6,41
However, recent evidence has also
demonstrated that teams completing the season in the bottom four positions of the ladder
increased their high-intensity running distance in the second half of matches, whereas teams
finishing in the middle four, and top four ladder positions decreased, and maintained highintensity running distance, respectively.42
These observations have been supported by
others,24 who have demonstrated that less-successful teams display a greater ‘end-spurt’ than
teams with higher success rates. The findings of the present and previous studies24,42 suggest
that increases in physical output during the latter stages of match-play may be linked with a
poorer rate of success. Furthermore, these increases in running workloads could be the result
of players preserving physical output during the earlier stages of match-play, therefore
facilitating an increase in intensity upon anticipating the end of the match.43 Alternatively,
this result may indeed be due to the inclusion of interchange players, a contrast in
methodology that should be noted when comparing our findings with others.41
Recent evidence has demonstrated that pre-defined periods underestimate the peak
demands of match-play, when compared with a rolling time scale (i.e. match intensities after
every time point for the next 5-min period).44 As such, we highlight that interpretation of
these results should be performed with caution, due to our segmental periods being predefined. Finally, as only trivial and small differences were found between the ball-in-play
time of the high- and low-success team across any of the pre-defined periods, we concluded
“Physical Demands of Match-Play in Successful and Less-Successful Elite Rugby League Teams”
by Hulin BT, Gabbett TJ, Kearney S, Corvo A
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2014 Human Kinetics, Inc.
that the differences in physical demands of the two teams is not the result of differences in
ball-in-play time. However, given that significant differences were found in ball-in-play time
across peak, subsequent, and mean periods, we are circumspect in suggesting that reductions
in physical output following the peak period were the result of fatigue, as opportunities to
perform physical work may have been limited.
Practical Applications
The results of this study demonstrate that compared with a more successful team, a
less successful team covers greater total distance, performs more high-intensity running, and
depending on position is involved in a greater number of repeated high-intensity effort bouts.
Therefore, these findings suggest that greater amounts of high-intensity activity and total
distance are not related to success in elite rugby league. Our data suggest that a greater
number of collisions are linked with a greater rate of success.
These findings are of
importance to coaches and sport scientists when interpreting time-motion analyses, as our
results may indicate that overall technical and tactical effectiveness of the team rather than
greater running workloads may indeed be a greater determinant of success, or success may be
dependent upon a myriad of factors unrelated to activity profiles.
Conclusion
Coaches and sport scientists should note that greater running workloads are not
indicative of success in elite rugby league match-play. These findings are of importance to
practitioners when interpreting time-motion analyses, as this may indicate that: (1) technical
and tactical differences may be the distinguishing factor between successful and less
successful teams, or (2) success is the result of a multifactorial relationship between technical
and tactical effectiveness and activity profiles, more so than merely activity profiles in
isolation.
“Physical Demands of Match-Play in Successful and Less-Successful Elite Rugby League Teams”
by Hulin BT, Gabbett TJ, Kearney S, Corvo A
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2014 Human Kinetics, Inc.
References
1.
Gabbett TJ. Science of rugby league football: A review. J Sports Sci. 2005; 23 (9):
961-976.
2.
Gabbett T, King T, Jenkins D. Applied physiology of rugby league. Sports Med.
2008; 38, (2): 119-138.
3.
Aughey RJ. Australian football player work rate: evidence of fatigue and pacing? Int
J Sports Physiol Perform. 2010; 5: 395-405.
4.
Brewer C, Dawson B, Heasman J, Stewart G, Cormack S. Movement pattern
comparisons in elite (AFL) and sub-elite (WAFL) Australian football games using
GPS. J Sci Med Sport. 2010; 13: 618-623.
5.
Bradley PS, Carling C, Archer D, Roberts J, Dodds A, Di Mascio, M, Paul D, Gomez
Diaz AG, Peart D, Krustrup P. The effect of playing formation on high-intensity
running and technical profiles in English FA premier league soccer matches. J Sports
Sci. 2011; 29(8): 821-830.
6.
Bradley PS, Noakes TD. Match running performance fluctuations in elite soccer:
Indicative of fatigue, pacing or situational influences? J Sports Sci. 2013; 31(15):
1627-1638.
7.
Di Salvo V, Baron R, Tschan H, Calderon Montero FJ, Bachl N, Pigozzi F.
Performance characteristics according to playing position in elite soccer. Int J Sports
Med. 2007; 28: 222-227.
8.
Spencer M, Lawrence S, Rechichi C, Bishop D, Dawson B, Goodman C. Timemotion analysis of elite field hockey, with special reference to repeated sprint activity.
J Sports Sci. 2004; 22: 843-850.
9.
Austin, DJ, Gabbett, TJ, Jenkins, DG. Repeated high-intensity exercise in a
professional rugby league. J Strength Cond Res. 2011; 25, (7): 1898-1904.
10.
Gabbett, TJ. Sprinting patterns of national rugby league competition. J Strength Cond
Res. 2012; 26 (1): 121-130.
11.
Gabbett TJ, Jenkins DG, Abernethy B. Physical demands of professional rugby league
training and competition using microtechnology. J Sci Med Sport. 2012; 15: 80-86.
12.
Bradley PS, Di Mascio M, Peart D, Olsen P, Sheldon B. High-intensity activity
profiles of elite soccer players at different performance levels. J Strength Cond Res.
2010; 24: 2343–2351.
13.
Di Mascio M, Bradley PS. Evaluation of the most intense period of high-intensity
running in English FA Premier League soccer matches. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;
27: 909–915.
14.
Mohr M, Krustrup P, Bangsbo J. Match performance of high-standard soccer players
with special reference to development of fatigue. J Sports Sci. 2003; 21: 519–528.
“Physical Demands of Match-Play in Successful and Less-Successful Elite Rugby League Teams”
by Hulin BT, Gabbett TJ, Kearney S, Corvo A
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2014 Human Kinetics, Inc.
15.
Carling C, Dupont G. Are declines in physical performance associated with a
reduction in skill-related performance during professional soccer match-play? J
Sports Sci. 2011;21:63–67.
16.
Gabbett TJ, Polley C, Dwyer DB, Kearney S, Corvo A. Influence of field position and
phase of play on the physical demands of match-play in professional rugby league
forwards. J Sci Med Sport. In Press, doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2013.08.002
17.
Carling C. Interpreting Physical Performance in Professional Soccer Match-Play:
Should We be More Pragmatic in Our Approach? Sports Med. 2013; 43:655–663.
18.
Kempton T, Sirotic AC, Cameron M, Coutts AJ. Match-related fatigue reduces
physical and technical performance during elite rugby league match-play: a case
study. J Sports Sci. 2013; 31 (16): 1770-1780.
19.
Sirotic AC, Knowles H, Catterick C, Coutts AJ. Positional match demands of elite
rugby league competition. J Strength Cond Res. 2011; 25: 3076–3087.
20.
Gabbett T, Kelly J, Pezet T. Relationship between physical fitness and playing ability
in rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res. 2007; 21: 1126–1133.
21.
Gabbett TJ. Influence of the opposing team on the physical demands of elite rugby
league match play. J Strength Cond Res. 2013; 27: 1629-1635.
22.
Di Salvo V, Gregson W, Atkinson G, Tordoff P, Drust B. Analysis of high intensity
activity in premier league soccer. Int J Sports Med. 2009; 30 (3): 205-212.
23.
Di Salvo V, Pigozzi F, González-Haro C, Laughlin MS, De Witt JK. Match
performance comparison in top English soccer leagues. Int J Sports Med. 2013; 34
(6): 526-532.
24.
Black GM., Gabbett TJ. Match intensity and pacing strategies in rugby league: An
examination of whole-game and interchange players, and winning and losing teams. J
Strength Cond Res. 2013. , 28 (6): 1507-1516.
25.
Rampinini E, Impellizzeri FM, Castagna C, Coutts AJ, Wisloff U. Technical
performance during soccer matches of the Italian Serie A league: Effect of fatigue and
competitive level. J Sci Med Sport, 2009; 12: 227-233.
26.
Dwyer DB, Gabbett TJ. Global positioning system data analysis: velocity ranges and
a new definition of sprinting for field sport athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2012; 26:
818-824.
27.
McLellan CP, Lovell DI, Gass G. Performance analysis of elite rugby league match
play using global positioning systems. J Strength Cond Res. 2011; 25: 1703-1710.
28.
Waldron M, Twist C, Highton J, Worsfold P, Daniels M. Movement and
physiological match demands of elite rugby league using portable global positioning
systems. J Sports. Sci. 2011; 29: 1223-1230.
29.
Jennings D, Cormack S, Coutts AJ, Boyd L, Aughey RJ. The validity and reliability
of GPS units for measuring distance in team sport specific running patterns. Int J
Sports Physiol Perform. 2010; 5 (3): 328-341.
“Physical Demands of Match-Play in Successful and Less-Successful Elite Rugby League Teams”
by Hulin BT, Gabbett TJ, Kearney S, Corvo A
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2014 Human Kinetics, Inc.
30.
Varley MC, Fairweather IH, Aughey RJ. Validity and reliability of GPS for
measuring instantaneous velocity during acceleration, deceleration, and constant
motion. J Sports Sci; 30: 121-127.
31.
Johnston RJ. Watsford ML, Kelly SJ, Pine MJ, Spurrs RW. The validity and
reliability of 10Hz and 15Hz GPS units for assessing athlete movement demands. J
Strength Cond Res. In Press. , DOI:10.1519/JSC.0000000000000323
32.
Gabbett T, Jenkins D, Abernethy B. Physical collisions and injury during professional
rugby league skills training. J Sci Med Sport. 2010; 13 (6): 578-583.
33.
Gabbett TJ. Influence of playing standard on the physical demands of professional
rugby league. J Sports Sci. 2013; 31 (10); 1125-1138.
34.
Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale:
Lawrence Erlbaum. 1988.
35.
Batterham AM, Hopkins WG. Making meaningful inferences about magnitudes. Int J
Sports Physiol Perform. 2006; 1: 50–57.
36.
Johnston, RD, Gabbett, TJ, Seibold, AJ, Jenkins, DG. Influence of physical contact on
pacing strategies during game-based activities. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. In Press.
37.
Gabbett, TJ, Jenkins, DG, Abernethy, B. Influence of wrestling on the physiological
and skill demands of small-sided games. J Strength Cond Res. 2012; 26 (1): 113-120.
38.
Johnston, RD, Gabbett, TJ, Jenkins, DG. Influence of number of contact efforts on
running performance during game-based activities. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. In
Press.
39.
Johnston, RD, Gabbett, TJ, Seibold, AJ, Jenkins, DG. Influence of physical contact on
neuromuscular fatigue and markers of muscle damage following small-sided games. J
Sci Med Sport. In Press.
40.
Black, GM, Gabbett, TJ. Repeated high-intensity effort activity in elite and semi-elite
rugby league match-play. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. In Press.
41.
Kempton, T, Sirotic, AC, Coutts, AJ. An integrated analysis of match-related fatigue
in professional rugby league. J Sports Sci. In Press.
42.
Gabbett, TJ. Physical, technical and tactical factors affect final ladder position in
semi-professional rugby league. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. In Press.
43.
Waldron, M, Highton, J, Daniels, M, Twist, C. Preliminary evidence of transient
fatigue and pacing during interchanges in rugby league. Int J Sports Physiol Perform.
2013; 8: 157-164.
44.
Varley, MC, Elias, GP, Aughey, RJ. Current match-analysis techniques’
underestimation of intense periods of high-velocity running. Int J Sports Physiol
Perform. 2012; 7: 183-185.
Ball-in-play (seconds)
“Physical Demands of Match-Play in Successful and Less-Successful Elite Rugby League Teams”
by Hulin BT, Gabbett TJ, Kearney S, Corvo A
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2014 Human Kinetics, Inc.
360 A#
300
#
High-success
Low-success
B
High-success
Low-success
240
180
120
60
Peak Subsequent Mean
1-8
9-16
H
Period
Figure 1 Peak, subsequent, and mean ball-in-play (A), and ball-in-play across predefined
periods of match-play (B). Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation.
#Denotes significant difference (P<0.05) from the subsequent and mean period for the same team.
Collisions (n-min-1)
HIR distance (m-min-1)
Total distance (m-min-1)
“Physical Demands of Match-Play in Successful and Less-Successful Elite Rugby League Teams”
by Hulin BT, Gabbett TJ, Kearney S, Corvo A
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2014 Human Kinetics, Inc.
*
#
*
#
150 A
B
C
#
130
110
*
#
High-success
Low-success
#
#
*
*
#
90
*
#
70
28 D
24
20
#
16
12
8
4
0
*
#
E
*
#
F
#
#
#
*
*
*
#
2.5 G #
H
#
I
#
*
#
2.0
#
#
1.5
#
#
1.0
*
*
0.5
0.0
RHIE (n-min-1)
0.6 J
*
#
#
K#
#
L
*
#
0.5
#
0.4
0.3
*
0.2
0.1
0.0
Peak Subsequent Mean
Adjustables
Peak Subsequent Mean
Hit-up forwards
Peak Subsequent Mean
Outside backs
Figure 2 Peak, subsequent, and mean total distance covered, high-intensity running (HIR)
distance covered, number of collisions per minute, and number of repeated high-intensity
effort (RHIE) bouts per minute for adjustables, hit-up forwards, and outside backs from
successful and less successful teams. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation.
Adjustables = A, D, G, J; Hit-Up Forwards = B, E, H, K; Outside Backs = C, F, I, L.
*Denotes significant difference (P<0.05) between teams for the same period.

#
Denotes significant difference (P<0.05) from the subsequent period for the same team.
Denotes significant difference (P<0.05) from the mean period for the same team.
Collisions (n-min -1)
HIR distance (m-min -1) Total distance (m-min -1 )
“Physical Demands of Match-Play in Successful and Less-Successful Elite Rugby League Teams”
by Hulin BT, Gabbett TJ, Kearney S, Corvo A
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2014 Human Kinetics, Inc.
180 A
160
140 b
bab b
120
aa
a
100
80
60
40
24
20
16
12
8
4
0
a
a
b
a
b
C
B
b
a
aa
a
a
a
a
b
a
a
a
b
b
b
b
a
a
a
a
a aab
a
a
aaa ba ba
a
a
b
a
a
a
a
a
a
aa
a
a
1.2
b
F
b
a
b
aa
a
a
a aa
a
b
E
a
a
High-success
Low-success
b
ba
b
aD
2.0 G
1.6
H
I
a
a
a
a
a
ba
b
a
a
a
a
0.8
0.4
0.0
0.6
RHIE (n-min -1)
a
b
J
K
L
a
0.4
a
a
a
a
b
a
a
a
0.2
a
0.0
1-8
9-16
H
Period
Adjustables
1-8
9-16
H
Period
Hit-up forwards
1-8
9-16
H
Period
Outside backs
Figure 3
Physical demands across predefined periods of match-play for elite high- and low-success
teams, for total distance covered, high-intensity running (HIR) distance covered, number of
collisions per minute, and number of repeated high-intensity effort (RHIE) bouts per minute.
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation.
Adjustables = A, D, G, J; Hit-Up Forwards = B, E, H, K; Outside Backs = C, F, I, L.
H denotes halftime.
a
Denotes moderate effect size (0.61-1.2) between teams for the same period.
b
Denotes large effect size (1.21-2) between teams for the same period.
“Physical Demands of Match-Play in Successful and Less-Successful Elite Rugby League Teams”
by Hulin BT, Gabbett TJ, Kearney S, Corvo A
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2014 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Table 1 Percentage of match-play spent in possession of the ball (i.e. attacking) for the
successful and less successful teams. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation.
Team
Time-in-possession (%)
High-success
51.1 ± 4.9
Low-success
49.9 ± 5.2