AFL REPRESENTATIVE LEARNING STUDY

                                   

I've got a bunch of AFL-based studies from this year that provides great statistical insight into the inner workings of training and games that you can use to base your own training game plans around.

Today we look at representative learning which refers to how much your training includes literal game information and this study compared the constraint interactions and their frequency in training.

Here are the notes I took from it:

• The constraints of pressure and time in possession were assessed alongside disposal effectiveness through an association rule algorithm and then expanded to determine whether a disposal was influenced by the preceding disposal
• Disposal type differed between training and competition environments, with match simulation yielding greater representation v small side games
• The subsequent disposal was generally more effective in small sided games compared to the match simulation and competition matches
• Pressure possession is graded when the opposition defends the ball carrier from any direction
• Time in possession is graded on less or more then 2 seconds
• Effective kicks are graded as over 40 meters in length, to a 50/50 contest or better or a kick less then 40m that maintains possession
• Association rules were a) kick/under no pressure/possession time under 2secs, b) kick/under no pressure/possession time over 2secs, c) kick/under pressure/time in possession under 2secs, d) kick/under pressure/time in possession over 2secs, e) handball/under no pressure/time in possession under 2secs, f) handball/under no pressure/time in possession over 2secs, g) handball/under pressure/time in possession under 2secs and h) handball/under pressure/time in possession over 2secs
• The lowest support was rule E and highest was rule G
• Match simulation greater reflected game representation v small sided games
• Rule G has highest support in match simulation v rule D in small sided games
• Occurrences of sequential rules were similar in match simulation v small sided games
• The 3^rd disposal in the sequence was more likely to be effective in small sided games relative to games and match simulation
• The frequency of the 3^rd disposal being effective ranged from 54% – 89% for games, 49% – 84% for match simulation and 77% – 88% for small sided games
• 3^rd disposal effectiveness in games was +70% with only 6 sequences less then 70% v 28% sequences in match simulation resulting in -70% effectiveness
• Match simulation was more similar to games v small sided games in regards to disposal type but games incurred a greater frequency of pressured handball’s performed with in 2secs (Rule G) relative to match simulation
• The difference between training and games can be from activities intentionally favoring a specific disposal type (kick or handball) as well as less pressure v games and this can help with task manipulation to ensure adequate representation such as big and small spaces to encourage no pressure and/or pressured disposals