Author(s): PONCE-BORDÓN, J., POLO-TEJADA, J., LOBO-TRIVIÑO, D., SANABRIA-PINO, B., AYUSO-MORENO, R., GARCÍA-CALVO, T., Institution: FACULTY OF SPORT SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF EXTREMADURA (SPAIN), Country: SPAIN, Abstract-ID: 2574

INTRODUCTION:
Training load monitoring strategies enable practitioners to understand the workload performed by soccer players. However, these strategies should include fatigue assessment to better understand the processes resulting from training (1). Fatigue can be measured using a variety of methods. One of the most widely used instruments is the Wellness questionnaire, which consists of a customized form designed to assess fatigue-related dimensions (2). Despite the extensive use of external, internal, and mental load monitoring in soccer, the relationships between these load dimensions and fatigue indicators are still not fully understood. Therefore, the present study aimed to examine the influence of training load on players’ readiness status.
METHODS:
A total of 25 professional male soccer players from the same team were monitored during the 24/25 competitive season (n=2,949 observations). The external load was assessed using GPS devices (10Hz). The internal load was collected using a modified 10-point Borg scale. To evaluate mental load, an adapted version of the Questionnaire for the Quantification of Mental Load in Team Sports was used. Furthermore, to assess general indicators of player well-being, the Wellness Questionnaire score (i.e., readiness) was recorded daily before training. Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) was used to quantify the strength and direction of the linear relationships between the different external, internal and mental load variables and the readiness variables. Then, Linear Mixed Models were employed to examine the impact of external, internal and mental load variables on the readiness during the different training days of the microcycle.
RESULTS:
Correlations between training load variables and readiness index were moderate and negative for TD (r=-.32), Cognitive (r=-.35), Emotional (r=-.33), and Mental Fatigue (r=-.35). The most influential training load variables on fatigue variables were Decelerations on Fatigue (β=−.61,p<.001), Cognitive on DOMS (β=−.58,p<.001), Cognitive on Sleep (β=−.38,p<.001), and Mental Fatigue on Mental State (β=−.39,p<.001), Stress (β=−.31,p<.001), and Mood (β=−.25,p< .001).
CONCLUSION:
The findings indicated that training load variables influenced negatively and significantly on readiness, with mental fatigue emerging as the most impact variable. This study reveals which training load variables have the greatest impact on player readiness, providing insights into how training affects player fatigue.
References:
1. Gabbett, T. J., Nassis, G. P., Oetter, E., Pretorius, J., Johnston, N., Medina, D., ... & Ryan, A. (2017). The athlete monitoring cycle: a practical guide to interpreting and applying training monitoring data. British J Sports Med,51(20),1451-1452.
2. McLean, B. D., Coutts, A. J., Kelly, V., McGuigan, M. R., & Cormack, S. J. (2010). Neuromuscular, endocrine, and perceptual fatigue responses during different length between-match microcycles in professional rugby league players. Int J Sports Phys Perf, 5(3), 367-383.