Match to match variability (submitted article)DA

1Factors Influencing Physical and Technical Variability in 2the English Premier League 4Michael D Busha,b David T Archera Robert Hogga Paul S 5Bradleya,c 7aDepartment of Sport and Exercise Science, University of 8Sunderland, UK 9bPerformance Analysis Department, Academy of Light, 10Sunderland Association Football Club, UK 11cCarnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, UK 12 13Corresponding Author: E-mail address: 14paulbradley94@yahoo.co.uk (Paul S Bradley) 1 15Abstract 16Purpose: To investigate match-to-match variability of physical 17and technical performances in English Premier League (EPL) 18players and to quantify the influence of positional and 19contextual factors Methods: Match data (n=451) were 20collected using a multi-camera computerised tracking system 21across multiple seasons (2005-06 to 2012-13) The coefficient 22of variation (CV) was calculated from match-to-match for 23physical and technical performances in selected positions 24across different match contexts (location, standard and result) 25Results: Wide midfielders demonstrated the greatest CVs for 26total distance (4.9±5.9%) whilst central midfielders the smallest 27(3.6±2.0%), nevertheless all positions exhibited CVs 0.05, ES: 0.1-0.3) Central defenders demonstrated the 29greatest CVs and wide midfielders the lowest for both high30intensity running (20.2±8.8% and 13.7±7.7%, p2.0-4.0) 15 173Relationships between selected physical and technical 174indicators were evaluated using Pearson’s product moment test 175The magnitudes of the correlations were considered as trivial 176(0.1-0.3), moderate (>0.3-0.5), large (>0.5-0.7), 177very large (>0.7-0.9), nearly perfect (>0.9) and perfect (1.0) 16 178Values are presented as means±SD unless otherwise stated 179Results 180Physical Match-to-Match Variability 181Wide midfielders illustrated the largest CVs for total distance 182covered, while central midfielders illustrated the smallest CVs, 183nevertheless no meaningful differences were found for total 184distance covered between positions, with all demonstrating 185CVs 0.05; ES: 0.1-0.3) Central defenders produced 186the most variation from match-to-match for high-intensity 187running distance compared to all other positions (Fig 1; p