Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2006, 20(11. 208-214© 2006 National Strciij^th & Conditioning Association

SPRINT PATTERNS IN RUGBY UNION PLAYERSDURING COMPETITION

GRANT M. DUTHIE,^-2 DAVID B . PYNE,' DAMIAN J. MARSH,=* AND SUE L. HOOPER^

'Department of Physiology, Australian Institute of Sport, Canberra, Australia; ^School of Human MovementStudies, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia; -^ACT Rugby Union, Canberra, Australia.

ABSTRACT. Duthie, G.M., D.B. Pyne, D.J. Mansh, and S.L. Hooper.Sprint patterns in rugby union players during competition. J.Strength Cond. Refi. 20(11:208-214. 2006.—The purpose of thisstudy vi'as to characterize sprint patterns of rugby union playersduring competition. Velocity profiles (60 m) of 28 rugby playerswere initially established in testing from standing, walking, jog-ging, and striding starts. During competition, the individualsprinting patterns of 17 rugby players were determined fromvideo by using the individual velocity profiles. Forwards com-menced sprints from a standing start most frequently (41'^),whereas backs sprinted from standing (297(), walking (29'/(), jog-ging (29%), and oceaaionally striding (13'/ ) starts. Forwards andbacks achieved speeds in excess of 9O'>( maximal velocity (Vmax)on 5 ± 4 and 9 ± 4 occasions (-509? of the sprints performed),respectively, during competition. The higher frequency of sprint-ing for the backs compared with the forwards highlights the im-portance of speed training for this positional group. The similarrelative distribution of velocities achieved during competition forforwards and backs suggests both positional groups should trainacceleration and Vmax qualities. The backs should have a highertotal volume of sprint training. Sprinting efforts should be per-formed from a variety of starting speeds to mimic the movementpatterns of competition.

KEY WORDS, football, movement patterns, running, time-motionanalysis, sprinting

INTRODUCTIONpeed and acceleration are important qualitiesin field sports, with running speed over shortdistances fundamental to success (2, 22). Inrugby, players accelerate over short distancesor accelerate and sprint to make position.

Sprints vary in terms of change of direction, ball carriage,and opponent avoidance. Collectively, these factors makesprinting in team-sport competition qualitatively andquantitatively different from straight-line track sprinting(22). Despite these differences, elite rugby union coachesand conditioning staff strive for their players to be ahleto run quickly in a straight line (7).

Rugby union backs have superior sprinting ahility incomparison with forwards (7). In competition, backs havegreater space in which to run and achieve higher speedsthan do f'orwards, who are closer to the opposition (19).First-class hacks were 0.5 seconds (9%) faster over 40 m(21) and 0.4 seconds (lO'/f) faster over 30 m (13) comparedwith forwards. Unfortunately, previous studies have notassessed hoth the acceleration and the maximal velocity(Vmax) qualities of rugby players. Moreover, no study hasreported the patterns of sprinting during competitive rug-hy at the elite level or has used velocity profiles to estab-lish the sprint requirements of players in competition.

The lower Vmax of field-sport athletes compared withtrack sprinters may allow for the acceleration phase to be

completed earlier (25). Unfortunately, given the lack ofinformation on the velocity curves of elite rugby players,the distance and time required for elite rugby players toreach Vmax is unknown. However, some information canhe gleaned from previously reported velocity curves on arange of athletes. For example, novice runners achieved7.6 ± 0.6 m-s ' in 4.2 seconds, whereas university trackrunners reach a Vmax of 9.0 ± 0.2 m-s ' in 4.7 seconds(23). Elite track sprinters achieve maximal velocities inexcess of 11.5 m-s ^ between 50 and 60 m (18). It is ofinterest for practitioners to have a detailed understand-ing of velocities achieved in rughy competition, as accel-eration and Vmax are hiomechanically different, involvedifferent muscle groups, and therefore require specifictraining interventions (24).

In rugby, high-intensity activity accounts for 14% ofgame time for the forwards and 6% of game time for thebacks (9). Sprinting represents 4% of the game move-ments for the forwards and 25^/f for the backs (9). Playerstypically sprint within the range of 10-20 m (5, 6). Ingeneral, the total time spent sprinting during a game isgreater for backs than for the forwards (5, 9). Moreover,during Super 12 games, the elite Southern Hemisphereprovincial competition, the hacks perform individualsprinting efforts for 0.8 seconds longer than do the for-wards (9). During game play, international- and colts-lev-el players have an average velocity of 5-8 m-s ' (5, 17).Given the limited distance covered and the relatively low-er velocities attained, the acceleration phase of sprintingis likely to be more important to rugby performance thanis the Vmax (22). A clear description of the accelerationand Vmax attributes of players and the requirements ofthe game is required for effective prescription of sprinttraining for rugby.

A significant limitation of previous time-motion anal-ysis of rugby has been the failure to account for the com-mencement speed of sprints. Commencement speed has asubstantial effect on the speed achieved during thesprinting effort. Benton (3) observed that AustralianRules F'ootball players frequently started sprinting effortsfrom a jogging or striding start rather than a stationarystart. Australian Rules Football is a more expansive gamecompared with rugby union and therefore limits directcomparison; however, the findings may have some appli-cation to the movement patterns of the outside backs. Byusing straight-line speed testing, the time and distancetaken to reach Vmax were directly related to the initialcommencement speed of the player (3). The commence-ment speed and duration of sprinting efforts in Austra-lian Rules Foothall permitted attainment of velocities inexcess of 95% Vmax (3). Considering that players movingat higher velocities would presumably assist breaking the

VELOCITY OF RUGBY PLAYERS 209

TABLE 1, Characteristics of elite Super 12 rugby players(mean ± SD).

Forwards (n = lOl Backs in = 1)Age (y)Height (cm)Mass (kgl

23.5 ± 2.0186.9 ± 6.9107.3 ± 8.3

24.1 ± 3.9179.8 ± 5.484.5 ± 7.9^

* Significantly lower than for forwards {p < 0.05).

advantage line in attack, we sought to determine the in-fluence of commencement speed on the velocity profilesof elite rugby players. The aim of this study was to de*termine the sprint requirements of elite rughy unionplayers in training and competitive games to assist in theprescription of sports-specific training activities.

METHODS

Experimental Approach to the ProblemTo assess the sprinting requirements of elite rugby unioncompetition, players were tested over 60 m in a straightline in training to establish an individual running-veloc-ity profile (part 1). The velocity profile was then used tocharacterize the movement patterns of players assessedhy video analysis during competition (part 2).

ProceduresPort 1: 60-m Sprint Testing. Seventeen Super 12 rugbyplayers (10 forwards and 7 backs) contracted to 1 profes-sional Australian rugby team were involved in the study.The physical characteristics of the players are providedin Table 1. All testing was performed on an outdoor syn-thetic running track. The Ethics Committee of the Aus-tralian Sports Commission granted approval for thestudy. After receiving verhal and written briefing on thenature and content of the research, all players providedwritten informed consent. Players were free to withdrawfrom the study at any time.

Before testing, all participants undertook a thorough20-minute warm-up consisting of suhmaximal running (4minutes), a low-intensity team game (5 minutes), dynam-ic stretching (5 minutes), technique drills (4 minutes),and striding efforts (2 minutes) at approximately 90-95%of maximal speed. The study protocol required each suh-ject to undertake 4 maximal-effort sprints over 60 m. Thedistance of 60 m was adopted for the speed assessmentto allow all players to attain Vmax according to previousanalysis of 100-m sprinting events (18). Suhjects wereasked to perform each of the sprints from different speedsin a random order: standing, walking (-20% of Vmax),jogging (—50% of Vmax), or striding (—80% of Vmax).Suhjects were given verbal instruction to assist them inmaintaining the designated percentage of Vmax beforethe maximal effort. Instantaneous feedback was also pro-vided to ensure that there was a clear difference amongthe starting speeds for each individual. Walking, jogging,and striding starts were initiated in a 20-m lead-in zone.A 5-minute active recovery involving walking, low-inten-sity running, and stretching followed each effort. Fiveminutes of recovery allows for the replenishment of en-ergy stores and the maintenance of a maximal-effort foreach sprint (12). Sprints were conducted in random orderto negate any infiuence of cumulative fatigue.

The instantaneous running velocity of each 60-m ef-fort was recorded with a laser apparatus (LAVEG Sport,

Jenoptik, Jena, Germany) placed 30 m behind the start-ing line at a height of 1.7 m. The system operator usedan optical control device to follow each subject's lowerhack during the entire approach and 60-m effort. Mea-surement error associated with the difference in theheight of the apparatus in relation to the height of thelower back was considered insignificant (1). The error ofthe laser apparatus in determining the distance traveledhas been quantified as 0.10 m (1). Separate repeated tri-als on 19 subjects gave a typical error (TE) of 0.05 m-s '(0.7%) and an intraclass correlation ir) of 0.98. By usingthe known speed of the laser, the distance between thelaser detector and subject was measured at 100 Hz. Fromthe position-time history, the subject's speed was calcu-lated by the first time derivative. The raw data and cal-culated speed curves were registered and stored on a lap-top computer. The initial speed at 0 m was measured, andthe Vmax and percentages of Vmax (70 to 95% Vmax, 5%increments) were also established. The times to reachVmax and each percentage of Vmax were determined foreach 60-m effort.

Part 2: Game Sprint Analysis. Quantitative details onthe sprint patterns of elite players were assessed hy mon-itoring 16 forwards and 12 hacks during 10 games of the2003 Super 12 rughy competition. Ten of the 28 playersanalyzed during competition were involved in part 1 ofthis investigation. Players from provincial Australianteams were individually tracked during competition withdigital video cameras. Video recordings of each playerwere made with a Sony Digital Handy Cam (DCR-TRV900E PAL; Sony Cooperation of America, New York,NY) positioned approximately 20 m above the gi'ound atthe midpoint of the rughy field. Recordings were made onSony digital videocassettes (DVM60, Sony Cooperation ofAmerica) and time stamped to an accuracy of 0.01 sec-onds. The players were filmed for the entire game fromkickoff until halftime and then from the halftime kickoffuntil tbe completion of play. Analysis was conducted overthe entire time on the field, including all breaks in play.

All player movements were analyzed by the same ex-perienced observer, who had analyzed more than 75 rug-hy matches at this level of competition. Individual sprint-ing efforts were identified for each player. A sprint wasdefined as a maximal locomotor effort involving a fiightphase and strong active arm swing (9). Footage heforeeach sprint was examined to subjectively determine theplayer's commencement speed and was placed into 1 of 4categories developed from previous analysis: standing,walking, jogging, or striding (3, 5, 6, 8, 9). This methodof categorizing the approach has been found to he mod-erately reliable (5-10% TE), whereas the mean durationof sprinting efforts is also moderately reliable (7.1% TE)for Super 12 rugby competition (8).

The duration of each sprint was determined, and anymarked changes in the direction of sprint path were re-corded. To quantitatively assess the velocity achievedduring each sprint, the duration of the sprint and thecommencement speed were identified. The velocity pro-files of players established in training were then used toapproximate the velocity the player would have achievedfor the given starting speed and duration of the sprint.This process involved estimating the velocity the playersachieved hy accounting for their commencement speedand the time taken to accelerate to Vmax. For this partof the analysis, all sprints involving a change of direction

210 DuTHiE, PYNK, M.'XKSII KT AL.

TABUK 2. The initial and maximal velocity (Vmax) achieved during a maximal 60-m sprint commenced from different startingspeeds.

Start

StandingWalkingJoggingStriding

Initial velocity (m-

Forwards

01.97 ± 0.55*4.97 ± 1.09*7.14 ± 0.37*

s M

Backs

01.93 ± 0.17*5.61 ± 0.51*7.18 + 0.27*

Vmax Im

Forwards

8.50 :8.49 :8.55 :8.51

t 0.47t 0.43t 0.42'• 0.39

•s ' )

Backs

9.43 ± 0.40t9,43 ± 0.45t9.39 ± 0.40t9.42 ± 0.36i

* Significantly different (pt Significantly different (p

0.01) from standing.0.01) from forwards.

were removed because only straight-line speed was as-sessed in the sprint testing. In sprints where Vmax wasassessed as having been achieved, the duration (in sec-onds) spent at Vmax was also calculated.

Statistical AnalysesMeasures of centrality and spread are shown as mean ±SD. Differences in sprinting characteristics between po-sitional groups (forwards and backs) and among startingspeeds (standing, walking, jogging, and striding) were as-sessed by independent-sample ^-tests (unequal variance).Statistical significance was set atp < 0.05. Uncertaintiesin the differences are expressed as ±9b7f confidence lim-its. The probability that players achieved designated per-centages of Vmax in less time than when commencingfrom a standing start were established (14). A worthwhiledifference in tbe time taken to reach certain percentagesof Vmax was established for forwards and backs at eachvelocity. We determined tbat a player arriving at a per-centage of Vmax 0.5 m earlier would be a worthwhile dif-ference in relation to game performance. A 0.5-m distancerepresents an arm's length and would allow a player tocatch an opponent or, alternatively, evade an opponent inattack. Given that velocity is tbe quotient of distance andtime, the worthwhile time difference was establisbed ateach velocity. Walking, jogging, and striding starts werethen compared witb a standing start to establish if a play-er arrived at a given velocity sooner, at tbe same time, orlater as a function of the magnitude of the observed dif-ference in sprint time. The probability was calculated byaccounting for tbe worthwhile difference, observed differ-ence, and TE of measurement according to previous meth-ods (14). Tbresbolds for assigning qualitative terms tochances that tbe true cbange was worthwhile were as fol-lows: "almost certainly not" {<17r), "very unlikely" (<5'/(0,"unlikely" (<257(}, "possibly not" {<50'7r), "possihly"050%), "likely" (>75%), "very likely" (>95%), and "al-most certainly" (>99%) (16).

RESULTS

60-m SprintsThere was a marked difference in the initial velocity oftbe players wben commencing a sprint with each of tbe4 different approacbes (Table 2). Botb forwards and backshad similar initial velocities for eacb of the different start-ing locomotions. Witbin groups, tbere was no marked dif-ference in the mean Vmax achieved during tbe 60-msprints commenced from the different starting speeds(Table 2). Figure 1 demonstrates tbat hacks achieved aVmax 0.90 ± 0.41 m-s ' higher (p < 0.01) tban did tbeforwards. Backs also took 0.67 ± 0.46 seconds longer toreach Vmax than did the forwards (p = 0.01).

10 -

6

4

2 -

0 •

70%Forwards

-o — Backs

2 3 4

Time (seconds)

1. Velocity curves (mean - SD] derived duringsprint testing on a synthetic running track from a standingstart for Super 12 rugby forwards (n = 10) and backs in = 7).Split times are taken at 709r maximal velocity (Vmax) toVmax in 57( increments. Velocities below 70% Vmax wereextrapolated back to 0 m s '.

Tbe mean + SD time taken for forwards to reacbVmax from a standing start was 5.4 ± 0.6 seconds. Fortbe forwards, tbe difference in the time taken to reacbdiscrete percentages of Vmax compared with a standingstart (mean difference ± 95'/f confidence limits) is dis-played in Figure 2A. It was "very likely" (>95% proba-bility) that percentages of Vmax were achieved in sub-stantially less time when commencing sprints from a jog-ging (p < 0.01) and striding ip < 0.01) start. When com-mencing from a walking start, it was "possible" (65%probability) that a player would achieve Vmax 0.4 ± 0.5seconds faster than from a standing start (p = 0.39). Forall otber percentages of Vmax, it was "likely" 075*7^ prob-ability) that a forward would achieve the speed in lesstime from a walking start than from a standing start.Most notably, when commencing sprints from a stridingstart, the forwards were able to achieve Vmax in 2.4 ±2.0 seconds less than when commencing from a standingstart (p < 0.01).

The mean time taken for backs to reach Vmax from astanding start was 5.9 ± 0.7 seconds. An analysis of tbetime taken for backs to reacb percentages of Vmax fromdifferent starting speeds compared witb a standing start(mean difference ± 95'/ confidence limits) is provided inFigure 2B. The probability that the players achieved per-centages of Vmax more quickly from a jogging or stridingstart than from a standing start were all greater than94% and were therefore "likely" to "very likely." When

VELOCHY oi ' RuGiiY PLAYI^HS 211

A

starting Speed

• Walkingo JoggingT StritJing

70

100

95 %o5

90 15

65 I"5

80 6ao

75 5a.

70

3 -2 -1

Time {seconds)

FIGURE 2. DifTerenee in the time taken for forwards (A) andbaeks (Bi to reach diserete percentages of maximal velocityduring a 60-m sprint when commencing from different startingvelocities compared with a standing start. Data are presentedas tbe mean difference ± dd'/t confidence limits. Shaded arearepresents practically significant difference (0.5 m). * Significantlydifferent (p < 0.05 i to standing start.

eommencing from a walking start, it was "unlikely"(<26% probability) that players would achieve percent-ages of Vmax in less time (p ^ 0.81). Similar to the for-wards, backs were able to achieve Vmax in 1.9 ± 2.3 sec-onds more quickly when commencing a sprint from astride than from a standing start (p < 0.01).

Game AnalysisA total of 503 sprints in the Super 12 games were ana-lyzed. Forwards and backs performed 215 (43'^) and 288(57* ) of the sprints, respectively. On average, the for-wards performed 13 ± 6 sprints per game, which was 11± 6 (p < 0.01) fewer than for the hacks (24 ± 7). Themean duration of sprints for the forwards (2.5 ± 1.6 sec-onds) was 0.7 ± 0.4 seconds shorter than for the hacks(3.1 ± 1.6 seconds, p < 0.01). Seventy-eight sprints (16'/Oinvolved a change of direction and were suhsequently ex-cluded from the estimation of velocity achieved. The for-wards had 2 ± 2 sprints {16%) per game that involved achange of direction, which was 4 ± 3 (p = 0.03) fewerthan for the hacks (6 ± 3, 22%).

Figure 3 shows the percentage of sprints commencingfrom different starting speeds for the forwards and hacks.

ints

a.V)

"S

nc

ua>

a

/ u •

60 -

50 -

40 -

30 -

20 -

10 -

ForwardsBacks

Stand Walk Jog Stride

Starting Speed

FIGURE 3. The percentage of total sprints performed fromdifferent starting speeds by Super 12 forwards and backs(mean ± SD). Starting speeds were subjectively established fromvideo analysis according to previous guidelines. '•' Significantlydifferent [p - 0.01) to forwards. 1" Significantly different ip <0.05J to standing.

The hacks performed 8 ± 6 more sprints from a stridingstart than did the forwards (p < 0.01). Within the for-wards, a higher percentage of sprints were performedfrom a standing start (41* ) than from a walking (21''/(,p= 0.00) and striding (6%, p < 0.01) start. In contrast,hacks performed 15 ± G% (p < 0.01) fewer sprints froma striding start il4^/f] than from a standing start (29'/^).

By using the velocity data and game analysis, an ah-solute and relative frequency distribution of the estimat-ed velocities achieved hy the forwards and haeks duringeach sprinting effort was developed (Figure 4). On aver-age, forwards achieved Vmax 1 ± 1 times fewer than didthe hacks during the game (p - 0.06). Backs achievedspeeds of 90-99*^ of Vmax 4 ± 3 times more than didforwards (p = 0.01). When expressed as a percentage ofthe total sprints performed, there were no suhstantial dif-ferences hetween the forwards and the hacks for the num-ber of sprints performed to each speed. The larger num-ber of sprints performed hy the hacks resulted in a mark-edly greater absolute number of sprints achieving 80%Vmax or more. When players achieved Vmax, this levelwas maintained for 1.8 ± 1.5 seconds for the forwardsand 1.5 ± 1.6 seconds for the backs (p = 0.61).

DISCUSSION

This study is the first to document that the starting ve-locity of a sprint has a marked effect on the time takento reach given percentages of Vmax in rugby players.These data were then combined with video-hased time-motion analysis to estimate the velocities playersachieved during competition. The greater number ofsprints performed hy the hacks reinforces the generallyaccepted notion that they require superior sprinting abil-ity than do the forwards. Collectively, the results of thisinvestigation suggest that acceleration and, to a lesserextent, Vmax are important qualities of sprinting for eliterughy players. Furthermore, the greater frequency ofhigh-velocity (>90% Vmax) sprinting for the backs sug-gests that Vmax qualities are more important for rughybacks tban for forwards. Sprint-training programs for

212 DuTHiE, PYNR, MARSH ET AL.

ForwardBacks

14

12 •

10

'requ

ency

ints

Q.(A

tota

l

M -O

si

tage

xeni

aQ.

8

6

4

2

0

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

i l i

0 J 1<70 70-79 80-89 90-99 100

Percentage (%) of Maximal Velocity

FIGURE 4. Distribution of the absolute and relativefrequencies of different intensities of running, graded fromeasy <<70'?f) to maximal (lOO*)?), as a percentage of maximalvelocity achieved by Super 12 forwards and backs duringcompetitive games (mean ± SD). * Significantly difTerent ip =0,01) to forwards.

elite rugby players should focus on developing accelera-tion qualities for all playing positions, along with someexposure to Vmax running. Preferably, forwards shouldemphasize acceleration from a standing start, whereashacks are required to efficiently change between joggingand sprinting.

Assessment of elite rugby players' velocity profiles hastraditionally involved testing over a range of distances(15-100 m) (4, 19-21) from hoth a standing and a movingstart. The velocities achieved during competition suggestthat rugby players should be tested over distances thatallow for 90-1007( Vmax to be achieved (i.e., --40 m). Inparticular, backs should perform speed assessment reg-ularly, given their greater sprinting requirements duringcompetition compared with the forwards. Ten-metersplits can he used to establish a velocity profile of theathlete. For example, 0-10 m can assess acceleration, and30-40 m is indicative of a player's Vmax. Although Vmaxmay be attained after this distance, Super 12 forwards in= 42) achieved 8.4 ± 0.4 m-s ' hetween 30 and 40 m,whereas Super 12 backs In ^ 37) averaged 9.2 ± 0.3 m s '

(7). These values are similar to the instantaneous maxi-mal velocities of rugby players assessed with the LAVEGSport laser apparatus. Because players regularly sprintfrom a moving start, the assessment of sprinting speedfrom various commencement speeds is necessary for spec-ificity and context validity. Unfortunately, the difficultyin standardizing the starting speed makes assessment ofchanges within and among athletes difficult. A more com-prehensive analysis of a player's velocity curve could hegathered over greater distances (-60 m) with more fre-quent splits (e.g., every 5 m). Regardless of the methodused, testing needs to be carefully executed under stan-dardized conditions, with repeat testing to confirm theobservations and serial testing over the season to confi-dently monitor trends. Future studies are required to de-velop and validate protocols for manipulating commence-ment speeds in the context of sprint testing.

The data presented in this study extend the earlierwork on the speed characteristics of rughy players (7) todetail sprint requirements during competition. The cur-rent investigation details the velocities that playersachieved during competition, which is an important pre-requisite for the development of elite training programs.For example, our data suggest that sprints frequentlypermitted the attainment of 90-99'/f of Vmax for hoth for-wards (42 ^ of all sprints performed in a game) and backs(537f). Training and conditioning players to accelerate toa velocity approaching maximum is therefore a para-mount consideration. Furthermore, in a training setting,the commencement of sprinting efforts should occur froma variety of speeds to replicate the demands of the game.For forwards, many sprints (41*7 ) commenced from astanding start and typically lasted 2.5 seconds. Sprints ofthis duration from a standing start would result in a play-er covering about 15 m. Forwards also regularly under-take sprints from a jogging start (329f of all sprints). Theyshould be trained to accelerate from a standing or slow-moving start. Backs had an equal distribution (-28%each) of sprints performed from standing, walking, andjogging starts. Sprint training for the backs should focuson accelerating from hoth standing and moving starts andattaining speeds in excess of 907c of Vmax. When startingfrom a jogging speed and achieving about 100% of Vmax,players will sprint for about 5 seconds and cover approx-imately 40 m.

The backs had a higher percentage of sprints occur-ring from a striding speed than did the forwards andachieved a superior Vmax during the 60-m sprint testing.Backs perform more sprints, have longer sprinting ef-forts, and have a higher total time spent sprinting thando forwards (9). Despite this necessity for well-developedspeed, hacks are markedly slower than track sprinterswho attain velocities in excess of 11 m s ' (18). The qual-itative and quantitative differences between sprintersand rugby players are likely a result of the less-specifictraining and the additional endurance qualities requiredfor rughy union competition. Furthermore, correct track-sprinting technique is not ideal in rughy, as the playersneed to change direction, carry a ball, and prepare forcontact (22). Similar to a previous study (23), we haveshown that the slower forwards attained Vmax iri lessdistance and time than did faster hacks. The lower Vmaxof the forwards was attained sooner than the Vmax of thehacks, despite the backs having a more rapid acceleration(slope of the velocity curve. Figure 1).

VELOCITY OF RUGBY PLAYERS 213

We have demonstrated that the starting speed has adramatic effect on the velocity curve and, consequently,the velocity achieved during a given time frame for eliterughy players, which is similar to the effect for AustralianRules Football players (3). This is a logical finding be-caiise players who are striding are already at ahout 807<of Vmax. There was a high likelihood that players wouldbe at a given velocity 0.5 m sooner when starting from ajogging or striding start than from a standing start. Forexample, when sprinting from a striding start, playersachieved Vmax 2 seconds earlier than from a standingstart. Obtaining an extra 0.5 m may result in a playerbeing more likely to reach and tackle an opponent whendefending or to evade a tackier during attacking play.Such occurrences can have a dramatic effect on the out-come of individual passages in the game, possibly leadingto a try for the attacking or defending team. Previously,international rughy players were found to achieve veloc-ities hetween 5 and 8 m-s ' when close to the play (17).Our data suggest that players regularly achieve 909 ^ ofVmax, with backs achieving ahout 8.5 m s ' and forwardsabout 7.5 m s . Exposure to these running velocities intraining in a structured and periodized approach will as-sist in improving these near-Vmax sprint efforts. Maxi-mal gains in performance will likely occur in the presea-son compared with the competitive season, when heavygame commitments, the presence of minor injuries, andfatigue can disrupt the quality of training.

The sprinting requirements of rughy players detailedhere provide information that should he integrated into aspecific sprint-training program. Considering the impor-tance of acceleration and sprints near Vmax for the backs,training programs should account for the quantitativeand technical differences among these qualities. Runningtechnique during acceleration is biomechanically differ-ent from running at or near Vmax, therehy necessitatingspecific training modalities. Resistance training shouldalso focus on developing qualities specific to the sprintingdemands of each position. During the acceleration phase,body position and joint movement are changing consid-erably, eliciting significant changes in the pattern of mus-cle fiber recruitment and activation (10). As runningspeed increases, contact time decreases (15). Shortsprints from a standing start involve the quadriceps mus-cle and require high relative strength, whereas Vmaxrunning strongly activates the hamstrings and requiresreactive strength (24).

The interpretation of the findings of this study re-quires recognition of the inherent methodological limita-tions. First, it is likely that the velocities players achievedon a running track were faster than those achieved onthe rughy field, therefore slightly magnifying the absolutevelocities achieved during competition. The absolute ve-locities achieved may have also been magnified becausethe straight-line speed testing was a measure of speed inisolation, compared with sprints in a game where a playerneeds to be aware of opponents, interact with fellow teammembers, and carry the hall. For example, during maxi-mal sprint efforts, the speed a player achieves is de-creased hy about 2'/? when he or she carries a ball (11).All these factors would likely decrease the absolute spedachieved but may actually increase the percentage ofsprints that were about lOO'/r Vmax. Finally, there issome error introduced by using typical velocity curvesrather than directly using individual velocity curves for

the players monitored in the game analysis. Despite theseshortcomings, video-hased time-motion analysis is a reli-able and effective tool to assess the overall demands ofrugby (8).

PRACTICAI. APPLICATIONS

Sprinting is an important quality for rughy players re-gardless of position. Our data reveal that players regu-larly achieve speeds in excess of 90% of Vmax, suggestingtbat players should regularly perform efforts in trainingthat allow near Vmax to he achieved. Moreover, hecausesprints occur from a variety of starting speeds, playersshould train to accelerate from both standing and movingstarts. For example, if players perform eight 60-m sprint-ing efforts with full recovery, then 2 sprints from a stand-ing, walking, jogging, and striding start could be per-formed. Backs perform more sprints and are faster com-pared with forwards, signifying that sprinting should bea greater focus for hacks than for forwards. Subsequently,the hacks may have a greater training emphasis on speeddevelopment, whereas the forwards should prepare forthe greater total work performed during competition. De-spite hacks performing more sprints, the relative numherof sprints attaining different percentages of Vmax is sim-ilar; therefore, considerable attention is required in bothoff-field and on-field training to maximize the develop-ment of hoth acceleration and Vmax qualities. Accelera-tion training could involve players sprinting from differ-ent starting positions such as lying on the ground orstanding to walking or striding. In comparison, Vmaxtraining may involve a more gradual huildup to a maxi-mal-effort sprint over 30-40 m. The training of accelera-tion and Vmax should encompass high-intensity running,technique adjustment, resistance training, and plyome-trics specific to the requirements of each quality. The as-sessment of speed should include both the acceleration(0-20 m) and Vmax (40 m) components of sprinting forboth forwards and backs. Depending on individuals' ac-celeration and Vmax results, programs can be tailored toaddress their specific strengths and weaknesses.

REFERENCES1, AKSAC, L,, AND E. LOCATELLL Modeling the energetics of 100-

m running by using speed curves of world champions. J. Appl.Physiol. 92:1781-1788.2002,

2. BAKKK, D,, AND S, NANCE. The relation between running speedand measures of strength and power in professional rugbyleague players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 13:230-235, 1999.

3. BKNTON, D, Sprint running needs of field sport atbletes: A newperspective. Sports Coach 24:12-14. 2001.

4, CARLSON, B.R., J.E. CARTER, P, PATTERSON, K. PErri, S,M, OR-FANOS, AND G,J. NoFFAL. Physique and motor performancecharacteristics of US national rugby players, J. Spoi-ts Sci. 12:403-412, 1994,

5. Dt;uTSCH, M.U., G.J, MAW, D. JENKINS, AND P. REABURN,Heart rate, blood lactate and kinematic data of elite colts (un-der-19) rugby union players during competition. J. Sports Sci.16:561-570, 1998,

6. DociiERTY', D., H,A. WENUEK, AND P. NEARY. Time motionanalysis related to the physiological demands of rugby, J. Hum.Movement Stud. 14:269-277. 1988,

7, DuTHiE, G.M., D.B. PYNE, AND S. HOOPER, The applied physi-ology and game analysis of rugby union. Sports Med. 33:973-991, 2003,

8, DiiTHlt;, G.M,, D,B. PYNE, AND S, HOOFER, The reliability ofvideo based time motion analysis. J. Hum. Movement Stud. 44;259-272. 2003.

214 DL-TIIII-;, P\-NK,. MARSH ET At..

9. DinHiK, CM., D.B. Pt'NE, ANt) S. HOOPER. Time motion anal-ysis of 2001 and 2002 Super 12 rugby. J. Sports Sci. In press.

10. FRICK, U., D. Scii.MiDTBi.EicnKR, ANli R. STUTZ. Mu.scle acti-vation during acceleration-phase in sprint running with specialreference to starting posture. In: 15th Congress of (he Inter-national Society of Biuniechanics. Jyvaskyla, Finland, 1995.

n . GRANT, S.J., G. OOMMFN. G. MCCOLL, J. TAYLOR, L. WATKINS,N. FKIEL, 1. WATT, AND D.A. MCLEAN. The effect of ball car-rying method on sprint speed in rugby union football players.J. Sports Sci. 21:1009-1015. 2003.

12. Hoi.MYARD, D.J.. M.E. CiiKETiiAM, H.K.A. LAKOMY, AND C.WiM.lAMS. Effect of recovery duration on performance duringmultiple troadmiH .sprints. In: Science and Football. T. Reilly,A. Lees, K. Davids, and W.J. Murphy (eds.). London: E and FNSpon, 1988. pp. 134-142.

13. HoLMYAiii), D.J., AND R.J. HAZELDINE. Seasonal variations inthe anthropometric and physiological characteristics of inter-national rugby union players. In: Science and Football 11. T.Reilly, J.P. Clarys, and A. Stibbe (eds.). Eindhoven. The Neth-erlands: E and FN Spon, 1993. pp. 21-26.

14. HOPKINS, W.G. Calculating likely (confidence) limits and like-lihoods for true values (Excel spreadsheet). Available at:http://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/xcl.xls. Accessed March4, 2002.

15. KYKOI.AINKN, H., P.V. KOMI, AND A. Bt:LLi. Changes in muscleactivity patterns and kinetics with increasing running .speed../ Strength Cond. Re.'i. 13:400-406. 1999.

16. Llow, D.K., AND W.G. H(.»i'KJNR. Velocity specificity of weighttraining for kayak sprint performance. Med. Sei. Sport-^ E.xen:35:1232-1237. 2003.

17. MCLEAN, D.A. Analysis of the physical demands of interna-tional rughy union. J. Sport.s Sci. 10:285-296. 1992.

18. MORAVEC, P., J. RtlZlCKA, P. Sl'.SANKA, E. DOSTAI,. M. KODEJS,AND M. NOSKK. The 1987 international athletic foundation/IAAF .scientific project report: Time analysis of the 100 metresevents at the 11 World Championships in athletics. New Stud.Mill. 3:61-96. 1988.

19. QLJARRIE. K.L,, P . HANDCOCK, M.J. TOOMEY, .\ND A.E. WAM.ER.

The New Zealand rughy injury and performance project IV.Anthropometric and physical performance comparisons be-tween positional categories of senior A rugby players. Br. J.Sports Me.d. 30:53-56. 1996.

20. QuARRiE, K.L., P. HANDCOCK, A.E. WALLER, D.J. CHALMERS,

M.J. TOOMEY, AND B.D. Wit.soN. The New Zealand rughy in-jury and performance project III. Anthropometric and physicalperformance characteristics ol" players. Br. J. Sportfi Med. 29:263-270. 1995.

21. RtGO, P.. AND T. REILLY. A fitnes.s profile and anthropometricanalysis of first and second class rughy union players. In: Sci-ence and Football. T. Reilly. A. Lees, K. Davids, and W.J. Mur-phy leds.). London: E and FN Spon, 1988. pp. 194-199.

22. SAYKRH. M. Running techniques for field sport players. SportsCoach 23:26-27. 2000.

23. Voi.KOV, N.I. Analysis of the velocity curve in .sprint running.Med. Sei. Spor/.s- Exerc. 11:332-337. 1979.

24. YotiNG. W., D. BENTON, G. DUTHIE, AND J . PRYOR. Resistancetraining for short, sprints and maximal-speed sprints. StrengthCond. 23:7-13. 2001.

25. YOUNG, W., B. MCLEAN, AND J. ARDAGNA. Relation.ship be-

tween strength qualities and sprinting performance. J. SportsMed. Phys. Fitness 35:13-19. 1995.

Acknowledgments

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation ofthis manuscript. The authors have no conflicts of interest thatare directly relevant to the content of this manuscript.

Address correspondence to Grant M. Duthie, grant.duthie@ausport.gov. au.