IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rpanxx/v6y2006i1p73-83.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of two different methods for time-motion analysis in team sports

Author

Listed:
  • N. Sera Doğramacı
  • L. Mark Watsford

Abstract

Time-motion analysis has been extensively used to provide an insight into the movement patterns of athletes in team sports. However, few studies have indicated whether analysis involved breaks in play, or all the activities within the standard clock-time. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to differentiate whether differences existing between clock-time and match-time time-motion analysis had an affect on the results. Data was collected from the Australian National Futsal Team. Analysis was initially conducted against the actual playing clock-time of 40 min, then on a match-time of 70 min including all actions and breaks in play, excluding half-time and time-out intervals. When comparing match-time to clock-time data, there was a 16% greater total overall distance covered, a 6.9% increase in the time spent in low-intensity activities, and a change in activity every 4.00 s vs. 3.28 s, respectively. There was little change in the high-intensity activities from clock-time to match-time comparison. As clock-time data may misrepresent the movement patterns of the game, it is important to establish a standard method of analysis, namely based on match-time data. This may have implications on similar sports based on clock-time such as water polo, basketball, ice hockey and handball.

Suggested Citation

  • N. Sera Doğramacı & L. Mark Watsford, 2006. "A comparison of two different methods for time-motion analysis in team sports," International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 73-83, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:rpanxx:v:6:y:2006:i:1:p:73-83
    DOI: 10.1080/24748668.2006.11868356
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/24748668.2006.11868356
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/24748668.2006.11868356?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rpanxx:v:6:y:2006:i:1:p:73-83. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RPAN20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.