IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rpanxx/v7y2007i3p54-66.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparative analysis of professional rugby league football playing patterns between Australia and the United Kingdom

Author

Listed:
  • Simon Eaves
  • Gemma Broad

Abstract

The aim of this study was to establish whether the playing patterns of professional rugby league teams in the English Super League (SL) were different from teams playing in the Australian National Rugby League (NRL). Twelve games of professional rugby league were notated post-event using the SportsCode Elite system. Initial intra-observer reliability analysis established that the level of observer agreement exceeded 95% for all variables and for the identification of playing zones. Data analysis revealed a significant difference in the percentage of plays in the defence zone (t = −3.33, P <0.01) and transition zone (t = 3.67, P < 0.005), with teams in the NRL spending less time in transition, but more time in the defence zone. Analysis further revealed that teams in the NRL utilised the hit up in the attack zone significantly more than teams in the SL (t = −2.29, P < 0.05) and employed the turtle tackle significantly more when the play was in their defence zone (t = −3.31, P < 0.009). It was concluded that teams in the NRL are more adept than teams in SL at confining their opponents to the defence zone. In addition they play a more expansive game in the transition zone which enables them to move more quickly into the attack zone.

Suggested Citation

  • Simon Eaves & Gemma Broad, 2007. "A comparative analysis of professional rugby league football playing patterns between Australia and the United Kingdom," International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(3), pages 54-66, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:rpanxx:v:7:y:2007:i:3:p:54-66
    DOI: 10.1080/24748668.2007.11868410
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/24748668.2007.11868410
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/24748668.2007.11868410?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:7:y:2007:i:3:p:54-66. 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.