500 Words a Week - New Microcycle Planning Research

The following blog highlights some key points I took from one of Martin Buchheit’s recently pre-print published papers titled:

“Planning the microcycle in elite football: to rest or not to rest?”

The study investigated the programming of days off within turnarounds of varying length and injury rate in first team football (Premier League, Serie A, Bundesliga, Scottish League, MLS and Dutch Eredivisie).

One of the main conclusions from this paper, was that the planning of a day off (or at least day off feet) at MD+2 was associated with 2-3 times lower injury rates per day than other microcycle sequences in a 3 day and 7 day turnaround before the next game.

The paper discussed some of the potential advantages of this microcycle sequence. Having a session on MD+1 allows starters of the previous match to receive treatment and perform their recovery session. All bench players and substitutes can then have the opportunity to train hard to compensate for the match they didn’t play. A term the paper used was that this sequence allows everyone to “close the previous turnaround cycle (recovery/ compensation)”, and then allow all players to rest on the MD+2 ready to begin training fresh and preparation for the next game on MD+3.

Potential disadvantages of having MD+1 off are that the opportunities to care for starters and compensate for bench and substitute players are reduced. Therefore, players may still need treatment/ recovery on the MD+2 session, and subs may have been under a reduced training load for 2-3 consecutive days.

A point that Buccheit and co-authors discussed is that many other factors are involved in the planning of the microcycle. From a psycho-social standpoint, players might prefer having the MD+1 session off. The structure proposed of in-off-in may not allow the coaches and players to prepare tactically for important matches.

This structure may make sense and allow adequate training and tactical preparation when there are longer turnarounds between games, but during a 3 day turnaround it only allows 1 day of full training preparation for the next match.

There were several limitations in the study which the authors discussed. Including the fact that the in-off-in sequence which was associated with 2-3 lower injury rates was the least common sequence used (3% in 3 day turnarounds, 10% in 7 day turnarounds), so this must be taken into account when interpreting the results. The paper is also a preprint version.

Regardless of limitations, the study provides some interesting food for thought and some strong rationale for an in-off-in sequence, even more so for a longer turnaround (7 days).

I think this sequence would only be applicable in first team/ U21 environments.