↓ Skip to main content

The relationship between game-based performance indicators and developmental level in junior Australian football: Implications for coaching

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Sports Sciences, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The relationship between game-based performance indicators and developmental level in junior Australian football: Implications for coaching
Published in
Journal of Sports Sciences, July 2016
DOI 10.1080/02640414.2016.1210816
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carl T. Woods, Lyndell Bruce, James P. Veale, Sam Robertson

Abstract

Identifying performance differences between juniors at different stages of a talent pathway may assist with the development of prospective talent. This study investigated the relationship between game-based performance indicators and developmental level in junior Australian football (AF). Players were categorised into 2 groups according to developmental level; U16 and U18. Physical and technical skill performance indicators were collated for all U16 (n = 200) and U18 (n = 244) participants of their respective 2014 national championships. Data were acquired from all 28 games (12 U16, 16 U18); resulting in 1360 player observations (568 U16, 792 U18). Microtechnology and a commercial provider facilitated the quantification of 15 performance indicators. Generalised estimating equations (GEEs) modelled the extent to which these performance indicators were associated with developmental level. The GEE model revealed that "contested marks" and "contested possessions" had the strongest association with the U16 level, while "total marks" and "clearances" had the strongest association with the U18 level. The remaining performance indicators were not developmentally discriminant. These results indicate that there are distinctive features of gameplay more associated with the U16 and U18 levels in AF. Coaches may wish to consider these results when constructing training drills designed to minimise developmental gaps.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 91 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 16%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Student > Postgraduate 4 4%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 3 3%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 34 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 33 36%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 5%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 35 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 August 2016.
All research outputs
#4,012,227
of 23,330,477 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Sports Sciences
#1,561
of 3,817 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,915
of 365,560 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Sports Sciences
#50
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,330,477 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,817 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 365,560 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.