pLAYER MONITORING
Simple and accessible monitoring methods remain invaluable in reducing injury risk and overtraining, even amidst recent technological advancements. Using these methods can promote a balanced and safe approach to training. However, compliance in players is often an obstacle to such methods.
Key takeaways
- Inexpensive and easy to use monitoring methods can play a role in athlete development.
- Wellness questionnaires are supported by research as being effective for athlete monitoring.
- Questionnaires can be combined with external training load perception via the RPE. (Rate of Perceived Exertion)
- Training ratios of 0.8 to 1.3 for progression, the 'sweet spot', is a useful but disputed measure.
Why monitor Players
Monitoring a player's training load and training response can aid in ensuring they are aware of any signs of overtraining that can increase injury risk and possibility of player burnout. Talented young athletes who are courted by multiple sports are more vulnerable to overtraining and therefore, monitoring players can play a role in optimising both mental and physical wellness. This may be especially important during heavy training periods, during a player's growth period and also during stressful times e.g. exam periods. Fortunately, recent research has indicated that simple methods of monitoring which are available to all are valid and reliable in highlighting players at risk, and can provide early warning signs that can then be addressed appropriately.
Wellness questionnaires
Simple self-reporting wellness questionnaires have been shown to be valid and reliable as a monitoring tool. They require familiarisation but are quick and simple to complete and have shown to be as accurate as more complex and expensive objective measures in reflecting both acute and chronic training load.
Research suggests using a scale of 1-5 to monitor five subjective measures (e.g. mood, energy, aches / pains, sleep & stress) can indicate the state of a player's well being. Comparing four week averages highlights vulnerable players.
Rate of Perceived Exertion (RPE)
RPE is a simple and effective way to assess exercise intensity as perceived by players, using a scale of 1 - 10 (shown opposite). Multiplying the score with the exercise duration will allow an assessment of the sessions RPE (sRPE).
RPE and session duration can be used in conjunction with the wellness questionnaire to highlight current training status and highlight players that may be vulnerable to overtraining, burnout or at an increased risk of injury.
Including external Load
Using a subjective internal load measure (e.g. wellness questionnaire) with RPE alongside an objective external load information (e.g. distance, minutes, etc) can help an athlete monitor their training load and well-being very easily and with very little cost in terms of time and money.
Monitoring example
Questionnaire (see above)
Mood 4/5; + Energy 3/5; + Aches 3/5; + Sleep 3/5; + Academic 2/5 = 15
x RPE for session (see above) = 6/10
x Training load = 60 min session
15 x 6 x 60 = Training load of 5400.
Note that the score gained is only relevant to the individual athlete and cannot be compared with others, as internal load is based on a player's perception. That is, the score is used to monitor a particular individual. As noted earlier, this simple technique has been shown to be both valid and reliable compared to new technology.
Past research has suggested that there may be a 'sweet spot' for sessions that can protect athletes against overtraining and possible burnout. Using the monitoring technique shown above a ratio can be calculated by dividing the acute workload (latest workload score e.g. over 7 days) by the chronic workload (four week average e.g. over 28 days) = ACWR. The aim is for the ratio to be in the region or 0.8 - 1.3, the 'sweet spot'. An increase of over 1.3 would be deemed too high and alert the coach to the potential risks of overtraining and possibly an increased injury risk. These calculations can easily be tracked using software such as Excel or appropriate apps. Links to the recent debates on this method are shown below. Though a crude measure, at present it still appears it could be useful as part of a monitoring programme.
Current debate: The following information on the 'sweet spot' for training workload has recently been challenged in the literature but this is beyond the scope of this site to discuss in depth; links are provided to this research. A consensus on the topic has not yet emerged.
Monitoring References
Clubb, Jo, and Mike McGuigan. “Developing Cost-Effective, Evidence-Based Load Monitoring Systems in Strength and Conditioning Practice.” Strength and Conditioning Journal, vol. 40, no. 6, Dec. 2018, pp. 75–81, Hamlin, Michael John, et al. “Monitoring Training Loads and Perceived Stress in Young Elite University Athletes.” Frontiers in Physiology, vol. 10, no. 34, 29 Jan. 2019, Saw AE, Main LC, and Gastin PB. Monitoring the athlete training response: Subjective self-reported measures trump commonly used objective measures: A systematic review. Br J Sports Med 50: 281–291, 2016. Wing, Chris. “Monitoring Athlete Load.” Strength and Conditioning Journal, vol. 40, no. 4, Feb. 2018,