“Set realistic goals, keep re-evaluating, and be consistent” — Venus Williams.
Assessing athlete readiness is a widespread practice in most sports, for both team and individual disciplines, and can be defined in many ways. Simply put, it indicates how prepared an athlete is for competition and training sessions.
Fitness and fatigue are two key factors to be considered after an individual athlete completes a physical session. Each session comprises a chronic load, to which athletes respond differently. Here is where the assessment of athlete readiness mainly comes into play.
Training load can be categorised into two factors: internal and external. Internal load pertains to how an athlete responds to the workload, while external load refers to what the athlete actually ends up doing on the field. Both internal and external loads help determine when the athlete is prepared to engage in training or skill sessions, incorporating specific testing protocols.
Methods of readiness assessment
There are numerous methods available to assess athlete readiness, which can be categorised as follows:
Overall fitness or wellness questionnaires Heart rate indices and variability protocols Salivary markers (e.g. testosterone to cortisol ratio) Blood markers (e.g. blood creatine kinase) Neuromuscular fatigue (e.g. Countermovement jump) Cortisol content in the sweat can be an effective marker
Concentrating solely on a single specific variable data will not give an accurate picture and can have a serious impact on the performance domain of athletes.
Let’s examine the pros and cons of each method of collecting variable data and zero in on collective inferences to understand an athlete’s readiness:
— Fitness or wellness data can be very useful due to its swift processing and affordability. However, it relies on the POV of athletes, which can lead to inaccuracies if they provide inaccurate information.
— It’s important to establish individual profiling for each athlete. This establishes a genuine baseline for comparison based on their unique parameters. Relying on team averages or generic cutoff values overlooks individual variability, failing to provide an accurate assessment.
— Utilising creatine kinase (CK) as a readiness measure is a good example of this concept. CK levels can be collected after matches from players who participated in most games. Additionally, variability assessment of individual athletes can be done based on their day-to-day physical activity, offering a reliable method for evaluation.
— The more data you collect, the easier it is to establish ‘normal’ values for individuals within the monitoring system.
Pragmatic applications
No single measure can tell you everything you want to know about an athlete; it’s crucial to recognise this as a significant indicator. Many products on the market may claim to offer a one-stop solution with utmost accuracy for assessing an athlete’s readiness, but it’s all business spiel.
The best bet is to consider three to four variables and infer data from psychological and physiological parameters over a period of time to ensure accuracy. Combining subjective measures such as questionnaires with objective measures like HRV and strength index can provide correct knowledge of an athlete’s readiness.
If two or more red flags appear in the variables, they should be studied further. Assessing an athlete’s readiness requires considering both subjective and objective factors, to obtain the most reliable data for taking calls about their next session.
The session can be modified according to the requirements of that particular training day, with the coach playing an important role in making the decisions. Be it the coach, physiotherapist, or strength and conditioning coach, debriefing with the player and support staff is essential. This ensures clarity and helps the athlete from being not confused and overwhelmed by complex data-crunching.
In the end, the coach has the final say in it!
Comments
SHARE