Gabbett (2006)

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 9

This article was downloaded by: [University of Chester]

On: 09 January 2012, At: 07:07


Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sports Sciences


Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20

A comparison of physiological and anthropometric


characteristics among playing positions in sub-elite
rugby league players
a
Tim J. Gabbett
a
Queensland Academy of Sport, Sunnybank, QLD, Australia

Available online: 24 Nov 2006

To cite this article: Tim J. Gabbett (2006): A comparison of physiological and anthropometric characteristics among playing
positions in sub-elite rugby league players, Journal of Sports Sciences, 24:12, 1273-1280

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640410500497675

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Journal of Sports Sciences, December 2006; 24(12): 1273 1280

A comparison of physiological and anthropometric characteristics


among playing positions in sub-elite rugby league players

TIM J. GABBETT

Queensland Academy of Sport, Sunnybank, QLD, Australia

(Accepted 24 November 2005)

Abstract
Downloaded by [University of Chester] at 07:07 09 January 2012

This study compared the physiological and anthropometric characteristics of specific playing positions and positional playing
groups in sub-elite rugby league players. Altogether, 415 sub-elite rugby league players underwent measurements of standard
anthropometry (body mass, height, sum of four skinfolds), muscular power (vertical jump), speed (10-m, 20-m, and 40-m
sprint), agility (L run), and estimated maximal aerobic power (multi-stage fitness test). Props were significantly heavier
and had a greater skinfold thickness than all other playing positions. Centres, fullbacks, and hookers were faster than props
over 40 m. When the data were analysed according to positional commonality, props were taller, heavier, had a greater
skinfold thickness, were less agile, and were slower over 10 m than all other positional groups. The hookers/halves and
outside backs positional groups were significantly faster over 40 m than the backrowers and props positional groups. In
addition, the hookers/halves and outside backs positional groups had significantly greater estimated maximal aerobic power
than the props positional group. The results of this study demonstrate that few physiological and anthropometric differences
exist among individual playing positions in sub-elite rugby league players, although props are taller, heavier, have greater
skinfold thickness, slower 10-m and 40-m speed, less agility, and lower estimated maximal aerobic power than other
positional groups. These findings provide normative data for sub-elite rugby league players competing in specific individual
positions and positional playing groups.

Keywords: Semi-professional, collision sport, performance, training, football

Rugby league team positions can be broadly


Introduction
classified as either forwards (i.e. all players involved
Rugby league is a collision sport played in several in the scrum) or backs (i.e. all players not involved in
countries worldwide, including Australia, New the scrum). Team positions can also be classified
Zealand, England, France, Italy, Russia, Romania, according to the specific individual position played
Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Papua New Guinea, Fiji, (i.e. prop, hooker, second row, lock, half-back, five-
Samoa, and South Africa. In Australia, there are eighth, centre, wing, and fullback), or according to
several different rugby league playing levels that four subgroups reflecting positional commonality
can be generally classified as elite (paid professional (i.e. props, hookers/halves, backrowers, and outside
players), sub-elite (receive moderate remuneration backs) (Meir, Newton, Curtis, Fardell, & Butler,
to play rugby league, but also rely on additional 2001b; OConnor, 1996). Time motion studies
employment to generate income), and non-elite have shown that rugby league players perform
(amateur players) (Gabbett, 2001). The game is different match-play activities during competition
intermittent in nature, requiring players to compete depending on playing position (Meir, Colla, &
in a challenging contest, comprising intense bouts of Milligan, 2001a), with forwards being involved in
sprinting and tackling, separated by short bouts of significantly more physical collisions and tackles
lower-intensity activity (recovery) (Gabbett, 2005e). than backs (Gissane, White, Kerr, & Jennings,
As a result of the physical demands of the game, the 2001). It is also recognized that the ratio of high-
physiological qualities of players are highly developed intensity activity to low-intensity activity is higher for
with players requiring high levels of aerobic fitness, forwards (1:7 to 1:10) than backs (1:12 to 1:28), with
speed, muscular power, and agility (Gabbett, 2005e). forwards covering a greater distance during a match

Correspondence: T. J. Gabbett, Athlete and Coach Support Services, Queensland Acdemy of Sport, PO Box 956, Sunnybank, QLD 4109, Australia.
E-mail: tim.gabbett@qld.gov.au
ISSN 0264-0414 print/ISSN 1466-447X online 2006 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/02640410500497675
1274 T. J. Gabbett

(9929 vs. 8458 m) (Meir et al., 2001a). These on additional employment to generate income
findings demonstrate that in rugby league a wide (Gabbett, 2001). In addition, although the players
range of skills and physiological demands exist for competed with the goal of reaching and winning the
different playing positions. grand final, the senior rugby league competition
Comparisons of the physiological and anthropo- could be described as a sub-elite competition. All
metric characteristics of specific rugby league playing participants received a clear explanation of the study,
positions are uncommon, as most (Allen, 1989; including the risks and benefits of participation, and
Baker & Nance, 1999; Brewer, Davis, & Kear, 1994; written consent was obtained. The Institutional
Clark, 2002; Gabbett, 2000b, 2002a, 2005d; Larder, Review Board for Human Investigation approved
1992; Meir, 1993a, 1993b; OConnor, 1995) but not all experimental procedures.
all (Gabbett, 2002b, 2005a; Gabbett & Herzig, 2004;
Meir et al., 2001b; OConnor, 1996) studies have
Procedure
used small sample sizes. Previous studies of the
physiological and anthropometric characteristics of The rugby league season lasted from December
elite rugby league players have reported significant through to September, with matches played from
differences among playing positions for height February through to September. Players performed
(OConnor, 1996), body mass (Meir et al., 2001b; two 90-min training sessions each week. All fitness
Downloaded by [University of Chester] at 07:07 09 January 2012

OConnor, 1996), skinfold thickness (Meir et al., testing was conducted over a 3-week period during
2001b; OConnor, 1996), maximal aerobic power the competitive phase of the season (May), after
(OConnor, 1996), speed (Clark, 2002; Meir et al., players had obtained a degree of match fitness.
2001b; OConnor, 1996), repeated sprint ability Fitness testing was conducted on the Tuesday and
(Clark, 2002), and muscular strength (Meir et al., Wednesday, at least 2 days after participating in a
2001b; OConnor, 1996). However, while differ- match. The coaches of the various teams stated that
ences have been reported among playing positions they were prepared to devote one training session
for elite rugby league players, no study has investi- (approximately 90 min) to the field testing. Although
gated whether similar physiological and anthro- consideration was given to the specificity of the field
pometric differences exist among playing positions test, the selection of tests was influenced by this time
in sub-elite rugby league. Consequently, normative constraint.
data for sub-elite rugby league players do not exist,
making the development of realistic position-specific
Fitness tests
performance standards difficult. In addition, the
development of physical performance standards for Standard anthropometry (height, body mass, sum
individual playing positions and positional playing of four skinfolds) (Norton et al., 2000), muscular
groups would allow coaches to identify player power (vertical jump: Gabbett, 2002b), speed (10-m,
weaknesses and develop specific training pro- 20-m, and 40-m sprints: OConnor, 1996), agility
grammes for players according to their position (L run; Webb & Lander, 1983), and estimated
(Meir, 1993a). With this in mind, the aim of the maximal aerobic power (multi-stage fitness test:
present study was to compare the physiological and Ramsbottom, Brewer, & Williams, 1988) were the
anthropometric characteristics of specific playing fitness tests selected. The participants were in-
positions and positional playing groups in sub-elite structed to refrain from strenuous exercise for at
rugby league. It was hypothesized that the physiolo- least 48 h before the fitness test session, and to
gical and anthropometric characteristics of sub-elite consume their normal pre-training diet before the
rugby league players would differ significantly among test session. The test session began with anthropo-
individual playing positions and positional playing metric measurements. Players were then randomly
groups. allocated into three groups, consisting of approxi-
mately equal numbers. Players in group one
underwent measurements of muscular power (ver-
Methods tical jump), while players in groups two and three
underwent agility (L run) and speed (10-m, 20-m,
Participants
and 40-m sprints) measurements respectively.
Altogether, 415 healthy men participated in this Players performed two trials for the speed, agility,
study. Players were participants from ten teams and muscular power tests, with a recovery of appro-
competing within the Gold Coast Group 18 (New ximately 3 min between trials. Players were encour-
South Wales Rugby League, Australia) senior rugby aged to perform low-intensity activities and stretches
league competition. The players in the present study between trials. Upon completion of the respective
were defined as sub-elite as they were receiving tests, each group rotated until all tests had been
moderate remuneration to play, but were also relying performed. The field test session concluded with
Fitness and playing position in rugby league 1275

players performing the multi-stage fitness test (esti-


Speed
mated maximal aerobic power).
Rugby league players need to move quickly to
position themselves in attack and defence (Meir
Anthropometry
et al., 2001b). However, time motion studies have
Body mass and excess body fat have been shown to shown that rugby league players are rarely required
have a negative influence on performance (e.g. to sprint distances more than 40 m in a single bout of
power to body mass ratio, thermoregulation, and intense activity (Meir et al., 2001a). The running
aerobic capacity) (Meir et al., 2001b). As an estimate speed of players was evaluated in 10-m, 20-m, and
of adiposity, skinfold thickness was measured 40-m sprints (OConnor, 1996) using dual beam
at four sites using a Harpenden skinfold caliper. electronic timing gates (Swift Performance Equip-
Biceps, triceps, subscapular, and suprailiac were the ment, NSW, Australia). The timing gates were
four sites selected. The exact positioning of each positioned 10, 20, and 40 m cross-wind from a
skinfold measurement was in accordance with pro- pre-determined starting point. Players were in-
cedures described by Norton et al. (2000). Skinfold structed to run as quickly as possible along the 40-
thickness was measured to the nearest 0.1 mm, m distance from a standing start (Brewer et al.,
with the average score obtained from two measure- 1994). All tests were conducted outdoors, in dry
Downloaded by [University of Chester] at 07:07 09 January 2012

ments being recorded. Height was measured conditions, on a well-grassed surface. Speed was
using a portable stadiometer, and body mass was measured to the nearest 0.01 s with the fastest value
measured using calibrated digital scales (A&D Co. obtained from two trials being recorded. The
Ltd, Tokyo, Japan). The intraclass correlation co- intraclass correlation coefficient for test retest relia-
efficient for test retest reliability and the typi- bility and typical error of measurement (Hopkins,
cal error of measurement (Hopkins, 2000) for 2000) for the 10-m, 20-m, and 40-m sprints were
height, body mass, and sum of four skinfolds were 0.95, 0.97, and 0.97, and 1.8%, 1.3%, and 1.2%,
0.99, 0.99, and 0.99, and 0.2%, 0.8%, and 3.0%, respectively.
respectively.
Agility
Muscular power
Rugby league players are required to rapidly accel-
The ability to generate high muscular power is an erate, decelerate, and change direction (Meir et al.,
important attribute of rugby league players. Players 2001b). The agility of players was evaluated using an
are required to have high muscular power to perform L run (Webb & Lander, 1983) using dual beam
the tackling, lifting, pushing, and pulling tasks that electronic timing gates (Swift Performance Equip-
occur during a match (Meir et al., 2001b). In ment, NSW, Australia). The L-run requires
addition, high muscular power is required to provide players to change direction laterally, and based on
fast play-the-ball speed and leg drive in tackles time motion studies (Meir et al., 1993) it has been
(Gabbett, 2005b). Lower body muscular power was suggested to reflect the movement patterns of rugby
estimated by means of the vertical jump test league. Three cones, approximately 1 m in height,
(Gabbett, 2002b) using a Yardstick vertical jump were placed 5 m apart in the shape of an L.
device (Swift Performance Equipment, NSW, Aus- Players ran forward 5 m, turned to their left, ran
tralia). Players were requested to stand with feet flat forward 5 m, turned 1808, and followed the same
on the ground, extend their arm and hand, and mark course to return to the finish line. Players were
the standing reach height. After assuming a crouch instructed to run as quickly as possible over the
position, each participant was instructed to spring agility run. Agility times were measured to the
upward and touch the Yardstick device at the highest nearest 0.01 s with the fastest value obtained from
possible point. No specific instructions were given two trials being recorded. The intraclass correlation
regarding the depth or speed of the countermove- coefficient for test retest reliability and typical error
ment. Vertical jump height was calculated as the of measurement (Hopkins, 2000) for the L run
distance from the highest point reached during were 0.90 and 2.8%, respectively. All tests were
standing and the highest point reached during the conducted outdoors, in dry conditions, on a well-
vertical jump. Vertical jump height was measured to grassed surface.
the nearest centimetre with the highest value
obtained from two trials being recorded. The
Maximal aerobic power
intraclass correlation coefficient for test retest relia-
bility and typical error of measurement (Hopkins, Depending on the level of competition, rugby league
2000) for the vertical jump test were 0.96 and 3.3%, matches last 60 80 min, with players covering
respectively. 8458 9929 m in a match (Meir et al., 2001a).
1276 T. J. Gabbett

Players also require high aerobic fitness to aid 154, respectively. Differences in anthropometric
recovery after high-intensity bouts of activity. Max- characteristics, vertical jump height, speed, agility,
imal aerobic power was estimated using the multi- and estimated V_ O2max of the different playing
stage fitness test (Ramsbottom et al., 1988). Players positions and positional groups were compared using
were required to run back and forth (i.e. shuttle run) a one-way analysis of variance. When required,
along a 20-m track, keeping in time with a series of comparisons of group means were performed using
signals on a compact disc. The frequency of the Scheffes post-hoc test. Statistical significance was set
audible signals (and hence running speed) was pro- at P 5 0.05 and all data are reported as means +
gressively increased, until the participants reached standard deviations.
volitional exhaustion. Maximal aerobic power
(V_ O2max) was estimated using regression equations
described by Ramsbottom et al. (1988). It has Results
been demonstrated that, compared with treadmill-
Anthropometric characteristics
determined V_ O2max, the multi-stage fitness test
provides a valid estimate of maximal aerobic power The mean (+s) age and playing experience of all
(Ramsbottom et al., 1988). In addition, in a previous players were 22.3 + 5.0 and 13.1 + 7.3 years, respec-
study (Gabbett, 2005b) rugby league players com- tively. The mean (+s) height, body mass, and sum of
Downloaded by [University of Chester] at 07:07 09 January 2012

pleted duplicate multi-stage fitness tests, performed four skinfolds for all players were 1.77 + 0.07 m,
one week apart, to determine test retest reliability. 85.8 + 13.3 kg, and 43.7 + 16.8 mm, respectively.
The intraclass correlation coefficient for test retest Significant differences (P 5 0.05) were detected
reliability and typical error of measurement among individual positions for height, body mass,
(Hopkins, 2000) for the multi-stage fitness test were and skinfold thickness. Props were heavier (P 5 0.05)
0.90 and 3.1%, respectively. All tests were con- and had a greater skinfold thickness (P 5 0.05) than all
ducted outdoors, in dry conditions, on a well-grassed other positions. In addition, props were taller
surface. (P 5 0.05) than all positions except lock and fullback.
Hookers were shorter (P 5 0.05) than locks (Table I).
When the data were analysed according to positional
Statistical analysis
commonality, props as a positional group were taller,
Data were collected from 215 forwards (59 props, heavier, and had a greater skinfold thickness (all
55 hookers, 69 second-rowers, 32 locks) and 200 P 5 0.05) than all other positional groups. Backrowers
backs (21 half-backs, 25 five-eighths, 60 centres, 60 were taller (P 5 0.05) and heavier (P 5 0.05) than the
wingers, 34 fullbacks). The hookers/halves positional hookers/halves positional group. In addition, hookers/
group consisted of hookers, half-backs, and five- halves were shorter (P 5 0.05) than outside backs
eighths. The backrowers positional group con- (Table II).
sisted of second-rowers and locks, while the outside
backs positional group consisted of centres, wingers,
Physiological characteristics
and fullbacks. The total number of players in
the props, hookers/halves, backrowers, and outside The mean (+s) vertical jump height and agility of all
backs positional groups was 59, 101, 101, and players were 46.9 + 10.5 cm and 6.02 + 0.55 s,

Table I. Anthropometric characteristics of specific individual rugby league positions (mean + s).

Age (years) Playing experience (years) Height (m) Body mass (kg) Sum of skinfolds (mm)

Prop 21.7 + 4.5 11.9 + 7.9 1.85 + 0.06 105.6 + 8.9 67.7 + 18.4
Hooker 21.2 + 4.2 15.1 + 5.7 1.72 + 0.03af 75.5 + 9.4ab 37.1 + 12.0a
Second row 24.0 + 5.6 14.1 + 8.6 1.77 + 0.06a 90.2 + 8.9acd 44.5 + 12.6a
Lock 25.7 + 5.6e 16.5 + 8.4 1.80 + 0.06 87.0 + 9.0ad 40.1 + 11.6a
Half-back 21.2 + 4.7 13.4 + 5.4 1.74 + 0.08a 76.3 + 10.0a 39.8 + 10.1a
Five-eighth 23.7 + 6.1 17.1 + 8.0d 1.75 + 0.04a 83.3 + 12.6a 39.7 + 16.9a
Centre 21.1 + 3.4 11.2 + 4.6 1.76 + 0.03a 84.3 + 9.6a 40.3 + 13.9a
Wing 21.1 + 4.6 10.0 + 6.5 1.77 + 0.08a 76.5 + 7.8a 32.6 + 13.2a
Fullback 21.4 + 5.8 12.0 + 5.8 1.78 + 0.06 82.2 + 10.6a 42.6 + 14.7a
a
Significantly different (P 5 0.05) from prop. bSignificantly different (P 5 0.05) from second row, lock, and centre. cSignificantly different
(P 5 0.05) from half-back. dSignificantly different (P 5 0.05) from wing. eSignificantly different (P 5 0.05) from centre. fSignificantly
different (P 5 0.05) from lock. Prop, n 59; hooker, n 55; second row, n 69; lock, n 32; half-back, n 21; five-eighth, n 25; centre,
n 60; wing, n 60; fullback, n 34.
Fitness and playing position in rugby league 1277

respectively. The mean (+s) 10-m speed, 40-m


Discussion
speed, and estimated V_ O2max of all players were
2.13 + 0.26 s, 5.97 + 0.42 s, and 45.5 + 6.5 ml  Although several studies have examined the physio-
kg71  min71, respectively. There were no signifi- logical and anthropometric characteristics of rugby
cant differences (P 4 0.05) among individual posi- league players, few have documented the influence of
tions for 10-m speed. However, centres, fullbacks, playing position on the fitness of these athletes.
and hookers were faster than props over 40 m. Previous studies of the physiological and anthropo-
Hookers were the most agile (Table III). When the metric characteristics of elite rugby league players
data were analysed according to positional common- have shown significant differences among playing
ality, props as a positional group were less agile and positions for height (OConnor, 1996), body mass
were slower over 10 m (P 5 0.05) than all other (Meir et al., 2001b; OConnor, 1996), skinfold
positional groups. The hookers/halves and outside thickness (Meir et al., 2001b; OConnor, 1996),
backs positional group was faster over 40 m (P 5 estimated V_ O2max (OConnor, 1996), speed (Meir
0.05) than the backrowers and props positional et al., 2001b; OConnor, 1996), repeated sprint
group. In addition, hookers/halves and outside backs ability (Clark, 2002), and muscular strength
had a higher estimated V_ O2max (P 5 0.05) than the (Meir et al., 2001b; OConnor, 1996). The present
props positional group (Table IV). study is the first to compare the physiological and
Downloaded by [University of Chester] at 07:07 09 January 2012

Table II. Anthropometric characteristics of rugby league positional groups (mean + s).

Age (years) Playing experience (years) Height (m) Body mass (kg) Sum of skinfolds (mm)

Props 21.7 + 4.5 11.9 + 7.9 1.85 + 0.06 105.6 + 8.9 67.7 + 18.4
Hookers/halves 21.8 + 4.9 15.4 + 6.5 1.73 + 0.05ac 77.8 + 10.9a 38.4 + 12.8a
Backrowers 24.5 + 5.6abc 14.9 + 8.5c 1.78 + 0.06ab 89.3 + 9.0ab 43.1 + 12.4a
Outside backs 21.2 + 4.4 10.9 + 5.6b 1.77 + 0.06a 80.8 + 9.8a 38.4 + 14.2a
a
Significantly different (P 5 0.05) from props positional group. bSignificantly different (P 5 0.05) from hookers/halves positional group.
c
Significantly different (P 5 0.05) from outside backs positional group. Props, n 59; hookers/halves, n 101; backrowers, n 101; outside
Backs, n 154.

Table III. Physiological characteristics of specific individual rugby league positions (mean + s).

10 m (s) 20 m (s) 40 m (s) Agility (s) Vertical jump (cm) V_ O2max (ml  kg71  min71)

Prop 2.18 + 0.23 3.55 + 0.23 6.21 + 0.38 6.36 + 0.48 43.4 + 9.0 42.6 + 6.5
Hooker 2.06 + 0.23 3.38 + 0.26 5.88 + 0.34a 5.83 + 0.60a 50.9 + 10.5 46.7 + 7.0
Second row 2.19 + 0.32 3.44 + 0.30 6.13 + 0.49b 6.11 + 0.60 45.7 + 10.5 44.4 + 6.9
Lock 2.11 + 0.31 3.36 + 0.27 5.96 + 0.52 5.84 + 0.47 46.6 + 12.4 46.1 + 5.4
Half-back 2.09 + 0.23 3.35 + 0.24 5.89 + 0.37 5.93 + 0.47 48.4 + 9.0 47.3 + 6.2
Five-eighth 2.08 + 0.20 3.36 + 0.19 5.91 + 0.31 6.16 + 0.64 41.0 + 7.7 45.5 + 5.3
Centre 2.08 + 0.21 3.33 + 0.19a 5.81 + 0.30a 5.94 + 0.44 50.0 + 8.8 46.6 + 6.2
Wing 2.14 + 0.28 3.39 + 0.28 5.89 + 0.41 5.96 + 0.54 46.5 + 12.0 45.2 + 6.7
Fullback 2.16 + 0.24 3.33 + 0.25 5.84 + 0.39a 5.89 + 0.50 47.4 + 11.9 47.0 + 5.8
a
Significantly different (P 5 0.05) from prop. bSignificantly different (P 5 0.05) from centre. Prop, n 59; hooker, n 55; second row,
n 69; lock, n 32; half-back, n 21; five-eighth, n 25; centre, n 60; wing, n 60; fullback, n 34.

Table IV. Physiological characteristics of rugby league positional groups (mean + s).

10 m (s) 20 m (s) 40 m (s) Agility (s) Vertical jump (cm) V_ O2max (ml  kg71  min71)

Prop 2.18 + 0.23 3.55 + 0.23 6.21 + 0.38 6.36 + 0.48 43.4 + 9.0 42.6 + 6.5
Hookers/halves 2.07 + 0.22a 3.37 + 0.24 5.89 + 0.33a 5.93 + 0.59a 47.7 + 10.3 46.5 + 6.4a
Backrowers 2.17 + 0.32a 3.41 + 0.29 6.08 + 0.50bc 6.02 + 0.58a 46.0 + 11.1 44.9 + 6.5
Outside backs 2.12 + 0.25a 3.35 + 0.24 5.85 + 0.36a 5.94 + 0.49a 48.3 + 10.6 46.1 + 6.3a
a
Significantly different (P 5 0.05) from props positional group. bSignificantly different (P 5 0.05) from hookers/halves positional group.
c
Significantly different (P 5 0.05) from outside backs positional group. Props, n 59; hookers/halves, n 101; backrowers, n 101; outside
backs, n 154.
1278 T. J. Gabbett

anthropometric characteristics of specific playing heat during intense physical activity (Meir et al.,
positions and positional playing groups in sub-elite 2001b).
rugby league. The results of this study demonstrate The present study found that 10-m speed and 40-
that few physiological and anthropometric differ- m speed were significantly lower in props than in
ences exist among individual playing positions in hookers, centres, and wingers (Table III). In addi-
sub-elite rugby league players, although props are tion, the props positional group was significantly
taller, heavier, have a greater skinfold thickness, slower than the hookers/halves, backrowers, and
lower 10-m and 40-m speed, less agility, and lower outside backs positional groups (Table IV). These
estimated maximal aerobic power than other posi- findings are in agreement with OConnor (1996),
tional playing groups. who found that elite rugby league props had
The present study is the largest study of the significantly slower 10-m and 40-m speed than
physiological and anthropometric characteristics of outside backs. Previous studies have reported similar
rugby league players. The sample of 415 players 10-m sprint times between forwards and backs, with
compares favourably with the studies of OConnor backs having significantly faster 20-m and 40-m
(1996: n 260), Gabbett (2002b: n 159), Gabbett speeds than forwards (Brewer et al., 1994; Gabbett,
and Herzig (2004: n 151), and Meir et al. (2001b: 2000b). These findings have been attributed to the
n 146). The physiological characteristics of the rare requirement of forwards to run further than
Downloaded by [University of Chester] at 07:07 09 January 2012

sub-elite rugby league players in this study are better 10 m in a single bout of intense activity (Meir,
than those previously reported for non-elite rugby 1993a). However, the faster 10-m sprint times in the
league players (Gabbett, 2000b), and are comparable hookers/halves, backrowers, and outside backs posi-
with other sub-elite rugby league players (Gabbett, tional groups appears to reflect a better developed
2002b, 2005b). Furthermore, the vertical jump, 10- sprinting ability in these players.
m speed, 40-m speed, and estimated V_ O2max results An interesting finding of this study was that
of the sub-elite rugby league players in this study are wingers had similar speed as all other playing posi-
similar to those reported previously for semi-profes- tions. Results from elite rugby league studies have
sional rugby league players (Gabbett, 2002a). The shown that wingers are traditionally the fastest
results of this study provide normative data for sub- players on the rugby league team and use their speed
elite rugby league players competing in specific to either chase attacking players or to attack while
individual positions and positional playing groups. running with the ball (Meir et al., 2001b). Indeed,
In addition, given the large sample size, and the previous studies of elite rugby league players have
inclusion of winning and losing teams, these data shown that wingers have faster 15-m speed than
provide a good representation of the physiological props, and faster 40-m speed than props, second-
and anthropometric characteristics of sub-elite rugby rowers, locks, half-backs, and five-eighths (Meir
league players. et al., 2001b). These findings suggest a greater
Consistent with previous results from elite rugby requirement for acceleration and maximum speed
league players (Meir et al., 2001b; OConnor, 1996), in elite rugby league wingers. The finding from this
the present study found that props were taller, study that wingers had similar speed to other playing
heavier, and had a greater skinfold thickness than positions may reflect differences in coaching philo-
other individual positions and positional groups sophies between elite and sub-elite competition, with
(Tables I and II). These results are also in partial faster players selected into other key positional roles,
agreement with previous studies that found that body such as centre, fullback, or hooker. Indeed, in the
mass successfully predicts selection as a forward or present study, the centres, fullbacks, and hookers
back (Gabbett, 2002a, 2002b). Props spend a large had faster 40-m speeds than all other playing
proportion of match-play involved in tackling and positions. Given the slower speed of wingers in the
physical collisions. As a result, the higher body mass present study, and that these players are required to
of props may assist in the development of greater run at maximum speed over distances of 20 60 m
momentum and impact forces associated with these (Meir et al., 2001b), coaches should consider group-
activities. The higher body mass would also reduce ing wingers with fullbacks and centres when devising
the likelihood of opposing players effecting tackles on specific speed development training programmes
these players (OConnor, 1996). However, while an (Meir et al., 2001b).
increased skinfold thickness has been suggested to The present study found that the hookers/halves
provide a protective role against the high numbers of and outside backs positional groups had greater
physical collisions sustained by props (Meir, 1993b), estimated V_ O2max than the props positional group
the higher body fat component of props may increase (Table IV). These findings are in agreement
the physiological demands placed on them, as with OConnor (1996), who found higher esti-
they are required to support this weight during an mated V_ O2max in hookers (55.2 ml  kg71  min71),
80-min match, and diminish the ability to dissipate halves (52.0 ml  kg71  min71), and outside backs
Fitness and playing position in rugby league 1279

(52.8 ml  kg71  min71) than in props (48.6 ml  the tackling, lifting, pushing, and pulling tasks that
kg71  min71). Furthermore, the finding of lower occur during a match (Meir et al., 2001b). In
aerobic fitness in props is in line with Meir et al. addition, high muscular strength and power con-
(2001b), who reported greater distance run in 5 min tribute to running speed, and are required to provide
for hookers and halfbacks (1353 m) than props and fast play-the-ball speed and leg drive in tackles
second-rowers (1264 m). Despite finding significant (Gabbett, 2005b). The finding of similar vertical
differences among positional playing groups in the jump scores among positions suggests that muscular
present study, no significant differences were detected power is an equally important characteristic for all
among individual playing positions for estimated playing positions. However, while muscular power is
V_ O2max. These findings suggest that when training an important characteristic for all playing positions, it
for position-specific improvements in aerobic fitness, has been suggested that because props work over
players should be grouped according to positional shorter distances (approximately 10 m) (Meir et al.,
playing group (i.e. props, hookers/halves, backrowers, 2001b), they require a greater ability to generate
and outside backs), rather than specific individual large forces rapidly (OConnor, 1996). It is possible
positions (Meir et al., 2001b). A high aerobic fitness is that the similar vertical jump scores between props
required in rugby league, as players have been reported and other playing positions reflects the greater
to cover between 8458 and 9929 m per match, with skinfold thickness of props and an attenuation of
Downloaded by [University of Chester] at 07:07 09 January 2012

forwards covering a greater total distances than backs the power to body mass ratio in these players
(Meir et al., 2001a). The higher estimated V_ O2max (Gabbett, 2000b).
in hookers/halves may reflect their high work rate In conclusion, this study compared the physiolo-
throughout a match. Indeed, time motion studies gical and anthropometric characteristics of specific
have shown that hookers cover a greater total distance playing positions and positional playing groups in
during the course of a match than players in any sub-elite rugby league. The results of this study
other position (Meir et al., 2001a). Furthermore, demonstrate that few physiological and anthropo-
hookers defend in the middle of the ruck, and play metric differences exist among individual playing
an important role in following each play-the-ball positions in sub-elite rugby league, although props
(Meir et al., 2001b), distributing the ball to support are taller, heavier, have a greater skinfold thickness,
players, and supporting the ball-carrier in attack. A lower 10-m and 40-m speeds, less agility, and a
high aerobic fitness is also of particular importance to lower estimated maximal aerobic power than other
props given their greater involvement in tackles and positional playing groups. These findings provide
physical collisions (Gissane et al., 2001), and the normative data for sub-elite rugby league players
higher intensity of match-play in this position competing in specific individual positions and posi-
(Meir et al., 2001a). In addition, it has been reported tional playing groups.
that player fatigue (Gabbett, 2000a) and a low
estimated V_ O2max (Gabbett & Domrow, 2005) are
risk factors for injuries in rugby league players, with References
props demonstrating the greatest susceptibility to Allen, G. D. (1989). Physiological and metabolic changes with six
fatigue-related injuries (Gabbett, 2005c). Clearly, weeks detraining. Australian Journal of Science and Medicine in
Sport, 21, 4 9.
sub-elite rugby league props could benefit from
Baker, D., & Nance, S. (1999). The relation between running
additional aerobic training to enhance performance speed and measures of strength and power in professional rugby
and reduce the incidence of injury associated with this league players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 13,
position. 230 235.
The finding of similar vertical jump height among Brewer, J., Davis, J., & Kear, J. (1994). A comparison of the
individual positions and positional playing groups is physiological characteristics of rugby league forwards and
backs. Journal of Sports Sciences, 12, 158.
in agreement with OConnor (1996), who reported Clark, L. (2002). A comparison of the speed characteristics of elite
similar vertical jump performance among elite rugby league players by grade and position. Strength and
rugby league props, backrowers, outside backs, and Conditioning Coach, 10, 2 12.
hookers/halves. These findings are also in agreement Gabbett, T. J. (2000a). Incidence, site, and nature of injuries in
with Meir et al. (2001b), who found similar lower amateur rugby league over three consecutive seasons. British
Journal of Sports Medicine, 34, 98 103.
body muscular strength among playing positions and Gabbett, T. J. (2000b). Physiological and anthropometric char-
positional groups in elite rugby league players, and acteristics of amateur rugby league players. British Journal of
Gabbett (2000b, 2002a, 2002b), who found similar Sports Medicine, 34, 303 307.
vertical jump scores between forwards and backs Gabbett, T. J. (2001). Severity and cost of injuries in amateur
competing at the sub-elite level. The ability to rugby league: A case study. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19, 341
347.
generate high muscular force rapidly is an important Gabbett, T. J. (2002a). Influence of physiological characteristics
attribute of rugby league players. Players are required on selection in a semi-professional rugby league team: A case
to have high muscular strength and power to perform study. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20, 399 405.
1280 T. J. Gabbett

Gabbett, T. J. (2002b). Physiological characteristics of junior and Meir, R. (1993a). Evaluating players fitness in professional rugby
senior rugby league players. British Journal of Sports Medicine, league: Reducing subjectivity. Strength and Conditioning Coach,
36, 334 339. 1, 11 17.
Gabbett, T. J. (2005a). A comparison of physiological and Meir, R. (1993b). Seasonal changes in estimates of body
anthropometric characteristics among playing positions in composition in professional rugby league players. Sport Health,
junior rugby league players. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 11, 27 31.
39, 675 680. Meir, R., Arthur, D., & Forrest, M. (1993). Time and motion
Gabbett, T. J. (2005b). Changes in physiological and anthropo- analysis of professional rugby league: A case study. Strength and
metric characteristics of rugby league players during a competi- Conditioning Coach, 1, 24 29.
tive season. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19, Meir, R., Colla, P., & Milligan, C. (2001a). Impact of the 10-
400 408. meter rule change on professional rugby league: Implications
Gabbett, T. J. (2005c). Influence of playing position on the site, for training. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 23, 42 46.
nature, and cause of rugby league injuries. Journal of Strength Meir, R., Newton, R., Curtis, E., Fardell, M., & Butler, B
and Conditioning Research, 19, 749 755. (2001b). Physical fitness qualities of professional rugby league
Gabbett, T. J. (2005d). Physiological and anthropometric char- football players: Determination of positional differences.
acteristics of junior rugby league players over a competitive Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 15, 450 458.
season. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19, Norton, K., Marfell-Jones, M., Whittingham, N., Kerr, D.,
764 771. Carter, L., Saddington, K. et al. (2000). Anthropometric
Gabbett, T. J. (2005e). Science of rugby league football: A review. assessment protocols. In C. J. Gore (Ed.), Physiological tests
Journal of Sports Sciences, 23, 961 976. for elite athletes (pp. 66 85). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Gabbett, T. J., & Domrow, N. (2005). Risk factors for injury in OConnor, D. (1995). Fitness profile of professional rugby league
Downloaded by [University of Chester] at 07:07 09 January 2012

sub-elite rugby league players. American Journal of Sports players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 13, 505.
Medicine, 33, 428 434. OConnor, D. (1996). Physiological characteristics of professional
Gabbett, T. J., & Herzig, P. J. (2004). Physiological characteristics rugby league players. Strength and Conditioning Coach, 4, 21
of junior elite and sub-elite rugby league players. Strength and 26.
Conditioning Coach, 12, 19 24. Ramsbottom, R., Brewer, J., & Williams, C. (1988). A progressive
Gissane, C., White, J., Kerr, K., & Jennings, D. (2001). Physical shuttle run test to estimate maximal oxygen uptake. British
collisions in professional super league: The demands of Journal of Sports Medicine, 22, 141 144.
different player positions. Cleveland Medical Journal, 4, 137 Webb, P., & Lander, J. (1983). An economical fitness testing
146. battery for high school and college rugby teams. Sports Coach, 7,
Hopkins, W. G. (2000). Measures of reliability in sports medicine 44 46.
and science. Sports Medicine, 30, 1 15.
Larder, P. (1992). The rugby league coaching manual (2nd edn.).
London: Kingswood Press.

You might also like