Background Coaches, sport scientists, clinicians and medical personnel face a constant challenge to prescribe sufficient training load to produce training adaption while minimising fatigue, performance inhibition and risk of injury/illness. Objective The aim of this review was to investigate the relationship between injury and illness and longitudinal training load and fatigue markers in sporting populations. Methods Systematic searches of the Web of Science and PubMed online databases to August 2015 were conducted for articles reporting relationships between training load/fatigue measures and injury/illness in athlete populations. Results From the initial 5943 articles identified, 2863 duplicates were removed, followed by a further 2833 articles from title and abstract selection. Manual searching of the reference lists of the remaining 247 articles, together with use of the Google Scholar ‘cited by’ tool, yielded 205 extra articles deemed worthy of assessment. Sixty-eight studies were subsequently selected for inclusion in this study, of which 45 investigated injury only, 17 investigated illness only, and 6 investigated both injury and illness. This systematic review highlighted a number of key findings, including disparity within the literature regarding the use of various terminologies such as training load, fatigue, injury and illness. Athletes are at an increased risk of injury/illness at key stages in their training and competition, including periods of training load intensification and periods of accumulated training loads. Conclusions Further investigation of individual athlete characteristics is required due to their impact on internal training load and, therefore, susceptibility to injury/illness.

The aim of this study was to examine the effects of match location, quality of opposition, and match status on the technical aspects of performance within a single professional British football team. Forty matches from the 2002–2003 and 2003–2004 domestic league seasons were notated post-event using a computerized notational analysis system with 13 on-the-ball behaviours and corresponding outcomes (successful or unsuccessful) assessed. Log-linear modelling procedures indicated that the incidences of all on-the-ball technical behaviours, with the exception of “set-pieces”, were influenced by at least one of the three situation variables, with both independent and interactive effects found. In contrast, logit modelling suggested that there was no general influence of the situation variables on the outcomes of the on-the-ball behaviours. The findings emphasize the need for notational analysts and coaches to consider the potential independent and interactive effects of match location, quality of opposition, and match status when assessing the technical components of football performance, particularly those relating to behaviour occurrence. Future research should consider the effects of additional situation variables purported to influence the mental, physical, technical, and tactical components of football performance.

We examined the performance and organizational stressors encountered by elite and non-elite athletes within the competition environment. Twelve sport performers (6 elite, 6 non-elite) were interviewed about both performance and organizational-related demands experienced when preparing for competition. The framework presented identifies five performance (i.e. preparation, injury, expectations, self-presentation, and rivalry) and five organizational (i.e. factors intrinsic to the sport, roles in the sport organization, sport relationships and interpersonal demands, athletic career and performance development issues, and organizational structure and climate of the sport) stress sources. A similar quantity of performance (#PS) and organizational (#OS) stressors were encountered by elite performers (#PS = 127; #OS = 72) as by non-elite athletes (#PS = 123; #OS = 74), with some demands being common and others unique to each group. Although the findings suggest that, prior to competing, sport performers encounter more stressors pertinent to performance than those emanating from the organization, these observations highlight that all the demands faced by athletes should be considered when preparing and implementing interventions to manage competition stress.

The area of competitive anxiety continues to be extensively researched with considerable attention focused on the notion of ‘direction’. The purpose of this review is to demonstrate how the study of direction has advanced our understanding of the competitive anxiety response through providing an overview of the existing research, and emphasizing why sport psychologists investigated the underlying mechanisms of performers’ facilitative interpretations of anxiety symptoms. Finally, we discuss how direction has been integrated into Lazarus ( 1990 Lazarus, R.S. 1990. Theory-based stress measurement. Psychological Inquiry, 1: 3–13. [Taylor & Francis Online] [Google Scholar] , 1991a Lazarus, R.S. 1991a. Emotion and adaptation, New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] ); Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) transactional perspective of stress, and how this may be used to inform future research into the broader area of competition stress.

Background The loads to which professional rugby players are subjected has been identified as a concern by coaches, players and administrators. In November 2014, World Rugby commissioned an expert group to identify the physical demands and non-physical load issues associated with participation in professional rugby. Objective To describe the current state of knowledge about the loads encountered by professional rugby players and the implications for their physical and mental health. Findings The group defined ‘load’ as it relates to professional rugby players as the total stressors and demands applied to the players. In the 2013–2014 seasons, 40% of professional players appeared in 20 matches or more, and 5% of players appeared in 30 matches or more. Matches account for ∼5–11% of exposure to rugby-related activities (matches, team and individual training sessions) during professional competitions. The match injury rate is about 27 times higher than that in training. The working group surmised that players entering a new level of play, players with unresolved previous injuries, players who are relatively older and players who are subjected to rapid increases in load are probably at increased risk of injury. A mix of ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ measures in conjunction with effective communication among team staff and between staff and players was held to be the best approach to monitoring and managing player loads. While comprehensive monitoring holds promise for individually addressing player loads, it brings with it ethical and legal responsibilities that rugby organisations need to address to ensure that players’ personal information is adequately protected. Conclusions Administrators, broadcasters, team owners, team staff and the players themselves have important roles in balancing the desire to have the ‘best players’ on the field with the ongoing health of players. In contrast, the coaching, fitness and medical staff exert significant control over the activities, duration and intensity of training sessions. If load is a major risk factor for injury, then managing training loads should be an important element in enabling players to perform in a fit state as often as possible.