8/14/2019 2007 Research Poster - Attack rates at 2006 Commonwealth Judo Tournament.

1/1

H1: PLAYER1WIN = PLAYER1ATTACKS > PLAYER2ATTACKSAttack more and win!

References:Hughes, M., Franks, I.M. (2004). Notational analysis of sport: systems for better coaching and performance in spor t. London, Routledge.

Pulkkinnen, Wayland J. 2001. The sport science of elite judo athletes. Guelph, Ont: Pulkinetics.

Summary of research available at www.judocoach.com/judo.html

Methodology:

Results:

Discussion:

At the 2006 Commonwealth Judo Tournament, a variety of contest datawas collected and analysed. The primary focus of the research was toprove/disprove the hypothesis that in Judo fights the player makes themost attacks wins the fight.

This basic research project proved the H1 as 69% of fights at this eventwere indeed won by the player who attacked the most.

89 fights were hand notated using the A4 form shown to theright. Data collected included the duration of the fights fromthe official clock along with scores. Additional data collected

included was a cumulative duration of matches and a talley ofthe attacks and scores in each "segment" of action formHajime to Matte.

After the event, the forms were processed and enetered into computersoftware where the means, modes and standard deviations werecalculated along with a variety of other descriptive statistics.

The data successfully identified that matches were won 69% ofthe time by the athlete who made the most attacks (see figure tothe right). This provides evidence to support the "receivedopinion" of coaches.

Analysis of the data gives indication as to the structure of a Judomatch, in terms of averaged durations, number of segments, number of

attacks and scores. This data is similar to previous research by Sikorskiet al (1987) cited by Pulkkinen (2001) that showed that a"segment" did not exceed 25 seconds, this is shown in the figureto the right.

Fightswonbyplayerattackingthemost 69%(greensegment)

Formused

todoha

ndnotati

onoffigh

ts.

Data was hand notated using form shown above, which wasfinalised in that form after an initial pilot study. It is a frequencytable, although it wased used in a way that did allow some

recording of sequentiality, removing some of the limitations mentioned byHughes and Franks (2004). Collecting reliable data proved difficult dueprimarily to distraction and fatigue. The application of strategies based onthe information discovered must be done with caution due to thementioned validity issues along with factors not mentioned.

The analysis completed to date is all averaged across the 89 matches,which may be masking important differences between the winning

athletes and those who lost. For example, there may be large differencesbetween the number of attacks done by the gold medalist in a category.Similarly, there may be considerable differences at the quarter final stageand final itself.

However the data does provide a snapshot view and proved the feasibilityand potential benefit to coaches of collecting this data as it can betranslated into action, for example ensuring that athletes have a

higher attack rate than their opponents. A small selection of trainingdrills were developed based on preparing athletes using this dataand published online.In summary, this study did show that attacking more is an indicator ofsuccess in this event, and suggests coaches tailor training to this end.

TotalMinutes Total Segments Avg. Seconds Sikorsk

i's limit

per segment

Durationsand"segments"