Nathan Sanmuga
Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Tanjong Malim, Perak Darul Ridzuan 35900, Malaysia.
Sports (Basel). 2017 Jun 20;5(2):44. doi: 10.3390/sports5020044.
The field hockey coaching process across both Malaysia and India favours a traditional, coach-centred approach of mastering technical skills in terms of game play parameters, fitness, intensity, and load training, whereas a tactical- and player-centred pedagogical approach still takes a backseat. On the other hand, the Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) model offers tactical-cognitive instruction and is gaining international recognition for its ability to produce intelligent players via a problem-solving approach in game play. Therefore, the purpose of this quasi-experimental study was to investigate the effect of TGfU compared to skill mastery instruction, termed as Skill Drill Technical (SDT), among Malaysian and Indian elite junior hockey players in term of the game play attributes of adjust and cover in 5 vs. 5 small-sided game play and game play intensity via heart rate (HR) at different points of game play. A total of n = 60 players with an average age of 15 ± 1.03 was selected via simple random sampling from both countries involved in this study and assigned equally to groups, with 15 per group for TGfU and for SDT across Malaysia and India. Gathered data were analysed using the ANOVA and ANCOVA techniques. Findings indicated that there were no significant differences for adjust in 5 vs. 5 game play between TGfU and SDT across Malaysia and India after the intervention. For cover, there was significant improvement for Malaysian players using the TGfU model compared to SDT. In contrast, there was no significant difference between these two models among the Indian players after the intervention. There was significant difference between these two models in terms of warm-up HR across the two countries, and HR was higher via TGfU. For HR immediately after the 5 vs. 5 game play intervention and HR after three minutes' recovery, Indian players with TGfU recorded a higher and significant difference compared to SDT. However, findings indicated no significant difference between these two instruction types among Malaysians, although TGfU proved to have higher HR intensity. Therefore, these findings reiterated that TGfU is a useful approach for game play to enhance intensity and cardiac output. In conclusion, for TGfU to be more relevant to the coaching environment, future research should link game play and physiological parameters. TGfU should able to overcome the barriers of tradition and cultural background that may hinder its momentum.
马来西亚和印度的曲棍球教练过程都倾向于采用传统的、以教练为中心的方法,即在比赛参数、体能、强度和负荷训练方面掌握技术技能,而以战术和球员为中心的教学方法仍然处于次要地位。另一方面,理解式教学比赛(TGfU)模式提供战术认知指导,并因其通过比赛中的问题解决方法培养聪明球员的能力而获得国际认可。因此,这项准实验研究的目的是,在5对5的小场比赛中调整和防守的比赛属性以及比赛不同阶段的心率(HR)所反映的比赛强度方面,调查TGfU与被称为技能训练技术(SDT)的技能掌握指导相比,对马来西亚和印度精英青少年曲棍球运动员的影响。通过简单随机抽样,从参与本研究的两个国家中总共选取了n = 60名平均年龄为15 ± 1.03岁的球员,并将他们平均分配到各个组,马来西亚和印度的TGfU组和SDT组每组各15人。使用方差分析(ANOVA)和协方差分析(ANCOVA)技术对收集到的数据进行分析。研究结果表明,干预后,马来西亚和印度的TGfU组和SDT组在5对5比赛中的调整方面没有显著差异。对于防守,与SDT相比,使用TGfU模式的马来西亚球员有显著改善。相比之下,干预后,印度球员在这两种模式之间没有显著差异。在两国的热身心率方面,这两种模式存在显著差异,TGfU模式下的心率更高。在5对5比赛干预后立即测量的心率以及三分钟恢复后的心率方面,采用TGfU模式的印度球员与SDT组相比有更高且显著的差异。然而,研究结果表明,尽管TGfU模式的心率强度更高,但在马来西亚球员中,这两种指导类型之间没有显著差异。因此,这些研究结果重申,TGfU是一种提高比赛强度和心输出量的有用方法。总之,为了使TGfU与教练环境更相关,未来的研究应该将比赛与生理参数联系起来。TGfU应该能够克服可能阻碍其发展势头的传统和文化背景障碍。