Evaluate the benefits and limitations of Fartlek training compared to structured interval training for a team sport of your choice. (8 marks)
--- 26 WORK AREA LINES (style=lined) ---
Show Answers Only
Sample Answer – Touch Football
Evaluation Statement:
- Both training methods offer value for touch football teams.
- Structured intervals prove more effective overall for match preparation.
- Effectiveness depends on training phase and objectives.
Game Simulation:
- Fartlek training develops pace judgment through self-selected intensity changes.
- Touch football benefits as games involve spontaneous attacking runs and defensive retreats.
- Players enjoy the variety while building fitness.
- However, difficulty standardising training load creates problems.
- Different players interpret efforts differently, leading to inconsistent training stimulus across the team.
Precision and Progression:
- Structured intervals provide precise work-to-rest ratios essential for touch football.
- Example: 20 seconds maximal runs followed by 40 seconds recovery mirrors game patterns.
- This enables accurate weekly progression through reduced recovery times.
- Intervals develop repeated sprint ability crucial for continuous substitutions.
- Teams using structured intervals show improved match running distances.
Training Phase Application:
- Early season Fartlek proves valuable for general fitness and team building.
- Structured intervals become essential near competition for specific conditioning.
- Touch football’s 6-minute halves demand precise fitness that intervals deliver effectively.
- The ability to replicate game intensity gives intervals the advantage.
Final Evaluation:
- For touch football, structured interval training proves superior overall.
- While Fartlek offers early-season benefits, intervals better prepare players for match demands.
- Teams should progress from Fartlek to intervals as competition approaches.
- This optimises both fitness development and performance outcomes.
Show Worked Solution
Sample Answer
Evaluation Statement:
- Both training methods offer value for touch football teams.
- Structured intervals prove more effective overall for match preparation.
- Effectiveness depends on training phase and objectives.
Game Simulation:
- Fartlek training develops pace judgment through self-selected intensity changes.
- Touch football benefits as games involve spontaneous attacking runs and defensive retreats.
- Players enjoy the variety while building fitness.
- However, difficulty standardising training load creates problems.
- Different players interpret efforts differently, leading to inconsistent training stimulus across the team.
Precision and Progression:
- Structured intervals provide precise work-to-rest ratios essential for touch football.
- Example: 20 seconds maximal runs followed by 40 seconds recovery mirrors game patterns.
- This enables accurate weekly progression through reduced recovery times.
- Intervals develop repeated sprint ability crucial for continuous substitutions.
- Teams using structured intervals show improved match running distances.
Training Phase Application:
- Early season Fartlek proves valuable for general fitness and team building.
- Structured intervals become essential near competition for specific conditioning.
- Touch football’s 6-minute halves demand precise fitness that intervals deliver effectively.
- The ability to replicate game intensity gives intervals the advantage.
Final Evaluation:
- For touch football, structured interval training proves superior overall.
- While Fartlek offers early-season benefits, intervals better prepare players for match demands.
- Teams should progress from Fartlek to intervals as competition approaches.
- This optimises both fitness development and performance outcomes.