Relatório de Estágio na Associação Desportiva de Fafe, Futebol SAD, na equipa de futebol de seniores, na época 2018/2019
Data
2020
Autores
Título da revista
ISSN da revista
Título do Volume
Editora
Resumo
O seguinte documento apresenta o relatório final de estágio e visa a obtenção do grau de Mestre em Ciências do Desporto, com especialização em Jogos Desportivos Coletivos. O estágio foi realizado na equipa de futebol de Seniores, na Associação Desportiva de Fafe, Futebol SAD, na época desportiva 2018/2019. Este estudo tem como objetivo avaliar e refletir sobre o processo de trabalho de uma equipa de futebol no contexto semiprofissional e sobre a utilização e distribuição dos métodos treino ao longo da época desportiva. As metodologias de treino aplicadas, os indicadores de treino e de competição, foram recolhidos ao longo de toda a temporada. Na apresentação quantitativa dos resultados obtidos, existirá a preocupação destes serem fundamentados, procurando refletir sobre os conteúdos abordados no contexto de treino e competição ao longo da época desportiva. O aproveitamento do tempo de treino foi semelhante para ambos os treinadores que conseguiram um tempo de exercitação superior a 80% do tempo total (T1: 84% vs. T2: 85%). Mais pontos comuns entre ambos os treinadores se verificaram nas escolhas dos métodos de treino, pelo que ambos solicitaram a utilização dos EEPJ na maior parte do tempo de treino (T1: 60% vs. T2: 71%). Ainda na comparação por semelhança, dentro da distribuição do tempo de treino através do “MICOS” os aspetos de organização coletiva são os mais abordados (T1: 54% vs. T2: 59%). A maioria do trabalho desenvolvido assentou na operacionalização do momento de organização ofensiva em ambas as lideranças (T1: 49% vs. T2: 45%). Na utilização dos EEPG, os dois treinadores apresentam abordagens distintas. Por um lado, o treinador 1, revela uma distribuição mais equilibrada pelos quatro métodos de treino: descontextualizados (20%), manutenção de posse de bola (23%), lúdico-recreativos (39%) e circuitos/estações (18%). Por outro, o treinador 2, utiliza com grande frequência dois métodos de treino, manutenção da posse de bola (44%) e lúdico-recreativos (49%). Na seleção das escalas para os exercícios de treino, os treinadores divergiram de forma vincada, quer na utilização da escala individual (T1: 21% vs. T2: 5%), como na utilização da escala grupal (T1: 12% vs. T2: 27%).
The following document presents the final internship report and aims at obtaining a Master's degree in Sports Science, with specialization in Collective Sports Games. The internship was held in the Seniors football team, at the Associação Desportiva de Fafe, Futebol SAD, during the 2018/2019 sports season. This study purposes to evaluate and reflect on the work process of a football team in the semi-professional context and on the use and distribution of training methods throughout the sports season. The training methodologies applied, the training and competition indicators, were collected throughout the season. In the quantitative presentation of the results obtained, there will be a concern for these to be substantiated, seeking to reflect on the content covered in the context of training and competition throughout the sports season. The use of training time was similar for both coaches who achieved an exercise time greater than 80% of the total time (T1: 84% vs. T2: 85%). More common points between both coaches were found in the choice of training methods, so both requested the use of EEPJ in most of the training time (T1: 60% vs. T2: 71%). Still in the comparison by similarity, within the distribution of training time through the “MICOS”, the aspects of collective organization are the most addressed (T1: 54% vs. T2: 59%). Most of the work developed was based on the implementation of the moment of offensive organization in both leaders (T1: 49% vs. T2: 45%). In the use of EEPG, the two coaches present different approaches. On the one hand, Coach 1 reveals a more balanced distribution through the four training methods: decontextualized (20%), maintaining possession of the ball (23%), recreationalrecreational (39%) and circuits / stations (18%). On the other hand, Coach 2 uses two training methods, maintaining ball possession (44%) and recreational-recreational (49%), with great frequency. In the selection of the scales for the training exercises, the coaches diverged sharply, both in the use of the individual scale (T1: 21% vs. T2: 5%), as well as in the use of the group scale (T1: 12% vs. T2: 27%).
The following document presents the final internship report and aims at obtaining a Master's degree in Sports Science, with specialization in Collective Sports Games. The internship was held in the Seniors football team, at the Associação Desportiva de Fafe, Futebol SAD, during the 2018/2019 sports season. This study purposes to evaluate and reflect on the work process of a football team in the semi-professional context and on the use and distribution of training methods throughout the sports season. The training methodologies applied, the training and competition indicators, were collected throughout the season. In the quantitative presentation of the results obtained, there will be a concern for these to be substantiated, seeking to reflect on the content covered in the context of training and competition throughout the sports season. The use of training time was similar for both coaches who achieved an exercise time greater than 80% of the total time (T1: 84% vs. T2: 85%). More common points between both coaches were found in the choice of training methods, so both requested the use of EEPJ in most of the training time (T1: 60% vs. T2: 71%). Still in the comparison by similarity, within the distribution of training time through the “MICOS”, the aspects of collective organization are the most addressed (T1: 54% vs. T2: 59%). Most of the work developed was based on the implementation of the moment of offensive organization in both leaders (T1: 49% vs. T2: 45%). In the use of EEPG, the two coaches present different approaches. On the one hand, Coach 1 reveals a more balanced distribution through the four training methods: decontextualized (20%), maintaining possession of the ball (23%), recreationalrecreational (39%) and circuits / stations (18%). On the other hand, Coach 2 uses two training methods, maintaining ball possession (44%) and recreational-recreational (49%), with great frequency. In the selection of the scales for the training exercises, the coaches diverged sharply, both in the use of the individual scale (T1: 21% vs. T2: 5%), as well as in the use of the group scale (T1: 12% vs. T2: 27%).
Descrição
Curso de Mestrado em Ciências do Desporto com Especialização em Jogos Desportivos Coletivos
Palavras-chave
Futebol , Treino