Dr. Ulloa-Diaz, David

The objectives of this revision were to identify game indicators, the references for evaluating tactical efficiency, and the types of data analysis used in invasion team sports for the analysis of tactical performance. A search of the principal electronic databases was carried out, the procedure was adjusted to the PRISMA-P 2015 protocol, and 62 non-experimental published articles were obtained from the years 2000–2016. The results showed the complimentary use of diverse types of indicators and the frequent elaboration of instruments ad hoc. The individual technical-tactical actions were widely used. The record of standardised team actions was scarce. The research lines with a sequential data record for their temporary analysis were significant. The transitory or final score and the results of game sequences were the most used references of performance. The big data tools of analysis, web analysis, and the detection of temporal patterns or the application of polar coordinates were emerging methods of analysis.

This study examined the reliability and validity of three methods of estimating the one-repetition maximum (1RM) during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise. Twenty-six men (22 rowers and four weightlifters) performed an incremental loading test until reaching their 1RM, followed by a set of repetitions-to-failure. Eighteen participants were re-tested to conduct the reliability analysis. The 1RM was estimated through the lifts-to-failure equations proposed by Lombardi and O'Connor, general load-velocity (L-V) relationships proposed by Sánchez-Medina and Loturco and the individual L-V relationships modelled using four (multiple-point method) or only two loads (two-point method). The direct method provided the highest reliability (coefficient of variation [CV] = 2.45% and intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.97), followed by the Lombardi's equation (CV = 3.44% and ICC = 0.94), and no meaningful differences were observed between the remaining methods (CV range = 4.95-6.89% and ICC range = 0.81-0.91). The lifts-to-failure equations overestimated the 1RM (3.43-4.08%), the general L-V relationship proposed by Sánchez-Medina underestimated the 1RM (-3.77%), and no significant differences were observed for the remaining prediction methods (-0.40-0.86%). The individual L-V relationship could be recommended as the most accurate method for predicting the 1RM during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise.