Futsal is an indoor sport with intermittent and high-intensity demands, requiring a high degree of technical-tactical skills and psychological balance.1-3 Approximately 22.6% of the average total distance covered by the players in the game (between 3100 and 4313 m) is through displacements at high (>15 km/h) and maximum (>25 km/h) speeds.4-7 Futsal athletes play at 87.6% to 88.7% of the maximum heart rate, during more than 90% of the game1,3,4,8-11 and report high (⁓ 7.2 a.u.) rate of perceived exertion (RPE).11,12 Therefore the athletes need to be in a well-being state and physically recovered to cope with the game demands.

The high physical demand during play, the presence of muscle damage, and accumulated fatigue are factors that can contribute to reduced physical performance and impaired sleep quality, indicating the need for recovery strategies and load monitoring in high-performance athletes.13 The Hooper Index (HI) is a tool used to monitor the perception of well-being and stress of team sports athletes, having been popularized in futsal, due to its practicality of use and its sensitivity to variations in the state of recovery during periods of the season.14,15 Studies suggest that the perception of well-being screened by HI may be influenced by the level of stress imposed by different phases of competition, periods of congested games, and characteristics of different sports.16-18 Another simple recovery monitoring tool is the total quality of recovery scale (TQR).19 The use of TQR to monitor the perception of recovery of athletes demonstrates that the increase in training or competitive load is inversely correlated with recovery.19-21 Although these scales have been used to monitor training loads in team sports, it is not clear whether they are influenced by contextual situations during futsal seasons.

Among the contextual stressors associated with the team sports competitions, the importance of the game,22 the quality of the opponent,18,23-26 the time interval between games,16,27,28 and the displacement between games28,29 have been cited. Although the HI and TQR are perceptual scales that have been related to the physical and technical performance of team sports players,30,31 it is necessary to identify the contextual factors that potentially influence the perceptual measures reported by athletes during competition. The present study aims to evaluate the influence of contextual factors of futsal competition (opponent quality, performance in previous games, championship) on HI (fatigue, stress, sleep quality, and muscle pain) and TQR before official games during a period of national and state-level championship game coincidence.

Twenty futsal athletes were monitored during 11 official National League games (n = 5) and state championships (n = 6). Sixteen athletes (80%) participated in 11 (100%) games, one athlete (5%) participated in six (54.5%) games, and three athletes (15%) participated in five (45.4%) games.

The team won five (45.7%), drew three (27.2%), and lost three (27.3%) of the evaluated games. Athletes had a three to seven-day break between games when they played National League games, and three to 10 days between games played in the state championship (p = 0.70, Dunn's test), with an average interval of 4 ± 2 days between games for both competitions.

The median travel distance to dispute the previous game in the state championship was 172 km (range 25 to 75% = 0 to 234) and in the national league was 203 (101 to 283) km (p = 0.42, U = 3509). Two state championship games and three national league games were preceded by home games (no displacement from the previous game).

The predicted difficulty of each game is shown in Figure 2a, and there was no statistical difference (p = 0.94, t = 0.06) between the competitions (Figure 2b). The average HI score of game 6 (National League) was higher in comparison to game 2 (State championship) (Figure 2c). Mean HI was higher in the National League games in relation to the state championship games (Figure 2d). The mean TQR score of game 5 (state championship) was lower compared with games 4 (state championship) and 9 (National League) (Figure 2e). However, the mean TQR scores of the National League were not significantly different from state championship games (Figure 2f).

Figure 2.

The predicted game difficulty, Hooper Index, and total quality of recovery (TQR) in National League and State championship games. Mean and standard deviation of HI and TQR. * p<0.05, Tukey test; ** p<0.01, Student's t-test; # p<0.05 and & p<0.05, Dunn's test.

(0.31MB).

Predicted game difficulty showed a weak positive correlation (r = 0.18, p = 0.01) with the HI, but did not present a significant correlation with the TQR (r=−0.10, p = 0.15). The HI and TQR showed an inverse and moderate correlation (r=−0.53, p<0.0001).

No significant differences were observed in the sleep (p = 0.74, KS=6.8; Figure 3a), fatigue (p = 0.22, KS= 12.9; Figure 3b), and stress (p = 0.07, KS=16.8; Figure 3c) subscales of the HI. The DOMS subscale (p = 0.0007; KS= 30.5) showed increased levels in games 6 and 8 compared to game 2 (Figure 3d).

Figure 3.

Median (25 to 75% quartiles) HI subscales for sleep (a), fatigue (b), stress (c), and DOMS (d) in state championship and National League games. ***P<0.005, ## p<0.01, Dunn's test.

(0.21MB).

Multivariate linear regression analysis showed that the HI was associated with age, TQR, and championship (Table 1). However, no significant correlation was detected of HI with age (r = 0.11, p = 0.14).

The HI DOMS subscale was associated with age, TQR, victory (concerning defeat), and championship (Table 2). However, the DOMS did not show a significant correlation with age (r=−0.06, p = 0.37), and showed a small correlation (r=−0.39, p = 0.001) with the TQR. The median [25 to 75% quartiles] DOMS score was higher in games preceded by victory (4 [3 to 4] arbitrary units) compared to draws (3 [2 to 3] a.u., p<0.01) and defeats (2 [2 to 3] a.u., p<0.005). The National League games (3 [3 to 4] a.u.) had a higher median of DOMS compared to the state championship games (3 [2 to 3] a.u., p = 0.001).

Multivariate linear regression of the TQR with the study variables showed a low coefficient of determination (r2=0.09) and was only associated with age (−0.07 ± 0.02; F = 7.36; p = 0.007) and victory (concerning defeat) in the previous game (−0.85 ± 0.27; F = 9.51; p = 0.0002). The TQR showed a negative and weak correlation with age (r=−0.18, p = 0.01). The mean TQR score (p<0.01, F = 4.7) in games preceded by victory (14.6 ± 1.7 a.u.) was lower than in games preceded by defeat (15.5 ± 1.6 a.u., p<0.01).

The HI (p = 0.22, F = 1.51), DOMS (p = 0.37, KS=1.51), and TQR (p = 0.72, F = 0.36) in the pre-game moment were not statistically different concerning the games that ended with a defeat, draw, and victory (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Mean (SD) HI and TQR values and median (25 to 75% quartiles) DOMS subscale of HI. a) Hooper Index score. b) HI DOMS score. c) Total quality of recovery score.

(0.15MB).

The results of the present study demonstrated that the athletes' well-being presented a moderate correlation with the TQR. DOMS was the only factor in the HI influenced by the contextual stressors associated with the championships, including TQR, previous game outcome, and opponent´s level. Concerning TQR, the only associated stressor was the result of the previous game, with games preceded by victory presenting a lower pre-game recovery. In addition, younger athletes reported better TQR scores between games.

Although younger athletes are more susceptible to anxiety,35 which may contribute to altering the perception of well-being, there was no direct correlation between age and the total HI score. However, the age of the players was negatively correlated with TQR. A study of futsal players showed that younger subjects tend to have faster physical and perceptual recovery on the TQR scale after training sessions.30 This factor may have contributed to a greater perception of recovery before the games in younger athletes and calls for special attention of team staff for recovery perception in older athletes.

Several factors reported in the literature influence athletes' perception of well-being and recovery, opponent's quality,22,23,36 including trips between games28 and interval and quality of recovery between training sessions.16,23,37 Despite no difference in predicted game difficulty and TQR between championships, the HI seemed to increase in National League games suggesting that the expectation regarding the level of the championship played may have influenced the perception of well-being. It should also be pointed out that opponents faced in the analyzed games were playing both competitions, and sometimes the studied team had played at the state championship and national league against the same opponent. Contrary to what was suggested in the literature, the results did not show an association between the well-being, recovery, and the predicted difficulty of the game, with the opponent's level, travel displacement, and the interval between games.

Traveling between games was identified as a stressor factor that can decrease sleep quality and increase the perception of fatigue in athletes.38,39 Thus, traveling to play away games could have some effect on the HI, especially on sleep quality and fatigue scores, and on the TQR. A study of Australian soccer athletes demonstrated that, during travel, the athletes presented worsening sleep quality, with a reduction in total sleep time and sleep latency.28 In long displacements (11 h flight), German rowing athletes presented disturbances in the quantity and worsening of sleep quality, for up to six days.40 In the present study, no effect of travel before the games was found in relation to the state of well-being, especially in relation to sleep quality and fatigue, or TQR. However, most of the distances traveled by the futsal athletes were very short (2 h by bus), which may not impose significant stress.

Lastella et al., 201928 observed that, although displacement caused changes in the quality of sleep if soccer athletes had a night's sleep before at home and away games, they did not display changes in the quality and quantity of sleep. Thus, the minimum interval of two days between games, observed in the present study, may have been enough to recover the quality of sleep. Furthermore, only one away game was played with a minimum break of two days. Although traveling between games did not cause changes in sleep quality in the present study, monitoring changes in sleep quality through the HI may be important, since the worsening in sleep quality is associated with decreased physical and technical-tactical performance, and fatigue, in addition to increasing the risk of injuries.38,39,41

The median interval of days between most of the games evaluated was less than the time recommended as necessary (>96 h) to reach proper recovery in the TQR score.19 Cumulative fatigue in futsal players may be a concern since it can alter the explosive capacity for field displacement, although it does not alter the speed and accuracy of shots.42 After futsal matches, there is an increase in creatine kinase levels and a reduction in vertical jump height after 24 h,8,43 suggesting that at least 48 h of recovery between games are required. However, it is not clear in the literature, how much time is needed for a futsal athlete to fully recover after matches. Therefore, congested game schedules may not provide adequate recovery for athletes and may increase stress scores and decrease the perception of recovery. In this sense, the use of HI could be an important pre-game monitoring strategy, as it assesses fatigue and DOMS (an exercise-induced muscle damage marker). However, contrary to expectations, short recovery intervals between games did not demonstrate effects on the perception of fatigue and DOMS. The results of the present study suggest that the perception of well-being in futsal players in the season was not associated with the time interval between games, not even for DOMS. The situation analyzed is similar to the one studied by Clemente et al. (2019) who also observed that congested periods (two games per week) produced less impact on the HI, due to the adjustment of loads and training between games. A limitation of the present study was the lack of authorization from the team to monitor loads between games.

The effect of the opponent's quality also influences the physical and technical-tactical performance in team and individual sports44-46 and the pre-competitive anxiety of athletes.24,47 Thus, the opponent's competitive level could be a factor that alters the perception of well-being and chances of competitive success. In the present study, the opponent's quality was evaluated through the championship level (state or national), the opposing team's ranking in the championship classification, and the result of the opponent's previous game (win, defeat, or draw). According to Kelly and Coutts (2007), the opponent's quality (opponent's ranking) is an important stress factor that increases the perception of difficulty in the next game. In addition, confrontations with higher-level opponents also provoke a greater effort from team sports athletes,48,49 which can cause greater fatigue. Contrary to expectations, neither the quality of the opponent nor the result of the opponent's previous game had any influence on the perceived well-being of the evaluated athletes.

The futsal athletes reported better recovery, despite the lower perception of well-being (due to DOMS) in games preceded by victory. Thus, winning games seem to impose greater physical demand (and may result in increased DOMS), but the perception of increased recovery suggests that athletes are more motivated after a game preceded by victory. However, the levels of well-being and TQR did not differ when the outcome of the game was victory, defeat, or draw. This demonstrates that other factors are decisive for the success of the match, such as technical-tactical organization during matches. Therefore, the HI and TQR indices need to be evaluated in association with other contextual and individual aspects to determine their usefulness or not in helping team coaches and team staff to make decisions for the team's squad on court and prescription of recovery interventions.

The results of the study demonstrate that level of competition was correlated with well-being but not the perception of recovery of futsal athletes. In addition, older athletes may notice less recovery between games. The physical aspects of muscle pain and recovery perception are influenced by victory in the previous game, requiring attention to the symptoms of muscle damage, despite the athletes' better perception of recovery.