14
The impact of a proposed training program in the : Reduced land to develop some of the physical attributes and basic skills for emerging football
Abstract:
There is no doubt that the process of sports training for the rehabilitation and development of the level of sports, which is exposed to the training curricula according to scientific methods, but of great interest in the training process and all terms and handling of scientists with the basic elements of the program and the player and the means and methods of training was the quality of training without the required attention. The acquisition of the player to various forms of motor performance, similar to the requirements of the game allows him to select the best positions to understand reality and increase its ability to maneuver and implementation of plans in place in different directions, not surprising positions are not the form, and then reach the speed of performance accuracy and consistency in the implementation of the obligation and tactical skills.Then the drive center on land is reduced a way to install and develop basic skills such as these exercises included the positions of play much like what happens in games of the presence of colleagues and associates and competitors, and change attitudes and varied and the burden of physical and real competition, and the number of performance skills at the time to move the land is reduced very broad, allowing duplicates impressive.In light of the foregoing views of the researchers add to the experience of field theory researcher and expert opinion of football in Algeria note the absence of bases used in the scientific training of young people, including the use of the game on the mini golf and the researcher to identify the object of his study to determine the impact of a proposed training program in the grounds of mini-develop certain physical attributes and techniques which basis for emerging football under 14 years.
1987،19
1994
117
1994،119
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
4
1994،85
1996،213
.
2000
184
B. CHAREF
(charef, 2001, p4)
14
1 . 2 . 1 . 2 . 3 .14
1
2
3
1978،127
1994،65
1990
13
2 . 3 .
2000
30
2005
1 . 2 .1989
2005
30
2009
2010
350
25
2
T T 13.48 1.53 13.34 0.84 1.02 2.02 1.45 4.61 38.12 2.22 38 151.9 3.36 152.3 3.83 1.480.05
48
3
50
350 100 % 50 14.28 %.
T
4
4
t
02,46
10,30
t
2,02
0,05
48
4
t
02,36
15,14
t
2,02
0,05
5
t t 30 25 5.71 0.22 5.13 0.23 05.80 2.02 25 5.77 0.17 5.24 0.14 15.14 25 25.84 3.98 28. 2 2.82 02.46 2.02 25 25.16 5.18 28 3.27 02.36 25 9.57 0.47 8.54 0.32 10.30 2.02 25 9.60 0.57 9.08 0.99 02.66 t t 25 23.84 8.77 46.48 17.12 7.90 2.02 25 24.52 9.86 29.04 4.69 2.03 25 12.21 2.16 19.16 1.43 4.73 2.02 25 21.32 2.74 19.64 2.45 2.80 25 70.08 4.51 64.12 3.85 6.78 2.02 25 69.68 3.15 67.08 4.05 2.504
30
1987
1994
5
1994
2000
2
2
4
4
1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . 1 2 34 5
1996
1996
1990
13
2005
1994
1978
1994
1994
2000
1987
charef, b. (2001). l'importance de milieu de terrain. les leçons de ce 2000. Alger: infs/sts daly brahim.