Content uploaded by Vladimir J Koprivica
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Vladimir J Koprivica on Dec 02, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-NC 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
93
SUMMARY
Block periodization emerged as a new idea in the preparation of athletes. Based on the analysis of
the traditional theory of sports training and its segments and training periodization during the com-
petitive season, the supporters of block periodization made a number of objections. The main conclu-
sion was that classical periodization no longer meets the requirements of modern sports because of
the extended competition calendar. Classical periodization is based on the simultaneous development
of multiple abilities over a longer preparation period and large volumes of work. It prevents the ath-
letes from participating successfully in several competitions during the season. However, according
to the supporters of block periodization, this applies only to top athletes.
On the other hand, there are many objections to the justication and logic of block periodization.
The term "block periodization" is not adequate, and the criticism of the classical theory is method-
ologically incorrect because it refers to old bibliographic sources, (and) the opponents are not men-
tioned. It is not realistic in practice to work successively on more abilities because of short periods
of preparation, there is not enough time to recover after such an effort while the risk of injury is
signicantly higher. Most importantly, according to the block periodization it is difcult to be t at
the right time, which is the main purpose of periodization. Therefore, one could rather say that block
periodization is a misconception, rather than a breakthrough in training.
Key Words: youth, training process, fundamental skills, fundamentals of shooting,
shooting percentage.
BLOCK PERIODIZATION
– A BREAKTHROUGH OR A MISCONCEPTION
Vladimiri Koprivica1
1Faculty of Sport and Physical Education, University of Belgrade, Serbia
EDITORIAL ARTICLE
OWERVIEV PAPER
doi: 10.5550/sgia.120802.en.093K UDK: 796.011.3 COBISS.BH-ID: 3466776
The theory of sports training gradually evolved
on the basis of practical experience which has rapidly
accumulated since the revival of the Olympic Games.
Over the years sport increasingly gained social signi-
cance, particularly after the Second World War. The
achieved results were not only the measure of human
capabilities, but also a means of promoting socio-
-economic systems, including the system of preparing
athletes for the most important competitions. Initi-
ally, the preparation system was largely dependent on
seasonal and climatic conditions, the season of the
year and calendar events. Thereby, during the 60s
people began to talk about the problem of periodi-
zation of athletic training as an important segment
of the theory and practice of athletic training.
The division into periods is not new, because
people have always done it in every activity, but the
periodization of athletic training during the year, in
order to achieve the best results at the time of a
competition, was a relatively new idea. Firstly, it was
thought that periodization depends on seasonal and
climatic conditions, and the events calendar. However,
the wider and more comprehensive analysis of the
competitive reality led to serious theoretical assump-
tions, even to the level of the theory of periodization
which Матвеев (1964, 1977) established and scienti-
cally explained, relying on numerous predecessors.
He proved that regularities of the development of
sports tness are the basis of periodization, and that
periodization in fact represents the management of
the process.
Matveyev became such an authority in that area
that his name became synonymous with the periodi-
zation theory of athletic training. That is why in many
SportLogia
2012, 8(2), 93–99
e-ISSN 1986-6119
www.SportLogia.com
Koprivica, V.: BLOCK PERODIZATION - A BREAKTHROUGH... SportLogia 2012, 8(2), 93–99
94
works that deal with the problem of periodization,
this theory is often referred to as the "Matveyev's
theory". Since it has lasted for almost half a century
as current theory, it is now referred to as the "tradi-
tional periodization theory" or "traditional Matveyev's
periodization theory".
First serious criticism of this theory appeared
around 1990 and exploded in the last years of the last
century. The highest authorities in this eld were
involved in a major controversy in the most important
magazine in Russia (Теория и практика физической
культуры - Journal of Theory and Practice of Physi-
cal Culture). Some authors sharply attacked the basic
assumptions of current theory, while the others vi-
gorously defended them. Certainly the biggest critic
and the biggest name among the opponents was J. V.
Verhoshansky. He and several of his supporters
expressed a number of critical views to the account
of the Matveyev's theory. The question of periodi-
zation during the year was raised within the criticism
of the entire theoretical basis of the current theory
of sports training. In contrast to classical periodiza-
tion, the so-called "block periodization" was suggested,
which originated as an idea between 1970 and 1980
and was later increasingly promoted in the works of
Verhoshansky and his followers. "Block system - it's
a non-traditional form of organization of the training
process in the annual cycle, designed exclusively for
top athletes, in amateur as well as in professional
sports." (Верхошанский, 2005). This idea was most
fully developed in the book of V. Issurin (2008) writ-
ten in English under the title "BLOCK PERODIZA-
TION: A BREAKTHROUGH IN SPORTS TRAI-
NING". The book has been translated into several
languages, and also appeared in Serbian translation
(Issurin, 2009).
What do supporters of the new block periodiza-
tion object to the traditional theory of sports training
and where do they see the advantage of the new
approach that they propose regarding the preparation
of athletes?
First, it should be noted that block periodization
does not deny a traditional periodization values. Is-
surin (2009) points out: "The traditional approach is
still suitable for standard athletes, but not for top
ones", so all complaints to Matveyev's theory apply
only to this segment of sport.
The opponents reduced main reasons why the
traditional periodization of athletic training is unsu-
stainable in the training of top athletes, to the following:
• the number of competitions and sports results
dramatically increased during the previous de-
cade;
• total volume of training has been signicantly
reduced;
• new concepts appeared that inuence the plan-
ning and design of alternative periodization of
training.
Classical periodization has many aws which in-
clude (Issurin, 2009):
•
limitations caused by simultaneous development
of many motor and technical abilities;
•
inability to provide preparation for the main
competitions, and successful participation in
numerous competitions;
• too long periods of basic preparation and pre-
paration for a particular sport.
In the extensive work which explains the need to
apply block periodization in practice, Верхошанский
(2005) points out that the earlier analysis of the pre-
parations of Soviet athletes revealed a number of
shortcomings and negative tendencies. Everything is
conditioned by "[...] low scientic, theoretical and
methodological level of the used concept of training
periodization." During the work with top athletes
mistakes were made in the following:
• in the annual cycle the loads of different direc-
tions were used chaotically and distributed rela-
tively evenly;
•
exercises with a load were mainly used in an
unspecialized way and unsystematically for the
development of force and as an additional tool
for solving the main tasks of training;
•
in the microcycle the means with very high
volume were unjustiably used, which unsettled
the synthesis of proteins that is an essential
component of adaptation;
•
a general tendency to increase the summary
volume of loads has become a goal in itself.
"All of these tendencies had the same cause - a
complex parallel form of organization of training
loads [...]" and in practice coaches were led by the
slogan: "If you want to beat the opponent - you
should train more than him" (Верхошанский, 2005).
Issurin (2009) states that "In contrast to the tra-
ditional model, the concept of block periodization is
characterized by the following advantages:
•
total volume of training can be signicantly
reduced, thereby also reducing the risk of athle-
tes overtraining;
• training plan that provides more maximal com-
petition performances provides and also facili-
tates successful participation in numerous
competitions throughout the season;
Koprivica, V.: BLOCK PERODIZATION - A BREAKTHROUGH... SportLogia 2012, 8(2), 93–99
95
•
monitoring and control of the preparedness can
be effective because every drastic decrease in
the ability of an athlete can be evaluated in
every mesocycle;
• nutrition and recovery program of athletes can
be adequately changed depending on the pre-
vailing type of training, and
•
annual plan that includes multiple phases of
training provides more favourable conditions
for achieving maximum results during the main
competition in a season.«
If we acknowledged the great writer Borges' tho-
ught that a book that does not have a counter-book
is considered to be incomplete, perhaps it could be
said for every theory as well. Therefore the authors
who invented block periodization and critically revi-
ewed the classical theory of periodization should be
honoured. It is primarily Verhoshansky whose criti-
cism sparked numerous authors to discuss the problem
of periodization in a signicant journal, Теория и
практика физической культуры (Journal of Theory and
Practice of Physical Culture - Moscow). However,
everyone who criticized the classical theory of peri-
odization may be objected for several omissions that
did not escape the authors who stood in defence of
the classical theory:
1.
The term "block" is very problematic when you
put it in line with other terms that have long
been in use: cycle, period, stage or phase. A cycle
makes one designed, constructed and complete
working unit with all the interrelated processes
in it. A period of time is limited unit in a season
in which the emphasis is on improving some
process, while a stage and a phase are parts of
the process. These terms reect the essence of
the competition process and of the preparation
of athletes throughout the season. The term
"block" is not a term related to time and it ca-
nnot mark the period in which a competition or
training process takes place. Rather, it can be
used to mark some small unit, a structural element
of the whole. Without looking deeper into the
essence of the idea, it can be concluded that in
this case there is a fundamental inconsistency
between the terms "block periodization" and its
scientic denition – the term (Koprivica &
Ćosic, 2011).
2. By criticizing classical theory of periodization,
Verhoshansky and Issurin rarely quote Matveyev
and analyze his theories, but they rather freely
interpret them. This is evident in the book by
Issurin (2009) when he gives the postulates of
classical periodization in the table entitled "Ge-
neral characteristics of training periodization
according to the traditional approach" (Матвеев,
1981), but the reference list does not contain
this work. In addition, Issurin presents graphs
of annual cycle, with one, two and three macro-
cycles which Matveyev published in distant 1977
based on the study of the sports practice of the
time of a large number of athletes. In his most
signicant and most comprehensive article on
the problem of classical and block periodization
Верхошанский (2005) uses 107 bibliographic
units (out of which 71 are self-citations), and
neither of them is by Matveyev. A list of refe-
rences for the third chapter of the book by Is-
surin (2009) best illustrates to what extent a
subjective approach is expressed in considering
the issue of periodization. While presenting
problems of microcycle, mesocycle and indivi-
dual trainings he does not mention Matveyev at
any point, not even in the list of references. This
is not only a major methodological error, beca-
use a polemics and drawing parallels between
the two concepts are in question, but it is also
an injustice to the author who was the rst to
scientically explain the structure of training
and who is quoted without exeption by all authors
in the eld.
3.
Verhoshansky and Issurin exclusively refer to
the works of their like-minded authors and are
silent about the works of many authors who are
on opposite positions. It is unacceptable to
completely ignore the important works of the
leading world authority in the eld of sports
training theories, Платонов (1998, 2008, 2009),
who vigorously confronted block periodization.
4.
Major omission of the proponents of block
periodization is that their critique is based on
older works of Matveyev, and they did not talk
about everything that he later added and changed
(Матвеев, 1998, 1999, 2001) in accordance with
the signicant changes in the world of sports.
5.
The difference between Matveyev and his oppo
-
nents may best be seen in the criticism of one
of the few quotations which Верхошанский
(1998) states. Verhoshansky accuses Matveyev
that he does not hide the negative attitude towards
biological knowledge "because he claims that
the macrostructure of training is not determined
by biological laws, but it is determined on the
whole (emphasised V. K.) by the laws which
rule the sports tness". Basically Matveyev do-
es not deny the role of biological laws, but
these laws are not the only ones, and are not
Koprivica, V.: BLOCK PERODIZATION - A BREAKTHROUGH... SportLogia 2012, 8(2), 93–99
96
independent from others, which affect the ma-
nagement of sport shape. Unlike Verhoshansky,
Matveyev has a holistic approach in every work
that is necessary every time a complex bio-
-psycho-social nature of man is in question.
6. It is interesting that in practice failures are attri-
buted to the classical theory of periodization
without analysis to show the way the classical
theory was actually used (Верхошанский, 2005).
Great width, which, in basic principles, the
Matveyev's theory has for various and not always
predictable situations in practice, shows that its
practical implementation has to be creative
(Платонов, 2009).
7.
Matvejev was objected about mechanical sorting
and linking individual training in the greater
whole – microcycles which further build meso-
cycles and macrocycles. This objection is not
justied because it is the exact opposite of the
basic idea of periodization. Matvejev himself
believes that training structure cannot be deter-
mined in advance. The right structure can be
seen and analyzed only after the training and
competition period is completed. Various struc-
tural parts must exist, because there are various
inuential factors. Strain and rest are regulated
in microcycle, a cumulative effect of physical
training is controlled in mesocycle, and sport
shape is managed in macrocycle. Top sport
shape, the greatest cumulative effect and rested
athlete in the phase of the supercompensation
of the most important skills, should all exist in
the time of the most important competition.
The main purpose of periodization is to achie-
ve the best result in the most important com-
petition of the season. Therefore, the classical
theory of periodization seeks long-term, gradu-
al and non forcing preparation for the important
competition, which includes a series of prelimi-
nary competitions. Probability to succeed in the
most important competition, if the classic pe-
riodization method is applied, is about 60-75%,
while the practice has shown that the applicati-
on of a block periodization lowers the proba-
bility to just 5-15% (Платонов, 2009). The
commercialization of sports has a signicant
impact on the competition calendar and spread
it to the extent that it is no longer rational (Ko-
privica, 2009). Selecting the most important
competitions and preparing for them according
to the classic periodization is more and more
becoming a factor of sports longevity. Thus,
block periodization does not correspond to the
top sports with more sporting competitions in
the season in which several of them are prima-
ry. If an athlete, according to block periodizati-
on, participates in all competitions in order to
achieve maximum results, then his career cannot
last long.
8.
There is an obvious contradiction in some basic
settings of block periodization. If it applies
only to the top athletes and to the need to apply
more training blocks in which only selected skills
are developed and if it is necessary to participa-
te successfully in a greater number of competi-
tions throughout the year, how is that possible
in a situation where competition period lasts for
10 months and the preparatory period is signi-
cantly shortened (Koprivica, 2009a, 2009b;
Koprivica & Jankovic, 2010). Not only is there
no time to implement block periodization, but
it is impossible to develop and maintain a high
level of all abilities and skills, harmonize them
and bring them to such a level that it allows
athletes to be successful over the long season
of competition. Thus, block periodization does
not create conditions for individual maximums
and disturbs harmonization of more abilities
and skills.
9.
Block periodization mainly deals with large
mesocyclic blocks that are "true embodiment
of a block periodization concept" (Issurin, 2009).
They have three different effects: accumulation,
transformation and realization (Ibid). Compared
to traditional periodization, to classical medium
size structural parts (mesocycles), it is nothing
new, because it is based on what is already known
and scientically explained in the training theo-
ry: working with the increased load in compari-
son to those on which the athlete is adapted -
relativestabilization of the changes - cumulative
effect of previous work.
10.
A remark that classical theory recommends
exercise which includes "a little bit of all" and
simultaneous development of multiple skills is
not substantiated. Although this remark is con-
stantly emphasized, not a single author, suppor-
ter of a block periodization, species an appro-
priate quote neither from any of Matvejev's
works nor from the works of other signicant
authors which relies on classical theory. It is true
that classical theory recommends that all abili-
ties must be treated in training, but with an
emphasis on the particular ability in compliance
with the specicities of the sport discipline,
athlete’s individual characteristics, climate and
Koprivica, V.: BLOCK PERODIZATION - A BREAKTHROUGH... SportLogia 2012, 8(2), 93–99
97
material and technical factors (Платонов, 2009).
Especially, it should be adjusted to the position
of training in the season and to major compe-
titions. While some skills are developed, the
others must be maintained at the required level.
In a long competition period, a big problem is
to maintain the level of competence, which
means even less time for real development pro-
grams. Therefore, the preparation for the Olym-
pic Games in the year when the Games are
held is very specic (Koprivica, 2009b). Deve-
lopment of all abilities is practically not possible,
because development means greater loads than
those on which the athlete is adapted. Recovery
from a great load training where athlete works
on one ability lasts for at least 48 hours (Платонов,
1987, 2004). If they developed more skills (not
even all of them!) simultaneously, it would me-
an implementation of more consecutive train-
ings with maximum and heavy loads. This
contradicts to one of the basic principles of
training, which Matveyev himself dened and
explained - undulating load dynamics. Moreover
it is not possible to realize such trainings beca-
use of the accumulated loads and insufcient
time for athlete’s recovery.
11.
If, according to block periodization, a single
ability development is implemented in a relati-
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Broj dana
Sposobnosti poslije specifičnog koncentrisamog utcaja
FIGURE 1
Residual training effects of different abilities after specic concentrated impact
(Source: Иссурин & Шкляр, 2002)
Legend: 1. - Aerobic endurance; 2. - Maximum force; 3. - Anaerobic endurance; 4. - Strenght
endurance; 5. - Alacatate ability.
vely long period of time, then the total volume
of training must be reduced because the same
orientation of training must leave more time for
athlete's recovery. In addition, the accumulated
fatigue increases the likelihood of injury, and
the depletion of the same biological systems can
be problematic from the standpoint of athlete's
health. The solution is either to work in a com-
plex microcycle, which the block periodization
excludes, or to reduce the loads for recovery and
reconcile with the fact that some tasks of trai-
ning will not be done.
12. Block periodization is also based on the so-cal-
led residual effect of training (Иссурин &
Шкляр, 2002). By some authors stated by Issu-
rin (2009) abilities are maintained for a certain
period of time (from 5 to 35 days) after the
termination of exercise and that time is not the
same for all motor abilities (Figure 1). This
setting is very problematic, as some other stu-
dies (Hargreaves, 1995; Wilmore & Costill, 2004;
and others, citated in Платонов, 2009) showed
that after the termination of work, after 1-2
weeks, the activity of oxidative and glycolytic
enzymes reduces; local muscular endurance
reduces, and quickly gained abilities are quickly
lost. Biological systems, previously highly adap-
ted due to inactivity, are now subject to the
process of deadaptation. Surely thoset abilities
are not reduced at once (for example, on the
Koprivica, V.: BLOCK PERODIZATION - A BREAKTHROUGH... SportLogia 2012, 8(2), 93–99
98
twentieth day), but it is a gradual and differen-
tiated process (Вовк, 2007, 2009). Disruption
on a level of one ability (increase or decrease)
changes compliance and relationships of vari-
ous motor abilities, especially those that are
highly correlated. This can affect, not only po-
sitively, but negatively as well, other abilities and
the level of technical and tactical skills.
13.
Although block periodization predicts different
approaches for relatively simpler and more
complex sport disciplines according to the
structure of competitive activities, extensive
calendar of competitions during nearly a whole
year makes the practical application more dif-
cult. While the use of some type of "blocks" is
to some extent possible in cyclic sport discipli-
nes with longer preparation period, in more
complex sport disciplines (e.g. sports games,
martial arts disciplines) it is not possible.
CONCLUSION
Every theory, including the theory of sports tra-
ining, must be constantly reviewed in accordance
with the dynamic changes in competition and the
preparation of athletes. The emergence of the so-
-called block periodization temporarily shook the
traditional theory of training in the segment of peri-
odization. Criticism of classical periodization is not
well founded methodologically and does not match
the level of scientic debate about the problem (re-
ferences to old bibliographic sources, the sources in
favour of block periodization, concealing everything
that contradicts block periodization, deliberate mi-
sinterpretations...) and from the standpoint of scien-
ce may be rejected due to subjectivism. New perio-
dization ideas are not based on scientic facts and
their application in practice is not possible if one
wants to achieve a great result at the right time in the
most important competition, which is the basic idea
of periodization according to classical theory. Thus,
block periodization is rather a misconception than a
breakthrough in sports training.
REFERENCES
Issurin, V. (2009). Blok periodizacija – prekretnica u
sportskom treningu [Block periodization - a turning
point in sports training]. Belgrade, RS:
Datastatus.
Иссурин, В., & Шкляр, В. (2002). Концепция
блоковой композиции в подготовке
спортсменов высокого класса [Concept of
block compositions in the preparation of high-
class athletes]. Теория и практика физической
культуры, 5, 2–5.
Koprivica, V. (2009a). Aktuelni problemi izgradnje
makrociklusa u vrhunskom sportu [Actual
problems of building makrocykle in top level
sport]. In B. Bokan (Ed.), Teorijski, metodološki i
metodički aspekti zičkog vaspitanja, Zbornik radova
međunarodne naučne konferencije (pp. 181–
185). Belgrade, RS: Fakultet sporta i zičkog
vaspitanja.
Koprivica, V. (2009b). Problemi izgradnje
makrociklusa u savremenom sportu [Problems
in the construction of modern sports
makrocykle]. In A. Sanader and N. Manojlović
(Eds.), Prvi nacionalni seminar za sportske trenere
Republike Srbije, Izazovi novog olimpijskog
ciklusa (pp. 93–98). Belgade, RS: Republički
zavod za sport.
Koprivica, V., & Ćosić, M. (2011). Redening some
basic concepts in the theory of sports training.
In S. Simović (Ed.), 2nd International Sceintic
Conference Antropological aspects of Sports, Physical
education and Recreation (pp. 105–109). Banja
Luka, BA: Faculty of Physical Education and
Sports. doi: 10.5550/SP.2.2010.35
Koprivica, V., & Janković, A. (2010). Aktuelni
problemi takmičarske sezone u vrhunskom
fudbalu [Current problems in the competition
season in elite soccer]. In A. Janković (Ed.),
Stručni skup »Iskustva i perspektive – Svetsko
prvenstvo u Južnoafričkoj republici 2010. godine« (pp.
71-77). Belgrade, RS: Fakultet sporta i zičkog
vaspitanja.
Матвеев, Л. П. (1964). Проблема периодизации
спортивной тренировки [Problem of
periodization of sport practice]. Moscow, RU:
Физкультура и спорт.
Матвеев, Л. П. (1977). Основы спортивной
тренировки [Fundamentals of sports practice].
Moscow, RU: Физкультура и спорт.
Матвеев, Л. П. (1998). К дискуссии о теории
спортивной тренировки [Discussion about the
theory of sports training]. Теория и практика
физической культуры, 7, 55–61.
Матвеев, Л. П. (1999). Основы общей теории спорта
и системы подготовки спортсменов [Fundamentals
of general theory of sports and athletes training
system]. Kyev, UA: Олимпийская литература.
Матвеев, Л. П. (2001). Общая теория спорта и её
прикладные аспекты [General theory of sport
and its applications]. Moscow, RU: Советский
спорт.
Платонов, В. Н. (1987). Теория спорта [Theory of
sports]. Kyev, UA: Вища школа.
Платонов, В. Н. (1998). »О концепции
периодизации спортивной тренировки« и
Koprivica, V.: BLOCK PERODIZATION - A BREAKTHROUGH... SportLogia 2012, 8(2), 93–99
99
развитии общей теории подготовки
спортсменов [«About the concept of
periodization of athletic training« and the
development of the general theory of athletes
practice]. Теория и практика физической культуры,
8, 23–26, 39–46.
Платонов, В. Н. (2004). Система подготовки
спортсменов в олимпийском спорте [The system
of athletes practice in Olympic sports]. Kyev,
UA: Олимпийская литература.
Платонов, В. Н. (2008). Теория периодизации
подготовки спортсменов високой
класификации в течение года: предпосилки,
формирование, критика [Theory of
periodization of top level athletes practice
during the year: assumptions, formation,
criticism]. Наука в олимпийском спорте. 1, 3–23.
Платонов, В. Н. (2009). Теория тренировки в
течение года: история вопроса, состояние,
дискусии, пути модернизации [Theory of
practice during the year: background, status,
discussions, ways to modernize]. Теория и
практика физической культуры, 9, 18–34.
Верхошанский, Ю. В. (1998a). Горизонты
научной теории и методологии спортивной
тренировки [Horizons of scientic theory and
methodology of sports practice]. Теория и
практика физической культуры, 7, 41–54.
Верхошанский, Ю. В. (1998b). На пути к
научной теории и методологии спортивной
тренировки [On the way to a scientic theory
and methodology of sports practice]. Теория и
практика физической культуры, 2, 2–42.
Верхошанский, Ю. В. (2005). Теория и
методология спортивной подготовки:
блоковая система тренировки спортсменов
высокого класса [Theory and methodology of
sports practice: block training system top level
athletes]. Теория и практика физической культуры,
4, 2–14.
Вовк, С. И. (2007). Диaлектика спортивной
тренировки [Dialectics of sports practice].
Moscow, RU: Физическая культура.
Вовк, С. И. (2009). Динамика ряда
координационных показателей при
тренировке и при прекращении
тренировочного процесса [Dynamics series
of coordination parameters in practice and at
the termination of the practice process]. Теория
и практика физической культуры, 9, 75–79.
Received: November 11, 2012
Revision received: December 18, 2012
Accepted: December 18, 2012
Correspondence to:
Vladimir Koprivica PhD
Faculty of Sport and Physical Education
Blagoja Parovića 156
11030 Belgrade
Serbia
E-mail: vkopriv@gmail.com
Phone: 00381 11 3531 033
