The goal in sports periodization is to reduce the stress at the point where the resistance stage ends so the body has time to recover.
In this way the exhaustion stage does not reduce the gains achieved, the body can recover and remain above the original equilibrium point.
Russian physiologist Leo Matveyev and Romanian sport scientist Tudor Bompa expanded and further organized the periodization model.
With the success of the Soviet athletes, Matveyev's plans were spread all over the Eastern Bloc in their annual coordination meetings.
[6][3] In 1988, Grigori Goldstein, a Soviet defector shared information about periodization with American strength and conditioning coaches, including Johnny Parker.
An example of general preparation would be building an aerobic base for an endurance athlete such as running on a treadmill and learning any rules or regulations that would be required such as proper swimming stroke as not to be disqualified.
[11] A mesocycle can also be defined as a number of continuous weeks where the training program emphasize the same type of physical adaptations, for example muscle mass and anaerobic capacity.
[9] A microcycle is also defined as a number of training sessions, built around a given combination of acute program variables, which include progression as well as alternating effort (heavy vs. light days).
This phase is used to facilitate psychological rest, relaxation and biological regeneration as well as to maintain an acceptable level of general physical preparation.
This is largely due to the oversimplified assumptions put forward in the early development of periodization theory that are not always transferable to the psycho-biological effects of various training methods used in sport.
The improvement of an athlete or a team in sports varies depending on an individual's hormonal response, genetic predispositions, motivation, stress levels, as well as transient social and environmental variables.
Periodization is suggested to be the optimum method of sports training when aiming to enhance team performance due to the organisational and structural nature to its approach.
For many years, football training and its planning has been (and still is) characterised by fragmented thinking of which has perhaps been attributed to the success of such an approach in individual sports.
Many authors such as Garganta, Maia, & Marque,[18] Oliveira,[19] Castelo,[20] and Gaiteiro [21] have argued in regards to the indivisibility of the 4 components which make up a football performance...technical, tactical, physical and mental.
As highlighted by Tamarit,[22] football is a tactical game where players are constantly required to make decisions in response to specific situations.
So football needs to be viewed as a tactical game which encompasses with it the physical, technical and mental aspects required for positive performances.