Table 2.
Hamstring injury (HI) burden for seasons where a new coach brought their own fitness/performance coach compared with team seasons where the club brought in the head of fitness/performance coach
| New head coach bringing own fitness/performance coach | Frequency | HI burden for team seasons where a new head coach brought in their own fitness/performance coach (95% CI) | HI burden for team seasons where the club brought in the fitness/performance coach (95% CI) | Change of HI burden | HI burden difference (head coach brought in – club brought in) (95% CI) |
| New head coach at the start of the season bringing own fitness/performance coach | 7/10=70% | 44 (32 to 54) | 16 (12 to 19) | +175% | 28 (7 to 32) |
| New head coach during season bringing own fitness/performance coach | 4/9=44%* | 48 (14 to 83) | 16 (8 to 25) | +300% | 32 (−17 to 81)† |
| New head coach before or during the season bringing own fitness/performance coach | 11/19=58%* | 45 (34 to 60) | 16 (12 to 22) | +276% | 29 (14 to 45)† |
HI burden is expressed as the number of days lost per 1000 hours of exposure.
Bold CIs are significant at 0.05 level.
*One club did not provide an answer to Question 24 (Was the performance/fitness coach of the 2021/2022 season brought in by the head coach or by the club?).
†Equal variance assumed (SDhigher/SDlower<2, except for where equal variance not assumed were used.