What They Found
In order to make it easier for the reader, I decided to present the authors findings point by point, using the four points presented above.
1) From a performance perspective, the authors questioned about the importance of using post-match fatigue monitoring tools. Nevertheless, higher fatigue levels have been demonstrated to be related to non-contact injury, therefore, from an injury perspective, it may useful to monitor fatigue.
2) The authors mentioned that research vulgarly interpret results independently of the players standard/level. Moreover, research is typically based on a single dataset. Using a single dataset may provide erroneous findings due to numerous factors such as: match-to-match physiological variation, effects of training, period of the season, individual minutes of match during the season, etc.
3) The time-points used in research to analyse fatigue after matches are either to short (i.e. up to 24h post-match) or conflict with other team activities. Furthermore, research is dependent on a variety of factors that may make the data found in research non-representative of another population. The complex, expensive, and time-demanding measures used in research can rarely be implemented in everyday football environments. Although timemotion measures (e.g. GPS) are collected by most teams, practitioners need to be aware of the methodological limitations. Despite being easy to apply and almost cost-free, self-reports are dependent on the players honesty and several other factors.
4) Suggestions were made for research to focus on the effects of neuromuscular related fatigue on mechanical workload metrics. In order to investigate mental fatigue, mentally fatiguing tasks with high ecological validity for soccer need to be created. Researchers should also be focusing on collecting a combination of training and match derived data