4.6 Article

Field dimension and skill level constrain team tactical behaviours in small-sided and conditioned games in football

Journal

JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES
Volume 32, Issue 20, Pages 1888-1896

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2014.961950

Keywords

small-sided games; task constraints; collective behaviours

Categories

Funding

  1. Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT, Portugal) [SFRH/BD/73463/2010]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study analysed the influence of field dimension and players' skill level on collective tactical behaviours during small-sided and conditioned games (SSCGs). Positioning and displacement data were collected using global positioning systems (15Hz) during SSCGs (Gk+4v. 4+Gk) played by two groups of participants (NLP- national-level and RLP-regional-level players) on different field dimensions (small: 36.8x23.8m; intermediate: 47.3x30.6 and large: 57.8x37.4m). Team tactical performance was assessed through established dynamic team variables (effective playing space, playing length per width ratio and team separateness) and nonlinear signal processing techniques (sample entropy of distances to nearest opponents and the teams' centroids' mutual information). Results showed that the effective playing space and team separateness increased significantly with pitch size regardless of participant skill level (P<0.001, eta(2)=0.78 and P<0.001, eta(2)=0.65, respectively). Playing length per width ratio increased with pitch size for the NLP but was maintained at a relatively constant level by RLP across treatments indicating different playing shapes. There was significantly more irregularity in distances to nearest opponents for the NLP in small (P=0.003) and intermediate fields (P=0.01). Findings suggest that tactical behaviours in SSCGs are constrained by field size and skill level, which need to be considered by coaches when designing training practices.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available