4.3 Article

The influence of relative playing area and player numerical imbalance on physical and perceptual demands in soccer small-sided game formats

Journal

SCIENCE AND MEDICINE IN FOOTBALL
Volume 6, Issue 2, Pages 221-227

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/24733938.2021.1939408

Keywords

GPS; small-sided games; overload; acceleration; training load; soccer

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study found that loading in small-sided games increases with pitch size and is affected by balanced/unbalanced player numbers. Different game formats, including numerical imbalance, could be used for squad management to target conditioning stimuli for specific players.
Purpose: This study aimed to examine physiological, mechanical and perceptual loading in small-sided games using different relative playing areas with balanced and unbalanced player numbers.Methods: Data were collected in twelve elite youth male soccer players and included heart rate and standard time-motion outputs using commercial GPS.Results: The data demonstrated higher cardiovascular, physical and perceptual demands with increasing pitch size (e.g. average HR was 88.7 vs. 86.7% HRmax with 8 vs. 2 high-intensity acceleration in medium vs. small pitch formats. The largest pitch format resulted in a greater accumulation of high-intensity distance (47 +/- 30 m), higher peak velocity (25.2 +/- 1.6 km.h-1) and a higher distance and frequency of accelerations (35 +/- 9 m and 8 +/- 3) compared with the smallest pitch (all p < 0.01). In unbalanced games, there was significantly greater average heart rate in the overloaded team (84.4 +/- 4.9 vs. 80.4 +/- 4.8% HRmax in 4 v. 6).Conclusion: These data suggest that different game formats including numerical imbalance could be prescribed for squad management to target conditioning stimuli for specific players (e.g. to target a higher training load for players that do not get consistent match exposure).

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available