Next Article in Journal
Scope of Nursing Practice as Perceived by Nurses Working in Saudi Arabia
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Shift Work on Cognitive Function in Chinese Coal Mine Workers: A Resting-State fNIRS Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 7
10.3390/ijerph19074214
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Relationship between Different Large-Sided Games and Official Matches on Professional Football Players’ Locomotor Intensity

by
Romualdo Caldeira
1,2,
Élvio Rúbio Gouveia
1,2,3,*,
Andreas Ihle
3,4,5,
Adilson Marques
6,7,
Filipe Manuel Clemente
8,9,
Helder Lopes
1,10,
Ricardo Henriques
11 and
Hugo Sarmento
12
1
Department of Physical Education and Sport, University of Madeira, 9020-105 Funchal, Portugal
2
LARSYS, Interactive Technologies Institute, 9020-105 Funchal, Portugal
3
Center for the Interdisciplinary Study of Gerontology and Vulnerability, University of Geneva, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland
4
Department of Psychology, University of Geneva, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland
5
Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research LIVES—Overcoming Vulnerability: Life Course Perspectives, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
6
CIPER, Faculty of Human Kinetics, University of Lisbon, 1499-002 Lisbon, Portugal
7
ISAMB, University of Lisbon, 1499-002 Lisbon, Portugal
8
Escola Superior Desporto e Lazer, Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo, Rua Escola Industrial e Comercial de Nun’Álvares, 4900-347 Viana do Castelo, Portugal
9
Instituto de Telecomunicações, Delegação da Covilhã, 6201-001 Covilha, Portugal
10
Centre for Tourism Research, Development and Innovation, University of Madeira, 9004-509 Funchal, Portugal
11
Marítimo da Madeira—Futebol, SAD, 9020-208 Funchal, Portugal
12
University of Coimbra, Research Unit for Sport and Physical Activity (CIDAF), Faculty of Sport Sciences and Physical Education, 3004-504 Coimbra, Portugal
 
add Show full affiliation list
 
remove Hide full affiliation list
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(7), 4214; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19074214
Submission received: 1 March 2022 / Revised: 27 March 2022 / Accepted: 29 March 2022 / Published: 1 April 2022
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Large-sided games (LSG) are commonly used in the training contexts for providing either technical/tactical or locomotor/physiological stimuli. Despite natural similarities with the official match, the locomotor profile seems to be different, which must be considered by the coaches to identify compensatory strategies for achieving the ideal dose of training. The aim of this study was two-fold: (1) to investigate the locomotor demands imposed by LSGs and the official matches; and (2) to compare the effect of different pitch sizes’ LSG conditions in the locomotor demands. This study followed an observational design. Sixteen professional football players from the same team (26.3 ± 3.0 years old) were included. The study was conducted over four weeks. The same GK + 10 × 10 + GK play format with different pitch sizes (i.e., area per player ranging between 195 m2 to 291 m2) was analyzed. Three official matches were also collected in which the 10 most demanding minutes were considered for further comparisons. Only the same players who participated in matches were considered in comparison with the LSG. The data were obtained using a 10-Hz global positioning system technology. Total distance (TD) and mechanical work (MW) scores increased 20% and 23%, respectively, between the smallest and biggest pitch sizes (p < 0.001). There was a significant difference in locomotor intensity metrics between opponents from different positions on the table (p = 0.001). The biggest LSG (i.e., 291 m2 per player) was the only one that required similar levels of locomotor intensity as required in the official full match. The present study demonstrates that LSG pitch size variation requires different locomotor intensities. Bigger pitch sizes cause an increase in TD and MW. In addition, considering the position on the table, the level of opponents induces different TD covered. Finally, the largest LSG simulates the official match more accurately.

1. Introduction

One of the major challenges in football is building training exercises that allow players to be confronted with real match scenarios while continuously enhancing their performance (e.g., tactical, technical, physical, physiological, psychological). In this sense, small- and large-sided games (LSG), also known as small- and/or large-sided conditioned games, are very popular training resources commonly used by coaches to replicate those scenarios [1,2,3]. The design of sided games, considering the formal game format, allows the chaotic effect of football to be simplified without compromising the fundamental characteristics of the match or its dynamic and complex quality [4]. Besides promoting the strategical-tactical side, they also simulate the physiological/physical part of the game [5].
The configuration of these training exercises is strictly related to manipulating task constraints. For a typical task, constraints could include changes in format (e.g., number of players involved in the game and numerical relationships), scoring method (e.g., having or not having goalkeepers, using or not using goals or targets), strategical-tactical missions (e.g., coach-specific instructions), training regimen (e.g., work-to-rest ratio, sets, repetitions) and/or pitch configuration (e.g., dimensions of the playing area, area per player, the shape of the pitch, width-to-length ratio) [1,6]. The management of these variables is well documented in the literature. In fact, in recent years, the interaction between these task constraints has been widely investigated to modify players’ acute and chronic load responses to levels that elicit physiological match-specific adaptations [7,8].
Nowadays, the association between training and match monitoring has been one of football’s most common research topics [9]. The technological and analytical method evaluations have provided to coaches, members of technical staff and sports scientists several load measures obtained throughout the use of global positioning systems (GPS), among other microtechnologies (e.g., accelerometers, heart rate monitors, etc.) [10]. Within the load measures categorization, the locomotor intensity by means of GPS has been widely used for training load assessment and monitorization. The evidence around these locomotor activities is clear, since the internal load is strongly associated with the amount of running completed rather than the several other locomotor intensity measures typically monitored in team-sport players [11]. The most common metrics given by GPS include distances, accelerations, decelerations, impacts and total load. Within distances, one of the most used locomotor intensity measures in the assessment of the amount of work developed by the players in training and games is total distance covered (TD), which is measured in absolute (m), and relative values (m/min, m/15 min, m/h) as a percentage of the highest data reached in the match [10]. Within the accelerations, mechanical work (MW), is one of the most used variables to describe locomotor intensity. This metric was created to quantify the total load that players are exposed to and is based on the acceleration data recorded by triaxial accelerometers [12] with high reliability and validity [13,14]. It can be measured in absolute (arbitrary units (AU) and g) and relative (AU/ min, g/min and AU/m) values [10] and as a percentage of the highest data reached in the match. Several research works have focused on these two metrics for analyzing the physiological/physical demands placed on professional football players [15,16,17,18,19,20].
Although LSG appears to be a beneficial means to comprehend the players’ performance in official matches, it remains a relatively unpopular topic in the literature [2]. Namely, there is a shortage of consistency in the design of LSGs, the age and level of ability of the players and the pitch size variation used by researchers. Moreover, the generality of research in this area is conducted with young players [21,22], while studies conducted with senior players [23,24,25], and particularly with professional players, are rare. Further, when it comes to applying the optimal constraints to the training task and the appropriate management of players’ training load, match activity plays a key role [26,27]. To the best of our knowledge, only very few studies have explored the relationships between GPS locomotor intensity indicators and official matches, especially with large formats (e.g., GK + 10 vs. 10 + GK) and with the highest data reached in the game regarding key locomotor intensity indicators, such as TD and MW. This novel information will be crucial to identify which LSG conditions, in terms of pitch sizes, provide professional football players with a better level of readiness for competition.
Therefore, this study aimed to compare the locomotor demands imposed by LSG and the official match, and to compare the effect of different pitch sizes in the locomotor demands.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Approach

The study followed an observational study design. Microelectromechanical systems monitored locomotor demands in three consecutive matches and LSG applied in different training sessions. The observational period occurred over four weeks. The data collection started six weeks after the season began (corresponding to the first half of the season).
The official matches occurred at the weekends. The LSG were monitored over 3 days after the match. The data collection in training sessions occurred between 04:00 and 05:30 p.m. on natural grass field with sunny weather conditions and similar temperatures. In the case of the official matches, the data collection occurred between 06:00 and 10:30 p.m. on natural grass field with sunny weather conditions and similar temperatures.

2.2. Participants

A priori sample calculation was determined based on T-Test Family—Wilcoxon signed-rank test (i.e., matched pairs). This indicated that to detect a large effect size of r = 0.90 with an alpha probability of 0.05, a power of 0.95, the sample size would need to comprise 16 participants. GPower, (Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany; 3.1.9.7 software) was used in the calculations [28].
Sixteen male professional outfield football players from the same team (i.e., age: 26.3 ± 3.0 years old; height: 181.6 ± 5.2 cm; body mass index: 23.8 ± 1.5 kg/m2; percentage fat mass: 10.4 ± 2.9) participating in the Portuguese premier league were included in this analysis. Of the players, 7 were defenders (DF), 6 were midfielders (MF), and 3 were forwards (FW). The data were collected from daily player locomotor demands in which player activities were routinely measured during training sessions and matches. The following inclusion criteria were used: (1) players were included in the analysis if they participated in all training sessions of the week where the LSG and official match occurred; and (2) players also had to have participated for at least 45 min in one of the official matches, as suggested by previous research [19,29] (Table 1).
The players were informed of the study design and the benefits and consequences of their participation and freely signed an informed consent form. All procedures were approved by the Ethical Committee of Faculty of Human Kinetics, University of Lisbon (CEIFMH n.º: 35/2021) and followed the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki for a study in humans.

2.3. Large-Sided Games

The most used LSG played during the period of the study (i.e., GK + 10 vs. 10 + GK) were compared with the 10 most demanding minutes reached in the official matches. Keeping the same format, the LSG ranged in the pitch’s size as follows: (1) Condition 1 (CD1): 67 × 64 m, average area per player = 195 m2; (2) CD2: 78 × 68 m, average area per player = 241 m2; and (3) CD3: 100 × 64 m, average area per player = 291 m2 (Table 2)
All LSG lasted 10 min and integrated a standard training session (e.g., tactical, technical and physical factors were amalgamated) within a typical training week compound of 5 field sessions. The training week consisted of a typical microcycle structure using the following schedule: previous match-day (MD); MD + 1 and MD + 2: recovery period; MD-4 and MD-3: acquisition period; MD-2 and MD-1: tapering period; and next MD.
All the official game rules were maintained for the three LGS, except for the offside rule and the start and restart of play rule. Every time one of the teams won a free kick (direct and indirect), a penalty, a throw-in or a corner kick, the restart of the game was performed by the GK of the team to whom a goal kick belonged. There were four balls always placed next to the goal of the goalkeeper to whom the ball belonged to make this replacement process quick. The verbal encouragement of the coach remained the same throughout the three LGS.

2.4. Official Matches

Official match activities were assessed from data collected over three official 11-a-side games. Three different official matches were selected according to opponents’ level. Considering the classification in the championship, three different levels were selected: lower, middle and upper position on the table. Each microcycle throughout the study finished with an official match. The team’s management remained the same throughout the study. The team systematically played in a 1-4-3-3 formation, with 4 DF, 3 MF and 3 FW. The same warm-up protocol was conducted before each official match, including moderate running, dynamic stretching, mobility and balance exercises, accelerations and decelerations, and ball possession drills in a 5 vs. 5 configuration. The average playing area per player across the three official matches was approximately 325 m2.

2.5. Locomotor Demands

Each player’s movements were recorded by 10-Hz GPS Unit (EVO, Catapult, Melbourne, Australia) during each training session and official match. The GPS unit also included an accelerometer, a gyroscope and a magnetometer (100 Hz, 3 axes ± 16 g). The GPS device was put in a skin-tight bag in the thoracic region between the scapulae. Data were collected during what was good weather and satellite conditions for GPS training sessions and matches [19]. The following measures were collected during each training session and official match: (1) total distance (TD: consisting of the total distance covered by each player); and (2) mechanical work (MW: total load players are exposed to and is obtained from the acceleration in the three axes recorded by the GPS accelerometers, measured in arbitrary units [AU].
Catapult open field cloud was then used to compute a moving average over each criterion variable (TD and MW) for the official matches, using a 10 min duration, and the maximum value per player was recorded. These data were then averaged for each one of the three competitive matches. The LSG conditions lasted for 10 min and were also analyzed for each player and averaged as three different training drills (corresponding to each pitch dimension used). Descriptive statistics and analysis were then calculated based on this design.

2.6. Statistics

First, descriptive statistics were calculated (means, standard deviation and confidence intervals) for age, body composition and physical fitness variables.
Second, the Friedman test was used to identify TD and MW changes across the three LSG formats and the three competition moments.
Third, a Wilcoxon signed-rank test was conducted to analyze individual differences in the scores of the locomotor intensity between each LSG condition and the official full game. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics v.26.0 (IBM, Armank, NY, USA). The significance level was set to p < 0.05.

3. Results

First, descriptive statistics of age, body composition and physical fitness variables are presented in Table 3.
Second, the results of the Friedman test indicated that there was a significant difference in the total distance (TD) scores [χ2 (2, n = 16) = 15.50, p < 0.001, Figure 1] and mechanical (MW) scores [χ2 (2, n = 16) = 14.00, p = 0.001, Figure 2] between the three different pitch size conditions in GK + 10 vs. 10 + GK. Inspection of the median values showed that the GK + 10 × 10 + GK (291 m2) format presented the highest score in TD and MW.
For the three official matches, there was a significant difference in the TD scores [χ2 (2, n = 16) = 13.88, p = 0.001]. The match against the best-classified team presented the lowest score in TD. No significant difference was seen for MW [χ2 (2, n = 16) = 1.41, p = 0.494].
Third, a Wilcoxon signed-rank test was conducted to analyze a change in TD and MW from training conditions and to official matches.

3.1. Total Distance

The Wilcoxon signed-rank test revealed a significant difference in TD between GK + 10 vs. 10 + GK (i.e., smallest pitch size) and the Official Match 1 (i.e., against a team with a low position on the table) z = −2.40, p = 0.017 (r = 0.60) and Official Match 2 (i.e., against a team with a middle position on the table) z = −2.51, p = 0.012 (r = 0.63). The median score on the TD revealed lower scores in the training condition when compared with the official match (Table 4).
There was a significant difference in TD between GK + 10 vs. 10 + GK (i.e., medium pitch size) and the Official Match 1 (i.e., against a team with a low position on the table) z = −3.52, p < 0.001 (r = 0.88), Official Match 2 (i.e., against a team with a middle position on the table) z = −3.36, p < 0.001 (r = 0.84) and Official Match 3 (i.e., against a team with a upper position on the table) z = −2.64, p = 0.008 (r = 0.66). The median score on the TD revealed lower scores in the training condition when compared with all official matches (Table 4).
Finally, there was a statistically significant difference in TD between GK + 10 vs. 10 + GK (i.e., large pitch size) and the Official Match 1 (i.e., against a team with a low position on the table) z = −2.22, p = 0.026 (r = 0.56) and Official Match 3 (i.e., against a team with an upper position on the table) z = −2.54, p = 0.011 (r = 0.63). The median score on the TD revealed higher scores in the training condition when compared with the official match (Table 4).
Figure 3 depicts the players’ individual variation of locomotor demands (i.e., total distance and mechanical work) across the three official matches and GK + 10 vs. 10 + GK LSG conditions.

3.2. Mechanical Work

The Wilcoxon signed-rank test revealed a significant difference in MW between GK + 10 vs. 10 + GK (i.e., smallest pitch size) and the Official Match 1 (i.e., against a team with a low position on the table) z = −3.06, p = 0.002 (r = 0.77), Official Match 2 (i.e., against a team with a middle position on the table) z = −2.95, p = 0.003 (r = 0.74) and Official Match 3 (i.e., against a team with a upper position on the table) z = −2.69, p = 0.007 (r = 0.67). The median score on the MW revealed lower scores in the training condition when compared with all official matches (Table 4).
There was a significant difference in MW between GK + 10 vs. 10 + GK (i.e., medium pitch size) and the Official Match 1 (i.e., against a team with a low position on the table) z = −3.06, p <.001 (r = 0.88), Official Match 2 (i.e., against a team with a middle position on the table) z = −2.95, p = 0.001 (r = 0.83) and Official Match 3 (i.e., against a team with a upper position on the table) z = −2.69, p = 0.001 (r = 0.80). The median score on the MW revealed lower scores in the training condition when compared with all official matches (Table 4).
Finally, no significant differences in MW were seen between GK + 10 vs. 10 + GK (i.e., large pitch size) and any official match.

4. Discussion

The novel findings of the present study showed a difference in locomotor intensity metrics when pitch sizes change in LSG. Bigger pitch sizes caused an increase in TD and MW. There was a significant difference in locomotor intensity metrics between opponents from different positions on the table (i.e., lower, medium or upper). Competition against teams from the upper position caused a lower TD. The biggest LSG (291 m2 per player) was the only one that required similar levels of locomotor intensity as required in the official match. This study gives important information for coaches to plan LSG formats with similar locomotor intensity to those they will find in the official match.
First, keeping a similar LSG format, we analyzed the pitch size variation in total distance covered and the MW. A recent umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on SSG in team ball sports revealed that pitch configuration (i.e., mainly the pitch size and the influence of different relative areas of play) was currently one of the main game constraints discussed in the literature [8]. However, it is claimed more research should investigate the effect of manipulation of playing field dimensions on the emerged outcomes of the games [30], since some studies differed significantly in their results and interpretations of the findings. In addition, the information about LSG (e.g., GK + 9 vs. 9 + GK; GK + 10 vs. 10 + GK) in professional football is scarce. Our results reinforce the idea that larger pitches cause increases in the TD and the MW. It means that the larger the playing field dimensions during practice, the greater the distances between players in the same team and between those players and the opposing team. Since LSG are widely used by coaches, the present study results have important practical implications and give helpful information to guide methodologies used in professional football training.
Secondly, in this study, we investigated the variation of TD and MW considering different levels of opponents (i.e., low, middle and upper position on the table). Clemente et al. [8] concluded that greater competitive levels increase locomotor intensity during games. The present study contradicts these findings, since it was found that the competition moment against the team from the upper position caused a lower total distance run. Despite the tactical-technical approach of the players that may influence the team’s behavior, it is comprehensive that playing against an opponent from the upper position on the table generates a bigger concern about the cohesion of the defensive process that may cause a huge contention of the team and a lower distance covered.
Third, we compared the different LSG (i.e., in terms of pitch sizes) and the real moment of competition on TD and the MW, considering the levels of the opponents. This information allows us to understand better which LSG more accurately simulate the official full match. Previous studies have compared the relative physical demands of SSG (medium and large) in official matches and in non-professional football players [3,31,32,33]. However, to our knowledge, this is the first study that considers the levels of opponents when comparing the LGS. This opens new and important perspectives about the teams’ preparation for specific matches.
In the present study, independently of the opponents’ position on the table, the largest LGS (i.e., 291 m2) simulates the official match more accurately than other sided games in terms of TD and MW metrics. Similar results were seen by authors of Ref [33], who concluded that GK + 9 vs. 9 + GK simulates the official match more accurately than other large-sided and/or conditioned games in sprinting and loading demands. These differences in TD between official matches and large-sided and conditioned games also agree with previous reports [3,32]. It is also important to underline that the largest LSG format required a bigger mean TD covered (i.e., 1273.4 ± 101.9 m) when compared to the official match against a team with a lower position on the table (i.e., 1203.6 ± 74.7 m) and the official match against a team with an upper position on the table (i.e., 1156.5 ± 87.1 m). It means that the largest GK + 10 vs. 10 + GK (i.e., 291 m2) was the format studied that better prepared the team for the official match. Based on these results, coaches should consider this format to better simulate the TD and the MW required by the official matches.
We acknowledge that the differences in constraints between large-sided and conditioned games in previous studies make the results difficult. However, it is believed that LSG better simulates the official match in terms of TD and MW, which is an important message for coaches. This is in line with the ecological dynamics approach that supports LSG as a practice methodology that ensures task constraints during training are similarly demanding to a competitive context [34,35]. It means that, probably, LSG forces players in a better way to adapt their overall actions to a changing performance environment, similarly to competitive performance conditions. It is also important to acknowledge that once we are analyzing the players’ performance, the temperatures and relative humidity for each training session and official match should be registered in the future, since hydration status and ambient conditions are important variables that may affect the players’ performance.

5. Conclusions

The present study demonstrates that pitch size variation (i.e., 195 m2; 241 m2; 291 m2) in LSG requires different locomotor intensity in professional football players. A bigger pitch size causes an increase in TD and MW. In addition, the level of opponents, considering their position on the table, induces a differently covered TD. The competition moment against teams from the upper position causes a lower TD run. Finally, the largest LSG format more accurately simulates the official full match. These novel results have important implications and give precious detailed information for coaches to better plan LSG formats with similar locomotor intensity to those they will find in the competition moment.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.C. and É.R.G.; Methodology, R.C., É.R.G. and R.H.; Validation, H.L., F.M.C. and H.S.; Formal analysis, É.R.G.; Investigation, R.C. and É.R.G.; Resources, R.C., É.R.G. and R.H.; Writing—original draft preparation, R.C. and É.R.G.; Writing—review and editing, A.I., A.M., F.M.C., R.H. and H.S.; Visualization, A.I., A.M., F.M.C., R.H. and H.S.; Project administration, É.R.G. and H.L.; Funding acquisition, É.R.G., H.L., A.I. and H.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research LIVES, “Overcoming Vulnerability: Life Course Perspectives,” granted by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant Number: 51NF40-185901). A.I. acknowledges support from the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant Number: 10001C_189407). R.C. and E.R.G. acknowledge support from LARSyS—Portuguese national funding agency for science, research, and technology (FCT) pluriannual funding 2020–2023 (Reference: UIDB/50009/2020). This study is framed in Marítimo Training Lab Project. The project received funding under application no. M1420-01-0247-FEDER-000033 in the System of Incentives for the Production of Scientific and Technological Knowledge in the Autonomous Region of Madeira—PROCiência 2020.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Human Kinetics, (CEIFMH N. º 34/2021) and followed the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki for Medical Research in Humans (2013) and Oviedo Convention (1997).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Written informed consent was obtained from all players to publish this paper.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all players and respective legal guardians for their participation in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hill-Haas, S.V.; Dawson, B.; Impellizzeri, F.M.; Coutts, A.J. Physiology of small-sided games training in football: A systematic review. Sports Med. 2011, 41, 199–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Gonçalves, B.; Esteves, P.; Folgado, H.; Ric, A.; Torrents, C.; Sampaio, J. Effects of pitch area-restrictions on tactical behavior, physical, and physiological performances in soccer large-sided games. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2017, 31, 2398–2408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Owen, A.L.; Wong, D.P.; Paul, D.; Dellal, A. Physical and technical comparisons between various-sided games within professional soccer. Int. J. Sports Med. 2013, 35, 286–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Serra-Olivares, J.; Clemente, F.M.; González-Víllora, S. Tactical expertise assessment in youth football using representative tasks. SpringerPlus 2016, 5, 1301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Halouani, J.; Chtourou, H.; Gabbett, T.; Chaouachi, A.; Chamari, K. Small-sided games in team sports training: A brief review. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2014, 28, 3594–3618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sarmento, H.; Clemente, F.M.; Harper, L.D.; Da Costa, I.T.; Owen, A.; Figueiredo, A.J. Small sided games in soccer—A systematic review. Int. J. Perform. Anal. Sport 2018, 18, 693–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bujalance-Moreno, P.; Latorre-Román, P.; García-Pinillos, F. A systematic review on small-sided games in football players: Acute and chronic adaptations. J. Sports Sci. 2019, 37, 921–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Clemente, F.M.; Afonso, J.; Sarmento, H. Small-sided games: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0247067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Akenhead, R.; Nassis, G.P. Training load and player monitoring in high-level football: Current practice and perceptions. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2016, 11, 587–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Miguel, M.; Oliveira, R.; Loureiro, N.; García-Rubio, J.; Ibáñez, S. Load measures in training/match monitoring in soccer: A systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. McLaren, S.J.; Macpherson, T.W.; Coutts, A.J.; Hurst, C.; Spears, I.R.; Weston, M. The relationships between internal and external measures of training load and intensity in team sports: A meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2018, 48, 641–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Gómez-Carmona, C.D.; Pino-Ortega, J.; Sánchez-Ureña, B.; Ibáñez, S.J.; Rojas-Valverde, D. Accelerometry-based external load indicators in sport: Too many options, same practical outcome? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 5101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Barreira, P.; Robinson, M.A.; Drust, B.; Nedergaard, N.J.; Azidin, R.M.F.R.; Vanrenterghem, J. Mechanical Player Load™ using trunk-mounted accelerometry in football: Is it a reliable, task- and player-specific observation? J. Sports Sci. 2017, 35, 1674–1681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Barrett, S.; Midgley, A.; Lovell, R. PlayerLoad™: Reliability, convergent validity, and influence of unit position during treadmill running. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2014, 9, 945–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Malone, S.; Owen, A.; Newton, M.; Mendes, B.; Tiernan, L.; Hughes, B.; Collins, K. Wellbeing perception and the impact on external training output among elite soccer players. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2018, 21, 29–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Akenhead, R.; Harley, J.A.; Tweddle, S.P. Examining the external training load of an English premier league football team with special reference to acceleration. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2016, 30, 2424–2432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Giménez, J.V.; Leicht, A.S.; Gomez, M.A. Physical performance differences between starter and non-starter players during professional soccer friendly matches. J. Hum. Kinet. 2019, 69, 283–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Clemente, F.M.; Owen, A.; Serra-Olivares, J.; Nikolaidis, P.T.; van der Linden, C.M.I.; Mendes, B. Characterization of the weekly external load profile of professional soccer teams from Portugal and the Netherlands. J. Hum. Kinet. 2019, 66, 155–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Clemente, F.M.; Rabbani, A.; Conte, D.; Castillo, D.; Afonso, J.; Clark, C.C.T.; Nikolaidis, P.T.; Rosemann, T.; Knechtle, B. Training/match external load ratios in professional soccer players: A full-season study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Clemente, F.M.; Seerden, G.; van der Linden, C.M. Quantifying the physical loading of five weeks of pre-season training in professional soccer teams from Dutch and Portuguese leagues. Physiol. Behav. 2019, 209, 112588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Clemente, F.M.; Wong, D.P.; Martins, F.M.L.; Mendes, R.S. Acute effects of the number of players and scoring method on physiological, physical, and technical performance in small-sided soccer games. Res. Sports Med. 2014, 22, 380–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Halouani, J.; Chtourou, H.; Dellal, A.; Chaouachi, A.; Chamari, K. Physiological responses according to rules changes during 3 vs. 3 small-sided games in youth soccer players: Stop-ball vs. small-goals rules. J. Sports Sci. 2014, 32, 1485–1490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Stevens, T.G.A.; De Ruiter, C.J.; Beek, P.J.; Savelsbergh, G.J.P. Validity and reliability of 6-a-side small-sided game locomotor performance in assessing physical fitness in football players. J. Sports Sci. 2016, 34, 527–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Ric, A.; Hristovski, R.; Gonçalves, B.; Torres, L.; Sampaio, J.; Torrents, C. Timescales for exploratory tactical behaviour in football small-sided games. J. Sports Sci. 2016, 34, 1723–1730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Mc Lean, S.; Kerhervé, H.; Naughton, M.; Lovell, G.; Gorman, A.; Solomon, C. The effect of recovery duration on technical proficiency during small sided games of football. Sports 2016, 4, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Owen, A.L.; Djaoui, L.; Newton, M.; Malone, S.; Mendes, B. A contemporary multi-modal mechanical approach to training monitoring in elite professional soccer. Sci. Med. Footb. 2017, 1, 216–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Stevens, T.G.A.; De Ruiter, C.J.; Twisk, J.W.R.; Savelsbergh, G.J.P.; Beek, P.J. Quantification of in-season training load relative to match load in professional Dutch Eredivisie football players. Sci. Med. Footb. 2017, 1, 117–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Lang, A.-G.; Buchner, A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 2007, 39, 175–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lacome, M.; Simpson, B.M.; Cholley, Y.; Lambert, P.; Buchheit, M. Small-sided games in elite soccer: Does one size fit all? Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2018, 13, 568–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ometto, L.; Vasconcellos, F.V.; Cunha, F.; Teoldo, I.; Souza, C.R.B.; Dutra, M.B.; O’Sullivan, M.; Davids, K. How manipulating task constraints in small-sided and conditioned games shapes emergence of individual and collective tactical behaviours in football: A systematic review. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach. 2018, 13, 1200–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Beenham, M.; Barron, D.J.; Fry, J.; Hurst, H.H.; Figueirdo, A.; Atkins, S. A Comparison of GPS workload demands in match play and small-sided games by the positional role in youth soccer. J. Hum. Kinet. 2017, 57, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Casamichana, D.; Castellano, J.; Castagna, C. Comparing the physical demands of friendly matches and small-sided games in semiprofessional soccer players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2012, 26, 837–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Clemente, F.M.; Praça, G.M.; Bredt, S.D.G.T.; van der Linden, C.M.I.; Serra-Olivares, J. External load variations between medium- and large-sided soccer games: Ball possession games vs regular games with small goals. J. Hum. Kinet. 2019, 70, 191–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Chow, J.Y.; Davids, K.; Button, C.; Shuttleworth, R.; Renshaw, I.; Araújo, D. Nonlinear pedagogy: A constraints-led framework for understanding emergence of game play and movement skills. Nonlinear Dyn. Psychol. Life Sci. 2006, 10, 71–103. [Google Scholar]
  35. Chow, J.Y.; Komar, J.; Seifert, L. The role of nonlinear pedagogy in supporting the design of modified games in junior sports. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 744814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 19 04214 g001 550
Figure 1. Changes in total distance across the three LSG formats and the three official matches.
Figure 1. Changes in total distance across the three LSG formats and the three official matches.
Ijerph 19 04214 g001
Ijerph 19 04214 g002 550
Figure 2. Changes in mechanical work across the three LSG formats and the three official matches.
Figure 2. Changes in mechanical work across the three LSG formats and the three official matches.
Ijerph 19 04214 g002
Ijerph 19 04214 g003 550
Figure 3. Players’ individual variation of locomotor demands (i.e., total distance and mechanical work) across the three official matches and GK + 10 vs. 10 + GK LSG conditions. The columns represent the average score for the group.
Figure 3. Players’ individual variation of locomotor demands (i.e., total distance and mechanical work) across the three official matches and GK + 10 vs. 10 + GK LSG conditions. The columns represent the average score for the group.
Ijerph 19 04214 g003
Table
Table 1. Players’ individual descriptive of the official matches.
Table 1. Players’ individual descriptive of the official matches.
Official Match 1Official Match 2Official Match 3
Date31 October 20207 November 202030 November 2020
Home/away gameHomeAwayHome
Game scoreDrawLossLoss
Player 1100% of the time100% of the time100% of the time
Player 2100% of the time100% of the time
Player 3100% of the time100% of the time90% of the time
Player 4100% of the time100% of the time
Player 5100% of the time76% of the time96% of the time
Player 6100% of the time48% of the time
Player 782% of the time
Player 860% of the time48% of the time
Player 9100% of the time84% of the time100% of the time
Player 1085% of the time100% of the time76% of the time
Player 11 100% of the time100% of the time
Player 12 51% of the time100% of the time
Player 13 51% of the time
Player 14 100% of the time
Player 15 100% of the time
Player 16 76% of the time
Table
Table 2. Large-sided games characteristics.
Table 2. Large-sided games characteristics.
Week 1Week 2Week 3
FormatGK + 10 vs. 10 + GKGK + 10 vs. 10 + GKGK + 10 vs. 10 + GK
Pitch size67 m × 64 m (4288 m2)78 m × 68 m (5304 m2)100 m × 64 m (6400 m2)
Area per player195 m2241 m2291 m2
Task objectivesThe main objective for the three LSG conditions was to score as many as goals as possible and not to to give any possible chance for the opponent to score.
Task rulesAll the official game rules were maintained for the three LSG, except for the offside rule and the start and restart of play rule. Every time one of the teams won a free kick (direct and indirect), a penalty, a throw-in or a corner kick, the restart of the game was performed by the GK of the team to whom the goal kick belonged. All LSG were also played with free touch rule per player.
Sets1
Minutes per set10′
Table
Table 3. Descriptive statistics of age, body composition and physical fitness variables.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics of age, body composition and physical fitness variables.
MeanSD95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Lower BoundUpper Bound
Age (years)26.32.923.828.7
Weight (kg)78.66.273.384.8
Height (cm)181.65.2178.7184.3
BMI (kg/m2)23.81.522.525.3
Percent of body fat10.42.98.911.9
Countermovement jump (cm)39.04.835.342.7
Squat jump (cm)38.14.534.441.6
Handgrip strength (kg)50.68.144.958.1
Sprint 35 m (s)4.90.34.75.2
Table
Table 4. Individual differences in the scores of the locomotor intensity between each LSG condition and the official match.
Table 4. Individual differences in the scores of the locomotor intensity between each LSG condition and the official match.
GK + 10 vs. 10 + GK (195 m2)Official Match 1 Official Match 2 Official Match 3
M ± SD; MedM ± SD; MedpM ± SD; MedpM ± SD; Medp
AvgTD1149.2 ± 81.5; 1149.01203.6 ± 74.7; 1203.60.0171236.4 ± 105.2; 1236.40.012 1156.5 ± 87.1; 1156.50.877
AvgMW107.1 ± 14.1;107.0123.0 ± 16.6; 123.00.002130.9 ± 31.7; 130.00.003 122.5 ± 12.0; 122.50.007
GK + 10 vs. 10 + GK (241 m2)
AvgTD1064.6 ± 78.4;1064.6-<0.001-0.001-0.008
AvgMW101.1 ± 15.0; 101.1-<0.001-0.001-0.001
GK + 10 vs. 10 + GK (291 m2)
AvgTD1273.4 ± 101.9; 1273.4-0.026-0.196-0.011
AvgMW124.5 ± 15.6; 124.5-0.918-0.717-0.437
AvgTD, mean total distance; AvgMW, mean mechanical work; Official Match 1, against a team with a low position on the table; Official Match 2, against a team with a middle position on the table; Official Match 3, against a team with an upper position on the table. p < 0.05; Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Caldeira, R.; Gouveia, É.R.; Ihle, A.; Marques, A.; Clemente, F.M.; Lopes, H.; Henriques, R.; Sarmento, H. The Relationship between Different Large-Sided Games and Official Matches on Professional Football Players’ Locomotor Intensity. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4214. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19074214

AMA Style

Caldeira R, Gouveia ÉR, Ihle A, Marques A, Clemente FM, Lopes H, Henriques R, Sarmento H. The Relationship between Different Large-Sided Games and Official Matches on Professional Football Players’ Locomotor Intensity. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(7):4214. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19074214

Chicago/Turabian Style

Caldeira, Romualdo, Élvio Rúbio Gouveia, Andreas Ihle, Adilson Marques, Filipe Manuel Clemente, Helder Lopes, Ricardo Henriques, and Hugo Sarmento. 2022. "The Relationship between Different Large-Sided Games and Official Matches on Professional Football Players’ Locomotor Intensity" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 7: 4214. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19074214

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop