You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Sports
Download PDF
  • Review
  • Open Access

25 July 2025

Shaping Training Load, Technical–Tactical Behaviour, and Well-Being in Football: A Systematic Review

,
,
,
,
and
1
Biosciences Higher School of Elvas, Polytechnic Institute of Portalegre, 7300-110 Portalegre, Portugal
2
Department of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal
3
LiveWell—Research Centre for Active Living and Wellbeing, Instituto Politécnico de Bragança, 5300-253 Bragança, Portugal
4
Department of Sports, Higher Institute of Educational Sciences of the Douro, 4560-708 Penafiel, Portugal
Sports2025, 13(8), 244;https://doi.org/10.3390/sports13080244
This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Football Science: Integrating Technology, Performance, and Well-Being
Version Notes
Order Reprints
Review Reports

Abstract

Football performance results from the dynamic interaction between physical, tactical, technical, and psychological dimensions—each of which also influences player well-being, recovery, and readiness. However, integrated monitoring approaches remain scarce, particularly in youth and sub-elite contexts. This systematic review screened 341 records from PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, with 46 studies meeting the inclusion criteria (n = 1763 players; age range: 13.2–28.7 years). Physical external load was reported in 44 studies using GPS-derived metrics such as total distance and high-speed running, while internal load was examined in 36 studies through session-RPE (rate of perceived exertion × duration), heart rate zones, training impulse (TRIMP), and Player Load (PL). A total of 22 studies included well-being indicators capturing fatigue, sleep quality, stress levels, and muscle soreness, through tools such as the Hooper Index (HI), the Total Quality Recovery (TQR) scale, and various Likert-type or composite wellness scores. Tactical behaviours (n = 15) were derived from positional tracking systems, while technical performance (n = 7) was assessed using metrics like pass accuracy and expected goals, typically obtained from Wyscout® or TRACAB® (a multi-camera optical tracking system). Only five studies employed multivariate models to examine interactions between performance domains or to predict well-being outcomes. Most remained observational, relying on descriptive analyses and examining each domain in isolation. These findings reveal a fragmented approach to player monitoring and a lack of conceptual integration between physical, psychological, tactical, and technical indicators. Future research should prioritise multidimensional, standardised monitoring frameworks that combine contextual, psychophysiological, and performance data to improve applied decision-making and support player health, particularly in sub-elite and youth populations.

1. Introduction

Football is one of the world’s most widely practised and studied sports, characterised by a high level of tactical, technical, physical, and psychological complexity [,]. The performance of football players results from the interaction between these different dimensions, which do not act in isolation but in an integrated manner, allowing for efficient adaptation to the demands of the game. A football player’s ability to make quick and effective decisions [], manage fatigue [], and maintain high performance levels throughout a game or season depends not only on their physical and technical training but also on psychological factors and the monitoring of their well-being [,].
Over the last decades, research in football has increasingly focused on optimising performance while ensuring player health and well-being [,,,], emphasising injury prevention and fatigue management strategies [,]. Training and match loads [] have a direct impact on fatigue and injury predisposition [,], making the implementation of effective monitoring and recovery strategies essential [,]. Inadequate load management has been shown to compromise athletes’ well-being [,], negatively affecting sleep patterns [], emotional states [], and recovery capacity []. Thus, continuous and multidimensional monitoring of these factors is critical to optimising both performance and health [].
Several assessment systems have been developed to quantify and analyse the impact of training load [,]. Methods such as GPS [,] and accelerometers [,,] provide objective data on external loads, allowing for the measurement of variables such as distance covered, number of sprints, accelerations (ACC), and high-intensity efforts [,]. Additionally, subjective questionnaires such as the Hooper Index (HI) [] and the Total Quality Recovery (TQR) scale [] are widely used to assess players’ perceptions of well-being and physiological responses to training loads [,]. However, while these methods effectively identify patterns of fatigue and recovery [,], their application in sports practice should be integrated into more holistic approaches, combining objective and subjective measures across multiple performance domains [].
A key aspect of football performance is the relationship between tactical knowledge and technical skills [,], both of which play crucial roles in decision-making and motor efficiency [,]. Tactical awareness allows players to perceive, interpret, and respond effectively to dynamic game situations [], thereby optimising collective play and strategic execution []. Meanwhile, the technical proficiency contributes to the quality of tactical and technical actions, and decisions [] are executed with precision under match pressure [], facilitating effective passing, dribbling, shooting, and defensive []. The Football Tactical Assessment System (FUT-SAT) has been widely used to assess tactical behaviour in football, providing insights into players’ ability to make decisions and perform motor actions based on game principles []. By integrating tactical knowledge and technical execution with physical and psychological dimensions, players can optimise their performance [,]. However, it remains to ensure the management of fatigue and maintaining well-being [,].
Previous systematic reviews have primarily examined performance domains in isolation [,], often prioritising physical and psychological variables [,,] while overlooking tactical and technical aspects, as well as their interaction with players’ well-being [,]. This fragmented approach may limit the understanding of how training load and recovery strategies influence both athlete health and football-specific performance []. Moreover, most of the existing literature has focused predominantly on elite male football players [,,] with limited attention given to sub-elite [,,], semi-professional [,], amateur [,], or female contexts [,]. Yet, players in these categories are subject to different training loads, match structures, recovery resources, and medical support, potentially altering the relationship between performance, health, and well-being []. Although youth football deserves consideration due to developmental and maturational aspects [,,], the broader research gap concerns the lack of integrative, multidimensional approaches across the different competitive levels.
Altogether, the present study aimed to conduct a systematic review to examine how the main dimensions of football performance—namely physical, technical, tactical, and psychological—interact with indicators of player health and well-being. This multidimensional perspective seeks to address a critical need in performance science: understanding how combined factors influence recovery, fatigue, and readiness.
While previous research has produced valuable insights into each individual domain, few studies have explored the interdependent nature of these dimensions. This fragmentation may hinder the development of accurate monitoring systems and limit our ability to predict key outcomes such as injury risk, overtraining, or performance decrements.
In this context, we hypothesised that the literature would reveal patterns of association between performance and well-being indicators. Examples include concurrent monitoring of external load (e.g., total distance, high-speed running), internal load (e.g., heart rate zones, TRIMP), technical performance (e.g., pass accuracy), tactical behaviours (e.g., team synchronisation), and well-being status (e.g., HI, TQR, Likert-type scales). Synthesising this evidence is particularly essential in youth and sub-elite populations, where monitoring practices often lack standardisation and integration.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Literature Search Strategy

The search strategy was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Supplementary File S1) and followed the Population–Intervention–Comparators–Outcomes–Study Design (PICOS) approach to define the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the studies []. The protocol was registered on the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (INPLASY) under the registration number 202560010 (DOI: 10.37766/inplasy2025.6.0010).
The bibliographic search was carried out in 3 databases—PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science—using keywords and Boolean operators to capture relevant studies on the topic (Table 1) [,]. The article collection took place between November and December 2024, ensuring the inclusion of the most recent and relevant publications for the systematic review.
Table 1. Search terms and the following keywords were used in the screening procedures of the systematic review.
The study selection was carried out independently by the first author (PA) and subsequently verified by a second author (JET). Any discrepancies in the selection of articles were resolved by a third reviewer (PF), following the recommendations of the PRISMA protocol []. Only peer-reviewed articles were included, with no prioritisation of authors or journals, ensuring impartiality in the study selection.
Although well-being and psychological outcomes were included as search terms and inclusion criteria, many of the eligible studies merely reported these variables descriptively, without applying integrated or analytical models to examine their relationship with performance indicators.

2.2. Selection Criteria

The selection criteria followed the PICOS approach: (1) Population: professional, semi-professional, youth, and sub-elite male and female football players; (2) Intervention: studies that quantified and/or compared variables related to health, well-being, or psychophysiological status (e.g., wellness, readiness, recovery, perceived stress, heart rate variability) and performance (e.g., tactical, technical, physical, or psychological); (3) Comparison: when applicable, periodisation structures (microcycle, mesocycle, or season phase) were compared, although the training organisation itself was not a mandatory inclusion factor; (4) Outcomes: studies that concurrently reported at least one variable related to health, well-being, or psychophysiological status and at least one variable related to performance, regardless of whether a statistical relationship between them was tested; (5) Study Design: experimental and observational studies, including randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and cross-sectional studies.
The inclusion criteria for article selection were as follows: (1) original articles focused on male and female football players from professional, semi-professional, youth, or sub-elite levels; (2) studies that used screening procedures to quantify and/or compare at least one performance-related variable (tactical, technical, physical, or psychological) in relation to internal and/or external training load; (3) studies that concurrently reported at least one variable from the health/well-being/psychophysiological domain and one from the performance domain, even without testing the relationship between them; (4) studies that monitored players for a minimum of one microcycle (≥7 days); (5) studies published from 2014 onward; (6) studies situated within the field of sports performance and sports science; (7) studies with experimental or observational designs (RCTs, quasi-experimental, cohort, cross-sectional); (8) original articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals; (9) full-text articles available in English or Portuguese; (10) observational studies that achieved a minimum score of 12 out of 16 on the Methodological Quality Checklist for Studies Based on Observational Methodology (MQCOM) []; (11) randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that achieved a minimum score of 6 out of 10 on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale, to ensure methodological quality [].
Studies were excluded if (1) they analysed training load in sports other than association football (e.g., Australian football, Gaelic football, or rugby); (2) they included participants under the age of eight; (3) they focused exclusively on biochemical markers or injury intervention protocols; (4) they quantified training load only through field or laboratory tests, without contextual monitoring of internal or external load during training or matches; (5) they monitored players for less than seven consecutive days; (6) they belonged to unrelated research areas or involved non-human participants; (7) they failed to meet minimum methodological quality (MQCOM score < 12 for observational studies or PEDro score < 6 for RCTs); (8) they were not original empirical studies, including systematic reviews, meta-analyses, conference abstracts, opinion papers, commentaries, editorials, books, case studies, non-peer-reviewed publications, master’s theses, or doctoral dissertations.

2.3. Quality Assessment

The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using two validated instruments, according to the study design. For observational studies, the MQCOM was used [], whereas for intervention studies (randomised controlled and clinical trials), the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale was applied []. This approach is consistent with methodological best practices in systematic reviews involving mixed study designs, where distinct quality assessment tools are applied to ensure design-appropriate evaluation and internal validity. Two independent reviewers (J.E.T. and P.A.) performed the methodological quality assessment. In cases of disagreement, studies were jointly reassessed until a consensus was reached.
The MQCOM checklist [] is a validated instrument designed to assess research employing observational methodology. It identifies the primary methodological dimensions required for conducting and reporting observational studies and provides a structured quantitative scoring system. The checklist is composed of sixteen items organised into eleven methodological dimensions, including the delimitation of objectives, observational design, specification of participants and observation units, adequacy of observation instruments, software use, data characteristics, specification of parameters, observational sampling, data quality control, data analysis, and interpretation of results. Each item is rated as 0 (does not comply), 0.5 (partially complies), or 1 (fully complies), with items 3 and 15 allowing intermediate scores (0, 0.33, 0.67, or 1). Item 11 may be marked as not applicable when justified. The maximum score achievable on the MQCOM checklist is 16 points, with higher scores indicating better methodological quality.
For intervention studies, methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale, which consists of eleven items evaluating key aspects of internal validity and statistical reporting in randomised controlled trials. Each item is scored as 0 (criterion not satisfied) or 1 (criterion satisfied), resulting in a maximum possible score of 11 points. A score of 6 or more is typically considered indicative of high methodological quality. The PEDro scale assesses eligibility criteria specification, random allocation, concealed allocation, baseline comparability, blinding of participants, therapists, and assessors, adequacy of follow-up (≥85% of participants), use of intention-to-treat analysis, reporting of between-group statistical comparisons, and provision of point estimates and variability measures. The PEDro scale has demonstrated moderate-to-excellent inter-rater reliability, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranging from 0.53 to 0.91, and item-level Cohen’s kappa values ranging from 0.36 to 1.00 [].

2.4. Study Coding and Data Extraction

Data extraction of the reviewed articles was organised into the following topics: (1) sampling characteristics by the study design, population, competitive level, sample size (N), sex, age, and expertise level, as presented in Table 2; (2) quality assessment of intervention studies, using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale, in which each item is scored (0 or 1) for a total out of 11 points (Table 3); (3) quality assessment of observational studies, based on the Methodological Quality Checklist for Observational Methodology (MQCOM), consisting of 15 individually scored items, providing a total methodological score per study (Table 4).
In cases where specific details such as player age, sex, or competitive level were not reported in the original articles, the corresponding entry in Table 2 was marked as “ND” (Not Described). This reflects incomplete reporting in the source studies and highlights an important limitation in the consistency and transparency of participant descriptions across the reviewed literature.
Data were collected as previously described in the Cochrane Data Extraction Template for Included Studies, and organised using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) []. The study selection and screening process was conducted using Rayyan software to allow for independent and blinded screening by multiple reviewers [].
Table 2. Summary of the sampling characteristics in the studies included in the systematic review.
Table 2. Summary of the sampling characteristics in the studies included in the systematic review.
ReferenceStudy DesignPopulation, Competitive LevelSample (N)SexAge (y)Expertise Level (y)
[]RCTAdult, Professional17Male26.0 ± 2.0ND
[]ObservationalAdult, Elite18MaleNDND
[]RCTYouth, Elite21Male15.3 ± 1.1ND
[]ObservationalAdult, Elite70Male26.6 ± 4.0ND
[]ObservationalYouth, Elite456MaleU15 (n = 107) 14.4 ± 0.3
U16 (n = 108) 15.4 ± 0.3
U17 (n = 104) 16.4 ± 0.4
U19 (n = 137) 17.9 ± 0.7		ND
[]ObservationalYouth, Elite151MaleU15 (n = 56) 14.0 ± 0.2
U17 (n = 66) 15.8 ± 0.4
U19 (n = 19) 17.8 ± 0.6		U15 (n = 56) 5.4 ± 1.2
U17 (n = 66) 6.8 ± 1.7
U19 (n = 19) 9.0 ± 1.7
[]ObservationalAdult, Professional78Male1st DIV (n = 32) 24.7 ± 3.8
2nd DIV (n = 23) 27.1 ± 3.8
3rd DIV (n = 23) 23.1 ± 3.5		1st DIV (n = 32) 6.6 ± 4.3
2nd DIV (n = 23) 9.5 ± 3.1
3rd DIV (n = 23) 6.6 ± 3.3
[]ObservationalAdult, Professional17Female26.3 ± 4.6ND
[]ObservationalYouth, Academy18Male18.0 ± 1.0ND
[]ObservationalAdult, Elite10Female24.6 ± 2.34.9 ± 2.1
[]ObservationalAdult, Professional17Male23.7 ± 3.26.1 ± 1.6
[] 1ObservationalAdult, Professional22MaleNDND
[]ObservationalAdult, Elite30Male28.7 ± 18.68.3 ± 5.7
[]ObservationalYouth, Elite18FemaleNDND
[]ObservationalAdult, College17Female21.8 ± 1.7ND
[]ObservationalAdult, Elite17Male27.8 ± 3.5ND
[]ObservationalAdult, Elite35MaleNDND
[]ObservationalAdult, College19MaleNDND
[]ObservationalAdult, Elite10Male26.0 ± 5.0ND
[] 2ObservationalAdult, EliteNDMaleNDND
[]ObservationalAdult, Professional22Male21.7 ± 4.0ND
[]ObservationalAdult, Elite30Male25.0 ± 5.0ND
[]ObservationalAdult, Elite17FemaleNDND
[]RCTYouth, Sub-elite32Male16.1 ± 0.9ND
[]ObservationalYouth, Professional20Male17.4 ± 1.3ND
[]ObservationalYouth, Elite19Male13.3 ± 0.5ND
[]ObservationalAdult, Professional37Male26.4 ± 4.1ND
[]ObservationalAdult, Semi-professional22Female24.6 ± 4.0ND
[]ObservationalAdult, Professional31Male25.4 ± 3.6ND
[]ObservationalAdult, Professional30Male26.0 ± 3.78.5 ± 2.9
[]ObservationalAdult, Elite19Male26.3 ± 4.3ND
[]ObservationalAdult, Professional10Male25.3 ± 2.17.5 ± 2.1
[]ObservationalAdult, Professional30Male24.9 ± 3.17.1 ± 2.8
[]ObservationalAdult, Elite17Male25.4 ± 4.1ND
[]ObservationalAdult, Elite30Male26.2 ± 4.1ND
[]ObservationalAdult, Professional17Male25.0 ± 2.87.4 ± 2.7
[]ObservationalAdult, Professional14Female23.2 ± 5.9ND
[] 3ObservationalAdult, Professional22Male24.2 ± 3.5ND
[]ObservationalAdult, Sub-elite28Male20.9 ± 2.4ND
[]ObservationalYouth, Elite15Male18.6 ± 0.4ND
[]RCTYouth, Elite22Male17.2 ± 0.99.7 ± 0.6
[]ObservationalND, Professional42Male27.0 ± 4.0ND
[]ObservationalYouth, Sub-elite60Male15.2 ± 1.8ND
[]ObservationalYouth, Sub-elite60MaleU15 (n = 20) 13.3 ± 0.5
U17 (n = 20) 15.4 ± 0.5
U19 (n = 20) 17.3 ± 0.6		U15 (n = 20) 4.8 ± 0.9
U17 (n = 20) 6.6 ± 1.7
U19 (n = 20) 8.8 ± 1.7
[]ObservationalYouth, Sub-elite60MaleU15 (n = 20) 13.2 ± 0.5
U17 (n = 20) 15.4 ± 0.5
U19 (n = 20) 17.4 ± 0.6		ND
[]RCTYouth, Sub-elite21 (SAQ group: n = 11; SSG group: n = 10)MaleSAQ: 9.7 ± 0.4; SSG: 9.5 ± 0.6ND
All Studies--1763-23.9 ± 2.27.3 ± 1.5
ND = Not Described; 1 153 matches; 2 128 matches from 3 teams analysed, no player-specific N; 3 at least 8 years of expertise.
Table 3. Physiotherapy evidence database scale (PEDro) for reviewed intervention groups.
Table 3. Physiotherapy evidence database scale (PEDro) for reviewed intervention groups.
ReferenceItem 1Item 2Item 3Item 4Item 5Item 6Item 7Item 8Item 9Item 10Item 11Total Score (Out of 11)
[]110100111118
[]110100011117
[]110100111118
[]110100011117
[]110100111118
Table 4. Methodological characteristics observed using the Methodological Quality Checklist for studies based on Observational Methodology (MQCOM).
Table 4. Methodological characteristics observed using the Methodological Quality Checklist for studies based on Observational Methodology (MQCOM).
ReferenceItem 1Item 2Item 3Item 4Item 5Item 6Item 7Item 8Item 9Item 10Item 11Item 12Item 13Item 14Item 15Item 16Total
[]011111110.510.51101112.5
[]111111111111111116
[]110.670.51110.50.5111111113.67
[]110.6710.51111111111115.17
[]111111111111111116
[]110.67111111110.5111114.17
[]0.510.670.51110.5010.500.50119.17
[]0.5110.51110.5001110.51112
[]010.670.51110.5010.500.50117.67
[]111111111111111116
[]110.67111111111111115.67
[]110.67111111111111115.67
[]11111110.5110.50.5111114.5
[]0.510.670.51110.50.510.50.510.51111.67
[]0.510.670.51110.5010.500.50119.17
[]0.510.6711110.5011110.51112.67
[]111111111111111116
[]111111110.5111111115.5
[]0.510.6711110.50.5110.510.51112.67
[]111111111111111116
[]0.510.670.51110.5010.500.50119.17
[]110.67111111111111115.67
[]110.67111111111111115.67
[]0.510.670.51110.50.510.500.50119.67
[]110.67111111111111115.67
[]111111111111111116
[]111111111111111116
[]0.510.670.51110.5010.500.50119.17
[]111111111111111116
[]111111111111111116
[]110.67111111111111115.67
[]111111111111111116
[]111111111111111116
[]111111111111111116
[]111111111111111116
[]110.67111111111111115.67
[]111111111111111116
[]110.67111111111111115.67
[]111111111111111116
[]111111111111111116
[]111111111111111116

3. Results

3.1. Search Results and Study Selection

A total of 341 records were identified through three electronic databases: PubMed (n = 121), Scopus (n = 73), and Web of Science (n = 147). After the removal of 146 duplicate records, 195 records remained and were screened based on titles and abstracts. Of these, 78 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility according to the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Additionally, 5 records were identified through citation searching, and all were assessed for eligibility, with none being excluded at that stage. Following this process, a total of 46 articles were retained for final inclusion in the systematic review—an increase compared to earlier versions of the dataset. Figure 1 presents the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram, outlining the identification, screening, and selection process of the studies included in this review.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram illustrating the study selection process [].

3.2. Participant Characteristics

A total of 46 studies were included, encompassing a combined sample of 1763 football players. Sample sizes per study ranged from 10 to 456 participants. Of these, 42 studies (91.3%) included male players, and 4 studies (8.7%) included female players [,,,]. Regarding competitive level, 17 studies (37.0%) involved professional players, followed by 13 studies (28.3%) at the elite level, 12 studies (26.1%) in academy or youth contexts, and 4 studies (8.7%) in sub-elite or semi-professional settings. Concerning the age group, 31 studies (67.4%) focused on adult players, 14 studies (30.4%) focused on youth players (U15–U19), and 1 study (2.2%) included both age groups in a mixed sample. The reported age of participants ranged from 13.2 to 28.7 years. The weighted mean age was 23.9 years (±2.2). Among the studies reporting years of training or competitive experience, the average was 7.3 years (±1.5). Among the study design, 42 studies (91.3%) were observational, and 4 studies (8.7%) were randomised controlled trials.
Table 2 provides a detailed overview of the sample characteristics and study designs included in this systematic review.

3.3. Results of Quality Assessment

The methodological quality of the intervention studies was assessed using the PEDro scale. Among the five randomised controlled trials included three studies [,,] that obtained the highest score of 8 out of 11 points, while two studies [,] scored 7 points (Table 3). Overall, the methodological quality of the intervention studies was considered good, with consistent fulfilment of criteria such as eligibility specification, random allocation, between-group statistical comparisons, and reporting of variability measures. However, some studies did not meet the criteria related to concealed allocation, participant and assessor blinding, or intention-to-treat analysis. The methodological quality of the observational studies was evaluated using the MQCOM checklist. The scores ranged from 7.67 (lowest quality) to 16.00 (highest quality) out of a maximum of 16 points (Table 4). The mean methodological quality across the included observational studies was 14.34 points, with a standard deviation of 2.56 points. To facilitate interpretation, the observational studies were grouped into categories based on their total scores: Excellent quality (15–16 points): 24 studies (60%); Good quality (13–14.99 points): 8 studies (20%); Moderate quality (10–12.99 points): 6 studies (15%); Poor quality (<10 points): 2 studies (5%). These results indicate that the overall risk of bias was moderate to low across the included studies, although some dimensions—particularly blinding and sampling design—represented recurring sources of potential bias.

3.4. Main Findings

3.4.1. Physical Dimensional

Training load monitoring was reported in all 46 included studies, with the external load dimension assessed in 43 studies and internal load in 39 studies. Among external load variables, total distance (TD) was the most frequently reported metric (n = 41), typically expressed in metres (m) or metres per minute (m/min). High-speed running (HSR) was assessed in 35 studies, although considerable heterogeneity was found in terminology and thresholds. For example, similar intensity domains were referred to as HSR (≥15 km·h−1 []), HIR (High-Intensity Running) (≥19.8 km·h−1 []), or HID (High-Intensity Distance) (>16 km·h−1 []). Sprinting thresholds also varied, ranging from >5.4 m·s−1 to >25.2 km·h−1 across studies. A total of 12 studies adopted individualised thresholds based on a percentage of maximum speed (>80% or >85% of max velocity), while the remaining studies used absolute speed cut-offs. ACC and deceleration (DEC) metrics were reported in 33 studies, using varied thresholds from 1.0 m·s−2 to >4.0 m·s−2. In 9 studies, ACC/DEC were additionally quantified as frequency per minute. Composite indicators derived from triaxial accelerometry were also used, including Player Load (PL) (n = 7) and Dynamic Stress Load (DSL) (n = 3). Body impacts based on gravitational force zones (g-force) were reported in 3 studies, using classifications from 5.0 to ≥10.1 g. A summary of all measures, thresholds, and metric formulas is provided in Table 5. This heterogeneity in terminology and thresholds—already evident in metrics like HSR—significantly hinders direct comparisons between studies and reinforces the need for greater standardisation in external load monitoring.
Table 5. Summary of performance dimensions, measures, measurements, and their thresholds/metric formulas in the included articles.

3.4.2. Psychological Dimensional

To improve conceptual clarity, psychological monitoring indicators were categorised as either subjective or objective psychophysiological. Subjective tools included the session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE), used in 32 studies and calculated as RPE × session duration (min). Heart rate metrics were reported in 13 studies, including %HRmax (Percentage of Maximum Heart Rate), average heart rate (AvHR), and TRIMP. TRIMP was modelled using the Akubat formula in some cases, and heart rate zones typically ranged from ≤75% to ≥90% HRmax. Affective valence was assessed in 3 studies using the Feeling Scale, while biochemical fatigue markers, such as creatine kinase (CK), were included in 1 []. Subjective wellness was assessed in 24 studies. The most common tools were as follows: (1) HI (n = 10), based on a 1–7 Likert scale assessing fatigue, sleep quality, stress, and muscle soreness (DOMS); (2) TQR scale (n = 6); (3) Well-being Index (WBI) (n = 4); (4) Generic Likert-type scales (n = 12), addressing perceived recovery, soreness, mood, and stress; (5) composite well-being scores were used in 2 studies, combining multiple psychological variables. Indices reflecting training load distribution and accumulated stress were reported in 20 studies. These included the following: (1) Training/Match ratio (TMr); (2) Training Monotony (TM); (3) Training Strain (TS); (4) Acute: Chronic Workload Ratio (ACWR). In nearly all studies using these indices, weekly loads were derived from cumulative sRPE data.

3.4.3. Technical Dimensional

Technical performance metrics were analysed in 10 studies, focusing on variables such as passes, dribbles, crosses, shots, duels, and goals, most of which were extracted using video analysis software (Wyscout® Spa, Chiavari, Italy, LongoMatch® version 1.5.9, Barcelona, Spain). Metrics were reported either as frequencies or efficiency ratios (e.g., pass accuracy, shot effectiveness). Recent studies have advanced toward contextualised technical analysis, integrating spatial–temporal dynamics, tactical phase, and team strategy. Metrics like expected goals (xG), pass value, and zone-based event frequencies are increasingly being computed using advanced tools such as StatsBomb® and TRACAB®, allowing technical actions to be interpreted as part of broader tactical systems.

3.4.4. Tactical Dimensional

Tactical behaviour was assessed in 17 studies, mostly via positional tracking. Reported metrics included the following: (1) team dispersion and contraction indices (n = 6); (2) positional entropy (e.g., Approximate Entropy, Shannon) (n = 5); (3) synchronisation (longitudinal/lateral) (n = 6); (4) dyadic player coordination (n = 5); (5) team centroid and positional variability (n = 4); (6) ball possession influence on tactical behaviour (n = 3). These metrics were often used in conjunction with physical performance indicators. Detailed definitions and operationalisation of tactical constructs are summarised in Table 5, and their methodological applications are outlined in Table 6.
Table 6. Methodological approaches of included articles.

3.4.5. Association Between Dimensions and Player Well-Being

A total of 21 studies analysed more than one performance dimension concurrently, mostly integrating physical and psychological measures such as sRPE, HI, or Heart Rate. However, only two of these studies (9.5%) used advanced statistical techniques to model these associations. Notably, one [] applied Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to reduce the dimensionality of internal and external training load variables, and another study [] applied a supervised machine learning model (ordinal regression) to predict players’ well-being index from prior sRPE values. This underutilisation may reflect several barriers, including the need for large, integrated datasets, limited familiarity with multivariate analytics among practitioners, and the absence of standardised frameworks for interpreting outputs in applied settings.

3.4.6. Methodological Approaches

As outlined in Table 6, the included studies employed diverse methodological designs. Studies were predominantly conducted in training contexts (n = 36), with some including match-play comparisons (n = 26). Game formats varied, though 11 vs. 11 settings were most common, followed by small-sided games (SSGs) and large-sided games (LSGs). GPS technology was the primary tool for external load monitoring (n = 35 studies), followed by optical tracking systems (n = 5) and local positioning systems (LPM) (n = 2). Sampling frequencies ranged from 5 to 25 Hz. Popular GPS systems included Catapult®, STATSports®, and WIMU PRO®, while TRACAB® and Second Spectrum® were frequently used in studies employing video-based tracking. Internal load was typically assessed using sRPE or heart rate telemetry, while some studies incorporated objective field tests (e.g., CMJ, sprint, Yo-Yo IR tests) or biochemical markers (e.g., CK). Psychological well-being was evaluated through validated questionnaires or rating scales. Several studies reported consistent patterns, including (1) progressive tapering on MD-1, (2) underrepresentation of match demands in training sessions, and (3) limited integration of technical/tactical data into holistic monitoring frameworks. These findings underscore the importance of a multidimensional and integrated approach to player monitoring in high-performance football settings.

4. Discussion

This systematic review aimed to identify and synthesise the available literature addressing the multiple dimensions of performance in football, particularly in studies that examined physical, tactical, technical, and psychological variables, either independently or in combination. This systematic review provides targeted insights to enhance integrated monitoring practices in football. While methodological advancements are evident, technical and tactical dimensions remain underexplored, and the application of advanced analytics is still limited. The following outcomes highlight practical and research-oriented priorities to address existing gaps and promote the implementation of multidimensional performance frameworks.
Importantly, the fragmentation observed across the literature is not merely methodological—it also appears to stem from structural silos within football science. In many applied and research settings, teams remain compartmentalised, with professionals specialising in distinct domains (e.g., physiology, psychology, performance analysis), often working in isolation. This division is reflected in how data are collected and interpreted, with limited integration between systems, tools, and objectives. For example, GPS and heart rate data may be managed by sport scientists, while tactical metrics are handled by analysts using entirely different frameworks. Moreover, communication between departments is frequently informal or ad hoc, rather than guided by a shared conceptual model. Disciplinary boundaries between quantitative and qualitative traditions further hinder synthesis, especially between physical indicators and contextual tactical data. These structural and epistemological barriers contribute to the observed lack of integration, making it difficult to develop comprehensive monitoring systems that reflect the complex, multidimensional nature of football performance.
Despite the presence of quantitative data across studies, the substantial heterogeneity in outcome definitions, measurement tools, cut-off thresholds, and monitoring durations precluded the implementation of a meaningful meta-analysis. Therefore, a narrative synthesis approach was adopted in accordance with PRISMA recommendations for systematically heterogeneous evidence. The evidence gathered from the 46 included studies reveals a predominant focus on physical load monitoring, while tactical and technical dimensions remain relatively underrepresented. Additionally, although psychophysiological and wellness-related indicators were present in several studies, their integration with other dimensions remains limited. Substantial methodological and contextual heterogeneity—such as variability in age, competition level, load metrics, and outcome definitions—precluded meaningful quantitative aggregation. Rather than being a limitation of the review, this fragmentation reflects the current state of the field and underscores the need for standardised frameworks for future research. These findings underscore a clear gap in the integrated assessment of performance dimensions, particularly within sub-elite football contexts, as revealed through the systematic analysis of the included studies.

4.1. Searching Strategy and Coding

This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines []. For methodological assessment, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale was used for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and the Methodological Quality Checklist for studies based on Observational Methodology (MQCOM) was applied to observational studies. The cut-off values adopted were ≥6 for PEDro and ≥12 for MQCOM, consistent with previous methodological recommendations in sports science literature [,]. The searching strategy was aligned with recent systematic reviews in football science [,] regarding inclusion and exclusion criteria, database selection (PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science), and keywords relating to training load, performance, periodisation, and player monitoring. The final search outputs yielded 341 articles, from which 78 full texts were assessed for eligibility, culminating in 46 included studies. These procedures ensured methodological consistency and enhanced replicability.

4.2. Physical Dimension

Physical performance was the most widely analysed dimension across the included studies. External load was primarily assessed through total distance (TD) [,,,], distance covered at high-speed running (HSR) [,,,], sprint thresholds [,,], ACC/DEC [,,,], and Player Load metrics [,,,]. The thresholds for HSR and sprinting were relatively consistent, with common benchmarks including ≥19.8 km·h−1 for HSR and ≥25.2 km·h−1 for sprinting [,,,]. However, a notable degree of heterogeneity persists across studies. This includes variation in velocity units (e.g., km·h−1 vs. m·s−1), inconsistent nomenclature (HSR vs. HIR vs. HID), and differences in whether thresholds were absolute or individualised [,]. Accelerometry-based measures (ACC/DEC) were employed in 27 studies, typically using multiple intensity zones such as >2 m·s−2 or >4 m·s−2, which reflect the non-linear movement patterns common in match-play [,,,]. Composite measures derived from accelerometry, such as PL and DSL, were also applied to quantify cumulative neuromuscular effort [,,].
At the microcycle level, training load analyses revealed consistent tapering patterns throughout the week, with peak intensities typically occurring between MD-3 and MD-4, followed by deliberate reductions in MD-1 [,,,,]. However, few studies contextualised these data in relation to tactical demands or match-specific constraints [,], limiting the ability to interpret whether training intensity aligns with goals or match-specific positional requirements.

4.3. Tactical Dimension

The tactical dimension was represented in 15 of the 46 included studies, primarily through positional data and spatiotemporal analysis. Standard variables included spatial dispersion [,,,], contraction indexes [,], synchronisation measures such as longitudinal and lateral coordination [,], dyadic analysis [,], centroid dynamics [,,], and adequate playing space [,].
Although the adoption of positional tracking systems has increased (TRACAB® []; Second Spectrum® []; GPS [,]), methodological sophistication and standardisation remain heterogeneous (variation in sampling frequency, spatial resolution, and filtering methods). Entropy-based measures (Approximate Entropy, Shannon Entropy) were used in few studies [,,], and even less frequently in combination with physical or technical variables. Stretch indexes were used inconsistently across contexts [,], and the application of advanced signal processing methods (e.g., Hilbert transform, multiscale entropy) was absent. Furthermore, few studies examined how tactical organisation interacts with physical or technical outputs [,,], limiting the understanding of the interdependence among performance dimensions. This may be partly explained by the inherent complexity of tactical behaviour, which is fluid, context-dependent, and shaped by situational dynamics such as opponent strategy and match phase. These characteristics make tactical constructs more difficult to objectify and standardise compared to physical or technical measures.
Future investigations should refine the conceptual definitions of tactical constructs, promote standardised data processing, and enhance the integration of tactical data with internal and external load indicators to improve the ecological validity of monitoring practices. Tools like GPS and software such as FUTSAT or TRACAB® could support these developments.

4.4. Technical Dimension

Technical actions were analysed in only 7 of the 46 included studies, focusing primarily on event-based metrics such as passes [,,], crosses [], shots [,], dribbles [,], and duels [,]. These metrics were generally extracted from commercial video analysis platforms such as Wyscout® [], LongoMatch®, or custom-coded match logs [].
Although these indicators provide useful information regarding individual and collective technical effectiveness, they were rarely contextualised with physical or tactical data. For instance, no study explored how high-speed running or space occupation affects technical execution (for example, pass accuracy under fatigue, or decision-making during high pressing scenarios). The potential for integrated analysis was recognised in studies combining Social Network Analysis with tactical positioning [] or linking passing behaviour to offensive strategies [], but such approaches were limited.
Emerging performance models propose contextualising technical actions by field zones, play phases, and pressure situations. However, their practical application remains scarce across the reviewed studies. Future research should prioritise the integration of technical variables with physical and tactical contexts. For example, synchronising video-annotated actions (e.g., passes, dribbles, shots) with GPS-derived external load metrics and internal load indicators such as heart rate (HR) or sRPE could help reveal how technical execution fluctuates under fatigue or positional constraints. Additionally, mixed-method approaches—such as combining spatiotemporal tracking (e.g., TRACAB) with notational analysis, decision-making assessment, or biomechanical markers (e.g., limb kinematics, ground reaction forces)—may offer a more complete understanding of performance under game-like pressure. Controlled small-sided game designs with tactical manipulation could further test these interactions under standardised, yet ecologically valid, conditions.

4.5. Psychological Dimension

A total of 36 studies included psychological or psychophysiological measures, with the majority adopting subjective tools such as the sRPE [,,,,,,,,], HI [,,], the TQR [,,], the WBI [,], and various Likert-type wellness questionnaires [,,,].
The sRPE was most frequently applied, typically calculated by multiplying RPE (CR10 scale) by session duration. Despite its widespread use in football research, debate persists regarding its classification—whether it should be treated purely as an internal training load indicator, reflecting physiological strain [,], or also as a psychophysiological construct that integrates effort perception with emotional and cognitive feedback []. Regardless of classification, its utility lies in its feasibility for daily monitoring and its sensitivity to training-induced fatigue and recovery. However, the use of sRPE and wellness tools was predominantly descriptive. Only a minority of studies examined longitudinal associations between internal load and well-being [,,], limiting predictive insights.
Future work should integrate subjective wellness tools with objective physiological or biomechanical markers to monitor chronic training responses, recovery capacity, and readiness status, particularly in congested schedules or high-risk periods.

4.6. Association Between Dimensions and Player Well-Being

A total of 17 studies incorporated more than one performance dimension, yet only a small subset employed true multivariate or longitudinal approaches. Most studies integrated physical and psychological indicators to explore how internal/external loads related to well-being outcomes [,,,]. These studies indicated that elevated physical load—especially in congested fixtures or periods of poor recovery—was associated with increased perceived fatigue [,], impaired sleep quality [], and greater muscle soreness [].
However, most designs were cross-sectional or observational in the short term, reducing their predictive capacity regarding overtraining or injury risk. Only a few applied multivariate statistical modelling. Notably, one study [] implemented an ordinal regression model using machine learning to predict players’ wellness status from prior sRPE values, and another study [] used PCA to synthesise multidimensional load indicators. Although these methods offer more sophisticated insights into readiness and recovery, they remain largely underutilised in football research.
This limited adoption reflects what may be described as a form of methodological inertia in the field. While advanced modelling techniques such as multivariate analysis and machine learning are increasingly available, their uptake remains limited. This may be due not only to disciplinary conservatism but also to pragmatic constraints, including limited technical training, the steep learning curve associated with complex methods, and the absence of shared frameworks for implementation and interpretation. Furthermore, some people may prioritise simpler tools that are easier to communicate and apply in time-sensitive competitive environments. Recognising these challenges is essential to promoting a gradual shift towards more integrative and analytically robust monitoring practices in football science.
Moreover, interactions between tactical/technical demands and psychophysiological load remain underexplored. Only a limited number of studies [,] have attempted to contextualise psychometric data within real game scenarios or cognitive demands, representing an untapped opportunity for more ecologically valid performance analysis.

4.7. Study Strenghts, Limitations and Future Directions

Altogether, this systematic review highlights several strengths, including the synthesis of diverse methodologies, performance dimensions, and football contexts. Nevertheless, several limitations must be acknowledged, such as the predominance of cross-sectional study designs, the limited use of predictive or multivariate analytics, the underrepresentation of female and sub-elite cohorts, and the heterogeneity of definitions and measurement protocols across studies.
Future research should aim not only to expand monitoring to neglected populations but also to adopt more integrated and conceptually coherent designs. An ideal multidimensional study would longitudinally track players across physical, technical, tactical, and psychophysiological domains using synchronised data collection systems (e.g., GPS, video tagging, heart rate telemetry, subjective wellness questionnaires). Such a study would incorporate standardised definitions, individualised baselines, and multivariate statistical modelling—preferably through machine learning or latent profile analysis—to detect patterns in training responses and recovery profiles over time [].
Crucially, the epistemological challenge lies in transcending the traditional segmentation of performance domains. Physical metrics are often treated as objective and quantifiable, while tactical or psychological dimensions are approached qualitatively or subjectively. Overcoming these disciplinary divides will require conceptual frameworks that treat performance as an emergent property of player–environment interactions—dynamic, contextual, and system-based. By advancing toward such integrative, evidence-based monitoring systems, it will be possible to optimise performance while safeguarding health and well-being across all levels of football.

5. Conclusions

This systematic review offers a comprehensive synthesis of 46 studies analysing performance and well-being across multiple dimensions (physical, psychological, technical, and tactical). It is among the first to integrate methodological, measurement, and contextual variables across a diverse player sample (youth, adult, elite, sub-elite, and female). Nonetheless, limitations must be acknowledged. These include the predominance of observational and cross-sectional designs, the lack of predictive analytics, underrepresentation of female and sub-elite players, and heterogeneity in definitions and instruments. Future research should prioritise the following: (1) the creation of standardised speed thresholds and acceleration bands to allow comparison of external load across studies; (2) the use of multivariate and machine learning techniques to model how physical and psychological load indicators interact with well-being outcomes over time; (3) the inclusion of tactical and technical variables in longitudinal designs to understand how cognitive demands influence recovery needs; (4) the investigation of training load adaptation in youth and semi-professional players, particularly in settings with limited access to performance technology. Bridging the current disconnect between isolated performance metrics and integrated monitoring will be key to translating data into actionable insights for coaches and sport scientists.

Key Outcomes

  • Football performance should move from isolated measures to an integrated approach that combines physical, psychological, technical, and tactical data through interdisciplinary decision-making for coach staffs.
  • Researchers must standardise and justify thresholds for internal load, external load and well-being variables to ensure player data comparability and build robust normative references.
  • Monitoring fatigue, recovery, and readiness should mix subjective and objective measures, including tracking and screening individual trends among young football players.
  • Tactical and technical performance must shift from peripheral to central in monitoring by using specific assessment tools and contextual analysis linked with emotional and cognitive feedback.
  • Future studies should adopt multivariate and ML methods to physical, technical–tactical, and psychological predictors in individual and collective behaviour, classify risk profiles, and generate individualised insights into youth football player development.
  • Practical monitoring must fit training and match conditions by using validated, user-friendly, accessible, and automatized tools, tailoring plans to individual young player needs and fostering player long term development.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/sports13080244/s1, Supplementary File S1: The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, P.A., P.F. and J.E.T.; methodology, P.A. and L.B.; validation, P.F., N.D.G. and J.E.T.; formal analysis, P.A., P.F. and J.E.T.; investigation, P.A.; resources, P.F., N.D.G. and J.E.T.; data curation, P.F., L.B. and N.D.G.; writing—original draft preparation, P.A., P.F. and R.F.; writing—review and editing, L.B., N.D.G. and J.E.T.; supervision, P.F., N.D.G. and J.E.T.; project administration, P.F., N.D.G. and J.E.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This project was supported by the National Funds through the FCT Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (project UID/CED/04748/2020 and UIDB04045/2021), Life Quality Research Centre (LQRC-CIEQV), Santarém, Portugal; Research Centre in Sports Sciences, Health Sciences and Human Development, Vila Real, Portugal; SPRINT—Sport Physical Activity and Health Research and Innovation Centre, Portugal; and Research Centre for Active Living and Well-being (Livewell), Bragança, Portugal.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting the findings of this study are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions but can be provided by the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors declare that there are no acknowledgments to report for this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
%HRmaxPercentage of Maximum Heart Rate
ACCAcceleration
ACWRAcute: Chronic Workload Ratio
AvHRAverage Heart Rate
CKCreatine Kinase (fatigue biomarker)
DDistance
DECDeceleration
DOMSDelayed Onset Muscle Soreness
DSLDynamic Stress Load
GPSGlobal Positioning System
HIHooper Index
HIDHigh-Intensity Distance
HIRHigh-Intensity Running
HRHeart Rate
HRmaxMaximum Heart Rate
HSRHigh-Speed Running
LPMLocal Position Measurement
LSGLarge-Sided Game
MMesocycle
MEMSMicro-electrical Mechanical System
MPMatch-Play
NDNot Described
PCAPrincipal Component Analysis
PLPlayer Load (derived from triaxial accelerometry)
RDRelative Distance
RPERating of Perceived Exertion
sRPESession Rating of Perceived Exertion
SPRSprinting
SSGSmall-Sided Game
TDTotal Distance
TMTraining Monotony
TQRTotal Quality Recovery
TRIMPTraining Impulse
TSTraining Session; Training Strain
WBIWell-being Index

References

  1. Total DistanceMatos, R.; Moreira, C.; Alves, E.; Teixeira, J.E.; Rodrigues, F.; Monteiro, D.; Antunes, R.; Forte, P. Tactical Knowledge by Decision Making and Motor Efficiency of Young Football Players in Different Playing Positions during a Three-a-Side Small-Sided Game. Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 310. [Google Scholar]
  2. Sarmento, H.; Anguera, M.T.; Pereira, A.; Araújo, D. Talent Identification and Development in Male Football: A Systematic Review. Sports Med. 2018, 48, 907–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Grandim, G.V.M.; Junior, A.C.; Belozo, F.L.; Ferreira, E.C.; Lizana, C.J.R.; Galatti, L.R.; Scaglia, A.J. Efeito da manipulação do ambiente de treino no tempo de execução das ações de técnicas de futebolistas. Lect. Educ. Física Y Deportes 2022, 27, 56–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Nédélec, M.; Halson, S.; Abaidia, A.-E.; Ahmaidi, S.; Dupont, G. Stress, Sleep and Recovery in Elite Soccer: A Critical Review of the Literature. Sports Med. 2015, 45, 1387–1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Bradley, P.S.; Ade, J.D. Are Current Physical Match Performance Metrics in Elite Soccer Fit for Purpose or Is the Adoption of an Integrated Approach Needed? Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2018, 13, 656–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Gabbett, T.J.; Nassis, G.P.; Oetter, E.; Pretorius, J.; Johnston, N.; Medina, D.; Rodas, G.; Myslinski, T.; Howells, D.; Beard, A.; et al. The athlete monitoring cycle: A practical guide to interpreting and applying training monitoring data. Br. J. Sports Med. 2017, 51, 1451–1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Exel, J.; Dabnichki, P. Precision Sports Science: What Is Next for Data Analytics for Athlete Performance and Well-Being Optimization? Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Mateus, N.; Gonçalves, B.; Felipe, J.L.; Sánchez-Sánchez, J.; Garcia-Unanue, J.; Weldon, A.; Sampaio, J. In-season training responses and perceived wellbeing and recovery status in professional soccer players. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0254655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Noon, M.R.; James, R.S.; Clarke, N.D.; Akubat, I.; Thake, C.D. Perceptions of well-being and physical performance in English elite youth footballers across a season. J. Sports Sci. 2015, 33, 2106–2115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Randell, R.K.; Clifford, T.; Drust, B.; Moss, S.L.; Unnithan, V.B.; De Ste Croix, M.B.A.; Datson, N.; Martin, D.; Mayho, H.; Carter, J.M.; et al. Physiological Characteristics of Female Soccer Players and Health and Performance Considerations: A Narrative Review. Sports Med. 2021, 51, 1377–1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hägglund, M.; Waldén, M.; Magnusson, H.; Kristenson, K.; Bengtsson, H.; Ekstrand, J. Injuries affect team performance negatively in professional football: An 11-year follow-up of the UEFA Champions League injury study. Br. J. Sports Med. 2013, 47, 738–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Teixeira, J.E.; Forte, P.; Ferraz, R.; Leal, M.; Ribeiro, J.; Silva, A.J.; Barbosa, T.M.; Monteiro, A.M. Quantifying Sub-Elite Youth Football Weekly Training Load and Recovery Variation. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 4871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Teixeira, J.E.; Leal, M.; Ferraz, R.; Ribeiro, J.; Cachada, J.M.; Barbosa, T.M.; Monteiro, A.M.; Forte, P. Effects of Match Location, Quality of Opposition and Match Outcome on Match Running Performance in a Portuguese Professional Football Team. Entropy 2021, 23, 973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Windt, J.; Gabbett, T.J. How do training and competition workloads relate to injury? The workload—Injury aetiology model. Br J. Sports Med. 2017, 51, 428–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. 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] [PubMed]
  16. Teixeira, J.E.; Forte, P.; Ferraz, R.; Leal, M.; Ribeiro, J.; Silva, A.J.; Barbosa, T.M.; Monteiro, A.M. Monitoring Accumulated Training and Match Load in Football: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Nobari, H.; Alves, A.R.; Haghighi, H.; Clemente, F.M.; Carlos-Vivas, J.; Pérez-Gómez, J.; Ardigò, L.P. Association between Training Load and Well-Being Measures in Young Soccer Players during a Season. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fullagar, H.H.K.; Skorski, S.; Duffield, R.; Hammes, D.; Coutts, A.J.; Meyer, T. Sleep and athletic performance: The effects of sleep loss on exercise performance, and physiological and cognitive responses to exercise. Sports Med. 2015, 45, 161–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Martín-García, A.; Gómez Díaz, A.; Bradley, P.S.; Morera, F.; Casamichana, D. Quantification of a Professional Football Team’s External Load Using a Microcycle Structure. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2018, 32, 3511–3518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Soligard, T.; Schwellnus, M.; Alonso, J.-M.; Bahr, R.; Clarsen, B.; Dijkstra, H.P.; Gabbett, T.; Gleeson, M.; Hägglund, M.; Hutchinson, M.R.; et al. How much is too much? (Part 1) International Olympic Committee consensus statement on load in sport and risk of injury. Br. J. Sports Med. 2016, 50, 1030–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Miguel, M.; Oliveira, R.; Loureiro, N.; García-Rubio, J.; Ibáñez, S.J. Load Measures in Training/Match Monitoring in Soccer: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Rago, V.; Brito, J.; Figueiredo, P.; Costa, J.; Barreira, D.; Krustrup, P.; Rebelo, A. Methods to collect and interpret external training load using microtechnology incorporating GPS in professional football: A systematic review. Res. Sports Med. 2020, 28, 437–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Maughan, P.C.; MacFarlane, N.G.; Swinton, P.A. Quantification of training and match-play load across a season in professional youth football players. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach. 2021, 16, 1169–1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ravé, G.; Granacher, U.; Boullosa, D.; Hackney, A.C.; Zouhal, H. How to Use Global Positioning Systems (GPS) Data to Monitor Training Load in the “Real World” of Elite Soccer. Front. Physiol. 2020, 11, 944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Akenhead, R.; Marques, J.B.; Paul, D.J. Accelerometer load: A new way to measure fatigue during repeated sprint training? Sci. Med. Footb. 2017, 1, 151–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Green, M.; Ward, P.; Bickley, M.; Gillett, M.; O’Boyle, A.; Drust, B. Time to change direction in training load monitoring in elite football? The application of MEMS accelerometers for the evaluation of movement requirements. Sci. Med. Footb. 2023, 7, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ehrmann, F.E.; Duncan, C.S.; Sindhusake, D.; Franzsen, W.N.; Greene, D.A. GPS and Injury Prevention in Professional Soccer. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2016, 30, 360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hooper, S.L.; Mackinnon, L.T. Monitoring Overtraining in Athletes. Sports Med. 1995, 20, 321–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kenttä, G.; Hassmén, P. Overtraining and Recovery: A conceptual model. Sports Med. 1998, 26, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Selmi, O.; Ouergui, I.; Castellano, J.; Levitt, D.; Bouassida, A. Effect of an intensified training period on well-being indices, recovery and psychological aspects in professional soccer players. Eur. Rev. Appl. Psychol. 2020, 70, 100603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Selmi, O.; Gonçalves, B.; Ouergui, I.; Levitt, D.E.; Sampaio, J.; Bouassida, A. Influence of Well-Being Indices and Recovery State on the Technical and Physiological Aspects of Play During Small-Sided Games. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2021, 35, 2802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Moalla, W.; Fessi, M.S.; Farhat, F.; Nouira, S.; Wong, D.P.; Dupont, G. Relationship between daily training load and psychometric status of professional soccer players. Res. Sports Med. 2016, 24, 387–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Simonelli, C.; Formenti, D.; Rossi, A. Subjective recovery in professional soccer players: A machine learning and mediation approach. J. Sports Sci. 2025, 43, 448–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Teixeira, J.E.; Branquinho, L.; Ferraz, R.; Leal, M.; Silva, A.J.; Barbosa, T.M.; Monteiro, A.M.; Forte, P. Weekly Training Load across a Standard Microcycle in a Sub-Elite Youth Football Academy: A Comparison between Starters and Non-Starters. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 11611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Praça, G.M.; Soares, V.V.; Matias, C.J.A.d.S.; da Costa, I.T.; Greco, P.J. Relationship between tactical and technical performance in youth soccer players. Rev. Bras. Cineantropom Desempenho Hum. 2015, 17, 136–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. 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] [PubMed]
  38. González-Víllora, S.; García-López, L.M.; Contreras-Jordán, O.R. Ecision Making And Skill Development in Youth Football Players|EBSCOhost. 2015; Volume 15, p. 467. Available online: https://openurl.ebsco.com/contentitem/doi:10.15366%2Frimcafd2015.59.005?sid=ebsco:plink:crawler&id=ebsco:doi:10.15366%2Frimcafd2015.59.005 (accessed on 9 May 2025).
  39. Kent, S.; Devonport, T.J.; Lane, A.M.; Nicholls, W. Implementing a pressure training program to improve decision-making and execution of skill among premier league academy soccer players. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 2022, 34, 691–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Williams, A.M.; Ford, P.R. Expertise and expert performance in sport. Int. Rev. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2008, 1, 4–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. da Costa, I.T.; Garganta, J.; Greco, P.J.; Mesquita, I.; Maia, J. Sistema de avaliação táctica no Futebol (FUT-SAT): Desenvolvimento e validação preliminar. Motricidade 2011, 7, 69–84. [Google Scholar]
  42. Gonçalves, B.; Coutinho, D.; Santos, S.; Lago-Penas, C.; Jiménez, S.; Sampaio, J. Exploring Team Passing Networks and Player Movement Dynamics in Youth Association Football. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0171156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Dambroz, F.; Clemente, F.M.; Teoldo, I. The effect of physical fatigue on the performance of soccer players: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0270099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Palucci Vieira, L.H.; Carling, C.; Barbieri, F.A.; Aquino, R.; Santiago, P.R.P. Match Running Performance in Young Soccer Players: A Systematic Review. Sports Med. 2019, 49, 289–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Pérez-Gómez, J.; Adsuar, J.C.; Alcaraz, P.E.; Carlos-Vivas, J. Physical exercises for preventing injuries among adult male football players: A systematic review. J. Sport Health Sci. 2022, 11, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Rodrigues Alves, M.A.; Oliveira, A.d.S.; Paes, M.J.; Facco Stefanello, J.M.; Rodrigues Alves, M.A.; Oliveira, A.d.S.; Paes, M.J.; Facco Stefanello, J.M. Psychological aspects of soccer and futsal players: A systematic review. Suma Psicológica 2022, 29, 30–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Grimson, S. An interdisciplinary monitoring approach to understanding health and performance in English Premier League Soccer players. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Brighton, Brighton, UK, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  48. Moreno-Perez, V.; Campos-Vazquez, M.A.; Toscano, J.; Sotos-Martinez, V.J.; Campo, R.L.-D.; Resta, R.; Coso, J.D. Influence of the Weekly and Match-play Load on Muscle Injury in Professional Football Players. Int. J. Sports Med. 2022, 43, 783–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rago, V.; Brito, J.; Figueiredo, P.; Krustrup, P.; Rebelo, A. Relationship between External Load and Perceptual Responses to Training in Professional Football: Effects of Quantification Method. Sports 2019, 7, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Teixeira, J.E.; Alves, A.R.; Ferraz, R.; Forte, P.; Leal, M.; Ribeiro, J.; Silva, A.J.; Barbosa, T.M.; Monteiro, A.M. Effects of Chronological Age, Relative Age, and Maturation Status on Accumulated Training Load and Perceived Exertion in Young Sub-Elite Football Players. Front. Physiol. 2022, 13, 832202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Nobari, H.; Gholizadeh, R.; Martins, A.D.; Badicu, G.; Oliveira, R. In-Season Quantification and Relationship of External and Internal Intensity, Sleep Quality, and Psychological or Physical Stressors of Semi-Professional Soccer Players. Biology 2022, 11, 467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Pérez-Castillo, Í.M.; Rueda, R.; Bouzamondo, H.; López-Chicharro, J.; Mihic, N. Biomarkers of post-match recovery in semi-professional and professional football (soccer). Front. Physiol. 2023, 14, 1167449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Akubat, I.; Barrett, S.; Abt, G. Integrating the internal and external training loads in soccer. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2014, 9, 457–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Clemente, F.M. Associations between wellness and internal and external load variables in two intermittent small-sided soccer games. Physiol. Behav. 2018, 197, 9–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Gonçalves, L.; Clemente, F.M.; Barrera, J.I.; Sarmento, H.; Praça, G.M.; de Andrade, A.G.P.; Figueiredo, A.J.; Silva, R.; Silva, A.F.; Carral, J.M.C. Associations between Physical Status and Training Load in Women Soccer Players. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 10015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Pexa, B.S.; Johnston, C.J.; Taylor, J.B.; Ford, K.R. Training Load and Current Soreness Predict Future Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness in Collegiate Female Soccer Athletes. Int. J. Sports Phys. Ther. 2023, 18, 1271–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Parr, J. Growth and Maturation in Elite Youth Soccer Players. Ph.D. Dissertation, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK, 2020. Available online: https://e-space.mmu.ac.uk/628342/ (accessed on 10 May 2025).
  58. Salter, J. Training load dose-responses in adolescent male football: The importance of biological maturation. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Gloucestershire, Cheltenham, UK, 2022. Available online: https://eprints.glos.ac.uk/id/eprint/12896 (accessed on 10 May 2025).
  59. Page, M.J.; Moher, D.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Rico-González, M.; Pino-Ortega, J.; Clemente, F.; Arcos, A.L. Guidelines for performing systematic reviews in sports science. Biol. Sport 2021, 39, 463–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Slimani, M.; Bragazzi, N.L.; Znazen, H.; Paravlic, A.; Azaiez, F.; Tod, D. Psychosocial predictors and psychological prevention of soccer injuries: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Phys. Ther. Sport 2018, 32, 293–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Maher, C.G.; Sherrington, C.; Herbert, R.D.; Moseley, A.M.; Elkins, M. Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys. Ther. 2003, 83, 713–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Chacón-Moscoso, S.; Anguera, M.T.; Sanduvete-Chaves, S.; Losada, J.L.; Lozano-Lozano, J.A.; Portell, M. Methodological quality checklist for studies based on observational methodology (MQCOM). Psicothema 2019, 31, 458–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Cashin, A.G.; McAuley, J.H. Clinimetrics: Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) Scale. J. Physiother. 2020, 66, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Synnot, A.; Tong, A.; Ryan, R.; Hill, S. Evaluation of the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group’s systematic review priority-setting project. Health Res. Policy Syst. 2020, 18, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ouzzani, M.; Hammady, H.; Fedorowicz, Z.; Elmagarmid, A. Rayyan—A web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2016, 5, 210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Angius, L.; Merlini, M.; Hopker, J.; Bianchi, M.; Fois, F.; Piras, F.; Cugia, P.; Russell, J.; Marcora, S.M. Physical and Mental Fatigue Reduce Psychomotor Vigilance in Professional Football Players. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2022, 17, 1391–1398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Baptista, I.; Johansen, D.; Figueiredo, P.; Rebelo, A.; Pettersen, S.A. Positional Differences in Peak- and Accumulated- Training Load Relative to Match Load in Elite Football. Sports 2019, 8, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Barra-Moura, H.; Guilherme Vieira, J.; Zacaron Werneck, F.; Wilk, M.; Pascoalini, B.; Queiros, V.; Gomes de Assis, G.; Bichowska-Pawęska, M.; Vianna, J.; Vilaça-Alves, J. The effect of complex contrast training with different training frequency on the physical performance of youth soccer players: A randomized study. PeerJ 2024, 12, e17103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Chmura, P.; Konefał, M.; Wong, D.P.; Figueiredo, A.J.; Kowalczuk, E.; Rokita, A.; Chmura, J.; Andrzejewski, M. Players’ Physical Performance Decreased After Two-Thirds of the Season: Results of 3 Consecutive Seasons in the German First Bundesliga. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Connolly, D.R.; Stolp, S.; Gualtieri, A.; Franceschi, A.; Ferrari Bravo, D.; Rampinini, E.; Coutts, A.J. How do young soccer players train? A 5-year analysis of weekly microcycle training load characteristics in an elite youth academy. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach. 2025, 20, 130–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Coutinho, D.; Gonçalves, B.; Figueira, B.; Abade, E.; Marcelino, R.; Sampaio, J. Typical weekly workload of under 15, under 17, and under 19 elite Portuguese football players. J. Sports Sci. 2015, 33, 1229–1237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Coutinho, D.; Oliveira, D.; Lisboa, P.; Campos, F.; Nakamura, F.Y.; Baptista, J.; Abade, E. Weekly external load distribution in football teams of different competitive levels. Biol. Sport 2024, 41, 155–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Diaz-Seradilla, E.; Rodríguez-Fernández, A.; Rodríguez-Marroyo, J.A.; Castillo, D.; Raya-González, J.; Vicente, J.G.V. Inter- and intra-microcycle external load analysis in female professional soccer players: A playing position approach. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0264908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Evans, D.A.; Jackson, D.T.; Kelly, A.L.; Williams, C.A.; McAuley, A.B.T.; Knapman, H.; Morgan, P.T. Monitoring Postmatch Fatigue During a Competitive Season in Elite Youth Soccer Players. J. Athl. Train 2022, 57, 184–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Fernandes, R.; Ceylan, H.İ.; Clemente, F.M.; Brito, J.P.; Martins, A.D.; Nobari, H.; Reis, V.M.; Oliveira, R. In-Season Microcycle Quantification of Professional Women Soccer Players—External, Internal and Wellness Measures. Healthcare 2022, 10, 695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Fessi, M.S.; Nouira, S.; Dellal, A.; Owen, A.; Elloumi, M.; Moalla, W. Changes of the psychophysical state and feeling of wellness of professional soccer players during pre-season and in-season periods. Res. Sports Med. 2016, 24, 375–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Forcher, L.; Forcher, L.; Wäsche, H.; Jekauc, D.; Woll, A.; Gross, T.; Altmann, S. Is ball-possession style more physically demanding than counter-attacking? The influence of playing style on match performance in professional soccer. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1197039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Gómez-Díaz, A.; Nakamura, F.Y.; Menezes, P.; Barreira, J.; Figueiredo, P.; Coutinho, D. Characterizing microcycles’ workload when combining two days structure within single training sessions during congested fixtures in an elite male soccer team. Biol. Sport 2024, 41, 87–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. González-García, J.; Romero-Moraleda, B. The Impact of a Congested Competition Schedule on Load, Recovery, and Well-Being in Under-16 Female Soccer Players: A Comparison between Starters and Non-Starters during a Development Tournament. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 8066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Ishida, A.; Travis, S.K.; Draper, G.; White, J.B.; Stone, M.H. Player Position Affects Relationship Between Internal and External Training Loads During Division I Collegiate Female Soccer Season. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2022, 36, 513–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kavanagh, R.; McDaid, K.; Rhodes, D.; McDonnell, J.; Oliveira, R.; Morgans, R. An Analysis of Positional Generic and Individualized Speed Thresholds Within the Most Demanding Phases of Match Play in the English Premier League. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform 2024, 19, 116–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Korte, F.; Link, D.; Groll, J.; Lames, M. Play-by-Play Network Analysis in Football. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 1738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Kuhlman, N.M.; Jones, M.T.; Jagim, A.R.; Feit, M.K.; Aziz, R.; Crabill, T.; Fields, J.B. Relationships between external loads, sRPE-load, and self-reported soreness across a men’s collegiate soccer season. Biol. Sport 2023, 40, 1141–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Lacome, M.; Simpson, B.; Broad, N.; Buchheit, M. Monitoring Players’ Readiness Using Predicted Heart-Rate Responses to Soccer Drills. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2018, 13, 1273–1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Magni, M.; Zago, M.; Vago, P.; Vandoni, M.; Carnevale Pellino, V.; Lovecchio, N. Technical Differences over the Course of the Match: An Analysis of Three Elite Teams in the UEFA Champions League. Sports 2023, 11, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Maleš, J.; Ouergui, I.; Kuna, D.; Žuvela, F.; De Giorgio, A.; Kuvačić, G. Monitoring Internal Training Intensity Correlated with Neuromuscular and Well-Being Status in Croatian Professional Soccer Players during Five Weeks of the Pre-Season Training Phase. Sports 2022, 10, 172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Malone, J.J.; Di Michele, R.; Morgans, R.; Burgess, D.; Morton, J.P.; Drust, B. Seasonal training-load quantification in elite English premier league soccer players. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2015, 10, 489–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Mara, J.K.; Thompson, K.G.; Pumpa, K.L.; Ball, N.B. Periodization and physical performance in elite female soccer players. Int J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2015, 10, 664–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Mateus, N.; Exel, J.; Santos, S.; Gonçalves, B.; Sampaio, J. Effectiveness of wearable technology to optimize youth soccer players’ off-training behaviour and training responses: A parallel group randomized trial. Sci. Med. Footb. 2023, 7, 384–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Maughan, P.C.; MacFarlane, N.G.; Swinton, P.A. The influence of season phase on multivariate load relationships in professional youth soccer. J. Sports Sci. 2022, 40, 345–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Nobari, H.; Eken, Ö.; Kamiş, O.; Oliveira, R.; González, P.P.; Aquino, R. Relationships between training load, peak height velocity, muscle soreness and fatigue status in elite-level young soccer players: A competition season study. BMC Pediatr. 2023, 23, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Noor, D.; McCall, A.; Jones, M.; Duncan, C.; Ehrmann, F.; Meyer, T.; Duffield, R. Perceived load, fatigue and recovery responses during congested and non-congested micro-cycles in international football tournaments. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2021, 24, 1278–1283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Olaizola, A.; Errekagorri, I.; Lopez-de-Ipina, K.; María Calvo, P.; Castellano, J. Comparison of the External Load in Training Sessions and Official Matches in Female Football: A Case Report. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 15820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Oliva Lozano, J.M.; Muyor, J.M.; Pérez-Guerra, A.; Gómez, D.; Garcia-Unanue, J.; Sanchez-Sanchez, J.; Felipe, J.L. Effect of the Length of the Microcycle on the Daily External Load, Fatigue, Sleep Quality, Stress, and Muscle Soreness of Professional Soccer Players: A Full-Season Study. Sports Health 2023, 15, 695–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Oliva-Lozano, J.M.; Barbier, X.; Fortes, V.; Muyor, J.M. Key load indicators and load variability in professional soccer players: A full season study. Res. Sports Med. 2023, 31, 201–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Oliveira, R.; Brito, J.P.; Martins, A.; Mendes, B.; Marinho, D.A.; Ferraz, R.; Marques, M.C. In-season internal and external training load quantification of an elite European soccer team. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0209393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Oliveira, R.; Canário-Lemos, R.; Morgans, R.; Peixoto, R.; Alves, J.; Brito, J. Are male soccer players accumulating sufficient load across varying microcycle structures? Examining the load, wellness and training/match ratios of a professional team. J. Men S. Health 2023, 19, 26–35. [Google Scholar]
  99. Oliveira, R.F.S.; Canário-Lemos, R.; Peixoto, R.; Vilaça-Alves, J.; Morgans, R.; Brito, J.P. The relationship between wellness and training and match load in professional male soccer players. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0289374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Oliveira, R.; Martins, A.; Nobari, H.; Nalha, M.; Mendes, B.; Clemente, F.M.; Brito, J.P. In-season monotony, strain and acute/chronic workload of perceived exertion, global positioning system running based variables between player positions of a top elite soccer team. BMC Sports Sci. Med. Rehabil. 2021, 13, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Oliveira, R.; Brito, J.; Martins, A.; Mendes, B.; Calvete, F.; Carriço, S.; Ferraz, R.; Marques, M.C. In-season training load quantification of one-, two- and three-game week schedules in a top European professional soccer team. Physiol. Behav. 2019, 201, 146–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Oliveira, R.; Canário-Lemos, R.; Morgans, R.; Rafael-Moreira, T.; Vilaça-Alves, J.; Brito, J.P. Are non-starters accumulating enough load compared with starters? Examining load, wellness, and training/match ratios of a European professional soccer team. BMC Sports Sci. Med. Rehabil. 2023, 15, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Oliveira, R.; Morgans, R.; Fernandes, R.; Brito, J.P.; Espada, M.C.; Santos, F.J. External load transition practices from pre-season to in-season. A case study in elite female professional soccer players. PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0314076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Owen, A.L.; Dunlop, G.; Rouissi, M.; Haddad, M.; Mendes, B.; Chamari, K. Analysis of positional training loads (ratings of perceived exertion) during various-sided games in European professional soccer players. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach. 2016, 11, 374–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Perri, E.; Simonelli, C.; Rossi, A.; Trecroci, A.; Alberti, G.; Iaia, F.M. Relationship Between Wellness Index and Internal Training Load in Soccer: Application of a Machine Learning Model. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2021, 16, 695–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Querido, S.M.; Clemente, F.M. Analyzing the effects of combined small-sided games and strength and power training on the fitness status of under-19 elite football players. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 2020, 60, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Sanchez-Sanchez, J.; Hernández, D.; Casamichana, D.; Martínez-Salazar, C.; Ramirez-Campillo, R.; Sampaio, J. Heart Rate, Technical Performance, and Session-RPE in Elite Youth Soccer Small-Sided Games Played With Wildcard Players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2017, 31, 2678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Silva, H.; Nakamura, F.Y.; Ribeiro, J.; Asian-Clemente, J.; Roriz, P.; Marcelino, R. Using minimum effort duration can compromise the analysis of acceleration and deceleration demands in football. Int. J. Perform. Anal. Sport 2023, 23, 125–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Teixeira, J.E.; Forte, P.; Ferraz, R.; Branquinho, L.; Morgans, R.; Silva, A.J.; Monteiro, A.M.; Barbosa, T.M. Resultant equations for training load monitoring during a standard microcycle in sub-elite youth football: A principal components approach. PeerJ 2023, 11, e15806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Trecroci, A.; Cavaggioni, L.; Rossi, A.; Moriondo, A.; Merati, G.; Nobari, H.; Ardigò, L.P.; Formenti, D. Effects of speed, agility and quickness training programme on cognitive and physical performance in preadolescent soccer players. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0277683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Flores, P.; Coelho, E.; Mourão-Carvalhal, M.I.; Forte, P. Association between motor and math skills in preschool children with typical development: Systematic review. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1105391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Teixeira, J.E.; Forte, P.; Ferraz, R.; Branquinho, L.; Silva, A.J.; Monteiro, A.M.; Barbosa, T.M. Integrating physical and tactical factors in football using positional data: A systematic review. PeerJ 2022, 10, e14381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Foster, C.; Florhaug, J.A.; Franklin, J.; Gottschall, L.; Hrovatin, L.A.; Parker, S.; Doleshal, P.; Dodge, C. A new approach to monitoring exercise training. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2001, 15, 109–115. [Google Scholar]
  115. Impellizzeri, F.M.; Rampinini, E.; Marcora, S.M. Physiological assessment of aerobic training in soccer. J. Sports Sci. 2005, 23, 583–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Haddad, M.; Chaouachi, A.; Wong, D.P.; Castagna, C.; Hambli, M.; Hue, O.; Chamari, K. Influence of fatigue, stress, muscle soreness and sleep on perceived exertion during submaximal effort. Physiol. Behav. 2013, 119, 185–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Teixeira, J.E.; Afonso, P.; Schneider, A.; Branquinho, L.; Maio, E.; Ferraz, R.; Nascimento, R.; Morgans, R.; Barbosa, T.M.; Monteiro, A.M.; et al. Player Tracking Data and Psychophysiological Features Associated with Mental Fatigue in U15, U17, and U19 Male Football Players: A Machine Learning Approach. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 3718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
Can Conditioning Activity with Blood Flow Restriction Impact Neuromuscular Performance and Perceptual Responses to Exercise?
Previous
Physiological Demands Across Exercise Intensity Domains in Rowing: Implications of Weight Category and Sex Differences
Next