Factors affecting the training outcomes

with football-specific small-sided games

Stephen Victor Hill-Haas

BComm (Hons), MComm, BSc (Hons)

School of Sports Science, Exercise and Health

This Thesis is presented in fulfilment of requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

2009

i

____________________________________________________________ 

Statement of Candidate Contribution 

_____________________________________________________

The work involved in designing and conducting the studies described in this thesis has

been completed primarily by Stephen Victor Hill-Haas (the candidate). The thesis

outline and experimental design of the studies was developed and planned in

consultation with Professor Brian Dawson, Dr Aaron Coutts and Dr Greg Rowsell (the

candidate’s supervisors). All participant recruitment and management was conducted by

the candidate, along with the organisation, implementation and performance of every

experimental trial.

Signed:

Stephen Victor Hill-Haas

(Candidate)

ii

______________________________________________________________________

Table of Contents 

____________________________________________________

Statement of Candidate Contribution......................................................................... .i

Table of Contents....................................................................................................... ii

Publications Arising From This Thesis...................................................................... viii

Grant Funding/Equipment Sponsorship......................................................................xi

Overview.....................................................................................................................xii

List of Tables............................................................................................................. xviii

List of Figures............................................................................................................ xxix

List of Abbreviations.................................................................................................. xxiv

Acknowledgements...................................................................................................xxvii

Dedication...................................................................................................................xxix

 

iii

CHAPTER ONE   

Introduction  

1.0 Background.................................................................................................... 2

1.1 Statement of the Problem............................................................................... 5

1.2 Aims............................................................................................................... 5

1.3 Organisation and Structure of the Thesis…................................................... 7

1.4 Definitions of Reproducibility and Variability in Small-Sided Games…..... 8

1.5 Significance of the Study............................................................................... 10

1.6 Delimitations and Limitations…………………………................................10

1.7 References...................................................................................................... 11

 

CHAPTER TWO   

Review of Literature 

2.0 Abstract.......................................................................................................... 13

2.1 Introduction.................................................................................................... 15

2.2 Small-sided games in football........................................................................ 16

2.2.1 Validity and reliability of quantifiable exercise intensity measures in

small-sided games………………………………………………………….. 17

2.2.2 Time-motion measurement in small-sided games…………………. 19

2.2.3 Between-session variability of exercise intensity in small-sided

games………………………………………………………………………. 20

2.2.4 Between-player reproducibility of exercise-intensity in small-sided

games………………………………………………………………………. 24

2.2.5 Variables affecting small-sided games training intensity.................. 26

2.2.6 Studies comparing small-sided games training with interval

training………............................................................................................... 49

iv

2.2.6.1. Acute physiological comparisons of small-sided games training with

interval training…………..………………………………………………... 50

2.2.6.2 Training studies comparing small-sided games training with interval

training……………………………………………………………………... 51

2.3 Limitations of small-sided games training..................................................... 56

2.4 Future research............................................................................................... 59

2.5 Conclusion…………………………………………………………….....… 60

2.6 References...................................................................................................... 61

CHAPTER THREE   

The reproducibility of physiological responses and performance profiles 

of youth soccer players in small‐sided games 

3.0 Abstract.......................................................................................................... 66

3.1 Introduction.................................................................................................... 67

3.2 Methods......................................................................................................... 67

3.3 Results............................................................................................................ 70

3.4 Discussion...................................................................................................... 70

3.5 References...................................................................................................... 72

CHAPTER FOUR   

Variability of acute physiological responses and performance profiles of 

youth soccer players in small‐sided games 

4.0 Abstract.......................................................................................................... 74

4.1 Introduction.................................................................................................... 75

4.2 Methods......................................................................................................... 75

4.3 Results............................................................................................................ 76

v

4.4 Discussion...................................................................................................... 77

4.5 References...................................................................................................... 80

CHAPTER FIVE   

Physiological responses and time‐motion characteristics of various small‐

sided soccer games in youth players  

5.0 Abstract.......................................................................................................... 82

5.1 Introduction.................................................................................................... 83

5.2 Methods......................................................................................................... 84

5.3 Results............................................................................................................ 90

5.4 Discussion...................................................................................................... 96

5.5 References...................................................................................................... 102

CHAPTER SIX   

Acute physiological responses and time‐motion characteristics of two 

small‐sided training regimes in youth soccer players  

6.0 Abstract.......................................................................................................... 105

6.1 Introduction.................................................................................................... 106

6.2 Methods......................................................................................................... 108

6.3 Results............................................................................................................ 111

6.4 Discussion...................................................................................................... 113

6.5 Practical Applications.................................................................................... 116

6.6 References...................................................................................................... 117

 

vi

CHAPTER SEVEN   

Time motion characteristics and physiological responses of small‐sided 

games in elite youth players: the influence of player number and rule 

changes 

7.0 Abstract.......................................................................................................... 120

7.1 Introduction.................................................................................................... 121

7.2 Methods......................................................................................................... 123

7.3 Results............................................................................................................ 127

7.4 Discussion...................................................................................................... 134

7.5 Practical Applications.................................................................................... 137

7.6 References...................................................................................................... 139

CHAPTER EIGHT   

Generic versus small‐sided games training in soccer 

8.0 Abstract.......................................................................................................... 141

8.1 Introduction.................................................................................................... 142

8.2 Methods......................................................................................................... 144

8.3 Results............................................................................................................ 154

8.4 Discussion...................................................................................................... 159

8.5 References...................................................................................................... 163

 

CHAPTER NINE   

Summary and conclusions 

9.0 Summary........................................................................................................ 166

9.1 Conclusions.................................................................................................... 167

vii

9.2 Practical Implications.....................................................................................168

9.3 Suggested training model for small-sided games.......................................... 171

9.4 Directions for Future Research….................................................................. 172

9.5 References….................................................................................................. 175

 

Appendices   

A Information sheet study one……………………………………………...... 177

A Consent form study one…………………………………………………..... 179

A Information sheet study two……………………………………………...... 180

A Consent form study two…………………………………………………..... 182

A Information sheet study three......................................................................... 183

A Consent form study three………………………………………………....... 187

B Raw data: Study one...................................................................................... 189

B Raw data: Study two...................................................................................... 216

B Raw data: Study three.................................................................................... 244 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

viii

____________________________________________________________ 

 

Publications Arising From This Thesis 

_____________________________________________________

Hill-Haas, S., Rowsell, G., Coutts, A., & Dawson, B. (2008). The reproducibility of

physiological responses and performance profiles of youth soccer players in small-sided

games. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 3, 393-396.

Hill-Haas, S., Coutts, A., Rowsell, G., & Dawson, B. (2008). Variability of acute

physiological responses and performance profiles of youth soccer players in small-sided

games. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 11, 487-490.

Hill-Haas, S., Dawson, B., Coutts, A., & Rowsell, G. (2009). Physiological responses

and time-motion characteristics of various small-sided soccer games in youth players.

Journal of Sports Sciences, 27 (1), 1 - 8.

Hill-Haas, S., Rowsell, G., Coutts, A., & Dawson, B. (2008). Acute physiological

responses and time-motion characteristics of two small-sided training regimes in youth

soccer players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22(6), 1-5.

Hill-Haas, S., Coutts, A., Dawson, B., & Rowsell, G. (2009). Time-motion

characteristics and physiological responses of small-sided games in elite youth players:

the influence of player number and rule changes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning

Research, In Press.

ix

Hill-Haas, S., Coutts, A., Rowsell, G., & Dawson, B. (2009). Generic versus small-

sided game training in soccer. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 30(9), 636 -

642.

Hill-Haas, S., Coutts, A., Dawson, B., & Impellizzeri, F. (2009). Small sided games in

football: a review. Sports Medicine (Under Review).

 

Conference Proceedings 

Hill-Haas, S., Dawson, B., Coutts, A., & Rowsell,G. (2007). Acute physiological

responses and physical performance profiles of youth soccer players to variations in

small-sided game formats. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 10: Supplement 1.

Hill-Haas, S., Dawson, B., Coutts, A., & Rowsell, G. (2007). Variability of acute

physiological responses and performance profiles of youth soccer players in small-sided

games. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 10: Supplement 1.

Hill-Haas, S., Dawson, B., Coutts, A., & Rowsell, G. (2007). Acute physiological

responses and performance profiles of youth soccer players to continuous and

intermittent small-sided games. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 10:

Supplement 1.

Hill-Haas, S., Dawson, B., Coutts, A., & Rowsell, G. (2008). The effects of small-sided

game training versus interval training on selected physiological and performance

variables in elite youth soccer players. Proceedings of the 3rd Australian Association for

Exercise and Sports Science Conference: From Research to Practice: 110.

x

Hill-Haas S., Rowsell G., Coutts A., & Dawson, B (2008). Reproducibility of

physiological responses and performance profiles of small-sided soccer games.

Proceedings of the 3rd Australian Association for Exercise and Sports Science

Conference: From Research to Practice: 187.

Hill-Haas S., Dawson, B., Rowsell, G., & Coutts, A (2008). Effect of player overload

on physiological, perceptual and time-motion variables in small-sided soccer games.

Coaching and Sports Science Journal 3 (2): 43.

Hill-Haas, S., Coutts, A., Dawson, B., & Rowsell, G. (2008). Comparison of two

different periodisation strategies of concurrent pre-season interval running and small-

sided football game training. Coaching and Sports Science Journal 3 (2): 44.

xi

______________________________________________________________________

Grant Funding/Equipment Sponsorship 

_____________________________________________________

Dawson B., & Hill-Haas, S. (2005). Polar Electro Oy, Finland Traditional versus

integrated conditioning methods in soccer players and their effects on physiological and

performance variables. Chief Investigator. Value: $10,000AUD.

xii

___________________________________________________

 

Overview 

_____________________________________________________

Introduction:

Small-sided games (SSGs) in football are played on reduced pitch dimensions, often

using modified rules and involving a smaller number of players, compared with a full-

sided game of eleven players per side. Pitch sizes may vary between 10 x 5 m and 60 x

50 m (length x width). Player numbers may also vary from having only one player per

side (1 v 1), up to eight players per side (8 v 8). Football SSGs evolved from informal

street football, where the rules of play and competition were unstructured. SSGs are

now commonly used as part of structured training for players at all levels and ages, and

remain a popular recreational activity, especially in South America and Europe.

In competitive football, SSGs are now increasingly being used as an alternative

conditioning training mode to generic interval running. In fact, SSGs are now widely

considered an efficient mode of physical training as the movement patterns,

physiological intensity and technical executions are thought to reflect competitive match

play, and therefore have the potential to reduce training volume. However, the

realisation of these advantages is dependent on game design. This requires a good

understanding of the prescriptive variables that influence the training intensity of SSGs.

In SSGs, prescriptive variables include pitch dimensions, player number, rule

modifications, coach encouragement and player motivation. Despite the increased

popularity of SSGs, the current understanding of the influence of how each of these

xiii

variables affects physiological and perceptual responses and movement characteristics,

are not well understood.

Therefore, the purpose of this thesis was to investigate the influence of modifying

prescriptive variables on measures of exercise intensity and training outcomes in elite

youth football players. Variables affecting SSGs training intensity were investigated.

These included pitch area, player number, rule modifications and training regime. The

internal response to training (or SSGs training intensity) was measured using three

general indicators: heart rate (HR), rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and blood lactate

concentration ([BLa-]). In addition, the time-motion characteristics of the SSGs were

measured using global positioning system (GPS) technology.

Study 1:

The first study investigated the physiological responses and time-motion characteristics

of various small-sided football games in youth players. Sixteen male football players

completed three variations of a small-sided game (i.e. 2 v 2, 4 v 4 and 6 v 6) in which

HR, RPE, [BLa-] and time-motion characteristics were recorded. Each small-sided game

(SSG) was played using both an interval and continuous training regime. All the games

were duplicated, and played in random order (with the exception of the 6 v 6 format),

during the first 9-weeks of the competitive season. The publications arising from this

study are presented as Chapters Three, Four, Five and Six respectively.

Chapter Three described the within and between training session reproducibility of two

common SSG formats (2 v 2 and 4 v 4) and two regimes (intermittent and continuous).

Both SSG formats and regimes displayed moderate within, and between training-session

reproducibility. The reproducibility of distances travelled at higher velocities (>18 km.h-

1) and [BLa-] were generally poor. The poor reliability of the high-velocity distances

xiv

may be due to low sampling rate (1 Hz) of the GPS device, or the brief duration of the

high-intensity efforts during the SSGs. The poor reliability of the [BLa-] may be due to

differences in exercise intensity prior to blood sampling. The range of TE% scores for 2

v 2 intermittent games tended to be narrower than with the 4 v 4 games. These findings

agree with previous research, which demonstrated better reproducibility for smaller

format games, and overall moderate reliability of physiological and perceptual

responses to various SSGs. These results also show that SSGs can be played in either

continuous or interval-based formats to apply a consistent aerobic training stimulus.

Once the between-subject reproducibility of the physical, perceptual and physiological

responses during SSGs training were established as acceptable, Chapter Four describes

the within-subject variability in physiological and perceptual responses and time-motion

profiles of three SSG formats (2 v 2, 4 v 4 and 6 v 6) and two training regimes (interval

and continuous). Typical error (TE) was calculated for mean heart rate as a percentage

of maximum heart rate (%HRmax), RPE, [BLa-] and various time-motion characteristics.

An increase in game format size did not appear to influence the variability of the acute

physiological or perceptual responses to SSGs, although continuous formats displayed

less variability than interval formats. The total distance (TD), distance covered and

percentage of total time moving at 0 - 6.9 km.h-1 demonstrated small variability across

all formats and regimes. However, higher movement speeds zones (>18 km.h-1)

reflected increased variability, irrespective of game format or regime. Collectively,

these results suggest that the common football SSGs can provide a reliable aerobic

training stimulus.

Chapter Five examined the influence of altering player number (2 v 2, 4 v 4 and 6 v 6)

and absolute pitch area on the acute physiological responses and time-motion

characteristics during SSGs. The pitch dimensions were altered to keep the relative

xv

pitch area per player consistent for each game format. The main finding was as the size

of the SSG formats decreases, but with relative pitch area remaining constant, the

overall physiological and perceptual workload increases. The RPE, HR and [BLa-]

results demonstrated that small (2 v 2) format SSG training imposes higher

physiological and perceptual loads, and therefore may be useful for improving aerobic-

anaerobic fitness in youth football players. However, there was no significant difference

in total distance covered between any of the SSG formats, despite the same amount of

relative pitch space being available for each player. These results suggest that factors

other than the absolute pitch area influence the work rate profile during SSG training. It

may be that the time-motion profiles during SSGs are determined by the complex

interaction of total pitch space, player number and opportunity for direct involvement

with the ball. Finally, both the mean and maximal sprint durations and distances

increased with larger SSG formats, suggesting greater absolute field size may be useful

for training football-specific speed and acceleration abilities. In general, it appears that

smaller game formats (e.g., 2 v 2 and 4 v 4) are more appropriate for increasing

physiological strain whilst larger formats (e.g., 6 v 6) can be used for training match

specific movement demands.

In football, SSG training is typically completed in the form of ‘intervals’, as opposed to

continuous duration play, as is typical of actual game play. However, it is unknown if a

SSG ‘interval’ training regime offers any additional benefits above a ‘continuous’ SSG

training regime in football. Chapter Six described the physiological and time-motion

responses of distributing the dose of SSG training into ‘interval’ bouts rather than

longer continuous bouts. The main finding was that neither training regime appears to

offer any major advantage over the other, and that both regimes could be used for in-

season aerobic maintenance training. In general, the intermittent games caused a

xvi

significantly greater time-motion response, and significantly lower %HRmax and RPE

response, than continuous games.

Study 2:

The second study (Chapter Seven) investigated further variations in game formats, as

well as rule modifications, in elite youth football players. The formats included 4 v 3, 6

v 5, 3 v 3+1’floater’ and 5 v 5+1 ‘floater’. The ‘floater’ is a neutral player who

transitions to the team in possession of the ball, to create temporary ‘overload’ and

‘underload’ situations. Four different rule modifications were applied. Three of the rules

involved technical changes (for example, an offside rule in effect), while the fourth

represented an ‘artificial’ rule change. This required players to complete planned (i.e.

pre-programmed), additional higher speed running at specific time points, during a

SSG. The main finding was that the different playing rules modify the time-motion and

physiological responses in aerobically fit, elite youth football players. Furthermore,

variations in player number appear to have a greater influence on time-motion

characteristics and perceptual responses than the physiological responses, and may

therefore provide a useful technical-tactical training stimulus. To increase the overall

effectiveness of these changes from a conditioning perspective, it may be better to

manipulate technical rule changes and SSG player numbers separately.

Study 3:

Having established a better understanding of some of the variables affecting SSGs

training intensity, the third study (Chapter Eight) compared seven weeks of SSG

training (coach-selected) with generic fitness training, on selected physiological,

perceptual and performance variables. Twenty five elite youth players (age range, 14-16

years) were randomly allocated to either a SSG or interval training group (ITG), in a

randomised, parallel matched-group design. The main finding was coach selected,

xvii

ecologically valid SSG training, could provide a similar training adaptation to intensive

generic training (with a lower perceived training intensity) over a seven-week pre-

season training period. Neither training strategy affected sprint and RSA performance,

although better control of each training stimulus may have yielded greater

improvements in aerobic fitness. Overall, the findings of this thesis show that SSGs can

provide a reliable and repeatable aerobic training stimulus in non-elite and elite youth

football players. Game format (basic as well as subtle variations), rule modifications

and training regime do influence the physiological, perceptual and time-motion

responses in SSGs.

Main findings:

As the size of game formats decreases, (with relative pitch area constant), the overall

physiological and perceptual workload increases. This inverse relationship does not

apply to movement demands of the basic SSG formats. The larger formats (4 v 4 and 6

v 6) appear to be characterised by increased movement demands, although a simple

positive linear relationship is not evident. There does not appear to be any difference in

adopting an interval-based or continuous training regime for the basic game formats.

Variations in game format (player number) appear to have a greater influence on time-

motion and perceptual responses, compared with physiological responses. Rule

modifications appear to influence time-motion and physiological responses, not

perceptual responses. From a conditioning perspective, it may be more suitable to

manipulate technical rule changes and SSG player numbers separately. The training

study demonstrated that ecologically valid SSG training, selected by the coach, could

provide a similar training adaptation to ecologically valid intensive generic interval training

(with a lower perceived training intensity) over a seven-week pre-season training period. 

xviii

______________________________________________________________________

List of Tables 

_____________________________________________________

2.1 Summary of studies reporting the between-session variability of exercise-

intensity measures during SSGs and interval running in football

players..................................................................................................................23

2.2 Summary of studies examining the between-player reproducibility of exercise-

intensity measures during football small-sided games........................................25

2.3 Summary of studies examining the effects of pitch area on SSG intensity in

football players.....…...........................................................................................27

2.4 a Summary of studies examining the effects of player number on SSG intensity in

football players…................................................................................................30

2.4 b Summary of studies examining the effects of player number on SSG intensity in

football players …...............................................................................................32

2.5 a Summary of studies examining the effects of concurrent changes in player

number and pitch area on SSG intensity in football players

….........................................................................................................................35

xix

2.5 b Summary of studies examining the effects of concurrent changes in player

number and pitch area on SSG game intensity in football players

….........................................................................................................................37

2.6 a Summary of studies examining the effects of rule modifications on SSG

intensity in football players….............................................................................39

2.6 b Summary of studies examining the effects of rule modifications on SSG

intensity in football players….............................................................................41

2.7 Summary of studies examining the effects of goalkeepers on SSG intensity in

football players …...............................................................................................43

2.8 Summary of different training regimes implemented in SSGs studies with

football players …...............................................................................................45

3.1 a Within-session reliability of 4 v 4 SSGs training............................................69

3.1 b Between-session of reliability 4 v 4 SSGs training ….......................................69

4.1 a Reliability of physiological and perceptual variables….....................................78

4.1 b Reliability of time-motion variables…...............................................................78

5.1 Small-sided game variables….............................................................................87

xx

5.2 Total distance (m) and distance covered in walking/jogging/moderate speed

running during SSGs (mean SD; range).........................................................92

5.3 Time-motion characteristics of higher speed running during SSGs (>18 km/h)

(mean SD; range)...........................................................................................93

5.4 Physiological and perceptual responses to the SSGs (mean SD;

range).................................................................................................................94

6.1 Total distance and distance walking/jogging/moderate speed running (mean

SE).....................................................................................................................112

6.2 Time-motion characteristics of higher speed running (>18 km/h) during SSGs

(mean SE)......................................................................................................112

6.3 Physiological and perceptual characteristics of SSGs (mean

SE)....................................................................................................................113

7.1 Small-sided game variables...............................................................................125

7.2 Physiological and time motion responses to SSGs according to rule changes (mean

SD).................................................................................................................129

7.3 Physiological and time motion responses to SSGs according to game format

excluding the floater (mean SD).......................................................................131

xxi

7.4 Physiological and time motion responses to SSGs according to player number

(mean SD).........................................................................................................133

8.1 a Summary of generic training prescription...........................................................148

8.1 b Summary of small-sided game training formats...................................................149

8.2 Comparison of physiological performance tests and anthropometric data over seven

weeks of preseason training (mean ± SD)...............................................................156

8.3 Comparison of perceptual variables over seven weeks of preseason training (mean ±

SD).......................................................................................................................158

xxii

____________________________________________________________

List of Figures 

_____________________________________________________

1.1 Model showing factors affecting the relationship between training, physiological

capacities and performance in football players….............................................................3

1.2 Model showing training requirements for elite level football players ….............4

1.3 Within training session reproducibility (dashed arrows) and between session

reproducibility (solid arrows)……………………………………………………9

1.4 Small-sided game variability (reliability)………………………………………….9

2.1 Comparison of A) total distance (m), B) RPE (6-20) between ‘floating’ players

and others in smaller game formats …...............................................................33

2.2 Box and whisker plot of exercise intensity (%HRmax) in various small-sided

games and matches …........................................................................................49

2.3 Mean (±90 CI) exercise intensity (%HRmax) in various football training

activities …........................................................................................................51

2.4 Relationship between player fitness (MSFT distance) and exercise intensity

(%HRmax) during various small-sided games...........................…....................57

xxiii

5.1 Small-sided game research design ….................................................................86

8.1 Training group allocation, follow up testing and final statistical analysis of the

study …..............................................................................................................146

8.2 Mean (± SD) time spent in low, moderate and high heart rate zones during the

study period. .....................................................................................................155

8.3 Small-sided game and generic training group performance changes in the

YYIRTL1 over 7 weeks of preseason training….............................................157

9.1 Factors affecting training outcomes with football-specific small-sided games

….......................................................................................................................172

xxiv

______________________________________________________________________

List of Abbreviations 

_____________________________________________________

ANOVA Analysis of Variance

[BLa-] Blood Lactate concentration

CODS Change of direction speed

CV Coefficient of Variation

CI Confidence Interval

ES Effect Size

FFA Football Federation Australia

GPS Global Positioning System

GK’s Goalkeepers

GT Generic training

GTG Generic training group

GXT Graded Exercise Test

HR Heart Rate

HRpeak Peak Heart Rate

%HRmax Mean heart rate as a percentage of heart rate maximum

%HRres Percentage of heart rate reserve

HRR Heart Rate Reserve

ITG Interval Training Group

La- Lactate

mM Millimolar

MSFT Multi-stage fitness test

RPE Rating of Perceived Exertion

xxv

RDI Recommended Daily Intake

RSA Repeat-sprint ability

SASI South Australian Sports Institute

SD Standard Deviation of the Mean

SEM Standard Error of the Mean

SSG’s Small-sided games

SSGs Small-sided games

SSG Small-sided game

SSGC Small-sided game of continuous duration

SSGI Small-sided game of intermittent duration

SL Speed Ladder

TD Total distance

TE Typical error of measurement

TE% Typical error as percentage of the mean

TEM Technical error of measurement

TL Training load

V O2 Volume of Oxygen Consumption

V O2max Maximal Oxygen Consumption

V O2peak Peak Oxygen Consumption

YYIRTL1 Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test Level 1

1 v 1 One player versus one player in a small-sided game

2 v 2 Two players versus two players in a small-sided game

2 v 2I Two players versus two players in a small-sided game, using an

intermittent training regime

2 v 2C Two players versus two players in a small-sided game, using a

continuous training regime

xxvi

3 v 3 Three players versus three players in a small-sided game

3 v 3+1 Three players versus three players plus one neutral (floater)

player in a small-sided game

3 v 4 Three players versus four players in a small-sided game

4 v 4 Four players versus four players in a small-sided game

4 v 4I Four players versus four players in a small-sided game, using an

intermittent training regime

4 v 4C Four players versus four players in a small-sided game, using a

continuous training regime

5 v 5 Five players versus five players in a small-sided game

5 v 5+1 Five players versus five players plus one neutral (floater) player

in a small-sided game

5 v 6 Five players versus six players in a small-sided game

6 v 6 Six players versus six players in a small-sided game

xxvii

______________________________________________________________________

Acknowledgments 

_____________________________________________________________________

Brian – Thank you for your support over the course of this thesis. The instinct to

support a ‘field’ based Ph.D is testimony to your appreciation and understanding of the

value of applied research.

Aaron – Thank you for all the advice (technical and non-technical) and moral support

over the course of this thesis. Your consistency, work ethic and attention to detail are

truly amazing! Not forgetting your statistical prowess! Also, your encouragement and

support during some very difficult times, particularly once I had left Australia (and later

Malaysia), was crucial. Thank you for allowing me stay with you and your family in

Sydney on two separate occasions, once during the month that I needed to re-gain

‘momentum’, and again during the final weeks approaching submission. Sharon –

thank you for your hospitality and patience in putting up with an ‘invader’ in your home

for so long!

Greg – Thank you for mentoring me, and helping to develop my applied skills in a

sports institute setting. Also, the successful implementation of both projects-in

particular the pre-season training study-bears testimony to the excellent working

relationship that you had built up with the late Martyn Crook, the former head coach of

the SASI football squad and Australian U17 squad.

Martyn Crook – Sadly, your passing in December 2008 while on tour as Head Coach

of the Australian National U17 team in Los Angeles, USA, preceded the final

completion of this thesis. Nonetheless, I appreciate the time, effort and coaching

expertise provided by the former Head Coach of the SASI men’s football program, for

both the applied projects. I also leant much through observation and listening, during

the two seasons that I spent with the South Australian Sports Institute men’s football

xxviii

squad. This gave me a better insight into all aspects of football training, including

small-sided games.

Cockburn City soccer club – Thank you to the coach John Loreto and especially all

the players in the 2005 U18 squad. Your enthusiasm, enjoyment and passion for all the

small-sided games gave me great hope and early insight into the potential of these

games! I really enjoyed working as your conditioning coach, and to finish as premier

league runner-up and cup semi-finalists was a great achievement! I sincerely hope I

made a small difference!

South Australian Sports Institute – Thank you to the assistant coaches Keith

Rowlands and Noel Clarke. Also, to all the players in the 2005/2006 and 2006/2007

squads, your effort and commitment was much appreciated. The games also highlighted

the football talent that exists in Australia and to those players who subsequently moved

to overseas clubs or the Australian Institute of Sport in Canberra, the very best wishes

for continued success. Thank you to the Bath University (UK) intern students, as well as

local practicum students, who ably assisted me with the on-field logistics. To the current

and former SASI strength & conditioning coaches (Craig, Scotty, Ben and Riggsy)-

thank you for allowing me to access the men’s football squad. Also, for the

encouragement and real world perspective!

Fellow PhD students: Tommie T– thank you for the many friendly discussions

ranging from sports physiology, strength & conditioning to ex-girlfriends! Your

thoughts and perspectives on this project were much appreciated. You also gave me

continued encouragement to pursue this, despite scepticism from various quarters!

Hansie– you provided me with an early inspiration to pursue a Ph.D. Even though I

subsequently moved away from muscle biopsies & /muscle physiology, I appreciate

your mentoring and support during an extremely challenging Honours year.

Rob D– always willing to provide a highly respected opinion on matters pertaining to

sports science and sports physiology!

xxix

____________________________________________________________________

Dedication 

____________________________________________________________________

To my mother Blythe – with me at boarding school, we spent a comparatively short

time together. Nevertheless, I still witnessed your struggle with renal failure over a

number of years. You showed amazing fortitude during your struggle with this illness

and you will always be an inspiration to me.

To my father Stephen – you were both father and mother to me during some difficult

years (including the rebellious teenager years), but you demonstrated, by the way you

lived and worked, an incredible work ethic, determination and professionalism. Close to

your passing, I remember these words vividly “I can feel it in my bones that you will,

one day, complete your Ph.D”. The seed was planted and, whilst you had a Ph.D and a

long and successful career in chemical engineering, you probably thought that I would

continue on with Economics….well, life certainly has its twists and turns, and my wish

to change careers and pursue Sports Science at the age of 35, may have surprised you.

Ultimately though, I know you would have supported my decision to make a late career

change. Sorry it has taken me so long dad, but better late than never!

To my South African friends scattered far and wide – you were my family through

good and bad times…. “Captain” Hedley, this is “Doc” speaking! A very close friend,

I really miss our surfing sessions and Kowie lifestyle. Wayne “Rabbit Bartholomew”-

keep long boarding bro, you know you are far too old for a short-board! Simon, get that

knee fixed (or go bionic), and start surfing again! Michael, relaxed and stress free as

always, keep surfing, and enjoy Kowie! Jonny & Kate in the UK...long time friends

from Rhodes University squash days. Keep “squashing J”, and I will endeavour to beat

you! I must be dreaming! Murray H from army days (“dit was nag”) and many big

squash tournaments played together. Get yourself fit, and keep yourself fit by playing

squash again!

1

_______________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER ONE

Introduction

_________________________________________________________________________________

2

1.0 Background

Association football (soccer) is a physically demanding team-sport. It involves the

completion of sustained intermittent bouts of high intensity activity including jogging,

striding, sprinting and jumping over at least 90 minutes (Bangsbo, 1994; Reilly &

Thomas, 1976; Stølen, Chamari, Castagna, & Wisloff, 2005). Due to these high

physical demands, football players need to develop a wide range of physiological

capacities for optimal performance (see Figure 1.1). Consequently, coaches often find it

difficult to provide a balanced training schedule that meets the technical, tactical and

physical requirements of football whilst also allowing them to recover for competition

and remain injury free (see Figure 1.2). Therefore, since the technical and tactical

demands of football teams are often given much greater priority by coaches, player’s

physical development may not be optimised.

Additionally, it is common for coaches to use generic training modes such as interval

training to develop the various physical qualities required in their players. Indeed,

many studies have examined the efficacy of generic training methods in football and

shown these to be effective training modes (Dupont, Akakpo, & Berthoin, 2004; Ferrari

Bravo, et al., 2008; Helgerud, Engen, Wisløff, & Hoff, 2001; Impellizzeri, et al., 2006).

These training methods are well suited for developing fitness qualities in football

players as they can elicit high exercise intensities, are easy to control and are simple to

implement with large squads of players. However, a limitation of this approach is that

the player’s technical and tactical skills are not developed and these are fundamental

skills for better performing teams. In an attempt to overcome this problem, modified

football games, or small-sided games (SSGs) have become a popular training mode for

coaches, as they may provide concurrent development of both technical-tactical skills

and physical qualities in football players.

3

Endurance Performance

Technical

Psychological & Social

Tactical PERFORMANCE Coordination

Flexibility

Sensimotor

Muscle Characteristics

Aerobic Performance

Anaerobic Performance

Muscle Strength

INTERNAL FACTORSSex

Age

Maturation

Anthropometry

Blood Volume Hemoglobin

Myoglobin

CapillariesFibre Type

Myosin Heavy Chain

Enzymes

Aerobic

Anaerobic

Ionic Transport

System

Morphology

ANAEROBIC TRAINING

AEROBIC TRAINING STRENGTH TRAINING

EXTERNAL FACTORSTemperature

Humidity

Altitude

Field conditions

Nutrition

Physical

Muscle architecture

Fibre pennation

Fibre angle

Respiratory System

Cardiovascular System

High-Intensity Exercise

Performance

Sprint Performance

Force Development

Figure 1.1: Model showing factors affecting the relationship between training,

physiological capacities and performance in football players (Bangsbo,

2007).

4

Figure 1.2: Model showing training requirements for elite level football players

(Bangsbo, 2007).

5

Despite the increasing use and popularity of SSGs within football, there are few studies

that have examined their acute training stimulus or long term training response.

Therefore, because the underlying prescriptive variables which influence exercise

intensity during SSGs are not well understood, the systematic use of SSGs as a football-

specific conditioning method is not well established. In practice, coaches modify

variables which include pitch area, game format (number of players per team), rule

modifications and training regime (either ‘interval’ or ‘continuous’) in an attempt to

alter exercise intensity. However, to date, only a few studies have systematically

examined the influence of modifying these factors on exercise intensity (Balsom,

Lindholm, Nilsson, & Ekblom, 1999; Owen, Twist, & Ford, 2004; Rampinini, et al.,

2007; Williams & Owen, 2007). Therefore, it is important that more systematic

research be conducted into the variables affecting the intensity of SSGs training.

Moreover, the efficacy of SSGs training in comparison to generic interval training also

needs to be investigated.

1.1 Statement of the Problem

Despite the increased popularity of SSGs, there is presently a limited understanding of the

relationship between the prescriptive variables and how each of these affects both

physiological and perceptual responses, and movement characteristics. Consequently, the

development of certain physical attributes required for optimal football performance

may be compromised. Therefore, to make more effective use of SSGs training for

conditioning purposes, further research is needed.

1.2 Aims

The primary aim of this thesis was to investigate the influence of modifying prescriptive

variables on measures of exercise intensity and training outcomes, in elite youth football

players. Furthermore, this series of investigations investigated the reproducibility and

6

variability of selected measures of exercise intensity in SSGs. A seven week training

study also compared the effectiveness of coach selected SSGs training with generic

interval training, on selected physiological variables, to determine the comparative

effectiveness of each training mode in elite youth football players. The results of these

investigations may provide new insights into the prescriptive variables that influence

SSGs training intensity.

Specifically, the aims of the studies included in this thesis were to investigate:

The between-session and within-session reproducibility of exercise intensity

measures (i.e. heart rate, blood lactate, perception of effort and time-motion

characteristics) during various football SSGs.

The variability (reliability) of exercise intensity measures (i.e. heart rate, blood

lactate, perception of effort and time-motion characteristics) during various

football SSGs.

The influence of altering prescriptive variables including pitch area, player

number, rule modifications and training regime (i.e. interval vs. continuous

training) on exercise intensity measures during football SSGs.

The effect of common rules changes and more subtle alterations in player number

on exercise intensity measures during football SSGs.

7

To compare the effects of seven weeks of coach-selected SSGs training with

traditional mixed generic training on selected physiological, perceptual and

performance variables in elite youth football players.

1.3 Organisation and Structure of the Thesis

This thesis is organised as a series of chapters, based on papers submitted for

publication in peer-reviewed journals. Following this introductory chapter (Chapter

One) is the Review of Literature (Chapter Two). This chapter establishes the current

knowledge base in the physiology of SSGs, and highlights the areas that warrant further

investigation. The review of literature was compiled after the three original

investigations were completed and consequently, includes all the published findings

from the series of papers comprising this thesis. A total of six published papers,

originating from three separate original investigations, are presented as Chapters Three,

Four, Five, Six, Seven and Eight, respectively. Chapters Three to Six inclusive are

based on data collected from Study One. Chapter Three examines the between-session

variability of exercise-intensity in SSGs. Chapter Four investigates the between-player

reproducibility, both within and between-session, of exercise-intensity in SSGs. Chapter

Five compares the acute physiological, perceptual and time-motion responses across

three different small-sided game formats, when the relative pitch area per player is held

constant. Chapter Six compares the acute physiological, perceptual and time-motion

responses across two different small-sided game training regimes, interval and

continuous, when the relative pitch area per player is held constant. Chapter Seven,

which represents data collected during Study Two, compares the acute physiological,

perceptual and time-motion responses across four different small-sided game formats,

and the effects of four rule changes, on acute physiological, perceptual and time-motion

responses. Chapter Eight, which represents data collected during Study Three, compares

8

seven weeks of coach selected SSGs with mixed generic interval training on selected

physiological, perceptual and performance measures in elite youth football players.

Finally, the Summary and Conclusions section (Chapter Nine), attempts to integrate the

main published findings of this thesis and present conclusions, practical implications

and directions for future research.

1.4 Definitions of Reproducibility and Variability in Small-Sided Games

In the context of this thesis, the terms ‘reproducibility’ and ‘variability’ are not used

interchangeably, and have different meanings.

There are two aspects relating to the reproducibility of SSGs. The first is ‘within

session’ reproducibility. This refers to comparisons made between the same SSG

formats (for example, 2 v 2) played by different players, during the same training

session. Therefore, the only difference between the game formats played during the

same training session, are the actual players involved in each game. For the purposes of

within session reproducibility, comparisons are made between Game 1 vs. Game 2,

Game 1 vs. Game 3, and Game 2 vs. Game 3 (see Figure 1.3).

The second aspect relates to between session reproducibility. This refers to comparisons

made between the same SSG formats (for example, 2 v 2) played by different players,

during different training sessions. Once again, the only difference between the game

formats played during different training sessions, are the actual players involved in each

game. For the purposes of between session reproducibility, comparisons are made

between Game 1 vs. Game 5, Game 1 vs. Game 6, and Game 2 vs. Game 6 (see Figure

1.3).

In contrast, the variability (or reliability) of SSGs refers to a comparison between the

same small-sided game format (for example, 2 v 2), played by the same players, during

different training sessions, separated by at least one week (see Figure 1.4).

9

Figure 1.3: Within training session reproducibility (dashed arrows) and between

training session reproducibility (solid arrows).

Figure 1.4: Small-sided game variability (reliability).

2 v 2 Game 6

2 v 2 Game 5

2 v 2 Game 4

A, B

vs.

C, D

E, F

vs.

G, H

I, J

vs.

K, L

2 v 2 Game 3

2 v 2 Game 2

2 v 2 Game 1

A, B

vs.

C, D

E, F

vs.

G, H

I, J

vs.

K, L

2 v 2 Game 3

2 v 2 Game 2

2 v 2 Game 1

A, B

vs.

C, D

E, F

vs.

G, H

I, J

vs.

K, L

2 v 2 Game 3

2 v 2 Game 2

2 v 2 Game 1

A, B

vs.

C, D

E, F

vs.

G, H

I, J

vs.

K, L

Training session 1 Training session 2

10

1.5 Significance of the Study

In many team-sports, including football, technical and tactical development is often

given higher priority than the development or maintenance of physical fitness.

Consequently, this limits the amount of time available for physical conditioning within

the same training session. Therefore, the inclusion of SSGs may promote the concurrent

development of football-specific fitness and technical skills, and thereby increase the

overall efficiency and effectiveness of training sessions.

The outcomes of this research may provide football coaches and conditioning coaches

with new information that can be used to improve conditioning training methods for

elite youth football players. The ultimate goal of this research is to better understand the

prescriptive variables that affect exercise intensity during SSGs, and thereby provide an

effective alternative or additional training mode to traditional generic training methods.

1.6 Delimitations and limitations

Although the results of this thesis have useful applications, the following delimitations

and limitations do apply.

Delimitations:

The findings are limited to the specific population of sub-elite and elite youth

football players.

Limitations:

The GPS sampling rate of one hertz which may not provide appropriate precision

of measurement to assess distances travelled at higher speeds.

Changes in technical and tactical skills were not assessed.

No control group was provided in the training study.

No direct match performance measures were included in the training study.

11

1.7 References

Balsom, P., Lindholm, T., Nilsson, J., & Ekblom, B. (1999). Precision Football.

Kempele, Finland: Polar Electro Oy.

Bangsbo, J. (1994). The physiology of soccer-with special reference to intense

intermittent exercise. Acta Physiologica Scandinavia, 619, 1-155.

Bangsbo, J. (2007). Planning the Season Aerobic and anaerobic training in soccer-

special emphasis on training of youth players (pp. 173-205). Copenhagen:

Stormtryk, Bagsvaerd.

Dupont, G., Akakpo, K., & Berthoin, S. (2004). The effect of in-season, high-intensity

interval training in soccer players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning

Research, 18(3), 584-589.

Ferrari Bravo, D., Impellizzeri, F., Rampinini, E., Castagna, C., Bishop, D., & Wisløff,

U. (2008). Sprint vs.interval training in football. International Journal of Sports

Medicine, 29(8), 668-674.

Helgerud, J., Engen, L., Wisløff, U., & Hoff, J. (2001). Aerobic endurance training

improves soccer performance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise,

33(11), 1925-1931.

Impellizzeri, F., Marcora, S., Castagna, C., Reilly, T., Sassi, A., Iaia, M., et al. (2006).

Physiological and performance effects of generic versus specific aerobic training

in soccer players. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 27(6), 483 - 492.

Owen, A., Twist, C., & Ford, P. (2004). Small-sided games: The physiological and

technical effect of altering pitch size and player numbers. Insight: FA Coaches

Association Journal, 7(2), 50-53.

Rampinini, E., Impellizzeri, F., Castagna, C., Abt, G., Chamari, K., Sassi, A., et al.

(2007). Factors influencing physiological responses to small-sided soccer

games. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25(6), 659-666.

Reilly, T., & Thomas, V. (1976). A motion analysis of workrate in different positional

roles in professional football match-play. Journal of Human Movement Studies,

2, 87 - 97.

Stølen, T., Chamari, K., Castagna, C., & Wisloff, U. (2005). Physiology of soccer: an

update. Sports Medicine, 35(6), 501 - 536.

Williams, K., & Owen, A. (2007). The impact of player numbers on the physiological

responses to small sided games. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 6

(Suppl. 10)(1), 100.

12

______________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER TWO

Review of Literature

_________________________________________________________________________________

Small-sided games in football: a review

As per the peer-reviewed paper Under Review in Sports Medicine:

Hill-Haas, S., Coutts, A., Dawson, B., & Impellizzeri, F. (2009). Small sided games in

football: a review. Sports Medicine (Under Review).

The review of literature was completed after the three original investigations were

completed and consequently includes the published findings where relevant.

13

Abstract

Small-sided games (SSGs) are played on reduced pitch areas, often using modified rules

and involving a smaller number of players than traditional football. These games are less

structured than traditional fitness training methods but are very popular training drills for

players of all ages and levels. At present, there is relatively little information regarding

how SSGs can best be used to improve physical capacities and technical or tactical skills in

footballers. However, many prescriptive variables controlled by the coach can influence the

exercise intensity during SSGs. Coaches usually attempt to change the training stimulus in

SSGs through altering the pitch area, player number, coach encouragement, training regime

(continuous vs. interval training), rules, and the use of goalkeepers. In general, it appears

that SSG exercise intensity is increased with the concurrent reduction in player number and

increase in relative pitch area per player. However, the inverse relationship between the

number of players in each SSG and exercise-intensity, does not apply to the time-motion

characteristics. Consistent coach encouragement can also increase training intensity, but

most rule changes do not appear to strongly affect exercise intensity. The variation of

exercise intensity measures are lower in smaller game formats (e.g., 3 v 3) and have

acceptable reproducibility when the same game is repeated between different training-

sessions or within the same session. The variation in exercise intensity during SSGs can

also be improved with consistent coach encouragement but it is still more variable than

traditional generic training methods. Other studies have also shown that SSGs containing

fewer players can exceed match intensity and elicit similar intensities to both long and short

duration high-intensity interval running. It also appears that fitness and football-specific

performance can be improved equally with SSG and generic training drills. Future research

14

is required to examine the optimal periodisation strategies of SSGs training for the long-

term development of physiological capacity, technical skill and tactical proficiency.

Key Words: football, sport-specific training, fitness, exercise prescription.

15

2.1 Introduction

The main purpose of this review is to provide a summary of the research that has examined

the physiological and performance benefits of small-sided games (SSGs) in football. The

review is presented in six sections. The first section briefly describes the origins, definition

and advantages of SSGs. The second section reviews the use of SSGs in football. The five

aspects addressed in this section include findings from studies that have examined:

1. Validity and reliability of quantifiable exercise intensity measures in SSGs;

2. Time-motion analysis of SSGs;

3. The between-session variability (reliability) of SSGs as a training stimulus;

4. The between-player reproducibility of exercise intensity in SSGs; and,

5. Variables affecting SSG training intensity.

The third section contains two parts. Part A examines studies that describe the acute

physiological responses associated with various SSGs. Part B examines training studies

comparing the effectiveness of interval training and SSGs training on aerobic fitness and

performance. The fourth section describes the limitations of SSGs as a fitness training

mode. The final two sections provide suggestions for future research and conclude the

review.

The articles reviewed in this paper were acquired by searching the electronic databases of

AUSPORT, ProQuest 5000, PubMed, SPORTDiscus and Google Scholar. The following

keywords were used in various combinations: ‘small-sided soccer games’, ‘small-sided

football games’, ‘metabolic conditioning’, ‘soccer-specific conditioning’, ‘football-specific

16

conditioning’, ‘skill-based training’ ‘skill-based conditioning’, ‘soccer training’, ‘football

training’ and ‘game-based training’. Due to the focus on football, this reduced the number

of articles retrieved and, consequently, no limit to the search period was applied. Electronic

database searching was supplemented by examining the bibliographies of relevant articles.

2.2 Small-Sided Games in Football

Small-sided games, also referred to as skill-based conditioning games (Gabbett, 2006) or

game-based training (Gabbett, Jenkins, & Abernethy, 2009), are modified games played on

reduced pitch areas, often using adapted rules and involving a smaller number of players

than traditional football games. Small-sided games have evolved from informal

unstructured games of street football. These informal games now form the basis for

learning and understanding of football. Indeed, many of the world’s top players were

introduced to football informally, via street, park or beach football (FFA, 2008). However,

for various reasons, street football has receded from many urban environments, and been

replaced by more formalized SSGs, played in a club setting (FFA, 2008).

Small-sided games in football are widely considered to offer many practical advantages that

have lead to its popularity as a training modality in football at all ages and levels. The

primary benefits of SSGs are that they appear to replicate the movement demands,

physiological intensity and technical requirements of competitive match play (Gamble,

2004; Gregson & Drust, 2000; Little, 2009; Owen, 2003), whilst also requiring players to

make decisions under pressure and fatigue (Gabbett & Mulvey, 2008). Small-sided games

have also been suggested to facilitate the development of technical skills and tactical

awareness within the appropriate context of a game (Allison & Thorpe, 1997; Little, 2009).

Compared to traditional fitness training sessions, SSGs are thought to increase player

17

compliance and motivation, since it is perceived to be sport-specific (Gregson & Drust,

2000; Little, 2009). Finally, SSGs are considered to be more time efficient, as physical

performance, technical skills and tactical awareness, can be developed concurrently

(Gregson & Drust, 2000; Little, 2009). However, the realisation of these advantages is

dependent on game design.

2.2.1 Quantifying exercise intensity during small-sided games (internal training

load)

Exercise intensity in SSGs has typically been assessed via heart rate (HR), blood lactate

concentration ([BLa-]) and rating of perceived exertion (RPE). Indeed, HR is the most

common measure used for objectively monitoring training intensity in many sports (Achten

& Jeukendrup, 2003), and several studies have shown HR to be a valid indicator of exercise

intensity in football (Drust, Reilly, & Cable, 2000; Esposito, et al., 2004). For example, the

mean HR and V. O2 relationship have been reported to be similar during treadmill based

intermittent exercise that reproduced the demands of a football game (Drust, et al., 2000).

Similarly, several studies have shown that the HR-

V. O2 relationship established in the

laboratory is similar to the HR-VO2 relationship measured at different intensities during

football-specific exercises (5 v 5 SSGs) (Castagna, Belardinelli, & Abt, 2004; Esposito, et

al., 2004; Hoff, Wisløff, Engen, Kemi, & Helgerud, 2002). Collectively, the findings

indicate that HR is a valid measure of exercise intensity during football.

There are, however, some limitations to using HR to assess exercise intensity during

football specific activities. For example, it has been suggested that factors inherent in

football training, including emotion and the intermittent nature of the activity, may result in

HR values that overestimate actual energetic cost of exercise (Bangsbo, 1994). In contrast,

18

there is also evidence showing that HR monitoring may underestimate the intensity of

football drills that have a high anaerobic component, including short duration SSGs

involving few players (e.g. 2-min bouts; 2 v 2) (Little & Williams, 2007) . Therefore, it

seems that other measures of exercise intensity may provide a more appropriate measure of

exercise intensity during SSGs.

Blood lactate, a by-product of anaerobic glycolysis, has been extensively used as an

indicator of exercise intensity in football. The [Bla-] has been suggested to represent an

overall accumulation of lactate production during football specific exercise (Krustrup, et

al., 2006). However, given the intermittent nature of football, [Bla-] is a poor indicator of

muscle [La-] during football match play (Krustrup, et al., 2006), and consequently may be

misrepresentative of individual exercise intensities.

In contrast to [Bla-], RPE is a simple, non-invasive and inexpensive method of monitoring

exercise intensity (Borg, 1982). Several studies have shown that RPE can be validly used to

assess exercise intensity at a specific time during exercise (Coutts, Rampinini, Marcora,

Castagna, & Impellizzeri, 2008), and as a global indicator of overall session intensity

(session-RPE) (Alexiou & Coutts, 2008; Impellizzeri, Rampinini, Coutts, Sassi, &

Marcora, 2004). For example, to validate RPE as a measure of exercise intensity during

football SSGs, Coutts et al., (2008) examined the relationship between RPE with both HR

and blood lactate concentration ([Bla-]) measures. The findings of this study demonstrated

that the combination of HR and [Bla-] predicted RPE better than HR or [Bla-] measures

alone. It was suggested that RPE may be a more valid marker of global exercise intensity

than any physiological measures independently.

19

Similarly, other studies have assessed the validity of the session-RPE for assessing exercise

intensity in football specific exercise (Alexiou & Coutts, 2008; Impellizzeri, et al., 2004).

The session-RPE method requires that players provide a single RPE relating to the exercise

intensity of the entire session, usually 30-min following exercise (Foster, et al., 2001).

However, although several studies have reported that session-RPE is a valid indicator of

overall perception of effort for intermittent aerobic football-specific exercises (including

SSGs) training, it may not be a valid substitute for HR-based methods (Alexiou & Coutts,

2008; Coutts, et al., 2008; Impellizzeri, et al., 2004). Nonetheless, due its psycho-biological

foundations (Borg, 1982), session-RPE measures may be a more valid global measure of

exercise intensity during high-intensity intermittent exercise such as SSGs. Therefore, on

the basis of studies examining the validity of HR, RPE and [Bla-] during football-specific

training, it has been suggested that SSGs training is best monitored via a combination of

each of these measures of internal exercise intensity (Coutts, et al., 2008).

2.2.2 Time-motion measurement in small-sided games

In addition to physiological measures of exercise intensity during SSGs, recent

technological advances now allow for movement characteristics of football players to be

collected (Carling, Bloomfield, Nelsen, & Reilly, 2008). This information may be used to

design game-related conditioning activities (Carling, et al., 2008). Specifically, global

positioning system (GPS) microtechnology is now used by various professional football

codes to quantify the movement demands on players during training and games (Carling, et

al., 2008).

20

The validity and reliability of the measures provided by these commercially available (non-

differential) GPS receivers has recently been described (Coutts & Duffield, 2008;

Edgecomb & Norton, 2006; Macleod, Morris, Nevill, & Sunderland, 2009; Petersen, Pyne,

Portus, & Dawson, 2009; Townsend, Worringham, & Stewart, 2008). In general, the error

for total distance travelled (meters/min) has been reported to be between 3-5% (Coutts &

Duffield, 2008). Moreover, the correlations between speed measured by electronic timing

gates and values obtained from GPS units, have also been reported to be very high (Barbero

Álvarez, Coutts, Granda, Barbero Álvarez, & Castagna, 2009; Macleod, et al., 2009).

However, there are several limitations associated with this technology, including reduced

reliability with increased movement speeds (Coutts & Duffield, 2008; Petersen, et al.,

2009). For example, the coefficient of variation (CV) for high-intensity running (>14.4

km·h-1) is reported as 11.2–32.4%, and 11.5–30.4% for very high-intensity running (>20.0

km·h-1) (Coutts & Duffield, 2008). Moreover, lower sampling rates (i.e. 1 vs. 5 Hz) may

also be a limitation, as this may reduce the devices ability to detect changes in direction at

high speed (Coutts & Duffield, 2008; Petersen, et al., 2009). However, despite these

limitations, the information obtained from these devices, specifically measures of exercise

intensity such as total distance, distance covered in large speed zones, and peak velocity,

may provide useful data regarding variations in movement demands in the various SSGs.

2.2.3 Between-session variability of exercise intensity in small-sided games

Small-sided games are less structured and implemented in a more open or random setting

than traditional fitness training methods (Gamble, 2004). As movements during such games

are sporadic and difficult to control, there is a possibility that variability in exercise

intensity between the same players. This has led many practitioners to question whether

21

the training stimulus of SSGs is sufficiently reliable to offer a viable alternative to

traditional conditioning methods.

Several studies have reported on the variation in exercise intensity when the SSGs are

repeated on different days by the same players (Hill-Haas, Coutts, Rowsell, & Dawson,

2008; Little & Williams, 2007; Rampinini, et al., 2007). For example, Rampinini et al.,

(2007) demonstrated that variability of exercise intensity measures such as %HRmax, [BLa-

] and RPE were lower in smaller game formats (e.g., 3 v 3) when the SSGs were completed

in 4-min bouts (Table 2.1). Moreover, it was shown that the between-day variability in the

HR response was low for all SSG formats. However, the player’s RPE displayed moderate

variability, and this variation increased as the number of players (game format size)

increased. The most variable physiological response was in the [Bla-], with a tendency for

greater variability as game format size increased. Notably, the variability in all exercise

intensity measures were reduced when coach encouragement was provided during each of

the SSGs (Rampinini, et al., 2007). Dellal et al., (2008) reported the between-session

variability of HR during football SSGs and short duration high-intensity interval running to

be 11.8% and 5.9%, respectively (Dellal, et al., 2008) (Table 2.1). In agreement with

Rampinini et al., (2007) the magnitude of typical error scores was reported to be lowest for

HR, followed by [Bla-] and RPE when the variability was calculated between-sessions.

Most previous studies that have examined the between-session variation of exercise

intensity with SSGs have used an interval training regime. More recently, a study examined

the variability in physiological and perceptual responses, and time-motion profiles, across

three different SSG formats (2 v 2, 4 v 4 and 6 v 6 players) and two training regimes (SSG

22

‘intervals’ of 4 x 6-min and SSGs of 24-min continuous duration) in youth players (Hill-

Haas, Coutts, et al., 2008). The main finding was that with the exception of [Bla-],

alterations in format (i.e. playing SSGs in longer continuous format compared to shorter

interval bouts), do not appear to affect the between-session variability of acute

physiological or perceptual responses. Additionally, the measures of exercise-intensity

during continuous training regimes are less variable than interval training regimes. These

authors also reported on the between-session variation in time motion variables, and

demonstrated a low variation in distance travelled at <7.0 km·h-1 across all SSG formats

and regimes. However, variability in faster speed zones was high, irrespective of SSG

format or regime (Hill-Haas, Coutts, et al., 2008) (Table 2.1). It is possible that the high

variability at these greater speeds was due to measurement error in the GPS device used,

rather than the player movement patterns (Coutts & Duffield, 2008).

23

Table 2.1: Summary of studies reporting the between-session variability of exercise-intensity measures during SSGs and interval running in football players.

Author (Year)

Sample size

Playing level

Game Design

Pitch Area (m)

Coefficient of Variation (%)

%HRmax [BLa-] RPE %HRmax [BLa-] RPE With coach encouragement Without coach encouragement Rampinini et al. (2007)

20 Amateur 3 v 3 30 x 18 2.2 22.1 4.4 1.9 27.9 1.7

4 v 4 36 x 24 2.0 26.6 6.0 3.1 24.8 7.2 5 v 5 42 x 30 2.5 26.7 7.9 3.6 36.5 9.6 6 v 6 48 x 36 2.7 30.8 11.3 4.2 39.2 8.3 Little & Williams (2006)

23 Professional 2 v 2 +GK 27 x 18 1.9 - - - - -

3 v 3 +GK 37 x 27 1.4 - - - - - 4 v 4 +GK 46 x 27 2.3 - - - - - 5 v 5 +GK 50 x 27 2.8 - - - - - 6 v 6 +GK 55 x 37 2.2 - - - - - 8 v 8 +GK 65 x 41 1.3 - - - - - Typical Error (TE%) %HRmax [BLa-] RPE TD Distance1 Distance2 Hill-Haas et al. (2008)

16 Amateur 2 v 2 I 28 x 21 3.0 33.3 4.7 2.0 2.0 36.0

2 v 2 C 28 x 21 2.0 21.7 9.7 3.0 3.0 32.7 4 v 4 I 40 x 30 3.5 10.5 9.5 3.5 4.0 36.5 4 v 4 C 40 x 30 3.5 25.0 9.0 4.0 5.5 38.5 %HRR Intervals %HRR Dellal et al. (2008) 10 Professional 1 v 1 10 x 10 11.1 30-30 PR 4.5 - - - 2 v 2 20 x 20 10.8 30-30 AR 6.0 - - - 4 v 4 +GK 30 x 25 13.9 15-15 PR 5.3 - - - 8 v 8 +GK 60 x 45 15.6 10-10 PR 5.2 - - - 8 v 8 60 x 45 8.8 5-20 PR 8.5 - - - 10 v 10 +GK 90 x 45 10.4 - - - - - HRR: heart rate reserve; + GK: including goalkeepers; AR: active recovery; PR: passive recovery; 30-30: 30 s effort followed by 30 s recovery; TE%: typical error as percentage of mean; I: intermittent regime (4 x 6 min/90 s rest); C: continuous regime (24 min); TD: total distance; Distance1: 0.0-6.9 km.h-1; Distance2: >18.0 km.h-1.

24

2.2.4 The between-player reproducibility of exercise-intensity in small-sided

games

It is common for coaches to prescribe the same SSG with different groups of players both

during the same session and on different training days. There have been several studies that

have examined the reproducibility of the physiological and perceptual responses between

groups of different players completing the same SSGs, during the same training session.

Previous studies have shown that the within-session reproducibility improved as the exercise

intensity increased (Little & Williams, 2006; Rampinini, et al., 2007). For example, Rampinini

et al., (2007) demonstrated that HR and RPE were more reproducible for 3 v 3 SSGs,

compared with 6 v 6 SSGs (Table 2.2).

Hill-Haas et al., (2008b) examined the reproducibility (between and within-session) in the

time-motion profiles, across two different SSG formats (2 v 2 and 4 v 4) and two training

regimes (interval and continuous) in youth players (Hill-Haas, Rowsell, et al., 2008b). The

main findings of the study were that the distance travelled at lower speeds (<18 km·h-1) had a

high-level of reproducibility, whilst the distances at higher speeds (>18 km·h-1) were poor

between-sessions (Table 2.2). However, this error may be due to measurement error in the

GPS system used (Coutts & Duffield, 2008). Collectively, these results show that any

variability in HR, and RPE responses to SSGs are acceptable when these games are repeated

between different training-sessions or within the same session. However, it appears that there

is a large variation in responses in [BLa-] and distances travelled at higher velocities during

SSGs, regardless of game format or training regime. This suggests that these measures may

not be useful for assessing exercise intensity during SSGs. Moreover, these findings also

show that coaches can be confident of providing a consistent aerobic fitness training stimulus

when the same SSG design is used for their players.

25

Table 2.2: Summary of studies examining the between-player reproducibility of exercise-intensity measures during football SSGs.

Author Sample

size Game Design Pitch

Dimensions (m)

Coefficient of Variation (%) %HRmax [BLa-] RPE %HRmax [BLa-] RPE

With coach encouragement Without coach encouragement Rampinini et al. (2007) 20 3 v 3 30 x 18 2.4 13.0 7.1 3.0 20.5 12.9 4 v 4 36 x 24 2.5 12.5 5.5 3.3 27.4 8.3 5 v 5 42 x 30 4.3 15.9 13.2 4.4 22.1 18.2 6 v 6 48 x 36 4.8 17.5 16.6 5.2 43.7 15.0 95% error limits Little & Williams (2006) 23 2 v2 +GK 27 x 18 2.1 - - - - - 3 v 3 +GK 37 x 27 2.7 - - - - - 4 v 4 +GK 46 x 27 3.4 - - - - - 5 v 5 +GK 50 x 27 1.8 - - - - - 6 v 6 +GK 55 x 37 3.0 - - - - - 8 v 8 +GK 65 x 41 3.8 - - - - - Typical Error (TE%) %HRmax [BLa-] RPE TD Distance1 Distance2 Hill-Haas et al. (2008) 16 2 v 2 Intermittent 28 x 21 3.3 16.5 5.9 2.2 14.4 25.7 2 v 2 Continuous 28 x 21 1.9 25.8 12.6 3.8 14.2 51.1 4 v 4 Intermittent 40 x 30 2.5 34.4 12.2 4.6 14.4 32.5 4 v 4 Continuous 40 x 30 4.4 28.3 9.6 4.1 23.5 31.2 6 v 6 Intermittent 49 x 37 3.4 32.2 7.4 6.4 21.0 31.3 6 v 6 Continuous 49 x 37 2.6 16.6 15.3 5.2 21.3 56.0 TE%: typical error as percentage of mean; Intermittent regime: 4 x 6 min/90 s rest; Continuous regime: 24 min; + GK: including goalkeepers; TD: total distance; Distance1: 13.0-15.9 km.h-1; Distance2: >18.0 km.h-1.

26

2.2.5 Variables affecting small-sided game intensity

Many prescriptive variables that can be controlled by the coach can influence the exercise

intensity during SSGs (Balsom, Lindholm, Nilsson, & Ekblom, 1999). These factors include

pitch area, player number, coach encouragement, training regime (continuous or interval,

including work: rest manipulations) rule modifications, and the use of goals and/or

goalkeepers (Jeffreys, 2004; Little, 2009). There have been recent increases in the number of

controlled research studies that have investigated the influence of adjusting each of these

variables upon exercise intensity in SSGs.

2.2.5.1 Pitch area

The pitch area can be varied, and this may influence the intensity of SSGs. Table 2.3 is a

summary of all the studies which examined the effect of absolute pitch area (by keeping the

number of player’s constant) on SSG intensity. The majority of studies report an increased

HR, RPE and [BLa-] response with increased pitch area. For example, Rampinini et al.,

(Rampinini, et al., 2007) increased pitch area by 20% across a variety of SSG formats (3v3 to

6v6 inclusive). Both %HRmax and [BLa-] were higher during SSGs played on a large pitch

than on a medium-sized or small pitch. Rating of perceived exertion was also higher on

medium and large pitch sizes compared to small pitches (Rampinini, et al., 2007).

27

Table 2.3: Summary of studies examining the effects of pitch area on SSG intensity in football players (mean ± SD).

Author Sample size

Game Design

Training Prescription Pitch Area (m)

Area/Player1

(m2) %HRmax BLa

(mmol/L) RPE

(6 – 20) Aroso et al. (2004) 14 4 v 4 3 x 6 min/90 s rest 30 x 20 75 70.0 ± 9.0 2.6 ± 1.7 13.3 ± 0.9 50 x 30 188 - (no value) (no value) Owen, Twist & Ford (2004) 13 1 v 1 1 x 3 min/12 min rest 10 x 5 25 86.0 - - 15 x 10 75 88.0 - - 20 x 15 150 89.0 - - 2 v 2 15 x 10 38 84.2 - - 20 x 15 75 87.4 - - 25 x 20 125 88.1 - - 3 v 3 20 x 15 50 81.7 - - 25 x 20 83 81.8 - - 30 x 25 125 84.8 - - 4 v 4 25 x 20 63 72.0 - - 30 x 25 94 78.5 - - 5 v 5 30 x 25 75 75.7 - - 35 x 30 105 79.5 - - 40 x 35 140 80.2 - - Mean HR Williams & Owen (2007) 9 3 v 3 Not reported 20 x 15 50 164 ± 12 - - 25 x 20 83 166 ± 9 - -

30 x 25 125 171 ± 11 - - RPE (CR10) Rampinini et al. (2007) 20 3 v 3 (CE) 3 x 4 min/3 min rest 20 x 12 40 89.5 ± 2.9 6.0 ± 1.8 8.1 ± 0.6 25 x 15 63 90.5 ± 2.3 6.3 ± 1.5 8.4 ± 0.4 30 x 18 90 90.9 ± 2.0 6.5 ± 1.5 8.5 ± 0.4 4 v 4 (CE) 24 x 16 48 88.7 ± 2.0 5.3 ± 1.9 7.6 ± 0.5 30 x 20 75 89.4 ± 1.8 5.5 ± 1.8 7.9 ± 0.5 36 x 24 108 89.7± 1.8 6.0 ± 1.6 8.1 ± 0.5 5 v 5 (CE) 28 x 20 56 87.8 ± 3.6 5.2 ± 1.4 7.2 ± 0.9 35 x 25 88 88.8 ± 3.1 5.0 ± 1.7 7.6 ± 0.6 42 x 30 126 88.8 ± 2.3 5.8 ± 1.6 7.5 ± 0.6 6 v 6 (CE) 32 x 24 64 86.4 ± 2.0 4.5 ± 1.5 6.8 ± 0.6 40 x 30 100 87.0 ± 2.4 5.0 ± 1.6 7.3 ± 0.7 48 x 36 144 86.9 ± 2.4 4.8 ± 1.5 7.2 ± 0.8 Kelly & Drust (2008) 8 5 v 5 (CE) 4 x 4 min/2 min rest 30 x 20 60 91.0 ± 4.0 - - 40 x 30 120 90.0 ± 4.0 - -

50 x 40 200 89.0 ± 2.0 - - increase; 1 total pitch area/total number of players, CE: with coach encouragement;1 total pitch area/total number of players; CE: with coach encouragement; d age

predicted HR values; +GK: goalkeeper; %HRR: percentage of heart rate reserve.

28

2.2.5.2 Player number

The number of players on each team in a SSG can also be altered to regulate the intensity of

this training mode. Studies that have investigated the effect of altering player number on

SSG training intensity, have altered player numbers while, at the same time, holding many

other factors constant, including the pitch area. A summary of all the studies which

examined the effect of altering player numbers on SSG intensity is presented in Tables 2.4a

and 2.4b.

In summary, despite some methodological concerns (very short game duration; differing

W: R ratios), most studies have shown that SSGs containing smaller numbers of players

elicit greater HR, blood lactate and perceptual responses (Owen, Twist, & Ford, 2004;

Sampaio, et al., 2007; Williams & Owen, 2007). On closer analysis, the results suggest the

possible existence of a threshold pitch area. For example, the most pronounced reductions

in HR occurred when 2 v 2 was increased to 3 v 3, and 3 v 3 was increased to 4 v 4, on a 25

x 20 m pitch area. In contrast, less pronounced reductions in HR occurred when 2 v 2 was

increased to 3 v 3, and 3 v 3 was increased to 4 v 4 on 20 x 15 m and 30 x 25 m pitch areas

respectively (Owen, et al., 2004).

As illustrated in Table 2.4a, these previous studies only examined the influence of altering

the player numbers on teams containing equal numbers of players (e.g. 2 v 2 or 3 v 3). In

training situations, SSGs are often implemented which contain teams of unequal numbers

(e.g. 4 v 3 players or 6 v 5). Reasons for creating an imbalance between opposing teams

may include technical development and unavailability of players due to injury. A further

variation in player number involves creating temporary ‘overload’ and ‘underload’

29

situations between opposing teams, via the use of a ‘floater’ player. This neutral player

transitions to the team in possession of the ball, to create temporary ‘overload’ and

‘underload’ situations. This SSG game design is typically used to develop defensive or

attacking proficiency or increase the physical load on the ‘floating’ player.

30

Table 2.4a: Summary of studies examining the effects of player number on SSG intensity in football players (mean ± SD).

a intensity > 11 v 11 competitive match; b intensity = 11 v 11 competitive match; c intensity < 11 v 11 competitive match.

Author Sample size

Game Design

Training Prescription Pitch Area (m)

Area/Player

(m2) %HRmax [BLa-]

(mmol/L) RPE (6-20)

Aroso et al. (2004) 14 2 v 2 3 x 1.5 min/90 s rest 30 x 20 150 84.0 ± 5.0 8.1 ± 2.7 16.2 ± 1.1 3 v 3 3 x 4 min/90 s rest 30 x 20 100 87.0 ± 3.0 4.9 ± 2.0 14.5 ± 1.7 4 v 4 3 x 6 min/90 s rest 30 x 20 75 70.0 ± 9.0 2.6 ± 1.7 13.3 ± 0.9 Owen, Twist & Ford (2004) 13 1 v 1 1 x 3 min/12 min rest 15 x 10 75 88.0a - - 2 v 2 15 x 10 38 84.2a - - 1 v 1 20 x 15 150 89.0a - - 2 v 2 20 x 15 75 87.4a - - 3 v 3 20 x 15 50 81.7b - - 2 v 2 25 x 20 125 88.1a - - 3 v 3 25 x 20 83 81.8b - - 4 v 4 25 x 20 63 72.0c - - 4 v 4 30 x 25 94 78.5c - - 5 v 5 30 x 25 75 75.7c - - Sampaio et al. (2007) 8 2 v 2 2 x 1.5 min/90 s rest 30 x 20 150 83.7 ±1.4 - 15.5 ± 0.6 3 v 3 2 x 3 min/90 s rest 30 x 20 100 80.8 ± 1.7 - 15.8 ± 0.2 Mean HR Williams & Owen (2007) 9 1 v 1 - 20 x 15 150 183 ± 7 - - 2 v 2 - 20 x 15 75 179 ± 7 - - 3 v 3 - 20 x 15 50 164 ± 12 - - 2 v 2 - 25 x 20 125 180 ± 5 - - 3 v 3 - 25 x 20 83 166 ± 9 - - 4 v 4 - 25 x 20 63 152 ± 14 - - 3 v 3 - 30 x 25 125 171 ± 11 - - 4 v 4 - 30 x 25 94 165 ± 5 - - 5 v 5 - 30 x 25 75 152 ± 6 - -

31

The impact of creating fixed and temporary ‘overload’ and ‘underload’ situations

(including the use of a ‘floater’) on the physiological, perceptual and time-motion

responses in SSGs involving elite youth football players have recently been investigated

(Hill-Haas, Coutts, Dawson, & Rowsell, 2009). The findings from this study were that

there were no significant differences between the fixed (4 v 3 or 6 v 5) and variable (3 v

3+1 floater or 5 v 5+1 floater) SSGs in terms of physiological and perceptual responses (see

Table 2.4b). Despite this, either may provide a useful SSGs training variation, or as a

technical-tactical training method for defensive, transition and attacking plays. The

possibility of fixed and variable SSGs providing a greater technical load, needs to be

examined by further research. Finally, the use of a floater appears to be more effective in

SSGs containing fewer players (for example, 3 v 3+1 floater), and may be appropriate for

either maintaining or developing aerobic fitness (Hill-Haas, Coutts, Dawson, et al., 2009).

For example, the floater travelled a significantly greater total distance and recorded a

greater perception of effort (RPE) compared to 4 player teams in 4 v 3 games (Hill-Haas,

Coutts, Dawson, et al., 2009) (Figure 2.1). The floater also completed a significantly

greater amount of sprints (>18 km.h-1) compared to 5 player and 6 player teams in 6 v 5

games (Hill-Haas, Coutts, Dawson, et al., 2009) (see Table 2.4b).

32

Table 2.4b: Summary of studies examining the effects of player number on SSG intensity in football players (mean ± SD).

1 total pitch area/total number of players; TD: total distance; Distance1: >13.0 km.h-1; Sprint Number2: Number of sprints >18.0 km.h-1; Matched3: excluding the floater.

Author Sample size Game Design Training Prescription

Pitch Area (m)

Area/Player1

(m2) %HRmax [BLa-]

(mmol/L) RPE (6-20)

Hill-Haas et al. (2009)

12 3 players 24 min 1036 148 82.3 ± 3.5 2.5 ± 0.7 16.3 ±1.6

16 4 players 24 min 1036 148 83.1 ± 4.0 2.5 ± 0.9 14.6 ± 1.9 8 Floater 24 min 1036 148 82.7 ± 3.0 2.3 ± 0.8 16.3 ± 1.5 20 5 players 24 min 1645 149 82.5 ± 5.0 2.5 ± 1.0 15.2 ±1.0 24 6 players 24 min 1645 149 81.4 ± 5.1 2.6 ± 1.1 14.9 ± 0.9 4 Floater 24 min 1645 149 82.5 ± 5.6 2.8 ± 0.2 16.3 ± 1.7 TD (m) Distance1 (m) Sprint Number2 3 players 2543 ± 187 553 ±187 10 ± 6 4 players 2408 ± 231 482 ±178 8 ± 4 Floater 2668 ± 220 628 ±132 9 ± 6 5 players 2526 ± 302 649 ±190 9 ± 5 6 players 2524 ± 247 589 ±177 8 ± 4 Floater 2610 ± 201 673 ±194 15 ± 3 Player numbers %HRmax [BLa-]

(mmol/L) RPE (6-20)

Matched3 3 v 3 and 5 v 5 82.5 ± 4.6 2.6 ± 1.1 15.2 ± 1.4 Overload 6 player &

4 player teams 82.3 ± 4.5 2.6 ± 1.0 14.7 ± 1.5

Underload 5 player & 3 player teams

82.3 ± 4.0 2.6 ± 1.0 15.8 ± 1.5

TD (m) Distance1 (m) - 3 v 3 and 5 v 5 2585 ± 204 582 ± 190 - 6 player &

4 player teams 2458 ± 243 528 ± 184 -

5 player & 3 player teams

2535 ± 247 598 ± 192 -

33

Figure 2.1: Comparison of A) total distance (m), B) RPE (6-20) between ‘floating’ players and

others in various in smaller game formats. Data from Hill-Haas et al., (2009).

34

2.2.5.3 Concurrent manipulation of pitch area and player number

Few studies have systematically examined the influence of the concurrent manipulation of pitch area

and player number on exercise intensity in SSGs (Athanasios & Eleftherios, 2009; Jones & Drust,

2007; Little & Williams, 2006; Rampinini, et al., 2007). In addition, there are several differences in the

design and prescription of the SSGs in the studies that have concurrently manipulated both player

number and pitch area which making comparisons between these studies very difficult. Indeed, Tables

2.5a and 2.5b show that there are subtle differences in the training prescriptions, age and ability of

players, intensity measures and sizes in pitch area amongst the studies, all of which may affect the

exercise intensity in these SSGs.

In general, a concurrent increase in player number and relative pitch area per player in SSGs elicits

lower exercise intensity. For example, Rampinini et al., (2007) investigated the effects of concurrently

increasing the player number and pitch area on %HRmax, [BLa-] and RPE in 20 amateur football

players. The main finding of this study was that the exercise intensity during all game formats was

decreased when there was an increase in the number of players and more pitch area per player

(Rampinini, et al., 2007) (see Table 2.5a). Little and Williams (2006) reported that a concurrent

increase in player number and reduction in pitch area reduced %HRmax, [BLa-] and RPE responses

(see Table 2.5a). Jones and Drust (2007) also reported a reduction in %HRmax when both player

number and pitch area were increased (see Table 2.5a).

35

Table 2.5a: Summary of studies examining the effects of concurrent changes in player number and pitch area on SSG intensity in football players (mean ± SD).

Author (Year) Sample size

Game Design

Training Prescription Pitch Area (m)

Area/Player1

(m2) %HRmax [BLa-]

(mmol/L) RPE (6-20)

Platt et al. (2001) 2 3 v 3 1 x 15 min continuous 27 x 18 81 88.0d - - (10 – 12 year olds) 5 v 5 1 x 15 min continuous 37 x 27 100 82.0d - - Little & Williams (2007) 28 2 v 2 4 x 2 min/2 min rest 27 x 18 122 88.9 ± 1.2 9.6 ± 1.0 16.3 ± 0.9 3 v 3 4 x 3.5 min/90 s rest 32 x 23 123 91.0 ± 1.2 8.5 ± 0.8 15.7 ± 1.1 4 v 4 4 x 4 min/2 min rest 37 x 27 125 90.1 ± 1.5 9.5 ± 1.1 15.3 ± 0.7 5 v 5 4 x 6 min/90 s rest 41 x 27 111 89.3 ± 2.5 7.9 ± 1.7 14.3 ± 1.5 6 v 6 3 x 8 min/90 s rest 46 x 27 104 87.5 ± 2.0 5.6 ± 1.9 13.6 ± 1.0 8 v 8 4 x 8 min/90 s rest 73 x 41 187 87.9 ± 1.9 5.8 ± 2.1 14.1 ± 1.8 Jones & Drust (2007) 8 4 v 4 1 x 10 min continuous 30 x 25 94 83.0 - - 8 v 8 1 x 10 min continuous 60 x 40 150 79.0 - - RPE (CR10) Rampinini et al. (2007) 20 3 v 3 (CE) 3 x 4 min/3 min rest 30 x 18 90 90.9 ± 2.0 6.5 ± 1.5 8.5 ± 0.4 4 v 4 (CE) 36 x 24 108 89.7± 1.8 6.0 ± 1.6 8.1 ± 0.5 5 v 5 (CE) 42 x 30 126 88.8 ± 2.3 5.8 ± 1.6 7.5 ± 0.6 6 v 6 (CE) 48 x 36 144 86.9 ± 2.4 4.8 ± 1.5 7.2 ± 0.8 1 total pitch area/total number of players; d age predicted HR values; +GK: goalkeeper; CE: coach encouragement; %HRR: percentage of heart rate reserve.

36

More recently, a study involving youth football players examined the acute physiological and

perceptual responses and time-motion characteristics, during three variations of SSGs (2 v 2, 4 v 4

and 6 v 6) with a similar ratio of player number to pitch area (Hill-Haas, Dawson, Coutts, &

Rowsell, 2009). The main findings were that as the number of players in the SSG teams decreased,

when the relative pitch area per player remained constant, the overall physiological and perceptual

responses increased. Notably, the inverse relationship between the number of players in each SSGs

and exercise-intensity did not extend to the time-motion characteristics. In general, the largest game

format (6 v 6) was associated with a greater range of distances travelled at speeds >18 km·h-1. In

contrast, the 4 v 4 format, compared with the 2 v 2, was characterised by significantly longer

(average and maximal) effort durations and distances for speeds >18 km·h-1 (Hill-Haas, Dawson, et

al., 2009). These findings suggest that the players internal response (i.e. HR and RPE), and not the

external load (i.e. distance travelled) should be monitored to determine how players are coping with

different SSG design (see Table 2.5b).

37

Table 2.5b: Summary of studies examining the effects of concurrent changes in player number and pitch area on SSG intensity in football players (mean ± SD).

1 total pitch area/total number of players; d age predicted HR values; +GK: goalkeeper; CE: coach encouragement; %HRR: percentage of heart rate reserve; Distance1: 13.0 – 15.9 km.h-1; Distance2: Number of sprints >18.0 km.h-1.

Author (Year) Sample size

Game Design

Training Prescription Pitch Area (m)

Area/Player1

(m2) %HRR [BLa-]

(mmol/L) RPE (6-20)

Dellal et al. (2008) 10 1 v 1 4 x 1.5 min/90 s rest 10 x 10 50 77.6 ± 8.6 -- - 2 v 2 6 x 2.5 min/2.5 min rest 20 x 20 100 80.1 ± 8.7 - - 4 v 4 + GK 2 x 4 min/3 min rest 30 x 25 94 77.1 ± 10.7 - - 8 v 8 + GK 2 x 10 min/5 min rest 60 x 45 169 80.3 ± 12.5 - - 8v 8 4 x 4 min/3 min rest 60 x 45 169 71.7 ± 6.3 - - 10 v 10 +GK 3 x 20 min/5 min rest 90 x 45 203 75.7 ± 7.9 - - %HRmax RPE (6-20) Hill-Haas et al. (2009) 16 2 v 2 24 min continuous 28 x 21 150 89.0 ± 4.0 6.7 ± 2.6 13.1 ± 1.5 4 v 4 40 x 30 150 85.0 ± 4.0 4.7 ± 1.6 12.2 ± 1.8 6 v 6 49 x 37 150 83.0 ± 4.0 4.1 ± 2.0 10.5 ± 1.5 TD (m) Distance1 (m) Distance2 (m) 2 v 2 24 min continuous 28 x 21 150 2574 ± 16 1176 ± 8 44 ± 24 4 v 4 40 x 30 150 2650 ± 18 1128 ± 10 65 ± 36 6 v 6 49 x 37 150 2590 ± 33 1142 ± 16 71 ± 36 %HRmax Athanasios & Eleftherios (2009)

34 3 v 3 10 x 4 min/3 min rest 25 x 15 63 87.6 ± 4.8 - -

(13 year olds) 6 v 6 40 x 30 100 82.8 ± 3.2 - -

38

2.2.5.4 Rule modifications

In practice, football coaches quite often modify playing rules in SSGs to achieve greater exercise

intensity, or develop specific technical and tactical skills. However, there have only been a few

studies that have examined how the modification of rules can influence these variables. Tables 2.6a

and 2.6b provide a summary of studies that have investigated the effects of rule changes on exercise

intensity during football SSGs. Two studies (Mallo & Navarro, 2008; Sassi, Reilly, & Impellizzeri,

2004) reported an increase in %HRmax and another reported an increase in [BLa-], due to rule

changes (Aroso, Rebelo, & Gomes-Pereira, 2004) (Table 2.6a). Simple rule changes have also been

reported to increase the perception of effort (Sampaio, et al., 2007) (Table 2.6a), which may be due

to the increased cognitive load required of players as a consequence of new rules. To date, Mallo

and Navarro (2008) are the only study to have reported on the influence of rule changes on

movement characteristics. Compared to normal football rules, rule changes resulted in an increase

in total distance travelled (Table 2.6a) and time spent performing high intensity running, with less

spent time spent stationary (Aroso, et al., 2004; Mallo & Navarro, 2008).

39

Table 2.6a: Summary of studies examining the effects of rule modifications on SSG intensity in football players (mean ± SD).

Author Sample size

Game Design

Training Prescription

Pitch Dimensions

(m)

Rules %HRmax

[BLa-] (mmol/L)

RPE (6 – 20)

TD (m)

Aroso et al. (2004) 14 2 v 2 3 x 1.5 min/90 s rest 30 x 20 Player-to-player marking - 8.1 ± 2.7 - - 3 v 3 3 x 4 min/90 s rest Maximum of 3

consecutive touches - 4.9 ± 2.0 - -

Sassi et al. (2004) 9 8 v 8 +GK 4 x 4 min/2.5 min rest 50 x 30 Free touch 82.0 3.3 ± 1.2 - - 8 v 8 +GK Free touch with pressure 91.0 - - - Sampaio et al. (2007) 8 2 v 2 2 x 1.5 min/90 s rest 30 x 20 Player-to-player marking - 17.1 ± 0.5 - Maximum of 2

consecutive touches - 16.8 ± 0.5 -

3 v 3 2 x 3 min/90 s rest Player-to-player marking - 16.5 ± 0.5 - Maximum of 2

consecutive touches - 16.5 ± 0.5 -

Little & Williams (2006) 23 5 v 5 5 x 2 min/2 min rest 55 x 32 Pressure half switch 89.9 - - - 6 v 6 5 x 2 min/2 min rest 59 x 27 Pressure half switch 90.5 - - - Mallo & Navarro (2008) 10 3 v 3 1 x 5 min/10 min rest 33 x 20 Possession 91.0 - - 747 ± 24 Possession with 2 outside

neutral players 91.0 - - 749 ± 29

Normal rules + GK 88.0 - - 638 ± 34 Hill-Haas et al. (2009) 24 3 v 4 and

3 v 3 + 1 floater

24 min continuous 37 x 28 a+b 83.3 ± 3.8 2.8 ± 1.0 15.8 ± 1.6 2439 ± 166 23 a+b+c 84.8 ± 3.8 2.4 ± 0.8 15.6 ± 2.3 2405 ± 201 23 a+b+c+d 80.3 ± 4.8 2.3 ± 1.1 14.8 ± 1.2 2450 ± 223 26 a+b+c+d+e 83.7 ± 4.0 2.8 ± 1.1 15.1 ± 1.6 2677 ± 192 increase; decrease; no change; + GK: including goalkeepers; TD: total distance; Condition a’: Offside rule in effect (front one third zone of the pitch).‘Condition b’: Kick in only (ball cannot be thrown in if it leaves the pitch).‘Condition c’: All attacking team players must be in front two zones for a goal to count. ‘Condition d’: Outside, but along the two lengths of each pitch, two (2) neutral players can move up and down the pitch, but not enter the grid. Before a shot on goal is permitted, the attacking team must pass the ball to either of these players. The ball can also be passed to either player in the defensive half. Each player is only allowed a maximum of one touch on the ball. ‘Condition e’: One player from each team (‘a pair’) complete four (4) repetitions of “sprint the widths/jog the lengths” on a 90 s interval (3 v 4 and 3 v 3+1 games) or three (3) repetitions on a 80 s interval (5 v 6 and 5 v 5+1 games). Total distance travelled per player, regardless of game format, would be approximately 440 m.

40

Although these simple rule modifications relate to technical aspects of the game, other studies have

investigated the influence of providing ‘artificial’ changes (Hill-Haas, Coutts, Dawson, et al., 2009).

An example of an artificial rule change is the requirement for a player to complete a series of sprints

of planned duration, during a SSG. Hill-Haas et al., (2009) recently examined the acute

physiological responses and time-motion characteristics associated with four different rule changes,

including the addition of ‘artificial’ rules. The main finding was that changes in SSG playing rules

can influence the physiological and time-motion responses, but not perceptual responses, in young

elite football players (Table 2.6b) (Hill-Haas, Coutts, Dawson, et al., 2009). The artificial rule

change that required players to complete extra sprint efforts around the pitch during each SSG at

pre-set times, imposed a greater external training load on the players, but did not affect HR, [BLa-]

or RPE. In contrast, changes in technical rules that were related to a team’s chances of scoring, may

have improved player motivation and thereby increased the exercise intensity during the SSGs (Hill-

Haas, Coutts, Dawson, et al., 2009). There have been relatively few studies that have examined the

influence of rule modifications on exercise intensity during SSGs. Future studies should examine

the effect of common rules modifications on the technical and tactical skills of football players.

Factors such as decision-making and cognitive load of players should also be assessed (Table 2.6b).

41

Table 2.6b: Summary of studies examining the effects of rule modifications on SSG intensity in football players.

Author Sample size

Game Design

Training Prescription

Pitch Dimensions

(m)

Rules %HRmax [BLa-] (mmol/L)

RPE (6 – 20)

TD (m)

Hill-Haas et al. (2009) 21 5 v 6 and 5 v 5 + 1 floater

24 min continuous 47 x 35 a+b 81 ± 4 2.2 ± 1.0 15.3 ±1.1 2471 ± 355 22 a+b+c 83 ± 5 3.2 ± 1.2 14.9 ± 1.4 2583 ± 147 20 a+b+c+d 83 ± 5 2.3 ± 1.1 14.6 ± 0.9 2614 ± 178 21 a+b+c+d+e 80 ± 3 2.4 ± 0.9 14.9 ± 1.1 2639 ± 189 increase; decrease; no change; + GK: including goalkeepers; TD: total distance; Condition a’: Offside rule in effect (front one third zone of the pitch). ‘Condition b’: Kick in only (ball cannot be thrown in if it leaves the pitch). ‘Condition c’: All attacking team players must be in front two zones for a goal to count. ‘Condition d’: Outside, but along the two lengths of each pitch, two (2) neutral players can move up and down the pitch, but not enter the grid. Before a shot on goal is permitted, the attacking team must pass the ball to either of these players. The ball can also be passed to either player in the defensive half. Each player is only allowed a maximum of one touch on the ball. ‘Condition e’: One player from each team (‘a pair’) complete four (4) repetitions of “sprint the widths/jog the lengths” on a 90 s interval (3 v 4 and 3 v 3+1 games) or three (3) repetitions on a 80 s interval (5 v 6 and 5 v 5+1 games). Total distance travelled per player, regardless of game format, would be approximately 440 m.

42

2.2.5.5 Goalkeepers

One common rule modification in SSGs is the removal of goalkeepers from the game in an attempt

to increase the number of goals scored. Goalkeepers are an integral part of football though,

surprisingly, few studies have investigated the use of goalkeepers and their possible effect on SSG

training intensity. Table 2.7 provides a summary of the SSGs studies that investigated the effects of

goalkeepers on SSG intensity. Mallo and Navarro (2008) reported a significant decrease in

%HRmax, total distance and time spent in high-intensity running, in 3 v 3 SSGs with goalkeepers. It

was suggested that the reduced physiological and time-motion responses were due to increased

defensive organisation near the goal area, which reduced the tempo of play and subsequently the

physiological and time-motion responses (Mallo & Navarro, 2008). In contrast, Dellal et al., (2008)

reported a 12% increase in HRR in 8 v 8 SSGs with goalkeepers. The presence of goalkeepers may

have increased the player’s motivation to both attack and defend, thereby increasing the

physiological load (Dellal, et al., 2008). At present, the influence of goalkeepers on exercise

intensity in football SSGs is not clear. They may have an important role in keeping team structures

and formations intact, as well as increasing communication, all of which may influence movement,

skill and physiological demands. Future studies are required to determine the influence of goal

keepers on the physiological and technical/tactical demands in SSGs.

43

Table 2.7: Summary of studies examining the effects of goalkeepers on SSG intensity in football players.

Author (Year) Sample size

Game Design

Training Prescription

Pitch Dimensions

(m)

Rules %HRmax [BLa-] (mmol/L)

Time-motion

Sassi et al. (2004) 9 4 v 4 4 x 4 min/2.5 min rest 30 x 30 Possession 91.0 6.4 ± 2.7 - 4 v 4 +GK 33 x 33 88.8 6.2 ± 1.4 - Mallo & Navarro (2008) 10 3 v 3 +GK 1 x 5 min/10 min rest 33 x 20 Normal

rules 88.0 - TD; HIR;

S+W %HRR Dellal et al. (2008) 10 8v 8 4 x 4 min/3 min rest 60 x 45 - 71.7 ± 6.3 - - 8 v 8 + GK 2 x 10 min/5 min rest 60 x 45 - 80.3 ± 12.5 - - increase; decrease; + GK: including goalkeepers; TD: total distance; HIR: high-intensity running; S + W: standing and walking.

44

2.2.5.6 Training Regime (including game duration and work: rest

ratios)

Similar to interval running, many prescriptive variables can be used in SSGs to alter

exercise intensity. The majority of the studies have used a traditional ‘interval’ training

format, whereby several consecutive bouts of SSGs play are interspersed with active or

passive rest periods (Table 2.8). The duration of each SSG bout interval, alternating with

planned rest periods, is used to determine work: rest ratios. Although most studies

examining SSGs have prescribed the SSG bouts using intervals with short rests, some

recent studies have used continuous SSG formats of differing duration (e.g. 10 to 30-min).

45

Table 2.8: Summary of different training regimes implemented in SSGs studies with football players.

Author Sample size

Game Design Training Prescription Work: Rest ratio

Regime

Balsom et al. (1999) 6 3 v 3 6 x 3 min/2 min rest 1.5: 1 Interval 15 x 70 s/20 s rest 3.5: 1 Interval 36 x 30 s/15 s rest 2: 1 Interval 36 x 30 s/30 s rest 1: 1 Interval 1 x 30 min - Continuous Owen, Twist & Ford (2004) 13 1 v 1 5 v 5 1 x 3 min/12 min rest 1: 4 Interval Aroso et al. (2004) 14 2 v 2 3 x 1.5 min/90 s rest 1: 1 3 v 3 3 x 4 min/90 s rest 2.6: 1 4 v 4 3 x 6 min/90 s rest 4:1 Interval Jones & Drust (2007) - 4 v 4 & 8 v 8 1 x 10 min - Continuous Rampinini et al. (2007) 20 3 v 3 5 v 5 3 x 4 min/3 min rest 1.3: 1 Interval Kelly & Drust (2008) 8 5 v 5 4 x 4 min/2 min rest 2: 1 Interval Little & Williams (2007) 28 2 v 2 4 x 2 min/2 min rest 1: 1 Interval 3 v 3 4 x 3.5 min/90 s rest 2.3: 1 Interval 4 v 4 4 x 4 min/2 min rest 2: 1 Interval 5 v 5 4 x 6 min/90 s rest 4: 1 Interval 6 v 6 3 x 8 min/90 s rest 5.3: 1 Interval 8 v 8 4 x 8 min/90 s rest 5.3: 1 Interval Dellal et al. (2008) 10 1 v 1 4 x 1.5 min/90 s rest 1: 1 Interval 2 v 2 6 x 2.5 min/2.5 min rest 1: 1 Interval 4 v 4 + GK 2 x 4 min/3 min rest 1.3: 1 Interval 8 v 8 + GK 2 x 10 min/5 min rest 2: 1 Interval 8v 8 4 x 4 min/3 min rest 1.3: 1 Interval 10 v 10 +GK 3 x 20 min/5 min rest 4: 1 Interval Hill-Haas et al. (2008) 16 2 v 2; 4 v 4; 6 v 6 4 x 6 min/90 s passive rest 4: 1 Interval 2 v 2; 4 v 4; 6 v 6 1 x 24 min - Continuous

+GK: goalkeeper.

46

Unfortunately, previous studies have not used consistent work: rest ratios and there is large

variation in the length, duration and number of work bouts and rest intervals amongst

studies (Table 2.8), which makes comparison difficult. For example, a SSG ‘interval’

training prescription of 1 x 3-min work bout with a 12 min rest represents a very low work:

rest ratio (1: 4) and very short total game duration (3 min). Other studies have used

different work: rest ratios across various SSGs (Table 2.8) (Little & Williams, 2007).

Together, these may confound the physiological and perceptual responses, as well as the

time-motion characteristics of the games. A recent study involving youth football players

examined the acute physiological and perceptual responses and time-motion characteristics,

of two different training regimes (continuous and intermittent). These intermittent (4 x 6

min bouts with 1.5 min passive rest) and continuous (24 min) regimes were applied to

various SSGs including 2 v 2, 4 v 4 and 6 v 6 (Hill-Haas, Rowsell, Coutts, & Dawson,

2008a). The main finding of this study was that intermittent regimes were characterised by

increased distances covered at speeds >13 km·h-1. However, paradoxically, the global RPE

and %HRmax was significantly higher in continuous regimes. The results of this study

demonstrated that both SSG training regimes could be used during a season for match-

specific aerobic conditioning, but were unlikely to provide a sufficient stimulus overload

for fully developing VO2max (Hill-Haas, Rowsell, et al., 2008a). In summary, research

shows that neither training regime appears to offer any major advantage over the other, and

that both regimes could be used for in-season aerobic fitness maintenance training.

2.2.5.7 Coach Encouragement

Direct supervision and coaching of exercise sessions has been shown to improve adherence

to an exercise program, increase training intensity and performance measures in a variety of

training modes (Coutts, Murphy, & Dascombe, 2004; Mazzetti, et al., 2000). In football,

47

active, consistent coach encouragement has also been suggested to have an influence on

training intensity (Balsom, et al., 1999; Rampinini, et al., 2007; Sampaio, et al., 2007). For

example, Rampinini et al., (2007) demonstrated that HR, [BLa-] and RPE were higher when

coaches provided consistent encouragement during SSGs with 20 amateur football players

in a variety of SSG formats (3 v 3, 4 v 4, 5 v 5 and 6 v 6 players and small, medium and

large-sized pitches). Similarly, Sampaio et al., (2007) reported a significant increase in RPE

(for 2 v 2 and 3 v 3 SSGs) with verbal encouragement, but no significant change in

%HRmax. Collectively, these studies support the role of the coach in providing consistent

encouragement during SSGs, especially when it is planned that high intensities be achieved.

2.2.5.8 Logistics and planning

The logistic considerations associated with organising SSG training are also important

considerations for coaches, as these have the potential to influence player motivation and

exercise intensity. For example, the total number of players available (including

goalkeepers) to participate in any session will determine the number of SSG teams that can

be formed as well as the type of games implemented, particularly if the objective is to use

evenly balanced teams (Little, 2009). In practice, coaches often like to create ‘competitive

playing structures’, which typically require all SSG teams in one session, to play against

each other an equal number of times. This type of playing structure is thought to increase

motivation levels by increasing competition and placing an emphasis on results, however

this has not yet been empirically tested. It is possible that overuse of a competitive playing

structure may result in the selection of an inappropriate training regime and therefore a

suboptimal training stimulus. If this occurs frequently, it may compromise longer term

training adaptations. Therefore, it is suggested that coaches should select SSGs judiciously.

48

They should also be aware that not all SSG formats will provide sufficient internal stress to

provide the desired physiological adaptation.

Careful planning and organisation of SSG training sessions is also important if the

appropriate training stimulus is to be achieved. For example, factors such as planning SSGs

according to a prospective training plan designed to meet the physical, technical and

tactical requirements of the team, along with appropriate use of coach encouragement, pitch

area, player number, goalkeepers, rule modification and selection of work and rest periods,

will help achieve optimal exercise intensity. Finally, it is advisable to avoid skill and fitness

mismatches between opposing teams, to avoid compromising training intensity.

2.2.5.9 Comparisons of small-sided game training intensity with

competitive match play

Several studies have examined how the exercise intensity of various SSGs compares with

the exercise intensity of competitive match play (Allen, Butterly, Welsch, & Wood, 1998;

Capranica, Tessitore, Guidetti, & Figura, 2001; Dellal, et al., 2008; Gabbett & Mulvey,

2008). The findings of these studies can also be used to determine if the most intense

periods of matches compare with the intensity of various SSGs. For example, Gabbett and

Mulvey (2008) recruited 13 elite female football players, and compared 3 v 3 and 5 v 5

SSGs with: (a) domestic matches against male youth teams; (b) Australian national

women’s league matches and (c) international women’s matches. The main finding was

that although SSGs simulate the overall movement patterns of domestic, national and

international competition, they do not simulate the high-intensity repeated-sprint demands

of international competition (Gabbett & Mulvey, 2008). In contrast, Allen et al., (1998)

reported that although total distance was similar, the ratio of high-intensity to low/moderate

49

intensity work in 5 v 5 SSGs was higher compared to 11 v 11 games. Similarly, the

intensity of 2 v 2 was found to exceed the intensity of State Premier League U19 matches,

while 4 v 4 were similar to, while 6 v 6 were below match intensity (Figure 2.2). Capranica

et al., (2001) reported that the physiological intensity and movement demands of 7 v 7 and

11 v 11 in pre-pubescent football players was similar, with heart rates exceeding 170 beats

per minute. In summary, it appears that selected SSG formats containing fewer players can

exceed mean match intensity in youth football players. Coaches can use this information for

choosing SSGs that are either more intense than match demands to overload the players, or

lower than 11 v 11 match intensity when either technical/tactical requirements or recovery

and regeneration is the goal of training.

Figure 2.2: Box and whisker plot of exercise intensity (%HRmax) in various SSGs and

matches. Data from Hill-Haas et al., (2008).

2.3 Studies comparing small-sided games training with interval training

Despite the widespread use of SSGs in football, there are surprisingly few studies

comparing their effectiveness in comparison to traditional forms of fitness training. The

50

previous studies that have been completed can be divided into two categories: the first

being those studies that investigated acute physiological responses of SSGs and compared

these with generic (interval) training responses (Balsom, et al., 1999; Dellal, et al., 2008;

Sassi, et al., 2004). The second includes training studies involving the comparison of each

training mode on either physiological performance measures and/or direct match

performance (Hill-Haas, Coutts, Rowsell, & Dawson, 2009; Impellizzeri, et al., 2006;

Reilly & White, 2004).

2.3.1 Acute physiological comparisons of SSGs training with interval training

Several studies have compared the physiological responses between generic interval

training with football-specific SSG training drills. Indeed, many studies have shown that

the exercise intensity achieved during SSGs are similar to generic fitness training drills of

similar duration (Balsom, et al., 1999; Dellal, et al., 2008; Sassi, et al., 2004). For example,

Sassi et al., (2004) compared acute physiological responses of two formats of 4 v 4 and 8 v

8 SSGs with interval running (4 x 1000 m repeats, separated by 150 s of recovery), using

eleven elite professional players from a Spanish first division football club. Although there

was no systematic manipulation of pitch area, game format (player number) or rule

modifications in this study, the SSG formats elicited a greater %HRmax response compared

with the interval running (91% vs. 85% HRmax) (Sassi, et al., 2004). More recently, Dellal

et al., (2008) compared the HR response of short duration (5-30s efforts) high-intensity

interval running with a variety of SSG formats, using 10 elite footballers from a French

first division football club. In contrast to the previous studies, only the 2 v 2 (no

goalkeepers) and 8 v 8 (including goalkeepers) SSG formats generated similar HR

responses compared to the short duration interval running protocols. The 1 v 1 (no

goalkeepers) and 4 v 4 (including goalkeepers) generated the lowest HR responses of both

51

the SSGs and interval running (Dellal, et al., 2008). In general, the results of these studies

demonstrated that many smaller format SSGs played on a relatively large pitch area per

player, can elicit similar intensities to both long duration interval running (Sassi, et al.,

2004) and short duration high-intensity interval protocols (Dellal, et al., 2008). However, it

appears that the variability in exercise stimulus is greater in SSGs compared to generic

interval training (see Figure 2.3). This may be due to the unstructured and stochastic nature

of the movement demands in SSGs.

Figure 2.3: Mean (±90 CI) exercise intensity (%HRmax) in various football training

activities.

2.3.2 Training studies comparing small-sided games training with interval

training

There have been few studies that have examined the efficacy of using SSGs as a

conditioning stimulus compared to traditional forms of fitness training. In the first

controlled training study to compare both SSGs and generic training, Reilly and White

52

(2004) recruited 18 professional youth footballers from an English Premier League club.

Using a parallel matched groups design, players were allocated to a SSGs group or an

aerobic interval training group. Players completed the training twice per week, as part of

their normal training, over a 6 week period, during the competitive season. The SSGs

involved 5 v 5 games, played in intervals of 6 x 4-min, interspersed with 3-min active

recovery at 50-60% HRmax. The interval running duration was matched with the SSGs,

with a target intensity of 85-90% HRmax (active recovery of 3 min at 50-60% HRmax) .

All physiological performance measures, including counter movement jumps, 10-30 m

sprints, 6 x 30 s anaerobic shuttle test, the agility T-test and the Multi-Stage Fitness Test,

demonstrated similar changes during the study (Reilly & White, 2004). Based on these

results, the authors concluded that both SSGs and interval training are equally effective for

maintaining in-season aerobic and anaerobic fitness in elite youth footballers (Reilly &

White, 2004). Unfortunately, the HR responses to each type of training were not reported,

making it difficult to determine if both groups received a similar internal training load

during the study period. A further limitation of this study was that there was little detail of

the periodisation and prescription of the SSGs training. For example, the game format was

restricted to 5 v 5 for all sessions and no detail relating to pitch area, rules, or coach

encouragement was provided.

In a comprehensive training study comparing SSG with generic interval training,

Impellizzeri et al., (2006) used a parallel matched group’s research design where 29 youth

football players from two junior teams of Italian professional football clubs were randomly

allocated to either a SSG or interval training group (ITG). The 12–week training

intervention spanned 4 weeks of preseason and 8 weeks of the competitive season in which

53

the players completed two sessions per week designed to improve aerobic fitness. The

interval training comprised a fixed prescription of 4 x 4-min efforts at a target intensity of

90-95% of HRmax, interspersed by 3-min of active recovery at 60-70% of HRmax. The

SSGs training involved a mix of small-format games, including 3 v 3, 4 v 4 and 5 v 5

players. Both the duration and training intensity were matched between the groups. The

results demonstrated no difference in mean exercise intensity (%HRmax) or weekly training

load (session-RPE) between the groups, with the exception of time spent at >95% HRmax,

where the SSGs group spent ~30 s per session longer in this zone (Impellizzeri, et al.,

2006). Fitness test results revealed similar improvements for the ITG and SSGs groups for

VO2peak (8% and 7%, respectively), lactate threshold (13% and 11%, respectively) and

running economy (3% for both groups) over the 12-weeks of training. Notably, the

improvements in VO2peak for ITG and SSGs for the in-season phase of the study were also

very similar to the earlier study of Reilly and White (2004) (0.8% and 0.7%; 0.3% and

0.2%, respectively).

One earlier study reported remarkable improvements in aerobic fitness measures and match

performance results in elite Norwegian youth players, who completed 6 weeks of in-season

interval training, twice per week (Helgerud, Engen, Wisløff, & Hoff, 2001). The interval

training comprised 4 x 4-min efforts at a target intensity of 90-95% of HRmax, interspersed

by 3 min of active recovery at 60-70% of HRmax. The control group completed

conventional technical/tactical training (free kicks, heading, passing, change of direction

drills) with training duration matched for both groups (Helgerud, et al., 2001). Results

reported for the ITG included an 11% increase in VO2peak, a 16% increase in lactate

threshold running velocity and a 7% improvement in running economy. These changes in

54

aerobic fitness were greater in the ITG compared with the technical/tactical training group,

most likely as a result of the greater training intensity. These remarkable changes in fitness

are greater than two later reports of changes in aerobic fitness using similar training

programs (Impellizzeri, et al., 2006; Reilly & White, 2004).

Two studies have also examined the influence of generic and specific training strategies on

physical performance during matches (Helgerud, et al., 2001; Impellizzeri, et al., 2006).

Unfortunately, different methods were used for match analysis, so accurate comparisons

between the studies are difficult. Impellizzeri et al., (2006) reported non-significant

increases (preseason training phase only) in low-intensity activity (forwards, backwards

and sideways jogging), high-intensity activity (higher speed running and sprinting) and

total distance (TD) travelled for both the ITG and SSGs groups following the 12-week

training period. However, when match performance measures for the in-season phase of

training were analysed, the magnitude of the increases (for both groups) in low and high-

intensity activity are considerably smaller (Impellizzeri, et al., 2006). In contrast, Helgerud

et al., (2001) reported large increases in the number of sprints completed (100%), number

of ball contacts (24%) and total distance travelled (20%) by the ITG, compared with the

control group after 8-weeks of intensified training at the beginning of the regular season.

However, to date, no studies have been able to replicate these changes in match

performance with either interval or SSG training strategies.

The previous training studies comparing SSGs training with interval running have

demonstrated good research design and high internal validity. However, in the field there

are certain aspects of these studies which rarely occur. For example, it is practically

difficult to apply a rigid prescription of interval training that does not have progressive

55

overload when training elite football players. Moreover, in practice, the systematic

manipulation of SSGs for the purpose of physical development is problematic, as the

technical/tactical training goals of the coach do not always relate to physiological

development needs or priorities. For example, football coaches often prioritise

technical/tactical development over fitness development in football. Therefore, to examine

these issues, Hill-Haas et al., (2009) assessed the efficacy of a coach-led SSG program and

a progressive mixed-methods generic fitness training program in 25 elite youth football

players. Using a parallel, matched group research study design, the players were randomly

allocated to either SSG or mixed-generic training groups over a 7-week training period. In

contrast to previous research (Impellizzeri, et al., 2006), this study implemented a mixed-

generic training program (consisting mainly of aerobic power training and prolonged

intermittent high-intensity interval training), and a SSGs training program incorporating a

broad range of game formats (i.e. 2 v 2 to 7 v 7) (Hill-Haas, Coutts, Rowsell, et al., 2009).

Although the manipulation of the SSGs training variables (such as pitch area and rules) was

less systematic than previous studies, a key difference was the planning and

implementation of the SSGs training program by an experienced coach which increased the

external validity of the study. The main finding of this study was that both coach selected

SSGs training and mixed generic training (comprising short duration, high-intensity

intervals of <90 s), were effective at significantly improving Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery

test (level 1) performance, but not V O2max (Hill-Haas, Coutts, Rowsell, et al., 2009).

Notably, there were no between group or training induced changes in any other

performance measures.

56

In general, the results of these training studies show that SSGs provide similar changes in

aerobic fitness and match performance measures, with the majority of changes in

fitness/performance observed during preseason training. The studies also suggest that more

effective use of this training mode is still possible. This may be achieved through

systematic manipulation of the training variables. However, it clear that careful selection of

SSG formats and training regimes is required to optimise fitness and performance gains.

Combined, the evidence suggests that both SSG and interval training drills are suitable for

improving fitness and performance in football players. It is most likely, that a mixed-

methods approach is appropriate for football training; however, the selection of these

should be based on the technical, tactical and performance needs of the players.

2.4 Limitations of small-sided games

Despite offering several advantages, there are a number of suggested limitations to using

SSGs. These include: the ceiling effect in achieving high exercise intensities for highly fit

or skilled players; the ability to replicate the demands of the most intense periods of match

play; the requirement of a high level of technical and tactical proficiency to achieve

appropriate exercise intensity; the risk of contact injuries during training and availability of

enough coaches to control training.

It has been reported that players with the highest VO2peak elicited the lowest percentage of

VO2peak during SSGs (Buchheit, et al., 2009), suggesting that either the technical/tactical

constraints of the game, or the intermittent nature of the exercise, can prevent some players

from reaching appropriate training intensities (Hoff & Helgerud, 2004). Therefore, it was

suggested that players with a high fitness level and a good skill level will not exercise at

sufficient intensity to elicit aerobic fitness adaptations under these training conditions.

57

However, in contrast, we have observed a weak but significant positive correlation between

fitness level and exercise intensity during various SSGs (Figure 2.4). These results suggest

that fitter players exercise at higher intensity during SSGs. Therefore, future research is

required to elucidate the possible relationships between fitness, skill and exercise-intensity

during SSGs.

Figure 2.4: Relationship between player fitness (MSFT distance) and exercise intensity

(%HRmax) during various SSGs, (r=0.26, p=0.04). Data from Hill-Haas et al., (2008).

Additionally, the intermittent nature of SSGs has been suggested to limit the ability of

players to achieve sufficient cardiac load for aerobic fitness adaptations. Indeed, Hoff and

Helgerud (2004) argue that optimal aerobic adaptations are only possible if cardiac output

remains elevated for sustained periods during football training and that exercise intensities

of >90% HRmax are required for improvements in aerobic fitness. Since SSGs are more

intermittent than interval running, it has been suggested that the continual re-setting of the

muscular-venous pump will compromise cardiac output and consequently prevent a

sustained high stroke volume being achieved (Hoff & Helgerud, 2004). It has also been

58

reported that SSGs training may not always simulate the high-intensity, repeated-sprint

demands of high level competition (Gabbett et al., 2009), and it is not known if they can be

used to replicate the most intense periods of the game. However, these potential

physiological limitations to SSG training may be countered by appropriate manipulation of

SSGs training variables.

Moreover, since SSGs involve a combination of technical/tactical ability, decision-making

and physical exertion, it seems that concurrent abilities may be required to achieve

appropriate exercise intensities. Consequently, it is possible that less-skilled players may

not be able to consistently sustain the technical skill or tactical proficiency to achieve and

maintain the required metabolic strain; as such, training may be counterproductive in terms

of playing performance (Castagna, et al., 2004). However, this has not been empirically

tested and future studies should examine if low technical skill ability limits the exercise

intensity of individual players during SSGs.

Due to the competitive nature of SSGs in football, there may be an increased risk of contact

injuries during training (Little, 2009), although rule modifications may help minimise this

potential problem. The incidence of injuries in skill-based conditioning games in rugby

league have been reported to be lower compared to traditional fitness training (Gabbett,

2006). However, to date, there have been no studies that have examined the incidence of

injuries during SSG training in comparison to generic training in football.

Other logistic factors involved in the planning of SSGs (e.g., pitch area available, number

of staff, number of players available etc) can also affect the effectiveness of this training

59

mode. These include the ability to control the intensity of multiple, concurrent SSGs being

played on various pitches at any one time. Therefore, a high level of organisation and

consistent coach encouragement is also needed to maintain player motivation.

In summary, there are many potential limitations to SSG training in football. Coaches

should be aware of these factors which can reduce the effectiveness of this mode of training

for developing both physical attributes and football proficiency. Therefore, for optimal use

of SSGs training to improve aerobic fitness, it is suggested that a systematic approach to

manipulating SSG prescriptive variables is adopted.

2.5 Future research

Future research is required to further develop our understanding of the training stimulus

provided by football-specific SSGs. One important area that should be investigated is the

optimal periodisation strategies of SSGs training for the development of physiological,

technical skill and tactical proficiency. To date, the training studies comparing the

effectiveness of SSGs and interval running suggest that both are equally effective.

Consequently, future studies should examine optimal periodisation strategies for

developing football specific physical qualities. Indeed, it is not known if changing the

game format and training regimes can elicit different changes in physical qualities.

Additionally, although some studies have investigated the technical requirements of SSGs

(Allen, et al., 1998; Athanasios & Eleftherios, 2009; Capranica, et al., 2001; Gabbett &

Mulvey, 2008; Grant, Williams, Dodd, & Johnson, 1999; Grant, Williams, & Johnson,

1999; Jones & Drust, 2007; Kelly & Drust, 2009; Mallo & Navarro, 2008; Owen, et al.,

2004; Platt, Maxwell, Horn, Williams, & Reilly, 2001), research conducted to date has not

60

been very systematic. Future studies should include detailed notational analysis to provide

an improved understanding of the technical skill requirements of various SSGs. This may

assist coaches to better understand the link between the technical load and exercise

intensity of SSGs training.

One of the major advantages of SSGs training is thought to be the development of tactical

awareness and decision making capabilities, and the transfer of these to match performance.

Future research is also needed to understand the nature of the tactical awareness and

decision making development provided by different SSGs formats. Once established,

further research should establish a link between SSGs and transfer of these skills to match

performance.

2.6 Conclusion

Despite the extensive use of SSGs in football, our understanding of their effectiveness as a

training tool for developing physical, technical and tactical skills in football players is not

complete. Nevertheless, recent research has improved our understanding of some of the

variables affecting SSGs intensity. Future studies are required to increase the understanding

of the interaction between the technical, tactical and physical demands of SSGs and how

these can be manipulated to improve the training process for football players. At present

however, it seems that exercise intensity in SSGs can be manipulated by altering factors

such as player number, numerical balance between teams, rules of play, the use of

goalkeepers, pitch area and coach encouragement. It also appears that similar fitness and

performance gains can be made with SSGs as is achieved with traditional interval training

methods.

61

2.7 References

Achten, J., & Jeukendrup, A. (2003). Heart rate monitoring - applications and limitations. Sports Medicine, 33(7), 517 - 538.

Alexiou, H., & Coutts, A. (2008). A comparison of methods used for quantifying internal training load in women soccer players. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 3, 1-12.

Allen, J., Butterly, R., Welsch, M., & Wood, R. (1998). The physical and physiological value of 5-a-side soccer training to 11-a-side match play. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 34, 1 - 11.

Allison, S., & Thorpe, R. (1997). A comparison of the effectiveness of two approaches to teaching games within physical education: a skills approach versus a games for understanding approach. British Journal of Physical Education, 28(3), 9-13.

Aroso, J., Rebelo, A., & Gomes-Pereira, J. (2004). Physiological impact of selected game-related exercises. Journal of Sports Sciences, 22(6), 522.

Athanasios, K., & Eleftherios, K. (2009). Effects of small-sided games on physical conditioning and performance in young soccer players. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 8, 374 - 380.

Balsom, P., Lindholm, T., Nilsson, J., & Ekblom, B. (1999). Precision Football. Kempele, Finland: Polar Electro Oy.

Bangsbo, J. (1994). The physiology of soccer-with special reference to intense intermittent exercise. Acta Physiologica Scandinavia, 619, 1-155.

Barbero Álvarez, J., Coutts, A., Granda, J., Barbero Álvarez, V., & Castagna, C. (2009). The validity and reliability of a Global Positioning Satellite System device to assess speed and repeated sprint ability (RSA) in athletes. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, in press.

Borg, G. (1982). Psychophysical basis of perceived exertion. Medicine and Science in Sports & Exercise, 22, s33.

Buchheit, M., Laursen, P., Kuhnle, J., Ruch, D., Renaud, C., & Ahmaidi, S. (2009). Game-based training in young elite handball players. International Journal of Sports Medicine, DOI 10.1055/s-0028-1105943.

Capranica, L., Tessitore, A., Guidetti, L., & Figura, F. (2001). Heart rate and match analysis in pre-pubescent soccer players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19, 379 - 384.

Carling, C., Bloomfield, J., Nelsen, L., & Reilly, T. (2008). The role of motion analysis in elite soccer Sports Medicine, 38(10), 839-862.

Castagna, C., Belardinelli, R., & Abt, G. (2004). The oxygen uptake and heart rate response to training with a ball in youth soccer players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 22, 532 - 533.

Coutts, A., & Duffield, R. (2008). Validity and reliability of GPS devices for measuring movement demands of team sports. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2008.1009.1015.

Coutts, A., Murphy, A., & Dascombe, B. (2004). Effect of direct supervision of a strength coach on measures of muscular strength and power in young rugby league players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 18(2), 316 - 323.

Coutts, A., Rampinini, E., Marcora, S., Castagna, C., & Impellizzeri, F. (2008). Heart rate and blood lactate correlates of perceived exertion during small-sided soccer games. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport(doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2007.08.005).

62

Dellal, A., Chamari, K., Pintus, A., Girard, O., Cotte, T., & Keller, D. (2008). Heart rate responses during small-sided games and short intermittent running training in elite soccer players: a comparative study. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 00(0), 1-9.

Drust, B., Reilly, T., & Cable, N. (2000). Physiological responses to laboratory-based soccer-specific intermittent and continuous exercise. Journal of Sports Sciences, 18(11), 885-892.

Edgecomb, S., & Norton, K. (2006). Comparison of global positioning and computer-based tracking systems for measuring player movement distance during Australian Football. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 9, 25-32.

Esposito, F., Impellizzeri, F., Margonato, V., Vanni, R., Pizzini, G., & Veicsteinas, A. (2004). Validity of heart rate as an indicator of aerobic demand during soccer activities in amateur soccer players. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 93, 167-172.

FFA (2008). Small-Sided Games Handbook: Football Federation Australia. Foster, C., Florhaug, J., Franklin, J., Gottschall, L., Hrovatin, L., Parker, S., et al. (2001). A

new approach to monitoring exercise training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 15(1), 109 - 115.

Gabbett, T. (2006). Skill-based conditioning games as an alternative to traditional conditioning for rugby league players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20(2), 309-315.

Gabbett, T., Jenkins, D., & Abernethy, B. (2009). Game-based training for improving skill and physical fitness in team sport athletes. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 4(2), 273-283.

Gabbett, T., & Mulvey, M. (2008). Time-motion analysis of small-sided training games and competition in elite women soccer players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22(2), 543-552.

Gamble, P. (2004). A skill-based conditioning games approach to metabolic conditioning for elite rugby football players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 18(3), 491-497.

Grant, A., Williams, M., Dodd, R., & Johnson, S. (1999). Physiological and technical analysis of 11 v 11 and 8 v 8 youth football matches. Insight: FA Coaches Association Journal, 2(3), 3-4.

Grant, A., Williams, M., & Johnson, S. (1999). Technical demands of 7 v 7 and 11 v 11 youth football matches. Insight: FA Coaches Association Journal, 2(4), 1-2.

Gregson, W., & Drust, B. (2000). The physiology of football drills. Insight, 3(4), 1-2. Helgerud, J., Engen, L., Wisløff, U., & Hoff, J. (2001). Aerobic endurance training

improves soccer performance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 33(11), 1925-1931.

Hill-Haas, S., Coutts, A., Dawson, B., & Rowsell, G. (2009). Time-motion characteristics and physiological responses of small-sided games in elite youth players: the influence of player number and rule changes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, In Press.

Hill-Haas, S., Coutts, A., Rowsell, G., & Dawson, B. (2008). Variability of acute physiological responses and performance profiles of youth soccer players in small-sided games. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 11, 487-490.

Hill-Haas, S., Coutts, A., Rowsell, G., & Dawson, B. (2009). Generic versus small-sided game training in soccer. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 30(9), 636 - 642.

63

Hill-Haas, S., Dawson, B., Coutts, A., & Rowsell, G. (2009). Physiological responses and time-motion characteristics of various small-sided soccer games in youth players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(1), 1 - 8.

Hill-Haas, S., Rowsell, G., Coutts, A., & Dawson, B. (2008a). Acute physiological responses and time-motion characteristics of two small-sided training regimes in youth soccer players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22(6), 1-5.

Hill-Haas, S., Rowsell, G., Coutts, A., & Dawson, B. (2008b). The reproducibility of physiological responses and performance profiles of youth soccer players in small-sided games. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 3, 393-396.

Hoff, J., & Helgerud, J. (2004). Endurance and strength training for soccer players. Sports Medicine, 34(3), 165-180.

Hoff, J., Wisløff, U., Engen, L., Kemi, O., & Helgerud, J. (2002). Soccer specific aerobic endurance training. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 36, 218-221.

Impellizzeri, F., Marcora, S., Castagna, C., Reilly, T., Sassi, A., Iaia, M., et al. (2006). Physiological and performance effects of generic versus specific aerobic training in soccer players. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 27(6), 483 - 492.

Impellizzeri, F., Rampinini, E., Coutts, A., Sassi, A., & Marcora, S. (2004). Use of RPE-based training load in soccer. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 36(6), 1042 - 1047.

Jeffreys, I. (2004). The use of small-sided games in the metabolic training of high school soccer players. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 26(5), 77-78.

Jones, S., & Drust, B. (2007). Physiological and technical demands of 4 v 4 and 8 v 8 games in elite youth soccer players. Kinesiology, 39(2), 150-156.

Kelly, D., & Drust, B. (2009). The effect of pitch dimensions on heart rate responses and technical demands of small-sided soccer games in elite players. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 12(4), 475 - 479.

Krustrup, P., Mohr, M., Steensberg, A., Bencke, J., Kjaer, M., & Bangsbo, J. (2006). Muscle and blood metabolites during a soccer game: implications for sprint performance. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 38(6), 1165 -1167.

Little, T. (2009). Optimizing the use of soccer drills for physiological development. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 31(3), 1-8.

Little, T., & Williams, A. (2006). Suitability of soccer training drills for endurance training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20(2), 316-319.

Little, T., & Williams, A. (2007). Measures of exercise intensity during soccer training drills with professional soccer players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21(2), 367-371.

Macleod, H., Morris, J., Nevill, A., & Sunderland, C. (2009). The validity of a non-differential global positioning system for assessing player movement patterns in field hockey. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(2), 121 - 128.

Mallo, J., & Navarro, E. (2008). Physical load imposed on soccer players during small-sided training games. Journal of Sport Medicine and Physical Fitness, 48(2), 166 - 172.

Mazzetti, S., Kraemer, W., Volek, J., Duncan, N., Ratamess, R., Gómez, A., et al. (2000). The influence of direct supervision on strength performance. Medicine and Science in Sports & Exercise, 32, 1175 - 1184.

Owen, A. (2003). Physiological and technical analysis of small-sided conditioned training games within professional football. North East Wales, Wrexham.

64

Owen, A., Twist, C., & Ford, P. (2004). Small-sided games: The physiological and technical effect of altering pitch size and player numbers. Insight: FA Coaches Association Journal, 7(2), 50-53.

Petersen, C., Pyne, D., Portus, M., & Dawson, B. (2009). Validity and reliability of GPS units to monitor cricket-specific movement patterns. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 4, 381 - 393.

Platt, D., Maxwell, A., Horn, R., Williams, M., & Reilly, T. (2001). Physiological and Technical Analysis of 3 v 3 and 5 v 5 Youth Football Matches. Insight: FA Coaches Association Journal, 4(4), 23-25.

Rampinini, E., Impellizzeri, F., Castagna, C., Abt, G., Chamari, K., Sassi, A., et al. (2007). Factors influencing physiological responses to small-sided soccer games. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25(6), 659-666.

Reilly, T., & White, C. (2004). Small-sided games as an alternative to interval-training for soccer players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 22, 559.

Sampaio, J., Garcia, G., Macas, V., Ibanez, J., Abrantes, C., & Caixinha, P. (2007). Heart rate and perceptual responses to 2 x 2 and 3 x 3 small-sided youth soccer games. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 6 (Suppl. 10)(1), 121 - 122.

Sassi, R., Reilly, T., & Impellizzeri, F. (2004). A comparison of small-sided games and interval training in elite professional soccer players [abstract]. Journal of Sports Science, 22, 562.

Townsend, A., Worringham, C., & Stewart, I. (2008). Assessment of speed and position during human locomotion using nondifferential GPS. Medicine and Science in Sports & Exercise, 40, 124 - 132.

Williams, K., & Owen, A. (2007). The impact of player numbers on the physiological responses to small sided games. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 6 (Suppl. 10)(1), 100.

65

_____________________________________________________

CHAPTER THREE

____________________________________________________________

The reproducibility of physiological responses and performance profiles of

youth soccer players in small-sided games

As per the peer-reviewed paper Accepted and Published in the International Journal of

Sports Physiology and Performance:

Hill-Haas, S., Rowsell, G., Coutts, A., & Dawson, B. (2008). The reproducibility of

physiological responses and performance profiles of youth soccer players in small-sided

games. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 3, 393-396.

66

3.0 Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the reproducibility of two small-sided soccer game

(SSG) formats (2 v 2 and 4 v 4 players) and two regimes (intermittent and continuous).

The small-sided games (SSGs) were played over a 9-week in-season period in random

order. Both formats and regimes were duplicated several weeks later, with players

selected on the same teams against the same opponents. The dependent variables included

mean heart rate as a percentage of maximum heart rate (%HRmax), global ratings of

perceived exertion (RPE), blood lactate and various time-motion characteristics for

sixteen amateur male players (mean ± SD age: 16.3 ± 0.6). Reproducibility was

determined using the typical error of measurement (TE), which was also expressed as a

percentage of the mean (TE%). The TE% scores for %HRmax and total distance

demonstrated good reproducibility (<6%). In contrast, TE% scores for blood lactate and

distance travelled at >18 km/h displayed poor reproducibility (2% - 44% and 16% -53%

respectively). These results suggest that 2 v 2 and 4 v 4 SSGs can provide a consistent

training stimulus when the same format and regime is played within a single session or

repeated at a subsequent training session.

Key Words

football training, RPE, heart rate, aerobic training.

67

3.1 Introduction

Small-sided games (SSGs) are frequently used as an alternative to interval training to

provide an aerobic training stimulus. (Impellizzeri, et al., 2006) Although the variability

of the physical, perceptual and physiological responses during SSGs training has been

previously established (Hill-Haas, Coutts, Rowsell, & Dawson, 2007; Rampinini, et al.,

2006), an understanding of the reproducibility of the acute physiological responses and

movement demands of these games, when completed within the same session and

between different training sessions, is also important. This information may allow

coaches to better control the small-sided game (SSG) training process with soccer

players. Consequently, the aim of this study was to determine the within and between

training session reproducibility of two SSG formats (2 v 2 and 4 v 4 players) and two

regimes (intermittent and continuous).

3.2 Methods

Sixteen amateur male soccer players from the same club (mean ± SD age: 16.3 ± 0.6

years) playing in the top-level domestic U19 age-group competition, participated in the

study. All players were notified of the research procedures, requirements, benefits and

risks before giving informed consent.

The SSGs were played over a 9-week in-season period in random order at the same time

of day. To match the SSG opposing teams, players were divided into matched pairs

according to skill ability and shuttle test performance, before being allocated to SSG

teams. All SSGs (with consistent coach encouragement) were played at the start of each

training session, with two sessions per week and at least 48 hours separating each

session. The pre-season training period (12 weeks) was used to familiarize the players

68

with all SSG formats and regimes. The duration of the continuous regime (SSGC) was

24 minutes, while the intermittent regime (SSGI) involved 4 x 6 minute interval bouts

with 1.5 minute passive rest between bouts. The pitch sizes (length x width) used for 2 v

2 and 4 v 4 games were 28 m x 21 m and 40 m x 30 m respectively.

Reproducibility of each SSG was determined through comparison of different players’

physiological and perceptual responses to the same SSG format and regime (either

across three concurrent 2 v 2I or 2 v 2C games, or two concurrent 4 v 4I or 4 v 4C games)

completed within the same training session. Between-session reproducibility was

determined when the same SSGs were played several weeks apart.

Heart rate (HR) was measured (5-s recording intervals) via short-range radiotelemetry

(Polar Team Sport System, Polar Electro, Finland) and expressed as a percentage of

maximum heart rate (%HRmax). Maximum HR was determined from a maximal 20 m

shuttle test to fatigue. Global ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were recorded

immediately after the SSG’s using the Borg scale (6-20 scale). Capillary blood samples

were drawn from an earlobe at rest and within 1.5 minutes of the cessation of each SSG.

Time-motion characteristics were measured using portable global positioning system

(GPS) units (SPI 10, GPSports, Canberra, Australia).Total distance, distance travelled at

0–6.9 km/h and distance travelled at > 18 km/h were the time motion variables assessed.

The reproducibility of each dependent measure was calculated using the typical error of

measurement (TE) (Hopkins, 2000). The TE was also expressed as a percentage of the

mean (TE%). Effect size (ES) was calculated using Cohen’s d statistic. Values of 0.2,

0.5 and >0.8 were considered small, medium and large, respectively.

69

Table 3.1a Within-Session Reliability of 4 Versus 4 Small-Sided Soccer Games Training.

Table 3.1b Between-Session Reliability of 4 Versus 4 Small-Sided Soccer Games Training.

Training Session 1 Training Session 2 4 Versus 4 Continuous Team 1 versus Team 2 Team 3 versus Team 4 Variable TE TE% Mean

difference (ES)

TE TE% Mean difference

(ES) Total Distance (m) 58 2 (0.5) 102 4 (0.2) Distance (0-6.9 km/h) (m) 64 6 (0.7) 48 4 (1.0) Distance (>18 km/h) (m) 20 51 (0.4) 16 26 (0.5) %HRmax 2 2 (0.4) 3 4 (0.3) RPE (AU) 1 10 (0.6) 1 10 (0.5) Blood [La-](mmol·L-1) 1 16 (0.6) 1 35 (0.3) 4 Versus 4 Intermittent Total Distance (m) 116 4 (0.1) 98 4 (0.7) Distance (0-6.9 km/h) (m) 59 5 (0.1) 39 3 (0.1) Distance (>18 km/h) (m) 20 35 (0.1) 27 28 (0.3) %HRmax 3 3 (0.5) 2 2 (0.3) RPE (AU) 1 12 (0.3) 1 9 (0.8) Blood [La-](mmol·L-1) 1 21 (0.8) 1 24 (0.1)

Training Session 1 Training Session 2 4 Versus 4 Continuous Team 1 versus Team 2 Team 3 versus Team 4 Variable TE TE% Mean

difference (ES)

TE TE% Mean difference

(ES) Total Distance (m) 123 5 (1.7) 78 3 (1.4) Distance (0-6.9 km/h) (m) 42 4 (0.4) 69 7 (1.1) Distance (>18 km/h) (m) 22 34 (0.5) 17 43 (1.6) %HRmax 4 4 (1.8) 3 3 (0.4) RPE (AU) 1 10 (1.7) 1 8 (0.1) Blood [La-](mmol·L-1) 1 30 (3.8) 1 20 (1.2) 4 Versus 4 Intermittent Total Distance (m) 89 3 (0.5) 102 4 (0.8) Distance (0-6.9 km/h) (m) 40 3 (0.7) 60 5 (0.3) Distance (>18 km/h) (m) 25 38 (1.1) 23 35 (1.3) %HRmax 2 3 (0.1) 2 2 (0.4) RPE (AU) 1 10 (0.2) 1 9 (1.1) Blood [La-](mmol·L-1) 1 19 (3.4) 0 2 (0.1)

70

3.3 Results

Tables 3.1a and 3.1b summarise the within and between SSG reproducibility for the 4 v

4 games respectively. The TE% scores for total distance, distance travelled at 0 – 6.9

km/h, percentage HR max and RPE ranged between 2% and 10% both within and

between sessions, for both 4 v 4C and 4 v 4I (Tables 3.1a and 3.1b). The TE% scores for

distance travelled at >18 km/h and blood lactate, ranged between 2% and 51% (Tables

3.1a and 3.1b). The within-session TE% scores for total distance, distance travelled at 0

– 6.9 km/h, %HR max and RPE ranged between 2% and 6% and 3% and 15% for 2 v 2I

and 2 v 2C respectively (data not shown). The within - session TE% scores for distance

travelled at >18 km/h and blood lactate ranged between 10% and 52% for both 2 v 2C

and 2 v 2I (data not shown). The between-session TE% scores for total distance,

distance travelled at 0 – 6.9 km/h, %HR max and RPE ranged between 0% and 7% and

2% and 9% for 2 v 2I and 2 v 2C respectively (data not shown). The between - session

TE% scores for distance travelled at >18 km/h and blood lactate ranged between 16%

and 53% for both 2 v 2C and 2 v 2I (data not shown).The within-session ES’s were

generally small to medium for both 4 v 4C and 4 v 4I (Table 3.1a). In contrast, the

between-session ES’s were medium to large for both 4 v 4C and 4 v 4I (Table 3.1b).

3.4 Discussion

The 4 v 4 SSG formats and regimes (SSGI and SSGC) used in this study displayed

similar physical, physiological and perceptual responses when played concurrently

within the same training session or in a duplicate training session completed several

weeks later. Similarly, the 2 v 2 formats and regimes also displayed moderate

reproducibility, both within and between training sessions. The reproducibility of

distance travelled at > 18 km/h and blood lactate was poor. The former may be due to

71

low sampling rate (1 Hz) of the GPS device and the brief duration of the high-intensity

efforts during the SSGs. The latter may be due to differences in exercise intensity prior

to blood sampling. The range of TE% scores for 2 v 2I tended to be narrower compared

with the 4 v 4 games. These findings agree with previous research, which demonstrated

better reproducibility for smaller format games, and overall moderate reliability of

physiological and perceptual responses to various SSGs (Rampinini, et al., 2006). These

results also show that SSGs can be played in either continuous (SSGC) or interval-based

bouts (SSGI) to apply a consistent aerobic training stimulus. Soccer coaches can

therefore be confident in using small-format soccer-specific SSGs to apply a consistent

training stimulus to players, if the SSG design is kept consistent.

72

3.5 References

Hill-Haas, S., Coutts, A., Rowsell, G., & Dawson, B. (2007). Variability of acute physiological responses and performance profiles of youth soccer players in small-sided games. Journal of Science & Medicine in Sport.

Hopkins, W. (2000). Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports Medicine, 30(1), 1-15.

Impellizzeri, F., Marcora, S., Castagna, C., Reilly, T., Sassi, A., Iaia, M., et al. (2006). Physiological and performance effects of generic versus specific aerobic training in soccer players. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 27(6), 483 - 492.

Rampinini, E., Impellizzeri, F., Castagna, C., Abt, G., Chamari, K., Sassi, A., et al. (2006). Factors influencing physiological responses to small-sided soccer games. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25(6), 659-666.

73

____________________________________________________

 

CHAPTER FOUR 

____________________________________________________________

Variability of acute physiological responses and performance profiles of 

youth soccer players in small‐sided games 

As per the peer-reviewed paper Accepted and Published in the Journal of Science and

Medicine in Sport:

Hill-Haas, S., Coutts, A., Rowsell, G., & Dawson, B. (2008). Variability of acute

physiological responses and performance profiles of youth soccer players in small-sided

games. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 11, 487-490.

74

4.0  Abstract 

Purpose The aim of this study was to examine the variability in physiological and

perceptual responses and time-motion profiles of various small-sided soccer game (SSG)

formats (2 v 2, 4 v 4 and 6 v 6 players) and regimes (interval and continuous). Methods

Typical error (TE) was calculated for mean heart rate as a percentage of maximum heart

rate (%HRmax), global ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), blood lactate [La-] and various

time-motion characteristics for sixteen male soccer players (mean 16.2 years, range 15.6-

17.9). Results The TE for HR responses were < 5% for all SSG’s. RPE also demonstrated

small variability across all SSG’s, with TE ranging between 1-2 units. In contrast, the

TE% for [La-] was higher, ranging from 16% (2 v 2-interval) to 34% (4 v 4-interval). The

TE% for total distance (TD) and distance covered at 0–6.9 km/h was < 5% for all SSG’s,

with 2 v 2 interval and continuous games recording the lowest TE (2.2% and 2.9%,

respectively). Conclusions An increase in game format size does not appear to influence

the variability of the acute physiological responses to SSG’s, although continuous formats

display less variability than interval formats. The TD, distance covered and percentage of

total time moving at 0 – 6.9 km/h demonstrated small variability across all formats and

regimes. However, higher movement speeds zones (>18 km/h) reflected increased

variability, irrespective of game format or regime. Collectively, these results suggest that

SSG training can provide a reliable aerobic training stimulus.

Key Words   

reliability, reproducibility, heart rate, lactate, training load

 

75

4.1  Introduction  

The use of small-sided games (SSG’s) for technical and tactical development of soccer

players is well established (Little & Williams, 2006; Rampinini, Coutts, Castagna,

Sassi, & Impellizzeri, 2007). However, SSG’s are increasingly being used as an

alternative to interval training as an aerobic training stimulus. Although some studies

support this approach (Impellizzeri, et al., 2006; Rampinini, Coutts, et al., 2007;

Rampinini, Impellizzeri, et al., 2007), a better understanding of the reliability of the

acute physiological and perceptual responses (heart rate, blood lactate and ratings of

perceived exertion) and performance profiles (quantified using global positioning

system units) during SSG’s is needed. Consequently, the aim of this study was to

examine the reliability of various small-sided game (SSG) formats (2 v 2, 4 v 4 and 6 v

6 players) and regimes (interval, SSGI and continuous, SSGC).

4.2  Methods 

Sixteen male soccer players (mean 16.2 years, range 15.6-17.9) participated in the

study. All participants were notified of the research procedures, requirements, benefits

and risks before giving informed consent.

The games were played (in duplicate) over a 9-week in-season period in random order,

with participants selected on the same teams against the same opponents as often as

possible. All SSG’s were played at the start of each training session (with consistent

coach encouragement), held twice weekly, with at least 48 hours separating each

training session. The participants were well familiarised with all SSG formats and

regimes. The duration of SSGC was 24-min. The SSGI regime involved 4 x 6-min bouts

with 1.5 min passive rest. The pitch sizes (length x width) used for 2 v 2, 4 v 4 and 6 v 6

games were 28 m x 21 m, 40 m x 30 m and 49 m x 37 m, respectively.

76

Heart rate (HR) was measured (5-s recording intervals) via short-range radiotelemetry

(Polar Team Sport System, Polar Electro Oy, Kempele, Finland). Maximum heart rate

was determined from a 20 m shuttle test. Global ratings of perceived exertion (RPE)

were recorded immediately after the SSG’s using the Borg scale (6-20 scale) (Borg,

1998). Capillary blood samples were drawn from an earlobe at rest and immediately

following each SSG. Blood lactate [La-] was determined using a blood-gas analyser

(ABL 625 Radiometer, Copenhagen). Time-motion characteristics were measured using

portable global positioning system (GPS) units (SPI 10, GPSports, Canberra, Australia).

The distance and time spent in six speed zones were selected for analysis: zone 1 (0 –

6.9 km/h); zone 2 (7 – 9.9 km/h); zone 3 (10 – 12.9 km/h); zone 4 (13 – 15.9 km/h);

zone 5 (16 – 17.9 km/h) and zone 6 (>18 km/h). The GPS sampling rate was 1 Hz.

The within group reliability of each dependent measure was calculated using the typical

standard error of measurements (TE) (Hopkins, 2000). The TE was also expressed as a

percentage of the mean (TE%). Scores were calculated for mean heart rate as a

percentage of maximum heart rate (%HRmax), RPE, ([La-]) and various time-motion

characteristics.

4.3  Results 

The TE% scores (Table 4.1a) for %HRmax and HRpeak demonstrated good reliability

(<5%) across all formats and regimes. Similarly, RPE also demonstrated good

reliability, with absolute TE scores ranging between 1 – 2 units. However, [La-] was

more variable across all formats and regimes.

77

The time-motion characteristics of total distance (TD), distance covered and percentage

of time moving at 0 – 6.9 km/h displayed small variability (TE% < 11%) across all

formats and regimes, although absolute TE scores increased as game format size

increased (Table 4.1b). Variability of TE% increased in the higher running speed

categories, irrespective of format or regime.

Additionally, absolute TE scores for the physiological responses to SSGI were higher

than SSGC with some exceptions (Table 4.1a). In contrast, sprint duration and distance

appear more variable in SSGC compared with SSGI (Table 4.1b).

 

4.4  Discussion 

In contrast to previous research (Little & Williams, 2007), the results demonstrated that

with the exception of [La-], alterations in format do not appear to affect the reliability of

acute physiological or perceptual responses. Greater variability of [La-] may be

attributed to measurement variability and the stochastic nature of SSG’s (Rampinini,

Impellizzeri, et al., 2007), which may limit its usefulness as an indicator of internal

training load (Impellizzeri, Rampinini, & Marcora, 2005). However, the consistent HR

response (Little & Williams, 2006) and magnitude of TE scores (lowest for heart rate,

followed by RPE and [La-]) agree with previous research (Little & Williams, 2006;

Rampinini, Impellizzeri, et al., 2007).

78

Table 4.1 a Reliability of physiological and perceptual variables.

TE: typical error; TE%: typical error as % of mean; C: Continuous; I: Intermittent; AU: absolute units. Table 4.1 b Reliability of time-motion variables.

TE: typical error; TE%: typical error as % of mean; C: Continuous; I: Intermittent.

Format 2 v 2C 2 v 2I 4 v 4C 4 v 4I 6 v 6C 6 v 6I Variable

%HRmax TE (%) 1.7 2.9 3.8 2.1 2.2 2.8 TE % 1.9 3.3 4.4 2.5 2.6 3.4

HRpeak TE 2.2 6.0 4.3 4.1 5.4 6.9 (bpm) TE % 1.1 3.0 2.3 2.1 2.8 3.6

RPE TE 1.7 0.8 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.8 (AU) TE % 12.6 5.9 9.6 12.2 15.3 7.4

Blood [La-] TE 2.0 0.8 1.4 1.8 0.6 1.4 (mmol·L-1) TE % 25.8 16.5 28.3 34.4 16.6 32.2

Format 2 v 2C 2 v 2I 4 v 4C 4 v 4I 6 v 6C 6 v 6I

Variable

Total Distance TE (m) 97.9 57.7 108 124.5 134 167.9 TE % 3.8 2.2 4.1 4.6 5.2 6.4 Distance TE (m) 33.8 39.8 50.1 38.5 45.3 40.2 (0 - 6.9 km/h) TE % 2.9 3.4 4.5 3.4 3.9 3.5 Distance TE (m) 39.1 38.3 64.5 42.1 53.9 63 (13 - 15.9 km/h) TE % 14.2 14.4 23.5 14.4 21.3 21.0 Distance TE (m) 23.4 12.5 16.3 25.5 38.4 25.9 (>18.0 km/h) TE % 51.1 25.7 31.2 32.5 56.0 31.3 % Time TE (%) 2.5 3.8 6.4 5.6 6.4 6.7 (0 - 6.9 km/h) TE % 4.0 6.1 11.0 9.0 10.1 10.7 % Time TE (%) 0.1 3.5 1.2 1.5 1.0 2.8 (13 - 15.9 km/h) TE % 16.3 54.2 20.9 22.5 19.2 44.7 % Time TE (%) 0.4 1.4 0.2 0.4 0.5 1.4 (>18.0 km/h) TE % 51.7 141.7 29.1 41.0 54.1 105.9 Sprint Duration TE (s) 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.2 (Mean) TE % 16.4 8.5 14.4 22.1 26.1 13.0 Sprint Distance TE (m) 1.38 1.27 1.44 1.95 3.04 1.26 (Mean) TE % 21.2 20.4 16.8 23.3 30.5 14.5

79

The results of this study also showed that physiological, perceptual and time-motion

measures from interval SSG’s are generally more variable than continuous formats. A

possible explanation may be that SSGI superimpose an additional intermittent element

in the form of planned rest between each bout. The rest period between each interval

may result in a more lagged HR response in subsequent bouts and therefore facilitate

greater [La-] clearance during planned rest. Moreover, the between-bout rest may

promote physiological recovery between bouts and therefore allow some players to

work at higher intensity during subsequent bouts. Combined, these factors may reduce

the reliability of the HR and [La-] responses to SSGI regimes compared to the SSGC

regimes.

The results of this study demonstrated that various small-sided soccer formats played in

either a continuous or interval regime, provide reliable internal responses and external

loads and therefore represent a viable alternative to traditional interval training for

developing and maintaining aerobic fitness. Additionally, due to the low variation in

most of the internal training load measures (i.e. RPE and HR) and greater variation in

the external training load measures (i.e. GPS measures), we recommend that coaching

staff place a higher priority on player’s HR and RPE responses when monitoring soccer

training.

80

4.5  References 

Borg, G. (1998). Borg's Perceived Exertion and Pain Scales. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics.

Hopkins, W. (2000). Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports Medicine, 30(1), 1-15.

Impellizzeri, F., Marcora, S., Castagna, C., Reilly, T., Sassi, A., Iaia, M., et al. (2006). Physiological and performance effects of generic versus specific aerobic training in soccer players. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 27(6), 483 - 492.

Impellizzeri, F., Rampinini, E., & Marcora, S. (2005). Physiological assessment of aerobic training in soccer. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23(6), 583-592.

Little, T., & Williams, A. (2006). Suitability of soccer training drills for endurance training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20(2), 316-319.

Little, T., & Williams, A. (2007). Measures of exercise intensity during soccer training drills with professional soccer players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21(2), 367-371.

Rampinini, E., Coutts, A., Castagna, C., Sassi, R., & Impellizzeri, F. (2007). Variation in top level soccer match performance. International Journal of Sport Medicine, 28, 1 - 7.

Rampinini, E., Impellizzeri, F., Castagna, C., Abt, G., Chamari, K., Sassi, A., et al. (2007). Factors influencing physiological responses to small-sided soccer games. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25(6), 659-666.

81

____________________________________________________

 

CHAPTER FIVE 

____________________________________________________________

Physiological responses and time‐motion characteristics of various small‐

sided soccer games in youth players 

As per the peer-reviewed paper Accepted and Published in the Journal of Sports

Sciences:

Hill-Haas, S., Dawson, B., Coutts, A., & Rowsell, G. (2009). Physiological responses

and time-motion characteristics of various small-sided soccer games in youth players.

Journal of Sports Sciences, 27 (1), 1 - 8.

82

5.0  Abstract 

The aim of this study was to examine acute physiological responses and time-motion

characteristics associated with three different small-sided soccer game formats in youth

players. Sixteen male soccer players (mean ± SD age: 16.3 ± 0.6 years) completed three

variations of a small-sided game (i.e. 2 v 2, 4 v 4 and 6 v 6 players) in which heart rate

(HR), rating of perceived exertion (RPE), blood lactate (La-) and time-motion

characteristics were recorded. The pitch size was altered to keep the relative pitch area

per player consistent for each game format. The 2 v 2 games exhibited greater [La-], HR

and RPE responses compared with 4 v 4 and 6 v 6 games (p < 0.05). The players

travelled less (p < 0.05) distance at speeds 0-7 km/h in 4 v 4 compared to the 2 v 2

games (1128 ± 10 m and 1176 ± 8 m, respectively). Average maximal sprint distances

above 18 km/h were lower (p < 0.05) in 2 v 2 compared to the 4 v 4 and 6 v 6 games

(11.5 ± 3.9 m, 15.3 ± 5.5 m and 19.4 ± 5.9 m, respectively), and 4 v 4 compared to 6 v 6

games. The results show that as small-sided game formats decrease in size and relative

pitch area remains constant, overall physiological and perceptual workload increases.

Key Words   

aerobic training; lactate; time-motion; sprints

83

5.1  Introduction 

Small-sided games (SSG’s) are commonly used by soccer coaches to develop the

technical abilities of soccer players and are increasingly being used for aerobic fitness

development (Hill-Haas, Coutts, Rowsell, & Dawson, 2008; Rampinini, et al., 2006).

Given the limited time available for fitness training in team-sports like soccer, the

effectiveness of small-sided games as a conditioning stimulus needs to be optimised. To

make effective use of small-sided games as a conditioning stimulus, a better

understanding of the associated physiological, perceptual and time-motion responses

needs to be developed. Consequently, more detail relating to the physical demands of

small-sided games and the physical responses elicited are of considerable interest given

the limited opportunities for young players to train.

Previous studies have shown that the physiological responses (e.g. heart rate (HR),

blood lactate (La-) and rating of perceived exertion (RPE)) and technical/skill

requirements during small-sided games (in soccer) can be modified by altering factors

such as the pitch size, player number, game rules or coach encouragement (Grant,

Williams, Dodd, & Johnson, 1999; Grant, Williams, & Johnson, 1999; Little &

Williams, 2006; Little & Williams, 2007; Owen, Twist, & Ford, 2004; Platt, Maxwell,

Horn, Williams, & Reilly, 2001; Williams & Owen, 2007). For example, increasing the

pitch size has been reported to increase HR, blood La- and RPE (Aroso, Rebelo, &

Gomes-Pereira, 2004; Balsom, Lindholm, Nilsson, & Ekblom, 1999; Rampinini, et al.,

2006). In addition, it has also been shown that increasing the player numbers on the

same sized pitch reduces the mean HR response (Owen, et al., 2004; Williams & Owen,

2007).

Although many of these studies described the influence of altering these factors on

acute physiological and perceptual responses, none have described the influence of the

84

various small-sided game formats on time-motion characteristics of the players. The

recent development of the portable global positioning system (GPS) micro-technology

now provides a practical method for recording time-motion characteristics during all

forms of soccer training, including technical/tactical training drills and small-sided

games play. Therefore, it is now possible to examine the influence of modifying the

pitch size, player number, game rules or coach encouragement on both time-motion

characteristics and various physiological and perceptual responses (i.e. HR, [BLa-],

RPE) during soccer small-sided game training.

To our knowledge, there have been no studies that have examined the influence of

increasing player number on both physiological and perceptual responses and time-

motion profiles of soccer small-sided games. Therefore, the aim of this study was to

examine acute physiological responses and time-motion characteristics associated with

three soccer-specific small-sided game formats (2 v 2, 4 v 4 and 6 v 6 players) when the

pitch area per player was kept constant.

5.2  Methods 

5.2.1  Participants 

Sixteen male soccer players (mean SD: age = 16.3 0.6 years, height = 173.7 8.2

cm, body mass = 65.0 9.8 kg, estimated V.O2max = 54.8 2.9 mLkg-1min-1)

participated in the study. All players were members of the same youth (i.e. under 19

years) squad competing in the top-level domestic age-group (under 19 years)

competition, with a minimum of 8 years playing experience. All players and parents

were notified of the research procedures, requirements, benefits and risks before giving

informed consent (Appendix A). A university Research Ethics Committee granted

approval for the study.

85

5.2.2  Research Design 

Figure 5.1 provides a brief overview of the study design. The 12-week pre-season

training period served as a familiarisation for all the small-sided game formats and the

Multistage Fitness Test (MSFT). Following completion of pre-season training, the

coach provided an overall subjective skill rating of each player using a 5-point (1

‘below average’ – 5 ‘outstanding’) Likert scale. Players were rated on their passing

ability, close ball control, shooting and game sense while they were engaged in various

SSG’s during pre-season training. At the conclusion of pre-season training, a skill

ranking of each player in the squad was generated by the points total achieved for each

of the four skill components. Each player’s skill ranking was multiplied by 0.75, since a

75% weighting was assigned to skill. At the conclusion of pre-season training, players

also completed the MSFT to assess each player’s aerobic performance and estimate

their maximal oxygen uptake (V.O2max) (Leger & Lambert, 1982). Based on the

distance covered in the MSFT, each player was assigned an aerobic fitness ranking.

This ranking was multiplied by 0.25 to provide a weighted aerobic fitness ranking. Both

the ‘weighted’ skill (75%) and fitness rankings (25%) were added together to generate a

final composite score and overall ranking. This was used to allocate players into

balanced small-sided game teams.

86

Figure 5.1 Small-sided game research design.

 5.2.3  Small‐Sided Games 

The games were played over the first 9-weeks of the competitive season period, with

players selected on the same teams against the same opponents. When the ball was

kicked out of play, immediate access to a replacement soccer ball was made possible by

having a supply of balls placed in the goals and along the boundary line surrounding the

entire pitch. The games were played at the beginning of each training session, following

a standardised 15 minute warm-up. The 2 v 2 and 4 v 4 small-sided games were played

in random order over the 9-week duration of the study. However, the 6 v 6 small-sided

SSG familiarisation (2v2, 4v4, 6v6). MSFT familiarisation. Player skill rating (by the coach).

MSFT completed. Player assigned MSFT ranking (TD travelled). Player assigned a skill ranking. Composite ranking used to allocate players into teams.

SSG formats (2 v 2, 4 v 4 & 6 v 6) played in

duplicate. 2 x per week, 48 hours between each session. Random order (2v2 and 4v4 only, not 6v6). Same teams used throughout.

Post Preseason

In-season (9 weeks)

87

games were usually played 36 hours prior to a competitive match, on request of the

coach.

5.2.4  Small‐Sided Game Variables 

In this study the pitch size and player number were manipulated in an attempt to alter

the intensity of the small-sided games and were similar to those used in previous studies

(Owen, et al., 2004; Rampinini, Coutts, Castagna, Sassi, & Impellizzeri, 2007; Williams

& Owen, 2007). The pitch sizes (length x width) used in this study for the 2 v 2, 4 v 4

and 6 v 6 games were 28 x 21 m, 40 x 30 m and 49 x 37 m, respectively. Table 5.1

shows a summary of the variables used in the study.

Table 5.1 Small-Sided Game Variables.

 

5.2.5  Small‐Sided Game Matching 

In order to avoid skill and fitness mismatches in opposing small-sided game teams, each

side was balanced on the basis of the individual player’s composite skill and fitness

Small-sided game format

2 v 2 4 v 4 6 v 6 Variables

“Continuous” (game duration): 24 min 24 min 24 min

Grid total area (m2): 588 1200 1813 Grid ratio Length: Width 1.33: 1 1.33: 1 1.32: 1 Ratio per player (grid total area: m2): 1:150 1:150 1: 150 Grid size (length x width): 28 m x 21m 40 m x 30 m 49 m x 37 m Goalkeepers: No Rules: Unlimited touches on the ball, no offside Scoring: Goal counts only if all players in attacking

half of grid when a goal is scored. Mini-goals were used.

Coach encouragement: Yes

88

ranking. For example, the composite skill and fitness ranking of the top four players

(player A = rank 1, player B = rank 2, player C = rank 3 and player D = rank 4) used for

a 2 v 2 would have been players A and D versus players B and C. This combination was

used to ensure an equal total composite ranking for each team. Players with an equal

composite ranking were allocated into opposing teams.

5.2.6  Rating of Perceived Exertion 

Global RPE were recorded immediately after each SSG using the 6-20 scale (Borg,

1970). Standardized instructions for RPE were given (Borg, 1998), but subjects were

asked to refer their RPE to the exercise bout just completed rather than their perceived

exertion at the time of rating. Exercise anchoring for the RPE scale was completed

during familiarisation with (pre-season training) the various SSG formats.

5.2.7  Blood Sampling 

Capillary blood samples (50 L) were drawn from an earlobe at rest and within 5 min

following each small-sided game, and stored on ice in glass capillary tubes (D957G-70-

35, Clinitubes, Radiometer Copenhagen). Blood samples were taken from each player

in every game, and they were drawn from the same players in the same order following

each game. Blood lactate [La-] was determined from these samples within 2 hours of

sampling using a blood-gas analyser (ABL 625, Radiometer Copenhagen). This

protocol ensured a similar time delay between finishing the small-sided game and

drawing the blood sample. The analyser was regularly calibrated using precision

standards and routinely assessed by external quality controls. Our own pilot testing

demonstrated that the storage method and 2 hr delay in analysing the blood [La-] did not

alter measurement accuracy.

 

5.2.8  Heart Rate Monitoring 

89

Heart rate (HR) was recorded at 5 sec intervals during each small-sided game via short-

range radiotelemetry (Polar Team Sport System, Polar Electro Oy, Kempele, Finland).

The HR monitors were also worn during the MSFT, to determine each player’s

maximum HR (HRmax). Exercise intensity during each small-sided game was assessed

using HR, expressed as percent of HRmax and classified into four previously defined

intensity zones: Zone 1, (<75% HRmax); Zone 2, (75 – 84% HRmax); Zone 3, (85 – 89%

HRmax) and Zone 4, (>90% HRmax)(Gore, 2000). The HRmax reached during the MSFT

was used as reference value for each of the four intensity zones. Both the actual and

percentage time spent in each zone for each player during all small-sided games were

recorded.

 

5.2.9  Time‐motion characteristics 

Player movements during the small-sided games were measured using portable global

positioning system (GPS) units (SPI 10, GPSports, Canberra, Australia). The SPI 10

was placed into a harness that positioned the device between the player’s shoulder

blades, which was worn by every player during all SSG’s (Edgecomb & Norton, 2006).

The distance travelled was recorded at 1 Hz. For data analysis purposes, four speed

zones were selected: speed zone 1 (standing and walking, 0–6.9 km/h); speed zone 2

(jogging, 7.0–12.9 km/h); speed zone 3 (cruising, 13.0–17.9 km/h) and speed zone 4

(sprinting, >18.0 km/h). The speeds and locomotor categories selected are similar to

those used in previous studies (Grant, Williams, Dodd, et al., 1999; Impellizzeri, et al.,

2006; Rampinini, Coutts, Castagna, Sassi, & Impellizzeri, 2007). The reliability of the

SPI-10 GPS device for measuring team sport-specific movement characteristics

following a known running course (Bishop, Lawrence, & Spencer, 2001) was

investigated in pilot testing. The typical error expressed as a coefficient of variation

(CV) (Hopkins, 2000), was 3.6% for total distance, 4.3% for low-intensity activity (0–

90

6.9 km/h), 11.2% for high-intensity running (>14.4 km/h) and 11.5% for very high-

intensity running (>20.0 km/h) respectively. The CV for peak speeds was 5.8%.

 

5.2.10  Statistical Analyses 

The data are reported as mean standard deviation (SD). A one-way repeated measures

ANOVA was used on each dependent variable, including HR, RPE, [La-] and various

time-motion characteristics. The independent variable was small-sided game format.

When significant interaction effects were found, Scheffe post-hoc comparisons were

applied. If no significant interaction effects were evident, but a tendency towards

significance (P 0.1) was apparent, then Cohen’s effect sizes (ES) were calculated.

When calculating effect sizes, pooled standard deviations were applied due to the

absence of a control group. Values of < 0.4 were considered small, 0.4-0.7 moderate,

and 0.7 or greater large. All statistical analyses were performed using the software

package STATISTICA (6.0 version, Statsoft, Tulsa, OK, USA) and significance was set

at P <0.05.

5.3 Results 

5.3.1 Time‐motion characteristics 

Table 5.2 shows the distances travelled at different speed zones during 24 min of small-

sided game training. There was a significant difference in distance travelled (0 – 6.9

km/h) between the 2 v 2 and 4 v 4 games (p < 0.05; 1176 56 m, 1128 76 m,

respectively). There were no significant differences between any formats in total

distance travelled, distance travelled at 7.0 – 12.9 km/h, distance travelled at 13.0 – 17.9

km/h (Table 5.2) and distance travelled at > 18 km/h (Table 5.2).

91

Table 5.3 shows various time-motion characteristics associated with running speed > 18

km/h. There were significant differences between all the formats (2 v 2, 4 v 4 and 6 v 6)

for both mean maximal sprint duration and distance (p < 0.05; 2.34 0.7 sec, 2.91

0.9 sec , 3.53 0.9 sec and 11.5 3.9 m, 15.3 5.5 m, 19.4 5.9 m respectively) (Table

5.3). Significant differences were also apparent between the 2 v 2 formats when

compared with the 4 v 4 and 6 v 6 formats for mean sprint duration and distance (p <

0.05; 1.42 0.2 sec, 1.75 0.3 sec, 1.88 0.4 sec and 6.3 1.3 m, 8.3 2.0 m, 9.2

2.3 m respectively) (Table 5.3).

92

 

Table 5.2 Total distance (m) and distance covered in walking/jogging/moderate speed running during small-sided games (mean SD; range).

Time-motion variable Format 2 v 2 4 v 4 6 v 6

Total distance (m) 2574 16 1; (2347 – 2830) 2650 18; (2291 – 2937) 2590 33; (2163 – 3224) Total distance (0 – 6.9 km/h) (m) 1176 8 a; (1051 – 1291) 1128 10; (889 – 1299) 1142 16; (783 – 1386) Total distance (7.0 – 12.9 km/h) (m) 933 212; (688 – 1314) 1041 253; (689 – 1543) 925 37; (469 – 1590) Total distance (13.0 – 17.9 km/h) (m) 411 13; (249 – 650) 436 15; (241 – 667) 442 22; (249 – 930) 1 2 v 2 vs. 4 v 4 NS, ES = 0.61; a 2 v 2 vs. 4 v 4 p < 0.05; 2 2 v 2 vs. 4 v 4 NS, ES = 0.74; 3 4 v 4 vs. 6 v 6 NS, ES = 0.62.

93

Table 5.3 Time-motion characteristics of higher speed running during small-sided games (>18 km/h) (mean SD; range). Time-motion variableTime-motion variable

Format

2 v 2 4 v 4 6 v 6 Total distance (m) 44 24; (9 – 98) 65 36 (8 – 170) 71 36 (15 – 173) Sprint duration (s) 1.42 0.2 a, b 1.75 0.3 1.88 0.4 Average maximum sprint duration (s) 2.34 0.7 a, b 2.91 0.9 c 3.53 0.9 Average minimum sprint duration (s) 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.12 Sprint distance (m) 6.3 1.3 a, b 8.3 2.0 9.2 2.3 Average maximum sprint distance (m) 11.5 3.9 a, b 15.3 5.5 c 19.4 5.9 Average minimum sprint distance (m) 2.1 – 4.6 2.0 – 10.0 1.4 – 5.1 Time between sprints (s) 230 126 a; (75 – 716) 179 78; (76 – 372) 189 81; (86 – 492) Total number of sprints 7 3; (2 – 12) 8 4; (1 – 17) 8 3; (2 – 16) Time at >18 km/h (s) 15 29; (1 – 176) 12 6; (1 – 29) 15 14; (3 – 98) a 2 v 2 vs. 4 v 4 p <0.05; b 2 v 2 vs. 6 v 6 p < 0.05; c 4 v 4 vs. 6 v 6 p < 0.05.

94

5.3.2  Physiological and perceptual characteristics 

Table 5.4 shows the physiological and perceptual characteristics associated with the

various small-sided game formats. There were significant differences between all

formats (2 v 2, 4 v 4 and 6 v 6) for both %HRmax (p < 0.05; 89 4 %, 85 4 %, 83 4

% respectively) and RPE (p < 0.05; 13.1 1.5 AU, 12.2 1.8 AU, 10.5 1.5 AU

respectively) (Table 5.4). Significant differences were also apparent between the 2 v 2

formats when compared with 4 v 4 and 6 v 6 formats for blood [La-] (p < 0.05; 6.7 2.6

mmol·L-1, 4.7 1.6 mmol·L-1, 4.1 2.0 mmol·L-1 respectively) (Table 5.4).

95

Table 5.4 Physiological and perceptual responses to the small-sided games (mean SD; range).

Physiological and perceptual variables Format 2 v 2 4 v 4 6 v 6

%HRmax 89 a, c 4; (81 – 97) 85 b 4; (76 – 92) 83 4; (71 – 92) Time at <75% HRmax (min) 0.5 c 0.5; (0.0 – 8.4) 1.0 0.8; (0.0 – 9.0) 2.0 1.8; (0.0 – 16.1) Time at 75 - 84% HRmax (min) 1.6 a, c 1.3; (0.2 – 4.8) 5.0 b 3.6; (0.3 – 15.6) 7.6 3.7; (0.5 – 17.9) Time at 85- 89% HRmax (min) 4.8 a, c 4.1; (0.1 – 20.6) 8.7 0.5; (1.8 – 20.6) 8.6 4.2; (0.1 – 17.8) Time at >90% HRmax (min) 7.2 a, c 12.3; (1.3 – 24.0) 9.3 b 8.8; (0.0 – 21.4) 5.8 6.2; (0.0 – 21.2) Blood La- (mmol·L-1) 6.7 a, c 2.6; (2.9 – 11.7) 4.7 1.6; (2.3 – 8.0) 4.1 2.0; (1.8 – 9.1) RPE (AU) 13.1 a, c 1.5; (10.0 – 17.0) 12.2 b 1.8; (9.0 – 17.0) 10.5 1.5; (7.0 – 15.0)a 2 v 2 vs. 4 v 4 p <0.05; b 4 v 4 vs. 6 v 6 p < 0.05; c 2 v 2 vs. 6 v 6 p < 0.05.

96

5.4  Discussion 

The primary aim of this study was to examine the acute physiological and perceptual

responses and time-motion characteristics associated with three specific soccer small-

sided game formats (2 v 2, 4 v 4 and 6 v 6 players) when the pitch area per player was

kept constant. The main finding of this study was an overall reduction in player’s

physiological and perceptual workload as the size of the small-sided game formats

increased.

Monitoring the HR response of players during training is a useful method for regulating

exercise intensity (Reilly, 2007). In agreement with some (Little & Williams, 2006;

Owen, et al., 2004; Rampinini, et al., 2006), but not all research (Aroso, et al., 2004;

Sampaio, et al., 2007), we found that smaller game formats elicited a greater HR

response. In this study the 2 v 2 format elicited a greater amount of time at >90%

HRmax compared to the 4 v 4 and 6 v 6 formats. Additionally, the players spent less time

below previously reported match intensity zones (Reilly, 2007) and more time above

match intensity in the 4 v 4 format compared with 6 v 6 format. Moreover, the HR

response during the 6 v 6 format was below the mean HR reported during competitive

match play (Reilly, 2007). Collectively, these results demonstrate that smaller game

formats elicit higher mean HR responses with players spending more time in the higher

HR zones. Since high HR responses during training have been reported to be important

for improving aerobic fitness in soccer players (Helgerud, Engen, Wisløff, & Hoff,

2001; Impellizzeri, et al., 2006), the present results suggest that these smaller game

formats may be useful for training to improve aerobic fitness in soccer players.

The RPE has been suggested to be a good global indicator of exercise intensity when

compared to HR or [La-] independently during soccer-specific exercise (Coutts,

97

Rampinini, Castagna, Marcora, & Impellizzeri, 2007). In the present study, the 2 v 2

small-sided game format elicited the highest RPE, and the 6 v 6 format the lowest. This

finding is similar to previous research that reported the highest RPE value with

decreasing small-sided game player numbers (Aroso, et al., 2004; Little & Williams,

2007; Rampinini, et al., 2006; Sampaio, et al., 2007). Taken together with previous

research, it appears that an increase in player number with constant pitch area per player

reduces the players’ perception of effort in soccer small-sided game training. A likely

explanation for the reduction in RPE with increased player number is reduced

interaction with the football and/or opponents.

Although blood [La-] is a poor indicator of muscle [La-] during soccer match play, it has

been suggested to represent an overall accumulation of La- production during soccer

specific exercise (Krustrup, et al., 2006). The blood [La-] values measured in the various

small-sided game formats in this study agree with previous research that has shown

higher [La-] in 2 v 2 games compared to 3 v 3 and 4 v 4 games in young soccer players

when played on a similar size pitch (Aroso, et al., 2004). In further support of the

present findings, Rampinini et al. (2006) reported an increased blood [La-] response

with smaller formats on similar size pitches. The elevated [La-] response in the smaller

game formats may be related to the likely greater technical load required during these

games. Indeed, ball possession has been reported to increase three-fold during 3 v 3

games of 20 min duration, compared with 7 v 7 games (Balsom, et al., 1999; Rampinini,

et al., 2007). Additionally, previous research has shown that running with the ball

results in a greater energy expenditure than running without the ball (Reilly & Ball,

1984), which may increase exercise intensity and this increased energy requirement may

partly explain the increased [La-] during the smaller game formats.

98

The 2 v 2 format in this study elicited the highest HR, [La-] and RPE responses.

However, the GPS data demonstrates that players completed less movement at various

running speeds in this format. The reduced sprint durations and distances in the small

format (2 v 2) games may reflect less absolute pitch space available for higher speed

running. Nevertheless, the physiological and perceptual data may suggest that 2 v 2

format training can be used by coach’s when the primary focus of conditioning training

is to increase aerobic-anaerobic fitness levels. The HR, [La-] and RPE responses to the

4 v 4 small-sided game format were lower than the 2 v 2 games, but similar to those

reported for competitive soccer match play in elite junior soccer players (Impellizzeri, et

al., 2006) or top professional soccer players (Rampinini, et al., 2007). In contrast to the

2 v 2 small-sided game, the lower physiological responses in the 4 v 4 small-sided game

format were accompanied by less distance traveled below 7 km/h, less time between

efforts exceeding 18 km/h and increased mean and average sprint (> 18 km/h) duration

and distance. There was also a tendency for increased distance traveled at 7 – 12.9

km/h, compared with 2 v 2 and 4 v 4 small-sided game formats. These results suggest

that the 4 v 4 small-sided game training in this study may be suitable for replicating

competitive match specific demands in small groups of youth players. Finally, the 6 v

6 small-sided game formats elicited the lowest physiological and perceptual measures

compared to the other formats. Although there were no significant differences in total

distance traveled or distance traveled at running speeds below 18 km/h, the 6 v 6 format

was generally associated with a greater range of distances travelled by players at

running speeds below 18 km/h. The increased range in movement demands may be

partially attributed to an increased number of players on each team. At speeds above 18

km/h, the 6 v 6 format only differed significantly from the 2 v 2 and 4 v 4 formats in

terms of greater mean and average sprint duration and distance. Again, this may reflect

a greater absolute amount of pitch space available for higher speed efforts. Collectively,

99

these results suggest that 6 v 6 small-sided game training maybe useful for pre-season

aerobic base training or for lower intensity specific training in soccer players.

This study is the first to describe the time-motion characteristics associated with

different small-sided game formats in youth soccer players. However, the time-motion

results should be interpreted with caution. Although the GPS devices used in this study

demonstrated good reliability for total distance and low intensity running, its reliability

at speeds >20 km/h is relatively poor. The present results demonstrated that there was

no significant difference in total distance covered between any of the small-sided game

formats, despite the same amount of relative pitch space being available for each player.

These results suggest that factors other than the absolute pitch area influence the

running profile during small-sided game training. It may be that the time-motion

profiles during small-sided games are determined by the complex interaction of total

pitch space, player number and opportunity for direct involvement with the ball. It may

also indicate that total distance is a poor indicator of global work-rate in small-sided

game formats. For example, in the present study the players travelled the greatest

amount of total distance at lower velocities (0–6.9 km/h) during the 2 v 2 games. The

most likely explanation for the greater distance at these lower speeds is that players had

more possession of the ball and consequently were required to slow to gain better ball

control (Owen, et al., 2004). It is also possible that greater involvement with the ball in

this small format increased the physiological and perceptual loads. Indeed, it has

previously been shown that running with a ball increases energy expenditure compared

to moving without the ball (Reilly & Ball, 1984). This is supported by the present

finding of higher %HRmax and blood [La-] in the 2 v 2 game formats. The findings from

this study associated with higher speed running (> 18 km/h) should also be interpreted

with caution, given the poorer level of reliability of GPS measures at higher movement

velocities in intermittent running that is typical to soccer small-sided games. In this

100

study, both the mean and maximal sprint durations and distances increased with larger

small-sided game formats. The increased player number in the larger game formats

logically decreases the number of technical actions (such as turning or dribbling with

the ball) that each player will have during each game. Since the players are likely to

have less involvement with the ball in these larger formats, they are required to spend

time working ‘off the ball’ to create a passing opportunity. In the context of an increase

in the amount of absolute pitch space available, this type of physical work may require

players to complete an increased number of sustained, higher speed runs in an attempt

to lose their direct opponents. In contrast, the combination of a smaller pitch and fewer

players in the 2 v 2 small-sided games may cause an increase in the total number of

technical actions for each player and also closer checking by direct opponents, which

may reduce sprint duration and distance.

The main finding was as the size of the small-sided game formats decreases, but with

relative pitch area remaining constant, the overall physiological and perceptual

workload increases. The RPE, HR and La- results demonstrated that small (2 v 2)

format small-sided game training imposes higher physiological and perceptual loads,

and therefore we suggest that the smaller formats may be useful for improving aerobic-

anaerobic fitness in youth soccer players. However, there was no significant difference

in total distance covered between any of the small-sided game formats, despite the same

amount of relative pitch space being available for each player. Finally, both the mean

and maximal sprint durations and distances increased with larger small-sided game

formats, suggesting greater absolute field size may be useful for training soccer-specific

speed and acceleration abilities. In general, it appears that smaller game formats (e.g., 2

v 2 and 4 v 4) are more appropriate for increasing physiological stress whilst larger

small-sided game formats (e.g., 6 v 6) can be used for training match specific movement

demands. Collectively, the results of this study provide new information about the

101

stimulus provided by the various small-sided games. This information may be useful

for prescribing specific training programs for youth soccer players.

 

102

 

5.5 References 

Aroso, J., Rebelo, A., & Gomes-Pereira, J. (2004). Physiological impact of selected game-related exercises. Journal of Sports Sciences, 22(6), 522.

Balsom, P., Lindholm, T., Nilsson, J., & Ekblom, B. (1999). Precision Football. Kempele, Finland: Polar Electro Oy.

Bishop, D., Lawrence, S., & Spencer, M. (2001). Predictors of repeated sprint ability in elite female hockey players. Paper presented at the Australian Conference of Science and Medicine in Sport.

Borg, G. (1970). Perceived exertion as an indicator of somatic stress. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 2(2), 92-98.

Borg, G. (1998). Borg's Perceived Exertion and Pain Scales. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics.

Coutts, A., Rampinini, E., Castagna, C., Marcora, S., & Impellizzeri, F. (2007). Heart rate and blood lactate correlates of perceived exertion during small-sided soccer games. Journal of Science & Medicine in Sport, doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2007.08.005.

Edgecomb, S., & Norton, K. (2006). Comparison of global positioning and computer-based tracking systems for measuring player movement distance during Australian Football. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 9, 25-32.

Gore, C. (Ed.). (2000). Physiological tests for elite athletes. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics.

Grant, A., Williams, M., Dodd, R., & Johnson, S. (1999). Physiological and technical analysis of 11 v 11 and 8 v 8 youth football matches. Insight: FA Coaches Association Journal, 2(3), 3-4.

Grant, A., Williams, M., & Johnson, S. (1999). Technical demands of 7 v 7 and 11 v 11 youth football matches. Insight: FA Coaches Association Journal, 2(4), 1-2.

Helgerud, J., Engen, L., Wisløff, U., & Hoff, J. (2001). Aerobic endurance training improves soccer performance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 33(11), 1925-1931.

Hill-Haas, S., Coutts, A., Rowsell, G., & Dawson, B. (2008). Variability of acute physiological responses and performance profiles of youth soccer players in small-sided games. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 11, 487-490.

Hopkins, W. (2000). Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports Medicine, 30(1), 1-15.

Impellizzeri, F., Marcora, S., Castagna, C., Reilly, T., Sassi, A., Iaia, M., et al. (2006). Physiological and performance effects of generic versus specific aerobic training in soccer players. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 27(6), 483 - 492.

Krustrup, P., Mohr, M., Steensberg, A., Bencke, J., Kjaer, M., & Bangsbo, J. (2006). Muscle and blood metabolites during a soccer game: implications for sprint performance. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 38(6), 1165 -1167.

Leger, L., & Lambert, J. (1982). A maximal multistage 20-m shuttle run test to predict VO2max. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 49(1), 1 - 12.

Little, T., & Williams, A. (2006). Suitability of soccer training drills for endurance training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20(2), 316-319.

Little, T., & Williams, A. (2007). Measures of exercise intensity during soccer training drills with professional soccer players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21(2), 367-371.

103

Owen, A., Twist, C., & Ford, P. (2004). Small-sided games: The physiological and technical effect of altering pitch size and player numbers. Insight: FA Coaches Association Journal, 7(2), 50-53.

Platt, D., Maxwell, A., Horn, R., Williams, M., & Reilly, T. (2001). Physiological and Technical Analysis of 3 v 3 and 5 v 5 Youth Football Matches. Insight: FA Coaches Association Journal, 4(4), 23-25.

Rampinini, E., Coutts, A., Castagna, C., Sassi, R., & Impellizzeri, F. (2007). Variation in top level soccer match performance. International Journal of Sport Medicine, 28, 1 - 7.

Rampinini, E., Impellizzeri, F., Castagna, C., Abt, G., Chamari, K., Sassi, A., et al. (2006). Factors influencing physiological responses to small-sided soccer games. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25(6), 659-666.

Reilly, T. (2007). The Science of Training- Soccer A Scientific Approach To Developing Strength, Speed And Endurance (1st ed.). London: Routledge.

Reilly, T., & Ball, D. (1984). The net energetic cost of dribbling a soccer ball. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 55, 267-271.

Sampaio, J., Garcia, G., Macas, V., Ibanez, J., Abrantes, C., & Caixinha, P. (2007). Heart rate and perceptual responses to 2 x 2 and 3 x 3 small-sided youth soccer games. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 6 (Suppl. 10)(1), 121 - 122.

Williams, K., & Owen, A. (2007). The impact of player numbers on the physiological responses to small sided games. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 6 (Suppl. 10)(1), 100.

 

104

____________________________________________________

 

CHAPTER SIX 

____________________________________________________________

Acute physiological responses and time‐motion characteristics of two 

small‐sided training regimes in youth soccer players 

As per the peer-reviewed paper Accepted and Published in the Journal of Strength and

Conditioning Research:

Hill-Haas, S., Rowsell, G., Coutts, A., & Dawson, B. (2008). Acute physiological

responses and time-motion characteristics of two small-sided training regimes in youth

soccer players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22(6), 1-5.

105

6.0  Abstract 

The purpose of this study was to examine the acute physiological responses and time-

motion characteristics associated with continuous and intermittent small-sided games

(SSG’s). The continuous (SSGC) regime involved 24 min playing duration (no planned

rest intervals), while the intermittent regime (SSGI) involved 4 x 6 min bouts with 1.5

min passive planned rest (work: rest ratio 4:1). Both training regimes were implemented

across three SSG formats which included 2 v 2, 4 v 4 and 6 v 6 player games. Sixteen

male soccer players (mean ± SE: age = 16.2 ± 0.2 years, height = 173.7 ± 2.1 cm, body

mass = 65.0 ± 2.5 kg, estimated V.O2max = 54.8 0.7 mLkg-1min-1) participated in the

study. Heart rate (HR) was measured every 5 s during all SSG’s. Global ratings of

perceived exertion were recorded immediately after the SSG’s using the Borg scale

(RPE, 6-20). Capillary blood samples were drawn at rest and within 5 min following the

end of each SSG. Time-motion characteristics were measured using portable global

positioning system (GPS) units. There were no significant differences between SSGC

and SSGI for total distance covered, distance travelled walking, jogging and moderate

speed running. However, players covered a significantly greater distance at 13.0-17.9

km/h, a greater total distance at higher running speed and total number of sprints (> 18

km/h) with SSGI compared to SSGC. In contrast, global RPE and %HRmax was

significantly higher in SSGC than SSGI. Both intermittent and continuous SSG training

regimes could be used during the season for match-specific aerobic conditioning.

However, both training regimes used in this study appear unlikely to provide a

sufficient stimulus overload for fully developing VO2max.

Key Words  

continuous training, heart rate, lactate, RPE

106

6.1  Introduction  

Game-based conditioning, using small-sided games (SSG’s), has become a popular

method of developing specific aerobic fitness for soccer (Impellizzeri, et al., 2006).

Previous investigators have established that SSG’s are both reliable and effective for the

technical and tactical development of soccer players (Little & Williams, 2006;

Rampinini, et al., 2006). However, despite the increasing popularity of SSG’s, few

scientific investigations have examined how the intensity of SSG’s can be manipulated

to alter the training stimulus.

A number of studies have examined how selected variables (including pitch size, player

number and coach encouragement) can influence SSG training intensity (Owen, et al.,

2004; Rampinini, Coutts, et al., 2007; Williams & Owen, 2007). For example, altering

the pitch size has been reported to increase the mean heart rate (HR), blood lactate (La-)

and RPE during SSG’s (Aroso, et al., 2004; Balsom, et al., 1999; Rampinini, et al.,

2006). It has also been shown that the mean HR decreases as player numbers increase,

when the absolute pitch size constant is held constant (Owen, et al., 2004; Williams &

Owen, 2007). Indeed, there have recently been several studies that have described the

physiological responses to various SSG training formats (Hill-Haas, et al., 2007; Little

& Williams, 2006; Rampinini, et al., 2006). However, due to the lack of consistency in

the SSG design, player fitness, age, ability, level of coach encouragement and playing

rules in each of these studies, it is difficult to make accurate conclusions on the

influence of each of these factors separately.

In soccer, SSG training is typically completed in the form of ‘intervals’, as opposed to

continuous duration play, as is typical of actual game play. Eight weeks of twice

107

weekly high-intensity SSG ‘interval’ training (i.e. 4 x 4-min of small-sided games play

at an intensity of 90- % HRmax) has been shown to be an equally effective training

method for improving aerobic fitness as intensity-matched traditional interval running

training (i.e. running around a soccer pitch for 4 x 4-min at 90-95% HRmax) in well-

trained young soccer players (Impellizzeri, et al., 2006). However, no studies have

examined the influence of distributing the dose of SSG training into ‘interval’ bouts

rather than longer continuous bouts on physiological responses. Therefore, at present it

is unknown if a SSG ‘interval’ training regime offers any additional benefits above a

‘continuous’ SSG training regime in soccer.

Traditional training methods for developing aerobic power require athletes to work

continuously at moderate intensities for longer durations (Bangsbo & Michalak, 2002;

Tabata, et al., 1996). For example, 60 min continuous cycling at ~70% VO2max, five

times per week (Tabata, et al., 1996). However, high intensity interval training (HIIT)

protocols, involving shorter duration efforts (10 s – 4 min) at higher intensity, have

proven successful at eliciting changes in both aerobic and anaerobic capacity (Helgerud,

et al., 2001; Tabata, et al., 1996). Two examples of HIIT protocols involved 4 x 4 min

efforts at 90 – 95 %HRmax, with 3 min recovery (Hoff, et al., 2002), while another used

7 - 8 repeats of 20 s efforts at extremely high – intensity (~170% VO2max) with 10 s rest

(Tabata, et al., 1996). However, no previous study has examined the influence of

completing SSG in interval compared to continuous training format.

Additionally, no previous studies have examined the time-motion characteristics of

SSG’s. The time-motion characteristics of individual players represent a method of

quantifying the external training load imposed by the training regime. This may include

total distance covered and actual time spent at various running speeds. Consequently,

108

the aim of this study was to examine the acute physiological responses and time-motion

profiles associated with two distinct SSG training regimes: intermittent (SSGI) and

continuous (SSGC). It was also hypothesised that SSGI would provide a more intense

physiological stimulus and quantitatively greater performance profile compared with

SSGC.

 

6.2  Methods 

6.2.1  Experimental Approach to the Problem 

Few studies have investigated the acute physiological responses and physical

performance profiles relating to SSG training regimes (Hill-Haas, et al., 2007;

Rampinini, et al., 2006; Williams & Owen, 2007). To test the hypothesis, two SSG

training regimes were used. The first involved a continuous (SSGC) regime of 24 min

duration with no planned rest intervals. In contrast, the intermittent regime (SSGI)

involved 4 x 6 min bouts with 1.5 min passive planned rest (work: rest ratio 4:1), with

total playing time (24 min) matched to the SSGC regime. The two training regimes were

implemented across three SSG formats which included 2 v 2, 4 v 4 and 6 v 6 players in

each game. The relative pitch size per player remained constant across the three

different playing formats.

 

6.2.2  Subjects 

Sixteen male soccer players (mean ± SE: age = 16.2 ± 0.2 years, height = 173.7 ± 2.1

cm, body mass = 65.0 ± 2.5 kg, estimated V.O2max = 54.8 0.7 mLkg-1min-1)

participated in the study. All players were members of the same youth (i.e. under 18 y)

squad competing in the top-level domestic competition, with a minimum of 8 years

109

playing experience. A university Research Ethics Committee granted approval for the

study. All players and parents were notified of the research procedures, requirements,

benefits and risks before giving informed consent.

 

6.2.3  Design 

The SSG’s were played over a 9-week in-season period in random order, and were

played with consistent coach encouragement at the beginning of normal training

sessions (following a standardised 10 min warm-up), held twice weekly, with at least 48

hours separating each training session. Players were selected on the same teams against

the same opponents as often as possible. All players played in both ‘interval’ and

‘continuous’ SSG training regimes. A major component of pre-season conditioning

involved SSG training and consequently, the players were familiarised with both SSG

regimes and all playing formats. The pitch sizes (length x width) used for 2 v 2, 4 v 4

and 6 v 6 games were 28 m x 21 m, 40 m x 30 m and 49 m x 37 m, respectively, which

is similar to that used in previous studies (Owen, et al., 2004; Rampinini, et al., 2006;

Williams & Owen, 2007).

6.2.4  Procedures 

The 12-week pre-season training period served as a familiarisation for all the SSG’s and

the Multistage Fitness Test (MSFT). This familiarisation period also provided an

opportunity for the coach to assess each player in terms of passing ability, close ball

control, shooting and game sense skills, using a 5-point (1 ‘below average’ – 5

‘outstanding’) Likert Scale system. At the conclusion of pre-season training, players

completed the MSFT, and were ranked according to the distance travelled in the MSFT.

A composite skill ranking of each player in the squad was generated by the points total

achieved for each of the four skill components. In an attempt to avoid skill and fitness

110

mismatches and a consequent imbalance in opposing SSG teams, each side was

balanced in terms of the individual player’s skill and fitness ranking.

Heart rate (HR) was measured every 5 s during all SSG’s (Polar Team Sport System,

Polar Electro, Finland). Percentage heart rate max (%HRmax) for each player was

determined from Multi Stage Fitness test (MSFT) values. Based on the player’s peak

HR achieved during the MSFT, four heart rate zones were used. These were classified

on the basis of a percentage of maximum heart rate (%HRmax). The four HR zones used

were: Zone 1, (<75% HRmax); Zone 2, (75 – 84% HRmax); Zone 3, (85 – 89% HRmax)

and Zone 4, (>90% HRmax). Both the actual and percentage time spent in each zone for

each player during all SSG’s was calculated.

Global ratings of perceived exertion were recorded immediately after the SSG’s using

the Borg scale (RPE, 6-20) (Borg, 1998). Capillary blood samples were drawn at rest

and within 5 min following the end of each SSG. Blood lactate [La-] was determined

using a blood-gas analyser (ABL 625 Radiometer, Copenhagen).

Time-motion characteristics (for every player in each SSG) were measured using

portable global positioning system (GPS) units (SPI 10, GPSports, Canberra, Australia).

The SPI 10 was placed into a harness that positioned the device between the player’s

shoulder blades. The distance travelled was recorded each second. For data analysis

purposes, four speed zones were selected: speed zone 1 (standing and walking, 0 – 6.9

km/h); speed zone 2 (jogging, 7.0 – 12.9 km/h); speed zone 3 (moderate speed running,

13.0 –17.9 km/h) and speed zone 4 (higher speed running, >18.0 km/h). A ‘sprint

activity ratio’ was also calculated to reflect how ‘active’ a particular player was over the

course of a small-sided game. The ratio was calculated by dividing the elapsed time gap

111

between the final and first sprints by the total SSG time, and multiplying this by the

total number of sprints >18.0 km/h. The ratio will penalise both the player who

completes a cluster of sprints infrequently, as well as the player who only completes a

few single sprints that happen to be evenly distributed throughout the SSG. The ratio

will favour a player who makes frequent clusters of sprints throughout the SSG.

 

6.2.5  Statistical Analyses 

The data are reported as means standard error (s). A one-way repeated measures

ANOVA was used on each dependent variable including heart rate, RPE, blood lactate

and various time-motion characteristics. The independent variables were the two

different SSG regimes used: intermittent and continuous. When significant interaction

effects were found, Scheffe post-hoc comparisons were applied. Statistical significance

was set at P <0.05. The statistical analyses were performed using the software package

STATISTICA (6.0 version, Statsoft, Tulsa, OK, USA).

 

6.3  Results 

There were no significant differences between SSGC and SSGI for total distance covered

(TD), distance travelled walking, jogging and moderate speed running. However,

players covered a significantly greater distance at 13.0-17.9 km/h with SSGI compared

to SSGC (Table 6.1).

112

Table 6.1 Total distance and distance walking/jogging/moderate speed running (mean SE).

Time-motion variable Training Regime

Continuous Intermittent Total distance (m) 2596 18 2621 19 Total distance (0 – 6.9 km/h) (m) 1143 10 1150 10 Total distance (7.0 – 12.9 km/h) (m) 975 25 950 22 Total distance (13.0 – 17.9 km/h) (m) 417 a 13 444 15 a Sig, p = 0.010 The players also covered a significantly greater total distance at higher running speeds

(> 18 km/h) during SSGI compared to SSGC. Additionally, players completed a

significantly greater total number of sprints (> 18 km/h) during SSGI compared to

SSGC. There was also a significantly higher sprint activity ratio for SSGI compared with

SSGC (Table 6.2).

Table 6.2 Time-motion characteristics of higher speed running (>18 km/h) during SSG’s (mean SE).

Time-motion variable Training Regime

Continuous Intermittent Total distance covered (m) 53 a 3 67 4 Sprint duration (s) 1.69 0.04 1.67 0.04 Max sprint duration (s) 2.93 0.10 2.91 0.11 Sprint distance (m) 8.0 0.3 7.9 0.2 Max sprint distance (m) 15.2 0.6 15.4 0.7 Sprint activity ratio (AU) 5.0 b 0.4 8.4 0.4 Total number of sprints 6 c 0.4 8 0.4 Time @ >18 km/h (s) 10.9 d 0.7 16.9 2.8 a Significant difference between regimes, p = 0.007; b p = 0.001; c p = 0.002; d p =0.044; Sprint activity ratio: calculated by dividing the elapsed time between the final and first sprints by the total SSG time, and multiplying this by the total number of sprints >18.0 km/h.

The acute physiological and perceptual responses are shown in table 6.3. Global RPE

and %HRmax was significantly higher in SSGC than SSGI. However, there were no

significant differences in any of the other variables (Table 6.3).

113

Table 6.3 Physiological and perceptual characteristics of SSGs (mean SE).

Physiological or perceptual variable Training Regime Continuous Intermittent

%HRmax 87a 1 84 1 Time @ <75% HRmax (min) 1.52 0.25 0.83 0.22 Time @ 75 - 84% HRmax (min) 4.85 0.56 4.92 0.49 Time @ 85- 89% HRmax (min) 7.45 0.61 7.84 0.48 Time @ >90% HRmax (min) 10.22 0.62 10.42 0.56 Blood La- (mmol·L-1) 5.5 0.3 4.8 0.3 RPE (AU) 12.3b 0.2 11.6 0.2 a Significant difference between regimes, p =0.001; b p = 0.02. 6.4 Discussion 

The aim of this study was to examine the acute physiological responses and time-

motion profiles associated with intermittent and continuous soccer SSG training

regimes. Although many studies have reported on time-motion characteristics of soccer

match play (Helgerud, et al., 2001; Rampinini, Coutts, et al., 2007), to our knowledge,

no study has reported on the time-motion characteristics of SSG training.

The intermittent training regime elicited significantly more moderate and higher speed

running (13-17.9 km/h and >18 km/h, respectively) compared to the continuous regime.

The frequency of repeated sprints efforts was also significantly higher in SSGI. One

possible explanation for the greater frequency of sprint activity during SSGI was the

additional passive rest period between each of the interval bouts, which may have

allowed for greater physiological recovery, including PCr resynthesis and removal of

metabolic by-products including the accumulation of potassium in muscle interstitium

(Bangsbo, Iaia, & Krustrup, 2007; Gaitanos, Williams, Boobis, & Brooks, 1993).

Despite the greater frequency of sprint activity during SSGI, there was no significant

difference in sprint distance or duration between the two regimes, which is supported by

a recent finding that both sprint distance and exercise: rest ratio independently influence

the rate of fatigue (Little & Williams, 2007a).

114

Although there was no significant difference between SSGI and SSGC blood lactate

response, the SSGI blood lactate values in this study are similar to those reported for

intermittent SSG’s in previous studies(Aroso, et al., 2004; Rampinini, et al., 2006). No

other studies have reported on the blood lactate response associated with continuous

SSG’s, and consequently no comparison is possible. The range of mean blood lactate

values observed during matches is 2 to 10 mM (Bangsbo, et al., 2007).

The RPE values measured during the intermittent SSG training regime in this study

were lower than previously reported values (Aroso, et al., 2004; Sampaio, et al., 2007).

A possible explanation for the decreased RPE in the present study compared to Sampaio

et al. (Sampaio, et al., 2007) (4 x 6 min with 90 s recovery versus 2 x 3 min with 90 s

recovery) relates to the longer intermittent playing durations applied in the present

study. These results suggest that higher RPE values are associated with very short

intermittent playing durations, which implies that players are able to play at very high

intensity (substantially above match intensity) for only short durations during

intermittent SSG training. Consequently, longer intermittent playing durations are

perceived as easier by the players. In the present study, SSGI elicited a significantly

lower RPE than SSGC. Although comparisons with other studies are not possible, one

possible reason may be the additional planned rest periods between intermittent bouts

allowing for greater recovery.

The SSGC training elicited a significantly higher %HRmax response compared with

SSGI. A possible explanation is the additional rest period between the work bouts

during SSGI enabled the players to start subsequent work bouts with a lower %HRmax

resulting in an overall lower % HRmax for SSGI. The %HRmax values for SSGI attained

115

in this study are similar to those previously reported for small format (2 v 2 and 3 v 3)

intermittent games training (Aroso, et al., 2004; Owen, et al., 2004; Sampaio, et al.,

2007). The %HRmax values for SSGC attained in this study, however, are similar to those

reported for larger format (5 v 5 and 6 v 6) intermittent games training (Little &

Williams, 2007b; Owen, et al., 2004; Rampinini, et al., 2006). However, comparisons

are made more difficult due to the majority of studies applying very short duration

playing bouts during SSGI (90 s to 3 min compared to 6 min). To our knowledge, only

one previous study (Balsom, et al., 1999) compared a 30 min continuous SSG with a

series of intermittent SSG’s using a variety of work: rest ratios and (intermittent)

playing bouts ranging from 30 s to 8 min. In contrast to this study, the continuous SSG

was reported to have a lower HR response compared with the intermittent games.

Unfortunately, comparisons with this study are made more difficult due to HRav being

reported rather than %HRmax and the data was only reported from one subject.

In summary, the intermittent training regime in this study elicited significantly more

moderate and higher speed running (13-17.9 km/h and >18 km/h respectively)

compared to the continuous regime. Furthermore, the frequency of repeated sprints

efforts was also significantly higher in SSGI. However, despite the greater frequency of

sprint activity during SSGI, there was no significant difference in sprint distances or

duration between the two regimes. Furthermore, although the intermittent games caused

a significantly greater time-motion response, the SSGI elicited a significantly lower

RPE and %HRmax response than SSGC. There was also no significant difference

between SSGI and SSGC in terms of blood lactate response. To our knowledge, this is

the first study to compare acute physiological responses and time-motion characteristics

of two distinct SSG training regimes.

 

116

6.5 Practical Applications 

The results indicate that both intermittent and continuous SSG training regimes could be

used during the season to provide a conditioning stimulus, similar to match intensity.

However, both the continuous and interval formats of the SSG’s used in this study

appear unlikely to provide a sufficient stimulus overload since a training intensity (>

90% HRmax) has previously been suggested to be optimal for increasing VO2max in

soccer players (Helgerud, et al., 2001; Hoff, et al., 2002). The SSGI games also appear

to elicit more high-intensity running, which may be useful for developing fitness

requiring repeated sprint efforts with short recovery. The intermittent SSG’s were also

perceived by the players to be easier, which may suggest greater compliance amongst

players if this training is used frequently. Finally, another potential benefit is, by design,

SSGI training allows for coaching input during the passive rest periods. This may

facilitate improved skill transfer and decision making between SSG training and match

situations. However, more research is needed to investigate the extent of skill

involvement and the quality of skill learning outcomes.

 

117

6.6 References 

Aroso, J., Rebelo, A., & Gomes-Pereira, J. (2004). Physiological impact of selected game-related exercises. Journal of Sports Sciences, 22(6), 522.

Balsom, P., Lindholm, T., Nilsson, J., & Ekblom, B. (1999). Precision Football. Kempele, Finland: Polar Electro Oy.

Bangsbo, J., Iaia, M., & Krustrup, P. (2007). Metabolic response and fatigue in soccer. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2, 111-127.

Bangsbo, J., & Michalak, L. (2002). Assessment of the physiological capacity of elite soccer players. In W. Spink, T. Reilly & A. Murphy (Eds.), Science & Football IV (pp. 53-62). London: Routledge.

Borg, G. (1998). Borg's Perceived Exertion and Pain Scales. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics.

Gaitanos, G. C., Williams, C., Boobis, L. H., & Brooks, S. (1993). Human muscle metabolism during intermittent maximal exercise. Journal of Applied Physiology, 75, 712-719.

Helgerud, J., Engen, L., Wisløff, U., & Hoff, J. (2001). Aerobic endurance training improves soccer performance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 33(11), 1925-1931.

Hill-Haas, S., Coutts, A., Rowsell, G., & Dawson, B. (2007). Variability of acute physiological responses and performance profiles of youth soccer players in small-sided games. Journal of Science & Medicine in Sport.

Hoff, J., Wisløff, U., Engen, L., Kemi, O., & Helgerud, J. (2002). Soccer specific aerobic endurance training. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 36, 218-221.

Impellizzeri, F., Marcora, S., Castagna, C., Reilly, T., Sassi, A., Iaia, M., et al. (2006). Physiological and performance effects of generic versus specific aerobic training in soccer players. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 27(6), 483 - 492.

Little, T., & Williams, A. (2006). Suitability of soccer training drills for endurance training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20(2), 316-319.

Little, T., & Williams, A. (2007a). Effects of sprint duration and exercise: rest ratio on repeated sprint performance and physiological responses in professional soccer players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21(2), 646-648.

Little, T., & Williams, A. (2007b). Measures of exercise intensity during soccer training drills with professional soccer players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21(2), 367-371.

Owen, A., Twist, C., & Ford, P. (2004). Small-sided games: The physiological and technical effect of altering pitch size and player numbers. Insight: FA Coaches Association Journal, 7(2), 50-53.

Rampinini, E., Coutts, A., Castagna, C., Sassi, R., & Impellizzeri, F. (2007). Variation in top level soccer match performance. International Journal of Sport Medicine, 28, 1 - 7.

Rampinini, E., Impellizzeri, F., Castagna, C., Abt, G., Chamari, K., Sassi, A., et al. (2006). Factors influencing physiological responses to small-sided soccer games. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25(6), 659-666.

Sampaio, J., Garcia, G., Macas, V., Ibanez, J., Abrantes, C., & Caixinha, P. (2007). Heart rate and perceptual responses to 2 x 2 and 3 x 3 small-sided youth soccer games. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 6 (Suppl. 10)(1), 121 - 122.

Tabata, I., Nishimura, K., Kouzaki, M., Hirai, Y., Ogita, F., Miyachi, M., et al. (1996). Effects of moderate-intensity endurance and high-intensity intermittent training on anaerobic capacity and VO2max. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 28(10), 1327-1330.

118

Williams, K., & Owen, A. (2007). The impact of player numbers on the physiological responses to small sided games. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 6 (Suppl. 10)(1), 100.

Acknowledgments  

We would like to thank S. Potter and J. Lorreto of Cockburn City S.C. for their

administrative and technical/coaching support respectively, as well as the 2005 U18

Premier League squad players for their steadfast commitment and effort. We would also

like to thank Polar Electro Oy (Finland) for sponsoring the Polar Team Sport System

heart rate monitors and software. The results of the present study do not constitute

endorsement of the product by the authors or the journal.

119

____________________________________________________

 

CHAPTER SEVEN 

____________________________________________________________

Time motion characteristics and physiological responses of small‐sided 

games in elite youth players: the influence of player number and rule 

changes 

As per the peer-reviewed paper Accepted in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning

Research:

Hill-Haas, S., Coutts, A., Dawson, B., & Rowsell, G. (2009). Time-motion

characteristics and physiological responses of small-sided games in elite youth players:

the influence of player number and rule changes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning

Research, In Press.

120

7.0 Abstract 

The aim of this study was to examine acute physiological responses and time-motion

characteristics associated with four soccer-specific small-sided games (SSGs) formats

(3 vs. 4 players, 3 vs. 3 + floater, 5 vs. 6 players and 5 vs. 5 + floater) and four rules in

elite youth soccer players. Sixteen male youth soccer players (mean SD: age = 15.6

0.8 years, stature = 170.8 6.6 cm, body mass = 67.5 6.2 kg, 20 m shuttle run

estimated V.O2max = 57.4 3.7 mLkg-1min-1) participated in the study, in which heart

rate (HR), rating of perceived exertion (RPE), blood lactate (La-) and time-motion

characteristics were recorded. The rule requiring extra sprint running had a greater

effect on the time-motion characteristics than all other rule modifications, but no effect

on acute %HRmax, La- and RPE. Rule modifications had no effect on RPE. Fixed

underload teams (i.e. lower number of players compared to the opponent team) recorded

a significantly higher RPE compared to the fixed overload teams, although there were

no differences in %HRmax, and La-. The major practical findings are that subtle changes

in SSGs playing rules can influence the physiological, perceptual and time-motion

responses in young elite soccer players. Rules that are related to a team’s chances of

scoring may improve player motivation and thereby increase training intensity during

SSGs. There were no differences between fixed and variable formats in terms of

physiological and perceptual responses, although both may provide useful technical-

tactical training. Coaches should take care in designing different soccer SSGs as each

rule or game format change may influence exercise intensity independently.

Key Words: overload; game format; rule modifications; sprints

 

 

121

7.1 Introduction 

For optimal performance in team-sports like soccer, players are required to maximise

their technical, tactical and physical abilities. Small-sided games (SSGs) training in

soccer has been suggested as a training mode that may be able to concurrently improve

these qualities (Gabbett & Mulvey, 2008). Indeed, it is widely believed that by altering

pitch size, player number or game rules independently, the physiological, perceptual and

physical loads can be manipulated to provide different training responses. However, the

influence of altering these variables concurrently (e.g., player number and game rules) on

the exercise intensity is not well understood. This is important because soccer coaches

and conditioning staff commonly attempt to control the training intensity of soccer

players by altering these variables. A better understanding of the influence of modifying

these variables on SSG exercise intensity will assist coaches in controlling the training

process for soccer players

Recent studies have shown that small-sided game (SSG) formats with different player

number elicit different physiological, perceptual and time-motion characteristics (Aroso,

Rebelo, & Gomes-Pereira, 2004; Rampinini, Impellizzeri, et al., 2007). In general, these

studies have shown that SSG formats with fewer players elicit greater HR, blood lactate

and perceptual responses but less high speed running than the larger formats (Little &

Williams, 2007). However, these previous studies have only examined the influence of

altering the player numbers on teams but maintaining a numerical balance between

opposing teams (e.g. 2 vs. 2 and 4 vs. 4 players). In practice it is common for coaches to

use SSG formats which involve playing a team with a fixed numerical advantage

(‘overload’) against a team with a fixed numerical disadvantage (‘underload’) (e.g. 4 vs.

3 players and 6 vs. 5 players). It is also common to use SSG formats which involve

variable ‘overload’ and ‘underload’ situations, which is achieved by using a ‘floater’

player. This player transitions to the team in possession of the ball, to create temporary

‘overload’ and ‘underload’ situations. The latter SSG game design is typically used to

develop defensive or attacking proficiency or increase the physical demands of the

122

‘floating’ player. At present, the impact of creating fixed and temporary ‘overload’ and

‘underload’ situations on the physiological, perceptual and time-motion responses in

SSGs has not been investigated.

It is also common for coaches to modify the playing rules of SSGs to alter the physical

and technical loads imposed on players. Examples of SSG rule modifications include

restricting the number of touches on the ball a player or team may have, or implementing

an offside rule. These rule modifications have been designed in an attempt to replicate

the technical (passing the ball and ball control) and tactical (being aware of the offside

rule) demands of the game. Additionally, an ‘artificial’ rule such as requiring players to

complete additional sprints at set time periods during each SSG, may be used to

superimpose additional physical work on the players. Although some previous studies [2-

4] have briefly described the effects of some technical rule changes on the exercise

intensity of SSGs, these studies have used low samples or very short game durations.

Therefore, at present, the effects of both technical and artificial rule changes on

physiological, perceptual and time-motion characteristics, in the context of fixed and

variable overload SSGs, are not well understood.

To our knowledge, there have been no studies that have examined the combined influence

of fixed and variable player overload number or rule modifications on exercise intensity

and time-motion demands of soccer SSGs. This information may be useful to coaches

who are interested in using SSGs to develop both the technical, tactical and physical

abilities in soccer players. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine acute

physiological responses and time-motion characteristics associated with four soccer-

specific SSG formats (3 vs. 4, 3 vs. 3 + floater, 5 vs. 6 and 5 vs. 5 + floater) and four rules

in elite youth soccer players. It was hypothesised that the artificial rule change (‘Rule 4’),

which required planned, additional higher speed running, would have a significantly

greater effect on time-motion characteristics than the technical rule changes, with no

differences in physiological or perceptual responses. The technical rules included an

123

offside rule being in effect (‘Rule 1’), all players must be in the front two zones of the

pitch for a goal to count (‘Rule 2’) and the use of two neutral players positioned outside,

but along the lengths of the pitch (‘Rule 3’). The secondary hypothesis was that there

would be no significant differences between fixed and variable overload SSG formats.

7.2 Methods 

7.2.1 Experimental Approach to the Problem 

Currently, the effects of both technical and artificial rule changes on physiological,

perceptual and time-motion characteristics, in both the context of fixed and variable

overload SSGs, are not well understood. To test the hypothesis, both the player number

and rules were manipulated in an attempt to alter the intensity of the SSGs. Four different

rule changes that are commonly used by soccer coaches were applied in four soccer-

specific SSG formats (3 vs. 4, 3 vs. 3 + 1 floater, 5 vs. 6 and 5 vs. 5 + 1 floater).

7.2.2 Subjects  

Sixteen male youth soccer players (mean SD: age = 15.6 0.8 years, stature = 170.8

6.6 cm, body mass = 67.5 6.2 kg, 20 m shuttle run estimated V.O2max = 57.4 3.7

mLkg-1min-1) participated in the study. All subjects were members of a state team based

at a sports institute in Australia. All players and parents were notified of the research

procedures, requirements, benefits and risks before giving informed consent. A university

Research Ethics Committee granted approval for the study.

7.2.3 Procedures 

A 4-week pre-season training period served as a familiarisation for all the SSG formats

and rule changes. The coach regularly applied the same game formats and rule changes

as part of normal training. The coach used a subjective skill assessment of each player, to

allocate players into balanced SSG teams. The skill assessment was done by a very

experienced coach, who had been coaching the same players for two years. The player’s

124

fitness score (20 m shuttle run) (Leger & Lambert, 1982) was not used to allocate players

into the various teams, since the squad were at a similar fitness level (no outliers).

7.2.4 Small‐Sided Games  

The games were played once per week over the first 16-weeks of the competitive season

period, with players selected on the same teams against the same opponents. The games

were played at the beginning of each training session, following a standardised 20 minute

warm-up. When the ball was kicked out of play, immediate access to a replacement

soccer ball was made possible by having a supply of balls placed in the goals and along

the boundary line surrounding the entire pitch. All the SSGs were played in random order

over the 16-week duration of the study.

7.2.5 Small‐Sided Game Variables  

Table 7.1 shows a summary of the variables used in the study. In this study, the player

number and rules were manipulated in an attempt to alter the intensity of the SSGs and

were similar to those used in previous studies (Owen, Twist, & Ford, 2004; Rampinini,

Coutts, Castagna, Sassi, & Impellizzeri, 2007; Williams & Owen, 2007). Smaller and

larger SSG formats were used during the study. The smaller formats included 3 vs. 4

players and 3 vs. 3 players + 1 floater, and the larger formats included 5 vs. 6 players and

5 vs. 5 players + 1 floater. The pitch areas for the smaller and larger games were 37 x 28

m and 47 x 35 m (length x width), respectively.

125

Table 7.1 Small-sided game variables. ‘Condition a’: Offside rule in effect (front one third zone of the pitch). ‘Condition b’: Kick in only (ball cannot be thrown in if it leaves the grid). ‘Condition c’: All attacking team players must be in front two zones for a goal to count.‘ Condition d’: Alongside, but outside the lengths of each pitch, two (2) neutral players can move up and down the pitch, but not enter the grid. Before a shot on goal is permitted, the attacking team must pass the ball to either of these players. The ball can also be passed to either player in the defensive half. Each player is only allowed a maximum of one touch on the ball. ‘Condition e’: One player from each team (‘a pair’) complete four (4) repetitions of “sprint the widths/jog the lengths” on a 90 s interval (3 v 4 and 3 v 3+1 floater games) or three (3) repetitions on a 80 s interval (5 v 6 and 5 v 5+1 floater games). Total distance travelled per player, regardless of game format, would be approximately 440 m.

Small-sided game format 3 v 4 3 v 3 (+1 floater) 5 v 6 5 v 5 (+1 floater) Variables

Game duration: 24 min 24 min 24 min 24 min

Grid total area (m2): 1036 1036 1645 1645 Pitch area per player (m2): 1:148 1:148 1: 149 1:149 Grid size (length x width): 37 m x 28 m 37 m x 28 m 47 m x 35 m 47 m x 35 m Goalkeepers: No No Yes Yes Coach encouragement: Yes Yes Yes Yes Pitch layout: Pitch divided into three equal zones. Goals (height x width): Mini-goals used (1.2 m x 1.8 m). Normal size goals used (2.4 m x 7.3 m). Small-sided game rule ‘Rule 1’ ‘Conditions a + b’ ‘Rule 2’ ‘Conditions a + b + c’ ‘Rule 3’ ‘Conditions a + b + c + d’ ‘Rule 4’ ‘Conditions a + b + c + d + e’

126

7.2.6 Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE)  

Global RPE were recorded immediately after each SSG using the 6-20 scale (Borg, 1970).

Standardized instructions for RPE were given (Borg, 1998), but subjects were asked to

refer their RPE to the exercise bout just completed rather than their perceived exertion at

the time of rating. Exercise anchoring for the RPE scale was completed during

familiarisation with the various SSG formats during pre-season training. The reliability of

RPE has been previously reported (Hill-Haas, Coutts, Rowsell, & Dawson, 2008), with

the typical error expressed as a % of the mean (TE%) being 1 to 2 units.

7.2.7 Blood Sampling  

Capillary blood samples were drawn from an earlobe within 5 min following each SSG,

and immediately analysed using a Lactate Pro (LT-1710, Arkray, Kyoto, Japan) analyser.

Blood samples were taken from each player in every game, and they were drawn from the

same players in the same order following each game. The analyser was regularly

calibrated using precision standards and routinely assessed by external quality controls.

The reliability of blood lactate has been previously reported (Hill-Haas, et al., 2008), with

TE% ranging between 16% and 34%.

7.2.8 Heart Rate Monitoring  

Heart rate (HR) was recorded at 5 s intervals during each SSG via short-range

radiotelemetry (Polar Team Sport System, Polar Electro Oy, Kempele, Finland). The HR

monitors were also worn during periodic 20 m shuttle run assessments, to determine each

player’s maximum HR (HRmax). Exercise intensity during each SSG was assessed using

HR, expressed as percent of HRmax and classified into four previously defined intensity

zones: Zone 1, (<75% HRmax); Zone 2, (75 – 84% HRmax); Zone 3, (85 – 89% HRmax) and

Zone 4, (>90% HRmax)(Gore, 2000). The HRmax reached during the 20 m shuttle run

assessment was used as a reference value for each of the four intensity zones (Gore,

2000). Both the actual and percentage time in each zone for each player during all SSGs

127

were recorded. The reliability of HRmax has been previously reported (Hill-Haas, et al.,

2008), with TE% being less than 5%.

7.2.9 Time‐motion characteristics  

Player movements during the SSGs were measured using portable global positioning

system (GPS) units (SPI 10, GPSports, Canberra, Australia). The SPI 10 was placed into

a harness that positioned the device between the player’s shoulder blades, which was

worn by every player during all SSG’s. The distance travelled was recorded at 1 Hz. For

data analysis purposes, three speed zones were selected: speed zone 1 (standing and

walking, 0–6.9 km/h); speed zone 2 (jogging and cruising 7.0–13.0 km/h) and speed zone

3 (higher intensity running, >13.0 km/h). The reliability of the SPI-10 GPS device for

measuring team sport-specific movement characteristics following a known running

course has previously been reported, with the typical error expressed as a coefficient of

variation (CV) being 3.6% for total distance, 4.3% for low-intensity activity (0–6.9

km/h), 11.2% for higher-intensity running (>14.4 km/h) and 5.8% for peak speed (Coutts

& Duffield, 2008).

 7.2.10 Statistical Analyses  The data are reported as means ± standard deviation (SD). Before using parametric tests,

the assumption of normality was verified using the Shapiro-Wilk W test. To determine

the effects of rule changes, game format and player number, a main effects two-way

ANOVA with a Bonferroni post-hoc was used. All statistical analyses were performed

using the software package STATISTICA (7.0 version, Statsoft, Tulsa, OK, USA) and

significance was set at P <0.05.

7.3 Results 

7.3.1 Rule changes (main effects) 

128

Table 7.2 shows the physiological, perceptual and time-motion characteristics according

to rule changes. With all game formats combined, “sprint the widths/jog the lengths” of

the pitch (‘Rule 4’) compared with all the other rule changes (refer Table 7.2), elicited

significantly greater total distance travelled and higher intensity running. The RPE

associated with the offside rule in effect (‘Rule 1’) and all players having to be in the

front two zones of the pitch for a goal to count (‘Rule 2’), were significantly higher

compared to using two neutral players positioned outside, but along the lengths of the

pitch (‘Rule 3’). For %HRmax, ‘Rule 2’, requiring all players to be in the front two zones

was also significantly higher compared to all other rule changes. There were no

significant differences for blood [La-] between any of the rules (Table 7.2).

For smaller format games (3 v 4 players and 3 v 3 + floater), total distance travelled and

higher intensity running for “sprint the widths/jog the lengths” of the pitch (‘Rule 4’) was

significantly greater compared to all other rule changes. There was no significant

difference between any rules for RPE or blood [La-]. However, %HRmax was significantly

lower for games using two neutral players positioned outside, along the lengths of the

pitch (‘Rule 3’) compared with ‘Rule 1’ (i.e. the offside rule in effect), ‘Rule 2’ (i.e. all

players must be in front two zones) and ‘Rule 4’ (i.e. sprint the widths/jog the lengths” of

the pitch) (Table 7.2).

129

Table 7.2 Physiological and time motion responses to small-sided games according to rule changes (mean SD).

bp<0.01; cp<0.001; NSD: no significant differences. ‘Condition a’: Offside rule in effect (front one third zone of the pitch). ‘Condition b’: Kick in only (ball cannot be thrown in if it leaves the pitch). ‘Condition c’: All attacking team players must be in front two zones for a goal to count. ‘Condition d’: Outside, but along the two lengths of each pitch, two (2) neutral players can move up and down the pitch, but not enter the grid. Before a shot on goal is permitted, the attacking team must pass the ball to either of these players. The ball can also be passed to either player in the defensive half. Each player is only allowed a maximum of one touch on the ball. ‘Condition e’: One player from each team (‘a pair’) complete four (4) repetitions of “sprint the widths/jog the lengths” on a 90 s interval (3 v 4 and 3 v 3+1 games) or three (3) repetitions on a 80 s interval (5 v 6 and 5 v 5+1 games). Total distance travelled per player, regardless of game format, would be approximately 440 m.

Factor N Rule Condition Total distance (m)

(meters/min) Higher

Intensity Running

>13.0 km.h-1 (m)

RPE (6-20) Heart rate (% of

maximum)

Blood lactate concentration

(mmol/L-1)

All games 48 1 a+b 2464 ± 267 (103 ± 11) 537 ± 200 15.7 ± 1.5 82.0 ± 3.9 2.6 ± 1.0

47 2 a+b+c 2502 ± 200 (104 ± 8) 519 ± 157 15.5 ± 1.9 84.0 ± 4.4 2.8 ± 1.0 46 3 a+b+c+d 2523 ± 212 (105 ± 9) 484 ± 146 14.8 ± 1.1 81.2 ± 4.7 2.3 ± 1.1 50 4 a+b+c+d+e 2672 ± 197 (111 ± 8) 748 ± 134 15.0 ± 1.4 82.5 ± 4.1 2.6 ± 1.0

Bonferroni Post-hoc test

Rule 4b >Rule 3 Rule 4c >Rule 3 Rule 1c > Rule 3; Rule 2c > Rule 3

Rule 2c > Rule 3 NSD

3 v 4 and 3 v 3 +1 floater games

24 1 a+b 2439 ± 166(102 ± 7) 451 ± 200 15.8 ± 1.6 83.3 ± 3.8 2.8 ± 1.0

23 2 a+b+c 2405 ± 201(100 ± 8) 430 ± 130 15.6 ± 2.3 84.8 ± 3.8 2.4 ± 0.8 23 3 a+b+c+d 2450 ± 223(102 ± 9) 452 ± 145 14.8 ± 1.2 80.3 ± 4.8 2.3 ± 1.1 26 4 a+b+c+d+e 2677 ± 192(112 ± 8) 758 ± 144 15.1 ± 1.6 83.7 ± 4.0 2.8 ± 1.1 Bonferroni Post-hoc test

Rule 4c >Rule 3 Rule 4c >Rule 3 NSD Rule 4c>Rule 3 NSD

5 v 6 and 5 v 5 +1 floater games

21 1 a+b 2471 ± 355(103 ± 15) 625 ± 205 15.3 ±1.1 81 ± 4 2.2 ± 1.0

22 2 a+b+c 2583 ± 147(108 ± 6) 595 ± 127 14.9 ± 1.4 83 ± 5 3.2 ± 1.2 20 3 a+b+c+d 2614 ± 178(109 ± 7) 515 ± 148 14.6 ± 0.9 83 ± 5 2.3 ± 1.1 21 4 a+b+c+d+e 2639 ± 189(110 ± 8) 731 ± 111 14.9 ± 1.1 80 ± 3 2.4 ± 0.9 Bonferroni Post-hoc test

NSD Rule 4b >Rule 3 NSD NSD Rule 2b >Rule 1; Rule 2b >Rule 3

130

For larger format games (5 v 6 players and 5 v 5 + floater), significantly more higher

intensity running (>13.0 km.h-1) was completed by adding a rule that required players to

“sprint the widths/jog the lengths” of the pitch (‘Rule 4’) compared to all other rules.

There were no significant differences between any of the rules for RPE and %HRmax.

However, blood [La-] was significantly higher for games requiring all players to be in the

front two zones of the pitch for a goal to count (‘Rule 2’) compared with the offside rule

in effect (‘Rule 1’) and games using two neutral channel players (‘Rule 3’), respectively.

 

7.3.2 Game format (main effects) 

Table 7.3 shows the physiological, perceptual and time-motion characteristics according

to game format. The data from the ‘floaters’ were excluded from the main effects

analysis to reduce any potential confounding effects the ‘floater’ player may have on

player number. The total distance travelled between ‘matched’ teams (3 v 3 and 5 v 5

players) was significantly higher compared with ‘overload’ teams (6 player and 4 player

teams) (p < 0.007; 2585 204 m and 2458 243 m, respectively). The RPE associated

with ‘underload’ teams (5 player and 3 player teams) was significantly higher compared

with ‘overload’ teams (6 player and 4 player teams) (p < 0.005; 16 1 and 15 2,

respectively). There were no significant differences in higher intensity running (distance

travelled at > 13.0 km.h-1), %HRmax and blood [La-] between any of the game formats

(Table 7.3).

131

Table 7.3 Physiological and time motion responses to small-sided games according to game format excluding the floater (mean SD).

bp < 0.01; RPE = rating of perceived exertion; NSD: no significant differences.

Factor Levels N Total distance (m)

(meters/min) Higher Intensity

Running >13.0 km.h-1

(m)

RPE (6-20) Heart rate (% max)

Blood lactate concentration

(mmol/L)

Player Number Matched 3 v 3 and 5 v 5 teams

(excluding floater) 83 2585 ± 204 (108 ± 9) 582 ± 190 15.2 ± 1.4 82.5 ± 4.6 2.6 ± 1.1

Overload 6 player and 4 player teams 56 2458 ± 243(102 ± 10) 528 ± 184 14.7 ± 1.5 82.3 ± 4.5 2.6 ± 1.0 Underload 5 player and 3 player teams 41 2535 ± 247(106 ± 10) 598 ± 192 15.8 ± 1.5 82.3 ± 4.0 2.6 ± 1.0 Bonferroni Post-hoc test Matchedb > Overload NSD Underloadb >Overload NSD NSD

132

7.3.3 Player number (main effects) 

Table 7.4 shows the physiological, perceptual and time-motion characteristics

associated with player number, including the floater. For the smaller format games, the

floater travelled a significantly greater total distance compared to 4 player teams (p <

0.01; 2668 220 m or 111 9 m/min versus 2408 231 m or 100 10 m/min

respectively). The RPE associated with 3 player teams was significantly higher

compared with 4 player teams (p < 0.003; 16 2 and 15 2 respectively). There were

no significant differences between player numbers (3 players and 4 players) in higher

intensity running (distance travelled at > 13.0 km.h-1), sprint number, %HRmax and blood

[La-] (Table 7.4).

For the larger format games, the floater completed a significantly greater amount of

sprints (>18.0 km.h-1) compared with 5 player and 6 player teams respectively (p <

0.002; 15 3 versus 9 5 and 8 4 respectively). There were no significant differences

between player numbers (including the floater) in total distance travelled, higher

intensity running (distance travelled at > 13.0 km.h-1), RPE, %HRmax and blood [La-]

(Table 7.4).

133

Table 7.4 Physiological and time motion responses to small-sided games according to player number (mean SD).

b p<0.01;cp<0.001; RPE = rating of perceived exertion; NSD: no significant differences.

Factor Levels N Total distance (m)

(meters/min) Higher

Intensity Running

>13.0 km.h-1 (m)

Sprint Number (>18.0 km/h)

RPE (6-20) Heart rate (% max)

Blood lactate concentration

(mmol/L)

Player Number

3 players 12 2543 ± 187 (106 ± 8) 553 ±187 10 ± 6 16.3 ±1.6 82.3 ± 3.5 2.5 ± 0.7 4 players 16 2408 ± 231(100 ± 10) 482 ±178 8 ± 4 14.6 ± 1.9 83.1 ± 4.0 2.5 ± 0.9 Floater 8 2668 ± 220 (111 ± 10) 628 ±132 9 ± 6 16.3 ± 1.5 82.7 ± 3.0 2.3 ± 0.8

Scheffe Post-hoc test

Floaterb > 4 NSD NSD

Floater c>4 NSD NSD

5 players 20 2526 ± 302 (105 ± 13) 649 ±190 9 ± 5 15.2 ±1.0 82.5 ± 5.0 2.5 ± 1.0 6 players 24 2524 ± 247 (105 ± 10) 589 ±177 8 ± 4 14.9 ± 0.9 81.4 ± 5.1 2.6 ± 1.1 Floater 4 2610 ± 201 (109 ± 8) 673 ±194 15 ± 3 16.3 ± 1.7 82.5 ± 5.6 2.8 ± 0.2 Scheffe Post-hoc test

NSD NSD

Floaterc > 5 Floaterc > 6

NSD NSD NSD

134

7.4 Discussion 

The primary aim of this study was to examine the acute physiological and perceptual

responses and time-motion characteristics associated with four SSG formats (3 vs. 4

players, 3 vs. 3 players +1 floater, 5 vs. 6 players and 5 vs. 5 players +1 floater) with

four different playing rules. The main finding was that the different playing rules

modify the time-motion, physiological and perceptual responses in aerobically fit,

elite youth soccer players. Furthermore, changes in game formats and variations in

player number appear to have a greater influence on time-motion characteristics and

perceptual responses than the physiological responses.

7.4.1 Rule changes 

The artificial rule that required each player to sprint the widths and jog the lengths of

the pitch (‘Rule 4’), had a greater effect on the time-motion characteristics (total

distance traveled, higher intensity running and number of sprints) than all other rule

modifications. However, despite imposing a greater external training load on each

game, the artificial rule had no effect on the blood lactate and perceptual responses.

This is in agreement with the primary hypothesis of this study. One possible reason

for this may be a ‘pacing effect’ due to the relatively long duration (24 min) of these

games. Players may have responded by reducing the tempo of play, and thereby the

physiological and perceptual load, as a strategy to endure each game (Carling &

Bloomfield, 2008).

In contrast, a technical rule which required all players from the attacking team to be

in the front two-thirds of the pitch for a score (goal) to count (‘Rule 2’), significantly

increased %HRmax and blood [La-] in both smaller and larger game formats,

respectively. Despite the duration of the game, this rule may not have induced a

significant pacing strategy, since scoring a goal would not have elicited large

increases in total distance covered. These results suggest that technical rules that are

135

related to a team’s chance of scoring a goal, may influence the player’s motivation to

increase or maintain exercise intensity and therefore enhance the player’s

physiological response to SSGs.

Both the technical and artificial rules used in this study had no effect on RPE. This

finding is in contrast to previous studies which reported an increase in blood [La-]

(player-to-player marking) (Aroso, et al., 2004), RPE (maximum of two touches on

the ball) (Sampaio, et al., 2007) and %HRmax (pressure half switch) (Little &

Williams, 2006) with specific rules during SSGs. It is possible that the technical load

of the SSGs in this study did not provide sufficient strain, and therefore the RPEs of

the high level youth soccer players in this study, did not increase. This aspect of SSG

design in soccer requires further investigation. 7.4.2 Game format

At various times during a soccer match, players will encounter situations where the

number of players around the ball from each team may be ‘matched’, ‘under-loaded’

(i.e. outnumbered) or ‘overloaded’ in relation to their opponents. This study showed

that temporarily matched teams (3 v 3 and 5 v 5 players) during the variable overload

games worked harder than fixed overload formats (6 player and 4 player teams). The

presence of a floater may have provided a greater incentive for each team to work

harder to gain possession, and thereby gain the benefit of having a floater join their

team. Indeed, although the practical value of variable format (overload-underload)

games used in this study did not differ physiologically or perceptually from the fixed

formats, (in agreement with the secondary hypothesis of this study) their real value

may be to increase the technical load on each player (for example, the number of ball

contacts per player). The technical load of both variable and fixed formats requires

further investigation.

136

Despite fixed underload teams (5 player and 3 player teams) recording a significantly

higher RPE compared to the fixed overload teams (6 player and 4 player teams), there

were no differences in time-motion characteristics and physiological responses.

Although there are no similar studies that have examined the demands of fixed

underload soccer SSGs, a recent study examined the effect of an early dismissal on

player work-rate in a professional soccer match (Carling & Bloomfield, 2008). The

early dismissal (after 5 min of a 90 min match) resulted in an increase in total

distance travelled and less recovery time between high-intensity efforts by the

numerically disadvantaged team (Carling & Bloomfield, 2008). The time-motion data

from the present study did not show similar findings with the numerically

disadvantaged teams as there were no significant differences in the time-motion

characteristics. Again, it is possible that the SSG duration (24 min) may not have

been long enough to induce changes in time-motion responses as reported over the

90-min match. It is also possible that the numerically disadvantaged teams in this

study adopted defensive patterns (such as zone defence) and other tactical

adjustments to reduce fatigue associated with a fixed numerical disadvantage.

Technical analysis of these games may have provided evidence to support this, and

therefore further research is required.

7.4.3 Player number  

Variations in player number have generally been found to affect SSG training

intensity. In this study, time-motion characteristics (total distance travelled) and acute

perceptual responses were affected, but not physiological responses. The RPE of the

3 player teams was higher compared with 4 player teams. This finding is similar to

other studies (Aroso, et al., 2004; Sampaio, et al., 2007), which reported an increase

in RPE with a reduction in player number, when pitch size remained constant.

In contrast, variations in player number in larger formats (5 player and 6 player

teams) did not have any effect on acute physiological, perceptual or time-motion

137

characteristics. Possible reasons include the large pitch size negating the effects of

variations in player number, and the floater constituting relatively less proportion of

total player number.

7.4.4 Floaters 

Floaters were included in this SSGs study to determine the effects of this role on

time-motion characteristics and acute physiological and perceptual responses. The

floater results should be interpreted with caution, given the low sample size. In this

study, floaters traveled greater total distance in the smaller format (3-4 sided) games,

and completed more sprints in the larger format (5-6 sided) games. In the presence of

a floater, frequent changes in ball possession between opposing teams may require

the floater to travel greater distances at sub-maximal speeds, thereby increasing total

distance. Additionally, with more absolute pitch space available in larger format

games, the floater would have more space available for higher speed running efforts.

Despite the higher sub-maximal work rate of the floater compared with other players

in both smaller and larger game formats, this did not translate to significantly greater

perceptual or physiological responses. One possible reason is the floater is usually not

required to tackle. The reduced physical contact may have lowered the acute

perceptual and physiological responses.

7.5 Practical Applications 

The major findings of this study are that subtle changes in SSG playing rules can

influence the physiological, perceptual and time-motion responses in young elite

soccer players. For example, the rule change that requires players to complete pre-

programmed, extra sprint efforts around the pitch during each game (‘Rule 4’), can be

used to impose a greater external training load on elite, youth soccer players. In

contrast, changes in technical rules (for example, ‘Rule 2’) that are related to a team’s

chances of scoring may improve player motivation and thereby increase the exercise

intensity during SSGs.

138

There were no significant differences between fixed and variable formats in terms of

physiological and perceptual responses. Despite this, both formats may provide a

useful variation in SSGs training, or as a technical-tactical training method for

defensive and attacking plays. The possibility of variable formats proving a greater

technical load needs to be substantiated by further research. Finally, the use of a

floater appears to be more effective in smaller format games, and may be appropriate

for either maintaining or developing aerobic fitness.

Collectively, the results of this study provide new information about the effectiveness

of using SSGs as a training stimulus for soccer. This new information relating to

variables affecting SSGs intensity may be useful for prescribing soccer-specific

aerobic conditioning programs for elite youth soccer players. However, caution

should be applied to interpretation of the time-motion results, since the sampling rate

of the GPS units was 1 Hz. This reduces the reliability of velocity data >20.0 km.h-1

(Coutts & Duffield, 2008). We suggest that coaches should take care in designing

different soccer SSGs as each rule or game format change may influence exercise

intensity independently. To increase the effectiveness of these changes from a

conditioning perspective, it may be better to manipulate technical rules and small-

sided game player numbers separately.

 

Acknowledgments 

In memory of Martyn Crook, the former head coach of the Australian National U17

and South Australian Sports Institute men’s soccer squads. We thank him for his

coaching expertise and commitment to this project. To the players, thank-you for

your time and effort during the small-sided games. We would also like to thank Polar

Electro Oy (Kempele, Finland) for sponsoring the Polar Team Sport System heart

rate monitors and software. The results of the present study do not constitute

endorsement of the product by the authors or the journal.

139

7.6 References  

Aroso, J., Rebelo, A., & Gomes-Pereira, J. (2004). Physiological impact of selected game-related exercises. Journal of Sports Sciences, 22(6), 522.

Borg, G. (1970). Perceived exertion as an indicator of somatic stress. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 2(2), 92-98.

Borg, G. (1998). Borg's Perceived Exertion and Pain Scales. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics.

Carling, C., & Bloomfield, J. (2008). The effect of an early dismissal on player work-rate in a professional soccer match. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2008.1009.1004.

Coutts, A., & Duffield, R. (2008). Validity and reliability of GPS devices for measuring movement demands of team sports. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2008.1009.1015.

Gabbett, T., & Mulvey, M. (2008). Time-motion analysis of small-sided training games and competition in elite women soccer players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22(2), 543-552.

Gore, C. (Ed.). (2000). Physiological tests for elite athletes. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics.

Hill-Haas, S., Coutts, A., Rowsell, G., & Dawson, B. (2008). Variability of acute physiological responses and performance profiles of youth soccer players in small-sided games. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 11, 487-490.

Leger, L., & Lambert, J. (1982). A maximal multistage 20-m shuttle run test to predict VO2max. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 49(1), 1 - 12.

Little, T., & Williams, A. (2006). Suitability of soccer training drills for endurance training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20(2), 316-319.

Little, T., & Williams, A. (2007). Measures of exercise intensity during soccer training drills with professional soccer players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21(2), 367-371.

Owen, A., Twist, C., & Ford, P. (2004). Small-sided games: The physiological and technical effect of altering pitch size and player numbers. Insight: FA Coaches Association Journal, 7(2), 50-53.

Rampinini, E., Coutts, A., Castagna, C., Sassi, R., & Impellizzeri, F. (2007). Variation in top level soccer match performance. International Journal of Sport Medicine, 28, 1 - 7.

Rampinini, E., Impellizzeri, F., Castagna, C., Abt, G., Chamari, K., Sassi, A., et al. (2007). Factors influencing physiological responses to small-sided soccer games. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25(6), 659-666.

Sampaio, J., Garcia, G., Macas, V., Ibanez, J., Abrantes, C., & Caixinha, P. (2007). Heart rate and perceptual responses to 2 x 2 and 3 x 3 small-sided youth soccer games. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 6 (Suppl. 10)(1), 121 - 122.

Williams, K., & Owen, A. (2007). The impact of player numbers on the physiological responses to small sided games. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 6 (Suppl. 10)(1), 100.

140

____________________________________________________

 

CHAPTER EIGHT 

____________________________________________________________

Generic versus small‐sided games training in soccer 

As per the peer-reviewed paper Accepted and Published in the International Journal of

Sports Medicine:

Hill-Haas, S., Coutts, A., Rowsell, G., & Dawson, B. (2009). Generic versus small-

sided game training in soccer. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 30(9), 636 -

642.

141

8.0 Abstract  

The aim of this study was to compare 7 weeks of soccer-specific small-sided game

(SSG) and mixed generic fitness training, on selected physiological, perceptual and

performance variables. Twenty five elite youth players were randomly allocated to

either a SSG (coach selected) or generic training group (GTG), in a randomised, parallel

matched-group design. In addition to normal training, each group completed two

fitness training sessions per week of equal duration. Players completed a VO2max

treadmill test, Multistage Fitness Test (MSFT), Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test

Level 1 (YYIRTL1), 12 x 20 m test of repeated-sprint ability (RSA) and 20-m sprint

test pre and post training. Training heart rate, perceived training intensity and perceptual

fatigue measures were recorded throughout the training period. There were no

differences in training heart rate or perceptual well-being measures. However, the GTG

did perceive their training to be more intense than SSG. There were no changes in

either group for V O2max, MSFT, RSA or sprint performance. However, there were

improvements in YYIRTL1 performance for both groups over time, but not between

groups. The results show that both types of training are equally effective at improving

pre-season aerobic-anaerobic performance, despite GTG being perceived to be more

intense.

Key words

Soccer training, aerobic fitness, intermittent exercise

142

8.1 Introduction  

It is well established that improving aerobic fitness can increase the physical

performance capacities in soccer players (Helgerud, et al., 2001; Hoff, et al., 2002;

Impellizzeri, et al., 2006). Several studies have shown that high-intensity training can

improve both physiological characteristics and match performance in soccer players,

including maximal aerobic power (V O2max), sprint performance, repeated sprint

ability, and high intensity running in a match (Ferrari Bravo, et al., 2008; Helgerud, et

al., 2001; Impellizzeri, et al., 2006; McMillan, Helgerud, Macdonald, & Hoff, 2005).

Moreover, small-sided games (SSGs) are often used as an alternative to generic interval

training to provide an aerobic training stimulus in soccer players (Hill-Haas, Coutts, et

al., 2008; Little & Williams, 2006; Rampinini, Impellizzeri, et al., 2007). However, only

two studies have shown that small-sided game training can elicit exercise intensities

(>90% HRmax) that provide an appropriate stimulus for large changes in aerobic fitness

(Balsom, et al., 1999; Hoff, et al., 2002) .

Previous studies have shown that both traditional interval running (e.g. 4 x 4 min at 90-

95% HRmax), repeat-sprint ability (RSA) and small-sided game training are effective

methods for improving fitness and/or match running performance in soccer

players(Ferrari Bravo, et al., 2008) (Impellizzeri, et al., 2006; Reilly & White, 2004).

Reilly and White (2004) used a parallel matched group’s design to compare interval

running and small-sided game training over a six week competitive season period. They

reported that small-sided games were an acceptable substitute for interval training to

maintain fitness during the competitive season (Reilly & White, 2004). Impellizzeri et

al., (2006) also used a parallel matched group’s experimental research design to

compare the effectiveness of interval and small-sided game training methods during 12

143

weeks of training (four weeks pre-season and eight weeks competitive season) and

reported an improvement in aerobic fitness in both groups during the initial four weeks

of training only (Impellizzeri, et al., 2006).

The previous study that has compared aerobic interval training with small-sided game

training, carefully matched training duration and intensity between the training groups

(Impellizzeri, et al., 2006). A fixed aerobic exercise prescription was also applied to

both groups, consisting of 4 x 4 min efforts (at 90-95% HRmax) with 3 min active

recovery. This well-controlled study had a high level of internal validity and

demonstrated similar changes in aerobic fitness and physical performance in both

training groups.

A logical extension of this previous research is to increase the external validity of the

research design, and compare coach selected small-sided game training with mixed

generic training. It is common for soccer coaches to implement a large variety of

training methods (e.g. small-sided game training, interval training, sprint training and

agility training), as part of the physical preparation of soccer players. Indeed, small-

sided games are generally considered a preferred training method, since many coaches

believe that this training allows for the concurrent development of physical, technical,

tactical and decision-making ability in soccer players. Whilst previous studies show

that both interval running and small-sided game training can be used to improve (or

maintain) aerobic fitness in soccer players, it is not known if a study using a similar

research design, but a more ecologically valid selection of training drills (involving

mixed generic training and a coach selected small-sided game training program), will

improve soccer specific fitness and performance.

144

It is widely known that the stimulus for training adaptations is the actual physiological

stress (i.e. the internal load) imposed on the athletes by the external load (Booth &

Thomasson, 1991; Viru & Viru, 2000). Therefore it is important to assess the player’s

response to training (i.e. internal training load) rather than the external training load that

is completed. However, it is common for coaches to prescribe training on the basis of

their knowledge of external loads imposed by certain training drills. It is not known if

experienced coaches can select training drills that provide sufficient stress that can elicit

changes in aerobic fitness and also technical/tactical demands of the team.

There have been relatively few studies examining different training methods for

eliciting aerobic and performance adaptations in soccer players (Ferrari Bravo, et al.,

2008; Helgerud, et al., 2001; Impellizzeri, et al., 2006; McMillan, et al., 2005; Reilly &

White, 2004). Additionally, only one study has compared the effect of generic and

specific training strategies on the perceptual fatigue measures in soccer players

(Impellizzeri, et al., 2006). Therefore, the main purpose of this study was to compare

the effects of preseason small-sided game training (selected by the coach), and mixed

generic training on selected physiological, perceptual and performance variables in elite

youth soccer players. A secondary aim was to verify if the coach’s selection if training

drills would provide sufficient stress to provide necessary fitness and performance

adaptations.

8.2 Methods 

8.2.1 Subjects  

145

Twenty five subjects were randomly assigned to one of the two training groups. Six out

of the 25 subjects (24%) were lost to the follow- up or excluded from the analysis

(Figure 8.1). Therefore, only 19 subjects (mean SD: age = 14.6 0.9 years, stature =

172.0 5.8 cm, body mass = 62.1 6.2 kg, sum of 7 skinfolds = 56.4 16.5 mm,

VO2max = 59.1 4.4 mLkg-1min-1, scaled VO2max = 168 11 mLkg -0.75min-1) were

included in the final analysis (Figure 8.1). The baseline anthropometric and

performance outcome measures of drop-outs were not significantly different from those

who completed the study (data not shown). All subjects were members of a select squad

based at a sports institute in Australia. Goalkeepers were excluded from the study as

they did not participate in the same physical training program as the remainder of the

squad. A University Research Ethics Committee granted approval for the study. All

players and parents were notified of the research procedures, requirements, benefits and

risks before giving informed consent.

8.2.2 Study design and randomization 

A randomised, parallel matched-group design was used (Figure 8.1). Prior to the

commencement of the study all subjects were baseline tested on a number of

performance and physical characteristics. They were then randomly allocated to either

the small-sided game (SSG) training group or the generic training group (GTG). The

allocation to either SSG or GTG was performed by tossing a coin. The study was

conducted over a 9-week period which included a 7-week training period. This training

was implemented during the second half of preseason, as part of the specific preparation

training phase.

146

 

 

Figure 8.1 Training group allocation, follow up testing and final statistical analysis of the study.  

8.2.3 Training programs 

Throughout the study, all subjects trained on four days each week (one training session

per day, 45-90 min per session). Two training sessions per week were designed to focus

on fitness development. Both groups trained at the same time, completing either generic

or SSG training. The duration of each session was matched between the two training

groups, and lasted approximately 30 - 45 min.

The GTG sessions included aerobic power, prolonged intermittent high intensity

running, sprint training (up to a maximum of 20 m) and repeated-sprint training (Table

Allocated to Group A (GTG) Received allocated intervention (n=14) Did not receive allocated intervention (n=0)

Allocation

Lost to Post follow up testing Injured (n=2) Illness (n=1) Other (n=2)

Lost to Post follow up testing Injured (n=1)

Follow Up

Analysed (n=9) Excluded from final analysis (n=5) No follow up (n=5)

Analysis

Analysed (n=10) Excluded from final analysis (n=1) No follow up (n=1)

Allocated to Group B (SSG) Received allocated intervention (n=11) Did not receive allocated intervention (n=0)

147

8.1a). Some sessions also incorporated very short bouts of speed ladder and change of

direction speed drills (Table 8.1a). The sprint training, repeated-sprint training, foot

speed training drills (i.e. speed ladder) and change of direction speed drills only

constituted a very small proportion of training time (Table 8.1a). The main focus of the

generic training was aerobic power development via the use of short duration (≤ 60 s)

high-intensity interval training. The prolonged intermittent high intensity running was

used as a variation to the aerobic power training, ostensibly to induce similar aerobic

adaptations, via the use of a shorter intervals (more typical to those completed during a

match).

The SSG training program was planned and implemented by the coach. The coach had

extensive playing and coaching experience (> 20 years) working with elite youth

players, together with formal qualifications (Football Federation Australia coaching

license). The only guideline provided to the coach by the research team was to match

the playing duration of the SSG training with the GTG (Table 8.1b). Various game sizes

with some rule modifications were used for the SSG training (ranging from 2 v 2 to 7 v

7 players) (Table 8.1b).

148

Table. 8.1a Summary of generic training prescription.

Week Session 1: Prescription (repetitions x duration or distance/rest)

Session 2: Prescription (repetitions x duration or distance/rest)

*Duration (min)

1 AP: 10 x 30 s/60 s; 8 x 45 s/90 s

RSA: 7 x 34 m/35 s (1 set) PIH: 3 x 5 s/15 s; 3 x 10 s/20 s; 3 x 15 s/30 s; 3 x 30 s/60 s; 3 x 45 s/60 s; 3 x 60 s/90 s; 3 x 90 s/90 s

70 min

2 SL: 15 min SP: 8 x 15 m/15 s; 8 x 20 m/20 s; 10 x 10 m/40 s; 4 x 15 m/10 s CODS: 8 min

AP: 8 x 60 s/90 s 10 x 30 s/45 s

69 min

3 RSA: 7 x 34 m/35 s (1 set) PIH: 2 x 90 s/90 s; 2 x 60 s/90 s; 2 x 45 s/60 s; 4 x 30 s/60 s; 3 x 20 s/40 s; 4 x 15 s/30 s; 4 x 10 s/20 s; 4 x 5 s/15 s

SL: 15 min SP: 9 x 15 m/15 s; 9 x 20 m/20 s; 10 x 10 m/40 s; 5 x 15 m/10 s CODS: 10 min

75 min

4 AP: 1 x 8 x 60 s/60 s; 1 x 10 x 45 s/45 s

RSA: 7 x 34 m/35 s (1 set) PIH: 3 x 5 s/15 s; 3 x 30 s/60 s; 4 x 20 s/40 s; 5 x 15 s/30 s; 5 x 10 s/20 s; 5 x 5 s/15 s; 1 x 45 s/60 s; 1 x 60 s/90 s; 1 x 90 s/90 s

66 min

5 AP: 1 x 11 x 30 s/60 s; 1 x 9 x 45 s/90 s

SL: 8 min SP: 10 x 10 m/15 s; 10 x 20 m/20 s; 10 x 10 m/40 s; 6 x 15 m/10 s CODS: 12 min

72 min

6 RSA: 7 x 34 m/35 s (1 set) PIH: 3 x 5 s/15 s; 4 x 30 s/60 s; 7 x 5 s/15 s; 7 x 10 s/20 s; 7 x 15 s/30 s; 6 x 20 s/40 s; RSA: 7 x 34 m/35 s (1 set)

AP: 1 x 9 x 60 s/90 s; 1 x 11 x 30 s/45 s

66 min

7 PIH: 1 x 90 s/90 s; 1 x 60 s/45 s; 1 x 45 s/60 s; 3 x 30 s/60 s; 2 x 20 s/40 s; 3 x 15 s/30 s; 3 x 10 s/20 s; 3 x 5 s/15 s

AP: 1 x 6 x 30 s/60 s; 1 x 5 x 45 s/90 s

43 min

*: ‘Duration’ represents the total training time of two (2) conditioning sessions per week; AP: Aerobic power (intensity: >90% HRmax); PIH: Prolonged intermittent high intensity interval (intensity: maximum); SP: Sprint training (10 m, 15 m and 20 m sprints); CODS: Change of direction speed drills; RSA: Repeat sprint ability (intensity: maximum); SL: Speed ladder drills.

149

Table. 8.1b Summary of small-sided game training formats.

Week Session 1 Reps x duration/rest

Pitch size Session 2 Reps x duration/rest

Pitch size Total Duration

(min) 1 3 v 3a 3 x 11 min/ 3 min 30 m x 20 m 7 v 7b 3 x 13 min/ 2 min 25 m x 35 m 72 min 2 3 v 3a,b,c 4 x 9 min/ 2 min 30 m x 20 m 7 v 7b,c 3 x 11 min/ 2 min 55 m x 40 m 69 min 3 3 v 3a 6 x 6 min/ 1 min 30 m x 15 m 6 v 6a 3 x 13 min/ 2 min 40 m x 30 m 75 min 4 6 v 6c,d 3 x 11 min/ 2 min 45 m x 30 m 5 v 5+1/5 v 6a 3 x 11 min/ 2 min 60 m x 40 m 66 min 5 6 v 6+1/6 v 7a,d 3 x 13 min/ 2 min 50 m x 30 m 5 v 5a 3 x 11 min/ 2 min 45 m x 35 m 72 min 6 6 v 6b,c,e 3 x 10 min/ 2 min 50 m x 40 m 6 v 6b 3 x 12 min/ 2 min 40 m x 30 m 66 min 7 2 v 2a 3 x 7 min/ 1 min 20 m x 15 m 4 v 4a,b,c 2 x 11 min/ 2 min 40 m x 20m 43 min

Rules: a No rules (free play); b All players ahead of half-way line for a goal to count; c Maximum of two (2) touch’s on the ball; d Wall pass/overlap required prior to a shot on goal; e Match rules including offside rule in effect.

150

8.2.4 Aerobic fitness training 

Heart rate (HR) was recorded every 5 s during all training sessions using short-range

telemetry (Polar Team Sport System, Polar Electro Oy®, Kempele, Finland). For

between group comparisons, training-HR data was expressed as percentage of HRmax

and classified into three intensity zones: <80% (low intensity), 80-90% (moderate

intensity) and >90% (high intensity). The maximum HR values reached during maximal

exercise tests were used as reference for the pre and post pre-season training blocks

respectively. Polar Precision Performance software (version 5.0) (Polar Electro Oy®,

Kempele, Finland) was used to analyse the HR data.

Quantification of global training load was recorded using the session rating of perceived

exertion (RPE) (Impellizzeri, et al., 2004) for each of the aerobic fitness conditioning

training sessions. This method quantifies the subjective global training load for each

session by multiplying the training duration (min) by session-RPE using Borg’s

Category Ratio-10 scale (CR-10 scale) (Foster, et al., 2001; Impellizzeri, et al., 2004).

Although global training load was not recorded for technical training sessions, players

from both groups completed similar training in a team environment.

8.2.5 Training outcomes 

Training outcome measures were taken at pre and post pre-season. Before each testing

session, subjects were instructed to refrain from eating or drinking carbonated drinks at

least three hours prior to the exercise test. Players were also instructed not to consume

any beverages containing caffeine or guarana, and to refrain from intense physical

activity 24 hours prior to any test session. All testing sessions were conducted in

controlled conditions in either a research laboratory or indoor sports stadium at the

151

sports institute. Subjects completed the tests at the same time of day, in the same order,

under similar environmental conditions (29 ± 3.5 °C, 40 ± 1.5% relative humidity, and

1011 ± 4 Hpa).

8.2.6 Aerobic fitness measures 

Each subject completed one familiarisation session in the week prior to baseline testing.

The test on a motorised treadmill (Sportech, Australian Capital Territory, Australia)

comprised a three minute warm-up at a starting speed of 9 kmh-1, and a gradient of 1%.

For the first five minutes of the test, the speed increased by 1 kmh-1 per minute, at a

constant grade of 1%. Thereafter, the maximum speed of 13 kmh-1 remained constant;

however, the gradient increased by 2% per minute. The test continued until volitional

exhaustion. The time to exhaustion (s) as well as RPE (Borg 6-20) was recorded

immediately following cessation of the test. Heart rate was recorded every 5 s using HR

monitors (Polar Team Sport System, Polar Electro Oy®, Kempele, Finland). Maximal

oxygen consumption ( V O2max) was measured using an automated Gas Analysis

System (SASI, Adelaide, Australia), which was calibrated prior to each test with

reference and calibration gases of known concentrations. The pneumotach was

calibrated with ambient air using a three-litre syringe (Hans Rudolph Inc., Kansas City,

USA). V O2max was taken as the highest 60-s average recorded during the test.

Allometric scaling of V O2max values was also applied according to the methods

described by Chamari et al (Chamari, et al., 2004). The typical error (TE) for the test

was 1.6 mLkg-1min-1 with a coefficient of variation (CV) of 2.8%.

8.2.7 Field Performance Tests 

152

The Multi-Stage Fitness Test (MSFT), YYIRTL1 and repeated-sprint ability (RSA) test

were selected as the outcome tests of soccer-specific performance. The MSFT was

performed on an indoor wooden surface conducted according to standard methods

previously reported (Thomas, Dawson, & Goodman, 2006).The distance traveled at the

end of the test was taken as the criterion performance measure. The CV for this test was

4.9%, with a TE of 40 m. The YYIRTL1 was also performed on an indoor wooden

surface conducted according to standard methods previously reported (Krustrup, et al.,

2003). The total distance covered during the YYIRTL1 was considered as the

performance score. The CV for this test was 9%, with a TE of 116 m.

The RSA test consisted of twelve maximal 20 m sprints commencing every 20 s

conducted in an indoor stadium with a wooden floor. Each sprint began with a

stationary start 0.5 m behind the first timing gate, to ensure the timing system

functioned correctly. Subjects were required to complete the RSA test with maximum

effort. Sprint time was recorded using electronic timing system (Swift Performance

Equipment, Lismore, Australia). The timing gates were positioned at the start and at

10- and 20-m. After each sprint the subjects decelerated over a distance of their own

choice, and jogged back to the start position, covering a total distance of ~50 m. During

the active recovery, continuous verbal feedback was provided to ensure the subject

returned to the start position in time to begin the next sprint. A 10 s verbal warning and

5 s countdown was given before each sprint. Sprint performance was measured as the

total time (s) taken to complete the twelve sprints (RSA total) (TE = 0.56 s; CV = 1.3%)

(Oliver, Williams, & Armstrong, 2006).

The sprints were performed on an indoor surface. Each subject was required to complete

three maximal 20 m sprints, each separated by at least 5 min of passive recovery. Each

153

sprint began with a stationary start 0.5 m behind the first timing gate, to ensure the

timing system functioned correctly. Sprint times were recorded using an electronic

timing system (Swift Performance Equipment, Lismore, Australia). Split times were

recorded at 5 m and 20 m segments of each sprint. The fastest split time of three trials

was recorded.

8.2.8 Perceptual measures 

Subjective ratings of physical and mental recovery, leg soreness and fatigue were

recorded prior to training at the end of each week using a training diary. The diary

contained four questions asking the players to rate their physical and mental recovery,

leg soreness and fatigue on a 10-point numeric scale. The descriptors ranged from not

at all recovered (1) to completely recovered (10) for mental and physical recovery. The

descriptors relating to leg soreness and fatigue were reversed and ranged from none at

all (1) to maximal (10) (Halson, et al., 2008; Rowsell, Coutts, Reaburn, & Hill-Haas,

2009). A global Well-being measure was obtained by summing the scores for each of

the four subscales.

8.2.9 Statistical analyses 

Prior to commencement of the study the experimental groups were compared using an

independent samples t-test to ensure that they were of similar performance ability and

fitness capacity. The dependent variables were analysed using a repeated measures

ANOVA where training group was the between subject factor [two levels (SSG and

GTG)] and testing occasion (Pre-training and Post-training) was the within subject

factor. With all multivariate tests, the average F statistic was used to identify significant

within-subject effects and within-subject factor by order effects were adjusted by the

154

Greenhouse-Geisser values in the event of violation of the sphericity assumption.

Training load, heart rate and perception of fatigue data was analysed using an

independent samples t-test. Effect size (ES) for independent samples t-test was

calculated using Cohen’s d statistic. Values of 0.2, 0.5 and >0.8 were considered small,

moderate and large, respectively. Effect size (eta squared, 2) for analysis of variance

was calculated to provide an estimate of the meaningfulness of comparisons between

groups. Values of <0.3, 0.3-0.5 and >0.5 were considered small, moderate and large,

respectively (Cohen, 1988). An alpha (a) level of < 0.05 was used as the criterion for

significance. Statistical analyses were performed using the software package SPSS

(version 15.0). All data are mean SD.

8.3 Results 

8.3.1 Training load 

During the 7 weeks of preseason training, players underwent 14 conditioning training

sessions corresponding to 482 minutes of aerobic fitness training (23% of total

preseason training time). The perceived training intensity (global RPE) was greater in

the GTG (8.2 ± 1.0 AU and 7.5 ± 1.2 AU respectively; p < 0.001; ES =0.580). There

was also a greater daily session training load for the GTG compared to the SSG (270 ±

59 AU and 250 ± 53 AU respectively; p < 0.001; ES =0.330). Figure 8.2 shows the time

spent in HR zones for each of the fitness training sessions during the study period.

There were no significant differences between the GTG and SSG for any of the HR

zones.

155

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

<80%HRmax 80-89% HRmax >90% HRmax

Zone

Tim

e (m

in)

GTGSSG

b,c

a,c

a,b

Figure 8.2 Mean (± SD) time spent in low, moderate and high heart rate zones during the study

period. a significantly different to < 80% HRmax (p<0.05);b significantly different to < 80-89% HRmax (p<0.05); c significantly different to >90% HRmax (p<0.05).

8.3.2 Maximal aerobic power and capacity 

There were no significant changes in either group for relative (p = 0.619; 2 = 0.007) or

scaled V O2max (p = 0.626; 2 = 0.007 (Table 8.2). Similarly, there was no change in

treadmill time to exhaustion for either training group (p = 0.340; 2 = 0.027) (Table

8.2).

156

Table. 8.2 Comparison of physiological performance tests and anthropometric data over 7 weeks of preseason training (mean ± SD).

Variable

Group Pre Post Interaction Time

P ES P ES

V. O2max GTG 60.2 4.6 61.4 3.5 0.619 0.007 0.778 0.002

(mLkg-1min-1) SSG 59.3 4.5 58.9 5.5

V. O2max GTG 169 14 173 10 0.626 0.007 0.648 0.006

(mLkg-0.75min-1) SSG 167 9 166 11

Treadmill time to exhaustion GTG 589 34 604 43 0.340 0.027 0.943 0.000

(s) SSG 594 50 581 49

MSFT GTG 2258 131 2327 174 0.514 0.013 0.684 0.005

(m) SSG 2222 240 2206 221

YYIRTL1 GTG 1764 256 2151 261 0.522 0.013 0.004a 0.229

(m) SSG 1488 345 1742 362

RSAtotal GTG 42.2 1.8 42.3 1.5 0.800 0.002 0.977 0.000

(s) SSG 42.1 1.1 42.0 1.4

5 m sprint GTG 1.16 0.02 1.15 0.05 0.429 0.019 0.809 0.002

(s) SSG 1.15 0.05 1.16 0.07

20 m sprint GTG 3.27 0.06 3.22 0.10 0.610 0.008 0.366 0.025

(s) SSG 3.26 0.12 3.24 0.17

a significant difference between pre and post training.

157

8.3.3 Field performance tests 

There was no significant difference in total distance covered during the MSFT for either

group (p = 0.514; 2= 0.013) (Table 8.2). However, there was a significant

improvement in total distance covered during the YYIRTL1 for both groups over time

(p = 0.004; 2= 0.229)) (Figure 8.3). There were no interaction effects in YYIRTL1

during the study (p = 0.522; 2= 0.013) (Table 8.2). There were no changes in RSA (p =

0.800; 2 = 0.002) or 5 m and 20 m sprint performance during the study (p = 0.429; 2

= 0.019 and p = 0.610; 2 = 0.008) (Table 8.2).

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Pre Post

Dis

tan

ce (

m)

Generic Training Small-Sided Game Training

**

8.3.4 Perceptual measures  

There were no between group differences for any of the perceptual measures of fatigue

during the study (Table 8.3).

Figure. 8.3 SSG and GTG performance changes in the YYIRTL1 over 7 weeks of preseason training. *Significant difference between pre and post training.

158

Table. 8.3 Comparison of perceptual variables over 7 weeks of preseason training (mean ± SD).

Variable

Group Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Group Time Interaction

P ES P ES P ES

Physical GTG 8.8 ± 0.5 8.3 ± 1.2 7.9 ± 1.2 8.6 ± 1.7 8.7 ± 0.5 8.4 ± 0.7 8.4 ± 1.0 0.44 0.01 0.07 0.10 0.76 0.03

(AU) SSG 8.6 ± 1.1 7.6 ± 1.8 7.0 ± 2.3 8.3 ± 2.6 8.7 ± 0.7 8.9 ± 0.6 8.6 ± 0.5

Mental GTG 8.9 ± 0.6 7.4 ± 2.7 8.2 ± 2.8 8.0 ± 2.7 8.4 ± 2.5 7.7 ± 2.8 8.1 ± 2.4 0.08 0.03 0.91 0.02 0.95 0.02

(AU) SSG 9.0 ± 0.7 8.8 ± 0.8 8.4 ± 0.9 8.4 ± 2.5 8.8 ± 0.7 8.9 ± 0.9 8.9 ± 0.6

Soreness GTG 1.8 ± 0.5 2.2 ± 1.6 2.6 ± 1.9 2.1 ± 1.3 2.1 ± 1.1 2.0 ± 0.9 1.9 ± 1.3 0.86 0.001 0.07 0.01 0.44 0.05

(AU) SSG 2.0 ± 1.2 3.6 ± 2.1 2.9 ± 2.4 1.8 ± 2.4 2.0 ± 0.9 1.3 ± 0.7 1.4 ± 0.5

Fatigue GTG 8.8 ± 0.5 8.3 ± 0.2 7.9 ± 1.2 8.6 ± 1.7 8.7 ± 0.5 8.4 ± 0.7 8.4 ± 1.0 0.40 0.01 0.27 0.07 0.64 0.04

(AU) SSG 8.6 ± 1.1 7.6 ± 1.8 7.0 ± 2.3 8.3 ± 2.6 8.7 ± 0.7 8.9 ± 0.6 8.6 ± 0.5

Well-Beinga GTG 19.9 ± 4.3 20.8 ± 1.3 21.7 ± 2.5 21.4 ± 1.8 22.1 ± 1.8 21.1 ± 1.3 20.3 ± 2.7 0.19 0.02 0.10 0.09 0.16 0.08

(AU) SSG 21.7 ± 1.9 23.4 ± 2.5 22.3 ± 2.4 20.6 ± 1.3 21.8 ± 1.4 20.9 ± 1.1 20.4 ± 0.9

a Sum of physical, mental, leg soreness and fatigue ratings.

159

8.4 Discussion 

The results of this study show that both generic and coach selected SSG training are

effective at improving preseason YYIRTL1 performance, but not VO2max, in high level

junior soccer players over a 7 week preseason training period. Neither training strategy

affected sprint and RSA performance.

The generic and SSG training programs used in this study did not change the player’s

VO2max or MSFT performance. The lack of change in treadmill VO2max and MSFT

performance in this study may be explained by the relatively low training intensity of

both the generic and SSG training sessions. Previous studies have shown that time spent

at higher HR is important for improving aerobic fitness in soccer players (Helgerud, et

al., 2001; Hoff, et al., 2002; Impellizzeri, et al., 2006). In the present study the players

in the GTG accumulated more total time at lower training intensities (<80% HRmax; 34

min/week and 20 min/week, respectively), and less total training time at higher training

intensities (>90% HRmax; 9 min/week and 17 min/week, respectively) compared to

previous similar research that used 4 x 4 min of interval running as the generic training

stimulus (Impellizzeri, et al., 2006). In contrast to the previous study, short duration

(<90 s) intervals were completed by the players in the GTG in this study. It seems that

these shorter duration intervals may have reduced the amount of time at >90% HRmax,

and this difference may partly explain why changes in VO2max were not observed in

the GTG. Interestingly, despite no difference in the time spent in each of the heart rate

training zones between the GTG and SSG groups, the GTG still perceived the overall

training load to be higher than the SSG training. One possible reason for this, may be

that the overload effect in generic training is more noticeable compared to SSG training,

since players were more accustomed to soccer-specific exercise.

160

It is possible that the different selection of SSG formats used in this study may explain

the differences in aerobic fitness adaptations compared with previous research

(Impellizzeri, et al., 2006). Several studies have now shown that smaller SSG formats

with larger pitch sizes increase exercise intensity (Hill-Haas, Coutts, et al., 2008; Hill-

Haas, Dawson, et al., 2009; Rampinini, Impellizzeri, et al., 2007). To increase the

ecological validity of this study the coach was responsible for designing and

implementing the SSG. Interestingly, the coach selected a mix of small (3 v 3, 4 v 4

players) and large (5 v 5+ players) format games, on various pitch sizes. Indeed, 70% of

total training time comprised large format games (5 v 5 to 7 v 7 players) which may

have reduced the exercise intensity (Hill-Haas, Coutts, et al., 2008; Hill-Haas, Dawson,

et al., 2009; Rampinini, Impellizzeri, et al., 2007). Additionally, the majority of the

SSGs were played on small pitch sizes which may have reduced the exercise intensity

(Owen, et al., 2004). In contrast, the SSG formats used in the previous study that

demonstrated large increases in VO2max during the early preseason training used

smaller SSG formats (i.e. 2 v 2 and 4 v 4 players) with larger pitch sizes (Impellizzeri,

et al., 2006). These differences in SSG formats and pitch sizes may partly explain why

the results of Impellizzeri et al., (2006) were not replicated by this study. These results

also highlight the importance of closely monitoring internal training loads during soccer

training. Moreover, coaches and scientists should also ensure that sufficient training

intensities are achieved to elicit aerobic fitness adaptations, regardless of exercise mode.

The overall magnitude of changes in YYIRTL1 performance during this study for both

groups is similar to several previous studies in soccer players (Bangsbo, Iaia, &

Krustrup, 2008). However, a new finding from this study was that the changes in

YYIRTL1 performance for both groups were greater in the later part of preseason

training. Most previous studies have shown changes in soccer-specific fitness and

161

performance in the earlier phase of preseason training (Bangsbo, et al., 2008;

Impellizzeri, et al., 2006). Possible reasons for these differences may be due to

differences in starting fitness levels (Ferrari-Bravo, et al., 2007), or differences in the

training intensities. The present results show that elite youth players can improve

YYIRTL1 performance with SSG training despite having a high initial VO2max and

provide further evidence to show that this test is sensitive to detecting important

changes in the physical capacity of team-sport athletes (Bangsbo, et al., 2008). These

results also provide further evidence that the YYIRTL1 test is a sensitive test for

monitoring changes in players’ ability to perform intense intermittent exercise, and

demonstrates the importance of choosing specific performance tests for monitoring high

performance athletes.

The lack of change in RSA and sprint performance suggests that more specific training

strategies than employed in this study, may be required to improve these capacities or,

alternatively, that the youth players already had well-developed RSA and sprint ability

at the commencement of the study. Importantly, however, neither training approach in

this study had a negative influence on RSA or sprint performance. It seems that to

improve these capacities, specific training strategies may be required. Indeed, a recent

study has demonstrated that RSA performance is improved with 12 weeks of specific

repeated sprint training but not traditional interval run training (4 x 4 min running at 90-

95% HRmax) (Ferrari Bravo, et al., 2008). Given the importance of both RSA and

sprinting in soccer, coaches should consider adding focused training blocks to improve

these qualities in addition to training for football-specific endurance and

tactical/technical training.

162

In conclusion, the present results confirm previous research and show that both SSG

and mixed generic training may induce similar fitness changes in young elite soccer

players. Better control of each training stimulus may have yielded greater improvements

in aerobic fitness. Additionally, the different training approaches used in this study did

not negatively affect the sprint performance or RSA of the young elite soccer players.

Importantly, the results of this study also demonstrated that coach selected, ecologically

valid SSG training, could provide a similar training adaptation to intensive generic

training with a lower perceived training intensity. However, these results also show that

it is critically important to monitor the player’s response to training to ensure that

sufficient training stimulus is provided. Finally, since SSG training may also assist with

the development of skill and tactical awareness, it may be a more time efficient training

method for elite youth soccer players. Therefore, we suggest that judicious use of both

generic and specific training may be the optimal training mix for elite youth soccer

players.

163

8.5 References 

Balsom, P., Lindholm, T., Nilsson, J., & Ekblom, B. (1999). Precision Football. Kempele, Finland: Polar Electro Oy.

Bangsbo, J., Iaia, M., & Krustrup, P. (2008). The Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test: a useful tool for evaluation of physical performance in intermittent sports. Sports Medicine, 38(1), 37-51.

Booth, F. W., & Thomasson, D. B. (1991). Molecular and cellular adaptations of muscle in response to exercise: perspectives of various models. Physiological Reviews, 71(2), 541-585.

Chamari, K., Hachana, Y., Ahmed, Y. B., Galy, O., Sghaier, F., Chatard, J.-C., et al. (2004). Field and laboratory testing in young elite soccer players. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 38, 191-196.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ferrari-Bravo, D., Impellizzeri, F. M., Rampinini, E., Castagna, C., Bishop, D., & Wisløff, U. (2007). Sprint vs. interval training in football. International Journal of Sports Medicine.

Ferrari Bravo, D., Impellizzeri, F., Rampinini, E., Castagna, C., Bishop, D., & Wisløff, U. (2008). Sprint vs.interval training in football. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 29(8), 668-674.

Foster, C., Florhaug, J., Franklin, J., Gottschall, L., Hrovatin, L., Parker, S., et al. (2001). A new approach to monitoring exercise training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 15(1), 109 - 115.

Halson, S., Quod, M., Martin, D., Gardner, A., Ebert, T., & Laursen, P. (2008). Endocrine and metabolic responses to cold water immersion. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 3(3), 331-346.

Helgerud, J., Engen, L., Wisløff, U., & Hoff, J. (2001). Aerobic endurance training improves soccer performance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 33(11), 1925-1931.

Hill-Haas, S., Coutts, A., Rowsell, G., & Dawson, B. (2008). Variability of acute physiological responses and performance profiles of youth soccer players in small-sided games. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 11, 487-490.

Hill-Haas, S., Dawson, B., Coutts, A., & Rowsell, G. (2009). Physiological responses and time-motion characteristics of various small-sided soccer games in youth players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(1), 1 - 8.

Hoff, J., Wisløff, U., Engen, L., Kemi, O., & Helgerud, J. (2002). Soccer specific aerobic endurance training. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 36, 218-221.

Impellizzeri, F., Marcora, S., Castagna, C., Reilly, T., Sassi, A., Iaia, M., et al. (2006). Physiological and performance effects of generic versus specific aerobic training in soccer players. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 27(6), 483 - 492.

Impellizzeri, F., Rampinini, E., Coutts, A., Sassi, A., & Marcora, S. (2004). Use of RPE-based training load in soccer. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 36(6), 1042 - 1047.

Krustrup, P., Mohr, M., Amstrup, T., Rysgaard, T., Johansen, J., Steensberg, A., et al. (2003). The Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test: physiological response, reliability, and validity. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 35(4), 697-705.

Little, T., & Williams, A. (2006). Suitability of soccer training drills for endurance training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20(2), 316-319.

164

McMillan, K., Helgerud, J., Macdonald, R., & Hoff, J. (2005). Physiological adaptations to soccer specific endurance training in professional youth soccer players. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 39, 273-277.

Oliver, J., Williams, C., & Armstrong, N. (2006). Reliability of a field and laboratory test of repeated sprint ability. Paediatric Exercise Science, 18, 339-350.

Owen, A., Twist, C., & Ford, P. (2004). Small-sided games: The physiological and technical effect of altering pitch size and player numbers. Insight: FA Coaches Association Journal, 7(2), 50-53.

Rampinini, E., Impellizzeri, F., Castagna, C., Abt, G., Chamari, K., Sassi, A., et al. (2007). Factors influencing physiological responses to small-sided soccer games. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25(6), 659-666.

Reilly, T., & White, C. (2004). Small-sided games as an alternative to interval-training for soccer players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 22, 559.

Rowsell, G., Coutts, A., Reaburn, P., & Hill-Haas, S. (2009). Effect of cold-water immersion on physical performance between successive matches in junior high-performance soccer players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(6), 565 - 573.

Thomas, A., Dawson, B., & Goodman, C. (2006). The Yo-Yo test: reliability and association with a 20-m Shuttle run and VO2max. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 1, 137-149.

Viru, A., & Viru, M. (2000). Nature of training effects. In J. Garret, W.E. & D. T. Kirkendall (Eds.), Exercise and Sport Science (pp. 67-95). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.

165

 

 

_______________________________________________________________________ 

 

CHAPTER NINE 

 

Thesis summary and Conclusions 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

166

9.0  Summary 

Small-sided games are increasingly being used to develop football-specific fitness.

However, despite their increased popularity, relatively few studies have examined the

acute responses to SSGs training in football. Therefore, the scientific support for using

SSGs as a football-specific conditioning method is not well established. Consequently,

it was the primary aim of this thesis to investigate the influence of modifying

prescriptive variables of SSGs on measures of exercise intensity and training outcomes,

in elite youth football players. Additionally, the variability and reproducibility of SSGs

as a training stimulus was also investigated.

The publications arising from the first independent study include the first four published

papers presented as a series of chapters in this thesis (Chapters Three to Six inclusive).

The publications arising from each of the seperate, independent second and third

studies, are presented as Chapters Seven and Eight, respectively. Both Chapters Seven

and Eight, respectively, represent the fifth and sixth papers accepted for publication.

Chapter three described the variability in physiological and perceptual responses and

time-motion profiles of three SSG formats (2 v 2, 4 v 4 and 6 v 6) and two training

regimes (interval and continuous). Typical error was calculated for mean heart rate as a

percentage of maximum heart rate (%HRmax), RPE, [BLa-] and various time-motion

characteristics. Chapter four described the within- and between-training session

reproducibility of two common SSG formats (2 v 2 and 4 v 4) and two regimes

(intermittent and continuous). Chapter five examined the influence of altering player

number (2 v 2, 4 v 4 and 6 v 6) and absolute pitch area on the acute physiological

responses and time-motion characteristics during SSGs. The pitch dimensions were

altered to keep the relative pitch area per player consistent for each game format.

167

Chapter six compared the physiological and time-motion responses of distributing the

dose of SSG training into ‘interval’ bouts rather than longer continuous bouts. Chapter

seven investigated further variations in SSG formats, as well as rule modifications, in

elite youth football players. The formats included 4 v 3, 6 v 5, 3 v 3+1 ‘floater’ and 5 v

5+1 ‘floater’. Four different rule modifications were applied. Three of the rules

involved technical changes (e.g., the offside rule), while the fourth represented an

‘artificial’ rule change. This required players to complete planned (i.e. pre-

programmed), additional higher speed running at specific time points during a SSG.

Chapter eight compared seven weeks of SSG training (coach selected) with generic

fitness training, on selected physiological, perceptual and performance variables.

9.1 Conclusions 

The results from this thesis show that SSGs can provide a reliable and repeatable

aerobic training stimulus in sub-elite and elite youth football players. Additionally,

prescriptive factors including the number of players (incorporating subtle variations),

rule modifications and training regime, do influence the physiological, perceptual and

time-motion responses in SSGs. However, there does not appear to be any difference in

adopting either an interval-based or continuous type training regime for various SSG

formats (2 v 2, 4 v 4 and 6 v 6). Subtle variations in player number (4 v 3; 3 v 3+

‘floater’; 6 v 5 and 5 v 5+ ‘floater’) have a greater influence on the player’s time-

motion and perceptual responses than their physiological responses, and rule

modifications appear to influence time-motion and physiological responses, not

perceptual responses. The final study demonstrated that in a real training setting, coach-

selected SSGs provide a similar training adaptation to intensive mixed generic training

of matched duration during a seven-week pre-season training period.

 

168

9.2  Practical implications 

This series of investigations have several practical implications for coaching staff

involved in the planning and implementing of SSGs training at elite youth level. The

results described in chapters three and four suggest that SSGs can provide a reliable and

repeatable aerobic training stimulus. Therefore, coaching staff should be confident that

that SSG training will provide a consistent stimulus when the same game format is

implemented in either an interval or continuous training format. However, coaches

should also be aware that the smaller format games (2 v 2 and 4 v 4) elicit increased

exercise intensity with lower between game variation than larger format games (6 v 6).

In terms of intensity measures, both HR and RPE measures are more reliable compared

with [BLa-] and higher speed time motion measures. These results show that SSGs are

best monitored using either HR or RPE measures, or a combination of both.

There are several important implications from the findings in chapter five. Firstly, as the

number of players per team is reduced (game formats become smaller), with the relative

pitch area per player kept constant, the overall physiological and perceptual workload

increases. These findings suggest that smaller format SSGs (i.e. 2 v 2) elicit higher

physiological and perceptual workloads, and therefore may be useful for improving

aerobic-anaerobic fitness in youth football players. Secondly, the inverse relationship

between the size of game format and physiological and perceptual responses does not

seem to apply to movement demands of SSGs. For example, the 6 v 6 game format was

associated with a greater range of distances travelled at >18 km·h-1 but lower %HRmax

and RPE than smaller format games. Therefore, the greater mean and maximal sprint

durations and distances associated with 6 v 6 game formats, suggest that a greater

absolute field size may be useful for training football-specific speed and acceleration

abilities, despite a lower physiological and perceptual workload. In general, it appears

169

that smaller game formats (e.g., 2 v 2 and 4 v 4) are more appropriate for increasing

physiological strain whilst larger formats (e.g., 6 v 6) can be used for training match

specific movement demands. Finally, the collective findings of these studies also

suggest coaches should monitor the players internal response (i.e. HR and RPE), and

not the external load (i.e. distance travelled) to determine how players are coping with

different SSG formats.

Chapter six suggests that both intermittent ‘interval’ bouts with planned rest (4 x 6 min

with 90 s rest), and continuous duration games (24 minutes) elicit the same

physiological and perceptual workload, and movement demands. These results indicate

that coaches can choose either regime and be confident that a similar training stimulus is

being applied. However, the choice of training regime may depend on the training

objectives. It may be prudent to use an interval regime for game formats with greater

physiological and perceptual workload (for example, 2 v 2), and a continuous regime

for formats with lower physiological and perceptual workload (for example, 6 v 6).

Either way, both training regimes could be used for in-season aerobic fitness

maintenance training.

The main implication of chapter seven is that it may be more suitable to manipulate

technical rule changes and SSG player numbers separately, for more effective control of

the training stimulus in well-trained, elite youth football players. Indeed, subtle

variations in player number appear to have a greater influence on time-motion

characteristics and perceptual responses than the physiological responses, and may

therefore provide a useful technical-tactical training stimulus, or simply provide a useful

training variation. The use of a ‘floater’ player appears to be more effective in smaller

game formats (for example, 3 v 3+1 ‘floater’), and this role may be useful for either

170

maintaining or developing aerobic fitness for a specific player. Rule modifications

appear to influence the time-motion and physiological responses, but not perceptual

responses. Coaches should consider technical rule changes that are related to a team’s

chances of scoring, as these appear to improve player motivation and thereby increase

the exercise intensity during the SSGs.

The implications of the training study (chapter eight) are that when a SSGs training

program is implemented by an experienced coach, it can provide similar training

adaptations to intensive generic training in well-trained youth footballers. However, an

important practical finding from this study was that SSG training is perceived by the

players to be of lower intensity than a duration matched generic training program.

Although neither training strategy affected sprint and RSA performance, better control

of each training stimulus may have yielded greater improvements in aerobic fitness.

This suggests that careful selection of SSG formats and training regimes is required to

optimise fitness and performance gains. Finally, it is most likely that a mixed-methods

approach is appropriate for football training; however, the selection of these should be

based on the technical, tactical and performance needs of the players.

Overall, the practical findings of the present series of studies suggest that SSGs are an

effective conditioning training method for sub-elite and elite youth football players.

Additionally, exercise intensity in SSGs can be manipulated by altering factors such as

player number, numerical balance between teams, rules of play, pitch area and coach

encouragement. It also appears that similar fitness and performance gains can be made

with SSGs as is achieved with traditional generic training methods, with the former

providing a potential advantage of lower perceived training intensity. However, there is

still scope to further improve our understanding of SSGs. More specifically, the

171

interaction between the technical, tactical and physical demands of SSGs and how these

can be manipulated to improve the training process for football players.

9.3 Suggested training model for small‐sided games 

The findings of this thesis may provide the basis for a proposed SSGs training model

(see Figure 9.1). This model describes the factors affecting the training outcomes with

SSGs training in football. Coaches may refer to this when designing SSGs, and future

studies may also use this as a guide.

172

Figure 9.1: Factors affecting training outcomes with football-specific small-sided

games.

9.4 Directions for Future Research 

Future research is still required to further develop our understanding of the training

stimulus provided by football-specific SSGs. One important area that should be

investigated is the optimal periodisation strategies of SSGs training for the development

of physiological, technical and tactical proficiency. To date, the training studies

173

comparing the effectiveness of SSGs and interval running suggest that both are equally

effective. Consequently, future studies should examine optimal periodisation strategies

for developing football specific physical qualities. Indeed, it is not known if changing

the game format and training regimes can elicit different changes in physical qualities.

Additionally, although some studies have investigated the technical requirements of

SSGs (Allen, et al., 1998; Athanasios & Eleftherios, 2009; Capranica, et al., 2001;

Gabbett & Mulvey, 2008; Grant, Williams, Dodd, et al., 1999; Grant, Williams, &

Johnson, 1999; Jones & Drust, 2007; Kelly & Drust, 2009; Mallo & Navarro, 2008;

Owen, et al., 2004; Platt, et al., 2001), the research conducted to date has not been very

systematic. Future studies should include detailed notational analysis to provide a better

understanding of the technical skill requirements of various SSGs. This may assist

coaches to better understand the link between the technical load and exercise intensity

of SSGs training.

One of the major advantages of SSGs training is thought to be the development of

tactical awareness and decision making capabilities, and the transfer of these to match

performance. Future research is also needed to understand the nature of the tactical

awareness and decision making development provided by different SSGs formats. Once

this is established, then further research should establish a link between SSGs and

transfer of these skills to match performance.

There is still scope to further improve our understanding of the variables affecting SSGs

intensity. For example, future studies should examine the effect of common rules

modifications on the technical and tactical skills of footballs players. Factors such as

decision-making and cognitive load of players should also be assessed. Future studies

174

are also required to determine the influence of goal keepers on the physiological and

technical/tactical demands in SSGs.

Future research is also required to elucidate the possible relationships between fitness,

skill and exercise-intensity during SSGs, and should examine if low technical skill

ability limits the exercise intensity of individual players during SSGs.

175

9.5 References 

Allen, J., Butterly, R., Welsch, M., & Wood, R. (1998). The physical and physiological value of 5-a-side soccer training to 11-a-side match play. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 34, 1 - 11.

Athanasios, K., & Eleftherios, K. (2009). Effects of small-sided games on physical conditioning and performance in young soccer players. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 8, 374 - 380.

Capranica, L., Tessitore, A., Guidetti, L., & Figura, F. (2001). Heart rate and match analysis in pre-pubescent soccer players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19, 379 - 384.

Gabbett, T., & Mulvey, M. (2008). Time-motion analysis of small-sided training games and competition in elite women soccer players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22(2), 543-552.

Grant, A., Williams, M., Dodd, R., & Johnson, S. (1999). Physiological and technical analysis of 11 v 11 and 8 v 8 youth football matches. Insight: FA Coaches Association Journal, 2(3), 3-4.

Grant, A., Williams, M., & Johnson, S. (1999). Technical demands of 7 v 7 and 11 v 11 youth football matches. Insight: FA Coaches Association Journal, 2(4), 1-2.

Jones, S., & Drust, B. (2007). Physiological and technical demands of 4 v 4 and 8 v 8 games in elite youth soccer players. Kinesiology, 39(2), 150-156.

Kelly, D., & Drust, B. (2009). The effect of pitch dimensions on heart rate responses and technical demands of small-sided soccer games in elite players. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 12(4), 475 - 479.

Mallo, J., & Navarro, E. (2008). Physical load imposed on soccer players during small-sided training games. Journal of Sport Medicine and Physical Fitness, 48(2), 166 - 172.

Owen, A., Twist, C., & Ford, P. (2004). Small-sided games: The physiological and technical effect of altering pitch size and player numbers. Insight: FA Coaches Association Journal, 7(2), 50-53.

Platt, D., Maxwell, A., Horn, R., Williams, M., & Reilly, T. (2001). Physiological and Technical Analysis of 3 v 3 and 5 v 5 Youth Football Matches. Insight: FA Coaches Association Journal, 4(4), 23-25.

176

Appendix A

Information Sheet and Consent Forms

177

Acute physiological, perceptual and time-motion responses to various small-sided football games.

— Subject Information Sheet for Study One — Purpose This study will aim to investigate the acute physiological, perceptual and time motion responses associated with various formats of small-sided games.

Procedures 20 m multi-stage fitness test (Beep test)

This is a standard field test used throughout the world to provide an indication of a person’s aerobic (endurance) capability. The test will require you to runback and forth between a starting and turning line over a distance of 20 m until fatigue. The test will last for between 15 and 20 minutes. Blood samples will be taken from the earlobe at rest (before the test), immediately following the test and 5-minutes after completing the test. Heart rate will also be recorded during the test.

Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) Before and after the small-sided games, you will be asked to subjectively rate your perception of fatigue. This simply involves viewing a chart placed in front of you, and providing a verbal (subjective) rating of your fatigue at that point (the specific instruction given by the researcher will be “pick a number on the chart displayed in front of you”). Your (verbal) response will then be recorded.

Time-motion analysis using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology During the small-sided games formats, your performance will be “tracked” in real time using mini-GPS tracking units. The units are the size of a mobile phone and weigh ~ 600 g. The units are worn by the player under the shirt, and will be carried in a holster (between the shoulder blades) during all the sessions.

Heart rate recording You will be required to wear a heart rate monitor during all small-sided games sessions. Heart rate will be recorded using the Polar Team Sport (Polar Electro Oy, Finland) system. The transmitter/receiver belt is worn under your shirt, and is secured just beneath your chest. A demonstration will be given prior to you using the belt.

School of Sports Science, Exercise and Health The University of Western Australia 35 Stirling Highway Crawley WA 6009 Mr. Stephen Hill-Haas BSc (Hon); M.Commerce

Phone

+61 8 6488 8003

Prof Brian Dawson Phone +61 8 6488 2276

178

Blood sampling Blood will be sampled from the earlobe before and immediately after all the small-sided games. The principal researcher, together with trained assistants, will sample the blood (a common procedure in this and other exercise physiology departments around the world). The sample collected is very small, takes ~ 10 s, using sterilised equipment. Universal blood and body fluids protocols and procedures will be followed, to ensure a safe and sterile blood-sampling environment.

Small-sided games Small-sided games training will include various 2v2, 4v4 and 6v6 formats, and will be played at Cockburn City soccer club. Simple possession (“keep away”) formats, as well as more complex small-sided games, will be used. The U18 coach, including the researcher/conditioning coach, will be present at ALL training sessions to supervise proceedings. Depending on the small-sided game format, session duration may vary between 30 min and 120 min (the 2v2 formats for example, cannot be run simultaneously due to logistics problems, and will therefore be run consecutively).

Risks This study requires maximal effort during the small-sided games as well as during physiological testing and, consequently, risks are involved. These include but are not limited to injuries of the muscles and tendons of the body. However, you routinely perform maximal repeated efforts during training, so you will be accustomed to these demands. Every effort will be made to minimise these risks by having all participants perform a thorough warm up and cool down during each training session involving small-sided games and/or physiological testing. However, the requirements will not exceed those experienced during normal training and competition.

Benefits Individual: The players will be part of a supervised and closely monitored physical training program. Individual fitness profiles of each player will be developed. Subjects’ will be also exposed to various small-sided games formats, which may help improve soccer-specific fitness. Individual performance feedback for all players while involved in small-sided games training will also be possible via real-time mini-GPS units (Global Positioning System technology). Community: Information gathered from the study may have implications in terms of current coaching methods, particularly the choice of physical training methods used in Australian football.

Confidentiality of Data Personal details and test results will be treated confidentially at all times. Individual data will not be identifiable, but collective results may be published in peer review publications as part of a doctoral thesis.

Subject Rights Participation in this research is voluntary and you are free to withdraw from the study at any time and for any reason, without prejudice in any way. Your participation in this study does not prejudice any right to compensation that you may have under the statute of common law. Further information regarding this study may be obtained from Stephen Hill-Haas on telephone number 6488 8003 or Professor Brian Dawson on 6488 2276.

179

Acute physiological, perceptual and time-motion responses to various small-sided football games.

— Consent Form for Study One —

As a subject, you are free to withdraw your consent to participate at any time without prejudice. The researchers will answer any questions you may have in regard to the study at any time. I ________________________ (participants name) acknowledge that I have read the above statement and information sheet, which explains the nature, purpose and risks of the investigation and that any questions I have asked have been answered to my satisfaction. I agree to participate in this study realising that I may withdraw at any time without prejudice. I understand that all information provided is treated as strictly confidential and will not be released by the investigator unless required to so by law. I agree that research data gathered for the study may be published provided my name or other identifying information is not used. ____________________________ ______________________ Participant Date The committee for Human Rights at the University of Western Australia requires that all participants are informed that, if they have any complaint regarding the manner, in which a research project is conducted, it may be given to the researcher or, alternatively to the Secretary, Committee for Human Registrar’s Office, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009 (telephone number 6488 3703). All study participants will be provided with a copy of the information sheet and consent form for their personal records.

School of Sports Science, Exercise and Health The University of Western Australia 35 Stirling Highway Crawley WA 6009 Mr. Stephen Hill-Haas BSc (Hon); M.Commerce

Phone

+61 8 6488 8003

Prof Brian Dawson Phone +61 8 6488 2276

180

Variables affecting the intensity of small-sided games training in elite youth football players.

— Subject Information Sheet for Study Two —

Purpose This study will investigate the effects of changes in player number and rule modifications in small-sided games, and how these affect training intensity. Procedures Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) Before and after the small-sided games, you will be asked to subjectively rate your perception of fatigue. This simply involves viewing a chart placed in front of you, and providing a verbal (subjective) rating of your fatigue at that point (the specific instruction given by the researcher will be “pick a number on the chart displayed in front of you”). Your (verbal) response will then be recorded.

Time-motion analysis using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology During the small-sided games formats, your performance will be “tracked” in real time using mini-GPS tracking units. The units are the size of a mobile phone and weigh ~ 600 g. The units are worn by the player under the shirt, and will be carried in a holster (between the shoulder blades) during all the sessions.

Heart rate recording You will be required to wear a heart rate monitor during all small-sided games sessions. Heart rate will be recorded using the Polar Team Sport (Polar Electro Oy, Finland) system. The transmitter/receiver belt is worn under your shirt, and is secured just beneath your chest. A demonstration will be given prior to you using the belt.

Blood sampling Blood will be sampled from the earlobe before and immediately after all the small-sided games. The principal researcher, together with trained assistants, will sample the blood (a common procedure in this and other sports institutes around the world). The sample collected is very small, takes ~ 10 s, using sterilised equipment. Universal blood and

School of Sports Science, Exercise and Health The University of Western Australia 35 Stirling Highway Crawley WA 6009 Mr. Stephen Hill-Haas BSc (Hon); M.Commerce

Phone

+61 8 8416 6745

Prof Brian Dawson Phone +61 8 6488 2276

181

body fluids protocols and procedures will be followed, to ensure a safe and sterile blood-sampling environment.

Small-sided games Various small-sided game formats (4v3 and 6v5) as well as formats using a ‘floater’ (3 v3+1 floater and 5v5 +1 floater) will be played. The SASI coaches as well as the researcher will be present at ALL sessions to supervise proceedings. The duration of each small-sided game will be 24 minutes, after which normal training will resume. Depending on the training schedule, the small-sided games will be incorporated into normal training sessions (twice per week, over a 16-week period). Risks This study requires maximal effort during the small-sided games and consequently risks are involved. These include but are not limited to injuries of the muscles and tendons of the body. However, you routinely perform maximal repeated efforts during training and routine physiological testing, so you will be accustomed to these demands. Every effort will be made to minimise these risks by having all participants perform a thorough warm up and cool down during each training session involving small-sided games. Benefits Individual: The players will be part of a supervised and closely monitored physical training program under the direction of South Australia Sports Institute (SASI) Men’s Soccer Coach Martyn Crook. Subjects’ will be also exposed to various small-sided games formats, which may help improve soccer-specific fitness. Individual performance feedback for all players while involved in small-sided games training will also be possible via real-time mini-GPS units (Global Positioning System technology). Community: Information gathered from the study may have implications in terms of current pre-season physical training methods used in Australian football, and will be utilised to better prepare SASI players in the future. Confidentiality of Data Personal details and test results will be treated confidentially at all times. Individual data will not be identifiable, but collective results may be published in peer review publications as part of a doctoral thesis. Subject Rights Participation in this research is voluntary and you are free to withdraw from the study at any time and for any reason, without prejudice in any way. Your participation in this study does not prejudice any right to compensation that you may have under the statute of common law. Further information regarding this study may be obtained from Stephen Hill-Haas on telephone number 8416 6745 or Professor Brian Dawson on 6488 2276.

182

Variables affecting the intensity of small-sided games training in elite youth football players.

— Consent Form for Study Two — As a subject, you are free to withdraw your consent to participate at any time without prejudice. The researchers will answer any questions you may have in regard to the study at any time. I ________________________ (participants name) acknowledge that I have read the above statement and information sheet, which explains the nature, purpose and risks of the investigation and that any questions I have asked have been answered to my satisfaction. I agree to participate in this study realising that I may withdraw at any time without prejudice. I understand that all information provided is treated as strictly confidential and will not be released by the investigator unless required to so by law. I agree that research data gathered for the study may be published provided my name or other identifying information is not used. ____________________________ ______________________ Participant Date The committee for Human Rights at the University of Western Australia requires that all participants are informed that, if they have any complaint regarding the manner, in which a research project is conducted, it may be given to the researcher or, alternatively to the Secretary, Committee for Human Registrar’s Office, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009 (telephone number 6488 3703). All study participants will be provided with a copy of the information sheet and consent form for their personal records.

School of Sports Science, Exercise and Health The University of Western Australia 35 Stirling Highway Crawley WA 6009 Mr. Stephen Hill-Haas BSc (Hon); M.Commerce

Phone

+61 8 8416 6745

Prof Brian Dawson Phone +61 8 6488 2276

183

Generic versus small-sided games training in soccer.

— Subject Information Sheet for Study Three —

Purpose The aim of the training study is to compare two commonly used conditioning methods used during pre-season football training: mixed generic training (incorporating both interval and speed endurance training) and small-sided games. Procedures Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) (post physiological testing only) Immediately after completion of some of the physiological tests, you will be asked to subjectively rate your perception of fatigue. This simply involves viewing a chart placed in front of you, and providing a verbal (subjective) rating of your fatigue at that point (the specific instruction given by the researcher will be “pick a number on the chart displayed in front of you”). Your (verbal) response will then be recorded. I will illustrate an example of the conventional RPE scale, and I have provided you with an example of the conventional RPE scale (rating from “6” through to “20”) in your information pack.

Rating of perceived exertion (RPE): Borg’s CR-10 scale (post training session only) Approximately 30 min after completion of each training session, you will be asked to subjectively rate your perception of fatigue. Again, this simply involves viewing a chart placed in front of you, and providing a verbal (subjective) rating of your fatigue relating to the physical training session you have just completed. The specific instruction given to you by the researcher will be “pick a number on the chart displayed in front of you”. Your (verbal) response will then be recorded. I will illustrate an example of the modified Borg CR-10 scale, and I have provided you with an example of the

School of Sports Science, Exercise and Health The University of Western Australia 35 Stirling Highway Crawley WA 6009 Mr. Stephen Hill-Haas BSc (Hon); M.Commerce

Phone

+61 8 8416 6745

Prof Brian Dawson Phone +61 8 6488 2276

184

conventional Borg CR-10 scale (rating from “0” through to “10”) in your information pack.

Total Quality of Recovery (TQR) Once a week, (at the beginning of the first training session of each week) throughout the duration of the pre-season training, you will be required to complete a short questionnaire, which is sensitive enough to detect changes in (general) fatigue over short periods. It comprises five (5) simple questions and you will be asked to rate your experience of each symptom-how true for you in the past 7 days-according to a 10–point Likert scale (i.e. not recovered at all, completely recovered etc). I will illustrate an example of the recovery questionnaire.

Time-motion analysis via Global Positioning System (GPS) technology During all the physical training sessions, your performance will be “tracked” in real time using mini-GPS tracking units. The units are the size of a mobile phone and weigh ~ 600 g. The units are worn under the shirt, and will be carried in a holster (between the shoulder blades) during the training sessions.

Heart rate recording You will be required to wear a heart rate monitor during all physical training sessions. Heart rate will be recorded during the small-sided games training using the Polar Team Sport (Polar Electro Oy, Finland) system. The single transmitter/receiver belt is worn under your shirt, and is secured just beneath your chest. A demonstration will be given prior to you using the belt. Heart rate will also be recorded during all interval training/speed-training sessions using the Polar Beat heart rate transmitter belt and wristwatch receiver (Polar Electro Oy, Finland) system. The transmitter belt is worn under your shirt, and is secured just beneath your chest. The ‘wristwatch’ (worn like a normal wristwatch) acts as the receiver and provides a visual feedback display of your heart rate while exercising. A demonstration will be given prior to you using the belt.

Blood sampling Immediately following some of the physiological tests and selected training sessions (both generic training and small-sided games training), a very small droplet of blood will be sampled from the earlobe. The principal researcher, together with trained assistants, will sample the blood (a common procedure in this and other sports institutes around the world). The sample collected is very small, and is done using sterilised equipment. Universal blood and body fluids protocols and procedures will be followed, to ensure a safe and sterile blood-sampling environment. A visual demonstration of a blood sampling procedure will be given to all parents and players during the information evening.

Multi-Stage Fitness Test (MSFT) Many of you are already familiar with the MSFT or ‘Beep’ test. The is an aerobic endurance test, and requires you to run back and forth between two 20 m marks, at an increasing speed, until volitional exhaustion. A small droplet of blood will be sampled from your earlobe immediately after you have completed this test, and you will be asked to record your rating of perceived exertion (RPE). You will complete this test on a separate day to the Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test.

185

Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test (Level 1) This test is similar to the Beep test in that it measures a players’ aerobic endurance, but is more specific to the physical demands of football, because it is “intermittent” in nature. The test requires you to run 20 m, turn around, and run 20 m back to the original starting point. You will then jog 5 m forwards, and then 5 m back to your original starting point. Between each 40 m effort, you will have a short recovery period of 10 s. This 10 s recovery period will remain constant throughout the test, but the running speed will progressively increase. The first time you fail to reach the starting point mark you will receive one verbal warning. On the second occasion, the test will be stopped. A small droplet of blood will be sampled from your earlobe immediately after you have completed this test, and you will be asked to record your rating of perceived exertion (RPE). You will complete this test on a separate day to the Multi-Stage Fitness Test (MSFT). VO2max treadmill test This is the most direct and sensitive way of measuring your aerobic fitness. The test will last ~12 minutes, and will be completed on the indoor treadmill in the SASI Sports physiology laboratory. The test involves continuous running at increasing speed and constant slope (gradient) for ~ 5 minutes, and thereafter the treadmill speed remains constant but the gradient increases. The test continues until volitional exhaustion. While you are running, you will be wearing a nose-clip (so you cannot breath through the nose), and a mouthpiece very similar to scuba/snorkeling equipment, which is attached to a hose. This hose, which connects to a metabolic cart, will be collecting and analysing the oxygen and carbon dioxide content of expired breaths every 30 s. A small droplet of blood will be sampled from your earlobe immediately after you have completed this test, and you will be asked to record your rating of perceived exertion (RPE). You will complete this test on a separate day to the Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test and the MSFT. You will complete a short 6 min treadmill running familiarisation (wearing a nose-clip) session on a SASI gym treadmill, so that you are aware of what the test involves. rRSA test: 12 x 20 m sprints departing every 20 s The running based test of repeat-sprint ability (rRSA) requires you to complete 12 consecutive 20 m straight-line sprints, departing every 20 s. The test will last ~ 3 minutes, and measures your ability to repeat a series of short sprints with limited recovery. 5//20 m sprint test Many of you are already familiar with the short sprint test. This test requires you to sprint as fast as possible over a straight 20 m course, from a stationary start. Your 5 m split time will also be recorded, and the fastest of three trials will be recorded. Mass, height and sum of skinfolds assessment Your mass and height will be recorded prior to you completing the treadmill test. The sum of skinfolds assessment will involve recording your skin fold density from seven standard anatomical sites, with the use of skinfolds callipers. This is a completely painless and non-invasive procedure, and aims to detect any changes in lean body mass due to training.

186

Risks Since football is a contact sport, risks are involved. These include, but are not limited to, injuries of the muscles and tendons of the body. However, you routinely perform maximal repeated efforts during training, match play and routine physiological testing, so you will be accustomed to these demands. Every effort will be made to minimise these risks by having all participants perform a thorough warm up and cool down prior to and following each testing session, and each training session involving generic and small-sided games training.

Benefits Individual: The players will be part of a supervised and closely monitored physical training program under the direction of South Australia Sports Institute (SASI) Men’s Soccer Coach Martyn Crook. Subjects’ will be also exposed to various small-sided games formats, as well as mixed generic training, both of which may help improve soccer-specific fitness. Individual performance feedback for all players while involved in small-sided games training will also be possible via real-time mini-GPS units (Global Positioning System technology). Community: Information gathered relating to the physiological response to the two different types of physical training will assist in improving and fine-tuning the current and future overall training plan, to ensure that the overall training load is sufficient. Information gathered from the study may also have implications in terms of current pre-season physical training methods used in Australian football, and will be utilised to better prepare SASI players in the future. Confidentiality of Data Personal details and test results will be treated confidentially at all times. Individual data will not be identifiable, but collective results may be published in peer review publications as part of a doctoral thesis. Subject Rights Participation in this research is voluntary and you are free to withdraw from the study at any time and for any reason, without prejudice in any way. Your participation in this study does not prejudice any right to compensation that you may have under the statute of common law. Further information regarding this study may be obtained from Stephen Hill-Haas on telephone number 8416 6745 or Professor Brian Dawson on 6488 2276.

187

Generic versus small-sided games training in soccer.

— Consent Form for Study Three — As a subject, you are free to withdraw your consent to participate at any time without prejudice. The researchers will answer any questions you may have in regard to the study at any time. I ________________________ (participants name) acknowledge that I have read the above statement and information sheet, which explains the nature, purpose and risks of the investigation and that any questions I have asked have been answered to my satisfaction. I agree to participate in this study realising that I may withdraw at any time without prejudice. I understand that all information provided is treated as strictly confidential and will not be released by the investigator unless required to so by law. I agree that research data gathered for the study may be published provided my name or other identifying information is not used. ____________________________ ______________________ Participant Date The committee for Human Rights at the University of Western Australia requires that all participants are informed that, if they have any complaint regarding the manner, in which a research project is conducted, it may be given to the researcher or, alternatively to the Secretary, Committee for Human Registrar’s Office, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009 (telephone number 6488 3703). All study participants will be provided with a copy of the information sheet and consent form for their personal records.

School of Sports Science, Exercise and Health The University of Western Australia 35 Stirling Highway Crawley WA 6009 Mr. Stephen Hill-Haas BSc (Hon); M.Commerce

Phone

+61 8 8416 6745

Prof Brian Dawson Phone +61 8 6488 2276 Randomised (n = 25)

188

Appendix B

Raw Data

189

RAW DATA STUDY ONE

4 v 4 CONTINUOUS

Player initials

% HRmax

Peak HR (bpm)

Time < 75%

HRmax) Time 75%-

84% HRmax Time 85%-

89% HRmax

Time @ >90%

HRmax HRmax (bpm)

BG 87.7 190 0 4.0833 13 0.25 203 LW 83.3 184 1.75 10.166 11.9166 0 204 AdA 82.4 196 3.33 6.4166 8.5833 0.33 205 ADS 84.5 204 1.25 7.9166 13.75 0.5 207 JR 76.2 200 9 12.833 1.833 0.25 202 AN

DDU 91.0 197 0.667 0.75 4.33 9.25 200 CS 77.4 192 7.667 14.4166 1.75 0 212

4 v 4 CONTINUOUS

Player initials

Av elapsed

time between sprints

(s)

High intensity sprinting activity

ratio

Min sprint

distance (m)

Max sprint

distance (m)

Av distance of each sprint (m)

Max speed (km/h)

Rest [La-]

Post SSG [La-] RPE HRav

BG 210.6 3.7 2.8 9.9 6.9 20.4 1.8 3.0 12 178 LW 100.6 10.1 4.1 17.3 9.4 23.3 1.8 2.4 11 170 AdA 99.9 6.9 2.5 18.5 7.5 20.0 1.0 2.4 11 169 ADS 293.0 3.3 4.5 11.6 7.7 23.9 1.4 2.5 11 175 JR 183.1 6.2 4.8 21 10.2 23.5 1.3 12 154 AN

DDU 76.1 15.3 3.0 17.1 5.2 25.4 2.3 6.6 17 182 CS 196.5 4.9 4.0 23.0 11.5 25.7 1.4 2.4 11 164

190

4 v 4 CONTINUOUS

Player initials

Total Distance

(m)

Distance within Speed zone 1

Distance within Speed zone 2

Distance within Speed zone 3

Distance within Speed zone 4

Distance within Speed zone 5

Distance within Speed zone 6

Total # of

sprints

Av duration

of sprints

Maximal sprint

duration (s)

MG 2619.4 1062.6 562.4 372.3 353.1 208.2 52.7 9 1.3 2.0 ADS 2500.4 1159.8 507.3 280.4 320.1 149 75.6 9 1.8 3.0 AdA 2767.5 1112.9 592.7 376.9 423 187.1 67.6 8 1.9 3.0 OP 2757.0 1101.6 835.6 298.9 298.0 157.3 60.5 6 2.0 3.0 IG 2488.1 1167.8 492.7 298.6 312.5 155.9 51.7 7 1.6 3.0 ML 2557.4 1035.6 588.7 320.6 372.2 149.7 78.7 9 1.8 4.0 MB 2605.8 1054.6 705.1 317.5 302.6 148.9 63 8 1.6 3.0 DB 2643.2 1221.7 684.2 381.6 211.2 114.7 23.7 3 1.7 2.0

191

4 v 4 CONTINUOUS

Player initials %

HRmax Peak HR

(bpm)

Time in Light

Aerobic zone (<

75% HRmax)

Time in Moderate Aerobic

zone (75%-84%

HRmax)

Time in Heavy Aerobic zone (85%-

89% HRmax)

Time @ >90%

HRmax HRmax (bpm)

MG 84.7 190 0.5 11.1666 10.1666 0.25 202 ADS 85.0 190 0.9166 6.5 13.25 0 207 AdA 83.9 195 2.667 5.75 9.0833 1.4166 205 OP 91.4 192 0.667 1.0833 3 12.166 197 IG 83.8 185 1.75 6.667 15.25 0 204 ML 87.4 182 0 3.33 16.5 0 198 MB 88.7 192 0 1.5833 9.33 1.9166 195 DB 78.4 176 5.4166 14.166 4.5 0 199

4 v 4 CONTINUOUS

Player initials

Total Distance

(m)

Distance within Speed zone 1

Distance within Speed zone 2

Distance within Speed zone 3

Distance within Speed zone 4

Distance within Speed zone 5

Distance within Speed zone 6

Total # of

sprints

Av duration

of sprints

Maximal sprint

duration (s)

ADS 2608.5 1164.3 795.9 353.6 221.9 49.8 18.7 2 2.0 3.0 LW 2801.5 1067.5 893.2 341.9 226.5 173.5 93.7 9 2.1 4.0 CS 2694.1 1147.6 636.8 325.9 358 138.9 81 9 1.9 3.0 ML 2796.5 1006.4 812.5 463.5 388.8 108.2 12.2 2 1.5 2.0 IG 2629.9 1208.4 678.4 348.9 229.9 110.9 49.9 5 2.0 3.0 JR 2726.9 1121.7 715.3 402.1 331.3 115.3 31.7 4 1.8 3.0 AdA CH 2696.9 1204.8 648.9 440.4 276.8 84.9 37.1 4 2.0 3.0

192

4 v 4 CONTINUOUS

Player initials

Av elapsed

time between sprints

(s)

High intensity sprinting activity

ratio

Min sprint

distance (m)

Max sprint

distance (m)

Av distance of each sprint (m)

Max speed (km/h)

Rest [La-]

Post SSG [La-] RPE HRav

ADS 103.4 1.0 4.2 20.4 9.3 20.6 6.7 12 173 LW 239.0 8.5 3.7 10.2 7.5 22.4 6.0 13 189 CS 333.0 7.9 4.6 8.9 6.8 19.6 1.0 5.6 15 180 ML 372.0 0.7 3.2 4.9 4.1 19.3 2.5 4.1 11 180 IG 1.9 15 179 JR 141.4 2.4 2.8 4.9 4.1 20.2 11 170 AdA 117.6 4.2 11.1 6.7 23.1 1.2 2.6 13 172 CH 210.3 3.7 4.7 9.7 6.5 20.2 2.2 5.5 11 169

4 v 4 CONTINUOUS

Player initials %

HRmax Peak HR

(bpm)

Time in Light Aerobic zone

(< 75% HRmax)

Time in Moderate

Aerobic zone (75%-84% HRmax)

Time in Heavy Aerobic zone

(85%-89% HRmax)

Time @ >90%

HRmax HRmax (bpm)

ADS 81.6 197 2.5 15 5 0.166 212 LW 88.7 201 0.5833 1.833 9.833 3.5 213 CS 91.4 191 0.166 0.833 3.667 10.8333 197 ML 87.4 195 0.75 4 10.9166 2.166 206 IG 87.3 198 1.4166 3.833 7.166 4.8333 205 JR 85.9 179 0.667 3.5833 18.9166 0 198 AdA 88.2 185 0 0.9166 12.33 0.0833 195 CH 84.9 186 1.33 7.25 11.33 0.0833 199

193

4 v 4 INTERMITTENT

Player initials

Total Distance

(m)

Distance within Speed zone 1

Distance within Speed zone 2

Distance within Speed zone 3

Distance within Speed zone 4

Distance within Speed zone 5

Distance within Speed zone 6

Total # of

sprints

Av duration

of sprints

Maximal sprint

duration (s)

BG 2534.9 1200.4 640.1 340.3 226.6 87.4 27.4 6 1.2 2.0 LW 2533.6 1182.3 576.4 300.4 276.6 127.9 57.2 6 2.0 3.0 MB 2490.9 1140.9 550 305.6 244 146.9 90.1 11 1.7 3.0 AH 2753.3 1131.7 640.5 324.5 351.2 216.9 79.2 8 2.0 4.0 DB 2787.6 1100.7 877.1 420.6 237.8 127.4 16.9 4 1.0 1.0 SB 2616.7 1244.7 614.2 388.3 237.3 92.1 27 2 2.5 3.0 ADS 2834.4 1097.3 652.3 446.5 370 173.7 83.3 10 1.7 3.0 OP 2840.6 1080.4 791.2 356.0 337.2 206.9 60.9 9 1.4 2.0

4 v 4 INTERMITTENT

Player initials

Av elapsed

time between

sprints (s)

High intensity sprinting activity

ratio

Min sprint

distance (m)

Max sprint

distance (m)

Av distance of each sprint (m)

Max speed (km/h)

Rest [La-]

Post SSG [La-] RPE HRav

BG 148.7 3.7 3.2 7.8 4.6 19.8 9 164 LW 178.3 4.5 3.2 16.8 9.5 23.5 10 170 MB 145.7 12.2 3.0 16.7 8.2 23.5 5.9 13 176 AH 191.1 8.5 2.5 22.2 9.9 21.5 1.6 3.8 12 183 DB 345.8 3.2 4.4 14 7.7 23.9 12 169 SB 216.9 0.4 2.9 19.9 8.6 22.0 10 162 ADS 342.0 11.7 3.8 10.4 7.9 22.0 15 175 OP 101.1 9.8 2.7 15.4 6.6 23.1 1.8 3.6 9 165

194

4 v 4 INTERMITTENT

Player initials %

HRmax Peak HR

(bpm)

Time in Light

Aerobic zone (<

75% HRmax)

Time in Moderate Aerobic

zone (75%-84%

HRmax)

Time in Heavy

Aerobic zone (85%-

89% HRmax)

Time @ >90%

HRmax HRmax (bpm)

BG 80.8 189 5.4166 12.75 9.0833 0.0833 203 LW 83.3 191 5 6.9166 11.5833 0.5833 204 MB 85.0 197 4 5.4166 10.9166 0.5833 207 AH 85.9 203 4.5833 2.5 6.5 5.4166 213 DB 85.8 192 3.833 5.25 5.9166 6 197 SB 81.8 177 4.33 9.5 14.667 0 198 ADS 89.7 197 2.25 3.33 3.5833 14.166 195 OP 77.8 197 7.75 15.5833 4.5 0.0833 212

4 v 4 INTERMITTENT

Player initials

Total Distance

(m)

Distance within Speed zone 1

Distance within Speed zone 2

Distance within Speed zone 3

Distance within Speed zone 4

Distance within Speed zone 5

Distance within Speed zone 6

Total # of

sprints

Av duration

of sprints

Maximal sprint

duration (s)

BG 2706.6 1137 661.1 378.7 297.7 153.1 71.0 9 1.7 3.0 LW 2847.3 1079 690.1 452.7 293.6 192 133.2 14 2.0 4.0 CH 2936.9 1112.7 651.9 419.7 341.3 291.5 115.3 14 1.7 4.0 ADS 2671.6 1148.7 594.5 401.2 331.5 144.1 46.0 6 1.7 2.0 JR 2591.3 1192.2 592.0 293.5 238.3 169.5 98.3 12 1.7 4.0 SB 2560.6 1207.5 533.1 295.6 264.5 161.4 89.4 11 1.7 2.0 DDU 2763.2 1158.3 550.3 339.7 405.1 189.4 110.3 13 1.8 3.0 CS 2732.7 1074.6 604.3 351.7 346.7 177.8 169.7 14 2.4 5.0

195

4 v 4 INTERMITTENT

Player initials

Av elapsed

time between

sprints (s)

High intensity sprinting activity

ratio

Min sprint

distance (m)

Max sprint

distance (m)

Av distance of each sprint (m)

Max speed (km/h)

Rest [La-]

Post SSG [La-] RPE HRav

BG 171.0 3.7 4.4 14.9 7.9 22.2 1.6 4.1 12 168 LW 114.6 4.5 2.4 21.4 9.5 23.9 0.9 4.5 10 174 CH 110.6 12.2 3.4 20.6 8.2 21.5 2.5 3.9 10 185 ADS 221.5 8.5 3.5 10.1 7.7 21.9 1.6 4.6 12 177 JR 100.7 3.8 3.6 22.4 8.2 23.5 1.5 12 160 SB 149.5 7.4 3.9 10.4 8.1 23.0 1.6 6.3 10 170 DDU 116.6 2.1 2.7 17.1 8.5 23.1 2.2 3.2 12 177 CS 108.3 18.0 4.5 27.9 12.1 25.2 1.3 8.0 13 175

4 v 4 INTERMITTENT

Player initials %

HRmax

Peak HR

(bpm)

Time in Light

Aerobic zone (<

75% HRmax)

Time in Moderate Aerobic

zone (75%-84%

HRmax)

Time in Heavy

Aerobic zone (85%-

89% HRmax)

Time @ >90%

HRmax HRmax (bpm)

BG 82.8 191 4.667 6.833 11.833 0.667 203 LW 85.3 192 3.25 4.5 11.25 1.33 204 CH 86.9 204 4 1.75 7 5.833 213 ADS 85.5 201 4 4.667 8.33 1 207 JR 79.2 189 6.33 15.4166 6.33 0.166 202 SB 87.2 195 DDU 88.5 197 2.5833 3.33 6.667 8.9166 200 CS 82.5 205 5.5833 8.25 9.5833 1.166 212

196

4 v 4 INTERMITTENT

Player initials

Total Distance

(m)

Distance within Speed zone 1

Distance within Speed zone 2

Distance within Speed zone 3

Distance within Speed zone 4

Distance within Speed zone 5

Distance within Speed zone 6

Total # of

sprints

Av duration

of sprints

Maximal sprint

duration (s)

MG 2586.7 1157.9 489.2 357.8 291.5 154.1 128.5 11 2.4 4.0 ADS 2422.0 1234 428.9 260.3 251 169.9 69 10 1.5 2.0 AdA 2637.7 1104.5 505.8 380.6 314 198 120.9 13 2.0 3.0 IG 2634.0 1138.3 606.5 344.2 335.8 133.2 68.7 6 2.3 5.0 OP 2760.6 1055.2 778.9 408.6 275.5 131.1 105.3 10 2.2 3.0 SB 2454.8 1220.8 524.6 302.8 252.6 56.9 84.9 10 1.8 3.0 MB 2810.7 1075.2 774.5 397.8 244.1 187.7 122.4 13 1.9 4.0 DB 2761.2 1146.7 798.6 406.7 292.3 100.8 10.5 1 2.0 2.0

4 v 4 INTERMITTENT

Player initials

Av elapsed time

between sprints (s)

High intensity sprinting activity

ratio

Min sprint

distance (m)

Max sprint

distance (m)

Av distance of each sprint (m)

Max speed (km/h)

Rest [La-]

Post SSG [La-] RPE HRav

MG 131.8 11.1 4.0 21.6 11.7 21.9 1.5 4.7 15 171 ADS 136.0 9.4 3.5 10.7 6.9 22.4 12 170 AdA 114.8 13.5 3.4 16.3 9.3 22.8 1.0 5.2 13 177 IG 271.5 6.8 4.3 28.4 11.5 23.5 1.8 4.7 13 184 OP 131.1 9.1 3.9 16.1 10.5 23.1 1.7 5.7 13 176 SB 124.5 8.6 2 17 8.5 23.9 10 167 MB 113.4 13.3 3.7 21.4 9.4 24.1 1.1 13 164 DB 10.5 10.5 10.5 20.7 2.2 5.4 11 164

197

4 v 4 INTERMITTENT

Player initials

% HRmax

Peak HR

(bpm)

Time in Light Aerobic zone

(< 75% HRmax)

Time in Moderate

Aerobic zone (75%-84% HRmax)

Time in Heavy Aerobic zone

(85%-89% HRmax)

Time @ >90% HRmax

HRmax (bpm)

MG 84.7 198 3.91666 7.5833 8.5833 4.4166 202 ADS 82.1 193 4.25 11.667 9.9166 0.0833 207 AdA 86.3 203 4.9166 1.8333 4.75 9.667 205 IG 90.2 198 1.166 3.9166 3.33 13.9166 204 OP 89.3 193 3 2.75 2.833 13.667 197 SB 85.6 194 3.833 3.5833 5.4166 7.4166 195 MB 84.1 185 0 7.25 13.33 0.667 195 DB 82.4 188 5.75 6.5833 8.33 1.33 199

2 v 2 INTERMITTENT

Player initials

Total Distance

(m)

Distance within Speed zone 1

Distance within Speed zone 2

Distance within Speed zone 3

Distance within Speed zone 4

Distance within Speed zone 5

Distance within Speed zone 6

Total # of

sprints

Av duration

of sprints

Maximal sprint

duration (s)

BG 2441.1 1237 654.3 261.8 158 91.2 28 6 1.2 2.0 SB 2560.2 1281.8 610.2 233.4 256.2 126.1 47.6 8 1.4 2.0 JR 2601.0 1106.2 674.4 387.5 303.0 100.9 21.5 5 1.0 1.0 LW 2496.3 1234.4 572.9 311.9 216.3 116.9 34.9 5 1.6 2.0

2 v 2 INTERMITTENT

Player initials

Av elapsed

time between sprints

(s)

High intensity sprinting activity

ratio

Min sprint

distance (m)

Max sprint distance

(m)

Av distance of each sprint (m)

Max speed (km/h)

Rest [La-]

Post SSG [La-] RPE HRav

BG 237.7 5.9 3.4 7.6 4.7 20.4 3.5 12 170 SB 215.9 9.6 3 10.6 6.0 23.3 1.8 11.4 12 168 JR 338.0 5.9 3.7 4.9 4.3 19.4 1.0 2.9 12 164 LW 325.4 5.6 4.1 10.1 7.0 22.2 1.3 6 12 172

198

2 v 2 INTERMITTENT

Player initials

% HRmax

Peak HR (bpm)

Time in Light

Aerobic zone (<

75% HRmax)

Time in Moderate Aerobic

zone (75%-84%

HRmax)

Time in Heavy

Aerobic zone

(85%-89%

HRmax)

Time @ >90%

HRmax HRmax (bpm)

BG 83.7 191 3.33 5.5 9.5833 0.0833 203 SB 86.2 195 4.5 2.75 4.9166 4.667 195 JR 81.2 196 8.4166 4.5 7.833 4.833 202 LW 84.3 199 3.25 4.833 11.25 0.4166 204

2 v 2 INTERMITTENT

Player initials

Total Distance

(m)

Distance within Speed zone 1

Distance within Speed zone 2

Distance within Speed zone 3

Distance within Speed zone 4

Distance within Speed zone 5

Distance within Speed zone 6

Total # of

sprints

Av duration

of sprints

Maximal sprint

duration (s)

ADS 2434.9 1206.4 532.4 294.3 213 151.4 27.6 6 1.2 2.0 AdA 2504.9 1162.7 549.1 254.7 272.7 191.3 63.8 10 1.3 3.0 CH 2591.2 1202.3 615.8 304.5 274.2 161.0 27.2 4 1.5 2.0 DDU 2598.9 1231.6 548.6 286.1 257.1 164.4 97.3 11 1.8 3.0

2 v 2 INTERMITTENT

Player initials

Av elapsed

time between

sprints (s)

High intensity sprinting activity

ratio

Min sprint

distance (m)

Max sprint

distance (m)

Av distance of each sprint (m)

Max speed (km/h)

Rest [La-]

Post SSG [La-] RPE HRav

ADS 264.8 6.6 2.4 8.9 4.6 22.0 1.3 5.7 12 179 AdA 165.6 11.5 2.8 14.1 6.4 21.1 1.1 6.1 13 175 CH 255.5 2.8 4.4 9.5 6.8 20.7 1.8 4.7 13 186 DDU 142.8 12.0 2.2 13.6 8.8 23.5 1.2 3.9 15 182

199

2 v 2 INTERMITTENT

Player initials % HRmax

Peak HR (bpm)

Time in Light

Aerobic zone (<

75% HRmax)

Time in Moderate Aerobic

zone (75%-84%

HRmax)

Time in Heavy

Aerobic zone

(85%-89%

HRmax)

Time @ >90%

HRmax HRmax (bpm)

ADS 86.5 199 3.4166 3.33 10.0833 3.25 207 AdA 85.4 205 4.0833 2 3.9166 5.0833 205 CH 87.3 202 3.9166 2.33 6.667 4.667 213 DDU 91.0 195 0 2.667 3.833 6.667 200

2 v 2 INTERMITTENT

Player initials

Total Distance

(m)

Distance within Speed zone 1

Distance within Speed zone 2

Distance within Speed zone 3

Distance within Speed zone 4

Distance within Speed zone 5

Distance within Speed zone 6

Total # of

sprints

Av duration

of sprints

Maximal sprint

duration (s)

MB 2513.9 1185.4 642.3 238.9 241.2 159.1 35.2 6 1.3 2.0 IG 2530.8 1205.9 584.6 292.8 246.6 153.4 40.7 6 1.6 2.0 ML 2614.2 1107.4 714.9 356.4 290.1 117.5 19.6 4 1.3 2.0 DB 2652.6 1163.4 773.8 415.3 211.4 72.3 9.1 2 1.0 1.0

2 v 2 INTERMITTENT

Player initials

Av elapsed

time between sprints

(s)

High intensity sprinting activity

ratio

Min sprint

distance (m)

Max sprint

distance (m)

Av distance of each sprint (m)

Max speed (km/h)

Rest [La-]

Post SSG [La-] RPE HRav

MB 256.3 6.4 2.4 10.5 5.9 20.0 1.2 12 171 IG 198.8 5.0 4.6 9.8 6.8 22.0 1.7 4.9 13 180 ML 373.0 4.1 2.8 8.9 4.9 20.9 13 174 DB 716.5 2.0 4.4 4.7 4.6 19.1 2.6 8.1 14 173

200

2 v 2 INTERMITTENT

Player initials % HRmax

Peak HR (bpm)

Time in Light

Aerobic zone (<

75% HRmax)

Time in Moderate Aerobic

zone (75%-84% HRmax)

Time in Heavy

Aerobic zone

(85%-89%

HRmax)

Time @ >90%

HRmax HRmax (bpm)

MB 87.7 190 0.0833 5.25 6.0833 3.5 195 IG 88.2 193 1.5 3.833 7.5 5 204 ML 87.9 188 1.4166 4.5 4 2 198 DB 86.9 192 2.9166 4.0833 6 7.667 199

2 v 2 INTERMITTENT

Player initials

Total Distance

(m)

Distance within Speed zone 1

Distance within Speed zone 2

Distance within Speed zone 3

Distance within Speed zone 4

Distance within Speed zone 5

Distance within Speed zone 6

Total # of

sprints

Av duration

of sprints

Maximal sprint

duration (s)

BG 2533.5 1287.1 506.9 263.7 288.9 132.9 43 6 1.5 3.0 CS 2782.4 1071.0 686.8 316.6 396.4 253.7 49.7 7 1.6 3.0 JR 2688.8 1143.4 684.3 362.2 321.4 153.6 16.1 4 1.0 1.0 LW 2606.4 1139.2 728.6 249.3 242.6 153.0 80.4 11 1.6 4.0

2 v 2 INTERMITTENT

Player initials

Av elapsed

time between sprints

(s)

High intensity sprinting activity

ratio

Min sprint

distance (m)

Max sprint

distance (m)

Av distance of each sprint (m)

Max speed (km/h)

Rest [La-]

Post SSG [La-] RPE HRav

BG 140.8 3.5 3.6 15 7.2 21.9 1.9 4.7 13 CS 214.3 7.3 3.9 15.5 7.1 22.0 1.3 11 174 JR 261.0 2.9 2.6 4.8 4.0 21.7 1.0 4.2 13 174 LW 148.5 12.5 3.6 19.5 7.3 22.4 0.8 4.6 12 177

201

2 v 2 INTERMITTENT

Player initials

% HRmax

Peak HR (bpm)

Time in Light

Aerobic zone (<

75% HRmax)

Time in Moderate Aerobic

zone (75%-84% HRmax)

Time in Heavy

Aerobic zone

(85%-89% HRmax)

Time @ >90%

HRmax HRmax (bpm)

BG 203 CS 82.1 197 5.9166 7.5 10.5833 0.166 212 JR 86.1 203 4.4166 3.75 11 2.4166 202 LW 86.8 195 3 3.833 3.75 4 204

2 v 2 INTERMITTENT

Player initials

Total Distance

(m)

Distance within Speed zone 1

Distance within Speed zone 2

Distance within Speed zone 3

Distance within Speed zone 4

Distance within Speed zone 5

Distance within Speed zone 6

Total # of

sprints

Av duration

of sprints

Maximal sprint

duration (s)

ADS 2691.7 1184.4 620.4 355.6 302.1 166.4 56.5 8 1.6 2.0 DDU 2830.1 1204.9 606.6 364.2 296.8 253.7 98.2 11 1.8 4.0 IG 2612.5 1089.7 558.1 346.2 348.8 193.9 66.2 10 1.4 2.0 ML 2773.2 1051.3 876.1 437.4 273 105.3 22.6 4 1.3 2.0

2 v 2 INTERMITTENT

Player initials

Av elapsed

time between sprints

(s)

High intensity sprinting activity

ratio

Min sprint

distance (m)

Max sprint

distance (m)

Av distance of each sprint (m)

Max speed (km/h)

Rest [La-]

Post SSG [La-] RPE HRav

ADS 200.6 8.9 3.2 10 7.1 21.3 1.4 13 167 DDU 119.4 10.0 4 21.6 8.9 22.8 1.1 5.5 14 183 IG 142.7 9.9 3.3 11 6.6 23.5 5.2 13 ML 407.8 4.5 2.8 10.7 5.7 22.8 12 167

202

2 v 2 INTERMITTENT

Player initials

% HRmax

Peak HR

(bpm)

Time in Light

Aerobic zone (<

75% HRmax)

Time in Moderate Aerobic

zone (75%-84%

HRmax)

Time in Heavy

Aerobic zone

(85%-89%

HRmax)

Time @ >90%

HRmax HRmax (bpm)

ADS 80.7 189 5.667 9.166 12.4166 0 207 DDU 91.5 204 1.4166 3.5833 1.0833 19.25 200 IG 204 ML 84.3 180 3.5 4.75 18.75 0 198

2 v 2 INTERMITTENT

Player initials

Total Distance

(m)

Distance within Speed zone 1

Distance within Speed zone 2

Distance within Speed zone 3

Distance within Speed zone 4

Distance within Speed zone 5

Distance within Speed zone 6

Total # of

sprints

Av duration

of sprints

Maximal sprint

duration (s)

MB 2518.3 1200.4 562.6 294.6 211.3 173.7 63.3 12 1.3 3.0 AdA 2561.8 1141.2 596.0 301.3 298.6 155.2 60.5 9 1.4 2.0 OP 2544.8 1169.1 716.4 305.3 207.3 107.0 30.9 5 1.4 2.0 AH 2619.0 1180.7 624.2 326.5 280.3 182 15 3 1.3 2.0

2 v 2 INTERMITTENT

Player initials

Av elapsed

time between sprints

(s)

High intensity sprinting activity

ratio

Min sprint

distance (m)

Max sprint

distance (m)

Av distance of each sprint (m)

Max speed (km/h) Rest [La-]

Post SSG [La-] RPE HRav

MB 121.6 12.2 3 13.9 5.3 21.7 1.6 7.4 13 180 AdA 161.9 9.1 3.1 10.6 6.7 21.9 0.8 5.4 15 179 OP 242.6 4.2 3 10 6.2 22.0 1.4 11.7 13 181 AH 493.0 3.1 2.1 8 5.0 20.7 1.8 7.8 12 188

203

2 v 2 INTERMITTENT

Player initials % HRmax

Peak HR (bpm)

Time in Light

Aerobic zone (< 75%

HRmax)

Time in Moderate Aerobic

zone (75%-84%

HRmax)

Time in Heavy

Aerobic zone (85%-

89% HRmax)

Time @ >90%

HRmax HRmax (bpm)

MB 92.3 201 0.75 3.5 1.833 17.833 195 AdA 87.3 206 3.833 2.5833 5.25 9.75 205 OP 91.9 196 2.166 2.5 2.0833 19.667 197 AH 91.3 203 0.667 3.75 2.9166 16.5 206

2 v 2 CONTINUOUS

Player initials

Total Distance

(m)

Distance within Speed zone 1

Distance within Speed zone 2

Distance within Speed zone 3

Distance within Speed zone 4

Distance within Speed zone 5

Distance within Speed zone 6

Total # of

sprints

Av duration of sprints

Maximal sprint

duration (s)

BG 2526.8 1190.4 606.2 351.9 203.6 108.6 52.2 8 1.4 3.0 JR 2593.6 1181.2 714.3 268.4 216.7 148.8 56.8 8 1.5 3.0 IG 2363.7 1233.8 543.0 222.1 237.3 106.1 11.3 3 1.0 1.0 LW 2670.9 1164.7 727.0 244.9 277.0 173.5 78.4 12 1.5 3.0

2 v 2 CONTINUOUS

Player initials

Av elapsed

time between sprints

(s)

High intensity sprinting activity

ratio

Min sprint

distance (m)

Max sprint

distance (m)

Av distance of each sprint (m)

Max speed (km/h)

Rest [La-]

Post SSG [La-] RPE HRav

BG 164.9 7.3 3.7 17.5 6.5 25.0 2.8 10.0 10 182 JR 167.0 7.4 4 15.9 7.1 24.6 2.7 7.6 10 189 IG 343.0 2.1 3.3 4.3 3.8 19.4 1.8 15 183 LW 117.6 11.8 3.1 13.7 6.5 23.0 1.9 8.2 10

204

2 v 2 CONTINUOUS

Player initials

% HRmax

Peak HR (bpm)

Time in Light Aerobic zone

(< 75% HRmax)

Time in Moderate Aerobic zone

(75%-84% HRmax)

Time in Heavy Aerobic zone

(85%-89% HRmax)

Time @ >90%

HRmax HRmax (bpm)

BG 89.7 203 0.5833 1.9166 6.833 3.75 203 JR 93.6 199 0.5833 0.33 0.5 17.33 202 IG 89.7 194 1.25 0.5 4 4 204 LW

2 v 2 CONTINUOUS

Player initials

Total Distance

(m)

Distance within Speed

zone 1

Distance within Speed zone 2

Distance within Speed zone 3

Distance within Speed zone 4

Distance within Speed zone 5

Distance within Speed zone 6

Total # of

sprints

Av duration

of sprints

Maximal sprint

duration (s)

ADS 2552.9 1135 657 308 274.8 112.5 55.9 9 1.3 3.0 CH 2491.7 1226.8 660.8 256.1 239.8 77.7 23.2 3 1.7 3.0 AdA 2347.0 1191.8 458.9 277.7 248.5 128.1 32.2 6 1.3 2.0 DDU 2514.3 1273.4 504.4 236.8 307.4 136.8 46.1 7 1.4 2.0

2 v 2 CONTINUOUS

Player initials

Av elapsed time

between sprints (s)

High intensity sprinting activity

ratio

Min sprint distance

(m)

Max sprint

distance (m)

Av distance of each sprint

(m)

Max speed (km/h)

Rest [La-]

Post SSG [La-] RPE HRav

ADS 113.1 6.4 4.2 15.4 6.2 20.9 1.6 5.8 14 190 CH 237.3 1.5 3.9 14.5 7.7 22.0 1.8 3.2 14 196 AdA 160.7 4.0 2.8 7.7 5.4 20.7 0.7 4.8 13 190 DDU 159.7 5.4 4.1 10.2 6.6 20.0 2.1 4.7 17 185

205

2 v 2 CONTINUOUS

Player initials

% HRmax Peak HR (bpm)

Time in Light

Aerobic zone (< 75% HRmax)

Time in Moderate

Aerobic zone (75%-84% HRmax)

Time in Heavy Aerobic zone

(85%-89% HRmax)

Time @

>90% HRmax

HRmax (bpm)

ADS 91.8 198 0.33 0.166 1.33 8.33 207 CH 92.0 204 0.667 0.166 1 12.8333 213 AdA 92.7 203 0.5833 0.4166 2.75 13.4166 205 DDU 92.5 195 0.25 0.5 0.75 11.5833 200

2 v 2 CONTINUOUS

Player initials

Total Distance

(m)

Distance within Speed zone 1

Distance within Speed zone 2

Distance within Speed zone 3

Distance within Speed zone 4

Distance within Speed zone 5

Distance within Speed zone 6

Total # of

sprints

Av duration

of sprints

Maximal sprint

duration (s)

MB 2505.1 1136.2 542.8 242.8 303.7 198.6 65.7 9 1.6 3.0 AH 2735.1 1141.4 699.6 397.9 286.2 137.9 64.8 8 1.9 3.0 OP 2648.3 1112.1 721.2 342.7 318.0 134.7 12.9 2 1.5 2.0 DB 2749.6 1108.1 787.5 364.9 298.1 152.8 31.4 5 1.4 2.0

2 v 2 CONTINUOUS

Player initials

Av elapsed time

between sprints (s)

High intensity sprinting activity

ratio

Min sprint

distance (m)

Max sprint

distance (m)

Av distance of each sprint (m)

Max speed (km/h)

Rest [La-]

Post SSG [La-] RPE HRav

MB 156.7 8.8 3.9 14.8 7.3 22.2 1.4 10.6 13 186 AH 165.9 7.4 3.5 13.7 8.1 23.1 2.0 9.4 13 OP 550.5 1.5 3 9.9 6.5 19.8 1.9 11.3 13 184 DB 244.0 4.2 4.3 9.2 6.3 19.4 1.8 9.1 15 186

206

2 v 2 CONTINUOUS

Player initials % HRmax

Peak HR (bpm)

Time in Light

Aerobic zone (<

75% HRmax)

Time in Moderate Aerobic

zone (75%-84%

HRmax)

Time in Heavy

Aerobic zone

(85%-89%

HRmax)

Time @ >90%

HRmax HRmax (bpm)

MB 95.4 200 0 0.5 0.583 16.5833 195 AH OP 93.4 195 1.5 0.333 0.166 21.8333 197 DB 93.5 199 0.5833 0.667 1.5833 16.4166 199

2 v 2 CONTINUOUS

Player initials

Total Distance

(m)

Distance within Speed zone 1

Distance within Speed zone 2

Distance within Speed zone 3

Distance within Speed zone 4

Distance within Speed zone 5

Distance within Speed zone 6

Total # of

sprints

Av duration of sprints

Maximal sprint

duration (s) BG 2539.2 1189.2 619.8 377.5 211.1 89.8 41.8 4 2.3 3.0 CH 2699.8 1193.8 627.4 359.4 323.6 137.5 52.6 10 1.3 3.0 JR 2583.8 1179.9 627.2 324.4 278.2 135.6 31.4 5 1.4 3.0 LW 2670.2 1120.5 690.9 355.0 348.2 126.2 23.5 3 1.7 3.0

2 v 2 CONTINUOUS

Player initials

Av elapsed

time between

sprints (s)

High intensity sprinting activity

ratio

Min sprint distance

(m)

Max sprint

distance (m)

Av distance of each

sprint (m)

Max speed (km/h) Rest [La-]

Post SSG [La-] RPE HRav

BG 213.5 2.4 4.4 15 10.5 22.4 1.5 9.7 13 CH 135.9 9.4 2.8 14.7 5.3 25.7 1.6 6.8 13 198 JR 234.6 4.1 3.6 15.0 6.3 23.0 1.6 6.5 16 188 LW 368.3 2.3 3.6 15.6 7.8 23.7 1.5 10.2 12

207

2 v 2 CONTINUOUS

Player initials

% HRmax

Peak HR

(bpm)

Time in Light

Aerobic zone (<

75% HRmax)

Time in Moderate Aerobic

zone (75%-84% HRmax)

Time in Heavy

Aerobic zone

(85%-89% HRmax)

Time @ >90%

HRmax HRmax (bpm)

BG CH 93.0 211 0.33 0.5 1.33 15.667 213 JR 93.1 199 0.4166 0.166 3.9166 13.4166 202 LW

2 v 2 CONTINUOUS

Player initials

Total Distance

(m)

Distance within Speed zone 1

Distance within Speed zone 2

Distance within Speed zone 3

Distance within Speed zone 4

Distance within Speed zone 5

Distance within Speed zone 6

Total # of

sprints

Av duration of sprints

Maximal sprint

duration (s)

ADS 2539.3 1170.2 581.9 269.3 322.2 153.8 34.8 6 1.3 2.0 AdA 2464.7 1152.2 522.1 251.7 295.5 175.4 55.4 9 1.3 2.0 DDU 2612.7 1291.4 497.2 289.7 335.0 143.7 48.5 8 1.4 2.0 ML

2 v 2 CONTINUOUS

Player initials

Av elapsed

time between

sprints (s)

High intensity sprinting activity

ratio

Min sprint

distance (m)

Max sprint

distance (m)

Av distance of each sprint (m)

Max speed (km/h) Rest [La-]

Post SSG [La-] RPE HRav

ADS 4.8 3.4 10.2 5.8 20.9 0.8 8.5 13 178 AdA 190.7 6.6 3.4 10.2 5.8 20.9 0.8 8.5 13 178 DDU 117.3 6.3 4.2 10.1 6.2 19.8 0.8 8.6 15 ML 141.9 3.2 11.2 6.1 22.2 1.4 3.1 17 186

208

2 v 2 CONTINUOUS

Player initials

% HRmax

Peak HR

(bpm)

Time in Light

Aerobic zone (<

75% HRmax)

Time in Moderate Aerobic

zone (75%-84%

HRmax)

Time in Heavy

Aerobic zone (85%-

89% HRmax)

Time @ >90%

HRmax HRmax (bpm)

ADS 86.0 193 1.166 5.25 10.667 0.166 207 AdA DDU 93.0 197 0.5 0.5 1.5833 17.5 200 ML

2 v 2 CONTINIOUS

Player initials

Total Distance

(m)

Distance within Speed zone 1

Distance within Speed zone 2

Distance within Speed zone 3

Distance within Speed zone 4

Distance within Speed zone 5

Distance within Speed zone 6

Total # of

sprints

Av duration

of sprints

Maximal sprint

duration (s)

MB 2363.0 1150.1 461.1 227 253.9 144.3 108.9 17 1.5 3.0 AH 2522.0 1219.4 614.3 314 243.5 113 8.9 2 1.0 1.0 OP 2449.8 1105.0 699.5 236.9 234.9 127.3 38.5 7 1.3 2.0 DB 2516.7 1226.7 716.1 265.8 193.5 81.4 25.9 5 1.2 2.0

2 v 2 CONTINUOUS

Player initials

Av elapsed time between

sprints (s)

High intensity sprinting activity

ratio

Min sprint

distance (m)

Max sprint

distance (m)

Av distance of each sprint (m)

Max speed (km/h)

Rest [La-]

Post SSG [La-] RPE HRav

MB 75.3 15.1 2.3 13 6.4 22.8 1.0 7.6 13 189 AH 347.5 1.0 4.1 4.8 4.5 18.9 1.5 4.7 12 185 OP 161.9 5.5 3.7 9.0 5.5 21.3 1.4 7.4 15 185 DB 80.2 1.4 4.1 8.9 5.2 20.6 1.3 7.7 13 181

209

2 v 2 CONTINUOUS

Player initials % HRmax

Peak HR

(bpm)

Time in Light

Aerobic zone (<

75% HRmax)

Time in Moderate Aerobic

zone (75%-84%

HRmax)

Time in Heavy

Aerobic zone (85%-

89% HRmax)

Time @ >90%

HRmax HRmax (bpm) MB 96.9 201 0.4166 0.4166 0.0833 22.75 195 AH 89.8 197 0.833 0.25 7.4166 4.667 206 OP 93.9 195 0.4166 0.4166 0.25 20.667 197 DB 91.0 194 1.25 1.33 3.5833 14.9166 199

6 v 6 CONTINUOUS

Player initials Total

Distance (m)

Distance within Speed zone 1

Distance within Speed zone 2

Distance within Speed zone 3

Distance within Speed zone 4

Distance within Speed zone 5

Distance within Speed zone 6

Total # of

sprints

Av duration

of sprints

Maximal sprint

duration (s)

BG 2600.6 1141.7 712.8 352.4 213.6 127 41.6 5 1.8 3.0 JR 2688.0 1206.7 542.9 330.1 315.9 160.6 125.8 8 2.9 4.0 CS 2249.4 1140.4 419.1 207.1 211 200.6 60.2 7 1.9 4.0 CH 2629.1 1149.3 539.2 368 383.2 149.9 34.4 4 1.8 3.0 AdA 2333.5 1175.4 444.2 223.8 226.1 166.1 83.4 6 2.8 4.0 AH 2700.3 1155 757.1 407.1 277 74.7 23.6 4 1.3 2.0 IG 2592.7 1160.4 584.3 296.9 267.8 152.1 124.7 13 2.0 5.0 LW 2545.7 1132.3 605 257.7 264 168.3 111.9 9 2.6 5.0 ML 3224.1 782.8 926.2 663.8 636 173.8 37.3 4 2.0 3.0 MB 2605.2 1088.5 730.4 364.6 194.3 164.2 50.6 8 1.4 3.0 OP 2718.5 1110.6 980 253.3 210.6 97 62.8 5 2.4 4.0 DB 2747.9 1061.6 840.9 400.6 280.2 122.5 37.2 5 1.6 3.0

210

6 v 6 CONTINUOUS

Player initials

Av elapsed time between sprints (s)

High intensity sprinting activity

ratio

Min sprint

distance (m)

Max sprint

distance (m)

Av distance of each sprint (m)

Max speed (km/h)

Rest [La-]

Post SSG [La-] RPE HRav

BG 216.4 3.8 3.3 17.4 8.3 23.0 2.1 3.0 9 172 JR 137.3 6.1 3.9 22.6 15.7 27.6 1.6 4.0 13 174 CS 157.4 5.4 2.2 22.5 8.6 21.7 1.1 4.3 7 170 CH 275.8 3.1 4.7 16 8.6 21.9 1.9 2.8 15 182 AdA 116.2 2.9 4.8 17.9 13.9 23.7 2.3 3.7 11 AH 302.8 3.4 4.1 10.1 5.9 21.3 3.4 4.7 10 176 IG 88.5 10.4 3.2 26 9.6 22.2 1.8 8.0 11 176 LW 139.2 7.8 1.4 28.2 12.4 25.0 1.1 6.6 11 174 ML 250.5 2.8 4.8 15.3 9.3 25.4 11 168 MB 174.8 7.8 3.3 16.2 6.3 22.6 1.3 2.2 12 167 OP 274.8 4.8 4.8 21.5 12.6 24.3 2.5 7.5 15 176 DB 158.0 2.7 4.1 16.4 7.4 24.3 2.7 9.1 12 172

6 v 6 CONTINUOUS

Player initials % HRmax

Peak HR (bpm)

Time < 75% HRmax

Time 75%-84% HRmax

Time 85%-89% HRmax)

Time @ >90%

HRmax HRmax (bpm)

BG 84.7 203 0.833 9.833 9 2.25 203 JR 86.1 197 0.667 9.75 8.4166 2.166 202 CS 80.2 196 4.4166 13.166 5.75 0 212 CH 85.4 197 1.166 4.9166 15.25 0 213 AdA AH 85.4 196 1.5 5.9166 10 0.9166 206 IG 86.3 190 1.75 3.5 10.4166 0.166 204 LW 85.3 205 0.667 10.9166 10.25 1.0833 204 ML 84.8 178 0.667 5.4166 17.75 0 198 MB 85.6 182 0.667 7.75 12.0833 0.5 195 OP 89.3 188 1.25 1.4166 5.333 7.333 197 DB 86.4 186 1.5 4.4166 11.9166 0.833 199

211

6 v 6 CONTINUOUS

Player initials

Total Distance

(m)

Distance within

Speed zone 1

Distance within Speed zone 2

Distance within Speed zone 3

Distance within Speed zone 4

Distance within Speed zone 5

Distance within Speed zone 6

Total # of

sprints

Av duration

of sprints

Maximal sprint

duration (s)

BG 2537.6 1286.3 532.5 265.2 255.1 138.9 50.8 6 1.7 4.0 JR 2500.3 1288.3 508.5 314.2 216.3 116.7 48.7 5 2.0 4.0 CS 2292.1 1116.4 454.6 272.6 250.2 119.8 62.6 5 2.4 5.0 AdA 2714.7 1108.8 560.3 322.4 320.3 243.4 149.2 14 2.1 4.0 AH 2546.5 1179.9 632.5 325.7 231 93.8 77.9 6 2.7 5.0 IG 2294.0 1234.4 458.5 272.9 232.1 70.6 17.6 3 1.3 2.0 LW 2492.0 1146.9 592.9 275.2 237.4 159.1 71.0 8 1.9 4.0 ML 2498.7 1137.3 543.1 347.6 305.3 123.7 34.5 3 2.0 4.0 MB 2588.4 1089.6 574.4 359 318.6 148.2 75.5 9 1.8 4.0 OP 2657.2 1096.9 645.5 394.8 303.5 147.4 62.7 8 1.6 3.0 DDU 2506.7 1247.2 537.9 324.1 245 128.4 15 2 1.5 2.0 SB 2577.5 1268.4 622.8 272.1 262.1 109.1 36.5 5 1.6 3.0

6 v 6 CONTINUOUS

Player initials

Av elapsed

time between sprints

(s)

High intensity sprinting activity

ratio

Min sprint

distance (m)

Max sprint

distance (m)

Av distance of each sprint (m)

Max speed (km/h)

Rest [La-]

Post SSG [La-] RPE HRav

BG 145.5 3.6 3.4 23.8 8.5 25.7 1.1 2.8 11 164 JR 203.8 3.5 2.8 20 9.7 24.3 1.3 2.4 9 161 CS 188.6 3.3 4.6 27.3 12.5 22.4 0.9 2.9 8 161 AdA 98.6 13.4 3.9 22.8 10.7 23.9 1.5 3.7 11 185 AH 188.3 4.7 4.2 27.1 13.0 23.1 1.5 2.9 10 182 IG 151.7 0.9 4.1 8.9 5.9 20.4 0.7 9 172 LW 146.8 6.5 4.2 19.6 8.9 23.3 0.6 4.6 11 179 ML 311.7 1.9 4.2 25.5 11.5 25.6 10 162 MB 107.1 6.0 3.8 22.5 8.4 25.4 1.3 1.8 11 162 OP 170.0 7.6 2.6 16.6 7.8 23.7 1.6 4.4 10 175 DDU 242.0 0.7 5.1 9.9 7.5 20.7 0.8 2.2 10 175 SB 267.8 4.6 2.8 15.4 7.3 20.6 1.8 7.3 13 180

212

6 v 6 CONTINUOUS

Player initials % HRmax Peak HR

(bpm) Time < 75%

HRmax Time 75%-

84% HRmax

Time 85%-89%

HRmax)

Time @ >90%

HRmax HRmax (bpm)

BG 80.8 185 3.33 13.1667 7.25 0 203 JR 79.7 205 5.667 13.33 4.4166 0.25 202 CS 75.9 196 11.25 9.5 2.75 0 212 AdA 90.2 198 0 6.8333 0.9166 10.75 205 AH 88.3 198 0 2.4166 13 3.75 206 IG 84.3 186 0.667 10.4166 11.667 0 204 LW 87.7 204 0.667 4.25 10.0833 2.667 204 ML 81.8 176 0.833 17.9166 5.25 0 198 MB 83.1 189 7.0833 3.5 1.75 6.166 195 OP 88.8 190 0.833 2.9166 5.25 4.91666 197 DDU 87.5 196 1.25 3.33 10.5833 4.667 200 SB 92.3 193 0.9166 0.5 1.4166 15.25 195

6 v 6 INTERMITTENT

Player initials Total

Distance (m)

Distance within Speed zone 1

Distance within Speed zone 2

Distance within Speed zone 3

Distance within Speed zone 4

Distance within Speed zone 5

Distance within Speed zone 6

Total # of

sprints

Av duration

of sprints

Maximal sprint

duration (s)

BG 3029.0 1091.3 673.8 506.8 459.3 211 81.3 8 2.0 5.0 JR 2769.7 1175.1 550 385.5 285.7 191.9 173.1 16 2.2 4.0 CH AdA 2564.6 1049.4 479.5 368.9 331 203.2 118.8 15 1.6 3.0 AH 2584.0 1137.4 530 341.4 313.1 186 62 9 1.4 3.0 IG 2521.7 1183.7 493.3 302 293.8 134 104.8 11 2.0 3.0 LW 2742.1 1091.8 628.5 331.5 359.5 205.9 117.3 13 1.8 4.0 ML 3094.3 869.0 705.6 559.1 675.6 254.2 24.2 3 1.7 2.0 MB 2532.8 1138.7 653.5 268.7 217.5 147.5 95.7 11 1.8 4.0 OP 2952.7 980.7 824.3 550.6 445.3 96 49 6 1.8 3.0 DB 2840.3 954.1 883.2 513.6 298.9 130.1 53.2 6 1.8 3.0 DDU 2163.1 1386.3 288 181.1 150.9 113.2 29.1 4 1.5 2.0

213

6 v 6 INTERMITTENT

Player initials

Av elapsed time between

sprints (s)

High intensity sprinting activity

ratio

Min sprint

distance (m)

Max sprint

distance (m)

Av distance of each sprint (m)

Max speed (km/h)

Rest [La-]

Post SSG [La-] RPE HRav

BG 164.1 7.3 2.9 28 10.2 23.9 1.6 7.0 11 172 JR 92.9 16.5 1.9 23.3 10.8 24.8 2.0 3.8 11 165 CH 2.3 3.7 11 177 AdA 86.5 13.5 3.9 17.1 7.9 22.4 2.5 3.0 9 172 AH 151.7 8.5 4.3 14.2 6.9 23.0 1.5 4.7 11 172 IG 139.5 11.7 3.5 17.2 9.5 23.7 3.1 4.2 10 160 LW 122.2 14.3 4.4 22.8 9.0 24.4 1.6 5.0 10 170 ML 492.0 3.1 4.9 10.1 8.1 19.6 10 165 MB 144.9 12.2 3 20.3 8.7 21.9 2.9 2.0 11 162 OP 227.5 5.7 3 16.3 8.2 21.1 2.4 8.3 11 169 DB 252.8 6.3 2.3 18.3 8.9 24.1 2.5 8.1 10 166 DDU 283.5 3.2 3.9 10.2 7.3 22.6 3.5 3.1 10 170

6 v 6 INTERMITTENT

Player initials % HRmax Peak HR

(bpm)

Time in Light Aerobic zone

(< 75% HRmax)

Time in Moderate

Aerobic zone (75%-84% HRmax)

Time in Heavy

Aerobic zone (85%-89% HRmax)

Time @ >90%

HRmax HRmax (bpm)

BG 84.7 191 3.5 4.166 8.9166 0.9166 203 JR 81.7 197 6.4166 9 7.5833 2.75 202 CH 83.1 201 5.0833 6.5833 7.75 1.9166 213 AdA 83.9 198 6.0833 4.9166 5.5833 4.5833 205 AH 83.5 194 4.166 7.75 12.166 0.667 206 IG 78.4 186 7.25 13.667 7.0833 0 204 LW 83.3 193 4.667 6.5833 10.25 1.5833 204 ML 83.3 179 3.4166 7.25 17 0 198 MB 83.1 184 4.4166 8.75 10.5833 0.833 195 OP 85.8 192 5 2.33 4 10.9166 197 DB 83.4 189 4.166 8.9166 8.5833 2.166 199

214

DDU 85.0 188 2.166 8.667 10.166 0.667 200

6 v 6 INTERMITTENT

Player initials Total Distance

(m)

Distance within Speed zone 1

Distance within Speed zone 2

Distance within Speed zone 3

Distance within Speed zone 4

Distance within Speed zone 5

Distance within Speed zone 6

Total # of

sprints

Av duration

of sprints

Maximal sprint

duration (s)

BG 2683.0 1167.6 638.8 355.4 288.8 156 68.6 9 1.6 3.0 JR 2302.1 1247.2 442.5 243.7 137.9 111.3 104.8 8 2.5 5.0 CS 2233.5 1084.9 480.6 242.7 199.1 136.9 68.3 8 1.6 5.0 CH 2548.6 1227.9 406.9 298.9 288.4 196 121.5 9 2.6 5.0 AdA 2539.3 1022.3 467.5 321.9 365.6 247.7 91 11 1.7 3.0 IG 2341.1 1272.7 444.8 247.7 199.9 101.8 63.1 9 1.4 2.0 LW 2665.6 1156.3 563.3 310.7 309.8 224.5 91.8 13 1.5 4.0 OP 2506.0 1202.5 485.1 279.9 294.5 168.2 68 8 1.9 3.0 DB 2695.4 1129.4 705 404.4 344.2 74.1 28.8 4 1.5 3.0 DDU 2404.0 1334.7 431.7 201.8 243.7 104.6 79.8 10 1.7 3.0 AN AN

6 v 6 INTERMITTENT

Player initials

Av elapsed time between sprints

(s)

High intensity sprinting activity

ratio

Min sprint

distance (m)

Max sprint

distance (m)

Av distance of each sprint (m)

Max speed (km/h)

Rest [La-]

Post SSG [La-] RPE HRav

BG 156.9 8.8 3.8 17.1 7.6 23.9 1.7 3.3 11 158 JR 191.8 8.5 3.2 30 13.1 25.9 1.5 11 150 CS 193.3 8.6 3.2 32.3 8.5 26.9 1.8 2.4 9 151 CH 151.6 8.5 3.9 29.2 13.5 24.4 1.9 2.0 8 174 AdA 134.3 11.3 3.3 16.8 8.3 22.4 1.0 4.0 11 166 IG 161.2 9.1 4 10.8 7.0 22.2 1.8 3.2 11 168 LW 98.9 11.6 2 22.4 7.1 23.1 0.3 1.8 9 164 OP 191.9 8.5 3 15.5 8.5 22.0 1.5 3.0 10 152 DB 381.0 4.2 4.4 15 7.2 21.1 2.2 6.0 10 158 DDU 160.8 11.2 3 16.5 8.0 22.0 1.6 2.0 9 161 AN AN

215

6 v 6 INTERMITTENT

Player initials % HRmax Peak HR

(bpm)

Time in Light Aerobic zone

(< 75% HRmax)

Time in Moderate Aerobic

zone (75%-84%

HRmax)

Time in Heavy

Aerobic zone (85%-

89% HRmax)

Time @ >90%

HRmax HRmax (bpm)

BG 77.8 203 7.33 14.166 3.667 1.0833 203 JR 74.3 180 13.4166 12.33 2.25 0 202 CS 71.2 189 16.0833 9.75 0.0833 0 212 CH 81.7 193 3.833 10.9166 12.9166 0 213 AdA 81.0 203 3.4166 5.25 10.75 0.75 205 IG 82.4 189 4.667 10.75 11 0 204 LW 80.4 191 6.4166 10.0833 8.5 0.4166 204 OP 77.2 177 8.4166 11.5833 7.4166 0 197 DB 79.4 186 7 10.75 8 0.25 199 DDU 80.5 184 6.5833 10.75 9.0833 0 200 AN AN

216

RAW DATA STUDY TWO

Player initials Rules Format TD Dist1 Dist2 Dist3 SprintNum SprimtDur TimbwSprint HiIntSpRat RV 1 4 2387 1108.2 831 929.3 22 2.6 61.5 20.7 KM 1 4 2568.0 1084.5 909.9 845.3 21 2.4 65.3 20.0 JM 1 4 2411 1179.4 712.5 661.1 20 2.1 69.2 19.2 TY 1 4 2,395 1086 852 886 19 2 75 19 DM 1 3 2341.0 985.3 821.9 753.8 20 2.5 63.3 17.6 TA 1 3 2668 1151.2 842.6 872.4 18 3.1 74.7 16.8 RM 1 3 2485 1198 730 998 17 2 82 17

Player initials Rules Format MinSprintDis MaxSprintDis MeanSprDis MaxVel BLaRest BLaPost RPE Hrmean RV 1 4 3 27.9 13.7 24.1 1.0 2.3 15 172 KM 1 4 4.3 22.4 12.4 25.7 0.8 2.8 16 179 JM 1 4 4.1 21.9 10.3 25.0 0.9 17 171 TY 1 4 1 16 7 24.4 2 4 18.0 178 DM 1 3 1.7 23.7 12.7 25.4 0.8 2.0 16 161 TA 1 3 3.9 37.1 19.5 31.1 0.8 3.4 16 172 RM 1 3 3 17 11 23.1 4 2 15.0 164

Player initials Rules Format pcHRmax Hrpeak HRpk75 HR7585 HR8590 HR9092 HR92 HR>90 HRmax RV 1 4 78 200 6.5 13.33 3.75 0.4166 0 0.4166 221 KM 1 4 87.3 190 0.25 2.75 16.33 4.667 0 4.667 205 JM 1 4 83.4 189 1.166 10.833 10.25 1.75 0 1.75 205 TY 1 4 86.0 212 0.8 14.4 4.1 1 4 4.7 207 DM 1 3 79.7 181 3.667 16.25 4.0833 0 0 0 202 TA 1 3 84 191 1.0833 11.75 8.5 2.667 0.0833 2.7503 205 RM 1 3 79.2 207 4.9 15.8 2.0 0 1 0.9 207

217

Player initials Rules Format TD Dist1 Dist2 Dist3 SprintNum SprimtDur TimbwSprint HiIntSpRat JM 1 4 2236.0 1036.4 874.5 882.5 17 2.1 81.1 16.3 AS 1 4 2579.0 1039.8 1165.8 685.3 17 2.2 78.9 15.8 JP 1 4 2351 1094.9 839.5 902.8 16 2.8 87.6 15.6 TY 1 4 2293 1117.2 807.6 845 14 2.0 90.6 16.0 DC 1 3 2825.0 985.9 1056.2 864.5 17 2.4 75.8 15.2 TR 1 3 2517.0 1081.7 928.5 707.4 17 2.4 73.3 14.7 TP 1 3 2623.0 1107 865.4 757.2 16 2.4 82.3 14.6

Player initials Rules Format MinSprintDis MaxSprintDis MeanSprDis MaxVel BLaRest BLaPost RPE Hrmean JM 1 4 2.8 17.4 10.0 24.8 0.8 1.8 17 175 AS 1 4 2.1 22.2 11.0 25.6 1.1 4.1 15 179 JP 1 4 3.5 36.4 16.7 25.2 1.1 2.0 13 TY 1 4 3.7 22.8 0.3 24.6 1.6 1.6 18 176 DC 1 3 4.2 31.0 13.8 26.3 1.2 2.2 15 179 TR 1 3 3.2 22.9 13.0 25.9 0.8 2.9 16 165 TP 1 3 2.9 23.5 12.7 24.1 1.0 3.6 15 173

Player initials Rules Format pcHRmax Hrpeak HRpk75 HR7585 HR8590 HR9092 HR92 HR>90 HRmax JM 1 4 79.2 197 2.5 16.50 5.0833 0 0 0 221 AS 1 4 88.2 197 1.0833 4.5833 5.9166 8.25 4.33 12.58 203 JP 1 4 202 TY 1 4 85.9 188 0.25 6.166 15.4166 2.166 0 2.166 205 DC 1 3 88.6 203 0.2 3.17 12.75 5.1 2.92 7.9999 202 TR 1 3 80.5 187 3.667 14.50 5.33 0.5 0 0.5 205 TP 1 3 84.8 189 0.4166 8.25 14.75 0.5833 0 0.5833 204

218

Player initials Rules Format TD Dist1 Dist2 Dist3 SprintNum SprimtDur TimbwSprint HiIntSpRat JP 1 31 2,299 1110 819 948 15 2 92 14 KM 1 31 1041.1 860.4 711.8 16 2.6 80.1 14.2 DC 1 31 2636.0 1038.4 800.2 1010.9 17 2.4 70.8 14.2 PK 1 31 2129.0 1177.8 380.2 824.3 17 2.7 70.3 14.1 TP 1 31 2314 1092.9 913.2 826.8 15 2.1 72.3 14.7 JM 1 31 2342.0 1123.5 1035.1 962.7 15 2.6 88.6 13.8 Floater 1 1 2586.0 1175.9 1024.2 782.7 15 2.7 88.3 13.8

Player initials Rules Format MinSprintDis MaxSprintDis MeanSprDis MaxVel BLaRest BLaPost RPE Hrmean JP 1 31 4 25 23 25.6 1 3 18.0 162 KM 1 31 4.1 23.7 13.8 26.7 1.6 6.0 14 184 DC 1 31 4.3 22.2 12.4 25.2 1.1 2.6 16 177 PK 1 31 4.9 21.6 14.2 24.4 0.8 2.2 10 167 TP 1 31 4.5 26.4 2.1 22.8 1.2 4.6 14 172 JM 1 31 4.1 24.1 14.4 27.0 1.0 1.2 15 172 Floater 1 1 3.7 27.4 14.5 26.1 0.9 1.8 16 167

Player initials Rules Format pcHRmax Hrpeak HRpk75 HR7585 HR8590 HR9092 HR92 HR>90 HRmax JP 1 31 79.0 183 5.1 17.4 1.5 0 0 0.0 205 KM 1 31 86.8 200 0 5.1 13.2 4.9 0.6 5.4999 212 DC 1 31 85.9 194 0.5 6.5 12.833 3.4166 0.75 4.1666 206 PK 1 31 81.9 197 2.833 13.83 6.4166 0.5833 0.33 0.9133 204 TP 1 31 83.9 187 0.5 12.25 10.25 1 0 1 205 JM 1 31 84.7 188 0.33 10.25 11.166 2.25 0 2.25 203 Floater 1 1 82.3 185 1.25 15.58 6.5 0.667 0 0.667 203

219

Player initials Rules Format TD Dist1 Dist2 Dist3 SprintNum SprimtDur TimbwSprint HiIntSpRat TY 1 31 2311 1128.6 707.3 666.6 14 2.9 98.3 13.4 JM 1 31 2359.0 1162.2 796.8 679.9 16 2.1 73.9 13.1 RM 1 31 2498.0 1066.5 877.1 990.8 16 3.1 73.5 13.1 TY 1 31 2303.0 996 1065.0 700.7 14 2.4 94.6 12.9 RV 1 31 2657.0 1161.9 540.0 909.5 14 3.4 94.5 12.9 DM 1 31 1055.7 837.6 974.6 14 3.0 93.1 12.7 Floater 1 1 2,398 986 1,041 953 15 2 79 12

Player initials Rules Format MinSprintDis MaxSprintDis MeanSprDis MaxVel BLaRest BLaPost RPE Hrmean TY 1 31 4.5 41 17.1 30.4 1.1 3.6 16 175 JM 1 31 2.8 40.3 10.8 23.7 0.8 15 166 RM 1 31 4.7 27.8 16.6 25.2 16 187 TY 1 31 4.1 19.9 11.8 23.1 0.9 1.9 16 179 RV 1 31 2.8 59.7 18.7 24.3 1.6 2.6 15 173 DM 1 31 4.1 54.3 15.9 25.0 1.1 1.2 13 178 Floater 1 1 5 22 20 21.7 2 2 15.0 172

Player initials Rules Format pcHRmax Hrpeak HRpk75 HR7585 HR8590 HR9092 HR92 HR>90 HRmax TY 1 31 83 197 2.5833 11.4166 8.0833 1.9166 0.0833 1.9999 212 JM 1 31 80.2 196 1.33 21.17 1.0833 0.166 0.25 0.416 207 RM 1 31 90.8 196 0.166 0.166 6.5833 12 5.0833 17.0833 206 TY 1 31 82.9 195 0.5833 17.33 5.667 0.4166 0 0.4166 216 RV 1 31 84.8 194 0.5833 9.5833 10.9166 2.4166 0.5 2.9166 204 DM 1 31 80.5 200 3.5 15.2 5.1 0.3 0.0 0.25 221 Floater 1 1 83.9 183 0.8 11.3 11.8 0 0 0.0 205

220

Player initials Rules Format TD Dist1 Dist2 Dist3 SprintNum SprimtDur TimbwSprint HiIntSpRat TY 1 6 2267 1155.1 848.6 833.2 14 2.9 87.3 11.9 AS 1 6 2487 1192.3 780.6 610.8 13 3.0 99.2 11.6 DM 1 6 1940 1211.9 513.4 923.1 13 2.3 97.9 11.5 TR 1 6 2157.0 1169.9 707.7 582.1 13 1.5 97.5 11.4 PK 1 6 2070 1228.6 836.8 686.5 14 3.1 83.8 11.4 DC 1 6 2554.0 1015.6 896.6 691.5 14 2.4 82.6 11.2 TP 1 5 1,746 1194 784 540 12 2 111 11 RV 1 5 2,487 1188 811 624 13 2 95 11 RM 1 5 2225 1055 1025 607.8 12 3.4 110.8 11.1 JM 1 5 1967 1120.5 704.2 569.3 13 2.0 94.4 11.1 TA 1 5 2429.0 1055.8 807.3 512.6 12 2.6 110.0 11.0

Player initials Rules Format MinSprintDis MaxSprintDis MeanSprDis MaxVel BLaRest BLaPost RPE Hrmean TY 1 6 3.6 34.2 15.2 24.8 0.8 1.7 16 168 AS 1 6 3.4 34.8 17.9 31.5 1.3 3.9 15 174 DM 1 6 3.9 30.9 15.0 25 0.9 1.8 13 170 TR 1 6 2.9 16.8 7.5 23.3 2.0 4.1 17 173 PK 1 6 4.5 31.8 17.4 26.5 1.8 0.8 16 158 DC 1 6 3.5 24.3 13.1 25.6 1.7 2.3 14 158 TP 1 5 3 17 10 22.0 1 3 17.0 180 RV 1 5 3 15 7 22.6 1 4 17.0 177 RM 1 5 3.5 31.4 20.0 27.6 1.0 2.7 16 179 JM 1 5 3.9 27.5 10.0 25.7 1.2 2.7 16 159 TA 1 5 3.7 22.1 13.6 24.6 1.4 1.4 16 167

221

Player initials Rules Format pcHRmax Hrpeak HRpk75 HR7585 HR8590 HR9092 HR92 HR>90 HRmax TY 1 6 82.0 184 1.4166 15.25 7.25 0.0833 0 0.0833 205 AS 1 6 82 194 3.166 12.9166 6.166 1.75 0 1.75 212 DM 1 6 83 192 0.5833 13.4166 8.166 1.5833 0.25 1.8333 204 TR 1 6 83.6 208 0.5 14.33 7.166 0.833 1.166 1.999 207 PK 1 6 78 178 5.833 16.5833 1.5833 0 0 0 203 DC 1 6 76.3 184 10.75 12.33 0.9166 0 0 0 207 TP 1 5 81.4 205 3.1 13.5 5.9 2 0 1.5 221 RV 1 5 86.3 189 0.3 5.8 13.3 5 0 4.6 205 RM 1 5 88 194 0.166 4.833 8.667 7 3.25 10.25 203 JM 1 5 77.6 180 6.9166 15.0833 2 0 0 0 205 TA 1 5 81.5 186 2.166 14.4166 6.9166 0.5 0 0.5 205

Player initials Rules Format TD Dist1 Dist2 Dist3 SprintNum SprimtDur TimbwSprint HiIntSpRat TY 1 51 2649.0 1130.8 799.3 646.1 13 2.5 93.6 11.0 AS 1 51 2597.0 1013.8 793.6 810.5 14 3.3 79.1 10.8 DM 1 51 2502 1199.9 760.5 626 12 2.3 107.3 10.7 TR 1 51 2908.0 1071.4 785.5 490.8 12 2.4 106.8 10.7 PK 1 51 2568 1254.6 710.3 565.1 11 1.5 101.6 11.1 TP 1 51 2791.0 1140 719.5 456.7 11 1.5 125.0 10.5 DC 1 51 2702 1009.4 1113.7 816 12 3.4 104.5 10.5 RV 1 51 2980.0 992.2 802.4 640.9 11 2.4 121.9 10.2 RM 1 51 2917 1266 807.3 398.1 9 1.8 145.7 10.6 KM 1 51 2941 1210.6 469.4 680.4 12 3.0 100.8 10.1 Floater 1 1 2,877 1097 1,058 753 12 1 100 10

222

Player initials Rules Format MinSprintDis MaxSprintDis MeanSprDis MaxVel BLaRest BLaPost RPE Hrmean TY 1 51 3.6 21.7 12.7 23.7 1.4 4.2 12 165 AS 1 51 9.3 26.4 18.3 27.0 1.0 3.6 15 177 DM 1 51 3.7 20.5 11.4 22.2 1.4 3.2 16 169 TR 1 51 3.7 16.6 12.2 23.5 1.0 1.8 17 157 PK 1 51 1.9 23.4 4.6 21.9 1.7 2.3 16 184 TP 1 51 3.4 10.5 6.8 21.7 1.0 1.8 15 168 DC 1 51 3.7 36.5 19.8 26.5 0.8 2.4 13 167 RV 1 51 4.7 20.4 12.0 22.6 0.9 2.6 16 187 RM 1 51 2.9 20.1 5.7 21.9 1.6 1.7 15 168 KM 1 51 2.8 32 16.6 26.7 1.8 3.1 15 162 Floater 1 1 4 11 22 22.0 1 2 17.0 182

Player initials Rules Format pcHRmax Hrpeak HRpk75 HR7585 HR8590 HR9092 HR92 HR>90 HRmax TY 1 51 83.3 199 4.0833 14.17 4.75 0.667 0.33 0.997 198 AS 1 51 86.3 201 1 4.3 13.6 5.2 0.3 5.416 205 DM 1 51 81.6 186 1.25 17.25 5.4166 0.0833 0 0.0833 207 TR 1 51 76.6 182 9 11.58 3.4166 0 0 0 205 PK 1 51 86.8 206 0.833 7.166 8.0833 4.0833 3.833 7.9163 212 TP 1 51 79 185 3.5 18.75 1.75 0 0 0 212 DC 1 51 82 180 1.5 15 7.5 0 0 0 204 RV 1 51 90.3 198 0 0.42 6.4166 6.75 10.33 17.08 207 RM 1 51 76 190 8.75 14.75 0.5 0 0 0 221 KM 1 51 79 188 6.25 12.5833 4.5 0.75 0 0.75 206 Floater 1 1 82.4 201 1.8 13.1 8.4 1 0 0.8 221

223

Player initials Rules Format TD Dist1 Dist2 Dist3 SprintNum SprimtDur TimbwSprint HiIntSpRat RV 2 4 2439.9 1137 737.1 699.9 11 3.5 118.9 10.0 KM 2 4 2449 1170.5 554.7 647.4 12 2.9 96.3 9.6 JM 2 4 2,344 1152 922 627 11 2 115 10 TY 2 4 2006.8 1070.3 1054.7 723.8 11 3.2 113.5 9.5 DM 2 3 2232.3 1103.9 1001.8 511.9 12 3.0 94.3 9.4 TA 2 3 2,682 1225 757 368 10 1 132 9 RM 2 3 2431.6 1049.9 694.4 675 10 2.6 130.2 9.0

Player initials Rules Format MinSprintDis MaxSprintDis MeanSprDis MaxVel BLaRest BLaPost RPE Hrmean RV 2 4 3.9 36.5 19.7 26.3 1.6 2.4 13 168 KM 2 4 3.1 32.7 16.9 27.6 0.8 2.3 15 159 JM 2 4 4 24 17 23.0 1 2 15.0 152 TY 2 4 4.3 35.3 18.0 25 1.8 1.4 15 169 DM 2 3 4.1 27.4 15.9 26.5 0.9 2.7 14 182 TA 2 3 3 11 6 23.0 2 5 17.0 179 RM 2 3 3.1 29.2 13.8 26.1 1.7 3.7 15 164

Player initials Rules Format pcHRmax Hrpeak HRpk75 HR7585 HR8590 HR9092 HR92 HR>90 HRmax RV 2 4 81 207 5.9166 12.4166 1 0.5 4.166 4.666 207 KM 2 4 78 180 6.667 16.25 1.0833 0 0 0 205 JM 2 4 73.4 171 14.1 9.9 0.0 0 0 0.0 207 TY 2 4 83 190 0.667 13.75 9.5833 0 0.0833 0.0833 204 DM 2 3 90 195 0.166 0.833 12.75 7.166 3.0833 10.2493 203 TA 2 3 88.2 198 1.9 1.3 5.1 7 9 15.7 203 RM 2 3 80.0 190 5.166 10.25 7.667 0.9166 0 0.9166 205

224

Player initials Rules Format TD Dist1 Dist2 Dist3 SprintNum SprimtDur TimbwSprint HiIntSpRat MdB 2 4 2316.3 1248 585.8 612.7 10 1.5 129.0 9.0 AS 2 4 2444.9 1114.2 745.3 533.3 10 3.3 126.4 8.8 JP 2 4 2129.6 1099.7 984.7 522.0 11 2.8 99.8 8.4 TY 2 4 2070.8 1066 958.7 825.1 11 3.0 99.6 8.4 DC 2 3 1000.6 987.3 649.4 11 2.9 98.5 8.3 TR 2 3 2328.5 1182 768.3 490.1 10 1.5 118.8 8.3 TP 2 3 2143.4 1361.3 569.4 510.2 11 1.7 98.2 8.3

Player initials Rules Format MinSprintDis MaxSprintDis MeanSprDis MaxVel BLaRest BLaPost RPE Hrmean MdB 2 4 3.0 10.4 6.8 21.7 1.2 2.2 15 161 AS 2 4 2.4 33.7 19.7 27.8 1.4 2.2 14 155 JP 2 4 5.1 21.4 14.7 25.0 1.2 4.2 15 182 TY 2 4 5.8 27.1 19.8 27.6 0.8 2.8 15 167 DC 2 3 4.3 21.7 15.4 25.0 0.8 2.7 17 178 TR 2 3 4.0 13.9 6.6 22.6 0.8 2.0 12 173 TP 2 3 2.8 24.7 8.1 21.3 0.8 1.4 15 152

Player initials Rules Format pcHRmax Hrpeak HRpk75 HR7585 HR8590 HR9092 HR92 HR>90 HRmax MdB 2 4 78.9 181 5.75 13.833 4.4166 0 0 0 204 AS 2 4 75 206 10.25 13.33 0.25 0 0.25 0.25 207 JP 2 4 88.3 203 0.0833 4.33 6.5833 3.25 9.75 13 206 TY 2 4 82.3 183 1.75 16.00 6.25 0 0 0 203 DC 2 3 84.0 198 0.75 15.92 6.33 1.0 0 1 212 TR 2 3 84 185 0.5833 8.33 14.833 0.25 0 0.25 205 TP 2 3 74.5 188 9.5833 10.0833 2.4166 0.25 0 0.25 204

225

Player initials Rules Format TD Dist1 Dist2 Dist3 SprintNum SprimtDur TimbwSprint HiIntSpRat JP 2 31 2452.8 1203.9 681.4 507.5 9 1.8 146.1 8.2 TR 2 31 2523.3 1219.7 850.6 622.3 9 1.7 145.7 8.2 DC 2 31 2,460 1160 767 710 10 2 117 8 PK 2 31 1133 872 840 10 1 117 8 TP 2 31 2265.3 1140.3 744.7 551.7 11 1.6 96.0 8.1 A.N. Other 2 31 1104.3 743.1 732.1 9 3.4 142.4 8.0 Floater 2 1 2692.6 1152.7 766.4 546.6 9 2.0 114.7 8.4

Player initials Rules Format MinSprintDis MaxSprintDis MeanSprDis MaxVel BLaRest BLaPost RPE Hrmean JP 2 31 2.8 16.4 8.1 22.8 1.8 5.0 17 175 TR 2 31 3.4 22.6 8.4 24.8 1.3 3 17 171 DC 2 31 5 17 25 21.9 2 3 17.0 173 PK 2 31 4 16 20 21.1 1 4 14.0 176 TP 2 31 2.7 16.1 8.0 24.1 0.9 3.3 14 163 A.N. Other 2 31 4.7 30.1 20.2 26.1 0.8 2.9 15 172 Floater 2 1 3.1 26.5 0.1 21.5 2.2 3.1 16 178

Player initials Rules Format pcHRmax Hrpeak HR75 HR7585 HR8590 HR9092 HR92 HR>90 HRmax JP 2 31 84.5 196 2.5 5.5833 8 7.5 0.4166 7.9166 207 TR 2 31 84.2 183 0.75 12.25 10.5833 0.4166 0 0.4166 203 DC 2 31 83.6 214 0.4 17.0 4.3 1 1 2.3 207 PK 2 31 85.9 188 0.6 5.3 16.8 1 0 1.4 205 TP 2 31 79.9 186 4.75 11.4166 6.667 1.166 0 1.166 204 A.N. Other 2 31 84 190 1.25 9.166 11.33 2.25 0 2.25 205 Floater 2 1 88 190 0.25 3.583 12.67 6.25 1.25 7.5 202

226

Player initials Rules Format TD Dist1 Dist2 Dist3 SprintNum SprimtDur TimbwSprint HiIntSpRat TY 2 31 2536.7 1135.6 620.8 747.3 11 2.9 94.4 7.9 JM 2 31 2,687 1302 585 524 9 2 139 8 RM 2 31 2,650 1234 820 525 10 2 111 8 TY 2 31 2381.7 1020.5 669.0 820.3 10 3.1 110.7 7.7 RV 2 31 2718.0 1175.4 801.7 512.9 8 1.5 169.6 7.5 DM 2 31 2623.4 1205 730 816 8 2 168 8 Floater 2 1 2828.5 1160.3 914.1 768.7 11 3.3 88.9 7.5

Player initials Rules Format MinSprintDis MaxSprintDis MeanSprDis MaxVel BLaRest BLaPost RPE Hrmean TY 2 31 3.4 27.8 15.1 24.6 0.9 3.7 14 162 JM 2 31 5 15 8 22.4 1 2 17.0 165 RM 2 31 3 22 9 23.0 1 3 16.0 168 TY 2 31 4.6 23.3 16.5 23.5 3.0 15 166 RV 2 31 4.2 16.3 7.2 20.6 1.3 0.9 13 164 DM 2 31 4 25 17 23.5 1 2 16.0 164 Floater 2 1 4.1 34.1 18.2 29.8 0.9 1.6 16 160

Player initials Rules Format pcHRmax Hrpeak HR75 HR7585 HR8590 HR9092 HR92 HR>90 HRmax TY 2 31 79 193 6 14.25 2.667 1 0.0833 1.0833 206 JM 2 31 80.9 185 2.2 16.3 5.4 0 0 0.1 204 RM 2 31 82.8 184 0.8 15.8 7.2 0 0 0.3 203 TY 2 31 80.6 191 4.166 13.83 4.33 1.667 0 1.667 206 RV 2 31 80.4 190 4.5 13.833 4.4166 1.166 0.0833 1.2493 204 DM 2 31 80.0 181 3.8 15.3 5.0 0 0 0.0 205 Floater 2 1 79 183 5.5 14.9166 3.4166 0.25 0 0.25 203

227

Player initials Rules Format TD Dist1 Dist2 Dist3 SprintNum SprimtDur TimbwSprint HiIntSpRat TY 2 6 2586.8 1094.1 766.8 621.7 9 3.1 131.6 7.4 AS 2 6 2738.4 1208.8 753.9 562.3 9 2.6 131.4 7.4 DM 2 6 2,466 1167 778 443 8 1 165 7 TR 2 6 2471.4 1216.9 887.2 583.1 8 1.6 163.9 7.3 PK 2 6 2449.9 1045.5 1002.8 865.7 10 2.2 104.3 7.2 JP 2 6 2533.2 1029.4 1030.7 664.2 10 1.9 103.3 7.2 TP 2 5 2,682 1156 898 614 8 2 157 7 RV 2 5 2,833 1083 1,175 658 10 1 101 7 RM 2 5 2534.0 1006.4 1047.2 915.7 9 4.3 122.9 6.9 JM 2 5 2,530 1330 734 331 8 2 153 7 TA 2 5 2769.8 1057.4 990.8 669.8 8 1.8 152.8 6.8

Player initials Rules Format MinSprintDis MaxSprintDis MeanSprDis MaxVel BLaRest BLaPost RPE Hrmean TY 2 6 4.3 30.9 15.8 24.3 1.1 2.6 17 167 AS 2 6 4.6 22.6 13.6 23.0 1.2 3.1 15 160 DM 2 6 3 9 6 20.9 1 3 13.0 166 TR 2 6 3.7 21.5 8.1 20.9 1.6 2.8 14 183 PK 2 6 4.3 22.4 11.1 22.4 1.9 5.2 15 176 JP 2 6 3.7 21.1 9.1 20.4 1.6 3.1 16 171 TP 2 5 3 17 8 23.0 1 2 16.0 173 RV 2 5 3 16 20 22.0 2 3 15.0 162 RM 2 5 8.9 29.2 22.9 25.2 0.8 3.4 14 180 JM 2 5 4 17 10 23.0 1 3 15.0 171 TA 2 5 4.2 10.1 8.4 20.7 0.9 2.1 14 169

228

Player initials Rules Format pcHRmax Hrpeak HR75 HR7585 HR8590 HR9092 HR92 HR>90 HRmax TY 2 6 80.7 186 2.5833 17.33 3.75 0.33 0 0.33 207 AS 2 6 77.3 185 7.166 15.4166 1.5 0 0 0 207 DM 2 6 81.0 178 1.3 19.0 3.7 0 0 0.0 205 TR 2 6 86.3 204 0.667 6.9166 10.5 4.833 1.0833 5.9163 212 PK 2 6 85.9 200 0.833 5.5 13.75 3.833 0.0833 3.9163 205 JP 2 6 84.7 189 2.166 7.833 8.667 5.25 0.0833 5.3333 202 TP 2 5 84.4 184 0.3 10.6 12.8 0 0 0.3 205 RV 2 5 81.8 186 1.4 15.0 7.3 0 0 0.3 198 RM 2 5 88.2 187 0.25 0.33 19.9166 3.5 0 3.5 204 JM 2 5 82.6 186 1.8 12.6 9.3 0 0 0.3 207 TA 2 5 82.4 181 0.5833 16.33 7.0833 0 0 0 205

Player initials Rules Format TD Dist1 Dist2 Dist3 SprintNum SprimtDur TimbwSprint HiIntSpRat TY 2 51 2392.8 1212.2 651.8 611.3 10 3.0 97.7 6.8 AS 2 51 2867.6 1155.4 963.6 438.8 8 1.6 152.3 6.8 DM 2 51 2,724 1139 875 554 8 2 150 7 TR 2 51 2537.8 1150.6 803.7 569.0 9 1.4 118.3 6.7 PK 2 51 2436.7 1022.0 1034.2 567.2 9 1.7 122.9 6.6 TP 2 51 2623.5 1262.5 753.1 517.7 9 1.8 117.4 6.6 DC 2 51 2,508 1301 816 469 7 1 194 7 RV 2 51 2,419 1226 963 461 9 2 117 7 RM 2 51 2482.1 1255 637 664 8 1 147 7 KM 2 51 2791.7 1222 891.4 473.4 7 1.7 153.1 6.8 TA 2 1 2394 1126.2 641.1 681.9 9 4.2 110.0 6.2

229

Player initials Rules Format MinSprintDis MaxSprintDis MeanSprDis MaxVel BLaRest BLaPost RPE Hrmean TY 2 51 9.2 25.3 17.2 26.7 0.8 2.1 16 162 AS 2 51 3.8 15.8 8.1 22.6 0.9 2.2 16 167 DM 2 51 3 10 20 21.9 1 3 16.0 163 TR 2 51 3.5 10.9 6.5 22.8 1.0 1.4 18 176 PK 2 51 3 18.4 7.6 23.0 1.3 3.0 17.0 179.0 JP 2 51 4.4 14.9 8.5 24.4 1.1 2.0 14 169 TP 2 51 4 16 22 23.1 1 3 17.0 167 RV 2 51 4 21 13 23.9 1 5 15.0 166 RM 2 51 2 10 17 21.5 1 2 15.0 170 JM 2 51 4.0 18.3 7.3 25.6 0.8 5.3 16 181 TA 2 1 9.7 38.6 25.5 28.5 1.1 2.4 15 168

Player initials Rules Format pcHRmax Hrpeak HR75 HR7585 HR8590 HR9092 HR92 HR>90 HRmax TY 2 51 79 180 4.25 18.0833 1.75 0 0 0 205 AS 2 51 75.6 193 10.3 12.1 1.7 0.0 0.0 0 221 DM 2 51 79.9 188 3.5 16.0 4.2 0 0 0.3 204 TR 2 51 79.6 200 3.9166 14.0833 5.66 0.33 0 0.33 221 PK 2 51 88.6 189 0 1.7 15.0 6.6 0.8 7.3333 202 JP 2 51 81.6 193 2.667 12.8333 7.333 1.0833 0.0833 1.1666 207 TP 2 51 82.3 179 0.4 16.5 7.1 0 0 0.0 203 RV 2 51 80.2 185 4.3 13.6 6.2 0 0 0.0 207 RM 2 51 82.1 186 2.2 13.1 8.7 0 0 0.1 207 JM 2 51 87 196 1.1666 4.33 7.5 8.5833 2.4166 10.9999 207 TA 2 1 82 189 2.9166 12 7.0833 2.0833 0 2.0833 205

230

Player initials Rules Format TD Dist1 Dist2 Dist3 SprintNum SprimtDur TimbwSprint HiIntSpRat JM 3 4 2,152 1245 915 498 7 2 176 6 KM 3 4 2673.4 1133.4 813.1 561.2 8 2.6 133.5 5.9 JM 3 4 2446.5 1293.5 815.5 523.2 9 1.9 105.4 5.9 TY 3 4 2204.5 1126.1 845.5 478.3 5 1.8 276.4 6.2 DM 3 3 2683.6 1093.9 965.4 622.7 5 1.2 275.4 6.2 TA 3 3 2765.5 1224 680.8 423.9 10 2.1 84.7 5.9 AN Other 3 3 1297.6 775.9 483.2 7 1.9 170.1 5.8

Player initials Rules Format MinSprintDis MaxSprintDis MeanSprDis MaxVel BLaRest BLaPost RPE Hrmean JM 3 4 2 23 21 22.2 1 5 14.0 173 KM 3 4 3.2 36.1 13.9 24.6 0.8 2.2 14 154 JM 3 4 4.6 42.0 10.7 22.8 1.2 1.7 14 156 TY 3 4 3.5 18.2 0.8 21.1 0.9 2.6 15 162 DM 3 3 3.7 8.8 0.6 19.1 1.3 2.2 16 180 TA 3 3 3.8 39.7 10.4 24.1 1 1.3 19 169 AN Other 3 3 3.7 26.6 8.7 24.1 0.9 1.7 14 155

Player initials Rules Format pcHRmax Hrpeak HR75 HR7585 HR8590 HR9092 HR92 HR>90 HRmax JM 3 4 84.4 190 0.9 9.8 9.1 4 0 4.2 205 KM 3 4 74.4 181 9.9166 13.0833 1 0 0 0 207 JM 3 4 75.4 179 8.667 15.25 0.0833 0 0 0 207 TY 3 4 79 188 4.67 12.67 6.166 0.5 0 0.5 204 DM 3 3 87.8 188 0.33 2.166 13.833 7.667 0 7.667 205 TA 3 3 76 194 7.75 15.166 1.0833 0 0 0 221 AN Other 3 3 76.4 177 7.5 15.92 0.5833 0 0 0 203

231

Player initials Rules Format TD Dist1 Dist2 Dist3 SprintNum SprimtDur TimbwSprint HiIntSpRat SL 3 4 1,948 1248 562 319 7 2 166 6 AS 3 4 2556.7 1142.5 895.8 494.9 6 1.3 184.7 6.0 JP 3 4 2273.0 1225.7 709.2 338.1 6 1.5 227.3 5.7 TY 3 4 2268.6 1199.6 653.1 478.6 8 1.4 127.9 5.7 DC 3 3 2638.9 1120.9 941.7 805 8 2.8 126.5 5.6 TR 3 3 1185 938 428.2 6 1.7 224.8 5.6 TP 3 3 2557.7 1078.1 925.1 825.3 7 1.9 162.7 5.5

Player initials Rules Format MinSprintDis MaxSprintDis MeanSprDis MaxVel BLaRest BLaPost RPE Hrmean SL 3 4 4 16 12 23.5 1 1 12.0 150 AS 3 4 4.3 10.2 0.6666667 22.6 2.4 4.9 16 189 JP 3 4 4.2 16.3 7.2 22.2 0.8 2.8 14 166 TY 3 4 3.5 11.1 6.6 22.0 1.3 1.2 15 162 DC 3 3 8.8 24.1 14.3 23.9 1.0 3.1 14 170 TR 3 3 4.6 15.0 8.1 19.8 0.8 1.1 14 160 TP 3 3 3.7 13.5 8.8 23.1 0.8 2.9 18 173

Player initials Rules Format pcHRmax Hrpeak HR75 HR7585 HR8590 HR9092 HR92 HR>90 HRmax SL 3 4 73.5 181 13.0 9.5 1.5 0 0 0.0 204 AS 3 4 93 200 0.166 1.5833 1.5 4 16.75 20.75 203 JP 3 4 81.8 184 2.25 11.08 5.9166 0.5833 0 0.5833 203 TY 3 4 79.0 177 2.667 20.667 0.667 0 0 0 205 DC 3 3 83.7 189 3.166 7.0833 12.25 1.4166 0.0833 1.4999 203 TR 3 3 79.2 176 1.833 19.833 2.33 0 0 0 202 TP 3 3 84.4 182 0 12.75 11.25 0 0 0 205

232

Player initials Rules Format TD Dist1 Dist2 Dist3 SprintNum SprimtDur TimbwSprint HiIntSpRat JP 3 31 2,519 1355 465 523 10 2 79 6 TR 3 31 2557.8 1396.3 408.7 685.3 8 4.1 122.3 5.4 DC 3 31 2525.0 1219.4 738.9 310.3 6 1.0 216.3 5.4 PK 3 31 2490 1084.4 789.2 664.2 10 1.7 77.6 5.4 TP 3 31 2638.5 1103.8 875.4 502.9 7 1.9 154.9 5.3 JM 3 31 1057.4 948.9 587 7 1.4 154.9 5.3 Floater 3 1 2547.2 981.5 883.9 758.1 9 1.7 92.9 5.2

Player initials Rules Format MinSprintDis MaxSprintDis MeanSprDis MaxVel BLaRest BLaPost RPE Hrmean JP 3 31 4 21 18 21.9 1 1 13.0 158 TR 3 31 4.2 35.7 23.7 26.7 1.8 16 155 DC 3 31 3.1 4.9 3.9 20.4 2.1 1.7 14 165 PK 3 31 4.0 18.0 8.6 23.1 1.3 3.1 13 162 TP 3 31 2.8 13.5 8.5 24.4 1.0 4.0 13 156 JM 3 31 3.7 10.8 6.3 22.4 1.1 3.8 14 170 Floater 3 1 3.9 16.3 8.3 21.5 1.4 5.1 13 164

Player initials Rules Format pcHRmax Hrpeak HR75 HR7585 HR8590 HR9092 HR92 HR>90 HRmax JP 3 31 77.5 179 6.4 16.1 1.5 0 0 0.0 204 TR 3 31 76 188 11 10.5833 2.166 0.25 0 0.25 204 DC 3 31 80.1 181 2.5 18.17 3.33 0 0 0 206 PK 3 31 73.3 199 10.75 9.0833 4 0.166 0 0.166 221 TP 3 31 78.8 174 5.5 14.166 4.333 0 0 0 198 JM 3 31 82.9 187 1.33 11 11.25 0.4166 0 0.4166 205 Floater 3 1 80.0 185 4.0833 9.75 9.667 0.5 0 0.5 205

233

Player initials Rules Format TD Dist1 Dist2 Dist3 SprintNum SprimtDur TimbwSprint HiIntSpRat TY 3 31 2584.3 1267 610 436 6 2 207 5 JM 3 31 2,225 1186 644 463 7 2 150 5 RM 3 31 2143.4 1238 665 592 6 1 206 5 TY 3 31 2224.5 1163.1 925.9 353.2 6 1.8 200.3 5.0 RV 3 31 2,537 1145 920 420 6 2 194 5 DM 3 31 2740.9 1336 591.4 416.8 6 1.3 191.8 4.8 Floater 3 1 2331.3 1200.6 890.9 442.5 6 1.3 152.0 4.9

Player initials Rules Format MinSprintDis MaxSprintDis MeanSprDis MaxVel BLaRest BLaPost RPE Hrmean TY 3 31 4 16 15 20.6 1 1 14.0 166 JM 3 31 4 19 12 23.0 1 3 17.0 171 RM 3 31 3 5 20 22.2 1 1 14.0 158 TY 3 31 3.0 15.4 8.8 21.3 1.2 2.2 15 160 RV 3 31 4 23 9 26.1 2 2 15.0 161 DM 3 31 4.1 10.9 6.5 22.0 1.2 2.3 11 172 Floater 3 1 2.8 11.5 0.2 24.1 1.9 2.2 15 175

Player initials Rules Format pcHRmax Hrpeak HR75 HR7585 HR8590 HR9092 HR92 HR>90 HRmax TY 3 31 75.1 192 11.3 10.7 2.1 0 0 0.0 221 JM 3 31 83.0 205 2.1 10.4 8.3 2 1 3.2 206 RM 3 31 79.8 173 3.3 17.7 3.0 0 0 0.0 198 TY 3 31 79.2 204 5.0833 14.0833 3.4166 0.25 1.166 1.416 202 RV 3 31 81.3 183 2.5 12.8 8.3 1 0 0.5 198 DM 3 31 84 189 0.9166 10.166 10.833 2.0833 0 2.0833 204 Floater 3 1 88.4 189 0.25 3.5 10.5833 6.833 2.833 9.666 198

234

Player initials Rules Format TD Dist1 Dist2 Dist3 SprintNum SprimtDur TimbwSprint HiIntSpRat TY 3 6 2533.3 1147.1 1009.1 482.8 6 1.7 183.5 4.6 AS 3 6 2670.5 1030.2 1071.6 663.7 7 1.4 134.4 4.6 DM 3 6 2442.2 1210.9 896.0 566.5 6 1.2 176.0 4.4 TY 3 6 2699.8 1224.6 1045.1 405.7 6 1.7 174.0 4.4 DC 3 6 2632.2 1207.6 976.9 515.3 7 1.7 127.1 4.3 KM 3 6 2943.3 1282.4 962.4 425.7 5 1.6 246.6 4.3 TP 3 5 2593.3 1120.4 932.5 483.8 6 1.8 170.2 4.3 RV 3 5 2914.0 1138.1 1079.5 523.3 6 1.5 166.3 4.2 JM 3 5 2,441 1246 738 414 5 1 238 4 JP 3 5 2620.3 1003.6 994.2 640.7 5 2.4 234.6 4.1 TA 3 5 2,837 1086 978 438 5 2 230 4

Player initials Rules Format MinSprintDis MaxSprintDis MeanSprDis MaxVel BLaRest BLaPost RPE Hrmean TY 3 6 4.0 15.9 8.1 24.3 0.8 4.0 17 176 AS 3 6 3.9 16.8 7.6 28.2 0.8 3.2 16 176 DM 3 6 3.5 9.5 5.1 19.6 1.8 3.9 14 177 TY 3 6 4.7 14.1 8.5 23.3 0.8 2.9 14 185 DC 3 6 4.0 15.8 8.0 23.5 0.8 2.7 15 177 KM 3 6 3.7 10.0 7.2 20.6 1.1 1.9 13 156 TP 3 5 3.3 17.5 9.1 23.3 1.1 3 16 181 RV 3 5 5.2 11.3 8.1 20.9 1.7 1.6 16 161 JM 3 5 4 14 24 23.5 1 3 18.0 162 JP 3 5 5.0 15.7 12.3 22.8 1.6 3.4 16 169 TA 3 5 4 15 25 22.0 1 2 16.0 165

235

Player initials Rules Format pcHRmax Hrpeak HR75 HR7585 HR8590 HR9092 HR92 HR>90 HRmax TY 3 6 86.3 201 2.667 10.667 7.5833 2.833 0.25 3.083 204 AS 3 6 85.9 191 0.166 5.42 16.9166 1.33 0.166 1.496 205 DM 3 6 86.8 185 0.1666 3.1666 19.667 1.00 0 1 204 TY 3 6 90.2 196 0.33 0.33 4.667 10.25 8.4166 18.6666 205 DC 3 6 80.1 200 1.0833 4.75 12.5 5.33 0.33 5.66 221 KM 3 6 76.8 175 6.4166 17.0833 0.5 0 0 0 203 TP 3 5 87.4 194 0.166 5.166 12.667 5.667 0.33 5.997 207 RV 3 5 79.7 173 3.0 20.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 0 202 JM 3 5 79.0 181 6.8 13.0 4.3 0 0 0.0 205 JP 3 5 82.4 186 1.5 15.0833 6.667 0.75 0 0.75 205 TA 3 5 81.7 182 2.1 14.8 6.8 0 0 0.3 202

Player initials Rules Format TD Dist1 Dist2 Dist3 SprintNum SprimtDur TimbwSprint HiIntSpRat

TY 3 51 2224.4 1189.3 657.3 418.7 6 1.5 159.7 4.0 SL 3 51 2477.9 1125.4 983.3 428.0 6 1.7 152.8 3.8 DM 3 51 2551.2 1251.7 636.0 336.8 4 1.3 343.3 3.8 TR 3 51 2,453 1188 850 559 6 2 148 4

MdB 3 51 2639 1024.6 989.4 829.4 8 2.3 83.3 3.7 JP 3 51 2675.4 1153.9 941.5 643 6 2.0 118.5 3.8 DC 3 51 2586.4 1140.0 872.5 440.3 4 1.8 328.3 3.6 RV 3 51 2483.8 1234 532 498 5 2 201 4 JM 3 51 1090 1,216 636 4 2 315 4 KM 3 51 2853.3 1203.8 454.3 289.7 5 1.6 197.2 3.4 TA 3 1 2,553 1267 928 303 6 1 138 3

236

Player initials Rules Format MinSprintDis MaxSprintDis MeanSprDis MaxVel BLaRest BLaPost RPE Hrmean

TY 3 51 3.7 13.9 6.6 22.0 1.2 2.1 17 178 SL 3 51 3.4 12.1 8.1 25.2 1.6 2.0 16 169 DM 3 51 4.7 9.5 5.9 20.2 0.9 14 158 TR 3 51 4 21 29 24.3 1 2 16.0 163

MdB 3 51 2.5 23.7 11.4 23.3 1.1 1.0 15 167 JP 3 51 8.3 10.7 8.5 22.8 0.9 4.4 15 176 DC 3 51 5 9.9 7.9 20.9 1.2 4.3 17.0 187.0 RV 3 51 4 16 14 22.8 1 1 14.0 147 JM 3 51 10 14 35 20.4 2 2 18.0 178 KM 3 51 4.3 16.0 8.1 21.7 1.1 1.8 14 172 TA 3 1 4 10 17 21.9 1 2 16.0 162

Player initials Rules Format pcHRmax Hrpeak HR75 HR7585 HR8590 HR9092 HR92 HR>90 HRmax TY 3 51 86.8 191 0.5 2.75 16.4166 4 0.33 4.33 205 AS 3 51 82.4 191 1.08 13.3 9.5 0.0 0.08 0.08 205 DM 3 51 76.7 181 7.4166 15.166 1.4166 0 0 0 206 TY 3 51 80.3 188 3.3 14.3 5.8 1 0 0.6 203 DC 3 51 76 193 10.4166 12 1.5 0 0 0 221 KM 3 51 87 194 0.5833 6.4166 11.75 4.166 1.0833 5.2493 203 TP 3 51 92.1 200 0 1.3 3.3 5.6 13.8 19.4163 203.0 RV 3 51 72.1 172 14.9 9.1 0.0 0 0 0.0 204 JM 3 51 87.3 187 0.2 1.6 20.9 1 0 1.3 204 JP 3 51 81.1 193 0.166 11.25 12.5833 0 0 0 212 TA 3 1 81.8 196 1.8 12.8 8.9 0 0 0.5 198

237

Player initials Rules Format TD Dist1 Dist2 Dist3 SprintNum SprimtDur TimbwSprint HiIntSpRat RD 4 4 2509.8 1271.6 791.6 521.1 5 1.4 188.4 3.3 KM 4 4 2729.6 1061.6 904.3 591.8 5 2.2 187.2 3.3 JM 4 4 2,382 1167 804 369 4 1 288 3 MM 4 4 2435.5 1013 553.2 441.1 8 1.9 71.3 3.2 DM 4 3 2561.0 1210 879.4 341.8 5 2.0 176.2 3.1 TA 4 3 2,718 1237 792 270 4 2 265 3 TY 4 3 2576.2 1259 707 948 6 2 114 3

Player initials Rules Format MinSprintDis MaxSprintDis MeanSprDis MaxVel BLaRest BLaPost RPE Hrmean RD 4 4 3.7 10.1 6.3 21.9 1.1 5.2 17 176 KM 4 4 3.9 21.7 10.8 22.8 1.7 2.8 15 163 JM 4 4 4 8 5 20.9 2 2 17.0 170 MM 4 4 3.4 26.7 9.2 21.9 1.9 2.3 15 180 DM 4 3 3.9 16.2 9.7 23.0 1 2 16 174 TA 4 3 4 14 14 20.6 1 4 17.0 188 TY 4 3 4 15 27 22.0 1 2 15.0 168

Player initials Rules Format pcHRmax Hrpeak HR75 HR7585 HR8590 HR9092 HR92 HR>90 HRmax RD 4 4 85.0 196 2.166 6.667 8.833 5.667 0.667 6.334 207 KM 4 4 79.5 179 3.25 18.25 2.5 0 0 0 205 JM 4 4 84.2 205 0.5 12.1 10.8 0 1 0.7 202 MM 4 4 87 194 0.0833 6.5833 10.9166 5.5833 0.833 6.4163 207 DM 4 3 88 185 0.5 2.166 14.166 6.166 1 7.166 198 TA 4 3 92.6 205 0.0 0.5 1.5 8 14 22.0 203 TY 4 3 82.8 185 0.9 15.5 7.4 0 0 0.2 203

238

Player initials Rules Format TD Dist1 Dist2 Dist3 SprintNum SprimtDur TimbwSprint HiIntSpRat SL 4 4 2637.3 1140 892.2 649.4 6 1.5 115.8 2.9 RV 4 4 2,850 1217 748 350 5 2 157 3 AS 4 4 2982.8 945 312.5 198.6 6 1.3 106.0 2.7 JP 4 4 2606.4 1108.6 891.8 452.5 4 1.3 236.8 2.6 DC 4 3 2,483 1065 1,037 689 6 3 101 3 TR 4 3 2,793 1255 686 370 4 1 216 2 TP 4 3 2347.7 1198.6 718.7 226.1 3 2.0 332.3 2.1

Player initials Rules Format MinSprintDis MaxSprintDis MeanSprDis MaxVel BLaRest BLaPost RPE Hrmean SL 4 4 4.1 9.0 6.6 21.5 0.8 2.2 17 166 RV 4 4 5 17 18 23.9 1 3 16.0 175 AS 4 4 2.6 11.3 6.0 24.6 1.8 3 19 175 JP 4 4 4.6 8.5 5.8 21.5 1.0 1.1 14 176 DC 4 3 5 30 30 26.1 2 4 16.0 167 TR 4 3 4 10 26 21.5 1 4 17.0 179 TP 4 3 8.4 11.8 9.6 24.3 0.9 1.0 13 138

Player initials Rules Format pcHRmax Hrpeak HR75 HR7585 HR8590 HR9092 HR92 HR>90 HRmax SL 4 4 81 180 1.0833 20.833 2.0833 0 0 0 205 RV 4 4 85.4 186 0.8 4.6 17.8 1 0 0.7 205 AS 4 4 85 191 0 11.25 12.5 0.25 0 0.25 207 JP 4 4 79.6 200 3.9166 16.25 3.166 0.667 0 0.667 221 DC 4 3 81.5 181 1.3 16.5 6.3 0 0 0.0 205 TR 4 3 86.5 201 0.1 7.4 11.2 5 1 5.3 207 TP 4 3 69.7 161 18.75 5.25 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 198

239

Player initials Rules Format TD Dist1 Dist2 Dist3 SprintNum SprimtDur TimbwSprint HiIntSpRat JP 4 31 2890.9 1220 880.6 348.8 4 1.3 186.0 2.1 TR 4 31 2867.9 1074.6 1221 647.7 3 1.3 324.0 2.0 DC 4 31 2,604 1244 658 335 4 2 181 2 JM 4 31 2611.4 1241.2 811.4 431.2 4 1.3 175.0 1.9 SL 4 31 2761.7 1204 550 332 3 2 296 2 TP 4 31 2375.7 1117.5 1092.2 473.9 3 1.7 300.3 1.9 Floater 4 1 3121.3 1206 395 272 2 1 621 2

Player initials Rules Format MinSprintDis MaxSprintDis MeanSprDis MaxVel BLaRest BLaPost RPE Hrmean JP 4 31 4.3 9.7 5.8 20.2 1.3 2.6 10 182 TR 4 31 2.7 8.4 5.2 20 1.1 2.2 15 176 DC 4 31 3 10 7 20.9 2 2 15.0 166 JM 4 31 3.3 7.6 5.1 20.2 1.2 1.3 14 180 SL 4 31 4 8 10 19.4 2 2 15.0 166 TP 4 31 4.5 8.7 7.1 19.3 1.4 2.8 16 171 Floater 4 1 4 4 17 19.8 2 2 16.0 159

Player initials Rules Format pcHRmax Hrpeak HR75 HR7585 HR8590 HR9092 HR92 HR>90 HRmax JP 4 31 89 189 0 1.0833 13.4166 9.5 0 9.5 204 TR 4 31 86.3 191 0.5833 4.4166 15.5 3.4166 0.0833 3.4999 204 DC 4 31 78.3 190 6.4 14.6 3.0 0 0 0.0 212 JM 4 31 87.8 198 0.667 3.25 11.0833 8.25 0.75 9 205 SL 4 31 82.2 183 2.0 13.0 8.5 1 0 0.5 202 TP 4 31 84.7 184 1.0833 7.67 14.25 1 0 1 202 Floater 4 1 77.6 178 6.3 16.6 1.2 0 0 0.0 205

240

Player initials Rules Format TD Dist1 Dist2 Dist3 SprintNum SprimtDur TimbwSprint HiIntSpRat KM 4 31 2969.3 1206 741.2 284.9 4 1.3 147.0 1.6 RD 4 31 2849.5 1347.6 611.7 265.1 4 1.8 146.8 1.6 MdB 4 31 2613.3 1147.4 1083.9 418.9 5 1.2 74.0 1.3 JO 4 31 2934.4 1192.2 814.2 471.5 3 1.7 187.3 1.2 RV 4 31 2617.9 1161 688.6 293.6 2 2.0 330.5 0.9 DM 4 31 2906.6 1304 459 400 1 1 1 Floater 4 1 2839.7 1216 589.7 265.0 2 1.0 258.0 0.7

Player initials Rules Format MinSprintDis MaxSprintDis MeanSprDis MaxVel BLaRest BLaPost RPE Hrmean KM 4 31 3.1 8.2 4.8 19.8 1.3 1.9 14 174 RD 4 31 4.3 16.1 8.5 21.7 2.0 2.0 14 164 MdB 4 31 3.6 7.2 4.8 20.9 1.5 2 16 165 JO 4 31 0.9 14.7 6.5 19.8 1.1 1.0 14 175 RV 4 31 4.2 16.7 10.5 22.2 1.3 1.8 18 177 DM 4 31 4 4 74 19.6 1 1 14.0 177 Floater 4 1 3.4 4.6 4.0 18.7 1.8 3 17 177

Player initials Rules Format pcHRmax Hrpeak HR75 HR7585 HR8590 HR9092 HR92 HR>90 HRmax KM 4 31 86 188 0.166 7.25 12.9166 3.5833 0.0833 3.6666 202 RD 4 31 79.2 182 5.0 13.25 5.75 0 0 0 207 MdB 4 31 83.3 180 0.25 13.9166 9.0833 0.75 0 0.75 198 JO 4 31 86.2 189 0.75 21.833 1.4166 0 0 0 203 RV 4 31 86 189 0.4166 4.9166 15.9166 2.75 0 2.75 205 DM 4 31 83.5 212 3.1 10.4 5.9 3 1 4.6 212 Floater 4 1 86 195 0.4166 7.25 9.25 6.5 0.5833 7.0833 206

241

Player initials Rules Format TD Dist1 Dist2 Dist3 SprintNum SprimtDur TimbwSprint HiIntSpRat TA 4 6 2,866 1327 701 331 3 1 111 1 MdB 4 6 2583.7 1130.5 1093.1 568.1 2 1.5 250.5 0.7 RV 4 6 2372.6 1278 738.0 428.9 3 1.7 80.0 0.5 JM 4 6 2490.3 1113.5 1148.7 591.1 2 1.0 126.0 0.4 KM 4 6 2939.1 1249.4 677.9 277.2 2 1.0 117.5 0.3 JP 4 6 2,688 1205 956 408 2 2 124 0 TP 4 5 2,449 1278 733 292 2 2 125 0 AS 4 5 2843.1 1308.2 828.2 410.8 2 1.0 48.5 0.1 RD 4 5 2360.4 1205.8 694.8 251.5 3 2.0 13.7 0.1 TR 4 5 2868.5 1259 640.9 229.8 2 1.0 18.0 0.1 DC 4 5 2,393

Player initials Rules Format MinSprintDis MaxSprintDis MeanSprDis MaxVel BLaRest BLaPost RPE Hrmean TA 4 6 3 5 26 20.6 2 2 15.0 183 MdB 4 6 4.8 10.6 7.8 19.4 1.0 1.9 15 176 RV 4 6 4.5 9.2 7.6 19.8 1.1 1.2 15 164 JM 4 6 3.9 4.6 4.3 19.4 1.8 1.8 14 176 KM 4 6 3.4 4.0 3.7 19.4 2.1 1.7 13 150 JP 4 6 5 15 10 20.4 1 3 15.0 176 TP 4 5 10 10 39 20.9 1 3 19.0 175 AS 4 5 3.6 4.6 4.1 18.1 0.9 1.7 14 163 RD 4 5 5.0 15.6 10.3 21.1 1.0 0.9 16 169 TR 4 5 3.7 4.3 4.0 20.6 1.2 2.7 15 185 DC 4 5 2 15.0 171

242

Player initials Rules Format pcHRmax Hrpeak HR75 HR7585 HR8590 HR9092 HR92 HR>90 HRmax TA 4 6 86.3 200 0.6 6.8 12.1 3 2 4.5 212

MdB 4 6 86.3 189 0.75 4.166 16.75 2.33 0 2.33 204 RV 4 6 81 180 2.166 16.75 5.0833 0 0 0 203

JM 4 6 86.3 188 0.5 5.833 15.166 2.5 0 2.5 204 KM 4 6 72.5 181 15.0833 7.9166 1 0 0 0 207 JP 4 6 86.3 189 0.3 6.9 14.8 2 0 2.0 204 TP 4 5 85.0 195 1.4 5.3 12.9 4 0 4.3 206 AS 4 5 80.3 179 2.166 18.9166 2.9166 0 0 0 203 RD 4 5 82.4 193 4.0833 16.333 3.1666 0.25 0 0.25 205 TR 4 5 91 198 0 0.667 7.333 7.4166 8.5833 15.9999 203 DC 4 5 83.8 189 3.3 3.9 12.0 2 0 2.3 204

Player initials Rules Format TD Dist1 Dist2 Dist3 SprintNum SprimtDur TimbwSprint HiIntSpRat TP 4 51 2579.5 1104.3 743.1 732.1 9 3.4 142.4 8.0 AS 4 51 2751.9 1228.6 836.8 686.5 14 3.1 83.8 11.4

RD 4 51 2503.7 1135.6 620.8 747.3 11 2.9 94.4 7.9 TR 4 51 2843.4 1024.6 989.4 829.4 8 2.3 83.3 3.7 DC 4 51 2574.0 1137 737.1 699.9 11 3.5 118.9 10.0 DM 4 51 2837.2 1094.9 839.5 902.8 16 2.8 87.6 15.6 MdB 4 51 2502.5 1128.6 707.3 666.6 14 2.9 98.3 13.4 RV 4 51 2475.3 1212.2 651.8 611.3 10 3.0 97.7 6.8 JM 4 51 2648.4 1211.9 513.4 923.1 13 2.3 97.9 11.5 KM 4 51 2848.8 1070.3 1054.7 723.8 11 3.2 113.5 9.5 Floater 4 1 2617.6 1103.9 1001.8 511.9 12 3.0 94.3 9.4

243

Player initials Rules Format MinSprintDis MaxSprintDis MeanSprDis MaxVel BLaRest BLaPost RPE Hrmean TP 4 51 4.7 30.1 20.2 26.1 0.8 2.9 15 172 AS 4 51 4.5 31.8 17.4 26.5 1.8 0.8 16 158

RD 4 51 3.4 27.8 15.1 24.6 0.9 3.7 14 162 TR 4 51 2.5 23.7 11.4 23.3 1.1 1.0 15 167 DC 4 51 3.9 36.5 19.7 26.3 1.6 2.4 13 168 DM 4 51 3.5 36.4 16.7 25.2 1.1 2.0 13 MdB 4 51 4.5 41 17.1 30.4 1.1 3.6 16 175 RV 4 51 9.2 25.3 17.2 26.7 0.8 2.1 16 162 JM 4 51 3.9 30.9 15.0 25 0.9 1.8 13 170 KM 4 51 4.3 35.3 18.0 25 1.8 1.4 15 169 JP 4 1 4.1 27.4 15.9 26.5 0.9 2.7 14 182

Player initials Rules Format pcHRmax Hrpeak HR75 HR7585 HR8590 HR9092 HR92 HR>90 HRmax TP 4 51 83.9 190 1.25 9.166 11.33 2.25 0 2.25 205

AS 4 51 77.8 178 5.833 16.5833 1.5833 0 0 0 203 RD 4 51 78.6 193 6 14.25 2.667 1 0.0833 1.0833 206

TR 4 51 75.6 193 10.4166 12 1.5 0 0 0 221 DC 4 51 81.2 207 5.9166 12.4166 1 0.5 4.166 4.666 207 DM 4 51 202 MdB 4 51 82.5 197 2.5833 11.4166 8.0833 1.9166 0.0833 1.9999 212 RV 4 51 79.0 180 4.25 18.0833 1.75 0 0 0 205 JM 4 51 83.3 192 0.5833 13.4166 8.166 1.5833 0.25 1.8333 204 KM 4 51 82.8 190 0.667 13.75 9.5833 0 0.0833 0.0833 204 JP 4 1 89.7 195 0.166 0.833 12.75 7.166 3.0833 10.2493 203

244

RAW DATA STUDY THREE

ANATOMICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE DATA (INTERVAL TRAINING GROUP)

Initials Age Mass Pre Mass POST Height Pre Height POST

Sum of 7 Skinfolds (mm) Pre

Sum of 7 Skinfolds (mm) POST

Treadmill VO2peak

Pre

Treadmill VO2peak

POST DM 15.25 68.30 67.30 183.30 184.4 58.0 59.0 57.30 62.10 OG 15.25 58.25 57.85 171.70 171.5 41.1 42.2 57.39 58.37 AT 15.08 60.45 61.25 170.60 171.0 48.6 50.5 55.50 60.25 NF 14.50 60.60 59.75 167.00 168.1 67.4 60.8 61.95 65.85 CP 14.50 58.20 59.25 168.90 171.4 53.8 53.1 56.00 56.78 TP 14.42 64.50 65.20 176.20 177.1 44.0 42.8 67.40 59.77 MP 13.67 67.30 67.00 175.40 176.6 52.1 45.5 64.14 64.31 PM 13.67 62.80 63.85 169.90 170.9 73.1 64.9 56.86 58.73 DW 13.67 57.50 58.55 168.70 170.7 49.2 41.3 65.66 66.61

Initials

Scaled VO2max Pre

(mL.kg bm 0.75.min-1)

Scaled VO2max POST

(mL.kg bm 0.75.min-1)

Treadmill time to

exhaustion Pre (s)

Treadmill time to

exhaustion POST (s)

Post Treadmill 0 min Blood La- Pre

Post Treadmill 0 min Blood La- POST

DM 164.7 177.9 622 630 12.80 7.1 OG 158.5 161.0 621 630 12.10 9.6 AT 154.8 168.6 540 540 5.76 6.4 NF 172.8 183.1 600 636 6.80 5.4 CP 154.7 157.5 580 555 6.60 5.9 TP 191.0 169.9 600 630 10.10 10.2 MP 183.7 184.0 630 660 7.90 4.10 PM 160.1 166.0 540 558 8.10 6.1 DW 180.8 184.3 570 600 14.10 10.7

245

ANATOMICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE DATA (INTERVAL TRAINING GROUP)

Initials

Post Treadmill

3 min Blood La-

Pre

Post Treadmill 3 min Blood

La- POST

MSFT total distance (m)

Pre

MSFT total distance (m)

POST

MSFT predicted

VO2max Pre

MSFT predicted VO2max

POST DM 14.30 9.40 2400 2380 57.6 57.35 OG 7.90 11.80 2200 2520 54.8 59.3 AT 7.80 11.10 2300 2140 56.3 54.0 NF 10.60 10.80 2380 2460 57.35 58.45 CP 10.70 9.70 2160 2000 54.3 51.90 TP 11.40 12.30 2200 2440 54.8 58.2 MP 8.30 7.30 2420 2440 57.9 58.2 PM 10.20 9.40 2020 2200 52.2 54.8 DW 11.20 11.30 2240 2360 55.4 57.1

Initials

YYIRT Distance (m) Pre

YYIRT Distance (m)

POST

Total time 12 x 20 m

sprints (s) Pre

Total time 12 x 20 m sprints (s)

POST

Dec20 % (20 m sprints

ONLY) Pre

Dec20 % (20 m sprints ONLY)

POST DM 1800 2240 42.60 41.94 4.72 6.88 OG 2040 2440 39.14 39.56 5.56 6.00 AT 1960 2240 42.15 43.71 8.41 8.73 NF 1440 1840 40.92 42.59 3.96 8.21 CP 1560 1880 43.04 43.21 6.75 4.37 TP 2080 2480 42.28 42.48 4.55 6.31 MP 1920 2400 41.43 41.45 6.23 7.27 PM 1400 1920 42.24 41.22 4.76 6.02 DW 1680 1920 45.92 44.84 5.71 4.09

246

ANATOMICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE DATA (INTERVAL TRAINING GROUP)

Initials 10 m sprint (s) Pre 10 m sprint (s) POST 20 m sprint (s) Pre 20 m sprint (s)

POST

DM 1.95 1.95 3.31 3.26 OG 1.90 1.85 3.16 3.07 AT 1.93 1.91 3.28 3.18 NF 1.94 1.95 3.28 3.3 CP 1.93 1.85 3.29 3.19 TP 1.96 1.88 3.29 3.18 MP 1.93 1.87 3.26 3.19 PM 1.92 1.85 3.21 3.17 DW 2.00 2.01 3.37 3.41

PERCEPTION OF RECOVERY DATA (INTERVAL TRAINING GROUP)

Initials Week Physical Mental Soreness Fatigue Well Being DM 1 8 9 2 2 21 OG 1 9 9 2 2 22 AT 1 9 10 2 2 23 NF 1 9 9 2 2 22 CP 1 8 8 1 2 19 TP 1 9 9 2 2 22 MP 1 9 8 1 1 19 PM 1 9 9 2 2 22 DW 1

247

PERCEPTION OF RECOVERY DATA (INTERVAL TRAINING GROUP)

Initials Week Physical Mental Soreness Fatigue Well Being DM 2 6 9 3 3 21 OG 2 7 5 6 5 23 AT 2 9 9 2 2 22 NF 2 9 9 1 1 20 CP 2 8 8 2 2 20 TP 2 9 9 1 1 20 MP 2 9 8 1 1 19 PM 2 8 9 2 1 20 DW 2 10 1 2 9 22

Initials Week Physical Mental Soreness Fatigue Well Being DM 3 6 10 6 4 26 OG 3 7 8 5 5 25 AT 3 9 10 1 1 21 NF 3 9 9 1 1 20 CP 3 8 8 1 2 19 TP 3 9 9 2 2 22 MP 3 7 10 1 1 19 PM 3 7 9 4 2 22 DW 3 9 1 2 9 21

248

PERCEPTION OF RECOVERY DATA (INTERVAL TRAINING GROUP)

Initials Week Physical Mental Soreness Fatigue Well Being DM 4 7 9 2 3 21 OG 4 8 8 3 4 23 AT 4 10 9 1 1 21 NF 4 9 9 2 2 22 CP 4 8 9 3 2 22 TP 4 10 10 3 2 25 MP 4 10 9 0 1 20 PM 4 5 8 4 2 19 DW 4 10 1 1 8 20

Initials Week Physical Mental Soreness Fatigue Well Being DM 5 8 10 3 2 23 OG 5 8 8 3 3 22 AT 5 9 9 1 2 21 NF 5 9 9 2 2 22 CP 5 9 9 1 1 20 TP 5 9 10 4 3 26 MP 5 8 9 1 2 20 PM 5 9 10 2 2 23 DW 5 9 2 2 9 22

249

PERCEPTION OF RECOVERY DATA (INTERVAL TRAINING GROUP)

Initials Week Physical Mental Soreness Fatigue Well Being DM 6 9 9 2 2 22 OG 6 8 8 2 2 20 AT 6 9 9 1 1 20 NF 6 9 9 2 2 22 CP 6 8 8 2 2 20 TP 6 8 9 2 3 22 MP 6 PM 6 7 9 4 3 23 DW 6 9 1 1 9 20

Initials Week Physical Mental Soreness Fatigue Well Being DM 7 8 9 2 2 21 OG 7 8 7 4 4 23 AT 7 9 10 1 1 21 NF 7 9 9 1 1 20 CP 7 9 9 1 2 21 TP 7 9 9 3 3 24 MP 7 7 9 0 2 18 PM 7 7 9 2 2 20 DW 7 10 2 3 15

250

TRAINING LOAD DATA (INTERVAL TRAINING GROUP)

Player initials Week DM OG AT NF CP TT MP PM DW

1 297 330 330 297 297 297 297 264 1 338 375 338 338 338 338 338 300 2 288 288 252 288 252 252 252 252 324 2 297 330 297 297 297 264 297 264 297 3 333 333 259 333 296 296 259 333 3 312 273 273 351 312 273 273 273 4 279 279 279 279 248 279 248 248 217 4 256 256 256 288 256 256 256 256 256 5 333 333 333 333 296 333 333 333 296 5 297 264 264 297 297 264 264 264 264 6 224 256 224 256 256 288 288 224 6 324 324 324 324 288 324 288 7 176 176 176 132 110 110 132 132 7 168 168 168 147 147 168 126 147 147

HEART RATE TRAINING ZONE DATA (WEEKLY TOTALS: <80%HRmax) (INTERVAL TRAINING GROUP)

Initials Low Wk 1 Low Wk 2 Low Wk 3 Low Wk 4 Low Wk 5 Low Wk 6 Low Wk 7 DM 34.0 53.0 66.2 34.1 60.6 61.3 39.3 OG 9.3 37.2 37.3 16.1 49.6 44.5 32.1 CP 13.6 28.7 41.8 10.8 38.2 28.9 26.0 MP 29.3 55.4 37.8 61.0 AT 15.3 35.8 41.6 23.4 47.8 39.2 26.3 NF 21.0 43.7 54.9 29.0 45.6 49.1 38.3 TT 16.9 44.8 31.7 40.2 28.2 PM 7.8 44.8 41.5 24.8 53.0 32.0 25.3 DW 39.8 51.4 37.0 54.1 47.0 36.6

251

HEART RATE TRAINING ZONE DATA (WEEKLY TOTALS: 80-89%HRmax) (INTERVAL TRAINING GROUP)

Initials Mod Wk 1 Mod Wk 2 Mod Wk 3 Mod Wk 4 Mod Wk 5 Mod Wk 6 Mod Wk 7 DM 28.8 15.8 9.3 27.1 8.9 7.1 3.7 OG 18.5 13.3 15.1 17.4 8.8 16.3 7.5 CP 20.8 21.8 27.3 24.6 21.1 35.6 14.7 MP 25.2 12.1 22.2 8.8 AT 19.0 15.9 23.4 22.4 16.1 22.9 12.4 NF 23.3 17.6 17.3 26.9 22.6 17.5 4.5 TT 20.7 15.6 20.5 20.3 10.4 PM 23.3 19.2 25.1 27.4 16.1 32.6 14.0 DW 20.1 20.1 24.4 15.5 21.0 6.4

HEART RATE TRAINING ZONE DATA (WEEKLY TOTALS: >90%HRmax) (INTERVAL TRAINING GROUP)

Initials High Wk 1 High Wk 2 High Wk 3 High Wk 4 High Wk 5 High Wk 6 High Wk 7 DM 8.3 0.3 0.3 1.8 0.5 0.2 0.0 OG 43.2 18.6 23.6 29.5 11.7 7.2 3.4 CP 36.6 18.5 6.9 27.6 10.7 3.5 2.3 MP 16.5 1.5 3.0 0.3 AT 36.6 17.3 11.0 17.2 6.1 5.9 4.3 NF 26.8 7.7 3.8 7.1 1.8 1.4 0.2 TT 33.4 8.6 10.8 9.5 4.4 PM 40.0 5.1 9.4 10.8 0.9 3.4 3.8 DW 9.2 4.5 1.6 0.4 0.0 0.0

252

ANATOMICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE DATA (SMALL-SIDED GAMES TRAINING GROUP)

Initials Age Mass Pre Mass POST Height Pre Height POST

Sum of 7 Skinfolds (mm) Pre

Sum of 7 Skinfolds (mm) POST

Treadmill VO2peak

Pre

Treadmill VO2peak

POST MM 15.83 65.25 66.90 181.30 183.00 48.0 52.2 54.42 52.28 JM 15.75 67.70 68.10 172.20 171.80 44.7 52.8 61.01 58.33 GT 15.83 58.75 58.85 169.90 170.00 50.6 49.1 58.66 61.36 BT 15.67 58.65 59.10 177.20 177.90 31.1 29.8 60.98 61.18 JM 14.58 67.35 67.85 171.00 171.40 64.7 63.1 58.48 56.18 NA 14.83 63.90 66.75 169.80 171.80 67.3 77.9 60.57 58.94 CN 14.25 56.00 58.35 172.50 173.70 36.5 37.8 61.09 62.60 DS 13.67 75.65 74.70 177.90 177.90 80.4 76.0 50.64 49.84 LW 13.42 47.90 51.35 159.60 162.10 40.1 40.6 67.72 69.55 JD 13.17 70.30 71.70 174.80 177.00 50.3 52.7 58.95 58.99

Initials

Scaled VO2max Pre (mL.kg bm

0.75.min-1)

Scaled VO2max POST (mL.kg bm

0.75.min-1) Treadmill time to exhaustion Pre (s)

Treadmill time to exhaustion

POST (s)

Post Treadmill 0 min Blood

La- Pre

Post Treadmill 0 min Blood

La- POST MM 154.7 149.5 600 600 7.80 8.4 JM 175.0 167.6 600 540 5.60 6 GT 162.4 169.9 660 660 8.30 6.8 BT 168.8 169.6 600 630 8.90 6.4 JM 167.5 161.2 610 575 7.20 5.9 NA 171.2 168.5 615 570 10.60 11.7 CN 167.1 173.0 630 600 5.80 DS 149.3 146.5 480 490 6.20 4.6 LW 178.2 186.2 600 600 7.90 8.9 JD 170.7 171.7 540 540 5.60 5

253

ANATOMICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE DATA (SMALL-SIDED GAMES TRAINING GROUP)

Initials

Post Treadmill 3 min Blood

La- Pre

Post Treadmill 3 min Blood

La- POST MSFT total

distance (m) Pre

MSFT total distance (m)

POST

MSFT predicted

VO2max Pre

MSFT predicted VO2max

POST MM 8.60 11.6 2140 2260 54.00 55.70 JM 10.20 9.7 2400 2140 57.60 54.00 GT 11.70 12 2640 2640 60.85 60.85 BT 8.20 9 2400 2400 57.60 57.60 JM 9.10 8.0 2180 2220 54.55 55.10 NA 14.40 14.3 2200 2000 54.80 51.90 CN 10.10 2280 2100 56.00 53.45 DS 7.40 6.2 1820 1960 49.30 51.4 LW 7.20 9.3 2260 2380 55.70 57.35 JD 6.90 6.2 1900 1960 50.40 51.4

Initials

YYIRT Distance (m)

Pre

YYIRT Distance (m)

POST

Total time 12 x 20 m sprints (s)

Pre

Total time 12 x 20 m

sprints (s)

POST

Dec20 % (20 m sprints

ONLY) Pre

Dec20 % (20 m sprints ONLY)

POST MM 1160 1760 43.39 44.31 11.26 10.55 JM 2080 1760 42.19 42.12 6.54 5.72 GT 1760 2160 39.95 39.99 5.69 5.13 BT 1760 2240 41.30 42.76 3.35 4.50 JM 1480 42.11 41.83 8.64 9.27 NA 1280 1040 41.44 40.86 5.28 7.41 CN 1160 1920 42.11 40.46 8.64 5.36 DS 1440 1480 43.52 41.63 9.90 8.41 LW 1760 1760 4.15 4.09 JD 1000 1560 42.70 43.73 6.22 11.1

254

ANATOMICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE DATA (SMALL-SIDED GAMES TRAINING GROUP)

Initials 10 m sprint (s) Pre 10 m sprint (s) POST 20 m sprint (s) Pre 20 m sprint (s)

POST

MM 1.91 1.89 3.23 3.15 JM 1.95 3.29 GT 1.86 1.83 3.13 3.07 BT 1.98 2.00 3.38 3.37 JM 1.85 1.90 3.14 3.19 NA 1.92 1.90 3.21 3.27 CN 1.94 1.87 3.29 3.19 DS 1.84 1.83 3.12 3.06 LW 2.05 2.14 3.50 3.6 JD 1.93 1.96 3.31 3.3

PERCEPTION OF RECOVERY DATA (SMALL-SIDED GAMES TRAINING GROUP)

Initials Week Physical Mental Soreness Fatigue Well Being MM 1 8 9 2 2 21 JM 1 8 8 3 2 21 GT 1 7 8 2 4 21 BT 1 JM 1 10 9 1 1 21 NA 1 7 9 2 3 21 CN 1 10 10 1 1 22 DS 1 9 9 3 2 23 LW 1 9 10 4 3 26 JD 1 9 9 0 1 19

255

PERCEPTION OF RECOVERY DATA (SMALL-SIDED GAMES TRAINING GROUP)

Initials Week Physical Mental Soreness Fatigue Well Being MM 2 9 10 2 2 23 JM 2 9 8 4 6 27 GT 2 9 9 2 2 22 BT 2 8 10 6 2 26 JM 2 7 8 3 4 22 NA 2 5 8 6 6 25 CN 2 9 9 1 1 20 DS 2 4 8 3 5 20 LW 2 9 9 2 3 23 JD 2 7 9 7 3 26

Initials Week Physical Mental Soreness Fatigue Well Being MM 3 6 9 6 5 26 JM 3 8 8 2 3 21 GT 3 8 8 1 4 21 BT 3 7 8 3 3 21 JM 3 NA 3 3 8 7 7 25 CN 3 10 9 1 1 21 DS 3 5 7 1 6 19 LW 3 9 10 2 3 24 JD 3

256

PERCEPTION OF RECOVERY DATA (SMALL-SIDED GAMES TRAINING GROUP)

Initials Week Physical Mental Soreness Fatigue Well Being MM 4 JM 4 10 10 1 1 22 GT 4 9 8 1 3 21 BT 4 7 9 1 1 18 JM 4 9 9 1 1 20 NA 4 8 9 2 3 22 CN 4 10 10 0 0 20 DS 4 2 2 8 8 20 LW 4 10 9 2 1 22 JD 4 10 10 0 0 20

Initials Week Physical Mental Soreness Fatigue Well Being MM 5 JM 5 9 9 2 2 22 GT 5 8 8 2 3 21 BT 5 9 9 1 1 20 JM 5 8 8 2 3 21 NA 5 8 9 4 3 24 CN 5 10 9 1 1 21 DS 5 9 9 2 2 22 LW 5 9 10 2 3 24 JD 5 8 8 2 3 21

257

PERCEPTION OF RECOVERY DATA (SMALL-SIDED GAMES TRAINING GROUP)

Initials Week Physical Mental Soreness Fatigue Well Being MM 6 9 10 1 1 21 JM 6 9 9 2 2 22 GT 6 9 9 1 4 23 BT 6 9 9 2 1 21 JM 6 9 9 1 1 20 NA 6 CN 6 10 10 0 0 20 DS 6 8 8 2 3 21 LW 6 8 7 2 3 20 JD 6 9 9 1 1 20

Initials Week Physical Mental Soreness Fatigue Well Being MM 7 9 10 1 1 21 JM 7 9 9 2 1 21 GT 7 8 8 2 2 20 BT 7 9 9 1 1 20 JM 7 NA 7 8 9 2 3 22 CN 7 9 9 1 1 20 DS 7 8 8 1 2 19 LW 7 JD 7 9 9 1 1 20

258

TRAINING LOAD DATA (SMALL-SIDED GAMES TRAINING GROUP)

MM JM GT BT JM NA CN DS LW

JD Week Player initials

1 231 231 297 231 231 264 264 231 264 1 263 188 300 263 263 338 300 150 300 225 2 324 252 288 144 288 324 288 288 252 288 2 264 198 297 165 264 297 297 297 264 264 3 259 259 185 296 333 333 370 333 3 195 312 234 234 273 312 312 273 4 217 248 186 248 279 217 217 217 248 4 224 256 192 256 256 224 288 256 256 5 259 259 222 296 333 296 333 259 333 5 264 231 231 198 264 264 264 297 6 256 192 256 128 256 192 224 192 256 6 288 252 288 216 324 288 324 288 324 7 176 176 176 154 176 220 7 147 168 126 126 147 147

HEART RATE TRAINING ZONE DATA (WEEKLY TOTALS: <80%HRmax) (SMALL-SIDED GAMES TRAINING GROUP)

Initials Low Wk 1 Low Wk 2 Low Wk 3 Low Wk 4 Low Wk 5 Low Wk 6 Low Wk 7 MM 65.4 46.4 17.3 63.1 32.0 JM 38.8 44.1 30.2 49.1 53.2 GT 7.8 8.8 8.3 6.7 8.1 17.8 14.1 BT 16.2 22.8 8.0 25.8 36.8 50.9 34.3 JM 41.7 42.3 22.0 35.5 62.5 54.8 22.4 NA CN 30.6 39.4 16.8 24.0 45.1 57.3 32.2 DS 27.7 24.3 8.7 15.4 39.5 46.3 LW 13.0 18.0 2.5 8.8 24.3 JD 55.7 58.7 41.3 64.8 60.8 7.3

259

HEART RATE TRAINING ZONE DATA (WEEKLY TOTALS: 80-89%HRmax) (SMALL-SIDED GAMES TRAINING GROUP)

Initials Mod Wk 1 Mod Wk 2 Mod Wk 3 Mod Wk 4 Mod Wk 5 Mod Wk 6 Mod Wk 7 MM 5.3 46.4 11.3 4.8 10.8 JM 19.3 44.1 15.7 14.1 12.5 GT 12.4 8.8 22.4 11.8 24.2 26.4 19.2 BT 18.6 22.8 23.0 30.1 18.8 16.4 6.9 JM 23.3 42.3 16.5 23.4 6.7 12.7 19.1 NA CN 21.4 39.4 16.3 23.6 16.3 9.7 10.6 DS 21.4 24.3 21.0 23.0 21.1 9.8 LW 33.4 18.0 20.8 16.7 27.5 JD 12.3 58.7 16.3 4.8 4.3 5.6

HEART RATE TRAINING ZONE DATA (WEEKLY TOTALS: >90%HRmax) (SMALL-SIDED GAMES TRAINING GROUP)

Initials High Wk 1 High Wk 2 High Wk 3 High Wk 4 High Wk 5 High Wk 6 High Wk 7 MM 0.3 1.6 4.3 0.2 0.2 JM 12.8 10.4 17.2 6.8 2.3 GT 50.8 40.3 30.4 44.4 37.8 23.7 9.8 BT 3.3 7.8 1.4 7.1 14.3 0.7 1.8 JM 6.1 1.5 3.8 4.1 0.8 0.5 1.4 NA CN 19.0 14.3 15.3 15.4 8.7 1.1 0.3 DS 21.9 23.1 17.4 24.6 9.4 12.0 LW 24.6 24.7 37.7 37.6 16.2 JD 3.0 1.4 5.4 0.3 2.8 9.1