See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/269169295

Influence of the Number of Players and the Relative Pitch Area per Player on
Heart Rate and Physical Demands in Youth Soccer

Article in The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · December 2014

DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000788 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

71 904

4 authors, including:

Julen Castellano Ibon Echeazarra

Universidad del País Vasco / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (UPV/EHU). Leioa, Spain University of the Basque Country
245 PUBLICATIONS 7,516 CITATIONS 46 PUBLICATIONS 515 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

David Casamichana
University of the Basque Country
107 PUBLICATIONS 4,780 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ibon Echeazarra on 06 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Influence of the number of players and the relative pitch area per player on heart rate

and physical demands in youth soccer

Brief running head: Influence of different large-sided games on young soccer players’

demands

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to analyze the influence of different large-sided games on

the physical and physiological variables in under-13s soccer players. The effects on heart rate

(HR) and physical demands of different number of players (7, 9, and 11) together with the

relative pitch area (100, 200, and 300 m2) during two 12 min repetitions were analyzed in this

study. The variables analyzed were: mean, maximum and different intensity zones of HR;

total distance (TD); work:rest ratio (W:R); player-load (PL); five absolute and three relative

speed categories. The results support the theory that a change in pitch dimensions affects

locomotor activity more than the number of players does, but also refutes the hypothesis that

the change in the number of players has a greater effect on HR. To be more specific, an

increase in the relative pitch area per player (300/200/100 m2) was associated with higher

values of the following variables: TD (2250-2314/2003-2148/1766-1845 m), W:R (0.5-

0.6/0.4-0.5/0.3 AU), PL (271-306/246-285/229-267 UA), %HR mean (85-88/85-89/81-83 %),

%HR max (95-100/97-100/95-98 %), and affected the percentage of time spent in both absolute

(above 8 km·h-1) and relative speed (above 40% of V max) categories (p<0.05, effect size:

0.31-0.85). These results may help youth soccer coaches to plan the progressive introduction

of large-sided games so that task demands are adapted to the physiological and physical

development of participants.

Keywords: youth soccer, team sport, game format, physical and physiological performance

1
Influence of the number of players and the relative pitch area per player on heart rate
and physical demands in youth soccer

INTRODUCTION

In junior or youth soccer the competitive format needs to be adapted to the

characteristics of those involved, and consequently the rules are often modified to suit the

physical development of children and youngsters (1). These adaptations make it easier for

them to take part (2) by increasing their experience in the game. In this context, some studies

have examined how the structure of training can be adapted by changing the pitch size, the

number of players, the duration of the match, or the relative pitch area per player (3,4). This

is important as there is a need for scientific evidence regarding the effects that different

competitive formats have on young players, not least so that training can be adapted to the

needs of participants(5). It is not always easy to carry out research on matches played within

a competitive format as, due to them being official matches modification of variables is not

an option. Therefore, studies using large-sided games during the training process could be an

alternative (13). However there is little evidence relating to how large-sided formats affect the

demands on young players, as most research to date has been carried out on small-sided games.

The number of players is a variable that is often modified not only in competitive

settings but also during training drills, where it affects the task intensity (6), which increases

when player number per team is reduced. Various studies have explored the influence of this

variable while keeping other factors constant, such as relative pitch area per player (7).

Indeed, research of this kind has examined a range of scenarios from 1 vs. 1 (8) up to 8 vs. 8

(8,9), as well as various intermediate combinations (10,11,7), and it has generally been found

that a smaller number of players leads to an increase in heart rate (HR), blood lactate

concentration, and the rating of perceived exertion (RPE). It is suggested that these changes

are largely the result of the increased frequency of ball contacts (9,12,13). Conversely, a

2
larger number of players appears to lead to greater demands in terms of high-intensity

running and sprints (11,7). Although HR and technical information exists on player demands

in 9-a-side game (13) there are no studies that compare 9-a-side to 11-a-side games with the

same players.

The majority of previous studies concerning small-sided matches have focused on

how changes to pitch size may affect the demands on players(14,15,16,17), as these changes

are possible in both absolute and relative terms (6). Although the results have not been

entirely consistent, the literature generally supports the idea that a larger playing area leads to

increased physiological and physical demands (14,18,16). A possible explanation for this is

related to the effective playing time, which is increased due to there being fewer interruptions

to play on a larger pitch (14). The pitch size also seems to influence the motor behavior of

players, with smaller playing areas being associated with a greater frequency of actions such

as control and dribble and control and shoot, and also a greater number of ball interceptions

and clearances (14). Pitch dimensions have also been shown to have an effect on the

interactive behavior of teams (19), but it is not known if pitch dimensions have the same

effect when these are big.

What is not clear, however, is whether changes to the number of players and the pitch

size have the same effect at competitive levels other than those studied to date, when they are

applied in large-sided games (when there are more than 9 players on the team). However, in

daily practice, the coach may set many training tasks that involve modifying both the number

of participating players and the dimensions of each participant’s space, without taking into

account the demands of such tasks on the players. Consequently, the aim of this study was to

examine the influence of different large-sided games on HR and physical performance in

under-13 soccer players. Specifically, we studied training matches involving 7, 9, and 11

players per side, and relative pitch areas per player of 100 m2, 200 m2, and 300 m2. The basis

3
of our hypothesis is that changes in the number of players where the relative dimensions of

each participant remain constant will lead to a greater change in HR, whilst changing the

dimensions for each participant will have a major effect on the locomotor activity of each

player. The results of the study will contribute to a better understanding of how the demands

on players are influenced by different large-sided games at junior level.

METHODS

Experimental Approach to the Problem

The study was conducted over a five-week period (October-November) during the

competitive season. In the weeks prior to this the players were familiarized with both the type

of large-sided game and the material to be used. During the week immediately before the

study began, each participant performed the Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test-level 1

(YYIRT1) (20) in order to determine the individual maximum HR (HR max). As in other

studies, (21) the maximal sprinting speed was also determined, which was assessed over 30

m, using photocells (Kit Racetime2 SF, Microgate, Italy). All procedures were carried out on

the same day on an outdoor artificial pitch with the players wearing football boots.

Nine training sessions were held (two per week, except for week 5) on an outdoor

artificial grass pitch and at similar times of day. Each session began with a 15-min standard

warm-up, followed by one of the large-sided games played over two 12-min halves, with a 5-

min passive rest period at half-time. The order in which the nine possible large-sided games

(3 levels for the number of players x 3 levels for the relative pitch area per player) were

played and recorded was established randomly (see Table 1).

************PLEASE, INSERT TABLE 1 HERE************

4
 During all the training sessions, coaches were present in order to offer encouragement

to the players (18). In addition, eight footballs were distributed around the edge of the pitch in

order to maximize the effective playing time (14). All the matches were played at the same

time of day in order to avoid the effects of circadian rhythms on the results (22). All

participants were advised to follow a normal diet and to eat at more or less the same time of

day (14:30 hours), with special emphasis being placed on a high intake of water and

carbohydrates.

Participants

Twenty four players from the youth academy of an elite team from the Spanish first

division (average age 13.3 ± 0.5 years; height 152.9 ± 5.7 cm; weight 42.2 ± 5.2 kg)

participated in the study. At the time of the study the players were playing at under-13 level,

which implies a normal size pitch (60m x 100m) and the usual rules of 11-a-side soccer. On

average the participants had been playing federation school soccer for three years, and their

standard training involved four sessions per week (each lasting around 90 minutes), in

addition to a competitive match. All the players and their parents or legal guardians were

notified of the research design and its requirements, as well as the potential benefits and risks,

and each participant gave written informed consent prior to the start. The Ethics Committee

of the University of the Basque Country (CEISH) also gave its institutional approval of the

study.

In order to avoid potential imbalances between the two teams, players were classified

according to the coach’s subjective appraisal of their ability, and were then assigned to a

given team as appropriate. The 7-a-side matches used a 1-3-2-1 formation. The extra two

players in the 9-a-side matches took up a midfield and forward role respectively (i.e. the

formation was 1-3-3-2), while the 11-a-side matches used a 1-4-3-3 formation. In terms of

5
data recording, in order to maintain de player between-variability, the same five individual

players were observed in each of the different large-sided games.

Independent variables: relative pitch area per player and number of players per team

The independent variables were as follows: 1) the relative pitch area (RPA) per

player: 100 m2, 200 m2, or 300 m2 (RPA100, RPA200, and RPA300, respectively); and 2) the

number of players (NP) per team: 7, 9, or 11 (NP7, NP9, and NP11, respectively). Although

the overall pitch size was varied, the length:width ratio was held constant. The standard rules

of 11-a-side soccer were followed in all large-sided games.

Heart rate (HR)

The physiological profile was assessed on the basis of HR (23), which was recorded

every 5 seconds using a telemetric device (Polar Team Sport System, Polar Electro Oy,

Finland). As previously mentioned, the HR max of each player was determined by means of the

YYIRT1 (24,25) enabling four intensity zones to be established (7,10): <75%HR max, 75-

84%HR max, 84-90%HR max , and >90%HR max. For the purposes of analysis the variables used

were: percentage of time spent in each intensity zone during each large-sided game, and the

relative values in relation to the mean and maximum HR obtained in the YYIRT1 (i.e.

%HR mean and %HR max ).

Physical performance: global indicators, and absolute and relative speed ranges

Physical performance was measured using a portable GPS device operating at a

sampling frequency of 10 Hz (MinimaxX v.4.0, Catapult Innovations), and the data

subsequently downloaded to a PC and analyzed using the software package Logan Plus

v.4.5.1 (Catapult Innovations, 2010). This technology has previously been shown to be a

6
reliable and valid way of monitoring high-intensity running (26) over a distance of 30 m

(standard error, SE = 0.2 m; coefficient of variation, CV = 0.7%; bias = 6.5%; and standard

error of measurement, SEM = 5.1%).

The global performance indicators were as follows: total distance covered (TD); the

work:rest ratio (W:R), defined as the distance covered by the player at a speed ≥4 km·h–1

(period of activity or work) divided by the distance covered at a speed <4 km·h–1 (period of

recovery or rest); and player load (PL), which was determined via accelerometry (27,28,29),

specifically by means of a 100 Hz triaxial accelerometer that combined the accelerations

produced in three planes of body movement. Player load is an indicator that seems to be

highly correlated with the Edwards method and session-RPE (29), and the high reliability of

its results, both within and between devices, suggests that accelerometers are able to detect

changes or differences in physical activity (30).

Five speed categories were established (all in km·h–1): 0-3, 3-8, 8-13, 13-16, and >16

(31,32). Then the distance covered at speeds relative to the maximum individual speed (V max)

achieved during the speed test was estimated, (as proposed by Buchheit et al. 2012). On the

basis of this, three categories were established (all in km·h–1): >40%, 40-60%, and >60% of

the V max. The distance covered in metres in each one of these speed categories, both absolute

and relative, was tracked.

Statistical analysis

The data is presented as means and standard deviations (means ±SD). The variables

did not fulfil the assumption of normality. In the event that a significant difference was

observed, a two-way comparison was performed using the Mann-Whitney U test, with post

hoc Bonferroni correction. Effect sizes were also calculated (33), and defined as follows:

null, <0.3; mild, 0.3-0.5; moderate, 0.5-0.7; strong, 0.7-0.9; and very strong, 0.9-1.0. All the

7
statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 19.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Illinois USA),

with significance being set at p<0.05.

RESULTS

Global indicators

Table 2 shows the results for the global indicators. When the relative pitch area (RPA)

per player was 100 m2 none of the three indicators changed significantly according to the

number of players per team (NP7, NP9, and NP11). However, comparison of RPA200 with

RPA100 revealed that values of TD and W:R were both significantly higher when the RPA

was 200 m2, regardless of the number of players involved (i.e. the effect was observed for 7,

9, and 11 players). Comparison of RPA300 with RPA100 showed the same effect, that is,

values of both TD and W:R were significantly higher when the RPA was 300 m2, regardless

of the number of players involved. It should be noted, however, that in the latter comparison,

player load was also significantly higher for RPA300 when 9 and 11 players were involved.

Finally, comparison of RPA300 and RPA200 revealed that values of TD and W:R were both

significantly higher when the RPA was 300 m2 but only for NP7 and NP9.

************PLEASE, INSERT TABLE 2 HERE************

Relative HR data and percentage of time spent in different HR intensity zones

Table 3 presents the results in relation to %HR. In the comparison of RPA200 and

RPA100 the %HR mean was significantly higher for NP7 when the RPA was 200 m2, while

both %HR mean and %HR max were significantly higher with an RPA of 200 m2 and 11 players

a side (NP11). This pattern of results was repeated when comparing RPA300 with RPA100,

with higher values corresponding to the RPA of 300 m2. The only significant difference

8
related to the number of players concerned the variable %HR max , which was higher for both

NP7 and NP11 compared with NP9.

************PLEASE, INSERT TABLE 3 HERE************

Figure 1 shows the percentage time that players spent in different HR intensity zones.

When there were seven players per side (NP7) the percentage time spent at <75%HR max was

significantly greater for an RPA of 100 m2 than for both RPA200 (ES=0.62) and RPA300

(ES=0.74), while with 11 players a side (NP11) the percentage time spent at <75%HR max was

significantly greater for RPA100 than for RPA300 (ES=0.57). When the RPA was 300 m2,

players spent a significantly greater proportion of time at 84-90%HR max when there were 7

and 11 players per side (NP7 > NP9, ES=0.48; NP11 > NP9, ES=0.41).

************PLEASE, INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE************

Distance covered in absolute speed ranges

Table 4 shows the distance covered (m) by players in the five different speed ranges.

Significant differences were observed for all the absolute speed ranges except for 3.0-8.0

km·h-1, and these differences were especially noticeable when considering the RPA. The

differences were greater from RPA100 to RPA200 and RPA300, while between RPA200 and

RPA300 these differences were not important. In relation to a speed <3.0 km·h-1, the distance

covered with an RPA of 100 m2 was greater than that for RPA200 and RPA300 regardless of

the number of players. The results for the speed ranges 8.0-13.0 and >16.0 km·h-1 were the

same for NP7 and NP9, namely, the distance covered increased significantly in line with the

RPA (such that RPA300>RPA200>RPA100). In both speed ranges (8.0-13.0 and >16 km·h-1)

a similar pattern was observed for NP11, the difference being that the distance covered did

9
not differ significantly between RPA200 and RPA300, although both these RPA yielded a

distance value that was significantly greater than that for RPA100. As regards speeds

between 13.0-16.0 km·h-1, the distance covered was greater for RPA200 and RPA300

compared with RPA100 when there were 7 and 11 players per side (NP7 and NP11), while in

the case of NP9 the distance covered increased progressively in line with the RPA (i.e.

RPA300 > RPA200 > RPA100). The only significant difference associated with the number

of players concerned the distance covered at speeds >16.0 km·h-1 when the RPA was 200 m2:

the distance covered when there were 11 players per side (NP11) was significantly greater

than that for both NP9 and NP7.

************PLEASE, INSERT TABLE 4 HERE************

Distance covered in relative speed ranges

Figure 2 shows the distances covered in the three relative speed ranges (<40%V max ,

40-60%V max , and >60%V max) for each of the nine large-sided games. The results showed that

most of the differences occurred when dimensions were modified, and not when the number

of players per team was altered. For relative speeds of <40%V max, significant differences

were only observed when there were nine players per side (NP9), with a greater distance

being covered when the RPA was 100 m2 compared with both RPA200 (ES=0.52) and

RPA300 (ES=0.84). The results were somewhat more varied for relative speeds of 40-

60%V max and >60%V max . When there were seven players per side (NP7), the distance

covered with an RPA of 200 m2 was greater than that for RPA100 (ES=0.38), while the

distance corresponding to RPA300 was greater than that for both RPA200 (ES=0.50) and

RPA100 (ES=0.68). When there were nine players per side (NP9) the distance covered with

an RPA of 300 m2 was greater than that corresponding to both RPA200 (ES=0.50) and

10
RPA100 (ES=0.77), although there was no significant difference between the latter two

formats. Finally, with 11 players per side (NP11) the results followed the same pattern as for

NP7 in that the distance covered with an RPA of 200 m2 was greater than that for RPA100

(ES=0.55), while the distance corresponding to RPA300 was greater than that for both

RPA200 (ES=0.35) and RPA100 (ES=0.75). The only significant difference associated with

the number of players concerned the distance covered at >60%V max : with an RPA of 100 m2

the distance covered in this relative speed zone was significantly greater when there were 11

players as compared with 7 (NP11>NP7, ES=0.27), while with an RPA of 200 m2 the

distance covered was significantly greater with 11 players per side than with either of the

other two formats (i.e. NP11>NP9, ES=0.54; NP11>NP7, ES=0.60).

************PLEASE, INSERT FIGURE 2 HERE************

DISCUSSION

The aim of the present study was to analyze the influence of different large-sided

games on the physical and physiological variables in under-13s soccer players. The effects on

heart rate (HR) and the physical demands of altering the number of players (7, 9, and 11) and

the relative pitch area (100, 200, and 300 m2) were measured during two 12 min repetitions.

The combination of these two variables enabled us to analyze the demands on players in nine

different large-sided games (3 levels for the number of players x 3 RPA), something which

has not previously been reported in relation to under-13s soccer. The main finding was that

HR and physical performance were influenced more by the RPA variable. To be precise, as

was hypothesised, the demands on players increased more as a result of an increase in the

RPA per player than as a result of a decrease in the number of players per team. Our research

threw up another interesting result which might warrant special attention, and this is that for

11
higher numbers of players (more than 7 per team), the RPA appears to have more influence

on player demands than increasing the number of players does.

Importantly, many of the references used in this discussion used small-sided games

(<7 players per team) in their studies, which should lead us to be cautious when comparing

those results to the current study. However, results from the studies of small-sided games can

help us to understand better how variable or rule changes affect the demands on players and

whether a similar trend occurs when large-sided games are studied. Altering the number of

players had no effect on the %HR mean. In fact, the only difference observed in this regard

concerned sessions involving an RPA of 300 m2, where players spent a greater percentage of

time at 84-90%HR max when there were 7 or 11 players per side (NP7 and NP11) compared

with 9 a side (NP9). In contrast to the results obtained here, other authors (34,10,11,7) have

found that reducing the number of players increased the physiological demands on players. A

possible explanation for this discrepancy could be that the large-sided games used in the

present study never involved fewer than seven players, which would likely imply fewer ball

contacts (13) and, therefore, limit the effect on physiological response. Probably, for 7-a-side

games, increasing the number of players would not be significant enough as to affect the

training load. In terms of physical performance the number of players per team only had a

notable effect in relation to high intensity running, specifically at >16 km·h-1 and >60%V max .

The absence of further effects in this regard could be due to the fact that increasing the

number of players while maintaining the same relative pitch area per player inevitably

implies an increase in the absolute dimensions of the playing area (14).

The relative pitch area (in m2) per player did have an effect on the physiological and

physical response of these under-13 players. An increase in the relative pitch area per player

was associated with an increase in the relative mean and maximum values of HR, as well as

in the total distance covered (TD), the distance covered in both absolute (>8 km·h-1) and

12
relative speed categories (above 40% of V max ), and in the player load (PL). Although some

studies do not support the idea that an increase in relative space leads to an increase in the

physiological and physical demands on players (15,17), others have found that the demands

on players increase in line with pitch size (14,16,18). Overall, our results suggest that the

physiological and physical demands on players were more similar for the two larger relative

areas, that is, RPA300 and RPA200, compared with the smaller relative area of 100 m2 per

player.

There were certain limitations to our study which should be highlighted, for example

the use of HR as the only physiologic parameter. Undoubtedly, the inclusion of blood lactate

(7) or another overall training load like the subjective ratings of perceived exertion (35), leads to

a more comprehensive understanding of how the athlete is responding to the different large-

sided game formats and assists in improving the quality of competition formats. There is also

a need for further studies that not only examine the physiological and physical demands on

players, but also analyze the possible effects of tactical variables. This would help to increase

our understanding of how teams are “obliged” to adapt their interactive behaviour in response

to task constraints (36) that could be interpreted differently according to the skill level of the

players involved (37). It should also be noted that the present study did not examine the

possibility of a fatigue effect among players across the different training sessions, because the

duration of the bouts or halves could affect the demands on the players (38). This aspect

should be taken into account to help in the design of large-sided games that are more closely

adapted to the age of the participants and the task duration.

Finally, this study has added usable information about the influence of different large-

sided games on HR and physical performance in under-13 soccer players. One thing which

should be taken into account is the impossibility of establishing a clear cause-effect

relationship between the number of players per pitch area and soccer performance due to be

13
an open modality with severe intervention factors. However, our results did show a link

between physical and physiological demands and the two variables in interaction (dimension

and number of players per team). The results of the study will contribute to understanding

how the demands on players are influenced by different large-sided games at junior level.

That is to say, whether changes in the number of players whilst maintaining the relative

dimensions of each participant constant, will result in higher changes in HR, or whether

changing the dimensions of each participant will have a major effect on time motion.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

The results of this study suggest that in large-sided games involving a high number of

players (7, 9, and 11), the relative pitch area per player has a greater influence on the physical

response of participants than the actual number of players which specifically affects

physiological response. Thus, if the relative area available to each individual remains

constant, players of this age could be introduced to the greater difficulties associated with

large-sided games without this implying increased demands in terms of HR or physical

activity. Given that the formats involving a relative pitch area per player of 200 m2 and 300

m2 produced a similar response from these under-13 players in terms of HR and patterns of

movement, with the demands in both cases being greater than those associated with the 100

m2 format, youth coaches should consider progressively introducing a larger relative playing

area so as to reflect more closely the demands of more senior-level soccer, at the same time

as increasing the complexity of the large-sided games they use.

REFERENCES

1. Tessitore A, Perroni F, Meeusen R, Cortis C, Lupo C, Capranica L. Heart rate responses

and technical-tactical aspects of official 5-a-side youth soccer matches played on clay and

artificial turf. J Strength Cond Res 26: 106-112, 2012.

14
2. Wein H. Developing Youth Soccer Players. Champaign IL: Human Kinetics. 2007.

3. Castellano J. Echeazarra I. Adapting model competition in youth football: a comparative

study of 5-a side football and 7-a side football in U-9 players. In: Nunome H, Drust B,

Dawson D editors. Science and football VII. London: Routledge, 2013. pp. 311-316.

4. Arana J, Lapresa D, Anguera MT, Garzón B. Adapting football to the child: an application

of the logistic regression model in observational methodology. Qual & Quant 47:

3473-80, 2013.

5. Stratton G, Reilly T, Williams AM, Richardson D. Youth Soccer: From Science to

Performance. London United Kingdom: Routledge. 2004.

6. Hill-Haas S, Dawson B, Impellizzeri FM, Coutts A. Physiology of small sided games

training in football. A systematic review. Sports Med 41: 199-220, 2011.

7. Hill-Haas S, Dawson B, Coutts A, Rowsell G. Physiological responses and time-motion

characteristics of various small-sided soccer games in youth players. J Sports Sci 27: 1-8,

2009.

8. Dellal A, Chamari K, Pintus A, Girard O, Cotte T, Keller D. Heart rate responses during

small-sided and short intermittent running training in elite soccer players: a comparative

study. J Strength Cond Res 22: 1449-1457, 2008.

9. Jones S, Drust B. Physiological and technical demands of 4 v 4 and 8 v 8 games in elite

youth soccer players. Kinesiology 39: 150-156, 2007.

10. Brandes M, Heitmann A, Müller L. Physical responses of different small-sided game

formats in elite youth soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 26: 1353-60, 2011.

11. Castellano J, Casamichana D, Dellal A. Influence of game format and number of players

on heart rate responses and physical demands in small-sided soccer games. J Strength

Cond Res 27: 1295-1303, 2013.

15
12. Katis A, Kellis E. Effects of small-sided games on physical conditioning and performance

in young soccer players. J Sports Sci Med 8: 374-380, 2009.

13. Owen A, Wong DP, McKenna M, Dellal A. Heart rate responses and technical

comparison between small vs. large sided games in elite professional soccer. J

Strength Cond Res 25: 2104-2110, 2011.

14. Casamichana D, Castellano J. Time-motion heart rate perceptual and motor behavior

demands in small-sides soccer games: Effects of pitch size. J Sports Sci 28: 1615-23,

2010.

15. Kelly DM, Drust B. The effect of pitch dimensions on heart rate responses and technical

demands of small-sided soccer games in elite players. J Sci Med Sport 12: 475-479,

2009.

16. Owen A, Twist C, Ford F. Small-sided games: the physiological and technical effect of

altering pitch size and player numbers. Insight 7: 50-53, 2004.

17. Tessitore A, Meeusen R, Piacentini M, Demarie S, Capranica L. Physiological and

technical aspects of ''6-a-side'' soccer drills. J Sports Med Phys Fit 46: 36-43, 2006.

18. Rampinini E, Impellizzeri F, Castagna C, Abt G, Chamari K, Sassi A, Marcora SM.

Factors influencing physiological responses to small-sided soccer games. J Sports Sci 25:

659-666, 2007.

19. Frencken W, Van Der Plaats J, Visscher C, Lemmink K. Size matters: pitch dimensions

constrain interactive team behaviour in soccer. J Systems Sci Complex 26: 85–93, 2013.

20. Krustrup P, Mohr M, Amstrup T, Rysgaard T, Johansen J, Steensberg A, Pedersen PK,

Bangsbo J. The yo-yo intermittent recovery test: physiological response, reliability, and

validity. Med & Scie Sports & Exerc 35: 697-705, 2003.

16
21. Buchheit M, Simpson BM, Peltola E, Mendez-Villanueva A. Assessing Maximal

Sprinting Speed in Highly Trained Young Soccer Players. Int J Sports Phys Perf 7: 76-78,

2012.

22. Drust B, Waterhouse J, Atkinson G, Edwards B, Reilly T. Circadian rhythms in sports

performance: an update. Chronobiology Int 22: 21-44, 2005.

23. Dellal A, Da Silva C, Hill-Haas S, Wong D, Natali A, De Lima J, et al. Heart rate

monitoring in soccer: interest and limits during competitive match-play and training -

Practical application. J Strength Cond Res 26: 2890-2906, 2012.

24. Bangsbo J, Iaia FM, Krustrup P. The Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test: a useful tool for

evaluation of physical performance in intermittent sports. Sports Med 38: 37-51, 2008.

25. Krustrup P, Krustrup P, Mohr M, Amstrup T, Rysgaard T, Johansen J, et al. The Yo-Yo

intermittent recovery test: physiological response reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports

Exerc 35: 697–705, 2003.

26. Castellano J, Casamichana D, Calleja-González J, San Román J, Ostojic SM. Reliability

and accuracy of 10 Hz GPS devices for short-distance exercise. J Sports Sci Med 10: 233-

234, 2011.

27. Cunniffe B, Proctor W, Baker J, Davies B. An evaluation of the physiological demands of

elite rugby union using global positioning system tracking software. J Strength Cond Res

23: 1195-1203, 2009.

28. Montgomery PG, Pyne DB, Minahan CL. The physical and physiological demands of

basketball training and competition. Int J Sports Phys Perf 5: 75-86, 2010.

29. Casamichana D, Castellano J, Castagna C. Comparing the physical demands of friendly

matches and small-sided games in semi-professional soccer players. J Strength Cond Res

26: 837-843, 2012.

17
30. Boyd LJ, Ball K, Aughey RJ. The reliability of MinimaxX accelerometers for measuring

physical activity in Australian football. I J Sports Phys Perf 6: 311-321, 2011.

31. Buchheit M, Delhomel G, Ahmaidi S. Time-motion analysis of elite young French soccer

players. Coach Sport Sci J 3: 21, 2008.

32. Castagna C, Impellizzeri FM, Cecchini E, Rampinini E, Alvarez J. Effects of intermittent-

endurance fitness on match performance in young male soccer players. J Strength Cond

Res 23: 1954-59, 2009.

33. Hopkins WG. Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports Med 30: 1-

15, 2000.

34. Aguiar M, Botelho G, Gonçalves B, Sampaio J. Physiological responses and activity

profiles of football small-sided games. J Strength Cond Res 27: 1287-94, 2013.

35. Casamichana D, Castellano J, Calleja J, San Román J, Castagna C. Relationship between

indicators of training load in soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 27: 369-374, 2013.

36. Frencken, W, Lemmink K, Delleman N, Visscher C. Oscillations of centroid position and

surface area of soccer teams in small-sided games. Eur J Sport Sci 11: 215-223, 2011.

37. Folgado H, Lemmink K, Frencken W, Sampaio J. Length, width and centroid distance as

measures of teams tactical performance in youth football. E J Sport Sci 2012; 14: 487-192.

38. Casamichana D, Castellano J, Dellal A. Influence of different training regimes on

physical and physiological demands during small-sided soccer games: continuous vs.

intermittent format. J Strength Cond Res 27: 690–697, 2013.

Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the support of the University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU)

project EHU12/14 “Evaluación del proceso de entrenamiento y la competición en el fútbol de

18
formación” during the period 2012-14 [Code 13523], and the support of the Spanish

government project Observación de la interacción en deporte y actividad física: Avances

técnicos y metodológicos en registros automatizados cualitativos-cuantitativos (Secretaría de

Estado de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación del Ministerio de Economía y

Competitividad) during the period 2012-2015 [Grant DEP2012-32124].

19
Figures and tables legends

Figure 1. Percentage time spent in each HR intensity zone for each of the nine large-side
games: 100, 200, and 300 refer to the relative pitch area (in m2) per player, while 7, 9, and 11
correspond to the number of players per team. aSignificantly greater with respect to
200; bSignificantly greater with respect to 300; cSignificantly greater with respect to 9.

Figure 2. Distance covered (m) in the three relative speed ranges for the different large-side
games: 100, 200, and 300 refer to the relative pitch area per player (m2), while 7, 9, and 11
correspond to the number of players per team. aSignificantly greater with respect to
100; bSignificantly greater with respect to 200; cSignificantly greater with respect to
300; dSignificantly greater with respect to 7; eSignificantly greater with respect to 9.

Table 1. Protocol followed for the nine different training matches played over a five-week
period.

Table 2. Mean, standard deviation (±SD), and effect size (ES) for the variables TD (total
distance covered)., PL (player load), and work:rest ratio (W:R) in relation to each of the nine
large-side games.
Note: RPA100, RPA200, and RPA300 represent, respectively, the relative pitch areas of 100
m2, 200 m2, and 300 m2 per player, while NP7, NP9, and NP11 correspond to the number of
players per team (7, 9, and 11, respectively). aSignificantly greater than respect to
RPA200, bSignificantly greater than respect to RPA100, ES is the effect size and AU is
arbitrary unit.

Table 3. Mean, standard deviation (±SD) in %, and effect size (ES) for the mean and
maximum HR with respect to the individual maximum (%HR mean and %HR max, respectively)
for each of the nine large-side games.
Note: RPA100, RPA200, and RPA300 represent, respectively, the relative pitch areas of 100
m2, 200 m2, and 300 m2 per player, while NP7, NP9, and NP11 correspond to the number of
players per team (7, 9, and 11, respectively). aSignificantly greater than respect to
NP9; bSignificantly greater than respect to RPA100.

Table 4. Mean, standard deviation (±SD), in meters, and effect size (ES) for the distance
covered in different absolute speed ranges in relation to the nine large-side games.
Note: RPA100, RPA200, and RPA300 represent, respectively, the relative pitch areas of 100
m2, 200 m2, and 300 m2 per player, while NP7, NP9, and NP11 correspond to the number of
players per team (7, 9, and 11, respectively), aSignificantly greater than respect to
RPA100; bSignificantly greater than respect to RPA200; cSignificantly greater than respect to
RPA300; dSignificantly less with respect to NP11.

20
Table 1. Protocol followed for the nine different training matches played over a five-week period.
Pitch length x
Bouts x duration Players/team Area/player
Week Session/Day width
(n x min) (n) (m2)
(m)
1st/Tuesday 2 x 12 11 300 100 x 60
1st
2nd/Thursday 2 x 12 9 300 90 x 54
3rd/Tuesday 2 x 12 9 200 73 x 44
2nd
4th/Thursday 2 x 12 9 100 52 x 31
5th/Tuesday 2 x 12 7 100 45 x 27
3rd
6th/Thursday 2 x 12 7 200 63 x 38
7th/Tuesday 2 x 12 11 200 82 x 49
4th
8th/Thursday 2 x 12 11 100 58 x 35
5th 9th/Tuesday 2 x 12 7 300 78 x 46
Table 2. Mean (±SD), and effect size (ES), for the variables TD (total distance covered), PL (player load)
and work:rest ratio (W:R) in relation to each of the nine large-sided games.
Area Number of players per team
per Global
NP7 NP9 NP11
player indicators
(unit) Mean ±SD ES Mean ±SD ES Mean ±SD ES
TD (m) 1816 ±155 - 1845 ±141 - 1766 ±181 -
RPA100

PL (AU) 267.1 ±47.5 - 233.4 ±28.7 - 228.6 ±49.3 -

W:R (AU) 0.3 ±0.1 - 0.3 ±0.1 - 0.3 ±0.1 -
TD (m) 2085 ±153b 0.50 2003 ±102b 0.54 2148 ±212b 0.70
RPA200

PL (AU) 285.1 ±29.9 - 246.3 ±22.6 - 273.7 ±58.6 -

W:R (AU) 0.4 ±0.1b 0.45 0.4b ±0.0b 0.58 0.5 ±0.1b 0.83
TD (m) 2307 ±212ba a=
0.80 2250 ±107ba a=
0.85 2314 ±134b 0.86
b= b=
RPA300

0.51 0.76
PL (AU) 299.9 ±41.3 - 270.9 ±25.8b 0.57 306.1 ±39.3b 0.66
ba a= ba a=
W:R (AU) 0.6 ±0.1 0.83 0.5 ±0.1 0.71 0.6 ±0.1 b 0.83
b= b=
0.71 0.81
Note: RPA100, RPA200, and RPA300 represent, respectively, the relative pitch areas of 100 m2, 200 m2,
and 300 m2 per player, while NP7, NP9, and NP11 correspond to the number of players per team (7, 9,
and 11, respectively). a Significantly greater than respect to RPA200, b Significantly greater than respect
to RPA100, ES is the effect size and AU is arbitrary unit.
Table 3. Mean (±SD), and effect size (ES) for the mean and maximum heart rate with respect to the
individual maximum (%HR mean and %HR max , respectively), for each of the nine large-sided games.
Area per Number of players per team
player Variables NP7 NP9 NP11
(%) Mean ±SD ES Mean ±SD ES Mean ±SD ES
%HR mean 82 ±3 - 83 ±6 - 81 ±4 -
RPA100
%HR max 98 ±5 - 95 ±6 - 95 ±5 -
b b
%HR mean 87 ±5 0.52 85 ±4 - 89 ±2 0.78
RPA200
%HR max 97 ±4 - 98 ±7 - 100b ±3 0.52
b b
%HR mean 88 ±6 0.53 85 ±3 - 88 ±4 0.65
a ab a
RPA300 %HR max 98 ±5 0.31 95 ±4 - 100 ±6 0.41
b
0.44
Note: RPA100, RPA200, and RPA300 represent, respectively, the relative pitch areas of 100 m2, 200 m2,
and 300 m2 per player, while NP7, NP9, and NP11 correspond to the number of players per team (7, 9,
and 11, respectively). a Significantly greater than respect to NP9; b Significantly greater than respect to
RPA100.
 Table 4. Mean (±SD), and effect size (ES) for the distance covered in different absolute speed ranges in
relation to the nine large-side games.

Area Speed Players per team

per range NP7 NP9 NP11
player (km·h-1) Mean ±SD ES Mean ±SD ES Mean ±SD ES
c c b
<3 122 ±26 0.55 117 ±11 0.53 128 ±20 0.35
3-8 870 ±83 - 891 ±76 - 847 ±96 -
RPA100

8-13 630 ±104 - 619 ±134 - 572 ±88 -

13-16 145 ±32 - 145 ±44 - 153 ±40 -
>16 48 ±31 - 70 ±32 - 62 ±43 -
c
<3 109 ±13 - 116 ±18 - 101 ±22 -
3-8 886 ±63 - 842 ±83 - 853 ±81 -
RPA200

a a
8-13 762 ±124 0.50 700 ±71 - 747 ±172 0.54
a a a
13-16 211 ±64 0.55 236 ±83 0.57 265 ±61 0.73
>16 115 ±46ad a=
0.65 107 ±57d -0.59 179 ±42a 0.81
d=
-0.59
<3 97 ±9 - 101 ±14 - 111 ±24 -
3-8 817 ±72 - 821 ±32 - 820 ±78 -
938 ±136ab a=
848 ±80ab a=
880 ±82a
RPA300

8-13 0.79 0.72 0.88

b= b=
0.56 0.03
a ab a=
13-16 252 ±83 0.65 314 ±60 0.85 302 ±88a 0.74
b=
0.47
>16 202 ±78ab a=
0.79 164 ±41ab a= 0.78 200 ±105a 0.65
b= b=
0.56 0.49
Note: RPA100, RPA200, and RPA300 represent, respectively, the relative pitch areas of 100 m2, 200 m2,
and 300 m2 per player, while NP7, NP9, and NP11 correspond to the number of players per team (7, 9,
and 11, respectively). a Significantly greater than respect to RPA100; b Significantly greater than respect
to RPA200; c Significantly greater than respect to RPA300; d Significantly less with respect to NP11.

View publication stats