The Threats of Small-
Sided Soccer Games: A
Discussion About Their
Differences With the
Match External Load
Demands and Their
Variability Levels
Filipe M. Clemente, PhD1,2
1
Escola Superior de Desporto e Lazer, Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo, Melgaço, Portugal; and 2Instituto de
Telecomunicações, Delegação da Covilhã, Covilhã, Portugal
ABSTRACT
Small-sided games (SSGs) are regu-
larly used in soccer training. SSGs are
used because of their capacity to
replicate the demands of a real match
or control the overall workload of
players. However, some threats may
result from the use of SSGs. Thus, it is
important to highlight those threats to
improve the effectiveness of SSG im-
plementation. Based on that, we
examine and discuss comparisons
between external load SSGs and real-
game scenarios, the intra- and inter-
players physical variability during the
smaller formats of play, the conse-
quences of SSGs in terms of the
proper physical stimulation of players,
and injury prevention.
Address correspondence to Dr. Filipe M.
Clemente, filipe.clemente5@gmail.com.
100 VOLUME 42 | NUMBER 3 | JUNE 2020
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
INTRODUCTION (6), type of scoring (e.g., use of mini-
mall-sided games (SSGs) are very
S
goals, lines to cross, etc.) (13), limitations
popular tasks used in training sce-
in terms of the number of ball touches
narios. The SSGs are smaller and allowed (17), use of wildcards (i.e., play-
adjusted versions of the official format
ers who provide a transitory numerical
of the game, and they are intended to advantage) (37), and type of marking (8).
stimulate both physiological/physical
All these task conditions work concur-
and technical/tactical capacities (11,22)
rently to change the dynamics of the
of soccer players. One of the main argu-
exercise and possibly the overall capac-
ments supporting the use of such drills is
ity of the drill to simulate the physical
that they require an exertion of effort
demands of a real game (28).
that is similar to the effort exerted in
a real game (10). Typically, SSGs are The physical demands within the
characterized by augmenting the play- same SSG can differ significantly con-
er’s perception of a given tactical princi- sidering the fitness status of the players
ple or tactical behavior (16). However, or the playing positions, and for that
there are many task conditions used by reason, coaches should consider that
coaches to augment a given tactical prin- variations to the preplanned stimulus
ciple, and some of these task conditions during exercise may occur (11). More-
over, SSGs should be carefully used
may create a gap between the physical
specificities of a real game and those of
KEY WORDS:
SSGs (12). The most commonly studied
association football; drill-based games; high
task conditions include the manipulation
intensity running; sprinting; training load;
of the format of play (i.e., the number of
performance
players involved) (34), size of the pitch
Copyright Ó National Strength and Conditioning Association
 based on the high levels of inter- and
intraplayer variability occurred among
these games regarding determinant
running speeds and specific physiolog-
ical variables (26,38). Therefore, it is
important to summarize some SSG-
related factors that have been ne-
glected in recent years. Although SSGs
show benefits as a drill-based high-
intensity exercise, they are not a fool-
proof training method, and coaches
must be aware of this fact to use them
properly. Thus, the purpose of this arti-
cle is to discuss the disadvantages
of SSGs.
SMALL-SIDED GAMES VERSUS
REAL MATCH: APPARENTLY THE
SAME BUT CERTAINLY DIFFERENT
The argument of specificity is com-
monly pointed out as a benefit of using
SSGs. However, the data from differ-
ent comparative studies do not support
this argument (7,12,15,20). In fact, the
comparisons between determinant var-
iables such as high-speed running
(HSR), sprinting, and accelerations
reveal that SSGs and real games are
quite different from one another
(7,12,15,20).
Sprinting distance, HSR, and maximal
velocity have been consistently
described as important preventive fac-
tors that, if properly simulated during
training sessions, reduce the risk of
injury (30,31). However, to achieve
adequate values of HSR (.19.8 km/
h21), sprinting (.25.2 km/h21), or
maximal velocity (;37 km/h21) in soc-
cer players, associated longitudinal
space and opportunity must be appro-
priate (33). This, however, is difficult to
ensure in small formats and on small
pitches.
A study compared 3 SSG formats (3
versus 3, 5 versus 5, and 7 versus 7)
played in a relative pitch area of
210 m2 per player (1.45:1 length:width
ratio) with real games played in a relative
pitch area of 300 m2 per player (1.45:1
length:width ratio) across 9 training ses-
sions among male professional soccer
players. The study revealed that the
number and distance of HSR in real
games more than doubled the values
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
recorded during SSGs (15.3 times in real
game versus 7.5 in SSGs, per hour of
game; 15.2 m in real game versus
4.3 m in SSGs, per hour of game) (7).
In the same study (7), it was also revealed
that the maximal velocity recorded was
27.0 km/h21 during a real game, whereas
the maximal velocity recorded during
SSGs was only 20.3 km/h21. A study
conducted on male professional soccer
players compared SSGs (5 versus 5
played in a relative pitch area of
124 m2; 6 versus 6 played in a relative
pitch area of 120 m2; and 9 versus 9
played in a relative pitch area of
194 m2) with a real game (played in a rel-
ative pitch area of 260 m2 with a length:-
width ratio of 1.45:1) (12). The study
revealed that HSR was meaningfully
greater in the real game (;5 m/min)
than in the small SSG (5 versus 5:
;0 m/min), medium SSG (6 versus 6:
;1.5 m/min), and large SSG (9 versus 9:
2 m/min). Another study conducted in
professional male soccer players (15) re-
vealed that 4 versus 4 and 6 versus 6
SSGs resulted in meaningfully lower val-
ues of HSR (4.1 and 2.7 m, respectively)
than were recorded during a real game
(8.2 m). Similar evidence was observed in
the same study (15) for sprinting distance
(4 versus 4: 0.2 m; 6 versus 6: 0.21 m; real
game: 1.7 m).
The comparative studies mentioned
above (7,12,15) clearly show that
HSR and maximal velocity are mean-
ingfully lower in SSGs than in real
matches. Compounding this, studies
have shown that generic running drills
are more capable than SSGs of repro-
ducing the stimuli of HSR. Speed-
endurance drills in running exercises
were compared with those in SSGs
in a study conducted in elite male
youth soccer players (1). The study re-
vealed that during 1 versus 1 (30 sec-
onds) and 2 versus 2 (60 seconds) SSG
drills, HSR values of 5.6 and 3.9 m,
respectively, were achieved; during
generic running drills, values of
88.1 m (speed endurance production)
and 73.2 m (speed endurance mainte-
nance) were recorded. In the same
study, values of ;0 m sprinting dis-
tance were observed in both 1 versus
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
1 and 2 versus 2 formats, and values of
between 6.6 m (speed endurance pro-
duction) and 48.7 m (speed endurance
maintenance) were observed for
generic running exercises (1). There-
fore, it seems that smaller SSG formats
do not effectively stimulate the deter-
minant variables of HSR, sprinting dis-
tance, and maximal velocity.
Another interesting reality that differen-
tiates SSGs from real-match scenarios is
the level of player load based on accel-
erations/decelerations. The smaller
pitch sizes in SSGs may contribute to
an increase in the frequency and vol-
ume of accelerations/decelerations in
comparison to a real game. In the
above-mentioned study that compared
5 versus 5, 6 versus 6, and 9 versus 9
SSGs with official matches (12), it was
found that player load (i.e., the sum of
instantaneous accelerations along 3
axes, measured as arbitrary units
[A.U.]) was slightly greater in the 5 ver-
sus 5 format (;6 A.U./min) than in the
real match (;5 A.U./min). Another
study compared the number of acceler-
ations and player load between 4 versus
4 SSGs, 6 versus 6 SSGs, and a real
match (15). The 4 versus 4 SSG was
associated with values similar to those
recorded during the peak moment of
the match (4 versus 4: 1.7 n and 248
A.U., respectively, for number of accel-
erations and player load; peak of real
match: 1.6 n and 227 A.U., respectively,
for number of accelerations and player
load). When extreme formats (1 versus
1 and 2 versus 2) were compared with
generic running speed-endurance drills,
it was discovered that SSGs resulted in
a meaningfully greater number of max-
imal accelerations and decelerations
(.3 m/s2) than the generic running
speed-endurance drills.
In summarizing the reported evidence,
it is clear that SSGs are not the same as
real matches in terms of physical stim-
ulation measured by typical external
load measures. When compared with
a real match, SSGs produce signifi-
cantly lower stimuli in terms of HSR,
sprinting, and maximal velocity but pro-
duce equivalent or greater stimuli in
terms of accelerations/decelerations.
101
 Threats of SSGs
Thus, SSGs can be a source of under-
or overload depending on the variables
that coaches want to stimulate.
Achieving adjusted and individualized
values of HSR and at least 90–95% of
maximal velocity can be essential for
ensuring a reduction in injury risk or
maintaining/improving the specific ca-
pacities of soccer players (30,31).
Therefore, coaches should consider
supplementing SSGs with generic
high-intensity running exercises
(5,24). In fact, generic running seems
to be the most effective and controlled
approach to ensure the individualized
and proper stimulus of HSR, sprinting,
or maximal velocity (32). If coaches opt
to use SSGs extensively in daily prac-
tice, it is vital that they monitor exter-
nal load during these SSGs (as well as
during other drills) and complement
the stimuli with generic and individu-
alized running drills to ensure that the
desired levels of HSR, sprinting, and
maximal velocity are achieved every
week (24). It is also important that
coaches control high-impact accelera-
tions and decelerations during SSGs,
mainly in the initial stages of imple-
mentation, considering that such accel-
eration/deceleration demands may
contribute to increase the injury risk
in players’ weak hamstrings (e.g., his-
tory of hamstrings injuries, great asym-
metries) (14) or in players who have
recently returned to training after
a hamstring injury.
VARIABILITY IN SMALL-SIDED
GAMES: THE UNEXPECTABLE
REAL WORLD
A game is a dynamic system based on
the relationship between 2 teams
under different contextual factors
(21). Because of this, all training sce-
narios involve some level of unpredict-
ability, and such unpredictability
naturally leads to an increase in the
variability of stimuli (26). Such variabil-
ity can be seen as an important condi-
tion of certain positive adaptations in
the case of the technical and tactical
aspects of a soccer match (16). How-
ever, a large source of variability in
physical demands may not be the best
option to follow an appropriate
102 VOLUME 42 | NUMBER 3 | JUNE 2020
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
progression of the training process. A
more controlled variability level may
be better when considering that train-
ing load should be logically progressed,
individualized, and standardized (19).
Moreover, extreme or small SSG for-
mats potentially ignore the need for
stimuli to be individualized based on
the demands and behaviors required
by different playing positions.
One of the first studies to present the
between-sessions variability values of
external load measures during SSGs
(2 versus 2, 4 versus 4, and 6 versus
6) was conducted in elite youth players
(25). The study revealed that the total
distance and distances covered at low
speeds (,6.9 km/h21) had low typical
error (measure of variability) (3.8–6.4%
and 2.9–4.5%, respectively). However,
the values of variability in determinant
measures such as running (13.0–15.9
km/h21) and HSR (.18 km/h21)
were much greater (14.2–23.5% and
25.7–56.0%, respectively). This sug-
gests that high-demanding running
speeds are highly variable (25).
Also, researchers have analyzed the
variability of external load measures
during 6 versus 6 SSGs played by pro-
fessional and amateur players (38).
They observed that the total distance
(3.5%) and metabolic power (4.4%)
presented a low coefficient of varia-
tions. Conversely, high speed (.14.4
km/h21) and very high power (.35
w/kg21) were highly variable (13.9
and 11.1% coefficients of variation,
respectively) (38). Finally, the individ-
ual variability of professional soccer
players was tested during medium-
sized SSGs (36). Maximum accelera-
tions/decelerations and HSR were
more variable than distance covered
and the total numbers of accelerations
and decelerations.
Based on the studies and reports men-
tioned here (25,36,38), it is important
to consider the variability between
teammates and, especially, the variabil-
ity between sessions. These factors
should be carefully analyzed by
coaches so that they can properly stim-
ulate HSR, sprinting distance, and
maximal velocity. In fact, it seems that
the measures with lower variability are
the least intense ones (walking, jogging,
total distance, and metabolic load).
Such evidence should be considered
in the SSGs implementation. It is
highly recommended to consistently
monitor the external load and identify
the players who are doing significantly
more or less than expected by the
coach. Using such information, it will
be possible to standardize the training
process and eventually to design new
SSGs or to compensate the training
with more analytical tasks. In fact,
SSGs can be complemented by other
training procedures to ensure the stan-
dardization of load per player.
SMALL-SIDED GAMES TRAINING
PROGRAMS: CONSEQUENCES
FOR FITNESS DEVELOPMENT
The variable nature of SSGs regarding
external load measures and their small
impact in terms of HSR, sprinting, and
maximal velocity may lead to different
results in terms of adaptations. In fact,
findings consistently reveal that SSG-
based programs can enhance players’
aerobic capacity (23). However, implica-
tions for sprinting performance (29,35),
repeated sprint ability (34), and agility (9)
are reduced and not meaningful.
In a study conducted over a period of 4
weeks in professional soccer players
(34), it was observed that an SSG-
based program contributed to signifi-
cant increases in volume of oxygen
(V̇ O2) and meaningful drops in exercise
heart rate during running at 9 km/h21
and 11 km/h21 after the program.
However, in the same study, no signif-
icant pre-SSG and post-SSG program
differences were found for repeated
sprint performance or speed during
those repeated sprints (34). Another
study (27) compared SSG-based and
running-based (aerobic power, pro-
longed intermittent intensity running,
sprint training, and repeated-sprint
training) programs for 7 weeks. The
results indicate that only the aerobic
capacity tested via the Yo-Yo Intermit-
tent Recovery Test (level 1) was
improved by both programs. Other ca-
pacities such as repeated-sprint ability
 or sprint at 5 and 10 m were not mean-
ingfully improved (27). In a different
study (28), running-based (4 3 49/39
of running at 90–95% maximal heart
rate) and SSG-based programs were
compared. Both programs contributed
to an increase in the aerobic capacity of
players. Finally, a study that compared
a control group, an intermittent-
running group (10–10 seconds to 30–
30 seconds at 95–100% V30-15IFT
ending speed), and an SSG-based
group revealed that both experimental
groups showed improvements in aero-
bic capacity at V30-15IFT and vVameval
test (18). Of all the studies that com-
pared running-based and SSG-based
programs, only one did not indicate
improvements in maximal aerobic
speed for both groups (3). Therefore,
it seems that SSG-based programs pro-
vide enough stimuli to improve aerobic
capacity. This may be caused by the
stabilization and low variability levels
of metabolic power, total distance, and
heart rate responses (which are only
slightly variable during SSGs) (25,38).
Considering the effects of SSG-based
programs in other fitness variables, no
significant changes were reported in
repeated sprint ability or sprinting per-
formance (27,34). Moreover, in 2 stud-
ies (29,35) conducted over an 8-week
period in elite youth players, no signif-
icant improvements in 10-m and 30-m
sprint tests were found. The absence of
significant improvements in sprinting
or even in repeated-sprinting ability
might be the result of the low stimulus
level during SSGs and the inappropri-
ate progression over time.
However, the results regarding other
important capabilities should be high-
lighted. A study that compared the ef-
fects of 6-week multidirectional sprint
and SSG-based programs revealed that
the greatest improvements in sprint-
ing, agility without the ball, changes
of direction, and vertical jump
occurred in the running group (multi-
directional sprint) (9). In that study, the
SSG-based training group had signifi-
cant benefits than the running-based
group in the agility with the ball,
although in the remaining tests, the
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
running-based training had greater
benefits in agility tests without ball
(9). Naturally, SSGs can be used as
a part of an agility program, although
they will not ensure that players
receive the most beneficial level of
stimulation in some cases.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
The topics presented in this article
aimed to highlight some threats in
the use of SSGs to help soccer coaches
increase the effectiveness of their train-
ing programs. SSGs may not ade-
quately stimulate HSR, sprinting, or
maximal velocity (or the dose of SSGs
to reach the desired values may be too
high). With such evidence in mind,
coaches may adjust SSGs using spe-
cific task conditions to increase the
volumes of such variables, or they
may supplement SSGs with interval
sprint or speed running.
A combination of SSGs and high-
intensity interval training (as a method
to supplement some individual needs of
players) was tested in young players. The
adaptations of a 6-week game-based
training program (3 versus 3 games twice
per week) were compared with those of
a mix of game-based training and high-
intensity interval training (1 session week
per type of exercise, SSGs and high-
intensity interval training) (24). The mixed
training program applied 1 day of SSGs (3
versus 3) and 1 day of high-intensity inter-
val training (16 3 15 seconds runs at 90–
95% of the 30-15 intermittent fitness test
interspersed with 15 seconds passive
recovery) (24). Peak oxygen uptake
largely improved (+5.5%) after 6 weeks
in the mixed-approach group; this
increase was moderately greater (+3.3%)
when compared with the SSGs-training
group (24). Moreover, aerobic capacity
measured by the final running velocity
in the 30-15 intermittent fitness test was
also largely improved (+6.6%) in the
mixed-approach group; this also repre-
sents a slight improvement (+1.5%) over
the SSGs-training group (24).
A potential issue with the design of the
study (24) is that the combination train-
ing intervention was not assigned based
on the individual needs of players.
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
Moreover, a generic analysis without
individualization does not solve the issue
of intra- and interplayer variability during
SSGs. Possibly, a proper and correct sup-
plementation (or compensatory training)
should consider players’ typical match
demands, fitness levels, and injury risk
or the recovery status. Thus, a different
strategy of implementation would be tai-
lored for each player. A possible ideal
(although difficult to implement) scenario
would be to control the dose of HSR
during SSGs (using GPS and/or inertial
measurement unit devices) and then to
adjust the compensatory training for the
player in the next session or add a supple-
mentary session (5). This strategy may
overcome the issue of intra- and inter-
players variability across sessions, thus
ensuring a correct supplementation of
the HSR training. This approach would
be more accurate than current methods
in terms of the daily monitoring of exter-
nal load and specific individualization of
the load based on each player’s needs.
The effects of SSGs should also be in-
terpreted based on the players’ skill
level and age. It seems that there is
an age-group effect on the capacity
of players to be more or less efficient
in their actions with the ball during
SSGs. This may have consequences
on the overall physical demands of
the match. Younger players seem to
lose the ball and also move forward
more often than older players (2).
Moreover, older players seem to be
more synchronized on their collective
behaviors during SSGs than younger
players (4). Thus, if the dynamic of
the game is different between age-
groups and skill levels, the external
load imposed would vary among play-
ers. Similarly, the competitive level of
the players may influence the dynamics
of the SSGs. Thus, this should be care-
fully analyzed by the sports science
staff who carry out daily monitoring
of training loads.
The fitness level of the players can also
affect the benefits or negative conse-
quences that result from SSGs. The
benefits of SSGs can be greater in play-
ers with poor fitness levels than in
those with high fitness levels.
103
 Threats of SSGs
However, in highly trained players,
highly demanding stimuli in SSGs will
not be adequate to improve sprint per-
formance or repeated-sprint ability,
nor will it be adequate to stimulate
maximal velocity. For that reason, it
is important that sports scientists with
monitoring roles attempt to identify
the characteristic external load de-
mands of the typical SSGs used by
the coach. Such information should
be used to adjust the training process
and to help the coach ensure the
proper stimulation of players using
concurrent and complementary train-
ing methods.
SSGs are part of a well-organized, dif-
ferentiated, and balanced training plan
and, therefore, have their place in field-
training sessions. However, coaches
should be aware that, as in any “diet
plan,” an equilibrium point and an
appropriate dose of all “macros” and
“micros” must be targeted. SSGs can
provide a great frequency of high ac-
celerations and decelerations and over-
all player load. However, this must be
counterbalanced with speed or sprint-
ing interval training because these
training methods compensate the
required dose of each player. The dose
of SSGs and the supplementation of
HSR and sprinting for each player
should be based on many factors, such
as their usual match demands, fitness
level, injury history (e.g., hamstrings),
and recovery status, as well as the time
of the season.
Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding:
The author reports no conflicts of interest
and no source of funding.
Filipe M.
Clemente is an
Assistant Profes-
sor in Instituto
Polite´cnico de Vi-
ana do Castelo,
Escola Superior
de Desporto e
Lazer
(Portugal).
104 VOLUME 42 | NUMBER 3 | JUNE 2020
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
REFERENCES
1. Ade JD, Harley JA, and Bradley PS.
Physiological response, time–motion char-
acteristics, and reproducibility of various
speed-endurance drills in elite youth soccer
players: Small-sided games versus generic
running. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 9:
471–479, 2014.
2. Almeida CH, Duarte R, Volossovitch A, and
Ferreira AP. Scoring mode and age-related
effects on youth soccer teams’ defensive
performance during small-sided games.
J Sports Sci 34: 1355–1362, 2016.
3. Arcos AL, Vázquez JS, Martı́n J, et al.
Effects of small-sided games vs. Interval
training in aerobic fitness and physical
enjoyment in young elite soccer players.
PLoS One 10: e0137224, 2015.
4. Barnabé L, Volossovitch A, Duarte R,
Ferreira AP, and Davids K. Age-related
effects of practice experience on
collective behaviours of football players in
small-sided games. Hum Mov Sci 48: 74–
81, 2016.
5. Buchheit M. Managing high-speed running
load in professional soccer players: The
benefit of high-intensity interval training
supplementation. Sport Perform Sci Rep 1:
1–5, 2019.
6. Casamichana D and Castellano J. Time–
motion, heart rate, perceptual and motor
behaviour demands in small-sides soccer
games: Effects of pitch size. J Sports Sci
28: 1615–1623, 2010.
7. Casamichana D, Castellano J, and
Castagna C. Comparing the physical
demands of friendly matches and small-
sided games in semiprofessional soccer
players. J Strength Cond Res 26:837–
843, 2012.
8. Casamichana D, Román-Quintana JS,
Castellano J, and Calleja-González J.
Influence of the type of marking and the
number of players on physiological and
physical demands during sided games in
soccer. J Hum Kinet 47:259–268, 2015.
9. Chaouachi A, Chtara M, Hammami R, et al.
Multidirectional sprints and small-sided
games training effect on agility and change
of direction abilities in youth soccer.
J Strength Cond Res 28: 3121–3127,
2014.
10. Clemente FM, Lourenço Martins FM, and
Mendes RS. Developing aerobic and
anaerobic fitness using small-sided soccer
games: Methodological proposals.
Strength Cond J 36: 76–87, 2014.
11. Clemente FM, Martins FML, and Mendes
RS. Periodization based on small-sided
soccer games: Theoretical considerations.
Strength Cond J 37: 1–21, 2014.
12. Clemente FM, Sarmento H, Rabbani A,
et al. Variations of external load variables
between medium- and large-sided soccer
games in professional players. Res Sport
Med 27: 50–59, 2019.
13. Clemente FM, Wong DP, Martins FML,
and Mendes RS. Acute effects of the
number of players and scoring method
on physiological, physical, and technical
performance in small-sided soccer
games. Res Sports Med 22: 380–397,
2014.
14. Croisier JL and Crielaard JM. Hamstring
muscle tear with recurrent complaints: An
isokinetic profile. Isokinet Exerc Sci 8:
175–180, 2000.
15. Dalen T, Sandmæl S, Stevens TG, et al.
Differences in acceleration and high-
intensity activities between small-sided
games and peak periods of official matches
in elite soccer players. J Strength Cond
Res 2019. Available at: http://insights.ovid.
com/crossref?an500124278-
900000000-94959. Accessed June 12,
2019.
16. Davids K, Araújo D, Correia V, and Vilar L.
How small-sided and conditioned games
enhance acquisition of movement and
decision-making skills. Exerc Sport Sci Rev
41: 154–161, 2013.
17. Dellal A, Owen A, Wong DP, et al.
Technical and physical demands of small
vs. large sided games in relation to playing
position in elite soccer. Hum Mov Sci 31:
957–969, 2012.
18. Dellal A, Varliette C, Owen A, Chirico EN,
and Pialoux V. Small-sided games versus
interval training in amateur soccer players:
Effects on the aerobic capacity and the
ability to perform intermittent exercises with
changes of direction. J Strength Cond Res
26: 2712–2720, 2012.
19. Gabbett TJ. The training—injury prevention
paradox: Should athletes be training
smarter and harder? Br J Sports Med 50:
273–280, 2016.
20. Gabbett TJ and Mulvey MJ. Time-motion
analysis of small-sided training games
and competition in elite women soccer
players. J Strength Cond Res 22:
543–552, 2008.
21. Gréhaigne JF, Bouthier D, and David B.
Dynamic-system analysis of opponent
 relationship in collective actions in football.
J Sports Sci 15: 137–149, 1997.
22. Halouani J, Chtourou H, Gabbett T,
Chaouachi A, and Chamari K. Small-sided
games in team sports training. J Strength
Cond Res 28: 3594–3618, 2014.
23. Hammami A, Gabbett TJ, Slimani M, and
Bouhlel E. Does small-sided games training
improve physical-fitness and specific skills
for team sports? A systematic review with
meta-analysis. J Sports Med Phys Fitness
58:1446–1455, 2018.
24. Harrison CB, Kinugasa T, Gill N, and
Kilding AE. Aerobic fitness for young
athletes: Combining game-based and high-
intensity interval training. Int J Sports Med
94: 929–934, 2015.
25. Hill-Haas S, Coutts A, Rowsell G, and
Dawson B. Variability of acute physiological
responses and performance profiles of
youth soccer players in small-sided games.
J Sci Med Sport 11: 487–490, 2008.
26. Hill-Haas S, Rowsell G, Coutts A, and
Dawson B. The reproducibility of
physiological responses and performance
profiles of youth soccer players in small-
sided games. Int J Sports Physiol Perform
3: 393–396, 2008.
27. Hill-Haas SV, Coutts AJ, Rowsell GJ, and
Dawson BT. Generic versus small-sided
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
game training in soccer. Int J Sports Med
30: 636–642, 2009.
28. Hill-Haas SV, Dawson B, Impellizzeri FM,
and Coutts AJ. Physiology of small-sided
games training in football. Sport Med 41:
199–220, 2011.
29. Jastrzebski Z, Barnat W, Dargiewicz R,
et al. Effect of in-season generic and
soccer-specific high-intensity interval
training in young soccer players. Int J
Sports Sci Coach 9: 1169–1179, 2014.
30. Malone S, Owen A, Mendes B, et al. High-
speed running and sprinting as an injury
risk factor in soccer: Can well-developed
physical qualities reduce the risk? J Sci
Med Sport 21: 257–262, 2018.
31. Malone S, Roe M, Doran DA, Gabbett TJ,
and Collins K. High chronic training loads
and exposure to bouts of maximal velocity
running reduce injury risk in elite Gaelic
football. J Sci Med Sport 20: 250–254,
2017.
32. McCall A, Carling C, Nedelec M, et al.
Risk factors, testing and preventative
strategies for non-contact injuries in
professional football: Current perceptions
and practices of 44 teams from various
premier leagues. Br J Sports Med 48:
1352–1357, 2014.
33. Nassis GP, Brito J, Figueiredo P, and
Gabbett TJ. Injury prevention training in
105
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
football: let’s bring it to the real world. Br J
Sports Med 53: 1328–1329, 2019.
34. Owen AL, Wong DP, Paul D, and Dellal A.
Effects of a periodized small-sided game
training intervention on physical
performance in elite professional soccer.
J Strength Cond Res 26: 2748–2754,
2012.
35. Radziminski L, Rompa P, Barnat W,
Dargiewicz R, and Jastrzebski Z. A
comparison of the physiological and
technical effects of high-intensity running
and small-sided games in young soccer
players. Int J Sports Sci Coach 8: 455–
465, 2013.
36. Rago V, Silva JR, Mohr M, et al. Variability of
activity profile during medium-sided games
in professional soccer. J Sports Med Phys
Fitness 59: 547–554, 2019.
37. Sanchez-Sanchez J, Hernández D,
Casamichana D, et al. Heart rate, technical
performance, and session-RPE in elite
youth soccer small-sided games played
with wildcard players. J Strength Cond Res
31: 2678–2685, 2017.
38. Stevens TGA, De Ruiter CJ, Beek PJ, and
Savelsbergh GJP. Validity and reliability of
6-a-side small-sided game locomotor
performance in assessing physical fitness
in football players. J Sports Sci 34: 527–
534, 2016.