Science & Sports (2020) 35, 180—184
Disponible en ligne sur
ScienceDirect
www.sciencedirect.com
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Short-term training based on small-sided
games improved physical and match
performance in young football players
Programme d’entraînement à court terme
incluant des jeux réduits contribuant à
l’amélioration de la condition physique et de
la performance chez des jeunes joueurs de soc-
cer
1. Introduction
Small-sided games (SSGs) are becoming increasingly com-
mon in teams sports training environments. This training
strategy is often used by coaches based on the premise
that major adaptations and benefits occur when training
simulates the specific movement patterns and physiological
demands of the sport. This methodology was used primarily
for the development of technical-tactical actions, assuming
an important role in the effective transfer of adaptations
and gains to the match context. However, coaches have
begun using SSGs to improve physical performance. Los
Arcos and coworkers [1] reported that SSGs presented simi-
lar effects on aerobic power compared to interval training.
They also promote the utilization of specific muscles used in
football (soccer) matches.
Plyometric exercises (e.g., hurdles and drop jumps) are
often used with young players to develop their strength.
This training strategy has the advantage of being easy to
integrate to football training (i.e., space, time, equipment)
because of the specificity of these stimuli. Previous study
also show that high intensity plyometric exercises can be
used safely and effectively with young players [2]. The high
intensity training required by hurdles and drop jumps implies
a reduction in volume, which makes these exercises practi-
cal. However, it is still unclear if a low volume of plyometric
exercises and strength circuit training combined with a high
volume of SSGs leads to increased explosive strength (i.e.,
speed, agility, jumping) and match performances.
Currently, ball possession games are used by teams to
improve their capability to keep the ball, which is consid-
ered as a predictor of success in the creation of offensive
situations to score goals. This indicator has been studied
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2019.01.006
0765-1597/© 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
in previous investigations, however, little is known about
the indicators of loss of possession [3]. These indicators can
provide methodological elements to support coaches’ plan-
ning throughout the season. Therefore, the aim of this study
was to verify the effects of a short-term training program of
six weeks, with emphasis on SSGs for physical and match
performance in young football players.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Participants
Twenty-four young male U-15 football players partici-
pated in this study (6 central defenders, 4 external
defenders , 5 central midfielders, 4 external midfield-
ers, 5 forwards), (mean ± SD; age 14.25 ± 0.61 years,
height 173.36 ± 8.13 cm; body mass 62.92 ± 9.56 kg; % fat
4.97 ± 1.60; maturity offset 0.85 ± 0.70). The subjects
played for a football team, competing in a Sao Paulo league,
one of the most disputed national championships in Brazil
[4]. The inclusion criteria were as follows:
• at least two consecutive years of systematic training in
football;
• participation in at least 90% of the training sessions;
• not having any injury;
• not being engaged in any additional or external training
(e.g., strength training) during this investigation.
This study was approved by the Research Ethics Com-
mittee of the Ribeirão Preto Medical School (protocol
710.998/2014) and was conducted in accordance with the
Declaration of Helsinki. All participants and their legal
guardians signed an Assent and Consent Term respectively,
containing the objectives and purposes of the study.
2.2. Short-training protocol
Players were submitted to a mesocycle of six weeks of
training, totalizing 33 sessions, as well as two weeks of
assessment. Emphasis in training volume was on technical-
tactical actions (SSGs and training games). All sessions were
performed on the habitual training field. Strength train-
ing proposed circuit and plyometric exercises, which were
 Letter to the editor
Table 1 Small-sided games (SSGs), strength training circuit (STC) and plyometric training (PT) applied during the pre-season mesocycle.

Days Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6

IP MP IP MP IP MP IP MP IP MP IP MP

Monday RC STC SSGs SSGs RC STC SSGs SSGs RC STC SSGs SSGs
(30 × 30 ) 2 vs. 1 6 vs. 6 (20 × 20 ) 4 vs. 3 5 vs. 5 (10 × 10 ) 3 vs. 3 7 vs. 7
Tuesday SSGs SSGs RC STC SSGs SSGs RC STC SSGs SSGs RC STC
2 vs. 1 4 vs. 4 (25 × 25 ) 2 vs. 1 7 vs. 7 (15 × 15 ) 3 vs. 3 4 vs. 3 (10 × 10 )
Wednesday SSGs SSGs Training game SSGs SSGs Training game SSGs SSGs Training game
2 vs. 2 5 vs. 5 2 vs. 2 8 vs. 8 2 vs. 1 9 vs. 9
Thursday RC PT-60 SSGs SSGs RC PT-70 SSGs SSGs RC PT-80 SSGs SSGs
2 vs. 2 7 vs. 7 3 vs. 2 8 vs. 8 3 vs. 2 10 vs. 10
Friday SSGs SSGs RC PT-60 SSGs SSGs RC PT-70 SSGs SSGs RC PT-80
3 vs. 2 6 vs. 6 3 vs. 3 10 vs. 10 3 vs. 2 10 vs. 10
Saturday Training game Rest Training game Rest Training game Rest
Sunday Rest Rest Rest Rest Rest Rest
IP: Initial Part; MP: Main Part; RC: Running Coordination exercise. STC (30 × 30 ) = 2 × 15 —30 of action for 30 of recovery; STC (25 × 25 ) = 3 × 15 —25 of action for 25 of recovery;
STC (20 × 20 ) = 4 × 15 —20 of action for 20 of recovery; STC (15 × 15 ) = 4 × 15 —15 of action for 15 of recovery; STC (10 × 10 ) = 4 × 15 —10 of action for 10 of recovery;
PT-60 = 30 hurdle and 30 drop jumps; PT-70 = 35 hurdle and 35 drop jumps; PT-80 = 40 hurdle and 40 drop jumps; 2 vs 1 = SSGs without goalkeepers (5 × 2 ); 2 vs. 2 = SSGs without
goalkeepers (6 × 2 ); 3 vs. 2 = SSGs without goalkeepers (6 × 2 ); 3 vs. 3 = SSGs without goalkeepers (6 × 4 ); 4 vs. 3 = SSGs without goalkeepers (6 × 4 ); 4 vs. 4 = SSGs with goalkeepers
(6 × 5 ); 5 vs. 5 = SSGs with goalkeepers (6 × 6 ); 6 vs. 6 = SSGs with goalkeepers (6 × 7 ); 7 vs. 7 = SSGs with goalkeepers (6 × 8 ); 8 vs. 8 = SSGs with goalkeepers (6 × 9 ); 9 vs. 9 = SSGs
with goalkeepers (6 × 10 ); 10 vs. 10 = SSGs with goalkeepers (6 × 10 ); Training game = 2 × 30 with 15 of recovery. All SSGs were performed in a surface providing 90m2 of space for
each player, and included 3—5 of resting time between each series.

181
182
carried out through basic exercises followed by accelera-
tion with change of direction, e.g., squats without external
load, hurdles, hoops, and boards to provide a range of
obstacles and difficulties. Plyometric training included hur-
dles and drop jumps of 40 cm for 15 and 90 seconds with
resting intervals. SSGs were performed without limitation
of ball touches, in an area providing ∼90m2 of space for
each player. 3—5 recovery time was planned between each
series. Training games consisted of a simulated match (11 vs.
11) with two halves of 30 each. The details of each session
are presented in Table 1.
2.3. Physical performance
Speed was obtained through a sprint test of 30 meters and
agility was obtained through the Zig-Zag test. Time was
recorded by Fspeed photocells (FEsystems® , Sorocaba, Sao
Paulo, Brazil). Squat Jump (SJ) and countermovement jump
(CMJ) were performed using the ergo-jump protocol [5].
Anaerobic power was measured through the Running-based
Anaerobic Sprint Test (RAST) [6]. Time was recorded with the
same photocells. Aerobic power (VO2MAX and total distance)
was measured through the Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test
level 1 (IRT1) [7].
2.4. Match performance
Match performance was measured through four friendly
matches, including two pre-training - T0 and two post-
training - T1, with a duration of 30 minutes each half,
according to the official U-15 match duration in Brazil. The
players in this study were divided into two teams (A and
B) of 10 players, excluding the goalkeepers. Teams A and B
played against two other teams (C and D) of a similar age
and competitive level. Match performance was only eval-
uated with teams A and B as they were monitored during
the short-term training program proposed in this study. All
matches were recorded entirely, using a digital video cam-
era (CASIO EX-FH25, 720 × 480 pixels, 30 Hz). The footage
was submitted to a detailed analysis with the instrument
called Losing Possession Observational Checklist in Soccer
(LPOCS) and the results including the time of ball possession
were calculated in percentages. The LPOCS consists of seven
criteria: illegal movement, clearance, ball control, delay,
passing to a marked player, ball manipulation, teamwork
(for more details see [3]).
2.5. Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using the software
IBM® SPSS® Statistics for Windows, version 22.0 (IBM
Corporation©). Data normality and homogeneity were
tested with the Shapiro-Wilk and Levene’s tests, respec-
tively. A paired student’s t test was used to compare
the physical and match performance between the pre and
post moments (T0 × T1). Effect size (ES) of the differences
between the moments was calculated using Cohen’s ‘‘d’’
[8]. The d values were considered as follows: lower than
0.1 (trivial), from 0.1 to 0.20 (small), from 0.20 to 0.50
(moderate), from 0.50 to 0.80 (large) and higher than 0.80
Letter to the editor
(very large). In all cases, significancy level was set to
P < 0.05.
3. Results
3.1. Physical performance
Players presented higher speed performance (P < 0.001,
ES = small; P = 0.002, ES = large, respectively), Zig-Zag
(P = 0.004, ES = very large), SJ (P < 0.001, ES = large),
CMJ (P = 0.006, ES = large), average power (P = 0.02,
ES = moderate), VO2MAX (P < 0.001, ES = very large) and total
distance traveled in IRT1 (P = 0.003, ES = large) in the post-
training moment (T1) when compared to the pre-training
moment (T0). Results are shown in Table 2.
3.2. Match performance
Values of ball possession are shown in Table 3. There
was an increase in the relative frequency of the crite-
ria illegal movement (P < 0.001) and teamwork (P < 0.001)
between pre-training and post-training. Moreover, after
training, there was a reduction in the relative frequency of
the criteria clearance (P = 0.004), ball control (P = 0.003),
delay (P = 0.004), passing to a marked player (P < 0.001)
and ball manipulation (P = 0.023). In addition, there was an
increase in the percentage of possession maintenance (T0:
43.16 ± 2.92; T1: 56.83 ± 2.92; P = 0.002).
4. Discussion
The main contributions of this study point out the real
benefits of short-term training with an emphasis on SSGs,
combined with strength training during the pre-season, on
physical adaptations and match performance. Few longitudi-
nal studies have applied specific training content as shown
in our study. The results demonstrated that the proposed
mesocycle training provided positive adjustments in speed,
strength, anaerobic and aerobic power. In addition, there
was an increase in the percentage of ball possession and
reduction in the relative frequency of five out of the seven
criteria related to loss of ball possession. Specifically, we
found that the training applied resulted in reduced fre-
quency of unsuccessful passes, delays in carrying out a pass,
passing the ball to marked players and an inadequate dis-
tance of ball manipulation.
Previous studies provide evidence that a short-term train-
ing program in the pre-season enables improvement in
physical performance. Recently, Aquino and coauthors [4]
found greater values on physical and match performance
after training with emphasis on technical-tactical actions
and these results corroborate with the present study. More-
over, loss of possession in football games is an indicator of
lack of success. Shafizadeh et al. [3] evaluated 32 national
football teams in the 2006 World Cup in Germany and
23 national teams in the 2010 World Cup in South Africa
using the LPOCS instrument. The authors found that the
relative frequency of loss of possession due to ball manipula-
tion (31.14%) and passing to a marked player (23.84%) were
Letter to the editor 183

Table 2 Physical performance in U-15 football players pre (T0) and post (T1) short-term training (n = 24)a .

Variables T0 T1 Effect size (d) P-values

CS-10 m (seg) 1.68 ± 0.07a 1.61 ± 0.04 0.12 < 0.001

CS-30 m (seg) 4.23 ± 0.13a 4.15 ± 0.09 0.71 0.002
Zig-Zag (seg) 6.88 ± 0.29a 6.63± 0.26 0.90 0.004
SJ (cm) 34.59 ± 3.45a 37.08 ± 3.40 0.72 < 0.001
CMJ (cm) 41.78 ± 4.96a 44.44 ± 4.99 0.59 0.006
MP (W/kg) 395.92 ± 59.73 381.08 ± 74.83 0.21 0.27
PP (W/kg) 635.03 ± 111.28 676.12 ± 132.53 0.33 0.06
AP (W/kg) 498.74 ± 77.37a 526.83 ± 84.29 0.34 0.02
FI (%) 7.75 ± 2.38 7.97 ± 2.06 0.09 0.71
VO2MAX (ml.kg1− min−1 ) 46.37 ± 1.96a 50.75 ± 2.87 1.78 < 0.001
TD-IRT1 (m) 1195.41 ± 241.26 1333.33 ± 273.25 0.53 0.003
CS-10m: Cyclic Speed-10 m; CS-30m: Cyclic Speed-30 m; SJ: Squat Jump; CMJ: Countermovement Jump; MP: Minimum Power; PP:
Peak Power; AP: Average Power; IF: Index of Fatigue; TD- IRT1: Total distance covered in Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test level 1.
a Statistical differences P < 0.05.

Table 3 Match performance in U-15 football players pre (T0) and post (T1) short-term training (n = 20)a .

Variables T0 T1  (%) P-values

Illegal movement (%) 5.10 ± 0.30 a

15.01 ± 0.95 66.01 < 0.001
Clearance (%) 9.69 ± 0.66a 8.29 ± 0.69 −16.85 0.004
Ball control (%) 18.48 ± 1.75a 14.09 ± 0.58 −31.13 0.003
Delay (%) 19.40 ± 1.17a 15.06 ± 0.92 −28.78 0.004
Passing to a marked player (%) 21.63 ± 0.73a 17.66 ± 1.22 −22.46 < 0.001
Ball manipulation (%) 21.96 ± 1.64a 19.49 ± 0.33 −12.63 0.023
Teamwork (%) 3.71 ± 1.28a 10.35 ± 1.14 64.15 < 0.001
Possession maintenance (%) 43.16 ± 2.92a 56.83 ± 2.92 24.05 0.002
a Statistical differences P < 0.05.

higher than other criteria, which also corroborates with our
study (see Table 3).
It is important to clarify that the absence of a control
group is a limitation of this study. However, as in other
studies with sports teams, this limitation is justified as the
formation of two groups within the same team is precluded.
This could result in ethical, functional and structural prob-
lems in practical reality [4]. Even with the absence of a
control group, to the best of our knowledge, this is the
first study to analyze variables related to loss of ball pos-
session following training with SSGs. Finally, we intend to
provide information to sport scientists and coaches about
the need to work together more closely to understand sports
phenomenon, specifically in football, and therefore practice
more effectively, which would ultimately contribute to the
development of multidimensional knowledge. Such knowl-
edge is suggested to lead team staff to integrate better
performance components in training, and therefore reach
better results whilst preventing injuries.
5. Conclusions
Our results showed that a short-term training program with
emphasis on SSGs is sufficient to promote improvements on
physical and match performance. We verified higher val-
ues of ball possession after the proposed training and the
teams significantly reduced five of the seven possession loss
criteria. In respect with the findings, this longitudinal study
can assist coaches in the planning process of the daily
sessions and help optimizing the cognitive and physical
adjustments in training for young football players. Such
planning is essential considering the calendars of football
clubs, which have short periods of time before competition
starts.
Disclosure of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interest.
Acknowledgements
This study was financed in part by the Coordenação
de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil
(CAPES)—Finance Code 001, FAPESP (grant: 2014/16164-5),
and Productivity and Research Exchange of the University of
Estácio (Ribeirão Preto/SP-Brazil).
References
[1] Los Arcos A, Vazquez JS, Martin J, Lerga J, Sanchez F, Villagra F,
et al. Effects of small-sided games vs. interval training in aerobic
fitness and physical enjoyment in young elite soccer players.
PloS One 2015;10(9):e0137224.
184 Letter to the editor

a
[2] Ramirez-Campillo R, Andrade DC, Izquierdo M. Effects of ply- Research Group in Soccer Science, Department of Sports,
ometric training volume and training surface on explosive Center of Physical Education and Sports, Federal
strength. J Strength Cond Res 2013;27(10):2714—22. University of Espírito Santo, Vitória, Brazil
[3] Shafizadeh M, Gray S, Sproule J, McMorris T. An exploratory anal- b
Medicine School of Ribeirão Preto, University of São
ysis of losing possession in professional soccer. Int J Perform Anal
Paulo, avenue Bandeirantes, 3900, 14040-907 Ribeirão
Sport 2012;12(1):14—23.
Preto, Brazil
[4] Aquino RLQT, Cruz Goncalves LG, Palucci Vieira LH, de Paula c
Oliveira L, Alves GF, Pereira Santiago PR, et al. Periodization Department of Performance Analysis, Botafogo Football
training focused on technical-tactical ability in young soccer Club, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil
d
players positively affects biochemical markers and game per- CIFI2D, Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, Porto,
formance. J Strength Cond Res 2016;30(10):2723—32. Portugal
e
[5] Bosco C, Belli A, Astrua M, Tihanyi J, Pozzo R, Kellis S, et al. Laval University, Quebec, Quebec, Canada
A dynamometer for evaluation of dynamic muscle work. Eur J f
GEDEFITE, School of Physical Education and Sport of
Appl Physiol 1995;70(5):379—86. Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto,
[6] Zacharogiannis E, Paradisis G, Tziortzis S. An evaluation of Brazil
tests of anaerobic power and capacity. Med Sci Sports Exerc
2004;36(5):S116. ∗
Corresponding author at: Federal University of Esp Santo,
[7] Bangsbo J, Iaia FM, Krustrup P. The Yo-Yo intermittent recov- avenue Fernando Ferrari, 514, Goiabeiras, 29075-910
ery test: a useful tool for evaluation of physical performance in
Vitória/ES, Brazil.
intermittent sports. Sports Med 2008;38(1):37—51.
[8] Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
E-mail address: aquino.rlq@gmail.com (Rodrigo. Aquino)
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1998.
Received 29 October 2018
a,b,∗ Accepted 30 January 2019
Rodrigo. Aquino
Available online 7 January 2020
Luiz Guilherme Cruz Gonçalves c
Rafael Bagatin d
Gregory Halé Petiot e
Enrico Fuini Puggina a,f