See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323552165

Team Dynamics, Running, and Skill-Related Performances of Brazilian U11 to

Professional Soccer Players During Official Matches

Article in The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · July 2019

DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002577

CITATIONS READS

4 724

8 authors, including:

Luiz Henrique Palucci Vieira Rodrigo Aquino

São Paulo State University Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo
38 PUBLICATIONS 87 CITATIONS 40 PUBLICATIONS 88 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Felipe Arruda Moura Vitor Marqueti Arpini

Universidade Estadual de Londrina University of São Paulo
72 PUBLICATIONS 648 CITATIONS 1 PUBLICATION 4 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Biomechanics, motor control and performance in sports View project

Neural adaptations to strength training View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Luiz Henrique Palucci Vieira on 25 July 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 TEAM DYNAMICS, RUNNING, AND SKILL-RELATED
PERFORMANCES OF BRAZILIAN U11 TO PROFESSIONAL
SOCCER PLAYERS DURING OFFICIAL MATCHES
LUIZ H. PALUCCI VIEIRA,1,2 RODRIGO AQUINO,1,2 FELIPE A. MOURA,3 RICARDO M.L DE BARROS,4
VITOR M. ARPINI,2 LUCAS P. OLIVEIRA,1,5 BRUNO L.S BEDO,2 AND PAULO R.P SANTIAGO1,2
1
FMRP Faculty of Medicine at Ribeira˜o Preto, University of Sa˜o Paulo, Ribeira˜o Preto, Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil; 2LaBioCoM
Downloaded from https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD33gDmupaxCIwyEJpJx6k1z982/WgtH/r8tPmZ8TaueSc= on 07/25/2019

Biomechanics and Motor Control Laboratory, School of Physical Education and Sport of Ribeira˜o Preto, USP University of Sa˜o
Paulo, Ribeira˜o Preto, Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil; 3Laboratory of Applied Biomechanics, State University of Londrina, Londrina,
Parana´, Brazil; 4LIB Laboratory of Instrumentation for Biomechanics, UNICAMP Campinas State University, Campinas,
Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil; and 5Botafogo Football Club, Youth Training Department, Ribeira˜o Preto, Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil

ABSTRACT PRO, U17 . U15 . U13 . U11) demonstrated continuous

Palucci Vieira, LH, Aquino, R, Moura, FA, Barros, RMLd,
Arpini, VM, Oliveira, LdP, Bedo, BLdS, and Pereira Santiago,
PR. Team dynamics, running, and skill-related performances
of Brazilian U11 to professional soccer players during official
matches. J Strength Cond Res 33(8): 2202–2216, 2019—
Analyses of movements during soccer competition have been
used previously to help develop conditioning programs. How-
ever, this has not been extensively studied in youth popula-
tions. Therefore, the purposes of this study were to examine
(1) dynamics of collective tactical movements, (2) running,
and (3) skill-related performances during soccer matches
disputed by children to senior players. A total of 120 Brazilian
players in the age groups U11, U13, U15, U17, U20, and
professional (PRO) were monitored during official competi-
gains. Median frequencies were higher in the younger groups
(U13, U15, U17 . U20, PRO), although the percentage of
successful passes was higher in the older groups (PRO .
U17, U15 . U13, U11). We concluded that Brazilian U11 to
PRO players present different performance profiles for run-
ning, collective movement dynamics, and technical skills, and
that the rate of development regarding these components
varies. Coaches should be aware of these differences to
select and adapt training content for each age group.
KEY WORDS computational tracking, high-intensity running,
notational analysis, magnitude-based inferences, elite youth
soccer
INTRODUCTION

tion matches (N = 12). Using semiautomatic video-based
tracking (30 Hz), match running variables including total dis-
tance traveled, average speed, maximum sprint speed, and
high-intensity activities were evaluated. Tactical metrics were
computed as team surface area, spread, and median fre-
quency. Through notational analysis, technical skills such
as involvements with the ball, passes, ball touches, duels,
and goal attempts were also recorded. One-way analysis of
variance and magnitude-based inferences were used to
detect differences between ages. Although the average
speed, team surface area, and spread tended to present
stabilized increases from the U15 (e.g., U15 . U13 .
U11), maximal sprinting speed (PRO . U17 . U15, U13,
U11) and percentage at very high-intensity activities (U20 .
Address correspondence to Dr. Paulo Roberto Pereira Santiago,
paulosantiago@usp.br.
33(8)/2202–2216
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
M
atch analysis of players’ running performance
is assigned as the first step to aid coaching
staff in establishing adequate conditioning ses-
sions during soccer practice (1,5,16,18,28,49).
However, the addition of collection and analysis of match-
related technical performance and tactical dynamics ensure
a holistic approach and also supply information for training
enhancement (15,38). More specifically, the understanding
of match load imposed on youth soccer through different
ages is necessary to optimize long-term training interven-
tions and explore the specific players’ potential at each stage
in the development process (19,48). It is also a suitable mean
to determine what is needed when moving up into older
categories. Moreover, quantified match performance of
youth players selected, particularly those who compete
within official soccer tournaments, provides a benchmark
for those who are aspiring (49) and discriminates among
academy athletes retained and released (27).
In the past decade, data collected from youth U9 to U20
soccer matches have become available, addressing primarily

2202 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

running activities (5,10,12–14,19,27,28,33,45,48). However,
there is a preference for adoption of small-sided games for-
mat to evaluate skill-related performance and tactical metrics
in youth soccer (see for instance Refs. 3,25,31,47), but refer-
ence values of these indicators, during competition matches
and those played on official pitches, are still limited
(24,36,37,49). Tactical variables such as team surface area,
spread, and its associated frequency domain were deemed
as useful ways to verify systems and standards of play (3,37),
and give a precise notion of the speed of team reorganization
during ball possession exchanges (38). In addition, Carling
et al. (15) indicated that descriptive-comparative works
recording technical skills (e.g., passing success rate) guide
coaches to better plan and organize daily training on the
basis of actual match performance information, and it is
particularly relevant to identify weaknesses in need for
improvement. Recent literature criticisms recommended
more integrated performance analysis, including undertaking
running, technical, and tactical measures simultaneously (see
also Refs. 21,48), because known physical demands in iso-
lation may overlook the complex nature in the team sport of
soccer, and this ultimately leads to a 1-dimensional insight
into match performance (41).
Significant advances in computer science applied to the
sport have provided more efficient data acquisition systems
to attend primarily professional (PRO) senior players (16).
To date, a lack of research using computational tracking in
youth soccer players is evident. Most of the available studies
in young people have adopted video-based time-motion
(VTM) analysis (14,42,45), 1-Hz (1,10,12,19,27,33,34,48),
and 5-Hz global positioning system (GPS) (5,28). However,
according to the classic literature review on contemporary
work rate measurement techniques, human errors can result
in inaccurate data when a VTM analysis model is adopted
(16). Even with “absence of a gold standard” (12,13,33,34),
the magnitude of bias for distances covered at high- and low-
speed intensities is more constant in computer vision meth-
odologies when compared with GPS and local position mea-
surement (11). This way, an additional advantage is to allow
for integration of simultaneous analysis regarding running
aspects, tactical metrics through 2-D positional data, and
skill-related performance (11,15,37). Higher frequencies of
acquisition are also required, to enable recording accurate
data and smallest worthwhile changes (SWCs) (5). Yet, past
choices were justified due to environmental constraints and
limited financial sources at youth level to implement fixed
multiple-camera semiautomatic computerized systems simi-
lar to those available in PRO context (16,28,49). Neverthe-
less, the development of reliable algorithms combined with
flexible computational software enabled tracking players’ tra-
jectories in team sports using a small set of high-resolution
and low-cost cameras, not being necessarily permanent
where data collection took place (6,50).
Furthermore, the available scientific literature on match
performance (i.e., running) in youth is generally about
Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
players competing in Europe, such as in Italy (14),
San Marino (19), England (27,28,48), Portugal (45), or even
Oceania (New Zealand; (6)), and Asia (Qatar; (12,33,49)).
The game rules of some European countries and other
locations (e.g., Oceania) define that different youth age
groups have distinct field dimensions, with increase in play-
ing area as a function of age increases (27,28,48), rolling
substitute policy (5,28), and format configurations that
exceed 2 game halves (e.g., 2 3 20 + 2 3 15 minutes, 2
3 25 + 2 3 15 minutes, or 3 3 25 minutes) (27,28,48). By
contrast, these guidelines have not been considered yet
during official tournaments in some Brazilian states. That
way, running performance profile of youth players in the
country comprise studies with simulated and friendly
games (3,23) or outdated ones (42). Thus, the generaliza-
tion of the results to other situations requires caution
because unofficial matches generate different physiological
responses such as lower internal workload compared with
the official event (26), and a possible evolution of match
performance across decades must also be taken into
account (9).
In summary, match analysis performed with computational
tracking to identify physical, technical, and tactical patterns in
a variety of ages have practical applications for: (a) when
coaches prescribe training sessions specific for each age group
(28,33,48), (b) search for young talented (12,27,28,48), (c)
detect areas in need of improvement (15), and (d) provide
some insights into how development occurs in the field, from
a multidimensional approach (28,41). Thus, the primary pur-
pose of this study was to characterize and compare the match
running, skill-related performances, and dynamics of collective
tactical movements during official soccer matches of U11 to
PRO age groups competing in Brazil.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
For each age group analyzed (i.e., U11, U13, U15, U17, U20,
and PRO), 2 official matches were selected, during the São
Paulo First Division Soccer Championship 2015–2016, the
main state-level tournament in the country (3,42). To pre-
vent the confounding factor of home advantage (see for
instance Refs. 2,31), 1 home match and 1 away match were
monitored, and being all-local derby, totaling 12 competitive
games were collected (Table 1). During all games, the players
were allowed to ingest water and Gatorade (6% tangerine-
flavored carbohydrate-electrolyte drink), ad libitum. Accord-
ing to the local rules (42), all games were held in
FIFA-standard stadiums with natural grass pitch (100 3
70 m, goal dimensions: 7.32 3 2.44 m; ambient temperature:
ranged 29–318 C), in 11 vs. 11 format, with a limited number
of substitutions (6: U11 and U13, 5: U15, 3: U17, U20, and
PRO). The players were not allowed to return to the field
after being replaced. The game setup was 2 halves (U11: 20
3 20 minutes, U13: 25 3 25 minutes, U15: 30 3 30 minutes,
U17: 40 3 40 minutes, U20 and PRO: 45 3 45 minutes) with
VOLUME 33 | NUMBER 8 | AUGUST 2019 | 2203
 Match-Related Development in Soccer

TABLE 1. Physical profile of the players and situational factors that occurred in the analyzed matches from U11 to
professional age groups (N = 120, mean 6 SD).*

N Age Mass Height PHV Location Opponent quality Status

U11 20 10.8 6 0.4 38.4 6 5.1 150.1 6 6.0 23.17 6 0.51 Home Strong Lost (1 3 2)
Away Weak Won (2 3 1)
U13 20 12.9 6 0.4 51.3 6 11.1 160.6 6 10 20.83 6 0.90 Home Weak Won (3 3 1)
Away Strong Won (1 3 2)
U15 20 14.8 6 0.3 64.1 6 10.1 174.4 6 9.8 0.35 6 0.61 Home Strong Draw (0 3 0)
Away Strong Draw (0 3 0)
U17 20 16.7 6 0.4 68.5 6 5.7 177.0 6 7.2 1.63 6 0.53 Home Weak Won (1 3 0)
Away Strong Lost (3 3 1)
U20 20 18.2 6 1.0 76.0 6 9.3 180.0 6 7.3 3.83 6 0.84 Home Strong Won (1 3 0)
Away Weak Draw (1 3 1)
PRO 20 26 6 4.8 80.5 6 8.7 181.2 6 5.7 — Home Weak Won (2 3 0)
Away Weak Lost (2 3 0)

PHV= peak height velocity

interval of passive recovery between them (U11–U13:
10 minutes; U15–PRO: 15 minutes). All age groups used
a 4-4-2 tactical formation with occasional minor variations.
Exclusively in the U11 category, the corner kick was per-
formed at the intersection of the lateral line of the penalty
area with the goal line. Other than this, there were no other
important differences regarding game rules (e.g., the offside
position is equally applied to all age groups).
Subjects
One hundred twenty players participated in this study
(Table 1). Age groups U11, U13, U15, U17, U20, and PRO
were represented (mean 6 SD, age range: 10.04—37.69
years-old). The players were sourced from 5 teams and goal-
keepers were not included. The study was approved by the
local human research ethics committee (School of Physical
Education and Sport, Ribeirão Preto) under protocol
#1108137/2015, in accordance with the Code of Ethics of
the World Medical Association (approved by the ethics advi-
sory board of Swansea University). The players and their
respective guardians, when age ,18 year, provided informed
and written consent. For analysis in the second half and the
whole game, we considered only the players who completed
the game (N = 89). After obtaining the permissions, the
total body mass (digital scale Sb623; DLK Sports, São Paulo,
Brazil; sensitivity = 0.1 kg), height (stadiometer; PRIME
MED, São Paulo, Brazil; sensitivity = 0.1 cm), and years
from peak height velocity (PHV) (35) were determined.
Procedures
Data Collection and Computational Tracking. A digital video
camera (GOPRO HERO 3 + Black Edition; Woodman Labs,
Inc., San Mateo, CA, USA) adjusted to 30 Hz (super view
1,920 3 1,080 pixel; NTSC standard), fixed on a tripod, was
positioned centrally and on one of the highest points of the
stadiums (Figure 1). The image distortions were corrected
the TM
using an automatic algorithm (50). Next, the semiautomatic
computational tracking was performed (Figure 1) using the
software DVIDEOW (6), widely used in team sports including
soccer (3,37,38,50). The calibration was performed using 21
control points. Uncertainties with the method used to deter-
mine the positions of the players in the field (0.16 6 0.06 m)
and distances covered (0.91%) were low for this study. After
frame marking (;15 million data points), the matrices con-
taining the position of each player as a function of time were
obtained by 2-D Direct Linear Transformation reconstruction.
In Matlab (The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA, USA), they
were smoothed by a third-order low-pass Butterworth digital
filter (cut-off frequency = 0.4 Hz), and the dependent variables
were computed through specific routines.
Dependent Variables: Match Running Performance. Throughout
the 12 matches, the following variables were calculated for
each player: total distance (TD) covered—cumulative sum of
the displacement between consecutive frames; mean speed
(Vmean)—TD normalized as a function of playing time; max-
imal sprinting speed (MSS)—maximum instantaneous speed
reached; and percentage of the distance traveled in 8 speed
bands, with minor adaptations from previous works
(3,10,12): 0 , V1 # 0.4 km$h21 (standing); 0.41 , V2 #
3 km$h21 (walking); 3.1 , V3 # 8 km$h21 (jogging); 8.1 ,
V4 # 13 km$h21 (moderate-intensity running [MIR]); 13.1
, V5 # 16 km$h21 (high-intensity running [HIR]); 16.1 ,
V6 # 19 km$h21 (very high-intensity running [VHIR]); V7
. 19.1 km$h21 (sprinting [SPR]); and V8 = V6 + V7 (very
high-intensity activities [VHIA]). We also computed 70% of
MSS reached individually and counted the absolute effort
frequency (NMSS70), normalized by playing time (NMSS70
per minute), distance traveled (TDMSS70), and mean distance
traveled at effort (TDMSS70/NMSS70), above this speed
parameter.

2204 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Figure 1. Procedures in sequence. (A) Data collection, (B) calibration, (C) segmentation, (D) tracking in DVIDEOW environment, (E) team surface area, and (F)
spread at a given moment of time t(i).
Tactical Metrics. From the 2-D positional data of the players,
it was possible to obtain 2 tactical variables, the team surface
area and spread (Figure 1), calculated for each frame ana-
lyzed during the entire time series (see for more information:
Refs. 3,37,38). Also, using the Fast Fourier Transform
method, we calculated the power distribution in the fre-
quency domain for the team surface area and spread values
for each playing period, to characterize the team dynamics.
Subsequently, the median frequency was calculated (Fmed; in
cycles$min21) defined as the frequency dividing the power
spectrum into 2 equal parts (38).
Skill-Related Performance. In a specific DVIDEOW interface
(37,38), a single experienced operator watched the 12 games
from the raw footage of the tracking in addition to 2 cameras
of the same model (GOPRO HERO 3+; Super view 1920 3
1,080 pixels). These were each positioned in the opposite
upper corners of the stadium, to cover each half of the field.
When necessary (e.g., mutual occlusion effect), the operator
also used the local TV footage available. Intraobserver vari-
ability was good (intraclass correlation = 0.85–0.99), rework-
ing 8% of the total frames, 30 days after the first
measurement. The following variables (17,36) were
recorded:

Involvements with the ball: all situations where the
player was in ball possession, accounted individually.

Ball touches: number of times in which the player
touched the ball, using body segments allowed by the
rule.

Passes: number of short and long passes performed by
a player.
Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

Successful passes: number of passes performed by
a player and successfully received by a teammate (i.e.,
completed passes), regardless of subsequent events, and
expressed as a percentage of the total passes.

Duels: number of situations where a player contested
the ball with an opponent player, irrespective of
whether these situations involved or not clear physical
contact between the players.

Duels won: duel followed by recovery of ball possession
by the player who contested the ball or a teammate, and
expressed as a percentage of the total duels.

Goal attempts: number of attempts to score a goal; goal
attempts on target: number of attempts on target–
expressed as a percentage of the total goal attempts.
Statistical Analyses
Statistical analyses were performed on IBM SPSS Statistics 20
(Armonk, NY, USA) and Microsoft Excel spreadsheets
(available on http://www.sportsci.org/). Data are presented
as mean 6 SD. Normality of data distribution was verified by
the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Once this condition was con-
firmed, 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by the
Tukey-Kramer post hoc was used to compare match running
performance and tactical variables among age groups. The
level of significance was set at p # 0.05. For all comparisons,
we calculated the magnitude of differences expressed as the
standardized mean difference (Cohen’s d). Limit values were
.0.2 (small), .0.5 (moderate), and .0.8 (large) (20). We also
used a probabilistic approach, with 95% confidence interval,
to calculate whether the chances of true (unknown) differ-
ences in performance between groups, and between half-
times were lower, similar, or higher (i.e., higher than the
VOLUME 33 | NUMBER 8 | AUGUST 2019 | 2205
Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

2206

Match-Related Development in Soccer

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the

TABLE 2. Match running and tactical performances according to age during the first half (N = 120, mean 6 SD).*†z

U11 U13 U15 U17 U20 PRO h2

Running
V1—standing (%) 0.15 6 0.07a,b,c,d,e 0.10 6 0.04f,h 0.05 6 0.03 0.08 6 0.04 0.06 6 0.02 0.08 6 0.03 0.41
V2—walking (%) 8.25 6 2.97a,b,c,d,e 6.16 6 1.47f,g,h,i 4.50 6 1.31 4.25 6 0.98 3.35 6 0.83 4.58 6 1.15 0.51
V3—jogging (%) 42.40 6 5.93b,c,d,e 39.18 6 4.96g,h,i 34.60 6 4.86 34.02 6 4.57 33.61 6 5.87 34.35 6 4.64 0.29
V4—MIR (%) 27.54 6 5.77 28.92 6 3.83 30.36 6 3.28 29.35 6 3.21 27.07 6 3.11 28.75 6 2.84 0.08
V5—HIR (%) 11.22 6 2.97c,d 11.91 6 2.08h 13.00 6 2.14 13.42 6 1.85 13.98 6 2.52 13.06 6 1.87 0.15
V6—VHIR (%) 5.67 6 1.33a,b,c,d,e 7.19 6 1.49g,h,i 8.29 6 1.69 8.69 6 1.48 9.14 6 1.89 8.61 6 1.42 0.37
V7—SPR (%) 4.97 6 2.80b,c,d,e 6.56 6 2.62g,h,i 9.20 6 3.40k 10.19 6 2.05 12.81 6 4.31 10.57 6 2.40 0.44
V8—VHIA (%) 10.64 6 3.58b,c,d,e 13.74 6 3.43f,g,h,i 17.49 6 4.61k 18.89 6 2.96 21.95 6 5.46 19.18 6 3.48 0.48
TM

TD (m) 1881 6 251 a,b,c,d,e 2,627 6 213 f,g,h,i 3,583 6 349j,k,l 4,785 6 393m,n 5,755 6 594o 5,274 6 466 0.93
Vmean (m$min21) 94.04 6 12.55a,b,c,d,e 105.10 6 8.50f,g,h,i 119.45 6 11.63 119.63 6 9.82 127.88 6 13.21o 117.20 6 10.36 0.51
MSS (km$h )21 28.22 6 3.71 c,d,e 29.07 6 2.76 g,h,i 31 6 2.43 k,l 33.34 6 3.20 34.28 6 3.43 35.44 6 3.24 0.43
NMSS70 (u.a.) 7 6 4b,c,d 11 6 6f,g 21 6 10l 18 6 6n 16 6 7 11 6 5 0.35
NMSS70 per minute 0.34 6 0.20b 0.43 6 0.22f,i 0.69 6 0.3j.k.l 0.44 6 0.15n 0.36 6 0.16 0.24 6 0.11 0.31
TDMSS70/NMSS70 7.94 6 2.85d 8.58 6 2.01h 7.91 6 1.65k 9.47 6 1.88m 11.66 6 2.48o 8.21 6 1.91 0.23
Tactical
Team area (m2) 780.97 6 138.56b,c,d 796.44 6 125.19f,g,h 948.72 6 106.35k 960.26 6 145.07m 1,107.75 6 132.87o 883.94 6 100.08 0.49
21
Fmed (cycles$min ) 0.55 6 0.14a,b,c 0.82 6 0.25h,i 0.83 6 0.28k,l 0.76 6 0.09m,n 0.62 6 0.19o 0.52 6 0.02 —
Spread (m) 160.97 6 16.39b,c,d 160.84 6 13.07f,g,h 173.83 6 10.58 174.61 6 12.36 184.10 6 13.43o 167.92 6 9.04 0.31
Fmed (cycles$min21) 0.58 6 0.18a,b,c 0.68 6 0.06f,j,h,i 0.77 6 0.24k,l 0.84 6 0.02m,n 0.57 6 0.14 0.54 6 0.05 —

*MIR = moderate-intensity running; HIR = high-intensity running; VHIR = very high-intensity running; VHIA = very high-intensity activities; TD = total distance; MSS = maximal
sprinting speed.
†a = U11 3 U13; b = U11 3 U15; c = U11 3 U17; d = U11 3 U20; e = U11 3 PRO; f = U13 3 U15; g = U13 3 U17; h = U13 3 U20; i = U13 3 PRO; j = U15 3 U17; k = U15 3
U20; l = U15 3 PRO; m = U17 3 U20; n = U17 3 PRO; o = U20 3 PRO.
zV1: h p , 0.05; a,f p , 0.01; b,c,d,e p , 0.001. V2: f,i p , 0.05; a,g p , 0.01; b,c,d,e,h p , 0.001; V3: g,h,i p , 0.05; b,c,d,e p , 0.001. V5: c,h p , 0.05; d p , 0.01. V6: a,g,i p , 0.05;
h p , 0.01; b,c,d,e p , 0.001. V7: g,i,k p , 0.01; b,c,d,e,h p , 0.001. V8: f p , 0.05; g,i,k p , 0.01; b,c,d,e,h p , 0.001. TD: m,o p , 0.01; a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,n p , 0.001. V a,i,o p , 0.05; f,g
mean:
p , 0.01; b,c,d,e,h p , 0.001. MSS: k p , 0.01; c,d,e,g,h,i,l p , 0.001. NMSS70: l,n p , 0.05; g p , 0.01; b,c,d,f p , 0.001. NMSS70 per minute: i,n p , 0.05; f,j p , 0.01; b,k,l p , 0.001.
TDMSS70/NMSS70: m p , 0.01; d,h,k,o p , 0.001. Team surface area: f,g,k,m p , 0.01; b,c,d,h,o p , 0.001, Fmed: a,b,h,i,k,l,m,n (d large); o (d moderate). Spread: b,c,f,g p , 0.05; o p , 0.01;
d,h p , 0.001, F b,c,j,h,i,k,l,m,n (d large); a,f (d moderate).
med:
Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

TABLE 3. Match running and tactical performances according to age during the second half (N = 89, mean 6 SD).*†z

U11 U13 U15 U17 U20 PRO h2

Running
V1—standing (%) 0.19 6 0.07a,b,d,e 0.13 6 0.05 0.10 6 0.05 0.15 6 0.04 0.13 6 0.06 0.12 6 0.04 0.26
V2—walking (%) 9.75 6 3.49a,b,c,d,e 6.43 6 1.64 5.84 6 1.47 5.54 6 1.37 4.71 6 1.22 5.64 6 1.29 0.44
V3—jogging (%) 43.01 6 7.02c,d,e 40.55 6 4.27 37.24 6 5.54 36.06 6 5.26 35.41 6 5.95 36.04 6 5.14 0.21
V4—MIR (%) 27.21 6 5.71 27.35 6 4.43 27.37 6 4.77 28.12 6 3.34 24.54 6 2.96 27.77 6 3.94 0.08
V5—HIR (%) 10.43 6 3.21d 11.63 6 2.79 12.77 6 2.27 12.80 6 2.09 13.32 6 1.92 11.93 6 2.15 0.15
V6—VHIR (%) 5.26 6 2.09b,c,d,e 6.86 6 1.01h 7.94 6 1.80 8.23 6 1.70 8.97 6 1.97 8.08 6 1.67 0.35
V7—SPR (%) 4.14 6 2.14b,c,d,e 7.05 6 2.93h 8.74 6 2.24k 9.10 6 3.03m 12.93 6 4.94 10.43 6 3.51 0.44
V8—VHIA (%) 9.40 6 3.75b,c,d,e 13.91 6 3.36h 16.68 6 3.58k 17.33 6 4.13 21.90 6 6.13 18.51 6 4.65 0.47
TD (m) 1768 6 263a,b,c,d,e 2,535 6 226f,g,h,i 3,267 6 341j,k,l 4,267 6 374m,n 5,162 6 575 4,910 6 515 0.91
Vmean (m$min21) 88.39 6 13.13a,b,c,d,e 101.39 6 9.02h 108.91 6 11.37 106.67 6 9.36 114.71 6 12.78 109.12 6 11.43 0.38
MSS (km$h21) 25.86 6 3.55b,c,d,e 28.81 6 2.22h,i 29.40 6 2.64k,l 31.12 6 2.73n 34.10 6 3.45 35.12 6 3.02 0.55
NMSS70 (u.a.) 6 6 4b,c,d 11 6 5 16 6 5 13 6 6 16 6 9 11 6 5 0.27
NMSS70 per minute 0.30 6 0.18d 0.45 6 0.19i 0.52 6 0.18j,l 0.33 6 0.14 0.36 6 0.21 0.24 6 0.12 0.23
TDMSS70/NMSS70 7.75 6 2.30d 8.78 6 3.11h 9.08 6 2.46k 9.42 6 2.77m 12.94 6 4.05o 8.44 6 2.73 0.27
Tactical

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

the
Team area (m2) 679.11 6 199.57a,b,c,d,e 876.80 6 158.34h 1,001.29 6 114.24 982.98 6 149.17 1,054.59 6 226.95 943.63 6 206.16 0.33
21
Fmed (cycles$min ) 0.38 6 0.11a,b,c,d 0.58 6 0.03f,h,i 0.72 6 0.07j,k,l 0.60 6 0.25m,n 0.48 6 0.08 0.44 6 0.16 —
Spread (m) 153.91 6 19.27b,c,d,e 167.99 6 16.86 179.75 6 13.29 180.10 6 15.01 179.83 6 23.79 176.94 6 17.81 0.23
Fmed (cycles$min21) 0.50 6 0.07a,b,c,d 0.60 6 0.06h 0.62 6 0.02k 0.61 6 0.23m 0.43 6 0.11n 0.62 6 0.35 —

*MIR = moderate-intensity running; HIR = high-intensity running; VHIR = very high-intensity running; VHIA = very high-intensity activities; TD = total distance; MSS = maximal
VOLUME 33 | NUMBER 8 | AUGUST 2019 |

sprinting speed.
†a = U11 3 U13; b = U11 3 U15; c = U11 3 U17; d = U11 3 U20; e = U11 3 PRO; f = U13 3 U15; g = U13 3 U17; h = U13 3 U20; i = U13 3 PRO; j = U15 3 U17; k = U15 3
U20; l = U15 3 PRO; m = U17 3 U20; n = U17 3 PRO; o = U20 3 PRO.
zV1: a p , 0.05; d,e p , 0.01; b p , 0.001. V2: a,b,c,d,e p , 0.001. V3: c,e p , 0.05; d p , 0.01. V5: d p , 0.05. V6: h p , 0.05; b p , 0.01; c,d,e p , 0.001. V7: m p , 0.05; b,c,k p ,
0.01; d,e,h p , 0.001. V8: b,c,k p , 0.01; d,e,h p , 0.001. TD: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n p , 0.001. Vmean: a,h p , 0.05; b,c,d,e p , 0.001. MSS: b p , 0.05; n p , 0.01; c,d,e,h,i,k,l p , 0.001.
NMSS70: c p , 0.05; b,d p , 0.001. NMSS70 per minute: d,i,j p , 0.05; l p , 0.001. TDMSS70/NMSS70: m p , 0.05; h,k,o p , 0.01; d p , 0.001. Team surface area: h p , 0.05; a p , 0.01;
b,c,d,e p , 0.001, F a,b,c,d,f,i,k,l (d large); j,m,n (d moderate). Spread: e p , 0.01; b,c,d p , 0.001, F a,b,h,k,m (d large); c,d,n (d moderate).
med: med:

TM
| www.nsca.com
2207
Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

2208

Match-Related Development in Soccer

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the

TABLE 4. Match running and tactical performances according to age during the whole match (N = 89, mean 6 SD).*†z

U11 U13 U15 U17 U20 PRO h2

Running
V1—standing (%) 0.17 6 0.05a,b,c,d,e 0.11 6 0.04 0.08 6 0.04 0.12 6 0.03 0.09 6 0.03 0.10 6 0.03 0.38
V2—walking (%) 8.92 6 2.91a,b,c,d,e 6.27 6 1.52h 5.31 6 1.34 4.93 6 0.87 3.99 6 0.94 5.15 6 1.15 0.51
V3—jogging (%) 42.60 6 5.84b,c,d,e 40.47 6 4.09h 36.52 6 4.91 35.30 6 4.98 34.34 6 5.59 35.10 6 4.80 0.29
V4—MIR (%) 27.48 6 5.74 27.98 6 3.82 28.98 6 3.61 28.83 6 3.36 25.86 6 2.66 28.45 6 3.12 0.08
V5—HIR (%) 10.88 6 2.81d 11.60 6 1.73h 12.77 6 1.79 13.07 6 1.93 13.79 6 1.97 12.53 6 1.81 0.20
V6—VHIR (%) 5.42 6 1.07a,b,c,d,e 7.00 6 1.17h 7.87 6 1.55 8.32 6 1.38 9.08 6 1.82 8.29 6 1.42 0.44
V7—SPR (%) 4.53 6 1.30b,c,d,e 6.57 6 2.56h.i 8.46 6 1.55k 9.43 6 1.95m 12.85 6 4.39 10.38 6 2.85 0.52
V8—VHIA (%) 9.95 6 1.98b,c,d,e 13.56 6 3.28g,h,i 16.33 6 3.21k 17.75 6 2.89m 21.93 6 5.64 18.97 6 3.88 0.55
TM

TD (m) 3,649 6 49 a,b,c,d,e 5,139 6 423 f,g,h,i 6,745 6 657 j,k,l 8,956 6 651m,n 10,911 6 1,107 10,147 6 971 0.93
Vmean (m$min21) 91.23 6 12.27a,b,c,d,e 102.79 6 8.45h 112.42 6 10.95 111.95 6 8.13 121.24 6 12.30 112.75 6 10.79 0.48
MSS (km$h )21 29.31 6 3.54c,d,e 30.37 6 2.42g,h,i 31.07 6 1.94k,l 33.79 6 2.84 35.49 6 3.07 36.67 6 2.91 0.50
NMSS70 (u.a.) 12 6 4b,c,d 21 6 9f,h 34 6 13l 29 6 8 32 6 16 21 6 10 0.35
NMSS70 per minute 0.31 6 0.11b 0.42 6 0.18i 0.56 6 0.21j,k,l 0.36 6 0.11 0.36 6 0.18 0.23 6 0.11 0.30
TDMSS70/NMSS70 8.38 6 1.98d 8.69 6 2.25h 7.80 6 2.01k 9.32 6 1.64m 12.27 6 2.72o 8.22 6 1.75 0.37
Tactical
Team area (m2) 730.04 6 177.25a,b,c,d,e 836.62 6 146.65f,g,h 975.01 6 112.15k 971.62 6 145.59m 1,081.17 6 185.52o 913.78 6 162.79 0.34
21
Fmed (cycles$min ) 0.46 6 0.14a,b,c,d 0.70 6 0.20h,i 0.77 6 0.18k,l 0.68 6 0.18m,n 0.55 6 0.14o 0.48 6 0.10 —
Spread (m) 157.44 6 18.02b,c,d,e 164.42 6 15.32f,g,h 176.79 6 12.23 177.36 6 13.85 181.96 6 19.19 172.43 6 14.67 0.23
Fmed (cycles$min21) 0.54 6 0.12a,b,c 0.64 6 0.07g,h 0.69 6 0.16k,l 0.73 6 0.19m,n 0.50 6 0.13 0.58 6 0.21 —

*MIR = moderate-intensity running; HIR = high-intensity running; VHIR = very high-intensity running; VHIA = very high-intensity activities; TD = total distance; MSS = maximal
sprinting speed.
†a = U11 3 U13; b = U11 3 U15; c = U11 3 U17; d = U11 3 U20; e = U11 3 PRO; f = U13 3 U15; g = U13 3 U17; h = U13 3 U20; i = U13 3 PRO; j = U15 3 U17; k = U15 3
U20; l = U15 3 PRO; m = U17 3 U20; n = U17 3 PRO; o = U20 3 PRO.
zV1: a,c p , 0.01; b,d,e p , 0.001. V2: h p , 0.01; a,b,c,d,e p , 0.001. V3: b,h p , 0.05; c,e p , 0.01; d p , 0.001. V5: h p , 0.05; d p , 0.01. V6: a p , 0.05; h p , 0.01; b,c,d,e p ,
0.001. V7: m p , 0.05; b,i p , 0.01; c,d,e,h,k p , 0.001. V8: g,m p , 0.05; i,k p , 0.01; b,c,d,e,h p , 0.001. TD: n p , 0.01; a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m p , 0.001. Vmean: a p , 0.05; b,c,d,e,h p , 0.001.
MSS: g p , 0.05; c,d,e,h,i,k,l p , 0.001. NMSS70: f,h,l p , 0.05; b,c,d p , 0.001. NMSS70 per minute: i,j p , 0.05; k p , 0.01; b,l p , 0.001. TDMSS70/NMSS70: m p , 0.01; d,h,k,o p , 0.001.
Team surface area: a,k,m p , 0.05; f,g p , 0.01; b,c,d,e,h,o p , 0.001, Fmed: a,b,c,h,i,k,l,m,n (d large); d,o (d moderate). Spread: f,g p , 0.01; b,c,d,e,h p , 0.001, Fmed: a,b,c,h,k,l,m (d large);
g,n (d moderate).

smallest practically important effect, or the SWC [0.2 multi-
plied by the between-subject SD, based on the Cohen’s d prin-
ciple]). The quantitative chance (QC) was interpreted as:
#1% almost certainly not, .1–5% very unlikely, .5–25%
unlikely, .25–75% possibly, .75–95% likely, .95–99% very
likely, and .99% almost certain. If the chances of higher or
lower differences were both .5%, the true difference was
reported as unclear. Otherwise, we interpreted the difference
as the observed effect (29). Because the skill-related perfor-
mance data violated some of the assumptions (e.g., presented
a non-Gaussian distribution), it was not possible to perform
ANOVA adjusted for playing time (analysis of covariance;
(12)). Thus, the data were first normalized by playing time
and then compared only by magnitude-based inference
(Cohen’s d and QC), which was also performed for the Fmed.
This approach is more relevant for athletic performance than
any statistically significant effect and well suited for small
sample size (13,29). Aiming at simplicity and practical mean-
ingfulness, only QC .75% and accompanied by an effect size
d . 0.5 were reported (49).
Figure 2. Magnitude-based inferences of possible differences between age groups (N = 89). The graphs contain Cohen’s d and 95% confidence interval for
each pairwise comparison, regarding whole match outcomes. Shaded area represents the smallest worthwhile change. VHIA = very high-intensity activities;
MSS = maximal sprinting speed.
Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
RESULTS
First Half
With respect to match running performance (Table 2), older
players presented a higher intensity of play than younger play-
ers (e.g., percentage walking, SPR, VHIA, Vmean, and MSS;
h2 = 0.43–0.51) with a tendency for the increase to stabilize
from U15 (e.g., Vmean: PRO, U20, U17, U15 . U13 . U11
[d = 1.03–2.63]), but with exceptions, such as MSS (PRO,
U20 . U15 [d = 1.1–1.55]) and VHIA (U20 . U15 [d =
0.88]). By contrast, the U20 presented higher Vmean than
PRO (d = 0.9). An increase in NMSS70 per minute was
observed from the younger groups to U15, followed by
a decrease in the older groups (U15 . U11, U13, U17, U20
. PRO [d = 0.62–1.83]; U17 . U20 [d = 0.52]). In relation to
the tactical variables (Table 2), although the team surface area
and spread increased (h2 = 0.31–0.49) with increased age (e.g.,
area: U20 . U17, U15 . U11, U13 [d = 1.06–2.41]), the
median frequency tended to be higher in the younger players
(U13, U15, U17 . U20, PRO [d = 0.88–3.68]).
VOLUME 33 | NUMBER 8 | AUGUST 2019 | 2209
Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

2210

Match-Related Development in Soccer

TABLE 5. Skill-related performance according to age (mean 6 SD).*†

Skill-related U11 U13 U15 U17 U20 PRO h2

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the

1st Half (N = 120)

Passes 5.3 6 5.2 7.9 6 4.8 11.5 6 5.3 18.6 6 7.2 20.6 6 10.6 18 6 12.5 —
Passes per minute 0.26 6 0.26b2,c3,d2,e2 0.32 6 0.19g3,h2 0.38 6 0.18 0.46 6 0.18 0.46 6 0.23 0.40 6 0.28 0.10
Successful passes (%) 61.5 6 31.9e2 69.4 6 21.0i2 70.7 6 17.1l2 71 6 12.6n2 73.2 6 18.4 79.4 6 15.1 0.07
Involvement with the ball 7.6 6 4.1 10.3 6 3.6 15.6 6 4.7 21.8 6 4.9 24.5 6 10.9 21.9 6 10.7 —
Involvement per minute 0.38 6 0.21b3,c3,d3,e2 0.41 6 0.14f2,g3,h2 0.52 6 0.16 0.54 6 0.12 0.54 6 0.24 0.49 6 0.24 0.11
Ball touches 14.1 6 9.3 19.0 6 10.8 33.7 6 14.8 49.3 6 18.6 54.8 6 29.3 48.2 6 32.3 —
Ball touches per minute 0.71 6 0.46b3,c4,d3,e2 0.76 6 0.43f3,g3,h3,i2 1.12 6 0.49 1.23 6 0.47 1.22 6 0.65 1.07 6 0.72 0.13
Touches per involvement 1.8 6 0.6b2,c3,d2 1.8 6 0.6f2,g3,h3 2.1 6 0.5 2.2 6 0.5 2.2 6 0.4 2 6 0.6 0.11
Duels 4.7 6 3.2 5.1 6 3.3 6.2 6 3.3 4.8 6 3.7 5.2 6 2.8 6.5 6 3.2 —
Duels per minute 0.23 6 0.16c3,d4,e3 0.20 6 0.13g3,h3,i2 0.21 6 0.11j3,k4,l3 0.12 6 0.09 0.11 6 0.06 0.14 6 0.07 0.15
Duels won (%) 49.4 6 33.4 51.2 6 30.5 58.8 6 30.1l3 52.2 6 32n2 51.8 6 31.1o2 37 6 28 0.05
2nd Half (N = 89)
Passes 4.5 6 2.2 6.7 6 5.1 11.1 6 5 18.1 6 7.6 17 6 6.3 13.3 6 5.6 —
Passes per minute 0.23 6 0.11b3,c4,d4,e2 0.27 6 0.20f5,g3,h2 0.37 6 0.17 0.45 6 0.19n3 0.38 6 0.14o2 0.30 6 0.12 0.20
Successful passes (%) 63.1 6 23.6b2,c5,d2,e2 61.6 6 26.9f2,g2,h2,i3 77.2 6 14.4 73.6 6 10.2 75.7 6 13.2 79.9 6 13.2 0.16
TM

Involvement with the ball 7.4 6 3.3 8.6 6 6.7 13.2 6 5.6 20.1 6 6.4 20.6 6 7.3 15.7 6 4.1 —
Involvement per minute 0.37 6 0.16c3,d3 0.34 6 0.11f2,g3,h3 0.44 6 0.19l5 0.50 6 0.16n4 0.46 6 0.16o3 0.36 6 0.09 0.14
Ball touches 12.5 6 6.7 17.1 6 7.7 33.1 6 18.8 49.6 6 19.9 46.8 6 21.3 34.7 6 13.7 —
Ball touches per minute 0.63 6 0.33b3,c4,d3,e2 0.69 6 0.31f3,g4,h3 1.10 6 0.63l2 1.24 6 0.50n4 1.04 6 0.47o2 0.79 6 0.31 0.22
Touches per involvement 1.7 6 0.4a5,b4,c4,d3,e3 2 6 0.6f2,g3 2.4 6 0.7 2.5 6 0.6m2 2.2 6 0.3 2.2 6 0.6 0.22
Duels 4.5 6 2.6 4.2 6 2.1 5.2 6 2.1 5 6 3.3 5.8 6 4 6.6 6 4.1 —
Duels per minute 0.23 6 0.13a2,b5,c3,d2,e2 0.17 6 0.08g2 0.17 6 0.07j2,k5 0.13 6 0.08 0.13 6 0.09 0.16 6 0.09 0.13
Duels won (%) 40.9 6 15.7a3,b4,c5 55.1 6 34.3f5 69 6 16.2j5,k4,l3 59.4 6 30.1 43.6 6 24.1 59.8 6 23.1 0.14
Whole match (N = 89)
Passes 9.1 6 4.9 14.9 6 8.7 22.4 6 9.4 38.4 6 14.2 36.5 6 16 32.3 6 17 —
Passes per minute 0.23 6 0.12b3,c4,d4,e3 0.30 6 0.17g3,h2 0.37 6 0.16j2 0.48 6 0.18n3 0.41 6 0.18 0.36 6 0.19 0.20
Successful passes (%) 61.6 6 21b2,c2,d3,e3 61.7 6 13.2f3,g3,h4,i4 73.2 6 11.6l5 73.5 6 7.9n2 74.8 6 11.4 80.1 6 10.8 0.22
Involvement with the ball 14.6 6 4.8 19 6 4.6 28.5 6 8.6 43 6 9.5 44.4 6 17.8 38.3 6 13.2 —
Involvement per minute 0.37 6 0.12b3,c4,d3 0.38 6 0.09f2,g4,h3 0.48 6 0.14 0.54 6 0.12n4 0.49 6 0.20 0.43 6 0.15 0.17
Ball touches 25.7 6 11.9 35.1 6 14.5 63.4 6 30.2 100.7 6 36.5 99.1 6 48.8 84.4 6 42.5 —
Ball touches per minute 0.64 6 0.30b3,c4,d4,e3 0.70 6 0.29f3,g4,h3,i2 1.06 6 0.50 1.26 6 0.46n3 1.10 6 0.54 0.94 6 0.47 0.21
Touches per involvement 1.7 6 0.4b3,c4,d4,e3 1.8 6 0.5f2,g4,h3,i2 2.1 6 0.5 2.3 6 0.5 2.2 6 0.3 2.1 6 0.6 0.20
Duels 8.8 6 4 10.1 6 4.9 12.2 6 4.2 10.6 6 5.9 11.1 6 6 14 6 5.4 —
Duels per minute 0.22 6 0.10c3,d3,e3 0.20 6 0.10g2,h3 0.20 6 0.07j4,k4,l3 0.13 6 0.07 0.12 6 0.07o5 0.16 6 0.06 0.20
Duels won (%) 47.3 6 22.1b2 52.8 6 22.4 59.4 6 15.4k3,l2 52 6 23.3 45.6 6 19.7 49.7 6 19 0.05
Goal attempts 0.7 6 0.7 1.6 6 1.6 1.1 6 1.5 2.4 6 1.8 1.4 6 1.4 1.1 6 1.6 —
Goal attempts per minute 0.02 6 0.02c,e 0.03 6 0.03i 0.02 6 0.02j,l 0.03 6 0.02m,n 0.02 6 0.02o 0.01 6 0.02 0.11
Goal attempts on target (%) 35 6 47.9d2 35.7 6 47.6h5 39.3 6 45.3k2 24.3 6 26.9m5 9.8 6 17.8o5 27.1 6 39.8 0.08

*a = U11 3 U13; b = U11 3 U15; c = U11 3 U17; d = U11 3 U20; e = U11 3 PRO; f = U13 3 U15; g = U13 3 U17; h = U13 3 U20; i = U13 3 PRO; j = U15 3 U17; k = U15 3
U20; l = U15 3 PRO; m = U17 3 U20; n = U17 3 PRO; o = U20 3 PRO (d $ 0.50 for all cases).
†QC = 1–possibly, 2–likely, 3–very likely, 4–almost certain, 5–unclear.

Younger players (Table 5) demonstrated a lower number
of passes, involvement with the ball (likely to very likely;
U20, U17 . U13, U11; PRO . U11 [d = 0.66–0.89]),
touches per involvement (U20, U17, U15 . U13, U11 [d =
0.59–0.89]), and ball touches (likely to almost certain; PRO,
U20, U17, U15 . U13, U11 [d = 0.52–1.12]). Likely QC (d =
0.54–0.72) indicated that in the PRO group, the percentage
of successful passes was higher than in all other younger
groups except U20. Conversely, the PRO tended to present
a lower percentage of duels won than the younger groups
U13, U15, U17, and U20 (likely to very likely; d = 0.49–0.90),
similar to that occurred in the number of duels (likely to
almost certain; U11, U13, U15 . U17, U20, PRO [d =
0.57–1.13]).
Second Half
Many of the statistical differences verified in the first half
through the age groups became nonsignificant or less
pronounced (e.g., Vmean, team surface area, successful
passes; h2 = 0.16–0.38) (Table 3). With respect to skill-
related performance, some changes were also noted (Table
5). For instance, the differences in percentage of successful
passes were now unclear (d = 0.11–0.29) comparing U15,
U17, U20, and PRO.
Whole Match
Detailed differences between age groups in match running
and tactical performances are shown in Table 4. It should be
noted that VHIA increased from likely to almost certain
until the U20 (U20 . PRO, U17 . U15 . U13 . U11
[d = 0.46–3.15]; Figure 2). The TDMSS70/NMSS70 was also
higher in the U20 than in all other groups (almost certain
[d = 1.31–1.87]), although it did not suggest alterations with
increases/decreases in age. The Vmean was also higher in
the U20 than in the other groups, although it seemed to
stabilize from U15 (very likely to almost certain; U20 .
PRO, U17, U15 . U13 . U11 [d = 0.73–2.44]). NMSS70
per minute was higher in the younger groups (very likely
to almost certain; U15 . U17, U20, PRO [d = 1.02–1.97];
U13 . PRO [d = 1.27]). By contrast, MSS was higher in the
PRO group (PRO . U17 . U15, U13, U11 [d = 1–2.35];
Figure 2). Team surface area (likely to almost certain; PRO,
U20, U17, U15 . U13 . U11 [d = 0.50–1.65]; Figure 2) and
spread (PRO, U20, U17, U15 . U13, U11 [d = 0.53–1.32])
also increased up to U15. Median frequencies for team sur-
face area (U13, U15, U17 . U20, PRO [d = 0.87–1.99]) and
spread (U15, U17 . U20, PRO [d = 0.59–1.41]) were higher
in the younger groups.
A total of 20,874 technical actions were recorded. In
general, a consistent change in the percentage of successful
passes (likely to almost certain; PRO . U17, U15 . U13,
U11 [d = 0.62–1.54]; Figure 2) was verified with an increase
in age (Table 5). Besides, ball touches and touches per
involvement tended to increase up to U15 (likely to almost
certain; U15 to PRO . U13, U11 [d = 0.60–1.60]). The
percentage of duels won did not follow the same pattern,
Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
suggesting that it was moderately higher in the U15 (vs.
PRO, U20; likely to very likely [d = 0.57–0.78]). The occur-
rence of duels per minute seemed to be greater in the youn-
ger groups (likely to almost certain; U11, U13, U15 . U17,
PRO [d = 0.49–1.16]). Inversely, passes (likely to almost
certain; U15 to PRO . U11; U17 . U15 [d = 0.65–1.63])
and involvements (likely to almost certain; U20, U17, U15 .
U13, U11 [d = 0.71–1.51]) were lower in the younger com-
pared with some of the older groups. The frequency of goal
attempts was low for all groups, and the U20 presented an
apparently worse percentage of success (unclear to likely
[d = 0.56–0.86]). Other post hoc comparisons were unclear.
Comparisons Between First Half and Second Half
Moderate to large decreases in the work rate (i.e., Vmean
and TD) were found from U15 to PRO groups (likely to
almost certain [d = 0.61–1.13]), but not in U11 and U13 (i.e.,
small changes; d = 0.3–0.42), when comparing first and sec-
ond half-times. Although increases were observed in stand-
ing (all groups, likely to almost certain [d = 0.57–1.86]) and
walking movement categories (U15 to PRO, very likely to
almost certain [d = 0.71–1.26]), the percentage in MIR
decreased in U15 and U20 (very likely [d = 0.78–0.79]),
and the PRO group presented reduction in HIR (likely
[d = 0.52]). Maximal sprinting speed only reduced in U11
and U17 (likely [d = 0.62–0.75]). Regarding tactical variables,
moderate to large (d = 0.54–1.41) declines in the second
half-time were also found in the median frequency, for team
surface area (all age groups) and spread (all except PRO).
Less evident differences between game halves (i.e., negative
effects) were found regarding skill-related performance.
Although percentage of duels won increased in U15 (likely
[d = 0.76]), the number of duels simultaneously decreased in
this group and also in U13 during the second half (likely [d =
0.59–0.70]). The number of passes, percentage of successful
passes, involvements with the ball, ball touches, goal at-
tempts, and percentage of goal attempts on target showed
no changes across halves (unclear to possibly [d = 0.02–
0.55]). There was an exception for likely differences in the
PRO (involvements with the ball and ball touches [d = 0.52–
0.74]) and U13 (involvements with the ball [d = 0.58]). An
increase in the number of touches/involvement was also
verified, in the U13, U15, and U17 (likely to very likely
[d = 0.57–0.86]).
DISCUSSION
The aim of this study was to investigate and gain insights
into how the development occurs regarding match running
performance, skill-related profile, team tactical distribution,
and dynamics of collective movement evaluated simulta-
neously during official soccer matches in a Brazilian com-
petition. Participants were investigated from U11 when
children are introduced to competitions up to the PRO
level. The main finding was that some match running
performance markers seems to develop faster than
VOLUME 33 | NUMBER 8 | AUGUST 2019 | 2211
 Match-Related Development in Soccer
skill-related performance, and this influences different team
dynamics for each age group. Also, match running perfor-
mance presented declines during the second half-time only
in on-time (i.e., U15) and post-PHV players (i.e., U17 to
PRO), but not in pre-PHV U11 and U13.
Comparing our data with the current literature, first
restricted to studies with Brazilians, we verified that a pre-
vious study that adopted a friendly match on an unofficial
field (90 3 45 m) reported an intensity (U15: 102.3 6 9.33
m$min21) (23) slightly lower than that of our findings during
an official youth soccer match. In another study in 2007,
during official matches in the same championship as the
one evaluated in this study, values were verified in the U20
(Vmean: 109 m$min21; SPR: 6.1%) and U17 (Vmean: 105
m$min21; SPR: 5.6%) using an older VTM method (42),
which suggested lower intensity than our results. Indeed, this
methodological approach underestimates the TD traveled
and high-intensity activities compared with computational
tracking (43), but possible temporal evolutions should also
be accounted for (9), suggesting caution in comparisons. The
PRO players presented results very similar to the studies that
used the same tracking system in the Brazilian First Division
League, regarding the work rate (TD = 10,012 m; Barros
et al. (6)), team surface area (773.8–1,407.6 m; Moura et al.
(37)), and Fmed (e.g., area: 0.25–0.81 cycles$min21; Moura
et al. (38)). Some indices were higher than a recent study of
the fourth national division (TD = 9,153 6 1,607 m; MSS:
26.41 6 3.73 km$h21; Aquino et al. (2)). When we com-
pared with Europeans and others (e.g., Oceania and Asia),
many of our results are not similar (i.e., Vmean, VHIA, MSS)
to those previously established for age-matched young play-
ers (1,5,10,12,18,19,27,28,34,45,48), whereas PRO was com-
patible (16,17,21). In addition, previous studies have reported
contrasting age-related results to ours in Vmean (U13 ,
U15; Harley et al. (28)), MSS (U13 , U15; Buchheit et al.
(12)), speed bands (U11 = U13 at all intensities; Goto et al.
(27)), and TD (trend of increases U13–U17; Mendez-
Villanueva et al. (33)). Some differences may have been
due to the different research methods (11,26,28,43), such
as data acquisition systems (computational tracking vs.
GPS (1,5,10,12,27,28,33)), game configurations (standardized
pitch size and 2 half-times vs. variations in pitch sizes and
multiple game periods (27,28)), speed thresholds (fixed vs.
individualized (33)), and statistical procedures (magnitude-
based inferences vs. null-hypothesis significance test (27,28)),
adopted in the present research and literature studies,
respectively. Climate conditions (40) and particular style of
play adopted according to the country culture (21,48) pos-
sibly contribute to these differences. These assumptions sug-
gest the use of caution when generalizing. Nevertheless,
youth players’ (i.e., Brazilian) preparation and match analysis
are warranted to be performed on basis of the specific loca-
tion they are competing.
We opted for fixed speed thresholds to all groups because
the primary objective was to analyze development, which is
the TM
2212 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
best detected when absolute speed zones are used regardless
of age (27), allowing for direct comparisons (12). Very young
pre-PHV players (U11, U13) presented generally lower
match running performance (e.g., Vmean and VHIA) than
on-time (U15) or post-PHV players (U17 and U20) and PRO
(see for instance Table 2). During a soccer game, energy is
obtained from the interaction between anaerobic and aero-
bic metabolisms. Pre-PHV individuals depend more on aer-
obic energy generation (46), evidenced by higher activity of
the tricarboxylic acid cycle enzymes. Conversely, the anaer-
obic lactic system is poorly developed (,activity of the
phosphofructokinase and lactate dehydrogenase enzymes)
(44), in addition to reduced glycogen stores (8) when com-
pared with adults. During the period of the growth spurt
(U15), there is a marked improvement in both components,
aerobic (maximal oxygen consumption) (4) and anaerobic
(glycolytic enzymes) (7) and in hormonal factors (growth
hormone synthesis) (8) that certainly favored improvements
in match running performance parameters for the game, as
found in the current study. Based on these observations,
match running performance differences between ages might
have followed a very similar picture to the predictable pat-
tern whereby biological development of the energy systems
supply occurs.
On the contrary, a consistent shift in the percentage of
correct passes (likely to almost certain) reveals that pro-
ficiency in this task progressively improves to the PRO level.
It also presented similar indices compared with Spanish La
Liga and English Premier League players, as well as
regarding other variables (e.g., the percentage of duels won
and touches per involvement) (21). Skill-related performance
is influenced by player fitness level (24), but also is depen-
dent on a complex interaction among a myriad of factors. It
is neither restricted only to gross motor activities, but
demands also of perceptual-cognitive ability (e.g., decision-
making), which requires the players to identify under time-
pressure conditions, the availability of space, movements of
opponents, teammates, and the ball, and also perform a coor-
dinated movement (24,30). Thus, lower game understanding
experienced by younger players (1,18) is a plausible expla-
nation for their lower rate of successful passes. Different
team dynamics were also found in the younger age groups
when compared with the PRO, revealing that in the younger
players, the collective movements, represented by the Fmed
of the team area and spread, occur more quickly than in the
PRO (e.g., d = 0.87–1.99). This fact is strictly related to
passing proficiency. Higher error rates cause younger players
to move more between a ball possession and no possession
condition (i.e., when they miss the pass). These events are
characterized by tendencies of collective movements to
increase team area and spread (i.e., when in ball possession
and attacking) and inversely reduce team area and spread
(i.e., without ball possession and defending), respectively
(37). It justifies, in part, the higher Fmed in the younger play-
ers, revealing that players’ technical performance may

interfere directly with the team dynamics during youth offi-
cial soccer matches.
Past research investigating PRO official matches also
indicated that in-game running performance possibly causes
interference in team tactical performance (38). Our results
suggest that increases in match running performance indices
(e.g., Vmean, VHIA; very likely to almost certain) occurred
with a simultaneous increase in the area occupied by the
team and the spread of players on the field (very likely to
almost certain) between U11 and U15. It indicates that
match running performance not fully developed in pre-
PHV players restricts the occupation of large portions of
the field, on average, whereby teammates prefer being closer
to each other during the game, in agreement with the study
by Castagna et al. (18). Because this same behavior is also
expected to occur in the opposing team, less effective space
may have reflected in the greater number of duels per minute
in the younger groups. It indicates that they are contesting
possession more frequently (likely to almost certain), and
simultaneously the number of touches/involvements is less
(likely to almost certain), thereby the players seem to pass
the ball (or suffer a tackle) more directly due to pressure
exerted by the opponents. Similar results were observed by
Folgado et al. (25) during small-sided games, where younger
players (less mature and experienced) presented less elabo-
rated and direct playing style. Thus, from the current study
results, it is also possible to point out that running perfor-
mance of younger soccer players could act as limiting factor
to team tactical dispersion.
It is not surprising that running performance decreased
from first to second half of the matches, supporting previous
findings in PRO (6,16,17) and young players (19,33,43,45,49).
Furthermore, we found changes between game halves with
practical meaningfulness only from the age U15 (14.8 6 0.3
years), but not in pre-PHV (U13 [12.9 6 0.4 years] and U11
[10.8 6 0.4 years]). The pre-PHV players performed a lower
percentage of movements at high-intensity domain during
the matches compared with older players, which in turn
could lead to less tax on glycolytic pathways–not fully
developed–and probably minor accumulation of muscle by-
products (44,46). Generally speaking, these individuals also
have less muscle mass and force production accompanied by
lower homeostatic disturbance and muscle damage (10), in
addition to their faster recovery capacity (44). These factors
help explain running performance maintenance in pre-PHV.
However, Mendez-Villanueva et al. (33) found greater work
rate during the first half compared with the second, regard-
less of age, in U13 (12.5 6 0.3 years) to U18 (17.3 6 0.3
years). Once again, it is essential to highlight the differences
in game rules, mainly duration of the matches (e.g., U13: this
study–2 3 25 minutes; Mendez-Villanueva et al. (33)–2 3
35 minutes). However, Castagna et al. (18) presented similar
results to ours when they assessed children aged 11.8 6 0.6
years, and stated the absence of differences in running per-
formance between halves. It occurred even with longer
Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
match duration (2 3 30 minutes) than in this study (U11:
2 3 20 minutes, U13: 2 3 25 minutes). Later, the author
revealed reductions in running activities of players with
14.4 6 0.1 years, namely fewer movements at MIR domain
accompanied by TD reduction during the second half (19),
also in accordance with our findings. Buchheit et al. (10)
demonstrated that those deleterious effects (signs of residual
fatigue) experienced by post-PHV players, when they played
2 matches within 48 hours (i.e., match running performance
impaired in the second match), were not evident in pre-
PHV; on the contrary, they presented improvements of run-
ning performance in the second match. Thus, the current
study, in addition to literature, provided evidence that pre-
PHV footballers may be affected less acutely by the match
load, concerning their running performance expression.
Nevertheless, it remains inconclusive whether there is
a time-dependent relationship.
This was the first study to quantitatively characterize
tactical features (i.e., team surface area and spread) and
dynamics of collective movements (Fmed) during official
youth soccer matches. According to the results, Fmed
decreased moderately to largely from first to second half in
all age groups. It is important to note that it reflects slower
team reorganization during ball possession exchanges at sec-
ond half compared with the first. This event may be associ-
ated with (a) a tactical change by the team during the match,
(b) a decreased running performance in older (e.g., Vmean,
MIR, and HIR) (38), or (c) an increased percentage of TD
spent in standing and walking movement categories, in addi-
tion to many game interruptions during the second half (e.g.,
due to players’ substitutions and medical interventions).
However, skill-related performance was, in general, main-
tained throughout match halves or even improved. Indeed,
research on PRO soccer matches (i.e., French League 1 and
UEFA Europa League) had already evidenced that match-
related fatigue impairs running activities during the second
half. However, it was not accompanied by a drop in skill-
related performance (e.g., number of passes, percentage of
successful passes, touches per possession, and percentage of
duels won), except in rare occurrences such as HIR reduc-
tion associated with lower involvements with the ball toward
the end of the play (17). Therefore, our results are aligned
with the literature and provide further insights to support the
theory that, even with presence or absence of match-related
fatigue signs, technical performance was likely unaffected
regardless of age. However, greater high-intensity demands
imposed on PRO players, and consequent reductions of
these movements (i.e., HIR) in the second half, may lead
to moderately less ball possessions.
Caution is required in attempts to do an early promotion
of younger talented players to compete in older groups.
According to our results, although the Vmean presented
a tendency to stabilize from the U15 group, the other
variables such as VHIA and MSS, determinant factors to
succeed at modern soccer (2), continued to increase up to
VOLUME 33 | NUMBER 8 | AUGUST 2019 | 2213
 Match-Related Development in Soccer
U20 and PRO, respectively (e.g., Figure 2). Younger players
may not be accustomed to cope with higher loads of the
matches in the older group. Interestingly, the U20 presented
values close to and even above the PRO regarding match
running performance (unclear to very likely), team surface
area, and spread (likely to almost certain), especially in the
first half. However, the results of skill-related performances
were unclear (Figure 2), except possibly in the PRO the
percentage of passes was higher than U20. In Brazil, many
PRO state competitions involve a congested schedule
(2 games per week, interval #72 hours), unlike the young
groups. In Europe, this factor does not seem to affect match
running performance (e.g., Carling and Dupont (17)), but
future studies are needed to determine the impact of a crowded
schedule on competing players in other locations, under local
conditions of high environmental stress (i.e., Brazil), which
promotes acute impairment in match running performance,
principally the VHIA (40).
It is not unusual for a youth soccer academy to conduct
a battery of tests outside match play to evaluate players’ phys-
ical fitness and skills. Previous studies, using field tests, have
verified some effects of chronological age, such as in running
performance ((Yo-Yo IR1, U15 , U17; (32)); sprint-30 m, U11
, U13 , U15; (39)), contrasting with those encountered
during the official matches in this study (i.e., changes in
Vmean and MSS, respectively). In line, Buchheit et al. (13)
revealed that temporal changes in running performance
parameters during match play, observed after ;3 months of
training, did not necessarily match those found for the
physical capacity of the players’ (i.e., fitness testing perfor-
mance). Regarding skill-related performance (e.g., percentage
of successful passes), another study using the Loughborough
Soccer Passing Test suggested that the ability to pass
improved continuously with age (p , 0.001) between U12
and U19, and between 10 and 15 years of age is the period
in which the greatest improvement occurs (30). These results
are only partially in agreement with ours because between
U11 and U13 (10.8 6 0.4 and 12.9 6 0.4 years, respectively),
the percentage of successful passes and even the number of
passes did not differ, similar to that of a previous study (24).
Thus, remains questionable to what extent field tests are tools
that track changes which occur in function of age regarding
real performance in a match.
In summary, because several differences in match per-
formance indicators were evidenced favoring a given older
group compared with younger–from childhood U11 to
PRO–it is necessary to progressively implement training
methods designed to enhance players’ speed capacity (e.g.,
VHIA) combined with their technical evolution (e.g.,
passing ability) and promote adequacy to team tactical
dynamics (e.g., Fmed). Albeit the statement is speculative in
nature (i.e., a cross-sectional design was applied), Dellal
et al. (22) found that the main differences between PRO
elite and amateur soccer players concerned their HIR pro-
file and successful technical performance (i.e., passes) dur-
the TM
2214 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
ing small-sided games. Although the current work helped
clarify some particularities of each age group of Brazilian
soccer players and provided thoughts into game evolution
from childhood to PRO level, future studies with a longitu-
dinal approach are necessary to confirm the results pre-
sented here. More discriminant analysis (e.g., record of
passes in own or in opponent half (49) and division of
offensive and defensive game phases (37)) are also required.
Two other major limitations were: (a) in all age groups,
players were grouped to present the results regardless of
their tactical positions; Buchheit et al. (12) reported that in
young players the match running performance is position-
dependent; and (b) reduced number of participants in the
second half and the entire game, due to the high rate of
substitutions; in addition to the reduced number of samples
of Fmed, one for each half-time.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
This study was conceived recognizing that match analysis in
youth soccer is a vital process to establish optimal training
programs according to age (28,33,48), also taking into
account the importance of interaction between tactical, tech-
nical, and physical components to the overall soccer match
performance (33,41). The indices presented can also be use-
ful for scientific purposes, helping researchers conceive
soccer-specific protocols. Club performance analysts must
consider closer monitoring of match-related performance
variables such as VHIA and percentage of successful passes,
which presented sensitivity to evolve with aging continu-
ously, and inform coaching staff whether players’ develop-
ment across youth span is in accordance to the expected.
Particular attention to acute fatigue patterns evoked by com-
petition needs to be paid from U15 (i.e., puberty) to pro-
fessional senior, whereby running performance declined
during the second half, but it is not so essential in pre-
PHV U11 and U13. Most importantly, coaches should be
aware of the reference values provided for Brazilian players
to prescribe training sessions on the basis of actual load
reached during the game (e.g., intensity and volume), look-
ing for attending the specific necessities (physical, technical,
and tactical) from childhood to professional, and perform
the required adjustments during transition phases.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank all the players, Mirassol FC, and senior
researcher Christopher Carling, PhD (University of Central
Lancashire, United Kingdom), for his edits and very helpful
comments on the current manuscript. This work was
supported by the CAPES, National Council for Scientific
and Technological Development (CNPq) under Grant
[481833/2013-7], and São Paulo Research Foundation
(FAPESP) under Grant numbers [2016/50250-1], [2017/
20945-0]. The results of this study do not constitute endorse-
ment of the product by the authors or the NSCA. The
authors declare no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES
1. Al Haddad, H, Simpson, BM, Buchheit, M, Di Salvo, V, and
Mendez-Villanueva, A. Peak match speed and maximal sprinting
speed in young soccer players: Effect of age and playing position. Int
J Sports Physiol Perform 10: 888–896, 2015.
2. Aquino, R, Munhoz Martins, GH, Palucci Vieira, LH, and Menezes,
RP. Influence of match location, quality of opponents, and match
status on movement patterns in Brazilian professional football
players. J Strength Cond Res 31: 2155–2161, 2017.
3. Aquino, RLQT, Cruz Goncalves, LG, Palucci Vieira, LH, Oliveira,
LP, Alves, GF, Pereira Santiago, PR, and Puggina, EF. Periodization
training focused on technical-tactical ability in young soccer players
positively affects biochemical markers and game performance. J
Strength Cond Res 30: 2723–2732, 2016.
4. Armstrong, N and Welsman, JR. Assessment and interpretation of
aerobic fitness in children and adolescents. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 22:
435–476, 1994.
5. Atan, SA, Foskett, A, and Ali, A. Motion analysis of match play in
New Zealand U13 to U15 age-group soccer players. J Strength Cond
Res 30: 2416–2423, 2016.
6. Barros, RM, Misuta, MS, Menezes, RP, Figueroa, PJ, Moura, FA,
Cunha, SA, Anido, R, and Leite, NJ. Analysis of the distances
covered by first division Brazilian soccer players obtained with an
automatic tracking method. J Sports Sci Med 6: 233–242, 2007.
7. Berg, A, Kim, SS, and Keul, J. Skeletal muscle enzyme activities in
healthy young subjects. Int J Sports Med 7: 236–239, 1986.
8. Boisseau, N and Delamarche, P. Metabolic and hormonal responses
to exercise in children and adolescents. Sports Med 30: 405–422,
2000.
9. Bradley, PS, Archer, DT, Hogg, B, Schuth, G, Bush, M, Carling, C,
and Barnes, C. Tier-specific evolution of match performance
characteristics in the English Premier League: it’s getting tougher at
the top. J Sports Sci 34: 980–987, 2016.
10. Buchheit, M, Horobeanu, C, Mendez-Villanueva, A, Simpson, BM,
and Bourdon, PC. Effect of age and spa treatment on match running
performance over two consecutive games in highly trained soccer
players. J Sports Sci 29: 591–598, 2011.
11. Buchheit, M, Allen, A, Poon, TK, Modonutti, M, Gregson, W, and Di
Salvo, V. Integrating different tracking systems in football: Multiple
camera semi-automatic system, local position measurement and GPS
technologies. J Sports Sci 32: 1844–1857, 2014.
12. Buchheit, M, Mendez-Villanueva, A, Simpson, BM, and Bourdon,
PC. Match running performance and fitness in youth soccer. Int J
Sports Med 31: 818–825, 2010.
13. Buchheit, M, Simpson, BM, and Mendez-Villanueva, A. Repeated high-
speed activities during youth soccer games in relation to changes in
maximal sprinting and aerobic speeds. Int J Sports Med 34: 40–48, 2013.
14. Capranica, L, Tessitore, A, Guidetti, L, and Figura, F. Heart rate and
match analysis in pre-pubescent soccer players. J Sports Sci 19: 379–
384, 2001.
15. Carling, C, Williams, AM, and Reilly, T. Introduction to Soccer
Match Analysis. In: Handbook of Soccer Match Analysis: A Systematic
Approach to Improving Performance. London, UK: Routledge, 2005.
pp. 1–15.
16. Carling, C, Bloomfield, J, Nelsen, L, and Reilly, T. The role of
motion analysis in elite soccer: Contemporary performance
measurement techniques and work rate data. Sports Med 38:
839–862, 2008.
17. Carling, C and Dupont, G. Are declines in physical performance
associated with a reduction in skill-related performance during
professional soccer match-play? J Sports Sci 29: 63–71, 2011.
18. Castagna, C, D’Ottavio, S, and Abt, G. Activity profile of young soccer
players during actual match play. J Strength Cond Res 17: 775–780, 2003.
19. Castagna, C, Manzi, V, Impellizzeri, F, Weston, M, and Barbero
Alvarez, JC. Relationship between endurance field tests and match
Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
performance in young soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 24: 3227–
3233, 2010.
20. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, 1988. pp. 20–26.
21. Dellal, A, Chamari, K, Wong, DP, Ahmaidi, S, Keller, D, Barros, R,
Bisciotti, GN, and Carling, C. Comparison of physical and technical
performance in European soccer match-play: FA Premier League
and La Liga. Eur J Sport Sci 11: 51–59, 2011.
22. Dellal, A, Hill-Haas, S, Lago-Penas, C, and Chamari, K. Small-sided
games in soccer: Amateur vs. professional players’ physiological
responses, physical, and technical activities. J Strength Cond Res 25:
2371–2381, 2011.
23. Fernandes-da-Silva, J, Castagna, C, Teixeira, AS, Carminatti, LJ, and
Guglielmo, LG. The peak velocity derived from the Carminatti Test
is related to physical match performance in young soccer players. J
Sports Sci 34: 2238–2245, 2016.
24. Fernandez-Gonzalo, R, De Souza-Teixeira, F, Bresciani, G, Garcı́a-
López, D, Hernanández-Murúa, JA, Jiménez-Jiménez, R, and De
Paz, JA. Comparison of technical and physiological characteristics of
prepubescent soccer players of different ages. J Strength Cond Res 24:
1790–1798, 2010.
25. Folgado, H, Lemmink, KA, Frencken, W, and Sampaio, J. Length,
width and centroid distance as measures of teams tactical performance
in youth football. Eur J Sport Sci 14(Suppl 1): S487–S492, 2014.
26. Freitas, CG, Aoki, MS, Arruda, AFS, Franciscon, C, and Moreira, A.
Monitoring salivary immunoglobulin a responses to official and
simulated matches in elite young soccer players. J Hum Kinet 53:
107–115, 2016.
27. Goto, H, Morris, JG, and Nevill, ME. Motion analysis of U11 to U16
elite English Premier League Academy players. J Sports Sci 33:
1248–1258, 2015.
28. Harley, JA, Barnes, CA, Portas, M, Lovell, R, Barrett, S, Paul, D, and
Weston, M. Motion analysis of match-play in elite U12 to U16 age-
group soccer players. J Sports Sci 28: 1391–1397, 2010.
29. Hopkins, WG, Marshall, SW, Batterham, AM, and Hanin, J.
Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise
science. Med Sci Sports Exerc 41: 3–13, 2009.
30. Huijgen, BC, Elferink-Gemser, MT, Ali, A, and Visscher, C. Soccer skill
development in talented players. Int J Sports Med 34: 720–726, 2013.
31. Joo, CH, Hwang-Bo, K, and Jee, H. Technical and physical activities
of small-sided games in young Korean soccer players. J Strength
Cond Res 30: 2164–2173, 2016.
32. Markovic, G and Mikulic, P. Discriminative ability of the Yo-Yo
intermittent recovery test (level 1) in prospective young soccer
players. J Strength Cond Res 25: 2931–2934, 2011.
33. Mendez-Villanueva, A, Buchheit, M, Simpson, B, and Bourdon, PC.
Match play intensity distribution in youth soccer. Int J Sports Med
34: 101–110, 2013.
34. Mendez-Villanueva, A, Buchheit, M, Simpson, B, Peltola, E, and
Bourdon, P. Does on-field sprinting performance in young soccer
players depend on how fast they can run or how fast they do run? J
Strength Cond Res 25: 2634–2638, 2011.
35. Mirwald, RL, Baxter-Jones, AD, Bailey, DA, and Beunen, GP. An
assessment of maturity from anthropometric measurements. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 34: 689–694, 2002.
36. Moreira, A, Bradley, P, Carling, C, Arruda, AF, Spigolon, LM,
Franciscon, C, and Aoki, MS. Effect of a congested match schedule on
immune-endocrine responses, technical performance and session-
RPE in elite youth soccer players. J Sports Sci 34: 2255–2261, 2016.
37. Moura, FA, Martins, LE, Anido Rde, O, de Barros, RM, and Cunha,
SA. Quantitative analysis of Brazilian football players’ organisation
on the pitch. Sports Biomech 11: 85–96, 2012.
38. Moura, FA, Martins, LE, Anido, RO, Ruffino, PR, Barros, RM, and
Cunha, SA. A spectral analysis of team dynamics and tactics in
Brazilian football. J Sports Sci 31: 1568–1577, 2013.
VOLUME 33 | NUMBER 8 | AUGUST 2019 | 2215
 Match-Related Development in Soccer
39. Mujika, I, Spencer, M, Santisteban, J, Goiriena, JJ, and Bishop, D.
Age-related differences in repeated-sprint ability in highly trained
youth football players. J Sports Sci 27: 1581–1590, 2009.
40. Nassis, GP, Brito, J, Dvorak, J, Chalabi, H, and Racinais, S. The
association of environmental heat stress with performance: Analysis of
the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil. Br J Sports Med 49: 609–613, 2015.
41. Paul, DJ, Bradley, PS, and Nassis, GP. Factors affecting match
running performance of elite soccer players: Shedding some light on
the complexity. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 10: 516–519, 2015.
42. Pereira Da Silva, N, Kirkendall, DT, and Leite De Barros Neto, T.
Movement patterns in elite Brazilian youth soccer. J Sports Med Phys
Fitness 47: 270–275, 2007.
43. Randers, MB, Mujika, I, Hewitt, A, Santisteban, J, Bischoff, R,
Solano, R, Zubillaga, A, Peltola, E, Krustrup, P, and Mohr, M.
Application of four different football match analysis systems: A
comparative study. J Sports Sci 28: 171–182, 2010.
44. Ratel, S, Duche, P, and Williams, CA. Muscle fatigue during high-
intensity exercise in children. Sports Med 36: 1031–1065, 2006.
45. Rebelo, A, Brito, J, Seabra, A, Oliveira, J, and Krustrup, P. Physical
match performance of youth football players in relation to physical
capacity. Eur J Sport Sci 14(Suppl 1): S148–S156, 2014.
the TM
2216 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
View publication stats
46. Riddell, MC. The endocrine response and substrate utilization
during exercise in children and adolescents. J Appl Physiol 105:
725–733, 2008.
47. Sanchez-Sanchez, J, Hernandez, D, Casamichana, D, Martinez-
Salazar, C, Ramirez-Campillo, R, and Sampaio, J. Heart rate,
technical performance and session-RPE in elite youth soccer small-
sided games played with wildcard player. J Strength Cond Res 31:
2678–2685, 2017.
48. Saward, C, Morris, JG, Nevill, ME, Nevill, AM, and Sunderland, C.
Longitudinal development of match-running performance in elite
male youth soccer players. Scand J Med Sci Sports 26: 933–942, 2016.
49. Varley, MC, Gregson, W, McMilan, K, Bonanni, D, Stafford, K,
Modonutti, M, and Di Salvo, V. Physical and technical performance
of elite youth soccer players during international tournaments:
Influence of playing position and team success and opponent
quality. Sci Med Football 1: 18–29, 2017.
50. Vieira, LHP, Pagnoca, EA, Milioni, F, Barbieri, RA, Menezes, RP,
Alvarez, L, Déniz, LG, Santana-Cedrés, D, and Santiago, PRP.
Tracking futsal players with a wide-angle lens camera: Accuracy
analysis of the radial distortion correction based on an improved
Hough transform algorithm. Comput Meth Biomech Biomed Eng
Imaging Vis 5: 221–231, 2017.