Footballers’ movement behaviour during 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-a-side small-sided games

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare footballers' movement behaviour during 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-a-side small-sided games. Ten young professional players (age = 18.0 ± 0.67 years) participated in 3 bouts of each small-sided games for 6 min with 1 min of active rest between bouts. Positional data were collected using GPS system units and used to calculate the following variables: team centroid, distance between each player and own and opponent team centroids and distance between centroids. Approximate entropy was used to identify the time series regularity for each variable. The distance to own team centroid increased with the number of players (effect sizes from moderate to perfect). The results from the distance to the opponent's centroid exhibited a similar trend. The distance between centroids decreased from 2- to the 4-a-side, but then increased in 5-a-side. A higher number of players were associated with lower approximate entropy values, suggesting higher positional organisation in small-sided games with more players. The highest movement regularity found in 4- and 5-a-side identified these formats as more adequate to promote team-related emergent and self-organised behaviours.

How manipulating task constraints in small-sided and conditioned games shapes emergence of individual and collective tactical behaviours in football: A systematic review

“…A larger number of players involved in SSCGs increased collective actions, loss of ball possession, and maintenance of the ball (36). Only one study maintained a proportional relationship between field dimensions and number of players (37). It was found that a greater number of players generated a greater distance from the players to the team center (37).…”

“…Of the articles analyzed, five manipulated the constraints on consecutive days (7,23,30,35,37), five carried out same-day manipulations, with an interval between constraints implementation using an activity/rest ratio of 1:1 (21,22,30,33,42), and the others did not mention how this methodological aspect was organised by investigators (12, 20, 26-29, 34, 36, 38, 39, 41, 44). Of the 24…”

“…articles, eleven performed more than one series of manipulation of the same constraint, ranging from two to three series (7,12,23,28,30,32,33,37,40,43), the others performed only one series of manipulation of each constraint (20-22, 26, 27, 29, 34, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44) 41, 43). Regarding the characteristics of the sample, participants in all the studies systematically played soccer at a technical level ranging between intermediate (teams that competed in regional championships) and advanced (teams that competed in national championships).…”

“…Only one study maintained a proportional relationship between field dimensions and number of players (37). It was found that a greater number of players generated a greater distance from the players to the team center (37). Still, in studies that manipulated two constraints, one article evaluated the manipulation of the number of players involved and scoring targets.…”

Analysis of Offensive Technical Actions on Different Playing Surfaces in 5v5, 7v7 and 9v9 Sided Games in Soccer

“…Sided games in soccer are understood to mean 5v5 (with or without a goalkeeper), 7v7 and 9v9 formats. The highest movement regularity found in 4v4 and 5v5 identified these formats as more adequate to promote team-related emergent and self-organised behaviours [12].Playing sided soccer has great benefits for players, especially in the learning stages [13]. The size of the field of play is smaller than in 11v11 and the rules are adapted accordingly (using smaller areas and goalposts, for example).…”