Ssg or running

“Long Sprint Abilities in Soccer: Ball vs Running Drills” by Castagna C, Francini L, Póvoas S CA, D’Ottavio S
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
© 2017 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Note. This article will be published in a forthcoming issue of the
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. The
article appears here in its accepted, peer-reviewed form, as it was
provided by the submitting author. It has not been copyedited,
proofread, or formatted by the publisher.
Section: Original Investigation
Article Title: Long Sprint Abilities in Soccer: Ball vs Running Drills
Authors: Carlo Castagna1,2
, Lorenzo Francini1
, Susana Cristina Araújo Póvoas3
and Stefano
D’Ottavio2, 4
Affiliations: 1
Fitness training and biomechanics laboratory, Italian Football Federation
(FIGC), Technical Department, Coverciano (Florence), Italy. 2
University of Rome Tor
Vergata, Rome, Italy. 3
Research Center in Sports Sciences, Health Sciences and Human
Development, CIDESD, University Institute of Maia, ISMAI, Maia, Portugal. 4
Women’s
National Team, Italian Football Federation (FIGC), Rome, Italy.
Journal: International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
Acceptance Date: February 8, 2017
©2017 Human Kinetics, Inc.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2016-0565

Title of the Article:
Long Sprint Abilities in Soccer: Ball vs Running Drills
Submission Type:
Original Investigation
Authors:
Carlo Castagna1,2, Lorenzo Francini1, Susana Cristina Araújo Póvoas3 and Stefano
D’Ottavio2, 4
Authors’ Affiliations:
1) Fitness training and biomechanics laboratory, Italian Football Federation (FIGC),
Technical Department, Coverciano (Florence), Italy;
2) University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy;
3) Research Center in Sports Sciences, Health Sciences and Human Development,
CIDESD, University Institute of Maia, ISMAI, Maia, Portugal;
4) Women’s National Team, Italian Football Federation (FIGC), Rome, Italy.
Contact Details for the Corresponding Author:
Carlo Castagna PhD, via Sparapani 30, 60131, Ancona, Italy;
tel: +39 071-2866532, @mail: castagnac@libero.it
Preferred Running Head: Long Sprint Ability in Soccer
Abstract Word Count: 239 words
Text-Only Word Count: 3347 words
Number of Figures and Tables: 2 Tables
References number: 27 citations
DownloadedbyAldermanLibraryon03/05/17,Volume0,ArticleNumber0

Abstract
Purpose: To examine the acute effects of generic (Running Drills, RD) and specific (Small-
Sided Games, SSG) Long Sprint Ability (LSA) drills on internal and external load of male
soccer-players. Methods: Fourteen academy-level soccer-players (mean±SD; age 17.6±0.61
years, height 1.81±0.63 m, body-mass 69.53±4.65 kg) performed four 30s LSA bouts for
maintenance (work:rest, 1:2) and production (1:5) with RD and SSG drills. Players’ external-
load was tracked with GPS technology (20Hz) and heart-rate (HR), blood-lactate
concentrations (BLc) and rate of perceived exertion (RPE) were used to characterize players’
internal-load. Individual peak BLc was assessed with a 30s all-out test on a non-motorized
treadmill (NMT). Results: Compared to SSGs the RDs had a greater effect on external-load
and BLc (large and small, respectively). During SSGs players covered more distance with
high-intensity decelerations (moderate-to-small). Muscular-RPE was higher (small-to-large)
in RD than in SSG. The production mode exerted a moderate effect on BLc while the
maintenance condition elicited higher cardiovascular effects (small-to-large). Conclusion:
The results of this study showed the superiority of generic over specific drills in inducing
LSA related physiological responses. In this regard production RD showed the higher post-
exercise BLc. Interestingly, individual peak blood-lactate responses were found after the
NMT 30s all-out test, suggesting this drill as a valid option to RD bouts. The practical
physiological diversity among the generic and specific LSA drills here considered, enable
fitness trainers to modulate prescription of RD and SSG drills for LSA according to training
schedule.
Key word: Anaerobic-Capacity, Speed-Endurance, High-intensity, Association-Football,
Fitness Training

Introduction
Performance in soccer was reported to be positively affected by anaerobic high-
intensity activities1
. Indeed, in elite-soccer matches goal scoring and assisting players are
mainly involved in sprinting and high-intensity turnings with and without the ball,
respectively2
. Interestingly the tactical use of sustained high-intensity actions like
counterattacks was related to team success in professional male soccer3
. Advancement in
time-motion analysis methods promoted the use of acceleration in the determinism of high-
intensity actions considered in the sprinting domain4
. This suggest that sprint bouts should be
considered longer than usually thought and questioning the use of solo speed notations in
developing sprint constructs in soccer5,6
.
Speed-endurance (SE) training was proposed as an additional functional tool to
enhance performance in competitive soccer7,8
. This form of maximal or near maximal
intensity anaerobic-training was arbitrary categorized as maintenance and production
depending on the recovery time allowed between sprint bouts performed (i.e work:rest, 1:2
and 1:5, respectively) for durations equal or longer than 30s7,8
. Recently supposed soccer-
specific SE training paradigms were tested for acute physiological responses aiming at
developing optimal anaerobic training in competitive soccer9
. Interestingly, small-sided
games (SSG) drills were reported to elicit lower acute responses than running drills (RD),
suggesting practical differences in physiological and activity demands between training
methods. Unfortunately, this study did not consider individual maximal anaerobic responses
to validate the proposed training drills9
. Furthermore, the ball-drills proposed in the form of
SSG did not replicate the theoretical match players’ density (space to players ratio, 300m2
)
limiting the supposed drills logical-validity. Indeed, for the SE production and maintenance
SSG drills, the cited authors used a density of 243 and 121 m2
, respectively9
. Additionally,

the reported SE paradigms (i.e. running and ball drills) considered different exercise times
making comparisons difficult9
.
The main aim of SE training is the development of the ability to sustain individual
maximal sprint for prolonged time10
. Given its nature the term SE and the associated training-
aim construct, may result misleading in soccer9
. In soccer, sprinting privileges intermittent
near-maximal accelerations and decelerations associated with sudden change of directions
together with straight line sprinting1,2,4
. Given that, the term long sprint ability (LSA) may
result more appropriate in soccer than SE, providing to coaches clearer indications regarding
the training aims to be attained (i.e. intensity instead of speed emphasis) 1,2,4
.
Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the acute physical and physiological
responses of LSA running and ball drills in well-trained soccer players, using the same time
paradigm (i.e. 30s) in maintenance and production protocols. This, normalizing field drills
demands with a laboratory all-out test for anaerobic-capacity and ensuring maximal players’
effort during ball-drills using low density SSG (i.e. 300m2
per player). A superior physical
and physiological acute response of running over ball drills was considered as work
hypothesis9
.
Methods
Subjects
Fourteen amateur academy-level soccer players (mean ± SD; age 17.6 ± 0.61 years,
height 1.81 ± 0.63 m, body-mass 69.53 ± 4.65 kg) from the same soccer club participated in
this study. At the time of the study players trained 3 times per week with a competitive match
performed during the weekend. All the procedures involved in this study were carried-out
during the competitive season of players’ regional-level federal championship (Italian
Football Federation, FIGC). All participants were fully informed about study’s procedure
receiving both verbal and written instructions about risks and benefits deriving from the study

design. Before the commencement of the study written informed consent was obtained from
each player and their parent/guardian. All players were aware that they could withdraw from
the study at any time without penalties. The study design received clearance from the
Institutional Research Board before the commencement of this study procedures.
Design
In this descriptive repeated measurements design players were tested over different
soccer LSA drills with or without the ball (SSG and RD, respectively). In order to warrant
maximal anaerobic-capacity responses all the considered drills used bouts of 30s with
different recovery time according to the maintenance and production constructs (work to rest
ratio of 1:2 and 1:5, respectively)10
. Ball-drills were organized in the form of super small-
sided games (S-SSG) considering 300m2
per player as exercise density11,12
. This form of ball-
drill was devised to mimic the usual theoretical match density encountered by players during
regular-size pitch competitive and training matches (i.e. 11v11)13
. The S-SSG in the form
used in this study (i.e. 1v1) was tested for activity-profile reliability before the
commencement of this study, providing for the same variables here considered, intra-class
correlation coefficients (ICC) ranging from very large to almost perfect (0.75, 0.92)14
.
Individual maximal anaerobic-capacity was evaluated for all players in a 30s all-out
sprint test on a non-motorized treadmill (NMT30s, Woodway Force, Woodway INC,
Milwakee, USA). In the RD players were asked to shuttle-run between two soccer-pitch lines
set 75m apart to mimic match attack-counter-attack actions to warrant drill logical-
validity15
. In order to test individual anaerobic-capacity responses, post-exercise blood-lactate
concentrations (BLc) were assessed after each considered drill protocol. Blood sampling was
performed 6-min post-exercise as preliminary studies performed in these authors’ laboratory
showed lactate concentrations peaking at this recovery time after multiple sampling (0, 3, 6, 9
and 12-min) for the same exercises used in this study. With the aim to provide equal volume

exposure during the proposed drills, 4 bouts of 30s were performed in each of the
maintenance and production drills. Exercise internal-load was also assessed by monitoring
heart-rate (HR) and rate of perceived exertion (RPE) using the CR10 Börg scale16
. Pre-drill
individual rest status was checked using the total quality of recovery (i.e. TQR) procedure17
.
The external load was assessed using Global Positioning Technology (K-GPS, Montelabbate,
Pesaro, Italy) with units sampling at 20 Hz. The GPS system was tested for validity and
reliability by the study authors before the commencement of the study, and it provided results
comparable to the GPS systems currently used for match analyses in soccer18
.
Methodology
All the procedures were performed on separate days in a random order, under similar
weather conditions (18-22 C°, 70-75% humidity) and on the same artificial-grass soccer
pitch. During LSA protocols recovery was performed passively having players moving (i.e.
performing some steps to avoid complete standing) just to avoid post exercise leg blood-
pooling. Either the production and maintenance S-SSGs (i.e. S-SSGp and S-SSGm,
respectively) were performed as 1v1 over a 20x30m delimited section of the soccer pitch with
small goals (1.5x2m). With the aim to stress maximal effort during each S-SSG bout, the ball
was replaced as fast as possible and strong verbal encouragements were provided throughout
the drill11
. In the production and maintenance RD (i.e. RDp and RDm, respectively) players
had to shuttle-running between two lines with distance (75m) marked with a cone every 1m
to promote subjective feedback to players. Before each bout of RD and S-SSG drills players
were told to cover as much distance as possible to enforce maximal effort. All the LSA drills
started and ended with a whistle (i.e. 0 and 30s respectively). Exercise external-load was
tracked using GPS technology with units set between shoulder-blades in purpose-built vests.
The external-load was monitored using arbitrary speed, acceleration and metabolic-power
categories as follows4,6
:

 Total distance covered (TD);
 High-Intensity running distance (speed≥16 km·h-1
, HI-Speed);
 High-Intensity Metabolic Power distance (≥20 watt·kg-1
, HI-MP);
 High-Intensity Acceleration distance (≥2 m·s-2
, HI-Acc);
 High-Intensity Deceleration distance (-2≤ m·s-2
, HI-Dec).
Heart-rate was monitored with long-range telemetry (Polar T2, Polar Electro Oy,
Kempele, Finland) during each of the considered drills. The individual maximal HR (HRmax)
was determined using the Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery test level 1, that was performed the
week before this study procedures in a dedicated testing session19
. Subjective internal-load
(i.e. CR10 Börg scale) was evaluated immediately post-drill to rate muscular (RPEM),
cardiorespiratory (RPECR) and global (RPEGlobal) drill effort-perception20,21
. Player pre-testing
freshness as TQR was assessed individually 30min before each testing session17
. Players’
maximal anaerobic-capacity was assessed monitoring power, distance produced and post-
exercise BLc during NMT30s. In this study, BLc were determined from earlobe blood-
samples using an automated analyser (Lactate-Pro, Arkray, Kyoto, Japan)9
. Testing
procedures took place at the same time of the day (3-5 p.m.) in order to avoid possible
circadian bias. Before each test-session the players performed a standardized warm-up
consisting of 10 min self-paced jogging (score 2 of CR10 Borg scale average intensity)
followed by 2-min of skipping and striding exercises over 10 and 30-m, respectively. After
the standardized warm-up players actively rested for two minutes before starting the testing
procedures. All players were familiarized with the considered procedures during the training
sessions performed before the commencement of the data collection.

Statistical Analysis
Results are expressed as means ± standard deviations and 90% confidence intervals
(90% CI)14
. Normality assumption was verified using the Shapiro-Wilk W-test. A one-way
repeated measurements analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post-hoc Bonferroni test was
used to compare drills categories (i.e. S-SSGs vs RDs and maintenance against production
drills). The Cohen’s d was used to evaluate the effect size, with values above 0.8, between
0.8 and 0.5, between 0.5 and 0.2 and lower than 0.2 considered as large, moderate, small, and
trivial, respectively22
. A paired comparisons design was used for evaluating drills across
conditions according to Hopkins et al.14
. Within drill variability was expressed as coefficient
of variation (%CV). Significance was set at 5% (p 0.05).
Results
Peak post-NTM30s BLc were 13.26±1.89 (12.56, 13.96) mmol·L-1
. Players achieved
during RDm and RDp 68±13 (66, 69) and 81±13 % (79, 82) of the NTM30s BLc peak,
respectively (p<0.0001, large). After S-SSGm and S-SSGp, BLc of 57±15 (55, 59) and
73±24% (71, 76) of NTM30s peak were detected, respectively (p<0.0001, large). Post drills
players’ RPE was 76.74±21.64 (74.53, 78.94), 81.53±18.35 (79.51, 83.56), 66.24±20.92
(64.08, 68.41) and 64.13±28.77% (61.59, 66.67) of NTM30s post-test RPE for the RDM,
RDP, S-SSGM and S-SSGP conditions, respectively (p<0.001, large).
External and internal load variables’ values are reported in Table 1. A large effect of
RD mode on TD, HI-MP and HI-Speed was reported (Table 2). During the S-SSG players
covered more distance in HI-Dec with the production mode showing small-to-large effects.
Distances covered in the HI-Acc were longer (small effect) when using the production mode.
The maintenance drills elicited larger average cardiovascular-strain than the production
condition. The HRpeak was higher (small effect) in the maintenance mode in the RD

condition. In the RDs mode players achieved higher (small effect) BLc with the production
condition providing higher values across the drill modes.
Effort perception as RPEGlobal resulted higher (small-to-large effect) in the RD mode
and more so when considering the production condition. Fractional RPE (i.e.
cardiorespiratory and muscular) were higher in the S-SSG mode with the production
condition resulting in higher values (small-to-moderate). Pre-test TQR differences were
trivial-to-small.
Discussion
The main result of this study was the larger acute effect of Running Drills on players’
external and internal load variables. This suggest the greater potential of generic exercises
when the aim is the development of Long Sprint Ability in soccer players. Interestingly, the
field drills resulted in lower anaerobic metabolic responses (i.e. BLc) compared NTM30s
assumed as gold standard. Finally, the anaerobic response was higher for the production
mode, promoting the importance of recovery duration in Long Sprint Ability drills in male
soccer10,15,23
.
In this study ball-drills specificity was promoted considering the same surface
encountered during real competition over regular size soccer-pitches for each player (i.e.
300m2
density). The considered density and used procedures (i.e. 1v1, encouragements and
fast ball-replacements) enabled players to attain 91% of their individual HRmax during the S-
SSGM (see Table 1). Practically lower (large effect) mean HRs were reported for the
production condition despite trivial differences in HRpeak between S-SSGM and S-SSGp (see
Table 1). The HRmean in the S-SSGM are in the range of those reported to be effective for
inducing significant changes in aerobic-fitness in male soccer-players populations similar to
those considered in this study 24
.

Post S-SSG BLc were similar to those reported by Ade et al.9
with associated small
(d=-0.26) and moderate (d=0.57) practical difference for the production and maintenance
condition. However, in this study the resulting BLc were obtained with only four 30s bouts
compared to the eight bouts performed in the Abe et al.9
study, corresponding to 50 and 25%
of the exposure time for the production and maintenance conditions, respectively.
Interestingly, the S-SSGM showed to induce moderately higher anaerobic responses
compared to longer protocols (i.e. 8x1 min) performed with remarkably higher player’
density (121 vs 300m2
)9
. Previous studies using the 1v1 condition (6x1 min) using the
maintenance work-to-rest-ratio (i.e. 1:2) reported to induce BLc of 9.4±2.9 mmol·L-1
with
practically stable anaerobic responses after three bouts played with a 54m2
density25
. Despite
the current lack of evidence for a dose-response interaction it could be speculated that 4x30s
all-out bouts of S-SSG may be reasonably considered as a minimum dose for inducing
physiological responses in the domain of LSA development23
. Furthermore, the 30s time
paradigm seems more effective to enable players to achieve high BLc than the 60s bouts9
.
The S-SSG showed to elicit BLc higher than those reported in SSG performed for
aerobic-fitness development12
. Indeed, after SSG under coach encouragement Rampinini et
al.16
reported BLc of 6 to 6.5 mmol·L-1
using exposure time of 12 min (i.e. 3x4min bouts) for
the 3v3 condition (4090 m2
density). Nonetheless, the cited authors reported a HRmean
similar to this study (9091% HRmax) despite remarkably higher post-exercise RPE
(8.18.5)16
. This comparison provides further evidence for the interest of S-SSG for the
development of LSA and potentially other soccer relevant fitness variables12,23
. In light of the
reported evidence on physiological response of the considered S-SSG it could be concluded
that this form of ball-drills was specific in inducing demands in the range of those reported
for anaerobic-capacity development23
. This warranting the logical and convergent validity of
this study design for S-SSG responses.

The S-SSG drills elicited an overall lower external-load than the RDs with
predominantly larger practically effects (see Table 2). Indeed, S-SSGs resulted in longer
coverage only when considering the distance performed at HI-Dec, particularly in the
production version. Analysis within drill categories showed that the production condition
induced a small practical effect over the maintenance mode when considering the external-
load. It could be speculated that the longer recovery time considered in the production
condition was possibly the reason for the higher effect on external load of this LSA mode23,26
.
When performing RD, players achieved BLc practically higher (small-to-large effect)
than during the S-SSGs with the production condition showing overall moderate to larger
values compared to the maintenance drills. Interestingly, trivial differences in BLc between
S-SSGp and RDm were found. The NMT30s elicited BLc larger than those achieved by
players during the field LSA drills here considered. Indeed, during the field-drills players
achieved only the 6881% and 5773% of peak NMT30s BLc when considering the
maintenance and production mode of RD and S-SSG, respectively. Interestingly, individual
peak BLc were obtained with only one fourth of the exercise time (i.e. 30s) used for the
considered field-drills. This difference may be the result of the field drills characteristic
involving planned or casual acceleration and deceleration (i.e. RD and S-SSG, respectively)
possibly altering the fibre type recruitment and energetic cost of sprinting27
. As a result the
use of NMT drills may result justified when the development of the physiological make-up of
LSA is the main aim of a soccer-training program7,8,15
. From a practical point of view the
reported large relative differences in anaerobic internal-load (i.e. BLc) may arise the issue of
developing ecologically valid training drills under field condition, fully stressing players’
anaerobic capacity. Future descriptive studies aiming to maximize the acute response of field
LSA drills would surely benefit the acquired knowledge for LSA development in soccer.

This study S-SSGP promoted a TD largely (d=1.28) lower than in Abe et al.9
study.
Lower TD was also performed in the S-SSGM mode (d=5.29), however in this case the
difference was due to drill longer-duration (60 vs 30s). Accounting for difference in bout
duration the S-SSGM produced higher distance rate than that reported in the cited paper9
.
Accelerations and decelerations S-SSG resulted in line to what has been previously reported
for production and maintenance SSG9
. Nevertheless, difference in measuring devices and
metrics arbitrary-categories make specific comparison difficult.
The RD considered in this study showed to elicit BLc lower than those reported by
Ade et al.9
and Mohr et al.26
in more aggressive (8 vs 4 bouts) SE protocols in soccer players
and active subject respectively. However, differently from this study design in the Mohr et
al.26
study line sprinting was considered and less changes of direction (i.e. 180° turns) were
achieved by the Ade et al.9
having players shuttle-running over longer distances (i.e. 105 vs
75m). It could be speculated that this specific difference in sprinting protocols may have
played a role in acute anaerobic responses since NTM30s, involving line sprinting, showed to
allow players to achieve larger anaerobic responses. This information may result useful to the
soccer strength and conditioning coach when prescribing LSA training sessions. Nonetheless,
the minimum dose useful to induce stable and practically important improvement in LSA is
still to be found. In this regard training-studies investigating the effectiveness of ecological
LSA protocols (i.e. maximal effect with minimum dosage) are warranted, given the practical
interest of this issue.
During the field-drills, players reported RPEG practically lower (large effect) than
after the single NMT30s bout, with S-SSG and RD ranging from 76-81% and from 66-64%
of treadmill maximal effort, respectively. This may question the actual motivation of players
in performing the proposed LSA drills. Nevertheless, all players were verbally strongly
encouraged to provide their maximal possible-effort throughout the field drills, considering

each bout all-out criteria. Furthermore, all the players were thoroughly familiarized with the
LSA drills and the associated criteria during the weeks preceding this descriptive study in
dedicated training sessions. Given that it could be suggested that in order to achieve acute
response, in the domain of LSA in either the production and maintenance mode, RPEGlobal in
the range of 67 (very hard) and 56 (strong) should be attained for the RD and S-SSG
respectively. The lower RPEG (large effect) scored after the S-SSG may denote the difficulty
of players to fully achieve their maximal anaerobic response even during a specific and
potentially highly motivating drill. Recently, the interest of using differential RPE has been
promoted with the aim to account for potential effort-perception difference according to the
physiological nature of the proposed exercise20
. In this study, the use of differential RPE
showed that players reported higher RPEM and RPECR for the production mode and also in the
RD compared with the S-SSG condition. Interestingly, RPEM resulted lower in the S-SSG
despite the reported higher (moderate-to-large) coverage in high acceleration and deceleration
categories. It could be speculated that TD more than high-intensity activities is the variable
affecting the differential RPE score in male soccer player in LSA drills.
Practical Applications
The 4x30s all-outs bouts of RD and S-SSG here considered showed to induce
anaerobic demands in the range of those usually accepted as effective in inducing
physiological adaptations for the most investigated SE domain9,10,15,23
. This study results
suggest a differential use of the training drills privileging NMT or RD training when the aim
is to induce high BLc and S-SSG in case specificity and players’ motivation is the training
issue. In this regard, the production mode should be preferred as it seem to induce practically
higher acute physiological responses whatever the exercise mode used9,10,15,23
. The
maintenance drills may be proposed in the initial phases of the LSA training due to their
lower anaerobic demands and lower RPE responses.

Conclusions
Ball-drills in the form of S-SSG may be considered when players’ motivation is of
interest. Indeed, S-SSG are perceived as less demanding, compared to RD or NMT drills,
despite their higher load on the deceleration domain. Longer recovery time seem to enable
more pronounced responses in players’ internal and external loads suggesting the preference
of the production over the maintenance mode for LSA development7-10,15
. Further studies
investigating over the dose response of RD and S-SSG and the effect on soccer performance
of production and maintenance training mode are warranted.
Acknowledgments
No financial support was provided for the completion of this study. The authors declare no
conflict of interest with the finding reported in this study.

References
1. Stølen T, Chamari K, Castagna C, Wisloff U. Physiology of soccer: an update. Sports
Med. 2005;35:501-536.
2. Faude O, Koch T, Meyer T. Straight sprinting is the most frequent action in goal
situations in professional football. J Sports Sci. 2012;30:625-631.
3. Tenga A, Holme I, Ronglan LT, Bahr R. Effect of playing tactics on goal scoring in
Norwegian professional soccer. J Sports Sci. 2010;28:237-244.
4. Osgnach C, Poser S, Bernardini R, Rinaldo R, di Prampero PE. Energy cost and
metabolic power in elite soccer: a new match analysis approach. Med Sci Sports
Exerc. 2010;42:170-178.
5. Di Salvo V, Baron R, Tschan H, Calderon Montero FJ, Bachl N, Pigozzi F.
Performance characteristics according to playing position in elite soccer. Int J Sports
Med. 2007;28:222-227.
6. Rampinini E, Impellizzeri FM, Castagna C, Coutts AJ, Wisloff U. Technical
performance during soccer matches of the Italian Serie A league: effect of fatigue and
competitive level. J. Sci Med Sport 2009;12:227-233.
7. Thomassen M, Christensen PM, Gunnarsson TP, Nybo L, Bangsbo J. Effect of 2-wk
intensified training and inactivity on muscle Na+-K+ pump expression,
phospholemman (FXYD1) phosphorylation, and performance in soccer players. J
Appl Physiol. 2010;108:898-905.
8. Ingebrigtsen J, Shalfawi SA, Tonnessen E, Krustrup P, Holtermann A. Performance
effects of 6 weeks of aerobic production training in junior elite soccer players. J.
Strength Cond Res. 2013;27:1861-1867.
9. Ade JD, Harley JA, Bradley PS. Physiological response, time-motion characteristics,
and reproducibility of various speed-endurance drills in elite youth soccer players:
small-sided games versus generic running. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perf. 2014;9:471-
479.
10. Iaia FM and Bangsbo J. Speed endurance training is a powerful stimulus for
physiological adaptations and performance improvements of athletes. Scand J. Med
Sci. Sports. 2010;20 Suppl 2:11-23.
11. Rampinini E, Impellizzeri FM, Castagna C, Abt G, Chamari K, Sassi A, Marcora SM.
Factors influencing physiological responses to small-sided soccer games. J Sports Sci.
2007;25:659-666.
12. Hill-Haas SV, Dawson B, Impellizzeri FM, Coutts AJ. Physiology of small-sided
games training in football: a systematic review. Sports Medicine. 2011;41:199-220.
13. Castellano J, Puente A, Echeazarra I, Casamichana D. Influence of the number of
players and the relative pitch area per player on heart rate and physical demands in
youth soccer. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29:1683-1691.

14. Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, Hanin J. Progressive statistics for studies
in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41:3-13.
15. Iaia FM, Fiorenza M, Perri E, Alberti G, Millet GP, Bangsbo J. The Effect of Two
Speed Endurance Training Regimes on Performance of Soccer Players. PLoS One.
2015;10:e0138096.
16. Rampinini E, Impellizzeri FM, Castagna C, Abt G, Chamari K, Sassi A, Marcora SM.
Factors influencing physiological responses to small-sided soccer games. J Sports
Sci.. 2007;25:659-666.
17. Kentta G and Hassmen P. Overtraining and recovery. A conceptual model. Sports
Med. 1998;26:1-16.
18. Castellano J, Casamichana D, Calleja-Gonzalez J, Roman JS, Ostojic SM. Reliability
and Accuracy of 10 Hz GPS Devices for Short-Distance Exercise. J Sports Sci.Med.
2011;10:233-234.
19. Bangsbo J, Iaia FM, Krustrup P. The Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test : a useful tool
for evaluation of physical performance in intermittent sports. Sports Med.
2008;38:37-51.
20. Los Arcos A, Mendez-Villanueva A, Yanci J, Martinez-Santos R. Respiratory and
Muscular Perceived Exertion During Official Games in Professional Soccer Players.
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2015;
21. Los Arcos A, Martinez-Santos R, Yanci J, Martin J, Castagna C. Variability of
objective and subjective intensities during ball drills in youth soccer players. J
22. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988.
23. Heck H, Schulz H, Bartmus U. Diagnostics of Anaerobic Power and Capacity. Eur J
Sport Sci. 2003;3:1-23.
24. Impellizzeri FM, Marcora SM, Castagna C, Reilly T, Sassi A, Iaia FM, Rampinini E.
Physiological and performance effects of generic versus specific aerobic training in
soccer players. Int J Sports Med. 2006;27:483-492.
25. Koklu Y, Asci A, Kocak FU, Alemdaroglu U, Dundar U. Comparison of the
physiological responses to different small-sided games in elite young soccer players. J
26. Mohr M, Krustrup P, Nielsen JJ, Nybo L, Rasmussen MK, Juel C, Bangsbo J. Effect
of two different intense training regimens on skeletal muscle ion transport proteins
and fatigue development. Am J Physiol. 2007;292:R1594-1602.
27. Buchheit M, Haydar B, Hader K, Ufland P, Ahmaidi S. Assessing running economy during
field running with changes of direction: application to 20 m shuttle runs. Int J Sports Physiol
Perform. 2011;6:380-395.

Table 1. Descriptive values (average of four bouts) of the Running and Small-Sided Games
drills considered in this study.
Running Drills S-SSG
Variable
Maintenance Production Maintenance Production
TD
(m) Mean 162.96±7.57 163.14±8.72 79.05±7.64 77.81±7.59
90%CI (160.48167.15) (159.50167.56) (75.4482.67) (74.2281.40)
%CV 4.64 5.34 9.66 9.76
HI-MP
(Watt· kg-1
) Mean 136.01±12.24 139.72±12.71 30.78±6.54 30.11±6.39
90%CI (130.22141.80) (133.71145.71) (27.6933.87) (27.0933.13)
%CV 9.00 9.10 21.26 21.23
HI-Speed
(m) Mean 146.77±11.27 146.46±11.51 18.28±6.31 19.14±6.54
90%CI (141.44152.10) (141.02151.90) (15.3021.26) (16.0522.23)
%CV 7.68 7.86 34.55 34.17
HI-Acc
(m) Mean 8.99±1.16 9.40±1.62 9.02±2.01 9.72±1.24
90%CI (8.499.50) (8.8010.00) (8.359.68) (9.2010.25)
%CV 12.86 17.19 22.26 12.76
HI-Dec
(m) Mean 6.85±1.06 7.56±1.54 7.73±1.87 8.95±1.86
90%CI (6.367.34) (6.978.15) (7.088.37) (8.309.59)
%CV 15.41 20.39 24.22 20.80
Lactate
(mmol·L-1
) Mean 9.08±2.09 10.73±1.76 7.94±2.12 9.52±2.61
90%CI (8.0910.07) (9.9011.56) (6.948.95) (8.2910.75)
%CV 22.98 16.37 26.74 27.46
HRmean
(beats·min-1
) Mean 174.57±8.22 160.14±8.67 172.64±9.84 160.00±11.22
90%CI (170.68178.46) (156.04164.24) (167.99177.29) (154.69165.31)
%CV 4.71 5.42 5.70 7.01
HRpeak
(beats·min-1
) Mean 188.14±7.61 186.71±7.22 186.86±9.19 186.64±8.03
90%CI (184.54191.74) (183.29190.13) (182.51191.21) (182.84190.44)
%CV 4.05 3.86 4.92 4.30
%HRmax
(mean) Mean 92.0±0.0 84.0±0.0 91.0±0.4 84.0±0.1
90%CI (9093) (8385) (8992) (8286)
%CV 3.1 3.3 4.0 5.4
%HRmax
(peak) Mean 98.0±0.2 98.0±0.2 98.0±0.3 98.0±0.3
90%CI (9093) (9799) (97100) (9799)
%CV 2.4 1.7 3.3 2.9
RPEGlobal
Mean 6.36±1.55 7.04±1.38 5.21±1.75 5.79±2.28

Running Drills S-SSG
Variable
Maintenance Production Maintenance Production
90%CI (5.637.09) (6.397.69) (4.386.04) (4.706.87)
%CV 24.37 19.60 33.58 39.49
RPECR
Mean 6.54±1.47 7.24±1.28 5.43±2.21 5.82±2.45
90%CI (5.847.23) (6.637.84) (4.386.47) (4.666.98)
%CV 22.55 17.65 40.69 42.16
RPEM Mean 5.75±1.70 6.79±1.76 3.86±1.36 5.32±2.22
90%CI (4.956.55) (5.957.62) (3.214.50) (4.276.37)
%CV 29.49 25.97 35.38 41.63
S-SSG= Super Small-Sided Games; RD= Running Drill; M=maintenance; P= Production; TD= Total Distance;
HI-MP=High-Intensity Metabolic Power; Hi-Speed= High-Intensity Speed; HI-ACC= High-Intensity
Acceleration; HI-Dec= High-Intensity Deceleration; Lactate= Blood Lactate Concentration; HR= Heart Rate;
%HRmax (mean)= Mean HR in percentage of HR max; %HRmax (peak)= Peak HR in percentage of HR max;
RPEGlobal = Global Rate of Perceived Exertion; RPECR= Cardio Respiratory RPE; RPEM=Muscular RPE; TQR=
Total Quality of Recovery.

Table 2. Between Drills Comparisons (average of four bouts).
Drill Conditions
Variable
S-SSGM vs RDM S-SSGP vs RDP S-SSGM vs S-SSGP RDP vsRDM S-SSGM vs RDP S-SSGP Vs RDM
TD
(m)
d
Difference
7.12 (large)
-83.9±11.8
7.74 (large)
-85.3±11.1
0.12 (trivial)
1.2±10.7
0.02 (trivial)
0.2±8.1
8.20 (large)
-84.1±10.3
7.77(large)
-85.2±11.1
90%CI (-89.5,-78.3) (-80.1,-90.6) (-3.8, 6.3) (-3.6, 4.0) (-89.0,-79.2) (-90.3,-80.0)
Diff% 106.14*** 109.66*** 1.59 0.11 106.36*** 109.43***
HI-MP
(Watt· kg-1
)
d
Difference
7.55 (large)
-105.2±14.50
9.23 (large)
-109,6±12.90
0.07 (trivial)
0.70±9.0
0.36 (small)
3.7±10.20
9.12 (large)
-108.9±12.90
8.41 (large)
-105.9±13.30
90%CI (-112.1,-98.40) (-115.70,-103.50) (-3.60,4.90) (-1.10, 8.5) (-115.0, 102.8) (-112.2, -99.6)
Diff% 341.86*** 363.96*** 2.22 2.73 353.90*** 351.66***
HI-Speed
(m)
d
Difference
9.47(large)
-128.5±13.9
11.17(large)
-127.3± 12.0
0.09 (trivial)
-0.9± 9.6
0.03 (trivial)
-0.3± 11.1
12.77(large)
-128.2± 10.9
11.79(large)
-127.6± 11.5
90%CI (-135.1, -121.9) (-133.0, -121.6) (-5.4,3.7) (-5.6, 4.9) (-133.4, -123.0) (-133.1, -122.2)
Diff% 703.07*** 665.31*** 4.71 0.21 701.37*** 666.93***
HI-Acc
(m)
d
Difference
0.01(trivial)
0.0±2.4
0.15 (trivial)
0.3±2.1
0.29 (small)
-0.7±2.5
0.23(small)
0.4±1.8
0.23(small)
-0.4±1.7
0.39(small)
0.7±1.9
90%CI (-1.10, 1.10) (-0.70, 1.30) (-1.9, 0.5) (-0.5, 1.3) (-1.2, 0.4) (-0.2, 1.6)
Diff% 0.27 3.43 7.82 4.53 4.25 8.11
HI-Dec
(m)
d
Difference
0.39 (small)
0.9±2.3
0.55 (moderate)
1.4±2.5
0.47 (small)
-1.2±2.6
0.41(small)
0.7±1.80
0.47(small)
-1.2±2.6
1.05 (large)
2.1±2.1
90%CI (-0.2,1.8) (0.20,2.30) (-2.2,0.0) (-0.1,1.4) (-2.2, 0.0) (1.0, 2.7)
Diff% 12.80 18.34 15.81 10.39 15.81 30.64*

Drill Conditions
Variable
Lactate
(mmol·L-1
)
d
Difference
0.37 (small)
-1.1±3.1
0.38 (small)
-1.2± 3.2
0.51 (moderate)
-1.6± 3.1
0.74 (moderate)
1.7± 2.2
1.04 (large)
-2.8± 2.7
0.13 (trivial)
0.4± 3.3
90%CI (-2.6, 0.3) (-2.7, 0.3) (-3.1, -0.1) (0.6, 2.7) (-4.1, -1.5) (-1.1, 2.0)
Diff% 14.30 12.71 19.89 18.23 35.14* 4.89
HRmean
(beats·min-1
)
d
Difference
0.46 (small)
-1.9±4.4
0.02 (trivial)
-0.1±7.8
1.78 (large)
12.6±7.2
2.74 (large)
-14.4±5.3
1.82 (large)
12.5±7.0
2.90 (large)
-14.6±5.8
90%CI (-4.0, 0.2) (-3.8, 3.5) (9.2, 16.1) (-16.9, -11.9) (9.2, 15.8) (-17.3, -11.8)
Diff% 1.12 0.09 7.90*** 9.01*** 7.81*** 9.11***
HRpeak
(beats·min-1
)
d
Difference
0.31 (small)
-1.3±4.4
0.02 (trivial)
-0.1±4.5
0.05 (trivial)
0.2±4.2
0.30 (small)
-1.4±4.7
0.02 (trivial)
0.1±6.2
0.35 (small)
-1.5±4.3
90%CI (-3.4, 0.8) (-2.2, 2.1) (-1.8, 2.2) (-3.7, 0.8) (-2.8, 3.1) (-3.5, 0.5)
Diff% 0.69 0.04 0.11 0.77 0.08 0.80
RPEGlobal d
Difference
0.53 (moderate)
-1.1±2.2
0.49 (small)
-1.0±2.0
0.33 (small)
-0.9±2.6
0.36 (small)
0.7±1.9
1.23 (large)
-1.8±1.5
0.15 (trivial)
-0.3±1.9
90%CI (-2.2, -0.1) (-1.9, 0.0) (-2.1, 0.4) (-0.2, 1.6) (-2.5, -1.1) (-1.2, 0.6)
Diff% 21.92 15.88 16.44 10.67 34.93** 4.71
RPECR d
Difference
0.44 (small)
0.9±2.3
0.55 (moderate)
1.4±2.5
0.20 (small)
-1.2±2.6
0.40 (small)
0.7±1.8
1.02 (large)
0.2±2.4
0.25 (small)
2.1±2.1
90%CI (-2.2, -0.1) (-1.9, 0.0) (-2.1, 0.4) (-0.2, 1,6) (-2.5, -1.1) (-1.2, 0.6)
Diff% 20.39 18.48 12.50 10.71 33.29 7.02
RPEM d
Difference
0.94 (large)
0.9±2.3
0.46 (small)
1.4±2.5
0.70 (moderate)
-1.2±2.6
0.53 (moderate)
0.7±1.8
1.61 (large)
0.2±2.4
0.07 (trivial)
2.1±2.1
90%CI (-2.9, -0.9) (-2.4, 0.0) (-2.9, -0.6) (0.1, 2.0) (-3.8,-2.1) (-1.2, 0.9)
Diff% 49.07* 21.02 45.37 18.01 75.93*** 2.55

Drill Conditions
Variable
TQR d
Difference
0.47 (small)
-0.6±1.9
0.22 (small)
0.5±2.3
0.27 (small)
-0.6±2.4
0.37 (small)
-0.6±1.7
0.03 (trivial)
-0.1±2.1
0.05 (trivial)
-0.1±1.3
90%CI (-1.5, 0.2) (-0.6, 1.6) (-1.7, 0.6) (-1.4, 0.2) (-1.1, 0.9) (-0.7, 0.6)
Diff% 3.45 2.67 3.07 3.05 0.38 0.37
S-SSG= Super Small-Sided Games; RD= Running Drill; M=maintenance; P= Production; TD= Total Distance; HI-MP=High Intensity Metabolic Power; Hi-Speed= High
Intensity Speed; HI-ACC= High-Intensity Acceleration; HI-Dec= High-Intensity Deceleration; Lactate= Blood Lactate Concentration; HR= Heart Rate; RPEGlobal = Global
Rate of Perceived Exertion; RPECR= Cardio Respiratory RPE; RPEM=Muscular RPE; TQR= Total Quality of Recovery. *= P<0.05; **=P<0.01; ***=P<0.0001.

Ssg or running

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Ssg or running

Similar to Ssg or running (20)

More from Fernando Farias

More from Fernando Farias (11)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (11)

Ssg or running