Table 1
Summary of the most relevant characteristics of each of the studies included in this review.
| 1. Interacciones desequilibradas | |||||||
| Study (year) | Sample | Aim | SSG format | Field size (m) | Area per player ( m2 ) | Training programme | Variables analysed |
| Bach Padilha et al. (2017) | 168 players 16.61 ± 0.65 years | To study the effects of multivalent inside players | GK + 3 vs 3 + GK GK + 3 vs 3 + GK + 2 | 36 x 27 | 162 162 | 1 x 4´ | General principles of the game analysed by FUT-SAT |
| Bredt et al. (2016) | 18 players 16.4 ± 0.4 years 68.4 ± 8.0 kg | To investigate the physical, physiological and tactical demands in situations of numerical equality and inferiority | 3 vs 3 4 vs 3 | 36 x 27 | 162 138.8 | 12 x 4’/4′ | Physical demands measured with SPIProX2 GPS, heart rate measured with Polar, and tactical demands measured with FUT-SAT |
| Clemente et al. (2014) | 10 players 26.4 ± 5.3 years 8.4 ± 3.2 exp. 179.3 ± 4.3 cm 71.2 ± 7.1 kg | To study the influence of players and the method of recording heart rate and technical-tactical actions | 2 vs 2 + 2 3 vs 3 + 2 4 vs 4 + 2 | 19 x 19 23 x 23 27 x 27 | 90 | 3 x 5’/3′ | Physical and physiological variables measured with Polar RC3 GPS and technical-tactical demands measured with TSAP |
| Gonçalves et al. (2016) | 24 players 25.6 ± 4.9 years 180.5 ± 4.3 cm 74.7 ± 4.8 kg | To study the influence of the number of players and numerical inequality on player positioning | 4 vs 3 4 vs 5 4 vs 7 | 40 x 30 | 171.4 133.3 109.0 | 1 x 4′ | Distance to the team’s centre, distance of the opponents to the team’s centre and distance of the nearest opponent, measured with GPS SPI-Pro |
| Moreira et al. (2020) | 18 players 13.1 ± 0.6 years 18 players 14.3 ± 0.7 years | To compare the influence of manipulating total and relative area per player on tactical behaviour | 3 vs 3 3 vs 3 + 1 3 vs 3 + 1 | 36 x 27 36 x 27 40 x 29 | 162 139 162 | 4 x 4’/4′ | General principles of the game measured with FUT-SAT. Team interactions measured with Social Network Analysis applied to Team Sport |
| Nunes et al. (2020a) | 20 players 22.3 ± 2.0 years 71.4 ± 7.0 kg 177.1 ± 6.8 cm 12.1 ± years of experience | To study the effect of numerical inequalities in external physical load, tactical demands and internal load | 4 vs 2 4 vs 3 4 vs 4 4 vs 5 4 vs 6 | 30 x 25 | 125 107.1 93.7 83.3 75 | 4 x 4’/4′ | External load and tactical actions measured with GPS and ZEPP Player Soccer System. Internal load measured with Borg Scale |
| Praça et al. (2016) | 18 players 16.4 ± 0.7 years | To investigate the influence of procedural knowledge and numerical dominance on tactical behaviour | 3 vs 3 4 vs 3 | 36 x 27 | 162 138.8 | 2 x 4’/4′ | Procedural tactical knowledge measured with PTKT and tactical behaviour measured with FUT-SAT |
| Praça et al. (2016) | 18 players 16.4 ± 0.7 years 4.2 years of experience | To compare tactical behaviour in equal and numerical superiority situations | 3 vs 3 3 vs 3 + 1 3 vs 3 + 2 | 36 x 27 | 162 138.5 121.5 | 2 x 4’/4′ | Distribution behaviour in length, amplitude and distance to the team’s centre and distance between players with GPS SPI-Pro X2 |
| Práxedes et al. (2016) | 20 players 10.5 ± 0.6 years 4.8 ± 1.4 exp. | To analyse the influence of equalities and numerical superiorities on tactics | 3 vs 2 3 vs 3 | 35 x 20 | 140 116.6 | 2 x 4’/1 | Decision-making analysed by GPET |
| Ric et al. (2016) | 8 players 26 ± 4.9 years 16.9 ± 4.9 exp. | To study tactical behaviour in different numerical inequalities | 4 vs 3 4 vs 5 4 vs 7 | 40 x 30 | 171.4 133.3 109.0 | 2 x 3’/4′ | Player distribution measured with GPS SPI-Pro X and tactical behaviour measured with AD-HOC tool |
| Sampaio et al. (2014) | 24 players 20.8 ± 1 years 173.2 ± 6.3 cm 5.2 ± 1.3 years of experience | To compare temporal variables, cardiac variability and tactical behaviour in different match paces, results and inequalities | 4 vs 5 5 vs 4 | 60 x 40 | 266.6 266.6 | 3 x 5’/3′ | Position data, speed and distance travelled measured with GPS SPI-Pro |
| Torrents et al. (2016) | 22 professionals 25.6 ± 4.9 years 22 amateur 23.1 ± 0.7 years | To study the effect of the number of teammates and opponents on tactical behaviour | GK + 4 vs 7 + GK GK + 4 vs 5 + GK GK + 4 vs 3 + GK | 40 x 30 | 109.0 133.3 171.4 | 2 x 3’/4′ | Tactical actions measured with observational tool |
| Travassos et al. (2014) | 15 players 19.6 ± 1.9 years 6.7 ± 4.5 exp | To compare tactical behaviour in 4 vs 3 situations | GK + 4 vs 3 + GK GK + 3 vs 3 + GK | 40 x 20 | 114.2 133.3 | 6 x 5′ | Spatial positioning measured with the TACT programme |
| 2. Field size | |||||||
| Castellano et al. (2017) | 14 players 13 ± 0.3 years 14 players 14 ± 0.3 years | To study the influence of different field lengths on SSG 7 vs 7 tasks in U-13 and U-14 players | GK + 6 vs 6 + GK | 60 x 40 50 x 40 40 x 40 30 x 40 | 200 167 133 100 | 1 x 7’/4′ | Spatial positioning measured with GPS |
| Frencken et al. (2013) | 10 players 22 ± 3 years 14 ± 0.3 years | To assess the effect of field dimensions on tactical behaviour | GK + 4 vs 4 + GK | 30 x 20 24 x 20 30 x 16 24 x 16 | 75 60 60 48 | 1 x 8′ | Spatial positioning measured with LPM (Inmotion Object Tracking BV) |
| García‐Ángulo et al. (2020) | 40 jugadores 11.7 ± 0,4 años 2.9 ± 1,1 años de experiencia | To analyse the effect of the reduction of number of players, goal size and field size on tactical behaviour | GK + 7 vs 7 + GK GK + 4 vs 4 + GK | 58 x 38 38 x 20 58 x 38 38 x 30 | 136.7 47.6 220.4 76 | 2 x 20’/10′ | Technical-tactical actions measured with observational tool |
| Gollin et al. (2016) | 22 players 14 ± 1 years 168 ± 8 cm 56 ± 8 kg | To assess the influence of dimensions in breadth and depth and the presence of multivalent players on tactical behaviour and motor activity | 4 vs 4 + 3 | 35 x 25 25 x 35 | 79.5 79.5 | 8 x 3’/3′ | Spatial positioning measured with SPI HPU GPS |
| Martone et al. (2017) | 17 players 10 ± 0.5 years 16 players 13.2 ± 0.2 years | To evaluate the effect of various areas per player on exercise intensity and technical-tactical actions | 3 vs 3 4 vs 4 5 vs 5 | 20 x 30 30 x 30 | 66.6 150.50 112.6 40.90 | 3 x 4’/3′ | Heart rate measured with FIT PULSE 1.37 and technical-tactical actions measured with observational tool |
| Moreira et al. (2020) | 18 players 13.1 ± 0.6 years 18 players 14.3 ± 0.7 years | To compare the influence of manipulating total and relative area per player on tactical behaviour | 3 vs 3 3 vs 3 + 1 3 vs 3 + 1 | 36 x 27 36 x 27 40 x 29 | 162 139 162 | 4 x 4’/4′ | General principles of the game measured with FUT-SAT. Team interactions measured with Social Network Analysis applied to Team Sport |
| Nunes et al. (2020b) | 20 players 22.3 ± 2.0 years 71.4 ± 7.0 kg 177.1 ± 6.8 cm 12.1 exp. | To study the effect of numerical inequalities on physical external load, tactical demands and internal load | 4 vs 2 4 vs 3 4 vs 4 4 vs 5 4 vs 6 | 30 x 25 | 125 107.1 93.7 83.3 75 | 4 x 4’/4′ | External load and tactical actions measured with GPS and ZEPP Player Soccer System. Internal load measured with Borg Scale |
| Olthof et al. (2018) | 148 players 12-18 years | To analyse the influence of different field sizes on young players | GK + 4 vs 4 + GK | 40 x 30 68 x 47 | 150 399.5 | 1 x 4’/4′ | Spatial positioning measured with LPM |
| Silva, P. et al. (2015) | 24 players 14.5 ± 0.5 years 165.6 ± 7.6 cm 55.6 ± 7.2 kg 6.1 ± 2.0 exp. | To analyse the influence of same field size per player on different field sizes on player coordination | 6 vs 6 7 vs 7 8 vs 8 9 vs 9 | 52.9 x 34.4 49.5 x 32.2 46.7 x 30.3 57.3 x 37.1 57.3 x 37.1 57 3 x 37.1 | 152 133 118 152 133 118 | 3 x 6’/4′ | Spatial positioning measured with GPS |
| Vilar et al. (2014) | 15 players 21.8 ± 1.9 years 9.8 ± 4.6 years of experience | To study the influence of field size on ball possession, passes to teammates and goal attempts | 5 vs 5 | 40 x 20 52 x 26 28 x 14 | 80 135.2 39.2 | 3 x 10’/5′ | Spatial positioning measured with the TACT programme |
| 3. Players’ age | |||||||
| Almeida et al. (2017) | 8 players 12.6 ± 0.6 years 4.6 ± 0.5 years of experience 8 players 14.8 ± 0.4 years 6.3 ± 1.5 years of experience | To examine the influence of scoring mode and age on passing actions | GK + 4 vs 4 + GK | 30 x 20 | 75 | 18 x 10’/5′ | Number of passes, passing zones and passing direction recorded by the observational method with the LINCE programme |
| Barnabé et al. (2016) | 12 players 15.2 ± 0.6 years 4.6 ± 0.5 years of experience 12 players 16.3 ± 0.5 years 7 ± 1.4 years of experience 12 players 17.4 ± 0.5 years 8.7 ± 2.8 years of experience | To examine offensive and defensive behaviours in players of different ages | GK + 5 vs 5 + GK | 33 x 60 | 165 | 1 x 8′ | Spatial positioning measured with GPS SPI Pro |
| Borges et al. (2017) | 48 players 14.8 ± 1.5 years 0.5 ± 1.4 differences in somatic maturation | To compare tactical performance, anthropometric measures and physical capacities between groups of varying maturity | GK + 3 vs 3 + GK | 36 x 27 | 108 | 1 x 4′ | Anthropometric measurements (height, weight). Maturation measured through peak growth rate; physical capacities measured with Yo-Yo test, manual pressure test, CMJ test, SJ test and sit-and-reach test; technical-tactical performance measured with FUT-SAT |
| Brito et al. (2019a) | 53 players 6.9 ± 0.7 years 44 players 8.5 ± 0.6 years 41 players 11.2 ± 0.4 years 59 players 13.4 ± 0.5 years | To study the effect of different SSG formats in different age groups (U-8, U-10, U-12 and U-14) | 5 vs 5 7 vs 7 9 vs 9 11 vs 11 | 45.5 x 29 64 x 41 82 x 52 100 x 64 | 131.9 187.4 236.6 290.0 | 12 x 30′ | Spatial distribution of players by measuring the magnitude of the individual spatial distribution. The area covered per player measured by the players’ elliptical space |
| Castellano et al. (2017) | 14 players 13 ± 0.3 years 14 players 14 ± 0.3 years | To study the influence of different field lengths on SSG 7 vs 7 tasks in U-13 and U-14 players | GK + 6 vs 6 + GK | 60 x 40 50 x 40 40 x 40 30 x 40 | 200 167 133 100 | 1 x 7’/4′ | Spatial positioning measured with GPS |
| Clemente et al. (2020a) | 16 players 13.9 ± 0.3 years 16 players 15.7 ± 0.5 years 16 players 18.4 ± 0.8 years | To compare the team dynamics between three age groups (U-13, U-15 and U-18) in SSG 4 vs 4 tasks | GK + 4 vs 4 + GK | 30 x 20 | 75 | 3 x (4 x 4’/3′) | Spatial positioning measured with GPS WIMU PRO |
| da Costa et al. (2010) | 524 players 11-17 years | To examine the relationship between tactical performance and players born in the same four-month period | GK + 3 vs 3 + GK | 36 x 27 | 121.5 | 1 x 4′ | Tactical performance measured with FUT-SAT |
| Folgado. (2015) | 10 players 8.5 ± 0.5 years 10 players 10.4 ± 0.5 years 10 players 12.7 ± 0.4 years | Identify how tactical behaviour varies according to age and different SSG task conditions | GK + 3 vs 3 + GK GK + 4 vs 4 + GK | 30 x 20 | 75 60 | 3 x (1 x 8’/6″) | Spatial positioning measured with the TACT programme |
| García et al. (2014) | 54 players U-9 and U-14 | To observe the behaviour of two age groups (U-9 and U-14) in different SSG formats with player variability | 5 vs 5 7 vs 7 9 vs 9 | 20 x 30 30 x 45 45 x 60 | 60 96.4 150 | 18 x 20 | Technical-tactical actions recorded by observational method |
| Machado et al. (2019) | 10 players 13.5 ± 1.2 years 10 players 16.3 ± 0.5 years | To investigate how tactical behaviour varies in different age groups and under different SSG task conditions | GK + 3 vs 3 + GK GK + 4 vs 4 + GK | 36 x 27 47.7 x 29.5 | 121.5 140.7 | 9 x 10’/10′ | Tactical behaviour measured with Offensive Sequences Characterisation System and Lag Sequential Analysis |
| Martone et al. (2017) | 17 players 10 ± 0.5 years 16 players 13.2 ± 0.2 years | To evaluate the effect of different areas per player on exercise intensity and technical-tactical actions | 3 vs 3 4 vs 4 5 vs 5 | 20 x 30 30 x 30 | 66.6 150 50 112.6 40 90 | 3 x 4’/3′ | Heart rate measured with FIT PULSE vers 1.37 TTSports and technical-tactical actions measured with observational tool |
| Moreira et al. (2020) | 18 players 13.1 ± 0.6 years 18 players 14.3 ± 0.7 years | To compare the influence of manipulating total and relative area per player on tactical behaviour | 3 vs 3 3 vs 3 + 1 3 vs 3 + 1 | 36 x 27 36 x 27 40 x 29 | 162 139 162 | 4 x 4’/4′ | General principles of the game measured with FUT-SAT. Team interactions measured with Social Network Analysis applied to Team Sport |
| Nunes et al. (2020a) | 20 players 22.3 ± 2.0 years 71.4 ± 7.0 kg 177.1 ± 6.8 cm 12.1 ± years of experience | To study the effect of numerical inequalities in external physical load, tactical demands and internal load | 4 vs 2 4 vs 3 4 vs 4 4 vs 5 4 vs 6 | 30 x 25 | 125 107.1 93.7 83.3 75 | 4 x 4’/4′ | External load and tactical actions measured with GPS and ZEPP Player Soccer System. Internal load measured with Borg Scale |
| Olthof et al. (2018) | 148 players 12-18 years | To analyse the influence of different pitch sizes (traditional and derived from match format) on young players | GK + 4 vs 4 + GK | 40 x 30 68 x 47 | 150 399.5 | 1 x 4’/4′ | Spatial positioning measured with LPM |
| Olthof et al. (2015) | 23 players 15.4 ± 0.7 years 16 players ± 0.7 years | To determine tactical behaviours in SSG tasks in two age groups (U-17 and U-19) | GK + 5 vs 5 + GK | 40 x 30 | 100 | 2 x (12 x 6’/1,5′) | Positioning measured with LPM |
| Praça et al. (2018) | 14 players 13.1 ± 0.6 years 14.3 ± 0.7 years | To present a new analysis between tactical principles of defence and fall-back; to compare defensive cooperation between different age groups and to compare the defensive level between different positions and age groups | 3 vs 3 | 36 x 27 | 162 | 2 x 4’/4′ | Frequency of technical-tactical actions measured with FUT-SAT and tactical interactions measured with Social Network Visualizer |
| Reis y Almeida. (2020) | 45 players 13.2 ± 1.1 years 23 players 15 ± 0.8 years 10 players 15.7 ± 0.8 years | To compare differences in tactical behaviour between groups of different maturational age | GK 6 vs 3 + GK | 36 x 27 | 121.5 | 1 x 4′ | Somatic maturation measured by distance between age and peak growth rate. Tactical performance measured with FUT-SAT |
| 4. Number of players | |||||||
| Abrantes et al. (2012) | 16 players 15.7 ± 0.4 years 8.0 ± 1.8 years of experience | To determine cardiac variation, perceived exertion and tactical actions between two SSG situations with different numbers of players | 3 vs 3 4 vs 4 | 20 x 30 20 x 40 | 100 100 | 4 x 4’/2′ | Heart rate measured with Polar Team System; perceived exertion measured with RPE; technical-tactical actions recorded by observational method |
| Aguiar et al. (2015) | 10 players 18.0 ± 0.6 years 10.2 ± 1.8 years of experience | To compare different tactical behaviours in 2 vs 2, 3 vs 3, 4 vs 4 y 5 vs 5 SSG situations | 2 vs 2 3 vs 3 4 vs 4 5 vs 5 | 28 x 21 35 x 36 40 x 30 44 x 34 | 147 151.6 150 149.6 | 3 x 6’/1′ | Spatial positioning measured with GPS SPI-PRO |
| Brito et al. (2019a) | 53 players 6.9 ± 0.7 years 44 players 8.5 ± 0.6 years 41 players 11.2 ± 0.4 years 59 players 13.4 ± 0.5 years | To study the effect of different SSG formats in different age groups (U-8, U-10, U-12 and U-14) | 5 vs 5 7 vs 7 9 vs 9 11 vs 11 | 45.5 x 29 64 x 41 82 x 52 100 x 64 | 131.9 187.4 236.6 290.0 | 12 x 30′ | Spatial distribution of players by measuring the magnitude of the individual spatial distribution. The area covered per player measured by the players’ elliptical space |
| Chung et al. (2019) | 10 players 10 players 13.6 ± 0.5 years 4.1 ± 1.4 years of experience | To study the effect of different numbers of players on the attacking and defensive coordination of the general principles of the game | 3 vs 3 4 vs 4 5 vs 5 | 36 x 28 | 168 126 100.8 | 1 x 5’/5′ | Spatial positioning measured with Qstarsz BT-Q1000Ex |
| Clemente et al. (2018) | 12 players 7.5 ± 0.5 years 2.5 ± 0.5 years of experience | To study the change in frequency of technical-tactical actions between two SSG formats | 3 vs 3 6 vs 6 | 15 x 20 22 x 30 | 50 55 | 3 x 3’/2′ | Technical-tactical actions measured by observational tool |
| Cofano et al. (2017) | 10 players 15.6 ± 0.5 years 66 ± 7.3 kg 172 ± 5 cm | To evaluate and compare the internal load and frequency of occurrence of some technical-tactical actions | 3 vs 3 4 vs 4 5 vs 5 | 18 x 30 24 x 36 30 x 42 | 90 108 126 | 3 x 3-4’/90″ 3 x 3-6’/90″ 3 x 3-6’/90″ | Heart rate measured with Polar Electro Oy; perceived exertion measured with RPE; technical-tactical actions recorded by observational method |
| Folgado. (2014) | 10 players 8.5 ± 0.5 years 10 players 10.4 ± 0.5 years 10 players 12.7 ± 0.4 years | To identify how tactical behaviour varies according to age and different SSG task conditions | GK + 3 vs 3 + GK GK + 4 vs 4 + GK | 30 x 20 | 75 60 | 3 x (1 x 8’/6″) | Spatial positioning measured with the TACT programme |
| García et al. (2014) | 54 players U-9 and U-14 | To observe the behaviour of two age groups (U-9 and U-14) in different SSG formats with player variability | 5 vs 5 7 vs 7 9 vs 9 | 20 x 30 30 x 45 45 x 60 | 60 96.4 150 | 18 x 20 | Technical-tactical actions recorded by observational method |
| García‐Ángulo et al. (2020) | 40 players 11.7 ± 0.4 years 2.9 ± 1.1 years of experience | To analyse the effect of reducing the number of players, goal size and field size on tactical behaviour | GK + 7 vs 7 + GK GK + 4 vs 4 + GK | 58 x 38 38 x 20 58 x 38 38 x 30 | 136.7 47.6 220.4 76 | 2 x 20’/10′ | Technical-tactical actions measured with observational tool |
| González-Víllora et al. (2017) | 16 players 11.6 ± 0.8 years 3 ± 1.4 years of experience | To analyse and compare the effect of different SSG formats on heart rate and technical-tactical performance | 3 vs 3 5 vs 5 | 25.7 x 17.1 42.8 x 28.6 | 73.2 122.4 | 3 x 5’/3′ | Heart rate measured with Polar Team App; technical-tactical actions recorded with TSAP; interactions between teammates recorded with SocNetv |
| Machado et al. (2019) | 10 players 13.5 ± 1.2 years 10 players 16.3 ± 0.5 years | To investigate how tactical behaviour varies in different age groups and under different SSG task conditions | GK + 3 vs 3 + GK GK + 4 vs 4 + GK | 36 x 27 47.7 x 29.5 | 121.5 140.7 | 9 x 10’/10′ | Tactical behaviour measured with Offensive Sequences Characterisation System and Lag Sequential Analysis |
| Martone et al. (2017) | 17 players 10 ± 0.5 years 16 players 13.2 ± 0.2 years | To evaluate the effect of different areas per player on exercise intensity and technical-tactical actions | 3 vs 3 4 vs 4 5 vs 5 | 20 x 30 30 x 30 | 66.6 150 50 112.6 40 90 | 3 x 4’/3′ | Heart rate measured with FIT PULSE vers 1.37 TTSports and technical-tactical actions measured with observational tool |
| Silva. B. et al. (2014) | 18 players U-18 | To compare tactical performance between two SSG formats | GK + 3 vs 3 + GK GK + 6 vs 6 + GK | 30 x 19,5 60 x 39 | 73.1 167.1 | 1 x 8′ | Technical-tactical actions measured with FUT-SAT |
| Silva P. et al. (2016) | 10 players 13-6 ± 0.5 years 4.1 ± 1.7 years of experience | To study how player variation influences inter-player coordination during SSG tasks | 3 vs 3 4 vs 4 5 vs 5 | 36 x 28 | 168 126 100.8 | 1 x 5’/5′ | Spatial positioning measured with GPS SPI-Pro |
| 5. Game principles | |||||||
| 5.1 Goals | |||||||
| Almeida et al. (2017) | 8 players 12.6 ± 0,6 years 4.6 ± 0 5 years of experience 8 players 14.8 ± 0.4 years 6.3 ± 1.5 years of experience | To examine the influence of scoring style and age on passing actions | GK + 4 vs 4 + GK | 30 x 20 | 75 | 18 x 10’/5′ | Number of passes, passing yards and passing direction recorded by observational method with the LINCE programme |
| Gonet et al. (2020) | 20 players 21.2 ± 1.5 years 13.3 ± 3.2 years of experience | To compare technical-tactical performance and perceived effort between different SSG formats with manipulation of the number of goals | 5 vs 5 | 20 x 25 | 50 | 2 x (3 x 4’/2′) | Perceived exertion measured with RPE; technical-tactical performance recorded with TSAP and BTS |
| Serra-Olivares et al. (2015) | 21 players 8-9 years | To study tactical behaviours in game representative tasks and tasks with stimulus overload | 3 vs 3 | 30 x 20 | 100 | 4 x 2’/2′ | Technical-tactical actions measured with GPET |
| Travassos, et al. (2014) | 20 players 24.8 ± 4.1 years | To study how goal modification influences tactical behaviour during SSG tasks | GK + 5 vs 5 + GK 5 vs 5 | 30 x 25 | 75 | 4 x 5’/3′ | Spatial positioning measured with GPS SPI-PRO |
| 5.2 Aim of the task | |||||||
| Lizana et al. (2015) | 24 players U-20 | Investigate the technical-tactical differences in SSG tasks according to their aim | GK + 6 vs 6 + GK | 52 x 32 | 208 | 2 x (1 x 30″) | Technical-tactical actions recorded by observational method |
| Machado et al. (2019) | 10 players 13.5 ± 1.2 years 10 players 16.3 ± 0.5 years | Investigate how tactical behaviour varies in different age groups and under different SSG task conditions | GK + 3 vs 3 + GK GK + 4 vs 4 + GK | 36 x 27 47.7 x 29.5 | 121.5 140.7 | 9 x 10’/10′ | Tactical behaviour measured with Offensive Sequences Characterisation System and Lag Sequential Analysis |
| Serra-Olivares et al. (2015) | 21 players 8-9 years | Study tactical behaviours in game representative tasks and tasks with stimulus overload | 3 vs 3 | 32 x 22 20 x 20 | 117 666 | 2 x 4’/3′ | Technical-tactical actions measured with GPET |
| 5.3 Limit of touches | |||||||
| Brito et al. (2019b) | 35 players 15.1 ± 0.1 years 68.2 ± 9.3 kg 173.4 ± 7.3 cm | To study the influence of the number of touches on the occurrence of technical-tactical actions | GK + 3 vs 3 + GK | 36 x 27 | 121.5 | 2 x (4 x 4’/4′) | Technical-tactical actions measured with FUT-SAT; intra-team interactions recorded with Social Network Analysis |
| Torreblanca-Martínez et al. (2018) | 8 players 21.1 ± 1.5 years 174.7 ± 3.5 cm 71.3 ± 4.7 kg 14.5 years of experience | Analyse the conditional and technical-tactical variables according to the number of touches allowed | 4 vs 4 | 25 x 25 | 78.1 | 3 x (2 x 10′) | Spatial positioning and physical demands measured with SPI Elite GPS; number of passes, number of dropped balls and percentage of successful passes recorded by observational method |
