Table 1

Summary of the most relevant characteristics of each of the studies included in this review.

1. Interacciones desequilibradas
Study (year)SampleAimSSG
format
Field size (m)Area per
player ( m2 )
Training programmeVariables
analysed
Bach Padilha et al. (2017)168 players
16.61 ± 0.65 years
To study the effects of multivalent inside playersGK + 3 vs 3 + GK
GK + 3 vs 3 + GK + 2
36 x 27162
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 inferiority3 vs 3
4 vs 3
36 x 27162
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 actions2 vs 2 + 2
3 vs 3 + 2
4 vs 4 + 2
19 x 19
23 x 23
27 x 27
903 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 positioning4 vs 3
4 vs 5
4 vs 7
40 x 30171.4
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 behaviour3 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 load4 vs 2
4 vs 3
4 vs 4
4 vs 5
4 vs 6
30 x 25125
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 behaviour3 vs 3
4 vs 3
36 x 27162
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 situations3 vs 3
3 vs 3 + 1
3 vs 3 + 2
36 x 27162
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 20140
116.6
2 x 4’/1Decision-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 inequalities4 vs 3
4 vs 5
4 vs 7
40 x 30171.4
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 inequalities4 vs 5
5 vs 4
60 x 40266.6
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 30109.0
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 situationsGK + 4 vs 3 + GK
GK + 3 vs 3 + GK
40 x 20114.2
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 playersGK + 6 vs 6 + GK60 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 behaviourGK + 4 vs 4 + GK30 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 behaviourGK + 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 activity4 vs 4 + 335 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 actions3 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 behaviour3 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 load4 vs 2
4 vs 3
4 vs 4
4 vs 5
4 vs 6
30 x 25125
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 playersGK + 4 vs 4 + GK40 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 coordination6 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 attempts5 vs 540 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 actionsGK + 4 vs 4 + GK30 x 207518 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 agesGK + 5 vs 5 + GK33 x 601651 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 maturityGK + 3 vs 3 + GK36 x 271081 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 playersGK + 6 vs 6 + GK60 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 tasksGK + 4 vs 4 + GK30 x 20753 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 periodGK + 3 vs 3 + GK36 x 27121.51 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 conditionsGK + 3 vs 3 + GK
GK + 4 vs 4 + GK
30 x 2075
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 variability5 vs 5
7 vs 7
9 vs 9
20 x 30
30 x 45
45 x 60
60
96.4
150
18 x 20Technical-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 conditionsGK + 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 behaviour3 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 load4 vs 2
4 vs 3
4 vs 4
4 vs 5
4 vs 6
30 x 25125
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 playersGK + 4 vs 4 + GK40 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 + GK40 x 301002 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 groups3 vs 336 x 271622 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 ageGK 6 vs 3 + GK36 x 27121.51 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 players3 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 situations2 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 game3 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 formats3 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 actions3 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 conditionsGK + 3 vs 3 + GK
GK + 4 vs 4 + GK
30 x 2075
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 variability5 vs 5
7 vs 7
9 vs 9
20 x 30
30 x 45
45 x 60
60
96.4
150
18 x 20Technical-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 behaviourGK + 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 performance3 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 conditionsGK + 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 actions3 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 formatsGK + 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 tasks3 vs 3
4 vs 4
5 vs 5
36 x 28168
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 actionsGK + 4 vs 4 + GK30 x 207518 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 goals5 vs 520 x 25502 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 overload3 vs 330 x 201004 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 tasksGK + 5 vs 5 + GK
5 vs 5
30 x 25754 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 aimGK + 6 vs 6 + GK52 x 322082 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 conditionsGK + 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 overload3 vs 332 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 actionsGK + 3 vs 3 + GK36 x 27121.52 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 allowed4 vs 425 x 2578.13 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