Summary of the most relevant characteristics of each of the studies included in this review.<\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n1. Interacciones desequilibradas<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Study (year)<\/td> Sample<\/td> Aim<\/td> SSG
format<\/em><\/td>Field size (m)<\/td> Area per
player ( m2<\/sup> )<\/td>Training programme<\/td> Variables
analysed<\/td><\/tr>Bach Padilha et al. (2017)<\/td> 168 players
16.61 \u00b1 0.65 years<\/td>To study the effects of multivalent inside players<\/td> GK + 3 vs 3 + GK
GK + 3 vs 3 + GK + 2<\/td>36 x 27<\/td> 162
162<\/td>1 x 4\u00b4<\/td> General principles of the game analysed by FUT-SAT<\/td><\/tr> Bredt et al.
(2016) <\/td>18 players
16.4 \u00b1 0.4 years
68.4 \u00b1 8.0 kg<\/td>To investigate the physical, physiological and tactical demands in situations of numerical equality and inferiority<\/td> 3 vs 3
4 vs 3<\/td>36 x 27<\/td> 162
138.8<\/td>12 x 4’\/4′<\/td> Physical demands measured with SPIProX2 GPS, heart rate measured with Polar, and tactical demands measured with FUT-SAT<\/td><\/tr> Clemente et al. (2014)<\/td> 10 players
26.4 \u00b1 5.3 years
8.4 \u00b1 3.2 exp.
179.3 \u00b1 4.3 cm
71.2 \u00b1 7.1 kg<\/td>To study the influence of players and the method of recording heart rate and technical-tactical actions<\/td> 2 vs 2 + 2
3 vs 3 + 2
4 vs 4 + 2<\/td>19 x 19
23 x 23
27 x 27<\/td>90<\/td> 3 x 5’\/3′<\/td> Physical and physiological variables measured with Polar RC3 GPS and technical-tactical demands measured with TSAP<\/td><\/tr> Gon\u00e7alves et al. (2016)<\/td> 24 players
25.6 \u00b1 4.9 years
180.5 \u00b1 4.3 cm
74.7 \u00b1 4.8 kg<\/td>To study the influence of the number of players and numerical inequality on player positioning<\/td> 4 vs 3
4 vs 5
4 vs 7<\/td>40 x 30<\/td> 171.4
133.3
109.0<\/td>1 x 4′<\/td> 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<\/td><\/tr> Moreira et al. (2020)<\/td> 18 players
13.1 \u00b1 0.6 years
18 players
14.3 \u00b1 0.7 years<\/td>To compare the influence of manipulating total and relative area per player on tactical behaviour<\/td> 3 vs 3
3 vs 3 + 1
3 vs 3 + 1<\/td>36 x 27
36 x 27
40 x 29<\/td>162
139
162<\/td>4 x 4’\/4′<\/td> General principles of the game measured with FUT-SAT. Team interactions measured with Social Network Analysis applied to Team Sport<\/td><\/tr> Nunes et al. (2020a)<\/td> 20 players
22.3 \u00b1 2.0 years
71.4 \u00b1 7.0 kg
177.1 \u00b1 6.8 cm
12.1 \u00b1 years of
experience <\/td>To study the effect of numerical inequalities in external physical load, tactical demands and internal load<\/td> 4 vs 2
4 vs 3
4 vs 4
4 vs 5
4 vs 6<\/td>30 x 25<\/td> 125
107.1
93.7
83.3
75<\/td>4 x 4’\/4′<\/td> External load and tactical actions measured with GPS and ZEPP Player Soccer System. Internal load measured with Borg Scale<\/td><\/tr> Pra\u00e7a et al.
(2016)<\/td>18 players
16.4 \u00b1 0.7 years<\/td>To investigate the influence of procedural knowledge and numerical dominance on tactical behaviour<\/td> 3 vs 3
4 vs 3<\/td>36 x 27<\/td> 162
138.8<\/td>2 x 4’\/4′<\/td> Procedural tactical knowledge measured with PTKT and tactical behaviour measured with FUT-SAT<\/td><\/tr> Pra\u00e7a et al.
(2016)<\/td>18 players
16.4 \u00b1 0.7 years
4.2 years of experience<\/td>To compare tactical behaviour in equal and numerical superiority situations<\/td> 3 vs 3
3 vs 3 + 1
3 vs 3 + 2<\/td>36 x 27<\/td> 162
138.5
121.5<\/td>2 x 4’\/4′<\/td> Distribution behaviour in length, amplitude and distance to the team\u2019s centre and distance between players with GPS SPI-Pro X2<\/td><\/tr> Pr\u00e1xedes et al. (2016) <\/td> 20 players
10.5 \u00b1 0.6 years
4.8 \u00b1 1.4 exp.<\/td>
To analyse the influence of equalities and numerical superiorities on tactics
<\/td>3 vs 2
3 vs 3 <\/td>35 x 20<\/td> 140
116.6<\/td>2 x 4’\/1<\/td> Decision-making analysed by GPET
<\/td><\/tr>Ric et al.
(2016)<\/td>8 players
26 \u00b1 4.9 years
16.9 \u00b1 4.9 exp.<\/td>To study tactical behaviour in different numerical inequalities<\/td> 4 vs 3
4 vs 5
4 vs 7<\/td>40 x 30<\/td> 171.4
133.3
109.0<\/td>2 x 3’\/4′<\/td> Player distribution measured with GPS SPI-Pro X and tactical behaviour measured with AD-HOC tool<\/td><\/tr> Sampaio et al. (2014)<\/td> 24 players
20.8 \u00b1 1 years
173.2 \u00b1 6.3 cm
5.2 \u00b1 1.3 years of experience<\/td>To compare temporal variables, cardiac variability and tactical behaviour in different match paces, results and inequalities<\/td> 4 vs 5
5 vs 4<\/td>60 x 40<\/td> 266.6
266.6<\/td>3 x 5’\/3′<\/td> Position data, speed and distance travelled measured with GPS SPI-Pro<\/td><\/tr> Torrents et al. (2016) <\/td> 22 professionals
25.6 \u00b1 4.9 years
22 amateur
23.1 \u00b1 0.7 years<\/td>To study the effect of the number of teammates and opponents on tactical behaviour
<\/td>GK + 4 vs 7 + GK
GK + 4 vs 5 + GK
GK + 4 vs 3 + GK
<\/td>40 x 30<\/td> 109.0
133.3
171.4<\/td>2 x 3’\/4′
<\/td>Tactical actions measured with observational tool <\/td><\/tr> Travassos et al. (2014)<\/td> 15 players
19.6 \u00b1 1.9 years
6.7 \u00b1 4.5 exp<\/td>To compare tactical behaviour in 4 vs 3 situations<\/td> GK + 4 vs 3 + GK
GK + 3 vs 3 + GK<\/td>40 x 20<\/td> 114.2
133.3<\/td>6 x 5′<\/td> Spatial positioning measured with the TACT programme<\/td><\/tr> 2. Field size<\/strong><\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Castellano et al. (2017)<\/td> 14 players
13 \u00b1 0.3 years
14 players
14 \u00b1 0.3 years<\/td>To study the influence of different field lengths on SSG<\/em> 7 vs 7 tasks in U-13 and U-14 players<\/td> GK + 6 vs 6 + GK<\/td> 60 x 40
50 x 40
40 x 40
30 x 40<\/td>200
167
133
100<\/td>1 x 7’\/4′<\/td> Spatial positioning measured with GPS<\/td><\/tr> Frencken et al. (2013)<\/td> 10 players
22 \u00b1 3 years
14 \u00b1 0.3 years<\/td>To assess the effect of field dimensions on tactical behaviour<\/td> GK + 4 vs 4 + GK<\/td> 30 x 20
24 x 20
30 x 16
24 x 16<\/td>75
60
60
48<\/td>1 x 8′<\/td> Spatial positioning measured with LPM (Inmotion Object Tracking BV)<\/td><\/tr> Garc\u00eda\u2010\u00c1ngulo
et al. (2020)<\/td>40 jugadores
11.7 \u00b1 0,4 a\u00f1os
2.9 \u00b1 1,1 a\u00f1os de experiencia<\/td>To analyse the effect of the reduction of number of players, goal size and field size on tactical behaviour<\/td> GK + 7 vs 7 + GK
GK + 4 vs 4 + GK<\/td>58 x 38
38 x 20
58 x 38
38 x 30<\/td>136.7
47.6
220.4
76<\/td>2 x 20’\/10′<\/td> Technical-tactical actions measured with observational tool<\/td><\/tr> Gollin et al.
(2016)<\/td>22 players
14 \u00b1 1 years
168 \u00b1 8 cm
56 \u00b1 8 kg<\/td>To assess the influence of dimensions in breadth and depth and the presence of multivalent players on tactical behaviour and motor activity<\/td> 4 vs 4 + 3<\/td> 35 x 25
25 x 35<\/td>79.5
79.5<\/td>8 x 3’\/3′<\/td> Spatial positioning measured with SPI HPU GPS<\/td><\/tr> Martone et al. (2017)<\/td> 17 players
10 \u00b1 0.5 years
16 players
13.2 \u00b1 0.2 years<\/td>To evaluate the effect of various areas per player on exercise intensity and technical-tactical actions<\/td> 3 vs 3
4 vs 4
5 vs 5<\/td>20 x 30
30 x 30<\/td>66.6
150.50
112.6
40.90<\/td>3 x 4’\/3′<\/td> Heart rate measured with FIT PULSE 1.37 and technical-tactical actions measured with observational tool<\/td><\/tr> Moreira et al. (2020)<\/td> 18 players
13.1 \u00b1 0.6 years
18 players
14.3 \u00b1 0.7 years<\/td>To compare the influence of manipulating total and relative area per player on tactical behaviour<\/td> 3 vs 3
3 vs 3 + 1
3 vs 3 + 1<\/td>36 x 27
36 x 27
40 x 29<\/td>162
139
162<\/td>4 x 4’\/4′<\/td> General principles of the game measured with FUT-SAT. Team interactions measured with Social Network Analysis applied to Team Sport<\/td><\/tr> Nunes et al.
(2020b) <\/td>20 players
22.3 \u00b1 2.0 years
71.4 \u00b1 7.0 kg
177.1 \u00b1 6.8 cm
12.1 exp.<\/td>To study the effect of numerical inequalities on physical external load, tactical demands and internal load<\/td> 4 vs 2
4 vs 3
4 vs 4
4 vs 5
4 vs 6<\/td>30 x 25<\/td> 125
107.1
93.7
83.3
75<\/td>4 x 4’\/4′<\/td> External load and tactical actions measured with GPS and ZEPP Player Soccer System. Internal load measured with Borg Scale<\/td><\/tr> Olthof et al.
(2018)<\/td>148 players
12-18 years<\/td>To analyse the influence of different field sizes on young players<\/td> GK + 4 vs 4 + GK<\/td> 40 x 30
68 x 47<\/td>150
399.5<\/td>1 x 4’\/4′<\/td> Spatial positioning measured with LPM<\/td><\/tr> Silva, P. et al. (2015)<\/td> 24 players
14.5 \u00b1 0.5 years
165.6 \u00b1 7.6 cm
55.6 \u00b1 7.2 kg
6.1 \u00b1 2.0 exp.<\/td>To analyse the influence of same field size per player on different field sizes on player coordination<\/td> 6 vs 6
7 vs 7
8 vs 8
9 vs 9<\/td>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<\/td>152
133
118
152
133
118<\/td>3 x 6’\/4′<\/td> Spatial positioning measured with GPS<\/td><\/tr> Vilar et al.
(2014)<\/td>15 players
21.8 \u00b1 1.9 years
9.8 \u00b1 4.6 years of experience<\/td>To study the influence of field size on ball possession, passes to teammates and goal attempts<\/td> 5 vs 5<\/td> 40 x 20
52 x 26
28 x 14<\/td>80
135.2
39.2<\/td>3 x 10’\/5′<\/td> Spatial positioning measured with the TACT programme<\/td><\/tr> 3. Players\u2019 age<\/strong><\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Almeida et al. (2017)<\/td> 8 players
12.6 \u00b1 0.6 years
4.6 \u00b1 0.5 years of experience
8 players
14.8 \u00b1 0.4 years
6.3 \u00b1 1.5 years of experience<\/td>To examine the influence of scoring mode and age on passing actions<\/td> GK + 4 vs 4 + GK<\/td> 30 x 20<\/td> 75<\/td> 18 x 10’\/5′<\/td> Number of passes, passing zones and passing direction recorded by the observational method with the LINCE programme<\/td><\/tr> Barnab\u00e9 et al. (2016)<\/td> 12 players
15.2 \u00b1 0.6 years
4.6 \u00b1 0.5 years of experience
12 players
16.3 \u00b1 0.5 years
7 \u00b1 1.4 years of experience
12 players
17.4 \u00b1 0.5 years
8.7 \u00b1 2.8 years of experience<\/td>To examine offensive and defensive behaviours in players of different ages<\/td> GK + 5 vs 5 + GK<\/td> 33 x 60<\/td> 165<\/td> 1 x 8′<\/td> Spatial positioning measured with GPS SPI Pro<\/td><\/tr> Borges et al.
(2017)<\/td>48 players
14.8 \u00b1 1.5 years
0.5 \u00b1 1.4 differences in somatic maturation<\/td>To compare tactical performance, anthropometric measures and physical capacities between groups of varying maturity<\/td> GK + 3 vs 3 + GK<\/td> 36 x 27<\/td> 108<\/td> 1 x 4′<\/td> 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
<\/td><\/tr>Brito et al.
(2019a) <\/td>53 players
6.9 \u00b1 0.7 years
44 players
8.5 \u00b1 0.6 years
41 players
11.2 \u00b1 0.4 years
59 players
13.4 \u00b1 0.5 years<\/td>To study the effect of different SSG<\/em> formats in different age groups (U-8, U-10, U-12 and U-14)<\/td> 5 vs 5
7 vs 7
9 vs 9
11 vs 11<\/td>45.5 x 29
64 x 41
82 x 52
100 x 64<\/td>131.9
187.4
236.6
290.0<\/td>12 x 30′<\/td> Spatial distribution of players by measuring the magnitude of the individual spatial distribution. The area covered per player measured by the players’ elliptical space<\/td><\/tr> Castellano et al. (2017)<\/td> 14 players
13 \u00b1 0.3 years
14 players
14 \u00b1 0.3 years<\/td>To study the influence of different field lengths on SSG<\/em> 7 vs 7 tasks in U-13 and U-14 players<\/td> GK + 6 vs 6 + GK<\/td> 60 x 40
50 x 40
40 x 40
30 x 40<\/td>200
167
133
100<\/td>1 x 7’\/4′<\/td> Spatial positioning measured with GPS<\/td><\/tr> Clemente et al. (2020a) <\/td> 16 players
13.9 \u00b1 0.3 years
16 players
15.7 \u00b1 0.5 years
16 players
18.4 \u00b1 0.8 years<\/td>To compare the team dynamics between three age groups (U-13, U-15 and U-18) in SSG<\/em> 4 vs 4 tasks<\/td> GK + 4 vs 4 + GK<\/td> 30 x 20<\/td> 75<\/td> 3 x (4 x 4’\/3′)<\/td> Spatial positioning measured with GPS WIMU PRO<\/td><\/tr> da Costa et al. (2010)<\/td> 524 players
11-17 years<\/td>To examine the relationship between tactical performance and players born in the same four-month period<\/td> GK + 3 vs 3 + GK<\/td> 36 x 27<\/td> 121.5<\/td> 1 x 4′<\/td> Tactical performance measured with FUT-SAT<\/td><\/tr> Folgado.
(2015) <\/td>10 players
8.5 \u00b1 0.5 years
10 players
10.4 \u00b1 0.5 years
10 players
12.7 \u00b1 0.4 years<\/td>Identify how tactical behaviour varies according to age and different SSG<\/em> task conditions<\/td> GK + 3 vs 3 + GK
GK + 4 vs 4 + GK<\/td>30 x 20<\/td> 75
60<\/td>3 x (1 x 8’\/6″)<\/td> Spatial positioning measured with the TACT programme<\/td><\/tr> Garc\u00eda et al.
(2014)<\/td>54 players
U-9 and U-14<\/td>To observe the behaviour of two age groups (U-9 and U-14) in different SSG<\/em> formats with player variability<\/td> 5 vs 5
7 vs 7
9 vs 9<\/td>20 x 30
30 x 45
45 x 60<\/td>60
96.4
150<\/td>18 x 20<\/td> Technical-tactical actions recorded by observational method<\/td><\/tr> Machado et al. (2019)<\/td> 10 players
13.5 \u00b1 1.2 years
10 players
16.3 \u00b1 0.5 years<\/td>To investigate how tactical behaviour varies in different age groups and under different SSG<\/em> task conditions<\/td> GK + 3 vs 3 + GK
GK + 4 vs 4 + GK<\/td>36 x 27
47.7 x 29.5<\/td>121.5
140.7<\/td>9 x 10’\/10′<\/td> Tactical behaviour measured with Offensive Sequences Characterisation System and Lag Sequential Analysis<\/td><\/tr> Martone et al. (2017)<\/td> 17 players
10 \u00b1 0.5 years
16 players
13.2 \u00b1 0.2 years<\/td>To evaluate the effect of different areas per player on exercise intensity and technical-tactical actions
<\/td>3 vs 3
4 vs 4
5 vs 5<\/td>20 x 30
30 x 30<\/td>66.6
150
50
112.6
40
90<\/td>3 x 4’\/3′<\/td> Heart rate measured with FIT PULSE vers 1.37 TTSports and technical-tactical actions measured with observational tool<\/td><\/tr> Moreira et al. (2020)<\/td> 18 players
13.1 \u00b1 0.6 years
18 players
14.3 \u00b1 0.7 years<\/td>To compare the influence of manipulating total and relative area per player on tactical behaviour<\/td> 3 vs 3
3 vs 3 + 1
3 vs 3 + 1<\/td>36 x 27
36 x 27
40 x 29<\/td>162
139
162<\/td>4 x 4’\/4′<\/td> General principles of the game measured with FUT-SAT. Team interactions measured with Social Network Analysis applied to Team Sport<\/td><\/tr> Nunes et al.
(2020a) <\/td>20 players
22.3 \u00b1 2.0 years
71.4 \u00b1 7.0 kg
177.1 \u00b1 6.8 cm
12.1 \u00b1 years of
experience<\/td>To study the effect of numerical inequalities in external physical load, tactical demands and internal load<\/td> 4 vs 2
4 vs 3
4 vs 4
4 vs 5
4 vs 6<\/td>30 x 25<\/td> 125
107.1
93.7
83.3
75<\/td>4 x 4’\/4′<\/td> External load and tactical actions measured with GPS and ZEPP Player Soccer System. Internal load measured with Borg Scale<\/td><\/tr> Olthof et al.
(2018)<\/td>148 players
12-18 years<\/td>To analyse the influence of different pitch sizes (traditional and derived from match format) on young players<\/td> GK + 4 vs 4 + GK<\/td> 40 x 30
68 x 47<\/td>150
399.5<\/td>1 x 4’\/4′<\/td> Spatial positioning measured with LPM<\/td><\/tr> Olthof et al.
(2015)<\/td>23 players
15.4 \u00b1 0.7 years
16 players \u00b1 0.7 years<\/td>To determine tactical behaviours in SSG<\/em> tasks in two age groups (U-17 and U-19)<\/td> GK + 5 vs 5 + GK<\/td> 40 x 30<\/td> 100<\/td> 2 x (12 x 6’\/1,5′)<\/td> Positioning measured with LPM<\/td><\/tr> Pra\u00e7a et al.
(2018)<\/td>14 players
13.1 \u00b1 0.6 years
14.3 \u00b1 0.7 years<\/td>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<\/td> 3 vs 3<\/td> 36 x 27<\/td> 162<\/td> 2 x 4’\/4′<\/td> Frequency of technical-tactical actions measured with FUT-SAT and tactical interactions measured with Social Network Visualizer<\/td><\/tr> Reis y Almeida. (2020)<\/td> 45 players
13.2 \u00b1 1.1 years
23 players
15 \u00b1 0.8 years
10 players
15.7 \u00b1 0.8 years<\/td>To compare differences in tactical behaviour between groups of different maturational age<\/td> GK 6 vs 3 + GK<\/td> 36 x 27<\/td> 121.5<\/td> 1 x 4′<\/td> Somatic maturation measured by distance between age and peak growth rate. Tactical performance measured with FUT-SAT<\/td><\/tr> 4. Number of players<\/strong><\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Abrantes et al. (2012)<\/td> 16 players
15.7 \u00b1 0.4 years
8.0 \u00b1 1.8 years of experience<\/td>To determine cardiac variation, perceived exertion and tactical actions between two SSG<\/em> situations with different numbers of players<\/td> 3 vs 3
4 vs 4<\/td>20 x 30
20 x 40<\/td>100
100<\/td>4 x 4’\/2′<\/td> Heart rate measured with Polar Team System; perceived exertion measured with RPE; technical-tactical actions recorded by observational method<\/td><\/tr> Aguiar et al.
(2015)<\/td>10 players
18.0 \u00b1 0.6 years
10.2 \u00b1 1.8 years of experience<\/td>To compare different tactical behaviours in 2\u00a0vs\u00a02, 3\u00a0vs\u00a03, 4\u00a0vs\u00a04 y 5\u00a0vs\u00a05 SSG<\/em> situations<\/td> 2 vs 2
3 vs 3
4 vs 4
5 vs 5<\/td>28 x 21
35 x 36
40 x 30
44 x 34<\/td>147
151.6
150
149.6<\/td>3 x 6’\/1′<\/td> Spatial positioning measured with GPS SPI-PRO<\/td><\/tr> Brito et al.
(2019a)<\/td>53 players
6.9 \u00b1 0.7 years
44 players
8.5 \u00b1 0.6 years
41 players
11.2 \u00b1 0.4 years
59 players
13.4 \u00b1 0.5 years<\/td>To study the effect of different SSG<\/em> formats in different age groups (U-8, U-10, U-12 and U-14)<\/td> 5 vs 5
7 vs 7
9 vs 9
11 vs 11<\/td>45.5 x 29
64 x 41
82 x 52
100 x 64<\/td>131.9
187.4
236.6
290.0<\/td>12 x 30′<\/td> Spatial distribution of players by measuring the magnitude of the individual spatial distribution. The area covered per player measured by the players’ elliptical space<\/td><\/tr> Chung et al.
(2019)<\/td>10 players
10 players
13.6 \u00b1 0.5 years
4.1 \u00b1 1.4 years of experience<\/td>To study the effect of different numbers of players on the attacking and defensive coordination of the general principles of the game<\/td> 3 vs 3
4 vs 4
5 vs 5<\/td>36 x 28<\/td>
168
126
100.8<\/td>1 x 5’\/5′<\/td> Spatial positioning measured with Qstarsz BT-Q1000Ex<\/td><\/tr> Clemente et al. (2018)<\/td> 12 players
7.5 \u00b1 0.5 years
2.5 \u00b1 0.5 years of experience<\/td>To study the change in frequency of technical-tactical actions between two SSG<\/em> formats<\/td> 3 vs 3
6 vs 6<\/td>15 x 20
22 x 30<\/td>50
55<\/td>3 x 3’\/2′<\/td> Technical-tactical actions measured by observational tool<\/td><\/tr> Cofano et al. (2017)<\/td> 10 players
15.6 \u00b1 0.5 years
66 \u00b1 7.3 kg
172 \u00b1 5 cm<\/td>To evaluate and compare the internal load and frequency of occurrence of some technical-tactical actions<\/td> 3 vs 3
4 vs 4
5 vs 5<\/td>18 x 30
24 x 36
30 x 42<\/td>90
108
126<\/td>3 x 3-4’\/90″
3 x 3-6’\/90″
3 x 3-6’\/90″<\/td>Heart rate measured with Polar Electro Oy; perceived exertion measured with RPE; technical-tactical actions recorded by observational method<\/td><\/tr> Folgado.
(2014) <\/td>10 players
8.5 \u00b1 0.5 years
10 players
10.4 \u00b1 0.5 years
10 players
12.7 \u00b1 0.4 years<\/td>To identify how tactical behaviour varies according to age and different SSG<\/em> task conditions<\/td> GK + 3 vs 3 + GK
GK + 4 vs 4 + GK<\/td>30 x 20<\/td> 75
60<\/td>3 x (1 x 8’\/6″)<\/td> Spatial positioning measured with the TACT programme<\/td><\/tr> Garc\u00eda et al.
(2014) <\/td>54 players
U-9 and U-14<\/td>To observe the behaviour of two age groups (U-9 and U-14) in different SSG<\/em> formats with player variability<\/td> 5 vs 5
7 vs 7
9 vs 9<\/td>20 x 30
30 x 45
45 x 60<\/td>60
96.4
150<\/td>18 x 20<\/td> Technical-tactical actions recorded by observational method<\/td><\/tr> Garc\u00eda\u2010\u00c1ngulo
et al. (2020)<\/td>40 players
11.7 \u00b1 0.4 years
2.9 \u00b1 1.1 years of experience<\/td>To analyse the effect of reducing the number of players, goal size and field size on tactical behaviour<\/td> GK + 7 vs 7 + GK
GK + 4 vs 4 + GK<\/td>58 x 38
38 x 20
58 x 38
38 x 30<\/td>136.7
47.6
220.4
76<\/td>2 x 20’\/10′<\/td> Technical-tactical actions measured with observational tool<\/td><\/tr> Gonz\u00e1lez-V\u00edllora
et al. (2017)<\/td>16 players
11.6 \u00b1 0.8 years
3 \u00b1 1.4 years of experience<\/td>To analyse and compare the effect of different SSG<\/em> formats on heart rate and technical-tactical performance<\/td> 3 vs 3
5 vs 5<\/td>25.7 x 17.1
42.8 x 28.6<\/td>73.2
122.4<\/td>3 x 5’\/3′<\/td> Heart rate measured with Polar Team App; technical-tactical actions recorded with TSAP; interactions between teammates recorded with SocNetv<\/td><\/tr> Machado et al. (2019)<\/td> 10 players
13.5 \u00b1 1.2 years
10 players
16.3 \u00b1 0.5 years<\/td>To investigate how tactical behaviour varies in different age groups and under different SSG<\/em> task conditions<\/td> GK + 3 vs 3 + GK
GK + 4 vs 4 + GK<\/td>36 x 27
47.7 x 29.5<\/td>121.5
140.7<\/td>9 x 10’\/10′<\/td> Tactical behaviour measured with Offensive Sequences Characterisation System and Lag Sequential Analysis<\/td><\/tr> Martone et al. (2017)<\/td> 17 players
10 \u00b1 0.5 years
16 players
13.2 \u00b1 0.2 years<\/td>To evaluate the effect of different areas per player on exercise intensity and technical-tactical actions<\/td> 3 vs 3
4 vs 4
5 vs 5<\/td>20 x 30
30 x 30<\/td>66.6
150
50
112.6
40
90<\/td>3 x 4’\/3′<\/td> Heart rate measured with FIT PULSE vers 1.37 TTSports and technical-tactical actions measured with observational tool<\/td><\/tr> Silva. B. et al. (2014)<\/td> 18 players
U-18<\/td>To compare tactical performance between two SSG<\/em> formats<\/td> GK + 3 vs 3 + GK
GK + 6 vs 6 + GK<\/td>30 x 19,5
60 x 39<\/td>73.1
167.1<\/td>1 x 8′<\/td> Technical-tactical actions measured with FUT-SAT<\/td><\/tr> Silva P. et al. (2016)<\/td> 10 players
13-6 \u00b1 0.5 years
4.1 \u00b1 1.7 years of experience<\/td>To study how player variation influences inter-player coordination during SSG<\/em> tasks<\/td> 3 vs 3
4 vs 4
5 vs 5<\/td>36 x 28<\/td> 168
126
100.8<\/td>1 x 5’\/5′<\/td> Spatial positioning measured with GPS SPI-Pro<\/td><\/tr> 5. Game principles<\/strong><\/strong><\/td><\/tr> 5.1 Goals<\/strong><\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Almeida et al. (2017)<\/td> 8 players
12.6 \u00b1 0,6 years
4.6 \u00b1 0 5 years of experience
8 players
14.8 \u00b1 0.4 years
6.3 \u00b1 1.5 years of experience<\/td>To examine the influence of scoring style and age on passing actions<\/td> GK + 4 vs 4 + GK<\/td> 30 x 20<\/td> 75<\/td> 18 x 10’\/5′<\/td> Number of passes, passing yards and passing direction recorded by observational method with the LINCE programme<\/td><\/tr> Gonet et al. (2020)<\/td> 20 players
21.2 \u00b1 1.5 years
13.3 \u00b1 3.2 years of experience<\/td>To compare technical-tactical performance and perceived effort between different SSG<\/em> formats with manipulation of the number of goals<\/td> 5 vs 5<\/td> 20 x 25<\/td> 50<\/td> 2 x (3 x 4’\/2′)<\/td> Perceived exertion measured with RPE; technical-tactical performance recorded with TSAP and BTS<\/td><\/tr> Serra-Olivares
et al. (2015)<\/td>21 players
8-9 years<\/td>To study tactical behaviours in game representative tasks and tasks with stimulus overload<\/td> 3 vs 3<\/td> 30 x 20<\/td> 100<\/td> 4 x 2’\/2′<\/td> Technical-tactical actions measured with GPET<\/td><\/tr> Travassos, et al. (2014)<\/td> 20 players
24.8 \u00b1 4.1 years<\/td>To study how goal modification influences tactical behaviour during SSG<\/em> tasks<\/td> GK + 5 vs 5 + GK
5 vs 5<\/td>30 x 25<\/td> 75<\/td> 4 x 5’\/3′<\/td> Spatial positioning measured with GPS SPI-PRO<\/td><\/tr> 5.2 Aim of the task<\/strong><\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Lizana et al. (2015)<\/td> 24 players
U-20<\/td>Investigate the technical-tactical differences in SSG<\/em> tasks according to their aim<\/td> GK + 6 vs 6 + GK<\/td> 52 x 32<\/td> 208<\/td> 2 x (1 x 30″)<\/td> Technical-tactical actions recorded by observational method<\/td><\/tr> Machado et al. (2019)<\/td> 10 players
13.5 \u00b1 1.2 years
10 players
16.3 \u00b1 0.5 years<\/td>Investigate how tactical behaviour varies in different age groups and under different SSG<\/em> task conditions<\/td> GK + 3 vs 3 + GK
GK + 4 vs 4 + GK<\/td>36 x 27
47.7 x 29.5<\/td>121.5
140.7<\/td>9 x 10’\/10′<\/td> Tactical behaviour measured with Offensive Sequences Characterisation System and Lag Sequential Analysis<\/td><\/tr> Serra-Olivares
et al. (2015) <\/td>21 players
8-9 years<\/td>Study tactical behaviours in game representative tasks and tasks with stimulus overload<\/td> 3 vs 3<\/td> 32 x 22
20 x 20<\/td>117
666<\/td>2 x 4’\/3′<\/td> Technical-tactical actions measured with GPET<\/td><\/tr> 5.3 Limit of touches<\/strong><\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Brito et al. (2019b)<\/td> 35 players
15.1 \u00b1 0.1 years
68.2 \u00b1 9.3 kg
173.4 \u00b1 7.3 cm<\/td>To study the influence of the number of touches on the occurrence of technical-tactical actions<\/td> GK + 3 vs 3 + GK<\/td> 36 x 27<\/td> 121.5<\/td> 2 x (4 x 4’\/4′)<\/td> Technical-tactical actions measured with FUT-SAT; intra-team interactions recorded with Social Network Analysis<\/td><\/tr> Torreblanca-Mart\u00ednez et al. (2018)<\/td> 8 players
21.1 \u00b1 1.5 years
174.7 \u00b1 3.5 cm
71.3 \u00b1 4.7 kg
14.5 years of experience<\/td>Analyse the conditional and technical-tactical variables according to the number of touches allowed<\/td> 4 vs 4<\/td> 25 x 25<\/td> 78.1<\/td> 3 x (2 x 10′)<\/td> 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<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n