INFLUENCE THE NUMBER OF TOUCHES ON PHYSICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES DURING SMALL-SIDED SOCCER GAMES

Lauria, André de Assis; Santo, Luciano Chequini Espirito; Bicalho, Camila Cristina Fonseca; Chagas, Mauro Heleno; Praça, Gibson Moreira

doi:10.4025/JPHYSEDUC.V35I1.3514

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Journal of Physical Education

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Review Article • J. Phys. Educ. 35 • 2024 • https://doi.org/10.4025/JPHYSEDUC.V35I1.3514 copy

INFLUENCE THE NUMBER OF TOUCHES ON PHYSICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES DURING SMALL-SIDED SOCCER GAMES

INFLUÊNCIA DO NÚMERO DE TOQUES NA BOLA NAS RESPOSTAS FÍSICAS E FISIOLÓGICAS DURANTE PEQUENOS JOGOS DE FUTEBOL

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

The objective of the present review was to analyze the effects of the number of touches on the ball, in the physical and physiological responses during small soccer games. Electronic searches were carried out in the databases: “Web of Science”, “Scopus” and “PubMed”, using the descriptors “Small-sided games”; “Intensity”; “Touches”; “Soccer”; “Soccer players”; “Modified rules”. The PICO strategy was used and the group of words was combined in pairs or trios, using the OR and AND connectors. Only articles published between 2010 and 2022 were considered. The following were excluded: (a) annals and supplements of scientific events, (b) reviews, editorial and instrument validation articles, and (c) studies with women. Of 578 studies, 9 were selected and analyzed. In general, the adoption of the limit rule for touching the ball increased the physiological responses, although discrepancies were observed between the studies regarding the physical responses, we must consider the methodological differences between the studies. We conclude that manipulating the number of touches allowed per ball possession influences players’ physiological responses. Specifically, higher intensity is expected in SSGs with fewer ball touches allowed. On the other hand, physical responses are not influenced by this rule.

Keywords:
Soccer; Systematic Review; Athletic Performance

Studies	1	2	3	6	7	10	15	16	18	20	22	23	25	Final score
Dellal et al., 2011²⁴	1	1	1	1	1	1	U	1	1	1	U	U	0	81,8%
Dellal et al., 2011²⁵	1	1	1	1	1	1	U	1	1	1	U	U	0	81,8%
Dellal et al., 2011²²	1	1	1	1	1	1	U	1	1	0	U	U	U	80,0%
Casamichana et al., 2013¹³	1	1	1	1	1	1	U	1	1	1	U	U	1	90,9%
Román-Quintana et al., 2013²⁶	1	1	1	1	1	1	U	1	1	1	U	U	0	81,8%
Casamichana et al., 2014²³	1	1	1	1	0	0	U	1	0	1	U	U	1	63,6%
Giménez et al., 2018¹⁴	1	1	1	1	1	1	U	1	0	1	U	U	0	72,7%
Younesi et al., 2021²⁷	1	1	1	1	1	1	U	1	0	1	U	U	1	81,8%
Younesi et al., 2021²⁸	1	1	1	1	1	0	U	1	U	1	U	U	1	80,0%

Studies	Format	Duration (min)	App (m²)	Results
SSG 2vs2				Distance covered (m)	Differences
Dellal et al. (2011)²⁴	1T	2	75	1305.5*	*>2T e FP
	2T			1211.8
	FP			1157.7
Dellal et al. (2011)²²	1T	2	75	1305.6	-
	2T			1211.8
	FP			1157.7
SSG 3vs3				Distance covered (m)	Differences
Dellal et al. (2011)²⁴	1T	3	75	2247.6*	>2T e FP *>FP
	2T			2124.7**
	FP			2013.9
Dellal et al. (2011)²²	1T	3	75	2247.6	-
	2T			2124.7
	FP			2014.0
Younesi et al. (2021)²⁸	3T	3	90	310.8	-
Younesi et al. (2021)²⁸	FP	3	90	386.7	-
SSG 4vs4				Distance covered (m)	Differences
Dellal et al. (2011)²⁴	1T	4	75	3057.3*	>2T e FP *>FP
	2T			2814.6**
	FP			2663.6
Dellal et al. (2011)²⁵	1T(M1)	4	75	835.7	*<J1
	2T(M1)			711.9
	FP(M1)			726.3
	1T(M2)			793.6
	2T(M2)			689.2
	FP(M2)			679.4
	1T(M3)			759.6*
	2T(M3)			667.8*
	FP(M3)			659.5*
	1T(M4)			668.7*
	2T(M4)			604.9*
	FP(M4)			597.6*
Dellal et al. (2011)²²	1T			3057.4
	2T	4	75	2814.7	-
	FP			2663.7
Younesi et al. (2021)²⁸	FP	4	90	506.0	-
Younesi et al. (2021)²⁸	3T+G	4	90	667.2	-
Giménez et al. (2018)¹⁴	1T	4	90	1576	-
Giménez et al. (2018)¹⁴	2T	4	90	1644	-
SSG 6vs6				Distance covered (m)	Differences
Casamichana et al. (2013)¹³	1T	12	80	1409.7
	2T			1295.2	-
	FP			1393.9
Casamichana et al. (2014)²³	2T	12	245	683.0*	*>2T
Casamichana et al. (2014)²³	FP			642.2	*>2T
Younesi et al. (2021)²⁸	3T	4	90	470.4	-
Younesi et al. (2021)²⁸	FP	4	90	432.0	-
SSG 7vs7				Distance covered (m)	Differences
Román-Quintana et al. (2013)²⁶	1T	12	210	1226.8	-
	2T			1224.9
	FP			1345.2

Universidade Estadual de Maringá Avenida Colombo, 5790 - cep: 87020-900 - tel: 44 3011 4315 - Maringá - PR - Brazil
E-mail: revdef@uem.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Corresponding author: André de Assis Lauria. E-mail: andre.lauria@uemg.br

Studies	Format	Duration (min)	App (m²)	Results
SSG 2vs2				LAC	RPE	HR	Differences
Dellal et al. (2011)²⁴	1T	2	75	3.9*	8.2**	182	*>2T e FP
	2T			3.5	7.7	182	**>FP
	FP			3.4	7.6	182
Dellal et al. (2011)²²	1T	2	75	3.9	8.1**	90.3%	-
	2T			3.5	7.9	90.1%
	TL			3.5	7.5	90%
SSG 3vs3				LAC	RPE	HR	Differences
Dellal et al. (2011)²⁴	1T	3	75	3.8*	8.1**	181	>2T e FP *>FP
	2T			3.3	7.9	180
	FP			3.0	7.5	181
Dellal et al. (2011)²²	1T	3	75	3.6	8.2	90%	-
	2T			3.4	7.9	89.4%
	FP			3.1	7.5	89.6%
Younesi et al. (2021)²⁷	3T	3	90	ni	ni	156	-
	TL			ni	ni	157
	3T+G			ni	ni	158
	TL+G			ni	ni	159
SSG 4vs4				LAC	RPE	HR	Differences
Dellal et al. (2011)²⁴	1T	4	75	2.9	8.0*	177*	*>FP
	2T			2.8	7.9*	173
	FP			2.9	7.2	171
Dellal et al. (2011)²⁵	1T(M1)	4	75	2.5	6.8	85%	-
	2T(M1)			2.5	6.9	83.4%
	FP(M1)			2.4	6.3	82.7%
	1T(M2)			2.8*	7.8*	86.7%
	2T(M2)			2.7	7.7*	84.7%
	TL(M2)			3.1*	7.1*	84.1%
	1T(M3)			3.1*	7.9*	88.2%
	2T(M3)			3.0*	8.1*	86.1%
	FP(M3)			3.3*	7.3*	85.1%
	1T(M4)			3.5*	8.9*	90.4%*
	2T(M4)			3.2*	8.9*	89.7%*
	FP(M4)			4.5*	8.2*	86.8%*
Dellal et al. (2011)²²	1T			3.0	8.0	87.6%
	2T	4	75	2.9	7.9	85.6%	-
	FP			2.8	7.3	84.7
Younesi et al. (2021)²⁷	3T	4	90	ni	ni	158	-
	FP			ni	ni	157