Comparison of tactical behaviour and performance of youth soccer players in 3v3 and 5v5 small-sided games

Inlemal'ional Joumal of Perfonllance Analysis in Sport 2014,14,801-8\3. Comparison of tactical behaviour and performance of youth soccer players in 3v3 and 5v5 small-sided games Daniel CasteHio 1, Julio Garganta 1, Rodrigo Santos 2, and srael Teoldo 2 ] Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, Portugal 2 Centre of Research and Studies in Soccer, Universidade Federal de Viyosa, Brazil Abstract Soccer is a predominantly tactical sport and tactical skills are particularly important for enhancing performance, since the actions are unpredictable, thus forcing players to constantly adapt to the situations. Our aim is to compare the tactical behaviour and performance of soccer players in 3v3 and 5v5 small-sided games (SSGs). The sample comprised 10 U-ll youth soccer players who performed 1,563 tactical actions in both 31>3and 5v5 SSGs. We used the System of tactical assessment in Soccer (FUT-SAT) to assess players' tactical behaviour and performance. Descriptive analyses were performed Shapiro- Wilk normality test was conducted T-test for repeated measures and Wilcoxon test were used to compare data between both situations (P<0.05). Significant differences were found in all categories of variables except in the category Tactical Performance Index (TPI). Players performed considerably more frequently the principles of Penetration and Delay in 3v3 and Unity and Balance in 5v5 SSGs. We concluded that while players' tactical performance has not changed, 3v3 and 5v5 demand different tactical behaviour from the players. These data can contribute to practice since coaches should take into account the changes in tactical behaviour when considering the number of players in soccer SSGs during training sessions. Keywords: soccer, tactical behaviour, tactical performance, small-sided games. 1. Introduction Soccer can be understood as a predominantly tactical sport in which most of the actions during the game are performed without possession of the ball (Garganta, 1997). Also, players with limited technical skills can play the game if they possess reasonable tactical comprehension (Oslin et ai., 1998). Therefore, the lack of tactical knowledge and intelligence is a significant reason for the poor execution of technical skills (Teodorescu, 1977). Accordingly, tactical skills are particularly important for enhancing sports performance, since the frequency, order and complexity of the actions are 801

unpredictable, forcing players to constantly adapt to match situations through organized means (Garganta, 1997; McPherson, 1994). Aiming to develop players' technical and tactical skills, coaches and managers often make use of small-sided games (SSGs), since they are expected to make training sessions more objective, therefore encouraging the commitment of players, besides stimulating actions related to the tactical component that need to be constantly practised and developed (Reilly, 2005). Fitness coaches also resort to SSGs, since researches indicate the induction to different kinds of effects for the development of physical capacity through this sort of drill (Casamichana et ai., 2012; Silva et ai., 2011). Within the context of small-sided games (SSGs), 3v3 turns out to be the minimal structure among all possible numeric settings, allowing the occurrence of the tactical principles inherent to the game of Soccer (Grehaigne, 1992, 2007). Small-sided games with more players participating also offer the possibility of increasing the effective playspace both in width and in depth. According to Platt et al. (2001) significant differences regarding physical constraints can already be observed in 5v5 in comparison to 3v3. onetheless, there is an apparent lack of researches comparing tactical behaviour and performance between such distinct situations. Due to the importance of tactics for players' performances, an increasing number of researches over this subject have been reported (Dellal et ai., 2012; Jones and Drust, 2007; Silva et al., 2011). Such growth can be explained by the interest of identifying individual and collective action patterns that are likely to be linked to teams' increased efficiency. Therefore, in order to obtain objective data with respect to the behaviour and performance of players and teams, researchers have resorted to several methods to examine register and assess actions performed within the context of team games. Among such methods, the observational approach is an objective, reliable and valid way to assess players' and teams' performances (Grehaigne et al., 2001). In addition, this methodology can provide coaches and researchers with relevant information that might be useful for planning training sessions, through cost-effective procedures (pers et al., 2002). Thus, this study aims to compare the tactical behaviour and performance of soccer players in 3v3 and 5v5 small-sided games (SSGs). 2. Methods 2.1. Sample The sample comprised 1,563 tactical actions (768 actions in 3v3 and 795 in 5v5 SSGs) performed by 10 U-Il youth soccer players from a Portuguese club. The actions in which players performed throw-ins, free kicks, corner-kicks, as well as those in which they did not perform any tactical principle, were not considered for assessment. 802

2.2. Procedure 2.2.1. Data collection Data were collected with the penmsslon of club's representatives. All participants played during eight minutes in both situations (3v3 and 5v5). Playing area was adapted according to the number of players involved, and in 3v3 field size was 36m long by 27m wide, while in 5v5 it was 60m long by 45m wide. In 3v3, participants were grouped in teams of three players plus a goalkeeper (GK +3 vs. 3+GK), while in 5v5 the distribution consisted of five players for each teams plus a goalkeeper (GK +5 vs. 5+GK). Actions performed by goalkeepers were not analyzed. Prior to the start of each test session, players were informed over the objectives of such tests and were given 30 seconds in order to familiarize with test procedures. All players wore numbered vests in order be clearly identified during video analysis. 2.2.2. Ethical procedures This study had the approval of the Ethics Committee of the University of Porto (CEFADE 15/2013) and meets the standards of the Declaration of Helsinki for researches with human beings (2008). 2.3. Instrument We used the System of tactical assessment in Soccer (FUT-SAT) (Teoldo et at., 2011) which enables the assessment of tactical actions performed by players with and without ball possession. Such assessment is based on ten core tactical principles of the Soccer game, with five offensive - (i) Penetration; (ii) Coverage; (iii) Width and Length; (iv) Depth Mobility; (v) Unity - and five defensive principles - (vi) Delay; (vii) Coverage; (viii) Balance; (ix) Concentration; (x) Unity, (Teoldo et at., 2009b; Worthington, 1974). FUT-SAT comprises two Macro- Categories, seven categories and 76 variables (as described in Chart 1) that are organized according to the type of information dealt with by the system. The Macro- Category "Observation" involves three categories and 24 variables: the category "Tactical Principles" includes ten variables; the category "Place of Action in the Playing Field" encompasses four variables; and the category "Action Outcome" contains ten variables. 803

Chart 1. Definitions, categories and sub-categories Sub- Categories Variables Categories Penetration of variables assessed by FUT-SAT. Definitions tovement of player with the ball tov"ards the goal line. Caverage supports ta the player with the ball. Depth Mability Width and Length lavement 'Ofplayers between the last defender and gaalline.. lovement of players to extend and use the effective play-space. Tactical Principles Delay 'nity Coverage M'Ovement 'Ofthe last line 'Ofdefenders t'owards the ' midfield, in 'Order t'osupp'ort ' acti'ons 'Ofthe teammates. Actians t'oslaw dawn the appanent's atl'empt t'om'ove f'orward with dleball Pasitianing 'Of'Off-ball defenders behind the "delay" player, providing defensive suppart'. Balance P'Ositi'Oning'Of'Off-ball defenders in reacti'on t'om'ovements 'Of atl'ackers, trying t'oachieve the numerical stability 'Orsuperi'Ority in the 'Oppasitian relatianship, Place 'OfAction Midfield Midfield Concentration nity ctians. ction Actians Actians Shoot at goal Keep passes sian 'Ofthe ball P'Ositi'Oning'Of'Off-ball defenders t'ooccupy vital spaces and pr'otect the scaring area, Positioning of off-ball defenders to reduce the effect'ive play-space 'Ofdle appanents. actions perfonned in the offensive midfield. actions perfonned in the offensive midfield. acti'ons perfanned in the defensive midfield. acti'ons perfanned in the defensive midfield. When a player shoots at gaal, and (a) scares a g'oal, (b) the gaalkeeper makes a save, (c) the ball tauches 'One'Ofthe gaalpasts 'Orthe crassbar. Wlletl team piayers execute passes to each other and keep up with the ball, Earn a foul, win a comer or throw-in Wlletl dle match is stopped due to a foul, comer or throw-in; team that' wns al't'acking KEEPS passessian 'Ofthe ball. the Action Outcames Commit a foul, give away a carner 'Orthrow in Loss afball passessian Regain the ball passessian Eam a faul, win a camer 'Or throw-in 'When dle match is stopped due to a foul, comer or throw-in; the possession of I'lie ball C 'GES ta the team that was in defence. When the attacking When the defensive team lases the ball passessian. players regain the ball p'ossessi'on. 'When the match is stopped due to a foul, comer or throw-in and dle passessian afdle ball CHANGES ta the team that was in defence, Canumt a faul, give away a camer 'Orthrow in Ball pas e ian 'Ofthe 'Opponent Take a shot at own goal When the match is st'opped due t'oa loul, carner 'OrthroW-ill; the team that was attacking KEEPS passession afthe ball. \Vhen the defensive players da nat' regain the ball possessian. v"hen dle defensive team takes a shot at their own goal, and (a) takes a goal, (b) the goalkeeper makes a save, (c) the ball tauches one oftlie goalposts or the crossbar. The field test within this system is conducted in a playing field with dimensions ranging between 27 and 36 metres long by 13.5 and 27 metres wide (test specifications for 5v5 SSGs are mentioned in the next paragraph). Field dimensions were calculated based on soccer field dimensions established by the International Football Association Board, and on the ratio calculation of the use (by the players) of playing space. For all the abovementioned dimensions, the centre of play has a 5-meter radius, taking into account the constant values found between the lower and higher values. During the test, participants 804

are asked to play according to the official rules of Soccer, except for the offside rule (Teoldo et al., 2009a). For this study, we used field dimensions of 36 metres long by 27 metres wide and a time of seven minutes and twenty seconds (without stoppages) for the test in both 3v3 and 5v5 SSGs. Such option is justified by the pilot study ofteoldo et al. (201 Ob), which did not find significant differences in the use oflarger amounts of time. For 5v5 SSGs, FUT-SAT was conducted in a field of60 metres long by 45 metres wide. These dimensions were conceived based on the ratio of the maximum dimensions established for 3v3 SSGs. Taking these dimensions into account, the value found for the radius of the centre of play was 6 metres. 2.4. Material To record field tests, a digital video camera (Panasonic NV-DS35EG) was used. Video footage was introduced in digital format in a laptop (DELL Inspiron 1545, Intel T6500 processor) via USB cable (IEEE 1394) and converted to ".avi" format. For image processing and video analysis, the software Utilius V. and Soccer Analyser were used. The first was developed for the analysis, categorization and registry of the actions assessed. The latter, specially designed for FUT-SAT, is used for the insertion of spatial references in the video, enabling the accurate assessment of players' positioning and movement. Insert Chart 1 2.5. Statistical Analysis Descriptive analyses were performed. Within the categories Tactical Principles, Place of Action in the Game Field and Action Outcome, analyses of absolute and relative frequency were performed. For the variables within the categories TPI, Percentage of Errors, Tactical Actions and P ARP, we conducted analyses of means and standard deviations. For statistical analysis of frequencies in the categories Tactical Principles, Place of Action in the Game Field and Action Outcome, Chi-square (l) test was conducted, with significance level of P<0.05. For variables in the categories TPI, Percentage of Errors, Tactical Actions and PARP, Shapiro-Wilk normality test was performed to verify data distribution. For variables with normal distribution, comparisons were made through Student's t test (P<0.05). For non-parametric data, we used Wilcoxon test (P<0.05). We performed data analyses through the software PASW (Predictive Analytics Software for Windows~, version 18.0. 2.5.1.. Reliability analysis We performed test-retest reliability for the observations, respecting a 20-day interval for reanalysis, thus avoiding task familiarity issues (Robinson and Q'Donoghue, 2007). For reliability calculation we used Cohen's Kappa test. Analyses were verified through the reassessment of220 tactical actions, or 14.07% of the overall sample, a value which is greater than the percentage (10%) suggested by literature (Tabachnick and Fidell, 805

2012). Intra-observer reliability displayed Kappa value of 0.91 (SE=O.OI). This value is classified as "Almost Perfect" (0.81-1.00) by literature (Landis and Koch, 1977). 3. Results Results are initially presented according to the Macro Categories that compose the test. Therefore, results regarding variables in the categories Tactical Principles, Place of Action in the Game Field and Action Outcome, and later, TPI, Percentage of Errors, Tactical Actions and PARP are presented. After these, TPI values of each player in 3v3 and 5v5 SSGs are displayed. 3.1. Macro-Category Observation Table 1 presents frequencies, percentages and percentage vanation of the variables within the categories Tactical Principles, Place of Action in the Game Field and Action Outcome in 3v3 and 5v5 SSGs. Among the 24 variables presented in Table 1, six of them displayed significant differences. After analysing the variables within the category Tactical Principles (Table 1), we observed the incidence of four statistically significant differences. Among these, we observed that frequencies of the principles of Penetration and Delay were higher in 3v3, whereas frequencies related to the principles of Unity and Balance were higher in 5v5. The lowest percentage variations found regard the principles of Width and Length and Depth Mobility, in offensive phase, and Concentration and Unity, in defensi ve phase. No significant differences were found for the variables in the category Place of Action in the Game Field. It is possible to see a distribution of actions in the game field that was similar in both SSGs, what can be verified through the low values in the column that refers to percentage variation. 806

Table 1. Absolute and relative frequencies and percentage variation of the variables within the categories Tactical Principles, Place of Action in the Game Field and Action Outcome in 3v3 and 5v5 SSGs. Categories and Variables 3v3 n % TACTICAL PRINCIPLES Penetration* Coverage Widtll and Length Depth Mobility Unity* Delay* Coverage Balance* Co ncentratio n Unity PLACE OF ACTION IN THE GAME FIELD Midfield Midfield 54 103 130 28 58 93 19 42 58 183 203 210 7.03 13.41 16.93 3.65 7.55 12.11 2.47 5.47 7.55 23.83 25.06 25.93 27 117 134 30 82 62 23 68 58 194 217 188 Midfield Midfield 156 241 19.26 29.75 138 267 ACTION OUTCOME Shoot at goal* Keep possession of the ball Earn a foul, win a comer or throw-in Conunit a foul, give away a comer or tllfow-in Loss of ball possession Regain ball possession 52 273 21 19 48 50 6.42 33.70 2.59 2.35 5.93 6.17 30 285 25 25 40 40 Earn a foul, win a comer or tllfow-in 17 2.10 25 Conunit a foul, give away a comer or tllfow-in 23 2.84 25 Ball possession of tile opponent 254 31.36 285 Take a shot at own goal* 53 6.54 30 TOTAL 768 795 5v5 n 0/0 3.40 14.72 16.86 3.77 10.31 7.80 2.89 8.55 7.30 24.40 26.79 23.21 17.04 32.96 3.70 35.19 3.09 3.09 4.94 4.94 3.09 3.09 35.19 3.70 Percentage Variation** -50.00 13.59 3.08 7.14 41.38-33.33 21.05 61.90 0.00 6.01 6.90-10.48-11.54 10.79-42.31 4.40 ]9.05 31.58-16.67-20.00 47.06 8.70 ]2.20-43.40 *Statistically significant differences (P<O.05). Tactical Principles: Penetration (P=0.03), Unity (P=0.043), Delay (P=O.013), Balance (P=0.013). Action Outcome: Shoot at goal (P=0.015), Take a shot at own goal (P=0.012). ** Values of percent.age variation were obt.ained from t.he comparison of 3v3 to 5v5 SSGs. In the category Action Outcome, we found statistically significant differences regarding the frequency of the variables Shoot at Goal and Take a Shot at Own Goal, in 3v3 SSGs. The lowest percentage variations found refer to the variable Keep Possession of the Ball, in offensive phase, and Commit a Foul, Give Away a Corner or Throw-in, in defensive phase. 807

0\ In 0'\ N.,-.t N ("'") \D: \D: - l/i 0 """(') -tj -tj -tj -tj -tj 00000..-< 'n..-< ~ """. In 0 00 ("') 000<'1- """. 00 """. ~ 1:-. 'f""""l N.,...( l,n N -tj -tj -tj -tj -tj 00000 N ~ 00 (') l/i Nl/iOo\N I:- N 'D or) <'1. -.:t:0\~-.:t: NOON """ -tj -tj -tj -tj -tj 00000 "-<N~I:-O\ MO... N~ 0\ <'1 N \0 In 'I""""'C ~o\...t -tj -tj -tj 000... 000 00("')-:!"-I,...-c ("""I <'1<'1- ~oo~ \0-0 'f"l ~~~ 00 l/i (') o\orior)!"-i,...-c ("""I ---- N """o o II S 00 I:- 0 I:- l/i 1:-. '0 N. 1:-. 1:-. """ 'f"l N (') N,.-.t.,-( r't N ("l ~tii~tii(t1 <'1I:- <'10\ - N-o<'1N...t N..-r..-: N (,'l- '!"'"""I Ir, Ir, In """ <"'"l<"'"l'0<"'"l0... N... 00 N N. N""" N tii~(t\\t\\t\ <'100 00 <'1<'1... N.... -on 'D N """... N co o C() ~ r-,...( (''\-0- ~ 1:-. 1:-. ~ 1:-. 00 <'1 0\ N 'f"l,.-.t.,-(n--<c"l J!.-#tii3t~ 'Dor)",,"O\N -O~o\o\~ 'n """ <'1<'1""" ("<") ('''I In «!«!~ 0\ <'1 or) -tj -tj -tj 00 00 or)... ~~ 00 N 0 """<'1,,,,"

By observing means related to the variables Phase and Phase, we observed higher values in 5v5 SSGs, in respect to the categories TPI and Tactical Actions, whereas In 3v3 SSGs, we verified higher values within the categories Percentage of Errors and P ARP. 3.3. Individual TPIs Table 3 presents the Tactical Performance Indexes (TPI) of each player. Such indexes are related to players' performances regarding each tactical principle, offensive and defensive phases and the entire game. The values presented demonstrated that players' performances were not homogeneous. By comparing TPls in 3v3 and 5v5 SSGs, it is possible to observe that three players obtained higher values oftpi in 3v3 and seven players had higher values in 5v5. After analysing Tactical Performance Indexes (OTPIs), we observed that six players displayed higher values in 5v5 SSGs. Instead, when considering the Tactical Performance Indexes (DTPIs), among all ten players assessed, five displayed higher values in 3v3 and the other five in 5v5 SSGs. Table 3. Players' individual Tactical Performance Tactical Principles Penetration Coverage Depth Mobility Width and Length Unity TPI ~ Delay Coverage Balance Concentration Unity TPI TPI Penetration Coverage Depth Mobility Width and Length Unity TPI ~ Delay Coverage Balance Concentration Unity TPI TPI 1 23.57 29.00 21.43 38.18 29.29 40.71 40.77 34.00 38.08 34.54 53.68 30.00 46.00 46.83 30.00 35.00 28.33 46.84 39.50 43.21 2 69.00 36.67 51.00 31.11 44.39 28.33 48.00 17.50 32.06 29.71 35.41 80.00 56.67 73.64 52.19 10.00 59.62 10.00 13.57 18.33 30.22 24.88 41.81 3 47.50 67.86 50.00 48.00 55.00 41.25 16.00 22.22 28.44 28.03 42.65 62.00 37.06 51.43 44.25 20.00 25.00 56.25 53.33 "'9.13 42.93 43.58 4 45.00 50.00 62.94 55.00 55.22 44.38 45.00 17.50 17.50 32.50 32.50 44.82 90.00 65.71 66.67 54.21 85.00 63.66 22.14 20.00 18.00 21.32 22.25 43.21 ndexes (TP s) Players 567 64.38 88.00 63.57 67.14 60.00 36.36 80.00 50.00 49.29 45.00 30.00 46.00 54.38 58.00 59.27 59.48 49.57 39.17 55.00 27.00 53.33 10.00 10.00 30.00 45.00 16.67 32.75 28.33 35.00 35.41 37.57 30.41 47.76 47.20 39.72 70.00 30.00 80.00 58.75 41.54 60.00 45.00 45.77 28.75 72.00 49.38 61.25 54.47 53.90 46.00 25.00 32.73 25.00 53.33 48.75 25.00 41.11 25.00 31.25 45.00 30.65 42.14 36.67 32.80 36.50 37.56 43.23 45.31 41.73 8 70.00 42.00 72.00 38.24 100.00 50.32 25.00 60.00 27.27 28.82 38.48 70.00 62.73 80.00 47.06 80.00 57.43 25.56 36.00 26.67 31.05 29.75 42.67 9 43.33 50.00 45.00 34.29 50.00 39.71 14.44 53.33 30.00 24.00 42.67 32.57 36.14 52.50 74.29 80.00 42.83 80.00 56.25 31.67 50.00 26.67 27.78 21.00 27.56 41.73 10 52.50 36.36 56.67 37.69 22.50 39.59 17.50 21.67 32.50 27.71 33.82 46.00 44.17 53.24 48.71 46.67 46.67 48.70 46.50 47.53 809

With respect to Tactical Performance ndexes for the entire game (TPls), higher values with lower variations among the ten players were found in 5v5 SSGs. Moreover, we observed that players 3, 4, 5 and 6 displayed relatively better results when compared to the others, with their TPls being ranked within the top five values both in 3v3 and 5v5 SSGs. 4. Discussion The present study aimed to compare tactical behaviour and performance of soccer players in 3v3 and 5v5 small-sided games (SSGs). Results within this study allowed us to observe variations in eight of the 76 variables analysed. Such variations indicate that both small-sided games (SSGs) demand different tactical behaviours from the players. Although no differences were found between both SSGs with respect to tactical performance, players' tactical behaviour displayed significant variations and enabled us making important interpretations. The study conducted by Silva et al. (2014), which compared 3v3 and 6v6 SSGs, also found significant differences regarding players' tactical behaviour in such configurations. However, the authors did not examine tactical performance. Within the present study, higher frequency values observed in 3v3 SSGs regarding the principles of Penetration and Delay may be due to the fact that the reduced number of outfield players might have led opponents to perform more actions of direct opposition to the player in possession, who, in turn, was able to easier place himself in situations that favoured goal attempts or dribbling. Such inference was confirmed by frequency values of the variables Shoot at Goal and Take a Shot at Own Goal. These results are similar to those found in literature that indicates higher number of goal attempts in smaller fields (Jones and Drust, 2007; Katis and Kellis, 2009). On the other hand, higher frequency values of the principle of Unity in 5v5 SSGs may be explained by the increased field dimensions and by the number of players involved, what may have enabled a higher amount of actions in which participants play in spaces further back in the field, acting as support players instead of taking part of the action closer to the centre of play or ahead of the ball line. Similar findings were reported in previous research (Silva et al., 2014). Also, the higher occurrence of the principle of Balance may be explained by the wider distribution of players over the playing field, including corridors surrounding the epicentre of play (Little and Williams, 2007). Both in 3v3 and 5v5 SSGs we observed a low frequency value for the principle of Depth Mobility, what reveals a low tendency of performing actions between the last defender and the opponents' goal. In the categories Place of Action in the Game Field and PARP, we observed a distribution of actions over the field that was not significantly different in any of the SSGs. A similar distribution of offensive actions within the variables 810

Midfield and Midfield was also observed. On the other hand, defensive actions displayed higher values within the variable Midfield in both SSGs. These results indicate that in both SSGs teams converged to perform offensive sequences based on direct play (Barreira et al., 2010; Garganta, 1997), thus emphasizing ball possession through few passes, that begin in defensive midfield and passing through offensive midfield while players organize themselves within the team. This is highlighted when we take into consideration the high frequency of the variable Ball Possession of the Opponent and the low frequency of the variable Regain Ball Possession observed in both SSGs. On the other hand, defensive actions tend to be performed when pressure is exerted down the field, that is, when players are drawn back in their defensive halves. Results similar to those described in this study were found in earlier researches (Teoldo et a/., 2010a). In 3v3 SSGs constant positional changes between players were identified, while in SvS, fewer movements were observed. Regarding the Tactical Performance Index, the highest values displayed by players three, four, five and six in 3v3 and SvS SSGs occurred due the highest TPI achieved by them, while TPI displayed values that were closer to the means of the rest of the players involved. Findings within the present study might allow coaches to improve players' tactical skills, by considering the advantages of each SSG to the modelling of tactical behaviour. Thus, the suitability of the amount of the players involved in the drill might take into account the tactical principles that underlie the behaviours that the coach wants to modify/develop. Further researches regarding SSGs should examine players' tactical skills in different contexts such as the use of floaters or neutral players, in order to investigate how different types of constraints influence behaviour and performance. 5. Conclusion This study aimed to compare tactical behaviour and performance of soccer players in 3v3 and SvS small-sided games (SSGs) It was observed that in 3v3 and SvS SSGs, players' behaviours displayed statistical significant differences with respect to the tactical actions performed during the test. Players proved to perform considerably more frequently the principles of Penetration and Delay in 3v3 and Unity and Balance in SvS SSGs. No significant differences were found in the category Tactical Performance Index (TPI), suggesting that tactical performance did not vary significantly between 3v3 and Sv5 SSGs. 811

6. References Barreira, D., Garganta, J., and Anguera, T. (2010). In search of nexus between attacking game-patterns, match status and type of ball recovery in European Soccer Championship 2008. In M. Hughes, H. Dancs, K. agyvaradi, T. Polgar, James, G. Sporis & G. Vuckovic (Eds.), Research Methods and Performance Analysis. Szombathely: University of West Hungary. Casamichana, D., Castellano, J., and Castagna, C. (2012). Comparing the physical demands of friendly matches and small-sided games in semiprofessional soccer players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 26(3),837-843. Dellal, A., Owen, A., Wong, D. P., Krustrup, P., van Exsel, M., and Mallo, J. (2012). Technical and physical demands of small vs. large sided games in relation to playing position in elite soccer. Human Movement Science, 31(4), 957-969. doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2011.08.013 Garganta, J. (1997). Modela~ao tactica do jogo de futebol - estudo da organiza~ao da fase ofens iva em equipas de alto rendimento. [Tactical modelling in soccer - study about the attacking phase in top level teams]. (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis), University of Porto, Porto, Portugal. Grehaigne, J. F. (1992). L'organisation du jeu en football. Joinville-le-Pont: Actio. Grehaigne, J. F. (2007). Configurations de jeu: Debat d'idees & apprentissage du football et des sports collectifs. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Franche- Comte. Grehaigne, J. F., Mahut, B., and Fernandez, A. (2001). Qualitative observation tools to analyse soccer. International Journal of Perfomance Analysis in Sport, 1(1), 52-61. Jones, S., and Drust, B. (2007). Physiological and Technical Demands of 4v4 and 8v8 Games in Elite Youth Soccer Players. Kinesiology, 39(2), 150-156. Katis, A., and Kellis, E. (2009). Effects of small-sided games on physical conditioning and performance in young soccer players. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 8(3), 374-380. Lames, M., and Hansen, G. (2001). Designing observational systems to support toplevel teams in game sports. International Journal of Perfomance Analysis in Sport, 1(1), 83-90. Landis, R., and Koch, G. G. (1977). The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics, 33(1),159-174. Little, T., and Williams, A. G. (2007). Measures of exercise intensity during soccer training drills with professional soccer players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21(2), 367-371. McPherson, S. L. (1994). The Development of Sport Expertise: Mapping the Tactical Domain. Quest, 46(2),223-240. Oslin, J., Mitchell, S. A., and Griffin, L. L. (1998). The Game Performance Assessment Instrument (GPAI): development and preliminary validation. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17(2),231-243. Pers, J., Bon, M., Kovacic, S., Sibila, M., and Dezman, B. (2002). Observation and analysis of large-scale human motion. Human Movement Science, 21(2), 295-311. 812

Platt, D., Maxwell, A., Hom, R., Williams, A. M., and Reilly, T. (2001). Physiological and Technical Analysis of 3v3 and 5v5 Youth Football Matches. Coaching, 4(4),42-45. Reilly, T. (2005). An ergonomics model of the soccer training process. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23(6), 561-572. Robinson, G., and O'Donoghue, P. (2007). A weighted kappa statistic for reliability testing in performance analysis of sport. International Journal of Perfomance Analysis in Sport, 7(1), 12-19. Silva, B., Garganta, l, Santos, R., and Teoldo, 1. (2014). Comparing Tactical Behaviour of Soccer Players in 3 vs. 3 and 6 vs. 6 Small-Sided Games. Journal of Human Kinetics, 41(1), 191-202. doi: 10.2478/hukin-2014-0047 Silva, C. D., Impellizzeri, F. M., atali, A. 1., Lima, 1. R., Bara-Filho, M. G., Garcia, E. S., and Marins, 1. C. (2011). Exercise intensity and technical demands of smallsided games in young Brazilian soccer players: effect of number of players, maturation, and reliability. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25(10), 2746-2751. Tabachnick, B., and Fidell, L. (2012). Using Multivariate Statistics: International Edition (6 ed.). London: Pearson Education. Teodorescu, L. (1977). Theorie et methodologie des jeux sportifs. Paris: Les Editeurs Franc;ais Reunis. Teoldo, 1, Garganta, J., Greco, P., and Mesquita, 1. (2009a). Avaliac;ao do Desempenho Tatico no Futebol: Concepc;ao e Desenvolvimento da Grelha de Observac;ao do Teste "GR3-3GR". [Evaluation of Tactical Performance in Soccer: Conception and development of Framework of Tactical Behavior Analysis of "GK3-3GK" Test]. Revista Mineira de Educaf;3o Fisica, 17(2), 36-64. Teoldo, 1, Garganta, J., Greco, P. J., and Mesquita, I. (2009b). Tactical Principles of Soccer Game: concepts and application. [in Portuguese]. Motriz, 15(3), 657-668. Teoldo, 1., Garganta, 1., Greco, P. 1., Mesquita, 1., and Afonso, 1. (2010a). Assessment of tactical principles in youth soccer players of different age groups. Revista Portuguesa de Ciencias do Desporto, 10(1), 147-157. Teoldo, I., Garganta, 1., Greco, P. 1., Mesquita, I., and Maia, 1. (2011). System of tactical assessment in Soccer (FUT-SAT): Development and preliminary validation. Motricidade, 7(1),69-83. doi: 1O.6063/motricidade.7(1).121 Teoldo, 1., Garganta, 1., Greco, P. J., and Muller, E. (2010b). Influencia do tempo de jogo nos comportamentos tilticos de jogadores de futebol, no Teste "GR3-3GR". [Influence of game time on tactical behaviours of soccer players in the "GK3-3GK" test]. Revista Mineira de Educal;3o Fisica, 18(1), 7-25. Worthington, E. (1974). Learning & Teaching Soccer Skills. orth Hollywood: Wilshire Book Company. 813