Optimizing the Use of Soccer Drills for Physiological Development

Abstract

USING SOCCER DRILLS FOR CONDITIONING HAS CONSIDERABLE BENEFITS. HOWEVER, THE PRACTICALITIES OF CONDUCTING SUCH SESSIONS ARE MORE CHALLENGING THAN NON-SOCCER-SPECIFIC CONDITIONING METHODS. THIS ARTICLE EXAMINES FACTORS THAT AFFECT THE PHYSICAL NATURE OF SOCCER DRILLS AND PROVIDES GUIDANCE ON HOW TO OPTIMIZE TRAINING STRUCTURE WHEN USING SOCCER DRILLS FOR PHYSIOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT.

Full text

Editorial Manager(tm) for Strength and Conditioning Journal
Manuscript Draft
Manuscript Number: SCJ-D-08-00088R3
Title: OPTIMISING THE USE OF SOCCER DRILLS FOR PHYSIOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT
Short Title:
Article Type: Article
Keywords: Fitness training; conditioning games; football; training specificity
Corresponding Author: dr thomas little, PhD
Corresponding Author's Institution: Sheffield Wednesday FC, Derby University
First Author: thomas little, PhD
Order of Authors: thomas little, PhD
Manuscript Region of Origin: UNITED KINGDOM
Abstract: Utilising soccer drills for conditioning has considerable benefits. However, the practicalities
of conducting such sessions are more challenging than non-soccer specific conditioning methods. This
article examines factors that affect the physical nature of soccer drills, and provides guidance on how
to optimise training structure when utilising soccer drills for physiological development.
Opposed Reviewers:
Response to Reviewers: Reviewer #1: The article is a very good synopsis of current literature and
methods for training the aerobic component in a highly sport-specific manner. Well done. A single
suggestion re: wording below.
Page 7 Line 37: Re-word, "...player numbers involve more continual involvement"; suggest: ...lower
player numbers results in more continual...
RESPONSE: Suggested change made.
Reviewer #2: The authors have done a great job with the edits to date, and I feel the article is now far
more focussed, and provides a good outline of the thought processes involved in the setting up of small
sided games.
My final revisions are very minor and mainly grammatical.
Page one the last sentence of the first introductory paragraph
This is very long and would benefit from some punctuation or slight rewording. I found myself having
to re-read it.
RESPONSE: The sentence has been shortened
Page three Paragraph four. Sentence Despite this concern soccer drill intensities

would it be better to add (as measured by heart rate if this is the measurement tool used ) or to reword
it to read relative intensities. Presumably absolute intensities of work would vary between
professional and amateur players.
RESPONSE: The sentence has been changed.
Page four Paragraph two sentence starting When conditioning, training load ....
the competitive structure could affect more than the repetition duration eg the work rest ratio etc .
Could a better ending to the sentence be
if it interferes too much with the targeted physiological response.
RESPONSE: The paragraph discusses how a competition structure can affect repetition numbers and in
doing so, the repetition duration. Therefore, I believe the sentence has to specifically refer to
‘repetition duration’ rather than the generic physiological response.
Paragraph three Sentence starting Normal small sided games are normally.
To avoid the double use of normally it may be best to start..Traditional small sided games.
RESPONSE: ‘Normally’ has been changed to ‘generally’.
Figure 1 This is a really good attempt to outline the thought processes involved in setting up the games .
Do the authors feel that work/rest ratio needs to be included somewhere, maybe in the duration boxes.
I have found that inappropriate work/rest ratios can adversely affect the adaptations achieved with
this form of training, and it is included in my planning processes.
RESPONSE: Work:Rest ratio added to figure.

OPTIMISING THE USE OF
SOCCER DRILLS FOR
PHYSIOLOGICAL
DEVELOPMENT
KEYWORDS: Fitness training; conditioning games; football; training
specificity
* Title Page

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
SUMMARY
Utilising soccer drills for conditioning has considerable benefits. However, the practicalities of
conducting such sessions are more challenging than non-soccer specific conditioning methods. This
article examines factors that affect the physical nature of soccer drills, and provides guidance on how
to optimise training structure when utilising soccer drills for physiological development.
INTRODUCTION
Physiological development plays a crucial role in defining a soccer player’s potential match
performance and has been shown to correlate with playing standard (4,37) and performance (4). In
particular, training programs aimed at improving aerobic capacities have been shown to enhance
aspects of soccer performance, such as the time spent at high exercise intensities and involvements in
play (14). The physical nature of certain soccer drills used in training suggests they may be suited to
improving a player’s endurance capacities. Such soccer drills contain many of the elements of soccer
match play, such as passing, dribbling skills and scoring, but typically involve reduced player numbers
and/or modified rules. The use of soccer drills for physiological development has recently gained
increasing popularity, with support from scientific literature (13,15,27) and empirical evidence from
successful teams (33). It has been demonstrated that several soccer drills have the potential to elicit
intensities suitable for developing soccer endurance at elite and recreational levels (21) and in both
sexes (22). Furthermore, training programs involving soccer drills have been shown to be equally
effective in improving physiological factors important to soccer performance as generic aerobic
training (15,27). The voluntary nature of movement during soccer drills meant that there was concern
that some players may train at inappropriate exercise intensities for conditioning. However, recent
results (19,20,26) suggest that soccer drills can produce sufficiently similar exercise intensities across
different players, and repetitions to warrant their application for physical training.
Beyond the obvious advantage of increasing training efficiency via combined technical and
physiological training, utilisation of soccer drills has several advantages over more generic
conditioning methods, such as running without a ball. Motivation of the players is improved when
soccer and competition are involved (3). Also, more similar movement types, and patterns in soccer
drills may also lead to a greater transfer to match specific fitness. Enhanced movement efficiency is
particularly key for unorthodox forms of locomotion, such as side and backward movements, which
are frequently performed in soccer drills (28). Furthermore, the metabolic consequences of intermittent
exercise, as used in soccer drills and competition, have been shown to be different from continuous
exercise at the same average intensity (9). Despite these significant benefits, generic physical training
is still prevalent at all levels of the sport. This may be in part due to the greater difficulty in controlling
Manuscript (All Manuscript Text Pages in MS Word format, including References and Figure Legends)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
training load, and the increased organisation demands when using soccer drills compared to generic
physical sessions. Table 1 summarises the benefits and disadvantages of utilising soccer drills and
generic conditioning methods. The present article aims to review research concerning conditioning
with soccer drills, and provide practical guidance on how to optimise such sessions.
Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages associated with physical training using soccer drills and generic running.
TRAINING LOAD DURING SOCCER DRILLS
During physical training, it is paramount that training load, consisting of training intensity and
duration, is appropriate for the intended physiological and performance adaptations. Control over
training intensity is achieved during generic conditioning by specifying distance and/or duration
parameters of the exercise. The voluntary nature of movement in soccer drills means the control over
intensity is potentially less precise. However, evidence suggests a coach can attempt to control the
intensity of soccer drills by selecting specific drills, and by manipulating parameters of the soccer drill
(20,26). Factors that can influence the intensity of soccer drills include the type of drill, player
numbers, player motivation, pitch size and rule alterations.
The type of soccer drill is often modified by adjusting the number of players within a team. The
literature presents a consistent trend between playing intensity and number of players during small-
sided games, with lower playing numbers resulting in higher exercise intensities (19,20,26). Video
analysis has shown that reducing player numbers results in more continual involvement in play and
relatively more time spent performing higher intensity activities, such as sprinting (11,12,24). In
accordance, 8-aside to 5-aside drills (6,19,20,26,27,31) have often been reported to result in intensities
appropriate for lactate threshold development (~ 85-90% HRmax; 11), whereas 4-aside and 3-aside
games (2,6,14,17,19,20,27,31) consistently produce intensities deemed optimal for O2max
development (90-95% HRmax; 11). Blood lactate and perceived exertion responses indicate that 2v2
drills (1,19,20,29) are suited to anaerobic training. All these training formats are considered critical in
developing soccer endurance (4,14). Discussion of optimal endurance training methods for soccer
performance is beyond the scope of this article, but have been extensively reviewed in previous
literature (3,14,32). Table 2 shows the recommended training loads and soccer drills that have been
reported to produce suitable intensities for the aforementioned endurance training methods.
Table 2 . Methodology for the main forms of endurance training for soccer and appropriate soccer drills.
Training loads adapted from Bompa (5).
Possession games, without goalkeepers, have been shown to increase drill intensity (31). This may be
due to fewer breaks in play and the lack of positional movement restrictions. Therefore, possession

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
drills may allow coaches to train higher threshold adaptations with relatively larger team sizes. In
addition, rule changes, such as restricting the number of consecutive touches (3,30), man-to-man
marking (1,30) and using support players, have been reported to cause an increase in intensity (1).
It has generally been found that larger pitches produce greater intensities (4,17,23,26), presumably
because players cover greater distances and play is more open on the larger pitches. Table 3 shows the
pitch sizes utilised by Rampinini et al. (26) for various small sided games when examining the effects
of pitch size.
Table 3. Pitch sizes considered small, medium and large for various soccer drills, reported by Rampinini et al.
(26) and Owen et al. (23).
Authors (30,31) have reported, and empirically it is often seen, that coach encouragement increases
training intensity. Indeed, Rampinini et al. (26) reported that coach encouragement was the dominant
variable on playing intensity, when examining the effects of varying pitch size, player numbers and
coach encouragement. Therefore, coaches should aim to maximise motivational techniques when high
training intensities are required. Factors that can be used to enhance motivation include coaching staff
providing encouragement, using a competitive playing structure and providing feedback to the players
about intensity (8).
A factor that can influence soccer drill intensity that cannot be controlled by the coach, is the standard
of the players. Players of low technical ability may not be able to produce high training intensities
during soccer drills because play is often disrupted, and does not flow across the pitch quickly. Despite
this concern, relative intensities have been reported to be similar between amateur and professional
players during the same soccer drills (2,21,26,27). Table 4 shows intensities of soccer drills reported in
the literature with details of the aforementioned factors that can influence intensity.
Table 4. Soccer drill parameters and intensities reported in the literature.
ORGANISATION OF SOCCER DRILL CONDITIONING SESSIONS
The practicalities of organising a soccer drill session are much more daunting than that of a generic
physical session. With generic conditioning, the main practicalities concern producing the appropriate
training load. However, soccer drills have an additional number of factors to consider, which are often
dictated by training circumstances.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
Total player numbers dictate what type of soccer drills can be utilised because the team sizes used
must be a dividable number of the total number of players. For example, 16 players would require 8, 4
or 2-aside teams. Player numbers and team size also effect how many teams are formed. If more than
two teams are formed, multiple drills have to be set up where teams play simultaneously on different
pitches. In addition, the number of goalkeepers and goalposts influences what type of drills can be
used. Possession drills without goalkeepers can be utilised in scenarios where there are insufficient
goalkeepers/ goalposts for the number of pitches needed. Once the drills that suit the training
circumstances have been identified, the coach must select those that have the potential to produce the
desired work intensities. The coach must then select appropriate drill parameters, such as pitch size
and rules, to produce the desired intensity.
The number of teams, and different drills can affect how many repetitions are performed, if a
competitive structure is to be used. A competitive structure involves all teams playing each other an
equal number of times. Such a structure can aid motivation levels by increasing competition and
placing increased significance on the results. For example, if there are 4 teams, the number of
repetitions would be multiples of 3. However, if different types of drills are utilised, a competitive
structure would require that all teams play each other an equal amount of times, and that each team
plays the same amount of the different soccer drills. For example, if there were 4 teams with 2 playing
3-aside and the other 2 teams playing a possession game, multiples of 6 repetitions should be
administered so each team plays all the opposition teams on both drills. The effect of a competitive
structure on repetition numbers often requires that repetition durations are manipulated from what are
typically used to produce the appropriate training load. When conditioning, training load must always
remain the priority, and therefore a competitive structure should not be used if it interferes too much
with an appropriate repetition duration.
Soccer drills allow simultaneous physical and technical development. Therefore, when possible the
soccer drills utilised should contain the tactics/ technical elements desired by the coach. Normal small-
sided games are generally desirable because they closely replicate the demand of match play.
Possession drills are often used if the coach wants to emphasise pressurising opponents or maintaining
possession of the ball. Figure 1 illustrates the decision process a coach must use to produce the correct
training parameters when using soccer drills for conditioning.
Figure 1. Thought flow in producing the correct training parameters for the desired physiological goal when
using soccer drills.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
CONCLUSION
Recent evidence has supported the potential of utilising soccer drills to train physical capacities of
soccer players and thus provide simultaneous skill and fitness training. Utilising soccer drills for
conditioning has key advantages when compared with generic physical training, such as enhanced
motivation and greater transfer to match specific fitness. However, their utilisation can present a
challenge in producing optimal work intensities and determining appropriate training structures.
Information within this article should aid coaches in choosing and organising soccer drills, and
training structures for physiological development.
REFERENCES
1. AROSO, J., A.N. REBELO and J. GOMES-PEREIRA. Physiological impact of selected game-
related exercises. J. Sports Sci. 22:522. 2004.
2. BALSOM, P. Precision Football. Kempele, Finland: Polar, 1999.
3. BANGSBO, J. Fitness Training in Football: A Scientific Approach. Bagsaerd, Denmark:
HO+Storm, 1995.
4. BANGSBO, J. The physiology of soccer - with special reference to intense intermittent exercise.
Acta Physiol. Scand. Suppl. 619:1-155. 1994.
5. BOMPA, T.O. Periodization: Theory and Methodology of Training (4th ed.). Toronto, ON:
Human Kinetics Publishers. 1999.
6. CAPRANICA, L., A. TESSITORE, L. GUIDETTI and F. FIGURA. Heart rate and match
analysis in pre-pubescent soccer players. J. Sports Sci. 19:379-84. 2001.
7. CASTAGNA, C., R. BELARDINELLI and G. ABT. The VO2 and heart rate response to training
with a ball in youth soccer players. J. Sports Sci. 22:532-533. 2004.
8. COUTTES, A. Use of skill-based games in fitness development for team sports. Sports Coach.
24:18-19. 2002.
9. DRUST, B., T. REILLY and N.T. CABLE NT. Physiological responses to laboratory-based
soccer-specific intermittent and continuous exercise. J. Sports Sci. 18:885–892. 2000
10. GABBETT, T.J. Training Injuries in Rugby League: An Evaluation of Skill-based Conditioning
Games: J. Stren. Cond. Res.16:236-241. 2002.
11. GRANT, A., WILLIAMS, M., DODD, R., and S. JOHNSON. Physiological and technical
analysis of 11 v 11 and 8 v 8 youth football matches. Insight: The F. A. Coaches Association
Journal. 2:29-30. 1999a.
12. GRANT, A., WILLIAMS, M., DODD. R,, and S. JOHNSON. Technical demands of 7v7 and
11v11 youth football matches. Insight: The F. A. Coaches Association Journal. 4:26-28. 1999b.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
13. HELGERUD, J., L.C. ENGEN, U. WISLOFF and J. HOFF. Aerobic endurance training improves
soccer performance. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 33:1925-31. 2001.
14. HOFF, J. and J. HELGERUD. Endurance and strength training for soccer players. Physiological
considerations. Sports Med. 34:165-180. 2004
15. IMPELLIZZERI, F.M., MARCORA, S.M., CASTAGNA, C., REILLY, T., SASSI, A., IAIA,
F.M., and E. RAMPININI. Physiological and Performance Effects of Generic versus Specific
Aerobic Training in Soccer Players. Int J Sports Med. 27:483-92. 2006.
16. IMPELLIZZERI, F.M., RAMPININI, E., and S.M. MARCORA. Physiological assessment of
aerobic training in soccer. J. Sports Sci. 23:583 – 592. 2005.
17. KELLY, D. Physiological and technical responses during 4v4 soccer drills on different sized
pitches. Unpublished BSc Thesis. 2005.
18. LITTLE, T. Physiology of professional soccer training with particular reference to the use of
soccer drill for physiological development. PhD Thesis. 2006.
19. LITTLE, T., and A.G. WILLIAMS. Measures of exercise intensity during soccer training drills
with professional footballers. J. Stren. Cond. Res. 21: 367–371. 2007.
20. LITTLE, T., and A.G. WILLIAMS. Suitability of soccer training drills for endurance training. J.
Stren. Cond. Res. 20: 16–319. 2006.
21. MACLAREN, D., DAVIDS, J., ISOKAWA, M., MELLOR, S., and T. REILLY. Physiological
strain in 4-a-side soccer. In T Reilly, A Lees, K Davids, WJ Murphy eds. Science and Football,
London, E. & F. N. Spon, 1998. pp 76-80.
22. MILES, A., MACLAREN, D., REILLY, T., and K. YAMANAKA. An analysis of physiological
strain in four-a-side women’s soccer. In T Reilly, J Clarys, A Stibbe eds., Science and football II,
London, E & FN Spon, 1993. pp.140-145.
23. OWEN, A., TWIST, C., and P. FORD. Small-sided games: The physiological and technical effect
of altering pitch size and player numbers. Insight: The F. A. Coaches Association Journal. 7:50-
53. 2004.
24. PLATT, D., MAXWELL, A., HORN, R., WILLIAMS, M., and T. REILLY. Physiological and
technical analysis of 3 v 3 and 5 v 5 youth football matches. Insight: The FA Coaches Association
Journal. 4:23–24. 2001.
25. RAMPININI, A., SASSI, A., and F.M. IMPELLIZZERI. Reliability of heart rate recorded during
soccer training. In: Fifth World Congress of Science and Football, Madrid, 2003. Gymnos, pp.
175.
26. RAMPININI, E., IMPELLIZZERI, F.M, CASTAGNA, C., ABT, G., CHAMARI, K., SASSI, A.,
and S.M MARCORA. Factors influencing physiological responses to small-sided soccer games.
J. Sports Sci. 25:659-66. 2007.
27. REILLY, T. and C. WHITE. Small-sided games as an alternative to interval-training for soccer
players. J Sports Sci. 22:559. 2004.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
28. REILLY, T., and D. BALL. The net physiological cost of dribbling a soccer ball. Res. Quart.
Exer. and Sport. 55:267-271. 1884.
29. REILLY, T., and J. BANGSBO J. Anaerobic and aerobic training. In B. Elliott (Ed.), Training in
sport: Applying sport science. 1998. Chichester: Wiley, pp. 351-409.
30. SAMPAIO, J., GARCIA, G., MAÇÃS, V., İBÁÑEZ, S.J., ABRANTES, C., and P. CAIXINHA.
Heart rate and perceptual responses to 2x2 and 3x3 small-sided youth soccer games. J Sports Sci.
Med. 6 (Suppl 10):121-122. 2007.
31. SASSI, R., T. REILLY and F. IMPELLIZZERI. A comparison of small sided games and interval
training in elite professional soccer players. J Sports Sci 22:562. 2004.
32. STOLEN, T., K. CHAMARI, C. CASTAGNA and E. WISLØFF. 2005. Physiology of soccer: An
update. Sports Med. 35:501-536. 2005.
33. STRØYER, J., HANSEN, L., and K. HANSEN. Physiological profile and activity pattern of
young soccer players during match play. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 36: 168-74. 2004.
34. STRUDWICK, T., and T. REILLY. Work-rate profiles of elite Premier League football players.
Insight: The FA Coaches Association Journal. 4:28-29. 2001.
35. VERHEIJEN, R. Periodisation in Football: Preparing the Korean National Team for the 2002
World Cup. Insight: The FA coaches Association Journal. 6:30-34. 2003.
36. WILSON, D. The physiological basis of speed endurance. Insight: The FA Coaches Association
Journal. 4: 36 – 37. 2001.
37. WISLOFF, U., J. HELGERUD and J. HOFF. Strength and endurance of elite soccer players. Med
Sci Sports Exerc. 30:462-7. 1998.

Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages associated with physical training using soccer drills and generic
running
SOCCER DRILLS
TRADITIONAL RUNNING
A small-sided game with specific constraints
(scoring, targets, balls, players, rules, area).
A controlled running session with players exercising
for a specific time and or distance.
ADVANTAGES
ADVANTAGES
1.
Improved motivation
2. Enhanced training of movement efficiency
3. Improvements in tactical awareness
4. Improvements in technical skill
5. Optimises training time and physical load
6. Potential decrease in injuries (10)
1. Exact work intensity can be easily controlled
2. Improvements can be monitored objectively
3. Comparisons can be made between players
4. Gain insight into player character/motivation
DISADVANTAGES
DIS
ADVANTAGES
1. Exact work intensity is difficult to control
2. Often difficult to organise optimal training structure
3. Increased risk of contact injuries
4. Need numbers to make up session
5. Certain degree of technical ability required
6. Possible ceiling effect for very fit players (13)
1. Less movement associated with match play
2. Players do not practice technical skills
3. No game based tactical elements
4. Players do not like running
5. May increase risk of some injuries due to
unaccustomed running (tendonitis, lumbo-pelvic
problems)
Table

Table 2 . Methodology for the main forms of endurance training for soccer and appropriate soccer drills.
Training loads adapted from Bompa (5).
Training
Type
Appropriate Training Load Soccer Drill Examples
Intensity Duration
%HR
RPE
Lactate
mmol/
Total
Work
Rep
Duration
Reps
Rest
Drill
Author
Lactate
threshold
80-90 Quite
Hard
3-6 30-60min 6-30min. 1-8 < 1min
rest
5v5
6v6
7v7
8v8
7,19,20,26,27
19,20,26
6
19,20,31
VO2max 90-95 Stressful 6-12 12-35min 3-6min. 4-8 0.5-1 rest
ratio
3v3
4v4
2,19,20,26
14,17,19,20,27
Anaerobic >85 Maximal > 10 4-16min 20s –
3min
2-4
sets of
4-8
1-4 rest
ratio
2v2
3v3 possess
1,20,29
18

Table 3. Pitch sizes considered small, medium and large for various soccer drills, reported by Rampinini
et al. (26) and Owen et al. (23).
Soccer Drill Small Medium Large
3
-
aside
12 v 20m
15 v 25 m
18 v 30 m
4
-
aside
16 v 24 m
20 v 30 m
24 v 36 m
5
-
aside
20 v 28 m
25 v 35 m
30 v 42 m
6
-
aside
24 v 32 m
30 v 40 m
36 v 48 m
1
-
aside possession
5 v 10 m
10 v 15 m
15 v 20 m
2
-
aside possession
10 v 15 m
15 v 20 m
20 v 25 m
3
-
aside possession
15 v 20 m
20 v 25 m
25 v 30 m
4
-
aside possession
20 v 25 m
25 v 30 m
30 v 35 m
5
-
aside possession
25 v 30 m
30 v 35 m
35 v 40 m

Table 4. Soccer drill parameters and intensities reported in the literature. KEY: Div = division, Pro = Professional.
Drill
Aut
-
hor
Pitch Size
Duration
Subject
Standand
Motivation
%HRma
x
Lactate
(mmol/l)
RPE (20
-
point)
VO
2
ml/kg/m
in
2v2 game 29 Not reported 4 x 1min,
1min rest
Pro Coach
encourage
181 bpm 11.9 _ _
1 30v20m 3 x 1.30min,
1.30min rest
Youth
National
unknown 84±5.0 8.1±2.7 16.2±1.1 _
19
20
30v20yd
30v20yd
4 x 2min,
2min rest
Pro Coach
encourage
90.8±1.7
88.9±1.2 9.6±1.0 16.3±0.9
_
30 30v20m 2 x 1.30min.
90s rest
Youth
National
Coach
encourage
83.7±1.4
4
15.5±0.59
3v3 game 19
20
40v30yd
35v25yd
4 x 3min.
4 x 3.30min.
English
Pro
Coach
encourage
90.6±1.3
91.0±1.2 8.5±0.8 15.7±1.1
_
1 30v20m 3 x 4min,
1.30min rest
Youth
National
unknown 87.0±3.0 4.9±2.0 14.5±1.7 _
2 36v20m 6 x 3min,
2min rest
Amateur unknown 95 _ _ _
30 30v20m 2 x 3min, 90s
rest
Youth
National
Coach
encourage
80.8±1.7 15.8±0.19
26 25v15m 3 x 4min,
3min active
recovery
Amateur Coach
encourage
90.5±2.3 6.3±1.5 8.4±0.4
(10-point)
4v4 game 31 36v36yd 4 x 4min,
2.30min rest
Pro unknown 88.8 6.2±1.4 _ _
25 unknown 4 x 4min Pro Youth unknown 88.3±3 _ _ _
19
20
50v30yd
40v30yd
5 x 3.30min.
2min rest
4 x 4min.
1.30min rest
English Pro Coach
encourage
90.2±2.1
90.1±1.5 9.5±1.1 15.3±0.7
_
21 Not reported Amateur unknown _ _ _ 82
22 Not reported 4 x 5min Amateur
females
unknown 85.7 4.0±1.2 _ 73.6
27 30v20m 3 x 4min,
3min active
recovery
Amateur Coach
encourage
89.4±1.8 5.5±1.8 7.9±0.5
(10-point)
4v4 goal
support
1 30v20m 3 x 6min,
1.30min rest
Youth
National
unknown 70±9.0 2.6±1.7 13.3±0.9 _
4v4 side
support
14 50v40m 2 x 4min,
3min active
rest
Norwegian
Pro
Coach
encourage
91.3
_
_ _
17 30v20m
40v30m
50v40m
4x 4min,
2min active
rest
Pro Youth Coach
encourage
90.5±3.5
89.8±3.5
88.7±2.0
_ _ _
5v5 game 27 unknown 6 x
4min,3min
jogging
Pro Youth Coach
encourage
85-90 12.7-
13.5
_ _
19
20
55v30yd
45v30yd
3 x 5min.
1.30min rest
4 x 6min.
1.30min rest
English Pro Coach
encourage
89.3±2.5
88.5±1.7 7.9±1.7 14.3±1.5
_
7 40v20m Not reported Pro Youth unknown 72.0±9.0 _ _ 53.0±12.
0
26 35v25m 3 x 4min,
3min active
recovery
Amateur Coach
encourage
88.8±3.1 5.0±1.7 7.6±0.6
(10-point)
6v6 game 19
20
60v40
50v30
3 x 6min.
1.30min rest
3 x 8min.
1.30min rest
English
Pro
Coach
encourage
87.5±2.0
87.5±2.0
_
5.6±1.9
_
13.6±1.0
_
26 40v30m 3 x 4min,
3min active
recovery
20 amateur
players
Coach
encourage
87.0±2.4 5.0±1.6 7.3±0.7
(10-point)

7v7 game 6 60v40m Not reported Pro Youth unknown 88 1.4-7.3 _ _
8v8 game 31 ½ pitch Not reported English
Pro
Coach
encourage
on bottom
result
82.0
89.2
3.3±1.2
_
_ _
19
20
70v45yd
80v45yd
3 x 10min,
1.30min rest
4 x 8min,
1.30min rest
English
Pro
Coach
encourage
87.6±1.2
87.9±1.9 5.8±2.1 14.1±1.8
_
10v10
game
25 Not reported 10min Pro Youth unknown 84.3± 3.5 _ _ _
1v1 switch 23 5v10m
10v15m
15v20m
3min, 12min
rest
Pro Youth Unknown 86.0
88.0
89.0
_ _ _
2v2 switch 10v15m
15v20m
20v25m
Unknown 84.2
87.4
88.1
_ _ _
3v3 switch 15v20m
20v25m
25v30m
Unknown 81.7
81.8
84.8
_ _ _
18 40v30yd 5 x 2min,
2min rest
English
Pro
Coach
encourage
90.4±1.9 10.4±1.
2
16.5±1.0 _
4v4 switch 23 20v25m
25v30m
30v35m
3min, 12min
rest
Pro Youth Unknown 72.0
78.5
77.3
_ _ _
5v5 switch 25v30m
30v35m
35v40m
Unknown 75.7
79.5
80.2
_ _ _
4v4
possession
31 25v25m 4 x 5min,
3min rest
Pro Coach
encourage
_ ~ 6-8 _ _
31 30v30yd 4 x 4min,
2.30min rest
Pro Coach
encourage
91 6.4±2.7 _ _
6v6 ½
switch
18 60v35yd 5 x 2min.
2min rest
English
Pro
Coach
encourage
89.0±2.1 8.5±1.4 15.8±1.2

Figure 1. Thought flow in producing the correct training parameters for the desired physiological goal when
using soccer drills. KEY: Rep=Repetition
PHYSIOLOGICAL
GOAL
INTENSITY
DURATION
Team Size
Type of Drill
Pitch Size
Motivation
Rep Duration
Rep Number
Number of
Teams
Number of
Different Drills
Number of
Players
Keepers/
Equipment
Work:
Rest
Ratio
Figure

Author Photo
Click here to download high resolution image