Analysis compares submaximal intensity periods in game-based drills and matches, highlighting key differences in player demands.
Objective This study aimed to examine the occurrence of submaximal intensity periods (SubMIPs) across several game-based drills according to area per player (ApP) and drill objective, and to compare them with values recorded in competitive matches. Methods Fourteen professional football players participated. Data from 1,558 game-based drills events and 247 competitive match records were analyzed using GPS technology. SubMIP events defined as efforts exceeding 85% of each player's 1 min maximal intensity period (MIP) per variable, were calculated for distance, acceleration density (AccDens), high-speed running (HSR), sprints, high metabolic load distance (HMLD), and mean metabolic power (MetPow). Game-based drills were categorized by ApP (<75 m 2 , 75–150 m 2 , >150 m 2 ) and objective (possession, four small goals, regular goals). Results SubMIP AccDens events were more frequent in game-based drills than in matches, especially in possession drills with smaller ApP. Distance and MetPow events increased with ApP, but none of the game-based drills fully replicated match-level frequencies. HSR, HMLD, and sprint events occurred significantly more often in matches than in any drill. Conclusions ApP and drill objective strongly influence physical demands. Although game-based drills do not replicate all match demands, they can be tailored to target specific SubMIP variables. The SubMIP approach provides valuable insights into near-maximal efforts and supports the design of training sessions that optimise player conditioning through repeated high-intensity exposures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Caro et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: