Three-team rotation small-sided games (SSG) combine possession-based training with an embedded passive-recovery role, yet how the rule that governs attacking transitions interacts with pitch size in this format is unclear. This study used a repeated-measures design to compare the acute internal load, external load, and post-condition rating of perceived exertion (RPE) of two 3v3v3+2 SSG formats, change-of-area (COA) and fixed-area (FA), played on three pitch sizes (small, medium, and large; 75.3, 100, and 150 m2 per player). Each condition consisted of four 4 min bouts separated by 2 min of passive recovery. Twenty-two male soccer players (age 21.5 ± 1.85 years) took part. In COA, the team in possession redirected its attack toward a new target zone after a passing threshold was met; in FA, play remained in a single undivided zone. Heart rate (Polar H10), locomotor variables (10 Hz GPS, Catapult Vector S7), and RPE (modified Borg CR-10) were recorded. Format × pitch-size interactions were tested with repeated-measures ANOVA, and format differences within each pitch size were expressed as COA minus FA with 95% confidence intervals and Holm-adjusted p-values. The interaction was significant for HRmax, HRmean, time in the 70–79% and 90–100% HRmax zones, RPE, total distance, accelerations, and decelerations (all p < 0.05). On the small pitch, COA produced higher HRmax (185.5 ± 9.6 vs. 173.0 ± 7.1 bpm), RPE (7.9 ± 0.8 vs. 5.6 ± 0.8), total distance (1650.3 ± 280.8 vs. 1455.1 ± 299.0 m), accelerations, and decelerations (all Holm-adjusted p < 0.05, dz = 0.81–2.11), and on the medium pitch COA produced more high-speed running and decelerations. Higher heart-rate and total-distance values in FA on the medium and large pitches were suggestive but did not remain significant after adjustment. Within this protocol, COA was associated with a greater acute load on the small pitch, and the relative demand of the two formats varied with pitch size; these findings are provisional and apply to the studied male players and game structures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chootsungnoen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: