1

Is there a difference in performance of young

soccer players between small-sided games

and competition matches?

Vrije Universiteit van Amsterdam

Faculty of Human Movement Sciences

Specialization: Sport

Qualification: Master’s programme in Human

Movement Sciences: Sport, Exercise and Health

Research internship

Author: Jeffery Duijst; Edwin Duijst

Supervisor: prof. dr. Geert J.P.Savelsbergh

December 2014

2

Is there a difference in performance of young soccer players

between small-sided games and competition matches?

Jeffrey Duijst, Edwin Duijst

Article info Abstract Date: 11-7-2014 The aim of this study is to investigate the difference in

performance of young soccer players between small-

sided games and competition matches. We defined

skilled perception as how well a player can use visual

information and the ability to anticipate future events.

For every participant three different performance

indicators for skilled perception are obtained. That is:

independent judgments by 8 trainers and the actual

performance analysis shown in the two different types

of games. For that purpose, trainers watch video film of

4 vs 4 games and ranked the 8 payers from very good

till less good with respect to skilled perception.

The video films of 4 vs 4 and 11 vs 11 are analyses by

two experimenters with respect to skilled perception

based on a scoring list. A significant relationship is

found between trainer judgements and performance

measured by scoring list in 4 vs 4. Also a significant

relationship is found between skilled perception scores

of the 4 vs 4 and 11 vs 11. It is concluded that 4 vs 4

and 11 vs 11 show no differences in performance for

skilled perception. The designed scoring list for the

trainers could be a useful tool to identify talent.

Words:

Keywords:

Skilled perception, Small-sided

games, Soccer, Talent

identification

Introduction

Soccer is one of the most popular and most played sports in the world. A very important aspect in

every sport, and also in soccer, is youth development and identification. Anticipation is a key

parameter in the field of youth development and identification. Soccer players has to deal with a

complex and quickly changing environment. Before deciding what action is required in a specific

situation players have to pick up information from the ball, opponents and teammates. Opponents

3

try to restrict ‘time’ and ‘space’ that is available to make that decision. This `temporal pressure’

suggests that a part of the total performance of a soccer player is dependent on his ability to

anticipate on future soccer situations. Consider, for instance, the calmness a world class midfield

player has when receiving and passing the ball, suggesting he has ‘all the time in the world’. The

ability to anticipate on future events distinguishes skilled from less skilled soccer players (Williams,

2000).

The way a soccer player uses visual information could be a good indicator to predict talent

(Savelsbergh, Haans, Kooijman & van Kampen, 2010). According to Savelsbergh et al. (2010)

differences in visual search and locomotion behaviour can be a good and usable indicator to

Identify young talented soccer players.

The Royal Dutch Soccer Federation (KNVB)(Dokter, 1993) uses the terms insight and awareness to

explain how good a player uses visual information. Savelsbergh, Onrust, Rouwenhorst, & van der

Kamp (2006) and Savelsbergh et al. (2010) used the term skill in perception. In many sports athletes

have to intercept, catch or hit a fast moving ball. To do this action correctly, the athletes have to hit

or catch the ball at the right place and the right time (Caljouw, van der Kamp, & Savelsbergh, 2004a;

Caljouw, van der Kamp, & Savelsbergh, 2004b; Savelsbergh, Whiting, & Bootsma, 1991). Important to

successfully perform this kind of action is skill in perception and the accurate and efficient execution

of the movement pattern (Williams, Davids, & Williams, 1999). The contribution of visual information

skill in perception is equally important as the motor skills. (Savelsbergh et al., 2006; Savelsbergh, van

der Kamp, Williams, & Ward, 2005; Savelsbergh, Williams, van der Kamp, & Ward, 2002; Williams &

Elliot, 1999). For that reason is the performance output form an athlete a contribution of skill in

perception and the available motor skills. It has become clear that skill in perception is an important

subject in sports and in particular soccer expertise (Abernethy, Thomas & Thomas, 1993; Starkes and

Allard, 1993; Williams & Elliot, 1999).

In the last decade several researchers examined the skill of perception extensively. A well-used

method in examining skill perception is to ask participants to predict the end result of video clips.

Those videos show more or less predictive information from the opponent’s body or the ball’s flight

path. Their findings show that experts possess superior anticipatory skills compared to their novice

counterparts (Abernethy & Russel, 1987; Helsen & Starkes, 1999; Savelsbergh et al., 2002; Ward &

Williams, 2003; Williams & Davids, 1998; Williams, Davids, Burwitz, & Williams, 1994; Williams &

Elliot, 1999). Research shows that the ability to pick up advance information from visual sources

appears to be the fundamental difference between experts and novices (Abernethy & Russel, 1987;

Helsen & Starkes, 1999; Savelsbergh et al., 2002, 2005; Williams & Elliot, 1999). Elite soccer players

have developed an extensive soccer-specific knowledge base that enables them to recognize

meaningful associations between the position and movement of players in game situations

4

(Savelsbergh et al., 2006; Williams et al., 1994). How the athlete uses information is essential.

(Abernethy & Russel, 1987; Savelsbergh et al., 2006). This perception action perspective is based on

the ideas of Gibson (1979), who suggested that movement control is based on a continuous coupling

to available perceptual information, which is presumed to evolve over time (Savelsbergh & van der

Kamp, 2000; Savelsbergh et al., 2006).

The Royal Dutch Soccer Federation has a pronounced vision on developing young soccer players. The

basic idea is that when players are motivated practicing their sport, they will learn more from it and

therefore become a better soccer player (Dokter, 1993). Dokter (1993) emphasize that from soccer

training the most enjoyment can be gained in situations where players can score as much as possible

and have to prevent the opponent from scoring a goal. On a full size pitch children don't have

enough touches of the ball and therefore don't learn enough. The opinion of Dokter (1993) is as

follow: “We suggest that children up to the age of 11 should play games with smaller sides and on

smaller fields. This way the young soccer players have more ball contacts and in match situation this

improves their vision“ (Dokter, 1993). This vision of the Royal Dutch Soccer federation leads to the

well-known small sided game 4 against 4. Dokter (1993) says that 4 against 4 is the smallest way of

playing the game without losing any of the ingredients that makes soccer the game as it is. He says

that all the skills can be developed, which are: technical, motor skills, physical, game insight,

awareness (vision) and communication.

Within the field of research the use of small-sided games in soccer as a means of developing young

players is well documented (Carling, 2010; Casamichana & Castellano, 2010; Dellal, Chamari, Owen,

Wong, Lago-Penas & Hill-Haas, 2011; Hill-Haas, Coutts, Dawson, & Rowsell, 2010; Rampinini,

Impellizzerri, Castagna, Abt, Chamari, Sassi, 2007). In these studies the manipulation of pitch size,

number of players, verbal encouragement and rule changes within small-sided games have been

investigated in a wide range of different participants. This manipulation is in order to investigate the

differences between the physical load during small-sided games and matches. They measured heart

rate responses, distance covered, velocity and acceleration during small-sided games (Dellal,

Chamari, Pintus, Girard, Cotte & Keller, 2008; Hill-Haas et al., 2010; Jones & Drust, 2007; Little &

Williams, 2006; Owen, Twist, & Ford,2004; Rampinini et al., 2007). Small-sided games with various

rule changes have been suggested to be a way of exposing players to match-specific situations (Jones

& Drust, 2007). Soccer players constantly exposed to these various situations in small-sided games

have been suggested to improve their decision-making skills, technical skills, tactical knowledge and

physical conditioning (Owen, Wong, McKenna, & Dellal, 2011). Owen et al. (2011) investigated

number of block, headers, interceptions, passes, dribbles, shots and tackles in small-sided games.

Compared to large games, small-sided games induced significantly lesser total ball contacts per

games but significantly greater ball contacts per individual (Owen et al., 2011).

5

When comparing small-sided games with match play, few studies have attempted to report the

different demands placed upon the players.

In this context, Gabbett & Mulvey (2008) studied the movement patterns of small-sided games with

elite women soccer players. They compared their training results with domestic, national and

international standard matches. These authors reported that both the 3 vs 3 and 5 vs 5 small-sided

games recreated match-play physical activity but presented an insufficient training stimulus to

simulate the intensity and repeated-sprint demands of a standard competition match. In the

research field of small-sided games compared with large sided games in skilled perception it’s still

unknown whether the performance is correlated. Especially studies of skilled perception of young

soccer player. The aim of this study is to investigate the difference in performance of young soccer

players between small-sided games and competition matches. The correlation will be calculated

between skilled perception indicators of small-sided games and competition matches. For that

purpose a performance scoring list is developed. This scoring list measures the performance output

of the soccer player which can be indirectly related to skill in perception. It is hypothesized that the

performance measured by the scoring list in 4 vs 4 and 11 vs 11 in performance should show a

significant correlation.

Method

Participants

Thirty- two young elite soccer players participated in the experiment and were treated in accordance

with the local institution’s ethical guidelines. The players played in two different teams, under 13 and

under 12 from Feyenoord Rotterdam youth department. Sixteen of the participants played in under

12 and sixteen played in under 13. These 32 players had a mean age, height and body weight of

respectively 12,2 years(SD 0,57), 151 cm(SD 8,6) and 39,7 kg(SD 6,2). Their experience in soccer was

7.0 years (SD 1.1). Written consent was obtained from one of their parents or a guardian.

Overview of the equipment

A Canon XH-A1 and a Panasonic AVCCAM were used to film the 4 vs 4 games. Next to the cameras

soccer equipment was needed. To analyse the 11 vs 11 games a Mac computer was available at

Varkenoord. See table 1 for the overview of the equipment.

6

Procedure

Filming the small-sided games 4 vs 4

The players were filmed while playing a 4 vs 4 soccer game on a 20 x 40 m field (Figure 1). Two small-

sided games were filmed at the same time. On both ends of the field a small goal was placed. The

intention of the game is to score more goals than the opposite team. The duration of a match was 6

minutes with a small break of 2 minutes between the matches. After every game the composition of

the teams changed. In total every player played five matches. The two teams were filmed on the

same day.

The competition matches 11 vs 11

The players played a match on a 60 by 100 m field. The duration of a match was 60 minutes with 2

halves of 30 minutes. The extra-time in each halve was excluded from the analysis and thus only the

activities during the 60 min is analysed. Ten players were analysed during two different half’s of two

different matches. The video of the matches were available at Varkenoord Feyenoord youth

department.

Analysis small- sided games and competition matches

The players were analysed in three different ways. First eight soccer trainers of the Feyenoord Youth

Academy were asked to rank the players after every small-sided game based on skilled perception.

Each trainer watched five small-sided games. The average rank of the player was used to make a final

ranking. This ranking resulted in three best and two worst players of both teams. So in total the

result from the trainers was six players who scored high in skilled perception and four players who

scored low in skilled perception in de small-sided games. The second analysis was made based on the

results of the trainers. The ten players were analysed by a scoring list based on skilled perception

(table 2). See table 1 for these parameters and their definitions. The last way the players were

analysed was by the same scoring list based on skilled perception but now the ten players were

analysed in normal competition matches 11 vs 11.

To establish this score list (table 2) at first hand a lot of variables were analysed. After analysing some

different players the list was reduced to important variables that happened more often. Different

expert soccer trainers helped defining the variables. A hand notational system was used to evaluate

the score list. To ensure the validity of the data the video recordings were played back several times.

Special attention was applied in order to ensure the reliability of technical observations.

7

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Statistical Analysis Software for Windows (IBM

SPSS Statistics, version 20.0, Chicaco). The level of significance was set at p < .05. Effect sizes for

these differences were also determined. Effect sizes values of ≤0.15, 0.15–0.25, 0.25-0.40, 0.40-0.75

and ≥0.75 were considered to represent very weak, weak, moderate, strong and very strong

correlation. The normality of the data was not verified by the Shapiro-Wilks test. Therefore the non-

parametric spearman rho test was used. This test was uses to test for correlation between total

scores in the 4 versus 4 analysis and the 11 versus 11 analyses and to test for correlation between

the analysis of the trainers and the 4 versus 4 analyses.

Figure 1: 4 vs 4 field, player and camera positions

Equipment #

Balls 15

Bib 16

Cameras

Canon XH-A1

Panasonic AVCCAM

2

Small goals 4

8

Cones 30

Table 1: Overview of the equipment

Parameter Definition

Receive Player gains or attempts to gain control of the ball in order to retain possession.

Well received The player successfully gains or attempts to gain control of the ball in order to retain possession.

Defensive pressure/interception Preventing an opponent’s pass from reaching its intended destination or put pressure on a player in possession of the opponent.

Successfully defensive pressure/interception Successfully preventing an opponent’s pass from reaching its intended destination or put successfully pressure on a player in possession of the opponent.

Amount of passes Pass: Player in possession sends the ball to a team mate (e.g., using the foot, thigh, or chest; using various techniques such as ground, lofted, chip, flick, or volley; over short or long distances). Amount of passes given by a player in a match.

Amount of passes correct Amount of successful passes given by a player in a match.

Amount of passes forward Amount of passes forward given by a player in a match.

Amount of passes forward correct Amount of successful passes forward given by a player in a match.

Transition to possession Switch from possession opponent to ball possession.

Successfully transition to ball possession Creating the right conditions to win the ball.

Transition to possession opponent Switch from ball possession to possession opponent.

Successfully transition to possession opponent Creating the right conditions in order to achieve a goal in possession.

Table 2: Definitions parameters skilled perception

9

Results

Table 3 and 4 provide an overview of the results of the analyses of the trainers. All players are rated

in total ten times by four different trainers. The trainers had to rank the three best and two worst

players in every match (see figure 2). This leads to a best performing score (1), middle performing

score (2) and worst performing score (3). The total score is an average of the ten scores. Players with

the lowest means were the best performing players. It’s notable that the trainers ranked the players

generally in the same performing score. Therefore its look likes the trainers are unanimous in their

judgement. Secondly it’s also notable that the results represent a clear division between the good

and the less performing players. For the analysis of the 11 vs 11 the three best and two worst players

of both teams of which video material was available were chosen(see table 7).

To analyse the 4 vs 4 and the 11 vs 11 games a scoring list was developed. This score list was used to

analyse five 4 vs 4 games and 2 half’s of 30 minutes in 11 vs 11 of every player. See table 2 for the

parameters and their definition. The parameters are established in percentages (see table 5 and 6).

In these tables an example is provided how a (total) score is obtained for player A. This scoring list

measures the soccer performance of the participant. This performance output represents the skill in

perception and the accurate and efficient use of motor skill from the young soccer player. After

processing the data for the score list it was decided not to use the transition parameters. Firstly we

found that this parameter was very dependent on which position the player played in the team.

Secondly, it was difficult to measure and define what is a good transition (because it’s very

subjective whether a player performs a good transition or not).

Table 8 is an overview of the results from the 4 vs 4 and table 9 is the overview of the results from 11

vs 11. In table 8 and 9 it’s notable that almost all players except one were ranked as the best 6

players in the 4 vs 4 also were ranked as the best 6 players in 11 vs 11.

First we analysed whether the judgements of the trainers (table 7) correlate with the findings of the

4 vs 4 analyses (table 8). The result of the spearman rho test shows a very strong significant

correlation (Rho= 0.806, p=0.005).

Secondly, it was analysed whether the findings of the 4 vs 4 (table 8) is correlated with those of the

11 vs 11 (table 9). The results of the spearman rho test shows again a very strong significant

correlation (Rho= 0.782, p= 0.008).

10

Figure 2: Example rank score system trainers

Trainer 1 Trainer 2 Trainer 3 Trainer 4

Players U12

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Mean

A 2

2

3 3 3 3

3 3 3 3 2,8

B 3

3 3 3 3

3 3 3

3

3

3

C 3 3 3

3 3 3

2 2

3 3 2,8

D 3 3

3

3 3

2

3

2

3

2 2,7

E

3

2

1 2 1

3 2 2 2

1 1.9

F

2

3

2

3 3 3

3

3 3

2

2,7

G

2 1

1

2 1

1 3

1

1

1

1,5

H

3

3 3

3

2 3 2

2

3

1

2,5

I 1

1

2 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1,1

J 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1

1

1

1

K 2 2 2

2 2 2

3 3

3 3 2,4

L 2 2

2 2

2 2 1

2 2 2 1,9

M

2 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

N

2 2 2

2 3 2 2 2

2 2

2,1

O

1 3 3 2

1 3 3 2 1

1

2

P

1

1 2

1

1 2 3

2

3

3

1,9

Table 3: Results trainers U12 Best performing score: 1; Middle performing score: 2; worst performing score: 3.

11

Trainer 5 Trainer 6 Trainer 7 Trainer 8

Players U13

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Mean

Q

1

1

2

2 2

3 3

2

3 3

2,2

R

1 1 2

3 1 1

1

1 2

1 1,4

S

3 3 3

3 3 3 2 3

3 3

2,9

T

2 3

2 2 3 2 2

1 1 2

2

U 3 3 2

2 3 3 2

1

2

2

2,3

V 3 2 2

3 1 2

2 3

2 3 2,3

W 3

2

3 3 2 3

3 3 2 3 2,7

X 2

2

1

2

2

1 2

2

1 2 1,7

Y

3

3

2

3 3

3 3

3

2 3

2,8

Z

2 3 3

3 3 3

2

3 2

3 2,7

AA

1 1 1

1 1 1 1 2

1 2

1,2

BB

3 2

2 3 3 3 2

3 3 3

2,7

CC 2 3 3

2 3 2 3

2

3

3

2,6

DD 1 2

2 2

1 1 1

1 1 1 1,3

EE 2

2

2

1

2

2 2

2

2 2 1,9

FF 1

1

2

2

1 1

2

1 1

2 1,4

Table 4: Results trainers U13 Best performing score: 1; Middle performing score: 2; worst performing score: 3.

Player A

Parameters

Received 13

Well received 13

Percentage 100%

Defensive pressure/interception 34

Successfully defensive pressure/interception 17

percentage 50%

Amount of passes 32

Amount of passes correct 19

Percentage 59,38%

Amount of passes forward 19

Amount of passes forward correct 11

Percentage 57,90%

Total percentage 267,27 Table 5: Result 4 vs 4 player A

12

Player A

Parameters NAC (first half) Sparta (first half)

Received 4 3

Well received 4 2

Percentage 100% 66,67%

Defensive pressure/interception 15 9

Successfully defensive pressure/interception 9 5

percentage 60% 55,56%

Amount of passes 11 10

Amount of passes correct 7 5

Percentage 63,64% 50%

Amount of passes forward 8 5

Amount of passes forward correct 4 1

Percentage 50% 20%

Total percentage 273,64% 192.23%

Total average percentage 232.94% Table 6: Result 11 vs 11 Player A

Player Score Rank Player Score Rank

J 1,0 1 J 352,08 4

I 1,1 2 I 368,33 1

AA 1,2 3 AA 352,44 3

DD 1,3 4 DD 358,44 2

FF 1,4 5 FF 285,82 8

G 1,5 6 G 306,39 6

Q 2,2 7 Q 320,12 5

A 2,8 8 A 267,27 9

S 2,9 9 S 286,55 7

B 3,0 10 B 262,44 10

Table 7: Overview results Trainers Table 8: Overview results 4 vs 4

13

Player Score Rank

J 309,59 6

I 366,88 2

AA 355,30 3

DD 378,41 1

FF 343,42 4

G 341,67 5

Q 308,50 7

A 232,94 10

S 246,29 9

B 247,03 8

Table 9: Overview results 11 vs 11

14

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the difference in performance of young soccer players

between small-sided games and competition matches. This performance output represents the skill

in perception and the accurate and efficient use of motor skill from the young soccer player. The

results showed a very strong correlation between the results of the small sided games and

competition matches. The results show that there are no differences in performance between 4 vs 4

and 11 vs 11.

The results of this study are conforming to the vision of the Royal Dutch Soccer Federation (KNVB).

According to the KNVB 4 vs 4 is the smallest way of playing the game without losing any of the

ingredients that makes soccer what it is (Dokter, 1993). This includes skilled perception.

Savelsbergh et al.(2010) suggested that skilled perception could be an important parameter in soccer

for talent identification. The way a soccer player uses visual information could be a good indicator to

predict talent (Savelsbergh et al., 2010 According to Savelsbergh et al. (2010) differences in visual

search and locomotion behaviour can be a good and usable indicator to Identify young talented

soccer players. This study confirms that skilled perception is an usable parameter for identifying

talent

Scouting tool and analysing tool

It’s exceptional that eight expert trainers were willing to assist in this research. In this way the

players who participated were ranked by four different trainers. All trainers completed the form

separately from each other. Hence we think it’s very notable that the results of all the eight trainers

are very unambiguously. The results from the trainers are considered as a standard. The eight soccer

trainers of the Feyenoord Youth Academy are professionals and are considered to be an expert in

evaluating skilled perception. The results of this analysis show that the score list of skilled perception

for 4 vs 4 and 11 vs 11 correlates with the results of the trainers. The analysis of the results of

trainers rank and the 4 vs 4 skilled perception rank show a very strong significant relationship. This

rank score system which the trainers used could be a useful tool to scout and judge young soccer

players.

The score list which was used to analyse 4 vs 4 and 11 vs 11 is established with assistant of different

expert soccer trainers including the head of youth development of Feyenoord. A hand notational

system was used to evaluate the score list. To ensure the validity of the data the video recordings

were played back several times. Special attention was applied in order to ensure the reliability of

technical observations. Elferink-Gemser, Visscher, Richart and Lemmink(2004) used a questionnaire

to investigate the tactical performance of young soccer players. Elferink-Gemser et al.,(2004) based

15

their questionnaire about tactical performance TACSIS within the framework of McPherson(1994).

McPherson(1994) suggested that protocols which are verbalised permit a reliable measurement

method to measure tactical behaviour. (North, Ward, Ericsson and Williams, 2011). In the study of

Nortje, Dicks, Coopoo and Savelsbergh(2014) the main goal was to examine the relationship between

self-reported tactical decisions and in situ tactical decision making. These dissensions were action in

small-sided soccer games, 4 vs 4 and 8 vs 8. They found no significant correlation between the

tactical questionnaire TACSIS (Elferink-Gemser et al., 2004) and the soccer performance in small

sided games. These results support our decision to choose a score list instant of a questionnaire. The

results of 4 vs 4 and 11 vs 11 highly correlates with the results of the trainers. It seems very likely that

the scoring list did measure the performance and indirectly skilled perception. The analysis between

4 vs 4 and 11 vs 11 shows a very strong significant relationship. This means that the ranks based on

skilled perception in 4 vs 4 and 11 vs 11 are highly correlated. Therefore we conclude that this

scoring list could be a valid method to analyse young soccer players.

Future research should investigate the validity of the rank score system and the score list used in this

study. This can be done with groups of soccer player with other characteristics. For instance another

age group or players who play at a lower level. Also a study with more participants should improve

the reliability and validity of the score list and rank score system.

Evaluating the results it’s important to bear in mind that the 4 vs 4 small sided games filmed at one

day so the trainers ranked the players based on one training moment. Young players are known to

perform differently day by day. An improvement would be three or more training moments. The

trainers ranked the players based on skilled perception. These trainers are professionals and expert

in evaluating players. But it is also a subjective measurement because every trainer has his own

definition of what skilled perception is in soccer situations. The strength of the opponent in the

competition match 11 vs 11 could also have influence on the results in the analysis of the players

because with a better appointment it’s more difficult for a player to perform well in a game. The

present study provides evidence that there are no differences between 4 vs 4 and 11 vs 11 in

performance and indirectly in skilled perception. This is in line with the vision of the KNVB and this

study provides a scouting tool and an analysing tool, the rank score system used by the trainers could

be a useful scouting tool and the scoring list a method to analyse young soccer players.