Table 1.

Effects of small-sided games (SSGs) on technical-tactical aspects in football.

Author/s [Sport]	N [gender]	Age	Type of SSG	Size (m)	t [B] (min)	Quality Score %	Results
Mallo and Navarro, [14]	10 [M]	18.6	3 vs. 3 3 vs. 3 +2EW G+3 vs. 3+G	33 × 20	3 × 5′ [20′]	85	Players completed more ball contacts in the possession format than in the other two. The number of short passes was higher than in the third game format and the percentage of wrong passes was higher than in the second game format.
Olthof et al. [30]	148 [NA]	12.5 to 17.9	G+4 vs. 4+G	40 × 30 68 × 47	4′ [4′]	95	There were a higher number of transitions, set pieces and shots on a small pitch. On a large pitch, intra- and inter-team distances were longer.
Almeida et al. [31]	16 [M]	12.61 14.86	4 vs. 4	30 × 20	10′ [5′]	90	Line goal mode increased the odds of regaining possession through tackle and decreased the odds of successful interceptions. Double goal mode decreased the odds of regaining possession through turnover and long plays.
Castellano et al. [32]	14 [M]	13.5 and 14.3	G+6 vs. 6+G	30 × 40 40 × 40 50 × 40 60 × 40	4 x 7′ [4′]	85	Some intra-team (e.g., team length) and inter-team (e.g., distance between centroids) variables increased when the pitch area increased.
Machado et al. [33]	14 [NA]	13.82	G+6 vs. 6+G	52 × 32	30′	80	The small-sided keeping possession game induced positional attacks, a higher number of players involved and greater use of the side areas. The goal scoring game induced faster offensive sequences, long passes and individual behaviours.
Silva, Duarte et al. [34]	20 [M]	16.3	G+4 vs. 4+G	36.8 × 23.8 47.3 × 30.6 57.8 × 37.4	7′ [7′]	90	The larger the pitch, the larger the effective playing area and the larger the area the team occupies.
Sánchez-Sánchez et al. [35]	22 [M]	17.2	4 vs. 4 G+4 vs. 4+G (2IW or 2EW)	30 × 40	4′[2′]	85	Greater number of dribbling situations during 4 vs. 4 with no goalkeeper compared with 4 vs. 4 with no goalkeeper but with internal or external wildcards. Greater number of successful actions compared with 4 vs. 4 with goalkeeper.
Serra-Olivares, González-Víllora, and García-López [36]	21 [NA]	8 to 9	3 vs. 3	20 × 30	2 x 4′ [2′]	75	In the game format with higher number of goals, greater decision making (no significant difference) and better tactical adaptation were observed, since it was more difficult to keep possession and to advance to the goal in the standard game.
Serra-Olivares, González-Víllora, García-López, and Araújo [37]	21 [NA]	8.7	3 vs. 3	22 × 32 29.5 × 15	2 × 4′	75	No significant differences were found in the technical variables under study between the two types of game.
Díaz-Cidoncha et al. [38]	54 [M]	NA (U9 and (U14)	5 vs. 5 7 vs. 7 9 vs. 9	20 × 30 30 × 45 45 × 60	20′	80	The lower the number of players, the higher the number of touches per player and goalkeeper. The number of attacking plays, dribble and pass attempts was also higher in the 5 vs. 5 format.
Castelao et al. [39]	10 [NA]	NA (U11)	G+3 vs. 3+G G+5 vs. 5+G	36 × 27 60 × 45	8′	75	In the 3vs3 format, higher scores were obtained in penetration, defensive coverage, shots at goal and shots at own goal, while higher scores were achieved in offensive unity and balance in the 5 vs. 5 format. No tactical differences were found.
Silva, Garganta et al. [40]	18 [NA]	NA (U11)	G+3 vs. 3+G G+6 vs. 6+G	30 × 19.5 60 × 39	8′	75	Players displayed safer behaviours in larger formats and more aggressive ones in smaller formats.
Abrantes et al. [41]	16 [M]	15.75	3 vs. 3 4 vs. 4	20 × 30 20 × 40	4 × 4′ [6′]	85	The results were identical in both formats.
Casamichana and Castellano [42]	10 [M]	15.5	G+5 vs. 5+G	62 × 44 50 × 35 32 × 23	8′ [5′]	90	Most actions under study increased as the size of the pitch area was reduced.
Evangelos et al. [43]	9 [M]	17.2	3 vs. 3 3 vs. 3+W 4 vs. 3 4 vs. 4 4 vs. 4+W 5 vs. 4	20 × 25 25 × 30	4 × 3′ [12′]	85	A higher number of interceptions, dribbles and receives occur in supernumerary situations. More passes and turns are completed with an equal number of players or an additional offensive player.
Da Silva et al. [44]	16 [M]	13.5	3 vs. 3 4 vs. 4 5 vs. 5	30 × 30	3 × 4′ [9′]	90	There were a greater number of dribbles, crosses, shots and goals in the smallest format.
Katis and Kellis [45]	34 [NA]	13	G+3 vs. 3+G G+6 vs. 6+G	15 × 25 30 × 40	10 × 4′ [9′]	92	The number of short passes, kicks, dribbles, tackles and goals was higher in the smaller format. More long passes and headers were performed in the larger format.
Kelly and Drust [46]	8 [NA]	18	G+5 vs. 5+G	30 × 20 40 × 30 50 × 40	16′ [8′]	92	The smaller the size, the higher the number of tackles and shots.
Jones and Drust [47]	8 [M]	7	4 vs. 4 8 vs. 8	30 × 25 60 × 40		90	A reduction in the number of players increased the number of ball contacts per player.
Almeida et al. [48]	8 [M]	12.8	G+3 vs. 3+G	40 × 30	3 × 10′ [15′]	85	In the 2-touch game format, a higher number of goals and shots on goal and a faster playing pattern were recorded. The 4-passes-to-score rule led to greater ball possession.
Rebelo et al. [49]	10 [M]	17.2	5 vs. 5 G+5 vs. 5+G	30 × 20 40 × 30 50 × 40	2 × 10′ [10′]	85	The ball-possession game induced a higher number of passes and ball touches on all pitch sizes. Fewer errors were made during the goal-scoring game on the small and medium pitch sizes.
Serra-Olivares et al. [50]	21 [NA]	8 to 9	3 vs. 3	30 × 22 20 × 20	2 × 4′ [3′]	70	Decision-making and execution were more successful in the goal-scoring game.
Owen et al. [51]	NA	17.4	1 vs. 1 2 vs. 2 3 vs. 3 4 vs. 4 5 vs. 5	5 × 10; 10 × 15; 15 × 20 10 × 15; 15 × 20; 20 × 25 15 × 20; 20 × 25; 25 × 30 20 × 25; 25 × 30; 30 × 35 25 × 30; 30 × 35; 35 × 40	9′ [24′]	75	An increase in the number of players led to a decrease in the number of technical actions per player. No significant difference was found in any of the actions under study.
Machado et al. [52]	268 [M]	16.49	G+3 vs. 3+G	27 × 26	1 × 4′	90	In 4 vs 4 format, players realise a similar quantity of tactical actions regardless of the positional role. However, the quality of tactical behaviour was significantly affected by the positional role.
Moreira et al. [53]	36 [NA]	13.7	3 vs. 3 3 vs. 3 +1 3 vs. 3 + 1	36 × 27 36 × 27 40 × 29	1 × 4′ [4′]	85	The reduction in the relative and absolute playing area elevated the frequency of offensive unity and the level of interaction between players.
Práxedes et al. [54]	19 [NA]	10.63	5 vs. 5 + 1W 3 vs. 3 + 2W 4 vs. 3 G+4 vs. 4 +G +1W	15 × 10 30 × 20	[NA]	85	The nonlinear pedagogy intervention programme improved the decision making and the execution.
Sousa et al. [55]	36 [NA]	15.13	3 vs. 3	36 × 27	1 × 4′[4′]	90	Two-touch rule increased the ball circulation and reduced the tactical complexity of the defensive performance.
Clemente et al. [56]	16 [NA]	10.1	3 vs. 3 6 vs. 6	15 × 20 30 × 22	3 × 3 [2′] 3 × 6′ [2′]	80	The smaller format increased significant the number of individual technical actions.
Folgado et al. [57]	20 [NA]	14.1	G+4 vs. 4+G	30 × 40 40 × 30	1 × 6′[3′]	85	In the 30 × 40m pitch, results showed a lower distance between team centroids, higher number of shots and lateral passes. In the 40 × 30m pitch the players which covered more distance at higher intensities presented more passes and dribbles.
Machado et al. [58]	20 [M]	13.5 16.3	G+3 vs. 3+G G+4 vs. 4+G	36 × 27 47.72 × 29.54	3 × 10′[10′]	85	In maintaining ball possession games, younger players presented greater difficulties in smaller format. The bigger format can be used in younger players to improve the tactical performance in progression to target games and representative games.

M: Male; F: Female; G: Goalkeeper; B: Break; EW: External wildcard player; IW: External wildcard player; NA: Not available; m: metres; min: minutes.