TABLE 3.
Characteristics of the included studies and outcomes extracted.
| Study | N | Mean + SD age (y) | Experience (y) | Sex | Randomization of SSGs order | Design | Variables assessed in the study and tendency | Tests or tools used | Outcome extracted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [71] | 10 recreational players | 31.7 ± 7.6 | 0.25–0.50 | Male | Yes | Repeated measures | Mean HR; peak HR; RPE; HR zones; ball possession; dribbling; passes; tackles; shots. Pitch effect: ball possessions and unsuccessful passes were higher on a small pitch. |
HR monitor; 15-point Borg scale; video cameras | Physiological responses; Technical actions |
|
| |||||||||
| [72] | 16 youth elite players | 16.9 ± 0.3 | - | Male | Yes | Repeated measures | Maximum velocity; mean velocity; distance covered at several velocities; accelerations. Pitch effect: more HI distance is covered in higher SSG. |
GPS | Physical responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [73] | 9 professional soccer players | 26.2 ± 3.7 | 5.5 | Male | Yes | Repeated measures | Maximum velocity; distance/min; distance covered at several velocities; mean HR; peak HR; HR zones. Pitch effect: higher physical values in larger areas. |
GPS; HR monitor | Physical responses; Physiological responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [74] | 20 amateur soccer players | 21.0 ± 5.0 | 11 | Male | No | Repeated measures | Peak HR; RPE; TD; maximum velocity; player load; accelerations/deceleration; change of directions. Pitch effect: increasing the pitch length had a greater effect compared to increasing the pitch width. |
HR monitor; 10-point Borg scale; GPS | Physiological responses; Physical responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [40] | 10 male youth players | 15.5 ± 0.5 | 7.5 | Male | Yes | Repeated measures | Effective playing time; start of play; contact surface; successful actions. Pitch effect: increase frequency of motor actions when pitch is reduced. |
Video camera | Technical actions |
|
| |||||||||
| [18] | 10 male youth players | 15.5 ± 0.5 | 7.5 | Male | Yes | Repeated measures | Effective playing time; Peak HR; HR zones; RPE; TD; distance/min; distance covered at several velocities; work-rest ratio; sprint frequency; several technical actions. Pitch effect: increasing the pitch size increase the effective playing time, the physical and physiological workload and the RPE, but reduce the frequency of motor actions. |
HR monitor; 10-point Borg scale; GPS; vide camera | Physiological responses; Physical responses; Technical actions |
|
| |||||||||
| [75] | 19 professional players | 17.1 ± 0.3 | - | Male | Yes | Repeated measures | TD; HI velocity; HI accelerations; HI decelerations; HI metabolic power; Lactate; Mean HR; Peak HR; RPE. Pitch effect: Lower SSG elicit lower external load values than higher SSGs |
GPS; HR monitor lactate portable analyser; 10-point Borg scale | Physical responses; Physiological responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [76] | 28 youth players | U13: 13.5 ± 0.3 U14: 14.3 ± 0.3 | > 3 | Male | Yes | Repeated measures | TD; distance covered at several velocities; player load; exertion index; work-rest ratio; Maximum velocity. Pitch effect: increasing pitch size elicit higher responses in both groups. |
Accelerometer; GPS | Physical responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [77] | 24 youth elite players | 13.3 ± 0.5 | > 3 | Male | Yes | Repeated measures | TD; distance covered at several velocities; player load; exertion index; work-rest ratio; Maximum velocity; Mean HR; Peak HR; RPE; HR zones. Pitch effect: higher pitch sizes are associated with increases in TD, work-rest ratio, player load, Peak HR and in the distance covered at 8 km/h. |
GPS; HR monitor; 10-point Borg scale | Physical responses; Physiological responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [14] | 44 youth players | U12: 12.1 ± 0.4 U13: 13.3 ± 0.5 | > 1 | Male | No | Repeated measures | TD; distance covered at several velocities; player load; exertion index; work-rest ratio; Maximum velocity; Mean HR; Peak HR; RPE; HR zones. Pitch effect: higher pitch size is related with greater responses. |
GPS; HR monitor; 10-point Borg scale | Physical responses; Physiological responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [13] | 28 youth players | U13: 13.5 ± 0.3 U14: 14.3 ± 0.3 | > 3 | Male | No | Repeated measures | Team length; width length; convex hull; stretch index; distance between centroids; length of both teams; width of both teams; convex hull of both teams; stretch index of both teams. Pitch effect: higher pitch size is related with greater tactical responses. |
GPS | Tactical responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [78] | 24 youth players | 11.8 ± 0.3 | > 3 | Male | Teams configuration | Repeated measures | TD; distance covered at several velocities; number of sprints; Maximum velocity; accelerations; decelerations; body impacts. Pitch effect: increasing pitch size elicit higher responses. |
GPS | Physical responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [79] | 10 youth players | 14.8 ± 0.6 | > 3 | Male | No | Repeated measures | TD; distance covered at several velocities; number of sprints; Maximum velocity; Mean HR; Peak HR. Pitch effect: increasing pitch size elicit higher responses. |
GPS; HR monitor | Physical responses; Physiological responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [80] | 20 youth players | 14.9 ± 0.6 | > 3 | Male | No | Repeated measures | TD; distance covered at several velocities; number of sprints; Maximum velocity; accelerations; decelerations; body impacts. Pitch effect: larger SSG demanded a higher external load in comparison with shorter SSG. |
GPS | Physical responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [68] | 10 amateur players | 23.4 ± 3.9 | - | Male | No | Repeated measures | TD; distance covered at several velocities; number of sprints; spatial exploration index. Pitch effect: increasing pitch size elicit higher responses. |
GPS | Physical responses; Tactical responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [81] | 10 amateur players | 23.4 ± 3.9 | - | Male | No | Repeated measures | Centroid; stretch index. Pitch effect: increasing pitch size elicit higher tactical responses. |
GPS | Tactical responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [82] | 40 international players | 25.3 ± 2.4 | - | Male | Yes | Repeated measures | %HR reserve; Peak HR; RPE; lactate; TD, TD in sprinting; TD in HI; duels, passes, balls lost; ball possessions. Pitch effect: SSG elicit higher demands compared to friendly matches, except for lactate, successful passes and ball possessions. |
HR monitor; GPS; semi-automatic multiple camera system; lactate portable analyser; 10-point Borg scale. | Physical responses; Physiological responses; Technical responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [69] | 10 amateur players | 22.0 ± 3.0 | - | Male | No | Repeated measures | Centroid; area; inter-team distance in longitudinal and lateral directions; distance of centroids. Pitch effect: increasing pitch size elicit greater area and distances. |
LPS | Tactical responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [83] | 11 youth players | 16.3 ± 0.6 | > 6 | Male | No | Repeated measured | Metabolic power; TD; HI demands. Pitch effect: increasing pitch size elicit higher responses. |
GPS | Physical responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [84] | 8 amateur players | 27.2 ± 3.1 | 12 | Male | No | Repeated measured | Shots; passes; accurate passes; inaccurate passes; dribbles; interceptions; tackles. Pitch effect: no influence of pitch size on technical actions. |
Digital cameras. | Technical responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [85] | 16 youth players | 13.2 ± 0.6 | > 3 | Male | Yes | Repeated measures | HR; RPE: lactate. Pitch effect: higher physiological responses in larger pitch size. |
HR monitor; lactate portable analyser; 10-point Borg scale. | Physiological responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [61] | 8 university-level players | 20.0 ± 1.0 | > 5 | Male | Yes | Repeated measures | TD; HI distance; sprint distance; accelerations; decelerations; Peak HR; Maximum HR; pass; tackle; header; turn; interception; dribbling; shots. Pitch effect: increasing pitch size elicit higher responses. |
GPS; HR monitor; video camera. | Physical responses; Physiological responses; Technical responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [86] | 29 junior players | 18.1 ± 1.3 | - | Male | No | Repeated measures | TD; Peak HR; HR zones; RPE. Pitch effect: increasing pitch size elicit higher physiological responses. |
Video manual motion tracker; HR monitor; 10-point Borg scale | Physical responses; Physiological responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [87] | 3 youth goalkeepers | 16.6 ± 0.9 | 7.3 | Male | No | Repeated measures | Goalkeeper’s actions: Goal kick; direct free kick; indirect free kick; pass by hand; pass by foot; length; direction; area; save; deflection; clear-out; Open palm; parry; fly; 1-on-1; screen; zone intervention. Pitch effect: decreasing pitch size elicit higher goalkeepers’ technical responses. |
Observational tool | Technical responses; Tactical responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [88] | 3 goalkeepers | 24.5 ± 7.2 | 11 | Male | No | Repeated measures | TD; spatial exploration index; predictive ellipse area; standard ellipse area; distance covered at different velocities; accelerations; decelerations. Pitch effect: increasing pitch size elicit lower goalkeepers’ physical responses and higher tactical responses. |
GPS | Physical responses; Tactical responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [39] | 149 young players | 12.0 ± 0.4 | - | Male | Yes | Repeated measures | Field players and goalkeepers actions: Ball touches; Passes; Shots; TD in play; TD out play Distance covered at different velocities. Pitch effect: pitch size influences on physical and technical responses of field players and goalkeepers. |
Semi-automated multi-camera system | Physical responses; Technical responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [17] | 8 elite players | 18.0 ± 1 | - | Male | Yes | Repeated measures | Mean HR; pass; receive; turn; dribble; header; tackle; interception; shot; target pass. Pitch effect: While pitch size does not affect physiological responses, increasing pitch size elicit higher shots and tackles. |
HR monitor; video camera | Physiological responses; Technical responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [89] | 16 youth players | 14.2 ± 0.6 | 5.5 | Male | Yes | Repeated measures | Mean HR; %HRmax; RPE. Pitch effect: Increasing pitch size elicit higher physiological responses. |
HR monitor; 10-point Borg scale | Physiological responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [19] | 48 youth players | U13 U14 |
- | Male | Teams’ composition | Repeated measures | TD; distance covered at different velocities; Peak HR; Mean HR. Pitch effect: no influence of pitch size on physical and physiological demands |
GPS; HR monitor | Physiological responses; Physical responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [90] | 16 elite players | 19.6 ± 2.0 | 5.8 | Female | Yes | Repeated measures | TD; body loads, high-intensity distance. Pitch effect: Increasing pitch size elicit higher physical responses. |
GPS | Physical responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [91] | 16 elite players | 19.6 ± 2.0 | 5.8 | Female | Yes | Repeated measures | Peak HR; Mean HR; %HRmean; HR zones; VAS scales. Pitch effect: Increasing pitch size elicit higher physiological responses at low intensities. |
HR monitor; questionnaire | Physiological responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [92] | 10 youth players | 13.0 ± 0.3 | - | Male | No | Repeated measures | HR HI; passes; dribbles; possessions. Pitch effect: No influence in HR HI and increasing pitch size elicit higher lower possessions and higher ball touches. |
HR monitor; Video camera | Physiological responses; Tecnhical responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [62] | 23 university players | 22.3 ± 2.0 | 12.1 | Male | Teams’ composition | Repeated measures | TD; distance covered at different velocities; sprints; maximum sprint speed; ball contacts; maximum passing speed; RPE. Pitch effect: increasing pitch size elicit higher physical responses. |
GPS; 10-point Borg scale; Play Soccer system | Physical responses; Physiological responses; Technical responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [93] | 52 youth players | U11: 10.0 ± 0.7 U15: 14.0 ± 1.3 U23: 21.0 ± 1.6 |
1.0 3.0 6.5 |
Male | - | Repeated measures | TD; distance covered at different velocities; sprints; maximum sprint speed; ball contacts; maximum passing speed; RPE. Pitch effect: increasing pitch size elicit higher physical responses and influence on technical actions. |
GPS; 10-point Borg scale; Play Soccer system | Physical responses; Physiological responses; Technical responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [66] | 148 youth players | U12: 12.5 ± 0.5 U14: 14.4 ± 0.5 U16: 16.6 ± 3.2 U18: 17.9 ± 1.0 |
- | Male | Teams’ composition | Repeated measures | TD; HI distance; sprints; inter-team distance, LPW-ratio, surface area, stretch indices, goalkeeper-defender distance; tactical variability. Pitch effect: increasing pitch size elicit higher physical responses and intra-team and inter-team distances and tactical variability. |
LPS | Physical responses; Tactical responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [94] | 10 recreational players | 20.1 ± 1.1 | - | Male | - | Repeated measures | Mean HR; %HRmax; HR zones; TD; distance covered at different velocities; maximal speed; efforts; player load. Pitch effect: increasing pitch size elicit higher physiological and physical responses. |
HR monitor; GPS | Physiological responses; Physical responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [95] | 20 amateur players | 24.5 ± 4.1 | 15 | Male | Yes | Repeated measures | Mean HR; Blood lactate; RPE. Pitch effect: increasing pitch size elicit higher physiological responses. |
HR monitor; lactate portable analyser | Physiological responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [96] | 86 youth players | U10 U13 |
- | Male | Yes | Repeated measures | Mean HR; Peak HR; HR zones; TD; efforts; distance covered at different velocities; player load; number of technical actions; successful actions; success rate. Pitch effect: increasing pitch size elicit higher physical responses and lower technical involvement. | HR monitor; GPS; video camera | Physiological responses; Physical responses; Technical responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [20] | 20 youth players | 16.2 ± 0.6 a 15.6 ± 0.5 |
6.6 6.2 |
Male | No | Repeated measures | Spatial distribution variability; Shannon entropy; player-to-locus distance; coefficient of variation; sample entropy. Pitch effect: manipulating pitch size influence on movement variability. |
GPS | Tactical responses. The outcomes were not obtained for meta-analysis since none was within the information extracted, thus keeping only in the systematic review |
|
| |||||||||
| [58] | 20 youth players | 16.2 ± 0.6 15.6 ± 0.5 |
6.6 6.2 |
Male | No | Repeated measures | Team separateness; effective playing space; length-width ratio; average mutual information in longitudinal direction; average mutual information in lateral direction; sample entropy of distance to nearest opponent. Pitch effect: manipulating pitch size influence on tactical responses. |
GPS | Tactical responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [97] | 24 youth players | 14.5 ± 0.5 | 6.1 | Male | Yes | Repeated measures | Effective relative space per player; radius of free movement; spatial distribution variability; numerical relations. Pitch effect: manipulating pitch size influence on spatial distributions and numerical relations. |
GPS | Tactical responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [98] | 15 amateur players | 21.9 ± 2.0 | 9.9 | Male | Teams’ composition | Repeated measures | Interpersonal distance attackers and defenders; distance to intercept a shot; distance to intercept a pass. Pitch effect: increasing pitch size elicit greater opportunities to maintain ball possessions. |
Video camera | Tactical responses |
|
| |||||||||
| [69] | 10 amateur players | 22.0 ± 3.0 | - | Male | No | Repeated measures | Centroid; area; inter-team distance in longitudinal and lateral directions; distance of centroids. Pitch effect: increasing pitch size elicit greater area and distances. |
LPS | Tactical responses |
Notes. GPS: global position system; HI: high-intensity; HR: heart rate; LPS: local positioning system; RPE: rate of perceived exertion; SD: standard-deviation; SSG: small-sided games; TD: total distance; VAS: visual analogue scale.