边边角角足球比赛形式的生理、体能和技术要求:综述。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q2 SPORT SCIENCES
Filipe Manuel Clemente, Diogo V Martinho, Rui Silva, Robert Trybulski, Javier Sánchez-Sánchez, Alejandro Rodríguez-Fernández, Marco Beato, José Afonso
{"title":"边边角角足球比赛形式的生理、体能和技术要求:综述。","authors":"Filipe Manuel Clemente, Diogo V Martinho, Rui Silva, Robert Trybulski, Javier Sánchez-Sánchez, Alejandro Rodríguez-Fernández, Marco Beato, José Afonso","doi":"10.1055/a-2591-6995","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This meta-analysis aimed to compare the acute physiological, physical, and technical demands in soccer players during different sided game formats (1v1 to 10v10). This review included studies on soccer players with a competitive or developmental level, focusing on games with at least one comparison of sided formats. Outcomes assessed included physiological parameters (e.g., heart rate and blood lactate levels), physical demands (e.g., distance and accelerations), and technical actions (e.g., passes). The risk of bias assessment tool for nonrandomized studies of interventions (RoBANS 2) and (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) were used to evaluate the risk of bias and the certainty of evidence. The search across PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science identified 2,545 records, of which 72 studies were included. Meta-analyses found that 2v2 and 3v3 formats were more physiologically intense, showing higher perceived exertion and blood lactate levels, with 3v3 also having higher heart rates. The 4v4 and 3v3 formats resulted in greater physical demands compared to the 2v2 format, with increased distances covered at various speeds, although differences were minimal beyond the 4v4 format. Smaller formats promoted ball possession, while the 3v3 format resulted in more successful shots, dribbles, and passes. In conclusion, small-sided games (< 3v3) were more physiologically demanding, mid-sized formats (> 4v4) increased locomotor demands, and smaller formats improved technical skills, although the findings should be interpreted cautiously due to study limitations.</p>","PeriodicalId":14439,"journal":{"name":"International journal of sports medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Physiological, Physical and Technical Demands During Sided Soccer Game Formats: a Review.\",\"authors\":\"Filipe Manuel Clemente, Diogo V Martinho, Rui Silva, Robert Trybulski, Javier Sánchez-Sánchez, Alejandro Rodríguez-Fernández, Marco Beato, José Afonso\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-2591-6995\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This meta-analysis aimed to compare the acute physiological, physical, and technical demands in soccer players during different sided game formats (1v1 to 10v10). This review included studies on soccer players with a competitive or developmental level, focusing on games with at least one comparison of sided formats. Outcomes assessed included physiological parameters (e.g., heart rate and blood lactate levels), physical demands (e.g., distance and accelerations), and technical actions (e.g., passes). The risk of bias assessment tool for nonrandomized studies of interventions (RoBANS 2) and (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) were used to evaluate the risk of bias and the certainty of evidence. The search across PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science identified 2,545 records, of which 72 studies were included. Meta-analyses found that 2v2 and 3v3 formats were more physiologically intense, showing higher perceived exertion and blood lactate levels, with 3v3 also having higher heart rates. The 4v4 and 3v3 formats resulted in greater physical demands compared to the 2v2 format, with increased distances covered at various speeds, although differences were minimal beyond the 4v4 format. Smaller formats promoted ball possession, while the 3v3 format resulted in more successful shots, dribbles, and passes. In conclusion, small-sided games (< 3v3) were more physiologically demanding, mid-sized formats (> 4v4) increased locomotor demands, and smaller formats improved technical skills, although the findings should be interpreted cautiously due to study limitations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14439,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of sports medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of sports medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2591-6995\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SPORT SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of sports medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2591-6995","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本荟萃分析旨在比较足球运动员在不同一方比赛形式(1v1到10v10)中的急性生理、身体和技术要求。这篇综述包括了对竞技水平或发展水平的足球运动员的研究,重点是至少有一种侧面形式比较的比赛。评估的结果包括生理参数(如心率、血乳酸)、身体需求(如距离、加速度)和技术动作(如传球)。使用roban -2和GRADE来评估偏倚风险和证据的确定性。通过PubMed、Scopus和Web of Science进行的搜索确定了2545条记录,其中包括72项研究。荟萃分析发现,2v2和3v3模式在生理上更激烈,表现出更高的体力消耗和血乳酸水平,3v3模式也有更高的心率。与2v2相比,4v4和3v3格式导致了更大的物理需求,在不同速度下覆盖的距离增加,尽管超过4v4的差异很小。较小的阵型提高了控球率,而3v3阵型带来了更多成功的射门、运球和传球。总之,小尺寸游戏(4v4)增加了运动能力的要求,小尺寸游戏提高了技术技能,尽管由于研究的局限性,研究结果应该谨慎解读。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Physiological, Physical and Technical Demands During Sided Soccer Game Formats: a Review.

This meta-analysis aimed to compare the acute physiological, physical, and technical demands in soccer players during different sided game formats (1v1 to 10v10). This review included studies on soccer players with a competitive or developmental level, focusing on games with at least one comparison of sided formats. Outcomes assessed included physiological parameters (e.g., heart rate and blood lactate levels), physical demands (e.g., distance and accelerations), and technical actions (e.g., passes). The risk of bias assessment tool for nonrandomized studies of interventions (RoBANS 2) and (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) were used to evaluate the risk of bias and the certainty of evidence. The search across PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science identified 2,545 records, of which 72 studies were included. Meta-analyses found that 2v2 and 3v3 formats were more physiologically intense, showing higher perceived exertion and blood lactate levels, with 3v3 also having higher heart rates. The 4v4 and 3v3 formats resulted in greater physical demands compared to the 2v2 format, with increased distances covered at various speeds, although differences were minimal beyond the 4v4 format. Smaller formats promoted ball possession, while the 3v3 format resulted in more successful shots, dribbles, and passes. In conclusion, small-sided games (< 3v3) were more physiologically demanding, mid-sized formats (> 4v4) increased locomotor demands, and smaller formats improved technical skills, although the findings should be interpreted cautiously due to study limitations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.00%
发文量
111
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The IJSM provides a forum for the publication of papers dealing with both basic and applied information that advance the field of sports medicine and exercise science, and offer a better understanding of biomedicine. The journal publishes original papers, reviews, short communications, and letters to the Editors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信