Search

Purpose: The efficacy of SSGs has been difficult to assess as researchers have used a wide-ranging number of players, pitch dimensions and game rules, making comparisons complicated. Therefore, this study compared four SSG rules [one (SSG1T), two (SSG2T), three (SSG3T), and unlimited touches (SSGFT)] on time spent in different heart-rate (HR) intensity zones, frequency of technical actions and distance covered involving the starting 11 players and the reserve goalkeeper of a national soccer league team. Methods: The participants (age: 24.3±4.0 yr; height: 171.2±5.9 cm: weight: 61.9±7.4 kg) were measured for previously mentioned dependent variables during each SSG format. Results: Analysis found no significant difference among the four SSGs formats [F(3, 27) = 2.897, p = .053] for time spent in the low-intensity zone, but significant differences were observed for time spent in moderate [F(3, 27) = 13.642, p = .001] and high [F(3, 27) = 13.431, p = .001] intensity zones. Significantly more time was spent in the high intensity zone [F(3, 27) = 13.431, p = .001] when players performed SSG2T and SSGFT when compared SSG1T ( p = .002 and p = .009) respectively. SSG1T induced most unsuccessful passing [F(3,27) = 500.498, p = .001] but no differences was observed among SSG2T, SSG3T and SSGFT. SSG2T, SSG3T and SSG3T obtained significantly more shots on goal shots on goal [F(3,27) = 25.398, p = .001], with SSGFT achieving higher numbers than the other three formats. There were no significant differences in goals scored ( p = .537) and distance covered ( p = 0.574) for all SSG formats. Conclusion: The main findings of this study revealed that all four SSG formats stimulated moderate to high heart rate intensities that could induce positive aerobic and anaerobic adaptations depending on frequency of technical actions and players’ skill level. Therefore, coaches could select specific SSG formats to help players achieved intended intensity and technical objectives programmed for different phases of periodized training.

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to compare the effects of daily undulating periodisation (DUP) and session undulating periodisation (SUP) for maintaining strength and power over a 3-wk period in a group of resistance-trained women. DUP comprised one session each of strength and power training while DUP combined both strength and power training within each session. Both training programmes were equalised for training volume and intensity. Methods: Sixteen resistance-trained women were pre-tested for body mass, mid-arm and mid-thigh girths, one-repetition maximum (1 RM) dynamic squat (SQ) and bench press (BP), and power during countermovement jumps (CMJ) and bench press throws (BPT). The 1 RM SQ and BP data were used to assign the participants into groups for twice a week training. Results: A two-way (group x time) analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures for time found no significant changes in body mass, mid-arm girth, 1 RM BP and SQ, and BPT and CMJ power for both groups. However, significant changes in mid-thigh girth were found (F1, 13 = 5.733, p = 0.032). Pooled BP data indicated improved upper body strength (BP: F1, 13 = 6.346, p = 0.025) and decreased CMJ power (p = 0.016). Conclusions: Both DUP and SUP programmes increased upper-body strength and maintained lower-body strength adequately across a 3-wk phase probably because the participants were weaker in the upper-body and the lower-body had a reduced capacity for strength adaptations and improvements.