Small-Sided Games vs. Running-Based High-Intensity Interval Training: An Exploratory Study of the Effects on Physical Performance and Internal Load in Under-11 Male Football Players

Panascì M, Ferrando V, Castagna C, Apollaro G, Ruggeri P, Faelli EL

Question

In under-11 male football players, how do small-sided games and running-based HIIT compare for aerobic fitness, neuromuscular performance, change-of-direction ability, and internal load?

Summary

This exploratory 8-week study compared small-sided football games with running-based HIIT in 16 under-11 male academy football players. Both formats improved aerobic fitness and change-of-direction ability. Small-sided games produced broader sprint and agility benefits and lower perceived exertion, while running HIIT generated higher peak heart-rate and RPE responses. The authors caution that the sample was small, maturation was not directly assessed, and injury surveillance was not performed.

Methodology

Sixteen under-11 male academy football players from an Italian professional youth academy.
16 participants.
Linear running on grass field.
Work intervals: 15 seconds at 100% Vpeak.
Recovery: 15 seconds passive recovery, plus 1 minute rest between sets.
Intensity: 100% peak velocity from YYIR1C.
About 50 minutes including warm-up, 20 minutes technical drills, interval sets, and cool-down.
2 sessions per week.
8 weeks.
Exploratory parallel matched-group training study comparing SSGs and running-based HIIT over 8 weeks.
Aerobic fitness, Sprint performance, Change-of-direction ability, and Internal load were tracked.

Outcomes

Aerobic fitness

Both SSGs and HIIT significantly improved YYIR1C distance and Vpeak with no significant between-group difference.

SSG YYIR1C p = 0.012, Vpeak p = 0.017; HIIT YYIR1C p = 0.012, Vpeak p = 0.016; between-group delta YYIR1C p = 0.269, Vpeak p = 0.548.

Improved

Sprint performance

SSGs significantly improved 10 m and 20 m sprint; HIIT sprint changes were not significant, and 20 m improvement favored SSG.

SSG 10 m p = 0.035, 20 m p = 0.012; HIIT 10 m p = 0.068, 20 m p = 0.157; between-group 20 m p = 0.004.

Mixed

Change-of-direction ability

Both modalities improved COD, with larger right and left improvements after SSGs.

Between-group COD right p = 0.036; COD left p = 0.001.

Improved

Internal load

HIIT elicited higher HRpeak and RPE; HRmean was generally similar.

Total HRpeak p = 0.001; cumulative RPE p < 0.001; HRmean weekly differences not significant.

Mixed

Insights

Small-sided games may provide similar aerobic benefits with lower subjective load in young football players.
Running HIIT is better for tightly controlled cardiovascular stress but may feel harder.
Youth programs should track maturation and injuries explicitly.

Limitations

Small exploratory sample.
No external load monitoring.
No direct physiological measurements.
No injury surveillance.
Biological maturation not assessed.

Safety

Testing sessions were completed without dizziness, light-headedness, nausea, or complications.
Injury surveillance was not conducted, limiting safety interpretation.