Soccer Small Sided Games – The problem, not the solution!

The is written by my colleague Kelvin Giles based on some of our conversations when we were together in England at UKSEM Conference and his everyday work with Al Ain Football club in Abu Dhabi, UAE where he is Performance Director. In soccer today at all levels there are tremendous injury issues. One soccer guru has proposed that the solution is to use more small sided games and to get rid of the conditioning coaches and give the responsibility for conditioning back to the soccer coaches.Throughout our careers (VG & KG) the starting point has always been to TRAIN TO PLAY BY PREPARING THEATHLETES FOR THE DEMANDS OF THE GAME.

The world of Soccer is currently in the midst of a serious debate on the role of small-sided games as the sole ingredient in the preparation of players. The key arguments include

(a) players spend more time ‘on the ball’ thus adding to technical and tactical development

(b) the process is specific to the metabolic requirements of the game.

As sound as these arguments may be the current dialogue from the ‘experts’ also contains such statements as, “Soccer Coaches make the best Fitness trainers”; “Strength and Conditioning should stand aside”; “Soccer is so unique it can’t follow normal preparation systems”; “Don’t call Soccer players athletes – it has caused us immense problems.” It seems that these extreme views are following the ‘guru’ pathway (and there are plenty of them to be sure) that prevails in our present day sports environment.

Add to this the current research that pronounces that metabolic training with the ball produces less injuries than conventional conditioning activities and you have another training puzzle for unprepared to worry about. Just when you thought that the commonsense approach that you had spent 40 years working towards was working along came the ‘new’ potion.

STOP! The guru’s and the scientists are missing the point. There is an order of things that you simply can’t ‘guru’ your way out of. All sports-specific postures and actions (techniques) require that the body is efficient and resilient enough to carry them out effectively. By thinking that this is all about the metabolic preparation is a ‘fool’s errand’. Of course one must be specific metabolically – there is no use in doing five mile runs slowly if the endurance requirement of the game is for endured speed, agility, acceleration and deceleration at relatively high speeds. What MUST be understood is the mechanical load that is placed upon the body while these small-sided games are being endured.

Just look at the typical journey that the soft tissue injury has:

Poor movement exposed to training / game load = compensatory movements to survive.

Continue the training / game load = micro-trauma.

Continue the training / game load = more compensatory movements, macro-trauma.

Continued training / game load = catastrophic tissue failure.

The argument from the pro-SSG camp is that the SSG process is progressive and that vulnerable players can be treated individually within this load development for their long-term safety. Volume and intensity can be reduced for certain players or for the whole group if the fixture list demands it. Still missing the point! The only tool the SSG guys have in their toolbox is ‘load reduction’. Remember that the SSG environment is an uncontrolled, reactive one – not a good place for the ‘mechanically challenged’ player (most of them) so what about the demand for mechanical efficiency and mechanical resilience? Improve these by a systematic, progressive process and you are half-way there. The metabolic requirements will be enhanced simple by moving more efficiently. The mechanical load will be tolerated more due to a body that has high quality neural efficiency and motor control.

The process is like this – build movement and mechanical efficiency and add an appropriate SSG and conventional metabolic training pathway that is within the scope of the mechanical ability of the individual player. Let the player’s mechanical ability dictate the ‘game’ load they are exposed to. The ‘conventional’ training processes are easier to control in terms of speed, load and recovery and are ideal processes for the ‘mechanically challenged’ while they develop their mechanical efficiency and resilience.

The ability to make these decisions is the key issue for all the staff in the player’s performance pathway. Head Coaches are the final decision-makers – do they understand all this?