This study compared the technical activity and physical movements of various-sided games within professional soccer. It also examined the test-retest reliability of sided games using various numbers of players. 10 elite male players from a Scottish Premier League performed small- (SSGs: 4 vs. 4), medium- (MSGs: 5 vs. 5 to 8 vs. 8) and large- (LSGs: 9 vs. 9 to 11 vs. 11) sided games each lasting for 3×5 min. Results show significant physical differences (p<0.05) between SSGs, MSGs and LSGs for most of the variables measured. It was shown that SSGs induce a significantly faster playing speed when compared to MSGs and LSGs (150.5 vs. 108.3 vs. 120.4 m.min⁻¹, p<0.01) but significantly less (p<0.01) repeated high-intensity efforts (0.88 vs. 4.40 m), high-intensity running (7 vs. 39 m) and sprint distance (0 vs. 11 m) when compared to LSGs. Findings also revealed significant differences (p<0.05) between SSGs, MSGs and LSGs in technical demands (passes, dribbles, shots, headers). High levels of reproducibility (ICC=0.99) were yielded when using the same-sided games, pitch sizes and possession rules. This study provided information on different-sided games to facilitate its use as part of a periodised weekly structure.

This study aimed to compare the neuromuscular activation of selected core musculature in supine and prone bridge exercises under stable versus suspended conditions. Forty-three healthy male participants were recruited to measure the electromyographic activities of the rectus abdominis (RA), lumbar multifidus (LM), thoracic erector spinae (TES), rectus femoris (RF), gluteus maximus (GM), and biceps femoris (BF) during supine and prone bridge exercises under six conditions: control, both arms and feet on the floor (Prone_con and Supine_con); arms on the floor and feet on the suspension system (Prone-Feet_suspension and Supine-Feet_suspension); and arms on the suspension system and feet on the floor (Prone-Arm_suspension and Supine-Arm_suspension). Prone-Arm_suspension yielded significantly higher activities in the RA, RF, TES, and LM than Prone-Feet_suspension (p < 0.01) and Prone_con (p < 0.001). Moreover, Supine-Feet_suspension elicited significantly higher activities in the RA, RF, TES, LM, and BF than Supine-Arm_suspension (p < 0.01) and Supine_con (p < 0.001). Furthermore, Supine-Feet_suspension elicited significantly higher activities in the RF, TES, and BF than Supine_con (p < 0.01). Therefore, if the RA and/or RF were the target training muscles, then Prone-Arm_suspension was recommended. However, if the TES, LM, and/or BF were the target training muscles, then Supine-Feet_suspension was recommended.