Background: There has been an increase in studies examining the demands of soccer relative to each playing position in recent years. Understanding the physical, physiological, and technical demands on soccer players according to their positional role during competitive matches is necessary to understand match requirements and develop position-specific training practices. Thereby, there is a clear need to synthesize the information on the different profiles of each playing position. Objective: This review aimed to organize the literature investigating physical, physiological, and technical demands according to playing positions and provide a framework to identify gaps and suggestions for future studies. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in October 2023 using four electronic databases: Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, PubMed and Scopus. The review followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines and the PRISMA-ScR extension for Scoping Reviews. The studies were included if the sample comprised adult male soccer players categorized from Tier 3 to Tier 5 (i.e., highly trained/national level, elite/international level, or world class) and compared the physical, physiological, or technical parameters across playing positions. Results: A total of 178 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The number of teams, players, and matches analyzed per study varied considerably. Although a range of classifications were reported across studies, 59% of studies classified players as central defenders, full-backs, central midfielders, wide midfielders, and forwards. The findings suggests that central and external midfielders, and external defenders cover greater total and high-speed distance than forwards or central defenders. Sprint distance was higher in external midfielders versus all other positions. Defenders and central midfielders perform more passes than external midfielders and forwards. Heart rate was the most commonly reported physiological variable across playing positions. When expressed as a percentage of maximal heart rate, midfielders presented higher mean values than all other playing positions. Conclusion: This scoping review demonstrates that there are differences in the demands on players across playing positions in soccer. Training practices in soccer should be based on the specific requirements of each positional role to ensure players can fulfill their tactical responsibilities during the game.

The aim of this study was two-fold: (1) to analyze the variations of acute load, training monotony, and training strain among early (pre-season), mid (first half of season), and end season (second half of season) periods; (2) to compare these training indicators for playing positions in different moments of the season. Nineteen professional players (age: 26.5 ± 4.3 years; experience as professional: 7.5 ± 4.3 years) from a European First League team participated in this study. The players were monitored daily over a 45-week period for the total distance (TD), distance covered (DC) at 14 km/h⁻¹ or above (DC > 14 km/h), high-speed running above 19.8 km/h⁻¹ (HSR) distance, and number of sprints above 25.2 km/h⁻¹. The acute load (sum of load during a week), training monotony (mean of training load during the seven days of the week divided by the standard deviation of the training load of the seven days), and training strain (sum of the training load for all training sessions and matches during a week multiplied by training monotony) workload indices were calculated weekly for each measure and per player. Results revealed that training monotony and training strain for HSR were meaningfully greater in pre-season than in the first half of the in-season (p ≤ 0.001; d = 0.883 and p ≤ 0.001; d = 0.712, respectively) and greater than the second half of the in-season (p ≤ 0.001; d = 0.718 and p ≤ 0.001; d = 0.717). The training monotony for the sprints was meaningfully greater in pre-season than in the first half of in-season (p < 0.001; d = 0.953) and greater than the second half of in-season (p ≤ 0.001; d = 0.916). Comparisons between playing positions revealed that small-to-moderate effect sizes differences mainly for the number of sprints in acute load, training monotony, and training strain. In conclusion, the study revealed that greater acute load, training monotony, and training strain occurred in the pre-season and progressively decreased across the season. Moreover, external defenders and wingers were subjected to meaningfully greater acute load and training strain for HSR and number of sprints during the season compared to the remaining positions.

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of small-sided games (SSGs) and running-based high-intensity interval training (HIIT) on the body composition and physical fitness of youth female soccer players. Methods: This study followed a randomized parallel study design. Twenty-four female soccer players (age: 18.63 ± 2.36 years) were randomly allocated to two training groups (SSG, n = 12; and HIIT, n = 12). The training intervention had a duration of eight weeks, consisting of three training sessions per week. Players were assessed twice (pre- and post-intervention) for anthropometrics, vertical (countermovement jumps, CMJ; and drop jumps, DJ) and horizontal jumping (single, triple and crossover hop), sprinting (10- and 30-m), change-of-direction (COD), COD deficit and final velocity at 30–15 Intermittent Fitness Test (V_IFT). A covariance analysis (ANCOVA) was used to determine differences between the groups in the effect on post-intervention by controlling for covariates (pre-intervention). The within-group analysis (time) was performed using a paired t-test, while the between-group analysis per assessment moment was performed using an independent t-test. Results: The between-group analysis with ANCOVA revealed that there are no significant differences between the SSG and HIIT groups in the post-intervention for any outcome (p > 0.05). The within-group analysis revealed significant improvements in both the SSG and HIIT groups in CMJ (p < 0.05), single, triple and crossover hops (p < 0.05), RSI DJ 30-cm and RSI DJ 40-cm (p < 0.05), VIFT (p < 0.05) and COD (p < 0.05). Conclusions: SSG and HIIT are both effective for improving vertical and horizontal jumping ability, change-of-direction, and aerobic capacity status measured at a progressive and intermittent multistage test in youth soccer players.

The aim of the present paper was to determine the relationship between linear sprinting and jump performance, dynamic balance and change of direction on young soccer players. Ninety-four healthy young highly trained male soccer players belonging to the same high-performance academy agreed to participate in the study [twenty-seven soccer players U16 (14.8 ± 0.4 years; height: 170.6 ± 5.6 cm; body mass 64.7 ± 8.4 kg)] and [sixty-seven soccer players U19 (16.6 ± 1.3 years; height: 173.7 ± 7.2 cm; body mass 66.7 ± 8.0 kg)]. Participants completed 3 testing sessions, 7 days apart. Data from a CMJ, Crossover Hop Test, 10-m sprint test, 505 COD tests and the 90° COD test were collected. Moderate correlations were found in some of the cases (r values were between 0.2 and 0.5 in all cases, being p < 0.05), indicating that linear sprinting, jumping performance and dynamic balance are influential factors in agility but are not the main limiting factor. The highest correlation was found between the cross-over hop test and the 505 COD test (r = 0.44; p < 0.001). The main evidence from the current study suggested that linear sprinting, jumping performance and dynamics balance are determinants of COD, namely explaining the variations in such a skill. The current study revealed that short-distance sprint and jumping performance significantly explain the variations of COD performance on young soccer players.

This systematic review aimed to (1) identify and summarize studies that have examined the validity of apps for measuring human strength, power, velocity, and change-of-direction, and (2) identify and summarize studies that have examined the reliability of apps for measuring human strength, power, velocity, and change-of-direction. A systematic review of Cochrane Library, EBSCO, PubMed, Scielo, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases was performed, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. From the 435 studies initially identified, 23 were fully reviewed, and their outcome measures were extracted and analyzed. In total, 11 mobile applications were analyzed and summarized for their validity and reliability to test movement velocity, movement time, movement displacement, power output, and workload. The present systematic review revealed that the tested apps are valid and reliable for measuring bar movement velocity during lower and upper body resistance exercises; however, systematic bias was detected with heavier loads.

The present study aimed to examine the influence of leg dominance on the change of direction (COD) performance. In this study participated 94 healthy young highly trained male soccer players belonging from two categories (n = 27 vs. n = 67; 14.81 ± 0.40 vs. 16.64 ± 1.25 years of age; 170.61 ± 5.61 vs. 173.73 ± 7.19 cm of height; 64.74 ± 8.44 vs. 66.70 ± 7.95 kg of weight, for U16 and U18, respectively). Fitness assessments were performed two times in a period of three months, and included: (1) anthropometry measures, (2) 30–15 IFT, (3) 10-m sprint test, (4) 505-COD test, 90° COD test and cross-over hop test. A paired sample t-test was performed to evaluate the asymmetries at the intragroup level in each of the COD’s tests. A symmetry index was used to analyse the asymmetries between categories, and an independent sample t-test was used to compare the variability between the two categories in each of the three tests performed. The effect size was also evaluated. Analysis demonstrated that evidence a trend for a better performance with the preferred leg in the cross-over hop and 505-COD tests, and with the non-dominant leg in the 90° COD. However, in the intragroup analysis, only the 505-COD test registered differences, and no differences were notice din the intergroup comparison. Only in the 505-COD test the percentage of variability (CV) was statistically significant (7.03 ± 4.18% vs. 4.03 ± 2.02% from U16 and U18, respectively). In sum, bilateral differences were noticed in the intragroup comparison, although only in 505-COD test the leg dominance showed to influence performance. In the intergroup analysis any difference was noticed between age categories.