Effects of small-sided games vs. simulated match training on physical performance of youth female handball players.

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of different Small-Sided games (SSG) formats and simulated match handball training (SMHT) on handball player's physical performance and game activity profile. Twenty-four youth female handball players (age: 16.2 ± 1.5 years) participated in this study. The study was conducted during the first part of the competitive handball season and lasted for 10 weeks with 2 sessions per week in non-consecutive days: 1 week of pretesting, 8 weeks of specific training, and 1 week of post-testing. A two-group parallel randomized, pre- to post-test design was used to compare 2 different training groups: SSG training group (n = 12) and SMHT group (n = 12). The results showed larger improvements in drop jump height, jump power, absolute and relative anaerobic alactic power and 10 m sprint performances following the SSG training compared with the SMHT (p<0.05, ηp2 = ranging from 0.219 to 0.368). Game performance characteristics showed significant effect in SSD training in average sprint distance, total number of sprints and time between sprints (p<0.05, ηp2 = ranging from 0.08 to 0.292). The results of this study show that handball SSGs represent an adequate in-season strategy to promote a wide range of physical adaptations with improvements in running and jumping performance. This represents important information for coaches, since SSGs develop handball players' physical profiles while replicating tactical and technical features of the game. Nevertheless, simulated match training may be judiciously used to improve players' aerobic performance.

Introduction

Game-based training methods are by nature related to specific components of a particular sport, such as movement patterns with and without the ball, physical demands and technical requirements [1-3]. Under this scope, small-sided games (SSG) are commonly used by team sports’ coaches to develop technical abilities and enhance physical performance variables [4-6]. These situations are usually developed in pitches with several sizes, involving different number of players and often played under different types of rules changes when compared to the official formal match [7]. Previous studies have shown that the physical responses and technical skills requirements during SSG can be modified by manipulating several constraints, such as the size of the pitch, number of players, rules of the game and coach encouragement [1, 8, 9]. Generally, SSG with higher number of players are used to train players’ tactical behaviors, while larger playing area in SSG formats are more appropriate to increase distance covered by players and high-intensity efforts [10]. On the other side, the simulated match handball training (SMHT) is fundamental, ensuring the players to experience the competitive scenario and the corresponding physical, technical and tactical requirements of match play [11]. Taking all together, specific game-based handball training is an effective training mode to improve youth players’ physical profiles in several performance variables, such as vertical jump, linear sprint, repeated sprint ability and intermittent endurance [1].

When compared to match play, handball game-based training conditions may promote greater physical load and address specific players’ playing position requirements [12]. Analyses of handball game demands suggest that speed, explosive strength and high-intensity intermittent running are the most important physical qualities for achieving success in high-level leagues [13]. For that purpose, SSG training is able to elicit greater improvement of explosive-like abilities when compared to high intensity interval training alone [4]. Moreover, SSG training may increase players’ compliance and motivation when compared to high intensity intermittent training sessions, particularly because of high training time spent with the ball [1].

Even though game-based training strategies are recognized as useful tools for tactical, technical and physical training, leading to greater improvement in handball-specific activities such as agility, jumps, dynamic strength, and short sprints [7, 14, 15]. Time-motion analysis in women’s team during match play shown that the individual mean run distance (2882 ± 1506 m) varied broadly between single field handball players, comprising 961 ± 539 m of walking, 761 ± 420 m slow running, 752 ± 484 m fast running, and 272 ± 224 m sprinting [16]. The recent development of the micro-technology has allowed the use of portable local positioning systems (LPS) to track players indoors, providing better levels of validity and reliability than the standard GPS systems [17].

Using SSG’s allows coaches to increase variability between sessions, ensuring that game movement patterns are replicated, as well as the physiological and technical demands of competition under fatigue [18]. Thus, using LPS to quantify time-motion characteristics may help coaches not only to design adequate exercise strategies for different performance outcomes, but also to study the activity profiles of players [19].

Wearable tracking technologies facilitates optimization of performance by managing player workload and monitoring athlete development [20]. The results of time-motion analyses may increase the specificity of physical conditioning as they provide insight into the energy system utilization, and in some cases, specific movement patterns used throughout the course of a game [21]. However, by studying the players’ performance in a simulated game, it is possible to observe and evaluate changes in their performance parameters while controlling variables such as match-ups situations and game duration. Lack of research and training monitoring methodologies in young female handball players globally limits our ability to develop adequate game-based training and research technologies.

Currently, there is only a small amount of data on the effectiveness of game-based training in handball. Nevertheless, there have been some attempts to study the effects of SSG on physical [1, 4, 8, 12], physiological [22], and tactical performance [10], showing that the manipulation of task constraints may lead to the emergence of different interpersonal relationships between players and opponents and, consequently, different physical and tactical performances. We therefore hypothesized that following SSG (2vs2, 3vs3, 4vs4) training protocol the fitness identification measurements would indicate a greater improvement of physical performance and game activity profiles then simulated match handball training (SMHT).

Materials and methods

Participants

The participants were twenty-four highly trained [23] youth female handball players (age: 16.2 ± 1.5 years, stature: 168.8 ± 7.1 cm, body mass: 63.7 ± 9.5 kg; playing experience: 5.8 ± 2.3 y). The participants were from two different teams who trained under the same youth National development program, competing at youth level league U-18. The goalkeepers’ positioning it is very restricted to a specific area and their positioning dynamics are different from the outfield players. Thus, 4 goalkeepers participated in the protocol, but were excluded from the analysis. The players participated in four training sessions per week, with an average duration of 90 minutes, and one official match during the weekend. The training sessions had the following structure of warm-up; handball drills, focusing on the acquisition and improvement of technical and tactical skills; small-sided handball games; and formal game. All players were healthy and were not taking any medication. The participants and their parents were informed about the research procedures, requirements, benefits and risks and their written consent was obtained before the study began. Additionally, players were informed that they were free to withdraw at any time without any penalty. Ethical approval conformed to the recommendations of the Declaration of Helsinki and was provided by the Regional Research Ethics Committee #BE-2-97.

Design

A two-group parallel randomized, pre- to post-test design was used. 2 protocols (SSG and SMHT) were applied during 10 weeks and all players were submitted to the randomized protocol 2 sessions per week. All the players of team A were included in SSG group and all the players of team B were included in SMHT group.

Procedures

The study was conducted during the first part of the competitive handball season (October–November) and lasted for 10 weeks, with 2 sessions per week in non-consecutive days with a duration of 33 minutes each (for a total of 20 sessions): 1 week of pretesting, 8 weeks of specific training, and 1 week of post testing [24].

A two-group parallel randomized, pre- to post-test design was used. Thus, the participants of one team were named as a SSG (n = 12) training group, and the second team was named as SMHT (n = 12) training group. To isolate the effect of the 2 training protocols, the additional fitness training sessions (e.g., technical, tactical and strength) during the 8 weeks of training were identical for both groups. To determine pretraining and post-training game activities variables within each group (SSGs and SMHT), players were divided in two sub-teams of six players. Goalkeepers took part in game training but were excluded from all analyses.

All the sessions were performed in the beginning of the training session, following a standardized 15 min warm-up based on running, dynamic stretching and ball possession drills. Similarly, sessions of both groups were performed at the same time of the day (5:00–7:00 PM) and in a similar ambient temperature (19–22º C). Coaches and players were asked to avoid intense exercise on the day before the tests and to consume their usual meal at least 3 hours before the scheduled testing time. Pre—and post—measurement were set up on the same days of the week as for training, with first day of physical testing and another assessment of game activity.

Protocols

SSG

The players of SSG training group played under 3 different formats, 2 vs. 2, 3 vs.3 and 4 vs. 4. The 3 formats were played in a random order over the 8 weeks of the study. Each SSG was played once of 10 min each, interspersed by 1 min of passive rest between the conditions, accounting for a total time of 33 min. The size of the pitch and the number of players were manipulated in an attempt to alter the intensity of the SSG and were similar to those used in previous studies [12]. The players of the 3 different formats were chosen by the head coach, considering the player’s level, excluding goalkeepers and the players had to score in mini-goals (1.5 x 1 m) on each team. The 2vs.2 game was delimited by an area of 20 x 10 m (quarter regular handball court) and 3vs.3 and 4vs.4 games were played on 20 x 20 m (half regular handball court). The goal area was settled with 5m radius, and was maintained in all SSG’s formats. To reduce the stoppage time and keep high intensity, no 7m penalties were awarded and in the case of the ball going off, several balls were placed around the court to ensure its replacement was provided as fast as possible and the maximal time to complete an attack before losing ball possession was present at 30 seconds. Players were asked to maintain a high pace throughout each game and to indicate their rating of perceived exertion (RPE) using the category rating 10 (CR- 10) scale modified by [25] using a standardized questionnaire.

SMHT

The players of SMHT protocol performed 3 bouts of 10-m of Formal Handball game interspersed with 1 minute of passive recovery, making a total of 33 minutes. The teams were chosen by the head coach, considering the player’s level and the playing position, with the aim to balance the teams in terms of skill level and positions (two fullbacks, two wingers, a pivot and a center). SMHT was performed on regular handball pitch size, with regular handball rules and score in standard goals with a goalkeeper. The goalkeeper area was kept a constant in both conditions. As in the condition described above, players in both groups were asked to maintain a high pace throughout each game and to indicate their RPE using the category rating 10 (CR- 10) [25].

Table 1 provides a summary of the variables used in the study.

Table 1

Variables of SSG and SMHT training methods.

		SSG		SMHT
Variables	2 vs 2	3 vs 3	4 vs 4	6 vs 6
Duration	10 min	10 min	10 min	10+10+10 min
Pitch size	20 x 10 m	20 x 20 m	20 x 20 m	40 x 20 m
Playing area (m2)	162.7*	325.5*	325.5*	651.0*
Area per player (m2)	40.7	54.3	40.7	54.3
x¯ HRavg (1·min-1)	164.1±19.0	163.0±14.0	161.0±13.0	158.3±16.0
x¯ RPE (1–10 scale)	8.6±1.4	8.2±1.5	8.3±1.2	6.7±1.8
Goalkeepers	No	No	No	Yes
Rules	Applied	Applied	Applied	Regular
Scoring	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Coach encouragement	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

Notes:

* The goalkeeper area was not included.

Abbreviations: = Mean values±standard deviation; m = meters; HRavg, average heart rate; RPE, rate of perceived exertion.

Fitness identification

Jump Performance Test: Lower limb explosive power (LLEP) was assessed using a vertical drop jump (DJ) drop height = 0.20 m. Each handball player performed a DJ test with an Optojump TM device (Microgate, Bolzano, Italy) used to measure the jump height (cm) and contact time (ms) as a proxy for a muscular stretch-shortening performance. During DJ, players were advised to jump as high as possible with minimum contact time, with the hands fixated at the hips. The players repeated the test 3 times with the necessary rest and preparation. The intra-class correlation of Optojump range from 0.98 to 0.99 and standard error of measurement is 0.8.cm [26].

Computation of LLEP power in wats used the equation [27]:

Sprint performance: Sprint ability was evaluated by a 10- and 20-m standing-start all-out run with a 2-minute rest period between all runs. The time was recorded using photocell gates (Timing-Radio Controlled; TTSport, San Marino, CA, USA) placed 0.4 m above the ground, with an accuracy of 0.001 second. The athletes performed 3 trials for each distance and the fastest times were recorded for further analysis. The runs were performed individually by each participant. The intraclass correlation coefficient for test-retest reliability and typical error of measurement for the 10- and 20-m tests were 0.95 and 0.97, and 1.3 and 1.2%, respectively [4].

The Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test Level 1: The YYIRTL1 was used to assess players’ aerobic capacity and was performed as described by Krustrup, Mohr (28). A standardized warm up prior to testing was comprised of 10 min of low-intensity running (involving basic run-throughs at an increasing tempo, dynamic stretching and change of direction activities). During testing, 20 m shuttle runs were performed at increasing velocities until exhaustion, with 10 s rest intervals of active recovery (2 x 5 m of jogging) between runs. The test was concluded when the participant failed twice to reach the front line in time (objective evaluation) or felt unable to complete another shuttle at the required speed (subjective evaluation). The distance covered was considered as the test “score”. The intraclass correlation coefficient for test-retest reliability and typical error of measurement were 0.95 and 0.98, and 4.9%, respectively [28].

Handball Agility Specific Test: Agility was measured by the Handball Agility Specific Test (HAST), which was chosen because it exhibited five changes of direction at short distances, and included back and forth races, as well as lateral displacements [29]. For its realization, subject starts from cone 1 and runs in a straight line from 5m to cone 2, where it carries out lateral displacement of 3.5m to cone 3, again moves laterally 3.5m to the cone 4, runs from the back 5m to the cone 5, carries out the lateral displacement of 3.5m to the cone 3, and finally moves laterally by 3.5m to the cone 1. Two attempts have been made, with five minutes of interval between them, and the faster attempt was recorded as valid. The timing was registered from photocells arranged in the first cone. The intra-class correlation coefficient of the HAST described is 0.92 and the typical measurement error of 2.3% [4].

Margaria-Kalamen Anaerobic Alactic Power Test: The Margaria-Kalamen stair climb measure the athlete’s lower body peak power [30]. The participants began the test at a starting line placed 5 meters from the first step. One timer was positioned on the 3rd step and a second timer was positioned on the 9th step. On the researcher’s signal, the participant ran from the 5-meter starting mark as fast as he could up the stairway, taking the three steps at a time (3rd, 6th, 9th). The timers started recording when the participant hit the 3rd step and stopped recording when the participant stepped on the 9th step. The average time was taken from the two timers for each trial. The participant completed 3 trials with a 20-s rest period prior to the start of each trial and the best performance time was used. The anaerobic power was measured in watts and was the product of force (weight of participant) multiplied by distance 16 (height of stairs) and acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m·sec-2), then divided by time (sec-1). This computation of anaerobic-alactic power in watts used the equation [31]:

Game activity identification: Measures of player’s activity profiles were registered by triaxial accelerometers (Catapult Sports athlete tracking technology). Player load relative to playing time was used as a measure of game activity. It was measured using a portable LPS (ClearSky T6 and OptimEye S5; Catapult Innovations, Melbourne, Australia). Microsensors were placed in neoprene vests for secure attachment between the scapulae of each player, and worn underneath regular sporting attire. The triaxial accelerometer recorded players’ dynamic movement in all three planes (transverse, coronal, and sagittal) at 100 Hz to calculate instantaneous PlayerLoad, which permitted a more systematic monitoring of the physical demands during the game [32]. External measures included the total load (TL) and the relative (Load·min-1) (arbitrary units (AU)). The instantaneous PlayerLoad is a modified vector magnitude determined as the square root of the sum of the squared instantaneous rate of change in acceleration across the transverse, coronal, and sagittal planes (x, y, and z, respectively). Total distance (TD) in the game was identified in four velocity categories: stationary/walking (0–1.3 m·s-1), jogging (1.31–3.0 m·s-1), running (3.01–5.20 m·s-1) and higher speed running (>5.2 m·s-1). These speed and movement zones are similar to those used in other handball studies [16]. Data monitored by triaxial accelerometers were accumulated and processed by using software OpenField 1.18 (Catapult Innovations, Melbourne, Australia) and downloaded for further statistical calculations.

Statistical analysis

The alpha level for all statistical tests was set a priori at α = 0.05 and calculations were carried out using SPSS software V24.0 (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.). Descriptive statistics were used to compute means and standard deviations (mean±SD), the normal distribution of the variables was assessed of samples under each condition using the Shapiro–Wilk test. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for the evaluation of game-based training regimen differences on the parameters tested.

The statistical significance of the differences was recorded when p <0.05, applying 95% confidence interval (CI). The effect size (ES) for ANCOVA was determined using partial eta squared (ηp2) and was classified as: no effect = 0 to .039, minimum = .04 to .24, moderate = .25 to .63, and strong = ≥ .64 [33].

Results

Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics (mean ± SD) for physical fitness characteristics associated with the SSG and SMHT methods.

Table 2

Effect of SSG and SMHT training methods on fitness characteristics of the participants.

Variables	x¯ SSG		x¯ SMHT		p	Difference (95% CI)	ηp2
	Pre	Post	Pre	Post
DJ (cm)	35.3±5.7	37.0±4.7	42.4±6.1	41.3±6.7	0.001	5.8 (1.0–10.5)	0.219
LLEP (W)	1008.0±167.5	1062.0±162.4	1207.0±301.8	1189.0±297.9	0.024	163.5 (40–367.2)	0.232
AAP (W)	596.4±168.7	812.3±222.8	861.3±155.6	865.3±156.0	0.003	158.9 (32.2–285.6)	0.248
AAP (W·kg-1)	9.8±2.0	12.6±3.3	13.8±1.3	13.9±1.35	0.000	2.6 (1.0–4.3)	0.358
HAST (s)	7.8±0.7	7.5±0.5	7.8±0.6	7.6±0.6	0.735	0.06 (-0.4–0.5)	0.005
10 m (s)	2.0±0.1	2.0±0.1	2.1±0.1	2.1±0.1	0.000	0.1 (0.04–0.2)	0.050
20 m (s)	3.6±0.2	3.5±0.2	3.6±0.2	3.6±0.2	0.358	0.1 (-0.11–0.2)	0.089
YYIRTL1 (m)	1256.0±401.0	1122.0±354.0	1100.0±510.0	1272.0±532.0	0.001	-3.38 (-386.3–379.6)	0.368

Abbreviations: = Mean values±standard deviation; p = between group-subject effect; ηp2 = effect size; DJ = drop jump; cm = centimeters; LLEP = lower limb explosive power; W = Watts; AAP = anaerobic alactic power; W.kg-1 = Watts per Kilogram; HAST = handball agility specific test; s = seconds; YYIRTL1 = Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test level 1; m = meters.

There was statistically significant improvement in SSG method for DJ (p = 0.001, minimum effect), LLEP (p = 0.024, minimum effect), absolute and relative anaerobic alactic power (p = 0.003 and p = 0.000, minimum to moderate effect) and 10 m sprint performance (p = 0.000, moderate effect). Different training formats had a strong effect on YYIRTL1 (0.001, moderate effect). In the case of applying SSG the distance decreased, while applying SMHT (p = 0.001, strong effect) the distance increased. SSG and SMHT methods had no significant effect on HAST and 20 m (p>0.05, no effect).

Effects of different game-based training on game motion characteristics of the study subjects are summarized in Table 3. No statistically significant differences were found in any component of the load (p>0.05, no effect).

Table 3

Effect of SSG and SMHT training methods on game motion characteristics of the participants.

Variables	x¯ SSG		x¯ SMHT		p	Difference (95F025 CI)	ηp2
	Pre	Post	Pre	Post
Tl (AU)	252.7±50.8	281.9±42.2	218.1±62.4	232.7±62.6	0.121	-41.9 (-86.9–3.1)	0.036
L (AU)	8.4±1.7	9.4±1.4	7.3±2.1	7.8±2.1	0.112	-1.1 (-3.02–0.8)	0.056
TD (m)	2460.8±202.1	2454.9±223.4	2466.5±195.3	2572.1±203.7	0.443	42.9 (-65.9–151.8)	0.016
TD at 0–1.30 m·s-1 (m)	648.8±64.6	664.1±95.9	680.0±92.8	693.5±105.1	0.917	3.8 (-78.4–86.0)	0.000
TD at 1.31–3.00 m·s-1 (m)	1159.0±179.4	1033.0±136.7	1109.0±156.7	1148.0±153.7	0.479	32.4 (-83.9–148.8)	0.011
TD at 3.01–5.20 m·s-1 (m)	605.1±164.8	696.7±190.2	633.9±146.7	700.8±147.9	0.729	16.5 (-115.4–148.4)	0.003

Abbreviations: = Mean values±standard deviation; p = between group-subject effect; ηp2 = effect size; Tl = Total Load; AU = arbitrary units; L = Load min-1; TD = total distance; m = meters.

Table 4 shows various game performance characteristics associated with higher speed running zone >5.21 m·s-1.

Table 4

Effect of SSG and SMHT training methods on game motion characteristics of higher speed running (>5.21 m·s-1) of the participants.

Variables	x¯ SSG		x¯ SMHT		p	Difference (95% CI)	ηp2
	Pre	Post	Pre	Post
Asd (s)	1.55±0.66	1.67±0.66	1.50±0.58	1.43±0.58	0.424	-0,14 (-,067–0,38)	0.015
Asd (m)	5.48±1.94	6.43±1.94	4.93±1.77	4.88±1.85	0.048	-1,1 (-2,64–0,53)	0.080
Tns	9.17±3.97	10.08±2.81	8.83±3.16	6.08±2.43	0.021	-2,17 (-4,64–0,30)	0.115
Tbs (s)	191.90±59.20	160.50±59.70	186.40±52.90	303.80±52.70	0.000	69,13 (26,79–111,46)	0.292

Abbreviations: = Mean values±standard deviation; p = between group-subject effect; ηp2 = effect size; Asd = Average sprint duration; s = seconds; m = meters; Tns = Total number of sprints; Tbs = Time between sprints.

There were significant differences between the training formats (SSG and SMHT) for mean and Average sprint distance (m) (p = 0.048, minimum effect), Total number of sprints (p = 0.021, minimum effect) and Time between sprints (s) (p = 0.000, moderate effect). In opposition, the comparison between both groups presented no significant effect on Average sprint duration (s) (p = 0.424, no effect).

Discussion

The study aimed to compare the effects of SSG (2vs2, 3vs3 and 4vs4) and SMHT training methods on young elite female handball players’ physical profile. The game motion characteristics were not influenced by either SSG or SMHT, except for those associated with sprinting at speeds above 5.21 m·s-1). The results of this study show that handball SSGs and SMHT are valid in-season strategies to promote physical profiles development of youth players. Particularly, SSG are able to promote a wide range of important physical variables in handball, such as running and jumping capacities. In parallel, SMHT may be used as an important tool to improve players’ aerobic performance.

Jumping and running performances

Research shows that the manipulation of SSG variables, such as the size of the court and the number of players, can have an adaptive effect on the player’s physical fitness [1, 9]. For example, the number of sprints and running speed may vary in different small sided training formats [12] and promote different physical adaptations [13]. In other sports such as futsal, reducing the number of players may increase the frequency of technical actions such as the number of ball contacts and dribbles [34]. In the present investigation, 2x2, 3x3 and 4x4 formats were used over time, which may represent an efficient strategy to promote technical proficiency resultant from a higher number of ball contacts and increased defensive pressure from the opponents performing vertical jump shots, stride jump shots and various ball feints. Increasing the frequency of these short-term high intensity actions may be an important and time efficient strategy to reproduce match demands, combining technical, tactical and physiological workloads of the game [5]. Thus, using a concurrent approach, combining game-based drills with complementary strength training may optimize players’ power development [35] required for game activities [36]. Previous studies also highlighted that the power output of the leg extensor muscles, absolute jumping power and sprint running are important neuromuscular performance characteristics for successful participation in elite levels of handball [10].

Previous research has identified differences in intensity by manipulating pitch size and keeping the number of player constant, claiming that the larger area per player elicited higher values in covered TD, RPE and heart rate [22]. It was also found that changing the number of players while holding the area per player constant do not seem to significantly affect the internal physical load parameters, however activity profile during the games differed [37]. In our study, 20x10m and 20x20m SSG formats were for 2vs2, and 4vs4, which promoted decreased area per player when compared to simulated match. Additionally, 3x3 format were played under the same field area as SMHT. Thus, physical fitness changes may occur through the manipulation of the number of players and relative area of the pitch in SSG, increasing the number of active actions and improving explosive muscular in key handball capacities such as running and jumping.

Conversely, physical fitness analysis revealed that SSG increased jumping ability and sprint speed. In fact, previous works shown that SSG’s without goalkeepers increase the intensity, in opposition in formats where goalkeepers are used where external load demands decrease [18]. Thus, the present results seems to be in line with previous reports, which have shown that the exclusion of goalkeepers in SSG’s led to an increase of high-intensity actions such as percentage of time spent at high running speeds, and number of high-intensity sprints and eventually number of jumps, suggesting an attempt to adjust their positioning according to the distance of attackers to the target, aiming to decrease shooting opportunities [38].

High intensity intermittent performance

The analysis of YYIRTL1 results showed that SMHT training increased the covered distance to a greater extent when compared to SSG intervention. This suggests that the predominant physical activity during the simulated handball game training is an intermittent high-intensity aerobic activity which may have had a specific adaptive effect on the players YYIRTL1 performance. In fact, it was already reported a strong relationship between YYIRTL1 and players’ total game distance covered in young handball players, which seems to be linked to an increased ability to perform intermittent high intensity exercise for prolonged periods [39]. Concomitantly, the increase in absolute distance in the Yo-yo test in SMHT can be explained by the game principles that regulate offensive and defensive organization during formal game. While in SSG’s players need to move to create opportunities to pass the ball, during SMHT players develop their action respecting the roles of specific positions, often developing activities without ball possession [7].

The profiles of game activity during handball games are determined by the complex interactions between players with and without the ball. A number of studies have been conducted to assess player workload during the games [5, 8, 13, 32]. SMHT in the regular handball pitch tend to decrease the number of active technical actions and some players may have limited roles in the game [8]. Since the players are likely to have less involvement with the ball in this format, they are required to spend time by taking less active action in offensive and defensive actions. However, the study showed that handball players are required to work active ‘‘off the ball” in high-intensity aerobic activities. Previous studies confirm that in the amount of absolute pitch space available, physical work may require players to complete an increased number of sustained runs at a variable speed [5].

Practical applications

Coaches should be aware that game-based interventions may induce a wide range of physical adaptations. Thus, SSG should be privileged to improve short-term high intensity actions such as running and jumping performances. Additionally, simulated match training appears to be an efficient tool to improve players’ overall aerobic performance. As all these outcomes are relevant to handball players physical performance, both strategies may be used according to the specific demands of in-season fixture, technical or tactical aims of the team and players’ individual response throughout the annual training cycle.

Conclusion

The results of this study show that both game-based strategies are efficient for improving handball players’ physical performance during in-season. SSG were shown to have an important effect on running and jumping performances, which represents a viable strategy to combine physical, technical and tactical variables within the training units. On the other hand, SMHT may improve players’ aerobic performance, which may also be considered as an interesting tool for non-starting players or players with lower match time within the team.

Limitations

Limitation of such studies are eligible matches and psychological factors that raise the possibility that an individual athlete’s individual playing style may influence player load.

On the other hand, our applied research design, and level of the players may limit the opportunity to make broader generalizations from our results to other populations. We assume that present study design could have been more powerful with a greater sample.

Inclusivity in global research.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

15 Mar 2022

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nuno Miguel Correia Leite, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

[NO-The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.]

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:

[NO authors have competing interests].

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

6. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

7. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

8.  We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

- https://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Fulltext/2006/02000/Effects_of_an_Entire_Season_on_Physical_Fitness.24.aspx

- https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Fulltext/2015/03000/Improving_Fitness_of_Elite_Handball_Players_.36.aspx

- https://ejournals.vdu.lt/index.php/Pedagogika/article/view/1883

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: First of all, I would like to thank the authors for their work in a field that is still unexplored in handball: SSGs. With it, a range of possibilities could be opened up in terms of training methodology in relation to the physical demands and performance in this sport. It is a necessary study for the advancement of knowledge in this area.

However, I attach a document with comments and suggestions that, from my perspective, are necessary to improve the quality of this study.

Reviewer #2: Effects of small-sided games vs. simulated match training on physical performance of youth female handball players

General comments to the authors

Overall, this is a nice study that has some potential practical applications integrated with female soccer players during small-sided games in handball. The authors are commended on their efforts thus far. The study is well designed and well-written, with a great introduction proposing the usefulness of the topic and a clear outline of the research question. However, I suggest only small corrections and the authors should update the recent references about small-sided games. These corrections and studies will allow improving the manuscript.

Abstract

Instead of The results showed larger improvements in drop jump (cm)

(p=0.001, ηp2=0,219), jump power (w) (p=0.024, ηp2=0,232), absolute and relative

anaerobic alactic power (W and W•kg -1 ) (p=0.003, ηp2=0,248 and p=0.000,

ηp2=0,358 respectively) and 10 m sprint performance (p=0.000) in SSG group. SMHT

group improved Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test Level 1 distance (p=0.0001,

ηp2=0,368) to a greater extent

you should use this sentence clear and shortly

The results showed larger improvements in drop jump height, jump power, absolute and relative anaerobic alactic power and 10 m sprint performances following the SSG training compared with the SMHT (p ≤ 0.05, ηp2=ranging from 0.219 to 0.368).

Instead of drop jump (cm), you should use drop jump height.

Similarly performance responses, Game performance characteristics should be written.

Introduction section

Page 3, Line 48: The authors should add recent references about small-sided games

Arslan, E., Kilit, B., Clemente, F. M., Soylu, Y., Sögüt, M., Badicu, G., ... & Murawska-Ciałowicz, E. (2021). The Effects of Exercise Order on the Psychophysiological Responses, Physical and Technical Performances of Young Soccer Players: Combined Small-Sided Games and High-Intensity Interval Training. Biology, 10(11), 1180.

Page 3, Line 50: The authors should add recent references about small-sided games

Arslan, E.; Kilit, B.; Clemente, F.M.; Murawska-Ciałowicz, E.; Soylu, Y.; Sogut, M.; Akca, F.; Gokkaya, M.; Silva, A.F. Effects of Small-Sided Games Training versus High-Intensity Interval Training Approaches in Young Basketball Players. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 2931. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052931

Page 3 and 4: The authors should add recent references about small-sided games in handball and also discussion section

Jurišić, M. V., Jakšić, D., Trajković, N., Rakonjac, D., Peulić, J., & Obradović, J. (2021). Effects of small-sided games and high-intensity interval training on physical performance in young female handball players. Biology of Sport, 38(3), 359.

Methodology

Page 5, Line 117: it should be (e.g., technical, tactical and strength)

Page 6, Line 119: it should be within each group (SSGs and SMHT), players were divided into

Page 6, Line 125: it should be (19–22 °C)

Protocols

Page 6, Line 135: which one is the your style you have to make a decision

10-min or 33 min. Please be careful throughtout the article

Page 6, Line 137: Instead of small-sided games, it should be SSG

Page 7, Line 146: Instead of rate of perceived exertion, it should be rating of perceived exertion

SMHT

Page 7, Line 157: Instead of to indicate their rate of perceived exertion (RPE), it should be to indicate their RPE

Fitness identification

Page 7, Line 164: you do not need (W)

Page 9, Line 200: Margaria-Kalamen AAP Test ??? what are they AAP???

Results section

This section is well designed and well-written

Discussion section

This section is well designed and well-written. However, the authors should add limitations and strengths of their article.

Tables

This section is well designed and well-shown

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: Review.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

Submitted filename: General comments.docx

Click here for additional data file.

2 Apr 2022

Dear editor and reviewers

Thank you very much for the opportunity to re-submit the manuscript, as well as for all the valuable and helpful comments and suggestions. We do believe that the paper has significantly improved after this revision. We have modified the manuscript according to all comments and suggestions raised by the reviewers. The answers are presented in RED through manuscript and in GREEN in the review file.

Reviewer 1

Specific and general comments (by section) ABSTRACT

• Set the eta square symbol appropriately

• Thank you for the feedback. Changed accordingly.

• Remove units of measurement from results

• Thank you for the feedback. Changed accordingly.

• Delete the subjective consideration ‘a greater extent’ from results

• Thank you for the feedback. Changed accordingly.

INTRODUCTION

• The introduction presents interesting content about small-sided games, such as the objectives pursued with their implementation, the results associated with handball or the advantages of their use. However, in the first paragraph, it would be useful to briefly introduce the concept itself. That is, what are the SSGs and what are their main characteristics. This first paragraph, as a whole, seems to me to be quite adequate. However, I would split it in two (line 55) to talk, in its second part (new paragraph 2), about the comparison between SSG and SMHT. Previously, in paragraph 1, the concept of SMHT should be introduced and developed as it has been done with SSGs.

• Thank you for the feedback. The section was reworded.

• In relation to the previous point, the published scientific evidence on SSG and SMHT in handball should be incorporated in a third paragraph and, therefore, develop the idea already expressed in lines 80-86. Thus, it would be possible to check, for example, how the SSG would evaluate changes in physical performance in conditions without competitive anxiety or, on the contrary, whether or not the SMHT are effective on the physical performance of male and female handball players. Therefore, developing the link between SSG and physical performance in handball (HR, external load, etc.).

• Thank you for the feedback. The section was reworded. Also, the reference to competitive anxiety was removed. Although we recognize its importance in sports performance, the rationale of the study does not explore this issue.

• With regard to the relationship between SSG - SMHT and game activity profile (2nd part of the ‘Introduction’ section), the information on the inclusion of LPS systems and their differentiation from GPS seems to me to be timely. However, I do not fully appreciate the relationship between what can be measured by this technology, the SSG/SMHT and the game activity profile. The question that any reader could ask would be: do SSGs, based on the information extracted from LPS systems, really enhance specific game activity profiles? It would therefore be necessary to link the last two aspects with the SSGs.

• Thank you for the feedback. The information was added.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Sample:

• Please add the average handball experience of the players (important to contextualise the effects of SSGs) and whether the players had previous contact with this type of training.

• Thank you for the feedback. The information was added.

• Please justify the exclusion criteria for goalkeepers (line 95). And add the number of them.

• Thank you for the feedback. The information was added.

• Could the authors define accurately the elite level of the players: national team, youth league (U-18) or other? And if they are part of a talent detection and development programme, please could be specified it?

• Thank you for the feedback. The information was added.

Study design:

• In terms of study design and participants, were the two randomised groups performed in both teams? That is, was there a control group (SMTH) and an experimental group (SSG) in both team 1 and team 2, or, conversely, were all players in one team a control group and those in the other team an experimental group? This aspect seems to become clearer with the implementation of the pre- test and post-test (lines 118-120), but specify it for the whole intervention. And, the groups were counterbalanced besides randomized?

• Thank you for the feedback. We understand and recognize the pertinence of your question. However, due to training organization constraints (i.e. technical staff training model) the establishment of control groups was not possible. As you may understand, the intervention of researchers is somehow limited when data is collected in real world training scenarios. The information about teams’ balance was added.

• Furthermore, in order to make your research more rigorous, please add the following reference to support the duration of the training programme and the frequency of sessions per week.

- Hammami, A., Gabbett, T. J., Slimani, M., & Bouhlel, E. (2018). Does small-sided

games training improve physical-fitness and specific skills for team sports? A systematic review with meta-analysis. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 58(10), 1446-1455.

• Thank you for the feedback. The reference was added.

Methodology (I would call this section ‘Procedures’ and I would include all the sub- sections (training protocols, schedule, fitness test, etc.)

• Thank you for the feedback. Changed accordingly.

• Protocols – SSG. Reference no. 4 (line 138) concerning the size of the pitch should be deleted or replaced by another reference concerning handball. In the study by Hill-Hass (2009), which deals with football, it has little or nothing to do with the handball field dimensions.

• Thank you for the feedback. Changed accordingly.

• Protocols – SSG. Please define the dimensions of the goal area in the SSGs. It is important in relation to the distance to be covered by the players.

• Thank you for the feedback. The information was added.

• Protocols – SSG. The following comment is a personal doubt as a handball player, coach and teacher: Do the authors think that the introduction of mini-goals without goalkeeper is a more effective modification in a SSG than playing with goalkeeper in an official goal (3mx2m)?

• Thank you for your question. We do understand the rationale of your question and we strongly believe that manipulating such constraints would have an important impact on the players’ behavior. However, current research in handball only allows us to speculate. Due to the particular characteristics of handball, we think that removing GK from the equation would have a greater impact on players’ performance (even on their motivation) than playing with GK.

• Protocols. Could the authors explain or justify active rest in SSGs and yet passive recovery in SMHTs?

• Thank you for the feedback. Actually, this is a mistake Rest between SSGs was passive. The information was corrected in the manuscript.

• Protocols. SMTH. Were the players chosen by the coach in the SSGs, as was the case in the SMTHs? If this action was carried out with the aim of equalising the technical-tactical level of the team-groups, it should also have been carried out in the SSGs.

• Thank you for the feedback. The information was added.

• Fitness tests. For physical assessments, the inter-test coefficient of variation (CV) and an intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) should be provided as informative indices of inter-test variability and consistency of observers' measurements, respectively. The authors provide it in all tests except YYIRTL1 and SJ. Please provide them in these tests as well.

• Thank you for the feedback. However, SJ was not used to assess jumping performance. Results section was updated.

• Fitness tests. For the measurement of jumping ability, why was the DJ used instead of the CMJ or unilateral CMJ?

• Thank you for your question. We do recognize the relevance of CMJ as a useful index of the muscular ability to generate force. However, the rationale for selecting DJ was related to the importance of reactive strength in handball, as players are frequently required to perform jumping actions with short ground contact times.

RESULTS

• In the footnotes to the tables, make sure that you only add the abbreviations in order of appearance (left-right and top-bottom). The footnote to Table 4 is not complete. Do not include redundant information such as 'The value expressed as mean and standard deviation (SD) in both game-based training (SSG) and (SMHT) groups', but insert the abbreviation (X ± SD) in the table itself.

• Thank you for the feedback. Changed accordingly.

• Lines 254-256 can be summarised as 'No statistically significant differences were found in any component of the load'.

• Thank you for the feedback. The sentence was reworded.

• Provide a suitable format of Table 4

• Thank you for the feedback. Changed accordingly.

DISCUSSION

• According to the objective of the study connected to the game activity profile, it would be appropriate to add in the first paragraph - summary of the ‘Discussion’ section the following sentence: ‘the game motion characteristics were not influenced by either SSG or SMHT, except for those associated with sprinting at speeds above 5.21 m·s-1).”

• Thank you for the feedback. The sentence was added.

• Throughout the manuscript, but especially in the ‘Discussion’ section, the statement relating the number of players and factors associated with internal load, such as RPE and HR (lines 280-282), raises my doubts. Firstly, because the results provided in Table 1 are merely descriptive (X ± SD) and have not been statistically analysed. And secondly, because only considering this descriptive information, for example, the HR decreased when the number of players per team was reduced from 4 to 3, contrary to this statement. However, the biggest drawback is the one discussed in point 1 of this comment. On the other hand, the total distance covered has not been analysed in terms of the type of small-sided game but in the comparison between SSGs and SMHTs. The distance is likely to be greater the fewer players there are, but it needs to be demonstrated.

Therefore, the case of Belka et al. (2009) is not the case in this study.

• Thank you for the feedback. We do understand and agree with the reviewer perspective. As so, the sentence/ref was removed.

• On the other hand, the total distance covered in the YYRTL1 test is analysed, being greater after the SMTH protocol than after the SSG protocol (Table 2). However, this difference in physical performance does not translate to the game activity profile as there is no difference (p = 0.443) between the total distance recorded in the SMHT and the SSG. And that should be the main aspect to discuss with regard to aerobic capacity in handball. That is, why is there a difference in the tests but not in the training? The idea of lines 310-313, more elaborated by comparing the previous results, would be the right one to develop this explanation.

• Thank you for the feedback. The idea underlined on lines 310-313 was updated a new reference was added.

GENERAL COMMENT:

In this section it is not sufficiently clear why the following results have been obtained: (1) SSG enhance jumping ability and sprint speed; (2) SMHT favour the development of aerobic capacity (CAUTION, in test not in relation to game activity profile). For example, on the SSG point, in addition to reducing the number of players and the size of the pitch, it would not be possible to investigate the application of adapted rules (e.g. inclusion or not of the goalkeeper - Table 1) or the disappearance of playing positions? It is another matter whether the corresponding justifications for all this, which indeed focus on the aspect of physical and conditional demands, are well justified (e.g. ‘These short-term high intensity actions may impose higher physiological loads and also allow stimuli for muscle power development’ lines 287-288). Furthermore, in the subheadings of the 'Discussion' section, in my opinion, I would not refer to the possible explanations, but rather to the main results: increased jumping power, increased speed and increased alactic anaerobic power. Therefore, a possible structure of this section would be, results→explanations related to handball→ justification with data extracted from the present study. Consider this study to improve this section:

- Clemente, F. M., Afonso, J., & Sarmento, H. (2021). Small-sided games: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. PLoS One, 16(2), e0247067.

• Thank you for your suggestions. The discussion section was reformulated. Also, two main subheadings were considered in the new structure: jumping/running performances and high intensity intermittent performance.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

• The practical applications are general conclusions of the study, but not a list of specific practical actions that coaches or physical trainers can implement in handball training. Practically, it is the same content as in paragraph 1 of the ‘Discussion’ section.

• Thank you for your feedback. This section was reworded.

CONCLUSIONS

• The conclusion is a replication of the first paragraph of the ‘Discussion’ and ‘Practical Applications’ sections. This part of the manuscript should add value to the results found.

• Thank you for your feedback. This section was reworded.

REFERENCES

• Please check the format of the scientific journals in the ‘References’ section. You may not use abbreviations for some journals (i.e.: J Strength Cond Res.) and the full name for others (i.e.: European journal of sport science.).

• Thank you for the feedback. Changed accordingly.

MINNOR COMENTS

• Line 119. Delete ‘to’

• Thank you for the feedback. Changed accordingly.

• Line 125. Add the symbol ‘oC’

• Thank you for the feedback. Changed accordingly.

• Line 141. Delete ‘court size’

• Thank you for the feedback. Changed accordingly.

• Furthermore, check especially for any missing or incorrect spelling, capitalisation,

etc.

• Thank you for the feedback. Changed accordingly.

Reviewer 2

General comments to the authors

Overall, this is a nice study that has some potential practical applications integrated with female soccer players during small-sided games in handball. The authors are commended on their efforts thus far. The study is well designed and well-written, with a great introduction proposing the usefulness of the topic and a clear outline of the research question. However, I suggest only small corrections and the authors should update the recent references about small-sided games. These corrections and studies will allow improving the manuscript.

• Thank you for the feedback.

Abstract

Instead of The results showed larger improvements in drop jump (cm) (p=0.001, ηp2=0,219), jump power (w) (p=0.024, ηp2=0,232), absolute and relative anaerobic alactic power (W and W·kg -1 ) (p=0.003, ηp2=0,248 and p=0.000,ηp2=0,358 respectively) and 10 m sprint performance (p=0.000) in SSG group. SMHT group improved Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test Level 1 distance (p=0.0001,ηp2=0,368) to a greater extent

you should use this sentence clear and shortly

The results showed larger improvements in drop jump height, jump power, absolute and relative anaerobic alactic power and 10 m sprint performances following the SSG training compared with the SMHT (p ≤ 0.05, ηp2=ranging from 0.219 to 0.368).

• Thank you for the feedback. Changed accordingly.

Instead of drop jump (cm), you should use drop jump height.

• Thank you for the feedback. Changed accordingly.

Similarly performance responses, Game performance characteristics should be written.

• Thank you for the feedback. Changed accordingly.

Introduction section

Page 3, Line 48: The authors should add recent references about small-sided games

Arslan, E., Kilit, B., Clemente, F. M., Soylu, Y., Sögüt, M., Badicu, G., ... & Murawska-Ciałowicz, E. (2021). The Effects of Exercise Order on the Psychophysiological Responses, Physical and Technical Performances of Young Soccer Players: Combined Small-Sided Games and High-Intensity Interval Training. Biology, 10(11), 1180.

• Thank you for the feedback. The reference was added.

Page 3, Line 50: The authors should add recent references about small-sided games

Arslan, E.; Kilit, B.; Clemente, F.M.; Murawska-Ciałowicz, E.; Soylu, Y.; Sogut, M.; Akca, F.; Gokkaya, M.; Silva, A.F. Effects of Small-Sided Games Training versus High-Intensity Interval Training Approaches in Young Basketball Players. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 2931. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052931

• Thank you for the feedback. The reference was added.

Page 3 and 4: The authors should add recent references about small-sided games in handball and also discussion section

Jurišić, M. V., Jakšić, D., Trajković, N., Rakonjac, D., Peulić, J., & Obradović, J. (2021). Effects of small-sided games and high-intensity interval training on physical performance in young female handball players. Biology of Sport, 38(3), 359.

• Thank you for the feedback. The reference was added.

Methodology

Page 5, Line 117: it should be (e.g., technical, tactical and strength)

• Thank you for the feedback. Changed accordingly.

Page 6, Line 119: it should be within each group (SSGs and SMHT), players were divided into

• Thank you for the feedback. Changed accordingly.

Page 6, Line 125: it should be (19–22 °C)

• Thank you for the feedback. Changed accordingly.

Protocols

Page 6, Line 135: which one is the your style you have to make a decision 10-min or 33 min. Please be careful throughtout the article

• Thank you for the feedback. Changed accordingly.

Page 6, Line 137: Instead of small-sided games, it should be SSG

• Thank you for the feedback. Changed accordingly.

Page 7, Line 146: Instead of rate of perceived exertion, it should be rating of perceived exertion

• Thank you for the feedback. Changed accordingly.

SMHT

Page 7, Line 157: Instead of to indicate their rate of perceived exertion (RPE), it should be to indicate their RPE

• Thank you for the feedback. Changed accordingly.

Fitness identification

Page 7, Line 164: you do not need (W)

• Thank you for the feedback. Changed accordingly.

Page 9, Line 200: Margaria-Kalamen AAP Test ??? what are they AAP???

• Thank you for the feedback. Changed accordingly.

Results section

This section is well designed and well-written

• Thank you for the feedback.

Discussion section

This section is well designed and well-written. However, the authors should add limitations and strengths of their article.

• Thank you for the feedback. The section was added.

Tables

This section is well designed and well-shown

• Thank you for the feedback. Changed accordingly.

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

27 Jun 2022

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Joseph Donlan

Editorial Office

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I am grateful to the authors for their efforts in making the suggested corrections and changes. However, there are still some issues that need to be clarified/clarified before accepting the manuscript. In the attached file you can find each of them. Please reference the changes noticeably in the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: Overall, this is a nice study that has some potential practical applications integrated with female soccer players during small-sided games in handball. The authors are commended on their efforts thus far. Acceted

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: Review 2.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

5 Jul 2022

Dear editor and reviewers

Thank you very much for the opportunity to re-submit the manuscript, as well as for all the valuable and helpful comments and suggestions. We do believe that the paper has significantly improved after this revision. We have modified the manuscript according to all comments and suggestions raised by the reviewers. The answers are presented in RED through manuscript and in GREEN in the review file.

INTRODUCTION

• In relation to the previous point, the published scientific evidence on SSG and SMHT in handball should be incorporated in a third paragraph and, therefore, develop the idea already expressed in lines 80-86. Thus, it would be possible to check, for example, how the SSG would evaluate changes in physical performance in conditions without competitive anxiety or, on the contrary, whether or not the SMHT are effective on the physical performance of male and female handball players. Therefore, developing the link between SSG and physical performance in handball (HR, external load, etc.).

Reviewer#: Although the link to anxiety status has been removed, the most relevant scientific evidence in relation to SSGs has not been incorporated. As the authors state in lines 96-97, there are studies, albeit few, that develop the link between SSGs and physical performance (or other factors) in handball. For this reason, the ‘Introduction’ section cannot be considered complete until such information is included. Please add a paragraph to this effect.

• Thank you for the feedback. The paragraph was added. Line 92-97

• With regard to the relationship between SSG - SMHT and game activity profile (2nd part of the ‘Introduction’ section), the information on the inclusion of LPS systems and their differentiation from GPS seems to me to be timely. However, I do not fully appreciate the relationship between what can be measured by this technology, the SSG/SMHT and the game activity profile. The question that any reader could ask would be: do SSGs, based on the information extracted from LPS systems, really enhance specific game activity profiles? It would therefore be necessary to link the last two aspects with the SSGs.

Reviewer#: done. Add the reference in line 84.

• Thank you for the feedback. The reference was added. Line 80.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Sample:

• Please add the average handball experience of the players (important to contextualise the effects of SSGs) and whether the players had previous contact with this type of training.

Reviewer#: Information on the background of the players regarding their participation in this type of training (SSGs) has not been included. It is important to know if there was a selection bias in the study sample in relation to experience.

• Thank you for the feedback. The information was added. Line 111-113.

Study design:

• In terms of study design and participants, were the two randomised groups performed in both teams? That is, was there a control group (SMTH) and an experimental group (SSG) in both team 1 and team 2, or, conversely, were all players in one team a control group and those in the other team an experimental group? This aspect seems to become clearer with the implementation of the pre- test and post-test (lines 118-120), but specify it for the whole intervention. And, the groups were counterbalanced besides randomized?

Reviewer#: In my opinion, assigning each of the players to a group, control or experimental, should be a prior task that every researcher o technical staff member can perform. And even more so, with an affordable number of participants. If the authors have not defined this aspect, add the sample randomisation method for the formation of the experimental and control groups. On the other hand, I cannot find the information on the teams’ balance.

• Thank you for the feedback. The information was added in design section. Line 124-125

Procedures

• Protocols – SSG. Please define the dimensions of the goal area in the SSGs. It is important in relation to the distance to be covered by the players.

Reviewer#: The regulation dimensions of a handball area imply a length of approximately 16 metres from the end line. If, as the authors state, the dimensions of the area were maintained for the different game formats: (i) in the 3vs3 and 4vs4 format played on a 20x20m court the playing space was excessively reduced; (ii) and furthermore, in the 2vs2 format (20x10m) it was materially impossible to introduce a goal area of these dimensions.

• Thank you for the feedback. The information was added. Line160-161.

• Fitness tests. For physical assessments, the inter-test coefficient of variation (CV) and an intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) should be provided as informative indices of inter-test variability and consistency of observers' measurements, respectively. The authors provide it in all tests except YYIRTL1 and SJ. Please provide them in these tests as well.

Reviewer#: Both coefficients (CV and ICC), which are still not provided, should be included in the ‘Method’ section as the authors themselves do for the other fitness tests (e.g. lines 198-199 and 218-129).

• Thank you for the feedback. The information was added. Line188-190 and 210-212.

RESULTS

• Lines 254-256 can be summarised as 'No statistically significant differences were found in any component of the load'.

Reviewer#: Add ‘p > 0.05’ at the end of the sentence. Remember it is a ‘Result’ section

• Thank you for the feedback. Changed accordingly. Line 278

DISCUSSION – GENERAL COMMENT:

Reviewer#: I am unable to find the differences between the ‘Discussion’ section of the original submission and this one in the second. While the changes have been made to the subtitles, I am unable to identify the changes made (please highlight the changes in red or activate the tracked changes function in your document to detect them. Also, add in the ‘authors' response’ the lines in the new manuscript where these changes have been made. Do this for the whole document). So, I copy my concerns again: In this section it is not sufficiently clear why the following results have been obtained: (1) SSG enhance jumping ability and sprint speed; (2) SMHT favour the development of aerobic capacity (CAUTION, in test not in relation to game activity profile). For example, on the SSG point, in addition to reducing the number of players and the size of the pitch, it would not be possible to investigate the application of adapted rules (e.g. inclusion or not of the goalkeeper - Table 1) or the disappearance of playing positions? It is another matter whether the corresponding justifications for all this, which indeed focus on the aspect of physical and conditional demands, are well justified (e.g. ‘These short-term high intensity actions may impose higher physiological loads and also allow stimuli for muscle power development’ lines 287-288). Finally, I consider that the reference mentioned (Clemente et al. 2021) is more than timely to vertebrate this section.

• Thank you for the feedback. The information was added. Line 309-314, line 328-335, and line 345-349.

REFERENCES

• Modify the reference in line 350 according to journal style

• Thank you for the feedback. Changed accordingly. Line 359

MINNOR COMENTS

• If you want to use abbreviations in the ‘Conclusion’ section, please do so in all the terms included (line 367)

• Thank you for the feedback. Changed accordingly. Line 375.

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers_2.docx

Click here for additional data file.

11 Aug 2022

Effects of small-sided games vs. simulated match training on physical performance of youth female handball players

PONE-D-22-01222R2

Dear Dr. Figueira,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ersan Arslan, Ph.D.

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have made a great effort in editing the manuscript, improving it considerably, especially in the argumentation and justification of the results obtained.

In my opinion, the paper represents an advance in the knowledge that SSGs and SMHTs can provide at a physical level in the training/performance process in women's handball. I encourage the authors to progress in this direction.

My sincere congratulations

Reviewer #2: The reviewer would like to thank the authors for their work and efforts in trying to improve sports science knowledge

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Submitted filename: Review 3.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

31 Aug 2022

PONE-D-22-01222R2

Effects of small-sided games vs. simulated match training on physical performance of youth female handball players

Dear Dr. Figueira:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ersan Arslan

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE