Age and Stage Approach to Training Area Sizes in Youth Football Using RPA

Author: Graham Mills, FA Professional Game Youth Coach Developer
In youth football, the dimensions of training areas significantly influence the outcomes of practice sessions (Silva et al., 2014; Clemente et al., 2023). Even relatively small shifts in pitch dimensions can significantly alter the learning experiences of players.
Despite this, many coaches determine area sizes based on intuition rather than systematic analysis, leading to inconsistent and often suboptimal training environments (Collins et al., 2016). This article aims to address a critical gap in coaching practice: the reliance on intuitive judgment when determining pitch sizes, which often results in training areas that do not align with the intended session outcomes.
It proposes an age and stage-appropriate adaptation of Relative Pitch Area (RPA), a method well-researched in adult football but less explored in youth contexts (e.g. Clemente et al., 2012; Castellano 2014; Sarmento et al., 2018).
By systematically applying RPA, coaches can thoughtfully and intentionally design the training environment to address the technical, tactical, physical, and psychological developmental needs of young players more effectively, ensuring that training sessions are deliberate and purposeful.
Area size as a key constraint in youth football: A systematic approach to practice design
The theoretical basis for a constraints-led approach has been widely investigated as a prominent methodology over the last decade (Ramos et al., 2020), and coaches often organise and manipulate task constraints simply by modifying the rules of the game or activity (e.g., limiting the number of allowed touches, stipulating a certain number of passes before the team can advance, designating players to specific zones, or insisting that the ball must progress through zones sequentially, etc.).
Coaches frequently invest substantial time in designing such task constraints, carefully accounting for the physical, mental, and technical-tactical demands. However, in some instances, this approach may result in over-constraining practices, diminishing their realism, relevance, and ability to represent the multidimensional nature of the game.
TAKE THE METHODOLOGY COURSE
Therefore, it is essential that constraints are manipulated systematically and with clear principles to avoid ‘over-constraining’ (Renshaw & Chow, 2018). Furthermore, rather than functioning as constraints in the true sense, these modifications often act more as conditions – explicit, deliberate, or conscious requirements under which a skill must be performed. In contrast, constraints tend to be more implicit, emergent, or unconscious factors (relating to the task, environment, or individual) that shape performance outcomes through self-organisation.
Self-organisation refers to the process by which players naturally adapt their behaviours and decisions in response to these constraints, without direct external control or guidance.
Therefore, while these conditions can be valuable, it’s essential to differentiate them from the inherent, more subtle constraints that better capture the complexity of the game environment.
A useful tool to ensure coaches are designing optimal practices to challenge and support players effectively is the 5 Rs framework (Bartlett, 2014): Restrict, Reward, Relate, Role, and Rival.
This framework encourages coaches to think beyond simply restricting actions by considering a range of factors that influence player development.
The 5 Rs Framework
- 1. Restrict involves limiting player actions or decisions, such as by controlling touches or areas of the field. For example, players may be limited to two touches or restricted to certain zones. While this increases repetition, it can reduce decision-making opportunities, as players might follow constraints without engaging in cognitive processing (e.g., knowing when to dribble versus pass).
- 2. Reward refers to reinforcing desired behaviours by offering incentives. For instance, scoring a goal from a cross might count as three points. This approach strikes a balance between repetition and freedom, increasing the likelihood of specific behaviours without imposing rigid constraints on how players should behave.
- 3. Relate focuses on connecting practice tasks to game scenarios. Players are challenged to recognise when to take certain actions, such as using one touch in tight spaces or several touches in open play. This enhances decision-making and game awareness but may reduce the frequency of repetitions due to the less structured nature of the task.
- 4. Role highlights assigning specific responsibilities to players, allowing them to focus on positional or tactical duties. This ensures that players develop an understanding of their unique demands within the team, sharpening their tactical discipline and execution.
- 5. Rival introduces competition, fostering intensity and individual accountability. Pairing players as rivals, or assigning sparring partners within a session, drives competitiveness and individualisation. These elements can simulate in-game pressure, enhancing the realism and the outcomes each player experiences.
Coaches often restrict player behaviour by constraining practices; however, employing a broader array of methods to “constrain to afford” can be more effective (Renshaw et al., 2019). This approach involves designing practices that encourage and reward specific task-oriented behaviours, fostering purposeful and productive player development.
“What gets rewarded gets repeated” (Bartlett, 2024, p.130). By integrating the full spectrum of the 5 Rs at the right time, for the right practice, and the right players, coaches can create more holistic, balanced, and effective training environments.
This strategy aims to promote self-organisation, where players adapt their actions and decisions in response to dynamic, game-like conditions. This approach encourages players to independently solve problems by interacting with the environment, without relying on direct instruction.
In sports coaching, the dimensions of the practice area are crucial, yet they are often overlooked and undervalued, treated as an afterthought rather than a foundational aspect of effective training (Kirk & Macdonald, 2001).
Despite their importance, many coaches determine area size based on a subjective assessment or intuitive reasoning, visualising what the area should look like and leaning on familiar tendencies or being guided by pre-existing biases rather than empirical evidence. This approach can result in several issues that hinder player development and create suboptimal training conditions, including inappropriate physical adaptations, poor periodisation planning, training monotony, and a lack of tactical realism.
Research suggests that relying on non-empirical methods can limit the effectiveness of training by neglecting individualised player needs, leading to inefficient progression and increased risk of injury (Impellizzeri et al., 2019).
Furthermore, improper periodisation, driven by subjective preferences rather than structured models, has been shown to cause physical stagnation and mental fatigue (Turner et al., 2017). Bartlett (2014) refers to pitch and parameters, which include both the shape (e.g., rectangular, square, circular) and size (e.g., large, small, narrow, or wide) of the playing area, along with the markings that guide or limit player movements.
These factors directly impact player distribution and dictate how players utilise, adapt to, and behave within the space they are afforded (Davids et al., 2005). While constraints are often applied in other forms, the constraint of area size is frequently overlooked (Grehaigne, 2001).
Yet, it plays a pivotal role in shaping the training environment, influencing player behaviour, and ultimately determining the effectiveness of practice sessions. Neglecting to appropriately scale elements of the training environment, including area size, to align with players’ individual competencies, developmental stages, and specific task demands can present significant challenges (Araújo & Davids, 2015).
When area size is not carefully considered, players may be denied the opportunity to explore meaningful solutions and solve problems within the training environment. This misalignment not only results in suboptimal training conditions but can also inhibit player development by limiting the range and complexity of the challenges they experience.
Although there is substantial research on the effects of pitch size in small-sided games (e.g., Clemente et al., 2023), the application of these findings to training sessions remains underexplored.
Thus, addressing this gap in the literature is not just beneficial but essential for understanding how varying pitch sizes specifically impact training practices and player development in youth football. For example, training areas that are too small can lead to:
- Limited high-speed running and sprinting, crucial for match conditioning:
Training areas that are too small can restrict opportunities for high-speed running and sprinting, which are vital for match conditioning. The reduced space limits players’ ability to perform these high-intensity actions, potentially impacting their speed and endurance during actual matches (Hancock & Tindall, 2022).
- Increased intensive actions accelerating mental and physical fatigue:
Smaller areas can lead to a higher frequency of intensive actions, which can accelerate both mental and physical fatigue. This increased demand can diminish the quality of decision-making and cognitive performance, as players may become more fatigued and less effective in their actions (Smith et al., 2018).
- Increased likelihood of collisions and physical contact injuries due to overcrowding:
In training areas that are too small, the higher player density can increase the likelihood of collisions and physical contact injuries. Overcrowding can lead to more frequent and potentially dangerous interactions between players, raising the risk of injury (Gabbett et al., 2016).
- Limited tactical development, spatial awareness, and positioning skills:
Training areas that are too small can reduce tactical complexity, limiting the development of spatial awareness and positioning skills needed to adapt to larger game situations. The restricted space may not provide the necessary conditions for players to practice and refine these skills effectively (Larsen et al., 2011).
- Imbalanced success for attacking and defensive teams:
Training areas that are too small can create imbalances between attacking and defensive teams. For example, an overly narrow space can restrict attacking opportunities and fail to present realistic defensive challenges. This can result in unrealistic practice scenarios that undermine the effectiveness of both attacking and defensive strategies, reducing the overall quality and applicability of the training (Konefał et al., 2018).
Whilst training areas that are too large can lead to:
- Reduced individual actions, impacting engagement and technical skill development:
Overly large training areas can limit opportunities for individual actions as players are spread out, which can decrease engagement and hinder technical skill development. Evidence shows that expansive spaces reduce the frequency of ball contacts and individual interactions, which are crucial for skill refinement (Hoff et al., 2002).
- Increased extensive actions, heightening the risk of injuries and overexertion:
Overly large spaces require players to cover more ground, which increases the risk of overexertion and injuries. Research indicates that players face higher rates of musculoskeletal injuries and greater overall fatigue when performing extensive actions in large areas (Gabbett et al., 2016).
- Reduced team cohesion, communication, and coordination:
In overly large training areas, maintaining effective team cohesion, communication, and coordination becomes challenging. This can negatively impact team dynamics and tactical execution. Studies have highlighted that larger spaces can disrupt team structure and reduce the effectiveness of coordinated movements (Larsen et al., 2011).
- Reduced overall intensity due to expansive spaces:
As players cover more ground in overly large areas, maintaining high-intensity efforts becomes increasingly difficult. This can lead to earlier onset of physical fatigue and a reduction in sprinting frequency and high-speed distances covered (Buchheit & Simpson, 2017). Additionally, increased physical exertion is associated with diminished cognitive performance, including slower decision-making and decreased accuracy (Smith et al., 2018).
- Imbalanced success for attacking and defensive teams:
Imbalances between attacking and defensive teams can occur when training areas are overly large. For instance, when the pitch is too expansive, defensive coverage may become too stretched, allowing the attacking team to exploit space and penetrate more easily.
This can undermine the effectiveness of defensive strategies and tactics, diminishing the realism of the scenario and failing to provide an appropriate challenge for both teams (Konefał et al., 2018).
Of course, when integrated into a well-structured, periodised training plan, both small and large training areas can offer valuable benefits. For example;
1. Recovery phase (GD+2)
Small to medium area sizes with a lower work-to-rest ratio have the potential to facilitate active recovery without placing significant physical stress on players as they are still fatigued and at greater risk of injury 48-72 hours post-match.
This will also enable reasonably frequent, individual actions in a relatively controlled environment, maintaining some level of technical and tactical engagement but with minimised physical strain. In one club context, it was observed through GPS data that futsal sessions incorporating regular rotations on the court served as an effective GD+2 recovery session.
This approach facilitated a beneficial aerobic flush, helping to manage exertion levels and support optimal recovery.
2. Extensive load phase (GD+/-3)
Large playing areas replicate match conditions, allowing players to practice tactical scenarios and enhance game-specific fitness by covering greater distances and engaging in realistic, high-intensity efforts.
3. Tactical preparation phase (GD-1)
Medium-sized areas provide a balanced environment, allowing players to practice specific scenarios and tactical elements without causing excessive fatigue. This aligns with “tapering” principles, where training intensity is reduced to optimise performance while still maintaining tactical refinement. This aims to ensure that players are well-prepared and in optimal physical and mental condition for the upcoming game.
*GD = game day.
Table 1 provides an illustration of how varying pitch sizes can be strategically integrated into a periodised weekly training schedule to address specific training objectives.
It is crucial for coaches to effectively leverage the benefits of different training area sizes while being clear about the intended outcomes.
A systematic approach to incorporating various training area sizes will help mitigate challenges and maximise advantages, enhancing individual player and overall team development (Gabbett, 2008). This approach promotes strategic flexibility, enabling intentional practice designs to achieve a range of outcomes (Davids et al., 2005).
TAKE THE METHODOLOGY COURSE
Understanding the returns of specific area sizes and the trade-offs involved aids in standardisation and consistency, allowing players to train under conditions that closely replicate match scenarios, thereby facilitating the transfer of learning (Schempp & Tenenbaum, 2005).
Using precise area measurements and a systematic approach, rather than guesswork, enables coaches to design practices that ensure greater training effectiveness and alignment with developmental goals (Buchheit & Laursen, 2013). This is particularly important in youth coaching, where development and potential take priority over performance (Côté et al., 2009).
Relative Pitch Area (RPA) approach
Relative Pitch Area (RPA) is a concept that adjusts the size of the playing area and the amount of space allocated per player during training sessions or matches. It is calculated by dividing the total playing area by the number of players on the pitch. This metric is crucial in designing training sessions that mimic the holistic demands of actual game scenarios.
However, the majority of research on RPA focuses on senior or post-adolescent football, providing guidelines for small and large-area training based on adult players’ physiological and developmental characteristics (Olthof et al., 2018).
Existing research typically suggests that small areas are ≤150m² per player, whilst large areas are around 320m² per player. While these area sizes may be suitable for post-adolescent players nearing full maturity, they cannot be directly replicated for younger players at earlier stages of development.
This systematic approach must therefore be adapted and tailored to meet the specific needs of youth players at various ages and stages of development.
The impact of RPA extends beyond outfield players to include goalkeepers as well, with significant implications for their training and performance. For goalkeepers, the size of the playing area influences the range and distance of finishes they may face.
On smaller pitches, the reduced space can lead to more frequent short-range shots because attacking players are closer to the goal and have fewer opportunities to take long-distance shots. Consequently, goalkeepers are more likely to encounter situations where they need to make quick, close-range actions like blocks and smothers, as opposed to diving saves, which are more common on larger pitches (Houghton et al., 2020).
Conversely, on larger pitches, players typically have more time and space to shoot from a distance, leading to more situations where goalkeepers need to make diving saves to cover a larger area of the goal (McGregor et al., 2014). Additionally, the ways in which goalkeepers distribute the ball, the space available for these passes, and the pressure they face from opposing players will vary with pitch size.
On smaller pitches, goalkeepers may execute shorter, more precise passes due to the limited space and increased pressure from attackers (Hughes & Bartlett, 2002), while on larger pitches, they will have more time and space to perform longer passes and provide more strategic support to their teammates.
This highlights the need for tailoring the application of RPA to both the developmental needs of outfield players and the specific training requirements of goalkeepers. The dynamic interplay between pitch size and goalkeeping actions supports the notion that the size of the playing area significantly influences the style of play and the types of actions required from goalkeepers.
Incorporating technology such as GPS trackers, performance analysis software, and growth and maturation data can significantly enhance our understanding of how different area sizes impact player performance within the context of RPA.
These tools provide valuable data, enabling coaches to make more informed decisions and further refine the application of RPA in youth football. By analysing this data over time, coaches can better tailor their training sessions to suit the specific needs and developmental stages of their players, ensuring that the chosen area sizes effectively contribute to the players’ development and on-field performance.
Other Considerations
It’s worth noting that clubs frequently encounter challenges related to facilities and logistical demands, which can often lead to compromises in training area sizes. Additionally, coaches may also deliberately choose pitch dimensions that deviate from RPA recommendations to emphasise or stress-specific developmental aspects.
This is particularly relevant when striving to create unstructured play or player-led environments, reflective of street or playground settings, where any available space is used for fast-paced and potentially chaotic activities that require players to self-organise and adapt.
Such scenarios, when applied thoughtfully, can enhance the diversity of practice experiences for young players and enrich player development, provided that the rationale and intended outcomes are clearly defined and understood by the coaching staff.
Overloading players with varied training environments, whether through undersized or oversized pitches, can prompt adaptations that transfer to performance in formal match play.
Both extremes – small and large areas – can be beneficial when integrated within a joined-up, well-considered approach to player development. These varied experiences, applied in moderation, can contribute to a well-rounded football development programme, promoting adaptability and versatility.
However, it is critical that coaches are conscious of the trade-offs inherent in their decisions, understanding what aspects of player development are being emphasised and what may be sacrificed as a result. These trade-offs have the potential to create ripple effects elsewhere, as manipulations to the playing area will dial up certain developmental outcomes while dampening down others.
The RPA calculator, introduced in the following section, is not intended to replace or devalue such varied activities.
Instead, it serves as a complementary tool to help coaches plan and manage the spatial and temporal dimensions of their practices with greater intentionality, ensuring that each session is aligned with the overarching development goals.
Age and Stage RPA Calculator Tool
Rigorous research is necessary to comprehensively understand the effective application of RPA to the context of youth football, considering the age (both chronological and biological) and the stage (of skill learning/acquisition and game format) of players. Below, is an illustrative example using arbitrary numbers for RPA per player which serves as a potential starting point for more evidence-based inquiry.
By examining these figures within the context of rigorous research, we can begin to develop more precise, evidence-based guidelines to optimise training and game area size conditions for players of different ages and skill stages.
Using the provisional numbers above, the author has developed an RPA calculator, designed as a flexible tool to help coaches determine the appropriate area sizes for their practices, providing small, medium, and large area size suggestions.
This calculator is not a strict rule but a starting guide to assist coaches in making informed decisions based on several critical factors, including the number of players involved in the practice, their age, and the standard or recommended pitch size dimensions for the format they typically play (refer to Table 2).
This tool is versatile; it can be used on a sessional basis (micro level), but for optimal outcomes, it is most effective when integrated into meso and macro level planning. This allows coaches to structure periodisation over an extended period, embedding their moment-to-moment and short-term coaching decisions within a cohesive and purpose-driven framework.
Step-by-Step Guide to Using the RPA Calculator Tool
The following step-by-step guide provides detailed instructions on how to use the RPA calculator tool and how it may be effectively integrated into coaches’ planning processes.
1. Accessing the RPA calculator tool
The RPA calculator is an Excel-based tool with preloaded formulas designed to generate small, medium, and large pitch sizes based on the number of players and the age group. To use the RPA calculator, open the file attached at the bottom of this article. An illustration of the spreadsheet is provided below (refer to Figure 2).
2. Understanding the structure of the tool
Sheet 1 left section (columns A-J):
This section contains pre-filled information, including age groups (e.g., U13/U14), playing formats (e.g., 11v11), FA-recommended pitch dimensions (e.g., 90×55 yards or 82×50 metres), total area (e.g., 4950 yards² or 4140 metres²), and RPA per player (e.g., 225 yards² or 188 metres²) (see the purple rectangle in Figure 3).
It is important to note that yards are provided solely for reference, as this is a common metric used by coaches for measuring areas in England. However, in alignment with previous RPA research, all calculations utilise metres. No information needs to be entered on this side of the tool.
Sheet 1 right section (columns L-W):
This is where coaches will input the relevant data to calculate pitch sizes (refer to Figure 4).
3. Inputting the Age Group and Number of Players
Coaches begin by selecting the relevant age group (e.g., U13/U14) and entering the number of players involved in the session (e.g., 15 players) into column L for the corresponding age group row. This entry is made via a drop-down list for convenience (see the purple rectangle in Figure 5).
4. Area Size Calculation Based on Player Number Input
From this initial input, the RPA calculator tool will automatically generate the total area proportionate to the number of players entered in step 3. For example, if the playing format is 11v11 and 15 players are attending the session, the area size provided will be a scaled representation suitable for 15 players, rather than the full area typically designated for 22 players.
This total area is provided in both yards² and metres² (e.g., 3375 yards² and 2823 metres²) (refer to Figure 6).
5. Using the RPA matrix to Select Area Size
After calculating the total area, the coach consults the prepopulated RPA matrix on Sheet 2 of the spreadsheet, which presents various area sizes. The coach identifies the size nearest to the calculated total area (e.g., 2823 metres²). In this instance, the closest match is 2800 metres², which appears on three occasions within the matrix (labelled A, B, and C in Figure 7).
6. Selecting area shape based on coaching focus
The matrix provides several pitch dimension options, each offering a different length-to-width ratio. Coaches should select the pitch size that most appropriately aligns with the context and focus of the session:
• Option A (70m x 40m):
A standard rectangular pitch with a ratio of 1.75:1, which closely resembles the proportions of a full-sized pitch. This setup is well-suited for maintaining spatial relevance to match play.
• Option B (40m x 70m):
A wider-than-long pitch with a ratio of 0.57:1. This configuration is useful for practices focused on lateral play, such as “recognising when to switch play.”
• Option C (80m x 35m):
A long, narrow pitch with a ratio of 2.29:1, suited for sessions focused on vertical play, such as “recognising when to play forward on attacking transitions.”
7. Inputting the Selected Area Size
Upon selecting the pitch size (e.g., Option A – 70m x 40m), the coach inputs this information into the RPA calculator under the “Large Pitch Size” field on Sheet 1 (see the purple rectangle in Figure 8). This step reflects the dimensions the coach has determined will optimally align with the intended outcomes of the session while effectively supporting the developmental needs of the players.
8. Automatic Calculation of Small and Medium Area Sizes
The tool will automatically calculate the corresponding small and medium area sizes based on the large pitch dimensions. For instance, it may generate a small pitch of 51m x 29m and a medium pitch of 60m x 34m (see the purple rectangles in Figure 9).
9. Area Size Recommendations
The final output recommends small, medium, and large area sizes, providing coaches with flexibility and precision in practice planning.
These dimensions ensure the area size aligns with session objectives, supports player development, and reflects tactical and spatial principles relevant to match conditions, proportionate to the number of players.
Coaches can subsequently adjust area sizes based on specific session goals, provided these modifications are supported by a clear, well-reasoned rationale. These decisions should be intentional, purposeful, and thoughtfully considered, demonstrating a careful balance between the session’s objectives and the coach’s commitment to supporting player development.
The practice illustrated in this example involves a game format with two teams, two goals, and one ball. While the concept of “letting the game be the teacher” is frequently misinterpreted within youth development (Light, 2013), game-based learning – when coupled with skilled coaching – proves to be a highly effective approach.
By designing practice environments that closely represent the demands of actual football games, coaches can create scenarios that support holistic player development. The role of the neutral player is acknowledged as a contested concept; however, in certain circumstances, it may be appropriate for specific individuals to fulfil this role as part of their individual development while also managing potential challenges or hostility within the session.
If a coach aims to increase the challenge level, they may choose to remove the neutral player and implement an 8v7 format, thereby overloading one team.
Moreover, the utility of the RPA calculator extends beyond game-based learning; it is equally relevant when planning the parameters of technical exercises, possession practices, and phases of play. By considering RPA in each of these contexts, coaches can tailor the training environment to meet the specific developmental needs of their players, whether they aim to focus on isolated technical skills or broader tactical objectives.
The ability to modify space, time, and player numbers allows for intentional manipulation of training conditions, ensuring alignment with targeted outcomes.
This tool serves as a starting point, enabling coaches to make informed decisions about area sizes before applying their intuition to adapt the setup if and where necessary. During the setup process, coaches can adjust the practice area based on their practical assessment and understanding of the space, ensuring it aligns with the session’s intended outcomes.
This strategic approach emphasises the importance of a rationale behind area size decisions, moving beyond intuition as the sole guiding factor. Instead, intuition becomes valuable after establishing a clear framework, allowing for informed adjustments as needed.
It is essential to recognise that effective coaching extends beyond the initial setup; it requires ongoing assessment and adaptation of the practice environment. The FA’s S.T.E.P. principle can assist coaches in this process by focusing on four key areas: Space, Task, Equipment, and People.
In this context, space is the primary element of concern, necessitating ongoing assessment and adaptation of the practice environment. The S.T.E.P. principle serves as a basic yet critical guide, encouraging coaches to remain flexible and prepared to adjust area sizes during practice sessions to align more closely with the intended outcomes.
Area size should also aim to address multiple outcomes, including physical, technical, and tactical elements. However, there are times when focusing on a specific aspect may require a more targeted approach. For instance, in practices such as rondos that emphasise technical skills like receiving and passing under pressure, the physical and tactical demands may be intentionally reduced.
In these cases, the area size should be adjusted to align with the technical abilities of the players and the specific aims of the session.
Empirical evidence supports this approach, demonstrating that smaller spaces in technical practices can enhance players’ ability to develop close control and quick decision-making, while larger areas are more suited for tactical and physical conditioning (Little & Williams, 2006; Hill-Haas et al., 2011).
Ultimately, if the practice area proves too large or too small, it should be modified accordingly. This adaptability ensures that training remains effective and aligned with the session’s objectives, allowing coaches to target the desired outcomes effectively.Conclusion
The training area size is a crucial yet often overlooked factor that shapes the effectiveness of youth football practices. Many coaches undervalue this aspect, overshadowed by more explicit elements like scoring systems or game demands.
Area size is an implicit constraint that significantly influences players’ decision-making and problem-solving abilities.
This tendency to neglect subtle yet impactful factors can be explained by salience bias, where noticeable and measurable aspects are valued more, even at the expense of less obvious, yet crucial influences like area dimensions (Kahneman, 2011). Relying on intuition and subjective judgment alone may result in suboptimal decisions, which can undermine player development.
While experience and contextual understanding play an important role in decision-making, research consistently shows that these must be complemented by evidence-based methods to achieve the best outcomes.
For example, training areas that are too small restrict high-speed running and sprinting, essential components of match fitness, and increase the risk of physical and mental fatigue. Conversely, overly large areas can reduce intensity, impairing tactical cohesion and diminishing the realism of training sessions (Smith et al., 2018; Buchheit & Simpson, 2017; Konefał et al., 2018).
The RPA calculator introduced here provides an effective, research-driven solution to these challenges, aiming to transform how coaches plan their sessions.
By offering a flexible framework for determining the optimal training area size, based on factors such as player age, developmental stage, and specific session goals, the tool empowers coaches to make informed decisions that are both tailored and dynamic.
Importantly, the RPA calculator supports iterative refinement of training practices, encouraging coaches to continuously adapt their methods in line with their team’s style of play and philosophical principles, as well as the needs and developmental objectives of individual players.
In addition to the potential tactical, technical, and physical benefits, incorporating tools like the RPA calculator reflects a broader shift in football coaching, where empirical evidence and structured methodologies are increasingly vital for promoting player development.
Studies show that constraint-based training environments, designed with intentional use of space and numbers, promote better decision-making, tactical awareness, and skill acquisition under pressure (Davids et al., 2013).
By balancing the physical, technical, and tactical dimensions of training through precise area sizing, coaches can better replicate match conditions, ensuring that sessions are not only realistic but also conducive to long-term player development.
The use of structured, evidence-based tools like the RPA calculator represents a notable progression in this area of youth coaching practice, providing a practical means for coaches to enhance their practice design. By moving beyond intuition and incorporating research-supported methodologies, coaches can create training sessions that are well-structured, of high quality, and aligned with players’ holistic developmental needs.
This shift from subjective to empirical planning offers a practical approach to improving coaching effectiveness and player outcomes, ultimately facilitating a more focused and intentional developmental process for both players and coaches.
To integrate the RPA calculator into your practice design and optimise your sessions for success, download the RPA Tool Link.
References
Click to see all references
Araújo, D., & Davids, K. (2015). Towards a theoretically-driven model of correspondence between behaviours in one context to another: Implications for studying sport performance. International Journal of Sports Psychology, 46(6), 745-757.
Bartlett, B. (2014). 6 steps to designing effective practice. The FA Boot Room, 29, 22-31. Retrieved from: https://content.yudu.com/web/1zc5z/0A1zc7p/BootRoom10/html/index.html?page=22
Bartlett, B. (2024). Elite player & coach development. Elite Soccer.
Buchheit, M., & Laursen, P. B. (2013). High-intensity interval training, solutions to the programming puzzle: Part II: Anaerobic energy, neuromuscular, and hormonal adaptations. Sports Medicine, 43(7), 727-740.
Buchheit, M., & Simpson, B., M. (2017). Player tracking technology: Half-full or half-empty glass? International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 12(Suppl. 2), S235-S241.
Castellano, J., Casamichana, D., Lago, C. (2014). The use of match analysis in football: A systematic review. Journal of Sports Sciences, 30(12), 1233-1243.
Clemente, F., M., Aquino, R., Castillo, D., & Praça, G. (2023). Effects of pitch size on soccer players’ physiological, physical, technical, and tactical responses during small-sided games: A meta-analytical comparison. Biology of Sport 40(1):111-147.
Clemente, F., M., Couceiro, M., S., Martins, F., M., L., Mendes, R., S. (2012). Team’s performance on football small-sided games: A systematic review. Journal of Human Kinetics, 33, 103-113.
Collins, D., Collins, L., & Carson, H., J. (2016). If It Feels Right, Do It: Intuitive Decision Making in a Sample of High-Level Sport Coaches. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 504.
Côté, J., Baker, J., & Abernethy, B. (2009). Practice and play in the development of sport expertise. In The Routledge Handbook of Sport Expertise (pp. 66-85). Routledge.
Davids, K., Araújo, D., & Shuttleworth, R. (2005). The role of practice in the development of expertise in sport. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 1(1), 15-29.
Davids, K., Button, C., & Bennett, S. (2013). Dynamics of skill acquisition: An ecological dynamics approach. Human Kinetics.
Gabbett, T. J. (2008). The relationship between training load, injury, and performance in sub-elite rugby league players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 26(13), 1507-1515.
Gabbett, T., J. (2016). The training-injury prevention paradox: Should athletes be training smarter and harder? British Journal of Sports Medicine, 50(5), 273-280.
Grehaigne, J. F., Godbout, P., & Bouthier, D. (2001). The Construction of Tactical Knowledge in Team Sports. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19(1), 127-137.
Hancock, D. J., & Tindall, J. R. (2022). Effects of Pitch Size on Performance in Soccer: A Review of Small-Sided Games Research. Journal of Sports Sciences, 40(4), 436-448.
Hill-Haas, S., V., Dawson, B., T., & Impellizzeri, F., M. (2011). Physical Demand of Small-Sided Games in Young Soccer Players: A Comparison of Training and Competition. Journal of Sports Sciences, 29(5), 539-546.
Hoff, J., Helgerud, J., & Wisloff, U. (2002). Soccer-specific aerobic endurance training. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 36(3), 218-221.
Houghton, L., Williams, A., G., & Reilly, T. (2020). The role of small-sided games in goalkeeper development. Journal of Sports Sciences, 38(4), 415-423.
Hughes, M., & Bartlett, R. (2002). The use of performance analysis in football: A review of the literature. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20(5), 367-382.
Impellizzeri, F., M., Marcora, S., M., & Coutts, A., J. (2019). Internal and External Training Load: 15 Years On. The International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 14(2), 270-273.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kirk, D., & Macdonald, D. (2001). Physical Education and the Study of Sport: A Critical Perspective. International Journal of Physical Education, 38(2), 113-127.
Konefał, M., Chmura, P., Kowalczuk, E., Andrzejewski, M., Chmura, J., & Rokita, A. (2018). Small-sided games in soccer: Influence of pitch size and number of players on heart rate responses, technical-tactical actions, and team balance. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 13(5), 633-645.
Larsen, O., Aune, T., K., & Tjelta, L., I. (2011). The effect of smaller playing areas on soccer players’ spatial awareness and tactical positioning. Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 6(2), 219-230.
Light, R. (2013). The Game Sense Approach to Coaching: Theoretical Underpinnings and Practical Applications. In M. T. Jones & J. M. Wallace (Eds.), Sports Coaching: Research and Practice (pp. 34-48). Routledge.
Little, A., & Williams, A., M. (2006). Measures of Sport Performance: The Use of Small-Sided Games in Elite Youth Soccer. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24(6), 617-628.
McGregor, S., J., & Reilly, T. (2014). Goalkeeper performance: Analysis and practical implications. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 9(2), 313-324.
Olthof, S., B., H., Frencken, W., G., P., & Lemmink, K. (2018). Match-derived relative pitch area changes the physical and team tactical performance of elite soccer players in small-sided soccer games. J Sports Sci, 36(14), 1557-1563.
Ramos, A., Coutinho, P., Leitão, J. C., Cortinhas, A., Davids, K., & Mesquita, I. (2020). The Constraint-led approach to enhancing team synergies in sport – What do we know so far and how can we move forward? A systematic review with meta-analysis. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 50(101754), 1-19.
Renshaw, I., & Chow, J., Y. (2018). A constraint-led approach to sport and physical education pedagogy. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 24(2), 103-116.
Renshaw, I., Davids, K., Newcombe, D., & Roberts, W. (2019). The Constraints-Led Approach (1st Edition ed.). Routledge.
Sarmento, H., Clemente, F., M., Gonçalves, E., Harper, L., D., Dias, D., Figueiredo, A., J., & Praça, G., M. (2018). Small sided games in soccer – a systematic review. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 18(5), 693-749.
Schempp, P. G., & Tenenbaum, G. (2005). Expertise in Sport: A Cognitive Perspective. In Handbook of Sport Psychology (pp. 65-86). Wiley.
Silva, P., Aguiar, P., Duarte, R., Davids, K., Araújo, D., & Garganta, J. (2014). Effects of pitch size and skill level on tactical behaviours of Association Football players during small-sided and conditioned games. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 9 (5), 993-1006.
Smith M., R., Thompson C., Marcora S., M., Skorski S., Meyer T., & Coutts A., J. (2018). Mental fatigue and soccer: current knowledge and future directions. Sports Medicine, 48(7),1525–32.
Turner, A., N., Comfort, P., McMahon, J., J., & Bishop, C. (2017). Strength and conditioning practices in amateur rugby players: Survey results. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 31(4), 960-968.
Share this article: