Drills vs. Small-sided games

Before diving into the research, take a look at the two videos below. The first shows kids immersed in a spontaneous street soccer game in Brazil — fast-paced, playful, and unpredictable. The second features a group of young players following structured soccer drills with formal instruction. Take a moment to reflect: which environment fosters better overall learning in soccer? Keep that thought in mind — the studies I’ll share just below might surprise you.

Drills vs. Small-sided games

Fernández-Espínola et al. (2020) conducted an extensive review of 47 studies examining the effectiveness of SSGs in teaching technical-tactical skills to young athletes. While their primary goal wasn’t a direct comparison with traditional drills, the data offers several key insights:

📌 What SSGs Offer Over Drills

• Real-Game Context: Unlike drills, which isolate technical skills (like passing or dribbling), SSGs integrate these elements within realistic and dynamic game environments, supporting tactical decision-making.
• Higher Ball Contacts: Reducing player numbers and pitch size in SSGs increases individual ball contact and technical action frequency—more touches mean more engagement and learning.
• Task Constraints for Tactical Learning: Manipulating rules (e.g., limited touches or scoring conditions) within SSGs enhances players’ tactical behavior, spatial awareness, and strategic thinking.
• Adaptive Decision-Making: Players in SSGs demonstrate improved decision-making compared to drill-based training, particularly when adapting to changing game scenarios.

🧱 Limitations of Traditional Drills

• Low Cognitive Load: Many drills focus on rote repetition, providing limited opportunities for situational analysis or strategic adaptation.
• Detached from Game Flow: Isolated techniques practiced in drills may not transfer effectively to game contexts where tactical awareness is essential.
• Lower Motivation & Engagement: Especially with youth athletes, the playful and competitive nature of SSGs tends to generate higher motivation compared to monotonous drills.

At first glance, you might say, “Of course we need to teach technique—how else do we coach sports?” But it’s not that simple. Research shows that athletes can actually develop effective techniques without traditional technique-based instruction (Chow et al., 2025). Approaches like Non-Learning Pedagogy, Teaching Games for Understanding, Differential Learning, and Constraint-Led Approach, which don’t explicitly teach technique, often lead to athletes discovering movement solutions on their own—solutions that are just as sound as those taught through conventional drills. Even more surprising? These athletes often perform better than those who were trained using technique-centered methods.

One of the reasons I usually discuss technique with coaches is that emphasizing too much on technique is not only ineffective but also might hinder performance and learning. There has been growing evidence that supports this claim. See some examples below.

Soccer:

This study by Yang and colleagues(2025) compared Linear Pedagogy (LP)—a traditional, technique-focused approach—with Nonlinear Pedagogy (NLP)—a dynamic, game-based method rooted in ecological dynamics. Forty university students with no prior soccer experience were trained over 8 weeks and tested on passing performance and adaptability.

Key Findings:

• NLP led to better skill acquisition and retention than LP. Participants in the NLP group showed higher passing success rates both immediately after training and four weeks later.
• Adaptability played a crucial role: Athletes with higher adaptability benefited more from NLP, suggesting that individual differences significantly influence learning outcomes.
• LP’s rigid, repetitive drills created a “practice-to-competition gap,” limiting athletes’ ability to transfer skills to real-game scenarios.
• NLP’s use of constraint manipulation (e.g., changing field size, player numbers) promoted perceptual attunement, functional variability, and self-regulation—all essential for performance in dynamic sports.

Field hockey:

Turner and Martinek (1999) compared two instructional approaches in field hockey:

• The technique-focused model, which followed a linear path of skill demo → isolated drills → short game.
• The Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) model, which emphasized tactical awareness through small-sided games that gradually increased in complexity.

After 15 lessons:

• The TGfU group outperformed the technique group in ball control, passing, decision-making, and execution during gameplay.
• The technique group did better than the control group on isolated skill tests, but not better than TGfU, and in actual game performance, they barely surpassed the control group, who didn’t even train field hockey.
• Researchers concluded that technique-trained players struggled when faced with the complexity of real game situations due to oversimplified learning contexts.
• TGfU’s strength came from teaching why tactics are used, encouraging tactical appraisal, and embedding skill development within realistic scenarios.

Concluding Remarks

When coaching movement, we must tread thoughtfully. Technique should never be taught as a fixed mold but rather as a flexible framework. Athletes thrive when given the tools to explore and adapt their own movement strategies. To foster this, consider the following practical guidelines:

• Introduce Multiple Techniques: Don’t limit instruction to a single “ideal” form. Exposing athletes to a range of technical options equips them to adapt and respond fluidly to different scenarios.
• Encourage Individual Movement Solutions: Every athlete is built differently—physically, neurologically, and behaviorally. Let them discover the solutions that work best for their body and instincts.
• Prioritize Variability in Training: Repetitive drills with only one technique lead to rigidity. Real-world sports are dynamic and unpredictable. Training should reflect that chaos, preparing athletes to stay adaptable under pressure.

By promoting exploration and variability, we prepare athletes not just to perform, but to problem-solve in motion.

Want to ensure you give the best practice?

References

Fernández-Espínola C, Abad Robles MT, Giménez Fuentes-Guerra FJ. Small-Sided Games as a Methodological Resource for Team Sports Teaching: A Systematic Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(6):1884. doi:10.3390/ijerph17061884

Yang Q, Song M, Chen X, Li M, Wang X. The influence of linear and nonlinear pedagogy on motor skill performance: the moderating role of adaptability. Front Psychol. 2025;16. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1540821

Turner AP, Martinek TJ. An investigation into teaching games for understanding: effects on skill, knowledge, and game play. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1999;70(3):286-296. doi:10.1080/02701367.1999.10608047