Warm-up order and game-speed drills fix flat starts

Every piece appears in full, translated by AI where the original is in another language. Copyright stays with each author and original publisher; every piece links to its original.

Top replies, most upvoted first

• (+10) Do you do it in this order? Stretch, warm up then discuss the game plan? If so, you are slowing them down right before the game. Start with talk then build the speed and intensity of prematch drills etc from slow to game speed with the latter finishing right before kick off. Imagine a line. Doing it how you are doing it is going up from zero to a peak then back to zero. What I am suggesting goes gradually up from zero to game speed then they play.
• (+7) Maybe they're arriving too early? Or could be a nutrition issue, eating a bunch of protein right before gametime? Sounds silly but sometimes that makes a big difference early in the game.
• (+6) What age? I laugh to my wife that coaching u9/u10 is exhausting because i feel like i have to bring a level of energy that is WAY outside of my normal state of existence. I usually get them going with a dribbling activation, then move to something like a rondo to get them thinking, then we do some basic shooting.
• (+2) This is how I’ve run 14 y.o +warm ups and have never had an issue with start of game slumps. A trick I’ve always had is also write it on a whiteboard where everyone can see it so it’s no surprise. All are before kick off -1 hr - arrive, greet coach and teammates (personal stretch, taping, foam rolling to be completed in this period) -40 minutes - prepped, ready to go, team talks (game focus, line up etc) -35 minutes - all players on grass moving ball (small rondos, short passes, individual juggling) -30 minutes - start initial warm up (short passing. 10 yards apart. Two touch, one touch,...
• (+1) How old are they? An hour is a long time. You don't have to yell, but energy is contagious. I do hype them up big time, and I use high energy language and antics. I'm not berating them, I'm telling them I believe in them and know that if they focus and play hard they can play with anybody. Coaches yell in all sports especially at older ages, most of the time just to get players attention. Sometimes there's this idea that soccer coaches need to be zen masters and calmly observe. Yes you need to guard against over instruction, yes guard against yelling too much, and yes guard against any...
• (+1) What’s your play style, and what’s your definition of flat? This happens to us often and we have our definition of flat. Just wondering what you mean more precisely.
• (+1) Too long of a warmup in my opinion. An option is to hype up the kickoff. Get excited for who gets the first big tackle or if you have the kickoff, PSG it and high pressure from the throw in!
• (+1) your warmup sucks. High energy and game like. I watched a state championship HS team run thru warm up the other day - it was 11v11 half field.
• (+1) FWIW you framed your post around the fact that your team is arriving 1 hour early and it seems like you might think that is the reason for a flat 1st half performance (entirely plausible). Is the reason for having them arrive 1 hour early due to parents/kids traveling from all over the place & you want to make sure everyone is there “on time”? Or, is the reason bc you have a pretty structured & lengthy warmup/progression to kickoff? I wonder if halftime works because it’s short, most are already warmed up, and there is momentum from the team bench/tent/sideline to the start of the 2nd half?...
• (+1) How intense is the warmup? I've seen a lot of teams where the warmup is half-hearted at best. So the match starts and no-one's mind or body is in gear yet. They flounder about trying to build to a game tempo, meanwhile now down 2 goals in the first 10 minutes. I think serious warm-up should begin about 20 minutes before the whistle and be at game tempo, with intensity. The players should have elevated breath and maybe a slight sheen of sweat. I watched a slow-to-start U13 team become a powerhouse team. They switched to a short but intense warm-up then started completely demoralizing the...
• (+1) What is your warmup? If they’re a pre-teen team then play a SSG as warmup that contains elements of how you want them to play. There was a research paper I read that said physically the SSG outperformed traditional warmup, and I used to use it with rec futsal teams. It always made a difference in the beginning of games against better teams, and conversely it’s easy to predict when teams are going to start poorly simply by watching their warmup.
• (+1) Kind of, yeah. Not angry but I bring the energy. Id say Im more animated than yelling. When we do our team break I want them yelling though. I tell them straight up I want the other team to hear how loud and fired up they are and be nervous. I want them to be animals. If you're calm and laid back they will follow that tone too. Not always because the first goal of course change the mood and talent differences overcome any "hunger" but you can effect that first passage of play, or you may as well try.

Source:r/SoccerCoachResources · 28 comments ↗

↑ Contents

Thank you for your question.

U-10 is fourth grade in elementary school. First, as for the practice menu in your question, what I often do is a scissors pass while advancing.

At the end, either side shoots and finishes. I tell them that this kind of thing also happens in matches, and I ask them: in order to get to the goal as quickly as possible, where should you play the pass?

Or I set conditions like "Let's try to get there with five passes before shooting" or "We're going with three passes next." What I often talk about then is "reading ahead."

Where should you play the ball so the receiver can get it easily, where should I receive it next so I can get it easily, or can I shoot? I have them read ahead like that.

I tell them, "If you can do that, you can get to the goal smoothly and quickly." In that way, I have them deepen their understanding of "playing while moving."

■Order of training 1: First do it directly

As for the order of training, first I have them do it directly.

The reason is that if I say, "Try doing it with two touches," the children become fixated on controlling the ball and forget the biggest goal, which is to move forward quickly.

First, they start from the halfway line and move toward the goal while passing. How should they pass so they do not stop the receiver's speed? Where should they play the ball so the receiver can carry it without slowing down? I have them develop that feeling.

It is fine if the passes do not connect smoothly. I have them learn how far forward to play the pass.

■Order of training 2: Make it two touches and pass without losing speed

Next, when it becomes two touches, because they understand where to play the pass in order not to lose speed, they become able to play it into the space where the receiver is running.

The receiver understands that if they do not control the ball into the space ahead of where they are running, their speed will drop, so when they focus on that, they become able to do it well.

Control while moving, and pass while moving. They gradually come to understand doing these things while carrying their speed.

Also, when they become cautious, their speed tends to drop. To prevent that, for example, I say, "Let's try to do it in eight seconds," and count "1, 2, 3," or sometimes I have two groups compete. Please use that kind of training as an entry point.

■Order of training 3: Do rondo with 3 vs 2

In addition, I devise ways of doing rondo.

For example, in the case of 3 vs 1 rondo, the three players pass the ball around so the defender does not take it, but often the three players do not move. I even think that doing this too much may prevent them from developing the feeling of playing a pass into space.

So I make it 3 vs 2. Then, more than in 3 vs 1, the three players have to move or they cannot receive the pass. Concretely, because the pass will not connect unless they play it into where the opponent is moving, the children begin to play while moving.

When controlling the ball too, in order to play the next pass they try to move away from the opponent and play the pass, so they control while moving. In other words, it becomes more match realistic.

I recommend this 3 vs 2 rondo in many places. Modify it, and if the practice field is large, call out to them, "You can use plenty of space and move."

Furthermore, you can also make it a game format. For example, make it 3 vs 3 and place two target men on each goal line to play a match. If the three players hit their target, then they can attack in the opposite direction.

I think it is also fine to add a restriction that dribbling is not allowed, but first let them do it freely.

Source:サカイク ↗·Translated from Japanese

↑ Contents

Source:r/SoccerCoachResources · 30 comments ↗

↑ Contents

1) Do not have the debate of dribbling soccer versus passing soccer

A debate that is common in Japan is dribbling soccer versus passing soccer. I basically think that words like passing soccer and dribbling soccer are not soccer terms. It is normal to play while using dribbling and passing differently depending on the situation.

2) Breakthrough dribbling and carrying dribbling

In Spain, dribbling is divided into two: regate and conduccion. Regate is breakthrough dribbling, dribbling that tries to beat an opponent. Conduccion is often translated in Japan as the "carrying dribble," and it is dribbling that carries the ball into space or escapes from an opponent.

3) The dribble you use changes depending on the zone

When you enter zone 3 (the opponent's half, the finishing zone), breakthrough dribbling naturally becomes important. Conversely, the carrying dribble is used to advance or keep the ball, so it is often used in midfield or at the start of build-up (salida de balon).

Put the other way around, I believe that a situation where a center back does breakthrough dribbling in front of your own goal should never happen. It may exist as a last resort when you are cornered, but basically the image is to escape with the carrying dribble as much as possible.

1) Beating someone in 1v1 just means you were superior in ability

In zone 3, I think it is very important to actively take on dribbling. However, the thing I am most careful about when coaching elementary school age groups is "do not do 1v1."

You beat an opponent in 1v1 and scored a goal. That is a very good thing, but if the opponent defender's ability is higher, it will not come off. In other words, I think you beat them because you were superior in ability. Improving ability is also important, but rather than only that, I value the part of how you use dribbling within relationships with teammates, such as in 2v1.

2) Beating an opponent while trying to use a teammate is a good decision

The player with the ball beat an opponent with dribbling while trying to use a teammate. I think this is a very good decision. Because the action of trying to use a teammate is included, the opponent is wary of the pass. That is why you can break through with dribbling, and if the opponent commits to the dribble, then the possibility appears of breaking them down with a one-two.

Conversely, when support was available but the player did not notice and took on the opponent alone, and as a result beat them and scored. In this case, I think I quite often point out, "You did not see that support had arrived just now, did you? You were doing 1v1, right?"

3) Encourage the opposite of what they are good at

Of course, depending on the context, there are times when I say "take them on by yourself." With third graders and fourth graders, for players who immediately look for a pass when they get the ball, I say "take on the dribble more yourself." Looking for a pass itself is not bad, but if that is all, there is no breadth to their play.

Conversely, for players who always just dribble by themselves, I urge them: "If it is your strength, you can go, but if you charge in twice in a row and lose the ball, then next time pass and use combination play." With the second and third graders I am currently coaching, I have them do quite a lot of 1v1, and with the U-11 group, where there are many children good on the ball, I tell them, "Because you have the option of passing, your strong dribbling comes alive."

In addition, dribbling within combination breakdowns (whether it is dribbling while pretending to do a one-two, or dribbling while pretending to use the space behind) is summarized in the key factors of the 2v2 attacking article.

1) If the passing lane is cut off, dribble; if the dribbling lane is cut off, pass

As a broad way of thinking, the one I find simplest is this. If the passing lane is cut off, use the dribble. If the dribbling lane is cut off, use the pass.

What often happens at the junior level is a player who, despite having the passing lane cut off, plays the pass anyway and gets it caught on the opponent's foot. So you give them criteria for judging, like: "Why did you dribble there? The passing lane was open," or "It was good that you dribbled because the passing lane was cut off." I think having this is one thing.

② When you are free and a teammate is marked, dribble

In a situation where you are advancing, you are free, and there is a teammate ahead who can advance freely. In this case, it is better to prioritize the pass. That is because dribbling slows things down.

Conversely, you are free and a teammate is marked. In this case, you dribble to attract the opponent and then play the pass. In Spanish this is called fijar, "to fix," and this is the carrying dribble. When you are free and there is no chance of losing the ball, yet you play a pass into a marked teammate and it gets taken, that is a mistake as an option (playing a wedge into the top is a separate matter as a play model).

③ Do not play the pass before a teammate has taken their position

What you often see in possession training is the phenomenon where, after winning the ball, a player plays a pass before a teammate has taken their position. In my case, I say quite a lot, "There, create time with the dribble." The dribble creates one second, two seconds of time, and during that time a teammate takes their position, so you can play the pass after that. That is the idea.

④ Example with center backs: if the passing lane is cut off, carry the ball inside

There are two center backs, the right center back has the ball, and the right side half is open. You try to play the pass to the side half, and the opponent's forward cuts off the outside. At that moment, you eliminate them with a dribble carrying the ball inside. This is also a concrete example of "if the passing lane is cut off, dribble."

Conversely, if you are under pressure from two players, there are two players supporting nearby, and you still force your way through and get caught, then it becomes "prioritize the pass." Which of the two is the better option. I myself have the image that this becomes the principle.

⑤ Organize with logic the reason you thought, "There, it should be a pass"

The judgment depends on the situation, but I think it is better to speak as close to principles as possible. When a coach thinks, "There, it should be a pass," they should organize with logic why they thought so. If you do that, I think you can notice that the same phenomenon comes up again and again.

I myself now think that principles are the key factors in everything, in other words, the knack for making a play succeed. If the passing lane is cut off, the dribble opens up; if the dribbling lane is cut off, the pass opens up. This is a principle of soccer, and in teaching decision-making at the junior level, I think defining and understanding things like this is very important.

① Do not particularly set priorities for the whole team

I do not particularly set priorities between dribbling and passing in matches. That is because there are situations where it is better to dribble and situations where it is better to prioritize the pass.

② Set priorities only for players who are struggling

However, depending on the player, I set priorities during the match. For example, at the start of build-up, a center back searches too long for a pass, and during that time they are targeted and the pass is intercepted. In a situation like that, I have them prioritize: "First, carry the ball up with one dribble." If setting priorities reduces the player's burden and removes their anxiety, I think it is fine to do that.

③ If they get caught twice, next time use a teammate

Previously, there was a boy who was extremely good at dribbling. When he cut inside and got caught twice in a row, I said this to him. "Cutting inside is not bad at all. But after you cut inside, next time use a teammate once. The opponent will start to be wary, thinking there is a pass. Then, if one combination comes off, the dribble comes alive next. Put in one buffer."

Rather than priorities for the whole team, it is about, for the problems each individual is facing, which one they should prioritize if they are to solve it. That is the approach of having them prioritize that.

5. Summary

• Dribbling has two types: "breaking through" and "carrying." In zone 3, break through; in your own half or in build-up, carry
• For elementary school players, "do not do 1v1." Trying to use a teammate while beating your man is a good decision
• Prompt the opposite of what they are good at. For a child who searches for passes, dribbling; for a child who only dribbles, using teammates
• The criteria for judgment are principles. If the passing lane is cut off, dribble; if the dribbling lane is cut off, pass
• If you are free and a teammate is marked, attract the opponent with the dribble. Do not play the pass before a teammate has taken their position
• Priorities in matches are set not by team, but by each player who is struggling

In this article, I explained how to decide whether to dribble or pass, and the criteria for judging players. First, try starting in your own coaching sessions by putting into words, with a single principle, why dribbling was the right choice in that moment!

Also, when I incorporate situations like "if the passing lane is cut off, dribble" into practice, I keep the practice menu as a diagram.

Source:ジュニアサッカーカレッジ ↗·Translated from Japanese

↑ Contents

1. Introduction

Participation in both physical activity (PA) and sports during childhood and adolescence offers an ideal environment for motor, cognitive, and emotional development [1]. Regular PA is associated with benefits for psychological functioning and executive functions (EFs), including attentional control, inhibition, updating, and behavioral adaptation [2,3,4]. These processes are especially relevant during preadolescence, when EFs are still developing and remain sensitive to environmental, educational, and PA experiences [2,5,6]. Open-skill sports such as soccer require continuous adaptation to dynamic and unpredictable situations [7]. During the game, young athletes must select relevant information, ignore distractions, anticipate opponents’ actions, make rapid decisions, and inhibit ineffective responses [7]. Soccer therefore provides an ecologically valid context for examining EFs in youth sport [8]. This is supported by evidence linking soccer-specific performance with technical and perceptual-motor components [9], and by studies showing that more skilled young soccer players may outperform less experienced peers or non-athletes on tasks involving executive control, attention, and inhibition [10,11,12,13]. Moreover, visual skills and EFs appear to contribute jointly to soccer performance [14]. The affective and motivational quality of sport participation may also be relevant to executive functioning. Enjoyment, defined as the subjective pleasure experienced during an activity, is a key factor associated with continued participation in sport and PA [15,16]. In youth sport, enjoyment may reflect positive affect, engagement, perceived competence, social relationships, and the personal meaning attributed to the activity [17]. The theoretical rationale for linking enjoyment with EFs lies in the effect of positive emotional and motivational states on attention and cognitive control. Positive affect can broaden attentional focus and promote cognitive flexibility, although it may also increase distractibility depending on task demands [18,19]. Moreover, these effects depend on motivational intensity: low-intensity positive states tend to broaden attention, whereas approach-oriented and goal-directed positive states may narrow attentional focus and support cognitive control [20,21,22]. In youth soccer, enjoyment may therefore indicate not only well-being but also attentional and motivational engagement during training. Accordingly, dynamic soccer activities such as small-sided games have been associated with higher attention and perceived enjoyment than less playful exercise formats [23], while motivation, enjoyment, and commitment appear closely related in young soccer players [24]. Direct evidence identifying fun as an independent predictor of EFs in youth sports is limited, but the existing findings provide a relevant basis for this hypothesis. Fun, game-like sports activities can increase children’s engagement in cognitively demanding situations, thereby exposing them more frequently to contexts that require attentional skills, rapid response, effective action inhibition, and cognitive flexibility. In this sense, enjoyment should not be viewed merely as a general affective response, but also as a potential indicator of motivational engagement within activities that test executive control. Therefore, from an observational and exploratory perspective, and given the potential influence of affective and motivational states on attention and cognitive control, examining enjoyment in relation to measures of EFs could help clarify whether the subjective experience of sports is associated with individual differences in cognitive performance. Based on these considerations, and acknowledging the limited direct evidence on enjoyment as a predictor of EFs, this study had two aims: (i) to examine pre to post changes in selected cognitive variables over a 15-week soccer observation period in young soccer players; (ii) to explore whether perceived enjoyment was associated with the cognitive and motor performance indices considered in the study. Given the complex relationship between positive emotion, motivation, and cognitive control, the study adopted an exploratory approach, without assuming a causal relationship between enjoyment and cognitive performance.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

The sample size was determined using G*Power software (version 3.1.9.6). The power analysis was conducted using a two-tailed paired-samples t-test with an α level of 0.05, a statistical power of 0.80, and an effect size (Cohen’s d) of 0.57 [25]. The results indicated a minimum required sample size of 27 participants. A total of 83 young soccer players were initially recruited from four soccer clubs.

Although an attendance rate of ≥95% was set as the minimum inclusion criterion, all 56 participants aged between 9 and 11 years who completed the training and data collection protocol achieved 100% attendance and were included in the final statistical analyses (F = 4; M = 52; age: 9.98 ± 0.70; body mass [kg]: 34.66 ± 8.45; height [cm]: 138.58 ± 7.76; BMI: 17.86 ± 2.93). A total of 27 participants were excluded from the analysis for failing to meet the minimum attendance threshold (<95% attendance) due to flu/illness (n = 19), school-related commitments (n = 5), vacations (n = 2), or minor injuries (n = 1). A detailed participant flow diagram illustrating enrollment, exclusions, and final sample size is presented in Figure 1.

Moreover, to be enrolled in the study, participants had to meet the following inclusion criteria: (i) be free from any diagnosis of chronic, metabolic, neurological, or other pathology that could significantly influence their lifestyle, level of enjoyment, or psychological well-being; (ii) possess a valid medical certificate for competitive physical activity and train regularly at one of the soccer clubs involved in the study; and (iii) have been playing soccer for at least two years. To avoid bias in the results, participants were excluded from the statistical analysis if they had transient or persistent conditions that could significantly influence their psychological performance or level of enjoyment, such as pharmacological treatments, injuries, or particular family circumstances. The study was designed and conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. As all participants were underage, written informed consent was obtained from their parents, and participants and their parents were informed about the confidential handling of the coded data. The participant-coding and data-linkage procedure was included in the study protocol approved by the Unicusano University Research Ethics Committee (code: CERA02/2025; date: 13 June 2025), prior to participant enrollment and data collection.

2.2. Procedures

A short battery of cognitive tests was administered before (assessment 1) and after 30 training sessions (assessment 2) conducted twice a week over a period of 15 weeks. Over the 15-week period, after each of the 30 consecutive training sessions, participants were asked to rate the enjoyment they experienced during the session. All athletes completed their training sessions during the same period of the season. Everyone followed structured training that included: a warm-up phase, an athletic conditioning phase (running, guided drills), a technical phase (age to dependent, but always including ball carrying, dribbling, shooting, receiving and controlling the ball), a small-sided game, 15-min match, and penalty kicks. We also requested that coaches and parents schedule the sessions at the same time of day (i.e., from 4:00 to 5:30 pm, at an average temperature of 19 °C). This procedure was used to examine pre to post changes in cognitive and motor performance to test whether average enjoyment during training was associated with the cognitive and motor performance indices considered in the study, without attributing the observed changes to training exposure or intensity. All cognitive tests and the methods used to assess participants’ enjoyment are described in the following section. Session rating of perceived exertion has been proposed as a simple and ecologically valid method for monitoring training load in young athletes [26].

2.3. Cognitive Tests

The cognitive tests were administered electronically using a tablet with the CogniFit application v.4.7.8 (CogniFit Inc.; San Francisco, CA, USA) installed. Three tests were used: Eriksen’s Flankers Test, Stop-Signal Test, and Visual Search Test. Each test generated two scores: (i) mean response time for correct trials (ms; lower values indicate better performance), and (ii) accuracy (% correct; higher values indicate better performance). All cognitive assessments were conducted according to standardized procedures. The tests were administered at the end of the training session, and after enjoyment assessments, in a quiet, enclosed room separate from the locker rooms, using the same tablet model and the same version of the CogniFit app for all players. Participants received the same standardized instructions before each task and completed the practice phase provided by the app before beginning the test phase. The order of the cognitive tests was fixed as listed above and remained consistent across participants, as well as between the pre-test and post-test assessments. The assessments were administered by qualified sports psychologists who followed the same testing protocol. During the tests, the children were assessed individually, and efforts were made to minimize external distractions and interactions with peers or coaches.

2.4. Eriksen’s Flankers Test

Eriksen’s “flankers” test [27] involves presenting a series of five elements. The one in the center represents the target stimulus, while the four elements on either side, two on each side, constitute the “flankers.” The flankers may be congruent with the target (when they point in the same direction), incongruent (when they point in the opposite direction), or neutral (when they are not associated with either of the two possible responses). In each trial, the participant must determine whether the central stimulus is oriented to the right or to the left. After an initial familiarization phase, the test consists of 36 trials, evenly distributed across the three conditions: 12 congruent, 12 incongruent, and 12 neutral. The orientation of the targets and flankers is counterbalanced according to the criteria adopted during the learning phase, while the order of stimulus presentation is randomized. The task allows for the assessment of various cognitive components, including selective attention, executive control, inhibitory control, reaction times, processing speed, and spatial perception. Performance is summarized using two indices: (i) FlankTime, which measures efficiency in seconds; and (ii) FlankAcc, which corresponds to the percentage of correct responses.

2.5. Stop-Signal Test

In the Stop-Signal test [28], participants perform a series of trials designed to establish an automatic motor response. Two circles are displayed on the screen, and in each trial, one of them changes color to yellow. The task is to select the yellow circle as quickly as possible. Once this response pattern has been established, a stop signal is introduced: in some trials, the circle that was initially yellow turns red, signaling to the participant that they must stop the response and therefore avoid selecting it. After a preliminary learning phase, two gray circles are presented on the screen, one on the right and one on the left. In each trial, one of the two turns yellow, while the other remains gray. In some trials, however, the yellow circle subsequently changes color to red, signaling the need to inhibit the previously established response. The stop signal appears in 12 of the 36 trials, with three different time intervals: four times after 100 ms, four after 200 ms, and four after 300 ms. The distribution of these intervals across the No-Go trials is random. The test is primarily designed to assess response inhibition ability. The two scores provided by this test were labelled StopTime (efficiency in seconds) and StopAcc (percentage accuracy).

2.6. Visual Search Test

The Visual Search Test [29,30] involves identifying a target letter within a grid containing numerous alphabetic stimuli. The letter to be found is displayed on the left side of the screen and appears twice in the grid shown on the right. For each trial, the participant has 10 s to identify and select one of the two targets as quickly as possible, distinguishing it from distractor letters that vary in their degree of similarity. After an initial learning phase, the target letter is presented inside a circle on the left side of the screen, while a 10 × 14 grid appears on the right, consisting of a total of 140 black Latin letters. The composition of the grid varies depending on the target: when the target letter is “C,” the distractors are G, O, and Q, while M, W, and Z serve as filler letters; when the target is “N,” the distractors are M, W, and Z, and the filler letters are G, O, and Q. The task is primarily used to assess visual scanning ability. Performance is expressed through two indices: VisualTime, which measures time efficiency in seconds, and VisualAcc, which corresponds to the accuracy percentage.

2.7. Enjoyment Assessments

Enjoyment was assessed using an emoji-based visual Likert scale, adapted from child-friendly smiley-face rating methods designed to facilitate quantitative self-assessment in children aged 9 to 11 [31]. These emoji-based scales have also demonstrated psychometric acceptability for assessing affective responses in children [32]. The scale included six emojis representing increasing levels of happiness, ranging from 1 (“not happy at all”) to 6 (“very happy”). At the end of each of the 30 training sessions, each child selected the emoji that best reflected how they had felt during the session and placed the corresponding slip of paper into a collection box. Each slip of paper had a unique participant code printed on the back, allowing the research team to link repeated assessments from the same participant across different sessions, while maintaining the confidentiality of the responses from peers and coaches. The final score was calculated as the average of the ratings collected across all 30 training sessions. Since only participants who completed the entire training and data collection protocol were included in the final analyses, each participant’s score was based on the same number of ratings (i.e., all participants included in the final analyses provided a rating for each of the 30 sessions). The cited studies support the use of smiley-face and emoji-based assessment approaches as appropriate measures for children to evaluate affective responses [31,32]. However, this specific application, repeated session by session, has not been independently validated as a sport-specific measure of enjoyment. Consequently, the scale was used in the present study as a brief ecological indicator of perceived enjoyment during the session rather than as a validated measure of soccer-specific enjoyment.

2.8. The Motor Efficiency Test (TEM)

The Motor Efficiency Test (TEM) was developed by the Italian National Olympic Committee as a field-based, game-like assessment of motor abilities in young athletes [33]. It consists of a structured circuit with four stations and four different locomotor tasks, each requiring specific motor skills. Performance is evaluated based on both the speed of task completion and the accuracy of movement execution. The test does not exclusively reward faster performance, as children who complete fewer stations with greater precision may receive scores comparable to those of faster participants. In this way, the TEM provides an integrated measure of both quantitative and qualitative aspects of motor performance. Because the task is performed against time and requires continuous movement across different stations, it can be considered a dynamic and ecologically valid assessment of motor efficiency in children. Its structure makes it suitable for youth sports contexts, where coordination, movement control, speed, and accuracy are important components of performance.

2.9. Statistical Analysis

Paired-samples t-tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to compare pre-test and post-test values, depending on the distribution of each variable, which was assessed using the Shapiro to Wilk normality test. Cohen’s d was calculated for paired-samples t-tests. Moreover, the rank-biserial correlation was calculated for the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. It should be noted that Cohen’s d (based on standard deviation units, unbounded) and the rank-biserial correlation (ranging from −1 to 1) operate on different mathematical metrics and are not directly comparable in magnitude. Effect sizes were interpreted according to Cohen’s conventional guidelines [34]. Percentage change (Δ) was calculated only for variables showing significant pre to post differences, using the following formula: (final value − initial value)/(initial value)*100.

In order to control for Type I error across the seven pre to post comparisons, a Bonferroni correction was applied, establishing an adjusted significance threshold of α = 0.007. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients were used to examine the exploratory associations between average enjoyment across the 30 training sessions and all cognitive and motor performance indices considered in the study. For each cognitive and motor variable, the score entered in the correlation analysis was calculated as the average of the pre-test and post-test values. These analyses were exploratory and were intended to examine associations between overall perceived enjoyment and overall performance levels, rather than to model individual change from pre-test to post-test. To contextualize these correlational analyses, a post-hoc sensitivity analysis revealed that with a sample size of n = 56, α = 0.05, a statistical power of 0.80, and two-tailed, the study was powered to detect minimum effect sizes of |r| ≥ 0.365. Consequently, observed correlation coefficients below this threshold fall within a range that the study was not formally powered to detect.

Given the exploratory nature of these analyses, the results were interpreted cautiously, with attention to both the magnitude and statistical significance of the correlation coefficients. The presence of outlier values was checked using the interquartile range method to avoid unusual influences on the correlation analyses. No outliers were removed, as their exclusion did not change the correlation results. Furthermore, to check the robustness of the findings against potential sex-related confounds, a sensitivity analysis was performed by re-running the primary statistical tests on the male subsample alone. Data were analyzed using SPSS v.29.0.1.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

3. Results

The descriptive statistics (expressed as mean ± standard deviation or median [interquartile range]) of the variables considered for the pre to post comparison are summarized in Table 1.

The paired-samples t-test showed a significant pre to post difference in TEM score (t55 = 3.15; p = 0.003; Δ = −19.4%; Cohen’s d = 0.42 [CI95: 0.15, 0.69]). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed a significant pre to post difference in FlankTime (W = 1345, p < 0.001; Δ = −8.1%; rank-biserial correlation = 0.68 [CI95: 0.51, 0.81]; Figure 2). StopAcc (W = 386, p = 0.038; Δ = 3.3%; rank-biserial correlation = −0.34 [CI95: −0.57, −0.05]) and FlankAcc (W = 323, p = 0.015; Δ = 0.0%, with 10 tied pairs, suggesting a difference in the tail distribution, Figure 3) showed nominal pre to post differences. However, after applying the Bonferroni correction for the seven pre to post comparisons, only TEM and FlankTime remained statistically significant at the adjusted threshold of α = 0.007.

Spearman’s rank correlation analyses did not show significant associations between enjoyment and any of the cognitive or motor performance indices considered. Table 2 summarizes the correlation coefficients and p-values.

Each participant’s enjoyment score was calculated as the average of the 30 ratings collected across the training sessions. Descriptive statistics indicated high overall perceived enjoyment, with a median score of 5.26 (IQR = 0.79), suggesting that enjoyment scores were clustered toward the upper end of the scale. Table 3 shows the results obtained for the non-significant variables.

The sensitivity analysis excluding the four female participants yielded a pattern of findings consistent with the main analysis, with all remaining cognitive metrics and enjoyment correlations maintaining their previous results (detailed statistical outputs are provided in the Supplementary Materials). Specifically, the pre to post improvement in FlankTime retained statistical significance after Bonferroni correction, whereas the change in TEM did not reach the adjusted significance threshold (p = 0.012; adjusted α = 0.007).

4. Discussion

Our study examined pre to post changes in selected cognitive variables over a 15-week observation period in young soccer players and assessed whether the enjoyment they experienced during training sessions was associated with cognitive performance. The results showed significant pre to post differences for TEM and FlankTime, indicating changes in these variables over the observation period. By contrast, the finding for FlankAcc should be interpreted cautiously, as it was only nominally significant and did not survive correction for multiple comparisons. These findings suggest that, in the sample analysed, certain cognitive indices changed over the 15-week observation period, but these changes do not appear to be directly associated with the level of enjoyment perceived during training sessions. This issue is particularly relevant because enjoyment scores showed evidence of a restricted range/ceiling effect, with scores clustered toward the upper end of the scale. Consequently, this limited variability may have reduced the ability to detect significant associations between enjoyment and the cognitive and motor performance indices examined.

4.1. Cognitive and Motor Performance Changes

It is important to emphasize that these differences between the pre-test and post-test phases should not be interpreted as evidence that soccer training led to cognitive improvement. Since the study did not include a control group or random assignment, the observed changes could also reflect developmental maturation, seasonal effects, regression to the mean, repeated exposure to the assessment protocol, familiarity with the cognitive tasks performed on tablets, greater familiarity with the assessment environment, nonspecific effects of regular sports practice, or other uncontrolled factors. From an exploratory perspective, these pre to post differences may be considered in relation to the cognitive demands of soccer, an open-skill sport in which young athletes must continuously adapt to dynamic stimuli, select relevant information, inhibit non-functional responses, and make rapid decisions under conditions of uncertainty. These demands involve executive processes such as selective attention, processing speed, and inhibitory control [35]. It is important to stress that the change observed in FlankTime concerns a task involving stimulus selection and interference control. Therefore, the present design does not allow this change to be attributed to soccer-specific cognitive demands. In particular, developmental maturation and test to retest or practice effects cannot be separated from changes potentially related to regular soccer participation. Moreover, the use of only two assessment points further prevents examination of the temporal trajectory of these changes or of any potential dose to response pattern. Previous studies have shown that young soccer players with higher levels of experience or skill may perform better on tasks involving EFs, attention, and inhibitory control [10,11,12,13]. However, these interpretations remain preliminary because the design of the present study does not allow causal attribution of the observed changes to soccer training. The result for FlankAcc requires particular caution and should not be interpreted as evidence of a general improvement in accuracy. Although the pre to post difference was nominally significant, it did not survive Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. Moreover, the median change was zero, suggesting that the statistically detected difference does not reflect a clear central shift in performance. Rather, the result likely reflects changes in the distribution of scores, particularly in the tails, or heterogeneous responses among participants. This pattern may also be consistent with restricted variability or ceiling effects, which are common in accuracy-based measures when performance is already high. Therefore, FlankAcc should be described as showing a nominal, uncorrected distributional change rather than a reliable improvement in attentional accuracy. In contrast, FlankTime appears to provide a more interpretable and sensitive index of change in attentional efficiency in the present sample. With regard to the sensitivity analysis conducted on the male subsample, the overall picture was fairly consistent with the analysis of the entire sample. FlankTime remained statistically significant after Bonferroni correction (p < 0.001; corrected α = 0.007), whereas TEM retained a similar pattern of change but no longer met the adjusted significance threshold (p = 0.012). FlankAcc (p = 0.034) and StopAcc (p = 0.026) showed nominal, uncorrected differences between the pre- and post-phases, while StopTime (p = 0.206), VisualTime (p = 0.431), and VisualAcc (p = 0.843) showed no significant differences. Therefore, among the comparisons, only FlankTime passed the Bonferroni correction in the male subsample. Given the very small number of female participants and the resulting reduction in sample size, these results should be interpreted with caution and do not allow for significant conclusions regarding sex-related differences.

4.2. Enjoyment and Cognitive and Motor Performance

In line with our exploratory objective, the correlation analyses revealed no statistically significant associations between enjoyment and the cognitive or motor performance indices examined (rho = 0.037 to 0.197). However, this finding should be interpreted strictly within the limits of the study’s statistical power. With a sample size of n = 56, the study was powered to detect only moderate-to-large associations (|r| ≥ 0.365). Consequently, these results indicate a lack of a statistically detectable moderate-to-large association at the available power, rather than a structurally established absence of any relationship.

Enjoyment is considered an important variable in youth sports, particularly as it supports motivation, participation, and continuity in PA [15,16]. Among young soccer players, enjoyment of the activity has also been linked to athletic commitment and the quality of the motivational experience [24]. However, the present findings suggest that the enjoyment perceived during training is not necessarily associated with performance on the cognitive tasks examined. The absence of significant associations should also be interpreted in light of potential individual differences in terms of exercise intensity, fatigue, and training requirements. This does not diminish the value of enjoyment in youth sports. Rather, it suggests that enjoyment may be more closely related to the subjective quality of the sports experience, persistence in practice, and overall engagement, while its relationship with specific measures of executive performance may depend on unmeasured factors such as exercise intensity, cumulative load, and fatigue. This interpretation is consistent with the broad and subjective nature of enjoyment, which can include satisfaction, engagement, a sense of competence, relationships with teammates, the relationship with the coach, satisfaction with one’s own performance, and the meaning attributed to the session. This complexity makes enjoyment an ecologically rich construct, but one that is also difficult to link linearly to individual cognitive measures. The lack of significant associations may also be partly related to the measurement approach. Averaging a brief emoji-based assessment across sessions may have reduced intra-subject variability and may not have captured distinct components of enjoyment, such as affective enjoyment, perceived competence, social interaction, or task engagement.

For example, children might report the same level of enjoyment for different reasons. One might feel this way because they believe they played well, another because they had fun with the group, and yet another because they found the training less tiring or more rewarding. These components might have different relationships with attention, reaction times, and inhibitory control. This is consistent with the literature showing that the effects of positive affect on cognitive control are not straightforward. Positive affect can broaden the scope of attention and promote cognitive flexibility, but it can also increase distractibility when the task requires careful stimulus selection [18,19]. Other studies have suggested that the effect of positive states depends on motivational intensity: approach-oriented positive states may promote a narrower focus, while those less goal-oriented may broaden the scope of attention [20,21,22]. In this study, however, enjoyment was assessed at the end of training sessions rather than during the cognitive tests. Therefore, it is plausible that it reflects the overall quality of the sporting experience rather than the attentional state active during cognitive assessment.

4.3. Practical Implications

From a practical perspective, these results require a balanced interpretation. Youth soccer can provide an environment rich in cognitive stimuli, especially when sessions include dynamic situations, decision-making tasks, themed games, and activities requiring selective attention and action control. However, the enjoyment derived from the activity should not be considered a direct indicator of changes in cognitive performance, and although it remains essential for sustaining motivation, adherence, and the quality of the sporting experience, it cannot be used on its own as an indicator of attentional or inhibitory performance. From this perspective, coaches and professionals should view enjoyment and cognitive performance as distinct, although potentially interrelated, dimensions of the youth sports experience. Maintaining an enjoyable training environment remains important in its own right, particularly to foster engagement and continued participation, rather than because greater enjoyment necessarily corresponds to better performance. Consequently, the evaluation of youth training programs could benefit from considering subjective experience alongside measures of cognitive and motor performance, rather than as a substitute for them.

5. Limitations of the Study

This study has several limitations. First, the absence of a control or comparison group substantially limits its internal validity and precludes a causal interpretation of the pre to post changes. These changes could reflect soccer training, but they could also reflect age-related cognitive and motor maturation, which is particularly relevant in the 9 to 11-year age range, seasonal effects, regression to the mean, repeated exposure to the testing protocol, familiarity with tablet-based activities, increased familiarity with the testing environment, nonspecific effects of regular sports participation, or other uncontrolled factors. Second, the sample was predominantly male, with only four female players included, which limits generalizability to young female soccer players and precludes a meaningful examination of sex-related differences. Third, training intensity and accumulated training load were not directly monitored. Although the sessions followed a comparable structure, internal and external demands may have varied among players and across sessions, influencing both enjoyment and cognitive performance through fatigue, perceived exertion, technical engagement, or attentional demands. Future studies should include the session RPE scale, heart rate monitoring, GPS tracking, accelerometry, or other indicators of exercise load. Fourth, enjoyment scores were clustered toward the upper end of the scale, resulting in restricted interindividual variability. This may have reduced the ability to detect (oppure statistical power to detect) associations with cognitive and motor outcomes. This limitation is particularly relevant to the interpretation of the correlational analyses. Finally, potentially relevant psychological and contextual variables (including anxiety, stress, sleep quality, technical skill level, perceived competence, motivational climate, biological maturity, and rater blindness) were not fully accounted for. Future studies should include comparison groups, workload monitoring, more detailed psychological measures, and longitudinal or experimental designs to clarify the relationship between soccer practice, enjoyment, and EFs.

6. Conclusions

In conclusion, this exploratory study showed preliminary pre to post changes in selected cognitive and motor variables over a 15-week observation period, but did not reveal significant associations between enjoyment and cognitive performance, although the restricted variability in enjoyment scores limits the interpretation of these correlational findings. Given the absence of a control or comparison group, these changes should not be interpreted as evidence that soccer training produced improvements in EFs. Their relationship appears complex and requires interpretive models capable of integrating cognitive, motivational, emotional, and contextual factors.

Angilletta et al., Children, 2026, doi:10.3390/children13091204. Published under CC BY 4.0: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Source:Children (Basel, Switzerland) ↗

↑ Contents