Author: Joshua Rice PhD et al
Journal: Sport Performance & Science Reports (2026)

The challenge the paper addresses

In elite football squads, not all players experience the same match load.
Starters accumulate large volumes of:

• high-speed running (HSR)
• sprint distance (SPR)
• physiological and mechanical stress

Meanwhile, fringe players and non-starters can go weeks with substantially lower exposure to these key match demands.

Over time, this creates accumulative load gaps that may lead to:

• detraining effects
• reduced physical readiness
• increased injury risk when suddenly selected to play

The core issue:

Match play is the biggest physical stimulus in the week — and some players don’t get it.

---

What practitioners currently do: “Top-up” sessions

Most clubs already use compensatory (“top-up”) conditioning after matches or early in the week to try to close this gap.

However, the paper shows:

• Typical top-ups only achieve 25–50% of match HSR and sprint demands
• Standard team training does not replicate match loads, especially for HSR
• Time, logistics, and player availability limit what can realistically be done

So while top-ups help, they do not truly replace match exposure.

---

What works best to maintain readiness

The authors describe three key tools and when to use them:

1. Small-Sided Games (SSGs) — but designed correctly

• Small formats (1v1–4v4) → high cardiovascular and metabolic load
• Large formats (>9v9, >165 m² per player) → better for HSR exposure
• Problem: you rarely have enough players for large formats post-match

Implication: SSGs are useful, but often insufficient alone for HSR replacement.

---

2. High-Intensity Interval Training (HIT) / Running-based conditioning

Using structured HIT allows precise control of:

• intensity
• interval duration
• recovery
• volume

This is often the only practical way to guarantee players hit the high-intensity stimulus they missed from matches.

---

3. Using peak match demands, not averages

Instead of copying “average match load”, sessions should target:

the most demanding passages of play

This better prepares players for the realities of match intensity and improves transfer to performance.

---

Why this is harder than it sounds

Designing these sessions is constrained by:

• Recovery needs (players might be selected next match)
• Limited pitch access (away games, travel)
• Low player numbers
• Fixture congestion
• Need to balance adaptation vs fatigue

This forces practitioners into compromises — often short running sessions instead of ideal football-specific work.

---

Practical solutions the authors recommend

To better close load gaps:

• Combine SSGs + HIT, not one or the other
• Individualize sessions based on each player’s recent load history
• Integrate technical/tactical elements to improve engagement
• Use GPS + HR to check whether the intended stimulus was actually achieved
• Use friendly or in-house matches when possible — these often provide better sport-specific stimulus than drills

Most importantly:

Top-ups should be seen as reducing the gap, not replacing match load.

---

Key insight for coaches and performance staff

The paper reframes the question from:

“How do we give non-starters some extra conditioning?”

to

“How do we systematically manage cumulative load exposure across the squad over weeks and months?”

This is a periodisation and monitoring problem, not just a session design problem.

---

Main takeaway

Match exposure is irreplaceable — but with smartly designed, individualized combinations of SSGs, HIT, and occasional match-like scenarios, practitioners can keep non-starters physically ready and reduce the risk when they are called upon.

Or in simple terms:

If you don’t actively manage load gaps, your non-starters slowly detrain without anyone noticing — until match day exposes it.

Note: This summary was generated with the assistance of ChatGPT based on the original paper, with the aim of translating the research into practical insights for coaches and practitioners.