# Intra and inter variation in training load, recovery state and technical–tactical performance across a standard microcycle in Sub-elite youth football players

## TL;DR

This study examines how training, recovery, and performance vary in young football players across a short competitive cycle, comparing U11 and U13 age groups.

## Contribution

The study provides new insights into the intra and inter variation of training load, recovery, and technical-tactical performance in sub-elite youth football players.

## Key findings

- Matches elicited the highest objective intensities in high-speed running and sprint measures.
- U13 players outperformed U11 in high-intensity and tactical outcomes, while U11 showed higher perceived exertion.
- Multidimensional monitoring can help align training with long-term development goals in youth football.

## Abstract

Monitoring youth football requires integrating physical, perceptual, recovery, and tactical dimensions. However, evidence in younger sub-elite cohorts (U11–U13) remains scarce. This study aimed to analyze intra and inter variation in external load, internal load, recovery, and technical–tactical indicators across a competitive microcycle, comparing U11 and U13 sub-elite players. We hypothesized that (i) the match would elicit the highest objective intensities, while training would be perceived as more demanding, and (ii) U13 players would outperform U11 in high-intensity and tactical outcomes, whereas U11 would show higher perceived exertion and greater motor irregularity.

Forty male sub-elite players (U11 = 30; U13 = 10) were monitored across a competitive microcycle (MD-4 to MD). External load was assessed via GPS (TD, AvS, HSR, HID, sprints, MRS, ACC, DEC), internal load through HR (U13 only) and session-RPE, recovery via TQR, and technical–tactical performance using FUT-SAT (DMI, MEI).

The match elicited the highest intensities in HSR, MRS, AvS, and HID, while all training sessions were perceived as ∼400 AU more demanding in sRPE than MD. U13 players outperformed U11 in intensity-and velocity-based measures (HSR +166%, sprints +150%, MRS +5%), while U11 showed higher TD (+10%), ACC (+23%), DEC (+29%), and sRPE (+6%). HR data in U13 revealed greater Z5 exposure in MD-4 vs. MD-1 and higher Z2 time on MD-1. In the tactical domain, U13 displayed superior offensive coverage effectiveness in both DMI and MEI, with no differences in other principles.

These findings demonstrate that the microcycle followed a structured pattern, with matches concentrating objective intensity and training sessions eliciting greater perceived effort. Practically, training for U11 should emphasize motor efficiency and load regulation, while U13 programs should target high-intensity capacity and tactical coordination. Over time, integrating multidimensional monitoring (GPS, sRPE, TQR, FUT-SAT) may guide coaches in aligning training stimuli with long-term development goals, bridging physical, perceptual, and tactical competencies in sub-elite youth football.