Manninen - Skills v. Games - FIFA Training Centre

In this Research Brief, Mika Manninen investigates the scientific evidence on game-based and skills-based approaches to training, and discusses how coaches can combine the two to develop their squads.

Much has been written about the dichotomy between game-based and skills-based approaches to football training. In theory, each of these schools of thought should have clear advantages. However, as Mika Manninen of Dublin City University explains, the scientific evidence on these approaches is mixed – and more nuanced that one might expect.

Key take-aways

Game-based approaches can be a powerful coaching tool, but the more traditional skills-based method also has a role to play.
Evidence on how best to use these approaches is mixed and context-dependent, so coaches need to think carefully and be prepared to adapt.
Both approaches can be tweaked to make them more effective for individual teams and players.

Watch brief

Part 1: The two approaches: skills v. games

Part 2: The study and its findings

Part 3: Implications and future research

Read summary

Part 1: The two approaches: skills v. games
Broadly speaking, there are two approaches to teaching skills in football. On the one hand, there is the traditional skill approach (TSA), which focuses on developing technique and motor skills before introducing game-like exercises. On the other, there is the game-based approach (GBA), which uses realistic, in-game scenarios from the outset to foster decision-making and dynamic skills. Theoretically, these approaches have obvious strengths and weaknesses: TSA should result in better technique, while GBA should improve game intelligence. In practice, though, the picture is more complicated.

Part 2: The study and its findings
This study is a based on meta-analysis (synthesising results from multiple studies to estimate an effect or difference). It included 28 studies on a range of sports, and aimed to measure the impacts of TSA and GBA on decision-making ability, knowledge of the game, and motor skills. While GBA was found to be better than TSA for developing decision-making, the difference was smaller than might have been expected. Even more surprisingly, GBA was found to be slightly more effective than TSA for developing isolated motor skills, and outperformed TSA overall in approximately 60% of cases.

Part 3: Implications and future research
These results appear to show that GBA is particularly effective for improving decision-making in real match play. TSA does lead to positive changes in players’ decision-making and skills, but not necessarily to the same extent. However, confidence in these insights is limited; there is a need for more research focusing a wider range of sports and age groups, and examining how GBA and TSA are actually used. The effects of these approaches are likely to be linked to how effectively they are implemented, so coaches should be flexible in combining them, and trust their judgement.

Paper citation
Manninen M, Magrum E, Campbell S & Belton S (2025). The effect of game-based approaches on decision-making, knowledge, and motor skill: A systematic review and a multilevel meta-analysis. European Physical Education Review, 31(1), 18–32.

You can read the full paper here.

About the expert

Dr Mika Manninen is Assistant Professor of Physical Education in the School of Health and Human Performance at Dublin City University. His work focuses on effective teaching practices and how they shape student motivation and learning. His research is strongly grounded in the theory of learning, and examines how instructional approaches influence motivation, emotions and performance. He has a broad interest in physical activity, behaviour and mood, and strives to employ experimental designs and meta-analytical methodology into his work. Beyond academia, he has extensive experience as a teacher and coach in domains including basketball, gymnastics and circus skills.