## 4 Discussion  
Small-sided games (SSG) are a training tool that use task constraints to optimise the development of physical, physiological, technical, and tactical aspects in soccer players. Although there is already a lot of knowledge about the use of SSGs for training in men's soccer, especially regarding different SSG configurations [21,23,29,57], little is known about women's soccer. Therefore, the present study aimed to compare physical, physiological, and tactical responses in small-sided games with equal and numerical superiority in elite women's soccer. The first hypothesis of our study, which predicted a decrease in physical response in games with numerical superiority compared to games with numerical equality, was refuted. Our results showed a greater distance covered at speeds between 7.20-14.29 km/h (m) in the numerical superiority configuration, as well as a similarity between the configurations in the other physical variables analysed. These results partially support the study by [PERSON] et al. [58], which found that in configurations of variable superiority (4 vs. 4 + 1) and fixed superiority (5 vs. 4), a greater total distance is covered, and a greater distance is covered at speeds between 8.0-13.0 km/h and 13.01-18.0 km/h when compared to the numerical equality configuration (4 vs. 4). However, these findings were inconsistent with other studies in the field, which indicate a greater physical response in games with numerical equality [59,60]. In this context, some studies have shown that there is a decrease in physical response when extra players are added, in terms of total distance covered and distance covered at speeds above 14,0 km/h [29,61,62], as well as an increase in the distance covered at moderate speeds that go up to 7.2 km/h [29] or 9.9 km/h [61]. Despite the contradictory results found in the literature, it is still possible to observe that there is no consistency in the studies in the area regarding specific physical responses to \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline  & **Numerical Equality** & **Numerical Superiority** & \(p\)**-Value** & **Effect Size** \\  & **(95\%CI)** & **(95\%CI)** & **(95\%CI)** & **(95\%CI)** \\ \hline FC\({}_{\text{media}}\) (bpm) & 165 \(\pm\) 18 & 167 \(\pm\) 14 & 0.33 & 0.12—Small \\  & (157–173) & (161–173) & 0.33 & 0.12—Small \\ FC\({}_{\text{mix.}}\) (bpm) & 185 \(\pm\) 11 & 181 \(\pm\) 12 & 0.01  & 0.34—Small \\  & (180–189) & (176–186) & 0.01  & 0.34—Small \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Mean \(\pm\) SD of professional women players’ physiological responses during small-sided games with numerical equality and superiority. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline  & **Numerical Equality** & **Numerical Superiority** & \(p\)**-Value** & **Effect Size** \\  & **(95\%CI)** & **(95\%CI)** & **(95\%CI)** & **(95\%CI)** \\ \hline SEI (m) & 7.35 \(\pm\) 0.83 & 6.53 \(\pm\) 0.84 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.001 *} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.98—Large} \\  & (7.02–7.68) & (6.19–6.87) & & \\ Depth (m) & 20.34 \(\pm\) 1.90 & 18.86 \(\pm\) 2.24 & & \\  & (19.58–21.10) & (17.96–19.76) & & \\ Width (m) & 15.72 \(\pm\) 1.54 & 14.97 \(\pm\) 3.00 & & \\  & (15.10–16.33) & (13.77–16.77) & & \\ Elongation index (m) & 8.72 \(\pm\) 0.40 & 8.20 \(\pm\) 0.46 & & \\  & (8.44–8.99) & (7.88–8.52) & 0.02  & 1.20—Large \\ Width/depth ratio & 67.27 \(\pm\) 13.47 & 69.35 \(\pm\) 13.01 & & \\  & (57.93–76.60) & (60.33–78.37) & 0.660 & 0.15—Small \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Mean \(\pm\) SD of professional women players’ tactical responses during small-sided games with numerical equality and superiority. SSG formats [17; 26; 30]. For example, the overall results of [PERSON], [PERSON], and [PERSON] [30] disagree with our results, but when considering the distances covered between speeds of 0.00-7.2 km/h and 14.4-21.5 km/h, which were similar between 3 vs. 3, 4 vs. 3 (fixed superiority), and 3 vs. 3 + 2 (variable superiority) SSG, there is an agreement with our results in professional women's soccer.