Relationship between technical–tactical indicators of attention and creativity and effort zones in youth football players during competitions

Background and study aim. Cognitive performance, specifically attention and creativity, contributes to the tactical effectiveness of youth football players. This contribution becomes evident when actions are executed under competitive physiological constraints. Examining how physical demands interact with perceptual and cognitive processes may support the development of training methodologies and competitive decision-making strategies. This study aims to analyze the relationship between technical–tactical indicators of attention and creativity and effort-zone parameters in young football players. Material and methods. Twelve male football players (10–12 years old) from CSS1 Pajura Bucharest participated voluntarily in the study. Competition monitoring was conducted in 2022 and included 15 official matches in Series I and 14 matches in Series II. Functional parameters were assessed using Polar Vantage V devices. These parameters included heart rate (HR), running speed, total distance, and effort-zone distribution (Z1–Z5). Technical–tactical indicators of attention (CARR%) and creativity (ICV%) were quantified through video analysis. Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation coefficients (p < 0.05) were calculated using KyPlot 6.0. Results Competition effort showed a predominantly aerobic profile (Z1 + Z2 ≈ 53% by HR), interspersed with repeated short anaerobic episodes (Z3–Z5 ≈ 39%). Speed zones revealed mainly slow-to-moderate movements. This indicates that physiological intensity was largely generated by frequent game actions rather than locomotor velocity. Attention performance remained high and stable across matches (CARR 71.95–78.69%). Creativity values were consistently higher in Series II (ICV 7.69–9.09%). Correlation analysis revealed both positive and negative associations between cognitive and physical indicators. Moderate positive correlations were observed between attention and creativity indicators and moderate-intensity zones (R = 0.30–0.46). In contrast, high effort (HR-Z5) was associated with reduced cognitive efficiency (R = −0.25 to −0.43). Conclusions. The interaction between physiological load and cognitive–tactical performance should be considered when planning training and competition strategies for young football players. Attention to effort-zone regulation and its cognitive implications may assist coaches in structuring training tasks that account for both physical and cognitive demands. The combined assessment of physiological and technical–tactical indicators provides a framework for informed training design and decision-making support.