Comparative Analysis of The Offensive Game Between Real Madrid 10/11 and 09/10 Inter Milan

Transcription

1 Comparative Analysis of The Offensive Game Between Real Madrid 10/11 and 09/10 Inter Milan António A. Barbosa 2, Hugo M. Sarmento 1, Antoni P. Anzano 2,Jorge M. Campaniço 1 1 University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal; 2 Institut Nacional d`éducació Física de Catalunya Abstract The purpose of this study was to characterize the offensive process of the teams of Real Madrid and Inter Milan. We analyzed the different styles of play (counterattack, fast attack and positional attack) by accessing the interaction contexts in Real Madrid (RM) 2010/2011 and International de Milan (IM) 2009/2010. Both teams have the same coach and assistant coaches, we want to check the existence of offensive model. The sample consisted of 24 football games of domestic competitions that were analyzed by systematic observation. The type of attack most often used by Real Madrid and of Inter Milano used more often the positional attack. The results were found related to the behaviors, the zones of the field and the interaction contexts in which the recovery of ball possession is performed, the last pass, and the finalization in the different teams, which allows us to better understand the differences between them. Key words: Football, Comparison offensive process. Introduction Football is a sport with a high degree of unpredictable and randomness, due to the open involvement, the high number of players and the size of the pitch/dimension of the playing field, the duration of the game, the emotional charge of each match, continuing the number of various factors that determine the elements with direct intervention on the game. Le Moigne (1994), consider that molding a complex system is to elaborate and conceive models, this is, symbolic constructions, with which we can define projects of action, rate their process and its model efficacy. The game itself should be self outlook capable of generating, according to multiplicities shares and options, the player should be able to choose the solution leading the team in direction of an intended and known path. This model makes sense only if the performer is able to detect and understand the problems of football that is intended for the team in question. The game model is a mental concept with practical application, where the intervention of the trainer is crucial. According to Guilherme Oliveira (2004) in creating a model game for a team one must take into account some aspects that interact: the game design of the coach; the capabilities and characteristics of the players; the playing principles; the structural organization and functionality. This study aims to characterize and to verify the existence of possible similarities or differences, referring to the offensive process of two international teams, Milan 2009/2010 and Real Madrid 2010/2011, which share the same technical team and play for the same competitive goals in two of the best football championships of today. Methods The sample included 24 games (12 per team) from the sporting season 2009/2010 F.C. Internazionale Milan and Real Madrid F.C..The design used in the present study was descriptive and was based on an

2 observational methodology applied to the acquisition of data (Anguera et al., 2000). The matches were analyzed through systematic observation by using a specific instrument to observe the offensive process (Sarmento et al. 2010). The study of the data reliability was calculated by the intra and inter observer agreement, and values above 0.90 for all criteria were achieved. The following criteria were used in this study: 1- Type of attack - counter-attack, fast attack and positional attack; 2- Start of the Offensive Process (OP) - recovery of the ball possession by: interception (IPi); disarm (IPd); goalkeeper action (Ipgr), opponents goal (Ipga); due to the rules of the game (Ipera); 3- End of the OP - Shot with score goal, shot, free kick, corner kick, penalty, pass inside the penalty area, recovery of the ball by the opponent without reaching the penalty area, pass to the outside of the field, violation of the rules of the game by the observed team; 4- Area where the action was made - 12 zones and four sectors were differentiated on the field (figure 1); 5- Interactions contexts in the center of the game (CG). To analyze the interaction context, we used the concept of the center of the game (Castelo, 1992), that is defined as the zone of the field where the ball moves at a certain instant, through a context of cooperation and opposition of the influential players in the game, in the specific zone where is the player has possession of the ball. We consider 5 categories for this criteria: 1- Relative numeric inferiority (Pir): the observed team has less 1 or 2 players in the CG (e.g., 1vs2, 3vs5); 2- Absolute numeric inferiority (Pia): the observed team has less 3 or more players in the CG (e.g., 1vs4, 2vs5); 3-Absolute numeric superiority (SPsa): the observed team has 3 or more players in the CG (e.g., 4vs1, 5vs2); 4- Relative numeric superiority (SPsr): the observed team has more 1 or 2 players in the center of the game (e.g., 2vs1, 2vs0); 5- Equality numeric under pressure (Pip): i) the observed team has the same number of the players in the defensive midfielder; ii) in the offensive midfielder sector, the player in possession of the ball is standing with his back to the goal with an opponent in contention and doesn t have pass lines to areas of greater offensiveness; 6- Equality numeric unpressured (SPinp): the observed team has the same number of players in the offensive sector, or, when in the offensive midfielder sector, the player in possession of the ball is standing with his back to the goal with free pass lines to areas of greater offensiveness, or the player in possession of the ball is facing the goal. Chi-square test to compare the differences between the team concerning the styles of play and descriptive analyses for all variables was done with the statistics software SPSS Results In total, 577 attacks were analyzed. The team of IM attacked 199 times, and the team of RM performed 378 attacks. The type of attack most often used by the teams of RM and IM is the Positional Attack

3 (36,5% and 39,2% respectively). The fast attack is the second most often used by IM (33.7) and RM (34,39%) teams. The counterattack is most often used by the RM team (29.1%), while it is the least used for the IM (27.1%).Regarding the sector where the possession of the ball is recovered, the teams have similar results for the different offensive styles of play (Table I).When counterattacks were performed, the teams differ the percentages of ball possession recovery area, IM the DMS is that as the most import percentage, when compared with RM in this specific type of attack shows a clear intension of recovering the ball in the OMS. The lateral midfielder zones are more often used to recover the ball, zones 4 and 6 in the DMS, and in the counter attack of RM zones 7 and 9. In general, the interception of the ball is the behavior most often used to recover the ball in both teams and styles of play, the only exception refers to the counterattacks of the IM that starts by more balls recovered by interruptions due to the rules of the game. The recovery of ball possession generally occurs in interaction contexts of relative numeric superiority (SPsr) that means the observed team has one or two more players in the center of the game. Comparing both teams RM more often recovers the ball in situation of numeric inferiority. Table I Sector of the field, behavior and interaction context in the recovery of ball possession (percentage). Fast attack Team Counterattack RM IM Positional attack RM IM RM IM Sector Behavior Interaction context DS DMS OMS OS Ipd Ipera Ipgr Ipi Pir Pip SPinp Spsr Spsa Concerning to the counterattacks and fast attacks, in terms of orientation, the zones more often used for the last pass are: the two left-hand for RM (36.4% and 40%) for the IM the two central (27% and 32.9 % respectively). The farthest zones, namely, the zones of the defensive midfielder (DM) were less frequently used by RM, however, IM presents a percentage for the last pass performed in the DM, is higher in fast attack and positional attack (Table II). The zone where the behavior that characterizes the end of the counterattacks and fast attacks is performed, the more often used are: and the two central for the RM (45.4% and 42.3%, respectively); and the two right-hand for the IM (46.2% and 38.8%, respectively). In the positional attack, the zones more often used in the end of the offensive process are the central zones for all the teams: RM (50%) and IM (38.4%).The zones more often used to perform the last pass are: the left-hand for the RM (41.3%); the central for the IM (35.8%). The most part of the actions happen in a context of relative numeric inferiority (less one or two players) in the corridors, or in an interaction context of unpressured numeric equality. Comparing RM with IM the dates shows that IM as more percentage of action in numeric superiority. Table II Zones of the field and interaction context for the actions of Last Pass and End of the

4 Offensive Process (OP) (percentage) Zones of the field Interaction Contexts Z7 Z8 Z9 Z10 Z11 Z12 DM Pia Pir Pip SPinp SPsr SPsa End of the OP Last Pass Counterattack RM IM RM IM End of the OP Last Pass Fast Attack RM IM RM IM End of the OP Last Pass Positional Attack RM IM RM IM Comparing the teams regarding the behaviors performed in the end of the offensive process, we can conclude that the most frequent behaviors are: RM the shot and the recovery of the ball by the opponent. In the positional attack the behavior pass to the inside of the penalty area as the same percentage as recovery of the ball by the opponent. IM the shot and pass inside the penalty area the behaviors that are more often executed. These results are related to the methodology used in this study, since we observed only the offensive sequences that ended in the offensive sector. Concerning the goals scored, the RM team scored more goals (n=14,) through the fast attack when compared with the goals scored by counterattack (n=10,) or by the positional attacks (n=5).im team scored more goals (n=7,) through the positional attacks when compared with the goals scored by counterattack (n=5,) or by the fast attack (n=5). Table III Behavior performed at the End of the Offensive Process (percentage) Counterattack Fast Attack Positional Attack RM IM RM IM RM IM Shot with score goal Shot Free kick Corner kick Penalty Pass to the inside of the penalty area Recovery of the ball by the opponent Pass to the outside of the field Violation of the rules Discussion and conclusion Comparing the results we verified that RM produced almost the double of action on the offensive process that IM. Both teams of RM and IM, tended to more often adopt the positional attack to perform their

5 offensive acttak. Curiously we verified a very close percentage of using its four of attack. We believe it is an evidence that the principles that lead to game-making option for the offending process are essentially the same. The zones more often used to recover the ball possession are those that belong to the defensive midfielder sector. However Counterattacks, shows very different zones, IM tended to recover more balls in zone 5 (central) of the field, RM tend to recover the ball in zone 9 and 7. This result allows us to check different areas of recovery of possession. However we think that it reflects the importance of the area of recovery of possession with the type of attack that the team performs. The recovery area predicts the model of attack, that is, if the team recovers the ball in these zones, it will try to attack in a particular way. We have also noticed that the teams recovered the ball in different spatial zones, RM recovers the ball in the lateral corridor, IM the center corridor. The Behaviors more often used for recovering the ball position are the interception and disarm. Those interceptions allow the offensive game to take advantage of the game spaces inter and between lines while the opposing team in transition defense. IM starts their counterattacks by situations due to the rules of the game (e.g., fouls, off-side), and starts the offensive sequence more often from the defensive midfield, through quick transitions from the defensive midfielder zones to the offensive zones, trying to take advantage of the disorganization of the opponent. RM starts its Posittional attack due to the rules of the game rules (e.g., fouls, off-side), this results in our opinion, is more apparent, because the opposing teams quickly fit their behavior to avoid this marking set pieces quickly. Comparing the zone of last pass, we verified that RM and IM on Counterattack sic to execute the last pass from the defensive midfielder further on the last pass zone RM plays more often in the left corridor, zone 10 is the more often used in the positional attack and fast attack.im performed more frequently the last pass and the end action in the same zones (central zones). These results seem to safeguard the importance of human resources (player) in taking on the option in relation to adopted styles of play. Analyzing the goals scored by the teams through the different offensive methods of play. The teams scored a total of RM 29 gals and IM scored 17 goals. Despite the significant differences on the goals RM scored RM has more twelve goals in percentage IM have a higher rate of success in finalization (IM 26.5% and RM 23.5) The RM team scored more goals through the fast attack, and the IM scored more goals through the positional attack. Taking into account the values for the process so that the game tailored and the percentage of use of each one, comparing now with the values obtained for the parameter completion we believe that the success rate with this goal Shot with score related to the characteristics specific and individual players from different teams are identical or own playing style of each championship. We believe that there is an attacking style more efficient in the sense of directing the team for training only exhaustive, but rather a set of principles that predict a style of play. The success of the offensive process is directly related to the players of a team awareness and their ability to adapt behavior according to the opposing team's defensive model.

6 Analyzing the interaction contexts, we find that at the time of recovery of possession RM and IM always presents higher values in the context of relative superiority (one or two players) in all offensive processes. Checking now how the offensive process ends it is noted that the majority of shares end on a numeric inferiority. An interesting fact in this fast attack of RM and on Positional attack of IM both teams seem to have the same values (9.2% and 9.0% respectively) that these two methods are the most successful offensive in each team. These points allow us to check the importance of numerical superiority at the time of organizing offensive and defensive organization, in which the general objectives are, according to Queiróz (1986) does not allow the numerical inferiority, avoid numerical equality, seeking to create a numerical superiority. These values also appear to show that because of the tactical game evolution the number of players involved in the organization is less offensive and on the other hand the number of players involved in defensive organization is greater. We believe that there is a structural pattern of actions that lead to certain behaviors or offensive processes, that this pattern are determined and implemented by this coach, but the central importance of human resources that the team has and unique capabilities that determine the type of action chosen. If we compare the specific characteristics of each style of championship play, we found significant differences, but we also located some transversal ideas. With the latter in mind, this study is the first step of a series of analysis, which will be carried out with the techniques of sequential analysis and t-pattern detection. References Anguera, T., Villaseñor, Á., Lopes, L. L., & Mendo, A. H. (2000). La metodología observacional en el deporte: conceptos básicos. Lecturas: Educación Física y Deportes, (24). Retrieved from Castelo (1992). Conceptualização de um modelo técnico/tactico do jogo de futebol. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Technical University of Lisbon, Lisbon. Garganta (1997). Modelação táctica do jogo de Futebol. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Porto, Porto. Hughes, M.D. & Franks, I.M. (2005) Possession length and goal-scoring in soccer. Journal of Sport Sciences, 23, Guilherme Olivera J. (2004) Conhecimento especifico em futebol Contributos para a definição de uma matriz dinâmica do processo de ensino aprendizagem /treino do futebol. Dissertaçõa de mestrado (não publicada) Porto FCDEF LE Moigne, J. (1994) O Construtivismo. Volume I: dos fundamentos. Lisboa. Instituto Piaget. Queiroz, C. (1986): Estrutura e organização de exercícios de treino em futebol. F.P. Futebol. Lisboa. Sarmento, H., Anguera, T., Campaniço, J. & Leitão, J. (2010). Development and Validation of a Notational System to Study the Offensive Process in Football. Medicina (Kaunas), 46(6),