VOLUME 14.1, 2018 D.O.I: https://doi.org/10.4127/jbe.2018.0126 Differences in Performance Indicators between successful and unsuccessful Teams in UEFA-EURO 2012 MICHALIS MITROTASIOS 1 1 School of Physical Education & Sport Science, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece Abstract The aim of the present study was to investigate the differences between successful and unsuccessful teams in terms of game-related statistics and performance variables. A total of 31 matches from UEFA-EURO 2012 were analyzed and 2 matches were excluded from analysis because the matches ended in a goalless draw. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and non-parametric chi-square analysis. Results revealed that, successful teams scored more goals, had longer ball possession, higher total attempts and attempts on target, won more corners and suffered more fouls, while unsuccessful teams had more attempts off target, conceded more yellow and red cards and committed more fouls. Concerning performance variables, successful teams had a higher proportion of goals scored in the second half, through open play and counter attack, while unsuccessful teams scored more goals through set plays. Successful teams scored more goals in 2nd half, while first goal effect had a greater impact on the final result of the match. This should provide valuable information for coaches and players, in order to guide the training process, but also to adjust their tactical plan before and during football matches. Key Words: Football, Match analysis, Efficiency, Goal scoring
12 JBE VOL. 14.1, 2018 Introduction The main purpose of analyzing football matches is to identify the strong and weak points of a team, in order to improve them through the training process (7). The selection and combination of variables are the performance indicators to assess the quality of the performance and to determine success (16). These variables of performance compose an ideal predictor of future behavior (30). Indeed, the success of a football team is considered in terms of being able to score more goals than the opposition in a particular game. To achieve the highest success, coaches use match analysis to examine attacking play, in particular, and also identify the strengths and weaknesses of their own team and their opponents (17). Some authors have tried to find whether there are differences between successful and unsuccessful teams in national and international competitions and representative factors in the implementation of successful attacks, as well as performance analysis of passing (5, 12, 13, 19, 15, 17, 32, 33, 34). However, some results of previous studies showed relatively contradictory findings. Hughes, Robertson and Nicholson (19) examined the patterns of play for successful (semi-finalists) and unsuccessful (eliminated at end of first round) teams in the 1986 World Cup finals and realized that what makes a team more successful is the number of touches of the ball. Moreover, successful teams have the tendency to organize more attacks through the middle of the field, while unsuccessful once used more lateral position in organizing the attacks. Hughes and Franks (18) compared successful and unsuccessful teams during 1990 World Cup concluding that the successful teams converted the ball possession into shots on goal having better ratios. Moreover, Grant, Williams and Reilly (12) analyzed World Cup of 1998 and found that teams who managed to reach the finals and semifinals were those who penetrated the defense of the opponent team more often than rest of the teams. Jones, James and Mellalieu (21) examined English Premier League matches (2001-02) and ended up to the conclusion that the successful teams, irrespective of evolving score, had longer possessions. Armatas and his colleagues (5) found that successful teams scored more goals, created more scoring opportunities closer to penalty area and made more assists in Greek Superleague. Delgado-Bordonau and his colleagues (11) found that offensive variables related to shots on goal and goal effectiveness appear to be better indicators of team s success in the 2010 World Cup than defensive variables. Nevertheless, Hughes and Churchill (17) found no difference between successful and unsuccessful teams regarding patterns of play leading to shots at the Copa America 2001. Hook and Hughes (13) highlighted that successful teams used longer possessions compared to unsuccessful ones; however the total number of passes that lead to score a goal was quite similar among the teams who took part
DIFFERENCES IN PERFORMANCE INDICATORS BETWEEN TEAMS IN UEFA-EURO 2012 13 in UEFA-Euro 2000. Moreover, Stanhope (33) concluded that possession didn t make any significant difference for successful teams in 1994 World Cup. Scoulding, James and Taylor (32) found out that little difference existed between successful and unsuccessful teams in terms of passes in different areas of the pitch in the 2002 World Cup. Also, Mitrotasios and Armatas (29) analyzing the teams in Euro 2012, found that the teams, which scored first, won 75.9% of the matches. Furthermore, all above studies tried to identify which elements made a team successful; however methodological issues in the study of these aspects arise. Indeed, some studies failed to demonstrate how reliable the system used to gather the data was (14). Hughes and Franks (15) suggested that it s critical for all computerized notation systems, to be tested for intra-observer reliability. Also, if the selection of matches concerns a single-matches tournament, this indicates that there is unbalanced regarding opponent quality and total matches played. Finally, the findings should be treated with caution since analysis involved narrow numbers of national teams and probably not generalizable to all teams (26). Based on the limitations of the extant research, the aim of the present study was twofold. Firstly, to identify specific performance indicators that might be associated with a team s success; secondly to separate the successful teams from the unsuccessful in UEFA-Euro 2012 Championship, based on significantly difference game performance. material and MethodS Sample The competition involved teams representing 16 European nations, comprising of the host country and 15 others who had emerged from pre-tournament qualifying groups. The 16 teams were organized into four mini-league groups of four, by part random draw based on seedings, with each team playing each other team in its group once. Group standings were determined by the aggregate points achieved by each team over three matches (with individual match points awarded as: 3 points for the winner, 0 for the loser, and 1 to each team in a drawn match). The top two teams from each group qualified for the quarter final stage, played out on a single match knock-out basis, with the winners progressing to the penultimate semi-final stage. In the end the two semi-final winners met in the final. In order to carry out the study, all 31 UEFA-Euro 2012 matches have been analyzed. The selected matches were obtained from the Wyscout platform (Wyscout Spa, Italy), so it was compatible with the sport video analysis system (Longo- Match, Fluendo SA, Barcelona, Spain) that was used. Overall, 2 out of the 29 games ended goalless and 76 goals had been scored in total. One own goal was excluded from the study.
14 JBE VOL. 14.1, 2018 Procedure As proposed before by Hughes and Franks (18), eight quarter-finalists were categorized as successful teams (England, Italy, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Czech) and eight first round losers were deemed unsuccessful (Russia, Poland, Denmark, Netherlands, Croatia, Ireland, Ukraine and Sweden). The game-related statistics were derived from the UEFA website (www.uefa. com/uefaeuro/season=2012). The following game-related statistics had been taken into consideration: goals, possession, attempts on goal, attempts on target, attempts off target, attempts blocked, corners, offsides, yellow cards, red cards, fouls committed and suffered. The reliability of the above variables was examined by coding five matches which were randomly chosen. The data was compared with the UEFA data from the website. The resulting values of Cohen s kappa (K) were between 0.92 and 0.97. Additionally, the following performance variables were investigated: a) the 1st goal effect (win, draw, loss), b) the time of goals scored (45min period, 15min period), c) type of play (open play, set play), d) style of play (positional play, direct play, counter attack), e) type of set play (free kick, corner, penalty, throw in). Statistical analysis Data are presented as means (±) standard deviations (SD). Differences between the successful and unsuccessful teams were examined using Student s independent t-test. First goal effect, time distribution, style of play, type of open play and set play were analyzed with the chi-square (x2) statistic. The SPSS 22.0 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, USA) software was used for the analysis with the level of significance set at p < 0.05. RESULTS Successful and unsuccessful teams statistics are included in Table 1. Successful teams had better values in all performance indicators, with the exception of attempts off target, yellow cards, red cards and fouls committed, respectively, than unsuccessful teams. Significant differences were observed in the following performance variables; ball possession, total attempts, attempts off target, attempts blocked, corners, fouls committed and fouls suffered.
DIFFERENCES IN PERFORMANCE INDICATORS BETWEEN TEAMS IN UEFA-EURO 2012 15 Table 1 Game-related statistics in successful and unsuccessful teams during UEFA-Euro 2012 Successful Teams Unsuccessful Teams P value Goals 1,3 ± 0,5 1,0 ± 0,5 0,76 Possession 50,3 ± 6,1* 48,8 ± 5,4 0,05 Total attempts 13,2 ± 4,1* 12,6 ± 3,5 0,03 Attempts on target 7,2 ± 2,5 6,0 ± 1,3 0,05 Attempts off target 6,0 ± 1,9 6,7 ± 3,3* 0,02 Attempts blocked 2,5 ± 1,1* 2,0 ± 0,6 0,03 Corners 5,7 ± 1,9* 5,0 ± 1,8 0,02 Offsides 2,3 ± 0,8* 1,7 ± 1,0 0,02 Yellow cards 1,9 ± 0,7 2,1 ± 0,6 0,76 Red cards 0,0 ± 0,1 0,1 ± 0,2 0,83 Fouls committed 13,9 ± 3,1 15,0 ± 3,8* 0,01 Fouls suffered 13,7 ± 2,8* 12,9 ± 2,4 0,02 * Significant difference between successful and unsuccessful teams p<0.05 Concerning 1st goal effect, results revealed that successful teams scoring first had 85.7% of victories compared to 50% of unsuccessful teams (p<0.05), 14.3% and 25% of draws and 0% and 25% of defeats, respectively. Time distribution of goals showed that successful teams scored more goals in the second half compared to unsuccessful teams (58.8% vs 56%); however no statistical differences were observed (Figure 1A). The 15-min analysis showed that successful teams had the highest percentage of goals scored during the last two periods of the match: 19.6% in the 5th period (61-75 min) and 23.5% in the 6th period (76-90 min) (p<0.05), while unsuccessful teams 20% in the 2nd period (16-30 min) and 28% in the 4th period (46-60 min) (p<0.05) (Figure 1B). The successful and unsuccessful teams can also be distinguished in the phases of play, where the successful teams scored more goals from an open play situation (75.5% vs 68%; p<0.05), while unsuccessful teams scored more goals from set play situation (32% vs 25.5%; p<0.05). Further analysis showed that suc-
16 JBE VOL. 14.1, 2018 cessful teams scored more goals after counter attack (63.2% vs 53%; p<0.05) and after direct play (21% vs 17.6%; p>0.05) whereas unsuccessful teams scored more goals after positional play (32% vs 25.5%; p<0.05). Concerning set plays, successful teams scored more goals after penalty kick (23.1% vs 0%), throw in (7.7% vs 0%) while unsuccessful teams scored more goals after corner kick (50% vs 46.1%; p>0.05) and after free kick (50% vs 23.1%; p<0.05). A) B) * * * * Significant difference between successful and unsuccessful teams p<0.05 Figure 1. Frequency of goal scoring per half (panel A), 15 min (panel B) during UEFA-Euro 2012
DIFFERENCES IN PERFORMANCE INDICATORS BETWEEN TEAMS IN UEFA-EURO 2012 17 Discussion The aim of this study was to identify the performance indicators that best discriminated the eight successful quarter-finalists and eight unsuccessful first round losers in UEFA-Euro 2012. Statistically significant differences were presented between teams in the following variables: ball possession, total attempts, attempts off target, attempts blocked, corner kicks, off-sides, fouls committed and fouls suffered. According to the results, ball possession was a variable that discriminated successful and unsuccessful teams. This supports previous research in Spanish La Liga (25), English Premier League (21), World Cup 1990, 2010 and 2006 (18, 11). In this line, it was found that successful teams scored significantly more goals from open play, but these goals resulted from counter attack and direct play rather than positional attack. Recently, Marchioli (27) noted that verticality is the latest global trend for possession-based football. This style of play integrates aspects of direct and positional play, producing a more direct-minded approach rather than keeping the ball for possession s sake, which was prevalent at recent years. Verticality involves attacking with speed including quick but not careless forward passing, especially exploiting transition phase against a disorganized opponent. Results showed that unsuccessful teams scored more goals from set plays and particular from corner kicks and free kicks. According to previous studies, 30% and 40% of goals came from set play (1, 6, 37). Moreover, Castelo (9) reported that corner kicks are relatively uncommon and largely ineffective, but they are frequently a determining factor in the outcome of a match between two teams; in this line Casal, Maneiro, Ardá, Losada and Rial (8) found that only 2.2% of the corners ended in goal, but this goal was responsible for the team winning or drawing the match on 76% of occasions. One possible explanation, taking into account the above, is that unsuccessful teams tried to exploit set plays in more depth, in order to score more goals and proceed to tournament, although they won fewer corner kicks and free kicks than successful teams. With respect to shots at goal, this study found that successful teams had significantly more total attempts and attempts blocked and more attempts on target than unsuccessful teams. Lago-Ballesterso and Lago-Peñas (24) also found that teams that finished higher in the Spanish First Division had significantly more total number of shots at goal, compared to teams that finished in the middle and bottom of the league. In this line, Armatas et al. (5) found similar differences for top teams in the Greek SuperLeague. Hughes and Franks (15) presented that successful teams had better ratios in converting possession into shots on goal compared to unsuccessful teams. On the other hand, it has been evident that unsuccessful teams made significantly more attempts off target, a fact that is supported by previous
18 JBE VOL. 14.1, 2018 researches (11, 29). It is of high importance creating shots on goal, as it raises the chances for a team to score goal. Although it is obvious, in terms of development of team tactics and training, a practical implication would suggest that teams spend more time in practices that allow for shots at goal within a game context. Football is a low-scoring team sport, in fact, the average number of goals scored per match in the top four leagues in Europe (Premier League, La Liga, Calcio, and Bundesliga) was 2.66 (2). Scoring first is relevant, among other reasons, because when the team was drawing or losing it reduces the attempts on goal (35) and this reflects the importance of scoring a goal first (2, 22). In the present study, when successful team scored the first goal, the percentage of winning was 85.7% compared to 50%, when the unsuccessful team scored first. This means that 1st goal scored may be a strong variable that can discriminated successful from unsuccessful teams. Mitrotasios and Armatas (29) also found, in their analysis of Euro 2012, that when a team scored first, won 75.9% of the matches. Previous studies have estimated first goal effect between 70% and 80% (5, 11, 28). The scoring of a goal increases the self-confidence of the players and their general performance (36), while it gives a psychological impact on the crowd. If the home team scores first, the excitement of the crowd will be increased, whereas for the away team the effect is the opposite (10). Moreover, probably after achieving a goal the team decides to play with less risky options, with a well-structured defensive strategy, and placing more players between the ball and the own goal (23), in order to prevent possible goal-scoring opportunities. Tactical and psychological preparation should be one of the main priorities of a football coach, so as to help the team recover and get back to the game and score. In such a way, training should involve handicapped matches (either ahead or behind by one or two goals). This strategy may prepare players for real situations, but also coach for different game plan approaches. On the observations of the goal scoring related to time, the successful teams were found to score more goals at the second half compared to unsuccessful teams, although no statistical difference was found. Both groups in present study were found to score more goals at the second half. This fact agrees with studies that have been conducted in the past and underline that goals scoring is time dependent (3, 4, 11, 29). When considering the analysis of the match by 15 minutes interval, it was shown that the last 2 periods the match (61-75 and 76-90+), was the time most goals were scored from successful teams, while unsuccessful teams scored more goals after half time (46-60). Therefore, the results from the current study may indicate that successful teams can find solutions in order to score, even in the later stages of the match, but also that their players have the ability to overcome physiological and mental fatigue better than unsuccessful teams.
DIFFERENCES IN PERFORMANCE INDICATORS BETWEEN TEAMS IN UEFA-EURO 2012 19 CONCLUSIONS When interpreting the obtained results of this analysis, one must take into account the fact that it s just part of a comprehensive analysis of competitive activity, based on mathematical probabilities (31). Therefore, the data values in the analysis of the game, regardless of whether or not significant, can serve as coaches feedback in planning and programming of training activities, but not as the only source of information about the competitive performance of the individual or team (20). Findings from this investigation highlighted the key performance indicators that can differentiate between successful and unsuccessful teams in football. Overall, successful teams had longer ball possession, more attempts on goal but also goals were scored through direct play and counter attack. Furthermore, successful teams scored more goals in 2nd half, while first goal effect had a greater impact in final result of the match for them. Teams should focus on retaining ball possession in order to attack vertically with speed and exploit transitional moments against a disorganized opponent. Moreover, team s tactical and psychological reaction after getting back in the score sheet should be included on training sessions and more attention should be given to the latter period of matches where more goals appeared to be scored. This information has directly implications for coaches, providing relevant feedback to plan training sessions and tactical plans before match. REFERENCES 1. Acar MF, Yapicioglu B, Arikan N, Yalcin S, Ates N and Ergun M. Analysis of goals scored in the 2006 World Cup. In Reilly T and Korkusuz AF (eds.). Science & Football VI. London, E&F Spon, pp. 235-42, 2003. 2. Anderson C and Sally D. The numbers game: why everything you know about football is wrong. New York, Penguin Books, 2014. 3. Armatas V and Yiannakos A. Analysis and evaluation of goals scored in 2006 World Cup. J Sport Health Res 2(2): 119-128, 2010. 4. Armatas V, Yiannakos A and Sileloglou P. Relationship between time and goal scored in soccer game: Analysis of three World Cup. Int J Perform Anal Sport 7(2): 48-58, 2007. 5. Armatas V, Yiannakos A, Papadopoulou S and Skoufas D. Evaluation of goal scored in top ranking soccer matches: Greek Super League 2006-2007. Serbian J Sports Sci 3(1): 39-43, 2009. 6. Bangsbo J and Peitersen B. Soccer systems and strategies. Champaign, Human Kinetics, 2000.
20 JBE VOL. 14.1, 2018 7. Carling C, Reilly T and Williams A. Performance assessment for field sports. London, Routledge, 2009. 8. Casal C, Maneiro R, Ardá T, Losada J and Rial A. Analysis of corner kick success in elite football. Int J Perform Anal Sport 15(2): 430-51, 2015. 9. Castelo J. Tratado General de Fútbol. Guía práctica de ejercicios de entrenamiento. Barcelona, Paidotribo, 2009 (In Spanish). 10. Courneya KS. Importance of game location and scoring first in college baseball. Percept Motor Skills 71(2): 624-26, 1990. 11. Delgado-Bordonau JL, Domenech-Monforte C, Guzmán-Luján JF and Méndez-Villanueva A. Offensive and defensive team performance: relation to successful and unsuccessful participation in the 2010 Soccer World Cup. J Hum Sport Exerc 8(4): 894-904, 2013. 12. Grant AG, Williams AM and Reilly T. Analysis of the goals scored in the 1998 World Cup. J Sports Sci 17(10): 826-27, 1999. 13. Hook C and Hughes MD. Patterns of play leading to shots in Euro 2000. In Center for Performance Analysis (ed.), Pass.com. Cardiff, UWIC, 2001, pp. 295-302. 14. Hughes M and Cooper S and Nevill A. Analysis procedures for non-parametric data from performance analysis. Int J Perform Anal Sport 2(1): 6-20, 2002. 15. Hughes M and Franks IM. Notational Analysis of Sport. London, E&F Spon, 1997. 16. Hughes M and Bartlett R. The use of performance indicators in performance analysis. J Sports Sci 20(10): 739-54, 2002. 17. Hughes M and Churchill S. Attacking profiles of successful and unsuccessful team in Copa America 2001. In Reilly T Cabri J and Araújo D (eds.). Science & Football V. London, Routledge, pp. 219-24, 2005. 18. Hughes M and Franks I. Analysis of passing sequences, shots and goals in soccer. J Sports Sci 23(5): 509-14, 2005. 19. Hughes M, Robertson K and Nicholson A. Comparison of patterns of play of successful and unsuccessful teams in the 1986 World Cup for soccer. In Reilly T, Lees A, Davis K and Murphy W (eds.). Science & Football. London, E&F Spon, pp. 363-67, 1988. 20. Jankovic A, Leontijevic B, Jelusic V, Pasic M and Micovic B. Influence of tactics efficiency on results in Serbian soccer super league in season 2009/2010. J Phys Educ Sport 11(1): 32-41, 2011. 21. Jones P, James N and Mellalieu SD. Possession as a Performance Indicator in Soccer. Int J Perform Anal Sport 4(1): 98-102, 2004. 22. Lago C. To win or to lose in soccer: A matter of performance or chance. Eur J Hum Mov 14(1): 137-52, 2005.
DIFFERENCES IN PERFORMANCE INDICATORS BETWEEN TEAMS IN UEFA-EURO 2012 21 23. Lago C. The influence of match location, quality of opposition, and match status on possession strategies in professional association football. J Sports Sci 27(13): 1463-69, 2009. 24. Lago-Ballesteros J and Lago-Peñas C. Performance in team sports: Identifying the keys to success in soccer. J Hum Kinet 25(1): 85-91, 2010. 25. Lago-Peñas C and Dellal A. Ball possession strategies in elite soccer according to the evolution of the match-score: the influence of situational variables. J Hum Kinet 25: 93-100, 2010. 26. Lago-Peñas C, Lago-Ballesteros J and Rey E. Differences in performance indicators between winning and losing teams in the UEFA Champions League. J Hum Kinet 27: 135-46, 2011. 27. Marchioli R. Why verticality is the next revolution in football s tactical cycle. Leopold Method: Intelligent, insightful football analysis. October 7, 2014. http:// leopoldmethod.com.au/why-verticality/ 28. Michailidis Y, Michailidis C and Primpa E. Analysis of goals scored in European Championship 2012. J Hum Sport Exerc 8(2): 367-75, 2013. 29. Mitrotasios M, Armatas V. Analysis of goal scoring patterns in the 2012 European Football Championship. Sport J.; 1:1-11, 2014. 30. Muhamad S, Norasrudin S and Rahmat A. Differences in goal scoring and passing sequences between winning and losing team in UEFA-EURO Championship 2012. World Acad Sci Eng Tech 74: 118-23, 2013. 31. O Donoghue P. Normative profiles of sports performance. Int J Perform Anal Sport 5(1): 104-19, 2005. 32. Ortega E, Villarejo D and Palao JM. Differences in game statistics between winning and losing rugby teams in the Six Nations Tournament. J Sports Sci Med 8(4): 523-27, 2009. 33. Scoulding A, James N and Taylor J. Passing in the soccer World Cup 2002. Int J Perform Anal Sport 4(2): 36-41, 2004. 34. Stanhope J. An investigation into possession with respect to time, in the soccer world cup 1994. In Hughes M (ed.). Notational Analysis of Sport III. Cardiff, UWIC, pp. 155-62, 2001. 35. Szwarc A. Effectiveness of Brazilian and German teams and the teams defeated by them during the 17th Fifa World Cup. Kinesiolgy 36(1): 83-9, 2004. 36. Taylor JB, Mellalieu SD, James N and Shearer DA. The influence of match location, quality of opposition, and match status on technical performance in professional association football. J Sports Sci 26(9): 885-95, 2008. 37. Theis R. Analyse von Torerfolgen im mittleren und unteren Amateurbereich im
22 JBE VOL. 14.1, 2018 Fußball. In Kuhn W and Schmidt W (eds.). Analyse und Beobachtung in Training und Wettkampf. Sankt Augustin, Academia Verlag, 1992 (In German). 38. Yiannakos A and Armatas V. Evaluation of the goal scoring patterns in European Championship in Portugal 2004. Int J Perf Anal Sport, 6(1): 178-88, 2006. Address for correspondence: Michalis Mitrotasios, PhD School of Physical Education and Sport Science National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Eth. Antistaseos 41, 17237 Dafni, Greece Tel: 210-7276168 Email: micmit@phed.uoa.gr