Abstract
SCIENCE AND MEDICINE IN FOOTBALL https://doi.org/10.1080/24733938.2022.2030064 ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION Linear advancing actions followed by deceleration and turn are the most common movements preceding goals in male professional soccer a,b a a David Martínez-Hernández , Mark Quinn and Paul Jones a b Directorate of Sport, Exercise and Physiotherapy, University of Salford, Salford, Greater Manchester, UK; Medical and Sports Science Department, Tottenham Hotspur Women Football Club, London, UK ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Accepted 11 January 2022 Data were collected through time-motion analysis from soccer players participating in the English Premier League using a modified version of the Bloomfield Movement Classification with differences KEYWORDS analysed through chi-square. Movements; sprint; goal The most common individual movement preceding a goal was a linear advancing motion (32.4 ± 1%), scoring actions; position followed by deceleration (20.2 ± 0.9%) and turn (19.8 ± 0.9%). Actions also involved were change in angle specific; English Premier run (cut and arc run), ball blocking, lateral advancing motion (crossover and shuffle) and jumps. Although League players followed similar trends, there were dissimilarities based on the role, with attackers (assistant and scorer) performing more linear actions, subtle turns and cuts and defenders (defender of assistant and defender of scorer) more ball blockings, lateral movements and arc runs. In 82.9 ± 1.5% of player involvements, there was at least one high intensity (HI) movement with assistant showing the lowest percentage and defender of scorer the highest. This study shows the multidirectional nature and context specificity of soccer during goal scoring situations, with linear actions such as sprints being the most common movements, followed by decel- erations and turns. Moreover, it highlights the recurrent application of these at HI, and so, training strategies should prioritize the development of player’s explosiveness. Introduction running distance and speed distance in comparison to drawing or Soccer is a team sport where players not only require technical losing (Oliva-Lozano et al., 2020). In addition, team formation as and tactical abilities (Forsman et al. 2016) but must also develop well as playing position has shown to influence peak demands, a high level of athleticism to be successful (Turner and Stewart with a recent study showing central and wide midfielders covering 2014). Soccer match activities have been widely analysed with greater 1-min peak total distance and high-speed running while researchers generally utilizing linear direction activities such as wide midfielders and forwards showed greater sprint and accel- walking, jogging, running, high intensity (HI) running, and sprint- eration/deceleration 1-min peaks (Riboli et al. 2021b). This move- ing (Sarmento et al. 2014). Decelerations have also shown to be ment data, commonly obtained with GPS, has limited significance highly frequent with a meta-analysis showing these at HI to be regarding subtle manoeuvres taking place in goal scoring situa- more numerous than accelerations at HI (Harper et al. 2019). tions. In this sense, accelerations, decelerations, or change of Moreover, soccer match analysis has shown numerous changes direction (COD) activities have shown poor accuracy when com- in activities, averaging 1431 ± 206 (Rienzi et al. 2000) with players paring different tracking measurement systems (Fischer- performing more than 90 path changes from 45° to greater than Sonderegger et al. 2021) and high variability when comparing 135° (Robinson et al. 2011) and more than 700 turns (Bloomfield different GPS brands (Jennings et al. 2010; Buchheit et al. 2014) et al. 2007), most of them between 0° and 90°. Furthermore, or sampling frequency of systems (Duffield et al. 2010). Several several conditions have shown to influence the quantity of change studies have highlighted the complexity of effective creation and in directions. In this sense, a study by Granero-Gil et al. (2020) conversion of goal scoring opportunities with research investigat- showed that the change in direction demands is higher during ing many key performance indicators (Wright et al. 2011; Pratas international matches compared to national or friendly matches et al. 2018). In addition to technical variables and player move- while a large goal difference both in winning and losing teams ments, consideration has been given to contextual factors and produces a decline in the change in directions. When analysing tactical concepts (Lago-Ballesteros et al. 2012; Sarmento et al. locomotor activities, it is also important to consider the fact that 2018). It is also important to consider the relationship between 90-min average distances are lower compared to peak game these components with evidence suggesting that an increase in demands, especially for HI activities (Riboli et al. 2021a), which an attacking players physical output is essential for disturbing are usually calculated with ranges going from 1 min peak to defensive organisation and providing space for goal scoring 10 min peak (Oliva-Lozano et al. 2021). In this sense winning, the opportunities (Schulze et al. 2021). To the authors knowledge, match has shown to result in higher peak demands for high-speed only one study has analysed the movements occurring before CONTACT David Martínez-Hernández d.martinezhernandez@edu.salford.ac.uk University of Salford, Salford, Greater Manchester M6 6PU, United Kingdom. © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 2 D. MARTÍNEZ-HERNÁNDEZ ET AL. a goal in relation to physical actions. Faude et al. (2012) analysed through multiple angles. Motion analysis was evaluated for the 360 goals of the German National League 2007/2008 using multi- attacking player that scored the goal (scorer), the attacking player ple replays and categorising into one of the following: straight who assisted the goal (assistant), closest defender to the scorer sprint, rotation, jump, change-in-direction sprint, a combination or (defender of scorer), and closest defender to the assistant (defen- absence of these movements. Results showed that 83% of the der of assistant). Motion analysis started just before the assistant goals were preceded by at least one powerful action of the scoring (if applicable) received the ball from a teammate or when posses- or the assisting player with straight sprint showing to be the most sion was regained and finished when the ball was passed to the common action. This pioneering study highlights the importance scorer. Motion analysis for the scorer and the defender of the of powerful actions before a goal in scoring and assisting players. scorer (if applicable) started when the ball was passed to the Nevertheless, it is of interest to determine movement character- scorer or regained the ball from the opposition and finished istics of other leagues besides German National League, such as when the scoring player shot to goal. Analysis was limited to English Premier League (EPL). There is need for a more detailed the last six movements of each player, with these being noted analysis which includes a wider range of movements, intensities as ‘-5’, ‘-4’, ‘-3’, ‘-2’, ‘-1’, and ‘final movement’. The individual action and directions. Furthermore, the inclusion of players with defend- or sequence of movements of each individual player performed ing roles would bring insight into common patterns performed by before each goal was named as ‘involvement’. Defender of assis- these as well as the main differences with their attacking counter- tant and defender of scorer together were named as ‘defenders’. parts. This would lead to a greater understanding of movements Assistant and scorer were named as ‘attackers’. occurring in key moments of the game and help practitioners on Analysis of the movements preceding goals was per- the selection of drills based on how players are habitually involved formed using a modified version of the Bloomfield in these actions. Movement Classification (BMC) (Bloomfield et al. 2004). The aim of this study was to gain a clear understanding of the Coding was performed by the lead author using movements that occur before a goal in male elite soccer. In order a computerised notation system within a customised excel to achieve this aim, the study had the following objectives: 1. spreadsheet (Office 365 ProPlus) following the guidelines Acknowledge the most frequent movements preceding a goal proposed for computerised performance analysis systems and the percentage of involvements they are present in. 2. Identify (O’Donoghue 2014). similarities and differences between players based on their role. 3. Examine the movement intensity, direction, and interaction with Definition and Interpretation of Movements the ball. Table 1 shows the movement classification table modified from Methods BMC, which was used for data collection. Movements with similar characteristics were group together (Table 1). These Procedures were linear advancing motion (walk, jog, run, and sprint), lateral EPL goals for the 2018/2019 season were analysed (video analysis) advancing motion (crossover and shuffle), change in angle run through broadcast footage using the same provider. Researchers (cut and arc run), ball striking (pass and shot), and ball blocking had access to all goals, which could be seen in slow motion and (dive and slide). Movements with their own individual group 1072 goals scored during EPL 2018/2019 303 goals from non-selectable situations (own goals, rebound, penalties, indirect free kicks, direct free kicks corner, throw in) 769 goals for final analysis 769 (100%) 595 (77%) 642 (84%) 497 (65%) goals where goals where goals where goals where scorer was assistant defender of defender of involved was scorer was assistant involved involved was involved Total involvements = 2503 Figure 1. Flow chart of goals selected for analysis as well as total involvements. SCIENCE AND MEDICINE IN FOOTBALL 3 were turn, deceleration, impact, stand still, jump, land, and fall movements x = 5694, p = 0.000. As seen in Table 4, overall, (7) get up (definitions of individual and group of movements can the most common movement preceding a goal was a linear be found in Table 2). As seen in Table 1, direction modifier was advancing motion, which was followed by deceleration and applied to linear advancing motion, deceleration, turn and skip turn with no significant difference between these (p = 0.526). movements with diverse characteristics between these. More Other frequent movements can be found in Table 4. so, deceleration, turn, change in angle, and lateral advancing Chi-square analysis showed significant differences for per- motion had intensity modifier: low intensity (LI), medium centage of involvements where each movement was per- Intensity (MI), and high intensity (HI), while linear advancing formed at least once (x = 2051, p = 0.000) as well as (6) motion intensities were defined as walk (LI), jog (LI), run (MI), percentage of involvements where movement was performed and sprint (HI) with definitions presented in Table 3. at least once at HI (x = 4216, p = 0.000). (6) Statistics Intensity Modifier Data were analysed using SPSS for Windows software version 22.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL). Kolmogorov–Sirnov test was per- Chi-square analysis showed significant differences for fre- formed to assess for normal distribution, while significance level quency of involvements where players performed at least one was set a p < 0.05. Data were not normally distributed. Pooled HI action (x = 235, p < 0.0001), with defender of scorer (3) and individually coupled differences in frequencies between showing the highest percentages (Table 5). Significant differ - movements (individual and group of movements), players (indi- ences were found between the three intensities in all move- vidual and group of players), and movement modifiers (intensi- ments when players were pooled together (p < 0.0001) ties, directions, and ball) were analysed through chi-square (x ). (Figure 3). When looking at the differences between groups of In order to obtain reliability of the movement classification players, defenders compared to attackers showed significantly system used, the same match day games (10 games) were greater amount of actions at HI in linear advancing motion (p < 0.0001), decelerations (p < 0.0001), and turns (p < 0.0001). analysed twice by the same researcher with 4 weeks between evaluations. This was analysed through intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) (two-way mixed model, single rater, consis- Direction Modifier tency) obtaining values of 0.87 which is considered good level of agreement (Koo and Li 2016). When analysing direction modifier for each movement, chi- square analysis showed significant differences in linear advan- 2 2 cing motion (x = 4380, p < 0.0001), deceleration (x = 690, (2) (3) Results p < 0.0001) and turn (x = 2139, p < 0.0001). Most linear (4) Total frequency and percentages of movements advancing motion activities had a forward direction (82.8% ±1.4%) followed by forward diagonal direction (15.3% ± A total of 9348 movements were recorded (3.1 per involve- 1.4%), with backward direction (1.9 ± 0.5%) being the least ment), 7984 without the inclusion of pass and shot. Chi- frequent. Most decelerations had a forward direction (43% ± square analysis showed significant differences between 2.4%), followed by sideways (28.6% ± 2.2%) and forward Table 1. Movement classification table for goal scoring situations analysis, modified from Bloomfield, et al. (2004) MODIFIER 3: GROUP OF MOVEMENTS MOVEMENTS MODIFIER 1: DIRECTION MODIFIER 2: INTENSITY BALL Linear Advancing Walk Forwards, Forwards Diagonally, Backwards Walk (Low), Jog (Low), Run (Medium), Sprint Yes, No Motion Jog (High), Run Sprint Lateral Advancing Shuffle Low, Medium, High Yes, No Motion Crossover Change in Angle Run Cut Low, Medium, High Yes, No Arc Run Ball Striking Pass Shoot Ball Blocking Dive Slide Turn 0°-60°, 60°-120°, 120° −180°, 180°-270°, 270°-360°, Low, Medium, High Yes, No Deceleration Forwards, Forwards Diagonally, Backwards, Low, Medium, High Yes, No Sideways Skip Forwards, Backwards, Sideways Yes, No Impact Yes, No Stand Still Yes, No Jump Land Fall Get Up 4 D. MARTÍNEZ-HERNÁNDEZ ET AL. Table 3. Interpretation and definitions of different modifiers. Table 2. Interpretation and definitions of movement group and movements. Modifiers Definition Movement Group Definition Direction Linear advancing Actions were a player accelerates or maintains speed in Forward (Linear advancing Head, shoulders, hips all face forward moving in motion a sagittal plane. motion) a forward direction. Lateral advancing Actions were a player accelerates or maintains speed in Forward (deceleration) Player braking with both or one limb and motion a frontal plane. stopping body inertia pushing linearly forward. Change in angle Actions were a player advancing on a linear direction Forward Diagonal (linear Player’s body turned about 45° left/right, head run maneuvers without or with very little loss in speed. advancing motion) turned left/right, player looks over left/right Ball blocking Drive purposefully the lower limb or head in a certain shoulder, legs facing forward or slightly manner to stop a ball or an attacker with rotated advancing in a forward direction.** Ball striking Contact made with the ball with the objective of passing Forward Diagonal Player braking with both or one limb and body or scoring a goal. (deceleration) position turned approximately 45° left/right Movement Definition stopping body inertia pushing diagonally Walk: Moving slowing by stepping.* forward. Jog: Moving at a slow monotonous pace (slower than running, Backward (Linear Head, shoulders, hips all face forward moving in quicker than walking).* advancing) a backward direction. Run: Manifest purpose and effort, usually when gaining Backward (deceleration) Head, shoulders, hips all face forward stopping distance.* body inertia pushing in a backward direction. Sprint: Maximal effort, rapid motion.* 0°-60°: Turn ≤1=6 circle. Shuffle: Sideways advancing movement in which head, shoulders 60°-120°: Turn > 1=6 circle and ≤ 1=3 circle. and hips face forward while legs and feet do not cross. 120–180°: Turn > 1=3 circle and ≤ 1=2 circle. Crossover: Sideways advancing movement in which head, shoulders 180°-270°: Turn > 1=2 circle and ≤ 3=4 circle.* and hips face forward while legs and feet cross. 270°-360° Turn > = circle and ≤ full circle.* Deceleration: To slow down or brake suddenly.** Intensity Turn: To rotate while standing, decelerating or accelerating/ Low: Little effort.* sprinting. Medium: Some to great effort.* Cut: Path change of less than 45° with this involving little or High: Maximal effort.* non-previous deceleration to accomplish the task. Ball Arc Run: Player (often leaning to one side) moving in a semicircular Yes: When the player is in possession of the ball direction.* No: When the player is not in possession of the ball Skip: Moving with small bound-like movements.* *Definition from Bloomfield et al. (2004) Impact: Any intense contact made with another player.* ** Modified definition from Bloomfield et al. (2004) Stand Still: More or less stationary or staying in one spot.* Jump: Spring free from the ground or other base by the muscular action of feet and legs.* Land: Entered after jump when contact with ground is made.* Dive: To purposefully and controllably propel the body rapidly through the air either feet or head first.* Discussion Slide: To purposefully and controllably drive the body along the floor with feet leading the movement. Fall: Descending to the ground.* The aim of this study was to gain a clear understanding of the Get up: Ascending from the ground.* movements that occur before a goal in elite soccer. The find - Pass: Any attempt to give the ball to a team-mate. Entered as ings from the study highlight that the most common move- contact made with the ball along with how*. Shoot: Any attempt on goal. Entered as contact made with the ment before a goal was a linear advancing motion followed by ball along with how.* deceleration and turn. Moreover, while players followed similar *Definition from Bloomfield et al. (2004) trends, attackers performed more linear movements, subtle ** Modified definition from Bloomfield et al. (2004) turns, and cuts, while defenders perform sharper turns, more lateral movements, ball blocking actions, and arc runs. Furthermore, in 82.9% ± 1.5% of player’s involvements, there diagonal deceleration (25% ± 2.1%). The most common turning is a HI action, with assistant and defender of scorer showing the degree ranges were 0°-60° with 48.1% ± 2.5%, while 60° −120° lowest and highest percentages, respectively. (38.3% ± 2.4%) was the second most common and 120°-180° The high frequency of linear advancing motion overall and (10.8% ± 1.5%) the third. This trend showed to be different during involvements shows similarities with Faude et al. (2012) between positions as attackers showed significantly higher who found sprints to be the most common action during goals percentage of turns of 0° to 60° (p < 0.0001) while defenders scored, as this represents the fastest mode of travel to capitalize presented significantly higher percentages of turns from 60° on or prevent goal scoring opportunities. In addition, when to120° (p < 0.0024). Additional data on difference between comparing between walk, jog, run, and sprint, the latter players and group of players for turn and deceleration direction showed the highest percentages, highlighting the importance modifier can be found in online Supplementary Table 1 and 2, of accelerating fast and/or sprinting in goal scoring actions and respectively. that sprint ability has shown to discriminate between levels of performance (Haugen et al. 2013). Defending players showed greater percentages at HI compared to attackers, which could Ball Modifier be related to the disadvantageous (tactically unbalanced) posi- Assistant performed higher percentage of actions with the ball tion compared to attackers. Defending players showed lower than without the ball in most of the movements while the percentages of linear activities when compared to attackers opposite occurred in scorer except for cut were the latter also which could be due to the difference in orientation, as habi- showed higher percentages with the ball (p < 0.0001). tually attackers would be facing the goal while defenders Additional data can be found in online Supplementary Table 3. would have their backs to goal trying to protect it. Similar to SCIENCE AND MEDICINE IN FOOTBALL 5 Table 4. Frequencies and percentages of movements in EPL overall, for individual players and groups of players. Attackers Defenders Movements Assistant (%) Scorer (%) Defender of Assistant (%) Defender of Scorer (%) (%) (%) Movement Total ¥x ¥x # Linear Advancing Motion 594 (35% ±2.3%) 862 (36.9% ±2%) 484 (29.8% ±2.2%) 648 (27.8% ±1.8%) 1456 (36.1% ±1.5%) 1132 (28.6% 1.4%) 2588 (32.4% ±1%)* &x ¥ x Deceleration 381 (22.5% ±2%) 431 (18.5% ±1.6%) 399 (24.6% ±2.1%) 400 (17.2% ±1.5%) 812 (20.2% ±1.2%) 799 (20.2% ±1.3%) 1611 (20.2% ±0.9%)** β ¥ x # Turn 388 (22.9% ±2%) 466 (20% ±1.6%) 267 (16.4% ±1.8%) 458 (19.6% ±1.6%) 854 (21% ±1.3%) 725 (18.3% ±1.2%) 1579 (19.8% ±0.9%)** xΩ # Change in Angle Run Arc Run 67 (4% ±0.9%) 88 (3.8% ±0.8%) 72 (4.4% ±1%) 118 (5.1% ±0.9%) 155 (3.8% ±0.6%) 190 (4.8% ±0.7%) 345 (4.3% ±0.4%) ¥x ¥x # Cut 104 (6.1% ±1.1%) 163 (7% ±1%) 31 (1.9% 0.6%) 48 (2.1% ±0.6) 267 (6.6% ±0.8%) 79 (2% ±0.4%) 346 (4.3% ±0.4%) ¥x ¥x # Totals 171 (10.1% ±1.4%) 251 (10.8% ±1.3%) 103 (6.3% ±1.2%) 166 (7.1% ±1%) 422 (10.5% ±1%) 269 (6.8% ±0.8%) 691 (8.7% ±0.6%)* β ¥x # Lateral Advancing Motion Crossover 26 (1.5% ±0.6%) 65 (2.8% ±0.7%) 64 (3.9% ±0.9%) 94 (4% ±0.8) 91 (2.3% ±0.5%) 158 (4% ±0.6%) 249 (3.1% ±0.4%) ¥x ¥x # Shuffle 36 (2.7% ±0.8%) 49 (2.1% ±0.6%) 68 (4.2% ±1%) 91 (3.9% ±0.8) 85 (2.1% ±0.4) 159 (4% ±0.6%) 244 (3.1% ±0.4%) ¥x ¥x # Totals 62 (3.7% ±0.9%) 114 (4.9% ±0.9%) 132 (8.1% ±1.3%) 185 (7.9% ± 1.1%) 176 (4.4% ±0.6%) 317 (8% ±0.9%) 493 (6.2% ±0.5%)* ¥x ¥x€ € # € € Ball Blocking Dive 9 (0.5% ±0.3%) 10 (0.4% ±0.3%) 125 (7.7% ±1.3%) 186 (8% ±1.1%) 19 (0.5% ±0.2%) 311 (7.9% ±0.8%) 330 (4.1% ±0.4%) β β β # Slide 3 (0.2% ±0.2%) 21 (0.9% ±0.4%) 38 (2.3% ±0.7%) 183 (7.9% ±1.1%) 24 (0.6% ±0.2%) 221 (5.6% ±0.7%) 245 (3.1% ±0.4%) ¥x ¥x x # Totals 12 (0.7% ±0.2%) 31 (1.3% ±0.5%) 163 (10% ±1.5%) 369 (15.8% ±1.5%) 43 (1.1% ±0.3) 532 (13.4% ±1%) 575 (7.2% ±0.6%)* β x # Jump 25 (1.5% ±0.6%) 93 (4% ±0.8%) 17 (1% ±0.5%) 46 (2% ±0.6%) 118 (2.9% ±0.5%) 63 (1.6% ±0.4%) 181 (2.3% ±0.3%) Other (skip, 61 (3.6% ±0.9%) 86 (3.7% ±0.8%) 60 (3.7% ±0.9%) 59 (2.5% ±0.6%) 147 (3.6 ± 0.6%) 119 (3% ±0.5%) 266 (3.3% ±0.4%) impact, stand still, land, fall, get up) Player totals 1694 (100%) 2334 (100%) 1625 (100%) 2331 (100%) 4028 (100%) 3956 (100%) 7984 (100%) Data expressed as frequency (percentage ±95% confidence intervals). β & ¥ x Horizontal axis, difference between players: significant difference from the rest of the players, significant difference from scorer, significant difference from defender of assistant, significant difference from defender of scorer, significant difference from defenders. Vertical axis, difference only between movement totals (includes change in angle run totals, lateral advancing motion totals and ball blocking totals):* significant difference from the rest of the movements, ** significant difference from linear advancing motion, change in angle run, lateral advancing motion, ball blocking, jump. Vertical axis, differences between movements in the same group (arc run and cut or dive and slide): significant difference from cut, significant difference from slide. 6 D. MARTÍNEZ-HERNÁNDEZ ET AL. 100% 90% All Intensities High Intensity 78.5%* 80% 70% 54.5% 60% 54.1%* # 51.8% 50% 35.0%* 40% 30% 24.1% 23.8% 22.8% 22.8% 18.5%* 17.3%* 20% 10.7%* 7.2%* 7.2%* 10% 0% Linear A.M. Deceleration Turn Change A.R. Lateral A.M. Ball block. Jump MOVEMENTS Figure 2. Percentage of involvements were movements were performed at least once. Jump and ball blocking actions are considered always as HI movements for analysis. *Significant difference from the rest of the movements of same group (all intensities or high intensity). #Significant different from linear advancing motion, change in angle run lateral advancing motion, ball blocking and jump. Linear A.M.: linear advancing motion; Change A.R.: change in angle run; Lateral A.M.: lateral advancing motion; Ball Block: ball blocking. the findings from Faude et al. (2012) assisting players per- Deceleration was shown to be the second most common formed these linear actions commonly with the ball while action along with turn and was present in 54.5 ± 2% of the scoring players performed these habitually without the ball. involvements and 24.1 ± 1.7% when only counting involve- Therefore, training strategies to improve linear sprint should ments with HI decelerations. This decrease would be related be a priority and could benefit from repetitions performed with to the fact that deceleration showed the lowest percentages of the ball in players involved commonly in assisting activities, HI actions alongside shuffles. Attackers showed significant while sprint activities ending with a shot could be more suita- lower percentages of decelerations at HI compared to defen- ble for players involved in scoring actions. ders. This would attend to the nature of attacking and defend- (a) High Intensity Medium Intensity #† 62% Low Intensity 40% #† 62% 40% 29% 35% #† #† 72% 75% #† † 70% 48% 21% 8% † † † † 26% 23% 29% 49% Linear Dec. Turn Arc Cut Cross. Shuffle Movements (b) (c) High Intensity High Intensity Medium Intensity Medium Intensity Low Intensity #† 57% Low Intensity #† 900 68% 700 26% 600 #† 52% #† 55% #† 70% † 400 #† 43% 32% 25% 35% 41% #† 73% #† † 200 #† 68% 44% 71% 29% 10% † † † #† #† † † † 23% 29% 27% 72% 81% #† 49% 27% 51% 70% 11% † † † † 6% 25% 19% 27% 47% -100 Linear Dec Turn Arc Cut Cross Shuff 0 Linear Dec Turn Arc Cut Cross Shuff Movements Movements Figure 3. Movement intensity percentages for all players pooled (panel a), attackers (panel b) and defenders (panel c). #Significant difference from Medium Intensity. †Significant difference from Low Intensity. Linear: linear advancing motion; Dec.: deceleration; Arc: arc run; Cross.: crossover. Number of M ovements INVOLVEMENTS N Nu um mb be er r o of f M Mo ov ve em me en nt ts s Number of Movements SCIENCE AND MEDICINE IN FOOTBALL 7 Table 5. Frequency and percentage of involvements were players performed at initial direction and so possibly somewhat reducing traveling least 1 HI action. velocity in trade of this change in path. Meanwhile, defenders Player Frequency (percentage) would preferably perform an arc run or curvilinear manoeuvre Assistant 379 (63.7% ±1.9%)* which has been theorized to be executed preferably to main- Scorer 653 (84.9% ±1.4%)^ Defender of assistant 428 (86,1% ±1.4%)^ tain velocity (Nimphius et al. 2018) thus regaining position in Defender of scorer 615 (95.8% ±0.8%) a faster manner compared to cutting. Total Sum 2075 (82.9% ±1.5%) Lateral advancing motion was performed more commonly Data expressed as frequency (percentage ±95% confidence intervals). Jump, ball in defenders compared to attackers which shows similarities to blocking actions and impact are considered as HI movements for analysis. *Significant difference from the rest of the players, ^significant difference other studies analysing a whole match (Bloomfield et al. 2007). from assistant and defender of scorer. Overall, crossover showed greater percentages at HI compared to shuffle, which could mean that the latter is performed mainly for tracking and readjusting when defending without commit- ing movements, as attackers, who theoretically would perform ting while crossover would also be performed to advance this type of actions to create space by changing velocity (Young laterally when a superior speed is required and possibly as et al. 2015), usually perform turns of less than 60°, which would a preferred transition activity prior to an explosive type of not require large deceleration (Hader et al. 2015; Dos’Santos movement. th et al. 2018). Conversely, defenders would need to rapidly close The fact that ‘jump’ was the 7 most common action con- down attackers and/or brake forcefully when reacting to attack- trasts with the study by Faude et al. (2012), who found ‘Jump’ to ers in order to change into a new direction, with these players be the second and third most common action for scorer for usually performing turns ≥60° requiring more strenuous decel- assistant, respectively, which could be due to this study analys- erations compared to shallow turns (Dos’Santos et al. 2018). ing a wider variety of movements. Given the demand of HI decelerations on the lower limb As an average, in 82.9 ± 1.5% of the involvements there was (Schreurs et al. 2017) and its possible implications for perfor- at least one HI movement, which is higher than the percen- mance enhancement and injury prevention, it is recommended tages found by Faude et al. (2012) were assisting and scoring to include deceleration drills and eccentric overload exercises player performed 55% and 62% of the goals with at least one as part of a performance and injury mitigation training strategy, explosive action. Regarding defending players, defender of especially in defenders. assistant performed similar involvements with at least one HI Turn showed to be the second most common action before compared to scorer, while defender of scorer performed HI a goal alongside deceleration and was present in 51.8 ± 2% of actions in most of the involvements (95.8 ± 0.8%) showing the involvements, decreasing to 35.1 ± 1.9% when only count- significantly higher percentage compared to the rest. These ing turns at HI. In agreement with Faude et al. (2012), rotations differences would highlight the particularities of each group showed to be the second and third most frequent action of players, with scorer, defender of assistant, and especially involved in goal scoring situations for assistant and scorer, defender of scorer being frequently exposed to explosive although they found lower percentages. This could be due to actions. On the other hand, assistant players would also need the actions defined as rotation, where only turns of the whole to perform actions at HI in order to get into good positions to body over 90° were selected whereas in this study the highest assist but would rely more heavily on passing accuracy in order percentage of turns were between 0° and 60°, followed by turns to create perturbations leading to goals (James et al. 2012). of 60° to 120°. Interestingly, attacking players performed higher These perturbations would possibly explain the differences in percentage of turns but with lower percentages at HI compared HI actions, as defenders would be in a disadvantageous posi- to defenders, which could be related to the need to perform tion and would rely on HI movements to try to regain a stable primarily subtle turns (between 0° and 60°). In contrast, defen- defending state. This prevalence of HI actions is in contrast with ders performed significantly higher amount of turns from 60° to the characteristics of a whole football match where low inten- 120° and from 120° to 180° compared to attackers, which again sity activities are predominant (Akenhead et al. 2013) but could relates to the direction attackers and defenders commonly face be in some way related to peak match demands. Although to in goal scoring situations. Moreover, the fact that defenders the authors’ knowledge there is no study analysing the relation had the highest percentages of turns at HI would show the between goal scoring situations and peak match demands, urgency of turning in these situations very close to goal. related contextual variables such as winning the match, team Therefore, training strategies should include drills were fre- formation and playing position have shown to be associated quent turns are performed with the ball (e.g., small sided with greater peak demands in the game (Oliva-Lozano et al., games [Evangelos et al. 2012]) but also explosive turns per- 2020; Riboli et al. 2021b). formed without the ball focusing on improving technique This highlights the specific HI demands required during goal could be beneficial for performance enhancement, with shar- scoring situations, were players rely markedly on explosive per turning drills possibly more beneficial for defending activities realised in a short space of time. In this sense, faster players. or more explosive players in a multidirectional environment Attackers performed significantly higher percentage of cuts would be more likely to create these unstable situations while compared to arc runs while the opposite occurred in defenders. faster defending players would potentially be more successful This could be due to the nature of these movements, as a cut than slower players when trying to deal with these. Therefore, would be performed by the attacker (usually with the ball) in physical training strategies should prioritize the multidirec- order to gain advantage in a certain situation by changing tional explosiveness of players. 8 D. MARTÍNEZ-HERNÁNDEZ ET AL. A limitation of this study is that ICC of the modified BMC was Acknowledgements based on ten matches (2.6% of all the matches) and so, certain The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Steve Atkins and Dr. Daiga movements with low frequencies could be underrepresented Kamerade-Hanta for their help in the statistical analysis of this paper. in this analysis. Another limitation was the system utilised for the analysis of movements, which was relatively ‘manual’. Declarations of interest Moreover, analysis was limited to the last six movements of each player prior to the goal which means that on a number of The authors report no conflicts of interest. involvements some movements were removed for analysis. Another limitation of the present study is the fact that Disclosure statement analysis was performed only on goal scoring situations, which would represent only 1% of the attacks (Pollard and Reep 1997). No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Moreover, the fact that the analysis is based in successful attacks could bring into conclusion that the defensive actions Funding analysed are unsuccessful defending activities. Finally, the broad definition for ‘linear advancing motion’ does not allow The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work fea- differentiation between actions with differing mechanical char- tured in this article.No funding is associated with this study. acteristics such as short accelerations and high-speed activities (Higashihara et al. 2018). References Akenhead R, Hayes PR, Thompson KG, French D. 2013. Diminutions of Conclusion acceleration and deceleration output during professional football match play. J Sci and Medicine in Sport. 16(6):556–561. doi:10.1016/j. This study shows that linear advancing motion is the most jsams.2012.12.005. common action prior to a goal and is performed in the highest Bloomfield J, Polman RCJ, O’Donoghue P. 2004. The ‘Bloomfield Movement percentage of involvements overall and at HI, showing to be Classification’: motion analysis of individual players in dynamic move- the most decisive movement. Turn and deceleration are also ment sports. Int J Performance Analysis in Sport. 4(2):20–31. doi:10.1080/ 24748668.2004.11868300. highly involved in goal actions although the latter shows lower Bloomfield J, Polman RCJ, O’Donoghue P. 2007. Physical demands of percentages at HI which could be related to less sharp turns in different positions in FA Premier League soccer. J Sports Sci Med. 6 attackers. (1):63–70. Players display similar trends with varied characteristics Buchheit M, Al Haddad H, Simpson BM, Palazzi D, Bourdon PC, Di Salvo V, depending on their role, with attackers performing more linear Mendez-Villanueva A. 2014. Monitoring accelerations with GPS in foot- ball: time to slow down? Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 9(3):442–445. actions, cuts and subtle turns while defenders perform sharper doi:10.1123/ijspp.2013-0187. turns, more lateral movements, blocking actions and arc runs. de Hoyo M, Sañudo B, Carrasco L, Mateo-Cortes J, Domínguez-Cobo S, Moreover, HI movements show to be predominant, with 82.9% Fernandes O, Gonzalo-Skok O, Gonzalo-Skok O. 2016. Effects of of the involvements being performed with at least one HI action 10-week eccentric overload training on kinetic parameters during and variations among players, with the assisting player showing change of direction in football players. J Sports Sci. 34(14):1380–1387. doi:10.1080/02640414.2016.1157624. the lowest percentages and defender of scorer the highest. Dos’ Santos T, McBurnie A, Comfort P, and Jones PA. 2019. The Effects of Six- These differences highlight the characteristics and demands of Weeks Change of Direction Speed and Technique Modification Training attacking and defending players, and so specific training strate- on Cutting Performance and Movement Quality in Male Youth Soccer gies could be implemented depending on the way each player is Players. Sports. 7(9):205. doi:10.3390/sports7090205. habitually involved. In this sense, as part of a holistic approach for Dos’Santos T, Thomas C, Comfort P, Jones PA. 2018. The effect of angle and the enhancement of sprint performance, training should incor- velocity on change of direction biomechanics: an angle-velocity trade-off. Sports Medicine. 48(10):2235–2253. doi:10.1007/s40279-018-0968-3. porate ball manipulation, especially in players involved in assist- Dos’Santos T, Thomas C, McBurnie A, Comfort P, Jones PA. 2021. Change of ing actions, while forward players would benefit from speed direction speed and technique modification training improves 180° actions ending with a shot on goal. Although there is a lack of turning performance, kinetics, and kinematics. Sports. 9(6):73. research studies on the implementation of training strategies for doi:10.3390/sports9060073. turning speed development, we recommend the incorporation Duffield R, Reid M, Baker J, Spratford W. 2010. Accuracy and reliability of GPS devices for measurement of movement patterns in confined spaces of specific turning overloaded training and technique modifica - for court-based sports. J Sci and Medicine in Sport. 13(5):523–525. tion training (Dos’ Santos et al. 2019; Dos’Santos et al. 2021), doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2009.07.003. especially for defenders as well as specific drills were turns are Evangelos B, Eleftherios M, Aris S, Ioannis G, Konstantinos A, Natalia K. 2012. performed with the ball for attackers. As deceleration ability is Supernumerary in small sided games 3vs3 & 4vs4. J Phyl Education and largely influenced by eccentric strength (Jones et al. 2017) train- Sport. 12(3):398–406. Faude O, Koch T, Meyer T. 2012. Straight sprinting is the most frequent ing protocols based on eccentric overload (de Hoyo et al. 2016) action in goal situations in professional football. J Sports Sci. 30 as well as multidirectional deceleration drills should be consid- (7):625–631. doi:10.1080/02640414.2012.665940. ered (Lockie et al. 2014). While defenders would benefit from Fischer-Sonderegger K, Taube W, Rumo M, Tschopp M, Cortis C. 2021. How far reactive HI decelerations and sharp turning drills (i.e., change of from the gold standard? Comparing the accuracy of a Local Position direction drills with fast approach velocities and high turning Measurement (LPM) system and a 15 Hz GPS to a laser for measuring degree angles), attackers would benefit from narrower angle acceleration and running speed during team sports. PloS One. 16(4): turns and cuts with short but fast braking. e0250549. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0250549. SCIENCE AND MEDICINE IN FOOTBALL 9 Forsman H, Blomqvist M, Davids K, Liukkonen J, Konttinen N. 2016. Oliva-Lozano J M, Rojas-Valverde D, Gómez-Carmona C D, Fortes V and Identifying technical, physiological, tactical and psychological character- Pino-Ortega J. (2020). Worst case scenario match analysis and contextual istics that contribute to career progression in soccer. Int J Sports Sci variables in professional soccer players: a longitudinal study. bs, 37(4), Coach. 11(4):505–513. doi:10.1177/1747954116655051. 429–436. 10.5114/biolsport.2020.97067 Granero-Gil P, Bastida-Castillo A, Rojas-Valverde D, Gómez-Carmona CD, de Oliva-Lozano JM, Martín-Fuentes I, Fortes V, and Muyor JM. 2021. Differences in worst-case scenarios calculated by fixed length and rolling La Cruz Sánchez E, Pino-Ortega J. 2020. Influence of contextual variables average methods in professional soccer match-play. Biology of Sport. 38 in the changes of direction and centripetal force generated during an (3):325–331. doi:10.5114/biolsport.2021.99706. elite-level soccer team season. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 17(3):967. Pollard R, Reep C. 1997. Measuring the effectiveness of playing strategies at doi:10.3390/ijerph17030967. soccer. J Royal Statistical Society: Series D (The Statistician). 46 Hader K, Palazzi D, Buchheit M. 2015. Change of direction speed in soccer: (4):541–550. doi:10.1111/1467-9884.00108. how much braking is enough? Kinesiology: Int J Fundamental and Pratas JM, Volossovitch A, Carita AI. 2018. Goal scoring in elite male football: Applied Kinesiology. 47(1):67–74. a systematic review. J Human Sport and Exercise. 13(1):218–230. Harper DJ, Carling C, and Kiely J. 2019. High-intensity acceleration and doi:10.14198/jhse.2018.131.19. deceleration demands in elite team sports competitive match play: Riboli A, Esposito F, and Coratella G. 2021a. The distribution of match a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Sports activities relative to the maximal intensities in elite soccer players: Medicine 49(12):1923–1947. implications for practice. Res in Sports Medicine. 1–12. doi:10.1080/ Haugen TA, Tønnessen E, Seiler S. 2013. Anaerobic performance testing of 15438627.2021.1895788 professional soccer players 1995–2010. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 8 Riboli A, Semeria M, Coratella G, Esposito F. 2021b. Effect of formation, ball (2):148–156. doi:10.1123/ijspp.8.2.148. in play and ball possession on peak demands in elite soccer. Biology of Higashihara A, Nagano Y, Ono T, Fukubayashi T. 2018. Differences in ham- Sport. 38(2):195. doi:10.5114/biolsport.2020.98450. string activation characteristics between the acceleration and Rienzi E, Drust B, Reilly T, Carter JE, Martin A. 2000. Investigation of anthro- maximum-speed phases of sprinting. J Sports Sci. 36(12):1313–1318. pometric and work-rate profiles of elite South American international doi:10.1080/02640414.2017.1375548. soccer players. J Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness. 40(2):162–169. James N, Rees GD, Griffin E, Barter P, Taylor J, Heath L, Vuckovic G. 2012. Robinson G, O’Donoghue P, Nielson P. 2011. Path changes and injury risk in Analysing soccer using perturbation attempts. J Human Sport and English FA Premier League soccer. Int J Performance Analysis in Sport. 11 Exercise. 7(2):413–420. doi:10.4100/jhse.2012.72.07. (1):40–56. doi:10.1080/24748668.2011.11868528. Jennings D, Cormack S, Coutts AJ, Boyd LJ, Aughey RJ. 2010. Variability of Sarmento H, Figueiredo A, Lago-Peñas C, Milanovic Z, Barbosa A, Tadeu P, GPS units for measuring distance in team sport movements. Int J Sports Bradley PS. 2018. Influence of tactical and situational variables on offen - Physiol Perform. 5(4):565–569. doi:10.1123/ijspp.5.4.565. sive sequences during elite football matches. J Strength & Conditioning Jones PA, Thomas C, Dos’Santos T, McMahon JJ, Graham-Smith P. 2017. The Res. 32(8):2331–2339. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000002147. role of eccentric strength in 180 turns in female soccer players. Sports. 5 Sarmento H, Marcelino R, Anguera MT, Campaniço J, Matos N, Leitão JC. (2):42. doi:10.3390/sports5020042. 2014. Match analysis in football: a systematic review. J Sports Sci. 32 Koo TK, Li MY. 2016. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass (20):1831–1843. doi:10.1080/02640414.2014.898852. correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 15 Schreurs MJ, Benjaminse A, Lemmink KA. 2017. Sharper angle, higher risk? (2):155–163. doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012. The effect of cutting angle on knee mechanics in invasion sport athletes. Lago-Ballesteros J, Lago-Peñas C, Rey E. 2012. The effect of playing tactics J Biomech. 63:144–150. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2017.08.019. and situational variables on achieving score-box possessions in Schulze E, Julian R, and Meyer T. 2021. Exploring factors related to goal scoring a professional soccer team. J Sports Sci. 30(14):1455–1461. doi:10.1080/ opportunities in professional football. Sci and Medicine in Football. 02640414.2012.712715. doi:10.1080/24733938.2021.1931421 Lockie RG, Schultz AB, Callaghan SJ, Jeffriess MD. 2014. The effects of Turner AN, Stewart PF. 2014. Strength and conditioning for soccer players. traditional and enforced stopping speed and agility training on multi- Strength & Conditioning J. 36(4):1–13. doi:10.1519/SSC.0000000000000054. directional speed and athletic function. J Strength & Conditioning Res. Wright C, Atkins S, Polman R, Jones B, Sargeson L. 2011. Factors associated 28(6):1538–1551. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000000309. with goals and goal scoring opportunities in professional soccer. Nimphius S, Callaghan SJ, Bezodis NE, Lockie RG. 2018. Change of Int J Performance Analysis in Sport. 11(3):438–449. doi:10.1080/ direction and agility tests: challenging our current measures of 24748668.2011.11868563. performance. Strength & Conditioning J. 40(1):26–38. doi:10.1519/ Young WB, Dawson B, Henry GJ. 2015. Agility and change-of-direction SSC.0000000000000309. speed are independent skills: implications for training for agility in O’Donoghue PG. 2014. An Introduction to Performance Analysis of Sport. invasion sports. Int J Sports Sci Coach. 10(1):159–169. doi:10.1260/ London: Routledge. 1747-9541.10.1.159.
Journal
Science and Medicine in Football
– Taylor & Francis
Published: Jan 2, 2023
Keywords: Movements; sprint; goal scoring actions; position specific; English Premier League
