Analysis of the running performance of elite soccer players depending on position in the 1-4-3-3 formation

Vardakis, Lazaros; Michailidis, Yiannis; Mandroukas, Athanasios; Mavrommatis, George; Christoulas, Kosmas; Metaxas, Thomas

doi:10.1007/s12662-019-00639-5

Cited by 16 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…From a physical perspective, central midfielders show the highest total running distance compared to other positions [ 5 – 10 ]. Looking at the distances covered at high-intensity speed and sprinting speed, wide midfielders and full backs display greater distances than the other positions [ 5 , 6 , 9 – 13 ]. Regarding technical performance, Dellal et al (2010) [ 5 ] revealed that forwards lose more duels and have more turnovers than other positional groups.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Center backs work hardest when playing in a back three: The influence of tactical formation on physical and technical match performance in professional soccer

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether tactical formation affects the physical and technical match performance of professional soccer players in the first German Bundesliga. From official match data of the Bundesliga season 2018/19, physical (total distance, high-intensity distance, sprinting distance, accelerations, maximum velocity) and technical performance (short/middle/long passes, dribblings, ball-possessions) of players were analyzed. Players were categorized into five playing positions (center back, full back, central midfielder, wide midfielder, forward) and teams into eight different tactical formations (4-4-2, 4-4-2 diamond, 4-2-2-2, 4-3-3, 4-5-1, 4-2-3-1, 3-4-3, 3-5-2). Results revealed that the degree to which tactical formation affects match performance is position dependent. In terms of physical performance, center backs and full backs showed highest sprinting distances when playing in a formation with only three defenders in the back row (3-4-3, 3-5-2) compared to all other formations (ES range: 0.13≤ES≤1.27). Regarding technical performance, all positions except forwards displayed fewer short passes, middle passes and ball-possessions in the formations 4-3-3 and 4-2-3-1 compared to all other formations (0.02≤ES≤1.19). In conclusion, physical and technical performance of center backs, full backs and wide midfielders differed markedly between the tactical formations. Conversely, the physical and technical performance of central midfielders and forwards only showed small differences between the different tactical formations. These findings can help coaches scheduling their practice. For example, if a coach wants to change the playing formation, he can anticipate the physical and technical match performance changes depending on the respective playing position.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Center backs work hardest when playing in a back three: The influence of tactical formation on physical and technical match performance in professional soccer

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… Bradley et al (2013b) found similar results, where fullbacks from high ball possession teams performed more high-intensity running and sprinting. Furthermore, there were some recent findings showing that fullbacks covered greater high-intensity and sprint distance than wide midfielders ( Vardakis et al, 2019 ; Aquino et al, 2020 ). This might be due to playing formation (playing style culture), but it could be due to the football development trend, which is “total possession play.” Typical examples are Spain (2008–2012) and Germany (2014–2018); these players push forward (very hard) when attacking and start to press opponent players immediately after losing possession.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Possession and Player Position on Physical and Technical-Tactical Performance Indicators in the Chinese Football Super League

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of high (HPBPT) and low percentage ball possession teams (LPBPT) on physical and technical-tactical performance indicators in the Chinese Football Super League (CSL). Eight physical performance indicators and 26 technical-tactical performance indicators from all 240 matches from season 2018 were analyzed, as well as three contextual variables (team strength, quality of opposition, and match location). Players were divided according to five positions: fullbacks, central defenders, wide midfielders, central midfielders, and attackers. A k-means cluster analysis was conducted to classify all match observations into two groups: HPBPT (n = 229) and LPBPT (n = 251). A mixed linear model was fitted with contextual variables as covariates. When significant interactions or main effects were detected, a post hoc comparison was used to compare physical and technical/tactical differences between HPBPT and LPBPT. Results showed that central defenders and fullbacks covered more high-intensity and sprint running distance in the high possession teams, while wide midfielders and forward covered more high-intensity and sprint running distance in the low possession teams. Meanwhile, players from high ball possession teams were strong in technical indicators, especially in attacking organization. These results may help coaches to understand current football development trends and develop suitable training plans and tests for elite football players.

show abstract

“…The subjects (n = 44) were from a 1st professional division Cypriot team, evaluated during the 2020-21 and 2021-22 seasons (mean ± SD, age: 25.7 ± 4.4; training age: 17.6 ± 4; weight: 74.6 ± 7.7 kg; fat: 7.3 ± 2.2%; BMI: 20.7 ± 2.2). The position grouping is the same as was previously used in other studies [46,54,55]: central defenders (n = 7), wide defenders (n = 9), midfielders (n = 13), wingers (n = 8) and strikers (n = 7). The only data used for analysis were from when the team was preparing to use the 4-3-3 formation during the week.…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in Physical Indexes between Football Players of Different Playing Positions and Correlation to the Weekly Training Load

Vardakis,

Koutsokosta,

Michailidis

et al. 2024

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was twofold: (a) to examine the differences on physical indexes between players of different playing positions and (b) to reveal the correlations between their physical parameters and the running profile within the weekly microcycles. The subjects (n = 44) were separated into five positions: central defenders (n = 7), wide defenders (n = 9), midfielders (n = 13), wingers (n = 8) and strikers (n = 7), and all of them belonged to a professional 1st division European team during the 2020–21 and 2021–22 seasons. An incremental treadmill protocol was used to assess the VO2max, vVO2max and the vRER in the last week before the regular season. Then, during the first semesters, external load data were collected for two consecutive seasons to analyze the running profiles of the different positions. There were no differences on physical parameters between the players of various positions, but interestingly there were different correlations with the external load during the microcycles. Central defenders did not show any correlation. For the other positions, correlations were found between respiratory exchange ratio (vRER) and metabolic power efforts (MPWEF) (p = 0.028, r = 0.721) for wide defenders, between vRER and medium intensity accelerations (ACC2) (p = 0.004, r = 0.741) for midfielders, medium intensity decelerations (DEC2) (p = 0.01, r = 0.685), metabolic power zone 5 (MPW5) (p = 0.016, r = 0.652), MPWEF (p = 0.005, r = 0.725), and also between maximal rate of oxygen consumption (VO2max) and high intensity decelerations (DEC3) (p = 0.045, r = 0.564), metabolic power zone 4 (MPW4) (p = 0.026, r = 0.614), MPW5 (p = 0.017, r = 0.646), MPWEF (p = 0.01, r = 0.685). A correlation between velocity on VO2max (vVO2max) and ACC2 (p = 0.038, r = 0.733), MPW5 (p = 0.005, r = 0.873), and MPWEF (p = 0.009, r = 0.84) was found for the wingers. Finally, there was a correlation between vRER and MPWEF (p = 0.026, r = 0.866), and between vVO2max and high intensity accelerations (ACC3) (p = 0.03, r = 0.801) for the strikers. Our study supports that the external load of players in different positions during the training sessions is correlated with their physical indexes. These correlations are determined mostly by their tactical role, but not from their physical level, as there were no differences.

show abstract

Analysis of the running performance of elite soccer players depending on position in the 1-4-3-3 formation

Cited by 16 publications

References 42 publications

Center backs work hardest when playing in a back three: The influence of tactical formation on physical and technical match performance in professional soccer

Center backs work hardest when playing in a back three: The influence of tactical formation on physical and technical match performance in professional soccer

Impact of Possession and Player Position on Physical and Technical-Tactical Performance Indicators in the Chinese Football Super League

Differences in Physical Indexes between Football Players of Different Playing Positions and Correlation to the Weekly Training Load

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About