Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
This study was designed to analyze goal-scoring in elite soccer, drawing on an extensive dataset encompassing 892 goals and 3496 perturbations recorded in the German 2nd Bundesliga. A qualitative approach was used to analyze perturbations, which are technical–tactical situations that disrupt opponent stability and facilitate goal success. The research differentiated between offensive and defensive perturbations, characteristics of initiating disruptive perturbations, their zones of occurrence, directions of play, significant playing positions, and their contributions toward goals, as well as perturbation chains leading to goal success. The analysis determined that an average of 3.9 perturbations is typically required to forge a goal-scoring opportunity against the opposition. It was revealed that 39% of initiating perturbations were defensive, predominantly characterized by misplaced passes. In contrast, 43% were attributed to offensive group tactical perturbations, such as low passes, long-distance kicks, and crosses. Only 18% stemmed from individual perturbations, with runs without the ball and dribbling to bypass the opponent being the primary occurrences. An analysis focusing solely on the immediate actions can lead to misinterpretations regarding the genesis of goals. While only 79 goals resulted from a single perturbation, most commonly a shot on goal, 813 goals emerged from scenarios involving two or more perturbations.
This study was designed to analyze goal-scoring in elite soccer, drawing on an extensive dataset encompassing 892 goals and 3496 perturbations recorded in the German 2nd Bundesliga. A qualitative approach was used to analyze perturbations, which are technical–tactical situations that disrupt opponent stability and facilitate goal success. The research differentiated between offensive and defensive perturbations, characteristics of initiating disruptive perturbations, their zones of occurrence, directions of play, significant playing positions, and their contributions toward goals, as well as perturbation chains leading to goal success. The analysis determined that an average of 3.9 perturbations is typically required to forge a goal-scoring opportunity against the opposition. It was revealed that 39% of initiating perturbations were defensive, predominantly characterized by misplaced passes. In contrast, 43% were attributed to offensive group tactical perturbations, such as low passes, long-distance kicks, and crosses. Only 18% stemmed from individual perturbations, with runs without the ball and dribbling to bypass the opponent being the primary occurrences. An analysis focusing solely on the immediate actions can lead to misinterpretations regarding the genesis of goals. While only 79 goals resulted from a single perturbation, most commonly a shot on goal, 813 goals emerged from scenarios involving two or more perturbations.
The aim of the study was to evaluate the technical-tactical requirements profile of goalkeepers and to assess the influence of age and performance level. Therefore, 213 league matches involving elite youth soccer players (under 17 years old [U17], U19), semi-professional (U23, Germany's 4th league), and professional teams (Germany's 1st and 2nd league) were analyzed. Goalkeeper actions related to distribution, space defense, and goal defense were qualitatively recorded using a predefined categorization system by two independent raters, ensuring rigorous examination. The distribution of actions across offensive play, space defense, and goal defense was consistent, indicating robust patterns regardless of age or competitive level. Specifically, offensive play actions constituted about 73–77% of all actions, space defense accounted for 13–15%, and goal defense comprised 10–12%. This uniformity suggests that despite variations in age and competitive levels, the technical requirements profiles of U17, U19, U23, and professional goalkeepers largely coincide. Consequently, goalkeepers should be introduced to building play under pressure as early as possible. Training focused on playing with the feet under pressure should hold a high priority in goalkeeper training.
This study aimed to analyze which defensive performance indicators differentiate winning and losing teams and to verify which of these variables better predict winning probabilities during the Men’s 2022 FIFA World Cup. Data from all 64 matches played during the competition were gathered from public sources. The variables comprised event-based and positional-based data. Data between winning and losing teams were compared using multivariate analysis of variance, and multiple linear regression was used to detect winning predictors. Results indicated that winning teams performed more forced turnovers ( p = 0.017) and spent less time in out-of-possession recovery ( p = 0.005) and transition ( p = 0.017). The regression analysis indicated that the forced turnovers (standardized beta = 0.446), the possession action per defensive action (standardized beta = 0.582), and the time spent in out-of-possession recovery actions (standardized beta = −0.279) significantly predict the goal difference achieved by the teams ( r = 0.499. Adjusted r2 = 0.225). However, the model’s power prediction was low, indicating that multiple defensive strategies can lead to winning outcomes. In conclusion, adopting an aggressive defensive style, aiming at forcing turnovers and seeking to regain the ball high on the pitch, was the most successful defensive strategy observed in the competition.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.