Interpersonal Dynamics in 2-vs-1 Contexts of Football: The Effects of Field Location and Player Roles

Abstract

This study analyzed the spatial-temporal interactions that sustained 2-vs-1 contexts in football at different field locations near the goal. Fifteen male players (under 15 years, age 13.2 ± 1.03 years, years of practice 4.2 ± 1.10 years), 5 defenders, 7 midfielders, and 3 attackers, participated in the study. Each participant performed a game to simulate a 2-vs-1 sub-phase as a ball carrier, second attacker, and defender at three different field locations, resulting in a total number of 142 trials. The movements of participants in each trial were recorded and digitized with TACTO software. Values of interpersonal distance between the ball carrier and defender and interpersonal angles between players and between the goal target, defender, and ball carrier were calculated. The results revealed a general main effect of field location. Generally, the middle zone revealed the lowest values of interpersonal distance and angle between players and the right zone and the highest values of interpersonal distance between players and interpersonal angle between players and the goal. Related with participants’ roles, defenders revealed subtle differences as attackers on interpersonal distances and relative angles compared with midfielders and attackers. Findings supported that field location is a key constraint of players’ performance and that players’ role constraint performance effectiveness in football.

How football team composition constrains emergent individual and collective tactical behaviours: Effects of player roles in creating different landscapes for shared affordances in small-sided and conditioned games

“…That is, even without statistical differences to performance behaviours of the teams of midfielders and attackers, the defenders revealed a tendency to recover the ball by interceptions, facilitating a great number of counterattacks and shots at goal. According to our previous research, teams of defenders tend to maintain higher values of interpersonal distances with opponents and play with lower levels of risk, than teams of midfielders and attackers (Laakso et al, 2019). Thus, the higher number of completed shots in 3v3 SSCGs may be a consequence of being able to perceive affordances for passes in opponents and, therefore, intercept more passes, as well as losing possession less often, allowing them to progress forward for shots at goal.…”

“…In particular current development methods shape the use of different individual affordances for players in similar game environments (Silva et al, 2013). Thus, it can be assumed that playing roles in association football may not only be characterized by different anthropometrical or physiological differences of individuals (Di Salvo et al, 2007;Marques et al, 2016), but also by different technical-tactical capabilities required by specific roles in which players are specialising (Laakso et al, 2019). An ecological dynamics rationale for the current findings suggest that players' main team roles seem to impact on their perception-action systems (i.e.…”

“…According to our previous research, teams of defenders tend to maintain higher values of interpersonal distances with opponents and play with lower levels of risk, than teams of midfielders and attackers. 15 Thus, the higher number of completed shots in 3v3 SSCGs may be a consequence of being able to perceive affordances for passes in opponents and, therefore, intercept more passes, as well as losing possession less often, allowing them to progress forward for shots at goal. However, more information is required to sustain this assumption and further research is required to analyse the origin of the ball re-possessions that ended in shots at goal by defenders, midfielders, and attackers.…”

T-Pattern Detection and Analysis of Football Players’ Tactical and Technical Defensive Behaviour Interactions: Insights for Training and Coaching Team Coordination

“…Either way, zones in this study showed affordances for the coordination of the players, at the right strip and ultra-defensive sector seems to be a zone of 1v1 situation that the first defender pressured even without the backing of the second and third defenders. Despite the methodological differences, one can compare to the results of the studies of Laakso et al (2017) and Laakso et al (2019) , who found lower values of interpersonal distance in the middle and left zones in 2v1 and 1v1 (isolated) situations, respectively.…”

“…Nevertheless, the tactical and technical behaviours differed from the right and left sides. The difference of the second defender's behaviour between the right and left strip can be explained by the difference between the roles and characteristics of the right and left players (Laakso et al, 2017(Laakso et al, , 2019 or different tactics set by the coach to the wider players, giving emphasis to what Gesbert and Hauw (2019) addressed about the importance of phenomenological data in studying team coordination. On the particular zone 9, the third defender seems to be preoccupied with not letting the ball go to a side of the field, which could mean that the defending team was trying to manipulate the attacking team to go to a specific zone of the field or trying to create a zone of pressure.…”