Water Polo Shooting Performance: Differences Between World Championship Winning, Drawing and Losing Teams

Abstract

Shooting performance of globally ranked winning, drawing and losing water polo teams was compared, and technical and tactical success indicators were identified. In total, 886 shots from a world championship final round were videotaped and teams were clustered for a performance evaluation (considering differences between game outcomes). Shooting speeds were assessed by a radar, with higher values observed at further distances from the goal than in the central area close to the goal (p ≤ 0.00, ES: 2.54). Shots tended to be more frequent from the central corridor, with ≤50% and >75% relative shot efficacy attained from field areas 3 and 6; winning teams obtained better results. Furthermore, winners had greater success than losers when shooting from field area 2 (p ≤ 0.04, ES: 1.13) and towards the goal zone 2 (p < 0.03, ES: 1.10). They also attained better efficacy regarding shots towards goal zone 1, had better efficacy on the part of centre-forwards (p ≤ 0.05, ES: 0.85-1.27), and were more effective regarding shots without a frontal defensive block. In addition, contingency analysis highlighted shots performed from field area 6, without a defensive block, toward the bottom left goal corner, and through man-up play as success indicators (all for p ≤ 0.005). We concluded that world-level winning teams homogeneously distributed their shot opportunities at the second offensive line with balanced efficacy, creating variability and uncertainty in their opponents’ defensive action. Elite level players must be capable of interpreting game situations with intelligence and proper decision making. This information may be useful for improving teams performance.

Water Polo Offensive Methods after the 2018 FINA Rules Update

“…For the authors, this had an impact on the total number of attacks, faster swimming, and more frequent shots, which appear to be associated with the winning teams. However, the present number of offensive sequences was not different between groups and teams, and the total ball possessions seemed to be lower than those previously reported regarding the winning teams [ 23 ]. This can be due to different study methodologies since the number of possessions is impacted by the number of exclusion fouls and other events that increase offensive time and add to the length of a possession [ 28 ].…”

“…This is in agreement with the present study since it considered that ball possession encompasses all the offensive events that happen up to total ball loss and the team’s defensive recovery taking place. The exclusions fouls do not settle the end of ball possession, and, in relation to Canossa et al [ 23 ], it seems that currently more exclusions fouls occur (27 vs. 33%, respectively).…”

“…Since in previous research [15] the free throw was the most efficient strategy in even play, the change of its distance does not seem to produce a positive effect. This view is corroborated by the fact that even play is the most frequent situation in the game, and it was found that it has a greater probability of not scoring a goal [23]. Perhaps game progress will go through the revision of tactical actions and playing methods for even play success and the center forward role settled in the 2 m line in front of the goal [4,6,14].…”

“…Tournament score official game reports (start list, play by play and results) were also considered to data, if necessary, with the intra-observer reliability achieving Kappa Index ≥ 0.91. A of play scheme, adapted from previous studies [9,11,23], was used as an observa support instrument (Figure 1). The observational tactical-technical variables were previously selected based o literature e.g., [10][11][12]15], as described in Table 1.…”

“…Tournament scores and official game reports (start list, play by play and results) were also considered to check data, if necessary, with the intra-observer reliability achieving Kappa Index ≥ 0.91. A field of play scheme, adapted from previous studies [ 9 , 11 , 23 ], was used as an observational support instrument ( Figure 1 ).…”