Search

The present study aimed to determine the physical-tactical profiles of elite football teams and individual players according to final league rankings. A total of 50 English Premier League matches (n = 100 match and 583 player observations) were analysed by coding the player's physical-tactical actions through synchronising tracking data and video. Final league rankings were categorised into Tiers: (A) 1st-5th ranking (n = 25), (B) 6th-10th ranking (n = 26), (C) 11th-15th ranking (n = 26), and (D) 16th-20th ranking (n = 23). One-way analyses of variance were used to compare match performances between different Tiers, and effect size (ES) was determined for the meaningfulness of the difference. Tier A teams covered 39-51% more high-intensity distance for 'Move to Receive/Exploit Space' (ES: 1.3-1.6, P < 0.01) and 'Run with Ball' (ES: 0.9-1.0, P < 0.05) than Tier C and D, and 23-94% more distance for 'Over/Underlap' (ES: 1.0, P < 0.01), 'Run in Behind/Penetrate' (ES: 0.7, P < 0.05), and 'Break into Box' (ES: 0.9, P < 0.05) compared to Tier C. Central and Wide Defensive Players in Tier A covered 65-551% more high-intensity 'Move to Receive/Exploit Space' distance compared to other Tiers (ES: 0.6-1.0, P < 0.01). Moreover, the additional options within the physical-tactical actions and zonal differences unveiled more meaningful insights into 'HOW' the top Tier teams physically and tactically perform. Thus, the amalgamated physical-tactical data help improve our understanding of a team's playing style relative to their competitive standard. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study aimed to determine the physical-tactical profiles of elite football teams and individual players according to final league rankings. A total of 50 English Premier League matches (n = 100 match and 583 player observations) were analysed by coding the player’s physical-tactical actions through synchronising tracking data and video. Final league rankings were categorised into Tiers: (A) 1st–5th ranking (n = 25), (B) 6th–10th ranking (n = 26), (C) 11th–15th ranking (n = 26), and (D) 16th–20th ranking (n = 23). One-way analyses of variance were used to compare match performances between different Tiers, and effect size (ES) was determined for the meaningfulness of the difference. Tier A teams covered 39–51% more high-intensity distance for ‘Move to Receive/Exploit Space’ (ES: 1.3–1.6, P < 0.01) and ‘Run with Ball’ (ES: 0.9–1.0, P < 0.05) than Tier C and D, and 23–94% more distance for ‘Over/Underlap’ (ES: 1.0, P < 0.01), ‘Run in Behind/Penetrate’ (ES: 0.7, P < 0.05), and ‘Break into Box’ (ES: 0.9, P < 0.05) compared to Tier C. Central and Wide Defensive Players in Tier A covered 65–551% more high-intensity ‘Move to Receive/Exploit Space’ distance compared to other Tiers (ES: 0.6–1.0, P < 0.01). Moreover, the additional options within the physical-tactical actions and zonal differences unveiled more meaningful insights into ‘HOW’ the top Tier teams physically and tactically perform. Thus, the amalgamated physical-tactical data help improve our understanding of a team’s playing style relative to their competitive standard.

The present study aimed to contextualise physical metrics with tactical actions according to general and specialised tactical roles. A total of 244 English Premier League players were analysed by coding player’s physical-tactical actions via the fusion of tracking data and video. Data were analysed across 5 general (Central Defensive Players = CDP, Wide Defensive Players = WDP, Central Midfield Players = CMP, Wide Offensive Players = WOP, Central Offensive Players = COP) and 11 specialised positions (Centre Backs = CB, Full-Backs = FB, Wing-Backs = WB, Box-to-Box Midfielders = B2BM, Central Defensive Midfielders = CDM, Central Attacking Midfielders = CAM, Wide Midfielders = WM, Wide Forwards = WF, Centre Forwards = CF). COP covered more distance at high-intensity (> 19.8 km· h-1) when performing actions such as ‘Break into Box’, Run in Behind/Penetrate’, and ‘Close Down/Press’ than other positions (ES: 0.6–5.2, P < 0.01). WOP covered more high-intensity ‘Run with Ball’ distance (ES: 0.7–1.7, P < 0.01) whereas WDP performed more ‘Over/Underlap’ distance than other positions (ES: 0.9–1.4, P < 0.01). CDP and WDP covered more high-intensity ‘Covering’ distances than other positions (ES: 0.4–2.4, P < 0.01). Nonetheless, data demonstrated that implementing specialised positional analysis relative to a generalised approach is more sensitive in measuring physical-tactical performances of players with the latter over or underestimating the match demands of the players compared to the former. A contextualised analysis may assist coaches and practitioners when designing position or even player-specific training drills since the data provides unique physical-tactical trends across specialised roles.

The present study aimed to contextualise physical metrics with tactical actions according to general and specialised tactical roles. A total of 244 English Premier League players were analysed by coding player's physical-tactical actions via the fusion of tracking data and video. Data were analysed across 5 general (Central Defensive Players = CDP, Wide Defensive Players = WDP, Central Midfield Players = CMP, Wide Offensive Players = WOP, Central Offensive Players = COP) and 11 specialised positions (Centre Backs = CB, Full-Backs = FB, Wing-Backs = WB, Box-to-Box Midfielders = B2BM, Central Defensive Midfielders = CDM, Central Attacking Midfielders = CAM, Wide Midfielders = WM, Wide Forwards = WF, Centre Forwards = CF). COP covered more distance at high-intensity (> 19.8 km ⋅ h-1) when performing actions such as 'Break into Box', Run in Behind/Penetrate', and 'Close Down/Press' than other positions (ES: 0.6--5.2, P < 0.01). WOP covered more high-intensity 'Run with Ball' distance (ES: 0.7--1.7, P < 0.01) whereas WDP performed more 'Over/Underlap' distance than other positions (ES: 0.9--1.4, P < 0.01). CDP and WDP covered more high-intensity 'Covering' distances than other positions (ES: 0.4--2.4, P < 0.01). Nonetheless, data demonstrated that implementing specialised positional analysis relative to a generalised approach is more sensitive in measuring physical-tactical performances of players with the latter over or underestimating the match demands of the players compared to the former. A contextualised analysis may assist coaches and practitioners when designing position or even player-specific training drills since the data provides unique physical-tactical trends across specialised roles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study aimed to determine the physical-tactical trends of elite players/teams during peak 1-, 3- and 5-min periods of match-play. A total of 50 English Premier League matches (n = 583 player observations) were analysed by coding the players’ physical-tactical activities through the synchronisation of tracking data and video. The contextualised data showed that during the peak periods (i.e., the most demanding passage of play), players/teams covered the largest distances for ‘Recovery Run’ (28–37%) out of possession and ‘Support Play’ (9–13%) in possession. In the following periods, players covered less high-intensity distance versus the average with a more pronounced decline in the next 1-min period than longer duration 3- and 5-min periods (48% vs ~25–30%, ES: 0.4–0.5, P < 0.01); team data showed similar trends with different relative patterns (31% vs 17–30%, ES: 0.5–0.8, P < 0.01). After peak periods, players/teams performed 20–53% less high-intensity distances for ‘Covering’ and ‘Recovery Run’ (ES: 0.2–0.7, P < 0.01) out of possession. However, players covered 28–91% less distance for ‘Run with Ball’ (ES: 0.1–0.5, P < 0.05) when in possession. Some physical-tactical actions exhibited inconsistency in different time durations of the next periods; however, these physical-tactical data were position-specific. This may signify that each position has certain physical-tactical actions to execute even after the peak periods, especially when they are tactically required to do so. As the data demonstrates unique physical-tactical trends of players/teams during the peak and next periods of play, this could help practitioners prescribe position- and player-specific drills, and better understand transient decrements in high-intensity running after intense passages of play.

The present study aimed to determine the physical-tactical trends of elite players/teams during peak 1-, 3- and 5-min periods of match-play. A total of 50 English Premier League matches (n = 583 player observations) were analysed by coding the players' physical-tactical activities through the synchronisation of tracking data and video. The contextualised data showed that during the peak periods (i.e., the most demanding passage of play), players/teams covered the largest distances for 'Recovery Run' (28--37%) out of possession and 'Support Play' (9--13%) in possession. In the following periods, players covered less high-intensity distance versus the average with a more pronounced decline in the next 1-min period than longer duration 3- and 5-min periods (48% vs ~25--30%, ES: 0.4--0.5, P < 0.01); team data showed similar trends with different relative patterns (31% vs 17--30%, ES: 0.5--0.8, P < 0.01). After peak periods, players/teams performed 20--53% less high-intensity distances for 'Covering' and 'Recovery Run' (ES: 0.2--0.7, P < 0.01) out of possession. However, players covered 28--91% less distance for 'Run with Ball' (ES: 0.1--0.5, P < 0.05) when in possession. Some physical-tactical actions exhibited inconsistency in different time durations of the next periods; however, these physical-tactical data were position-specific. This may signify that each position has certain physical-tactical actions to execute even after the peak periods, especially when they are tactically required to do so. As the data demonstrates unique physical-tactical trends of players/teams during the peak and next periods of play, this could help practitioners prescribe position- and player-specific drills, and better understand transient decrements in high-intensity running after intense passages of play. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]