Osian Pritchard
ST08002855
Sport & Physical Education
University of Wales Institute Cardiff
Analysis of attacking play in the FIFA 2010 Soccer
World Cup in South Africa
Table of Contents
Page No:
Acknowledgements
i
Abstract
ii
Chapter One: Introduction
1.1 Aim of the present study
1
1.2 Soccer
1
1.3 Previous research relevant to present study
2
1.4 Research expectations
2
1.5 Hypotheses
3
Chapter Two: Review of Literature
2.1 Notational analysis
4
2.2 Hand notation systems vs. Computerised systems
5
2.3 Match analysis in soccer
6
Chapter Three: Methodology
3.1 Design of the hand notation system
12
3.2 Pilot Study
13
3.3 Operational definitions
13
3.4 Sample
14
3.5 Reliability
14
3.6 Procedure
15
3.7 Data Analysis
16
Chapter Four: Results
4.1 Reliability
17
4.2 Descriptive results of the FIFA World Cup
18
4.3 Key differences in performances
21
Chapter Five: Discussion
5.1 Reliability
22
5.2 England versus the world
22
5.3 Findings of the Mann-Whitney tests
25
5.4 Implications of the findings
26
5.5 Benefits of research conducted
26
Chapter Six: Conclusion
6.1 Research summary
28
6.2 Research limitations
29
6.3 Suggestions for future research
29
Reference List
31
List of Tables
Table
Title
Page No:
4.1- Highlights the differences in coding between first and second viewings (V1, V2)
17
4.2- Summary of England’s performances
18
4.3- Summary of Germany’s performances
18
4.4- Summary of Spain’s performances
19
4.5- Summary of Holland’s performances
19
4.6- Summary of Uruguay’s performances
20
4.7- Total number of possessions starting points in relation to third of pitch
20
4.8- Levels of significant differences between teams (passing)
21
4.9- Levels of significant differences between teams (time)
21
List of Figures
Figure
Title
Page No:
1- The coaching cycle, emphasising how analysis can aid the coach step by step,
(Carling et al, 2005)
4
2- Patterns of goal-scoring with respect to the different lengths of possessions in
the 1990 and 1994 Soccer World Cups (Hughes & Franks, 2005)
7
3- Frequencies (%) for goal-scoring actions concerning third of field where teams
win the ball, (Garganta et al., 1997)
10
4- Finalised design of the notation system
12
Appendices:
Appendix A- England’s individual matches
Appendix B- Spain’s individual matches
Appendix C- Holland’s individual matches
Appendix D- Germany’s individual matches
Appendix E- Uruguay’s individual matches
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr. Steve. M. Cooper for his assistance provided throughout the
completion of this research. I would also like thank members of the performance analysis
team at UWIC for additional support provided regarding analysis skills and techniques.
i
Abstract
The present study is concerned with creating a specific performance profile of England’s
performances in the FIFA 2010 Soccer World Cup. The performance indicators used to
measure attacking performance included i) number of passes per sequence of play, ii) time
taken (seconds) per sequence of play, iii) origin of attack (defensive, midfield or attacking
third of pitch) and iv) end result of sequence of play (on/off target, goal). Comparisons were
made between England and the teams that reached the semi-finals of the competition (Spain,
Holland, Germany and Uruguay). A total of 25 matches were analysed to record the data of
each team. The data was then compared using the Mann Whitney test, which revealed
significant differences (P<0.05) between England and Uruguay with regards to both number
of passes and time taken (seconds) in attacking sequences of play. However there were no
significant differences between England and the remaining teams. Ultimately the findings of
the research identified the different styles of play that teams adopted during the FIFA 2010
Soccer World Cup and concluded that no one tactical approach was more effective than the
other, as there are too many external factors that affect a team in its attempts to succeed at the
highest level.
ii
Chapter 1:
Introduction
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Aim of the present study
The purpose of this study was to analyse and identify any differences between the attacking
playing styles of a sample of teams that competed in the 2010 FIFA World Cup. The study
focused mainly on the only British team in the competition, England. Comparisons were made
with the successful nations of the tournament, i.e. the teams that reached the semi-finals,
Germany, Holland, Spain and Uruguay. From recording and comparing the number of passes
completed, the time and the origination of each sequence of play that lead to an attempt on
goal, an idea of teams’ playing styles became evident. Examples of playing styles include
‘direct play’ or ‘possession play’, whereas some of the teams relied more on set-pieces to
create goal-scoring opportunities. The research aimed to identify these playing styles and
having analysed the results, suggest if any of the competing nations had employed a more
effective attacking strategy, based on the scoring chances that were created. Some external
factors such as quality of opponents were considered when discussing the results.
1.2 Soccer
According to Wade (1996), soccer is a ‘free-game’, where teams flow naturally from defence
to attack, while players are almost completely unrestricted in their movements. This is what
makes the sport such an attractive one for both players and spectators. Wade (1996) claims
that there are three principal phases to the game; they are defence, preparation or midfield
play and attack. The present research is mainly concerned with the preparation (build-up) and
attack (execution) of chances created. A combination of objective and subjective means of
analysis identified the styles of play that teams adopt. The data collected provided the
objective analysis, with a statistical break down of the teams’ passes and time taken per
possession, while the principal analyst attempted to provide a subjective analysis by observing
game play, and apply some of Wade’s (1996) principles and systems of play to their
performances where relevant.
1
1.3 Previous research relevant to present study
Charles Reep is still considered as a pioneer in the area of performance analysis and notational
analysis in soccer (Pollard, 2002). In 1950 he observed and analysed the number of attacks
that Swindon Town made during the course of a match. Having discovered a previously
unexplored dimension of football analysis, Reep identified his provisional findings as:

Only two goals in nine were scored after moves involving more than three passes

Attacking moves which included a long ball from a team’s own half towards the
opposition’s goal appeared to be twice as effective as attacking moves which involved
short balls with the same aim

Attacking movements to regain possession outside or within the opposition’s 18-yard
box were the best basis for scoring. (Reep called this ‘regained possession’, a term
which is now commonplace in football.

Three attacking movements to regain possession close to, or in, the 18-yard box
produced an attempt on goal. On average, a team had eight attempts for each goal
scored.

Short, square and support passes needed to be reduced to a minimum in order to
increase scoring frequency.
1.4 Research expectations
From the present study it was expected that each team’s style of play would emerge as a
common trend having compared the team’s performances from one game to the next. They
might be subject to change depending on the opponents, the team’s progression in the
tournament and various external factors such as climate, injuries and match officials.
Differences in styles of play were expected, when comparing the teams. This could be caused
by cultural/historical background, tactical preference or player improvisation. For example, a
team’s tactical approach could be identified by the frequency of attacking sequences that
commence in the oppositions defensive third and their attempts to gain possession in that area.
2
1.5 Hypotheses
H0-There will be no significant difference between the playing styles of the teams competing
in the tournament; the frequencies of passes per possession, time of sequences, and number of
attempts on and off target will be equal.
HA- A significant difference between some of the teams will be identified. Differences will
include number of passes per possession, time of sequences and the number of attempts on
and off target that are created.
3
Chapter 2:
Review of Literature
2.0 Review of Literature
2.1 Notational analysis
Notational analysis is primarily concerned with identifying and developing strategies and
tactics relating to performance. It is an objective means of recording and evaluating
performances of teams and individual athletes, while highlighting positive and negative
aspects of performance. According to James (2006) the importance of notational analysis to a
coach or a performance is invaluable in relation to achieving the steps within the coaching
process. However, simply presenting the coach with statistical information might not be
practical, and instead an analyst should adapt the information so that a coach or player may
gain practical and useful knowledge.
Figure 1-The coaching cycle, emphasising how analysis can aid the coach step by step,
(Carling et al, 2005).
Carling et al., (2005) explain that the use of notational analysis can benefit coaches by
providing them with relevant and accurate details of a player’s previous performance, thus
allowing the coach to use the information appropriately by providing the player with
interpretation of performance (positive and negative feedback) and information on developing
future performance (planning and preparation), both of which are key aspects of the coaching
process. This can be done quantitatively through statistical analysis or qualitatively through
4
the use of video recordings or match reconstructions. The coach must take responsibility for
providing feedback effectively, by maximising the use of notational analysis.
Rather than coaches having to rely on their own memory or recollection of events during a
game which produces hundreds of significant instances, notational analysis can record and
then be used to provide effective and efficient feedback to the athletes or players. According
to Franks & Miller (1986), international soccer coaches could only recall approximately 30
per cent of successful aspects of performance within one match. It was revealed that coaches
had a significantly better recollection of set-piece situations. When coaches cannot fully recall
key events of a game or an individual’s performance, appropriate or effective feedback cannot
be expected from the coach, this is where notational analysis systems can earn their value as
an aid to coaches and the performances of a player.
There are numerous factors that can affect a coach’s recollection, including:

Viewing environment

Limitations of human memory

Set views and prejudice (coach favouritism)

Emotions, such as anger or stress
Due to these limitations a coach should refrain from making decisions based solely on their
subjective evaluations, as they might be inaccurate, and cause negative effects upon the other
stages of the coaching process. Alternatively coaches should use the objective data provided
by the notation system that provide factual information on performance which would be more
accurate.
2.2 Hand notation systems vs. computerised systems
There is no doubting the advantages that computerised systems posses, the ability of being
able to analyse a match and input data directly on to sophisticated software and create accurate
statistical information is immensely efficient, especially when research is concerned with
statistical analysis, where many sets of data may have had to be processed by hand notation in
previous years.
5
The alternative type of system available is the hand notation system. Although it might be
considered to be a simpler method, especially now that specially designed computer sports
analysis packages are available, hand notation is still considered an effective means of
conducting match analysis. In fact, some aspects of performance might even be more suitably
recorded through the use of a hand notation system. An example of this is the analysis of
penalty kicks by Hughes & Wells (2002), where the focus was on various details of the
penalty, i.e. time preparing to shoot, number of paces in run-up, speed of approach, pace of
the shot, its placement and outcome. Data recorded was entered and analysed through the
Access database, where information such as one in five penalties saved, one in fifteen missed
and three in four resulted in a goal.
Whether an analyst opts to use a computerised or hand notation system is decided by factors,
such as the type of data being recorded, its complexity and quantity, and the analyst’s personal
preference or expertise.
According to Hughes & Franks (2008) the use of computerised systems can mean working
with potential additional problems for the user. Some of these problems might include errors
in the hardware or software and operator errors. Indeed, human error can be present in both
notational systems. However with computerised systems, this can lead to the operator thinking
the correct data is being recorded when it is not, i.e. consistently pressing the wrong key on
the keyboard.
2.3 Match analysis in soccer
According to Carling et al., (2005) match analysis refers to the objective recording of
particular events that occur during soccer competition. Research might focus on a certain
player or team’s effectiveness in the sport, or profiles of teams could be made and compared.
Due to the popular and attractive nature of soccer, numerous amounts of literature are
available to draw upon.
An early example of match analysis in soccer was conducted by Reep and Benjamin (1968),
who analysed 3,213 matches between 1953 and 1968. The research focused on the passing
6
and shooting actions within a real game situation. The findings of the study indicated that
approximately 80 per cent of goals derived from pass sequences of three passes or less and
that 50 per cent of goals were the result of gaining possession in the final attacking quarter of
the pitch.
In a similar research, Hughes & Franks (2005) recorded pass sequence lengths in relation to
attempts at goal and goals converted in both the 1990 and 1994 soccer World Cups. Similar
to the results discovered by Reep and Benjamin (1968), findings identified that 84% of goals
came from team possessions of four passes or less, while in 1994 the figure was slightly less
at 80%. In addition to this, it was found that longer passing sequences resulted in lower
frequencies of goals. The aim of Hughes & Frank’s (2005) research was in fact to confirm
whether or not the results found by Reep and Benjamin (1968) were still applicable to the
modern game, and if there was a way of identifying a more effective style of play, i.e.
‘possession play’ or ‘direct play’.
Figure 2- Patterns of goal-scoring with respect to the different lengths of possessions in the
1990 and 1994 Soccer World Cups (Hughes & Franks, 2005).
One limitation to the analysis conducted by Hughes & Franks (2005) was the fact that the
authors addressed only goals scored and total shots. There was no information provided on
whether shots were on or off target. Another issue might have been that the study failed to
identify which teams proved more successful than others, as the study only tallied the total
7
number of shots and goals. Hughes & Franks (2005) suggested that in future research; a
profile of teams’ performances competing in the World Cup should be made, identifying
criteria of success and comparing British home nations against other top teams in the world.
Another aspect worthy of addressing is the effect that external factors have on the
performances of teams competing in the competition. According to Lago (2009) the factors
that have the greatest influence on soccer performance are match location (home or away),
match status (winning or losing the game) and the quality of opposition. Hughes & Franks
(2005) do not consider these factors in their research, although they might have had a
significant effect on the results.
Having investigated aspects of soccer that related to the tactics and strategy of the game, Bate
(1998), claimed that the use of direct play or the long-ball game proves most effective. This
theory is based on the reasoning that goal scoring opportunities would be more frequent when
play is in the attacking third. The results of a conducted research indicated that 94 per cent of
all goals scored at international level derived from movements involving four passes or less. It
was also found that 50-60% of all movements leading to shots towards goal originated in the
attacking third. Bates’ (1998) key findings stated:
1. The attacking team need the ball and one or more player in the attacking third of the
field.
2. The higher the number of passes per possession, the lower the total number of
possessions during a match.
3. The more possessions a team has, the greater the chance of penetrating the attacking
third and creating chances to score.
For these reasons, Bate (1998) rejected ‘possession football’ and concluded that in order to
maximise effective attacking play, a team should go forward as often as possible, through long
passes or runs, reduce square or backward passes and play the ball into space.
Szwarc (2004) conducted a study that identified effective play in the 2002 Soccer World Cup
by analysing the matches that the finalists, Brazil and Germany, played. The matches that both
teams played on route to the final were recorded and compared. Team effectiveness was
recorded on an ‘effectiveness index’, which included aspects of match play such as accurate
8
passes (under pressure/no pressure), gaining possession, tackling, shooting, clearing, heading
and defending (blocks). The results identified that both Brazil and Germany were significantly
more effective at the attacking traits of shooting at goal and passing accuracy in difficult
situations. The concluding findings suggested that although there was no significant difference
between the level of effectiveness of successful and unsuccessful teams, a few of the game
elements proved influential in deciding match results. The key elements included passing the
ball in difficult situations, frequency and accuracy of shots at goal, ball winning (regaining
possession) and most of all effective defence of their own goal. These factors are evidence
that the successful teams have greater competence in their technical ability and tactical
maturity.
Garganta et al., (1997) conducted a research that was designed to identify patterns of play
employed by top teams (Barcelona, Porto, Bayern Munich, Milan and Paris St Germain
(PSG)) that competed in European soccer. This was done by recording and analysing positive
attacking actions (attacks that ended with a goal) of 104 goals from 44 matches. The key
features of match play included i) the sector of the field where the possession started
(defensive, midfield or attacking third); ii) the time taken to complete attacking action, from
start of possession until the shot is taken; iii) the number of players that touch the ball; and iv)
the number of passes performed.
9
Results revealed that PSG, Munich and Milan had the highest percentages of ball possessions
won in the attacking third, with 60.0%, 57.1% and 45.4% respectively.
Figure 3- Frequencies (%) for goal-scoring actions concerning third of field where teams win
the ball, (Garganta et al., 1997).
The study also identified that over 50% of these attacking actions took less than 10 seconds,
meaning that attacks were executed with pace as well as accuracy. Across the five teams,
ratings between 62-93% of actions leading to goal derived from movements of three passes or
less. The concluding points of the research are that these top European sides often win
possession in the attacking third, reveal a short attacking reaction time (10 seconds or less),
involve few players (three or less) and perform only a few passes (three or less).
This is further evidence suggesting that direct play is more effective when in attack. However,
it is not simply playing long passes into a certain area, but includes accuracy, speed and
precision within the movements.
Although the results of this research are clear and useful, they should be treated with caution,
as all set-pieces that led to goals were discarded from the analysis. This might have had a
serious effect on the results of certain teams that might gain great scoring success through
their execution of set-pieces, i.e. free-kicks, corners or throw-ins. In addition to this, the
sample of Garganta et al., (1997) study consisted only of teams that played on the continent. It
might be considered unfair to generalise the findings to all teams in Europe, especially as
British football is regarded to be different to the rest of Europe.
10
In a slightly different study, Aramas et al., (2007) recorded and analysed when goals were
scored during the course of a 90 minute match, in women’s international soccer. A total of
ninety World Cup games were analysed; 26 from Sweden in 1995 and 32 from USA in 1999
and 32 in USA 2003 respectively. The analysis variables consisted of coding the frequencies
of goals scored in certain time periods of the game, i.e. 45 minute periods (1st and 2nd halves)
and six 15 minute periods (1-15min, 16-30min, 31-45+ min, 46-60min, 61-75min, 76-90min).
The findings of the research indicated that in the 1995 World Cup, there was a slightly higher
ratio of goals scored in the second period of 45 minutes and when analysing the 15 minute
periods it was evident that the majority of goals were scored in the final 15 minutes (7690min) of the match.
The results were similar in the subsequent tournaments. However the differences were
significant when analysing the frequency of goals in 45 minute periods. In 1999, 57.7% of
goals were scored in the 2nd half, while 58% of goals were scored in the 2nd half in the 2003
World Cup. The 15 minute analyses of 1999 and 2003 revealed that the majority of goals were
scored in the final 15 minutes of play. In 2003, there was a significant difference between the
percentage of goals scored in the last 15 minute period (24.3%) and the first 15 min period
(10.3%).
From reading the accumulated research it is clear to see that soccer presents many areas of
interest with regards to analysis. It is hoped that the research to be conducted will identify
some of the key tactical aspects that international teams adopted in the FIFA World Cup 2010
in South Africa, by recording a variety of performance indicators that are involved in
attacking sequences of play. The next chapter explains the techniques and processes employed
to enable the data collection and analysis to take place as well as elaborating on the notation
system and operational definitions used.
11
Chapter 3:
Methodology
3.0 Methodology
3.1 Design of the Hand-Notation System
The development of the hand notation system was a vital aspect of the data collection process,
as it needed to be purposely designed to maximise efficiency and effectiveness for the analyst
while working. Having identified the aspects of the sport that would be analysed and
compared, the system was developed to allow the necessary data to be recorded. Before
conducting the first of two pilot studies the notation system included the performance
indicators that were ‘Sequence Length’, ‘Time in Possession’ and ‘End Result of Possession’.
One amendment made to the systems design was the addition of another type of data that
needed to be recorded, ‘Starting third’. This allows the analyst to record and become aware of
potential tactical details that a team might adopt, for example a team might attempt to regain
possession in a certain area of the pitch, such as the midfield.
Figure 4- Finalised design of the notation system.
12
3.2 Pilot Study
The pilot study showed that the notation system was suitable in relation to the data being
collected and that the study was feasible. It also assisted in the development of the system,
ensuring that the system was related to the overall aim of the study, possible hypotheses and
potential findings of the study. Conducting pilot studies also provided the opportunity to
rectify and amend certain aspects of the notation system. In this case, it was realised that
another type of data could be collected (starting third), thus increasing the amount of
information being collected, which benefits the research. The inclusion of a pilot study was
also a means of practicing using the notation system and to increase the study’s reliability.
Allowing the principal analyst to become familiar and competent with the layout and usability
of the system increased the level of understanding the analyst had of the operational
definitions.
3.3 Operational Definitions
An analyst must not only be aware of what performance indicators or aspects of the game to
record, but also to know when to record a certain incident. In order make accurate judgements
on certain events in a match situation, operational definitions were formed. In this study there
were numerous definitions provided to clearly differentiate certain incidents for the analyst.
Attempts towards goal:
1. Goal- a goal is scored when the whole of the ball passes over the goal line, between
the goalposts and under the crossbar.
2. On target- an attempt is considered to be on target when the ball has reached the goal
and it is between the goalposts and beneath the crossbar.
3. Off target- an attempt is considered to be off target when it strikes either the goalposts,
or crossbar, or if it is wide of the goalposts or above the crossbar.
Any attempts that were blocked were not recorded as they did not reach the goal. However,
attempts that were deflected were recorded if they reached the goal.
13
Match aspects:
1. Sequence of play (passes) - a sequence of play was regarded as the number of passes a
team made before an attempt on goal. A sequence of play commenced once a player
made contact with the ball. It ended when the analyst saw the end result (goal, shot
on/off target).
2. Pass- a pass was coded when a player successfully played the ball to another member
of his team. Set-pieces, such as free-kicks, corners, throw-ins and goal-kicks all
counted as a pass (if the ball was played to a team member).
3. Time in possession- this was the time (in seconds) measured from the beginning to the
end of the sequence of play or attack.
4. Starting third (D, M, A) - Referred to the location on the pitch where the sequence of
play or attack began, in either the defensive (D), midfield (M) or attacking (A) third of
the pitch.
3.4 Sample
A total of five teams and 25 matches were analysed. The teams that were selected for analysis
were England, Germany, Holland, Spain and Uruguay. The reasoning for the selection of this
sample was to compare the performances and attacking styles of the only British team in the
tournament, to those that reached the semi-finals of the competition. This suggestion came
from the work of Hughes & Franks (2005) who conducted a similar research, and claimed that
their study would have been further improved by developing a performance profile of
individual teams, and perhaps a comparison of British nations to the other best teams in the
world.
3.5 Reliability
An intra-reliability test was conducted within this performance analysis research. The use of
the intra-operator agreement test was useful while conducting the pilot study, in identifying
any flaws or discrepancies in the performance indicators. These tests ensured that the notation
system and the recording of relevant instances could become an objective process. It was also
a means of identifying any aspects of the operational definitions that were ambiguous. Any
differences in the results of the first and second viewings were identified and highlighted by
14
the statistic of per cent error between both sets of results. These values were discovered by
using the formula:
(∑ (mod[V1-V2])/ VTOT mean)*100%,
∑ = ‘the sum of’
Mod= ‘modulus’
V1/V2= first viewing/second viewing
VTOT mean= mean of the total variables measured
3.6 Procedure
All the matches played in the FIFA 2010 World Cup were recorded from live televised
broadcasts onto DVD. All matches were recorded as it was impossible to know what teams
would reach the semi-finals. The main aspect that needed close attention in coding was the
amount of passes a team would achieve in a sequence of play that led to an attempt on goal.
The analyst was required to use playback, pause and rewind features to ensure that sequences
of play were accurately coded as there were numerous factors to consider. These factors
included the time the sequence of play began (according to the clock provided by the
broadcasters) and when it ended, where possession began (noting D, M, A for efficiency), the
number of passes and the end result of the attack. Using the notation system that was designed
for easy and efficient coding, the analyst observed match play and tallied events into the
appropriate area of the sheet as they occurred.
15
3.7 Data Analysis
It was at this stage of the research that the hypotheses were tested. The null hypothesis stated
that there would be no significant difference between the teams’ frequencies of passes, time
taken in attack and number of attempts on and off target. Testing of the hypotheses aided in
the identification of differences in playing styles and the success of the various teams in
relation to the number of passes they achieved in sequences of play. Gathered data and test
results were mainly presented in the form of tables and figures to maximise the visual
representation of key findings.
The process of analysing the data was conducted using the Minitab 15 program for Windows.
It was within this software that the Mann-Whitney non-parametric test was carried out to draw
comparisons (P<0.05) between different sets of the same variable, for example, the difference
between the amount of passes made by England and the other four semi-finalists in the
tournament.
According to Cramer (1997), the Mann-Whitney test establishes the number of times a score
from a sample is ranked higher than a score from another sample. The Mann-Whitney test was
used because the observations came from independent random samples where the parent
distributions were unknown. The use of the nonparametric test was explored as it makes fewer
assumptions about the parent distribution.
16
Chapter 4:
Results
4.0 Results
4.1 Reliability
Having conducted an intra-observer reliability test the results suggest that the notation system
was an effective system for its purpose. It is highlighted in table 4.1 that only six instances
were notated differently from the analysts’ first and second viewings (V1, V2) of the same
matches. Four of these were related to the recording of the duration of each possession or
attack. This might be due to the method used to record the time of possession which involved
the use of the clock provided by the television broadcasters. Another possible reason for this
might be that the start and end of various sequences of play might not be identified
consistently, for example, the sequence time could be stopped when the ball made contact
with the goal-keeper in one instance, but in the next instance it might be stopped when the ball
goes out of play, having been parried away by the goal-keeper. This is an issue for
consideration when addressing the operational definitions of performance indicators.
Table 4.1- Highlights the differences in coding between first and second viewings (V1, V2).
Passes
Time
On Target
Off Target
England v USA
V1
V2
47
47
164
162
6
6
6
6
Passes
Time
On Target
Off Target
England v USA
0.0%
1.2%
0.0%
0.0%
England v
England v Algeria
Slovenia
V1
V2
V1
V2
61
61
33
32
205
204
99
96
6
6
6
6
7
7
6
6
% Error
England v
England v Algeria
Slovenia
0.0%
3.1%
0.5%
3.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
England v Germany
V1
V2
47
45
180
174
6
6
6
6
England v Germany
4.3%
3.4%
0.0%
0.0%
Hughes et al., (2002), claim that an error percentage of 5% or less is considered to be reliable
when conducting a per cent error test in a performance analysis research. Of course this figure
might vary depending on the amount of data being used. This suggests that the notation
system used in this study was reliable in the process of data collection as there are no
percentage differences higher than 5%.
17
4.2 Descriptive results of the FIFA World Cup
A total of 25 matches in which England, Spain, Germany, Holland and Uruguay competed
were analysed. The data in the tables below summarise specific aspects of each teams’
performances in each individual match.
Table 4.2- Summary of England’s performances
Game
Total
Passes
Total Time
(Seconds)
Total On
Target
Total Off
Target
Total
Goals
1
47
164
6
6
1
2
61
205
6
7
0
3
33
99
6
6
1
4
47
180
6
6
1
Total
Mean (All
Games)
188
648
24
25
3
47
162
6
6.25
0.75
Table 4.2 reveals that England competed in four matches at the World Cup, scoring three
goals from twenty-four attempts on target, which is a conversion rate of 12.5%; however,
when accounting for off target attempts (twenty-five) as well, the conversion rate reduces to
6.1%. They also completed a total of 188 passes in sequences of play that lead to an attempt at
goal in a combined time of 648 seconds.
Table 4.3- Summary of Germany’s performances
Game
Total
Passes
Total Time (Seconds)
Total On Target
Total Off Target
Total
Goals
1
86
263
6
5
4
2
44
170
3
3
0
3
56
185
5
6
1
4
59
223
3
7
4
5
72
218
2
6
4
6
23
56
2
1
0
Total
340
1115
21
28
13
Mean
56.7
185.8
3.5
4.7
2.2
18
Germany were the top scorers of the tournament, with thirteen goals, giving them a mean ratio
of scoring 2.2 goals per game, as highlighted in table 4.3. In addition to this they completed a
total of 340 passes in six matches over a period of 1115 seconds of attacking play. From the
number of attempts created and goals converted the calculated goals to attempt ratio is 26.5%,
the highest of the selected sample.
Table 4.4- Summary of Spain’s performances
Games
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total
Mean
Total Passes
58
69
21
84
48
92
31
403
57.6
Total Time (Seconds)
209
229
84
312
147
275
93
1349
192.7
Total On Target
5
4
1
5
4
2
3
24
3.4
Total Off Target
13
11
4
4
7
7
9
55
7.9
Total Goals
0
2
2
1
1
1
0
7
1.0
The eventual winners of the tournament, Spain, made the most passes within sequences of
play that lead to attempts at goal, averaging over 57 passes in build-up play per match. Table
4.4 also reveals that the Spanish created a total of 79 attempts (24 on target/55 off target), the
most in the tournament. This meant that the conversion rate was low at 8.9%, suggesting that
Spain maintained possession well, and were either wasteful in front of goal or failed to reach
optimal goal-scoring areas of the pitch.
Table 4.5- Summary of Holland’s performances
Game
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total
Mean
Total Passes
83
12
53
72
19
38
17
294
42.0
Total Time (Seconds)
265
36
145
230
70
138
59
943
134.7
19
Total On Target
4
3
6
6
4
3
5
31
4.4
Total Off Target
8
1
5
7
3
3
4
31
4.4
Total
Goals
2
1
2
2
2
3
0
12
1.7
The second top-scorers of the competition were Holland, who scored twelve goals in the
matches that lead to the final. As table 4.5 highlights, Holland created the most attempts on
target (31), while creating the same number of attempts off target, giving a goals/ attempt ratio
of 19.3%.
Table 4.6- Summary of Uruguay’s performances
Game
Total Passes
Total Time (Seconds)
Total On Target
Total Off Target
Total Goals
1
13
42
3
2
0
2
38
158
2
8
2
3
19
88
4
4
1
4
26
111
6
2
2
5
19
72
7
4
0
6
13
42
4
3
1
Total
128
513
26
23
6
Mean
21.3
85.5
4.3
3.8
1.0
Despite playing six matches, Uruguay still totalled the lowest number of passes (128) of all
the sample teams. However, they did succeed in scoring, on average, a goal every game, from
a total of forty-nine attempts, a scoring ratio of 14.3%, a higher percentage than both Spain
and England.
Table 4.7- Total number of possessions starting points in relation to third of pitch.
Team
Total Defensive Third
Total Midfield Third
Total Attacking Third
England
14
14
24
Spain
21
32
Holland
16
33
22
Germany
27
22
36
18
Uruguay
10
17
28
Table 4.7 identifies the number of times each competing team started a sequence of play that
lead to an attempt on goal from a certain third of the pitch. The areas are defensive, midfield
or attacking third.
Germany had the highest frequency of attacks beginning from the
defensive third, while Spain had the highest number from the midfield, and Holland in the
attacking third.
20
4.3 Key differences in Performances
The Mann Whitney test was used to draw comparisons (P<0.05) between the total number of
passes completed by England and the semi-finalists of the tournament. The results of the tests
suggest that although England played fewer matches than the other nations, their passing was
only significantly different when compared to Uruguay.
Table 4.8 - Levels of significant differences between teams (passing).
Mann Witney
Spain
Holland
Uruguay
Germany
England Passes
Significance
0.5083
0.7768
0.0252
0.5940
W-Value
20
26
33
19
When comparing England passes with Spain, Holland and Germany passes it was revealed
that there was no significant difference. Whereas comparing England and Uruguay it was
evident that the null hypothesis of equal medians is rejected and the alternate hypothesis of
unequal medians is accepted. In fact England’s median value of 47 passes was greater than
Uruguay’s median value of 19 passes.
Table 4.9 – Levels of significant differences between teams (time).
Mann Whitney
Spain
Holland
Germany
Uruguay
There was
England Times
Significance
W-Value
0.6366
21
0.5083
28
0.3374
17
0.0428
32
a similar outcome when comparisons of total time (seconds) taken per attack were
made between the teams. The only significant difference (P<0.05) was between England and
Uruguay, meaning that the alternate hypothesis of unequal medians is accepted once more,
while the null hypothesis is accepted when considering the no significant differences between
England and Spain, Holland and Germany.
21
Chapter 5:
Discussion
5.0 Discussion
5.1 Reliability
Reliability is concerned with the consistency and repeatability of a measure (Thomas and
Nelson, 1996), meaning that a reliability test was conducted to validate the notation system
used in this research. The testing of reliability was completed through analysing the four
matches that England played using an intra-reliability test. This test was designed to indicate a
percentage of error or differences between two separate observations made by the principal
analyst who watched the same match. This test was used as it was suggested by Hughes et al.,
(2002), that the use of percentage calculations are the best indicator of reliability. Ultimately
the results of the test indicated that the notation system was indeed valid with regards to data
collection, as all of the separate performance indicators revealed a percentage error of less
than 5%. However, the tests did identify some minimal errors made between the first and
second observations. James et al., (2007) identified that the reasons for these errors might
include operational errors (where the observer might press the wrong button), observational
errors (where the observer fails to code an event) or definitional errors (where the observer
misinterprets the event). A way of minimising theses errors from occurring altogether would
be to ensure that clear operational definitions are in place so the analyst can be accurate and
free from ambiguity when coding events. The primary reason for differences in the data
collected was the limiting camera angles and interruptions by the broadcasters when showing
off the field events or replays, thus making some events impossible to code.
5.2 England versus the world
Amongst the teams within the research sample, England proved to be the least successful
nation, failing to reach the quarter final stages following defeat at the hands of Germany.
However, if basic comparisons were to be made between the statistics collected for passes
completed that lead to an attempt at goal, it is clear that England achieved 188 passes while
Germany tallied 340 in total and 245 after the same amount of matches. This suggests that
Germany adopted a more conservative approach to attack and focused on maintaining
possession. Spain completed the most passes over the seven matches played, a total of 403,
but made only 232 after the four matches. It was evident while watching Spain kept
22
possession for extended periods of time, which required discipline and patience. These figures
contradict the views of previous research by Reep (1968) and Hughes & Franks (2005)
claiming that fewer short passes (or more long, direct passes) are more effective in creating
scoring opportunities.
This does not mean that the sole reason for Germany and Spain’s advancement in the
competition over England was dependant of the number of passes completed. A figure that
suggests that England did play effectively is the amount of attempts (both on and off target)
created. In only four matches played, England had 24 attempts on target and 25 off target.
These figures hold their own even when compared with the teams who played at least two
more games. The team that went on to win the tournament, Spain, equalled England’s number
of attempts on target and created 55 off target, while Germany created 21 on target and 28 off
target. Holland and Uruguay created 31 and 26 attempts on target respectively, and 31 and 23
off target. These figures suggest that although England might not have achieved the highest
frequency of passes over the course of the competition, they still managed to create a similar
amount of chances to those who progressed to the semi-finals and beyond. This could suggest
that England adopted a more direct approach to their play in an attempt to create goal-scoring
chances. This statement is reinforced by Skirka (2010), who claims that European teams such
as England have acquired the use of direct passes as part of their playing philosophy, and
being able to create a chance or score in three passes or less. An obvious weakness of this
tactic is the increased risk of giving away possession. However, it has been suggested by Reep
and Benjamin (1968) that the more often the ball enters the attacking third, the more likely the
team is to score. Of course the statistics (table 4.1) do not disclose the quality or nature of the
chances created meaning there is no way of measuring how effective or wasteful a team may
have been in front of goal.
When considering the timing of various sequences of play, table 4.2 and 4.3 reveal that it was
Germany and Spain who maintained possession for the longest periods of time prior to
creating attempts at goal. Total times of 1349 seconds (Spain) and 1115 seconds (Germany),
suggest that these teams might adopt the tactic of ‘possession play’ which requires patience in
a prolonged build-up phase. The aim of this style of play would be to control the possession
until the opposition are either exposed in an area of danger or out-manoeuvred in a certain
23
area of the pitch. According to Tenga et al., (2010) possession play (elaborate play), aims to
utilize a degree of imbalance amongst the defence by seeking penetrative passes or dribbles of
more than three or four passes in an attempt to create goal-scoring opportunities. The
elaborate style of play tends to be slower than the direct approach due to the higher frequency
of shorter passes. Direct play (counter-attacking) is considered to be a style of play which
attempts to seek penetration in attack through the use of one or two passes, significantly
quicker. England retained possession for a total time of 648 seconds, which is another
indication that the British nation opted against maintaining possession for long periods of
time. Interestingly, Uruguay, who played two matches more than England, were in possession
of the ball during attacking sequences that lead to an attempt for only 513 seconds, suggesting
that Uruguay, also adopted a direct style of play.
So, what were the differences between England and Uruguay that allowed one team to
progress through to the semi-final stages while England failed at the first hurdle of the
knockout stages? According to Lago (2007) the ultimate determinant of success in soccer is
the scoring of goals, therefore it could be argued that a tactical breakdown of teams’
performances are unimportant next to the results a team might achieve. The fact that England
scored only three goals in four matches was undoubtedly a factor in their failure to progress in
the tournament, whereas the teams that reached the semi-finals scored 13 (Germany), 12
(Holland), 7 (Spain) and 6 (Uruguay). Although some of the statistics that are associated with
England may suggest that their performances were satisfactory, especially when compared
directly with Uruguay, the fact that the team were limited to only three goals from a
respectable number of goal-scoring opportunities proved to be the deciding factor in their bid
to succeed at the World Cup.
In previous FIFA World Cups, highest scoring teams have tallied 17 (Brazil, 2002) and 12
(Italy, 2006) showing that teams seeking success are required to score a certain amount of
goals in order to succeed. On the contrary, Spain managed to win the tournament without
scoring the highest amount of goals, which strongly suggests that an emphasis was placed on
their style of play along with technical and tactical execution.
24
5.3 Findings of the Mann-Whitney tests
The comparisons made using the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test revealed that a
significant difference (P<0.05) was evident when comparing the median number of passes for
England and Uruguay. Therefore the null hypothesis is rejected in the case between England
versus Uruguay and the alternate hypothesis is accepted. No significant differences were
found by comparing England with the other three nations, meaning that the null hypotheses is
accepted and the alternate hypotheses is rejected with relation to the comparison of these
teams.
When comparing the median values of times (seconds) that it took for teams to complete
sequences of play, the Mann-Whitney test reveals that there were no significant differences
between the median values of England and any other nations except for Uruguay. The
difference between England and Uruguay was significant at 0.0428 (P<0.05), meaning that
with regards to England and Uruguay, the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternate
hypothesis is accepted. However, when England were compared to the remaining three
nations, the Mann-Whitney test highlighted that there were no significant differences between
the median number of times, meaning that in this case the null hypotheses is accepted.
Attempting to explain the results of these tests is not easy as there is no subjective information
on hand to provide exact detail of the teams’ patterns of play. However, the objective data can
provide strong suggestions through the use of statistics. For example, it is evident that the
Mann-Whitney results suggest that Uruguay were the team that adopted a tactically direct
approach, with fewer passes completed in the build-up to attempts towards goal. In fact,
Uruguay had the lowest mean of passes per goal at 2.1, while England achieved a mean of
exactly 4 passes per goal.
25
5.4 Implications of the findings
When assessing the results, caution must be taken when identifying styles of play and their
effectiveness. The findings reveal that Uruguay were the team to achieve the least amount of
passes and kept the ball for the least amount of time and seemed to be the only team that
employed an outright direct approach. However, this is not an indication of an ineffective
style of play, as they reached the semi-final of the tournament. Indeed, identifying the
differences in the quality of the teams could prove difficult with the data collected as there is
no measure of the quality of passes, technical skills or attempts created.
Although the statistical data provides much detail, it has limited use to a coach because the
statistics do not directly explain to a coach or player what has happened in a match. It is vital
to remember that statistics only provide an analyst or coach with topics that need to be
addressed. The statistics must be interpreted in order to gain usefulness or value to a coach.
One way to eliminate this limitation in a practical context would be to support the statistical
analysis with specific examples presented to a coach or player through a video presentation,
highlighting any key tactical aspects and identifying team strengths and areas for
improvement. An analyst would be able to identify any trends in the team’s play that might
need to be developed, for example, the team’s inability to complete a penetrative pass after a
prolonged build-up phase. A coach could then use this information to implement to a strategy
to advance the performance of certain individuals to improve on previous performances.
5.5 Benefits of the research conducted
This research successfully identified key differences between the patterns of play in attack of
the team’s that reached the semi-finals of the 2010 FIFA World Cup. The fact that contrasting
styles of play (possession and direct play) were highlighted proves that no style of play is
more effective than the other. However, what it might suggest is that styles of play are better
suited to certain teams. For example, the high quality technical ability of Spain’s team
accommodated for multiple short passes, while Uruguay, made full use of set-pieces and
organisation to maximise goal-scoring chances.
26
The methods adopted to conduct this research and the findings themselves can both prove
useful in a practical coaching context. The benefits include the efficiency of the analysing
process, where a convenient hand notation system was devised specifically to accommodate
the data that was being recorded. The simple concept and content of the hand notation system
could even be easily transferred to a computerised sports analysis package such as SportsCode
for those who favour a computerised system. Although the performance indicators that were
analysed were fairly basic components of soccer, the value of the results and findings to a
coach could prove essential. An example of the uses of the results could be as so; from
identifying that a team are achieving a certain number of passes prior to successfully creating
an attempt towards goal can inform a coach as to how an opposing team might prefer to play
or how the coach’s team are performing in the first half for example. Another example could
be that the analyst informs the coach that his or her team are gaining most possessions in the
attacking third, which suggest the team are pressurising the opposing teams defence well.
Referring to the coaching cycle proposed by Carling et al., (2005) it is possible to see where
and how the strengths of this research would become prevalent within that process. Allowing
the coach to use any statistical data as tools to prepare training sessions or tactical plans for
upcoming performances is one practical benefit that could be utilised from this research.
As this research mainly focused on the performances of England in the tournament, what
could the team gain from this research? It is clear from the results that although England
succeeded to create goal-scoring opportunities, with a variety of passing styles, their main
failure was scoring. Due to the unpredictable nature of soccer, with numerous external factors
at work, perhaps England could have proved to be successful. However, coaches and players
alike should look to re-evaluate aspects such as formations, team selection and confidence if
the team should succeed in future major tournaments.
27
Chapter 6:
Conclusion
6.0 Conclusion
6.1 Research summary
The aim of this study was to compare the performances of England with the semi-finalists of
the FIFA 2010 Soccer World Cup and highlight any prevalent patterns in tactics adopted by
the teams. The study was based on the suggestion made by Hughes and Franks (2005), who
claimed that future studies should aim to profile performances of British nations competing
against other high quality nations in international tournaments.
The data collected from the analysis revealed differences and similarities in the play of the
teams. For example, it was evident that Spain, Germany and Holland were the teams that
would extensively pass the ball during the build-up phase of an attack, while Uruguay were
the exception, by adopting a ‘direct approach’. In an attempt to form in-depth analysis of the
data, a series of Mann-Whitney tests were conducted. The findings concluded that:

There was a significant difference (P<0.05) between England and Uruguay with
regards to comparisons of total number of passes completed prior to an attempt at goal.

There were no significant differences (P<0.05) between England and the remaining
teams (Spain, Holland, Germany) with regards to passes completed prior to an attempt
at goal.

There was a significant difference (P<0.05) between England and Uruguay with
regards to comparisons of total time taken (seconds) for all sequences of attacking
play.

There were no significant differences (P<0.05) between England and the remaining
teams (Spain, Holland, Germany) with regards to comparisons of total time taken
(seconds) for all sequences of attacking play.
Although the results might suggest that Uruguay were the only team from the sample to
employ ‘direct play’, while the other teams favoured ‘possession play’, it is also evidence that
both tactical approaches can be effective if applied appropriately, which might explain why
England failed to progress further in the tournament.
28
6.2 Research limitations
Limitations of the study might have included a series of uncontrollable factors such as the
inability to guarantee the accurate analysis of every instance within each game due to the
broadcasting of the matches. At times the process of recording events was affected when
replays or inappropriate camera angles were used during matches. Another potential limitation
was the condition of the analyst while data was being recorded. The analyst could have been
fatigued if many games had been watched in a short space of time, thus having an adverse
effect on the accuracy of analysis.
Another limitation might have been the researches incapacity to consider or analyse the nature
or quality of attempts at goal, external factors such as opposition, match officials, environment
and route through the competition. These aspects of performance could be areas of
investigation in future research.
6.3 Suggestions for future research
With regards to furthering this research to increase the amount of information it gathers and
produces, many options are possible to increase the level of detail of performances. One
potential development of the study could include the analysis of the ratio of long passes (4060 metres) in comparison to short passes (5-20 metres) completed in the build-up to an
attempt towards goal, which would give a clearer indication of what type of playing patterns
or styles are more effective and relating these to more specific tactical play.
Questions addressed might include:

What types of passes create more chances and lead to goals scored?

Do teams depend more than others on set-pieces?

Do teams flourish through counter-attacking or maintaining possession?
In addition to this, the use of a pitch diagram labelling system could further enrich the value
and usefulness of the collected data. The purpose of the pitch diagram would be to identify
and highlight areas or zones that teams have penetrated and would have had shots or scored
from, this would prove useful to identify a teams strengths, for example, a team that create
more chances from the left flank would suggest that the left sided players are stronger with
29
regards to attacking play. This method of analysis would also identify the ‘danger areas’ in
both defensive and attacking contexts; so a coach could refer to the information in order to
strengthen defensive or offensive strategies to combat any prevalent weaknesses.
As well as advancing the level of knowledge and understanding people might gain from team
profiles, it might also be beneficial to analyse and assess an individual player’s performance
so that coaches can provide better feedback of greater detail to develop performances. Aspects
such as in-match effectiveness and technique analysis could be areas of focus. Lees (2002)
claimed that the use of technique analysis in soccer was an effective means of understanding
how certain sports skills are performed, thus providing the basis to improved performance.
30
References
Reference List
Armatas, V., Yiannakos, A., & Sileloglou, P. (2007). Relationship between time and goal
scoring in soccer games: Analysis of three World Cups. International Journal of Performance
Analysis in Sport. 7 (2): p.48
Bate, R. (1988). ‘Football Chance: Tactics and Strategy’. In, Reilly, et al. (eds.), Science and
football: proceedings of the First World Congress of Science and Football, Liverpool, 12-17th
April 1987, p.293-301.
Carling, C., Williams, M., & Reilly, T. (2005). Handbook of Soccer Match Analysis. Oxon.
Taylor & Francis. Routledge.
Cramer, D. (1997). Basic Statistics for Social Research. Routldege. London.
Franks, I.M. & Miller, G. (1986). Eyewitness testimony in sport. Journal of Sport Behaviour.
9 (1), pp.38-45.
Hughes, M., & Franks, I. (1997). Notational Analysis of Sport. Taylor & Francis. London.
Hughes, M., & Franks, I. (2005). Analysis of passing sequences, shots and goals in soccer.
Journal of Sport Sciences. 23 (5), p.509-514.
Hughes, M., & Franks, I. (2008). The Essentials of Performance Analysis. Oxon. Routledge.
Hughes, M., & Wells, J. (2002). Analysis of penalties taken in shoot-outs. International
Journal of Performance Analysis Sport. 2:55-72.
31
Hughes, M., Cooper, S., & Nevill. (2002). Analysis procedures for non-parametric data from
performance analysis. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport. 2 (1) p.6-20
James, N., Taylor, J., & Stanley, S. (2007). Reliability procedures for categorical data in
performance analysis. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport. 7(1) p.1-11
Lago, C. (2009). The influence of match location, quality of opposition, and match status on
possession strategies in professional association football. Journal of Sport Sciences. 27 (13):
1463-1469.
Lago, C., & Martin, R. (2007). Determinants of possession of the ball in soccer. Journal of
Sports Sciences. 25 (9) p. 969-974
Lees, A. (2002). Technique analysis on sports: a critical review. Journal of Sports Sciences.
20, 813-828.
O’Donoghue, P. (2010). Research Methods for Performance Analysis. Routledge. London.
Pollard, R. (2002). Charles Reep (1904-2002): pioneer of notational and performance analysis
in football. Journal of Sport Sciences. 20 (10) p.853-855
Skirka, N. (2010). Finding Meaning in the World Cup’s Results. Soccer Journal. 55 (5) p.6365
Szwarc, A. (2004). Effectiveness of Brazilian and German teams and the teams defeated by
them during the 17th FIFA World Cup. Kinesiology. 36 (1) p. 837
32
Tenga, A., Holme, I., Ronglan, L. T., Bahr, R. (2010). Effect of playing tactics on achieving
score-box possessions in a random series of team possessions from Norwegian professional
soccer matches. Journal of Sports Sciences. 28 (3) p.245-255
Wade, A. (1996). Principles of Team Play. Reedswain Inc. Spring City
33
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Number of
Passes
3
1
4
2
5
0
1
8
1
8
1
5
8
Total
Mean
47
3.62
Attempt
Attempt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Total
Mean
Number of
Passes
1
2
8
6
2
11
8
4
1
11
1
5
1
61
4.69
England v USA (1)
Time in Possession
Starting
(Seconds)
Third
8
A
4
A
12
D
9
M
22
M
8
M
4
M
27
A
2
A
19
A
2
A
16
M
31
D
End Result of
Play
GOAL
ON TARGET
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
ON TARGET
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
Time of
Attempt
3.32
10.40
19.08
19.33
36.58
40.31
62.41
63.15
70.31
73.59
76.21
76.21
164
12.62
England v Algeria (2)
Time in Possession
Starting
(Seconds)
Third
3
A
6
A
24
D
17
M
7
A
44
D
29
D
9
M
3
A
41
D
2
A
18
M
2
A
205
15.77
End Result of
Play
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
Time of
Attempt
3.38
29.35
32.09
36.52
38.07
42.47
69.39
70.09
72.46
85.12
87.20
90.39
Attempt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Total
Mean
Attempt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Total
Mean
Number of
Passes
0
1
1
1
6
11
2
2
1
1
1
4
2
33
2.54
Number of
Passes
6
3
16
3
3
2
0
1
0
4
2
4
3
47
3.62
England v Slovenia (3)
Time in Possession
Starting
(Seconds)
Third
2
A
4
A
2
A
3
A
16
M
30
D
5
M
5
A
2
A
3
A
8
M
15
D
4
M
End Result of
Play
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
GOAL
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
Time of
Attempt
13.52
17.08
17.37
19.04
21.59
26.00
29.21
29.27
45.31
56.45
57.27
58.34
85.59
End Result of
Play
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
ON TARGET
GOAL
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
ON TARGET
Time of
Attempt
15.21
23.00
24.57
34.20
36.50
37.42
47.15
48.17
51.31
55.50
57.12
80.30
88.45
99
7.62
England v Germany (4)
Time in Possession
Starting
(Seconds)
Third
26
D
12
D
47
D
18
M
7
A
8
M
2
A
15
D
1
A
15
D
7
A
10
A
12
D
180
13.85
APPENDIX B
Attempt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Total
Mean
Number of
Passes
8
11
1
10
0
0
4
1
0
4
6
8
1
4
3
1
6
1
69
3.83
Spain v Switzerland
Time in Possession
Starting
(Seconds)
Third
32
M
38
M
7
A
27
M
1
A
1
A
21
D
2
A
2
A
10
A
14
A
31
M
2
A
6
A
10
D
2
A
21
M
2
A
229
12.72
End Result of
Play
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
Time of
Attempt
16.04
16.56
20.56
23.42
30.48
40.22
42.56
46.02
49.27
50.00
50.41
57.05
59.14
62.43
67.33
69.38
71.30
95.21
Attempt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Total
Mean
Number of
Passes
4
2
6
5
2
7
9
2
4
2
4
0
6
0
2
2
1
Spain v Honduras
Time in Possession
(Seconds)
12
9
9
23
11
31
30
5
16
7
15
1
19
1
4
12
4
Starting
Third
M
M
A
D
D
D
M
A
D
M
M
A (PEN)
D
A
A
M
A
End Result of
Play
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
GOAL
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
GOAL
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
Time of
Attempt
4.35
6.04
10.20
13.12
14.26
16.48
32.25
32.54
50.05
51.20
52.35
61.44
65.34
65.50
67.10
71.46
58
3.41
209
12.30
Attempt
Number of
Passes
Spain v Chile
Time in Possession
(Seconds)
Starting
Third
End Result of
Play
Time of
Attempt
1
1
2
M
OFF TARGET
3.05
2
1
5
D
OFF TARGET
4.05
3
2
9
D
GOAL
4
1
3
A
OFF TARGET
5
4
13
M
GOAL
6
6
12
M
ON TARGET
7
6
40
D
OFF TARGET
Total
21
84
Mean
3
12
Attempt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Mean
84
8.4
Attempt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
Mean
Number of
Passes
17
6
7
7
14
10
8
3
11
1
Number of
Passes
3
2
1
4
0
4
22
4
5
0
0
3
48
4
Spain v Portugal
Time in Possession
(Seconds)
58
28
30
25
60
29
27
12
37
6
Starting
Third
M
M
M
D
D
M
M
M
M
M
End Result of
Play
ON TARGET
ON TARGET
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
GOAL
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
Time of
Attempt
0.58
2.46
6.11
30.44
59.57
60.35
62.11
69.28
76.21
86.14
Starting
Third
A
M
A
M
A
M
D
A
M
A
A
D
End Result of
Play
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
GOAL
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
Time of
Attempt
6.09
28.07
32.46
35.32
60.56
62.30
69.19
74.15
81.59
82.00
84.33
89.03
312
31.2
Spain v Paraguay
Time in Possession
(Seconds)
12
5
2
17
1
11
57
9
14
1
2
16
147
12.25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Number of
Passes
5
12
13
7
2
15
8
23
6
1
Total
Mean
92
9.2
Attempt
Attempt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
Mean
Number of
Passes
1
4
5
0
1
0
6
2
0
5
6
1
31
2.58
Spain v Germany
Time in Possession
(Seconds)
10
32
33
34
16
37
26
64
21
2
Starting
Third
A
M
D
D
D
D
D
M
A
A
End Result of
Play
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
GOAL
Time of
Attempt
13.04
18.44
29.29
45.59
47.57
49.17
54.33
57.37
58.15
72.34
Starting
Third
M
A
D
M
A
A
D
A
A
M
M
A
End Result of
Play
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
Time of
Attempt
4.23
7.08
37.20
42.53
47.39
54.30
68.59
69.38
73.44
75.14
76.12
76.38
275
27.5
Spain v Holland
Time in Possession
(Seconds)
3
10
14
2
2
1
15
11
2
13
18
2
93
7.75
APPENDIX C
Attempt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Total
Mean
83
5.92
Attempt
1
2
3
4
5
Total
Mean
Number of
Passes
0
7
8
14
11
11
8
4
3
1
5
4
5
2
Number of
Passes
0
2
3
5
2
12
2.4
Holland v Denmark
Time in Possession
Starting
(Seconds)
Third
2
M
14
A
20
M
46
M
32
M
32
M
23
D
13
M
18
M
2
A
19
A
20
M
11
A
13
D
End Result of
Play
OFF
ON
OFF
OFF
OFF
GOAL
ON
OFF
ON
OFF
OFF
OFF
GOAL
ON
Time of
Attempt
5.19
9.25
19.13
20.30
42.18
45.32
58.05
70.36
72.45
73.20
81.37
82.57
84.29
87.37
End Result of
Play
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
ON TARGET
GOAL
ON TARGET
Time of
Attempt
8.32
45.18
47.12
52.32
87.42
265
18.92
Holland v Japan
Time in Possession
(Seconds)
2
6
7
16
5
36
7.2
Starting
Third
A
A
A
M
M
Holland v Cameroon
Time in Possession
Starting
(Seconds)
Third
Attempt
Number of
Passes
End Result of
Play
Time of
Attempt
1
3
10
D
OFF TARGET
4.26
2
31
61
D
ON TARGET
18.36
3
0
3
A
ON TARGET
25.40
4
4
12
A
OFF TARGET
31.54
5
6
20
D
GOAL
35.20
6
2
7
D
ON TARGET
50.37
7
0
2
A
ON TARGET
54.07
8
1
3
M
OFF TARGET
66.41
9
0
3
A
ON TARGET
68.23
10
2
8
A
OFF TARGET
78.30
11
1
2
A
ON TARGET
81.03
12
3
13
D
OFF TARGET
82.53
13
0
1
A
GOAL
82.56
Total
53
145
Mean
4.07
11.15
Attempt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Total
Mean
72
4.8
Attempt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Total
Mean
Number of
Passes
11
1
5
13
2
1
5
3
5
0
1
7
2
15
1
Number of
Passes
3
0
0
6
3
2
0
0
5
19
2.11
Holland v Slovakia
Time in Possession
(Seconds)
32
2
17
54
11
3
12
9
13
2
2
20
5
44
4
Starting
Third
A
A
D
D
D
M
M
A
A
A
A
M
M
D
A
End Result of
Play
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
GOAL
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
GOAL
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
Time of
Attempt
4.01
5.34
6.42
10.04
17.08
40.04
43.11
49.38
50.23
58.34
69.44
72.44
83.07
85.09
91.55
Starting
Third
A
A
A
M
A
A
A
A
M
End Result of
Play
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
GOAL
GOAL
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
Time of
Attempt
10.38
16.58
35.29
49.33
52.41
67.28
74.56
79.51
83.36
230
15.33
Holland v Brazil
Time in Possession
(Seconds)
8
1
1
28
6
3
3
1
19
70
7.78
Number of
Passes
3
11
3
1
2
0
6
8
4
Attempt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Total
Mean
38
4.22
Attempt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Total
Mean
Number of
Passes
0
0
2
2
5
1
4
1
2
17
1. 89
Holland v Uruguay
Time in Possession
Starting
(Seconds)
Third
14
M
34
D
13
M
3
M
10
M
1
A
25
M
20
M
18
M
End Result of
Play
OFF
GOAL
ON
OFF
ON
OFF
GOAL
GOAL
ON
Time of
Attempt
3.05
17.30
39.42
53.02
67.36
67.38
69.19
72.41
87.21
138
15.33
Holland v Spain
Time in Possession
(Seconds)
3
2
4
5
25
3
8
6
3
59
6.56
Starting
Third
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
M
A
End Result of
Play
ON
ON
OFF
ON
ON
OFF
OFF
ON
OFF
Time of
Attempt
7.08
17.15
36.43
45.39
51.19
57.57
60.05
61.23
62.06
APPENDIX D
Attempt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Total
Mean
86
5.73
Attempt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Total
Mean
Number of
Passes
1
1
4
13
8
2
2
4
8
2
5
5
16
8
7
Number of
Passes
7
3
1
2
4
4
6
0
5
2
10
44
4
Germany v Australia
Time in Possession
Starting
(Seconds)
Third
5
M
2
A
15
M
28
D
30
D
5
M
5
M
14
A
16
M
11
M
26
D
20
M
42
D
26
D
18
D
End Result of
Play
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
GOAL
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
GOAL
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
ON TARGET
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
GOAL
GOAL
Time of
Attempt
6.47
6.52
7.42
25.57
30.05
38.33
53.11
58.44
59.19
60.37
65.40
67.00
69.48
263
17.53
Germany v Serbia
Time in Possession
(Seconds)
25
7
2
5
14
12
19
1
24
14
47
170
15.45
Starting
Third
D
A
A
A
D
M
D
A
D
M
D
End Result of
Play
OFF
OFF
ON
OFF
ON
OFF
OFF
ON
OFF
OFF
OFF
Time of
Attempt
6.45
45.41
45.46
45.58
53.31
56.54
58.10
59.35
68.41
77.06
83.43
Attempt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
Mean
Number of
Passes
5
4
11
4
2
5
1
0
7
12
4
1
56
4.67
Germany v Ghana
Time in Possession
Starting
(Seconds)
Third
18
D
10
A
38
D
22
D
5
M
12
M
2
A
2
A
12
M
44
M
17
D
3
A
185
15.41
End Result of
Play
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
GOAL
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
Time of
Attempt
2.42
6.30
14.48
23.00
24.14
29.50
40.44
45.41
59.14
69.05
84.21
Attempt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Total
Mean
59
4.21
Attempt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
Mean
Number of
Passes
3
12
1
4
4
7
2
5
7
3
3
4
2
2
Number of
Passes
1
3
4
12
14
3
3
7
12
5
2
6
72
6
Germany v England
Time in Possession
Starting
(Seconds)
Third
10
D
41
D
7
D
18
M
12
M
16
D
16
A
16
D
32
D
15
M
11
D
9
A
10
D
10
M
End Result of
Play
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
GOAL
ON TARGET
ON TARGET
GOAL
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
GOAL
OFF TARGET
GOAL
OFF TARGET
Time of
Attempt
4.09
16.04
19.41
21.06
30.05
21.52
38.03
58.57
62.20
63.17
66.17
68.11
69.33
78.55
223
15.92
Germany v Argentina
Time in Possession
Starting
(Seconds)
Third
3
A
9
A
8
A
30
M
41
M
19
D
11
A
31
M
29
M
13
A
9
M
15
D
218
18.20
End Result of
Play
GOAL
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
GOAL
GOAL
ON TARGET
GOAL
Time of
Attempt
3.39
5.24
12.14
23.19
38.12
43.08
44.15
57.00
66.59
73.19
80.15
88.03
Possession/
Attempt
1
2
3
Total
Mean
Number of
Passes
5
4
14
23
7.67
Germany v Spain
Time in Possession
(Seconds)
16
9
31
56
18.67
Starting
Third
D
A
D
End Result of
Play
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
Time of
Attempt
31.15
60.09
68.30
APPENDIX E
Attempt
1
2
3
4
5
Total
Mean
13
2.6
Attempt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Total
Mean
Number of
Passes
6
3
2
0
2
Number of
Passes
3
2
4
4
1
8
6
1
3
2
0
0
4
38
2.92
Uruguay v France
Time in Possession
Starting
(Seconds)
Third
19
M
7
A
11
A
2
A
3
A
End Result of
Play
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
Time of
Attempt
15.49
50.02
51.07
63.15
72.28
42
8.4
Uruguay v South Africa
Time in Possession
Starting
(Seconds)
Third
5
A
10
M
17
M
19
D
3
M
28
D
30
D
3
M
18
D
8
M
2
A
1
A
14
A
158
12.15
End Result
of Play
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
ON TARGET
GOAL
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
GOAL
GOAL
Time of
Attempt
6.49
7.32
22.35
23.12
23.36
32.10
47.47
53.11
63.23
67.22
71.02
80.00
94.18
Attempt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Mean
Attempt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Mean
Number of
Passes
0
1
3
1
2
3
4
3
1
1
19
1.9
Number of
Passes
3
4
2
3
0
5
1
6
2
0
26
2.6
Uruguay v Mexico
Time in Possession
Starting
(Seconds)
Third
2
A
7
M
14
A
2
A
11
M
14
D
11
M
18
D
3
A
6
D
End Result of
Play
OFF
OFF
ON
OFF
OFF
OFF
GOAL
ON
ON
ON
Time of
Attempt
5.22
5.44
11.44
17.53
20.43
27.01
42.56
49.39
54.41
87.35
88
8.8
Uruguay v South Korea
Time in Possession
Starting
(Seconds)
Third
10
A
24
D
20
D
6
M
4
A
19
M
4
M
16
M
7
A
1
A
111
11.1
End Result of
Play
ON TARGET
GOAL
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
ON TARGET
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
GOAL
ON TARGET
Time of
Attempt
5.47
7.38
12.15
38.07
48.00
72.27
73.19
74.24
79.48
84.03
Number of
Passes
0
2
0
2
3
1
0
3
4
0
1
3
Attempt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
Mean
19
1.58
Attempt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Total
Mean
Number of
Passes
4
4
3
0
1
0
0
0
1
13
1.44
Uruguay v Ghana
Time in Possession
Starting
(Seconds)
Third
2
A
10
M
3
A
3
A
8
A
3
A
2
A
16
D
6
A
2
A
4
A
13
M
End Result of
Play
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
ON TARGET
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
GOAL
ON TARGET
ON TARGET
OFF TARGET
OFF TARGET
ON TARGET
Time of
Attempt
5.15
10.04
13.06
17.26
24.10
25.26
54.22
62.41
69.58
73.38
77.33
81.50
72
6
Uruguay v Holland
Time in Possession
Starting
(Seconds)
Third
10
D
10
M
11
D
2
A
2
A
1
A
1
A
2
M
3
M
42
4.66
End Result of
Play
OFF
OFF
GOAL
ON
ON
ON
OFF
ON
GOAL
Time of
Attempt
5.53
37.52
41.02
43.09
50.02
66.15
67.06
71.20
91.14