University of Sydney Papers in HMHCE
17
Key performance variables between the top 10 and bottom 10
teams in the English Premier League 2012/13 season.
JAIME A. ARAYA
PAUL LARKIN
The University of Sydney
ABSTRACT
Coaches, fans and the media identify successful football performance as finishing as
high in the league as possible. Recently, research has indicated that possession, shots at
goal, and goals scored are key performance indicators for successful football teams.
There is however, a lack of understanding of other potential attacking and defensive
performance variables that may contribute to successful performance. The aim of this
study was to investigate the attacking and defensive performance indicators that may
differentiate teams that finish in the top ten and the bottom ten in the English Premier
League. In-game performance statistics from 380 games from the 2012/2013 English
Premier League season were analysed for differences between the top and bottom ten
teams. Successful teams (top ten) were found to have a significantly greater amount of
possession of the ball (p < 0.01) along with significantly more short passes (<10metres)
when in possession of the ball (p < 0.01) than less successful teams (bottom ten). With
respect to shots at goal, top ten teams had significantly more shots at goal (p < 0.01)
and scored more goals from inside the 18 yard box (p = 0.02) than bottom ten teams.
Lastly, top ten teams were found to score significantly more goals from open-play (i.e.,
any time in game other than a re-start of play) than bottom ten teams (p < 0.01). Results
indicate that for teams to be successful in the English Premier League, they should keep
possession of the ball via short passes, with the attempt to penetrate the opposition
defence to have a shot at goal from inside the 18-yard box.
Address for correspondence: Jaime A. Araya, Faculty of Education and Social Work,
The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2006.
Email: [email protected]
18
Jaime A. Araya
INTRODUCTION
With the increasing professionalism and financial ramifications in modern football, due to
expanding financial backing from club owners, television rights and sponsorship, there is
greater pressure on teams to finish as high up in the league as possible. This is especially true
for teams in the English Premier League (EPL) as the prize money increases by
£755,881GBP (Skillen, 2013) for each league position. Therefore, owners and coaches are
always striving to understand what in-game performance indicators differentiate teams that
finish in the top half and the bottom half of the table. Through performance analysis
researchers are able to eliminate the subjective approach of a coach (Hughes & Bartlett,
2002) enabling the recognition of objective measures that are crucial for success (Ortega,
Villarejo, & Palao, 2009) through empirical research.
With the global interest associated with football, especially the EPL, researchers have
attempted to identify the key performance indicators that can predict or describe successful
performance. A key performance indicator that has formed the general focus of researchers is
goals scored (Armatas, Yiannakos, Zaggelidis, Skoufas, Papadopoulou & Fragkos, 2009;
Lago-Peñas, Lago-Ballesteros, Dellal & Gómez, 2010; Muhamad, Norasrudin & Rahmat,
2013), as this is the ultimate determinant of a successful and less successful team (Jones,
James, & Mellalieu, 2004). In addition to this there has also been considerable interest in the
amount of possession a team has in the build-up to a goal scored (Yiannakos & Armatas,
2006; Grant, Williams & Reilly, 1999; Lago-Peñas, et al., 2010; Lago & Martín, 2007). The
majority of research in the area has analysed the performance of teams during international
knock-out style tournaments (Hughes & Franks, 2005; Lago-Peñas, Lago-Ballesteros & Rey,
2011; Muhamad et al., 2013). The issues with this is there may be disparities in the data as
not all teams play against each other and against varying opposition, also teams that make it
further in the tournament will play more games. To address this, several investigations have
examined the performance variables leading to successful performance in a number of
European football leagues, namely Spain (Lago & Martin, 2007; Lago-Ballesterso & LagoPeñas, 2010; Lago-Peñas et al., 2010)) and Greece (Armatas et al., 2009). The benefit of
analysing performance within a league format is all teams play each team in the league twice.
A limitation, however, is the lack of consistency within the data set, with these investigations
analysing performance of either the top and bottom two or three teams (Armatas et al., 2009;
Jones et al., 2004), and in some cases the data collection has been conducted over many
University of Sydney Papers in HMHCE
19
seasons (Armatas et al., 2009). Therefore, to address this limitation, the current study will use
the whole league sample (20 teams) to identify performance differences between the top and
bottom ten teams in the EPL during the 2012/2013 season.
Goal scoring is the single indicator of success in football, as ultimately the team that scores
more goals than the opposition is deemed the winner. Therefore, researchers have attempted
to find a correlation between goals scored and shots taken for teams, which finish higher and
lower in the league. Lago-Peñas et al. (2010) investigated the Spanish first division during the
2008-2009 season, and found that not only did the successful teams for that season have a
greater amount of shots at goal, their effectiveness (greater goal conversion per shots
attempted) was much higher than losing or drawing teams. This indicates a top 10 team will
attempt more shots and therefore due to their effectiveness score more goals then bottom 10
teams who attempt the same number of shots. Similar findings were evident in Armatas et al.
(2009) investigation into the shots at goal ratio between successful and unsuccessful teams in
the Greek Soccer first division.
Technical ability of a team is considered important for success in football (Rampinini,
Impellizzeri, Castagna, Coutts, & Wisløff, 2009). One such example is the ability of a team to
retain possession of the ball for prolonged periods of time. This has been demonstrated to be
a key indicator for the success of teams participating in both the 1990 and 1994 FIFA World
Cup competitions as well as the Spanish first division (Hughes & Franks, 2005; Lago &
Martín, 2007; Lago-Peñas et al., 2010). Specifically, Lago-Peñas and Dellal (2010) found
that the top ten teams in the Spanish first division for the 2008-2009 season maintained
possession for longer periods of time and as such dictated the game-play.
There has also been a consideration of both goals scored and the amount of possession a team
has to describe successful and less successful football performance.
One of the first performance analysis studies conducted with football was by Bate (1988)
who analysed the development of goal scoring opportunities on Notts County FC for the
1985/86, in the English third division. Bate’s paper fundamentally changed English football
during the 1990’s, finding that most goals come from the attacking third of the pitch As such,
it was advantageous to get the ball there as quickly as possible, with fewer side and back
passing, hence the development of English long-ball tactics of the 1990’s. Contrary to Bate’s
finding, Hughes and Bartlett (2002) found the correlation between possession and the ability
20
Jaime A. Araya
to develop shooting opportunities. Hughes and Bartlett concluded that teams sustaining the
possession of the ball developed a far greater chance of developing shooting opportunities.
However, they also contest that the difficulty lies in the technical ability of a team, to keep
possession of the ball in comparison to the opponent and a coach’s ability to identify the
deficiencies of their own team (Hughes & Bartlett, 2002).
With respect to the English Premier League, there has only been one study that has examined
the potential key performance indicators that contributes to success. Jones et al., (2004)
collected data from games between the top and bottom three teams in the 2001/02 EPL
season. Data was coded according to time in possession of the ball and the score line of the
game. Results found that successful teams (top three) in the EPL had longer periods of
possession compared to the unsuccessful teams (bottom three), regardless of match status
(whether winning or losing). Furthermore, it was found that successful teams also had longer
periods of possession when in winning situations. This implies that teams may use possession
of the ball as a defensive strategy to prevent the opposition from scoring. Despite the findings
by Jones et al., due to the evolving nature of football and the need for coaches to be informed
of current in-game performance, it is informative to re-evaluate not only possession during
the game, but also other potential key performance indicators that may contribute to
successful performance in the current EPL season.
Despite the current knowledge, there is still little empirical evidence of the key performance
indicators, other than goals scored and possession, that contribute to successful team
performance. Additionally, a limitation of the research is the lack of investigation into the
potential influence of key defensive indicators that may contribute to successful performance.
Therefore this study aims to identify several attacking and defensive performance indicators
that may differentiate teams that finish in the top ten and the bottom ten in the EPL.
METHODOLOGY
Sample
The sample consisted of all 380 games of the 2012-2013 EPL season. The EPL is the elite
level football competition in England and consists of 20 teams each playing 38 games over
the course of the season. All teams play each other twice, with one game at the clubs home
stadium and the other at the opponent’s home stadium. A publically accessible online
database
University of Sydney Papers in HMHCE
21
(http://www.whoscored.com/Regions/252/Tournaments/2/Seasons/3389/Stages/6531/TeamSt
atistics/England-Premier-League-2012-2013) was used to collate the game performance
variables of each team that competed in the 2012-2013 EPL season. The variables obtained
were the total for each team following the conclusion of the EPL season.
Procedure
All data were obtained for each team from a publically accessible online database and double
entered in a Microsoft excel spread sheet. The data were then transferred to SPSS 20 for
statistical analysis. Prior to statistical analysis teams were divided into two different groups.
The criteria for allocating teams into each group was based on the team’s final league
position, with one group containing teams in the top ten positions and the other group
containing teams in the bottom ten league positions. The variables collected included both
attacking (i.e., team possession, successful passes, dribbles, fouls, offside, crosses, through
balls, long balls, short passes of less than 10 metres [Fédération Internationale de Football
Association, n.d.], and shots on target) and defensive (e.g., aerial duels, shots conceded,
tackles, interceptions, fouls) game performance indicators. In addition, data regarding team’s
areas of possession and from what passages of play teams scored goals was also reported.
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) were used to characterise performance
variables for each group. Following normality checks using Shapiro-Wilk statistics an
independent samples t-test was conducted to identify any significant differences between the
two groups (i.e., top ten, bottom ten) for all performance variables. Where the performance
variables were not normally distributed non-parametric statistical techniques (Mann-Whitney
U) were conducted to determine whether there were significant group differences. A p-value
of ≤ 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant, with effects sizes calculated by a
Cohen’s d effect size.
RESULTS
Descriptive results of the game performance indicators of both the top and bottom ten teams
are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Differences in the possession, attacking and defensive key performance indicators
between the top and bottom ten teams during the 2012-13 EPL season
Top 10 Teams
Mean
Standard
Deviation
t-value
p-value
Cohen's d
Effect Size
4.96
46.52
4.45
3.301
<0.01
1.56
26.40
1.58
29.20
1.40
-4.200
<0.01
1.98
Middle
44.30
1.83
44.70
1.25
-0.70*
0.58
Opposition Half
29.20
2.62
26.40
1.58
2.898
<0.01
Percentage of Successful Passes
82.40
3.80
76.76
4.30
-2.80*
<0.01*
Dribbles/Per game
7.13
2.01
6.38
1.70
0.901
0.38
0.42
Fouled/Per game
10.67
1.20
10.62
1.03
0.100
0.92
0.05
Offsides/Per game
2.33
0.31
2.24
0.34
0.625
0.54
0.29
Crosses/Per game
23.50
2.17
22.00
3.02
1.270
0.22
0.60
Through Ball/Per game
2.50
1.65
1.70
1.57
-1.45*
0.28
Long Balls/Per game
59.60
4.03
62.20
3.79
-1.458
0.16
-0.69
Short Passes/Per game
423.60
75.41
332.20
54.75
3.102
<0.01
1.46
Aerial Duels Won/Per game
15.60
2.66
17.59
4.67
-1.36*
0.26
Shots conceded/Per game
12.62
2.35
15.28
2.02
-2.720
0.01
-1.28
Tackles/Per game
19.07
0.87
19.19
1.78
-0.192
0.85
-0.09
Interceptions/Per game
14.54
2.88
16.60
2.99
-1.570
0.13
-0.74
Fouls/Per game
11.02
0.92
11.53
0.79
-1.327
0.20
-0.63
Variable
Where teams
had possession
Attacking
Defensive
Bottom 10 Teams
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Percentage of Possession
53.48
Own Half
Table Notes: *denotes the use of z-score from Mann-Whitney U test due to data not being normally distributed.
1.37
Table 2. Differences in shots and areas on the playing field teams had shots
between the top and bottom ten teams during the 2012-13 EPL season.
Top 10 Teams
Mean
Standard
Deviation
t-value
p-value
Cohen's d
Effect Size
2.19
12.01
1.40
4.597
<0.01
2.16
5.36
0.75
3.88
0.53
5.093
<0.01
2.40
In 6 Yards Box
6.90
2.18
7.20
2.53
-0.284
0.78
-0.13
In 18 Yards Box
51.80
5.71
46.60
3.31
2.492
0.02
1.17
Outside of Box
41.30
6.65
46.40
4.77
-0.197
0.64
-0.09
In 6 Yards Box
6.60
1.43
7.10
1.66
-0.721
0.48
-0.34
In 18 Yards Box
47.90
4.07
50.50
4.14
-1.416
0.17
-0.67
Outside of Box
45.40
4.58
42.40
4.27
1.515
0.15
0.71
Variable
Shots
Where teams
had shots
Where teams
conceded shots
Bottom 10 Teams
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Shots/Per game
15.79
Shots On Target/Per game
Table 3. Differences between the top and bottom ten teams during the 2012-13 EPL season for how goals were scored.
Top 10 Teams
Mean
Standard
Deviation
t-value
p-value
Cohen's d
Effect Size
8.38
24.70
6.00
5.063
<0.01
2.39
3.80
2.10
2.40
1.58
1.687
0.11
0.80
Set Piece
12.00
4.47
10.70
3.77
0.703
0.49
0.33
Penalty
3.80
2.66
3.00
1.63
0.811
0.43
0.38
Own Goal
2.80
1.69
1.90
1.37
-1.43*
0.21
Variable
How goals
were scored
Bottom 10 Teams
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Open Play
41.20
Counter Attack
Table Notes: *denotes the use of z-score from Mann-Whitney U test due to data not being normally distributed.
24
Jaime Araya
An independent samples t-test indicated a significant difference in the performance variables:
percentage of possession (t(18) = 3.301, p < 0.01, d = 1.56), short passes (<10 m) (t(18) =
3.10, p < 0.01, d = 1.46), shots conceded (t(18) = -2.72, p < 0.01, d = -1.28), shots at goal
(t(18) = 4.60, p < 0.01, d = 2.16), and shots on target (t(18) = 5.09, p < 0.01, d = 2.40). As
indicated in Table 2, teams in the top ten league positions had significantly more shots from
inside the 18 yard box (t(18) = 2.49, p = 0.02, d = 1.17). Analysis of the defensive variables
indicated that teams in the top ten league positions conceded significantly less shots per game
compared to teams in the bottom ten places.
As percentage of successful passes was not normally distributed, a Mann-Whitney U test was
conducted which demonstrated a significant difference between teams in the top 10 and
teams in the bottom ten positions at the conclusion of the season (U= 13.0, z = -2.80, p <
0.01, r = 0.63). Analysis of the areas within the pitch that teams had possession of the ball
revealed that teams in the top 10 on the table had significantly more possesion in the
opponents half of the pitch (t(18) = 2.90, p < 0.01, d = 1.37). Finally, Table 3 indicates that
teams in the top half of the table scored significantly more goals from open play than teams
in the bottom half of the table (t(18) = 5.06, p < 0.01, d = 2.39).
DISCUSSION
The aim of this study was to identify the key performance indicators that distinguished the
top ten and bottom ten teams in the 2012/2013 EPL. The results from the present study
indicate teams in the top ten had more possession than teams that finished in the bottom ten.
This supports previous research in both the Spanish first division football league (Lago-Peñas
& Dellal, 2010) and Greek Soccer first division (Armatas et al., 2009) whereby teams that
finished higher in the league had more possession. Therefore it could be suggested that the
higher finishing teams were then able to control the tempo of the game. As such, it can be
assumed that teams striving to finish higher in the EPL should aim to retain the ball for
extended periods of time. Furthermore, a significant finding from this study indicated that the
teams in the top ten had more possession inside the oppositions half than teams in the bottom
ten. This supports previous findings, which indicate that teams with greater possession have
the ability to control the game-play (Jones et al., 2004; Lago-Peñas & Dellal, 2010). Further
investigation is needed to demonstrate how possession in the forward half of the pitch
contributes to shooting and goal scoring opportunities, especially when factoring in time and
score-line of the game.
University of Sydney Papers in HMHCE
25
In addition, a novel finding of this study is the identification of what teams were doing with
the greater amount of possession. Results showed that the teams who finished in the top ten
made significantly more short passes than teams who finished in the bottom ten. Similar
results were found in Rampinini et al. (2009) study of Seria A (Italian first division), in which
it was found that teams in the top 5 had greater amount of short passes than teams in the
bottom 5 positions. Further, it is possible that the greater amount of short passes may lead to
more opportunities to shoot at goal, as a controlled approach to constructing attacking play
has been attributed to goal scoring opportunities (Jones et al., 2004). From a practical
perspective, it has been identified that the recent success of FC Barcelona (Spanish First
Division) may be due to the ability to maintain possession in the attempt to create goal
scoring opportunities. This was especially evident during the 2008/09 Spanish First Division,
where FC Barcelona had the greatest amount of possession (Lago-Peñas & Dellal, 2010)
while scoring 105 goals during the 38 league matches. Therefore, the results from the current
study may indicate that, a successful team functionally keeps possession of the ball by using
short passes. This may manoeuvre the opposition out of their defensive shape, to create open
areas on the pitch in which players may have greater success of shooting at goal. Therefore, a
coaching implication from the current study may be to develop practice sessions that provide
players with the opportunity to utilise short passes to penetrate defensive lines, with the aim
to have a shot on goal.
With respect to shots at goal, this study found that the top 10 teams had significantly more
shots at goal than the teams in the lower half of the table. Lago-Ballesterso and Lago-Peñas
(2010) also found that teams that finished higher in the Spanish First Division had
significantly more total number of shots at goal, compared to teams that finished in the
middle and bottom of the league. This relationship has also been found within the 1998-2008
Greek Soccer first division seasons with the top two teams having significantly more shots at
goal than the bottom two teams (Armatas et al., 2009). Furthermore, the current study found
that teams in the top half of the table not only had more shots at goal, but of these shots
significantly more were on target than teams who finished in the bottom half of the table.
This supports previous findings (Armatas et al., 2009; Grant, Williams, & Reilly, 1999;
Muhamad et al., 2013) which highlights the importance of having a greater amount of shots
on target for teams to be successful. Although obvious, in terms of development of team
tactics and training, a practical implication would suggest that teams spend more time in
practices that allow for shots at goal within a game context.
26
Jaime Araya
From a defensive perspective, it was found that top ten teams concede less opposition shots
per game. Therefore, it can be assumed that to be successful in the EPL, teams should aim to
have a greater number of shots than their opposition. Furthermore, a team’s ability to keep
possession, as noted by Jones et al., (2004) could be deemed as a defensive strategy by
maintaining possession of the football eliminates the potential for the opposition to have
shots at goal. This strategy could be implemented in a coaching session with games designed
to promote ball possession, such as Barcelona’s ‘rondo’ (piggy in the middle). The aim of
such activities would be to teach ball possession, with the potential benefits for controlling
attacking play and using ball retention as a defensive mechanism.
As stated, the results indicated that top ten teams have more shots at goal per game than
bottom 10 teams. However, a novel analysis of this study was to investigate where on the
playing field teams attempted shots at goal. Results found the top ten teams made more shots
at goal within the 18-yard box compared to teams from the bottom half of the league.
Additionally, teams in the top ten scored significantly more goals from open-play than
bottom ten teams. This finding supports Muhamad et al. (2013) analysis of the 2012, Union
of European Football Associations (UEFA) European Championships. A coaching
implication of this finding is to be a more successful team in the English premier league,
teams should be encouraged to hold possession for longer and take more shots, especially
from the 18 yard box. Furthermore, as current coaching methodology looks at utilising setplays and spends a vast amount of time on these tactics, it is noted that developing open-play
tactics, that encourage possession based play and less long ball tactics, similar to 1990’s
British football, may be beneficial to the development of goal scoring opportunities.
Conclusion
Findings from this investigation highlighted the key performance indicators that may predict
successful league performance in the EPL. Results found that teams that finish in the top ten
league positions had more possession and short passes than teams that finished in the bottom
ten of the league. Further, more successful teams had more shots at goal, with goals being
scored from inside the 18-yard box and from open-play situations. From a defensive
perspective, successful teams in the EPL restricted the number of shots that the opposition
had on goal. This suggests that to be successful in the EPL, teams should focus on retaining
possession of the ball through short passes, with the aim to have shots from inside the 18 yard
box. This finding may assist coaches, who want to finish higher up in the EPL table, to
University of Sydney Papers in HMHCE
27
structure team tactics and develop training activities that promote the aspects of football
game-play identified in this investigation.
28
Jaime Araya
REFERENCES
Armatas, V., Yiannakos, A., Zaggelidis, G., Skoufas, D., Papadopoulou, S., & Fragkos, N.
(2009). Differences in offensive actions between top and last team in Greek first soccer
division. A retrospective study 1998-2008. Journal of Physical Education and Sport,
23(2), 1-5.
Bate, R. (1988). Football chance: tactics and strategy. In T. Reilly, A. Lees, K. Davids and
W. Murphy (Eds.) Science and Football (pp. 293 – 301). London: E & FN
Spon.Fédération Internationale de Football Association. (n.d). Technical Study 3.
Retrieved October 31, 2013, from
http://www.fifa.com/search/index.html?q=dutch+technical+study.
Grant, A.G., Williams, A.M., & Reilly, T. (1999). An analysis of the successful and
unsuccessful teams in the 1998 World Cup. Journal of Sports Sciences, 17, 827.
Hughes, M. D., & Bartlett, R. M. (2002). The use of performance indicators in performance
analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20(10), 739-754.
Hughes, M., & Franks, I. (2005). Analysis of passing sequences, shots and goals in soccer.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 23(5), 509-514.
Jones, P. D., James, N., & Mellalieu, S. D. (2004). Possession as a performance indicator in
soccer. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 4(1), 98-102.
Lago, C., & Martín, R. (2007). Determinants of possession of the ball in soccer. Journal of
Sports Sciences, 25(9), 969-974.
Lago-Ballesteros, J., & Lago-Peñas, C. (2010). Performance in team sports: Identifying the
keys to success in soccer. Journal of Human Kinetics, 25(1), 85-91.
Lago-Peñas, C. & Dellal, A. (2010). Ball possession strategies in elite soccer according to the
evolution of the match-score: the influence of situational variables. Journal of Human
Kinetics, 25, 93-100.
Lago-Peñas , C., Lago-Ballesteros, J., Dellal, A. & Gomez, M. (2010). Game-related
statistics that discriminated winning, drawing and losing teams from the Spanish soccer
league. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine (9), 288-293.
Lago-Peñas, C., Lago-Ballesteros, J. & Rey, E. (2011). Differences in performance indicators
between winning and losing teams in the UEFA Champions League. Journal of Human
Kinetics, 27, 135-146.
Muhamad, S., Norasrudin, S., & Rahmat, A. (2013). Differences in Goal Scoring and Passing
Sequences between Winning and Losing Team in UEFA-EURO Championship 2012.
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (74), 118-123.
Ortega, E., Villarejo, D., & Palao, J. M. (2009). Differences in game statistics between
winning and losing rugby teams in the Six Nations Tournament. Journal of Sports
Science and Medicine, 8(4), 523-527.
University of Sydney Papers in HMHCE
29
Rampinini, E., Impellizzeri, F. M., Castagna, C., Coutts, A. J., & Wisløff, U. (2009).
Technical performance during soccer matches of the Italian Serie A league: Effect of
fatigue and competitive level. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 12(1), 227233.
Skillen, C. (2013). Think Southampton have got nothing to play for? Results in their last four
games could net the £3m for a summer signing. Retrieved October 14, 2013, from
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2314578/Why-mid-table-sides-playPremier-League-prize-money-2013.html.
Yiannakos, A., & Armatas, V. (2006). Evaluation of the goal scoring patterns in European
Championship in Portugal 2004. International Journal of Performance Analysis in
Sport, 6(1), 178-188.