Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpan20

International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport

ISSN: 2474-8668 (Print) 1474-8185 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpan20

Comparison between teams of different ranks insmall-sided and conditioned games tournaments

Davi Correia da Silva, Varley Teoldo da Costa, Filipe Casanova, Filipe ManuelClemente & Israel Teoldo

To cite this article: Davi Correia da Silva, Varley Teoldo da Costa, Filipe Casanova, Filipe ManuelClemente & Israel Teoldo (2019) Comparison between teams of different ranks in small-sided andconditioned games tournaments, International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 19:4,608-623, DOI: 10.1080/24748668.2019.1643598

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2019.1643598

Published online: 16 Jul 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 26

View Crossmark data

Comparison between teams of different ranks in small-sidedand conditioned games tournamentsDavi Correia da Silva a, Varley Teoldo da Costa b, Filipe Casanova c,d,Filipe Manuel Clemente e,f and Israel Teoldo a

aCentre of Research and Studies in Soccer, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, Brazil; bUniversidadeFederal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil; cCentre of Research, Education, Innovation andIntervention in Sport, Faculty of Sport (FADEUP), University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; dUniversidadeLusófona do Porto, Porto, Portugal; eEscola Superior de Desporto e Lazer, Instituto Politécnico de Viana doCastelo, Viana do Castelo, Portugal; fInstituto de Telecomunicações, Delegação da Covilhã, Portugal

ABSTRACTThe aim of this study was to compare the quantity, the quality and theoutcome of the tactical actions of the champions’ teams compared torunner-up and third-placed teams in small-sided and conditionedgames tournaments in the under-15 category. We analyzed 18 teamscomposed of three players, they were 13.92 ± 1.17 years old and with5.65 ± 2.65 years of time practice. These players performed 4,716tactical actions evaluated by System of Tactical Assessment in Soccer(FUT-SAT). Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation and percen-tage difference), Shapiro–Wilk test, independent t-test, Mann–Whitneytest, paired t-test, and Cohen’s kappa test were used. The resultsindicated that the champions’ teams accomplished more offensivetactical actions (quantitatively) and were more efficient (qualitatively)in these actions than the other teams. In addition, the champions’teams were more effectiveness (action outcomes) in offensive anddefensive movements. Otherwise, the runner-up and third-placedperformed more (quantitatively) defensive tactical actions and weremore efficient (qualitatively) in these actions. It is concluded that thechampions’ teams had more initiative in the matches due to thegreater quantity and quality of their offensive tactical actions andmore effectiveness in the offensive and defensive actions, while theiropponents were reactive.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 21 March 2019Accepted 11 July 2019

KEYWORDSSoccer; small-sided games;tactical behavior; tacticalactions; young players

1. Introduction

Performance of soccer teams and their final ranking in competitions are influenced byseveral factors, such as the physical (Clemente et al., 2018), psychological (Williams &Jackson, 2019), technical (Lago-Peñas, Lago-Ballesteros, & Rey, 2011) and tactical(Gonçalves, Marcelino, Torres-Ronda, Torrents, & Sampaio, 2016) components of theperformance. In general, to become champion, teams need to show regularity in theirperformance throughout the competition (Maleki, Dadkhah, & Alahvisi, 2016). For this,

CONTACT Davi Correia da Silva davizirt@hotmail.com Centre of Research and Studies in Soccer, UniversidadeFederal de Viçosa, Av. P.H. Rolfs, s/n, Campus Universitário, Viçosa, MG CEP 36570900, Brazil

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS IN SPORT2019, VOL. 19, NO. 4, 608–623https://doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2019.1643598

© 2019 Cardiff Metropolitan University

stability in every action in the play is essential, especially in the offensive and defensiveorganisation phases (Gréhaigne, Bouthier, & David, 1997).

The offensive and defensive organisation are obtained through the positioning andthe tactical movements that allow players and their team to manage the game space(Teoldo, Guilherme, & Garganta, 2017). In addition, the efficiency and effectiveness ofthese movements are considered as key requirements that can influence the ranking incompetitions (Szwarc, 2008), since efficiency is related to the execution of the move-ment (quality of tactical actions) and effectiveness to its outcome (Mesquita, 1998).

Regarding effectiveness, some studies conducted with professional teams have soughtto verify how champions’ teams reach the top ranking in competitions. These studiesallowed demonstrating that top teams are more effectiveness in maintaining ballpossession and finalising to the goal than the other teams (Gómez-López & Álvaro,2002; Hughes & Franks, 2005; Maleki et al., 2016), despite they show a differentconceptions of the game by the way they play it. For example, Maleki et al. (2016)analyzed the 2014 World Cup semifinalists and found that the balanced distribution ofplayers on the field provided greater consistency for ball recovery of the champions andrunner-up half, these actions may provide to the teams longer possession of the ball.

Despite the contribution of these studies to the understanding on how teams achievethe best rankings in competitions, some limitations are found. For instance, comparingone team to another can result in a loss of meaningful information, since each team hasdifferent conceptions of the game and strategies (Lago, 2009; Taylor, Mellalieu, James,& Shearer, 2008). In turn, comparing aggregate data from different teams wouldindicate general values that can be used as normative data to design and assess teampractices. This point has implications for training, especially in training categories, asthe teaching-learning and training process is responsible for modelling the behaviour ofplayers and teams (Teoldo et al., 2017).

Besides evaluating the effectiveness of actions individually, the joint research on thequantity, the quality, and the outcome of tactical actions can be a useful tool for coachesto understand how to improve team performance, even through the teaching-learningand training process (Machado et al., 2019). Therefore, one way to obtain these data inthe training context is through small-sided and conditioned games (Clemente, 2016).Small-sided and conditioned games are used to replicate the demands of the game ina potentialised way. For instance, there is a more active participation of the players whoplay small-sided games since they make more touches on the ball and consequentlylearn some actions faster, and make more decisions during the game (FédérationInternationale de Football Association, 2012; Garcia, Román, Calleja-González, &Dellal, 2014). In addition, the coach can also manipulate game restrictions to directthe learning of specific behaviour (Hill-Haas, Dawson, Impellizzeri, & Coutts, 2011;Sarmento et al., 2018).

In this sense, opposition situations reflect restrictions that influence the player’s behaviour.That being, it seems important that the game should be evaluated and understood in relationto the strength between the teams (Tenga, Mortensholm, & O’Donoghue, 2017). Thebehavior of the players and teams can be observed through the execution the core principlesof the game of football, which are a set of rules about the game that allow players to obtaintactical solutions to the problems that appear in the play (Garganta & Pinto, 1994; Teoldo

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS IN SPORT 609

et al., 2017). These authors affirm that, collectively, the principles help in the better control ofthe game (both in the offensive phase and in the defence phase).

However, few studies have compared opposition situations between teams in respectwith tactical principles. For example, analyzing opposition situations help understand-ing that the offensive and defensive tactical performance of the teams that won thematches was greater than the teams that drew them (Carvalho, Scaglia, & Teoldo, 2013).In addition, Silva et al. (2013) affirm that the winning teams made better the move-ments that allow to: (1) ensure defensive stability and, (2) allow the team to defend inunity. As a result, these teams are able to play more without the ball, in order to recoverits possession, and to have more chances on the opponent’s goal.

Despite the understanding of the tactical performance of the winning teams, as far asliterature has been concerned, studies have not yet been accomplished with the aim toinvestigate the differences in the tactical performance between the teams with the bestranking (champions) compared to teams ranked runner-up and third placed, in small-sided and conditioned games tournaments. Also, no study has compared performanceby aggregating data from different teams. Finally, as far as we know, no research in suchmatter has been conducted before with youth players. According to the literature ontactical principles, under-15 players have most cognitive conditions to perform all themovements (Gonzalez-Villora, Serra-Olivares, Pastor-Vicedo, & Costa, 2015), whichsuggests that tactical analysis can be conducted on their performance in the play. Thus,this particular age-category can be an interesting window of opportunity to identify thepossible differences on tactical behaviour of teams and detect which factors should beunderstood as determinant to improve the competence of these youth players and toadequate their behaviours in game. Based on those reasons, the aim of this study was tocompare the quantity, the quality and the outcome of the tactical actions of thechampions’ teams compared to runner-up and third-placed teams in small-sided andconditioned games tournaments in the under-15 category.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Sample

The sample included 18 teams composed of three players, for a total of 54 players inthe Under-15 age level. They were selected from three different Brazilian clubsaffiliated to the Federação Mineira de Futebol. These players performed 4,716 tacticalactions and they were, in average, 13.92 ± 1.17 years old and had 5.65 ± 2.65 years ofpractice time. As an inclusion criterion, players should be enrolled in systematictraining programs, with at least three sessions per week (with 90 min of averagetraining).

The present study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the UniversidadeFederal de Viçosa, under the protocol number CAAE – 48139515.3.0000.5153 andmeets the Helsinki agreement of 1996 and the National Health Council (CNS 466/2012) norms. The study was conducted with the consent of the club officers and theplayers. For the players’ participation, a free and informed consent form and an assentform were filled.

610 D. CORREIA DA SILVA ET AL.

2.2. Data collection instrument

The instrument used to assess the tactical actions was the System of Tactical Assessmentin Soccer (FUT-SAT) (Teoldo, Garganta, Greco, Mesquita, & Maia, 2011), whichconsists of a field test (Goalkeeper+3 vs. 3+ Goalkeeper) with dimensions of36 m long by 27-m wide, for 4 min. All the tactical actions executed by the playerswere filmed for further analysis.

After the test, the system allows the assessment of all the tactical actions – with andwithout the ball – in respect with the 10 core tactical principles of the soccer game. Theseprinciples include, in the offensive phase: i) penetration, progression movements of the ballcarrier toward the goal and/or the opposing bottom line, ii) offensive coverage, movementsof support to the ball carrier, iii) depth mobility, movements of players between the lastdefender and goal line, iv) width and length, movements for use and expansion of theeffective game space, and (v) offensive unity, movements that allow the teams to attack inunity; and in the defensive phase: (i) delay, movements of direct opposition to the ballcarrier, (ii) defensive coverage, movements of support of the player who directly opposesthe ball carrier, (iii) balance, movements that ensure defensive stability in the area of the balldispute (iv) concentration, movements that increase the goal protection and facilitate therecovery of the ball possession, and (v) defensive unity, movements that allow the team todefend in unity (Teoldo et al., 2011).

The FUT-SAT is composed of two Macro-categories: Observation and Outcome(Teoldo et al., 2011). The Macro-category Observation consists of three categories:Tactical Principles, Place of Action in the Game Field and Action outcome, amongwhich are 24 variables. In turn, the Macro-category Outcome is composed of fourcategories: Tactical Performance Index (TPI), Tactical Actions, Percentage of Errorsand Place of Action Relative to the Principles (PARP), among which there are 52variables. The Macro-category Product receives this denomination, because its variablesare dependent on the information coming from the Macro-category Outcome.

2.3. Data collection procedure

The FUT-SAT field test (Goalkeeper+3 vs. 3+ Goalkeeper) was performed to assess thequantity, the quality and the outcome of each tactical action. However, the goalkeeperswere not evaluated, since the specific actions of their position differ from the actionstaken by the players of the other positions. Before the start of the field test, 30 s offamiliarisation were provided to the players to understand the task. Players wereinstructed to play according to the official rules of the soccer game, and the coachesdid not provide any kind of instruction or encouragement to the players during the test.The coaches were responsible for dividing the teams in order to balance the skill level ofthe players according to the positional role: a defender, a midfielder and a forward.Several five-sized balls were placed around the field, in order to increase the effectiveplaying time. Thus, when one ball left the field, it was quickly replaced by another one.In order to facilitate further analysis, all players received numbered bibs from one (1) tosix (6).

Two tournaments were conducted in each club, applying the round-robin systemwhere each team played against each other team only once. Each tournament took place

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS IN SPORT 611

on different days and the number of teams and consequently the number of games ineach tournament was conditioned by the release of the players by their respective clubs.Two tournaments were held in the first club. The first tournament had four teams andsix games. The second tournament had five teams and ten games. In the second club,both tournaments had six teams and fifteen games. In turn, in the third club, the twotournaments had eight teams and had twenty-eight games in each tournament. Thepoints of the six tournaments were considered as follows: win (three points); draw (onepoint); defeat (no point). The points were added after each game, and at the end of eachtournament, one team was crowned champion (i.e. 1st placed). In this way, the sixchampion teams were selected to be compared in the direct confrontation with therunner-up teams and third-placed teams.

2.4. Materials

The matches were recorded with a SONY digital camera model HDR-XR100 (it waspositioned in the diagonal between the side line and the bottom line) and the videomaterial was transferred to a desktop computer (Star Plus Intel® Core ™ i3-2100 CPU @3.10 GHz) by USB cable, and converted to “.avi” format using the Format Factorysoftware. The Soccer Analyser® software was used for image processing and gameanalysis. Soccer Analyser® software allows the insertion of dynamic and static spatialreferences that enable the analysis of the tactical behaviour of soccer players based onthe realisation of the core tactical principles of the soccer game. The spatial referencescan be found in Teoldo et al. (2017).

2.5. Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation and percentage difference) were used tocharacterise the sample regarding the quantity, the quality and the outcome of thetactical actions. The Shapiro–Wilk test was used to verify the data distribution. Theindependent t-test and the Mann–Whitney test for the normal and non-normal distribution, respectively, were used to verify the difference between the cham-pions’ teams and their opponents. The paired t-test was used to compare the actions thechampions’ teams in the confrontations between the runner-up and third-placed teams.The significance level of p < 0.05 was adopted for all tests. For the statistical treatmentof the data, the software SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Science) for Windows®,version 20.0 was used.

The effect size measured with Pearson’s r was used as a measure of the standardmagnitude of the observed effect, because although a statistical test is significant, it doesnot mean that the effect it measures is significant or important. In this way, effect sizesare useful because they give an objective measure of the importance of an effect. Theeffect size is categorised in small (<0.29), medium (0.30–0.49) and large (>0.50)according to the calculation performed through the independent and paired t-test (a)and the Mann–Whitney test (b) formulas, respectively (Cohen, 1992):

612 D. CORREIA DA SILVA ET AL.

r ¼ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

t2

t2 þ df

s(a)

r ¼ Zffiffiffin

p (b)

2.6. Reliability analysis

The test–retest method was used to demonstrate the reliability and the reliabilitysessions were performed respecting a three-week interval (21 days) in order to avoidfamiliarity problems with the task (Robinson & O’Donoghue, 2007). It was calculatedusing the Cohen’s kappa test. For its analysis, 510 tactical actions were reassessed;representing 10.81% of the sample, this value is higher than the reference (10%)indicated in the literature (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).

The re-test results presented intra-rater reliability in the tournament matches with valuesranging fromaminimumof 0.856 (SE= 0.041) to amaximumof 1,000 (SE= 0.000). For inter-rater reliability in tournament matches, values ranged from aminimum of 0.824 (SE = 0.054)to a maximum of 1,000 (SE = 0.000). For the data statistical treatment was used the softwareIBM SPSS for Windows®, version 20.0.

3. Results

3.1. Quantity and quality of the tactical actions

In the total actions of offensive and defensive phases (see Table 1), the champions’teams performed more offensive tactical actions than the runner-up (40.57%) and third-placed teams (23.93%) and were more efficient in these actions than the runner-up(41.49%) and third-placed teams (20.17%).

Otherwise, the runner-up and third-placed teams performed more defensiveactions (68.75%; 33,28%, respectively) and were more efficient (82.10%; 31.24%,respectively) than the champions’ teams. In addition, the champions’ teams per-formed more offensive tactical action (16.75%) when they played against the runner-up than when they played against the third. The champions’ teams were also moreefficient in the defensive tactical actions (79.51%) when they played against thethird-placed teams than when they played against the runner-up ones.

Regarding tactical principles of the offensive phase, the champions’ teams per-formed more movements of support to the ball carrier (Offensive Coverage) than therunner-up (47.05%) and third-placed teams (37.30%). In the ball carrier supportmovements (Offensive Coverage), they were more efficient (29.41%) than the third-placed teams. Besides that, the champions’ teams performed more progression move-ments of the ball carrier toward the goal and/or the opposing bottom line(Penetration) (39.59%) than the third-placed teams. Moreover, they accomplishedmore movements for use and expansion of the effective game space (Width andLength) (46.63%) and movements that allow the teams to attack in unity (OffensiveUnity) (37.78%) than the teams’ runner-

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS IN SPORT 613

Table1.

Meanandstandard

deviationof

thequ

antityandqu

ality

oftactical

actio

nsin

thedirect

confrontationbetweentheteam

sin

thetournaments.

Quantity

Quality

Cham

pion

s’team

sRu

nner-up

team

sp

Cham

pion

s’team

sThird

-placed

team

sp

Cham

pion

s’team

sRu

nner-up

team

sp

Cham

pion

s’team

sThird

-placed

team

sp

Offen

sive

Penetration

3.55

±2.35

2.61

±2.32

0.224

3.94

±2.26

2.38

±1.88

0.025

42.85±28.12

39.79±25.78

0.792

31.66±22.29

20.00±13.66

0.055

Offensive

Coverage

11.22±4.05

5.94

±5.02

0.001

7.88

±3.35

4.94

±2.77

0.007

45.56±7.00

44.22±50.56

0.761

58.33±25.56

41.17±21.74

0.041

Depth

Mob

ility

1.94

±2.31

2.00

±1.94

0.662

2.00

±1.81

1.77

±2.10

0.549

26.38±29.69

25.55±16.50

0.540

33.33±36.98

48.48±34.52

0.255

Width

and

Leng

th13.83±4.97

7.38

±3.75

<0.001

13.44±6.11

11.22±5.34

0.254

51.77±20.87

29.64±14.14

<0.001

47.68±23.27

42.36±20.32

0.339

Offensive

Unity

7.94

±4.80

4.94

±4.94

0.044

4.77

±2.57

4.05

±2.95

0.323

43.51±26.14

31.48±26.19

0.137

45.06±27.34

40.12±27.25

0.554

Defen

sive

Delay

4.61

±3.22

8.16

±3.24

0.002

5.11

±2.13

8.22

±2.64

<0.001

17.46±15.53

41.26±27.01

0.005

32.09±17.41

64.81±25.91

<0.001

Defensive

Coverage

1.77

±1.59

4.05

±3.05

0.006

1.16

±0.98

2.77

±1.51

0.001

13.01±9.62

26.06±21.77

0.028

17.94±12.65

37.03±23.95

0.015

Balance

4.00

±3.27

8.44

±3.80

<0.001

4.66

±2.42

6.72

±2.73

0.022

22.05±14.41

43.98±25.53

0.006

31.48±27.01

49.38±21.63

0.018

Concentration

3.38

±2.22

6.16

±4.19

0.018

4.61

±3.14

5.22

±2.43

0.519

15.57±12.97

33.66±23.94

0.006

34.80±27.04

38.88±18.52

0.604

Defensive

Unity

11.61±4.52

16.00±5.63

0.013

10.83±4.71

12.22±3.02

0.300

33.14±15.10

45.21±20.71

0.073

56.94±25.26

53.12±17.71

0.603

Total

Offensive

38.50±5.80*

22.88±9.33

<0.001

32.05±4.74

24.38±5.67

<0.001

69.88±16.97

40.88±19.10

<0.001

71.47±15.40

57.05±12.94

0.005

Defensive

25.38±9.88

42.83±6.43

<0.001

26.38±6.39

35.16±3.98

<0.001

35.14±17.21

63.99±20.68

<0.001

63.08±16.38*

82.79±13.81

<0.001

(p<0.05).Statisticallysig

nificant

difference

betweentheteam

swith

differentranks:Pene

tration:

Quantity:Champions’team

svs.Third-placedteam

s:(Z

=−2.238);O

ffensive

Coverage

:Quantity:

Cham

pions’team

svs.Runner-u

pteam

s:(t=3.470);Champions’team

svs.Third-placedteam

s:(t=2.867);Q

uality:Cham

pions’team

svs.Third-placedteam

s:(t=2.132);W

idth

andLeng

th:Q

uantity:

Cham

pions’team

svs.Runner-u

pteam

s:(Z=−4.199);Q

uality:Cham

pions’team

svs.Runner-u

pteam

s:(Z=−3.576);O

ffen

sive

Unity:Q

uantity:Champions’team

svs.Runner-u

pteam

s:(Z=−2.015);

Delay:Quantity:Champions’team

svs.Runner-upteam

s:(Z=−2.941);Champions’team

svs.Third-placedteam

s:(t=−3.879);Quality:Cham

pions’team

svs.Runner-upteam

s:(Z=−2.799);Champions’

team

svs.Third-placedteam

s:(t=−4.445);D

efen

sive

Coverage:Q

uantity:Champions’team

svs.Runner-u

pteam

s:(Z

=−2.727);Champions’team

svs.Third-placedteam

s:(Z

=−3.370);Q

uality:

Cham

pions’team

svs.Runner-upteam

s:(Z=−2.200);Champions’team

svs.Third-placedteam

s:(Z=−2.442);Balan

ce:Quantity:Champions’team

svs.Runner-upteam

s(Z=−3.485);Champions’team

svs.Third-placedteam

s(Z=−2.287);Quality:Cham

pions’team

svs.Runner-upteam

s(Z=−2.759);Champions’team

svs.Third-placedteam

s(Z=−2.356);Con

centratio

n:Quantity:Champions’team

svs.

Runner-upteam

s(Z=−2.359);Quality:Cham

pions’team

svs.Runner-upteam

s(Z=−2.746);Defen

sive

Unity:Quantity:Champions’team

svs.Runner-upteam

s(Z=−2.480);Offensive

Total:Quantity:

Cham

pions’team

svs.Runner-u

pteam

s:(Z=−4.246);Champions’team

svs.Third-placedteam

s:(t=4.395);Q

uality:Cham

pions’team

svs.Runner-u

pteam

s:(t=4.815);Champions’team

svs.Third-

placed

team

s:(t=3.039);Defen

sive

Total:Quantity:Champions’team

svs.Runner-upteam

s:(Z=−4.576);Champions’team

svs.Third-placedteam

s:(Z=−3.591);Quality:Cham

pions’team

svs.Runner-

upteam

s:(t=−4.548);Champions’team

svs.3º:(t=−3.902).

*Statistically

sign

ificant

difference

betweenthecham

pion

steam

sin

differentconfrontations:Offen

sive

Total:Quantity:Ch

ampion

s’team

svs.Ch

ampion

s’team

s(p

=0.006;

t=3.131);

Defen

sive

Total:Quality:Ch

ampion

s’team

svs.C

hampion

s’team

s:(p<0.001;

t=−5.620).

614 D. CORREIA DA SILVA ET AL.

up. However, they were more efficient only in the use and expansion movements ofthe effective game space (Width and Length) (42.74%).

Concerning tactical principles of the defensive phase, the runner-up and third-placedperformed more actions (77.00%; 60.86%, respectively) and were more efficient (136.31%;101.96%, respectively) than the champions’ teams in the movements of direct opposition tothe ball carrier (Delay). In addition, the runner-up and third-placed performed moreactions (128.81%; 138.79%, respectively) and were more efficient (100.30%; 106.41, respec-tively) in the support of the player who directly opposes the ball carrier (DefensiveCoverage), as also performed more actions (111.00%; 44.20%, respectively) and weremore efficient (99.45%; 56.86%, respectively) to ensure defensive stability in the area ofthe ball dispute (Balance). Moreover, the runner-up- teams performed more movementsthat increase the goal protection and facilitate the recovery of the ball possession(Concentration) (82.24%) and to allow the team to defend in unity (Defensive Unity)(37.81%), being more efficient only in the movements to increase the goal protection andfacilitate the recovery of the ball possession (Concentration) (116.18%).

Figure 1 shows the effect size measured with the Pearson’s r of the variables thatpresented significant difference (Table 1) regarding of the quantity and quality of tacticalactions between the teams in the tournaments.

3.2. Action outcomes

The quantity and the quality of the champions’ teams offensive tactical actions led to a greatereffectiveness compared to the runner-up and third-placed teams, are presented in Table 2.

In the offensive phase, the champions’ teams were more effectiveness than therunner-up and third-placed teams in the finalisations to the goal (25.99%; 35.45%,respectively) and in the maintenance of the ball possession (51.07%; 32.65%, respec-tively). The champions’ teams also suffered more fouls, gained throw-ins or corners (42.50%) when they played against the runner-up. Otherwise, the runner-up committedmore fouls, gave throw-ins or corners (59.45%) against the champions’ teams. Whilethe third-placed teams lost more possession of the ball (72.20%) when they playedagainst the champions’ teams.

In the defensive phase, the champions’ teams recovered more possession of ball(41.86%) than the third-placed. Besides, the champions’ teams suffered more fouls,gained throw-ins or corners (45.35%) against the runner-up teams. The runner-upteams committed more fouls, gave throw-ins or corners (86.08%) than the champions’teams. The third-placed teams suffered more fouls, gained throw-ins or corners (66.86%) against the champion’s teams. In addition, the runner-up and third-placed teamsremained more without the ball possession (100.06%; 49.32%, respectively) and sufferedmore finalisations to their own goal (38.00%; 60.92%, respectively) against the cham-pion’s teams.

Figure 2 shows the effect size measured with the Pearson’s r of the variables thatpresented significant difference (Table 2) regarding of the Outcome of the Actionbetween the teams in the tournaments.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS IN SPORT 615

4. Discussion

The aim of this study was to compare the quantity, the quality and the outcome of thetactical actions of the champions’ teams compared to runner-up and third-placed teams insmall-sided and conditioned games tournaments in the under-15 category. The resultsindicated that the champions’ teams performed more offensive tactical actions and weremore efficient than the runner-up and third-placed teams in many key aspects of the game.Otherwise, the runner-up and third-placed teams performed more defensive tacticalactions and were more efficient in executing them than the champion teams.

a) Quantity of tactical actions

b) Quality of tactical actions

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Champions’ teams vs. Runner-up teams Champions' teams vs. Third-placed teams

Champions' teams vs. Champions' teams

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Champions’ teams vs. Runner-up teams Champions' teams vs. Third-placed teams

Champions' teams vs. Champions' teams

Figure 1. Effect size (Pearson’s r) of the quantity and quality of tactical actions in the directconfrontation between the teams in the tournaments.(a) Quantity of tactical actions, (b) Quality of tactical actions.

616 D. CORREIA DA SILVA ET AL.

Due to the quantity and the quality of offensive tactical actions performed by thechampions’ teams, it is possible to infer that these teams pull their advantage in the playby insuring constancy in their offensive actions, while their opponents were morereactive. Therefore, the results of this study corroborate those found in the literature,which prove that successful players not only bid on their opponents’ mistakes to takeadvantage of them, but continually seek to recover and maintain the ball possession,regardless of the game model and the competition stage, in addition to seeking todestabilise the opponent’s defense structure (Maleki et al., 2016; Tenga et al., 2017).

It also should be noted that, according to the results, the champions’ teams foundmore difficulty in the confrontations against the runner-up than against the third-placed teams, since they needed to achieve more offensive tactical actions to obtainsuccess in the tournaments. Besides, they were more effective in defensive tacticalactions when they played against the third-placed than against the runner-up teams.According to the literature, the quality of the opponent constrain the actions of theteams and, therefore, the players and the teams need to adapt their management ofwidth and length (positioning and movement) ahead of their opponents (Lago-Peñas &Lago-Ballesteros, 2011; Machado et al., 2019; Vilar et al., 2014). This player’s quality canbe acquired through the process of qualified training, as well as experiences in relevantchampionships or games (Kannekens, Elferink-Gemser, & Visscher, 2009).

In addition to the opponent’s quality which constraints the tactical actions of theteams, this quality can condition the teams’ organisation for a given game or situation

Table 2. Mean and standard deviation of the outcome of the actions in the direct confrontationbetween the teams in the tournaments.

Outcome of the ActionChampions’

teamsRunner-upteams p

Champions’teams

Third-placedteams p

OffensiveShoot at goal 4.27 ± 1.22 3.16 ± 2.09 0.028 3.61 ± 1.24 2.33 ± 1.08 0.004Keep possession of the ball 26.00 ± 6.55 12.72 ± 6.25 <0.001 21.77 ± 4.16 14.66 ± 3.51 <0.001Earn a foul, win a corner orthrow-in

3.27 ± 1.87 1.88 ± 1.56 0.042 1.33 ± 1.28 1.00 ± 0.84 0.552

Commit a foul, give awaya corner or throw-in

1.11 ± 1.32 1.77 ± 1.16 0.038 2.55 ± 1.46 1.61 ± 1.64 0.059

Loss of ball possession 3.83 ± 2.45 3.33 ± 2.76 0.689 2.77 ± 0.64 4.77 ± 2.01 <0.001DefensiveRegain the ball possession 3.50 ± 2.95 4.22 ± 2.28 0.471 5.16 ± 2.00 3.00 ± 0.59 <0.001Earn a foul, win a corner orthrow-in

1.83 ± 1.24 1.00 ± 1.18 0.025 1.66 ± 1.74 2.77 ± 1.47 0.041

Commit a foul, give awaya corner or throw-in

1.94 ± 1.55 3.61 ± 2.06 0.024 0.94 ± 0.87 1.33 ± 1.28 0.428

Ball possession of theopponent

14.55 ± 6.07 29.11 ± 6.96 <0.001 16.22 ± 3.54 24.22 ± 3.63 <0.001

Take a shot at own goal 3.50 ± 2.35 4.83 ± 1.09 0.009 2.38 ± 1.09 3.83 ± 1.24 0.002

(p < 0.05). Statistically significant difference between the teams: Offensive: Shoot at goal: Champions’ teams vs.Runner-up teams (Z = −2.192); Champions’ teams vs. Third-placed teams (Z = −2.889); Keep possession of the ball:Champions’ teams vs. Runner-up teams (t = 6.217); Champions’ teams vs. Third-placed teams: (t = 5.535); Earna foul, win a corner or throw-in: Champions’ teams vs. Runner-up teams: (Z = −2.029); Commit a foul, give awaya corner or throw-in: Champions’ teams vs. Runner-up teams: (Z = −2.071); Loss of ball possession: Champions’teams vs. Third-placed teams: (Z = −3.571); Defensive: Regain the ball possession: Champions’ teams vs. Third-placed teams: (Z = −4.178); Earn a foul, win a corner or throw-in: Champions’ teams vs. Runner-up teams: (Z =−2.242); Champions’ teams vs. Third-placed teams: (Z = −2.039); Commit a foul, give away a corner or throw-in:Champions’ teams vs. Runner-up teams: (Z = −2.263); Ball possession of the opponent: Champions’ teams vs.Runner-up teams: (Z = −4.577); Champions’ teams vs. Third-placed teams: (Z = −4.557); Take a shot at own goal:Champions’ teams vs. Runner-up teams (Z = −2.603); Champions’ teams vs. Third-placed teams: (Z = −3.164).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS IN SPORT 617

to face, generating different confrontation strategies (Teoldo et al., 2017). These authorspreconised that the strategy can completely change from one game to another, besideschanging within the same game. For example, a strategy can change as a result of a goalaccomplished or suffered. Therefore, competitive situations in the training context canstimulate the adaptations of the players and the teams to different game situations(Garganta & Gréhaigne, 1999). In that case, independently of the strategy employed bythe team, it is recommended that all players should be taught the game through tacticalprinciples throughout the teaching-learning and training process, so that the playerscan adapt better to different situations of play and optimise the control of the game.

As a consequence, the runner-up and third-placed teams performed more defensivetactical actions and were more efficient than the champions’ teams in these actions. Theseresults corroborated the fact that the runner-up teams provided more resistance to thechampions’ teams, since they performed more movements on all defensive principles andwere more efficient in those principles, except in the movements that allow the team todefend in unity. However, the failure in these movements may have influenced the rankingof the runner-up, as the successful accomplishment of these movements provides betterconditions for the players closer to the ball to press the opponent (Teoldo, Garganta, Greco,& Mesquita, 2009; Teoldo et al., 2017). Besides, these movements allow the team to putpressure on the opponent, which can produce technical-tactical and psychological failures,generate errors in their actions, and increase the own team’s performance (Teoldo et al.,2009, 2017). In such case, the ability to identify possible mistakes in the execution of tacticalprinciples can direct coaches’ decisions and strategy, and emphasise on determined contentin the formative process.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Shoot at

goal

Keep

possession

of the ball

Earn a

foul, win a

corner or

throw-in

Commit a

foul, give

away a

corner or

throw-in

Loss of ball

possession

Regain the

ball

possession

Earn a

foul, win a

corner or

throw-in

Commit a

foul, give

away a

corner or

throw-in

Ball

possession

of the

opponent

Take a

shot at

own goal

Champions’ teams vs. Runner-up- teams Champions' teams vs. Third-placed teams

Figure 2. Effect size (Pearson’s r) of the outcome of the actions in the direct confrontation betweenthe teams in the tournaments.

618 D. CORREIA DA SILVA ET AL.

In turn, the third-placed teams performedmoremovements andweremore efficient in themovements of direct opposition toward the ball carrier, supported to the player who makesthe direct opposition and defensive stability in the centre of the play. According to theliterature, the defensive movements of the runner-up and third-placed teams can beexplained due to the characteristic offensive movements of the champions’ teams, sincetheir attack patterns are able to constrain the opponents (Santos, Lago-Peñas, &García-García, 2017; Vilar et al., 2014). Therefore, it is opportune that coaches seek topromote different game situations so that the players can explore them and, consequently,broaden their actions repertoires. By promoting such a vast repertoire, players can acquirenew information and promote more experiences, which tend to provide the creative beha-viour in team sports games (Kannekens et al., 2009; Serrano, Pizarro, García-González,Domínguez, & Álvarez, 2017).

Moreover, the specific movements of the players indicate the team’s adaptation todifferent match contexts. During the offensive phase, the champions’ teams performedmore support movements to the ball carrier, besides using and seeking to extend theeffective gamewidth and length and allowing the team to attack in unity against the runner-up teams. As indicated by the literature, these movements indicated that the champions’teams crossed “longer metric” paths, with the aim of finding less difficulty to approach theopposing goal. This specially occurred against the runner-up in comparison to the gamesagainst the third-placed teams. This reinforces champions perform more offensive move-ments in and out of the centre of play (Teoldo et al., 2017).

When playing against the third-placed teams, the champions performed more move-ments in order to destabilise the opponent’s defensive organisation, progressing in thematch field through dribbling and movements to support the ball carrier, in detriment ofother movements further away from the centre of play. In this way, the champions’ teamswere able to follow a more direct path regarding the opponent’s goal, possibly due to thelower quality of the third-placed teams in the defensive phase movements (Tenga et al.,2017; Teoldo et al., 2017).

In addition, the champions’ teams were more efficient in the movements of use andexpansion of the effective game space against the runner-up teams. Against the third-placed teams, they were more efficient in the movements of support to the ball carrier,within the centre of play and in the corridor subsequent to the game direction. Theseresults proved the necessary adaptation to the games contexts, in which the champions’teams were more efficient in movements consistent with the path that they have crossedto approach the opposing goal. Therefore, both the quantity of actions and the qualityof these actions led the teams to top in the tournaments.

Thus, it should be noted that the greater quantity and quality of offensive tacticalactions of the champions’ teams, provided greater offensive and defensive effectivenesscompared to the other teams. In this manner, the results of this study, which wasperformed through small-sided and conditioned games, corroborate the studies accom-plished in the formal game context (11x11), which indicate that the champions’ teamsin the competitions performed more finalisations to the opposing goal and remainedmore time with the ball possession (Gómez-López & Álvaro, 2002; Hughes & Franks,2005). This fact proves that small-sided and conditioned games demands are similar tothe formal games (Clemente, 2016). Consequently, small-sided and conditioned games

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS IN SPORT 619

can be used to improve the effectiveness of players and teams due to the transfer oflearning in these matches for application in the formal game.

In turn, during the offensive and defensive phase, the interaction of some aspectsindicated the greater effectiveness. Among them are: the number of game fragmentation(e.g. fouls, the throw-ins or corners), the fact that the third-placed teams lost more theball possession and the runner-up teams suffered more finalisations. These resultsshowed those continually perform offensive actions, since they are capable of main-taining and recovering the ball possession, besides seeking to carry actions thatdestabilise the opponent’s defence (Maleki et al., 2016; Tenga et al., 2017). Therefore,the outcomes of the teams’ actions can support coaches’ understanding of how cham-pions’ teams behave in the matches.

This study has demonstrated the importance of insert competitive situations in thepractice context and provides understanding into how champions’ teams behave insmall-sided and conditioned gaming tournaments. However, some limitations shouldbe noted. Among these limitations, the deliberated practice time of the players was notassessed, which can influence the players’ actions due to the experience acquired,especially at the beginning of the training process. Besides that, the time that playersparticipate in competitions and in games considered more relevant was not verified.Finally, a found limitation is when the teams faced each other in the tournaments ofaccumulated points system with different numbers of teams, because the differentmoments (beginning or end of the tournament) may have conditioned the level ofthe teams’ involvement in the matches. This information could help in the under-standing on how teams have conquered their ranking as more experienced players tendto perform better.

5. Practical implications

The competitive situation in the practice context can be used to assess and design theteams’ performance in competitions with formal games. As a method of assessment,tournaments may also prove to be valid, since coaches can use this context to identifyand select players with emerging talent in soccer, as the best performing teams in small-sided and conditioned game tournaments seem to explore the match space in a waymore quantitative and qualitative, continually performing offensive and defensiveactions more effectively.

6. Conclusion

It is concluded that the champions’ teams in small-sided and conditioned gamestournaments had more initiative in the matches, since they perform more offensivemovements, while their opponents are more reactive to these movements. The cham-pions’ teams are also more efficient in offensive tactical actions, while their opponentsare more effective in defensive tactical actions. Finally, the champions’ teams are moreeffective in offensive and defensive movements against their opponents, especially inaccomplishing finalisation to the opponent’s goal and maintaining the ball possessionduring the offensive phase and in the greater recovery of the ball possession and the lessquantity of finalisations to the own goal during the defensive phase.

620 D. CORREIA DA SILVA ET AL.

Further studies can be done to improve the understanding of how champions’ teamsconquer small-sided and conditioned game competitions. Among them, we highlightthe playoffs tournaments and championships throughout the year.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by FAPEMIG, SEESP-MG through the LIE, CAPES, CNPq,FUNARBE, the UFV Rectory, Pro-Rectory of Research and Post-Graduation and the Centerfor Biological and Health Sciences of the Universidade Federal de Viçosa.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding

This study was supported by FAPEMIG, SEESP-MG through the LIE, CAPES, CNPq,FUNARBE, the UFV Rectory, Pro-Rectory of Research and Post-Graduation and the Centerfor Biological and Health Sciences of the Universidade Federal de Viçosa.

ORCID

Davi Correia da Silva http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2419-3161Varley Teoldo da Costa http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5786-633XFilipe Casanova http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9696-9355Filipe Manuel Clemente http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9813-2842Israel Teoldo http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9780-3456

References

Carvalho, F. M., Scaglia, A. J., & Teoldo, I. (2013). Influência do desempenho tático sobreo resultado final em jogo reduzido de futebol. Revista da Educacão Física/UEM, 24, 393–400.

Clemente, F. (2016). Small-sided and conditioned games in soccer training the science andpractical applications. Melgaço: Springer.

Clemente, F. M., Sarmento, H., Rabbani, A., Var der Linden, C. M. I., Kargarfard, M., &Teoldo, I. (2018). Variations of external load variables between medium- and large-sidedsoccer games in professional players. Research in Sport Medicine, 26, 1–10.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155.Fédération Internationale de Football Association. (2012). Grassroots manual (pp. 65–69).

Zurich: FIFA Education and Technical Development.Garcia, J. D., Román, I. R., Calleja-González, J., & Dellal, A. (2014). Quantification and analysis

of offensive situations in different formats of sided games in soccer. Journal of HumanKinetics, 44, 193–201.

Garganta, J., & Gréhaigne, J. (1999). Abordagem sistêmica do jogo de futebol: Moda ounecessidade? Movimento, 5, 40–50.

Garganta, J., & Pinto, J. (1994). O ensino do futebol. In A. Graça & J. Oliveira (Eds.), O ensinodos jogos desportivos (pp. 95–136). Porto: Faculdade de Ciências do Desporto e de EducaçãoFísica da Universidade do Porto: Rainho & Neves Lda.

Gómez-López, M., & Álvaro, J. (2002). El tiempo de posesión como variable no determinante delresultado en los partidos de fútbol. El Entrenador Español, 1, 39–47.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS IN SPORT 621

Gonçalves, B., Marcelino, R., Torres-Ronda, L., Torrents, C., & Sampaio, J. (2016). Effects ofemphasising opposition and cooperation on collective movement behavior during footballsmall-sided games. Journal of Sports Sciences, 34, 1346–1354.

Gonzalez-Villora, S., Serra-Olivares, J., Pastor-Vicedo, J. C., & Costa, I. T. (2015). Review of thetactical evaluation tools for youth players, assessing the tactics in team sports: Football.SpringerPlus, 4, 663–680.

Gréhaigne, J., Bouthier, D., & David, B. (1997). Dynamic-system analysis of opponent relation-ships in collective actions in soccer. Journal of Sports Sciences, 15, 137–149.

Hill-Haas, S., Dawson, B., Impellizzeri, F. M., & Coutts, A. J. (2011). Physiology of small-sidedgames training in football: A systematic review. Sports Medicine, 41, 199–220.

Hughes, M., & Franks, I. (2005). Analysis of passing sequences, shots and goals in soccer. Journalof Sports Sciences, 23, 509–514.

Kannekens, R., Elferink-Gemser, M. T., & Visscher, C. (2009). Tactical skills of world-class youthsoccer teams. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27, 807–812.

Lago, C. (2009). The influence of match location, quality of opposition, and match status onpossession strategies in professional association football. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27,1463–1469.

Lago-Peñas, C., & Lago-Ballesteros, J. (2011). Game location and team quality effects onperformance profiles in professional soccer. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 10, 465–471.

Lago-Peñas, C., Lago-Ballesteros, J., & Rey, E. (2011). Differences in performance indicatorsbetween winning and losing teams in the UEFA champions league. Journal of Human Kinetics,27, 135–146.

Machado, J. C., Barreira, D., Teoldo, I., Travassos, B., Bosco-Júnior, J., Santos, J. O. L., &Scaglia, A. J. (2019). How does the adjustment of training task difficulty level influence tacticalbehavior in soccer? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 3, 1–14.

Maleki, M., Dadkhah, K., & Alahvisi, F. (2016). Ball recovery consistency as a performanceindicator in elite soccer. Revista Brasileira de Cineantropometria e Desempenho Humano, 18,72–81.

Mesquita, I. (1998). The multidimensionality in the domain of the volleyball skills. In M. Hughes& F. Tavares (Eds.), Notational analysis of sport IV (pp. 147–155). Porto: Centre for TeamSports Studies, Faculty of Sports Sciences and Physical Education, University of Porto.

Robinson, G., & O’Donoghue, P. (2007). A weighted kappa statistic for reliability testing inperformance analysis of sport. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 7, 12–19.

Santos, P., Lago-Peñas, C., & García-García, O. (2017). The influence of situational variables ondefensive positioning in professional soccer. International Journal of Performance Analysis inSport, 17, 212–219.

Sarmento, H., Clemente, F. M., Harper, L. D., Costa, I. T., Owen, A., & Figueiredo, A. J. (2018).Small sided games in soccer – A systematic review. International Journal of PerformanceAnalysis in Sport, 18, 693–749.

Serrano, J. S., Pizarro, A. P., García-González, L., Domínguez, A. M., & Álvarez, F. V. (2017).Evolution of tactical behavior of soccer players across their development. International Journalof Performance Analysis in Sport, 17, 1–17.

Silva, R. N. B., Costa, I. T., Garganta, J. M., Muller, E. S., Castelão, D. P., & Santos, J. (2013).Desempenho tático de jovens jogadores de futebol: Comparação entre equipes vencedorase perdedoras em jogo reduzido. Ciência e Movimento, 21, 75–89.

Szwarc, A. (2008). The efficiency model of soccer player’s actions in cooperation with other teamplayers at the FIFA World Cup. Human Movement, 9, 56–61.

Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2001). Using multivariate statistics: International edition (6 ed.).London: Pearson Education.

Taylor, J., Mellalieu, S., James, N., & Shearer, D. (2008). The influence of match location, qualityof opposition, and match status on technical performance in professional association football.Journal of Sports Sciences, 26, 885–895.

622 D. CORREIA DA SILVA ET AL.

Tenga, A., Mortensholm, A., & O’Donoghue, P. (2017). Opposition interaction in creatingpenetration during match play in elite soccer: Evidence from UEFA champions leaguematches. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 17, 1–11.

Teoldo, I., Garganta, J., Greco, P., & Mesquita, I. (2009). Tactical principles of soccer game:Concepts and application. Motriz, 15, 657–668.

Teoldo, I., Garganta, J., Greco, P., Mesquita, I., & Maia, J. (2011). System of tactical assessment insoccer (FUT-SAT): Development and preliminary validation. Motricidade, 7, 69–83.

Teoldo, I., Guilherme, J., & Garganta, J. (2017). Training football for smart playing: On tacticalperformance of teams and players (pp. 319). Curitiba: Appris.

Vilar, L., Esteves, P. T., Travassos, B., Passos, P., Lago-Peñas, C., & Davids, K. (2014). Varyingnumbers of payers in small-sided soccer games modifies action opportunities during training.International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 9, 1007–1018.

Williams, A. M., & Jackson, R. C. (2019). Anticipation in sport: Fifty years on, what have welearned and what research still needs to be undertaken? Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 42,16–24.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS IN SPORT 623