da Mota Gustavo Ribeiro, Thiengo Carlos Rogério, Gimenes Samuel Valencia, Bradley Paul S
a Human Performance and Sport Research Group, Department of Sport Sciences , Federal University of Triângulo Mineiro , Uberaba , Brazil.
b Postgraduate Program in Physical Education , University of Campinas (UNICAMP) , Campinas , Brazil.
J Sports Sci. 2016;34(6):493-500. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2015.1114660. Epub 2015 Dec 24.
This study examined the effect of high- (HPBPT) and low-percentage ball possession (LPBPT) on physical and technical indicators during 2014 FIFA World Cup matches. This would enable a regression model to be constructed to further understand the impact of different ball possession (BP) strategies on match performance. Data were collected from 346 international soccer players using a multiple-camera computerised tracking system. Although players in HPBPT covered lower distances (P < 0.01) in total and at low speed compared to LPBPT, this produced a trivial effect size (ES). However, they covered similar distances (P > 0.05) at medium and high speeds. Players in LPBPT covered more distance without BP but less with BP than HPBPT (P < 0.01; ES large). All positions in LPBPT spent less time in the opposing half and attacking third than the players in HPBPT (P < 0.01; ES small-moderate), but all positions in HPBPT completed more short and medium passes than LPBPT (P < 0.01; ES moderate). Players in HPBPT produced more solo runs into the attacking third and penalty area than LPBPT (P < 0.05, ES small). The equation to predict BP from physical and technical indicators highlighted the importance of distances covered (total, with and without BP), time spent in the attacking third and successful short passes during matches. In practical terms, high or low BP does not influence the activity patterns of international matches although HPBPT spend more time in offensive areas of the pitch.
本研究考察了2014年国际足联世界杯比赛中高控球率(HPBPT)和低控球率(LPBPT)对身体和技术指标的影响。这将有助于构建一个回归模型,以进一步了解不同控球(BP)策略对比赛表现的影响。使用多摄像头计算机跟踪系统收集了346名国际足球运动员的数据。尽管与LPBPT相比,HPBPT的球员在总距离和低速移动时覆盖的距离较短(P < 0.01),但效应量(ES)微不足道。然而,他们在中速和高速移动时覆盖的距离相似(P > 0.05)。LPBPT的球员在无球状态下覆盖的距离比HPBPT更多,但在有球状态下覆盖的距离更少(P < 0.01;ES大)。LPBPT的所有位置在对方半场和进攻三区花费的时间都比HPBPT的球员少(P < 0.01;ES小 - 中等),但HPBPT的所有位置完成的短传和中传比LPBPT更多(P < 0.01;ES中等)。HPBPT的球员比LPBPT的球员更多地单人突入进攻三区和罚球区(P < 0.05,ES小)。根据身体和技术指标预测控球率的方程突出了比赛中覆盖距离(总距离、有球和无球距离)、在进攻三区花费的时间以及成功短传的重要性。实际上,尽管HPBPT在球场的进攻区域花费更多时间,但高控球率或低控球率并不影响国际比赛的活动模式。