The effect of high and low percentage ball possession on physical and technical profiles in English FA Premier League soccer matches
The effect of high and low percentage ball possession on physical and technical profiles in English FA Premier League soccer matches
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/02640414.2013.786185
复制
发表时间：
2013-08-01
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
Gomez Diaz, Antonio
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bradley, Paul S.;Lago-Penas, Carlos;Gomez Diaz, Antonio
摘要本研究旨在探讨高控球率球队与低控球率球队在高水平足球比赛中对体能与技术的影响。比赛表现的数据收集从球员在英超联赛（n = 810）使用多摄像机计算机跟踪系统。身体指标，如总距离（10690 +/- 996 vs 10778 +/- 979 m;效应量[ES] = 0.11）和比赛中的高强度跑步距离（931 +/- 299 vs 938 +/- 311 m; ES = 0.13）在HPBPT和LPBPT之间没有差异。然而，在高强度跑步中，有球的HPBPT比LPBPT高31%（P < 0.01）（449 +/- 266 vs 343 +/- 236 m; ES = 0.42），但无球的低22%（423 +/- 153 vs 539 +/- 177 m; ES = 0.73）。HPBPT组的传球次数比LPBPT组多44%（P < 0.01）（35.3 +/- 14.2 vs 24.6 +/- 11.2; ES = 0.83）。这种趋势在成功传球、接到传球、每次控球触球、投篮、运球和最后三分之一进球（ES范围为0.20-0.94）方面也很明显（P < 0.05）。高强度带球跑动次数LPBPT组比HPBPT组少33%（P < 0.01）。LPBPT的边后卫、攻击手、中场和边前卫的无球跑动次数显著多于HPBPT（P < 0.01），有球跑动次数显著少于HPBPT（ES范围为0.91-1.23）。在所有位置上，HPBPT的总传球次数和传球次数等技术指标均高于LPBPT（ES范围为0.82-1.52）（P < 0.01）。数据表明，控球率不会影响球队的整体活动情况，但会影响高强度跑步努力（有球和无球）的组成和一些性能的技术要素。对于采用不同控球率的球队来说，身体和技术方面的位置特定变化是显而易见的，这些信息可以帮助训练准备。
The aim of this study was to examine the effects of high (HPBPT) and low percentage ball possession teams (LPBPT) on physical and technical profiles in elite soccer matches. Match performance data were collected from players in the English FA Premier League (n = 810) using a multiple-camera computerised tracking system. Physical indicators such as the total (10690 +/- 996 vs 10778 +/- 979 m; effect size [ES] = 0.11) and high-intensity running distance covered in matches (931 +/- 299 vs 938 +/- 311 m; ES = 0.13) did not differ between HPBPT and LPBPT. However, high-intensity running with ball possession in HPBPT was 31% higher (P < 0.01) than LPBPT (449 +/- 266 vs 343 +/- 236 m; ES = 0.42) but 22% lower without ball possession (423 +/- 153 vs 539 +/- 177 m; ES = 0.73). Players in HPBPT performed 44% more (P < 0.01) passes than those in LPBPT (35.3 +/- 14.2 vs 24.6 +/- 11.2; ES = 0.83). This trend was also evident (P < 0.05) for successful passes, received passes, touches per possession, shots, dribbles and final-third entries (ES range of 0.20-0.94). Central defenders of LPBPT covered 33% less (P < 0.01) high-intensity running with ball possession than central defenders of HPBPT. While fullbacks, attackers, central and wide midfielders of LPBPT covered more (P < 0.01) high-intensity running without and less with ball possession than their HPBPT counterparts (ES range of 0.91-1.23). Technical indicators such as total passes and passes received were higher (P < 0.01) across all positions in HPBPT than LPBPT (ES range of 0.82-1.52). The data demonstrate that percentage ball possession does not influence the overall activity profile of a team but impacts on the composition of high-intensity running efforts (with and without ball) and some technical elements of performance. Position-specific changes in physical and technical profiles were evident for teams employing different ball possession percentages and this information could aid training preparation.