Untitled

Transcription

Untitled

KI
HU’
spubl
i
c
at
i
onser
i
es,No.40
I
SBN 9789525676631(
PDF)
T
ec
hni
c
alandt
ac
t
i
c
al
anal
ysi
sofwomen’
s
f
oot
bal
li
nt
hr
eedi
f
f
er
ent
l
evel
s
KI
HU –Resear
c
hI
nst
i
t
ut
ef
orOl
ympi
cSpor
t
s
J
yväskyl
ä2013
Technical and tactical analysis of women’s football
in three different levels
Henri Lehto1, Tomi Vänttinen1,
Andrée Jeglertz2, Marianne Miettinen2 & Marko Saloranta2
1
KIHU – Research Institute for Olympic Sports
2
Suomen Palloliitto – FA of Finland
Copyright © 2013 KIHU
All rights reserved. According to copyright laws reproduction of this publication or any part of it by copying, imprinting, recording or some other way is strongly forbidden without a written permission of publisher.
ISBN 978-952-5676-63-1 (PDF)
KIHU – Research Institute for Olympic Sports, Jyväskylä 2013
Photos on the front cover: Suomen Palloliitto – FA of Finland/Jussi Eskola
Technical and tactical analysis of women’s football in three different levels
KIHU’s publication series, No. 40
2
CONTENTS
TIIVISTELMÄ .............................................................................................................. 4
1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 7
2 METHODS ............................................................................................................. 8
3 RESULTS/TECHNICAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 11
3.1 BALL IN PLAY ............................................................................................... 11
3.2 BALL POSSESSION/TEAM ............................................................................. 11
3.3 BALL POSSESSION/PLAYER ........................................................................... 14
3.4 PASSES ....................................................................................................... 26
3.5 RECEIVING ................................................................................................. 56
3.6 DRIBBLES AND 1v1-CHALLENGES .................................................................. 70
3.7 INTERCEPTIONS .......................................................................................... 83
3.8 STEALS ....................................................................................................... 88
3.9 DUELS ......................................................................................................... 93
3.10 OTHER ACTIONS ....................................................................................... 94
3.11 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HALVES ............................................................ 95
3.12 GOALKEEPERS ......................................................................................... 102
4 RESULTS/OFFENSIVE ANALYSIS ........................................................................... 103
4.1 NUMBER AND TYPE OF OFFENSES .............................................................. 104
4.2 OUTCOME OF OFFENSES .......................................................................... 106
4.3 STARTING AREA OF OFFENSES................................................................... 111
4.4 STARTING SITUATION OF OFFENSES .......................................................... 112
4.5 DURATION OF OFFENSES .......................................................................... 113
4.6 NUMBER OF PASSES IN OFFENSES ............................................................. 116
4.7 HOW MANY PLAYERS TOUCHED THE BALL DURING OFFENSES? ................... 118
4.8 PLAYER TO GIVE THE FIRST PASS IN OPEN PLAY OFFENSES ........................... 119
4.9 TYPE OF PENETRATION IN OPEN PLAY OFFENSES ........................................ 120
4.10 PLAYER TO GIVE THE BREAKING PASS IN OPEN PLAY OFFENSES ................. 121
4.11 STARTING AREA OF THE LAST PASS IN OPEN PLAY OFFENSES .................... 122
4.12 PLAYER TO ATTEMPT FINISHING IN OPEN PLAY OFFENSES .......................... 124
3
4.13 THE AREA OF FINISHING IN OPEN PLAY OFFENSES ................................... 125
4.14 TYPE OF FINISHING IN OPEN PLAY OFFENSES ........................................... 126
4.15 NO OF TOUCHES IN FINISHING IN OPEN PLAY OFFENSES......................... 127
5 DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................... 128
5.1 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 128
5.2 OFFENSIVE ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 131
6 MAIN FINDINGS/COACHING POINTS ................................................................ 134
4
TIIVISTELMÄ
Jalkapallo kehittyy jatkuvasti kaikkialla maailmassa pelaajien taitotason, taktisen osaamisen ja
fyysisten ominaisuuksien parantuessa uusien valmennusmenetelmien ansiosta. Tämä tarkoittaa
sitä, että suomalaisen jalkapallon toimintatapojen tulisi kehittyä kilpailijamaita nopeammin,
jotta pelaajiemme tekninen ja taktinen osaaminen tulevaisuudessa vastaisi kansainvälistä huipputasoa. Tässä kilpailussa analyyttisen tiedon hakeminen, tuottaminen ja päivittäminen ovat
tärkeässä osassa, mutta vielä tärkeämpää on osata suodattaa valtavasta määrästä tietoa oleellinen ja soveltaa se käytäntöön.
Tämän tutkimuksen tarkoituksena oli analysoida naisten jalkapallon teknisiä ja taktisia ominaispiirteitä kolmella eri tasolla. Tutkimuksella pyrittiin selvittämään millainen on suomalaisen
naisjalkapallon taso suhteessa kansainväliseen huipputasoon ja tunnistaa niitä kehityskohteita,
joihin suomalaisessa jalkapallovalmennuksessa on erityisesti syytä kiinnittää huomiota. Samalla
pyrittiin selvittämään, kuinka kansallisen tason ottelut eroavat teknis-taktisten ominaisuuksien
suhteen kansainvälisen tason otteluista. Raportti itsessään on tehty englanniksi, mutta tähän
tiivistelmään on pyritty nostamaan muutamia tärkeimpiä löydöksiä tutkimuksesta.
Analyysiin valittiin kolme ottelua naisten jalkapallon MM-kisoista 2011, kolme Suomen naisten
A-maajoukkueen ottelua vuosilta 2011 ja 2012 sekä kolme kärkijoukkueiden välistä ottelua
Naisten Liigasta kaudelta 2011. Analyysissa käytettiin kahta erilaista pelianalyysimallia. Teknisessä pelianalyysissa koodattiin kaikki pelaajien otteluissa tekemät tekniset puolustus- ja
hyökkäyssuoritukset. Pelin teknisen puolen analyysiä syvennettiin lisäksi taktisella maalitilanneanalyysillä. Maalitilanneanalyysissä analysoitiin hyökkäystilanteet, jotka johtivat maalintekotilanteeseen tai sellaiseen murtautumiseen hyökkäyskolmannekselle, jossa maalitilanne olisi syntynyt mikäli viimeinen syöttö tai ratkaisu olisi onnistunut ("hukattu maalintekotilanne"). Näiden
lisäksi jälkimmäinen analyysi sisälsi myös hyökkäyserikoistilanteet.
Tuloksista voidaan nostaa esiin muutamia mielenkiintoisia löydöksiä. Ensinnäkin havaittiin, että
sekä naisten A-maajoukkueen, että Naisten Liigan pelaajat käyttivät pallollisiin suorituksiinsa
enemmän aikaa verrattuna kansainvälisen huipputason pelaajiin. Ero pallonkäsittelynopeudessa oli havaittavissa jo kahden kosketuksen suorituksessa ja kasvoi edelleen, kun pelaajat käyttivät useamman kosketuksen pallollisen suorituksensa aikana. Lisäksi havaittiin, että syöttöjen
kovuudessa suomalaispelaajat jäävät jälkeen kansainväliseen huipputasoon verrattuna. Mitä
kovempi taso, sitä kovempia olivat myös pelaajien syötöt.
Tulosten perusteella onkin selvää, että naispelaajiemme taitoa ja pelikäsitystä tulee kehittää
niin, että he kykenevät toimimaan tarvittaessa pallon kanssa nopeasti ja ovat siten valmiita
suoriutumaan kansainvälisten otteluiden tempossa. On toki syytä muistaa, että vaikka nopeus
pallollisessa suorituksessa ei sinällään ole aina itseisarvo, pelaajan tulee omata riittävät valmiudet toimia pallon kanssa tarvittaessa nopeasti ja tehokkaasti. Pelaajien syöttötaitoa, taktista
5
osaamista ja pelikäsitystä etenkin ahtaassa tilassa ja prässin alaisena pelattaessa olisi syytä
kehittää nousujohteisesti lapsesta alkaen, jotta he kykenevät toimimaan jatkossa paremmin
kansainvälisten otteluiden pelitempossa.
Naisten Liigassa pelaajien syötöt suuntautuivat muita tasoja useammin eteenpäin, epäonnistuivat useammin, pallonhallintajaksojen pituus/joukkue oli lyhyempi ja yhden pallonhallintajakson aikana annettiin vähemmän syöttöjä kahteen muuhun analysoituun tasoon verrattuna. Lisäksi Naisten Liigassa suurempi osuus syötöistä suunnattiin hyökkäyskolmannekselle ja vähemmän syötöistä pelattiin keskialueella. Lisäksi keskialueelle pelatut syötöt epäonnistuivat
Naisten liigassa muita tasoja useammin.
Tulokset antavat viitteitä siitä, että Naisten Liigassa (ainakin analysoidut) joukkueet pelaavat/joutuvat pelaamaan suoraviivaisemmin ja kykenevät harvoin pidempiin pallonhallintajaksoihin. Koska myös naisten jalkapallossa pallonhallinnan ja syöttötaidon osuus on tällä hetkellä
korostuneessa asemassa kansainvälisellä tasolla, voidaan ilmoille heittää kysymys siitä, kehittääkö kotimaisen sarjamme suoraviivainen pelityyli naispelaajiemme teknistä osaamista ja antaako tämä riittävästi valmiuksia pelaajien kehittymiselle vastaamaan kansainvälisten otteluiden
asettamiin haasteisiin.
Naisten maajoukkue hallitsi palloa vastustajaansa enemmän kahdessa heikompaa vastustajaa
vastaan pelatussa maaottelussa (Valko-Venäjä ja Skotlanti). Huomattavaa on kuitenkin, että
suurin osa tästä hallinnasta tapahtui syvällä omalla kenttäpuoliskolla tai keskialueella eikä
niinkään hyökkäyskolmanneksella. Etenkin Suomen puolustajien syöttömäärät olivat analysoiduissa maaotteluissa suuria vastustajiin ja muihin tasoihin verrattuna. Pallonhallinnan voittaminen sinällään on hyvä tulos, mutta heikompia vastustajia vastaan palloa tulisi hallita myös syvemmällä vastustajan kenttäpuoliskolla ja toisaalta pallonhallinnalla tulisi päästä myös nykyistä
tehokkaammin murtautumis- ja viimeistelyvaiheeseen. Toisaalta taas ottelussa parempaa vastustajaa (Englanti) vastaan, Suomen pallonhallintaosuus oli pienempi ja syötöt onnistuivat huonommin vastustajaan verrattuna. Onkin selvää, että pelaajien taitotasoa tulee entisestään kehittää ja A-maajoukkuepelaajat tarvitsevat jatkuvasti kansainvälisesti tasokkaita otteluita, jotta
tekniset ja taktiset suoritukset onnistuvat paremmin myös otteluissa kovempia vastustajia vastaan.
Naisten maajoukkueen pelaajilla syöttöjen, haltuunottojen, kuljetusten ja syötönkatkojen määrässä tapahtui selvä pudotus ottelun toisella puoliajalla. Vastustajalla vastaavaa ja yhtä suurta
pudotusta suoritusten lukumäärässä ei havaittu. Yleensä palloa enemmän hallitseva joukkue
(kuten Suomi 2/3 maaottelusta) ei joudu otteluissa fyysisesti niin kovalle rasitukselle ja täten
suoritusten lukumäärän olisi voinut odottaa putoavan enemmän vastustajajoukkueen pelaajilla.
Suomen pelaajien fyysisiä ominaisuuksia tulisikin entisestään kehittää, jotta pelisuorituksessa
tapahtuvaa laskua voitaisiin vähentää ottelun toisen puoliajan aikana. Viimeaikoina julkaistut
6
uutiset testitulosten paranemisista antavat tosin viitteitä siitä, että kehitystä tällä saralla on tapahtunut.
Sekä naisten A-maajoukkueen, että Naisten Liigan joukkueiden pääsääntöinen murtautumistapa analysoiduissa otteluissa oli keskitykset laidoilta, kun taas MM-kisojen otteluissa murtauduttiin enemmän myös kentän keskisektoreilta lyhyemmillä murtavilla syötöillä. Naisten Amaajoukkueen ja Naisten liigan otteluissa myös suurempi osuus viimeisistä syötöistä lähti kentän laita-alueilta ja pienempi osuus viimeisistä syötöistä kentän keskeltä, ns. ”parhaalta sektorilta” verrattuna A-maajoukkueen vastustajiin ja MM-kisojen otteluihin. Selvää on, että joukkueiden tulisi omata kyky murtautua hyökkäystilanteisiin eri tavoin ja edelleen suomalaispelaajien
taitoa ja joukkueiden pelitapaa tulisi nousujohteisesti kehittää, jotta nykyjalkapallolle tyypilliset
murtautumiset keskeltä onnistuisivat myös entistä paremmin.
Kaikkinensa tulokset antavat viitteitä siitä, että Suomi onnistui A-maajoukkuetasolla kohtuullisesti heikompia vastustajia vastaan, mutta pelaajien teknisiä ominaisuuksia ja taktisia seikkoja
pitää edelleen kehittää, jotta ero kansainväliseen huipputasoon kaventuisi. Naisten liigan kärjessäkin olevat joukkueet ovat puolestaan analysoitujen teknisten ja taktisten muuttujien osalta
jäljessä maaotteluiden ja kansainvälisen tason vaatimuksista ja tällä saralla vaaditaan edelleen kovaa työtä, jotta Naisten liigasta kehittyisi jatkossa entistä enemmän ja entistä paremmin
kansainvälisten otteluiden vaatimuksiin soveltuvia pelaajia ja Naisten Liiga itsessään myös kehittyisi.
7
1 INTRODUCTION
Finland women’s national team has gained a delightful success in the past few years in football and will play in Women’s Euro-tournament for the third time in a row in Sweden in 2013.
It is obvious, that in order to achieve this high level in European football, things have to be and
have been done in a correct way in Finnish women’s football in the past years.
However, as the game constantly evolves and develops and the technical, tactical and physical requirements placed on players change, it is important to get and update relevant information about the requirements of the game and the level of Finnish football in order to develop
the level of the game in Finland and the Finnish players.
Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the technical and tactical aspects of women’s
football in three different levels. World Cup matches were analyzed to get information about
the absolute top level in women’s football. Furthermore, national team matches played by Finnish women’s national team as well as Finnish league matches were analyzed in order to clarify
the technical and tactical aspects of women’s football in Finland. Also, one of the main purposes was to create an objective review about the level of Finnish football and to point out
some key aspects which should be improved and to which coaches and players could concentrate on during training sessions.
8
2 METHODS
All the results presented in this report are based on two different match analysis models developed in KIHU – Research Institute for Olympic Sports during the past three decades. In the first
model, all the technical actions of the players (i.e. passes, receives, dribbles, interceptions,
steals etc.) were analyzed by watching and analyzing the match videos second by second.
In the second model, offensive analysis was carried out. For the offensive analysis, the offenses
which lead to a clear scoring opportunity and all the offensive set pieces were analyzed. Furthermore, those offenses where the attacking team was able to penetrate into attacking third
and which could have led to a scoring chance with better final actions were analyzed (e.g.
poor final pass in the offensive third). Both of the methods used included mainly objective variables in the analysis. Also the few subjective variables which were used can be considered
reliable as the analyzer was familiar with the topic and experienced coach and analyzer of
football matches.
In total of 9 matches were analyzed from 3 three different levels. Three matches were from
Women’s World Cup 2011, 3 from national team matches played by Finnish national team
and 3 from Finnish league. The matches from World Cup and Finnish league were selected so,
that those included the top teams of that level. (Table 1).
Matches were analyzed with Dartfish TeamPro 5.5.-analysis programme. The match video was
played second by second and the analyzed events tagged using tagging panel created into
analysis programme (see figure 1). In the technical analysis for example, 2500-3000 different
offensive and defensive actions were tagged during one game. Only the 90 minutes normal
time was analyzed for this study and thus, the extra times played in the two World Cup
matches were excluded from the study. The matches were selected by the national team head
coach of team Finland, one of the members of the study group.
In this paper there is first a more detailed description about each of the analyzed variable and
their definition in the analysis model. Then the results have been presented in tables or figures.
For the tables and figures, each of the levels has been given a different color. The results from
World Cup-level have been presented in red, the results from the national team matches
played between Finland and their opponents in green and the results from the Finnish League
matches in blue. Furthermore, Finland has been compared to their opponents (SCO, BLR &
ENG) in the tables and figures by presenting values also for Finland (FIN) and opponent
(OPP). The values of team Finland have been presented with light blue color and the opponent’s values in grey. Thus, the total value of national team matches presented in green is the
average of both Finland and their opponents.
9
Of the analyzed national teams, USA is currently ranked no. 1 in the world, Germany no. 2,
Japan no. 3 and Sweden no. 6 according to the FIFA ranking. Finland is currently ranked in
19th place and their opponents in 8th (ENG), 23rd (SCO) and 38th place (BLR). (FIFA/CocaCola Women’s World Ranking, updated 7.12.2012, www.fifa.com)
In the chapters, only the values of outfield players have been presented and the goalkeepers
excluded because of the different requirements in that given position. There is a separate chapter where the different values have been presented for goalkeepers also. In the final chapter
there is a discussion where the most relevant results have been discussed and conclusions
made about the results.
Table 1. Analyzed matches.
Level
Match
Date
Result
World Cup (WC)
SWE-USA
6.6.2011
2-1 (2-0)
GER-JPN
9.6.2011
0-1 a.e.t (0-0)
JPN-USA
17.6.2011
3-1 PSO (2-2 a.e.t, 1-1. 0-0)
FIN-SCO
18.9.2011
1-0 (0-0)
BLR-FIN
27.10.2011
2-2 (1-1)
FIN-ENG
28.2.2012
1-3 (1-1)
HJK-Åland United
11.6.2011
1-3 (0-2)
HJK-PK-35
21.7.2011
3-1 (2-0)
PK-35-HJK
7.9.2011
3-0 (1-0)
National team matches
Finnish League (FL)
Figure 1. Tagging panel and analysis programme (Dartfish 5.5.).
10
11
3 RESULTS/TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
3.1 BALL IN PLAY
Ball in play was counted as a time, when the ball was actively in play during the 90 minutes
plus additional time given by the referee. Thus, all the breaks (i.e. time the players took to take
a corner/free kick etc.) as well as the time when the ball was out of the pitch were excluded
from the total value. On average, the ball was in play in total of 55-58 minutes during the
matches. The total duration of ball in play was shortest in the Finnish League and decreased in
the second half in World Cup level and national team matches but increased in Finnish League
matches (Table 2). At once, the ball was in play on average from 25 to 30 seconds. The duration was shortest in the Finnish League matches and longest in the national team matches. (Table 3.)
Table 2. The total time the ball was in play during the matches in the three different levels.
Level
Ball in play tot.
1.half
2.half
(min:s)
(min:s)
(min:s)
World Cup (WC)
57 min 37 s
29 min 3 s
28 min 33 s
58 min 5 s
29 min 28 s
28 min 38 s
Finnish League (FL)
55 min 59 s
27 min 23 s
28 min 37 s
Table 3. The average time the ball was in play at once during the matches in the three different levels.
Level
Ball in play avg.
1.half
2.half
(s)
(s)
(s)
World Cup (WC)
27 s
29 s
26 s
30 s
31 s
28 s
Finnish League (FL)
25 s
25 s
25 s
3.2 BALL POSSESSION/TEAM
Whenever the ball was in play, it was in possession of either of the two teams. The possession
changed from one team to another when the ball was won by the other team by successful interception/steal or the ball went out of the play and the other team continued the play after
this.
The distribution of ball possession in percentages in the analyzed matches has been presented
in table 4. The average number of total number of ball possessions/team/match was around
12
150 in World Cup and Finnish national team matches, but a lot higher in the Finnish League
(189). (Table 5.)
Table 4. Ball possession in percentages in the analyzed matches
Match
Ball possession (%)
SWE-USA
48% - 52%
GER-JPN
52% - 48%
USA-JPN
51% - 49%
FIN-SCO
58% - 42%
BLR-FIN
45% - 55%
FIN-ENG
39% - 61%
HJK-Åland United
60% - 40%
HJK-PK-35
51% - 49%
PK-35-HJK
49% - 51%
Table 5. Total number of ball possessions/team/match.
Level
No. of ball possessions/team
World Cup (WC)
155
National team matches (NT)
151
FIN
147
OPP.
155
Finnish League (FL)
189
The total number of ball possessions/team/match was much higher in the Finnish League because the average duration of one possession was shorter when compared to two other levels.
On average, the teams in the Finnish League were able to keep the ball in possession for 9
seconds at once, whereas in the other two levels one possession lasted for 11-12 seconds.
Finnish national team was able to keep the ball in possession for a longer duration when compared to their opponents in the analyzed national team matches. (Table 6.)
Table 6. Average duration of one ball possession/team
Level
Average duration of one ball possession (s)
World Cup (WC)
11.3 s
11.8 s
FIN
12.5 s
OPP
11.2 s
Finnish League (FL)
9.0 s
13
There weren’t any remarkable differences between the levels in the area where the possessions
started. Almost half of the team’s possessions started in the midfield in all of the analyzed levels. Only 12-14% of the possessions started in the offensive third of the pitch. (Figure 2.)
Offensive third
OFFENSIVE
3rd
WC: 13%
NT:
12%
FIN:
12%
OPP: 12%
FL:
14%
WC:
NT:
FIN:
OPP:
FL:
5%
4%
4%
4%
5%
MIDFIELD
WC: 47%
NT:
48%
FIN:
47%
OPP: 47%
FL:
46%
WC:
NT:
FIN:
OPP:
FL:
19%
17%
17%
16%
18%
WC:
NT:
FIN:
OPP:
FL:
11%
9%
11%
8%
12%
DEFENSIVE
3rd
WC: 41%
NT:
41%
FIN:
42%
OPP: 41%
FL:
40%
WC:
NT:
FIN:
OPP:
FL:
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
WC:
NT:
FIN:
9%
13%
13%
WC:
NT:
FIN:
OPP:
FL:
FL:
10%
WC:
NT:
FIN:
OPP:
FL:
WC:
NT:
FIN:
OPP:
FL:
21%
24%
24%
24%
18%
WC:
NT:
FIN:
OPP:
FL:
OPP: 13%
7%
7%
7%
7%
8%
19%
18%
17%
18%
18%
9%
8%
7%
9%
10%
Defensive third
Figure 2. The area in which the possession started. WC=World Cup level, NT=National team
matches, FL=Finnish League, FIN= Finland, OPP=Opponents of Finland
14
3.3 BALL POSSESSION/PLAYER
On the graphs presented from now on, goalkeepers have been excluded from the values.
There is a separate paragraph at the end of this paper, where the values for goalkeepers have
been presented in few of the analyzed variables.
Offensive ball action was described as an action where the player deliberately tried to play
the ball with offensive actions, either with one touch or multiple touches (i.e. pass, receive+pass, receive+dribble+pass etc.).
On average, the outfield players had about 40 offensive ball actions/match (figure 3). The
number of ball actions/player was lower in the Finnish league when compared to two other
levels. Finnish national team players had more ball actions than their opponents in the analyzed national team matches. Average duration of one offensive ball action was about 1.5-1.6
seconds and no differences were observed between the levels (Figure 4). During the ball actions the players used on average two touches in each of the analyzed levels (Figure 5).
50
41.6
40
47.5
44.9
42.3
35.0
30
20
10
0
No. of offensive ball actions/player
World Cup
Finnish League
Finland
Opponents
Figure 3. Average number of offensive ball actions/player in the analyzed levels.
15
2
1.57
1.57
1.55
1.52
Duration (s)
1.5
1.59
1
0.5
0
Average duration of one offensive ball action (s)
World Cup
Finnish league
Finland
Opponents
Figure 4. Average duration of one offensive ball action in the analyzed levels.
3
No of touches
2.2
2
2.1
2.2
2.0
2.0
1
0
No. of touches used/one offensive ball action
World Cup
Finnish League
Finland
Opponents
Figure 5. Average number of touches used in one offensive ball action/player in the analyzed
levels.
16
In the Finnish League, players played higher proportion of their offensive ball actions with one
touch when compared to the two other levels. In other words this means that they either tried to
pass the ball with one touch or lost the ball in the receiving more often (see the results for
passes and receiving for more information). No other remarkable differences were observed
5%
4%
10 %
6%
20 %
10 %
30 %
20 %
21 %
37 %
34 %
34 %
40 %
37 %
50 %
48 %
60 %
41 %
between the levels. (Figure 6.)
0%
1
2
3 or 4
5 or over
No. of touches in offensive ball actions
World Cup
Finnish league
20 %
3%
10 %
5%
17 %
30 %
23 %
33 %
40 %
36 %
50 %
36 %
46 %
60 %
0%
-10 %
1
2
3 or 4
5 or over
Finland
Opponent
Figure 6. Distribution of number of used touches in offensive ball actions in the analyzed levels.
17
When the duration of ball actions were analyzed according to the number of touches used, it
was noted that the players in the World Cup level were faster with the ball when 2-5 touches
were used during the ball action. The Finnish league players used more time with the ball than
4.53
3.56
3.19
2.55
2.47
2.46
1.63
0.52
1
0.41
2
1.53
1.48
3
0.43
Duration (s)
4
3.53
4.20
5
4.45
the players in the other two levels no matter how many touches were used. (Figure 7).
0
1
2
3
4
5
World Cup
Finnish league
4.36
3.53
3.53
2
0.39
1.46
1.58
3
2.37
2.59
4
0.43
Duration (s)
5
1
4.54
6
0
1
2
3
4
Finland
Opponents
Figure 7. Duration of ball action/number of touches uses in the analyzed levels.
5
18
Figure 8 presents more clearly the finding, according to which it was noted that the Finnish
players used more time with the ball than the World Cup-level players. Both the national team
level players and the Finnish League players used on average 0.1-0.15 seconds more time for
their ball actions with two or three touches and almost 0.4 seconds more time for their ball actions with four touches when compared to world class players in the World Cup. (Figure 8.)
How much more time Finnish players used with the ball when
compared to World Cup-level players?
Difference in duration compared to
World Cup players (s)
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1
2
3
4
No. of touches
Finnish national team players
Finnish league players
Figure 8. Difference in Finnish players in duration of ball actions in different number of touches
used when compared to World Cup-level players (x-axis).
5
19
Central midfielders had the highest number of ball actions in the World Cup-level, central defenders in the analyzed national team matches and wide midfielders in the Finnish League
matches. When Finland was compared to their opponents in the national team matches, it can
be noted that especially Finland’s central defenders had a lot more ball actions than the opponents but the central midfielders a few less. (Figure 9.)
44
33
41
46
39
45
43
35
45
49
25
40
29
44
51
60
56
80
20
0
Central defenders
Wide defenders Central midfielders Wide midfielders
Forwards
No. of offensive ball actions
World Cup
Finnish league
41
40
40
38
48
43
36
40
50
60
47
66
80
20
0
Central defenders
Forwards
No. of offensive ball actions
Finland
Opponents
Figure 9. Number of offensive ball actions in the different positions in the analyzed levels.
20
The average duration of one ball action was the shortest in central midfielders and the longest
in wide midfielders in all of the analyzed level. Finnish central defenders spent less and wide
midfielders more time with the ball during one ball action in the analyzed national team
Duration (s)
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.7
1.5
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.7
2
1.9
matches. (Figure 10.)
1
0
Central defenders
Forwards
Average duration of ball actions
World Cup
Finnish league
1.5
1.4
1.6
2.0
1.3
1.2
1.5
1.5
2
1.5
Duration (s)
2.0
3
1
0
Central defenders
Forwards
Average duration of ball actions
Finland
Opponents
Figure 10. Average duration of offensive ball action in the different positions in the analyzed
levels.
21
Wide midfielders used on average a bit more touches than the players on other positions during the offensive ball actions. Finnish central defenders and midfielders used less touches during the ball actions in the national team matches than the players in the same positions in the
opponent teams. (Figure 11.)
2.1
2.0
2.3
2.1
2.4
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.1
1.9
2.0
2
1.9
No of touches
2.5
3
1
0
Central defenders
Wide defenders
Central midfielders Wide midfielders
Forwards
Average no. of touches in ball actions
World Cup
Finnish league
2.1
1.9
2.2
2.5
2.1
1.8
2.1
2.0
2
1.9
No of touches
2.3
3
1
0
Central defenders
Forwards
Average no. of touches in ball actions
Finland
Opponents
Figure 11. Average number of touches during offensive ball actions in the different positions in
the analyzed levels.
22
When the players used two touches for their ball actions, it was noted that especially Finnish
defenders in the league and in the national team as well as wide midfielders and forwards
were slower with the ball than the World Cup-level players. When the Finnish national team
players were compared to their opponents, all other than central midfielders were slower with
Duration (s)
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.3
1.4
1.7
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.6
2
1.7
the ball with two touches. (Figure 12.)
1
0
Central defenders Wide defenders Central midfielders Wide midfielders
Forwards
Average duration of ball actions with 2 touches
Duration (s)
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.5
Finnish league
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.7
2
1.7
World Cup
1
0
Forwards
FIN
OPP.
Figure 12 Average duration of ball actions with 2 touches in the different positions in the analyzed levels.
23
When the players used three touches for their ball actions, especially Finnish wide defenders
in the league and in the national team as well as wide midfielders were slower with the ball
than the World Cup-level players. When the Finnish national team players were compared to
their opponents, all other than central defenders and forwards were slower with the ball with
three touches. (Figure 13.)
2.4
2.4
2.5
2.5
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.1
2.4
2.7
3.1
2.9
2.6
2.4
Duration (s)
3
2.9
4
2
1
0
Forwards
World Cup
Finnish league
2
2.4
2.4
2.1
2.7
2.0
2.3
2.6
2.2
Duration (s)
3
3.1
3.1
4
1
0
Central defenders Wide defenders
Central
midfielders
Wide midfielders
Forwards
Finland
Opponents
Figure 13. Average duration of ball actions with 3 touches in the different positions in the analyzed levels.
24
When we compare the Finnish national team players to World Cup players more closely according to the time spent with the ball, we can see that the Finnish central defenders were
slower than the world class players, no matter how many touches were used. Also wide midfielders were slower with the ball with 2-4 touches and central midfielders and forwards with 4
touches. (Figure 14.)
How much more time Finnish national team players used with
the ball when compared to World Cup-level players?
0.78
0.9
0.8
Central defenders
1 touch
2 touches
3 touches
-0.06
-0.03
-0.07
0.08
0.18
0.18
Wide defenders
-0.05
-0.2
-0.02
-0.1
-0.07
0.02
-0.02
Faster
0.0
0.05
0.1
0.00
0.2
0.18
0.3
0.13
0.4
0.31
0.34
0.5
0.32
0.6
0.06
Difference in duration (s)
Slower
0.7
Forwards
4 touches
Figure 14. Difference in duration (s) of ball actions in different number of ball touches in Finnish national team players compared to World Cup players (positive value = Finnish players
slower, negative value = Finnish players faster).
25
In the Finnish league, the players were slower with the ball in all positions and with almost
every number of touches when compared to world class level players playing in the analyzed
World Cup matches. The difference tended to increase when more touches were used. For example, the wide defenders were almost 0.8 seconds slower when 4 touches were used. (Figure 15.)
How much more time Finnish league players used with the ball
when compared to World Cup-level players?
0.77
0.9
0.8
Central defenders
1 touch
2 touches
3 touches
0.21
0.22
0.14
0.27
-0.1
0.10
0.1
0.06
0.2
0.08
0.09
0.05
0.3
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.4
0.0
Faster
0.37
0.5
0.37
0.6
0.04
0.13
0.04
0.00
Difference in duration (s)
Slower
0.7
-0.04
Forwards
4 touches
Figure 15. Difference in duration (s) of ball actions in different number of ball touches in Finnish league players compared to World Cup players (positive value = Finnish players slower,
negative value = Finnish players faster).
26
3.4 PASSES
In the analysis, successful pass was defined as a pass which reached the player it was targeted to. Unsuccessful pass was tagged to analysis when the ball went out of the pitch or the opponent team was able to make an interception before the targeted player received the ball.
The number of passes/team, excluding goalkeepers, was on average 335 in the analyzed
matches. The number of passes was the highest in the national team matches played between
Finland and their opponents and the lowest in the Finnish League. As Finland had higher percentage of ball possession in two of the three analyzed national team matches (see table 4),
also the total number of passes was higher when compared to opponents. However, it can be
noted that against the best of their opponents, England, the number of passes was remarkably
lower when compared to opponent (239-456).
500
403
377
400
349
341
288
300
200
100
0
No. of passes/match/team
World Cup
Finnish league
Finland
Figure 16. Number of passes/match/team in the analyzed levels.
Opponents
27
The percentage of successful passes was highest in the national team matches. In the Finnish
league the percentage of successful passes was a lot lower than in the two other levels. Finland and opponent succeeded similarly in their passes when all the matches were combined.
However, against England, Finland’s success in the passes was remarkably lower (61% vs.
83%).
100 %
76 %
80 %
79 %
79 %
79 %
68 %
60 %
40 %
20 %
0%
Percentage of successful passes
World Cup
Finnish league
Finland
Figure 17. The percentage of successful passes in the analyzed levels.
Opponents
28
In the World Cup and Finnish league, central midfielders had more passes than the players in
the other positions. In the analyzed national team matches central defenders were the most active passers with 50 passes/match/player. This can be explained especially by the number of
passes by Finnish central defenders. In the analyzed national team matches the Finnish defenders passed the ball almost two times as much as the central defenders in the opponent
team. In all the other positions Finland didn’t differ from their opponents in the number of
passes/player. (Figure 18.)
27
28
22
29
27
32
35
29
39
44
39
23
28
40
50
60
47
80
20
0
Central defenders
Forwards
No. of passes/match/player
World Cup
Finnish league
64
80
29
28
27
26
41
43
38
40
35
45
60
20
0
Central defenders
No. of passes/match/player
Finland
Opponents
Figure 18. Number of passes in the different positions in the analyzed levels.
Forwards
29
The percentage of successful passes was generally the highest in defenders and central midfielders and the lowest in the wide midfielders. However, when compared to two other levels,
it can be noted that the percentage of successful passes in defenders and central midfielders
was a lot lower in the Finnish League. The wide midfielders in the Finnish national team succeeded in their passes better than their counterparts in the opponent team. In contrast, the per-
74 %
74 %
76 %
69 %
73 %
68 %
82 %
69 %
62 %
78 %
80 %
64 %
80 %
77 %
83 %
100 %
81 %
centage was a lot lower for Finnish forwards when compared to opponents. (Figure 19.)
60 %
40 %
20 %
0%
Central defenders
Wide defenders
Forwards
80 %
67 %
69 %
Finnish league
76 %
82 %
81 %
80 %
80 %
80 %
83 %
100 %
83 %
World Cup
60 %
40 %
20 %
0%
Central defenders
Wide defenders
Forwards
Finland
Opponents
Figure 19. Percentage of successful passes in the different positions in the analyzed levels.
30
The distribution of length of passes did not differ remarkably between the levels. On average,
one third of the passes were short and one third long passes. In the Finnish League there was a
little more of short passes than in the two other levels. Finnish national team had less short
passes and more long passes than their opponents in the analyzed national team matches.
(Figure 20.)
29 %
28 %
32 %
28 %
31 %
36 %
42 %
36 %
% of all
40 %
37 %
60 %
20 %
0%
0-10 m
10-20 m
over 20 m
Length of passes
World Cup
Finnish league
27 %
30 %
38 %
40 %
34 %
% of all
40 %
32 %
60 %
20 %
0%
0-10 m
10-20 m
Length of passes
Finland
Opponents
Figure 20. The distribution of length of passes in the analyzed levels.
over 20 m
31
In table 7, the distribution of length of the passes has been presented for different playing positions. Defenders had more long passes, whereas offensive players (wide midfielders and forwards) used a lot of short passes as highlighted with yellow color. In the Finnish league, central midfielders and forwards had more long passes (over 20 m) when compared to two other
levels. In the national team level, Finnish central defenders passed more long passes than their
counterparts in the opponent team and World Cup level. (Table 7.)
Table 7. The distribution of length of passes in different positions in the analyzed levels.
Position
CD
WD
CM
WM
F
Level
<10m 10-20m >20m
<10m 10-20m >20m
<10m 10-20m >20m
<10m 10-20m >20m
<10m 10-20m >20m
WC
22% 32% 46%
28% 35% 37%
40% 33% 27%
47% 30% 23%
64% 24% 12%
NT
15% 38% 47%
31% 40% 29%
39% 39% 22%
51% 30% 19%
60% 27% 13%
FIN
13% 37% 51%
24% 47% 28%
38% 44% 18%
53% 30% 17%
62% 25% 13%
OPP.
18% 41% 42%
38% 33% 29%
41% 34% 25%
50% 30% 20%
59% 28% 12%
FL
21 % 29% 50%
36% 30% 34%
40% 31% 29%
54% 27% 19%
58% 24% 18%
CD= central defender, WD= wide defender, CM=central midfielder, WD= wide midfielder, F=
forward
32
In general, the shorter the pass, the higher the percentage of successful passes. In the Finnish
League the short passes succeeded almost as well as in the other two levels, but there were
remarkable differences in the success of the longer passes in favor of the two top levels. Less
than half of the long passes succeeded in the Finnish League. Also, the opponents of Finnish
national team succeeded better in their long passes when compared to Finnish players. (Figure
47 %
62 %
63 %
86 %
72 %
80 %
82 %
80 %
83 %
100 %
85 %
21.)
60 %
40 %
20 %
0%
0-10 m
10-20 m
over 20 m
Finnish league
62 %
80 %
65 %
82 %
89 %
87 %
100 %
83 %
World Cup
60 %
40 %
20 %
0%
0-10 m
10-20 m
over 20 m
Finland
Opponents
Figure 21. Percentage of successful passes according to length of the pass in the analyzed
levels.
33
In table 8, the percentages of successful passes according to the length of the passes has been
presented for different playing positions. In the Finnish League, the success in the long passes
was a lot worse in all positions when compared to two other levels. Furthermore, in the national team matches, Finnish wide defenders and forwards succeeded in their long passes a lot
worse when compared to their opponents’ counterparts. Also, Finnish central midfielders’ short
passes reached the target less often when compared to opponent’s central midfielders.(Table
8.)
Table 8. The percentage of successful passes according to the length of passes in different positions in the analyzed levels.
Position
CD
WD
CM
WM
F
Level
<10m 10-20m >20m
<10m 10-20m >20m
<10m 10-20m >20m
<10m 10-20m >20m
<10m 10-20m >20m
WC
88% 91% 71%
91% 84% 60%
83% 84% 63%
78% 70% 46%
80% 70% 66%
NT
91% 96% 71%
91% 91% 53%
88% 84% 66%
78% 75% 55%
81% 67% 51%
FIN
92% 96% 72%
92% 94% 45%
84% 85% 66%
78% 83% 59%
77% 62% 32%
OPP.
89% 94% 70%
91% 86% 61%
92% 82% 66%
78% 67% 52%
85% 71% 71%
FL
84% 78% 47%
77% 71% 39%
81% 70% 51%
79% 79% 42%
84% 78% 47%
forward
34
In general, about half of the passes were directed forward. In the Finnish League, the percentage of passes forward was higher when compared to two other levels. Finland played more
passes sideways and back when compared to their opponents in the national team matches.
20 %
21 %
25 %
24 %
% of all
40 %
30 %
33 %
45 %
47 %
60 %
20 %
55 %
(Figure 22.)
0%
Forward
Sideways
Back
Direction of passes
Finnish league
24 %
26 %
% of all
31 %
40 %
28 %
43 %
60 %
48 %
World Cup
20 %
0%
Forward
Sideways
Direction of passes
Finland
Opponents
Figure 22. The distribution of direction of passes in the analyzed levels.
Back
35
In table 9, the distribution of direction of the passes has been presented for different playing
positions. In the Finnish league, all the players, but especially central and wide defenders and
central midfielders tried to play the ball forward more than in the other two levels. In the national team matches, Finnish central defenders passed the ball less often forward and more
sideways when compared to their counterparts in the opponent teams. (Table 9.)
Table 9.The distribution of direction of passes in different positions in the analyzed levels.
Position
CD
WD
CM
WM
F
Level
Forw. Sidew. Back
Forw. Sidew. Back
Forw. Sidew. Back
Forw. Sidew. Back
Forw. Sidew. Back
WC
54% 37% 9%
64% 23% 14%
44% 28% 27%
39% 40% 21%
28% 38% 34%
NT
50% 42% 8%
54% 19% 27%
43% 31% 26%
40% 25% 36%
31% 30% 39%
FIN
43% 49% 9%
53% 19% 29%
43% 29% 28%
36% 22% 41%
36% 22% 43%
OPP.
63% 29% 8%
56% 19% 25%
44% 32% 24%
43% 27% 30%
27% 37% 35%
FL
69% 16% 15%
73% 15% 12%
54% 29% 17%
45% 22% 32%
34% 37% 30%
forward
36
The success of passes sideways and back were, not surprisingly, much better than in the passes forward. In the Finnish League, only half of the passes forward were successful and the success was lower when compared to two other levels. Also, Finnish national team players suc-
92 %
94 %
93 %
82 %
90 %
51 %
59 %
60 %
61 %
100 %
80 %
93 %
ceeded in their passes forward less often than their opponents. (Figure 23.)
40 %
20 %
0%
Forward
Sideways
Back
60 %
95 %
94 %
65 %
80 %
59 %
100 %
Finnish league
92 %
94 %
World Cup
40 %
20 %
0%
Forward
Sideways
Back
Finland
Opponents
Figure 23. Percentage of successful passes according to direction of pass in the analyzed levels.
37
In table 10, the percentages of successful passes according to direction of the pass have been
presented for different playing positions. In the Finnish league, central and wide defenders
failed in their passes forward more often than in the other levels. In contrast, the success of
passes forward was higher in wide midfielders and forwards. Finnish central defenders and
forwards did not succeed in their passes forward as well as their counterparts in the opponent
teams, but the success was higher in midfielders. (Table 10.)
Table 10. Percentages of successful passes according to direction of the passes the analyzed
levels.
Position
CD
WD
CM
WM
F
Level
Forw. Sidew. Back
Forw. Sidew. Back
Forw. Sidew. Back
Forw. Sidew. Back
Forw. Sidew. Back
WC
66% 98% 100%
66% 94% 98%
56% 92% 93%
49% 78% 89%
47% 86% 89%
NT
69% 98% 100%
64% 99% 99%
66% 91% 96%
49% 85% 91%
44% 86% 88%
FIN
64% 97% 100%
62% 98% 100%
68% 87% 95%
54% 89% 89%
28% 92% 87%
OPP.
74% 98% 100%
65% 100% 98%
64% 95% 97%
44% 82% 94%
64% 83% 89%
FL
50% 89% 98%
51% 90% 97%
55% 81% 92%
52% 77% 88%
51% 82% 90%
forward
38
Figure 24 presents the duration of the successful passes (= the speed of the pass) according to
the length of the passes. The duration was analyzed as the time from the moment when the ball
left the foot of the passer to the moment the ball reached the player receiving the ball. Clear
trend can be seen: the higher the level, the shorter the duration (=more powerful the pass) in
all passes. However, as the exact length of the pass couldn’t be analyzed in this study, the
2.00
1.79
1.71
1.57
1.39
1.28
1.16
1.09
0.92
1
0.83
2
0.80
Duration (s)
2.74
2.70
3
2.19
4
3.27
values should be reviewed critically and merely as trends and estimations. (Figure 24.)
0
0-5 m
6-10 m
10-20 m
20-30 m
over 30 m
Duration of passes (from player to player)
World Cup
Finnish league
1
2.02
1.99
1.52
1.61
1.15
1.16
0.84
2
0.82
Duration (s)
3
2.70
2.77
4
0
0-5 m
6-10 m
10-20 m
20-30 m
over 30 m
Duration of passes (from player to player)
Finland
Opponents
Figure 24. The duration of successful passes according to different lengths in the analyzed levels.
39
Passes with one touch did not generally succeed as well as the passes with more than one
touch. In the Finnish League the percentage of successful passes with one or two touches was a
lot worse when compared to two other levels. Finnish national team players succeeded as well
72 %
78 %
69 %
75 %
76 %
81 %
71 %
82 %
82 %
68 %
80 %
64 %
73 %
80 %
71 %
100 %
84 %
as their opponents in passes with one or two touches (Figure 25.)
60 %
40 %
20 %
0%
1
2
3
4
5 or over
76 %
81 %
79 %
Finnish league
71 %
84 %
80 %
83 %
72 %
80 %
73 %
100 %
86 %
World Cup
60 %
40 %
20 %
0%
1
2
3
4
5 or over
FIN
OPP.
Figure 25. Percentage of successful passes according to number of touches used in the analyzed levels.
40
About 3 out of 4 passes were passed with inside of the foot. In the Finnish League, players
used a bit more instep passes as a technique, but no other major differences were observed
between the level. (Figure 26.)
60 %
2%
1%
2%
4%
2%
4%
1%
0%
0%
20 %
8%
6%
5%
40 %
16 %
16 %
21 %
% of all
80 %
70 %
74 %
68 %
100 %
Toekick
Head
Other
0%
Inside of the
foot
Instep
Outside of the
foot
Passing technique
World Cup
Finnish league
70 %
60 %
0%
Inside of the
foot
Instep
Outside of the
foot
Toekick
Head
Passing technique
Finland
Opponents
Figure 26. The distribution of technique used in the passes in the analyzed levels.
1%
0%
2%
2%
1%
1%
8%
5%
20 %
17 %
40 %
16 %
% of all
80 %
77 %
100 %
Other
41
In the Finnish league, the percentage of successful passes with inside of the foot and instep
was lower when compared to two other levels. No other remarkable differences were ob-
40 %
79 %
72 %
80 %
83 %
54 %
48 %
54 %
60 %
68 %
58 %
75 %
79 %
66 %
80 %
41 %
49 %
34 %
100 %
85 %
86 %
77 %
served. (Figure 27.)
20 %
0%
Inside of the
foot
Instep
Outside of the
foot
Toekick
Head
Other
Percentage of successfullpasses
62 %
100 %
42 %
50 %
73 %
100 %
80 %
Finnish league
50 %
49 %
80 %
60 %
79 %
87 %
100 %
85 %
World Cup
40 %
20 %
0%
Inside of the
foot
Instep
Outside of the
foot
Toekick
Head
Other
Finland
Opponents
Figure 27. Percentage of successful passes according to technique used in the passes in the
analyzed levels.
42
In Figure 28, the starting area of the passes has been presented. In general, around 25% of
the passes started from the defensive third, 60% from the midfield and 15% from the offensive
third. What can be noted is the difference in the areas between Finland and their opponents in
the national team matches. Higher proportion of Finland’s passes started from their defensive
third and less passes from midfield when compared to opponents. Thus, despite Finland had
more of the overall possession in two of the three national team matches, the possession occurred deeper in their own half, rather than in the offensive zones. (Figure 28.)
In Figure 29, the target area of the passes has been presented. In the Finnish league, more
passes were targeted to offensive third and less to midfield and defensive third when compared to two other levels. When Finland is compared to their opponents, it can be noted, that
Finland attempted to pass more to defensive third and less to midfield and offensive third than
their opponents. (Figure 30.)
Figure 30 presents the percentages of successful passes into different areas of the pitch. As
expected, the success was the highest in passes to defensive third and the lowest when the
pass was targeted to attacking third. In the Finnish league, the percentages of successful passes to midfield were a lot lower when compared to two other levels. In the national team
matches, the opponents of Finnish national team succeeded better in their passes to midfield
and especially to central section of midfield. (Figure 31.)
43
Offensive third
OFFENSIVE
3rd
WC: 13%
NT: 10%
FIN 9%
OPP: 10%
FL:
14%
MIDFIELD
WC: 63%
NT: 59%
FIN: 55%
OPP: 64%
FL:
60%
DEFENSIVE
3rd
WC: 25%
NT: 31%
FIN: 36%
OPP: 27%
FL:
WC: 4%
NT: 4%
FIN: 4%
OPP: 5%
FL:
5%
WC: 25%
NT: 23%
FIN: 21%
OPP: 25%
FL:
22%
WC: 8%
NT: 11%
FIN: 13%
OPP: 10%
FL: 11%
WC: 3%
NT: 2%
WC: 6%
NT: 4%
FIN: 2%
OPP: 1%
FIN: 3%
OPP: 4%
FL:
FL:
3%
WC: 16%
NT: 16%
WC: 22%
NT: 20%
FIN: 16%
OPP: 16%
FIN: 18%
OPP: 23%
FL:
FL:
15%
WC: 8%
NT: 9%
FIN: 10%
OPP: 8%
FL: 7%
25%
Defensive third
Figure 28. The starting area of the passes.
6%
23%
WC: 9%
NT: 11%
FIN: 13%
OPP: 9%
FL:
7%
44
Offensive third
OFFENSIVE
3rd
WC: 26%
NT: 22%
FIN: 21%
OPP: 23%
FL:
31%
MIDFIELD
WC: 57%
NT: 55%
FIN: 51%
OPP: 57%
FL:
55%
DEFENSIVE
3rd
WC: 16%
NT: 23%
FIN: 28%
OPP: 19%
FL:
14%
WC: 9%
NT: 8%
FIN: 8%
OPP: 8%
FL:
11%
WC: 23%
NT: 21%
FIN: 19%
OPP: 22%
FL:
21%
WC: 6%
NT: 9%
FIN: 10%
OPP: 7%
FL: 7%
WC: 6%
NT: 6%
WC: 11%
NT: 8%
FIN: 5%
OPP: 6%
FIN: 8%
OPP: 9%
FL:
7%
13%
WC: 13%
NT: 15%
WC: 21%
NT: 19%
FIN: 14%
OPP: 15%
FIN: 18%
OPP: 20%
FL:
FL:
WC:
NT:
FIN:
OPP:
FL:
13%
4%
7%
8%
6%
4%
Defensive third
Figure 29. The target area of the passes.
FL:
21%
WC: 6%
NT: 8%
FIN: 10%
OPP: 6%
FL:
3%
45
Offensive third
OFFENSIVE
3rd
WC: 55%
NT: 52%
FIN: 53%
OPP: 51%
FL:
53%
MIDFIELD
WC: 80%
NT: 83%
FIN: 80%
OPP: 86%
FL:
71%
DEFENSIVE
3rd
WC: 96%
NT: 96%
FIN: 97%
OPP: 95%
FL:
WC: 61%
NT: 62%
WC: 46%
NT: 40%
WC: 54%
NT: 52%
FIN: 57%
OPP: 67%
FIN: 42%
OPP: 38%
FIN: 57%
OPP: 46%
FL:
FL:
FL:
56%
45%
55%
WC: 80%
NT: 84%
WC: 86%
NT: 84%
WC: 78%
NT: 80%
FIN: 83%
OPP: 86%
FIN: 80%
OPP: 88%
FIN: 77%
OPP: 84%
FL:
72%
FL:
FL:
WC:
NT:
FIN:
OPP:
FL:
94%
95%
96%
94%
85%
WC: 100%
NT: 97%
FIN: 98%
OPP: 95%
FL: 99%
73%
90%
Defensive third
Figure 30. The percentages of successful passes to different areas.
70%
WC: 95%
NT: 98%
FIN: 99%
OPP: 97%
FL:
88%
46
The distribution of the roles of the target players of the passes varied between the levels. In the
World Cup level, most commonly passes were targeted to central midfielders. In the Finnish
league forwards were most commonly target players and in the national team matches central
defenders. Especially the high number of passes targeted to forwards in the Finnish league can
be noted. Finnish national team players targeted a lot more of their passes to central defenders
than the opponent and less passes to midfield players and forwards. (Figure 31.)
34 %
50 %
17 %
13 %
27 %
15 %
19 %
17 %
20 %
29 %
16 %
23 %
7%
20 %
23 %
25 %
30 %
16 %
% of all
40 %
10 %
0%
Central defender
Wide defender Central midfielder Wide midfielder
Forward
Target player of the passes
World Cup
Finnish league
50 %
17 %
14 %
16 %
13 %
24 %
24 %
22 %
20 %
20 %
30 %
30 %
19 %
% of all
40 %
10 %
0%
Central defender
Wide defender Central midfielder Wide midfielder
Forward
Target player of the passes
Finland
Opponents
Figure 31. The distribution of the roles of the target player of the passes in the analyzed levels.
47
Passes to central defenders succeeded almost perfectly in all of the analyzed levels. The percentage of successful passes declined when the target player was midfielder and furthermore,
in passes to wide midfielders and forwards. In the Finnish league, passes to central and wide
midfielders did not succeed as well as in the two other levels. Furthermore, Finland failed in
their passes to midfielders and forwards more often than their opponents in the analyzed na-
49 %
56 %
49 %
60 %
56 %
63 %
71 %
80 %
79 %
90 %
83 %
86 %
91 %
92 %
96 %
99 %
100 %
99 %
tional team matches. (Figure 32.)
40 %
20 %
0%
Central defender
Wide defender
Central midfielder Wide midfielder
Forward
Finnish league
59 %
60 %
52 %
61 %
80 %
64 %
93 %
88 %
92 %
90 %
99 %
100 %
100 %
World Cup
40 %
20 %
0%
Central defender
Wide defender
Central midfielder Wide midfielder
Forward
Finland
Opponents
Figure 32. Percentage of successful passes to players in different positions in the analyzed levels.
48
On average, during one ball possession and passing sequence, one team passed about 3
passes in the World Cup and national team level and 2 passes in the Finnish league before
the sequence ended. Finland did not differ from their opponents in the number of passes in
passing sequences. (Figure 33.)
5
4
3.3
3
3.3
3.4
2.8
2.1
2
1
0
No. of passes in passing sequences/team
World Cup
Finnish league
Finland
Figure 33. The average number of passes in passing sequences.
Opponents
49
In the Finnish league there was a lot more passing sequences which included only one pass.
Very rarely the passing sequences included more than 4 passes in any of the analyzed levels
(Figure 34.)
1%
6%
4%
7%
16 %
11 %
20 %
16 %
23 %
22 %
31 %
24 %
31 %
30 %
% of all
40 %
33 %
46 %
60 %
0%
1
2
3-4
5-8
9 or over
No. of passes in the passing sequences
World Cup
Finnish league
5%
7%
20 %
19 %
14 %
24 %
23 %
24 %
25 %
29 %
% of all
40 %
31 %
60 %
0%
1
2
3-4
5-8
9 or over
No. of passes in the passing sequences
Finland
Opponents
Figure 34. The distribution of number of the passes in the passing sequences in the analyzed
levels.
50
The first passes of the passing sequences succeeded a lot better in the World Cup-level and the
national team matches when compared to Finnish league. In the national team matches, the
opponents succeeded better than Finland in their first pass. On average 3 out of 4 of Finland’s
first passes went to own player, whereas 4 out of 5 of the opponent’s first passes reached the
target. (Figure 35.)
100 %
78 %
80 %
77 %
75 %
79 %
68 %
60 %
40 %
20 %
0%
Percentage of successful first passes in the passing sequences
World Cup
Finnish league
Finland
Opponents
Figure 35. The percentages of successful first passes in the passing sequences.
¨
51
Most commonly, players at all level tried to pass the first pass forward. In the Finnish League
the first pass was attempted forward more commonly than in the two other levels. (Figure 36.)
22 %
25 %
22 %
27 %
20 %
20 %
56 %
47 %
40 %
29 %
% of all
60 %
51 %
80 %
0%
Forward
Sideways
Back
Direction of first pass in the passing sequences
World Cup
Finnish league
23 %
27 %
29 %
47 %
40 %
25 %
% of all
60 %
47 %
80 %
20 %
0%
Forward
Sideways
Back
Direction of first pass in the passing sequences
Finland
Opponents
Figure 36. The direction of the first passes in the passing sequences in the analyzed levels.
52
The first pass in the passing sequences was generally a short one in all of the analyzed levels.
In the Finnish league, a bit higher proportion of the first passes were long ones. (Figure 37.)
80 %
30 %
25 %
25 %
29 %
27 %
45 %
46 %
40 %
26 %
% of all
46 %
60 %
20 %
0%
0-10 m
10-20 m
over 20 m
Length of first pass in the passing sequences
World Cup
Finnish league
24 %
26 %
30 %
40 %
28 %
% of all
46 %
60 %
47 %
80 %
20 %
0%
0-10 m
10-20 m
over 20 m
Length of first pass in the passing sequences
Finland
Opponents
Figure 37. The length of the first passes in the passing sequences in the analyzed levels.
53
The first pass in the passing sequence was most commonly given from the midfield. In the
World Cup-level a bit higher proportion of the first passes were given from the attacking third,
but no other major differences were observed between the levels or between Finland and their
opponents in the national team matches. (Figure 38.)
Figure 39 presents the starting area of the last passes. The higher the level, the higher of proportion of last passes starting from the offensive third and in contrast, the smaller the proportion of last passes from the defensive third. In the Finnish league, more of the last passes started from the defensive third and less from the offensive third than in the other two levels. In the
national team matches, higher proportion of Finland’s last passes started from the defensive
third and less from midfield and when compared to opponents. (Figure 39.)
54
Offensive third
OFFENSIVE
3rd
WC: 15%
NT: 9%
FIN 9%
OPP: 10%
FL:
12%
MIDFIELD
WC: 57%
NT: 61%
FIN: 61%
OPP: 62%
FL:
59%
DEFENSIVE
3rd
WC: 28%
NT: 29%
FIN: 29%
OPP: 28%
FL:
WC: 4%
NT: 3%
FIN: 3%
OPP: 3%
FL:
4%
WC: 24%
NT: 20%
FIN: 20%
OPP: 21%
FL:
20%
WC: 9%
NT: 11%
FIN: 12%
OPP: 10%
FL: 12%
WC: 3%
NT: 1%
FIN: 2%
OPP: 1%
FL:
2%
WC: 8%
NT: 5%
FIN: 4%
OPP: 6%
FL:
6%
WC: 13%
NT: 20%
WC: 20%
NT: 21%
FIN: 22%
OPP: 17%
FIN: 19%
OPP: 24%
FL:
FL:
16%
WC: 9%
NT: 9%
FIN: 10%
OPP: 9%
FL: 8%
28%
Defensive third
Figure 38. The starting area of the first passes in the passing sequences.
23%
WC: 10%
NT: 9%
FIN: 7%
OPP: 9%
FL:
8%
55
Offensive third
OFFENSIVE
3rd
WC: 16%
NT: 14%
FIN: 14%
OPP: 14%
FL:
13%
MIDFIELD
WC: 65%
NT: 61%
FIN: 58%
OPP: 63%
FL:
59%
DEFENSIVE
3rd
WC: 19%
NT: 25%
FIN: 27%
OPP: 22%
FL:
WC: 4%
NT: 5%
WC: 7%
NT: 4%
WC: 5%
NT: 5%
FIN: 5%
OPP: 5%
FIN: 4%
OPP: 4%
FIN: 5%
OPP: 5%
FL:
FL:
FL:
4%
3%
6%
WC: 26%
NT: 21%
WC: 13%
NT: 16%
WC: 26%
NT: 24%
FIN: 21%
OPP: 21%
FIN: 17%
OPP: 14%
FIN: 20%
OPP: 28%
FL:
FL:
FL:
23%
WC: 5%
NT: 7%
FIN: 6%
OPP: 7%
FL: 10%
14%
WC: 7%
NT: 8%
FIN: 11%
OPP: 5%
FL: 9%
28%
Defensive third
Figure 39. The starting area of the last passes in the passing sequences.
22%
WC: 7%
NT: 10%
FIN: 10%
OPP: 10%
FL:
9%
56
3.5 RECEIVING
In the analysis, a receive was tagged, when the player tried to get the ball in control and use
more than one touch before the next action. Successful receive was thus followed by pass,
dribble or shot. Receive was tagged as unsuccessful if the ball went to opponent team or out of
the pitch or if the player played the ball with a hand resulting to free kick to opponent. Receiving could be preceded by either action by own player (normally pass) or by the opponent
team (i.e. unsuccessful pass by opponent>interception+receive).
The number of receives/match/team, excluding goalkeepers, was on average 282/team in
the analyzed matches. The number of receives was the highest in the national team matches
played between Finland and their opponents and the lowest in the Finnish League. As the Finland had more passes in two of the three analyzed national team matches, also the total number of receives was higher when compared to opponents. However, it can be noted that
against the best of their opponents, England, the number of receives of outfield players was
remarkably lower when compared to opponent (183-384). (Figure 40.)
500
400
336
315
279
300
293
254
200
100
0
No. of receives/match/team
World Cup
Finnish league
Finland
Figure 40. Number of receives/match/team in the analyzed levels.
Opponents
57
On average, 90% of the receives succeeded in the analyzed matches. In the Finnish league
the success of receives was a bit lower when compared to two other levels. Finland succeeded
in their receives a bit better than their opponent in the national team matches. However, in the
match against England, the success of Finnish players was lower than in the English players
(89% vs. 95%). (Figure 41.)
100 %
92 %
92 %
93 %
86 %
91 %
80 %
60 %
40 %
20 %
0%
Percentage of successful receives
World Cup
Finnish league
Finland
ure 41. The percentages of successful receives in the analyzed level.
Opponents
Fig-
58
In the World Cup-level, midfielders (central and wide) had the most receives, in the national
team matches played between Finland and their opponents defenders, and in the Finnish
league wide midfielders and forwards. When compared to opponents, it can be noted that
especially Finnish central defenders had a lot more receives and in contrast, midfielders and
forwards a few less. This is of course related to the number of passes to those players, presented in the previous chapter. (Figure 42.)
22
31
26
34
28
33
26
28
33
22
15
19
20
31
40
37
38
60
0
Central defenders
Wide defenders
Forwards
No.of receives/match/player
World Cup
Finnish league
39
48
60
27
25
27
27
30
27
28
35
40
20
0
Central defenders
Wide defenders
Forwards
No. of receives/match/player
Finland
Opponents
Figure 42. Number of receives/player in the different positions in the analyzed levels.
59
The percentage of successful receives was generally the highest for defenders and central midfielders and the lowest for forwards. However, it can be noted that in the Finnish league the
success of receives was worse in all positions when compared to two other levels. The wide
midfielders in the Finnish national team succeeded in their receives better than their counter-
78 %
80 %
80 %
79 %
83 %
86 %
91 %
85 %
91 %
90 %
93 %
97 %
98 %
95 %
99 %
100 %
99 %
parts in the opponent team. (Figure 43.)
60 %
40 %
20 %
0%
Central
midfielders
Wide midfielders
Forwards
Percentage of successfullreceives
80 %
80 %
80 %
83 %
Finnish league
90 %
92 %
91 %
96 %
98 %
99 %
100 %
99 %
World Cup
60 %
40 %
20 %
0%
Central
midfielders
Wide midfielders
Forwards
Percentage of successfullreceives
Finland
Opponents
Figure 43. Percentage of successful receives in the different positions in the analyzed levels.
60
Most commonly the direction of the receiving was forward. In the Finnish league, higher proportion of receives was taken back and less forward when compared to two other levels. Finnish national team player took a higher proportion of their receives forward when compared to
their opponents. (Figure 44.)
21 %
16 %
20 %
16 %
35 %
40 %
32 %
36 %
48 %
43 %
% of all
60 %
52 %
80 %
0%
Forward
Sideways
Back
Direction of receives
World Cup
Finnish league
14 %
18 %
35 %
47 %
40 %
30 %
% of all
60 %
56 %
80 %
20 %
0%
Forward
Sideways
Direction of receives
Finland
Opponents
Figure 44. The distribution of direction of receives in the analyzed levels.
Back
61
In table 11, the direction of receives has been presented for different playing positions. Defenders took most of their receives forward whereas forwards received the ball more often
sideways or back. In the Finnish league, central defenders and midfielders had less receives
forward when compared to two other levels. (Table 11.)
Table 11. The distribution of direction of receives in different positions in the analyzed levels.
Position
CD
WD
CM
WM
F
Level
Forw. Sidew. Back
Forw. Sidew. Back
Forw. Sidew. Back
Forw. Sidew. Back
Forw. Sidew. Back
WC
66% 31% 3%
62% 32% 6%
40% 42% 17%
40% 38% 22%
24% 37% 38%
NT
69% 30% 1%
56% 32% 12%
40% 38% 22%
43% 31% 26%
33% 33% 34%
FIN
74% 26% 1%
64% 30% 6%
37% 39% 24%
46% 28% 26%
35% 30% 36%
OPP.
60% 38% 2 %
48% 35% 18%
43% 38% 20%
40% 34% 26%
31% 36% 32%
FL
46% 39% 15%
62% 29% 9%
38% 45% 17%
38% 32% 30%
31% 36% 33%
forward
62
Interestingly, receives back succeeded generally less often than receives forward or sideways.
Finnish players in the national team matches succeeded better in their receives sideways and
88 %
89 %
87 %
84 %
93 %
92 %
88 %
93 %
100 %
94 %
back than the players in the opponent team. (Figure 45.)
80 %
60 %
40 %
20 %
0%
Forward
Sideways
Back
86 %
94 %
Finnish league
91 %
91 %
World Cup
93 %
100 %
93 %
80 %
60 %
40 %
20 %
0%
Forward
Sideways
Back
Finland
Opponents
Figure 45. Percentage of successful receives according to direction of the receiving in the analyzed levels.
63
More commonly the receives were taken into stagnant position than to movement in all of the
analyzed levels. No remarkable differences were observed between the levels or between Finland and their opponents in the national team matches. (Figure 46.)
40 %
58 %
57 %
42 %
37 %
43 %
60 %
% of all
63 %
80 %
20 %
0%
To movement
To stagnant position
Receiving/movement
World Cup
Finnish league
64 %
63 %
80 %
36 %
40 %
37 %
% of all
60 %
20 %
0%
To movement
Receiving/movement
Finland
Opponents
Figure 46. The distribution of movement in receives in the analyzed levels.
64
Receives to stagnant position succeeded better than receives to movement in all of the analyzed levels. In the Finnish league, receiving to movement, but also to stagnant position suc-
90 %
95 %
97 %
82 %
86 %
100 %
87 %
ceeded less often when compared to two other levels. (Figure 47.)
80 %
60 %
40 %
20 %
0%
To movement
94 %
Finnish league
97 %
86 %
100 %
88 %
World Cup
80 %
60 %
40 %
20 %
0%
To movement
Finland
Opponents
Figure 47. Percentage of successful receives according to direction of receiving in the analyzed levels.
65
A receive with inside of the foot was the most common technique used in receiving. In the Finnish league, players received the ball more often with chest and thighs when compared to two
other levels. (Figure 48.)
68 %
75 %
60 %
7%
5%
7%
6%
2%
3%
8%
5%
7%
11 %
20 %
12 %
40 %
11 %
% of all
80 %
73 %
100 %
0%
Inside of the foot Outside of the
foot
Chest
Thigh
Other
Technique of receiving
World Cup
Finnish league
73 %
60 %
6%
5%
2%
2%
5%
6%
20 %
14 %
40 %
10 %
% of all
80 %
77 %
100 %
0%
Inside of the foot Outside of the
foot
Chest
Thigh
Technique of receiving
Finland
Opponents
Figure 48. The distribution of techniques used in receives in the analyzed levels.
Other
66
67 %
82 %
83 %
78 %
80 %
79 %
82 %
82 %
82 %
84 %
89 %
90 %
87 %
88 %
94 %
100 %
95 %
Receives with inside the foot were generally the most successful. (Figure 49.)
60 %
40 %
20 %
0%
Inside of the foot Outside of the foot
Chest
Thigh
Other
80 %
72 %
84 %
Finnish league
83 %
86 %
80 %
78 %
92 %
88 %
93 %
100 %
95 %
World Cup
60 %
40 %
20 %
0%
Inside of the foot Outside of the foot
Chest
Thigh
Other
Finland
Opponents
Figure 49. Percentage of successful receives according to technique used in the analyzed levels.
67
Figure 50 presents the distribution of receives in different areas. Finland had more receives in
the defensive third when compared to their opponents in the national team matches and less
receives in midfield. In the Finnish league there were more receives in the offensive third (in the
flanks) than in the two other levels. (Figure 50.)
Figure 51 presents the percentages of successful receives in different areas. Finland succeeded
better in receiving in the offensive third than their opponents in the national team matches, especially in the central zone of offensive third. (Figure 51.)
68
Offensive third
OFFENSIVE
3rd
WC: 20%
NT: 14%
FIN: 14%
OPP: 14%
FL:
23%
MIDFIELD
WC: 55%
NT: 52%
FIN: 48%
OPP: 55%
FL:
53%
DEFENSIVE
3rd
WC: 25%
NT: 34%
FIN: 38%
OPP: 30%
FL:
WC: 7%
NT: 6%
FIN: 5%
OPP: 6%
FL:
8%
WC: 23%
NT: 21%
FIN: 19%
OPP: 22%
FL:
21%
WC: 9%
NT: 12%
FIN: 14%
OPP: 11%
FL: 10%
WC: 4%
NT: 3%
WC: 9%
NT: 6%
FIN: 3%
OPP: 2%
FIN: 6%
OPP: 6%
FL:
4%
FL:
11%
WC: 13%
NT: 13%
WC: 20%
NT: 18%
FIN: 13%
OPP: 14%
FIN: 16%
OPP: 19%
FL:
FL:
11%
WC: 8%
NT: 11%
FIN: 11%
OPP: 10%
FL: 8%
24%
Defensive third
Figure 50. The distribution of receives in different areas.
21%
WC: 8%
NT: 11%
FIN: 13%
OPP: 9%
FL:
6%
69
Offensive third
OFFENSIVE
3rd
WC: 84%
NT: 84%
FIN: 88%
OPP: 81%
FL:
81%
MIDFIELD
WC: 92%
NT: 90%
FIN: 90%
OPP: 89%
FL:
85%
DEFENSIVE
3rd
WC: 98%
NT: 99%
FIN: 98%
OPP: 99%
FL:
WC: 90%
NT: 90%
WC: 74%
NT: 68%
FIN: 89%
OPP: 91%
FIN: 82%
OPP: 50%
FL:
FL:
85%
79%
WC: 84%
NT: 87%
FIN: 89%
OPP: 84%
FL:
78%
WC: 91%
NT: 91%
WC: 93%
NT: 90%
WC: 93%
NT: 89%
FIN: 90%
OPP: 92%
FIN: 92%
OPP: 88%
FIN: 91%
OPP: 87%
FL:
85%
FL:
88%
FL:
WC:
NT:
FIN:
OPP:
FL:
97%
98%
97%
99%
94%
WC:
NT:
FIN:
OPP:
FL:
100%
99%
99%
100%
97%
95%
Defensive third
Figure 51. The percentages of successful receives in different areas.
84%
WC: 99%
NT: 99%
FIN: 98%
OPP: 99%
FL:
92%
70
3.6 DRIBBLES AND 1v1-CHALLENGES
In the analysis, dribble was tagged, when the player ran with the ball in the pitch using at
least three touches during the ball action without trying to get past any opponents. 1v1challenge was tagged, when the aim was to dribble past the defensive player(s).
The average number of dribbles with the ball (with no attempt to dribble pass the defensive
players), excluding goalkeepers, was about 60/team in the analyzed matches. Opponents
dribbled more than Finnish players in the national team matches, but no differences were observed in the number of dribbles between the levels. (Figure 52.)
80
60
61
58
64
62
52
40
20
0
No. of dribbles/match/team
World Cup
Finnish league
Finland
Figure 52. Number of dribbles/match/team in the analyzed levels.
Opponents
71
The average number of 1v1-challenges (with an attempt to dribble pass the defensive players),
excluding goalkeepers, was 21/team in the analyzed matches. The higher the level, the higher the number of 1v1-challenges. No difference was observed between Finland and their opponents in the analyzed national team matches. (Figure 53.)
40
25
21
20
20
21
16
0
No. of 1v1-challenges/match/team
World Cup
Finnish league
Finland
Figure 53. Number of 1v1-challenges/match/team in the analyzed levels.
Opponents
72
Dribbles succeeded less often in the Finnish league. Finnish national team players succeeded
in their dribbles a bit better when compared to their opponents in the analyzed national team
matches. (Figure 54.)
100 %
90 %
93 %
92 %
91 %
83 %
80 %
60 %
40 %
20 %
0%
Percentage of successful dribbles
World Cup
Finnish league
Finland
Figure 54. The percentages of successful dribbles in the analyzed level.
Opponents
73
1v1-challenges succeeded less often in the Finnish league when compared to two other levels.
Furthermore, Finnish players succeeded less often than their opponents in 1v1-challenges in the
analyzed national team matches. (Figure 55.)
100 %
80 %
62 %
60 %
67 %
62 %
57 %
48 %
40 %
20 %
0%
Percentage of successful 1v1-challenges
World Cup
Finnish league
Finland
Opponents
Figure 55. The percentages of successful 1v1-challenges in the analyzed level.
74
In the World Cup-level, midfielders (central and wide) and forwards had more dribbles with
the ball than in the other two levels. In the analyzed national team matches and in the Finnish
league, central defenders dribbled more than in the World Cup-level. Finnish wide midfielders
dribbled more and forwards less than their counterparts in the opponent team in the analyzed
national team matches. (Figure 56.)
8
9
10
7
5
6
6
2
4
2
6
6
7
4
5
6
5
6
7
8
0
Central defenders
Wide defenders
Forwards
No. of dribbles/match/player
World Cup
4
4
5
4
5
5
5
6
8
8
8
6
Finnish league
9
10
2
0
Central defenders
Wide defenders
Forwards
No. of dribbles/match/player
Finland
Opponents
Figure 56. Number of dribbles/match/player in the different positions in the analyzed levels.
75
There weren’t any remarkable differences between the levels or between Finland and their opponents in the number of 1v1-challenges in different positions. Wide midfielders and forwards
had on average 3-5 challenges/match/player in each of the analyzed levels. (Figure 57.)
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
4
4
5
6
Central defenders
Wide defenders
Forwards
No. of 1v1-challenges/match/player
World Cup
Finnish league
3
3
0
0
0
1
2
2
2
3
4
3
4
6
Central defenders
Wide defenders
Forwards
No. of 1v1-challenges/match/player
Finland
Opponents
Figure 57. Number of challenges/match/player in the different positions in the analyzed levels.
76
The percentage of successful dribbles was generally highest in central defenders and lowest in
offensive players (wide midfielders and forwards). In the Finnish league, wide defenders and
midfielders succeeded in their dribbles less often when compared to two other levels. (Figure
80 %
83 %
92 %
83 %
82 %
86 %
88 %
86 %
88 %
93 %
79 %
93 %
93 %
89 %
99 %
100 %
92 %
58.)
60 %
40 %
20 %
0%
Central
midfielders
Wide midfielders
Forwards
89 %
96 %
83 %
Finnish league
87 %
91 %
87 %
93 %
94 %
98 %
100 %
100 %
World Cup
80 %
60 %
40 %
20 %
0%
Central
midfielders
Wide midfielders
Forwards
Finland
Opponents
Figure 58. Percentage of successful dribbles in the different positions in the analyzed levels.
77
Finnish central and wide midfielders succeeded in their 1v1-challenges less often when compared to their counterparts in the opponent teams in the analyzed national team matches. In
contrast, the success of forward’s dribbles was bit better when compared to opponents. In the
World Cup-level the success of 1v1-challenges in forwards was low. (Figure 59.)
25 %
40 %
50 %
59 %
38 %
52 %
60 %
57 %
64 %
72 %
80 %
52 %
72 %
80 %
67 %
100 %
20 %
0%
Wide defenders
Central midfielders
Wide midfielders
Forwards
Percentage of successfull1v1-challenges
World Cup
Finnish league
56 %
46 %
60 %
61 %
70 %
75 %
67 %
73 %
80 %
65 %
100 %
40 %
20 %
0%
Wide defenders
Central midfielders
Wide midfielders
Forwards
Percentage of successful 1v1-challenges
Finland
Opponents
Figure 59. Percentage of successful 1v1-challenges in the different positions in the analyzed
levels.
78
Players attempted to dribble mostly forwards in all of the analyzed levels. In the Finnish
league, less dribbles were attempted forward and more dribbles sideways and back when
compared to two other levels. No remarkable differences were observed between Finland and
their opponents in the analyzed national team matches. (Figure 60.)
100 %
67 %
60 %
17 %
10 %
20 %
11 %
32 %
40 %
22 %
30 %
60 %
51 %
% of all
80 %
0%
Forward
Sideways
Back
Direction of dribbles
World Cup
Finnish league
68 %
10 %
20 %
12 %
40 %
21 %
60 %
22 %
% of all
80 %
65 %
100 %
0%
Forward
Sideways
Direction of dribbles
Finland
Opponents
Figure 60. Direction of dribbles in the analyzed levels.
Back
79
Also 1v1-challenges were attempted forwards most of the time. Finnish players challenged
more forward than their counterparts in the opponent teams in the analyzed national team
matches. No other remarkable differences were observed. (Figure 61.)
3%
9%
20 %
9%
31 %
40 %
33 %
64 %
60 %
60 %
28 %
% of all
80 %
63 %
100 %
0%
Forward
Sideways
Back
Direction of 1v1-challenges
World Cup
Finnish league
13 %
40 %
31 %
56 %
60 %
30 %
% of all
80 %
65 %
100 %
5%
20 %
0%
Forward
Sideways
Direction of 1v1-challenges
Finland
Opponents
Figure 61. Directions of 1v1-challenges in the analyzed levels.
Back
80
Figure 62 presents the starting area of dribbles and figure 63 starting area of 1v1-challenges.
Generally, most of the dribbles and challenges were performed in midfield and the offensive
third. Higher proportion of Finnish national team players dribbles and challenges happened in
the offensive third and less in the defensive third and midfield when compared to their opponents in the analyzed national team matches. In the Finnish league, a higher proportion of
challenges were made in the offensive third when compared to two other levels. (Figure 62 &
63.)
81
Offensive third
OFFENSIVE
3rd
WC: 21%
NT: 11%
FIN 16%
OPP: 7%
FL:
26%
MIDFIELD
WC: 60%
NT: 52%
FIN: 49%
OPP: 55%
FL:
59%
DEFENSIVE
3rd
WC: 18%
NT: 36%
FIN: 35%
OPP: 38%
FL:
WC: 10%
NT: 6%
FIN: 7%
OPP: 4%
FL:
12%
WC: 23%
NT: 20%
FIN: 17%
OPP: 22%
FL:
20%
WC: 2%
NT: 1%
WC: 10%
NT: 5%
FIN: 1%
OPP: 0%
FIN: 8%
OPP: 2%
FL:
3%
FL:
11%
WC: 15%
NT: 14%
WC: 23%
NT: 18%
FIN: 10%
OPP: 16%
FIN: 21%
OPP: 16%
FL:
FL:
16%
23%
WC: 7%
NT: 13%
WC: 5%
NT: 11%
WC: 6%
NT: 12%
FIN: 15%
OPP: 12%
FIN: 8%
OPP: 14%
FIN: 11%
OPP: 13%
FL:
9%
FL:
6%
21%
Defensive third
Figure 62. The starting area of dribbles in the analyzed levels.
FL:
6%
82
Offensive third
OFFENSIVE
3rd
WC: 49%
NT: 41%
FIN 50%
OPP: 33%
FL:
54%
MIDFIELD
WC: 45%
NT: 54%
FIN: 48%
OPP: 60%
FL:
42%
DEFENSIVE
3rd
WC: 5%
NT: 4%
FIN: 2%
OPP: 6%
FL:
WC: 18%
NT: 20%
FIN: 23%
OPP: 16%
FL:
23%
WC: 24%
NT: 27%
FIN: 27%
OPP: 27%
FL:
15%
WC: 4%
NT: 2%
FIN: 2%
OPP: 3%
FL:
3%
WC: 7%
NT: 5%
WC: 24%
NT: 17%
FIN: 5%
OPP: 5%
FIN: 22%
OPP: 13%
FL:
FL:
3%
WC: 9%
NT: 7%
FIN: 2%
OPP: 11%
FL:
4%
28%
WC: 13%
NT: 21%
FIN: 20%
OPP: 22%
FL:
23%
WC: 1%
NT: 1%
WC: 1%
NT: 1%
FIN: 0%
OPP: 2%
FIN: 7%
OPP: 2%
FL:
FL:
0%
4%
Defensive third
Figure 63. The starting area of 1v1-challenges in analyzed levels.
1%
83
3.7 INTERCEPTIONS
Interception was tagged, when the defensive player got the touch on the ball during opponent’s pass before the target player of the ball got the ball. The outcome of interceptions was
divided into three categories: interception to own team, interception to opponent and interception out of the pitch. The values don’t include the interceptions by goalkeepers.
The average number of attempted interceptions was 91/match/team in the analyzed matches.
The number of interceptions was the highest in the Finnish league and higher in the opponents
when compared to Finland in the national team matches. (Figure 64.)
120
113
95
100
91
86
81
80
60
40
20
0
No. of interceptions/match/team
World Cup
Finnish league
Finland
Figure 64. Number of interceptions/match/team in the analyzed levels.
Opponents
84
Central defenders and wide defenders had generally more attempts to intercept the ball than
players in other positions. In the Finnish league, midfielders intercepted more passes when
compared to two other analyzed levels. In the analyzed national team matches, Finnish mid-
15
14
14
13
17
13
10
12
8
10
7
8
2
3
4
3
5
6
5
16
16
18
16
fielders had fewer interceptions than their counterparts in the opponent’s teams. (Figure 65.)
2
0
Central defenders
Wide defenders
Forwards
No. of interceptions/match/player
Finnish league
12
14
12
13
15
18
16
17
World Cup
9
10
3
4
3
5
6
5
6
8
2
0
Central defenders
Wide defenders
Forwards
No. of interceptions/match/player
Finland
Opponents
Figure 65. Number of interceptions/match/player in the different positions in the analyzed
levels.
85
Generally, about 60% of interceptions succeeded (ball was won to own team). No remarkable
differences in the outcome of interceptions were observed between the levels or between Finland and their opponents in the national team matches. (Figure 66.)
13 %
14 %
20 %
12 %
27 %
40 %
25 %
63 %
59 %
60 %
28 %
% of all
80 %
60 %
100 %
0%
To own team
To opponent
Out of the pitch
Outcome of interceptions
World Cup
Finnish league
12 %
20 %
11 %
40 %
25 %
60 %
26 %
% of all
62 %
80 %
64 %
100 %
0%
To own team
To opponent
Finland
Opponents
Figure 66. Outcome of interceptions in the analyzed levels.
Out of the pitch
86
Figure 67 presents the area of interceptions in the analyzed levels. In the Finnish league, there
were higher proportion of interceptions in the midfield and lower of proportion of interceptions
in the defensive third when compared to two other levels. No remarkable differences were observed between Finland and their opponents in the analyzed national team matches. (Figure
67.)
87
Offensive third
OFFENSIVE
3rd
WC: 3%
NT: 5%
FIN 5%
OPP: 4%
FL:
6%
MIDFIELD
WC: 51%
NT: 50%
FIN: 49%
OPP: 50%
FL:
55%
DEFENSIVE
3rd
WC: 46%
NT: 46%
FIN: 46%
OPP: 45%
FL:
39%
WC: 1%
NT: 1%
FIN: 1%
OPP: 2%
FL:
2%
WC: 20%
NT: 21%
FIN: 23%
OPP: 19%
FL:
20%
WC: 0%
NT: 1%
WC: 1%
NT: 2%
FIN: 1%
OPP: 1%
FIN: 3%
OPP: 1%
FL:
FL:
1%
WC: 9%
NT: 13%
FIN: 10%
OPP: 17%
FL:
15%
3%
WC: 21%
NT: 15%
FIN: 16%
OPP: 15%
FL:
20%
WC: 17%
NT: 14%
WC: 12%
NT: 20%
WC: 17%
NT: 12%
FIN: 17%
OPP: 11%
FIN: 20%
OPP: 20%
FIN: 9%
OPP: 14%
FL:
FL:
FL:
15%
15%
Defensive third
Figure 67. The area of interceptions in the analyzed levels.
10%
88
3.8 STEALS
Steal was tagged, when the defensive player tried to steal the ball from the opponent (usually
after receiving/during dribble) and got a touch on the ball. The outcome of steals was divided
into three categories: interception to own team, interception to opponent and interception out
of the pitch. The values don’t include the steals by goalkeepers.
The average number of attempted steals was 35/match/team in the analyzed matches. The
number of steals was the highest in the Finnish league and higher in the Finnish national team
when compared to their opponents in the national team matches. (Figure 68.)
60
41
40
34
32
30
28
20
0
Number of steals/match/team
World Cup
Finnish league
Finland
Figure 68. Number of steals/match/team in the analyzed levels.
Opponents
89
Central midfielders and wide defenders had generally more attempts to steal the ball than
players in other positions. Generally, the steals distributed quite evenly between the positions
and on average one player had 3-5/steals/match. (Figure 69.)
4
2
2
3
4
5
4
4
5
1
2
2
3
4
4
4
5
6
0
Central defenders
Wide defenders
Forwards
No. of steals/match/player
World Cup
Finnish league
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
4
4
4
5
6
0
Central defenders
Wide defenders
Forwards
No. of steals/match/player
Finland
Opponents
Figure 69. Number of steals/match/player in the different positions in the analyzed levels.
90
Generally, about 70% of steals succeeded (ball was won to own team). No remarkable differences in the outcome of steals were observed between the level or between Finland and their
opponents in the national team matches.(Figure 70.)
71 %
68 %
60 %
16 %
17 %
18 %
13 %
20 %
14 %
40 %
14 %
% of all
80 %
69 %
100 %
0%
To own team
To opponent
Out of the pitch
World Cup
Finnish league
67 %
60 %
18 %
16 %
20 %
15 %
40 %
14 %
% of all
80 %
71 %
100 %
0%
To own team
To opponent
Finland
Opponents
Figure 70. Outcome of steals in the analyzed levels.
Out of the pitch
91
Figure 71 presents the area of steals in the analyzed levels. Most of steals took place in the
defensive third or the midfield. In the World Cup-level higher proportion of steals were made
in defensive third than in two other levels, whereas in Finnish league and analyzed national
team matches the most common area for steals was midfield. In the Finnish league the proportion of steals in the offensive third was higher than in two other analyzed levels. No remarkable differences in the area of steals were observed between Finland and their opponents in the
analyzed national team matches.(Figure 71.)
92
Offensive third
OFFENSIVE
3rd
WC: 4%
NT: 7%
FIN 6%
OPP: 7%
FL:
11%
MIDFIELD
WC: 45%
NT: 59%
FIN: 59%
OPP: 58%
FL:
53%
DEFENSIVE
3rd
WC: 51%
NT: 35%
FIN: 34%
OPP: 36%
FL:
WC: 1%
NT: 2%
FIN: 2%
OPP: 1%
FL:
5%
WC: 15%
NT: 20%
FIN: 18%
OPP: 22%
FL:
23%
WC: 19%
NT: 16%
FIN: 16%
OPP: 16%
FL:
18%
WC: 0%
NT: 0%
WC: 3%
NT: 5%
FIN: 0%
OPP: 0%
FIN: 4%
OPP: 6%
FL:
FL:
1%
WC: 9%
NT: 16%
FIN: 19%
OPP: 13%
FL:
7%
5%
WC: 21%
NT: 23%
FIN: 22%
OPP: 23%
FL:
23%
WC: 12%
NT: 9%
WC: 20%
NT: 10%
FIN: 6%
OPP: 11%
FIN: 12%
OPP: 9%
FL:
5%
37%
Defensive third
Figure 71. The area of steals in the analyzed levels.
FL:
14%
93
3.9 DUELS
Duel was tagged, when two outfield players from the opposite teams fought for a loose ball,
either in air or ground. The average number of duels (ground+air) was 49/match/team in the
analyzed matches. The number of duels was the highest in the Finnish league and the lowest in
the analyzed national team matches. (Figure 72.) Finland won 42% of the duels against their
opponents in the analyzed national team matches. (Figure 73.)
80
60
61
51
35
40
20
0
No. of duels/match/team
WC
NT
FL
Figure 72. Number of duels/match/team in the analyzed levels.
100 %
80 %
60 %
58 %
42 %
40 %
20 %
0%
Percentage of successful duels
FIN
OPP.
Figure 73. The percentages of successful duels in the analyzed national team matches.
94
3.10 OTHER ACTIONS
Few of the other analyzed technical variables have been presented in table 12.
Table 12. The number of other actions/match/team
Level
Clearences
Blocked shots
Fouls
Offsides
WC
14
2
11
2
NT
9
2
12
4
FIN
8
2
15
3
OPP.
9
2
8
4
FL
14
3
12
2
95
3.11 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HALVES
To detect differences between the halves in few of the key technical actions, the percentual
change has been presented in the following graphs for the total values and the absolute
change in the percentage of the success of the actions.
In the second half, the number of passes decreased in World Cup and national team matches,
but increased in the Finnish league. Especially for Finnish national team the percentual decrease in the number of passes was drastic. (Figure 74.)
6%
10 %
-2 %
0%
-5 %
-20 %
-25 %
No. of passes
World Cup
Finnish league
-22 %
-15 %
-14 %
-10 %
-7 %
Differnce between the halves (%)
5%
Finland
Opponents
Figure 74. Difference (%) in the number of passes between the halves in the analyzed levels.
96
Like for the passes also the number of receives decreased in World Cup and national team
matches, but increased in the Finnish league. Especially for Finnish national team the
percentual decrease in the number of receives was once again drastic. (Figure 75.)
9%
15 %
5%
0%
-5 %
-5 %
-2 %
-10 %
-15 %
-13 %
10 %
-19 %
-20 %
-25 %
No. of receives
World Cup
Finnish league
Finland
Opponents
Figure 75. Difference (%) in the number of receives between the halves in the analyzed levels.
97
The number of dribbles and 1v1-challenges increased between the halves in the World Cup
and Finnish league, but decreased in the national team matches. This is because the number of
10 %
2%
5%
0%
-5 %
-3 %
15 %
8%
20 %
15 %
dribbles by Finnish national team decreased by 9%. (Figure 76.)
-9 %
-10 %
-15 %
No. of dribbles + 1v1-challenges
World Cup
Finnish league
Finland
Opponents
Figure 76. Difference (%) in the number of dribbles and 1v1-challenges between the halves in
98
The number of interceptions increased a bit between the halves in the World Cup and Finnish
league, but decreased in the national team matches. Especially in Finnish national team the
number of interceptions in the second half was a lot lower when compared to first. (Figure 77.)
1%
0%
-7 %
-5 %
-7 %
5%
4%
10 %
-10 %
-15 %
-25 %
No. of interceptions
World Cup
Finnish league
-22 %
-20 %
Finland
Opponents
Figure 77. Difference (%) in the number of interceptions between the halves in the analyzed
levels.
99
The percentage of successful passes did not differ remarkably between the halves in any of the
analyzed levels. Finland succeeded a bit worse in their passes in the second half when com-
-1 %
-1 %
-2 %
-3 %
-2 %
Absolute difference betwwen the halves
0%
0%
pared to opponent.(Figure 78.)
-4 %
-6 %
-8 %
-10 %
World Cup
Finnish league
Finland
Opponents
Figure 78. Absolute difference in the percentage of successful passes between the halves.
100
The percentage of successful receives did not differ remarkably between the halves in any of
the analyzed levels. However, it can be noted that the percentage of successful receives decreased in Finnish national team players between the halves but increased in the opponent
4%
players in the national team matches. (Figure 79.)
1%
1%
2%
0%
-4 %
-2 %
-2 %
-2 %
4%
-6 %
-8 %
-10 %
World Cup
Finnish league
Finland
Opponents
Figure 79. Absolute difference in the percentage of successful receives between the halves.
101
The percentage of successful dribbles and 1v1-challenges did not differ remarkably between
the halves in any of the analyzed levels. However, it can be noted that the percentage of successful dribbles and 1v1-challenges increased in Finnish national team players between the
3%
halves but decreased in the opponent players in the national team matches.(Figure 80.)
0%
1%
0%
2%
-2 %
-4 %
-4 %
-3 %
4%
-6 %
-8 %
-10 %
Percentage of successful dribbles + 1v1-challenges
World Cup
Finnish league
Finland
Opponents
Figure 80. Absolute difference in the percentage of dribbles and 1v1-challenges between the
halves.
102
3.12 GOALKEEPERS
Like already mentioned, goalkeepers were excluded from the values presented in the previous
chapters. The values for goalkeepers in the analyzed variables have been presented in table
13.
Table 13. The number of actions/goalkeepers/match/team
Level
Passes
Passes
Goalkicks
Receives
Dribbles
Interceptions Attempted
open
with
play
hands
WC
8
1
6
8
1
2
2
NT
9
3
5
10
2
3
2
FIN
10
3
4
10
2
4
2
OPP.
8
3
5
9
3
1
2
FL
8
2
6
8
1
2
3
saves
103
4 RESULTS/OFFENSIVE ANALYSIS
For the offensive analysis, the offenses which lead to a clear scoring chance and all the offensive set pieces were analyzed. Furthermore, those offenses were the attacking team was able
to penetrate into attacking third and which could have led to a scoring chance with better final
actions were analyzed (e.g. poor final pass in the offensive third). The categorization to fast
and slow offenses was subjective, but can be considered valid.
For the analysis, the offenses were divided into three categories. Fast counter-attacks were offenses which were carried out rapidly against unorganized defense. In contrast, slowly built-up
offenses were offenses against organized defense. Set pieces were also in their own category.
All the variables presented in the report were analyzed in all type of offenses, but for this report open-play offenses have been presented more thoroughly.
In the report, the results for all three levels have been presented first. The results from analyzed
World Cup matches (WC) are marked with red colour, results from analyzed national team
matches (NT) played between Finland and their opponents with green colour and the results
from Finnish league (FL) with blue colour. Furthermore, in the graphs Finland (FIN) has been
compared to their opponents (OPP). Two of the World cup matches went to overtime, but only
the first 90 minutes were analyzed for this report.
104
4.1 NUMBER AND TYPE OF OFFENSES
Total number of offenses varied only little between the levels. On average, about 30 offenses/match/team were analyzed. Finland and their opponents both had 33 offenses/match in
the analyzed national team matches.
Table 14. Total number of analyzed offenses
Level
No. of offenses
World Cup (WC)
176
200
FIN
101
OPP.
99
Finnish League (FL)
194
Table 15. Total number of analyzed offenses/match/team
Level
No. of offenses/match/team
World Cup (WC)
29
33
FIN
33
OPP.
33
Finnish League (FL)
32
105
There wasn’t much difference in the distribution of type of offenses between the levels. In Finnish league, the proportion of fast counter-attacks was a bit higher when compared to World
Cup-level and national team matches. Higher proportion of Finland’s offenses in the analyzed
national team matches were from open play situations and smaller proportion from set pieces
when compared to opponents.(Figure 81.)
20 %
10 %
0%
Set pieces
Fast
Built-up
Type of offenses
35 %
31 %
30 %
20 %
17 %
% of all
40 %
33 %
41 %
50 %
Finnish league
43 %
World Cup
10 %
0%
Set pieces
Fast
Type of offenses
Finland
Opponents
Figure 81. Distribution of type of offenses in the analyzed levels.
Built-up
35 %
39 %
35 %
37 %
28 %
24 %
30 %
25 %
% of all
40 %
37 %
40 %
50 %
106
4.2 OUTCOME OF OFFENSES
In general, about half of the offenses did not lead to an attempt to score as defense succeeded
in their efforts. The better the level, the smaller the percentage of offences leading to a goal.
When Finland and their opponents were compared a difference was observed in shooting accuracy as 20 % of Finland’s offenses ended with a shot wide/over but the proportion was only
50 %
51 %
46 %
60 %
50 %
15% in opponents. Higher proportion of the opponents’ shots went towards goal. (Figure 82.)
6%
14 %
11 %
22 %
18 %
25 %
6%
5%
7%
10 %
6%
5%
10 %
3%
20 %
10 %
30 %
9%
% of all
40 %
0%
Goal
Save
Blocked shot
Over/wide
Gained set piece
No attempt
Outcome of offenses
Finnish league
50 %
60 %
50 %
51 %
World Cup
15 %
12 %
15 %
4%
9%
5%
10 %
4%
20 %
5%
20 %
30 %
10 %
% of all
40 %
0%
Goal
Save
Blocked shot
Over/wide
Outcome of offenses
Finland
Opponents
Figure 82. Distribution of outcome of offenses in the analyzed levels.
Gained set piece
No attempt
107
The effectiveness of set pieces was a bit lower in Finnish league when compared to two other
analyzed levels. In World Cup level, the proportion of blocked shots was higher than in national team matches and Finnish league. The opponents of Finland were more effective in their
set pieces in terms of goals. Higher proportion of Finland’s shots from set pieces were blocked
60 %
62 %
59 %
70 %
56 %
or went wide or over. (Figure 83.)
2%
2%
10 %
24 %
2%
2%
12 %
4%
4%
4%
4%
10 %
6%
20 %
16 %
30 %
17 %
40 %
10 %
% of all
50 %
0%
Goal
Save
Blocked shot
Over/wide
Gained set piece
No attempt
Outcome of set pieces
Finnish league
59 %
70 %
60 %
55 %
World Cup
0%
Goal
10 %
12 %
18 %
3%
12 %
6%
10 %
0%
20 %
10 %
30 %
16 %
40 %
12 %
% of all
50 %
Save
Blocked shot
Over/wide
Outcome of set pieces
Finland
Opponents
Figure 83. Distribution of outcome of set pieces in the analyzed levels.
Gained set piece
No attempt
108
In Finnish league, a higher proportion of fast counter-attacks led to a goal when compared to
two other levels. Finland was a bit more effective in their fast offenses than their opponents
when goals are taken into account. However, Finland also had a higher proportion of counterattacks where they could not create an attempt to score as defense succeeded in their actions
16 %
13 %
19 %
23 %
31 %
6%
8%
5%
4%
14 %
12 %
9%
10 %
5%
20 %
12 %
30 %
3%
% of all
40 %
42 %
38 %
50 %
40 %
before the actual finishing attempt. (Figure 84.)
0%
Goal
Save
Blocked shot
Over/wide
Gained set piece
No attempt
Outcome of fast counter attacks
Finnish league
46 %
World Cup
36 %
50 %
18 %
15 %
21 %
6%
5%
15 %
3%
10 %
10 %
20 %
17 %
30 %
7%
% of all
40 %
0%
Goal
Save
Blocked shot
Over/wide
Gained set piece
Outcome of fast counter attacks
Finland
Opponents
Figure 84. Distribution of outcome of fast counter attacks in the analyzed levels.
No attempt
109
No goals were scored from slowly built-up offenses in analyzed World Cup games. Finland
had a higher distribution of slowly built-up offenses where they were able to try scoring. However, a higher proportion of their shots went wide or over and in total the opponents scored
50 %
55 %
46 %
60 %
51 %
goals with higher percentage from their slow offenses. (Figure 85.)
0%
Blocked shot
Over/wide
8%
13 %
15 %
20 %
7%
5%
6%
Save
17 %
24 %
Goal
9%
5%
0%
10 %
4%
20 %
6%
30 %
10 %
% of all
40 %
Gained set piece
No attempt
Outcome of built-up offenses
World Cup
Finnish league
60 %
70 %
51 %
60 %
40 %
30 %
17 %
23 %
% of all
50 %
9%
9%
3%
7%
6%
7%
6%
10 %
2%
20 %
0%
Goal
Save
Blocked shot
Over/wide
Gained set piece
Outcome of built-up offenses
Finland
Opponents
Figure 85. Distribution of outcome of slowly built-up offenses in the analyzed levels.
No attempt
110
The most common reason for failed offenses (=there was penetration to attacking third but no
attempt to finish) was that the last pass didn’t succeed. Finland failed in their offenses more
often than the opponents because of failed dribble. (Figure 86.)
60 %
54 %
70 %
51 %
67 %
80 %
Last pass to
opp.
Defensive + Last pass out Failed dribble
1%
0%
4%
0%
4%
4%
0%
10 %
5%
7%
8%
20 %
9%
7%
8%
30 %
11 %
8%
11 %
40 %
15 %
8%
19 %
% of all
50 %
Offside
Offensive foul
Failed
reception
Reason for failed offenses
70 %
Finnish league
66 %
80 %
69 %
World Cup
60 %
40 %
Last pass to
opp.
Defensive + Last pass out Failed dribble
Failed
reception
Reason for failed offenses
Finland
Opponents
Figure 86. The reason for failed offenses in the analyzed levels.
Offside
0%
0%
0%
6%
2%
9%
4%
12 %
4%
10 %
9%
10 %
20 %
4%
30 %
6%
% of all
50 %
Offensive foul
111
4.3 STARTING AREA OF OFFENSES
The most common starting area of the offenses in World Cup and national team matches was
midfield and offensive third in Finnish league. Only few of the offenses started from the defensive third. The higher the level, the higher the proportion of the offenses which started from
midfield. Higher proportion of Finland’s offenses in the analyzed national team matches started from the defensive third when compared to their opponents. Higher proportion of the opponent’s offenses started from the midfield when compared to Finland. (Figure 87.)
OFFENSIVE
3rd
Offensive
third
WC: 39%
NT:
37%
FIN:
OPP:
36%
38%
FL:
45%
MIDFIELD
WC: 51%
NT:
49%
FIN:
OPP:
45%
53%
FL:
41%
DEFENSIVE 3rd
WC: 10%
NT:
15%
FIN:
OPP:
20%
9%
FL:
14%
Figure 87.The starting area of the offenses.
112
4.4 STARTING SITUATION OF OFFENSES
The most common starting situations were own start, interception or set pieces. There weren’t
any remarkable differences between the levels in the starting situations. As Finland had more
open play offenses than their opponents in the analyzed national team matches, it’s understandable that they had more offenses where the starting situation was own start, interception
or steal. The opponents had more open play offenses starting with won 2.ball. (Figure 88.)
28 %
24 %
25 %
1%
1%
10 %
1%
16 %
16 %
16 %
14 %
11 %
13 %
23 %
25 %
25 %
18 %
20 %
23 %
% of all
30 %
20 %
40 %
0%
Own start
Interception
Steal
Won 2.ball
Rebound
Set pieces
Starting situation in the offenses
World Cup
Finnish league
31 %
0%
Own start
Interception
Steal
Won 2.ball
17 %
0%
2%
10 %
12 %
8%
14 %
20 %
20 %
22 %
28 %
22 %
% of all
30 %
28 %
40 %
Rebound
Starting situation in the offenses
Finland
Opponents
Figure 88. The proportion of starting situation in the offenses in the analyzed levels.
Set pieces
113
4.5 DURATION OF OFFENSES
The duration of the offenses was about the same in all levels in all type of offenses. In the analyzed national team matches the duration of built-up offenses was a bit longer when compared
to other levels. The opponents attacked their fast offenses a bit faster than Finland in the national team matches. The duration of their built-up offenses was also a bit shorter when com-
17.8
pared to Finland. (Figure 89.)
9.6
8.3
9.0
4.2
5
4.6
10
5.0
Duration (s)
15
14.4
14.8
20
0
Set pieces
Fast
Built-up
Duration of offenses
Finnish league
20
16.9
18.6
World Cup
5
7.7
8.9
3.7
10
5.1
Duration (s)
15
0
Set pieces
Fast
Built-up
Duration of offenses
Finland
Opponents
Figure 89. The average duration of different type of offenses in the analyzed levels.
114
The average duration of the fast counter attacks did not differ remarkably between the analyzed levels. However, there was a difference observed when Finland was compared to their
opponents in the analyzed national team matches. The opponents were faster in their fast
counter attacks when the offense started from defensive third or midfield (Figure 90.)
OFFENSIVE 3rd
WC: 6.6 s
NT:
4.6 s
FIN:
OPP:
4.3 s
5.0 s
FL:
5.7 s
MIDFIELD
WC: 9.5 s
NT:
8.9 s
FIN:
OPP:
FL:
9.9 s
7.6 s
10.0 s
DEFENSIVE 3rd
WC: 12.5 s
NT:
16.0 s
FIN:
OPP:
16.3 s
15.6 s
FL:
13.8 s
Figure 90. Average duration of fast counter attacks from different areas in the analyzed levels.
115
The duration of the slowly built-up offenses was remarkably longer in the analyzed national
team matches when the offense started from the defensive third when compared to two other
levels. In contrast, the offenses starting from the offensive third lasted for a shorter period of
time in the national team matches. Finland used more time than their opponents to build up the
offenses when the offense started from the defensive third. In contrast, the duration was longer
in opponents when the offense started from the midfield. (Figure 91.)
OFFENSIVE 3rd
WC: 8.3 s
NT:
6.6 s
FIN:
OPP:
6.7 s
6.3 s
FL:
9.3 s
MIDFIELD
WC: 16.5 s
NT:
16.4 s
FIN:
OPP:
14.3 s
17.9 s
FL:
15.1 s
DEFENSIVE 3rd
WC: 18.3 s
NT:
28.6 s
FIN:
OPP:
29.6 s
25.7 s
FL:
20.2 s
Figure 91. Average duration of slowly built-up offenses from different areas in the analyzed
levels.
116
4.6 NUMBER OF PASSES IN OFFENSES
The number of passes in fast breaks was on average 2 and in slowly built-up offenses from 4
to 5. In the analyzed national team matches between Finland and their opponents the average
number of passes in built-up offenses was a bit higher than in other two levels. Finland used on
average more passes in their fast breaks and built-up offenses than their opponents. (Figure
92.)
4.1
1
2.1
0.9
0.9
2
2.2
3
1.9
4
1.1
No of passes
5
4.2
5.0
6
0
Set pieces
Fast
Built-up
Average no. of passes in offenses
World Cup
Finnish league
4.6
5.4
6
4
1
0.8
2
1.7
2.0
3
0.9
No of passes
5
0
Set pieces
Fast
Built-up
Average no. of passes in offenses
Finland
Opponents
Figure 92. The average number of passes in different type of offenses in the analyzed levels.
117
Between the analyzed levels there wasn’t any remarkable differences in the distribution of the
number of passes, expect in the 6-9 passes-category. This difference can be explained especially by the results from team Finland as they used 6 or more passes more frequently than their
opponents. Generally during the open play offenses teams passed very frequently more than 5
passes. (Figure 93.)
40 %
2%
2%
10 %
3%
10 %
20 %
10 %
30 %
10 %
% of all
43 %
36 %
44 %
45 %
43 %
50 %
44 %
60 %
0%
0-2
3-5
6-9
10 or over
No.of passes in offenses
World Cup
Finnish league
25 %
40 %
30 %
12 %
20 %
4%
10 %
1%
% of all
43 %
35 %
42 %
50 %
44 %
60 %
0%
0-2
3-5
6-9
10 or over
No. of passes in offenses
Finland
Opponents
Figure 93. The average distribution of number passes in open play offenses in the analyzed
levels.
118
4.7 HOW MANY PLAYERS TOUCHED THE BALL DURING OFFENSES?
There weren’t any big differences observed in the number of players who touched the ball during the offenses between the levels or between Finland and the opponents. In the fast counter
attacks about 2-3 players touched the ball during the offense and during slowly built-up offenses 4 players. (Figure 94.)
2.4
2.6
4.1
4.3
3.9
1.2
2
1.4
2.6
4
1.6
No of players
6
0
Set pieces
Fast
Built-up
No.of players touching the ball
World Cup
Finnish league
4.0
1.2
2
2.3
2.4
4
1.2
No of players
4.5
6
0
Set pieces
Fast
Built-up
No. of players touching the ball
Finland
Opponents
Figure 94. The average number of player touching the ball during different type of offenses in
119
4.8 PLAYER TO GIVE THE FIRST PASS IN OPEN PLAY OFFENSES
Wide defenders were in World Cup-level and analyzed national team matches the ones who
most commonly gave the first pass in open play offenses. In Finnish league, central midfielders
gave the first pass most commonly. When comparing Finnish national team to their opponents
in the national team matches, it was observed that in the opponent teams, the offensive players
were more commonly the ones who gave the first pass in open play offenses. (Figure 95.)
10 %
4%
4%
24 %
21 %
16 %
19 %
16 %
10 %
13 %
8%
10 %
11 %
20 %
12 %
9%
14 %
30 %
4%
9%
4%
% of all
40 %
16 %
33 %
28 %
50 %
0%
GK
CD
WD
CM
WM
F
No passes
Player to give the first pass in open play offenses
World Cup
Finnish league
12 %
8%
13 %
12 %
22 %
15 %
8%
17 %
31 %
3%
10 %
14 %
20 %
10 %
30 %
8%
% of all
40 %
25 %
50 %
0%
GK
CD
WD
CM
WM
F
Player to give the first pass in open play offenses
Finland
Opponents
Figure 95. The role of the player giving the first pass in open play offenses in the analyzed
levels.
No passes
120
4.9 TYPE OF PENETRATION IN OPEN PLAY OFFENSES
The teams in Finnish league used crosses as type of penetration more commonly than the national teams in the analyzed matches and especially the teams in analyzed World Cup matches. In the World Cup-level matches breaking passes and one-twos were more commonly used
as a type of penetration compared to the other two levels. Finland used crosses and long balls
more often than their opponents as the type of penetration in the analyzed national team
matches. The opponents of Finland penetrated more often with short breaking passes. (Figure
6%
2%
3%
1%
1%
10 %
4%
11 %
13 %
14 %
22 %
25 %
23 %
25 %
38 %
20 %
20 %
30 %
29 %
% of all
40 %
27 %
50 %
35 %
96.)
0%
Cross
Breaking pass
Successful 1v1
Long pass
One-two
Successful def.
Action
Type of penetration in open play offenses
0%
Cross
Breaking pass
Successful 1v1
Long pass
One-two
Type of penetratiotn in open play offenses
Finland
Opponents
Figure 96. Type of penetration in open play offenses in the analyzed levels.
7%
5%
0%
10 %
1%
12 %
24 %
26 %
Finnish league
14 %
20 %
25 %
30 %
17 %
% of all
40 %
31 %
50 %
38 %
World Cup
Successful def.
Action
121
4.10 PLAYER TO GIVE THE BREAKING PASS IN OPEN PLAY OFFENSES
In World Cup-level and analyzed national team matches wide midfielders gave most commonly the breaking pass. In Finnish league forwards were the ones who most commonly gave the
breaking pass. Finnish defenders gave the breaking pass more commonly than their counterparts in the opponent teams in the analyzed national team matches. In the opponents of Finland, forwards gave the breaking pass more often than in Finnish team. (Figure 97.)
0%
GK
CD
WD
CM
WM
F
4%
10 %
17 %
13 %
17 %
21 %
4%
10 %
5%
8%
3%
20 %
11 %
10 %
17 %
22 %
17 %
30 %
2%
0%
1%
% of all
40 %
30 %
34 %
37 %
50 %
No passes
Player to give the breaking pass in open play offenses
World Cup
Finnish league
GK
CD
WD
CM
WM
F
No passes
Player to give the breaking pass in open play offenses
Finland
12 %
8%
6%
13 %
10 %
4%
0%
0%
10 %
0%
15 %
20 %
21 %
27 %
30 %
11 %
% of all
40 %
35 %
38 %
50 %
Opponents
Figure 97. The roles of the player giving the breaking pass in open play offenses in the analyzed levels.
122
4.11 STARTING AREA OF THE LAST PASS IN OPEN PLAY OFFENSES
Figure 98 presents the starting area of last passes in open play offenses. The areas have been
divided to: the defensive third, midfield, areas outside the penalty box (left, centre, right),
flanks (left and right) and penalty box.
In the analyzed World Cup matches, higher proportion of the last passes in open play offenses were given from the central areas outside the penalty box when compared to two other levels. In Finnish league and also in the analyzed national team matches higher proportion of the
last passes were given from the flanks. Especially in the Finnish national team a higher proportion of the last passes were given from the flanks when compared to their opponents. The opponents of Finnish national team were better able to penetrate centrally as higher proportion of
their last passes were given outside the penalty box when compared to Finland (30% vs 38%
for opponents). (Figure 98.)
WC:
NT:
11%
12%
FIN:
OPP:
12%
13%
FL:
16%
123
WC:
NT:
14%
21%
FIN:
OPP:
26%
15%
FL:
18%
WC:
NT:
11%
12%
FIN:
OPP:
14%
11%
FL:
9%
11%
7%
WC:
NT:
14%
7%
WC:
NT:
10%
8%
FIN:
OPP:
6%
7%
FIN:
OPP:
4%
10%
FL:
8%
FL:
11%
FIN:
OPP:
6%
10%
FL:
8%
WC:
NT:
26%
32%
FIN:
OPP:
30%
33%
FL:
28%
WC:
NT:
WC:
NT:
3%
2%
FIN:
OPP:
1%
2%
FL:
1%
Figure 98.The starting area of the last passes in open play offenses.
124
4.12 PLAYER TO ATTEMPT FINISHING IN OPEN PLAY OFFENSES
In Finnish league forwards had a higher proportions of the actual chances to try finishing in
open play offenses. The higher the level, the smaller the percentage of chances created to forwards. In World Cup matches wide midfielders tried to finish most commonly. In the analyzed
national team matches there weren’t any remarkable differences observed in the player roles in
0%
CD
WD
CM
WM
22 %
14 %
12 %
14 %
14 %
17 %
10 %
2%
1%
2%
1%
1%
0%
20 %
8%
40 %
12 %
% of all
60 %
63 %
56 %
80 %
52 %
finishing. (Figure 99.)
F
No finishing
Player to attempt finishing in open play offenses
Finnish league
61 %
80 %
66 %
World Cup
CD
1%
0%
0%
0%
1%
WD
CM
WM
15 %
13 %
12 %
15 %
20 %
7%
40 %
8%
% of all
60 %
F
No finishing
Player to attempt finishing in open play offenses
Finland
Opponents
Figure 99. The roles of the player attempting to finish in open play offenses in the analyzed
levels.
125
4.13 THE AREA OF FINISHING IN OPEN PLAY OFFENSES
In Finnish league it seemed easier to be able to penetrate into penalty box as in that level in
total of 53% of the attempts to score came inside this area. The proportion for this in World
Cup-level was 46% and in the analyzed national team matches 43%.Finland got the chances
to finish from better areas than their opponents. 57% of Finland’s finishes came inside the box
whereas the same percentage was only 30% in opponents. (Figure 100.)
WC:
NT:
FIN:
OPP:
16%
7%
9%
4%
FL:
15%
WC:
NT:
13%
14%
FIN:
OPP:
6%
26%
FL:
11%
WC:
NT:
5%
9%
FIN:
OPP:
15%
9%
FL:
5%
WC:
NT:
16%
23%
FIN:
OPP:
30%
13%
FL:
23%
WC:
NT:
33%
25%
FIN:
OPP:
21%
30%
FL:
23%
WC:
NT:
4%
7%
FIN:
OPP:
3%
13%
FL:
0%
WC:
NT:
9%
4%
FIN:
OPP:
3%
4%
FL:
10%
WC: 6%
NT:
11%
FIN:
OPP:
12%
9%
FL:
13%
Figure 100.The area of finishes in open play offenses in the analyzed levels.
126
4.14 TYPE OF FINISHING IN OPEN PLAY OFFENSES
In World Cup-level there were a higher proportion of direct shots from passes and shots after
dribbles than in other two levels. Finland used headers more often as a type of finishing than
their opponents in the analyzed national team matches. (Figure 101.)
80 %
10 %
14 %
6%
8%
9%
3%
28 %
27 %
33 %
25 %
30 %
28 %
20 %
20 %
20 %
40 %
38 %
% of all
60 %
0%
Shot from pass
Receiving+shot
Dribble+shot
Shot from loose ball
Header
Type of finishing in open play offenses
World Cup
Finnish league
80 %
4%
21 %
13 %
26 %
27 %
39 %
24 %
6%
20 %
17 %
40 %
21 %
% of all
60 %
0%
Shot from pass
Receiving+shot
Dribble+shot
Shot from loose ball
Type of finishing in open play offenses
Finland
Opponents
Figure 101. The type of finishing in open play offenses in the analyzed levels.
Header
127
4.15 NO OF TOUCHES IN FINISHING IN OPEN PLAY OFFENSES
There weren’t any big differences in the number of touches used in finishing between the analyzed levels. In general, players usually attempted to finish with one touch. Finnish players tried
to finish with one touch more often than the players in the opponent team in the analyzed national team matches. (Figure 102.)
36 %
0%
1
2
3-5
Over 5
No of touches in finishing in open play offenses
World Cup
Finnish league
39 %
26 %
24 %
40 %
27 %
35 %
% of all
60 %
48 %
80 %
0%
1
2
3-5
Over 5
No of touches in finishing in open play offenses
Finland
0%
0%
20 %
Opponents
Figure 102. Number of touches in finishing in open play offenses in the analyzed levels.
8%
0%
8%
20 %
20 %
27 %
19 %
40 %
25 %
30 %
47 %
43 %
% of all
60 %
47 %
80 %
128
5 DISCUSSION
Despite only three matches were analyzed per level, the total number of values in different variables was high enough, so that few of the conclusions and suggestions based on the results
can be made. However, it is obvious that in the future more thorough analysis and continuous
update of the current results would be beneficial.
5.1 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
BETWEEN THE LEVELS:
One clear and not so surprising finding according to the results seemed to be, that the Finnish
players used more time with the ball when compared to world class players playing in the
World Cup. Players played the ball usually with two touches and already in this number of
touches used there were differences observed in the duration of the ball action in favor of
world class players.
Thus, it seems evident, that the technical skills but also game understanding of the Finnish
players, both in the league but also in the national team needs to be improved in order to increase the tempo of the game to match the requirements of the modern game. In all of the situations it is not beneficial to rush with the ball, but in general the players should have technical
quality to control the ball in different situations and also the ability to recognize the situations
when the ball needs to passed around quickly. A lot of technical training with increasing demands by age is required in the Finnish women’s football in order to develop the tempo of the
Finnish football. This is of course something which needs to be done already from young age
forward.
One thing which is also related to the tempo of the game is of course the tempo of passing
and the pace of the passes as football is mainly a passing game. A clear trend was observed
in the pace of the passes: the higher the level, the higher the pace of the passes (see figure
24). Once again, these results indicate that a higher volume and quality of technical training
would be beneficial to improve the passing skills of the Finnish players.
In the Finnish league passes didn’t succeed as well as in two other levels and thus, also the
passing sequences were shorter and the average duration of one ball possession/team shorter
during the matches. In the Finnish league, players also targeted the passes more often to attacking third, tried to play the first pass forward more often, used long passes more often as
the first pass and succeeded in the first pass less often than in two other levels. Forwards were
also more commonly the target players of the passes in the Finnish league and less passes
were played to midfield than in the two other levels.
129
Based on the results, it could be speculated that the nature of the game in the Finnish league is
more direct and reminds of kick’n’rush-type of football, where a long ball is attempted really
often to target players in the offensive third and less ball control-type of play occurs in the midfield. Thus, the ball possessions/team are short and pinball-type nature of the game occurs.
In order to aid the development of the players in the Finnish league, the players could be encouraged to keep the ball in control of the own team for longer durations and pass more short
passes in the midfield before attempting the breaking pass to attacking third and forward. In
the World Cup level for example, more passes were played in midfield and it seems evident
that currently football in women is also evolving to possession-type of play. Thus, the Finnish
players should be developed to match the requirements of football at the moment. In the analyzed matches, the passes to midfield and to midfielders in the Finnish league succeeded less
often when compared to two other levels and thus, this certainly is one thing which needs to be
improved.
Finnish players, both in the league and the national team, succeeded less often in their long
passes when compared to players in World Cup and opponent’s of the national team. If a
long ball-type of play has to be played, then the level of long passing in Finnish players should
be improved also.
The receives in the Finnish league succeeded less often than in the two other levels. The direction of receiving was also more commonly backwards and less commonly forwards than in two
other levels. Once again, technical skills but also game understanding of the players should be
improved, so that higher percentage of the receives are successful and in the forward direction. There were also more receives with chest and thighs in the Finnish league, indicating that
more passes were played in the air than in two other levels.
The success of dribbles was worse in the Finnish league when compared to two other levels,
especially in midfield players and wide defenders. Players also dribble more often sideways
and back and less often forward in the Finnish league when compared to two other levels. Also, the number of 1v1-challenges was lower in the Finnish league and amongst Finnish national team players when compared to World Cup-level. It is important to encourage the players to
dribble and challenge the opponents, but the players should have high game understanding to
identify the situations and areas, where it is beneficial to dribble. It seems evident based on the
results that for example in the Finnish league, the players dribble with the ball, when they don’t
know what else to do with the ball, based on the high proportion of dribbles sideways and
back.
The number of interceptions, steals and duels was higher in the Finnish league when compared
to two other levels. For the development of players’ individual defensive skills this is of course a
good thing as they get to train these actions during live game situations more often. However,
at the same time these values also give indication about the lack of technical skills of the offen-
130
sive players and pin-ball type of nature of the game. The shorter the duration of ball possession/team, the higher the number of interceptions and steals and the higher the number of duels when the players fight for the loose balls.
FINLAND VS. OPPONENTS:
In two of the analyzed matches (SCO & BLR) Finland played against a team which was ranked
lower in the FIFA ranking and only in the match against England the opponent was ranked
higher and thus, perhaps considered a better team. This must be taken into account when reviewing the results.
In the matches against Belarus and Scotland, Finland had a higher overall percentage of ball
possession and more passes than the opponent team. However, a great amount of this ball
possession included passes in the defensive third and passes to defenders. Also, in the national
team matches, a higher proportion of Finland’s last passes were given from the defensive third
and smaller proportion of the last passes from midfield and the offensive third. Finland also
played more passes sideways and back when compared to opponents and passed more rarely
to midfielders and forwards than their opponents.
Thus, despite Finland had more of the overall possession in two of the three national team
matches, the possession occurred deeper in their own half, rather than in the offensive zones.
Against the weaker opponents, such as Scotland and Belarus, Finland should be able to control the ball more also in the midfield and offensive third rather than passing the ball around in
the defensive third and from central defender to central defender.
In the match against England, Finland had a lot less ball possession and thus a lot less passes
than England and the Finnish players succeeded in their passes worse than the opponents.
Once again, the technical skills of the Finnish players should be improved from a young age
forward so that the ball control and passing game can be carried out against better teams also. As the technical skills of the national team players can’t be affected before the Euro 2013,
then the tactical approach of the national team could be considered carefully when the team
prepares for the top level matches in that tournament.
Finnish players succeeded in their 1v1-challenges less often when compared to players in the
opponent team. In particular, the success of 1v1-challenges of central and wide midfielders did
not reach the level of the counterparts in the opponent team. What is delightful however is that
a higher proportion of Finland’s challenges occurred in the offensive third when compared to
opponents.
One interesting finding was that the number of passes, receives, dribbles and interceptions decreased drastically in the second halves of the games in the Finnish players. The decrease in
131
the number of these variables between the halves wasn’t as remarkable in the opponent teams.
Usually when the team controls the ball more during the matches (like Finland did), the fatigue
occurs more rapidly in the defensive team and thus, the number in variables should have perhaps decreased more in the opponents, rather than in the Finnish team. One could perhaps
speculate about the physical fitness level of the Finnish players, but as no exact values about
this is available from the opponent teams, this is mere speculation and more information about
the fatigue related weakening of the technical performance in Finnish players when compared
to opponents is needed.
In the future, it would be vital to analyze more matches from the Finnish national team against
top European teams like England to get more information about the technical skills, strengths
and weaknesses of the Finnish players in comparison to top level opponents. EURO 2013matches would of course be perfect for these purposes and give more relevant and interesting
information.
5.2 OFFENSIVE ANALYSIS
BETWEEN THE LEVELS:
The total number of analyzed offenses was almost the same (~30) in all analyzed levels. Furthermore, the type of offense did not vary remarkably between the levels.
When the outcome of the offense was analyzed, it was noted that in the highest level (WC)
less of the offenses led to a goal and more shots went wide/over compared to two other levels. It could be speculated, that maybe in the highest level, the players have to try the finishing
under more pressure and from difficult positions. In the World Cup, the players also attempted
shots direct from the pass more than in two other levels. The higher the level, the more solid the
defense and thus, less time for the finish. In Finnish league for example, higher proportion of
the finishes came from inside the penalty box and thus, it seems that in this level it’s easier to
penetrate through the defense.
There were a higher proportion of fast counter-attacks in Finnish league compared to two other
levels, despite the difference being quite small. Also, in Finnish league usually a bit less passes
were given during the open play offenses. This could also indicate that the style of play is a bit
more direct in Finnish league, as speculated in the previous chapter. Of course, further analyses are needed to make more reliable conclusions.
The higher the level, the higher the proportion of central penetration with short breaking passes. In contrast, in Finnish league the type of penetration was very commonly crosses from the
flanks. Thus, it can be speculated that technically more skilled players are better able to control
the ball under pressure and create chances also from tight areas through the middle. To be
132
able to develop Finnish players towards international level, technical skills and adequate tactical understanding of the players need to be developed to be able to create scoring chances
through various types of penetration. At the moment, there seems to be trend in the football
towards central penetration and shorter breaking passes and thus, the Finnish players need to
be developed in order to match the trends of football currently.
FINLAND VS. OPPONENTS:
Three matches from Finland’s women’s national team were analyzed for this offensive analysis
report. Two of the matches (Scotland and Belarus) were played against teams that were equal
or worse to level of Finland. Against England the level of opponent was higher than the level of
Finland.
Finland and their opponents had equal amount of offenses in the analyzed matches
(33/team/match). Finland was able to create more chances through open play offenses,
where as the opponents relied more on set pieces.
The outcome of the offenses was pretty much the same. However, it can be noted that higher
proportion of Finland’s offenses ended with a shot wide or over whereas opponents scored
one more goal and forced the goalkeeper to save more often. In general, the opponents were
more effective in their set pieces and slowly built-up offenses. They were also better able to
create a finish from fast counter-attacks despite the proportion of goals scored was a bit higher
in Finland. Thus, the effectiveness of offenses was one thing which separated Finland from their
opponents, despite the difference being pretty small.
The opponents were faster in their counter-attacks when these offenses started from the defensive third and midfield. Adequate amount of high quality tactical training is required to improve Finnish player’s game understanding. In the pitch, players have to know, when to execute fast transition and how to execute it more effectively or vice versa, when to build up an
attack more slowly. The key to success in modern football is more and more in effective transitions, to both ways.
Finland used crosses as the type of penetration more often than the opponents. Thus, higher
proportion of Finland’s last passes came from the flanks and less from the central areas and
the wing players (defenders+ midfielders) were more commonly the ones giving the breaking
pass than in opponent teams. Finland also used headers more as a type of finishing.
By this type of penetration, Finland was able to create scoring chances to better areas as more
of their finishes came from inside the penalty box compared to opponents. This is of course a
good thing. However, it could be recommended that the quality of central approach and penetration should be improved in the future. The breaking passes given from the central areas near
133
or inside the penalty box are usually more difficult to defend than the passes from the flanks
and thus, the effectiveness of the offenses could be improved. Teams that can vary the type of
penetration are usually causing more harm to the opponents.
In general, Finland did quite OK in the analyzed matches compared to opponents when the
offensive situations were analyzed, but there remains areas where things can be improved,
especially against stronger opponents. In the future, it would be interested to compare Finland
to opponents in the matches were they face the really top European teams (like England). Thus,
more differences and things to improve could be found out.
134
6 MAIN FINDINGS/COACHING POINTS
-
Finnish players (in the league and in the national team) used more time with the ball
when compared to world class players
-
pace of the passes slower in the Finnish league and in the Finnish national team
players slower when compared to world class players
 tempo of the game slower in the Finnish league and in the Finnish national team
when compared to world class level
 the technical level and tactical understanding of Finnish players need to be
improved in the future
 More and more technical and tactical training with better quality from the young
age amongst the Finnish players.
-
Based on the results, the nature of the game in the Finnish league seems to be direct
 Does this develop the Finnish players to the requirements of ball control-type of
football played currently at the world class level?
-
Finnish national team controlled the ball more against weaker opponents but a high
proportion of the ball control deep in the own half
 against the weaker opponents, a higher proportion of the ball control should occur
in the midfield and offensive third when compared to analyzed matches
-
Against better opponent (England), less ball control and less passes when compared to
opponents, poor success in the technical variables
 more and more technical and tactical training with better quality from the young
age amongst the Finnish players.
-
135
There was a drastic decrease in the number of passes, receives, dribbles and
interceptions amongst Finnish players, but not in the opponents, between the halves.
 Physical fitness level of the Finnish players needs to be improved?
-
Type of penetration in the Finnish league and Finland’s national team really often
crosses from the flanks.
-
More central penetration in the World Cup-level with short breaking passes.
 Trends of football currently towards central penetration and shorter breaking
passes?
 more and more technical and tactical training with better quality from the young
age amongst the Finnish player to create technically and tactically more skillful
players and to increase the proportion of central penetration
-
Finnish national team:
 The overall team performance in OK level, at least again weaker opponents
 a lot of rotation of the ball in deeper areas in the own half, build-up takes a
long time
 central midfielders weren’t involved in the offensive game as much as would
perhaps be beneficial
 Most of the penetrations through the flanks, a lot of crosses in the offensive play

Are the player types optimal for this type of football?
 Technical and tactical skills and physical abilities of the players should be
improved to develop players as individuals and thus, also team performance
-
Finnish league:
 In terms of analyzed technical and tactical variables, it seems evident that even
the level of the best teams in the league are far away from the international
level
 A lot of work needs to be done to improve the level individual skills of the
players

Untitled

Transcription

Similar documents

Road Atlas Finland

Case Study

Kollaa

Finland has reinvented itself in just one short

Starter kit for newcomers to Oulu

a view from the outside

Employment office services

RED FOREST HOTEL

folklandia - Songlines

Part1 - USAsuomeksi