International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport

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

Principal Components Analysis in the selection of

Key Performance Indicators in Sport

Peter O’Donoghue

To cite this article: Peter O’Donoghue (2008) Principal Components Analysis in the selection of
Key Performance Indicators in Sport, International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 8:3,
145-155

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2008.11868456

Published online: 03 Apr 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpan20

Download by: [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] Date: 15 May 2017, At: 09:03
Principal Components Analysis in the selection of Key Performance
Indicators in Sport
Peter O’Donoghue

Cardiff School of Sport, University of Wales Institute Cardiff, Cyncoed Campus,

Cardiff, Wales, CF23 6XD, UK.

Abstract

Principal components analysis is a data reduction technique that can be

used within the process of identifying key performance indicators for
sports analysis systems, especially real-time systems. The smaller set of
critical performance indicators is associated with action variables that it
is possible to enter into a match analysis system in real-time. A further
possible application of principal components analysis is to identify
higher order performance indicators based on combinations of related
performance indicators. These higher order performance indicators
allow the feedback provided to players to be more concise avoiding the
presentation of redundant information.

Key words: performance indicators, tennis

1. Introduction

The development of performance analysis systems for sport typically involves making
decisions about performance indicators to be used. A performance indicator is an
objectively measured performance variable or a combination of such performance
variables (Hughes and Bartlett, 2002). For every performance indicator chosen by the
system developers and users, there are associated action variables to be entered during
system operation. For example, consider a system for the analysis of tennis
performance. A performance indicator that could be of interest is the percentage of
points where the first serve was played in. In order for this performance indicator to
be computed, it is necessary for each point to be classified as emanating from the first
serve or requiring a second serve.

Recent research has shown that the selection of key performance indicators is a
critical decision in the development of a real-time performance analysis system (Choi,
2008). Real-time systems have specific requirements for data to be entered and
performance indicators to be output within stated time limits. For example, the
system may be operated live during a match so as information can be provided to the
coach during the match. Where such systems involve a human operator, these real-
time requirements must be achieved through the use of trained and reliable observers.
Therefore, it is necessary to have an optimal set of performance indicators to provide
sufficient information to the players and coach to support the coaching process, but a
small enough set of performance indicators so as the related action variables can be
entered reliably in real-time.

145
A number of methods have been proposed for the identification of key performance
indicators (Choi, 2008). These include expert coach opinion (Choi, 2008), regression
analysis to determine the process indicators associated with outcome indicators (Choi
et al., 2006a), neural networks (Choi et al., 2006a) and inferential statistical tests to
identify the performance indicators that distinguish most between winning and losing
performances within matches (Choi et al., 2006b; Csataljay, 2008a; Hawkins and
Choi, 2008). Expert coach opinion has been used within an evolutionary prototyping
approach to system development in netball (O’Donoghue and Longville, 2004). This
approach is particularly successful where the system developers may not have a
background in the particular sport and the coaches are not aware of what the
technology is capable of doing. O’Donoghue and Longville (2004) described the
development of a system that required several versions before the final system was
agreed, but the advantage of user involvement in the development process was that
the users had a sense of ownership of the system.

The use of statistical techniques to identify key performance indicators requires data
to exist before the system is developed. This may be possible where published
performance statistics exist on official team and tournament web sites. Such data are
excellent for exploratory research to discover the performance indicators most
associated with winning performances. However, there are two main disadvantages
of such approaches. Firstly, the performance indicators identified may represent
similar areas of performance. Secondly, not all key performance indicators are
associated with the margin of victory in a contest. It is also important to provide an
understanding of how opponents play. For example, those tennis players who adopt a
serve-volley strategy will be distributed throughout the World rankings and so will
those players who adopt a baseline strategy. The fact that performance indicators
related to the style of play do not always discriminate between winning and losing
performances does not make such performance indicators irrelevant. On the contrary,
such performance indicators provide information essential to the selection of video
sequences to be displayed in assisting athletes prepare for forthcoming matches.

The concerns about related performance indicators being selected and other important
performance indicators being omitted was the motivation for the use of principal
components analysis (PCA) to identify key performance indicators in sports
performance (Csataljay et al., 2008; Choi et al., 2008). PCA is a data reduction
technique used to identify broad dimensions within a set of variables where some of
those variables are correlated (Manly, 2005). The correlated variables are combined
into principal components using a series of eigenvectors (Tabachnick and Fidell,
2001). Principal components analysis was first developed by Pearson (1901) with
Hotelling (1933) providing a practical means for computing principal components.
PCA has been used as a data reduction technique during the development of objective
tests (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001).

Csataljay et al. (2008) used PCA to identify an optimal set of independent

performance indicators for European basketball championship performance. This
allowed 7 key performance indicators to be selected where as Wilcoxon Signed Ranks
tests had found 13 out of 18 original performance indicators that significantly
distinguished between winning and losing performances within matches. The overall
analysis that could be accomplished based on the 7 key performance indicators
identified through PCA was consistent with but more concise with the analysis of the

146
original performance indicators. Csataljay et al. (2008) recognised that the PCs were
unitless variables that would be difficult for coaches and players to interpret.
Therefore, the performance indicator most associated with each PC was selected s a
key performance indicator. A criticism that can be made of Csataljay et al.’s (2008)
study is that some of the original variables were functionally dependent. For example,
the number of 2 point attempts, the number of 2 point scores and the percentage of 2
point attempts that were scored were all included. This was also the case for free
throws and 3 point attempts. In each of these cases, only 2 of the variables were
needed; the number of attempts and the percentage scored.

Choi et al. (2008) used PCA as a way of identifying an optimal set of independent key
performance indicators relating to tennis performance. However, this study can be
criticised as some of the performance indicators correlated within particular principal
components (PCs) could have been combined within the final selection rather than
merely choosing the PI most correlated with each PC. For example, Choi et al.’s
(2008) fourth PC was positively correlated with the percentage of points where the
first serve was played in (r = 0.845) and negatively correlated with the percentage of
points that were double faults (r = -0.641). Therefore, a single performance indicator
representing how often first and second serves were in could have been devised. This
is obviously something that will increase the number of action variables to be entered.
However, if it is possible for the action variables to be entered in real-time, then
higher order key performance indicators can support more efficient provision of
information to coaches and athletes. Therefore, the purpose of the current
investigation was to use PCA to identify key performance indicators in a way that
addresses the criticisms of Csataljay et al.’s (2008) and Choi et al.’s (2008) methods.

2. Methods

2.1. Data sources and data processing

A total of 146 completed matches from the women’s singles events in the 2007
Australian and US Opens where full statistics including serve statistics were provided
by the official tournament websites (www.ausopen.org; www.usopen.org) were
included in the current investigation. Therefore, there were 292 player performances
that were analysed. The raw frequency data was entered into Microsoft Excel and
then the following performance indicators were computed for each player
performance:

• The percentage of service points where the first serve was played in.
• The percentage of service points won when the first serve was played in.
• The percentage of service points won when a second serve was required.
• The percentage of service points where an ace was played.
• The percentage of service points where a double fault was played.
• The percentage of points won when receiving serve.
• The mean speed of first service.
• The mean speed of second service.
• The percentage of points where the player went to the net.
• The percentage of net points that were won – points where the player rather
than the opponent was at the net.

147
 • The percentage of points where the player played a winner.
• The percentage of points where the player played an unforced error.
• The percentage of first serves that were in when serving to the deuce court that
were played to the left of the service box.
• The percentage of first serves that were in when serving to the deuce court that
were played to the middle of the service box.
• The percentage of first serves that were in when serving to the deuce court that
were played to the right of the service box.
• The percentage of first serves that were in when serving to the advantage court
that were played to the left of the service box.
• The percentage of first serves that were in when serving to the advantage court
that were played to the middle of the service box.
• The percentage of first serves that were in when serving to the advantage court
that were played to the right of the service box.
• The percentage of second serves that were in when serving to the deuce court
that were played to the left of the service box.
• The percentage of second serves that were in when serving to the deuce court
that were played to the middle of the service box.
• The percentage of second serves that were in when serving to the deuce court
that were played to the right of the service box.
• The percentage of second serves that were in when serving to the advantage
court that were played to the left of the service box.
• The percentage of second serves that were in when serving to the advantage
court that were played to the middle of the service box.
• The percentage of second serves that were in when serving to the advantage
court that were played to the right of the service box.

2.2. Reliability
The author observed four women’s singles matches (2 quarter finals from the 2007
Australian Open and 2 quarter finals from the 2007 US Open), manually recording the
action variables needed to compute the 22 of the performance indicators to be used. It
was not possible to include mean speed of first and second serve. The values for each
player in each match from the manually collected were compared with the data
obtained from the official website of the tournaments (www.ausopen.org;
www.usopen.org). There were disagreements found for winners, unforced errors, net
points played and percentage of net points won as well as direction of service. Table
1 summarises the disagreements for 4 of these statistics. The winners counted by the
author were all points where the winning shot landed in and bounced for a second
time before the opponent could reach it with their racket. Clearly what is being
counted as a winner by those gathering data for the official internet sites include other
points where the opponent may have got the racket to what was effectively a winning
shot before it bounced twice. The reliability of unforced errors was considered
acceptable and the reliability of net points played improved from the Australian Open
(matches 1 and 2) to the US Open (matches 3 and 4). The percentage of net points
won was computed from the number of net points won and the number of net points
played meaning that errors in this performance indicator would include errors already
counted for net points played. Only one of the 8 performances had a percentage error
of over 10% and so its reliability was considered acceptable.

148
Table 1. Match statistics derived from official tournament web sites and manual
observation.
Match Player Winners Unforced Errors %Net points won Net points played
Web Obs Web Obs Web Obs Web Obs
1 Winner 47 34 62 59 71.9 79.2 32 24
Loser 15 11 20 18 41.4 39.1 29 23

2 Winner 32 21 41 38 75.0 82.4 20 17

Loser 14 11 28 26 62.5 71.4 8 7

3 Winner 19 14 23 21 66.7 73.3 18 15

Loser 13 11 20 21 54.5 54.5 11 11

4 Winner 17 12 13 14 77.8 75.0 9 8

Loser 16 11 18 18 42.9 40.0 14 15

%Error Range 16.7 to 41.5 0.0 to 10.5 0.0 to 13.3 0.0 to 28.6

The distribution of service directions for first and second services to the deuce and
advantage courts were compared between the statistics published on the official
websites and those manually recorded by the author. A p value of over 0.5 would
indicate greater similarity than difference between the corresponding distributions,
while p values of over 0.9 would indicate good reliability. Table 2 shows that the
majority of p values were over 0.9 with all but 1 p value being over 0.5. It should be
recognised that the chi square test does not give any credit for situations where a serve
may have been played to a location bordering the left and centre of the service box or
to a location bordering the right and centre of the service box. Therefore, the level of
reliability of service direction was considered to be acceptable.

Table 2. Chi square test results (p) for frequency distribution of service direction.
Match Player First Serve First Serve Second Serve Second Serve
Deuce Court Adv Court Deuce Court Adv Court
1 Winner 0.948 0.980 0.953 1.000
Loser 0.745 0.828 1.000 0.693

2 Winner 0.825 0.928 0.884 1.000

Loser 0.934 0.946 0.931 0.896

3 Winner 0.881 1.000 1.000 0.801

Loser 1.000 0.967 0.513 0.910

4 Winner 1.000 0.881 1.000 0.867

Loser 0.910 0.904 0.213 1.000

2.3. Data analysis

There were 8 PCs with eigenvalues of 1.0 or greater. These accounted for 72.7% of
the variance in the data and were extracted and the Varimax rotation procedure
applied. The rotation caused the eigenvalues of the first 2 PCs to decrease while the
eigenvalues of the remaining 6 extracted PCs increased as shown in the scree plot in
Figure 1. Table 3 shows the correlation between the extracted rotated PCs and the 24
original performance indicators. Absolute correlations of less than 0.5 were
suppressed in order to assist interpretation of the PCs.

149
 6
All (Pre Rotation)
5
Extracted (Post
Rotation)
4
Eigenvalue

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Principal Component

Figure 1. Scree Plot.

Table 3. Correlations between PCs and original performance indicators.

Performance Indicator Principal Component
PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 PC5 PC6 PC7 PC8
%First serves played in -.764
%Points won when first serve is in +.721
%Points won when second serve is required +.502 -.539
%Service points where player served an ace +.626
%Service points where player served dble fault +.732
%Points won when receiving serve +.750
Mean speed of first serve (km.hour-1) +.838
Mean speed of second serve (km.hour-1) +.697
%Points where player went to net
%Net points that the player won +.552
%Points where the player played a winner +.784
%Points where the player played unforced error +.812
%Served to left (Deuce court, first serve) +.841
%Served to middle (Deuce court, first serve) -.822
%Served to right (Deuce court, first serve)
%Served to left (Adv court, first serve) +.677
%Served to middle (Adv court, first serve) -.759
%Served to right (Adv court, first serve) +.805
%Served to left (Deuce court, second serve) +.679
%Served to middle (Deuce court, second serve)
%Served to right (Deuce court, second serve) -.755
%Served to left (Adv court, second serve) +.868
%Served to middle (Adv court, second serve) -.563 -.690
%Served to right (Adv court, second serve) +.828

150
3. Results

Table 4 shows that there were 13 of the 24 original performance indicators that were
significantly different between winning and losing performances within matches.
Table 5 shows the 8 extracted PCs and their interpretation based on the original
performance indicators they ere highly associated with. There were 4 of these 8 PCs
that significantly distinguished between winning and losing players. The significance
of PC1 was consistent with the significance of the 2 positively correlated original
performance indicators associated with it but not with the 2 performance indicators
that were negatively correlated with it. The significance of PC2 agreed with the
significance of all 4 original performance indicators associated with it. Each of PC4
and PC7 were consistent as were the 2 original performance indicators that were
associated with them. The remaining 4 PCs did not significantly distinguish between
winning and losing performers and neither did any of the original performance
indicators used to interpret them.

Table 4. Comparison of winning and losing performances within matches using

original performance indicators.
Performance Indicator Winner Loser z (Wilcoxon test)
%First serves played in 61.4+7.7 60.7+8.8 0.7
%Points won when first serve is in 72.2+8.9 54.7+9.2 10.3 ***
%Points won when second serve is required 51.9+9.7 38.9+11.1 7.9 ***
%Service points where player served an ace 6.1+5.1 2.5+2.9 7.1 ***
%Service points where player served double fault 5.1+3.2 5.5+3.4 1.0
%Points won when receiving serve 51.4+7.7 35.8+6.8 10.5 ***
Mean speed of first serve (km.hour-1) 159.1+9.2 158.1+16.0 10.3 ***
Mean speed of second serve (km.hour-1) 132.5+8.2 131.0+7.3 10.6 ***
%Points where player went to net 12.5+6.1 10.2+5.6 3.1 **
%Net points that the player won 71.3+14.6 58.8+18.5 5.8 ***
%Points where the player played a winner 19.4+6.6 11.7+5.0 7.6 ***
%Points where the player played unforced error 18.0+5.4 20.7+6.7 3.2 **
%Served to left (Deuce court, first serve) 33.0+17.8 28.2+16.8 3.0 **
%Served to middle (Deuce court, first serve) 40.3+24.2 46.4+24.3 3.5 **
%Served to right (Deuce court, first serve) 26.7+15.4 25.8+15.7 0.7
%Served to left (Adv court, first serve) 33.3+18.3 31.0+19.3 1.5
%Served to middle (Adv court, first serve) 40.7+21.9 44.6+24.5 2.3 *
%Served to right (Adv court, first serve) 26.0+17.7 24.3+17.0 1.2
%Served to left (Deuce court, second serve) 16.3+18.0 15.4+18.1 0.7
%Served to middle (Deuce court, second serve) 66.0+22.9 67.3+22.0 0.3
%Served to right (Deuce court, second serve) 17.7+18.6 17.3+18.5 0.1
%Served to left (Adv court, second serve) 19.3+18.0 17.0+17.3 1.1
%Served to middle (Adv court, second serve) 62.1+24.5 65.1+21.2 1.5
%Served to right (Adv court, second serve) 18.6+19.1 17.9+17.6 0.2
* p < .05, ** p< .01, *** p< .001

Because PCs are unitless variables that are difficult to relate to the performance
indicators commonly used to evaluate tennis performance, the highest correlated
original performance indicator was selected as a key performance indicator in most
cases. However, where logically related performance indicators were correlated with
a PC, a key performance indicator was derived from both of the original performance
indicators.

151
Table 5. Comparison of winning and losing performances within matches using PCs.
Principal Component Winner Loser z (Wilcoxon test)
PC1 “Serving to the left on first serve” 0.07+0.98 -0.07+1.02 2.0 *
PC2 “Winning points” 0.75+0.69 -0.75+0.63 10.1 ***
PC3 “Serving to the right to the advantage court” -0.02+1.06 0.02+0.93 0.4
PC4 “Service speed” 0.11+1.09 -0.11+0.90 2.0 *
PC5 “Serving to the left on 2nd serve to adv court” 0.03+1.09 -0.03+1.01 0.1
PC6 “Service faults” -0.05+0.93 0.05+1.07 1.0
PC7 “Unforced errors” -0.23+0.93 0.23+1.01 3.4 **
PC8 “Serving to the left on 2nd serve to deuce crt” 0.03+1.00 -0.03+1.01 0.8
* p < .05, ** p< .01, *** p< .001

There were 4 examples of composite key performance indicators that could be

computed based on the correlations in Table 3:

• The first example of this was PC1 which was positively correlated with the
percentage of first serves played to the left when serving to both the deuce
court and the advantage court. Therefore, a new performance indicator was
established as a key performance indicator which was the percentage of all
first serves that the player played to the left.
• The second example was PC3 which was positively correlated with the
percentage of serves played to the right when serving to the advantage court
on both first and second serve. Because the number of first and second serve
played may differ, the key performance indicator used in this case expressed
the total number of serves played to the right of the advantage court as a
percentage of the total number of serves played to the advantage court.
• The third example was PC4 which was positively associated with the mean
speed of first and second serve. Therefore a single key performance indicator
was established which was the weighted mean of the mean first serve speed
and mean second serve speed.
• The fourth example was PC6 which was negatively associated with the
percentage of points where the first serve was played in, but positively
associated with the number of double faults. Therefore, a new key
performance indicator was computed which was the percentage of all serves
played that were faults.

Table 6 shows that 4 of the 8 key performance indicators significantly distinguished

between the winning and losing players. Together, these 8 key performance
indicators have made direct use of 12 of the original performance indicators as 4 of
them are composite metrics derived from 2 of the original performance indicators.

Table 6. Comparison of winning and losing performances within matches using key
performance indicators.
Key Performance Indicator Winner Loser z (Wilcoxon test)
%First serve points played to left 33.1+14.7 29.4+14.5 3.2 **
%Points where the player played a winner 19.4+6.6 11.7+5.0 7.6 ***
%Serves to adv court played to right 22.3+16.3 21.2+14.6 0.6
Mean speed of counting serves 148.7+7.9 145.4+7.1 3.9 ***
%Served to left (Adv court, second serve) 19.3+18.0 17.0+17.3 1.1
%All serves that are faults 31.3+5.2 31.8+6.0 1.0
%Points where the player played unforced error 18.0+5.4 20.7+6.7 3.2 **
%Served to left (Deuce court, second serve) 16.3+18.0 15.4+18.1 0.7
* p < .05, ** p< .01, *** p< .001

152
4. Discussion

The current investigation agrees with the experiences reported by Csataljay et al.
(2008) and Choi et al. (2008) that principal components analysis can reduce a large
set of performance indicators to a smaller set of independent key performance
indicators that can assist in the development of a real-time system by reducing the
number of action variables to be entered. The approach allows important dimensions
of performance to be identified and not just those that significantly differ between
winning and losing teams. This is important as it is often necessary for coaches to
understand the patterns of play of opponents. Patterns of play result from the
implementation of strategies and tactics, the wide variety of which make it possible
that performance indicators relating to strategy will not necessarily distinguish
between winning and losing performers.

The number of action variables that can be entered in real time may be greater than or
less than the number dictated by the key performance indicators identified when
principal components with eigenvalues of over 1.0 are extracted. There are a range of
solutions using principal components analysis as we may choose to extract more or
less principal components. Furthermore, there are alternative rotation techniques that
can be applied that may produce differing principal components. With the data used
in the current investigation, it would have been possible to extract 17 independent ( |r|
< 0.01) principal components with varimax rotation ensuring that all had eigenvalues
of greater than 1.0. These 17 principal component would have contained 97.0% of
the variance in the 24 original performance indicators. Figure 2 shows the scree plot
for the 17 principal component solution.

6
All (Pre Rotation)
5
Extracted (Post
Rotation)
4 17 PC Solution
Eigenvalue

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Principal Component

Figure 2. Eigenvalues for 8 and 17 principal component solutions.

If fewer than 8 key performance indicators could have been used, 4 principal
components explaining 52.8% of the variance in the data or 6 principal components

153
explaining 63.7% of the variance in the original data could have been used. The
flexibility to explore a range of solutions has benefits. However, the trail and error
process of inspecting PCA solutions also has its disadvantages as there are an infinite
number of rotations for same amount of variance (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001).

Choi (2008) described how principal component analysis should be used along with
other techniques to identify key performance indicators. The use of principal
components analysis is only feasible if there are data sets available for analysis prior
to system development. The exploratory results of principal components analysis
should be discussed with the coach. The final set of key performance indicators may
be a compromise between what is desired by the coach and what can feasibly be
entered by the system operator within the time constraints established for the
provision of feedback. A disadvantage of principal components analysis is that all of
the variables entered are considered to be equally important. Expert coach opinion
will be able to address this and give higher importance to appropriate performance
indicators. The usability of the system will have an influence on how much data can
be reliably entered and hence on the performance indicators that can be produced
(Choi et al., 2007). The availability of low cost voice over input technology for
performance analysis systems has increased the volume of data that can be entered
reliably in real-time (Cort, 2006). The interface of the system must match the user’s
mental model of the performance during data entry. For example, when the
computerised system used by O’Donoghue and Ingram (2001) was first developed,
the outcome of players going to the net was entered before the cause of approaching
the net. When the system was amended so as the order of data entry of these two
variables was reversed, the ease of use improved dramatically. This was because the
operator observed the point building up a mental string of information (service
required, point type, cause of going to the net if applicable, outcome of point) which
the system was amended to mirror.

In conclusion, this paper has shown how principal components analysis can be used to
reduce a large number of performance indicators to a smaller number of independent
key performance indicators. The main contribution of this paper is the idea of
combining logically related performance indicators into higher order key performance
indicators where they load onto the same principal component.

5. References

Choi, H. (2008), Definitions of performance indicators in real-time and lapse-time

analysis in performance analysis of sports, PhD Thesis, UWIC, Cardiff, UK.
Choi, H., Reed, D., O’Donoghue, P.G. and Hughes, M. (2006a), The valid numbers of
performance indicators for real-time analysis using prediction models within
men singles in 2005 Wimbledon Tennis Championship, Performance
Analysis of Sport 7 (Edited by Dancs, H., Hughes, M. and O’Donoghue,
P.G.), 23rd-26th August 2006, Szombathely, Hungary, Cardiff: CPA UWIC
Press, 220-226.
Choi, H., O’Donoghue, P.G. and Hughes, M. (2006b), A Study of team performance
indicators by separated time scale using a real-time analysis technique within
English national basketball league, Performance Analysis of Sport 7 (Edited

154
 by Dancs, H., Hughes, M. and O’Donoghue, P.G.), 23rd-26th August 2006,
Szombathely, Hungary, Cardiff: CPA UWIC Press, 138-141.
Choi, H., Hughes, M.D., O’Donoghue, P.G. (2007), Ergonomic issues and human
computer interaction in sport: a case study evaluation of a match analysis
system for basketball, Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium of
Computer Science in Sport, Calgary, 3rd – 6th June 2007, pp. 31-35.
Choi, H., O’Donoghue, P.G. and Hughes, M. (2008), The identification of an optimal
set of performance indicators for real-time analysis using principle
components analysis, In Performance Analysis of Sport VIII (Edited by
Hokelmann, A. and Brummond, M.), 295-301.
Cort, M. (2006), Voice recognition software for software analysis, In Book of
Abstracts, World Congress of Performance Analysis of Sport VII (Edited
by Dancs, H., Hughes, M. and Ekler, J.H.), Szombathely, Hungary, 23-26
August 2006, p.42.
Csataljay, G., O’Donoghue, P.G., Hughes, M. and Dancs, H. (2008a), Valid
Performance Indicators in Basketball, World Congress of Performance
Analysis of Sport VIII, Book of Abstracts, (Edited by O’Donoghue, P.G.
and Hokelmann, A.), 3rd-6th September 2008, p. 148.
Csataljay, G., O’Donoghue, P.G., Hughes, M. and Dancs, H. (2008b), Principal
components analysis of basketball performance indicators, In Performance
Analysis of Sport VIII (Edited by Hokelmann, A. and Brummond, M.), 278-
283.
Hawkins, M. and Choi, H. (2008), Analysis of different types of turnovers between
winning and losing performances in men’s NCAA basketball, Performance
Analysis of Sport VIII (Edited by Anita Hökelmann und Martin Brummund),
302-311.
Hotelling, H. (1933), Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into principal
components, Journal of Educational Psychology, 24, 417-441.
Hughes, M. Bartlett, R. (2002). The use of performance indicators in performance
analysis. The Journal of Sport Sciences, 20, 739-754
Manly, B.F.J. (2005), Multivariate statistical methods: a primer, 3rd edition, NY:
Chapman Hall / CRC Press.
O’Donoghue, P.G. and Ingram, B. (2001), A notational analysis of elite tennis
strategy, Journal of Sports Sciences, 19, 107-115.
O’Donoghue, P.G. and Longville, J. (2004), Reliability testing and the use of
Statistics in performance analysis support: a case study from an international
netball tournament, Performance Analysis of Sport VI (Edited by
O’Donoghue, P.G. and Hughes, M.D.), Cardiff: CPA Press, UWIC, 1-7.
Pearson, K. (1901), On lines and planes of closest fit to a system of points in space,
Philosophy Magazine, 2, 557-572.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2001), Using multivariate statistics, 4th edition,
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

155