See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/43136087

Effect of playing tactics on goal scoring in Norwegian professional soccer

Article  in  Journal of Sports Sciences · February 2010

DOI: 10.1080/02640410903502774 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

113 2,231

4 authors, including:

Albin Tenga Lars Tore Ronglan

Norwegian School of Sport Sciences (NIH) Norwegian School of Sport Sciences (NIH)
21 PUBLICATIONS   820 CITATIONS    43 PUBLICATIONS   867 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Coaching as orchestration View project

Developing as a teacher educator View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Albin Tenga on 04 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Tenga, Albin]
On: 8 March 2010
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 919290980]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sports Sciences

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713721847

Effect of playing tactics on goal scoring in Norwegian professional soccer

Albin Tenga a; Ingar Holme b; Lars Tore Ronglan a; Roald Bahr a
a
Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo b Department of Preventive Cardiology, Ullevål University
Hospital, Oslo, Norway

Online publication date: 15 February 2010

To cite this Article Tenga, Albin, Holme, Ingar, Ronglan, Lars Tore and Bahr, Roald(2010) 'Effect of playing tactics on goal
scoring in Norwegian professional soccer', Journal of Sports Sciences, 28: 3, 237 — 244
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/02640410903502774
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640410903502774

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Journal of Sports Sciences, February 1st 2010; 28(3): 237–244

Effect of playing tactics on goal scoring in Norwegian professional

soccer

ALBIN TENGA1, INGAR HOLME1,2, LARS TORE RONGLAN1, & ROALD BAHR1
1
Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo and 2Department of Preventive Cardiology, Ullevål University Hospital, Oslo,
Norway

(Accepted 21 November 2009)

Abstract
Methods that include an assessment of opponent interactions are thought to provide a more valid analysis of team match
performance. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of playing tactics on goal scoring by assessing opponent
interactions in Norwegian elite soccer. The sample included 203 team possessions leading to goals (cases) and 1688 random
Downloaded By: [Tenga, Albin] At: 13:11 8 March 2010

team possessions (control group) from 163 of 182 (90%) matches played in the men’s professional league during the 2004
season. Multidimensional qualitative data using ten ordered categorical variables were obtained to characterize each team
possession. The proportion of goals scored during counterattacks (52%) was higher than during elaborate attacks (48%),
while for the control group the proportion using elaborate attacks (59%) was higher than when using counterattacks (41%)
(P ¼ 0.002). Multiple logistic regression analyses showed that, for the main variable ‘‘team possession type’’, counterattacks
were more effective than elaborate attacks when playing against an imbalanced defence (OR ¼ 1.64; 95% confidence interval:
1.03 to 2.61; P ¼ 0.038). Assessment of opponent interactions is critical to evaluate the effectiveness of offensive playing
tactics on the probability of scoring goals, and improves the validity of team match-performance analysis in soccer.

Keywords: Validity, opponent interaction, logistic regression, goal scoring in soccer, match-performance analysis

Taylor, Mellalieu, James, & Shearer, 2008). Of these

Introduction
Goal scoring is the ultimate measure of offensive
effectiveness in soccer and has subsequently received
considerable attention in match-performance analy-
sis (e.g. Bate, 1988; Hughes & Franks, 2005; Reep &
Benjamin, 1968). The common objective of such
studies is to determine the most effective ways of
playing the game. The validity of the data collected is
thus crucial for the analysis of the effectiveness of
playing tactics. Since the opposition is responsible
for the ‘‘unexpected’’ in a match, requiring constant
adaptation to constraints caused by the confrontation
between two teams (Elias & Dunning, 1966;
Grehaigne, Bouthier, & David, 1997), analysis of
the effectiveness of playing tactics must consider the
interactions between the two opposing teams.
Surprisingly, few studies have assessed, directly
or indirectly, opponent interactions during match-
performance analyses in soccer (Bloomfield,
Polman, & O’Donoghue, 2005; Grehaigne, 1991;
Harris & Reilly, 1988; Jones, James, & Mellalieu,
2004; Lago & Martin, 2007; Olsen & Larsen, 1997;
Seabra & Dantas, 2006; Suzuki & Nishijima, 2004;
studies, only Grehaigne (1991) conducted a direct
assessment of opponent interactions in an analysis of
goal scoring. The above studies report promising
results when including an assessment of opponent
interactions in match-performance analyses. How-
ever, almost all of them employed univariate data
analyses with small sample sizes.
A more appropriate means of assessing opponent
interactions for the analysis of goal scoring is to use
a case-control design – that is, compare situations
leading to goals with a control group of randomly
selected events together with an adequate sample
size. In addition, using a multivariate logistic
regression analysis allows a more complete assess-
ment of potentially important characteristics and
their interaction than a comparison of binary
response variables (Nevill, Atkinson, Hughes, &
Cooper, 2002). Logistic regression analysis has been
used only rarely in the analysis of match performance
in soccer (e.g. Ensum, Pollard, & Taylor, 2004;
Pollard & Reep, 1997). Furthermore, to consider
opponent interactions in the analysis, one has to
analyse opposing relationships between two teams

Correspondence: A. Tenga, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Po Box 4014, Ullevål Stadion, N-0806 Oslo, Norway. E-mail: albin.tenga@online.no
ISSN 0264-0414 print/ISSN 1466-447X online Ó 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/02640410903502774
 238 A. Tenga et al.
(or players), rather than two opposing teams (or
players) individually in isolation from the match
context. It is possible to analyse relationships
between opponents when using a match-play situa-
tion as the basic unit of analysis rather than a team
(or a player). Therefore, team possession was used as
the unit of analysis in this study. Since such match-
play situations emerge from the interplay of play and
counter-play produced by the two teams (Grehaigne,
Bouthier, & Godbout, 1999; Grehaigne & Godbout,
1995), they allow a breakdown of a match-play
action without losing its confrontational nature.
Moreover, the use of multidimensional qualitative
data instead of unidimensional frequency data
improves our ability to describe soccer match-play
(Grehaigne, Mahut, & Fernandez, 2001; Hughes &
Bartlett, 2002; Suzuki & Nishijima, 2004). This is
because multidimensional qualitative data permit the
inclusion of data from the qualitative evaluation of
different dimensions of performance involved in the
Downloaded By: [Tenga, Albin] At: 13:11 8 March 2010
opponent interaction. For example, a variable such
as ‘‘team possession type’’ could be used to describe
the two traditionally opposing offensive strategies,
namely counterattack (‘‘direct play’’) and elaborate
attack (‘‘possession play’’), by using categories
indicating the degree of offensive directness. Simi-
larly, the variable ‘‘defensive pressure’’ could be used
to describe degrees of loose pressure to tight pressure
in defensive balance, possibly through ordered
categories of estimated pressing distances. Also,
ordered categories indicating the number of passes
per team possession could be used to describe
degrees of ball possession. Hence, a multidimen-
sional qualitative evaluation could be achieved by
converting frequency data of different factors of
match performance, widely recognized in practice,
into ordered categorical data.
Thus, the main aim of this study was to examine
the effects of playing tactics, counterattack versus
elaborate attack, on the probability of goal scoring by
assessing opponent interactions in Norwegian elite
men’s soccer using a case-control design.
Methods
Materials
Videotapes of 163 of 182 (90%) matches played in
the Norwegian men’s professional league during the
2004 season were used. These videotapes were
recorded from live TV broadcasts. The league
involved 14 teams and followed a double round-
robin competition format, which means that each
team played 26 matches, 13 home and 13 away.
Altogether, 203 (43%) of 476 goals were scored
during counterattacking (n ¼ 106, 52%) and elabo-
rate attacking (n ¼ 97, 48%) types of team posses-
sion. To obtain a random sample of 3260 team
possessions from which a control group was ex-
tracted, we assigned each match a computer-gener-
ated random decimal number between 0 and 1,
which was multiplied by 86 to indicate the beginning
(in minutes) of a match period from which a total of
20 consecutive team possessions would be extracted.
This was based on the assumption that 20 con-
secutive team possessions lasts 6.5 min on average,
and that 2–3 min of extra time is added to each
match. The random sample obtained was then
analysed for team possession type, namely counter-
attack, elaborate attack, and set-play attack. Finally,
from the 3260 team possessions a total of 1688 team
possessions of the counterattack type (n ¼ 686, 41%)
and elaborate attack type (n ¼ 1002, 59%) were
collected and used as a control group to compare
these playing tactics.
Team match-performance analysis
A team possession was used as the basic unit of
analysis and was defined according to Pollard and
Reep (1997):
A team possession starts when a player gains
possession of the ball by any means other than
from a player of the same team. The player must
have enough control over the ball to be able to have
a deliberate influence on its subsequent direction.
The team possession may continue with a series of
passes between players of the same team but ends
immediately when one of the following events
occurs: a) the ball goes out of play; b) the ball
touches a player of the opposing team (e.g. by
means of a tackle, an intercepted pass or a shot
being saved). A momentary touch that does not
significantly change the direction of the ball is
excluded; c) an infringement of the rules takes place
(e.g. a player is offside or a foul is committed).
The following ten variables were used in this
study: possession outcome (one dependent variable);
team possession type, starting zone, pass number,
pass length, pass penetration, and space utilization
(six offensive independent variables); and zone-
defence tactics including defensive pressure, defen-
sive backup, and defensive cover (three defensive
independent variables). These ordered categorical
variables and their reliability results are presented
elsewhere (Tenga, Holme, Ronglan, & Bahr, 2010).
The dependent variable, possession outcome, had
two primary values – goal scored or no goal scored.
Each team possession was given an overall score
for each variable, offensively and defensively, taking
all attempts to win or receive the ball in ball
involvements from the start to the end of a team

possession into consideration. For details of how the
analysis was undertaken as well as the procedures for
video editing and analysis, see Tenga et al. (2010).
The study was approved by the Norwegian Social
Science Data Services (NSD).
Statistical analysis
A total of 203 goals and 1688 controls from either
counterattacks or elaborate attacks were estimated to
be sufficient to detect a difference of 27% (D)
between the proportions of the two playing tactics
ending in the scoring of a goal, assuming an a of 0.05
and a b of 0.10. This was calculated based on the
sample size formula n ¼ 2(s/D)2f(a, b), assuming a
standard deviation (s) of 2.22 (Lachin, 1981) and
given the available sample size of n ¼ 609 (203 goals
and twice as many control team possessions, i.e.
406). The null hypothesis, that there would be no
difference in effectiveness between the two main
Downloaded By: [Tenga, Albin] At: 13:11 8 March 2010
playing tactics (counterattack vs. elaborate attack) for
goal scoring, was tested by a chi-square analysis to
determine if there was an association between
playing tactics and the probability of scoring goals.
The null hypothesis was tested further by multiple
logistic regression analysis in which the dependent
variable was whether a goal was or was not scored. We
used six offensive tactics as independent variables,
each with two categories: counterattack versus
elaborate attack, final third versus first third, long
possession versus short possession, long pass versus
short pass, penetrative pass versus non-penetrative
pass, and space pass versus foot pass. From this
model, an odds ratio with 95% confidence limits was
calculated. In univariate analyses, each of the six
independent variables was tested separately and the
association between the single variables and the
probability of scoring a goal was assessed. In multi-
variate analyses, all six independent variables were
entered and tested in a single step. In this way, we
could investigate the relationship between each
independent variable and the probability of scoring
a goal, adjusted for the other independent variables.
To control for the effects of the degree of defensive
balance, subgroup analyses were performed. Odds
ratios were estimated for goal scoring during counter-
attacks versus elaborate attacks when playing against
a balanced defence and against an imbalanced
defence separately, deleting the rest of the situations.
We used an alpha value of 50.05 in all tests.
Results
Descriptive analysis
A total of 1891 team possessions (203 goals and
1688 random controls) using counterattack and
Effect of soccer playing tactics on goal scoring 239
elaborate attack types were included. The 14 teams
examined scored a mean number of 15 goals
(range ¼ 8–21), and the controls included a mean
number of 121 team possessions (range ¼ 101–148).
Differences were observed between proportions of
goals and controls for playing tactics. For the main
variable ‘‘team possession type’’, the proportion of
goals scored during counterattacks (52%) was higher
than during elaborate attacks (48%), while for the
control group the proportion using elaborate attacks
(59%) was higher than when using counterattacks
(41%). There were differences in the probability of
goal scoring between the playing tactics for all
variables including the main variable ‘‘team posses-
sion type’’ (Table I). For the three defensive zone
variables combined (‘‘overall defensive score’’), only
2.5% of the goals were scored against a balanced
defence, compared with 31% of the control attacks.
In contrast, 94% of the goals were scored against an
imbalanced defence, compared with 41% of controls
(Table I).
Logistic regression analyses
There were difference in the odds ratio (OR) for goal
scoring between the two offensive tactics for the
variable ‘‘pass length’’ in univariate and multivariate
analyses. The tactic short pass registered a higher
odds ratio than long pass in univariate analysis
(OR ¼ 4.35; 95% confidence interval: 1.72 to
11.11; P ¼ 0.002) but not in multivariate analysis
(OR ¼ 1.85; 95% confidence interval: 0.66 to 5.00;
P ¼ 0.24) (Table II).
Differences were observed in the odds ratio for
goal scoring between the offensive tactics when
subgroup analyses were undertaken. There were
differences when playing against an imbalanced
defence. However, most odds ratio could not be
estimated precisely enough when playing against a
balanced defence due to too few team possessions
and therefore they were not reported (Table I).
In univariate analysis, the offensive tactics final
third, long possession, short pass, and penetrative
pass had higher odds ratios than their respective
opposite tactics first third, short possession, long
pass, and non-penetrative pass when playing against
an imbalanced defence. In multivariate analysis,
counterattack, final third, long possession, and
penetrative pass registered higher odds ratios than
elaborate attack, first third, short possession,
and non-penetrative pass when playing against an
imbalanced defence (Table III).
Discussion
The main outcome of this study was that the
assessment of opponent interactions in goals and
 240 A. Tenga et al.

Table I. Number of goals (n ¼ 203) and controls (n ¼ 1688) plus percentages of goals scored by playing tactics according to offensive and
defensive variables (N ¼ 1891).

Variable N (%) Goal Control Goal % P*

Offensive variables
Team possession type
Counterattack (‘‘direct play’’) 792 (41.9) 106 686 13.4 0.002
Elaborate attack (‘‘possession play’’) 1099 (58.1) 97 1002 8.8
Starting zone 50.001
Final third 55 (2.9) 18 37 32.7
Middle third 860 (45.5) 101 759 11.7
First third 976 (51.6) 84 892 8.6
Pass number 50.001
Short possession 884 (47.9) 67 817 7.6
Medium possession 572 (31.0) 68 504 11.9
Long possession 388 (21.0) 56 332 14.4
Pass length 50.001
Long pass 193 (10.5) 5 188 2.6
Mixed 751 (40.7) 94 657 12.5
Short pass 899 (48.8) 92 807 10.2
Pass penetration 50.001
Penetrative pass 173 (9.4) 44 129 25.4
Downloaded By: [Tenga, Albin] At: 13:11 8 March 2010

Mixed 1043 (56.6) 138 905 13.2

Non-penetrative pass 626 (34.0) 9 617 1.4
Space utilization 50.001
Space pass 981 (53.3) 87 894 8.9
Mixed 788 (42.8) 99 689 12.6
Foot pass 71 (3.9) 5 66 7
Defensive variables
Defensive pressure 50.001
Loose (‘‘imbalanced’’) 487 (26.3) 36 451 7.4
Mixed 1152 (62.3) 153 999 13.3
Tight (‘‘balanced’’) 210 (11.4) 13 197 6.2
Defensive backup 0.045
Absent (‘‘imbalanced’’) 1134 (61.4) 134 1000 11.8
Mixed 657 (35.6) 67 590 10.2
Present (‘‘balanced’’) 57 (3.1) 1 56 1.8
Defensive cover 50.001
Absent (‘‘imbalanced’’) 15 (0.8) 7 8 46.7
Mixed 393 (21.2) 169 224 43
Present (‘‘balanced’’) 1442 (77.9) 26 1416 1.8
Overall defensive score 50.001
Imbalanced defence 878 (47.5) 191 687 21.8
Mixed 443 (24.0) 6 437 1.4
Balanced defence 527 (28.5) 5 522 0.9

Note: The variable ‘‘overall defensive score’’ reflects the combined probability scores of the three zone-defence variables.
*Pearson chi-square.

random control team possessions revealed differ-
ences in the probability of goal scoring between
offensive tactics only when playing against an
imbalanced defence. However, the probability results
for most offensive tactics when playing against a
balanced defence were not reported because their
values could not be estimated precisely enough. For
the main variable ‘‘team possession type’’, counter-
attack was more effective than elaborate attack when
playing against an imbalanced defence. Thus, these
findings show that the assessment of opponent
interactions is critical to evaluate the effectiveness
of offensive tactics, and improve the validity of team
match-performance analysis.
It should be noted that this study has some
limitations, which must be taken into account when
interpreting the results. It is a retrospective study,
and the number of team possessions ending in goals
being scored when playing against a balanced
defence was few. Therefore, we have not presented
probability results for all offensive tactics when
playing against a balanced defence. Thus, while this
paper provides important data on the differences in
playing styles on the main outcome variable ‘‘goals
 Effect of soccer playing tactics on goal scoring 241

Table II. Odds ratios (OR) for goal scoring by the two playing tactics according to offensive variables.

Univariate analysis Multivariate analysis

Variable OR (95% CI) P OR (95% CI) P

Team possession type

Counterattack vs. 1.60 (1.19–2.14) 0.002 2.15 (1.44–3.21) 50.001*
Elaborate attacka 1 1
Starting zone
Final third vs. 5.17 (2.82–9.47) 50.001 6.61 (2.91–15.02) 50.001*
First thirda 1 1
Pass number
Long possession vs. 2.06 (1.41–3.00) 50.001 2.16 (1.20–3.91) 0.010*
Short possessiona 1 1
Pass length
Short pass vs. 4.35 (1.72–11.11) 0.002 1.85 (0.66–5.00) 0.24
Long passa 1 1
Pass penetration
Penetrative pass vs. 23.38 (11.14–9.09) 50.001 23.47 (10.83–50.87) 50.001*
Non-penetrative passa 1 1
Space utilization
Space pass vs. 1.29 (0.50–3.27) 0.60 2.16 (0.77–6.06) 0.14
Foot passa 1 1
Downloaded By: [Tenga, Albin] At: 13:11 8 March 2010

Note: aThe odds ratio (OR) reflects the chance of goal scoring, compared with the reference category.
*Offensive tactics included in the model.

Table III. Odds ratios (OR) for goal scoring by the two playing tactics according to offensive variables when controlling for the effects of the
degree of defensive balance.

Univariate analysis Multivariate analysis

Variable OR (95% CI) P OR (95% CI) P

Team possession type

Counterattack vs. 0.55 (0.06–4.92) 0.59 # 0.038*
Elaborate attack against balanced defencea 1 0.001 1.64 (1.03–2.61)
Counterattack vs. 1.06 (0.77–1.46) 1
Elaborate attack against imbalanced defencea 1
Starting zone
Final third vs. 6.13 (0.60–63.05) 0.13 # 0.003*
First third against balanced defencea 1 50.001 4.72 (1.69–13.17)
Final third vs. 5.48 (2.54–11.86) 1
First third against imbalanced defencea 1
Pass number
Long possession vs. 1.38 (0.09–22.22) 0.82 0.17 (0.01–5.43) 0.32
Short possession against balanced defencea 1 50.001 1 0.009*
Long possession vs. 3.40 (2.23–5.21) 2.50 (1.26–4.95)
Short possession against imbalanced defencea 1 1
Pass length
Short pass vs. # 50.001 # 0.08
Long pass against balanced defencea
Short pass vs. 6.67 (2.63–16.67) 2.56 (0.88–7.69)
Long pass against imbalanced defencea 1 1
Pass penetration
Penetrative pass vs. # 50.001 # 50.001*
Non-penetrative pass against balanced defencea
Penetrative pass vs. 32.22 (14.31–72.57) 25.69 (11.14–59.25)
Non-penetrative pass against imbalanced defencea 1 1
Space utilization
Space pass vs. # 0.59 # 0.50
Foot pass against balanced defencea
Space pass vs. 1.35 (0.46–3.96) 1.53 (0.45–5.18)
Foot pass against imbalanced defencea 1 1

Note: aThe odds ratio (OR) reflects the chance of goal scoring, compared with the reference category.
#
Not reported because the odds ratio (OR) could not be estimated precisely enough due to few team possessions.
*Offensive tactics included in the model according to balanced and imbalanced defence subgroups.
 242 A. Tenga et al.
scored’’, it also illustrates a limitation, in that goals
are scored on an infrequent basis. As shown in a
separate study (Tenga et al., 2010), using more
frequently occurring end points such as score-box
possessions can complement the case-control ap-
proach. Notably, with a cohort-like design and using
‘‘score-box possession’’ as an intermediate outcome
variable, we observed similar results to the present
study. Those showed that counterattacks had a
higher probability of producing score-box posses-
sions than elaborate attacks when playing against an
imbalanced defence but not against a balanced
defence. The case-control design used in the current
study is generally considered inferior to a cohort
design in terms of generalizability, but ‘‘goals
scored’’ is obviously the primary outcome of interest
in soccer, not ‘‘score-box possessions’’. Neverthe-
less, the two studies produce similar results irrespec-
tive of the design and outcome variable used.
Also, use of the variables ‘‘defensive backup’’ and
Downloaded By: [Tenga, Albin] At: 13:11 8 March 2010
‘‘defensive cover’’, which have only fair inter-
observer reproducibility (kappa coefficients of 0.24
and 0.27, respectively), represents a limitation.
However, the combined variable ‘‘overall defensive
score’’, the variable used in the subsequent analysis,
was still useful. In fact, these variables’ relatively
poor inter-observer reproducibility most probably
stems from the observational limitations experienced
when evaluating positions, distances, and angles
between dynamically interacting players by using
videotapes recorded from live TV broadcasts. In
addition, all the team possessions included were
taken from the Norwegian men’s top professional
soccer league, which clearly represents a lower
standard of play than the top leagues in Europe.
Consequently, the results obtained could be a
reflection of the playing standard or style in this
particular league. Even if the teams in the league
varied in their playing styles and were included with a
similar number of team possessions, care should be
taken when extrapolating these results to other
soccer leagues or playing standards.
This study also has strengths worthy of considera-
tion. It is a case-controlled study using a large sample
size of controls randomly extracted from matches
played in the Norwegian professional league. More-
over, we used logistic regression analysis, the
appropriate statistical method for comparisons of
categorical differences associated with binary re-
sponse variables (Nevill et al., 2002). The use of
multidimensional qualitative evaluation allowed us in
the current study to analyse different factors of match
performance that usually are difficult to measure
directly, as well as their interdependency.
The differences in study design and variable
types and their definitions make a direct comparison
between studies that have assessed opponent
interactions difficult. Despite this, previous studies
generally support the current findings. Harris and
Reilly (1988) showed that defence against attacks
with a shot on target, compared with those without a
shot, tended to involve higher attacker to defender
ratios and greater average distances between the
attacker in possession and the nearest defender
throughout the attack. According to Grehaigne
(1991), the overall attacking configuration with
adequate space and time and opponent’s defence
with its centre of gravity out of position had a positive
effect on the scoring of 10 of 33 goals. Elsewhere, it
was reported that the defending performances,
directly measured through distances and angles
between attackers and defenders and the number of
players, were significantly related to delaying and
diverting attacks, and covering attacking space
(Suzuki & Nishijima, 2004). Seabra and Dantas
(2006) reported a higher proportion of successful
shooting attempts for ball receptions and shots
originating from zones of low defensive confronta-
tion than high defensive confrontation. Moreover,
although indirectly, Olsen and Larsen (1997)
showed more scoring opportunities and goals from
breakdown attacks (counterattacks) started when the
opponent defence was imbalanced rather than
balanced. Similarly, Jones et al. (2004), Bloomfield
et al. (2005), Lago and Martin (2007), and Taylor
et al. (2008) reported the influence of score-line
status (winning, losing or drawing) and opposition
quality on ball possession.
Whether ‘‘possession play’’ or ‘‘direct play’’ is
more effective has long been disputed in the soccer
community, including match-performance research-
ers (e.g. Bate, 1988; Hughes & Franks, 2005; Olsen
& Larsen, 1997; Reep & Benjamin, 1968). For the
purposes of this paper, the terms ‘‘elaborate attack’’
and ‘‘counterattack’’ are considered to be synon-
ymous with ‘‘possession play’’ and ‘‘direct play’’,
respectively. Our overall univariate and multivariate
analyses show that counterattacks were more effec-
tive than elaborate attacks for the scoring of goals.
Similar results were reported by Olsen and Larsen
(1997), who found that breakdown attacks (counter-
attacks) resulted in more scoring opportunities and
goals than longer attacks (elaborate attacks). Further
univariate and multivariate analyses reveal that
counterattacks were more effective than elaborate
attacks when playing against an imbalanced defence.
However, the multivariate analysis results for coun-
terattack versus elaborate attack when playing against
a balanced defence were not reported. That counter-
attacks are more effective than elaborate attacks
when playing against an imbalanced rather than a
balanced defence should not be surprising, since the
main objective of counterattacking is to exploit
imbalances in the opponent’s defence to achieve

penetration. But, it might also be that teams choose
to play directly precisely because they can take
advantage of imbalances in the opponent’s defence.
That elaborate attacks were found to be less effective
than counterattacks when playing against an im-
balanced defence might also be due to differences
in defensive balance that our variables failed to
uncover.
Similarly, for the variable ‘‘pass number’’, un-
adjusted overall univariate and multivariate analyses
show that long possessions were more effective than
short possessions. However, further univariate and
multivariate analyses show that long possessions were
more effective than short possessions when playing
against an imbalanced defence, but not against a
balanced defence. It would appear that a relatively
high number of consecutive passes (five passes or
more) is more effective in exploiting imbalances in
the opponent’s defence than in creating space by
dislocating defenders in a balanced defence.
Downloaded By: [Tenga, Albin] At: 13:11 8 March 2010
The current finding that long possessions (five
passes or more) are more effective than short
possessions (two passes or less) for scoring goals is
both supported (e.g. Hughes & Churchill, 2004;
Hughes & Franks, 2005; Hughes, Robertson, &
Nicholson, 1988; Hughes & Snook, 2006) and
contested (e.g. Bate, 1988; Hughes, 1990; Reep &
Benjamin, 1968) in the literature. Using data from
the study by Reep and Benjamin (1968), Hughes and
Franks (2005) demonstrated that more goals were
indeed scored from shorter passing sequences, but
also that there were many more of the shorter passing
sequences than the longer ones. Thus, consistent
with our results, longer passing sequences were
considered to be more effective than shorter ones
(Hughes & Churchill, 2004; Hughes & Franks, 2005;
Hughes & Snook, 2006). However, the present study
also reveals that long possessions were more effective
than short possessions when playing against an
imbalanced defence but not against a balanced
defence. It is also apparent that using short possessions
and long possessions interchangeably with direct play
and possession play, as did Hughes and Franks (2005),
might be inappropriate. This is because simply
counting the number of passes excludes other essential
features in the analysis of these styles of attack (Franks,
1988; Olsen, Larsen, & Semb, 1994).
Furthermore, our overall and subgroup analyses
showed no difference in effectiveness between space
passes and foot passes on the probability of goal
scoring. However, these tactics were most effective in
goal scoring when used in combination, as indicated
by the results of the category ‘‘mixed’’ for ‘‘space
utilization’’ in Table I. Scoulding and colleagues
(Scoulding, James, & Taylor, 2004) also failed to
distinguish between space passes and foot passes
used by a successful and an unsuccessful team. For
Effect of soccer playing tactics on goal scoring 243
the variable ‘‘pass length’’, our analyses show that
short passes were more effective than long passes in
univariate analysis but not in multivariate analysis. In
contrast, for the variables ‘‘starting zone’’ and ‘‘pass
penetration’’, our overall analysis shows that the final
third was more effective in goal scoring than first
third and penetrative passes were more effective than
non-penetrative passes. That team possessions ori-
ginating from the final third rather than first third
have considerably higher effectiveness for goal
scoring was also reported by Bate (1988), Hughes
(1990), and Hughes and Snook (2006). Our
subgroup analyses show that the final third was more
effective than the first third and penetrative passes
more effective than non-penetrative passes when
playing against an imbalanced defence. However, the
univariate and multivariate analysis results for
penetrative passes versus non-penetrative passes
and multivariate analysis results for final third versus
first third when playing against a balanced defence
are not reported.
It is important to realize that goal scoring is often a
result of a combination of factors, including technical
(e.g. passing precision), psychological (e.g. coping
with stress), physical (e.g. endurance), social (e.g.
cooperation), and tactical (e.g. exploitation of
imbalances in the opponent’s defence) (Burwitz,
1997). Nevertheless, the tactical approach employed
is an important factor. One aspect that should be
explored further is the sequential analysis of playing
tactics, especially when playing against a balanced
defence. For example, analysing tactics as typically
occur in a competitive match such as long passes and
space passes versus short passes and foot passes
might uncover other effective combinations of
playing tactics (Seabra & Dantas, 2006). Another
aspect worthy of exploration is expanding the scope
of analysis variables. It should be possible to apply
multidimensional qualitative evaluation in the ana-
lysis of off-the-ball movements involving one or more
players. In so doing, effective offensive movement
tactics for creating and utilizing space according to
the degree of defensive balance may be revealed.
The current findings have some practical implica-
tions. The information obtained about the relative
effectiveness of offensive playing tactics, especially
when playing against an imbalanced defence, can be
used to improve a team’s goal-scoring and goal-
preventing abilities effectively. This information can
be used when coaches and players plan and practise
how to take advantage of an opponent’s choice of
playing tactics in a competitive match.
Conclusions
This study shows that counterattacks were more
likely than elaborate attacks to lead to the scoring of a
 244 A. Tenga et al.
goal when playing against an imbalanced defence.
Thus, the assessment of opponent interactions is
crucial to evaluate differences in the probability of
goal scoring between different offensive playing
tactics, and hence improves the validity of team
match-performance analysis in soccer.
References
Bate, R. (1988). Football chance: Tactics and strategy. In
T. Reilly, A. Lees, K. Davids, & W. J. Murphy (Eds.), Science
and football (pp. 293–301). London: E & FN Spon.
Bloomfield, J. R., Polman, R. C. J., & O’Donoghue, P. G. (2005).
Effects of score-line on team strategies in FA premier league
soccer. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23, 192.
Burwitz, L. (1997). Developing and acquiring football skills. In
T. Reilly, J. Bangsbo, & M. Hughes (Eds.), Science and football
III (pp. 201–206). London: E & FN Spon.
Elias, N., & Dunning, E. (1966). Dynamics of group sports with
special references to football. British Journal of Sociology, 17,
388–402.
Ensum, J., Pollard, R., & Taylor, S. (2004). Applications of
Downloaded By: [Tenga, Albin] At: 13:11 8 March 2010
logistic regression to shots at goal in association football:
Calculation of shot probabilities, quantification of factors and
player/team. Journal of Sports Sciences, 22, 504.
Franks, I. (1988). Analysis of association football. Soccer Journal,
33 (5), 35–43.
Grehaigne, J. F. (1991). A new method of goal analysis. Science
and Football, 5, 10–16.
Grehaigne, J. F., Bouthier, D., & David, B. (1997). Dynamic-
system analysis of opponent relationships in collective actions in
soccer. Journal of Sport Sciences, 15, 137–149.
Grehaigne, J. F., Bouthier, D., & Godbout, P. (1999). The
foundations of tactics and strategy in team sports. Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education, 18, 159–174.
Grehaigne, J. F., & Godbout, P. (1995). Tactical knowledge in
team sports from a constructivist and cognitivist perspective.
Quest, 47, 490–505.
Grehaigne, J. F., Mahut, B., & Fernandez, A. (2001). Qualitative
observation tools to analyse soccer. International Journal of
Performance Analysis in Sport, 1 (1), 52–61.
Harris, S., & Reilly, T. (1988). Space, team work and attack-
ing success in soccer. In T. Reilly, A. Lees, K. Davids, &
W. J. Murphy (Eds.), Science and football (pp. 322–328).
London: E & FN Spon.
Hughes, C. (1990). The winning formula. London: William Collins.
Hughes, M. D., & Bartlett, R. M. (2002). The use of performance
indicators in performance analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20,
739–754.
Hughes, M., & Churchill, S. (2004). Attacking profiles of
successful and unsuccessful teams in Copa America 2001.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 22, 505.
View publication stats
Hughes, M., & Franks, I. (2005). Analysis of passing sequences,
shots and goals in soccer. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23, 509–
514.
Hughes, M., Robertson, K., & Nicholson, A. (1988). Comparison
of patterns of play of successful and unsuccessful teams in the
1986 World Cup for soccer. In T. Reilly, A. Lees, K. Davids, &
W. J. Murphy (Eds.), Science and football (pp. 363–367).
London: E & FN Spon.
Hughes, M., & Snook, N. (2006). Effectiveness of attacking play
in the 2004 European Championships. In H. Dancs,
M. Hughes, & P. G. O’Donoghue (Eds.), Proceedings of the
World Congress of Performance Analysis of Sport 7 (pp. 46–62).
Cardiff: CPA UWIC Press.
Jones, P. D., James, N., & Mellalieu, S. D. (2004). Possession as a
performance indicator in soccer. International Journal of
Performance Analysis in Sport, 4 (1), 98–102.
Lachin, J. M. (1981). Introduction to sample size determination
and power analysis for clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 2,
93–113.
Lago, C., & Martin, R. (2007). Determinants of possession of the
ball in soccer. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25, 969–974.
Nevill, A. M., Atkinson, G., Hughes, M. D., & Cooper, S.-M.
(2002). Statistical methods for analysing discrete and catego-
rical data recorded in performance analysis. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 20, 829–844.
Olsen, E., & Larsen, O. (1997). Use of match analysis by coaches.
In T. Reilly, J. Bangsbo, & M. Hughes (Eds.), Science and
football III (pp. 209–220). London: E & FN Spon.
Olsen, E., Larsen, O., & Semb, N. J. (1994). Effektiv fotball.
Norway: Gyldendal Norsk Forlag A/S.
Pollard, R., & Reep, C. (1997). Measuring the effectiveness of
playing strategies at soccer. The Statistician, 46, 541–550.
Reep, C., & Benjamin, B. (1968). Skill and chance in associa-
tion football. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A, 131, 581–
585.
Scoulding, A., James, N., & Taylor, J. (2004). Passing in the
soccer World Cup 2002. International Journal of Performance
Analysis in Sport, 4 (2), 36–41.
Seabra, F., & Dantas, L. (2006). Space definition for match analysis
in soccer. In H. Dancs, M. Hughes, & P. G. O’Donoghue (Eds.),
Proceedings of the World Congress of Performance Analysis of Sport 7
(pp. 30–45). Cardiff: CPA UWIC Press.
Suzuki, K., & Nishijima, T. (2004). Validity of a soccer defending
skill scale (SDSS) using game performances. International
Journal of Sport and Health Science, 2, 34–49.
Taylor, J. B., Mellalieu, S. D., James, N., & Shearer, D. A. (2008).
The influence of match location, quality of opposition, and
match status on technical performance in professional associa-
tion football. Journal of Sports Sciences, 26, 885–895.
Tenga, A., Holme, I., Ronglan, L. T., & Bahr, R. (2010). Effect
of playing tactics on achieving score-box possessions in a
random series of team possessions from Norwegian
professional soccer matches. Journal of Sports Sciences, 28 (3),
245–255.