Journal of Sports Sciences

ISSN: 0264-0414 (Print) 1466-447X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20

The effect of playing tactics and situational

variables on achieving score-box possessions in a
professional soccer team

Joaquin Lago-Ballesteros , Carlos Lago-Peñas & Ezequiel Rey

To cite this article: Joaquin Lago-Ballesteros , Carlos Lago-Peñas & Ezequiel Rey (2012)
The effect of playing tactics and situational variables on achieving score-box possessions
in a professional soccer team, Journal of Sports Sciences, 30:14, 1455-1461, DOI:
10.1080/02640414.2012.712715

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2012.712715

Published online: 03 Aug 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2224

View related articles

Citing articles: 47 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjsp20
Journal of Sports Sciences, October 2012; 30(14): 1455–1461

The effect of playing tactics and situational variables on achieving

score-box possessions in a professional soccer team

JOAQUIN LAGO-BALLESTEROS, CARLOS LAGO-PEÑAS, & EZEQUIEL REY

University of Vigo, Sports, Pontevedra, Spain

(Accepted 12 July 2012)

Abstract
The aim of this study was to analyse the influence of playing tactics, opponent interaction and situational variables on
achieving score-box possessions in professional soccer. The sample was constituted by 908 possessions obtained by a team
from the Spanish soccer league in 12 matches played during the 2009–2010 season. Multidimensional qualitative 1
data
obtained from 12 ordered categorical variables were used. Sampled matches were registered by the AMISCO PRO system.
Data were analysed using chi-square analysis and multiple logistic regression analysis. Of 908 possessions, 303 (33.4%)
produced score-box possessions, 477 (52.5%) achieved progression and 128 (14.1%) failed to reach any sort of progression.
Multiple logistic regression showed that, for the main variable ‘‘team possession type’’, direct attacks and counterattacks
were three times more effective than elaborate attacks for producing a score-box possession (P 5 0.05). Team possession
originating from the middle zones and playing against less than six defending players (P 5 0.001) registered a higher success
than those started in the defensive zone with a balanced defence. When the team was drawing or winning, the probability of
reaching the score-box decreased by 43 and 53 percent, respectively, compared with the losing situation (P 5 0.05).
Accounting for opponent interactions and situational variables is critical to evaluate the effectiveness of offensive playing
tactics on producing score-box possessions.

Keywords: association football, performance indicators, match analysis, opponent interaction

Introduction
Performance analysis in soccer has grown rapidly in
the last few years. Goal scoring is the ultimate
objective measure of offensive effectiveness in
competition and has been extensively used in match
performance research (e.g. Bate, 1988; Grehaigne,
1991; Hughes, 1990; Hughes & Franks, 2005;
Pollard & Reep, 1997; Reep & Benjamin, 1968).
However, simply assessing offensive play based on
goals scored does not provide a full understanding of
a team’s performance. Goals provide few data points
for an entire match and, consequently, large samples
of matches/team possessions are required for mean-
ingful analyses (Tenga, Holme, Ronglan, & Bahr,
2010a). For example, Franks (1988) reported that
each team performs approximately 200 team posses-
sions on average in a single match and that successful
teams (league champions) normally score an average
of two to three goals per match, giving a scoring
probability of about 1%.
The broader measures of offensive effectiveness
such as scoring opportunities (e.g. Olsen & Larsen,
1997), shots at goal (e.g. Harris & Reilly, 1988;
Hughes & Snook, 2006; Pollard, 1986; Reep &
Benjamin, 1968), entries into the final third of the
pitch (e.g. Bate, 1988), or entries into the penalty
area (Ruiz-Ruiz, Fradua, Fernandez-Garcia, &
Zubillaga, 2012) have been proposed as alternatives.
However, although the above studies suggest differ-
ent performance indicators to discriminate between
winning, drawing and losing teams, almost all of them
are limited by small sample sizes and univariate data
analyses. As suggested by Tenga, Holme, Ronglan
and Bahr (2010b), it is necessary to use designs that
include an adequate sample size of selected events. In
addition, the use of multivariate logistic regression
and consideration of opponent interactions allows
more complex comparisons of the effects of different
variables and their interactions (Nevill, Atkinson,
Hughes, & Cooper, 2002).
In two recent studies, Tenga et al. (2010a, 2010b)
examined the effect of playing tactics on the
probability of goal scoring and achieving score-box
possession by assessing opponent interactions in

Correspondence: Carlos Lago-Peñas, University of Vigo, Sports, Pontevedra, Spain. E-mail: clagop@uvigo.es
ISSN 0264-0414 print/ISSN 1466-447X online Ó 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2012.712715
1456 J. Lago-Ballesteros et al.
Norwegian elite soccer matches. Results from multi-
ple regression analysis showed that counterattacks
and offence tactics were more effective than elabo-
rate attacks when playing against an imbalanced
defence, but not against a balanced defence.
However, these findings should be verified given
that in our view some limitations can be observed. (i)
The authors haven’t allowed for the fact that the
situational variables of match status and match
location have an important influence on soccer
performance. Match status is determined by whether
a team or a player is winning, losing or drawing at the
time a particular behaviour is recorded (Bloomfield,
Polman, & O’Donoghue, 2005a, 2005b; Taylor,
Mellalieu, James, & Shearer, 2008). According to
Bloomfield et al. (2005a), Lago and Martin (2007)
and Taylor et al. (2008) the importance of this
situational variable is reflected in changes in team
and player strategies in response to score-line. It has
been demonstrated that teams often show a more
defensive strategy when winning than when losing,
and vice versa. For example, James, Mellalieu and
Hollely (2002) and Lago and Martin (2007) found
that when ahead, teams decreased their possession,
suggesting they preferred to play counter-attacking or
direct play. However when behind, they increased
their possession, suggesting they preferred to ‘‘con-
trol’’ the game by dictating play. Other studies (e.g.
Sasaki, Nevill, & Reilly, 1999; Tucker, Mellalieu,
James, & Taylor, 2005; Taylor et al., 2008) showed
that the occurrence and outcome of technical and
tactical behaviours are influenced by match location
(i.e. playing at home or away). Carmichael and
Thomas (2005) found that home teams have sig-
nificantly higher figures for attack indicators, such as
shots and successful passes in the scoring zone. (ii)
The importance of a combination of these situational
variables and their interactions in match-performance
analyses has been suggested. The examination of
situational variables in isolation would appear to
provide limited insight into the complex nature of
team sports performance (McGarry & Franks, 2003;
Reed & O’Donoghue, 2005). For example, Lago and
Martin (2007) demonstrated variations in ball pos-
session as a function of match location and match
status, with home teams having more possession
when drawing than away teams. However, Tenga and
colleagues’ studies (2010a, 2010b) did not examine
the interactive effects of the situational variables. (iii)
Finally, given that the Norwegian professional league
is not one of the most important championships in
Europe, previous results should be verified in other
countries and tournaments.
Further research is thus necessary in order to
assess the suitability of new measurements of
offensive and defensive effectiveness in soccer.
Therefore, the aim of the present study is to examine
the influence of playing tactics, opponent interac-
tions, and situational variables on achieving score-
box possessions in a professional Spanish soccer
team. A score-box possession is an entry into the
score-box with high degree of control over the ball or
when a set play is given to the attacking team as a
result of entry into score-box. High degree of control
over the ball means enough space and time to make it
easier to perform the intended action on the ball
(Tenga et al., 2010a).
Methods
Sample
The sample was constituted by the 908 team
possessions that a team from the first division of
the Spanish soccer league obtained with the ball in
play (i.e. team possessions starting with a set play
were excluded), in 12 matches during the 2009–2010
season. The matches analysed (7 home and 5 away
matches) resulted in 3 wins, 3 draws, and 6 defeats,
with 9 goals scored and 13 goals conceded by the
sampled team. The team’s overall record for the
2009–2010 season was 11 wins, 11 draws, and 16
defeats, with 29 goals scored and 46 goals conceded.
A team possession was used as the basic unit of
analysis and it has been 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.
Variables
The following 12 variables were used in this study:
possession outcome (one dependent variable); dura-
tion, starting zone, team possession type, pass
number, players in possession, and passing options
(six offensive independent variables); opponent
number, and defensive pressure (two defensive
independent variables); and match location, quality
of opposition, and match status (three situational
independent variables) (Table I). The dependent
 Playing tactics and situational variables 1457

Table I. Variables considered in the study.

Variable Description

Success Degree of success achieved by the team possession. Three categories were considered: to fail to progress, to
achieve progression and score-box possession.
Duration Seconds elapsed from the beginning of the team possession until it ends. Team possessions were classified as
short possession (55 s), medium possession (5–10 s) or long possession (410 s).
Starting Zone Area across the playing field in which team possession starts. Four equal areas were considered: defensive,
pre defensive, pre offensive and offensive.
Team Possession Type Degree of offensive directness. Three categories were established according to Bangsbo and Peitersen
(2000):

a. Elaborate attack (‘‘possession play’’): this style is characterised by a meticulous build-up consisting of
many passes between defence and midfield. The team keeps the ball patiently during attempts to
create an opening until it can make a breakthrough.
b. Counterattack: a fast direct attack with few players, set in motion when the ball is won, followed by a
quick pass played over many opponents. In the instant of passing, one or two players should rush
forward to support the player who receives the ball in plenty of space.
c. Direct attack (‘‘direct play’’): the team consciously plays the ball forward to the opposition’s third and
tries to finish quickly.

Pass Number Series of passes between players of the attacking team. Team possessions were classified as short series (53
passes), medium series (3–4 passes) or long series (44 passes).
Players in Possession Number of players involved in team possession. Three categories were considered: microgroup possession
(1–3 players involved), mesogroup possession (4–5 players involved) or macrogroup possession (6 or more
players involved).
Passing Options Number of attacking players located between the ball and the opposition’s goal (players in offside position
were not counted). Team possessions were classified as microgroup possession (3 or less possible receivers),
mesogroup possession (4–5 possible receivers) or macrogroup possession (6 or more possible receivers).
Opponent Number Number of defending players located between the ball and their goal. Three categories were considered:
microgroup possession (3 or less defending players), mesogroup possession (4–5 defending players) or
macrogroup possession (6 or more defending players).
Defensive Pressure Distance between the player with the ball (first attacker) and an immediate pressing opponent player(s) (first
defender(s)), excluding the goalkeeper. Team possessions were classified as loose pressure (first defender
is always located 1.5 m away from first attacker), mixed pressure (combination of tight and loose pressure)
or tight pressure (first defender is always located within 1.5 m of first attacker).
Match Location Venue of the game. Team possessions were classified as either at home or away.
Quality of Opposition Competitive level of the opposing team according to the final league table. Top five teams were classified as
strong opposition. Bottom five teams were classified as weak opposition. Middle ten teams were classified
as medium opposition.
Match Status Determined by whether the team was winning, drawing, or losing at the time each particular team possession
was recorded.

variable, possession outcome, had three primary
values: score-box possession, failed progression and
achieved progression.
Match performance data collection procedures
Sampled matches were registered by the AMISCO
1
PRO system, a semiautomatic tracking system that
measures on video the movements of every player,
the referee and the ball by sampling activity up to 25
times per second during the whole game. This
system creates a 2-dimensional animated reconstruc-
tion of player movements and allows the simulta-
neous analysis of the movements of every player in a
team throughout the entirety of a match. Information
from every single match is stored on a DVD and can
be extracted through a specific piece of software
1
(Amisco Viewer). The AMISCO PRO system was
validated by Zubillaga, Gorospe, Hernández-Mendo,
and Blanco-Villaseñor (2007) and Carling, Bloom-
field, Nelsen, and Reilly (2008).
The study was carried out after the end of the
competition. Four observers were specifically trained
during two months and then they extracted the
required information from the DVDs. The kappa
values obtained to assure the reliability of the
observation process ranged from 0.90–0.98 and
from 0.78–0.90 in the intra- and inter-observer
calculations, respectively (Table II).
Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was implemented in two stages. In
the first stage, a chi-square analysis was carried out to
determine if there was an association between each
independent variable (playing tactics and situational
variables) and the probability of producing score-box
possessions.
1458 J. Lago-Ballesteros et al.

Table II. Kappa values for intra- and inter-observer reliability. Table III. Differences in possession outcome according to playing
tactics and situational variables (N ¼ 780).
Intra-observer
Inter- Score- No
Variable O1 O2 O3 O4 observer box score-box

Success 0.93 0.91 0.94 0.93 0.89 Variable n % n % w2 df P

Duration 0.95 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.86
Starting Zone 0.96 0.95 0.98 0.97 0.90 Team Possession Type 16.279 2 50.001
Team Possession Type 0.91 0.89 0.94 0.91 0.78 Elaborate Attack 87 45.3 105 54.7
Pass Number 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.84 Direct Attack 57 27.4 151 72.6
Players in Possession 0.90 0.95 0.91 0.92 0.83 Counterattack 159 41.8 221 58.2
Passing Options 0.91 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.81 Duration 119.002 2 50.001
Opponent Number 0.92 0.90 0.91 0.91 0.83 Short 43 16.2 223 83.8
Defensive Pressure 0.93 0.92 0.94 0.93 0.87 Medium 83 36.9 142 63.1
Long 177 61.2 112 38.8
Starting Zone 111.518 2 50.001
In a second instance, a multiple logistic regression Defensive 64 24.4 198 75.6
Pre defensive 108 32.3 226 67.7
analysis was performed to examine the independent Pre offensive 122 70.1 52 29.9
and interactive effects of the 11 independent Offensive 9 90.0 1 10.0
variables considered. The modelling strategy fol- Pass Number 40.011 2 50.001
lowed was a hierarchical backward elimination Short 148 30.5 338 69.5
process (Kleinbaum & Klein, 2010). We used an Medium 82 49.4 84 50.6
Long 73 57.0 55 43.0
alpha value of 50.05 in all tests and they were
Players in Possession 46.906 2 50.001
carried out using SPSS software (version 17.0,
Microgroup 159 31.0 354 69.0
Chicago, IL, USA). Mesogroup 94 48.7 99 51.3
Macrogroup 50 67.6 24 32.4
Passing Options 66.702 2 50.001
Results Microgroup 46 79.3 12 20.7
Mesogroup 96 50.3 95 49.7
Descriptive analysis Macrogroup 161 30.3 370 69.7
Opponent Number 50.661 2 50.001
A total of 908 team possessions using elaborate Microgroup 8 100 0 0
attacks, counterattacks, and direct attacks were Mesogroup 48 73.8 17 26.2
analysed. Of all possessions, 303 (33.4%) produced Macrogroup 247 34.9 460 65.1
score-box possessions, 477 (52.5%) achieved pro- Defensive Pressure 0.282 2 0.868
gression and 128 (14.1%) failed to reach any sort of Loose 163 38.4 262 61.6
Mixed 127 39.8 192 60.2
progression. There were differences in the possession Tight 13 36.1 23 63.9
outcome for all variables except defensive pressure, Match Location 0.125 1 0.724
match location and quality of opposition (Table III). Home 139 38.2 225 61.8
Away 164 39.4 252 60.6
Quality of Opposition 2.154 2 0.341
Logistic regression analysis Strong 100 42.7 134 57.3
Medium 95 36.8 163 63.2
For the main variable ‘‘team possession type’’, direct Weak 108 37.5 180 62.5
attacks and counterattacks were three times more Match Status 7.303 2 0.026
effective than elaborate attacks for producing a score- Winning 53 36.3 93 63.7
box possession (P 5 0.05) (Table IV). The prob- Drawing 148 35.7 266 64.3
ability of reaching the score-box increased with the Losing 102 46.4 118 53.6
duration of the team possession (P 5 0.001). Team
possessions originating from the pre defensive and
pre offensive zones were 2.5 (P 5 0.05) and 19 zone. Team possession registered a lower success
(P 5 0.001) times more effective for producing a when playing against more than five defending
score-box possession than those started in the players (P 5 0.001).
defensive area, respectively. Counterattack and pre With regard to situational variables, when the team
offensive zone showed a higher probability of was drawing or winning, the probability of reaching
producing a score-box possession compared with the score-box decreased by 43 and 53 percent,
an elaborate attack started in the defensive area respectively, compared with the losing situation
(P 5 0.05). Direct attack, pre defensive, and pre (P 5 0.05). The effect of ‘‘opposition quality’’ was
offensive zones registered a lower probability of non-significant. The use of a direct attack against
producing a score-box possession than their respec- strong opposition decreased the probability of reach-
tive opposite tactics: elaborate attack and defensive ing the score-box by 80 percent, compared with the
 Playing tactics and situational variables 1459

Table IV. Logistic regression model for success in team possessions.

Variable B Error Wald df P Exp (B) 95% CI

Intercept 75.139 0.625 67.607 1 50.001 0.006

Team Possession Type 5.756 2 0.056
Direct Attack 1.118 0.539 4.300 1 0.038 3.058 [1.063, 8.798]
Counterattack 1.208 0.564 4.588 1 0.032 3.346 [1.108, 10.105]
Duration 128.044 2 50.001
Medium 2.462 0.391 39.667 1 50.001 11.731 [5.452, 25.241]
Long 4.773 0.441 117.107 1 50.001 118.301 [49.835, 280.828]
Starting Zone 25.389 2 50.001
Pre defensive 0.928 0.413 5.051 1 0.025 2.529 [1.126, 5.679]
Pre offensive 2.942 0.585 25.317 1 50.001 18.962 [6.027, 59.655]
Opponent Number 1.478 0.388 14.468 1 50.001 4.382 [2.047, 9.383]
Match Status 6.219 2 0.045
Drawing 70.559 0.263 4.526 1 0.033 0.572 [0.342, 0.957]
Winning 70.749 0.334 5.019 1 0.025 0.473 [0.245, 0.910]
Opposition Quality 1.360 2 0.507
Medium 70.040 0.477 0.007 1 0.933 0.961 [0.377, 2.444]
Strong 0.418 0.422 0.982 1 0.322 1.519 [0.665, 3.473]
Team Possession Type*Starting Zone 28.032 4 50.001
Direct Attack by Pre defensive 71.225 0.620 3.902 1 0.048 0.294 [0.087, 0.990]
Direct Attack by Pre offensive 72.130 0.776 7.540 1 0.006 0.119 [0.026, 0.544]
Counterattack by Pre defensive 0.689 0.582 1.403 1 0.236 1.992 [0.637, 6.234]
Counterattack by Pre offensive 1.677 0.765 4.802 1 0.028 5.350 [1.194, 23.975]
Opposition Quality*Team Possession Type 12.431 4 0.014
Medium by Direct Attack 0.205 0.639 0.103 1 0.748 1.228 [0.351, 4.301]
Medium by Counterattack 70.735 0.596 1.519 1 0.218 0.480 [0.149, 1.543]
Strong by Direct Attack 71.570 0.678 5.362 1 0.021 0.208 [0.055, 0.786]
Strong by Counterattack 70.329 0.558 0.348 1 0.555 0.719 [0.241, 2.147]

use of elaborate attack against weak opposition Table V. Classification table for the logistic regression model.
(P 5 0.05).
Predicted
Finally, the logistic regression model correctly clas-
sifies 80.4% of the team possessions, with a sensitivity Observed No score-box Score-box % correct
of 77.9% and a specificity of 81.9% (Table V).
No score-box 390 86 81.9
Score-box 65 229 77.9
Discussion Overall % 80.4

The aim of this study was to examine the influence of

playing tactics, opponent interactions, and situa-
tional variables on achieving score-box possessions in
a professional soccer team. To our knowledge, only
the studies of Tenga et al. (2010a, 2010b, 2010c)
have explored the combined effects of offensive
tactics and opponent interactions to evaluate the
offensive effectiveness in soccer. However, the above
studies present some limitations given that the
independent and interactive effects of match status
and match location have not been considered.
For the main variable ‘‘team possession type’’,
results from multiple regression analyses showed that
direct attacks and counterattacks were more effective
than elaborate attacks. Whether ‘‘possession play’’ or
‘‘direct play’’ is more effective has long been
disputed in the soccer community, including
match-performance researchers (e.g. Bate, 1988;
Hughes & Franks, 2005; Reep & Benjamin, 1968).
Our analysis shows that direct attacks and
counterattacks were three times more effective than
elaborate attacks for producing score-box posses-
sions. Further examination of the data reveals that
the use of a counterattack originating in the pre
offensive zone showed a higher probability of
producing a score-box possession compared with
an elaborate attack started in the defensive area. As
suggested by Tenga et al. (2010b), this should come
as no surprise because the main objective of a
counterattack is to exploit imbalances in the oppo-
nent’s defence to achieve penetration. However,
given that the data is collected from just one team,
it is very difficult to generalise on the current findings
for all teams.
The assessment of opponent interactions revealed
that playing against less than six defending players
increased the offensive effectiveness. Indeed, the
probability for producing a score-box possession was
1460 J. Lago-Ballesteros et al.
4.4 times lower when the team attacked against a
balanced defence. The differences in study design
and variable types and their definitions make a direct
comparison between studies that have assessed
opponent interactions and situational variables diffi-
cult. 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 the opponent’s defence with its centre of gravity
out of position had a positive effect on the scoring of
10 of 33 goals. Seabra and Dantas (2006) reported a
higher proportion of successful shooting attempts for
ball receptions and shots originating from zones of
low defensive confrontation than of high defensive
confrontation. Moreover, Olsen and Larsen (1997)
showed more scoring opportunities and goals from
breakdown attacks (counterattacks) started when the
opposition defence was imbalanced rather than
balanced. As proposed by Tenga et al. (2010b), the
tactics of balanced defence (tight pressure, present
backup and present cover) are more effective in
preventing score-box possessions than the opposite
tactics of imbalanced defence (loose pressure, absent
backup, and absent cover).
For the variable ‘‘duration’’, the multiple regres-
sion analysis shows that long possessions were more
effective than short possessions. The probability of
reaching the score-box increased with the duration of
the team possession. The current finding is in
contrast to that reported in some previous studies
(e.g. Bate, 1988; Franks, 1988; Reep & Benjamin,
1968), but in accordance with Tenga et al. (2010b).
Data from the study of Reep and Benjamin (1968),
and Hughes and Franks (2005) demonstrated that
more shots were indeed produced 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 pas-
sing sequences were considered to be more effective
than shorter ones (Hughes & Churchill, 2005;
Hughes & Franks, 2005; Hughes & Snook, 2006).
For the variable ‘‘starting zone’’, results demon-
strated that team possessions originating from the
pre defensive and pre offensive zones were more
effective for producing a score-box possession than
those started in the defensive area. Bate (1988),
Hughes and Snook (2006), and Tenga et al. (2010a)
also reported the effectiveness of team possessions
originating from the final third of the pitch. All these
findings should be verified in other teams, national
leagues or different competition levels.
Regarding the effects of situational variables, the
importance of match status is reflected in changes in
team and player strategies in response to score-line.
When the team was drawing or winning, the
probability of reaching the score-box decreased
dramatically compared with the losing situation. It
has been demonstrated that teams often show a more
defensive strategy when winning than when losing,
and vice versa. For example, James, Mellalieu and
Hollely (2002) and Lago and Martin (2007) found
that when ahead, teams decreased their possession,
suggesting they preferred to play counter-attacking
or direct play. However when behind, they increased
their possession, suggesting they preferred to ‘‘con-
trol’’ the game by dictating play. In this line, Lago
(2009) found that time spent in possession of the ball
in different zones of the pitch was influenced by
match status: when teams were losing, possession of
the ball was less in the defensive zone and more in
the attacking zone than when winning or drawing.
The unexpected non-significant independent influ-
ence of match location and quality of opposition on
the probability of reaching the score-box could be
explained by the fact that situational variables would
have unique effects on individual players, teams and
playing styles (Barnett & Hilditch, 1993; Bloomfield,
Polman, & O’Donoghue, 2005b; Clarke & Norman,
1995; Lago, 2009). These results emphasise the
importance of accounting for match location, quality
of opposition and match status during the assess-
ment of soccer performance.
In terms of the limitations of the present study, the
attacking performance of a single elite soccer team
was analysed and consequently the results obtained
could be a reflection of the playing standard or style
of this particular team, so care should be taken when
extrapolating these results to other teams. Despite
this limitation it would appear that case studies of
teams over a sustained period represent an appro-
priate approach to performance analysis in soccer
because the use of aggregated data sets from many
teams’ performances potentially masks the factors
that determine or contribute to each team’s success
or failure (Taylor, Mellalieu, James, & Shearer,
2008).
In conclusion, this study shows that direct attacks
and counterattacks were more effective than elabo-
rate attacks for producing a score-box possession.
Moreover, team possession originating from the
offensive zone and playing against imbalanced
defence registered a higher success than those started
in the defensive zone with a balanced defence.
Finally, it has been demonstrated that teams often
show a more defensive strategy when winning than
when losing. Accounting for opponent interactions
and situational variables is critical to evaluate the
effectiveness of offensive playing tactics on

producing score-box possessions and improves the
validity of team match-performance analysis in
soccer.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge financial support from the
Spain Ministry of Science and Innovation, research
project DEP2011-23338.
References
Bangsbo, J., & Peitersen, B. (2000). Soccer systems and strategies.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Barnett, V., & Hilditch, S. (1993). The effect of an artificial pitch
surface on home team performance in football (soccer). Journal
of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A, 156(1), 39–50.
Bate, R. (1988). Football chance: Tactics and strategy. In T.
Reilly, A. Lees, K. Davis & W. Murphy (Eds.), Science and
football (pp. 293–301). London: E. & F.N. Spon.
Bloomfield, J., Polman, R., & O’Donoghue, P. (2005a). Effect of
score-line on intensity of play in midfield and forward players in
FA Premier League. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23(2), 191–192.
Bloomfield, J., Polman, R., & O’Donoghue, P. (2005b). Effects of
score-line on team strategies in FA Premier League soccer.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 23(2), 192–193.
Carling, C., Bloomfield, J., Nelsen, L., & Reilly, T. (2008). The
role of motion analysis in elite soccer: Contemporary perfor-
mance measurement techniques and work rate data. Sports
Medicine, 38(10), 839–862.
Carmichael, F., & Thomas, D. (2005). Home field effect and team
performance: Evidence from English Premiership football.
Journal of Sports Economics, 6(3), 264–281.
Clarke, S., & Norman, J. (1995). Home ground advantage of
individual clubs in English soccer. Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society: Series D, 44(4), 509–521.
Franks, I. (1988). Analysis of association football. Soccer Journal,
33(5), 35–43.
Grehaigne, J. (1991). A new method of goal analysis. Science and
Football, 5, 10–16.
Harris, S., & Reilly, T. (1988). Space, teamwork and attacking
success in soccer. In T. Reilly, A. Lees, K. Davis & W. Murphy
(Eds.), Science and football (pp. 322–328). London: E. & F.N.
Spon.
Hughes, C. (1990). The winning formula: the Football Association
soccer skills and tactics. London: Collins.
Hughes, M., & Churchill, S. (2005). Attacking profiles of
successful and unsuccessful teams in Copa America 2001. In
T. Reilly, J. Cabri & D. Araújo (Eds.), Science and football V (pp.
219–224). London: Routledge.
Hughes, M., & Franks, I. (2005). Analysis of passing sequences,
shots and goals in soccer. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23(5), 509–
514.
Hughes, M., & Snook, N. (2006). Effectiveness of attacking play in
the 2004 European Championships. Paper presented at the World
Congress of Performance Analysis of Sport 7, Szombathely,
Hungary.
James, N., Mellalieu, S., & Hollely, C. (2002). Analysis of
strategies in soccer as a function of European and domestic
competition. International Journal of Performance Analysis in
Sport, 2(1), 85–103.
Playing tactics and situational variables 1461
Kleinbaum, D., & Klein, M. (2010). Logistic regression. A self-
learning text (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
Lago, C. (2009). The influence of match location, quality of
opposition, and match status on possession strategies in
professional association football. Journal of Sports Sciences,
27(13), 1463–1469.
Lago, C., & Martin, R. (2007). Determinants of possession of the
ball in soccer. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25(9), 969–974.
McGarry, T., & Franks, I. (2003). The science of match analysis.
In T. Reilly (Ed.), Science and soccer (2nd ed., pp. 265–275).
London: Routledge.
Nevill, A., Atkinson, G., Hughes, M., & Cooper, S. (2002).
Statistical methods for analysing discrete and categorical data
recorded in performance analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences,
20(10), 829–844.
Olsen, E., & Larsen, O. (1997). Use of match analysis by coaches.
In T. Reilly, M. Hughes, & J. Bangsbo (Eds.), Science and
football III (pp. 209–222). London: E. & F.N. Spon.
Pollard, R. (1986). Soccer performance analysis and its application
to shots at goal. Research Bi-annual for Movement, 4, 19–27.
Pollard, R., & Reep, C. (1997). Measuring the effectiveness of
playing strategies at soccer. Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society: Series D (The Statistician), 46(4), 541–550.
Reed, D., & O’Donoghue, P. (2005). Development and applica-
tion of computer-based prediction methods. International
Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 5, 12–28.
Reep, C., & Benjamin, B. (1968). Skill and chance in association
football. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A, 131(4),
581–585.
Ruiz-Ruiz, C., Fradua, L., Fernández-Garcı́a, A., & Zubillaga, A.
(2011). Analysis of entries into the penalty area as a
performance indicator in soccer. European Journal of Sport
Science. doi:10.1080/17461391.2011.606834.
Sasaki, Y., Nevill, A., & Reilly, T. (1999). Home advantage: A
case study of Ipswich Town Football Club during the 1996–97
season. Journal of Sports Sciences, 17, 831–832.
Seabra, F., & Dantas, L. (2006). Space definition for match
analysis in soccer. International Journal of Performance Analysis in
Sport, 6(2), 97–113.
Taylor, J., Mellalieu, S., James, N., & Shearer, D. (2008). The
influence of match location, quality of opposition, and match
status on technical performance in professional association
football. Journal of Sports Sciences, 26(9), 885–895.
Tenga, A., Holme, I., Ronglan, L.T., & Bahr, R. (2010a). 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.
Tenga, A., Holme, I., Ronglan, L.T., & Bahr, R. (2010b). Effect
of playing tactics on goal scoring in Norwegian professional
soccer. Journal of Sports Sciences, 28(3), 237–244.
Tenga, A., Holme, I., Ronglan, L.T., & Bahr, R. (2010c). Effects
of match location on playing tactics for goal scoring in
Norwegian professional soccer. Journal of Sport Behavior,
33(1), 89–108.
Tucker, W., Mellalieu, S., James, N., & Taylor, J. (2005). Game
location effects in professional soccer: A case study. Interna-
tional Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 5(2), 23–35.
Zubillaga, A., Gorospe, G., Hernández-Mendo, A., & Blanco-
Villaseñor, A. (2007). Match analysis of 2005–06 Champions
League final with Amisco system. Journal of Sports Science and
Medicine, Suppl. 10, 20–21.