4.6 Article

Match statistics related to winning in the group stage of 2014 Brazil FIFA World Cup

期刊

JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES
卷 33, 期 12, 页码 1205-1213

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2015.1022578

关键词

soccer; match analysis; modelling; notational analysis

资金

  1. China Scholarship Council (CSC) from the Ministry of Education of P.R. China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Identifying match statistics that strongly contribute to winning in football matches is a very important step towards a more predictive and prescriptive performance analysis. The current study aimed to determine relationships between 24 match statistics and the match outcome (win, loss and draw) in all games and close games of the group stage of FIFA World Cup (2014, Brazil) by employing the generalised linear model. The cumulative logistic regression was run in the model taking the value of each match statistic as independent variable to predict the logarithm of the odds of winning. Relationships were assessed as effects of a two-standard-deviation increase in the value of each variable on the change in the probability of a team winning a match. Non-clinical magnitude-based inferences were employed and were evaluated by using the smallest worthwhile change. Results showed that for all the games, nine match statistics had clearly positive effects on the probability of winning (Shot, Shot on Target, Shot from Counter Attack, Shot from Inside Area, Ball Possession, Short Pass, Average Pass Streak, Aerial Advantage and Tackle), four had clearly negative effects (Shot Blocked, Cross, Dribble and Red Card), other 12 statistics had either trivial or unclear effects. While for the close games, the effects of Aerial Advantage and Yellow Card turned to trivial and clearly negative, respectively. Information from the tactical modelling can provide a more thorough and objective match understanding to coaches and performance analysts for evaluating post-match performances and for scouting upcoming oppositions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据