Cargando…
A comparison of match-physical demands between different tactical systems: 1-4-5-1 vs 1-3-5-2
The team tactical system and distribution of the football players on the pitch is considered fundamental in team performance. The present study used time-motion analysis and triaxial-accelerometers to obtain new insights about the impact of different tactical systems (1-4-5-1 and 1-3-5-2) on physica...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6448870/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30947242 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214952 |
_version_ | 1783408740602478592 |
---|---|
author | Baptista, Ivan Johansen, Dag Figueiredo, Pedro Rebelo, António Pettersen, Svein Arne |
author_facet | Baptista, Ivan Johansen, Dag Figueiredo, Pedro Rebelo, António Pettersen, Svein Arne |
author_sort | Baptista, Ivan |
collection | PubMed |
description | The team tactical system and distribution of the football players on the pitch is considered fundamental in team performance. The present study used time-motion analysis and triaxial-accelerometers to obtain new insights about the impact of different tactical systems (1-4-5-1 and 1-3-5-2) on physical performance, across different playing positions, in a professional football team. Player performance data in fifteen official home matches was collected for analysis. The sample included twenty-two players from five playing positions (centre backs: n = 4; full-back/wide midfielder/ wing-back: n = 9; centre midfielder: n = 6 and centre forward: n = 3), making a total of 108 match observations. A novel finding was that general match physical demands do not differ considerably between these tactical formations, probably because match-to-match variability (variation of players’ running profile from match-to-match) might be higher than the differences in physical performance between tactical systems. However, change of formation had a different impact across playing positions, with centre backs playing in 1-4-5-1 performing significant more HIRcounts than in 1-3-5-2 (p = 0.031). Furthermore, a medium effect size (r = 0.33) was observed in HIRdist, with wide players covering higher distances when playing in 1-3-5-2 than in 1-4-5-1. These findings may help coaches to develop individualised training programs to meet the demands of each playing position according to the tactical system adopted. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6448870 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-64488702019-04-19 A comparison of match-physical demands between different tactical systems: 1-4-5-1 vs 1-3-5-2 Baptista, Ivan Johansen, Dag Figueiredo, Pedro Rebelo, António Pettersen, Svein Arne PLoS One Research Article The team tactical system and distribution of the football players on the pitch is considered fundamental in team performance. The present study used time-motion analysis and triaxial-accelerometers to obtain new insights about the impact of different tactical systems (1-4-5-1 and 1-3-5-2) on physical performance, across different playing positions, in a professional football team. Player performance data in fifteen official home matches was collected for analysis. The sample included twenty-two players from five playing positions (centre backs: n = 4; full-back/wide midfielder/ wing-back: n = 9; centre midfielder: n = 6 and centre forward: n = 3), making a total of 108 match observations. A novel finding was that general match physical demands do not differ considerably between these tactical formations, probably because match-to-match variability (variation of players’ running profile from match-to-match) might be higher than the differences in physical performance between tactical systems. However, change of formation had a different impact across playing positions, with centre backs playing in 1-4-5-1 performing significant more HIRcounts than in 1-3-5-2 (p = 0.031). Furthermore, a medium effect size (r = 0.33) was observed in HIRdist, with wide players covering higher distances when playing in 1-3-5-2 than in 1-4-5-1. These findings may help coaches to develop individualised training programs to meet the demands of each playing position according to the tactical system adopted. Public Library of Science 2019-04-04 /pmc/articles/PMC6448870/ /pubmed/30947242 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214952 Text en © 2019 Baptista et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Baptista, Ivan Johansen, Dag Figueiredo, Pedro Rebelo, António Pettersen, Svein Arne A comparison of match-physical demands between different tactical systems: 1-4-5-1 vs 1-3-5-2 |
title | A comparison of match-physical demands between different tactical systems: 1-4-5-1 vs 1-3-5-2 |
title_full | A comparison of match-physical demands between different tactical systems: 1-4-5-1 vs 1-3-5-2 |
title_fullStr | A comparison of match-physical demands between different tactical systems: 1-4-5-1 vs 1-3-5-2 |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of match-physical demands between different tactical systems: 1-4-5-1 vs 1-3-5-2 |
title_short | A comparison of match-physical demands between different tactical systems: 1-4-5-1 vs 1-3-5-2 |
title_sort | comparison of match-physical demands between different tactical systems: 1-4-5-1 vs 1-3-5-2 |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6448870/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30947242 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214952 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT baptistaivan acomparisonofmatchphysicaldemandsbetweendifferenttacticalsystems1451vs1352 AT johansendag acomparisonofmatchphysicaldemandsbetweendifferenttacticalsystems1451vs1352 AT figueiredopedro acomparisonofmatchphysicaldemandsbetweendifferenttacticalsystems1451vs1352 AT rebeloantonio acomparisonofmatchphysicaldemandsbetweendifferenttacticalsystems1451vs1352 AT pettersensveinarne acomparisonofmatchphysicaldemandsbetweendifferenttacticalsystems1451vs1352 AT baptistaivan comparisonofmatchphysicaldemandsbetweendifferenttacticalsystems1451vs1352 AT johansendag comparisonofmatchphysicaldemandsbetweendifferenttacticalsystems1451vs1352 AT figueiredopedro comparisonofmatchphysicaldemandsbetweendifferenttacticalsystems1451vs1352 AT rebeloantonio comparisonofmatchphysicaldemandsbetweendifferenttacticalsystems1451vs1352 AT pettersensveinarne comparisonofmatchphysicaldemandsbetweendifferenttacticalsystems1451vs1352 |