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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Baptista, Ivan, Johansen, Dag, Figueiredo, Pedro, Rebelo, António, Pettersen, Svein Arne
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