Journal of Human Kinetics volume 25 2010, 93-100 93

Section III – Sport, Physical Education & Recreation DOI 10.2478/v10078-010-0036-z

Ball Possession Strategies in Elite Soccer According

to the Evolution of the Match-Score:
the Influence of Situational Variables

by
Carlos Lago-Peñas1, Alexandre Dellal2

In soccer, the ability to retain possession of the ball for prolonged periods of time has been suggested to be linked
to success. The accuracy of this assertion was investigated by examining 380 matches involving Spanish League
First Division teams during the 2008-2009 season. Possession of the ball, according to the status of the match (win-
ning, drawing and losing), was recorded during the different matches using a multiple-camera match analysis sys-
tem (Gecasport®). The results suggest that the best classified teams maintained a higher percentage of ball posses-
sion and that their pattern of play was more stable. The coefficient of variation, with respect to ball possession per
match, was smaller for the best placed teams. Indeed, first placed F.C. Barcelona had the smallest coefficient of varia-
tion for possession time (8.4%), while bottom placed Recreativo showed the highest values with 17.1%. Linear re-
gression analysis showed that possession strategies were influenced by situation variables. Team possession was
greater when losing than when winning (p<0.01) or drawing (p<0.01), home teams enjoyed greater possession than
visiting teams (p<0.01), and playing against strong opposition was associated with a reduction in time spent in pos-
session (p<0.01). The findings indicate that strategies in soccer are influenced by situational variables and that

Sport, Physical Education & Recreation

teams alter their playing style accordingly during the match.
Key words: match analysis; possession strategies; soccer; team performance; tactical component

area of great interest in performance analysis

Introduction (Hughes and Bartlett, 2002).
In soccer, for a goal to be scored a team usually
Performance analysis refers to the objective re-
has to have possession of the ball. Although it might
cording and examination of behavioral events that
be anticipated that longer periods of possession
occur during sporting competition (Carling et al.,
should predict goal scoring, support for this notion
2005; Dellal, et al., 2010). The main aim of analyzing
is divided. Bate (1988), for example, found that the
one’s own team’s performance is to identify
higher number of possessions a team had, the
strengths that can be further developed, and weak-
greater the chance they had of entering the attacking
nesses that might be improved. Understanding the
third of the field and consequently more goal scoring
differences between the patterns of play developed
opportunities were created. On the basis of this
by successful and unsuccessful teams, as well as
finding, Bate (1988) rejected the notion of possession
those of the same team in different matches, is an
soccer and advocated a direct strategy. However,
Hughes and Franks (2005), Grant et al. (1999), Hook

1
- Faculty of Education and Sports Sciences, University of Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain
2
- University of Sports Sciences, Strasbourg, France and National Center of Medicine and Science in Sport, Tunis, Tunisia

Authors submitted their contribution of the article to the editorial board.

Accepted for pinting in Journal of Human
Brought to you byKinetics vol.University
| New York 25/2010Bobst
on July 2010.
Library Technical Services
Authenticated
Download Date | 5/24/15 4:07 PM
 94 Ball Possession Strategies in Elite Soccer According to the Evolution of the Match-Score: the Influence of Situational Variables
and Hughes (2001) and Bloomfield et al. (2005a) re-
ported that successful teams (e.g., European Cham-
pions League, World Champions, Europa Cup)
maintained possession for longer than unsuccessful
teams. In contrast, Stanhope (2001) found that time
in possession of the ball was not indicative of success
in the 1994 World Cup.
Many of the equivocal findings of previous stud-
ies examining the possession strategies of successful
and unsuccessful teams may originate from con-
ceptual and methodological issues. For example,
Jones et al. (2004) indicate that many have failed to
demonstrate the reliability of the data gathering
system used. In addition, selecting matches played
as part of individual tournaments means that the
chosen teams (successful and unsuccessful) are im-
balanced in term of the strength of opposition and
number of matches played. Such factors are likely to
influence a team´s performance and might explain
the discrepancies seen among studies.
According to Taylor et al. (2008), effective
evaluation of soccer performance requires knowl-
edge of the contextual factors that can potentially af-
fect behaviour incidence and outcomes (Carling et
al., 2005; Dellal, 2008). Existing literature (Jones et al.,
2004; Shaw and O´Donoghue, 2004) suggests that the
variables match location (i.e., playing at home or
away) (Tucker et al., 2005), match status (i.e.,
Sport, Physical Education & Recreation
whether the team was winning, losing or drawing)
(Bloomfield et al., 2005a, 2005b; Lago and Martin,
2007; Taylor et al., 2008; Tucker et al, 2005) and the
quality of the opposition (strong or weak) (Taylor et
al., 2008), which all require consideration when
evaluating soccer performances. Unfortunately,
these findings are still inconclusive given that most
of these studies were based on small sample sizes,
and with the exception of Lago and Martin (2007)
and Taylor et al. (2008), the existing performance
analysis literature has examined situation factors in-
dependently, thereby neglecting to account for the
complex and dynamic nature of soccer performance
(MacGarry and Franks, 2003; Reed and O´Donoghue,
2005; Taylor et al., 2008).
However, the results of Lago and Martin (2007)
and Taylor et al. (2008) have two limitations in their
findings. First, Taylor et al. (2008) adopted a fine-
grained approach to soccer analysis by considering
the performances of a single team over a sustained
period (two seasons). An obvious limitation of case
studies designs is that generalization of findings is
precluded. The contradictory effects of match loca-
Journal of Human Kinetics volume 25 2010,
Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services
Authenticated
Download Date | 5/24/15 4:07 PM
tion found in this study and those of Sasaki et al.
(1999) and Tucker et al. (2005) emphasize the need to
validate the models developed across numerous ad-
ditional teams. Secondly, Lago and Martin (2007) did
not incorporate into their study the quality of oppo-
sition as an independent variable to explain the de-
terminants of possession of the ball in soccer.
In this context, the aim of this investigation was
to provide a large-scale study of elite professional
soccer teams and examine the effects of situational
variables on ball possession strategies. It was hy-
pothesized that ball possession was influenced by
such variables as match location, match status, qual-
ity of opposition and by the level of the team. On the
basis of these findings, it is hoped that the informa-
tion will be of value in contributing to more tactical
knowledge for the prescription of specific exercises
within the training regimen and for analyzing match
performance.
Materials and Methods
Study Design
Although it might be anticipated that longer pe-
riods of possession should predict increased goal
scoring opportunities, support for this notion is di-
vided. To verify this, all 380 matches of the Spanish
soccer League played throughout the 2008-2009 sea-
son were assessed. The dependent variable was the
proportion of time (%) during matches in which the
team had possession of the ball when the ball was in
play. Empirical evidence suggests that the variables
match location, match status (winning, drawing and
losing) and the quality of the opponent can affect
soccer performances. These factors were included in
the study as independent variables.
Match Sample
The examined sample consisted of 380 Spanish
Soccer League First Division matches played
throughout the 2008-2009 season. The performance
of one team obviously impacts upon the second (i.e.,
the frequency and duration of possession is depend-
ent on the opposition). As a consequence, data were
analyzed using one team from each match. The
number of observations was therefore 380. The col-
lected data (possession of the ball, especially ac-
cording to the match status: winning, drawing and
losing during a match) were provided by a multiple-
camera match analysis system (Gecasport®), a pri-
http://www.johk.awf.katowice.pl
by C. Lago-Peñas and A. Dellal
vate company dedicated to assessing the perform-
ance of teams in the Spanish Soccer League. The ac-
curacy of the Gecasport® System has been verified
by Gómez et al. (2009). Written permission to analyze
data was provided by Gecasport®. Ethics approval
for all experimental procedures was granted by our
institute’s Human Research Ethics Committee.
Reliability Testing
Reliability of the data was assessed through inter-
and intra- observer test procedures. Inter-observer
reliability was assessed by the authors, coding five
matches randomly selected, with data being com-
pared with those provided by Gecasport®. Intra-ob-
server reliability was completed by the authors,
coding five random matches selected from the data
sample. Following a six-week period, to avoid any
possible negative learning effects, the matches were
recoded and the two data sets compared. The Kappa
(K) values recorded from 0.93 to 0.98. The parame-
ters included in the inter- and intra- observer reli-
ability were ball possession, the time each team was
losing, drawing or winning during a match, where
the match was played (match location) and the dis-
tance between end-of-season rankings of the com-
peting teams.
Statistical analysis
All statistical analysis was performed using SPSS
for Windows, version 17.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA).
The level of significance was set at p<0.05. To exam-
ine the inter-match variation in the teams’ ball pos-
session times, Pearson coefficients of variation (CV)
were calculated. The CV is defined as the relation-
ship between the standard deviation and the arith-
S Results
CV =
metic mean: x . A standard multiple regres-
sion was used to examine how much the ball posses-
sion (Possession: PO) was explained by the contex-
tual variables (match status, match location, quality
of opposition and by the level of the team). Posses-
sion was deemed to start when a player on the ana-
lyzed team had sufficient control over the ball to en-
able a deliberate influence on its direction. Posses-
sion continued until the ball either went out of play,
an opposing player touched the ball or the referee
blew the whistle for an infringement (Jones et al.,
2004). A possession of 50% means that a team pos-
sessed the ball for half the time the ball was in play.
To measure the variable “match status”, the lengths
© Editorial Committee of Journal of Human Kinetics
Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services
Authenticated
Download Date | 5/24/15 4:07 PM
95
of time each team was winning (Minutes Winning:
MW), drawing (Minutes Drawing: MD) and losing
(Minutes Losing: ML) during a match were included.
This means that the panel match status in the regres-
sion model presents two coefficients from the com-
parison of Drawing to Losing and from the compari-
son of Winning to Losing. Match location was re-
corded as “home” or “away”, depending on whether
or not the sampled team was playing on its own
ground or that of its opponent: 0 = playing at home,
1= playing away (Match Location: ML). Quality of
opposition was the distance in the end-of-season-
ranking between competing teams (Quality of Op-
position: QO). The 20 teams were divided into four
groups according to their final league ranking
(Team: TE). Group 1 contained the top five teams,
Group 2 contained those that finished 6th through
10th, and Group 3, those that finished 11th through
15th, and Group 4, those that finished 16th through
20th. β1 is the intercept and, β2, β3, β4, β5, and β6,
the impact of each one of the independent variables.
ε i is the disturbance term. The regression model
used was therefore:
PO = β1 + β2 .MWi + β3 .MDi + β4 .MLi + β5 . QOi
+ β6 . TEi+ εi [1]
When estimating the regression models, no evi-
dence of heteroscedasticity in the residuals or multi-
Sport, Physical Education & Recreation
colinearity among the regressors was found. More-
over, the Ramsey Regression Equation Specification
Error Test (RESET) (Ramsey, 1969) revealed no
specification problems. When interpreting the statis-
tical results, positive or negative coefficients indicate
a greater or lower propensity to increase/decrease
ball possession.
The mean ball possession values for all 20 teams,
along with their CV were presented in the Table 1.
Considerable differences can be seen between these
possession times, with successful teams showing a
smaller CV during the season. For example, first
placed F.C. Barcelona had the smallest CV for pos-
session time (8.42%), while bottom-placed Recreativo
presented the highest at 17.1%. In addition, the more
successful teams showed higher mean possession
percentages than the other teams. For example, the
mean for F.C. Barcelona (65.29%) was 16.24% greater
than those found for the bottom-placed Recreativo
(48.05%).
 96 Ball Possession Strategies in Elite Soccer According to the Evolution of the Match-Score: the Influence of Situational Variables

Table 1
Ball possession characteristics for the teams of Spanish league Division One for the 2008-2009 season
Ranking in
Team Mean possession (%) CV
league
1 FC. Barcelona 64.3 8.4
2 Real Madrid 53.2 11.5
3 Sevilla 54.6 12.2
4 Atlético de Madrid 52.8 10.8
5 Villarreal 50.2 12.0
6 Valencia 54.3 12.3
7 Deportivo 49.0 12.4
8 Málaga 44.9 12.1
9 Mallorca 47.3 13.4
10 Espanyol 48.3 12.7
11 Almería 49.4 14.0
12 Racing 46.7 14.4
13 Athletic 46.5 14.2
14 Sporting 44.6 16.1
15 Osasuna 49.0 15.6
16 Valladolid 50.4 15.7
17 Getafe 51.9 16.3
18 Betis 48.9 15.9
19 Numancia 46.2 16.8
20 Recreativo 48.1 17.2

The independent and interactive effects of situa-
tion variables on the teams’ ball possession were de-
scribed in Table 2. The linear regression model in-
volving the variables MW, MD, match location and
Sport, Physical Education & Recreation
when winning (p<0.01) or drawing (p<0.01). For each
minute winning the team possession decreased by
0.09% compared with each minute losing. For exam-
ple, if team A were winning for the full 90 min, the

quality of opposition explained about 48% of the expected possession would be 8 percentage points
variance in team ball possession. When all the pre- lower than the opponent’s possession (90 min losing
dictor variables were equal to zero, possession was multiplied by 0.09). For each minute drawing the
55.22%. Possession was greater when losing than team possession decreased by 0.04% compared with
each minute losing. Playing against strong opposi-
Table 2 tion was associated with a reduction in time spent in
The effects of match status, match location and possession of the ball (p<0.01). Each point of differ-
quality of opposition on team possession ence in the end-of-season-ranking between the teams
Variables increases/decreases a corresponding team’s posses-
Match status
sion by 0.52%. Playing away reduced possession
Drawing -0.04* (0.01)
time by 2.43%, in comparison with playing at home.
Winning -0.09* (0.01)
Moreover, the teams of Groups 2 and 3 showed, re-
Match location -2.43* (0.47) spectively, 4.01% and 3.01% less ball possession than
those of Group 1 (p<0.01), whereas no significant dif-
Quality of opposition -0.52* (0.04) ferences were observed in ball possession between
the teams of Group 1 and Group 4.
Team Finally, to illustrate the findings, Tables 3 and 4
Group 1 -4.01* (0.68) provide different values for each variable in the re-
Group 2 -3.01* (0.75)
gression model to simulate ball possession for F.C
Group 3 1.22 (0.87)
Barcelona in a match against Espanyol (10th in the
Intercept 55.24* (0.83)
Number of observations end-of-season-ranking). The predicted possession
R2 380 0.48 differs considerably – by up to 9% - according to
Notes: Standard errors of the mean are in parentheses. match status and match location.
*(p < 0.01).

Journal of Human Kinetics volume 25 2010, http://www.johk.awf.katowice.pl

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services
Authenticated
Download Date | 5/24/15 4:07 PM
by C. Lago-Peñas and A. Dellal 97

Table 3
Simulated ball possession for F.C. Barcelona, depending on match location, quality of opposition and match status in
the game between F.C. Barcelona and Espanyol
Minutes winning
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
0 62 61 60 58 56 55 53
15 61 60 58 57 55 54
30 60 59 56 56 54
Minutes
45 59 58 55 54
drawing
60 58 57 54
75 57 56
90 56
Note: The outcome measure is the percentage of time (%) in which F.C. Barcelona has the possession of the ball

Table 4
Simulated ball possession for F.C. Barcelona, depending on match location, quality of opposition and match status in
the game between Espanyol and F.C. Barcelona.
Minutes winning
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
0 59 59 57 55 54 52 51
15 58 57 55 54 52 52
30 57 56 54 53 51
Minutes
45 56 55 52 51
drawing
60 55 54 51
75 54 53
90 53
Note: The outcome measure is the percentage of time (%) in which F.C. Barcelona has the possession of the ball

Sport, Physical Education & Recreation

match location and match status on soccer perform-
Discussion ances (Bloomfield et al., 2005a, 2005b; Dellal, 2008;
Jones et al., 2004; Lago, 2009; Taylor et al., 2008).
The aim of the present work was to provide a
However, the small sample sizes examined, the ex-
large-scale study of professional soccer teams and
amination of situation variables independently, the
identify the effects of match location, match status,
limitation of case study designs and the evaluation
quality of opposition and the level of the team on
of matches in competitions in which the selected
ball possession strategies.
teams (successful and unsuccessful) were imbal-
Existing performance analysis studies have pro-
anced in terms of the strength of opposition and the
vided inconclusive information regarding the rela-
number of matches played, make it difficult to come
tionship between ball possession and competition
to any conclusion.
success (Bate, 1988; Grant et al., 1999; Hook and
The results of the present study indicated that
Hughes, 2001; Hughes and Franks, 2005; Stanhope,
ball possession was influenced by situational vari-
2001). Some authors have suggested the existence of
ables, either independently or interactively. Losing-
patterns of play involving ball possession shown by
match status was associated with an increase in ball
successful and unsuccessful teams (Bloomfield et al,
possession. Similar to the findings reported by
2005a; Hughes and Franks, 2005), while others indi-
Bloomfield et al. (2005a), Jones et al. (2004), Lago and
cate that ball possession time is not a marker of suc-
Martin (2007) and Sasaki et al. (1999), the present re-
cess in a match (Bate, 1988; Stanhope, 2001). More-
sults support that possession strategies are influ-
over, the effects of situational variables on ball pos-
enced by score-lines. Possession was always found
session strategies are not well-known. Existing per-
to be greater when losing than winning (p<0.01) or
formance analysis has provided preliminary infor-
drawing (p<0.01). This could be explained by
mation on the effects of situation variables such as
changes in tactics and the style of play adopted by

© Editorial Committee of Journal of Human Kinetics

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services
Authenticated
Download Date | 5/24/15 4:07 PM
 98 Ball Possession Strategies in Elite Soccer According to the Evolution of the Match-Score: the Influence of Situational Variables
teams according to the status within the match
(evolving score). When ahead, teams decreased their
possession, suggesting they preferred to play coun-
terattacking or direct play (that is, move the ball
quickly to within scoring range, often using long
passes or long balls downfield). However, when be-
hind, they increased their possession, suggesting
they preferred to “control” the match by dictating
play. This style of play is indirect play (also calling
possession style, which is slower than direct play
and uses many short passes, while weaknesses in the
opposition defense are sought). Consequently, the
tactical component directly influences the physical
and the technical demands within a match-play, ac-
cording to the findings of Dellal et al. (2010a, 2010b).
Playing away was characterized by a decrease in
team possession. Visiting teams reduced possession
by 2.43 percentage points in comparison with home
teams. These results provide evidence of home ad-
vantage in soccer. This in line with the findings of
Bloomfield et al. (2005b), Jones et al. (2004), Lago and
Martin (2007), Sasaki et al. (1999), Tucker et al. (2005)
and Taylor et al. (2008). Despite the fact that home
advantage in soccer is a well-known and well-docu-
mented fact (Bloomfield et al., 2005a; Lago and Mar-
tin, 2007; Tucker et al., 2005), the precise causes and
their simple or interactive effects on performance are
still not clear. However, the most plausible explana-
Sport, Physical Education & Recreation
tions are: crowd effects, travel effects, familiarity,
referee bias, territoriality, specific tactics, rule factors,
and psychological factors (Carling et al., 2005).
The top-placed teams in the Spanish League for
the 2008-2009 season presented a higher percentage
ball possession per match than the less successful
teams. The present results are similar to those re-
ported by Jones et al. (2004) and Lago and Martín
(2007), whose studies had designs similar to that of
the present work. They found that top teams re-
tained more possession than their opponents, sug-
gesting that they prefer to control the match by dic-
tating play. Bloomfield et al. (2005a), for example,
showed that the top three teams in the English Pre-
mier League in the 2003-2004 season (Chelsea, Man-
chester, and Arsenal), dominated possession against
their opponents whether winning, losing or draw-
ing. Hughes and Franks (2005) suggested that be-
cause successful teams (League champions, World
champions, European champions) do not resort to
direct play, there are patterns of play for successful
and unsuccessful teams. Taylor et al. (2008), how-
ever, found that the influence of quality of opposi-
Journal of Human Kinetics volume 25 2010,
Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services
Authenticated
Download Date | 5/24/15 4:07 PM
tion on the technical aspects of performance within a
professional soccer team was non-existent. Perhaps,
the “strong-weak” dichotomy used in this study may
lack the necessary sensitivity to differentiate changes
in behavior incidence as a function of the quality of
the opposition. Moreover, Taylor et al. (2008)
adopted a fine-grained approach to soccer analysis
by considering a single team’s performances over a
sustained period (two seasons). This contrasts with
previous soccer literature that has tended to aggre-
gate performances of different teams during analy-
sis.
This study also revealed that the characteristic of
ball possession in each match varies depending on
the team analyzed. The top-placed teams showed
lower CVs for ball possession per match compared
to those who finished lower in the table. For exam-
ple, F.C. Barcelona (the champion) showed the
smallest CV (8.4%), while Recreativo (bottom of the
table) showed the greatest (17.1%). It would appear
that the teams with the best performance are able to
impose and maintain their pattern of play despite
the alteration in variables over the match (e.g.,
evolving score) and between matches (e.g., playing
at home or away). Different teams appear to employ
different strategies when ahead, level or behind, re-
flecting the individual styles of coaching and man-
agement, the budget, the characteristics of the play-
ers, team formation and philosophy of play based on
the tradition of the clubs.
The main findings of the present study empha-
size the importance of accounting for match location,
quality of opposition and match status during the
assessment of tactical aspects of soccer performance
(Carling et al., 2005; Taylor et al., 2008). Possession
strategies appear to be influenced by situational
variables, either independently or interactively. The
characteristics of ball possession time in each match
may differ for different teams. The top-placed teams
showed lower CVs for ball possession per match
compared to those who finished lower in the table.
The detailed evaluation of the influence of match lo-
cation, quality of opposition, and match status (win-
ning, drawing and losing) on soccer performance
within this study presents a number of implications
for analysts and coaches. Existing recommendations
suggest that the scouting of upcoming opposition
should be carried out under circumstances that are
reflective of the conditions under which the future
match will occur. However, such procedures are
unlikely to be practical due to time and resource
http://www.johk.awf.katowice.pl
by C. Lago-Peñas and A. Dellal 99

constraints. Consequently, by establishing the im-
pact of particular situational variables on perform-
ance, teams can be observed, when possible, with
appropriate adjustments being made to analyses
based on knowledge of such effects. Similarly, post-
match assessments of the technical, tactical, and
physical aspects of performance can be made more
objective by factoring in the effects of situational
variables. Finally, if a notational analyst or coach has
identified that the technical, physical or tactical as-
pects of performance are adversely influenced by
specific situational variables, possible causes can be
examined and match preparation focused on reduc-
ing such effects.

References
Bate R. Football chance. Tactics and strategy. In: Science and Football V. Eds: Reilly T., Less A, Davies K. and
Murphy W. 1988. London: E and FN Spon. 293-301.
Bloomfield JR, Polman RCJ, O’Donoghue PG. Effects of score-line on team strategies in FA Premier League
Soccer. J Sports Sci, 2005. 23: 192-193.
Bloomfield JR, Polman, RCJ, O’Donoghue PG. Effects of score-line on intensity of play in midfield and forward
players in the FA Premier League. J Sports Sci, 2005. 23: 191-192.
Carling C, Williams AM, Reilly T. Handbook of soccer match analysis: A systematic approach to improving
performance. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2005.
Dellal A, Chamari C, Wong DP, Ahmaidi S, Keller D, Barros MLR, Bisciotti GN, Carling C. Comparison of
physical and technical performance in European professional soccer match-play: The FA Premier League
and La LIGA. Eur J Sport Sci, ahead to print.
Dellal A, Wong DP, Moalla W, Chamari K. Physical and technical activity of soccer players in the French first
division – with special reference to the playing position. Int Sport Med J, 2010. 11.
Dellal A. (2008). Analyze of the soccer player physical activity and of its consequences in the training: special
reference to the high intensities intermittent exercises and the small sided-games. Thesis in the University of
Strasbourg, Sport Sciences Department, France.

Sport, Physical Education & Recreation

Gómez M, Álvaro J, Barriopedro MI. Differences in playing actions between men and women in elite soccer
teams. 2009. In: Current trends in performance analysis. World Congress of Performance Analysis of Sports
VIII. Eds: Hökelmann A, Witte K, O´Donoghue P. 2009. Magdebourg: Shaker Verlag: 50-51.
Grant, AG, Williams AM, Reilly T. An analysis of the successful and unsuccessful teams in the 1998 World Cup.
J Sports Sci 1999. 17: 827.
Hook C, Hughes MD. Patterns of play leading to shots in Euro 2000. In: Pass.com. Ed: CPA (Center for
Performance Analysis). 2001. Cardiff: UWIC. 295-302.
Hughes MD, Bartlett RM. The use of performance indicators in performance analysis, J Sports Sci, 2002. 20: 739-
754.
Hughes MD, Cooper S, Nevill A. Analysis procedures for non-parametric data from performance analysis. Int J
Perf An Sport, 2002. 2: 6-20.
Hughes MD, Franks I. Analysis of passing sequences, shots and goals in soccer. J Sport Sci, 2005. 23: 509-514.
Hughes M, Robertson K, Nicholson A. Comparison of patterns of play of successful and unsuccessful teams in
the 1986 World Cup for soccer. In: Science and Football. Eds: Reilly T, Lees A, Davis K, Murphy WJ. 1988.
London: E. and F.N. Spon. 363-367.
James N, Mellalieu SD, Holley C. Analysis of strategies in soccer as a function of European and domestic
competition. Int J Per An Sport, 2002. 2: 85-103.
Jones P, James N, Mellalieu SD Possession as a Performance Indicator in Soccer. Int J Per An Sport, 2004. 4: 98-
102.

© Editorial Committee of Journal of Human Kinetics

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services
Authenticated
Download Date | 5/24/15 4:07 PM
 100 Ball Possession Strategies in Elite Soccer According to the Evolution of the Match-Score: the Influence of Situational Variables

Lago C. Consequences of a busy soccer match schedule on team performance: empirical evidence from Spain.
Int Sport Med J, 2009. 10: 86-92.
Lago C, Martin R. Determinants of possession of the ball in soccer. J Sports Sci, 2007. 25: 969-974.
McGarry T, Franks I. The science of match analysis. In Science and Soccer. Eds: Reilly, T., Clarys, J., Stibbe, A.
2003. London: Routledge. 265-275
Ramsey JB. Test for specification errors in classical lineal least squares regression analysis. J Royal Sta Soc, 1969.
31: 350-371.
Reed D, O’Donoghue P. Development and application of computer-based prediction methods. Int J Per An
Sports, 2005. 5: 12-28.
Sala-Garrido R, Liern V, Martinez A, Boscá J. Analysis and Evolution of Efficiency in the Spanish Soccer League
(2000/01 - 2007/08). Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sport, 2009. 5: 34-37
Sasaki Y, Nevill A, Reilly T. Home advantage: A case study of Ipswich Town football club during the 1996-1997
season. J Sports Sci, 1999. 17: 831.
Shaw J, O´Donoghue P. The effect of scoreline on work rate in amateur soccer. In P. O´Donoghue and M.D.
Hughes (Eds.), Notational analysis of sport VI (pp. 84-91).2004. Cardiff: UWIC.
Stanhope J. An investigation into possession with respect to time, in the soccer world cup 1994. In: Notational
Analysis of Sport III. Ed: Hughes MD. 2001. Cardiff, UK: UWIC. 155-162.
Taylor JB, Mellalieu SD, James N, Shearer D. The influence of match location, qualify of opposition and match
status on technical performance in professional association football. J Sports Sci, 2008. 26: 885-895.
Taylor S, Williams M. (2002) A Quantitative analysis of Brazil’s performances. Insight, 2002. 3: 28-30.
Sport, Physical Education & Recreation

Corresponding author
Carlos Lago Peñas,
University of Vigo, Faculty of Sports Sciences
Campus Universitario s/n 36005. Pontevedra. Spain.
phone: +34986801700
fax: +34986801701
e-mail: clagop@uvigo.es

Journal of Human Kinetics volume 25 2010, http://www.johk.awf.katowice.pl

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services
Authenticated
Download Date | 5/24/15 4:07 PM