Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ejss Distamnce Coevred
Ejss Distamnce Coevred
Biblioteca]
On: 21 January 2014, At: 08:42
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
To cite this article: Carlos Lago , Luis Casais , Eduardo Dominguez & Jaime Sampaio (2010) The effects of situational
variables on distance covered at various speeds in elite soccer, European Journal of Sport Science, 10:2, 103-109, DOI:
10.1080/17461390903273994
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
European Journal of Sport Science, March 2010; 10(2): 103109
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Abstract
Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 08:42 21 January 2014
The aim of this study was to examine the effect of match location, quality of opposition, and match status on distance
covered at various speeds in elite soccer. Twenty-seven Spanish Premier League matches played by a professional soccer
team were monitored in the 20052006 season using a multiple-camera match analysis system. The dependent variables
were the distance covered by players at different intensities. Data were analysed using a linear regression analysis with three
independent variables: match status (i.e. whether the team was winning, losing or drawing), match location (i.e. playing at
home or away), and quality of the opponents (strong or weak). The top-class players performed less high-intensity activity
(19.1 km × h 1) when winning than when they losing, but more distance was covered by walking and jogging when
winning. For each minute winning, the distance covered at submaximal or maximal intensities decreased by 1 m (P B0.05)
compared with each minute losing. For each minute winning, the distance covered by walking and jogging increased by
2.1 m (P B0.05) compared with each minute losing. The home teams covered a greater distance than away teams during
low-intensity activity (B14.1 km × h 1) (P B0.01). Finally, the better the quality of the opponent, the higher the distance
covered by walking and jogging. Our findings emphasize the need for match analysts and coaches to consider the
independent and interactive effects of match location, quality of opposition, and match status during assessment of
the physical component of football performance.
Correspondence: C. Lago, Facultad de CC da Educacion e o Deporte, Universidad de Vigo, Av. Buenos Aires s/n, 36002 Pontevedra,
Spain. E-mail: clagop@uvigo.es
ISSN 1746-1391 print/ISSN 1536-7290 online # 2010 European College of Sport Science
DOI: 10.1080/17461390903273994
104 C. Lago et al.
Mellalieu, 2004; Lago & Martin, 2007; Taylor, Table I. Summary statistics for the observed outfield players
Mellalieu, James, & Shearer, 2008; Tucker, Mellalieu, Number of matches
James, & Taylor, 2005). Player Positional role observed
According to Bloomfield and colleagues (Bloomfield,
Polman, & O’Donoghue, 2005a) and Taylor et al. Player 1 EM 5
Player 2 EM 3
(2008), the importance of these situational factors is
Player 3 CM 13
reflected in changes in team strategies in response to Player 4 ED 19
score-line. However, despite the importance of ac- Player 5 CD 13
counting for match location, quality of opposition, Player 6 F 5
and match status during the assessment of tactical Player 7 ED 4
Player 8 F 8
aspects of soccer performance (Carling, Williams, &
Player 9 F 11
Reilly, 2005; Taylor et al., 2008), very few studies Player 10 CD 21
have examined the relationships between physical Player 11 F 3
performance during the match and these situational Player 12 CM 20
variables (Bloomfield, Polman, & O’Donoghue, Player 13 CM 12
Player 14 EM 2
2005b; Di Salvo, Gregson, Atkinson, Tordoff, &
Player 15 EM 7
Drust, 2009; O’Donoghue & Tenga, 2001; Rampinini Player 16 CD 6
et al., 2009; Shaw & O’Donoghue, 2004). Player 17 ED 10
Moreover, the effects of these situational factors Player 18 ED 8
Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 08:42 21 January 2014
R2-value of the regression of a predictor variable on Distances covered at submaximal or maximal intensities
other predictor variables is higher than the R2-value The total distance covered at submaximal or max-
of the original regression. imal intensities (19.1 km × h1) was explained by
When interpreting the statistical results, positive match status. For each minute winning, the distance
or negative coefficients indicate a greater or lower covered at maximal intensity decreased by 0.95 m
propensity to increase/decrease distance covered by (P B0.05) compared with each minute losing. For
players. The independent variables were the situa- example, if the team was losing for the whole 90 min,
tion variables: the predicted distance covered at maximal intensity
would be 86 m higher than if winning throughout
1. Match status, measured as the total number of
the match. At submaximal intensity, for each minute
minutes observed in each score-line state (win-
winning the distance covered decreased by 1.1 m
ning, losing or draw). The comparison group is
compared with each minute losing. When all the
losing. This means that the panel match status in
independent variables were equal to zero, the dis-
the regression model presents two coefficients
tance covered by players was 302 m (maximal
from the comparison of drawing and losing and
intensity) and 618 m (submaximal intensity).
from the comparison of winning and losing.
2. Match location, a dummy variable indicating if
the game was played at home or away. Playing Distances covered at medium intensities
at home is the comparison group.
The total distance covered at medium intensities
3. Quality of opposition, the difference in the final
(14.119.0 km × h1) was not explained by the
ranking (in the current season) of the consid-
situational variables. When all independent variables
ered team and the opponent, i.e.
were equal to zero, the distance covered by players
Quality of opposition PAPB was 1677 m.
where PA is the final ranking of the sampled team Distances covered at low intensities
and PB is the final ranking of the opponent.
The total distance covered at low intensities (B14.1
Statistical analysis was performed using STATA
km × h1) was explained by match status, match
for Windows, version 10.0 (Stata Corp., Texas,
location, and quality of the opponent. For each
USA). For all analyses, statistical significance was
minute winning, the distance covered walking and
set at P B0.05.
jogging (011 km × h1) increased by 2.2 m (P B0.05)
compared with each minute losing. Accordingly,
each minute winning increased by 2.1 m (P B0.01)
Results
the distance covered at low-speed running (11.114.0
The distances covered at different work intensities km × h1) compared with each minute losing. Playing
by players of different positional roles are presented away decreased the total distance covered walking and
in Table II. The effects of match location, quality of jogging and at low-speed running by 144 m (P B0.01)
the opposition, and match status on distance and 66 m (PB0.05), respectively. Finally, players
106
C. Lago et al.
Table II. Distance covered (m) at different work intensities by players of different positional roles (standard deviations in parentheses)
Walking and jogging Low-speed running Medium intensities Submaximal intensity Maximal intensity
Positional role Total distance covered (011 km × h 1) (11.114.0 km × h 1) (14.119.0 km × h 1) (19.123.0 km × h 1) (23 km × h 1)
Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 08:42 21 January 2014
Central defenders 10 491 (496) 6864 (228) 1611 (181) 1441 (277) 388 (114) 188 (84)
External defenders 11 050 (482) 6791 (245) 1621 (175) 1735 (247) 576 (135) 327 (131)
Central midfielders 11 320 (610) 6941 (401) 1794 (210) 1903 (334) 502 (132) 179 (84)
External midfielders 11 425 (354) 6892 (261) 1671 (278) 1916 (161) 609 (117) 337 (94)
Forwards 10 686 (714) 6813 (251) 1378 (232) 1567 (336) 584 (116) 344 (112)
Table III. The influence of match location, quality of opposition, and match status on the total distance covered (m) during an entire match (standard errors in parentheses)
Walking and jogging Low-speed running Medium intensities Submaximal intensity Maximal intensity
Total distance covered (011 km × h 1) (11.114.0 km × h 1) (14.119.0 km × h 1) (19.123.0 km × h 1) (23 km × h 1)
Variables Coeff. Beta Coeff. Beta Coeff. Beta Coeff. Beta Coeff. Beta Coeff. Beta
Match status
drawing 3.79 (2.48) 0.16 3.63** (1.10) 0.35 1.68* (0.84) 0.19 0.29 (1.28) 0.02 1.32* (0.55) 0.25 0.48 (0.51) 0.11
winning 2.10 (1.19) 0.10 2.18* (0.97) 0.23 2.13** (0.69) 0.28 1.65 (1.18) 0.01 1.09* (0.51) 0.23 0.95* (0.38) 0.24
Match location 262.47** (11.32) 0.19 143.93** (42.96) 0.23 66.06* (37.85) 0.13 18.27 (55.35) 0.03 19.02 (23.55) 0.06 15.20 (20.16) 0.06
Quality of opposition 15.47* (11.32) 0.12 16.81** (5.27) 0.33 4.99 (3.43) 0.12 2.49 (5.93) 0.04 4.29 (2.71) 0.16 1.54 (2.14) 0.07
Intercept 10719.91** (190.52) 6619.73** (102.98) 1508.53** (58.09) 1677.62** 95.58 617.94** (39.96) 302.07** (33.69)
R2 0.38 0.37 0.36 0.32 0.42 0.44
km × h 1
23
180
209
265
294
ranked teams. Each position difference in the end-of-
season ranking between opposing teams increased the
total distance covered walking and jogging by 17 m
(P B0.01). When all the independent variables were
19.123.0
km × h 1
442
523
533
614
equal to zero, the distance covered by players walking
and jogging was 6620 m and at low-speed running
1508 m.
To clarify the impact of the results presented in the
14.119.0
km × h 1
1609
1656
1594
1633
regression model, Table IV presents a simulated total
Away matches
distance covered by players at different speeds under
different scenarios. What distance would be covered
by players when the evolving match status differs?
11.114.0
km × h 1
1704
1609
1512
1445
Is it similar when the team plays away against strong
opposition or plays at home against weak opposition?
In Table IV, different possibilities for each situation
variable are showm. For example, the expected dis-
km × h 1
tance covered at maximal intensity (23 km × h1) by
6911
6587
6713
6390
011
players differs considerably according to match status
Table IV. Simulated distance covered (m) at different speeds depending on match location, quality of opposition, and match status
Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 08:42 21 January 2014
10 862
10 562
10 667
10 373
minute (90 min winning), the distance covered by
Total
players would be 195 m. If the opponent won 10 and
scored the goal in the first minute, the distance covered
by players would be 280 m.
km × h 1
23
195
224
280
309
Discussion
The results of the present study appear to confirm
19.123.0
km × h 1
that the distance covered at various speeds by elite
461
542
552
633
soccer players is dependent on match contextual
factors. The results were always influenced by one or
more situational variables, especially match location
14.119.0
km × h1
1674
1612
1651
Home matches
1673
1678
1595
6871
6997
6674
011
10 925
10 930
10 636
Total
(value 14)
opposition
Quality of
(value 5)
(value 5)
Strong
Weak
Weak
90 min
90 min
90 min
Winning
Winning
Losing
explanations are: crowd effects, travel effects, famil- Bloomfield, J. R., Polman, R. C. J., & O’Donoghue, P. G.
(2005b). Effects of score-line on intensity of play in midfield
iarity, referee bias, territoriality, specific tactics, rule
and forward players in the FA Premier League. Journal of Sports
factors, and psychological factors (Pollard, 2008). Sciences, 23, 191192.
The distance covered at the lowest intensities (011 Brown, T., Van Raalte, J., Brewer, B., Winter, C., Cornelius, A., &
km × h1) was also explained by the variable quality of Anderson, M. (2002). World Cup soccer home advantage.
the opponent. The better the quality of the opponent, Journal of Sport Behaviour, 25, 134144.
the higher the distance covered by walking and Carling, C., Williams, A. M., & Reilly, T. (2005). Handbook of
soccer match analysis: A systematic approach to improving perfor-
jogging. These results are similar to the findings of
mance. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Mohr and colleagues (Mohr, Krustup, & Bangsbo, Clarke, S., & Norman, J. (1995). Home ground advantage of
2003) and Rampinini et al. (2009). They found that individual clubs in English soccer. Statistician, 44, 509521.
more successful teams covered less distance at lower Di Salvo, V., Baron, R., Tschan, H., Calderon Montero, F. J.,
intensities than players from less successful teams. Bachl, N., & Pigozzi, F. (2007). Performance characteristics
In conclusion, the results emphasize the impor- according to playing position in elite soccer. International
Journal of Sports Medicine, 28, 222227.
tance of accounting for match location, quality
Di Salvo, V., Benito, P. J., Calderon Montero, F. J., Di Salvo, M.,
of opposition, and match status during the assess- & Pigozzi, F. (2008). Activity profile of elite goalkeepers during
ment of the physical aspects of soccer performance football match-play. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical
(Carling et al., 2005; Taylor et al., 2008). Physical Fitness, 48, 443446.
performance was influenced by the situational vari- Di Salvo, V., Gregson, W., Atkinson, C., Tordoff, P., & Drust, B.
ables, either independently or interactively. The (2009). Analysis of high intensity activity in Premier League
Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 08:42 21 January 2014
Shaw, J., & O’Donoghue, P. (2004). The effect of scoreline on Tucker, W., Mellalieu, S. D., James, N., & Taylor, J. B. (2005).
work rate in amateur soccer. In P. O’Donoghue, & M. D. Game location effects in professional soccer: A case study.
Hughes (Eds.), Notational analysis of sport VI (pp. 8491). International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sports, 5, 2335.
Cardiff: UWIC. Zubillaga, A., Gorospe, G., Hernandez, A., & Blanco, A. (2009).
Taylor, J. B., Mellalieu, S. D., James, N., & Shearer, D. (2008). Comparative analysis of the high-intensity activity of soccer players
The influence of match location, quality of opposition and in top level competition. In T. Reilly, & F. Korkusuz (Eds.),
match status on technical performance in professional associa- Science and football VI (pp. 182185). London: Routledge.
tion football. Journal of Sports Sciences, 26, 885895.
Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 08:42 21 January 2014