Sports Medicine

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-019-01194-7

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

A Systematic Review of Collective Tactical Behaviours in Football Using

Positional Data
Benedict Low1 · Diogo Coutinho2,3 · Bruno Gonçalves2,3 · Robert Rein1 · Daniel Memmert1 ·
Jaime Sampaio2,3

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Abstract
Background Performance analysis research in association football has recently cusped a paradigmatic shift in the way tacti-
cal behaviours are studied. Based on insights from system complexity research, a growing number of studies now analyse
tactical behaviours in football based on the collective movements of team players.
Objective The aim of this systematic review is to provide a summary of empirical research on collective tactical behaviours
in football, with a particular focus on organising the methods used and their key findings.
Methods A systematic search of relevant English-language articles was performed on one database (Web of Science Core
Collection) and one search engine (PubMed), based on PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and
Meta-analyses) guidelines. The keywords ‘football’ and ‘soccer’ were each paired with all possible combinations of the fol-
lowing keywords: ‘collective movement behaviour’, ‘collective behaviour’, ‘tactical behaviour’, ‘interpersonal coordination’,
‘space’, ‘Voronoi’, ‘synchronisation’, ‘tactical analysis’, ‘constraints’, ‘ecological dynamics’, and ‘dynamic positioning’.
Empirical studies that were related to tactical analyses of footballers’ positional data were sought for inclusion and analysis.
Results Full-text articles of 77 studies were reviewed. A total of 27 tactical variables were identified, which were subse-
quently organised into 6 categories. In addition to conventional methods of linear analysis, 11 methods of nonlinear analysis
were also used, which can be organised into measures of predictability (4 methods) and synchronisation (7 methods). The
key findings of the reviewed studies were organised into two themes: levels of analysis, and levels of expertise.
Conclusions Some trends in key findings revealed the following collective behaviours as possible indicators of better tactical
expertise: higher movement regularity; wider dispersion in youth players and shorter readjustment delay between teammates
and opponents. Characteristic behaviours were also observed as an effect of playing position, numerical inequality, and task
constraints. Future research should focus on contextualising positional data, incorporating the needs of coaching staff, to
better bridge the research-practice gap.

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this 1 Introduction

article (https​://doi.org/10.1007/s4027​9-019-01194​-7) contains
supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. In association football, the analysis of players’ positional data
* Benedict Low
has existed for more than 10 years [1, 2]. These data are typi-
benedict.lzw@gmail.com cally captured at various frequencies from different types of
player-tracking systems such as: semi-automatic computer
1
Institute of Exercise Training and Sport Informatics, German vision-based tracking [1–4], global positioning systems
Sport University Cologne, Am Sportpark Müngersdorf 6,
50933 Cologne, Germany
(GPS) [5–8], and local position measurement systems (LPM)
2
[9, 10]. With the collected data, players’ movements can be
Research Center in Sports Sciences, Health Sciences
and Human Development, CIDESD, CreativeLab Research
represented by a time series of Cartesian coordinates (x- and
Community, Quinta de Prados, Ap. 202, 5000‑911 Vila Real, y-coordinates), and the spatiotemporal patterns of play that
Portugal emerge from the dynamics of a game can be used to provide
3
Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Quinta de novel information about performance. Despite their pervasive
Prados, Ap. 202, 5000‑911 Vila Real, Portugal use in elite teams, player-tracking systems, in both research

Vol.:(0123456789)

Key Points
This systematic review examined the methods and find-
ings of studies addressing collective tactical behaviours
from positional data in football.
Tactical variables used were related to players’ pitch
positions, distances, spaces, and numerical relations. In
addition, due to the complex nature of the game, nonlin-
ear analysis was a key characteristic observed in analys-
ing these variables.
Some trends in key findings indicate small, but sure,
steps in scientific progress in this growing body of
research. Practical applications for future work should
focus on integrating such positional data analysis into
training and competition. This could include develop-
ing user-friendly dashboards; having real-time data; and
synchronising video footage with position data to get
multiple perspectives in analysing performance.
and applied settings, are predominantly used in the domain
of time–motion analysis [3, 11], helping players to optimise
physical performance while minimising injuries. However,
published research on footballers’ time–motion demands is
arguably becoming saturated, and in recent years, a new body
of research has emerged that instead uses positional data to
study players’ collective tactical behaviours [12–14].
These studies have adopted various theoretical approaches
from system complexity research to help link training and
match behaviours to performance outcomes (for a critical
view, see Rein et al. [15]). One of these approaches is the
conceptualisation of football as a complex system, exploring
their nonlinear and dynamic properties [16–21]. Many char-
acteristics of complex systems also manifest in the nature of
a football game. Players and teams are adaptive and goal-ori-
ented; players in a match exist in interdependence and inter-
act dynamically and nonlinearly (Perl and Memmert [22]);
the interactions can change according to constraints within
the system; and a football game, as an open system, inter-
acts constantly with the environment. When being viewed
as a dynamical system, it has been proposed that a football
game can be characterised by a system state, which varies
over time; in response to these changes in system states,
self-organisation takes place amongst elements of the system
as match interactions change [17, 18, 20]. Several authors
have also proposed that a football match can be analysed at
various organisational levels of play: the match level, repre-
sented by two opposing teams; the team level, represented
by teammates working in cooperation; sub-group level,
represented by a smaller group of players cooperating or
competing; and even the dyadic level, between two specific
B. Low et al.
players in cooperation or competition [17, 20, 23]. In one
position paper, several authors have argued that movement
behaviours in team sports can be modelled after collective
behaviours in complex sociobiological organisms such as ant
colonies or schools of fish [24]. In this conceptualisation, a
team of players working together can be viewed as an entity
in itself—rather than just an aggregate of eleven individu-
als—exhibiting its own peculiar behaviours. Consequently,
examining players’ coordination of labour can help improve
the understanding of how teammates can be well integrated,
such that the team, as a collective entity, is stronger than the
simple aggregate of its constituent individuals, and presents
different properties that cannot be observed individually.
A related paradigm to the dynamical systems approach
is the concept of constraints, a framework originally con-
ceived by Newell [25], and later proposed for its applications
to football [17, 19]. Newell defined constraints as features
limiting the degrees of freedom of a system, and further
described the three different types of constraints based on
their origins: organismic constraints, environmental con-
straints, and task constraints. Organismic constraints are
those that are internal to the system being analysed (player,
sub-group, team, or match). Environmental constraints are
those that are external to the analysed system and could
include factors such as weather, temperature, altitude,
crowd support, friction, and the type of playing surface.
Task constraints are specific to the task being performed
and are related to the goals being performed or the rules
governing the task. The offside trap, for instance, is a coordi-
nated defensive manoeuvre collectively performed by play-
ers of the defending team to restrict the playable space of
the opponents and/or pressure them to violate the offside
law. In this collective behaviour, the defending team tries
to gain an advantage over the offensive team using a task
constraint—the offside law. As further examples, researchers
may also use this framework to examine differences in team
behaviours between expert and novice players (organismic
constraint) or home and away matches (environmental con-
straint). Therefore, the constraints framework complements
the dynamical systems approach by helping to organise sys-
tem interactions.
Another paradigm of keen focus in recent research is the
ecological dynamics approach [26–29]. This approach uses
the concepts of nonlinear dynamical systems to understand
observed phenomena occurring at a performer–environment
interaction [28]. This paradigm builds on the work of Gib-
son [30] who suggested that facets of the environment such
as substances, surfaces, and objects provide organisms in
the ecosystem with opportunities for action known as affor-
dances. Applying this paradigm to football, players’ exhib-
ited behaviours can be considered as intentional adaptions
to the constraints imposed by the environment during task
performance. The dynamic interactions in a football match
Collective Tactical Behaviours in Football
mean that players’ sources of information—such as ball
position, positions of teammates and opponents, etc.—are
also constantly changing. Thus, decision-making in players
emerges based on their perceptions of the recurring avail-
able information presented to them, and a course of action is
taken based on these perceptions. Different players will also
perceive affordances differently based on their perceptual
attunement acquired through experience and learning [31].
Overall, the perspectives given from nonlinear dynamical
systems, constraints, and ecological dynamics allow us to
view collective tactical behaviours as emergent, dynamic
actions performed based on match interactions, and provide
a better understanding of the underlying processes contribut-
ing to performance outcomes.
In analysing tactical behaviour, the concept of tactics has
been defined by several authors as the actions performed by
players in adaptation to the dynamically changing match sit-
uations [32–35]. The same authors have also distinguished it
from strategy which can be described as the elements of play
that are planned in advance, after considering the impact
of available information. In this perspective, one difference
between tactics and strategy is their relations to time. Strat-
egy allows for more planning and deliberation, while tacti-
cal behaviours are made under strong time–pressure. Other
perspectives on tactical behaviour in team sports have also
expressed similar relations to time, directly or indirectly,
even though they may not have used the same nomencla-
ture. In ecological psychology, Gibson [36] distinguished
between ‘knowledge of’ the environment and ‘knowledge
about’ the environment, where the former refers to direct
responses based on stimulus information from the continu-
ous interaction with the environment; and the latter refers
to indirect responses that constrain future action based on
stimulus sources communicated by another individual.
Araujo et al. [37] also linked the former to tactical decision-
making, and the latter to strategic decision-making, which
can include instructions from the coach, images or videos
communicated to players prior to competition. In a recent
perspective, Balague et al. [38] described these concepts
using task constraints, and argued that task constraints, orig-
inating solely from the organism–environment interaction,
can be instructional or informational in nature, and act at
different timescales. While instructional task constraints are
emergent by design (coach’s instructions or rules) informa-
tional task constraints emerge spontaneously based on the
continuous affordances perceived by a goal-directed player.
As an example of these concepts, a fullback may decide
beforehand to adopt an offensive strategy, by performing
more overlapping runs to support attacking teammates, in a
match that his (her) team badly needs to win,; but the deci-
sions of when to perform an overlapping run, where to run
to, etc. are tactical actions which the player needs to make
according to personal perceptions of the immediate match
situations encountered. In another example, many teams in
a league may decide to play with a 4-2-3-1 formation, after
careful consideration by their coaches (strategy), but their
resulting movement behaviours will not be identical, because
players perform actions based on their real-time adaptations
to the unique situations presented to them in a match (tacti-
cal behaviour). Tactical behaviours can also be studied at
the various organisational levels described earlier [18, 32,
33, 39], especially since information sources in a football
environment can exist as an affordance to an individual or a
shared affordance perceived by a group of players trained to
be attuned to them [40]. An example of tactical behaviour
analysis at an individual level could be studying a player’s
movements in relation to his (her) immediate opponent or
teammate (e.g., a full-back marking an opposite winger
or two centre-backs moving in relation to each other). At
the sub-group level, the collective tactical movements of a
selected group of players can be analysed for better context
(e.g., the coordinated movement of the backline performing
an offside trap described earlier). At the team level, tactical
behaviour can be analysed by studying variables that capture
the collective movement of all team players (e.g., spaces
occupied by a team). Tactical behaviours at the match level
can be studied by examining the interaction of collective
movements between two opposing teams (e.g., the inter-
team distance). In some cases, a successful strategy requires
tactical success at different organisational levels. For
example, to execute a successful counter-pressing strategy
(gegen-pressing), the nearest individual to the ball must first
recognise when ball possession has been lost, and imme-
diately put pressure on the ball carrier (individual level);
the remaining teammates then either jointly pressure the
ball carrier, or move appropriately to mark the next nearest
opponent (sub-group or team level). In this instance, tactical
behaviours are operationalised from a local-to-global level
of self-organisation. Conversely, a team leading with a 1–0
score may decide to defend conservatively in the last 3 min
of a match by remaining deep in their own half (team level);
a substitute player who comes on will have to adapt to this
team behaviour, even though he (she) may have the energy
or desire to apply pressure on opponents in more advanced
pitch positions (individual level). This represents tactical
behaviour operationalised from a global-to-local level. In
summary, performance in football can also be described as
the outcome of a complex process encompassing strategic
decisions made before a match and tactical behaviours made,
at varying organisational levels, in the course of a match.
In the current literature, tactical behaviours in football
have been extensively studied from a notational analysis
approach and physical approach [41, 42], whereas fewer
studies have examined players’ collective movements from
positional data. Sarmento et al. [14] performed a systematic
review of articles from 2012 to 2016 about match analysis in

general, and identified studies on collective group behaviours
(16 articles) as a new body of research that has progressively
emerged in this short period of time, particularly after com-
paring it to an earlier review [42]. In reviews of small-sided
games (SSGs), Ometto et al. [43] examined studies manipu-
lating their task constraints and found differences in collec-
tive group behaviours in 13 studies as an effect of manipu-
lating pitch dimensions, number of players or (and) scoring
targets; Sarmento et al. [44] presented a summary of SSG
methodology from a multidisciplinary approach (11 studies
analysing collective movement behaviour), but majority of
the findings were reported based on the technical, physical,
and physiological aspects of performance. These reviews
provided insightful perspectives on their respective topics,
but gaining an overview of collective tactical behaviours in
football using positional data can still be fragmented due in
part to some of the delimitations used that precluded studies
analysing data on youth football [14], women’s football [14,
44] and other constraints of independent variables applied
[43]. In 2017, Memmert et al. [12] presented the state of the
art of tactical behaviour analyses in football using position
data. The authors showed that: certain intra-team coordi-
nation variables can improve our understanding of overall
team organisation; examining inter-team coordination before
critical events such as goals or opportunities may help in
understanding the dynamic processes before they occurred;
and that artificial neural networks can help classify complex
tactical patterns such as playing formations or movement
speeds aimed at recovering ball possession. Earlier, other
authors have also similarly proposed state-of-the-art vari-
ables for dynamic analysis of collective movement behaviour
[45–47]. Despite this, little is known about the extent to
which the use of these approaches transcended other inves-
tigations made by the wider research community. Therefore,
a systematic search and presentation of the related literature
can provide a more comprehensive summary and consoli-
dation of what the scientific community has yielded in this
body of research thus far. The main questions that are of
particular interest are: what tactical variables have been used
to measure tactical behaviour? What methods of analysis are
more frequent and appropriate? What are their key findings?
In answer to these questions, this systematic review aims
to provide a summary of empirical research on collective
tactical behaviours in football, with a particular focus on
organising the methods used and their key findings.
2 Methods
2.1 Article Search, Inclusion, and Exclusion
A systematic review of the literature was conducted based on
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews
B. Low et al.
and Meta-analyses) guidelines [48, 49]. The databases of
PubMed and Web of Science Core Collection were searched
by pairing the two keywords football and soccer with various
combinations of the following keywords: collective move-
ment behaviour, collective behaviour, tactical behaviour,
interpersonal coordination, space, Voronoi, synchronisa-
tion, tactical analysis, constraints, ecological dynamics, and
dynamic positioning. In addition, filters for ‘English’ and
‘articles’ were also applied. The last search was performed
on 23 May 2018.
The following inclusion criteria were used: publications
in English; original studies; studies in the sport of associa-
tion football; and studies on tactical behaviour from posi-
tional data. The following records were excluded: confer-
ence abstracts; studies examining tactical behaviour from a
notational analysis approach; and studies examining tactical
behaviour from a network approach (e.g., passing networks).
However, studies that adopted a multidisciplinary approach
were included if they also performed analyses of tactical
behaviour from positional data. Since this is a relatively new
body of research, no restrictions were applied on publication
dates, publication status, or study participants.
Eligibility assessment was performed by one review
author (BL). All identified records were first screened by
title and abstract. Studies that raised any uncertainty in
exclusion were conservatively retained for subsequent full-
text review. Any ambiguity toward inclusion or exclusion
of a specific study was raised to the attention of two other
reviewers (DC, BG). Disagreements on final inclusion or
exclusion of studies were resolved by consensus.
2.2 Quality of Studies
After all included studies were finalised, the study quality
of each publication was evaluated using a 16-item checklist
adapted from that used in the previous reviews [14, 44]. This
was assessed based on questions pertaining to: (1) clarity of
purpose; (2) relevant background literature; (3) appropriate
study design; (4) study sample; (5) sample size justifica-
tion; (6) informed consent; (7) reliability of outcome meas-
ures; (8) validity of outcome measures; (9) detailed method
description; (10) results reporting; (11) analysis methods;
(12) described practical importance; (13) description of
drop-outs (if any); (14) appropriately drawn conclusions;
(15) implications for practice; and (16) acknowledgement
of study limitations. These criteria were scored on a binary
scale (1 = yes, 0 = no), except for two items (6 and 13),
where the option of “not applicable” was also available. A
quality score was then calculated for each study by sum-
ming its binary scores and dividing that by the maximum
possible score the study could have achieved. This was then
expressed as a percentage to reflect a measure of methodo-
logical quality. The quality scores were classified as follows:
Collective Tactical Behaviours in Football
(1) low methodological quality for scores ≤ 50%; (2) good
methodological quality for scores between 51% and 75%;
and (3) excellent methodological quality for scores > 75%.
These methods of scoring and classification are consistent
with those used in other reviews [14, 44]. An independent
inter-rater reliability analysis was also performed on the
quality scores by calculating Cohen’s Kappa value [50].
2.3 Data Extraction
From each study, relevant data were extracted by one review
author (BL) and checked by a second author (BG). Disagree-
ments between the two authors were resolved by discussion,
and if no agreement could be reached, a third author (JS)
would make the final decision. The following information
were extracted from each included study: (1) the study sam-
ple, e.g., the number of participants, type of participants,
number of matches, or number of repeated trials; (2) tactical
variables analysed—the measures used by study authors to
characterise tactical behaviour; (3) independent variables—
variables tested for effects against the tactical variables; (4)
type of player-tracking system used and tracking frequency;
and (5) key findings of tactical behaviours. In multidisci-
plinary studies, only data pertaining to tactical behaviour
were extracted. For example, if a study published data on
time–motion analysis and tactical behaviour, only data per-
taining to the latter were reported. For studies in which the
required information was not clear (n = 35), the respective
study authors were contacted for clarification.
3 Results
3.1 Search Results
The initial search returned 1756 records. After the removal
of duplicates 1497 records remained, and were subsequently
screened by title and abstract, where 1392 records were fur-
ther excluded. The full-text articles of the remaining 105
records were assessed, and 38 more articles were excluded.
The main reasons for exclusion were: not tactical behaviour
(n = 8), not from positional data (n = 23) and not empirical
(n = 7). This resulted in 67 remaining articles; subsequently,
10 articles were added to the study after a hand search of
related journals and references pages; this also included
two studies added in the course of manuscript preparation.
Eventually, a total of 77 studies were fully reviewed, and the
complete flow diagram is presented in Fig. 1.
3.2 Quality of Studies
In the evaluation of methodological quality, the mean quality
score of the included studies was 85%. None of the studies
achieved the maximum score of 100% or scored below 50%.
Eleven studies were classified with good methodological
quality (quality score between 51 and 75%), while 66 studies
had excellent methodological quality (quality score > 75%).
The inter-rater reliability analysis achieved a Kappa value
of 0.87, indicating very good agreement between observers.
The main deficiencies in methodological quality were
related to: item 5—justification of the study sample size
and item 16—acknowledgement and description of study
limitations.
3.3 Basic Characteristics of Included Studies
The publication years of all reviewed studies ranged from
2011 to 2018. The geographic origins of the included studies
were: Portugal (n = 40), Spain (n = 12), Brazil (n = 7), Eng-
land (n = 6), Netherlands (n = 4), Austria (n = 1), Australia
(n = 1), Finland (n = 1), Germany (n = 1), and Italy (n = 1).
Two studies analysed UEFA Champions League matches,
comprising teams from different European countries, while
one study analysed the 2006 FIFA World Cup Final between
France and Italy.
Sample participants included professionals, amateur
footballers, youth footballers; children; and elite women
footballers. The majority of sample participants were male
professional footballers (n = 1587), calculated from 23 stud-
ies; this was a conservative number, because a further 13
studies did not report the number of participants, but instead
reported the number of official matches analysed (n = 806).
The second largest group of sample participants was male
youth footballers (n = 832) with ages ranging from under-9
to under-20. The next group of participants were amateur
footballers (n = 199), which typically comprised semi-pro-
fessional players, amateur players or university students.
Only three studies performed investigations with female
participants; two of them reported the number of matches
analysed (n = 8) instead of the number of players, while one
study had 16 primary school girls.
There was a mix of studies adopting correlational and
experimental approaches. Thirty-four studies adopted an
overtly correlational approach, which were observational
analyses of official matches (n = 31) or simulated matches
replicated in training (n = 3). The remaining studies adopted
a field-based experimental approach (n = 43) and had various
manipulations of constraints.
3.4 Summary of Individual Studies
A summary of all the individual studies reviewed is pre-
sented in Table 1. It provides information on the study sam-
ple, tactical variables used, independent variables, track-
ing system, and key findings. A summary of the different
nonlinear analysis methods used is presented in Table 2. In

Fig. 1  Flow diagram of study
selection process
addition, two more tables are provided as supplementary
material: (1) an overview of the tactical variables used and
(2) a list of independent variables which the reviewed stud-
ies manipulated. These can be obtained from the electronic
supplementary material section.
4 Discussion
The aim of this systematic review was to provide a summary
of original research on collective tactical behaviours in foot-
ball. A total of 27 tactical variables were identified, which
were organised into six categories. The two main types
of analysis methods observed were linear and nonlinear
B. Low et al.
analyses techniques. A total of 11 methods of nonlinear
analysis techniques were found, which can be organised
into measures of predictability (4 measures) and measures
of synchronisation (7 measures). The findings from the
reviewed studies were organised into two themes: levels
of analysis, comprising dyadic-level studies to match-level
studies and level of expertise, relating collective tactical
behaviours to performance.
4.1 Tactical Measures
In all the reviewed articles, the tactical variables used were
related to position, distances, spaces, and numerical relations
of players. Players’ positional coordinates were the basic
Table 1  Studies listed in reverse-chronological order by year, followed by alphabetically for studies published in the same year. Participants were male footballers unless otherwise stated
Study
Baptista et al. [91]
Clemente et al. [107]
Coutinho et al. [133]
Coutinho et al. [130]
Figueira et al. [134]
Sample
23 semi-professional footballers
6 bouts of SSG (GK + 7v7 + GK),
played by three teams (duration
5 min per bout)
10 Portuguese amateur footballers
2 simulated matches (11v11)
(duration 30 min)
10 Portuguese amateur youth
footballers (13.7 ± 0.5 yrs)
9 bouts of SSG (GK + 5v5 + GK)
played by two teams (duration
6 min)
30 Portuguese youth footballers
(attackers) of U15 and U17 age
6 bouts of SSG (5v5 + GK) per-
formed at pre-test (3 bouts) and
post-test (3 bouts) per age group
(duration 6 min)
44 Portuguese elite youth players
aged U15 and U17
3 simulated matches (11v11)
(duration 50 min)
Tactical variables
Distance to own team centroid and
opponent centroid (including
ApEn)
Individual area (Voronoi) (includ-
ing ApEn)
Team length, width (including
ApEn)
EPS (including ApEn)
Centroid
Stretch index
Dyadic distance (including ApEn)
Stretch index
Dyadic synchronisation (relative
phase)
Stretch index per minute
Spatial exploration index
Positioning regularity—longitudi-
nal and lateral (ApEn)
Dyadic distance (including CV,
ApEn)
Dyadic synchronisation (relative
phase)
Spatial exploration index
Independent variables Tracking Key findings Quality
score (%)
Playing formation in 7-a-side GPS (5 Hz) The 4-3-0 formation promoted 67
football players’ space exploration with
4-3-0 moderate physical efforts
4-1-2 4-1-2 formation promoted com-
0-4-3 pactness and regularity with
higher physical efforts
0-4-3 formation promoted team
balance and adaptability on
space coverage with increased
physical efforts
Collective Tactical Behaviours in Football
Pitch size GPS (10 Hz) Greater values of centroid-to- 73
Full pitch centroid distances and stretch
Half-pitch index were found in games on
full-sized pitches as opposed to
half-sized pitches
On a full-sized pitch, team cen-
troid was in the opponent’s half,
but on a half-sized pitch, team
centroid was in their own half
Muscular fatigue GPS (5 Hz) Under muscular fatigue, players’ 93
Mental fatigue dyadic distances decreased
Control condition and longitudinal synchronisa-
tion increased 7% compared to
control condition
Synchronisation was 14% higher
in muscular fatigue compared to
mental fatigue
Under mental fatigue, dyadic
distances were more predictable
than when under muscular
fatigue
Training programme GPS (5 Hz) After the 10-week programme, 93
10-week differential learn- U15 attackers demonstrated
ing training programme higher team dispersion (stretch
Control group index), and higher unpredict-
ability in longitudinal and lateral
positioning
U17 attackers showed higher
spatial exploration index
Mixed age groups GPS (5 Hz) U17 players exhibited higher intra- 80
U15 vs U15 team coordination when playing
U17 vs U17 in mixed teams, than when
Mixed vs mixed playing among themselves
U15 players showed higher intra-
team coordination when playing
amongst themselves than when
playing in mixed teams, but only
for the first half
Table 1  (continued)
Study Sample Tactical variables Independent variables Tracking Key findings Quality
score (%)

Folgado et al. [113] 77 players in the English Premier Dyadic synchronisation (relative
League phase)
4 matches (11v11) of an analysed
team
Folgado et al. [128] 30 professional footballers Dyadic synchronisation (relative
11 bouts of GK + 8v8 + GK in the phase)
first 2 weeks, and 14 bouts in the
last 2 weeks of pre-season train-
ing (duration 6-10 min)
Gonçalves et al. [135] 20 professional footballers of a EPS (including ApEn, CV)
Portuguese first league team Player speed
The first halves of 6 matches
(11v11)
Low et al. [125] 19 professional footballers of a Inter-team centroid distance
Spanish second division team (including ApEn)
2 bouts of LSG (11v10) (duration Distance to own team centroid and
10 min) opponent centroid (including
ApEn)
EPS (relative phase)
LpW ratio (relative phase)
Menuchi et al. [54] 20 Brazilian youth footballers aged Interpersonal distances
U13, U15, U17 and U20 Passer to marker
134 trials of rondo performed in 4 Passer to receiver
different space conditions Marker to receiver
Pass
Pass velocity
Pass angle (marker–passer–
receiver angle)
Ball distance
Ball and marker (including
running correlation and cross
correlation)
Ball and group centroid (includ-
ing running correlation and
cross correlation)
Match outcome Semi-automatic (10 Hz) Analysed team exhibited lower 87
movement synchronisation
when losing
Dyads of defensive players present
more synchronised behaviour
than dyads of offensive players
Pre-season training GPS (5 Hz) Players displayed higher levels 80
First 2 weeks of positional synchronisation
Last 2 weeks in the last pre-season period,
Playing position indicating improved tactical
Defenders performance
Midfielders
Forwards
Professional experience
Low experience
Medium experience
High experience
Sub-groups GPS (5 Hz) EPS and EPS regularity increased 87
3–10 players with player numbers
Largest increase was from 3 to 4
players
EPS-CV decreased with player
numbers
Players’ mean speed decreased
after 8 s
Defending strategy GPS (5 Hz) The high-press bout resulted in 60
Deep-defending closer inter-team centroid dis-
High-press tances and more regular player
movement
Teams’ EPS patterns displayed
anti-phase synchronisation dur-
ing the deep-defending bout
Age groups Semi-automatic (25 Hz) Strong in-phase coupling rela- 93
U13, U15, U17, U20 tionships were found for all
Playing space conditions
Expanded space (9 m In reduced space, the coupling
diameter) was stronger, particularly during
Restricted space (6 m one-touch passing
diameter) Players in older age groups dis-
Ball possession played more synchrony
Any number of touches The oldest age group (U20)
One-touch only showed higher correlation and
shorter time lag, while younger
age groups (U13, U15, U17)
had lower correlations and some
temporal delay
B. Low et al.
Table 1  (continued)
Study
Olthof et al. [60]
Palucci Vieira et al. [127]
Santos et al. [131]
Aguiar et al. [102]
Sample
148 youth players from three
Dutch professional youth foot-
ball academies
U13, U15, U17 and U19 age
groups
90 bouts of SSG (GK + 4v4 + GK)
(duration 4 min)
120 Brazilian youth and profes-
sional players at U11, U13, U15,
U17, U20 and professional age
groups
12 matches (11v11), two per age
group; duration ranged from
40 min (U11) to 90 min (pro)
40 Portuguese youth footballers
aged U13 and U15
4 bouts of SSG (GK + 5v5 + GK)
performed at pre-test (2 bouts)
and post-test (2 bouts) per age
group (duration 6 min)
10 elite youth players of U19 age
in a Portuguese club
75 sequences of play (ball pos-
session) from 6 bouts of SSG
(GK + 5v5 + GK) (duration
6 min)
Tactical variables
Inter-team centroid distance
(longitudinal)
LpW ratio
Surface area
Stretch index (longitudinal and
lateral)
GK–defender distance
Surface area (including FFT)
Team spread (including FFT)
Dyadic distance (including CV,
ApEn)
Player’s distance to own target
(including ApEn)
Player’s distance to opponent
target (including ApEn)
Distance to own and opponent
team centroid (including ApEn)
Independent variables Tracking Key findings Quality
score (%)
Pitch size LPM (42–100 Hz) Playing on a large pitch yielded 93
Small pitch higher inter-team centroid dis-
Large pitch tances; GK–defender distances;
stretch index; surface areas; and
LpW ratios
On a large pitch, variability in
inter-team distances was lower,
but variability in intra-team
measures were higher
Age groups Semi-automatic (30 Hz) Team surface area and team 93
Collective Tactical Behaviours in Football
U11, U13, U15, U17, U20, spread increased with age from
Pro U11 to U15
FFT of surface area and team
spread were higher for younger
age groups than professional
players
U20 players present values close
to or above professional players
FFT of surface area and team
spread decreased from first half
to second half in all age groups
Training programme GPS (5 Hz) Both U13 and U15 experimental 93
40 sessions of differential groups showed increased CV in
learning training pro- dyadic distances, while that of
gramme control groups decreased
Control group Higher regularity of positional
behaviours were found after
the training programme (ApEn
decreased)
2-step cluster analysis was GPS (5 Hz) Significant differences between 87
performed to classify clusters existed between all the
Long sequences variables
Short sequences Regularity of distance to centroid
discriminated short and long
sequences of play
Significant moderate interac-
tion between type of relation
(intra-team vs inter-team) and
sequences of play (short vs
long) independent of variable
dividing clusters
Short sequences displayed higher
unpredictability than longer
sequences
In longer sequences, inter-
team interactions were more
unpredictable than intra-team
interactions
Table 1  (continued)
Study Sample
Castellano et al. [108] 28 youth footballers aged U13
and U14
4 bouts of SSG (GK + 6v6 + GK)
(duration 7 min)
Coutinho et al. [136] 12 amateur youth players (age
15.9 ± 0.8 yrs)
12 bouts of SSG (GK + 6v6 + GK)
(duration 6 min)
Filetti et al. [90] 360 professional players
70 matches of the Italian Serie A
Gonçalves et al. [92] 44 Portuguese elite youth players
in U15 and U17 age groups
2 friendly matches (11v11) for the
U15 team and 1 match for the
U17 team (duration 50 min)
Tactical variables
Intra-team
Team length and width
Convex hull
Stretch index
Inter-team
Centroid distance (including
ApEn)
Length and width of two teams
(including ApEn)
Convex hull of two teams (includ-
ing ApEn)
Stretch index of two teams
(including ApEn)
Team length and width
Team dispersion and contraction
Spatial exploration index
Dyadic synchronisation (relative
phase)
K-regions (Voronoi), combined
with other parameters to estab-
lish a technical proficiency index Physical efficiency index
Dyadic distance (including ApEn)
Dominant region (Voronoi)
(including CV)
Independent variables
Pitch length
60 m
50 m
40 m
30 m
Age groups
U13
U14
Mental fatigue and pitch with GPS (15 Hz)
reference lines
Mental fatigue (normal
pitch)
Mental fatigue (pitch with
reference lines)
Pitch with reference lines
(no mental fatigue)
Pith with reference lines
(mental fatigue)
Technical proficiency index
(TEI)
(PEI)
Dependent variable
Match outcome
Performance (shots and % of
goals from shots)
Lower performance team
Higher performance team
Tracking Key findings Quality
score (%)
GPS (10 Hz) Length, convex hull and stretch 93
index at intra-team and inter-
team level, as well as inter-team
centroid distance, increased with
pitch length; values of width
only changed minimally
Differences were larger in the U13
players compared to the U14
players
U14 players showed greater unpre-
dictability in the intra-team
variables
Small decrease in time spent in 93
lateral synchronisation and a
moderate decrease in contrac-
tion speed in the mentally
fatigued group playing on a
normal pitch
Small decrease in time spent in
longitudinal synchronisation
in the mentally fatigued group
playing on a pitch with reference
lines compared to playing on a
normal pitch
Semi-automatic (25 Hz) Correlation between TEI and PEI 93
were significant
TEI displayed a higher likelihood
of winning than PEI
Higher TEI, and TEI + PEI dif-
ferences between teams were
associated with greater likeli-
hood of winning, but not PEI
differences
GPS (5 Hz) Higher regularity in intra-team 80
dyadic distances were found
in defensive and midfield sub-
groups, and nearer teammates
Central defenders and centre
forwards had higher individual
play area (Voronoi)
Negative moderate correlation
between number of passes and
regularity of dyadic distance for
the under-15 team
B. Low et al.
Table 1  (continued)
Study Sample Tactical variables Independent variables Tracking Key findings Quality
score (%)

Gonçalves et al. [85] 19 professional footballers in the
Spanish second B division
6 bouts of LSG (11v10) (duration
5 min)
Laakso et al. [55] 15 amateur U15 players (all right-
footed)
129 bouts of 1v1
Spatial exploration index (SEI)
Dyadic synchronisation (relative
phase)
Dyadic distance (including CV
and ApEn)
Relative dyadic distance
Relative dyadic angle
Pitch-area restrictions
Restricted-spacing
Contiguous-spacing
Free-spacing
Pitch locations near the goal
Left
Middle
GPS (5 Hz) Free-spacing conditions presented 87
higher SEI compared to contig-
uous-spacing and restricted-
spacing conditions
Dyadic synchronisation was higher
for contiguous and free-spacing
conditions
Semi-automatic (6 Hz) Higher values of relative distance 87
and angle were found in the
middle zone
Collective Tactical Behaviours in Football

Right Left-zone showed lower relative

Rein et al. [89] 103 Bundesliga matches from 3 Space dominance (Voronoi)
seasons Outplayed defenders
Ric et al. [137] 19 professional players Distance to nearest opponent
6 bouts of LSG (11v10) (duration (dynamic overlap)
5 min) Distance to target zone (dynamic
overlap)
Movement speed (dynamic
overlap)
Pass type
Defensive third to midfield
third
Within midfield third
Midfield third to attacking
third
Within attacking third
Match outcome
Goals scored
Spatial constraints
Space restriction in allo-
cated zone (except for ball
carrier)
Movement to adjacent zone
possible
Free movement
distance values
When attackers and defenders
swapped roles, lower values of
relative distance emerged
Semi-automatic (25 Hz) Passes from the midfield zone to 93
the attacking zone led to the
largest gain of space control,
followed by passes within the
attacking third
Passes crossing pitch zones led
to significantly more defenders
being outplayed than passes
within pitch zones; also passes
from midfield third to attacking
third resulted in higher number
of outplayed defenders com-
pared to passes from defensive
third to midfield third
Outplayed defenders and space
dominance are related to suc-
cessful game play with respect
to number of goals scored and
probability of winning a game
GPS (5 Hz) Restricting players’ movements 93
to specific zones increased
their short-term exploration
but decreased their long-term
exploration
Reducing players’ spatial restric-
tions increased the speed of ball
flow dynamics
Table 1  (continued)
Study Sample Tactical variables Independent variables Tracking Key findings Quality
score (%)

Santos et al. [63] 510 ball recoveries from 13 Ball recovery location Match location Semi-automatic (25 Hz) When losing, ball recovery 93
matches of an elite Spanish Position of defensive line Home locations were significantly
football team Position of offensive line Away advanced compared to when
Quality of opposition drawing or winning; the
Similar-opponent offensive line was also more
Top-opponent advanced compared to when the
Match status scores were even
Winning Playing away resulted in deeper
Drawing ball recovery locations, defen-
Losing sive lines and offensive lines
compared to playing at home
Playing against strong opponents
decreased the ball recovery
location and the defensive line
compared with playing against
similar-strength opponents
Santos et al. [132] 40 children from Primary school at Distance to team centroid (includ- Skills4Genius training pro- GPS (5 Hz) The experimental group increased 93
3rd and 4th grade ing ApEn) gramme (5 months) its positioning regularity after
4 bouts of SSG (GK + 3v3 + GK), Distance to opponent team cen- Pre-test the training programme. The
2 bouts at pre-test and 2 bouts at troid (including ApEn) Post-test control group showed more
post-test (duration 4 min) irregular positioning
Aquino et al. [138] 18 youth footballers of U16 age Team spread Match period Semi-automatic (30 Hz) Team spread and team surface 73
from a Brazilian first league club Team surface area First half area increased significantly in
1 simulated match (11v11) (dura- Second half the second half
tion 60 min)
Aquino et al. [129] 15 youth players (age 15.4 ± 0.2 Team surface area Periodisation training with Semi-automatic (30 Hz) Team surface area and team 87
yrs) from a first division team Team spread emphasis on technical and spread showed an increasing
in Brazil tactical ability (22 weeks) trend throughout the duration of
4 simulated matches at various Early preparatory stage periodised training
points of periodization training End of preparation stage
(duration 60 min) Final competitive stage 1
Final competitive stage 2
Match period
First half
Second half
Barnabe et al. [103] 36 youth footballers aged U16, Surface area (including SampEn, Age group GPS (15 Hz) Clear age-related variations in col- 80
U17, U19 cross-SampEn) U16 lective behaviours analysed
240 attacking moments and 240 Stretch index (including SampEn, U17 In attack, older and more experi-
defending moments from 9 bouts cross-SampEn) U19 enced players occupied larger
of SSG (5 + GK vs GK + 5) (3 Team length and width (including Ball possession surface areas and higher values
bouts per age group) (duration SampEn, cross-SampEn) Attacking of team width and stretch index
8 min) Defending In all ages, higher values of
surface area, stretch index and
team width were found in attack
compared to defence
Cross-SampEn analysis showed
greater synchronisation between
offensive and defensive surface
areas and team width in older
age groups (U17, U19)
B. Low et al.
Table 1  (continued)
Study Sample
Castellano et al. [112] 24 undergraduate students (age
19.1 ± 1.2 yrs)
Attacking and defending phases
in 6 bouts of SSG in various
formats (duration 6 min)
Clemente et al. [82] 3 official home matches of a pro-
fessional team in the Portuguese
Premier League (1 win, 1 draw,
1 loss)
Periods of stoppage were excluded
Tactical variables
Team length and width
Team shape (LpW ratio)
Team separateness
Tactical position
Defenders
Midfielders
Forwards
Defensive play area
Defensive backward region
Defensive middle region 1
Defensive middle region 2
Defensive attacking region
Triangulations
Number of triangles in each
defensive play area listed above
Independent variables Tracking Key findings Quality
score (%)
SSG format GPS (10 Hz down-sampled to 2 Hz) Length and width were higher in 87
GK + 5v5 + GK (7-a-side attack than in defence
goals) Team shapes were more elongated
5v5 (2 small goals at each in defence in all SSG formats
end) except small goals
GK + 5v5 + GK (2 extra Players were closest to their near-
lateral floaters) est opponents in GK + 5v5 + GK
Ball possession format
Attacking phase SSG using small goals and SSG
Defending phase with floaters elicited increased
Collective Tactical Behaviours in Football
team width during defending
Match outcome Semi-automatic (30 Hz down-sampled Highest numbers of defensive 87
Win to 1 Hz) players were found in the drawn
Draw match
Loss Lowest numbers of defensive play-
Match period ers occurred in the lost match,
First half where the highest numbers of
Second half midfielders and attackers were
also observed
Lowest numbers of attacking play-
ers were found in the won match
The two midfield regions occupied
the largest areas across all three
matches
Highest area in all four defensive
play areas was observed in the
drawn match
Higher area in all four defensive
play areas was found in the first
half compared to second half
More triangulations were formed
in the 2 midfield regions in the
won match
More triangulations were found
in the midfield and attack-
ing regions in the second half
compared to first half
Table 1  (continued)
Study Sample
Gonçalves et al. [76] 22 professional footballers and 22 EPS (including ApEn)
undergraduate students
12 bouts of SSG in various formats nent centroid (including ApEn)
(duration 3 min)
Moura et al. [124] 10 official matches of the Brazilian Team spread (including cross-
First Division Championship
257 players from 20 teams
Ric et al. [117] 20 professional footballers from
one team
1 official pre-season match
Tactical variables Independent variables Tracking Key findings Quality
score (%)
Magnitude of opposition GPS (5 Hz) EPS increased with the number of 87
Distance to own team and oppo- GK + 4v3 + GK players, while ApEn decreased
GK + 4v5 + GK in the same way
Distance to nearest opponent GK + 4v7 + GK For the professional players,
(ApEn) Magnitude of cooperation increasing the number of oppo-
GK + 3v4 + GK nent superiority (GK + 4v5 + GK
GK + 5v4 + GK and GK + 4v7 + GK) resulted in
GK + 7v4 + GK more regular distances to own
team and opponent centroids
Increasing the magnitude of oppo-
sition decreased the distance to
nearest opponent (GK + 4v3 +
GK > GK + 4v5 + GK > GK + 4
v7 + GK)
In amateurs, low cooperation
games (GK + 3v4 + GK) tactical
variables had more unpredict-
ability
Increasing the number of team-
mates (GK + 5v4 + GK and
GK + 7v4 + GK) resulted in
more regularity in spatial
organisation
Possession success Semi-automatic (30 Hz) Team spread between two oppos- 87
correlation and vector coding Possessions ending in shots ing teams show a predominantly
technique) on goal in-phase relationship
Possessions ending in defen- Sequences of possession ending in
sive tackles shots on goal had greater anti-
phase behaviour and parallel
coupling angle (0° or 180°) in
the beginning of attacking play
than sequences of possession
ending in defensive tackles
No coordinative differences were
found in the middle and final
part of possession sequences
29 categories derived from 8 Hierarchical PCA GPS (5 Hz down-sampled to 1 Hz) The most stable movement pat- 87
variables Timescales terns were related to defensive
Stretch index Match period behaviour: team contraction and
Speed of contraction and expan- First half drop-back of geometrical centre
sion Second half
Team length
Team width
Sector
Corridor
Longitudinal speed of geometrical
centre
Lateral speed of geometrical
centre
B. Low et al.
Table 1  (continued)
Study Sample
Shafizadeh et al. [57] 20 GKs in the English Premier
League 2013/2014
42 trials of 1v1 from differ-
ent matches that resulted in
conceded goals (n = 20) or saves
performed (n = 22)
Silva et al. [52] 29 university students
12 bouts of 11v11 (one match per
week) (duration 30 min)
Silva et al. [84] 10 youth footballers at U15 age
group
3 bouts of SSCG with varying
number of players (duration
5 min)
Aguiar et al. [65] 10 professional players (age
18.0 ± 0.67 yrs)
24 bouts of various SSG formats
(2-, 3-, 4- and 5-a-side) over
8 weeks (duration 6 min)
Tactical variables
Time to contact
Relative velocity
Interpersonal distance
Radial distance to goal centre
Dyadic synchronisation of players’
distance to goal centre (relative
phase)
Co-positioning delay of team-
mates’ movements (cross
correlation)
Team coupling (number of dyads
in the team that had strong
coupling, i.e., − 30° to 30°)
Players’ dispersion (stretch index
of total match centroid)—longi-
tudinal, lateral and magnitude
Team separateness
Time delay of team–team cen-
troids (longitudinal and lateral
directions) (cross correlation)
Coupling strength of team–team
centroids (synchronisation using
zero lag time delay) (longitudi-
nal and lateral directions)
Distance to own team centroid
(including ApEn)
Distance to opponent team cen-
troid (including ApEn)
Distance between centroids
(including ApEn)
Independent variables Tracking Key findings Quality
score (%)
1v1 outcomes Semi-automatic (25 Hz) In sequences of play that resulted 93
Saved shots in intercepted shots at goal, GKs
Conceded goals closed down outfield players
in the x-axis, whereas when a
goal was conceded, there was
a significant delay in closing
down the opponent
In saved shots, significant cor-
relations were found between
interpersonal distance and
Collective Tactical Behaviours in Football
relative velocity in the critical
period 760–480 ms before the
final strike and 80 ms before the
final strike
In conceded goals, temporal
pattern was shorter in the initial
part of interaction and longer
just before the final strike
Weekly football practice over GPS (10 Hz) Practicing once a week led to 87
15 weeks small improvements in the
readjustment delays between co-
positioned teammates, allowing
faster regulation of coordinated
movements
Player coupling and team coupling
showed only limited improve-
ments
Varying numbers of SSG GPS (15 Hz) Players’ dispersion increased but 93
players (using the same teams’ separateness were identi-
pitch size) cal across all SSGs
3v3 Coupling strength and time delay
4v4 were consistent across all SSGs
5v5
Number of SSG players GPS (5 Hz) Distance to own and opponent 87
GK + 2v2 + GK team centroid increased with the
GK + 3v3 + GK number of players (moderate to
GK + 4v4 + GK perfect effect sizes)
GK + 5v5 + GK Distances between team–team
centroids decreased from 2- to
4-a-side SSG, but increased in
5-a-side SSG
Higher number of players were
associated with lower ApEn
values, suggesting better tactical
organisation
Table 1  (continued)
Study
Castellano and Casamichana [59]
Folgado et al. [114]
Leser et al. [105]
Sample
42 professional teams in the first
and second divisions of the
Spanish football league (2013-
2014 season)
655 official matches
23 professional footballers of an
English professional team
6 home matches
20 youth footballers aged U15
75 bouts of 1v1 performed over 3
training sessions
Tactical variables
Team width and depth
Height of defence (distance from
goal line to last defender)
Dyadic synchronisation of
positional coordinates (relative
phase), overall and at different
speed zones
Kinematic variables at various key
1v1 moments
x-coordinate of defender
Space gained by defender
Distance between attacker and
defender
Velocity of attacker
Max velocity of attacker
Acceleration of attacker
Velocity of defender
Max velocity of defender
Acceleration of defender
Velocity loss of attacker
Difference in velocity (defender
and attacker)
Difference in acceleration
Independent variables Tracking Key findings Quality
score (%)
League position Semi-automatic (25 Hz) Teams use the width of the pitch 93
1st division, top 10 more than the length
1st division, bottom 10 Depth of play decreased as the
2nd division, top 10 level of teams decreased (second
2nd division, bottom 12 division, bottom 10 teams were
the lowest)
Teams in first division display
greater depth than teams in the
second division
Teams in top 10 of first division
had higher defensive lines than
teams in the bottom 10
Fixture schedule Semi-automatic (10 Hz) Players spent more time synchro- 93
Congested fixtures (3 nised during non-congested
matches) fixtures than congested fixtures,
Non-congested fixtures (3 particularly at the lower speed
matches) zones, and between dyads that
are positioned far apart
1v1 success LPM (50.7 Hz) In the unsuccessful attempts, the 93
Attacker passed defender speed of the defender was found
(successful) to be lower at a critical point of
Attacker did not pass passing, compared to the suc-
defender (unsuccessful) cessful attempts
At the critical point of passing,
defenders had higher accelera-
tions in the successful attempts
than the unsuccessful attempts
Similarly, attackers had higher
accelerations at the critical point
of passing in the successful
attempts compared to the unsuc-
cessful attempts
B. Low et al.
Table 1  (continued)
Study Sample
Olthof et al. [83] 39 elite youth footballers aged U17 Longitudinal and lateral inter-team Age group
(n = 23) and U19 (n = 16)
24 bouts of SSGs (4 + GKvGK + 4)
(duration 6 min)
Silva et al. [73] 24 youth footballers aged U15
18 bouts of SSCG over 2 weeks
varying the relative space per
player (118 m2, 133 m2 and
152 m2 per player) via player
numbers or field dimension
(duration 6 min)
Tactical variables
centroid distance (including
correlation, running correlation
and CV)
Longitudinal and lateral stretch
index (including running cor-
relation and CV)
LpW ratio (including running cor-
relation and CV)
Effective relative space per player
Radius of free movement
Spatial distribution variability
(ShannonEn)
Numerical relations inside relative
space per player
Independent variables Tracking Key findings Quality
score (%)
LPM (43 Hz) Team–team centroid interactions 87
U17 showed high correlations in
U19 longitudinal and lateral direc-
tions in both age groups (higher
in longitudinal direction)
No significant differences in
longitudinal and lateral inter-
team distances between both
age groups
Synchronisations of team–team
Collective Tactical Behaviours in Football
centroids, stretch indices and
LpW ratios showed large pro-
portions of in-phase behaviour
for both age groups
U19s showed significantly larger
lateral stretch index, and
significantly lower LpW ratio
compared to U17s
Player numbers (con- GPS (10 Hz) Manipulating player numbers had 93
stant pitch dimension: a larger effect than manipulating
57.3 × 37.1 m) field dimensions in adjusting
9v9 the effective relative space
8v8 per player and radius of free
7v7 movement
Field dimensions (constant Manipulating field dimensions had
player numbers: 6v6) a larger effect than manipulat-
Small field ing player numbers in adjusting
Intermediate field players’ spatial distribution
Large field variability
For relative space per player of
118 m2, manipulating field
dimensions was better at
achieving equal numerical rela-
tions than manipulating player
numbers; but manipulating
player numbers allowed more
time in free numerical relations
(no opponent or teammate in
vicinity) than manipulating field
dimensions
For relative space per player of
152 m2, manipulating field
dimensions resulted in more
numerical equality and superior-
ity of one teammate, whereas
manipulating player numbers
resulted in more numerically
free instances, and numerical
inferiority of one opponent
Table 1  (continued)
Study Sample
Tenga et al. [116] 8 official league matches from La
Liga (n = 4) and La Superliga
(women’s league) (n = 4)
Clemente et al. [68] 1 official match of the Portuguese
Premier League
Periods of stoppage excluded from
analysis
Clemente et al. [67] 3 home matches of a professional
football team
Periods of stoppage excluded from
analysis
Clemente et al. [94] 3 home matches of a professional
football team
Periods of stoppage excluded from
analysis
Clemente et al. [95] 3 home matches of a Portuguese
professional football team
Periods of stoppage excluded from
analysis
Tactical variables Independent variables Tracking Key findings Quality
score (%)
Playing length (match level) Ball location Semi-automatic (25 Hz) In both male and female matches, 93
Playing width (match level) 6 zones of the pitch playing lengths tended to
Gender decrease, while playing widths
Male teams tended to increase, as the ball
Female teams moved from the goal area to the
midfield zones
Male teams displayed significantly
shorter playing lengths than
female teams, in all sectors
except zones 1 and 2 (zones
nearest their own goal)
Male teams displayed significantly
higher playing widths than
female teams in all sectors
Weighted centroid Ball possession Semi-automatic (30 Hz) Strong positive correlation of 73
With ball possession both teams’ centroid over time,
Without ball possession in longitudinal and lateral
directions
Without possession of the ball,
teams move closer to their
defensive zones (small effect
size)
Weighted centroid Score status Semi-automatic (30 Hz down-sampled Teams increase their longitudinal 67
Weighted stretch index Losing to 1 Hz) position when losing
Surface area Drawing When losing, teams displayed a
Effective area of play Winning tendency to shift their centroid
to the left side of the field
Weighted stretch index, surface
area and effective area of
play tended to be larger when
drawing
Penetration Match outcome Semi-automatic (30 Hz down-sampled Teams utilised with higher 60
Width and length Win to 1 Hz) frequency, the tactical vari-
Offensive unit Lose able of offensive unity, while
Draw penetration was least frequently
achieved
No statistical differences were
found between matches for the
three tactical variables
Ratio of effective cover in support Match outcome Semi-automatic (30 Hz down-sampled Teams utilised with higher 67
(including CV) Win to 1 Hz) frequency, the tactical variable
Ratio of effective cover in vigi- Lose of cover in vigilance and depth
lance (including CV) Draw mobility
Ratio of effective cover (including Match period
CV) First half
Depth mobility ratio (including Second half
CV)
B. Low et al.
Table 1  (continued)
Study Sample
Folgado et al. [126] 20 professional footballers
First half of 6 pre-season matches
of a Portuguese first league team
(duration 45 min)
Folgado et al. [81] 30 youth players aged U9 (n = 10),
U11 (n = 10) and U13 (n = 10)
6 bouts of SSG in two for-
mats (GK + 4v4 + GK and
GK + 3v3 + GK) (duration
8 min)
Gonçalves et al. [66] 20 elite youth footballers (age
18.1 ± 0.7 yrs)
1 simulated match (11v11) for
two periods of 25 min (duration
50 min)
Sampaio et al. [111] 24 footballers (age 20.8 ± 1.0 yrs) Distance to team centroid (includ-
14 bouts of SSGs (GK + 5v5 + GK,
GK + 5v4 + GK,
GK + 4v5 + GK) (duration
5 min)
Tactical variables
Dyadic synchronisation of
positional coordinates (relative
phase)
Team length and width
LpW ratio
Inter-team centroid distance
Distance to own and other position Playing position
centroid—defender, midfielder
and forward centroid (including Midfielders
ApEn)
Synchronisation of inter-position
centroids (relative phase)
ing ApEn)
Independent variables Tracking Key findings Quality
score (%)
Strength of opponents GPS (10 Hz) Competing against superior 87
First league (2 teams) level teams resulted in more
Second league (2 teams) time spent in synchronised
Amateurs (2 teams) behaviours overall, and during
high-intensity running
Age-group Semi-automatic (25 Hz) Younger players exhibited higher 87
U9 LpW ratio
U11 Variability of LpW ratio decreased
U13 with age
Inter-team centroid distances
Collective Tactical Behaviours in Football
increased with age in the
GK + 3v3 + GK format, while
that of the GK + 4v4 + GK
format remained consistent
regardless of age
GPS (5 Hz) Players’ displacements were 87
Defenders nearer and more coordinated
with their own position centroid
Forwards than with other centroids
Coupling effect was stronger in
midfield players and weaker in
forwards
All players’ dynamic positioning
displayed more irregularity
when related to the forwards’
centroid
Game pace GPS (5 Hz) Randomness in distance to team 87
Slow centroid was a strong predictor
Normal variable of game pace, game
Fast status and team unbalance
Numerical imbalance and Distance to team centroid (and
match status ApEn) were lower when losing
Inferiority (GK + 4v5 + GK) and lower when numerically
and losing inferior
Inferiority (GK + 4v5 + GK) Randomness to team centroid
and winning increased when winning in
Superiority numerical superiority
(GK + 5v4 + GK) and
losing
Superiority
(GK + 5v4 + GK) and
winning
Table 1  (continued)
Study Sample
Silva et al. [104] 20 youth footballers (U17) playing
at national level and regional
level (data collected from n = 10
players)
6 bouts of SSCG (GK + 4v4 + GK)
over 3 different SSG pitch
dimensions (small, medium and
large) (duration 7 min)
Silva et al. [72] 20 youth footballers (U17) playing
at national-level and regional-
level
6 bouts of SSCG (GK + 4v4 + GK)
over 3 different SSG pitch
dimensions (small, medium and
large) (duration 7 min)
8 longest playing sequences in ball
possession were extracted and
analysed during each SSG
Tactical variables Independent variables Tracking Key findings Quality
score (%)
Spatial distribution variability Pitch size GPS (15 Hz, down-sampled to 1 Hz) Smaller pitch sizes yielded more 87
(ShannonEn) Small pitch variability in players’ pitch
Player-to-locus distances (includ- Intermediate pitch action zones; larger pitches
ing CV and SampEn) Large pitch resulted in more restricted
Skill level action zones and higher distance
National-level players values from personal spatial
Regional-level players positional references
National-level players were more
sensitive to pitch modifications
and displayed more variability
in small and medium pitches
EPS Pitch size GPS (15 Hz, down-sampled to 2 Hz) Significant increases in EPS and 87
LpW ratio Small pitch team separateness (for both
Team separateness Intermediate pitch groups) as pitch sizes increase
Distance to nearest opponent Large pitch LpW ratio increased with pitch
(SampEn) Skill level size for national-level players,
Team centroids (AMI) National-level players but was maintained constant by
Regional-level players regional-level players
National-level players had more
irregularity in distances to
nearest opponents in small and
intermediate pitches
From AMI values, centroids’
mutual dependence is slightly
higher in longitudinal move-
ments than lateral movements
B. Low et al.
Table 1  (continued)
Study Sample
Silva et al. [71] 20 U19 footballers at national-level
and regional-level
3 bouts of SSCGs (5v5 + GK;
5v4 + GK; 5v3 + GK) (team
without GK defended 3 mini-
goals) (duration 6 min)
Travassos et al. [115] 20 professional footballers divided
into 4 teams of 5
2 bouts of SSG per team in 2 for-
mats (GK + 5v5 + GK and 5v5
with 3 mini-goals behind each
team) (duration 5 min)
8 bouts used for analysis
Travassos et al. [51] 15 undergraduate students grouped
into 3 teams of 5
60 longest sequences of ball
possession (without transi-
tion) from 12 bouts of
SSG (GK + 4v4 + GK and
GK + 4v3 + GK) (duration
5 min)
Tactical variables
Major range
Stretch index
Distance of team centre to goal
Distance between teams’ opposing
horizontal lines and opposing
vertical lines
Inter-team centroid distance
Stretch index (relative stretch
index)
Above variables assessed for the
entire pitch, and in pre-defined
zones:
3 longitudinal corridors (left,
centre and right)
3 lateral sectors
(defensive third, midfield third and
offensive third)
Dyadic synchronisation (relative
phase of polar coordinates)
Synchronisation—defender–ball;
attacker–ball; centroid-ball;
team–team (relative phase)
Distance to own and opponent
centroid
Inter-team centroid distance
Surface area
Independent variables Tracking Key findings Quality
score (%)
Numerical imbalance GPS (15 Hz, down-sampled to 0.25 Hz) Based on major range illustrations, 87
5v5 + GK national-level players displayed
5v4 + GK more balanced occupation of
5v3 + GK different sectors of the pitch,
Skill level compared to the superimposed
National-level players tendencies of regional-level
Regional-level players players
National-level players showed
larger dispersion than regional-
level players in all three formats;
Collective Tactical Behaviours in Football
Underloaded teams tend to
reduce their dispersion
As numerical difference increased,
forward line of the overloaded
team were closer to the backline
of the underloaded team for the
national-level players; distance
between backline for the over-
loaded team and forward line for
the underloaded team increased
for both groups
As numerical difference increased,
the overloaded team played
closer to their opponents’ goal,
while the underloaded team
played closer to their own goal
SSG format GPS (15 Hz) Increasing the number of targets 87
GK + 5v5 + GK increases the distance between
5v5 with 3 mini-goals teams and the playing time in
behind each team lateral corridors, especially in
the defensive sectors
Small decrease in stretch index
and relative stretch index were
also observed when additional
targets were added
When the game was played in
lateral corridors or defensive
sectors, differences between
game conditions increased
Numerical balance and Semi-automatic (25 Hz) Defending in numerical disad- 87
imbalance vantage increases dyadic syn-
GK + 4v4 + GK chronisation between defending
GK + 4v3 + GK players, and between defending
players and the ball
Surface area and distances to own
team centroid, for attacking and
defending team, were reduced
in numerical inequality, while
inter-team distances were higher
Table 1  (continued)
Study Sample
Vilar et al. [74] 15 amateur footballers (age
21.87 ± 1.96 yrs) divided into 3
teams of 5 players
18 bouts of SSG (GK + 4v4 + GK) Relative distance to intercept a
in 3 days, on three different pitch
dimensions (duration 10 min)
90 longest sequences of ball
possession (without transition),
trimmed to the last 8 s before
possession ended (30 for each
pitch condition)
Vilar et al. [75] 15 intermediate-level footballers
(age 19.60 ± 1.99 yrs) divided
into 3 teams of 5 players
18 bouts of SSCG in 3 days, with
different formats (duration
5 min)
90 longest sequences of ball
possession (without transition),
trimmed to the last 10 s before
possession ended (30 for each
SSCG)
Castellano et al. [80] 6 official matches of a Spanish
professional team were analysed
against different opponents (3
home, 3 away; 2 wins, 2 draws
and 2 losses)
Opponents were also classified as
‘strong’ and ‘weak’
6793 periods of ball possession
were analysed
Tactical variables
Interpersonal distance (between
each attacker and nearest
defender)
shot
Relative distance to intercept a
pass
Interpersonal distance (between
each attacker and nearest
defender)
Relative distance to intercept a
shot
Relative distance to intercept a
pass
Team length and width (including
ApEn)
Surface area (ApEn)
Independent variables Tracking Key findings Quality
score (%)
Pitch dimensions Semi-automatic (25 Hz) A decrease in pitch dimensions 93
Small (28 m × 14 m) allowed fewer opportunities to
Medium (40 m × 20 m) maintain ball possession due to
Large (52 m × 26 m) shorter interpersonal distances
between attackers and defenders
No significant differences were
observed for opportunities to
shoot at goal or pass to team-
mates
Numerical imbalance Semi-automatic (25 Hz) Interpersonal distances were 87
GK + 4v4 + GK lowest in the GK + 4v4 + GK
GK + 3v3 + GK + 1 floater format, followed by
GK + 2v2 + GK + 2 floaters the GK + 3v3 + GK + 1
floater format, and then
GK + 2v2 + GK + 2 floater
format
Relative distance to inter-
cept a shot, and relative
distance to intercept a pass
were significantly higher in
GK + 2v2 + GK + 2 floater
format than in GK + 4v4 + GK
format
Strength of opponents Semi-automatic (25 Hz) Collective team play is affected by 87
Playing against stronger the quality of the opposition
teams Offensively, higher length, width
Playing against weaker and surface area frequencies
teams were found when playing
Analysed team was classified against weak teams; defensively,
as ‘weak’ team higher length and width frequen-
cies were found when defending
against strong teams
ApEn of team length, width and
surface area showed similar
results, while ApEn was more
predictable in offensive phases
than defensive phases
B. Low et al.
Table 1  (continued)
Study Sample Tactical variables Independent variables Tracking Key findings Quality
score (%)

Clemente et al. [69] An official match (GK + 6v6 + GK)
of the U13 district final in
Portugal
Data analysed for both teams with
and without ball possession
Weighted centroid
Weighted stretch index
Surface area
Effective area of play
Ball possession
With ball possession
Without ball possession
Semi-automatic (30 Hz) Without ball possession, teams’ 73
weighted centroids are closer
to their defensive zones (small
effect size) than with ball pos-
session
Teams’ surface area increase when
in possession of the ball and
decrease without the ball (small
effect sizes); similar results for
effective area of play, but with
Collective Tactical Behaviours in Football

large effect sizes

Clemente et al. [53] 11 footballers (age 17.91 ± 1.04
yrs)
30 bouts of 1v1 + GK per player
under three different instruc-
tional constraints (n = 10)
Clemente et al. [70] 3 official matches of a professional
football team (win, lose and
draw) were analysed with and
without ball possession
Distance from goal
Speed of players
Angular positioning of attacker
with respect to defender
Time taken by attacker
Heat maps
Weighted centroid
Weighted stretch index
Surface area
Effective area of play
Negligible to small differences
were found in weighted stretch
index with and without ball
possession
Instructional constraints to Semi-automatic (30 Hz) Speed and angular positioning 87
attacker increases when attacker over-
Conservative takes the defender
Risk Under risk condition, time taken
Neutral to complete the 1v1 trial is
significantly shorter
In the conservative condition,
attacker’s trajectories had more
variability and dispersion in
the lateral areas; time taken to
complete the trial is also signifi-
cantly higher
Match period Semi-automatic (30 Hz) Team dispersion and average pitch 60
First half position decreased during the
Second half second half of the match
Table 1  (continued)
Study Sample
Duarte et al. [120] 28 professional footballers in the
English Premier League
1 official league match was
analysed
Duarte et al. [119] 28 professional footballers in the
English Premier League
1 official league match was
analysed
Tactical variables Independent variables Tracking Key findings Quality
score (%)
Player-team and team–team Ball possession Semi-automatic (10 Hz) Within-team synchrony 80
synchronisation (cluster phase Attacking Larger synchronisation, together
analysis, SampEn and Cross- Defending with less variability and more
SampEn) Match period regularity, was found in the
First half longitudinal direction compared
Second half to the lateral direction
Teams Ball possession did not influence
Home team team synchronisation levels
Away team Team–team synchrony
Direction Significant associations were
Longitudinal found in the longitudinal and
Lateral lateral directions (stronger in
longitudinal)
Player-team synchrony
General tendency for near in-
phase mode of synchronisation
between player and team
Also, higher standard deviation
was found in the lateral direction
than longitudinal direction indi-
cating more stability in players’
coordination with longitudinal
team movement
However, players’ coordination
with team movement was more
regular in the lateral directions
than longitudinal directions
More regularity was also found in
the second half than first half
Surface area Match period Semi-automatic (10 Hz) Surface areas and stretch indices 80
(including CV, ApEn) 6 time periods of 15-mins of both teams showed similari-
Stretch index duration (3 in each half) ties in their variations
(CV, ApEn) Inverse linear relationship was
Team length and width found between CV and ApEn
(CV, ApEn) of tactical variables—teams
Geometric centre appeared to be more regular and
(CV, ApEn) predictable in the course of the
match despite higher variation
in their organisational shape
(ApEn decreased, while CV
increased)
B. Low et al.
Table 1  (continued)
Study Sample
Fradua et al. [61] Four Spanish first division
matches, consisting five teams,
were analysed
Data were collected every five
seconds, and only when ball was
in play
Frencken et al. [122] 10 amateur players (age 22 ± 3 yrs) Longitudinal and lateral centroid
4 bouts of SSG (GK + 4v4 + GK)
played on four different pitch
sizes (duration 8 min)
Moura et al. [139] 10 official matches of the Brazilian Surface area (including FFT)
first division championship,
comprising 20 teams and 277
players
Siegle and Lames [106] 22 professional footballers
First half of the 2006 World Cup
Final (Italy vs France)
Tactical variables
Length and width (rectangle com-
prising all outfield players)
Individual playing area (rectangu-
lar area comprising all outfield
players divided by 20)
Distance from defending and
attacking GKs to their nearest
teammate
distance (including Pearson
correlation, R2 and running cor-
relation—3 s)
Surface area difference (including
Pearson correlation and R2)
Surface area (running correla-
tion—3 s)
Team spread (Frobenius norm)
(including FFT)
Ball possession time series
(including FFT)
Relative phase of mean team cen- Match period
tres (longitudinal and lateral)
Relative phase of midfield centres
(longitudinal)
Relative phase of attacker–fullback
coupling (longitudinal)
Tightness of coupling (standard
deviation of relative phase
values)
Independent variables Tracking Key findings Quality
score (%)
Pitch zones Semi-automatic (25 Hz) All variables differed significantly 93
Zones 1–6 across various parts of the pitch,
where the ball was located
Individual playing area decreased
as the ball approached the
central areas of the pitch
Rectangle length was shorter when
the ball was in the central area
of the pitch; however, width was
widest in this area
Collective Tactical Behaviours in Football
Distance between GK and nearest
teammate increased as play was
further away
Individual playing areas ranged
from 78.97 ± 15.05 and
93.87 ± 16.25 m2, which is
smaller than those used in previ-
ous studies on SSG
Pitch dimension LPM (100 Hz) Smaller pitches yielded smaller 93
30 m × 20 m inter-team distances (longitudi-
24 m × 20 m nal and lateral) and surface areas
30 m × 16 m Coupling strength of surface area
24 m × 16 m is near zero for all conditions
of SSGs; running correlations
of surface area had ‘no-pattern’
found most frequently
Match period Semi-automatic (30 Hz) Median frequencies for surface 87
First half area time series and team spread
Second half time series were significantly
higher in the first half than
second half
Semi-automatic (25 Hz) Strong in-phase coupling was 71
From kick-off to first half found at the team–team, group
and attacker–fullback level
Perturbations in teams’ relative
phase signal could be linked
to scoring opportunities of the
attacking team
Table 1  (continued)
Study Sample
Vilar et al. [93] 28 professional players par-
ticipated in an English Premier
League match
Zubillaga et al. [62] 4 Spanish women’s first division
matches were analysed accord-
ing to 6 pitch zones
Data was only analysed when the
ball was in play
Bartlett et al. [78] 5 official matches of the UEFA
Champions League
10 different teams
305 possessions in open play
Tactical variables
Numerical advantage (including
ShannonEn) in sub-areas of play
Length and width (match level)
Individual playing area
Distance from last defender-to-
goal line
Distance from GK to last defender
Team centroid –longitudinal and
lateral (including Pearson cor-
relation)
Surface area—magnitude, longi-
tudinal and lateral (including
Pearson correlation)
Stretch index—magnitude, lon-
gitudinal and lateral (including
Pearson correlation)
Team spread (Frobenius norm)—
magnitude, longitudinal and
lateral (including Pearson
correlation)
Independent variables
Area of play (match-level
convex hull) divided into 7
sub-areas of play
Longitudinal channels: left,
right, centre
Left and right channel: front
and back; centre channel:
front, back and midfield
Pitch zones
Zone 1 to zone 6
Successful and unsuccessful
attacks
Attacks leading to goals,
shots, headed attempts
Attacks leading to tackles
or other forms of lost
possession
Tracking Key findings Quality
score (%)
Semi-automatic (10 Hz) Comparisons of numerical differ- 79
ences in the various sub-areas
showed a focus of defensive
stability
The centre-middle sub-area of
play displayed the high-
est uncertainty in numerical
advantage; this was followed by
the centre-front and centre-back
sub-areas
The winning team was signifi-
cantly more effective in creating
numerical dominance in the
form of defensive stability and
offensive opportunity
Semi-automatic (25 Hz) Distribution of players was signifi- 93
cantly wider and shallower when
the ball was in the central zones,
compared to the “building-up
play” zone and “scoring” zone
Individual playing areas varied
from 77.91 and 96.19 m2
depending on the ball location
The spaces behind defenders
(attacking and defending teams)
changed depending on ball
location
Semi-automatic (10 Hz) Correlation coefficients for all 87
variables were stronger in the
longitudinal direction than
lateral direction
The longitudinal correlations of
team centroids were signifi-
cantly stronger for the successful
attacks than unsuccessful attacks
No crossing of centroids (longitu-
dinally) were observed for all 14
goals from open play
Few differences in coordination
dynamics between successful
and unsuccessful attacks
B. Low et al.
Table 1  (continued)
Study Sample
Duarte et al. [58] 8 youth players (age 11.8 ± 0.4
yrs) were analysed in 82 trials of
1v1 + GK as attacker–defender
82 trials were analysed including
successful trials for attacker
(n = 55) and successful trials for
defender (n = 27)
Duarte et al. [121] 14 youth footballers (age
11.8 ± 0.4 yrs) performed
4 bouts of SSG (GK + 3v3 + GK)
(duration 5 min)
20 playing sequences that fulfilled
the following conditions were
randomly selected for analysis:
play ended in a shot at goal; ball
was kept on the ground; and no
change of ball possession
Frencken et al. [118] 25 elite professional players
1 official UEFA Champions
League quarterfinal match
Tactical variables
Dyadic synchronisation of each
player’s minimum distance to
end line (relative phase) (includ-
ing ApEn)
Team centroid (including running
correlation)
Longitudinal distance of centroid
to defensive line (including run-
ning correlation)
Surface area (including running
correlation)
Inter-team centroid distance: lon-
gitudinal and lateral (including
Pearson correlations, variability,
and rate of change)
Independent variables
1v1 outcomes
Success for attacker
Success for defender
Key moments of play
First touch of ball control
by the player making final
pass in a move
Last touch in the assisted
pass made by the same
player
Time of ball crossing the
defensive line
Match period
First half
Second half
Critical match events
Tracking Key findings Quality
score (%)
Semi-automatic (25 Hz) High levels of in-phase synchro- 87
nisation, and unpredictability of
synchronisation, characterised
attackers’ success
Defending players’ success was
associated with a leading rela-
tionship and more predictable
coordination mode
Variability (standard deviation)
of relative phase did not distin-
Collective Tactical Behaviours in Football
guish attacker’s and defender’s
success
Semi-automatic (25 Hz) Teams’ centroids demonstrated 87
strong symmetric coordination
in the attacking-defending sub-
phases of play
There was a tendency of a meeting
of centroids (even cross-
ing) immediately before key
moments of play
No clear coordination pattern was
found for the analyses of teams’
surface area
But the difference in occupied
area between the attacking and
defending teams significantly
increased before an assisted pass
was made
Semi-automatic (10 Hz) Match events related to longitu- 87
dinal inter-team distance were
mainly due to defending players
moving forward–backward after
a longitudinal pass
Match events related to lateral
inter-team distance were mainly
due to defending players moving
laterally following sideways
passing
One of two goals and two of
fourteen goal attempts were
preceded by a period of high
variability in centroid distances
Periods of high variability were
associated with collective
defensive actions and team reor-
ganisation in dead ball moments
rather than goals or attempts
Table 1  (continued)
Study Sample Tactical variables Independent variables Tracking Key findings Quality
score (%)

Headrick et al. [56] 12 youth footballers (age 15.3 ± 0.5 Defender-to-ball distance
yrs)
71 trials of 1v1 as attacker–
defender at three different pitch
locations
Moura et al. [79] 223 professional players
8 official matches of the Brazilian
national championship (16 dif-
ferent teams)
Sampaio and Maçãs [64] 12 university students (age
20.0 ± 0.1 yrs)
1 bout of SSG (GK + 5v5 + GK)
at pre- and post-test (duration
12 min)
Frencken et al. [77] 10 elite youth footballers (age
17.3 ± 0.7 yrs)
3 bouts of SSG (GK + 4v4 + GK)
(duration 8 min)
Attacker-to-ball distance
Coverage area
Team spread (Frobenius norm)
Positional data (including ApEn)
Distance to geometrical centre of
team (including ApEn and rela-
tive phase)
Distance of nearest player to
geometrical centre of team
(including ApEn)
Distance of furthest player to
geometrical centre of team
(including ApEn)
Team centroids: longitudinal,
lateral and radial (including
Pearson correlation)
Length and width (including
Pearson correlation)
Surface area (including Pearson
correlation)
Pitch locations Semi-automatic (25 Hz) Attacker’s and defender’s 87
Attacking the goal distances to ball stabilised at
In midfield greater distances attacking the
Advancing away from the goal than advancing away from
goal the goal
Ball possession Semi-automatic (30 Hz down-sampled When defending, teams displayed 87
With ball possession to 7.5 Hz) a greater area and spread when
Without ball possession they suffered shots on goal than
when they performed tackles
When attacking, teams displayed
greater area and spread when
they suffered tackles than when
they performed shots on goal
Graphical inspection of team
spread time series show an anti-
phase relation, even though the
coverage area did not
13-week training programme GPS (5 Hz) ApEn values were lower in post- 87
Pre-test test suggesting more regularity
Post-test in players’ tactical movements
arising from increased expertise
Relative phase analysis in the post-
test showed increased patterns
of anti-phase synchronisation
between players’ distances to the
geometric centre of the team
Match time LPM (45 Hz) Strong correlations seen between 80
Goals centroid positions for all three
games; strongest correlation
was in the forward–backward
direction
In 10 out of 19 goals scored, a
crossing in the centroids was
observed
No negative linear correlation was
found for surface area

AMI average mutual information, ApEn approximate entropy, CV coefficient of variation, EPS effective playing space, FFT Fast Fourier Transform, GK goalkeeper, GPS global positioning
system, HR heart rate, Hz hertz, LPM local position measurement, LpW length per width, LSG large-sided games, m metres, min minutes, ms milliseconds, PCA principal component analysis,
pro professionals, SampEn sample entropy, ShannonEn Shannon entropy, SSCG small-sided conditioned games, SSG small-sided games, U under-, yrs years, ApEn approximate entropy, Cross-
SampEn cross-sample entropy, SampEn sample entropy, ShannonEn Shannon entropy
B. Low et al.
Table 2  Summary of nonlinear analysis techniques used
Nonlinear analysis technique Measure of Used in n studies Description Equation Output values Further reading

ApEn Regularity n = 20 Measures repeatability in a time series by ApEn(m, r, N) = 𝛷m (r) − 𝛷m+1 (r), 0 ≤ ApEn(m, r, N) ≤ 2 [140, 141]
measuring the likelihood that similar patterns
where 𝜙m (r) = (N − m + 1)−1 i=1 ln Cim (r) Values closer to zero
of observations will not be followed by subse- reflect highly predictable
Cim (r) measures the regularity of patterns similar
∑N−m+1

quent similar observations sequences of data

to the pattern in the window length m, within the
values closer to two reflect
tolerance level r
highly unpredictable
N = length of data set
sequences
SampEn Regularity n=4 The negative natural logarithm of the conditional SampEn (m, r, N) = − ln A 0 ≤ SampEn(m, r, N) < ∞ [99–101]
probability (A/B) that two sequences within B zero reflects an entirely
m = window length
a tolerance range r for a window length of m predictable data set,
r = tolerance for accepting matches
points, remain within r of each other at the while infinity reflects a
Collective Tactical Behaviours in Football

N = length of data set

next point completely unpredict-
A = total number of forward matches of length m + 1,
able one
within tolerance level r
B = total number of template matches in length m,
within tolerance level r
ShannonEn Regularity n=3 The summation of the product between the prob- H(x) = − P(xi ) logb P(xi ) Information that are unpre- [142]
i=1
ability of independent events occurring and P(xi) = probability of the ith event occurring in the dictable will have higher
∑n

their negative logarithm data set x entropy values, while

predictable information
will have lower entropy
values
Can be presented in abso-
lute or normalised (zero
to one) form
Dynamic overlap Regularity n=1 A data set compared against itself using a cosine qd (t) = (1 − qstat )t−𝛼 + qstat 0 ≤ qd (t) ≤ 1, [137]
auto-similarity with increasing time lags t = time lag where zero reflects a
qstat = horizontal asymptote, where the function tends completely unpredictable
to infinity data set, and one reflects
α = gradient a perfectly predictable
data set
Relative phase Synchronisation n = 15 Computes phase difference between two signals 𝜙(t) =𝜙
𝜙(t) = −𝜙
(t) −
𝜙1 (t) (t)
𝜙2 (t) In-phase synchronisation [143]
1 2
using a Hilbert transform H1(t)s2(t) − s1(t)H2(t) − 30° ≤ ϕ ≤ 30°
= tan−1 , Anti-phase synchronisation
s1(t)s2(t) + H1(t)H2(t) − 180° ≤ ϕ ≤ − 150° or
where H1(t) and H2(t) are Hilbert transforms of the
150° ≤ ϕ ≤ 180°
two signals s1(t) and s2(t), respectively
No pattern
All other ϕ
Windowed correlation Synchronisation n=5 Computes Pearson correlation in a moving n( xy)−( x)( y) −1≤r≤1 [54, 83, 84, 121, 122]
r=
∑ ∑ ∑

window In-phase synchronisation:

n x −( x) n y −( y)
values closer to 1
��
∑ 2 ∑ 2 �� ∑ 2 ∑ 2 �

n = sample size of time-series data sets x and y Anti-phase synchronisation:

values closer to − 1
No pattern: values closer
to 0
n−𝓁
Cross correlation Synchronisation n=4 Sum of products of matched pairs of data sets (x −̄x)(y −̄y) − 1 ≤ rxy(ℓ) ≤ 1 [144]
2
∑

at different time lags, normalised against the Values closer to 1 indicate

x)
i=1 (xi −̄ y)
i=1 (yi −̄
power of the two signals. Unmatched data stronger correlation for
rxy (𝓁) = √∑ni=1 i 2 ∑ni−𝓁

should be ignored unless the data sets are rxy = cross-correlation coefficient of x with respect to y the time lag ℓ
circular ℓ = time lag Values closer to − 1 indicate
negative correlation for
the value of ℓ
Table 2  (continued)
Nonlinear analysis technique
Cross-SampEn
Vector coding
Mutual information
Cluster phase analysis
ApEn approximate entropy, Cross-SampEn cross-sample entropy, SampEn sample entropy, ShannonEn Shannon entropy
Measure of Used in n studies Description Equation Output values Further reading
Synchronisation n=1 The average number of vectors in one time Am (r)(v∥u) Asynchronous pairs of time [99]
series that can be matched with the second
Cross − SampEn(m, r, N) = − ln Bm (r)(v∥u)
, series will yield higher
{ }
time series, in a window length m, is counted where Bm(r)(v||u) is the probability that the two values of cross-SampEn,
(where the tolerance for matching is deter- templates match for m points and Am(r)(v||u) is the while values closer
mined by r); this counting is again repeated probability that the two templates match for m + 1 to zero reflect higher
on the next increment of m, and the value of points synchrony
cross-SampEn is then the negative logarithm m = window length
of the ratio of the two averages—the second r = tolerance for accepting matches
over the first N = length of data set
Synchronisation n=1 Assesses the coupling between two data sets In-phase synchronisation [145, 146]
based on their relative motion plots 1 22.5° ≤ θvc < 67.5° or
| 𝜃 (i+1)−𝜃 (i) |
Measures, θvc, the coupling angle between the where i = 1, 2, …, n − 1 202.5° ≤ θvc < 247.5°
𝜃vc (i) = tan−1 | 𝜃2 (i+1)−𝜃2 (i) |,
vector formed by two consecutive points and coupling angles in the second, third and fourth Anti-phase synchronisation
| 1 |
the right horizontal quadrant should be adjusted accordingly (i.e., π − θvc, 112.5° ≤ θvc < 157.5° or
π + θvc and 2π − θvc) 292.5° ≤ θvc < 337.5°
Attacking team phase
0° ≤ θvc < 22.5° or
157.5° ≤ θvc < 202.5° or
337.5° ≤ θvc ≤ 360°
Defending team phase
67.5° ≤ θvc < 112.5° or
247.5° ≤ θvc < 292.5°
Synchronisation n=1 Reflects the mutual dependence between two p(x,y) Higher values of mutual [147]
I(X;Y) = x∈X y∈Y p(x, y) log p(x)p(y)
,
data sets, and computes how knowledge of one information represent
∑ ∑
data set reduces the uncertainty in knowledge where X and Y are the two data sets and p(x, y) rep- large reductions in uncer-
of the other resents their joint probability distribution and p(x) tainty, while lower values
Calculated as the relative entropy between the and p(y) are their marginal probability distribution represent less reduction in
joint probability distribution and the product functions uncertainty. Zero mutual
distribution between two random variables. information represents
two random variables that
are independent
Synchronisation n=1 Measures synchrony in a group of phase oscil- Cluster phase for group as a whole 0 ≤ ρgroup, i or ρgroup ≤ 1 [120, 148, 149]
lators The cluster amplitude
First, individual phase time series can be derived returns values from zero
� ∑n �� ���
to group synchronisation is to one; zero representing
N
𝜌group,i = � 1n k=1 exp i 𝜙k (ti ) − 𝜙̄ k �
� �
the cluster phase time series by averaging the 𝜌group = N1 i=1 𝜌group,i , a completely unsynchro-
natural exponential function of its imaginary nised group, and one
using the Hilbert transform before calculating Mean degree ∑
part. The relative phase for individual data sets where i = −1 when not used as a time index, n representing the highest
is the number of players, ϕk is the relative phase
√
with respect to cluster phase is then calculated, degree of group synchro-
and the group synchrony, known as its cluster between each player and the group cluster, and N is nisation
amplitude, can be calculated by averaging its the number of time-steps ρgroup represents a single
natural exponential function measure of group syn-
chrony for the analysed
duration, whereas
ρgroup, i provides a con-
tinuous measure of group
synchrony
B. Low et al.
Collective Tactical Behaviours in Football
level of tactical analysis. These were x- and y-coordinates
captured at various frequencies using different player-
tracking systems, and processed using signal smoothing
techniques. Although majority of studies analysed players’
Cartesian coordinates, some studies analysed their polar
coordinates, determined by a distance to a reference point
and (or) angle from a reference direction [51–53]. Silva et al.
[52] explained that this reduces the need to differentiate
between longitudinal and lateral movements for two reasons:
the typical attacking-defending nature of a match predomi-
nantly manifests in the longitudinal direction anyway and
players can enter into coordinated movements both laterally
and longitudinally, such as a fullback moving laterally to
create space, while a winger moves forward to an advanced
position. Several studies have also analysed players’ polar
coordinates in a non-inertial frame of reference, where play-
ers’ displacement and (or) angular positioning are measured
with respect to a reference point that is also moving in an
inertial frame [53–57]. Menuchi et al. [54] used the mov-
ing ball as a reference position in the game of rondo, a drill
commonly used in football practice. In 1v1 investigations,
Headrick et al. [56] also used the moving ball as a refer-
ence in determining attacker- and defender-to-ball distances;
Laakso et al. [55] measured the relative distance and relative
angle of attacker and defender; Shafizadeh et al. [57] ana-
lysed the relative velocity, time to contact, and interpersonal
distance between goalkeepers and attackers in 1v1 situa-
tions during official matches; and Duarte et al. [58] analysed
attacker and defender’s minimum distances to the end line.
Mathematically, players’ pitch positions can be accurately
determined using either Cartesian or polar coordinates, since
both systems analyse data in two dimensions (longitudinally
and laterally for Cartesian coordinates; magnitude and angle
for polar coordinates). However, researchers should exercise
caution when reducing the analysis to only one dimension,
e.g., analysing distance to the goal centre but not angle [52],
because other critical information can be obscured, making
it difficult to separate signal from noise. In this instance, the
magnitude of a player’s distance to the goal centre is more
sensitive to longitudinal movements than lateral movements,
whereas angular displacement provides more sensitivity to
the latter, particularly at closer distances to the origin. In
practical application, positional coordinates can be used to
generate heat maps or dot plots as a form of data visualisa-
tion. These can be used to understand characteristic move-
ment patterns of an individual, a group of players or a team.
In other applications, practitioners can use these measures
to study the height of a team’s defence line, represented as
the distance magnitude of the least advanced defender to
his (her) own goal [59], or to his (her) goalkeeper [60–62]
or simply his (her) longitudinal distance from the goal line
[62, 63]. Santos et al. [63] combined this variable with ball
recovery locations. Such analyses can provide suggestions
of a team’s playing style, such as its tendencies to defend (or
keep possession) in deeper or more advanced pitch positions.
One approach that was frequently used in the study of
collective team tactics is the determination of a team cen-
troid. By definition, it is the mean x- and y-coordinates of all
analysed players in a team, and hence represents a measure
of a team’s central position [64]. This was used in 30 studies,
sometimes in various other nomenclatures such as ‘geomet-
ric centre’ or ‘team centre’. This variable was either ana-
lysed on its own, or further processed to study other tactical
behaviours. For example, the distance between the centroids
of two competing teams was frequently used to characterise
inter-team distance. Players’ distances to their team centroid,
opponents’ team centroid [65], or position-specific centroid
(e.g., defender centroid, midfield centroid, and forward
centroid) [66] were also calculated as a form of measuring
position in a non-inertial frame of reference. This measure
provides researchers with context in understanding play-
ers’ positioning in relation to the dynamic team (or group)
position instead of static pitch coordinates. A variation of
the team centroid is the weighted centroid, which incorpo-
rates a weight factor from zero to one based on players’ dis-
tances to the ball [67–70]. Two variations to the inter-team
centroid distance are the comparison between confronting
teams’ horizontal and vertical lines [71], and the tactical
variable of team separateness [72]. The distance between
two teams’ horizontal lines was the distance between the
backline of one team and the forward line of the other, and
vice versa, while the distance between their vertical lines
was the distance between the right line of one team and the
left line of the other, and vice versa. Team separateness was
calculated as the sum of distances between each player and
the closest opponent, and presents an overall radius of space
free of opponents. The authors preferred these variables to
the inter-team centroid distance for two reasons: horizon-
tal and vertical lines allow for the examining of interactive
behaviours, laterally at the wings and longitudinally at the
sectors; and team separateness also provides a measure of
players’ proximity to their closest opponents. Other authors
also examined the distance to nearest opponent, but without
its summation [72–76]. The inter-team centroid distance
quantifies distance between two opposing teams at a match
level of analysis, whereas the distance to nearest opponent
represents this concept at an individual level of analysis.
Therefore, these two variables can be paired in their com-
plementary usage to give researchers a more holistic repre-
sentation of inter-team distance from global to local levels
of analysis. In summary, the analysis of a team centroid in
isolation may not provide meaningful insights into perfor-
mance or behaviour, but allows a different perspective in
understanding players’ dynamic positioning in relation to the
team, and can also be useful in analysing inter-team interac-
tion. In practical application, the inter-team centroid distance

and distance to nearest opponent can show how close two
teams are playing to each other, giving information about
the defending strategy of a team, e.g., applying pressure or
defending deep. The distance to nearest opponent can quan-
tify how tightly marked a player is, the frequency of tight
marking, or the identity of the player performing the tight
marking. The distance between a team’s position-specific
centroids can help quantify the inter-line distances between
defenders, midfielders and forwards during defending; this
can help coaches in determining the optimal inter-line dis-
tances during defending.
Another approach commonly investigated by research-
ers is the study of playing spaces, quantifying players’ dis-
persion in a group, either through calculations of the area
they occupy, or various measures of inter-player distance.
Playing spaces were analysed in 41 studies of the review
using various methods. One of these methods is the effec-
tive playing space (EPS) [77], which measures the polygonal
area of teammates on the periphery of play using a convex
hull approach. It is also referred to in various terms such
as ‘surface area’, ‘coverage area’, or ‘playing area’ and was
the most frequently used measure of playing space (n = 24
studies). A second method used to analyse playing spaces
is the stretch index [78] (n = 13 studies). This is the mean
distance of all teammates to their team centroid, and gives a
measure of team dispersion from the centre of the team. A
third method found was that of team spread [79] (n = 7 stud-
ies), which utilises a Frobenius norm to calculate the square
root of the sum of squares of all combinations of dyadic dis-
tances between teammates. Thus, the team spread character-
ises how close players are to each other. While the latter two
variables described may not be computations of area per se,
they do provide a representation about the dispersion char-
acteristics of a team. Similarly, 12 studies analysed playing
spaces through length and width measures. At the team level,
length was defined as the longitudinal distance between the
most advanced and the least advanced outfield teammates,
while width was the lateral distance between the two wid-
est outfield teammates. Two studies [61, 62] extended the
length and width parameters to a match level of analysis,
whereby length was the furthest longitudinal distance, and
width was the furthest lateral distance, amongst the twenty
outfield players—goalkeepers were excluded from the analy-
sis. The same two studies, and a third study [80], calculated
playing areas by multiplying length and width values. Fur-
ther analysis of length and width characteristics included
the length per width ratio. This variable was introduced by
Folgado et al. [81] as a measure of team depth with respect
to its width. Although it is not entirely a variable calculating
area, it gives a representation of team shape, whereby larger
values of LpW ratio represent an elongated playing shape,
while smaller values indicate a flattened playing shape [72].
Some variations to the calculations of playing space include
B. Low et al.
the weighted stretch index [67, 69, 70], closely linked to the
weighted centroid described previously; the effective play
area [67, 69, 70] formed when the Delaunay triangulations
of attacking and defending teams are integrated based on
pre-defined conditions; and the defensive play area, clas-
sified based on players’ tactical positions during defending
[82]. While the calculations of EPS, stretch index and team
spread may seem to provide similar outcomes of team dis-
persion, some inherent differences exist in their computa-
tional methods. First, the computation of EPS only involves
peripheral players, while that of stretch index and team
spread involves all outfield players. The studies by Bartlett
et al. [78] and Moura et al. [79] reported strong positive cor-
relations among these three variables; yet, the latter study
described that moments of large EPS areas did not always
yield correspondingly large spread values, and vice versa.
This could happen when a peripheral player spreads out,
while other players remained close together, creating a high
EPS area but low spread values. Another difference between
the variables is that the computations for team spread and
stretch index are versatile in that they can be analysed in
magnitude or in their longitudinal and lateral components
[60, 78, 83, 84]. EPS, however, provides only a single meas-
ure of magnitude; longitudinal and lateral components have
to be assessed using group length and width, which has been
highlighted by several authors as an insensitive measure of
group behaviour, particularly in 11v11, because it involves
only two players [78]. A team’s EPS or length and width
should also not be analysed in isolation, since these are col-
lective variables that may be derived from only small num-
bers of players; it is perhaps recommended to complement
their use with other variables such as stretch index or team
spread. Future research could examine the rate of change of
a team’s dispersion in response to transitions in possession.
Such findings could inform coaches and analysts about how
quickly a team increases its playing space when possession
is won, or reduces its playing space when possession is lost,
particularly during transitions in play.
While a majority of studies analysed playing areas occu-
pied by a team in aggregate, some studies analysed the play-
ing areas occupied by individual players. One method of
analysing this was the method of calculating players’ major
range, which is an ellipsoidal area centred at the mean
Cartesian coordinates of a players’ movement, with semi-
major and semi-minor axes being the standard deviations
in the longitudinal and lateral directions, respectively [71].
A variation of this method is the spatial exploration index
(SEI) developed by Gonçalves et al. [85], which calculates
the mean positioning coordinates of every player, and then
drawing a circular boundary around that mean position,
with radius corresponding to the mean distance of that
central position to every other position in the player’s time
series. It represents the mean radius of exploration of each
Collective Tactical Behaviours in Football
player. Another method of analysing individual space was
performed by Fradua et al. [61] (professional male players)
and Zubillaga et al. [62] (professional female players), who
divided the rectangular area of 20 outfield players by the
same number of players, calling it the individual playing
area. A more sophisticated approach that calculates indi-
vidualised spaces dynamically is the method of dominant
region, also known as Voronoi regions. This computation
was first introduced in team sports by Taki and Hasegawa
[86–88], and was used in four studies of this review [89–92].
A player’s dominant region is defined as the region of space
on the pitch, where he or she will likely arrive earlier than
other players due to closer proximity. Integrating these data
with all teammates and opponents provides a holistic picture
of the spatiotemporal relations between teams. A critical
inspection of these four tactical variables shows some trade-
offs arising from their characteristics. The variables of major
range and SEI are summary measures that help visualise
movement variability. Both variables achieve this using the
standard deviation, which only captures 68% of variability
in a data set (assuming normal distribution). Thus, both vari-
ables contain significantly less information compared to a
heat map or dot plot. However, this could still be an advan-
tage in practical application, because as researchers have
illustrated [71, 85], the major range or SEI for all players on
a team can be simultaneously presented on a single diagram,
giving coaches a succinct overview about the movement var-
iability of different players on a team. In contrast, a heat map
or dot plot of every player’s movement results in too much
visual clutter to make meaningful inferences. While these
variables provide single-value summary measurements, the
variables of individual playing area and dominant region
provide dynamic values of players’ individual space, albeit
with some contrasting features. The individual playing area
assumes the same individual area for every player, whereas
the dominant region calculation is uniquely individualised.
One resulting characteristic of the latter variable is that goal-
keepers and peripheral players tend to have large values and
large variability in playing areas, making it difficult to sepa-
rate signal from noise. One way of addressing this could
be to narrow the focus of analysis from a match level to a
lower level, such as that performed by Rein et al. [89] who
analysed Voronoi areas only in the attacking third of the
team in ball possession. For the individual playing area, the
assumption of equal playing area per player raises questions
about the representativeness of such an analysis approach,
and is, therefore, best used in aggregate level analysis (team
or match level). Another practical application, as mentioned
by Fradua et al. [61] and Zubillaga et al. [62], include using
individual areas to design appropriate SSG pitch sizes,
in coaching and coach education courses, and are further
described later. As an overview of playing spaces, there are
many tactical variables analysing dispersion and researchers
should be aware of their respective attributes when working
with them; however, significantly more variables and studies
analyse playing spaces at team and match levels compared
to individual levels and this could be a possible area for
future research.
The last group of tactical variables analysed the numeri-
cal relations of players. Four studies analysed the number
of confronting players in defined spaces. Vilar et al. [93]
divided the area of the match-level convex hull into seven
sub-areas, which were partitioned based on three longitudi-
nal channels, comprising: forward and rear segments in the
peripheral channels and forward, rear and middle segments
in the middle channel. Silva et al. [73] used the individual
playing area described earlier, and represented it as a circu-
lar area surrounding each player; the numerical difference
between the number of teammates and opponents was then
computed. Rein et al. [89] computed outplayed opponents,
by counting the number of opponents beaten from each pass
made. Silva et al. [52] defined player coupling as the mean
number of a player’s teammates with strong in-phase cou-
pling (relative phase from − 30° to 30°) and team coupling
as the total number of dyads (out of 45) in a team with strong
in-phase coupling. Other variables of numerical relations
include several offensive measures that were related to the
offensive definition zone, as described by Clemente et al.
[94, 95]. Most of these tactical variables analyse the game
of football at a sub-group level, assessing directly or indi-
rectly if numerical superiority can be achieved in certain
sub-areas of a game. One limitation of the variables comput-
ing numerical inequality is that the boundaries determining
the numerical differences are somewhat arbitrary. Instead, a
methodological tool that future research can consider using
is hypernetworks [96, 97], where numerical inequality in
sets of players is computed more organically; this meth-
odology is also useful in analysing player interactions at
different levels (match-, team-, group-, and dyadic levels).
Another area for future research would be to examine the
link between numerical inequality and success. Amongst
the mentioned variables, the number of outplayed defenders
was the only one to be successfully related to performance
outcomes (goals scored and win probability) [89]. Future
research should assess if other variables can have similarly
predictive abilities to performance outcomes.
4.2 Nonlinear Analyses
A key characteristic of analysing tactical behaviours from an
approach of system complexity is nonlinear analysis. This is
because the interactions in a football game are complex, and
signals generated from players’ position data are often non-
linear and noisy. Nonlinear analysis techniques, therefore,
take into account the time series, and hence dynamic nature,
of players’ interactions, characterising complex situations

not achievable by linear techniques (e.g., mean, standard
deviation, and coefficient of variation) [98]. The nonlinear
analysis techniques used in the reviewed studies measured
the predictability and synchronisation of tactical behaviour
variables (Table 2).
The measures of predictability generally examined time
signals for periodicity or patterns of repeatability. These
techniques included approximate entropy (ApEn), sample
entropy (SampEn), Shannon entropy (ShannonEn), and
dynamic overlap. Only a few studies have critically compared
the usage of these different nonlinear tools. Richman and
Moorman [99] developed SampEn as a variation of ApEn,
because the authors reported that ApEn values tend to be
lower than expected for short data sets, and lack consistency
across different input parameters of window length and tol-
erance level. In comparison, SampEn has been reported to
be more reliable for short data sets, less sensitive to changes
in data length and possesses more relative consistency
[99–101]. Regardless the use of ApEn or SampEn, research-
ers have refrained from using data sets that were too short;
Aguiar et al. [102] only calculated ApEn of ball possession
sequences that were longer than 50 data points, while Barn-
abe et al. [103] used a minimum length 100 data points. This
is somewhat aligned with the findings of Yentes et al. [101]
who reported that both ApEn and SampEn are sensitive to
very short data sets (N < 200). Two studies also addressed
the problem of comparing ApEn of different lengths of time
series by normalising each ApEn sequence with the mean
ApEn of 100 normally distributed random time series [58,
102]. Between-study comparisons of ApEn and SampEn are
difficult to perform, because different studies use different
values of window length and tolerance level. Even when
these parameters are the same, the frequency of data capture
also affects the computation, e.g., a football match captured at
25 Hz should not be compared with a football match captured
at 5 Hz, even if the window length and tolerance used are the
same. In view of these differences, statistical inferences can
only be limited to within-study comparisons, while between-
study comparisons (e.g., meta-analyses) cannot be made with
the same statistical accuracy. Future research could expand
this discourse to include ShannonEn and dynamic overlap
in critical comparison. In practical application, Silva et al.
[73, 104] demonstrated that ShannonEn can be used to quan-
tify the variability of a player’s movement on a pitch during
SSGs; large values indicate a player’s irregular and extensive
coverage of pitch movements, while lower values indicate
a tendency to predictably remain in a restricted area; this
provides a quantifiable value in addition to an illustrated heat
map or dot plot.
While measures of predictability compared a signal with
itself, measures of synchronisation assessed for similarity
in two or more different signals. These techniques included
relative phase, windowed correlations, cross correlation,
B. Low et al.
cross-sample entropy (cross-SampEn), vector coding,
mutual information, and cluster phase. Unlike the measures
of predictability, little is known about the most appropriate
techniques for measuring synchronisation. The analysis of
cluster phase can measure synchrony in two or more data
sets, and provide measures of group synchrony (summary
measure), or individual synchrony (continuous measure).
The cross-correlation function, in addition to measuring
similarity, can determine time delay and the identity of lead-
ing and lagging signals, because it calculates the amount of
shift needed for one signal to achieve maximum correlation
with another signal. This is useful in understanding the lead-
ing and reciprocating relationship in players, because tactical
movements are made in response to nuanced perceptual cues
within short timescales. In practical application, synchrony
can be used to detect the presence (or absence) of man-
marking between directly opposing players; the analysis
of opposition team data can also identify groups of players
with synchronised tendencies during defending moments. In
summary of this section, nonlinear analysis techniques are
essential in deriving deeper insights into the complexities of
football tactical behaviours, but more critical investigations
are needed to assess the advantages and disadvantages of
the various methods, so that researchers can use the most
appropriate tools for analysis.
4.3 From 1v1 to 11v11: Collective Tactical
Behaviours from Dyadic‑ to Match‑Level
Interactions
While football is an 11-a-side game, players’ collective tac-
tical behaviours were analysed at dyadic, sub-group, team,
and match levels. From a perspective of system complexity,
football games at dyadic and sub-group levels are viewed
as sub-systems of the more complex 11-a-side game [17,
20]. Each increment in sub-system level also increases the
amount of information that players need to process, such as
the pitch boundaries, their own location on the pitch, move-
ments of teammates and opponents, etc. Therefore, this spec-
trum of analysis levels has shown how different amounts of
information and interactions lead to different tactical behav-
iours that are reflected in position data.
One-versus-one investigations formed the most basic
level of dyadic interaction. Five experimental studies
reported characteristic behaviours in different locations of
the pitch (2 studies) and in differentiating 1v1 success (4
studies). Laakso et al. [55] measured the relative distance
and relative angle of attacker and defender, and found larger
values in the middle zone of the pitch, compared to the sides,
with the left side showing the closest distances due to char-
acteristic behaviours from right-foot dribbling. Headrick
et al. [56] observed that the attacker- and defender-to-ball
distances stabilised at greater distances closer to the goal
Collective Tactical Behaviours in Football
than when far away from it. Both these studies suggest that
defenders adopt a more conservative approach closer to goal,
compared to further away, and in the middle zone, com-
pared to the sides. In 1v1 success, Leser et al. [105] and
Clemente et al. [53] reported various kinematic observa-
tions at critical points of passing when the attacker drib-
bled past the defender. Duarte et al. [58] found that high
levels of in-phase synchronisation and unpredictability in
their minimum distances to the end line characterised attack-
ers’ success, while defenders’ success was associated with a
leading relationship and more predictable positioning. This
association between a leading relationship and defender suc-
cess was similarly reported in a correlational study when
Shafizadeh et al. [57] observed goalkeepers (GK) and attack-
ers in 1v1 situations during official matches, and observed
that, in conceded goals, a significant time delay occurred in
closing down the opponent, whereas in saved shots, GKs
closed down the attackers in the longitudinal axis quickly.
Another correlational study by Siegle and Lames [106]
found higher values of dyadic synchronisation in directly
competing opponents such as full backs and wingers along
the same confronting sides of the pitch, suggesting that 1v1
coupling can also be seen as a microcosm of the 11-a-side
game. This suggests that the analysis of sub-groups within
an 11-a-side game provides relevant information with
respect to overall team tactics. The findings from these stud-
ies can help in 1v1 practice: defenders can be taught the
appropriate defender–attacker distances depending on pitch
location; defenders should also aim to make the path of the
attacker predictable; attackers should aim to accelerate at
the appropriate critical moment; and goalkeepers should aim
to close down attackers quickly. In summary, these studies
contributed to both research and practice by presenting some
attributes of 1v1 success and demonstrating characteristic
tactical behaviours at the individual and dyadic level based
on different constraints presented.
A wide variety of experimental methods were used in the
analysis of collective tactical behaviours at the sub-group
level. The majority of reviewed studies analysed collective
tactical behaviour after manipulating the number of SSG
players, the pitch size, or both. Aguiar et al. [65] examined
players’ distances to their own and their opponents’ team
centroids in 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-a-side SSGs while keeping indi-
vidual play area constant. The authors reported an increas-
ing trend in distances but a decreasing trend in the ApEn of
these values. This shows that with increasing SSG numbers,
players are more dispersed, further away from their oppo-
nents and adopt more regular positioning patterns. Using
a constant pitch size, Silva et al. [84] similarly reported an
increasing trend of player dispersion with SSG numbers
(3v3, 4v4, 5v5), but team separateness was similar across
all SSGs; coupling strength and time delay did not show
significant changes as well. Conversely, keeping the number
of players constant while increasing the pitch size resulted
in larger inter-team distances [60, 72, 107, 108]. Vilar et al.
[74] reported that smaller pitches led to shorter interper-
sonal distances between attacker and defender, resulting in
fewer opportunities to maintain ball possession, even though
opportunities to shoot at goal or pass to teammates were not
significantly affected. In relation to movement variability,
Silva et al. [104] showed that smaller pitches also resulted
in more movement variability in players’ pitch zones, while
larger pitches led to more restricted movement zones. The
study by Silva et al. [73] was the only study that examined
collective tactical behaviour from the effects of both pitch
size and SSG player numbers. The authors reported that
manipulating player numbers had a larger effect than manip-
ulating field dimensions in adjusting the effective relative
space per player and radius of free movement, but manipu-
lating field dimensions had a larger effect than manipulating
player numbers in adjusting players’ spatial distribution vari-
ability. The findings from these studies have direct implica-
tions on informing coaching practice, specifically: increasing
SSG numbers leads to more regular positioning; using larger
pitches reduces players’ movement variability; and adjusting
SSG player numbers is more effective than adjusting pitch
sizes in controlling players’ available space. In comparisons
with existing literature, reviews on SSGs have reported a
general trend of higher physiological and physical loads
when player numbers are decreased or when pitch sizes are
increased [44, 109, 110]. The present review, therefore, adds
to these findings by suggesting a concomitant increase in
unpredictable movements when SSG player numbers are
reduced [65, 73], and larger inter-team distances and team
dispersion when pitch sizes are increased [60, 72, 107, 108].
This suggests that the higher physiological cost in smaller
SSG formats (e.g., 2v2, 3v3) could be linked to a need for
more movement variability, and in larger pitch sizes, the
higher intensity could be linked to competing teams being
further apart and teammates being further from each other.
Future research could, therefore, explore this association.
Another group of studies at the sub-group level found
characteristic tactical behaviours from the effects of numeri-
cal inequality in SSGs. These effects included lower dis-
persion for the numerically inferior team [51, 71, 76, 111],
accompanied by higher regularity [76, 111], higher synchro-
nisation [51], and longer time spent playing closer to their
own goal [71]. This demonstrates that numerical inequal-
ity tends to lead to a more predictable game pattern as the
numerically inferior team displays economy of movement by
reducing their playing space and remaining closer to their
own goal. Two studies manipulated numerical inequality
using the role of a floater, where a designated player would
always play for the team in possession of the ball. There-
fore, instead of fixed numerical inequality, this arrangement
results in a dynamic way of creating numerical inequality,

because the defending team will always be numerically
inferior. Vilar et al. [75] reported that by increasing the
number of floaters (GK + 4v4 + GK to GK + 3v3 + GK + 1
floater to GK + 2v2 + GK + 2 floater), interpersonal distances
between each attacker and his nearest defender increased,
and the relative distances for defenders to intercept a shot
and intercept a pass were higher. Castellano et al. [112] uti-
lised two lateral floaters situated along the lengths of the
pitch, which elicited larger team widths for the defending
team and larger values of team separateness. In designing
practice sessions, floaters represent an efficient way for play-
ers to practice defending when outnumbered, and attacking
with an extra teammate. From the present findings, it also
seems that the use of floaters increases players’ distances to
their nearest opponent; and using lateral floaters stretches the
defending team laterally. However, as these findings are only
based on single studies, more investigations are still needed
to expand knowledge on this common coaching practice.
Future research could also investigate if these behaviours
of numerical inequality in SSG can be extended to 11v10
situations, to simulate numerical inequality due to red-card
offences.
Many studies performed sub-group levels of analysis
according to playing positions. Amongst different playing
positions, synchronisation tended to be higher in defensive
and midfield players compared to forwards [66, 113, 114].
Gonçalves et al. [92] also found higher regularity in the
intra-team dyadic distances of defensive and midfield sub-
groups. In another study, Gonçalves et al. [66] investigated
players’ distances to their own position-specific centroid and
found the highest regularity in midfielders’ values, while
that of forwards were the most irregular. These findings
show that unpredictability in movement may be an impor-
tant characteristic of forwards, whereas players in defensive
roles exhibit characteristically regular and stable movement
behaviours. Future research could examine if these effects
are moderated by different playing formations, and also to
explore if these behavioural trends can be useful for talent
identification purposes (e.g., determining suitable playing
positions for youth players).
Other forms of analysis at the sub-group level were also
performed. Two studies examined the collective behaviour
differences when conventional SSG goals were replaced
with multiple mini-goals. Travassos et al. [115] reported an
increase in inter-team distance and increases in playing time
in lateral corridors and defensive sectors. Castellano et al.
[112] similarly reported increased team width during defend-
ing. These findings can help coaches in designing practice
sessions by understanding how the manipulation of such
constraints elicits specific team behaviours—greater utili-
sation of pitch width, but with larger inter-team distances.
Studies performed at the 11v11 level of analysis were
either analyses of actual football matches (post hoc
B. Low et al.
investigations), or experimental setups with high levels of
representative design. At a match level of interaction, three
studies found that the rectangular length and width, compris-
ing all competing players, were shortest and widest when
the ball was in the central areas of the pitch, respectively
[61, 62, 116]. Individual playing areas were also signifi-
cantly smaller, suggesting that the central midfield zone is
a keenly contested space. Furthermore, two of the studies
reported that the individual playing areas found were sig-
nificantly lower than those used in SSGs, raising questions
about valid representative design in the pitch dimensions
of conventional SSG training [61, 62]. The authors recom-
mended using pitches with larger individual playing areas
when training build-up play and using pitches with smaller
individual playing areas to simulate the confined spaces in
the centre of midfield. Another study by Vilar et al. [93]
divided the match-level convex hull into seven sub-areas
of play, and found that numerical inequality was a common
occurrence in these sub-areas in the course of a match. In
particular, the centre midfield areas displayed the highest
uncertainty in numerical inequality, and the winning team
was the team that created significantly more instances of
numerical superiority in defence and attack. From those
findings, it is possible to infer that numerical inequality in
SSG investigations can also be manifested in the 11-a-side
game. The study also reported that teams tended to focus on
numerical advantage for defensive stability as opposed to
attacking play. This finding was similarly reported by Ric
et al. [117] who used a hierarchical principle component
analysis to show that defensive behaviours were the most
stable movement patterns, specifically team contraction and
the drop-back of the team centroid.
From 1v1 to 11v11, one common theme observed was the
effort of researchers to empirically model the game of foot-
ball as a dynamical system. Many studies demonstrated that
football is a game with tightly coupled movements between
opposing units. This can be observed from the in-phase cen-
troid coupling in 11v11 [68, 78, 118–120], SSGs [72, 77, 83,
121] and even 1v1 [55, 56, 58]. This coupling also tended to
be stronger in the longitudinal direction of play, possibly due
to the attacking-defending nature of the game. Some of these
studies investigated if the transient state of perturbation pre-
ceding a goal, as suggested by inference from dynamical
systems theory, can be demonstrated in the inter-team cen-
troid behaviour. This was met with varying levels of success,
notably: Frencken et al. [77] reporting a crossing of team
centroids in 10 out of 19 goals scored during SSGs; Duarte
et al. [121] observing tendencies of meeting (and even cross-
ing) of the centroids prior to key moments of attacking play
in 3v3; Bartlett et al. [78] observing no crossing of the cen-
troids in fourteen goals from open play, and in only six out of
305 attacking plays; and Frencken et al. [118] reporting high
variability in centroid distances in an 11v11 match, but only
Collective Tactical Behaviours in Football
before one out of two goals, and two out of fourteen goal
attempts. Therefore, not all perturbations preceding changes
in system state can be exemplified in the variability of inter-
team centroid distances before key events.
There was also significant interest in the interaction of
surface areas between two opposing teams; in particular,
if a contrasting relationship between their dynamic playing
spaces existed [77, 78, 121, 122], as a manifestation of foot-
ball principles of play—the attacking team increasing space
to create scoring opportunities, while the defending team
decreases space to minimise opponents’ scoring opportuni-
ties [123]. However, no such relation was found from the
cited studies, while two studies even found predominantly
in-phase behaviour [78, 124]. The study by Moura et al.
[79] compared the interaction of opposing teams’ usage of
space using EPS and team spread, and did report an anti-
phase relation in the team spread time series displayed, even
though EPS did not. However, this finding was only reported
using visual inspection, instead of more robust techniques
of synchronisation described earlier. One study did find an
anti-phase relationship using the technique of relative phase
[125], but this was only under the instructional constraints
of the head coach to adopt a deep-defending position after
ball possession was lost. Despite the efforts, the endeavour
to holistically model the game of football as a dynamical
system is still incomplete.
4.4 From Novices to Experts: Collective Tactical
Behaviours and Performance
Findings from some of the reviewed studies presented some
differences in collective tactical behaviours between nov-
ices and experts. Four experimental studies were found
comparing collective tactical behaviour between elite and
non-elite players. Gonçalves et al. [76] compared different
degrees of numerical inequality in professional and amateur
footballers, and found that professional players were better
attuned to increase their distances to their nearest opponent
when numerical superiority increased; however, amateur
players displayed no significant changes. In youth players,
Silva et al. [104] found that national-level players were more
sensitive to pitch modifications compared to regional-level
players, based on their variability in spatial distribution.
Other studies showed that national-level players had bet-
ter utilisation of width as evidenced by a lower LpW ratio
[72] and a larger dispersion [71]. The latter study even dem-
onstrated that national-level players showed more efficient
use of space due to more balanced distributions of major
range movements, compared to the regional-level players
who showed large areas of overlap. These findings show that
expert-level players collectively exhibited better perceptive
responses to changes in their environment.
Amongst professionals, differences in collective tacti-
cal behaviours were also reported in some correlational
studies. Castellano and Casamichana [59] studied the top
and bottom teams in the first two divisions of the Span-
ish football league, and reported that the top teams had the
largest depth of play, and team depth decreased as the level
of teams decreased. The top teams also tended to display
higher defensive lines than bottom teams. In another study,
Castellano et al. [80] observed an analysed team for six
games, and reported effects of playing against strong and
weak opponents. Specifically, higher surface area frequen-
cies were found when attacking against weak teams, and
higher surface area frequencies occurred when defending
against strong teams. Moura et al. [79] reported a similar
finding that a team defending with larger dispersion tended
to concede shots on goal, instead of performing tackles.
Other effects found when playing against strong teams
include: an increase in synchronised movements, overall,
and during high-intensity running [126]; and decreased ball
recovery locations and defensive lines [63]. In relation to
success, Rein et al. [89] reported, based on 103 games of
German first division matches, that increased space domi-
nance, based on passes into or within the attacking third, was
related to the number of goals scored and the probability of
winning a game. Similarly, Filetti et al. [90] used a K-region
computation to approximate the Voronoi calculation, which
was subsequently input into a technical efficiency index,
and a logistic regression model then demonstrated a team’s
predictive likelihoods of winning. In relation to contextual
variables, Folgado et al. [113] reported lower movement
synchronisation when an analysed team had a losing match
status. Santos et al. [63] reported that ball recovery loca-
tions were significantly advanced compared to when draw-
ing or winning; the offensive line was also more advanced
compared to when the scores were even; and playing away
matches tended to result in deeper ball recovery locations,
defensive lines and offensive lines. Folgado et al. [114] also
observed higher synchronisation in an analysed team during
non-congested fixtures than congested fixtures, particularly
at the lower speed zones. These studies on professional foot-
ballers demonstrate that characteristic tactical behaviours
can be found based on the strength of the team, strength of
the opponents and different contextual variables.
Further insights into the links between collective tactical
behaviours and performance can also be inferred in vari-
ous study designs. Cross-sectional studies performed across
various age groups are one such example, and is based on
the assumption that older players possessed better tacti-
cal maturity than younger players. In a study by Menuchi
et al. [54], U13, U15, U17, and U20 players were analysed
in a game of rondo, a drill commonly performed in train-
ing, and found that the older players displayed higher syn-
chrony between the ball and the marker, and the ball and

the group centroid; time lag was also lower, indicating that
the defender responds quickly to the movement of the pas-
sers and vice versa. One consistent finding that was reported
across various studies was the utilisation of larger dispersion
in older age group teams compared to younger age groups.
Barnabe et al. [103] reported increasing values of surface
area, team width and stretch index in U16, U17, and U19
players, respectively. Olthof et al. [83] reported similar find-
ings with U19 s showing significantly larger lateral stretch
index and LpW ratio compared to U17s. Folgado et al. [81]
also reported a decreasing trend of LpW ratio in U9, U11,
and U13 players. Even in professionals, male footballers
displayed significantly larger playing widths compared to
female footballers [116]. While these findings substanti-
ate a positive relationship between dispersion and tactical
maturity, this increasing trend does seem to plateau. Palucci
Vieira et al. [127] investigated team spread and surface area
in U11, U13, U15, U17, and U20 and professional players,
but only observed this increasing trend from U11 to U15;
furthermore, the U20 players exhibited dispersion values
that are close to or even above professional players. The
study on numerical inequality by Gonçalves et al. [76] also
found that professional players had lower dispersion values
than amateurs. What this seems to suggest, at present, is
that larger dispersion values may be an indicator of tactical
maturity in the formative years of youth players, but beyond
a certain level of tactical expertise, this variable loses its
distinguishing ability. Although it may also be possible that
older players, with advanced physical maturity, are simply
able to cover more ground compared to younger players,
the study by Silva et al. [71] found that national-level play-
ers had wider dispersions than regional-level players even
though age groups were the same. Nevertheless, future
research needs to examine if physical maturity indeed plays
a mediating factor in this trend.
Longitudinal studies were also able to provide insights
into how collective tactical behaviours improved with tacti-
cal performance. These studies examined the differences in
collective tactical behaviours after the effects of a training
programme, usually lasting several months. In professional
players, Folgado et al. [128] found higher levels of positional
synchronisation in the last 2 weeks of pre-season training,
compared to the first 2 weeks. In university students, Silva
et al. [52] found that practicing once a week, over a 15-week
period led to reduced time delays between co-positioned
teammates, allowing faster readjustment of coordinated
movements. Sampaio and Maçãs [64] found more regular-
ity in players’ distances to their team centroid after a similar
training programme. In youth players, Aquino et al. [129]
found that team spread and surface area showed an increas-
ing trend throughout the duration of periodised training.
Coutinho et al. [130] reported that U15 players exhibited
higher dispersion and higher unpredictability in longitudinal
B. Low et al.
and lateral positioning after a 10-week differential learning
training programme; U17 players, however, only displayed
a higher spatial exploration index. Santos et al. [131] also
investigated the effects of a 40-session differential learning
training programme in U13 and U15 players, and found that
both groups increased their coefficient of variation in dyadic
distances, while that of the control groups decreased; both
experimental groups also showed higher regularity of posi-
tional movements after the training programme. This finding
of higher positioning regularity was also reported by Santos
et al. [132] in 3rd and 4th grade primary school students
at the end of a 5-month training programme in thinking,
motor and in-game creative skills in team sports. A critical
underlying assumption of these studies is that players indeed
improved in tactical expertise after the training programme.
5 Conclusion
In summary, this systematic review presented the tactical
variables, analysis methods and key findings of 77 original
studies on collective tactical behaviour in football. The vari-
ables used to analyse collective tactical behaviour can be
broadly classified into measures of position, distances, play-
ing spaces and numerical relations. In addition to traditional
methods of linear analysis, many studies also analysed these
tactical variables using nonlinear methods, which provided
measures of predictability or synchronisation. These tactical
variables and analysis methods were also studied under the
effects of widely different comparator variables.
Some trends in key findings could be observed, as sev-
eral studies led to similar conclusions. First, higher regu-
larity in collective team movements can be observed to be
an effect of improved tactical expertise, particularly after a
training programme. Another effect of better tactical exper-
tise was wider player dispersions in youth players; this was
reported in higher skilled players, older youth players, and
within-team comparisons after a period of training, but this
effect diminishes beyond a certain level of tactical exper-
tise. A shorter readjustment delay between the movements
of teammates and between those of confronting opponents
was a third effect of better tactical behaviour. In situations of
numerical inequality, higher regularity in players’ positional
movements tended to be observed as the numerically infe-
rior team adopted a more conservative approach, remaining
closer to their own goal. Players’ coordination dynamics also
had a position-specific effect, as defenders tended to exhibit
regular and more synchronised movement behaviours com-
pared to forwards who exhibited more unpredictable move-
ments. Finally, many studies have demonstrated the sport of
football to be a game comprising predominantly in-phase
coupling; however, its nature as a dynamical system has yet
to be conclusively modelled.
Collective Tactical Behaviours in Football
This systematic review also has some limitations. Firstly,
the geographic origins of many of the study participants
seem to be concentrated in only a few countries; readers
should exercise caution in generalising findings. Addition-
ally, the present review only reviewed studies published in
English and precluded publications in other languages that
could have also been relevant.
Some under-explored areas in this body of research hold
potential for future studies. One obvious gap is the limited
amount of research on women’s football; given its rising pop-
ularity at elite and grassroots level, this should be one area
of future research growing in tandem. In SSGs, the present
review found differences in collective tactical behaviours when
player numbers, pitch size, number of goals and numerical
inequality were manipulated; other effects that have not been
studied include the manipulations of number of ball touches
allowed, coach encouragement, goalkeepers, man-marking,
stop goals and continuous vs intermittent durations. These
manipulations have been extensively studied from physical,
physiological and notational analysis perspectives; future stud-
ies could, therefore, examine their collective movement effects
to complement existing knowledge with insights from a new
perspective. To close the gap between research and practice,
future research also needs to be contextualised (for a recent
example, see Memmert et al. [150]). In the present review, a
lot of analysis was performed, in entirety, at the match level,
but to provide meaningful insights to coaches, analysis needs
to be performed at a more detailed level (e.g., sub-group or
individual level) or in specific situations (e.g., during attacking,
defending or transitions). For example, coaches may not be
immediately concerned to what extent the game of football can
be modelled as a nonlinear dynamical system, but may be more
concerned if the inter-line distances between defenders and
midfielders during defending are frequently too far, allowing
excessive space for opponent attackers to exploit. Other prac-
tical applications, in addition to those already described ear-
lier, include incorporating collective movement analysis into
already existing player-tracking software (Perl and Memmert
[151]); synchronising video footage and position data to get
multiple perspectives in analysing performance; user-friendly
dashboards; generating positional data analysis in real time;
and processing coach-friendly visual reports.
Acknowledgements We would like to thank the reviewers for their
constructive feedback and suggestions in the publication of this sys-
tematic review, as well as all authors of the reviewed studies who
have kindly responded to our queries.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest Benedict Low, Diogo Coutinho, Bruno Gonçalves,
Robert Rein, Daniel Memmert and Jaime Sampaio declare no conflicts
of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this review.
Funding No sources of funding were used in the writing of this review.
References
1. Di Salvo V, Collins A, McNeill B, Cardinale M. Validation of
­Prozone®: a new video-based performance analysis system. Int
J Perf Anal Spor. 2006;6:1.
2. Memmert D, Rein R. Match analysis, Big Data and tactics: cur-
rent trends in elite soccer. German J Sport Med. 2018;69:65–72.
3. Castellano J, Alvarez-Pastor D, Bradley PS. Evaluation of
research using computerised tracking systems ­(Amisco® and
­Prozone®) to analyse physical performance in elite soccer: a
systematic review. Sports Med. 2014;44(5):701–12.
4. Barris S, Button C. A review of vision-based motion analysis in
sport. Sports Med. 2008;38(12):1025–43.
5. Coutts AJ, Duffield R. Validity and reliability of GPS devices for
measuring movement demands of team sports. J Sci Med Sport.
2010;13(1):133–5.
6. Aughey RJ. Applications of GPS technologies to field sports. Int
J Sports Physiol Perform. 2011;2011(6):295–310.
7. Jennings D, Cormack S, Coutts AJ, Boyd LJ, Aughey RJ. Vari-
ability of GPS units for measuring distance in team sport move-
ments. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2010;5(4):565–9.
8. Castellano J, Casamichana D, Calleja-González J, Román JS,
Ostojic SM. Reliability and accuracy of 10 Hz GPS devices for
short-distance exercise. J Sports Sci Med. 2011;10(1):233–4.
9. Frencken WG, Lemmink KA, Delleman NJ. Soccer-specific
accuracy and validity of the local position measurement (LPM)
system. J Sci Med Sport. 2010;13(6):641–5.
10. Sathyan T, Shuttleworth R, Hedley M, Davids K. Validity
and reliability of a radio positioning system for tracking ath-
letes in indoor and outdoor team sports. Behav Res Methods.
2012;44(4):1108–14.
11. Carling C, Bloomfield J, Nelsen L, Reilly T. The role of motion
analysis in elite soccer: contemporary performance measurement
techniques and work rate data. Sports Med. 2008;38(10):839–62.
12. Memmert D, Lemmink KAPM, Sampaio J. Current approaches
to tactical performance analyses in soccer using position data.
Sports Med. 2017;47(1):1–10.
13. Rein R, Memmert D. Big data and tactical analysis in elite
soccer: future challenges and opportunities for sports science.
Springerplus. 2016;5(1):1410.
14. Sarmento H, Clemente FM, Araújo D, Davids K, McRobert A,
Figueiredo A. What performance analysts need to know about
research trends in association football (2012–2016): a systematic
review. Sports Med. 2018;48(4):799–836.
15. Rein R, Perl R, Memmert D. Maybe a tad early for a Grand Uni-
fied theory: Commentary on “Towards a Grand Unified Theory
of sports performance” by Paul S. Glazier. Hum Move Sci.
2017;56:173–5.
16. Lames M, McGarry T. On the search for reliable perfor-
mance indicators in game sports. Int J Perform Anal Sport.
2007;7(1):62–79.
17. Davids K, Araújo D, Shuttleworth R. Applications of dynamical
systems theory to football. Sci Footb. 2005;537:550.
18. McGarry T, Anderson DI, Wallace SA, Hughes MD, Franks
IM. Sport competition as a dynamical self-organizing system. J
Sports Sci. 2002;20(10):771–81.
19. Glazier PS. Game, set and match? Substantive issues and
future directions in performance analysis. Sports Med.
2010;40(8):625–34.
20. Grehaigne JF, Bouthier D, David B. Dynamic-system analysis of
opponent relationships in collective actions in soccer. J Sports
Sci. 1997;15(2):137–49.
21. Garganta J. Trends of tactical performance analysis in team
sports: bridging the gap between research, training and compe-
tition. Revista Portuguesa de Ciências do Desporto. 2009;9:81–9.

22. Perl J, Memmert D. Soccer: Process and interaction. In: Baca A,
Perl J (eds) Modelling and simulation in sport and exercise, 2018;
Abingdon: Routledge pp. 73–94.
23. Gréhaigne J-F, Godbout P. Collective variables for analysing
performance in team sports. Routledge handbook of sports per-
formance analysis. Abingdon: Routledge; 2013.
24. Duarte R, Araújo D, Correia V, Davids K. Sports teams as super-
organisms. Sports Med. 2012;42(8):633–42.
25. Newell KM. Constraints on the development of coordination. In:
Wade MG, Whiting HTA, editors. Motor development in chil-
dren: aspects of coordination and control. Dordrecht: Martinus
Nijhoff Publishers; 1986. p. 341–60.
26. Travassos B, Davids K, Araújo D, Esteves PT. Performance
analysis in team sports: advances from an ecological dynamics
approach. Int J Perform Anal Sport. 2013;13(1):83–95.
27. Davids K, Araujo D, Vilar L, Renshaw I, Pinder R. An ecological
dynamics approach to skill acquisition: implications for develop-
ment of talent in sport. Talent Dev Excell. 2013;5(1):21–34.
28. Araújo D, Davids K, Hristovski R. The ecological dynam-
ics of decision making in sport. Psychol Sport Exerc.
2006;7(6):653–76.
29. Vilar L, Araujo D, Davids K, Button C. The role of ecological
dynamics in analysing performance in team sports. Sports Med.
2012;42(1):1–10.
30. Gibson J. The ecological approach to visual perception. Dallas:
Houghtom Mifflin; 1979.
31. Fajen BR, Riley MA, Turvey MT. Information, affordances, and
the control of action in sport. Int J Sport Psychol. 2009;40(1):79.
32. Gréhaigne J-F, Godbout P, Bouthier D. The foundations
of tactics and strategy in team sports. J Teach Phys Educ.
1999;18(2):159–74.
33. Gréhaigne J-F, Godbout P. Tactical knowledge in team sports
from a constructivist and cognitivist perspective. Quest.
1995;47(4):490–505.
34. Hibbs A, O’Donoghue P. Strategy and Tactics in sports perfor-
mance. Routledge handbook of sports performance analysis.
Abingdon: Routledge; 2013.
35. Memmert D, König S. Models of game intelligence and creativity
in sport: Implications for skill acquisition. In: Hodges NJ, Wil-
liams AM, editors. Skill acquisition in sport: Research, theory
and practice. 3 ed. Abingdon: Routledge; 2019. p. 220–36.
36. Gibson JJ. The senses considered as perceptual systems. Oxford,
England: Houghton Mifflin; 1966.
37. Araujo D, Davids K, Cordovil R, Ribeiro J, Fernandes O. How
does knowledge constrain sport performance? An ecological
perspective. In: Araújo D, Ripoll H, Raab M, editors. Perspec-
tives on cognition and action in sport. New York: Nova Science
Publishers Hauppauge; 2009. p. 119–31.
38. Balague N, Pol R, Torrents C, Ric A, Hristovski R. On the
relatedness and nestedness of constraints. Sports Med Open.
2019;5(1):6.
39. Gréhaigne J-F, Godbout P, Bouthier D. The teaching and learning
of decision making in team sports. Quest. 2001;53(1):59–76.
40. Silva P, Garganta J, Araujo D, Davids K, Aguiar P. Shared
knowledge or shared affordances? Insights from an ecological
dynamics approach to team coordination in sports. Sports Med.
2013;43(9):765–72.
41. MacKenzie R, Cushion C. Performance analysis in football: a
critical review and implications for future research. J Sports Sci.
2013;31(6):639–76.
42. Sarmento H, Marcelino R, Anguera MT, CampaniCo J, Matos
N, LeitAo JC. Match analysis in football: a systematic review. J
Sports Sci. 2014;32(20):1831–43.
43. Ometto L, Vasconcellos FV, Cunha FA, Teoldo I, Souza CRB,
Dutra MB, et al. How manipulating task constraints in small-
sided and conditioned games shapes emergence of individual and
B. Low et al.
collective tactical behaviours in football: A systematic review. Int
J Sports Sci Coach. 2018;13(6):1200–14.
44. Sarmento H, Clemente FM, Harper LD, Costa ITd, Owen A,
Figueiredo AJ. Small sided games in soccer – a systematic
review. Int J Perf Anal Spor. 2018;18(5):1–57.
45. Clemente F, Couceiro M, Martins F, Mendes R. An Online Tac-
tical Metrics Applied to Football Game. Res J Appl Sci Eng
Technol. 2013;5(5):1700–19.
46. Yue Z, Broich H, Seifriz F, Mester J. Mathematical analysis of
a soccer game. Part I: individual and collective behaviors. Stud
Appl Math. 2008;121(3):223–43.
47. Yue Z, Broich H, Seifriz F, Mester J. Mathematical analysis of a
soccer game. Part II: energy, spectral, and correlation analyses.
Stud Appl Math. 2008;121(3):245–61.
48. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC,
Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting sys-
tematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health
care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med.
2009;6(7):e1000100.
49. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred
reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the
PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.
50. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ
Psychol Meas. 1960;20(1):37–46.
51. Travassos B, Vilar L, Araujo D, McGarry T. Tactical per-
formance changes with equal vs unequal numbers of play-
ers in small-sided football games. Int J Perform Anal Sport.
2014;14(2):594–605.
52. Silva P, Chung D, Carvalho T, Cardoso T, Davids K, Araujo D,
et al. Practice effects on intra-team synergies in football teams.
Hum Mov Sci. 2016;46:39–51.
53. Clemente FM, Santos Couceiro M, Lourenço Martins FM, Dias
G, Mendes R. Interpersonal dynamics: 1v1 sub-phase at sub-18
football players. J Hum Kinet. 2013;36:181–91.
54. Menuchi MRTP, Moro ARP, Ambrósio PE, Pariente CAB,
Araújo D. Effects of spatiotemporal constraints and age on the
interactions of soccer players when competing for ball posses-
sion. J Sports Sci Med. 2018;17(3):379–91.
55. Laakso T, Travassos B, Liukkonen J, Davids K. Field location
and player roles as constraints on emergent 1-vs-1 interpersonal
patterns of play in football. Hum Mov Sci. 2017;54:347–53.
56. Headrick J, Davids K, Renshaw I, Araújo D, Passos P, Fer-
nandes O. Proximity-to-goal as a constraint on patterns of behav-
iour in attacker–defender dyads in team games. J Sports Sci.
2012;30(3):247–53.
57. Shafizadeh M, Davids K, Correia V, Wheat J, Hizan H. Informa-
tional constraints on interceptive actions of elite football goal-
keepers in 1v1 dyads during competitive performance. J Sports
Sci. 2016;34(17):1596–601.
58. Duarte R, Araujo D, Davids K, Travassos B, Gazimba V, Sam-
paio J. Interpersonal coordination tendencies shape 1-vs-1
sub-phase performance outcomes in youth soccer. J Sports Sci.
2012;30(9):871–7.
59. Castellano J, Casamichana D. What are the differences between
first and second divisions of Spanish football teams? Int J Per-
form Anal Sport. 2015;2015(15):135–46.
60. Olthof SBH, Frencken WGP, Lemmink K. Match-derived relative
pitch area changes the physical and team tactical performance
of elite soccer players in small-sided soccer games. J Sports Sci.
2018;36(14):1557–63.
61. Fradua L, Zubillaga A, Caro O, Ivan Fernandez-Garcia A, Ruiz-
Ruiz C, Tenga A. Designing small-sided games for training tac-
tical aspects in soccer: extrapolating pitch sizes from full-size
professional matches. J Sports Sci. 2013;31(6):573–81.
62. Zubillaga A, Gabbett TJ, Fradua L, Ruiz-Ruiz C, Caro Ó,
Ervilla R. Influence of ball position on playing space in
Collective Tactical Behaviours in Football
Spanish elite women’s football match-play. Int J Sports Sci
Coach. 2013;2013(8):713–22.
63. Santos P, Lago-Penas C, Garcia-Garcia O. The influence of situ-
ational variables on defensive positioning in professional soccer.
Int J Perform Anal Sport. 2017;17(3):212–9.
64. Sampaio J, Maçãs V. Measuring tactical behaviour in football.
Int J Sports Med. 2012;33(5):395–401.
65. Aguiar M, Gonçalves B, Botelho G, Lemmink K, Sampaio J.
Footballers’ movement behaviour during 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-a-side
small-sided games. J Sports Sci. 2015;33(12):1259–66.
66. Gonçalves BV, Figueira BE, Maças V, Sampaio J. Effect of player
position on movement behaviour, physical and physiological
performances during an 11-a-side football game. J Sports Sci.
2014;32(2):191–9.
67. Clemente FM, Couceiro MS, Martins FML, Mendes RS, Figue-
iredo AJ. Using collective metrics to inspect spatio-temporal
relationships between football players. S Afr J Res Sport Phys
Educ Recreat. 2014;36(2):47–59.
68. Clemente F, Santos-Couceiro M, Lourenco-Martins F, Sousa R,
Figueiredo A. Intelligent systems for analyzing soccer games: the
weighted centroid. Ingenieria E Investigacion. 2014;34(3):70–5.
69. Clemente FM, Couceiro MS, Martins FML, Mendes R, Figue-
iredo AJ. Measuring tactical behaviour using technological
metrics: case study of a football game. Int J Sports Sci Coach.
2013;2013(8):723–40.
70. Clemente MF, Couceiro SM, Martins FML, Mendes R, Figue-
iredo AJ. Measuring collective behaviour in football teams:
inspecting the impact of each half of the match on ball posses-
sion. Int J Perform Anal Sport. 2013;13(3):678–89.
71. Silva P, Travassos B, Vilar L, Aguiar P, Davids K, Araujo D, et al.
Numerical relations and skill level constrain co-adaptive behav-
iors of agents in sports teams. PLoS One. 2014;9(9):e107112.
72. Silva P, Duarte R, Sampaio J, Aguiar P, Davids K, Araujo D,
et al. Field dimension and skill level constrain team tactical
behaviours in small-sided and conditioned games in football. J
Sports Sci. 2014;32(20):1888–96.
73. Silva P, Esteves P, Correia V, Davids K, Araujo D, Garganta J.
Effects of manipulations of player numbers vs. field dimensions
on inter-individual coordination during small-sided games in
youth football. Int J Perform Anal Sport. 2015;15(2):641–59.
74. Vilar L, Duarte R, Silva P, Chow JY, Davids K. The influence of
pitch dimensions on performance during small-sided and condi-
tioned soccer games. J Sports Sci. 2014;32(19):1751–9.
75. Vilar L, Esteves PT, Travassos B, Passos P, Lago-Peñas C,
Davids K. Varying numbers of players in small-sided soccer
games modifies action opportunities during training. Int J Sports
Sci Coach. 2014;9(5):1007–18.
76. Gonçalves B, Marcelino R, Torres-Ronda L, Torrents C, Sampaio
J. Effects of emphasising opposition and cooperation on collec-
tive movement behaviour during football small-sided games. J
Sports Sci. 2016;34(14):1346–54.
77. Frencken W, Lemmink K, Delleman N, Visscher C. Oscillations
of centroid position and surface area of soccer teams in small-
sided games. Eur J Sport Sci. 2011;11(4):215–23.
78. Bartlett R, Button C, Robins M, Dutt-Mazumder A, Kennedy G.
Analysing team coordination patterns from player movement tra-
jectories in soccer: methodological considerations. Int J Perform
Anal Sport. 2012;12(2):398–424.
79. Moura FA, Martins LE, Anido Rde O, de Barros RM, Cunha SA.
Quantitative analysis of Brazilian football players’ organisation
on the pitch. Sports Biomech. 2012;11(1):85–96.
80. Castellano J, Alvarez D, Figueira B, Coutinho D, Sampaio
J. Identifying the effects from the quality of opposition in a
football team positioning strategy. Int J Perform Anal Sport.
2013;13(3):822–32.
81. Folgado H, Lemmink K, Frencken W, Sampaio J. Length, width
and centroid distance as measures of teams tactical performance
in youth football. Eur J Sport Sci. 2014;14:S487–92.
82. Clemente FM, Martins FML, Couceiro MS, Mendes RS, Figue-
iredo AJ. Developing a tactical metric to estimate the defensive
area of soccer teams: the defensive play area. Proc Inst Mech Eng
Part P J Sports Eng Technol. 2016;230(2):124–32.
83. Olthof SB, Frencken WG, Lemmink KA. The older, the wider:
on-field tactical behavior of elite-standard youth soccer players
in small-sided games. Hum Mov Sci. 2015;41:92–102.
84. Silva P, Vilar L, Davids K, Araujo D, Garganta J. Sports teams as
complex adaptive systems: manipulating player numbers shapes
behaviours during football small-sided games. Springerplus.
2016;5:191.
85. Gonçalves B, Esteves P, Folgado H, Ric A, Torrents C, Sampaio
J. Effects of pitch area-restrictions on tactical behavior, physical,
and physiological performances in soccer large-sided games. J
Strength Cond Res. 2017;31(9):2398–408.
86. Taki T, Hasegawa J. Visualization of dominant region in team
games and its application to teamwork analysis. Proc Comput
Graph Int. 2000;227–35.
87. Taki T, Hasegawa J. Dominant region: a basic feature for group
motion analysis and its application to teamwork evaluation in
soccer games. In: Electronic imaging ‘99; SPIE; 1998. p. 10.
88. Taki T, Hasegawa J. Quantitative measurement of teamwork
in ball games using dominant region. ISPRS J Photogramm.
2000;33:125–31.
89. Rein R, Raabe D, Memmert D. “Which pass is better?” Novel
approaches to assess passing effectiveness in elite soccer. Hum
Mov Sci. 2017;55:172–81.
90. Filetti C, Ruscello B, D’Ottavio S, Fanelli V. A study of relation-
ships among technical, tactical, physical parameters and final
outcomes in elite soccer matches as analyzed by a semiautomatic
video tracking system. Percept Mot Skills. 2017;124(3):601–20.
91. Baptista J, Travassos B, Gonçalves B, Mourão P, Viana JL, Sam-
paio J. Exploring the effects of playing formations on tactical
behaviour and external workload during football small-sided
games. J Strength Cond Res. 2018. https​://doi.org/10.1519/
JSC.00000​00000​00244​5.
92. Gonçalves B, Coutinho D, Santos S, Lago-Penas C, Jiménez S,
Sampaio J. Exploring team passing networks and player move-
ment dynamics in Youth Association Football. PLoS One.
2017;12(1):e0171156.
93. Vilar L, Araújo D, Davids K, Bar-Yam Y. Science of winning
soccer: emergent pattern-forming dynamics in association foot-
ball. J Syst Sci Complex. 2013;26(1):73–84.
94. Clemente FM, Martins FML, Couceiro MS, Mendes RS, Figue-
iredo AJ. Evaluating the offensive definition zone in football: a
case study. S Afr J Res Sport Phys Educ Recreat (SAJR SPER).
2014;36(3):25–37.
95. Clemente FM, Martins FML, Couceiro MS, Mendes RS, Figue-
iredo AJ. Inspecting teammates’ coverage during attacking
plays in a football game: a case study. Int J Perform Anal Sport.
2014;14(2):384–400.
96. Ribeiro J, Davids K, Araújo D, Silva P, Ramos J, Lopes R, et al.
The role of hypernetworks as a multilevel methodology for mod-
elling and understanding dynamics of team sports performance.
Sports Med. 2019;49(9):1337–44.
97. Ramos J, Lopes RJ, Marques P, Araújo D. Hypernetworks reveal
compound variables that capture cooperative and competitive
interactions in a soccer match. Front Psychol. 2017;8:1379.
98. Stergiou N, Buzzi U, Kurz M, Heidel J. Nonlinear tools in human
movement. In: Stergiou N, editor. Innovative analyses of human
movement: analytical tools for human movement research. 1st
ed. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2004. p. 63–90.

99. Richman JS, Moorman JR. Physiological time-series analysis
using approximate entropy and sample entropy. Am J Physiol
Heart Circ Physiol. 2000;2000(278):H2039–49.
100. Richman JS, Lake DE, Moorman JR. Sample entropy. Methods
enzymol. Cambridge: Academic Press; 2004. p. 172–84.
101. Yentes JM, Hunt N, Schmid KK, Kaipust JP, McGrath D,
Stergiou N. The appropriate use of approximate entropy
and sample entropy with short data sets. Ann Biomed Eng.
2013;41(2):349–65.
102. Aguiar M, Gonçalves B, Botelho G, Duarte R, Sampaio J. Regu-
larity of interpersonal positioning discriminates short and long
sequences of play in small-sided soccer games. Sci Med Footb.
2017;1(3):258–64.
103. Barnabe L, Volossovitch A, Duarte R, Ferreira AP, Davids K.
Age-related effects of practice experience on collective behav-
iours of football players in small-sided games. Hum Mov Sci.
2016;48:74–81.
104. Silva P, Aguiar P, Duarte R, Davids K, Araújo D, Garganta J.
Effects of pitch size and skill level on tactical behaviours of
association football players during small-sided and conditioned
games. Int J Sports Sci Coach. 2014;9(5):993–1006.
105. Leser R, Moser B, Hoch T, Stogerer J, Kellermayr G, Reinsch S,
et al. Expert-oriented modelling of a 1vs1-situation in football.
Int J Perform Anal Sport. 2015;15(3):949–66.
106. Siegle M, Lames M. Modeling soccer by means of relative phase.
J Syst Sci Complex. 2013;26(1):14–20.
107. Clemente FM, Sequeiros JB, Correia A, Serra-Olivares J,
González-Víllora S, Silva F, et al. How dots behave in two dif-
ferent pitch sizes? Analysis of tactical behavior based on position
data in two soccer field sizes ¿Cómo se comportan los puntos
en dos campos diferentes? Análisis del comportamiento táctico
basado en los datos de posición en dos tamaños de campo de
fútbol. RICYDE Revista Internacional de Ciencias del Deporte.
2018;14(51):16–28.
108. Castellano J, Fernandez E, Echeazarra I, Barreira D, Garganta
J. Influence of pitch length on inter- and intra-team behaviors in
youth soccer. Anales De Psicologia. 2017;33(3):486–96.
109. Hill-Haas SV, Dawson B, Impellizzeri FM, Coutts AJ. Physi-
ology of small-sided games training in football: a systematic
review. Sports Med. 2011;41(3):199–220.
110. Bujalance-Moreno P, Latorre-Roman PA, Garcia-Pinillos F. A
systematic review on small-sided games in football players: acute
and chronic adaptations. J Sports Sci. 2018;29:1–29.
111. Sampaio JE, Lago C, Gonçalves B, Maçãs VM, Leite N. Effects
of pacing, status and unbalance in time motion variables, heart
rate and tactical behaviour when playing 5-a-side football small-
sided games. J Sci Med Sport. 2014;17(2):229–33.
112. Castellano J, Silva P, Usabiaga O, Barreira D. The influence of
scoring targets and outer-floaters on attacking and defending
team dispersion, shape and creation of space during small-sided
soccer games. J Hum Kinet. 2016;51(1):153–63.
113. Folgado H, Duarte R, Marques P, Gonçalves B, Sampaio
J. Exploring how movement synchronization is related to
match outcome in elite professional football. Sci Med Footb.
2018;2(2):101–7.
114. Folgado H, Duarte R, Marques P, Sampaio J. The effects of con-
gested fixtures period on tactical and physical performance in
elite football. J Sports Sci. 2015;33(12):1238–47.
115. Travassos B, Gonçalves B, Marcelino R, Monteiro R, Sampaio
J. How perceiving additional targets modifies teams’ tactical
behavior during football small-sided games. Hum Mov Sci.
2014;38:241–50.
116. Tenga A, Zubillaga A, Caro O, Fradua L. Explorative study on
patterns of game structure in male and female matches from elite
Spanish soccer. Int J Perform Anal Sport. 2015;15(1):411–23.
B. Low et al.
117. Ric A, Torrents C, Gonçalves B, Sampaio J, Hristovski R. Soft-
assembled multilevel dynamics of tactical behaviors in soccer.
Front Psychol. 2016;7:1513.
118. Frencken W, Poel H, Visscher C, Lemmink K. Variability of
inter-team distances associated with match events in elite-stand-
ard soccer. J Sports Sci. 2012;30(12):1207–13.
119. Duarte R, Araújo D, Folgado H, Esteves P, Marques P, Davids
K. Capturing complex, non-linear team behaviours dur-
ing competitive football performance. J Syst Sci Complex.
2013;26(1):62–72.
120. Duarte R, Araujo D, Correia V, Davids K, Marques P, Richardson
MJ. Competing together: assessing the dynamics of team-team
and player-team synchrony in professional association football.
Hum Mov Sci. 2013;32(4):555–66.
121. Duarte R, Araujo D, Freire L, Folgado H, Fernandes O, Davids
K. Intra- and inter-group coordination patterns reveal collective
behaviors of football players near the scoring zone. Hum Mov
Sci. 2012;31(6):1639–51.
122. Frencken W, Van Der Plaats J, Visscher C, Lemmink K. Size
matters: pitch dimensions constrain interactive team behaviour
in soccer. J Syst Sci Complex. 2013;26(1):85–93.
123. Ouellette J. Principles of play for soccer. Strategies.
2004;17(3):26.
124. Moura FA, van Emmerik REA, Santana JE, Martins LEB, Barros
RMLD, Cunha SA. Coordination analysis of players’ distribution
in football using cross-correlation and vector coding techniques.
J Sports Sci. 2016;34(24):2224–32.
125. Low B, Vilas Boas G, Meyer L, Lizaso E, Hoitz F, Leite N,
et al. Exploring the effects of deep-defending vs high-press on
footballers tactical behaviour, physical and physiological perfor-
mance: a pilot study. Motriz: Revista de Educação Física; 2018.
p. 24.
126. Folgado H, Duarte R, Fernandes O, Sampaio J. Competing with
lower level opponents decreases intra-team movement synchro-
nization and time-motion demands during pre-season soccer
matches. PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e97145.
127. Palucci Vieira LH, Aquino R, Moura FA, Barros RML, Arpini
VM, Oliveira LP, et al. Team Dynamics, Running, and Skill-
Related Performances of Brazilian U11 to Professional Soc-
cer Players During Official Matches. J Strength Cond Res.
2018;33(8):2202–16.
128. Folgado H, Goncalves B, Sampaio J. Positional synchronization
affects physical and physiological responses to preseason in pro-
fessional football (soccer). Res Sports Med. 2018;26(1):51–63.
129. Aquino RLQT, Goncalves LGC, Vieira LHP, Oliveira LP, Alves
GF, Santiago PRP, et al. Periodization training focused on tech-
nical-tactical ability in young soccer players positively affects
biochemical markers and game performance. J Strength Cond
Res. 2016;30(10):2723–32.
130. Coutinho D, Santos S, Goncalves B, Travassos B, Wong
DP, Schollhorn W, et al. The effects of an enrichment
training program for youth football attackers. PLoS One.
2018;13(6):e0199008.
131. Santos S, Coutinho D, Goncalves B, Schollhorn W, Sampaio
J, Leite N. Differential learning as a key training approach to
improve creative and tactical behavior in soccer. Res Q Exerc
Sport. 2018;89(1):11–24.
132. Santos S, Jiménez S, Sampaio J, Leite N. Effects of the
Skills4Genius sports-based training program in creative behav-
ior. PLoS One. 2017;12(2):e0172520.
133. Coutinho D, Gonçalves B, Wong DP, Travassos B, Coutts AJ,
Sampaio J. Exploring the effects of mental and muscular fatigue
in soccer players’ performance. Hum Mov Sci. 2018;58:287–96.
134. Figueira B, Gonçalves B, Masiulis N, Sampaio J. Exploring how
playing football with different age groups affects tactical behav-
iour and physical performance. Biol Sport. 2018;35(2):145–53.
Collective Tactical Behaviours in Football
135. Gonçalves B, Folgado H, Coutinho D, Marcelino R, Wong D,
Leite N, et al. Changes in effective playing space when consider-
ing sub-groups of 3–10 players in professional soccer matches.
J Hum Kinet. 2018;62(1):145–55.
136. Coutinho D, Gonçalves B, Travassos B, Wong DP, Coutts AJ,
Sampaio JE. Mental fatigue and spatial references impair soc-
cer players’ physical and tactical performances. Front Psychol.
2017;8:1645.
137. Ric A, Torrents C, Gonçalves B, Torres-Ronda L, Sampaio J,
Hristovski R. Dynamics of tactical behaviour in association foot-
ball when manipulating players’ space of interaction. PLoS One.
2017;12(7):e0180773.
138. Aquino RL, Goncalves LG, Vieira LH, Oliveira LP, Alves GF,
Santiago PR, et al. Biochemical, physical and tactical analysis
of a simulated game in young soccer players. J Sports Med Phys
Fit. 2016;56(12):1554–61.
139. Moura FA, Martins LE, Anido RO, Ruffino PR, Barros RM,
Cunha SA. A spectral analysis of team dynamics and tactics in
Brazilian football. J Sports Sci. 2013;31(14):1568–77.
140. Pincus SM. Approximate entropy as a measure of system com-
plexity. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1991;88(6):2297–301.
141. Pincus SM, Goldberger AL. Physiological time-series analysis:
what does regularity quantify? Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol.
1994;266(4):H1643–56.
142. Shannon CE. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell
Syst Tech J. 1948;27(3):379–423.
143. Palut Y, Zanone PG. A dynamical analysis of tennis: concepts
and data. J Sports Sci. 2005;23(10):1021–32.
144. Derrick T, Thomas J. Time series analysis: the cross-correlation
function. In: Stergiou N, editor. Innovative analyses of human
movement: analytical tools for human movement research. 1st
ed. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2004. p. 189–205.
145. Sparrow WA, Donovan E, van Emmerik R, Barry EB. Using rela-
tive motion plots to measure changes in intra-limb and inter-limb
coordination. J Mot Behav. 1987;19(1):115–29.
146. Hamill J, Haddad JM, McDermott WJ. Issues in quantifying vari-
ability from a dynamical systems perspective. J Appl Biomech.
2000;16(4):407–18.
147. Cover TM, Thomas JA. Entropy, relative entropy and mutual
information. In: Schilling DL, editor. Elements of information
theory. 1st ed. New York: Wiley; 1991. p. 12–49.
148. Kuramoto Y, Nishikawa I. Statistical macrodynamics of large
dynamical systems. Case of a phase transition in oscillator com-
munities. J Stat Phys. 1987;49(3):569–605.
149. Frank TD, Richardson MJ. On a test statistic for the Kuramoto
order parameter of synchronization: an illustration for group syn-
chronization during rocking chairs. Phys D Nonlinear Phenom.
2010;239(23):2084–92.
150. Memmert D, Raabe D, Schwab S, Rein R. A Tactical Compari-
son of the 4-2-3-1 and 3-5-2 Formation in Soccer: A Theory-
Oriented, Experimental Approach Based on Positional Data in an
11 vs. 11 Game Set-Up. PloS ONE 2019;14(1):e0210191. https​
://doi.org/10.1371/journ​al.pone.02101​91.
151. Perl J, Memmert D. Key performance indicators. In: Baca A, Perl
J (eds) Modelling and Simulation in Sport and Exercise, 2018;
Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 146–166.