This article was downloaded by: [Universite De Paris 1]

On: 25 July 2013, At: 09:11

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sports Sciences

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20

Determinants of possession of the ball in soccer

a b
Carlos Lago & Rafael Martín
a
University of Vigo, Pontevedra
b
University of A Coruña, Coruña, Spain
Published online: 11 May 2007.

To cite this article: Carlos Lago & Rafael Martn (2007) Determinants of possession of the ball in soccer, Journal of Sports
Sciences, 25:9, 969-974, DOI: 10.1080/02640410600944626

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640410600944626

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Journal of Sports Sciences, July 2007; 25(9): 969 – 974

Determinants of possession of the ball in soccer

CARLOS LAGO1 & RAFAEL MARTÍN2

1
University of Vigo, Pontevedra and 2University of A Coruña, Coruña, Spain

(Accepted 28 July 2006)

Abstract
In research on the importance of the possession of the ball in soccer, little attention has been paid to its determinants. Using
data from 170 matches of the 2003 – 2004 Spanish Soccer League, we explain why differences in the possession of the ball
among teams are so great. In particular, four variables are examined: evolving match status (i.e. whether the team is winning,
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 09:11 25 July 2013

losing or drawing), venue (i.e. playing at home or away), and the identities of the team and the opponent in each match.
Results of linear regression analysis show that these four variables are statistically significant and together explain most of the
variance in possession. In short, home teams have more possession than away teams, teams have more possession when they
are losing matches than when winning or drawing, and the identity of the opponent matters – the worse the opponent, the
greater the possession of the ball. Combinations of these variables could be used to develop a model that predicts possession
in soccer.

Keywords: Linear regression, possession of the ball, match, performance, soccer

Possession as a performance indicator

in soccer
In soccer, scoring goals is the ultimate determinant
of success and has consequently received consider-
able attention in notation research (James, Jones, &
Mellalieu, 2004). However, given the low number of
goals in matches in modern soccer, a different
operationalization of the dependent variable is
necessary to understand the logic of the game. The
variance of score is not large enough to identify
statistically significant determinants. As a team’s
performance and the score do not necessarily always
tally, the role of chance could be decisive (Lago,
2005). That is, a team can lose even after a very good
performance (i.e. high numbers of good goal-scoring
opportunities, shots, corners, etc.) or win on the
back of a poor performance. Knowing the score will
tell us who won the match but, without complemen-
tary indicators, it is impossible to assess the
performance of one player or one team (Ensum,
Pollard, & Taylor, 2005; Hughes & Bartlett, 2002;
Hughes, Langridge, & Dawkin, 2001).
There has been considerable research on the
performance analysis of ‘‘invasion games’’ in recent
years (Read & Edwards, 1992). A performance
indicator is defined as a selection, or combination,
of action variables that aims to define some or all
aspects of a performance (Hughes & Bartlett, 2002).
Clearly, to be useful, performance indicators have to
be highly correlated with success.
Some of the performance indicators that have been
used in notational analysis in soccer are shown in
Table I. These indicators can be classified as match
descriptors and indices of technical and tactical
performance.
The most popular performance indicator in soccer
is possession of the ball (Bate, 1988, in Reilly, Lees,
Davids & Murphy (1988); Carmichael, Thomas, &
Ward, 2001; Dawson, Dobson, & Gerrard, 2000;
Garganta, 2000; Hadley, Poitras, Ruggiero, &
Knowles, 2000; Hughes, 2003; Hughes & Bartlett,
2002; McGarry & Franks, 2003). One of the most
robust findings in the discipline is the correlation
between the ability to retain possession of the ball for
prolonged periods of time and success (Bate, 1988;
Gómez & Álvaro, 2002; James et al., 2004).
However, research on possession of the ball has
paid little attention to its determinants. We only
know that there are some variables that might explain
the phenomenon. For example, James et al. (2004)
and Blommfield, Polman, and O’Donoghue (2005)
analysed teams’ possession based on evolving match

Correspondence: C. Lago, Facultade de CC da Educación e o Deporte, Av. Buenos Aires s/n, 36002 Pontevedra, Spain. E-mail: clagop@uvigo.es
ISSN 0264-0414 print/ISSN 1466-447X online Ó 2007 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/02640410600944626
 970 C. Lago & R. Martı́n
Table I. Categorization of different performance indicators that have been used in notational analysis of soccer.
Match classification Technical
Scores Passes to opposition
Number of shots on target Tackles won and lost
Number of shots off target Shots off target
Corners, etc. Dribbles
Crosses, etc. Lost control
On-target crosses
Off-target crosses
etc.
For a review, see Hughes (1993) For a review, see Hughes (1993);
see also Pettit and Hughes (2001)
Source: Hughes and Bartlett (2002).
status i.e. whether the team was wining, losing or
drawing). They found that successful and unsuccess-
ful teams had longer periods of possession in
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 09:11 25 July 2013
matches when they were losing than when they were
winning. Similarly, Pollard (1986) and Thomas,
Reeves, and Davies (2004) propose that playing at
home or away is important. Many coaches believe
that the style of play of each team (‘‘direct play’’ or
‘‘possession play’’) is an important factor in explain-
ing performance.
The main aim of this paper is to examine causal
mechanisms behind teams’ possession of the ball in
soccer. Why does one team have more possession
than the other in a match? Why does one team have
more or less possession in two games? The goals of
the research are two-fold. The first is to develop a
theoretical model to explain the variability of this
performance indicator. In particular, four variables
are considered: evolving match status (i.e. whether
the team was wining, losing or drawing), venue (i.e.
playing at home or away), and the identities of the
team and the opponent in each match. Our
hypotheses were as follows: (1) home teams should
have more possession than away teams; (2) teams
should have more possession when they are losing
than when they are winning or drawing; and (3) the
poorer the opponent in a match, the greater the
possession. The second aim is to demonstrate how a
combination of these variables can be used to predict
teams’ future possession in soccer.
Methods
Sample
The sample consisted of 170 matches played in the
first 17 days of the 2003 – 2004 Spanish Soccer
League. The number of observations was 340,
because data from both teams in each match were
recorded. This strategy allowed us to double the
number of observations.
Tactical
Passes/possession
Pace of attack
Shots
Tackles won and lost
Passing distribution
Length of passes
Dribbles
etc.
For a review, see Hughes (1993);
see also Pettit and Hughes (2001)
Dependent variable
The dependent variable was the percentage of time
in minutes during a match in which one team had
possession of the ball when in play (POSSESSION:
PO). For example, a possession of 50% means that a
team had possession of the ball for half of the time it
was in play. Possession was deemed to have been
gained when a player had sufficient control of the ball
to effect a deliberate influence on its subsequent
path. Possession was lost when the ball went out of
play, an opposing player touched the ball or the
referee blew the whistle for an infringement (Jones
et al., 2004). When interpreting the results, positive
or negative coefficients indicate a higher or lower
propensity respectively to have possession. Teams’
possession data used in the research were supplied by
GECA SPORT, a private sector company dedicated
to assessing the performance of teams in the Spanish
Soccer League (information on the data set can be
found at www.gecasport.es).
Independent variables
Five independent variables were included in the
research. The first is ‘‘playing at home or away’’:
PLAYING AT HOME (PH). It is a dichotomous
variable: 1 ¼ the team is playing at home, 0 ¼ the
team is playing away. The anticipated effect of this
variable is positive: home teams should have greater
possession than away teams. Research into home
advantage across different sports has received a lot of
attention in the sport psychology literature in the
last 20 years (Agnew & Carron, 1994; Bray, 1999;
Bray & Widmeyer, 2000; Moore & Brylinsky, 1995;
Wright, Voyer, Wright, & Roney, 1995). Pollard
(1986) defined home advantage as ‘‘the number of
points won at home [ . . . ] expressed as a percentage
of all points gained’’ (p. 239). For example, for
seasons 1888 – 1990 in the First Division of Football
League in England in which 2630 games were
played, 1536 were home wins, 592 were home
defeats, and 502 were draws, giving a home

advantage of 67.9% (Pollard, 1986). Thomas et al.
(2004) found that in 3408 matches of the First
Division home advantage was 62.1% and in 4426
matches of the English Football Premiership was
60.7%. Previous research has identified factors that
could contribute to the phenomenon. Research on
crowd size (Schwartz & Barsky, 1977), crown density
(Dowie, 1982), venue familiarity (Moore & Brylinsky
1995), and travel (Pace & Carron, 1992) is incon-
clusive and needs to be assessed.
Second, possession is believed to depend on
evolving match status – that is, whether a team is
winning, losing or drawing. Since when a team is
losing it needs to create more goal-scoring opportu-
nities to draw or win the match, it requires greater
possession of the ball. To measure this variable,
the time each team was losing during a match is
included in the regressions: MINUTES LOSING
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 09:11 25 July 2013
(ML). Similarly, the third variable measures the time
each team was drawing in the match: MINUTES
DRAWING (MD). For example, if team A scores a
goal in the tenth minute and team B equalizes in
the final minute, team A has been loosing for 0
minutes and drawing for 10 minutes; while team B
has been losing for 80 minutes and drawing for 10
minutes.
Fourth, possession is also a function of the identity
of teams. Nineteen dummy variables were created to
identify each of the 20 teams in the Spanish Soccer
League: TEAM (TE). The reference category was
Real Madrid because when the data were collected it
led the championship. Therefore, the interpretation
of the dummies for the rest of the teams is easier.
The choice of the reference or omitted category has
no affect on the substance of the regression results.
The only components that change are the standard
errors and the interpretation of the t-tests. The
goodness of fit, the coefficients of the other variables,
and the t-statistics for the other variables do no alter
(Greene, 1997).
Finally, teams’ possession also depends on the
opponent. Consequently, the variable OPPONENT
(OP) was been created to identify each of the
possible opponents in a match. The reference cate-
gory was Real Madrid again. Table II provides
descriptive statistics for the variables.
Table II. Descriptive statistics of the variables.
Standard
Mean deviation
Possession (PO) 50.00 6.3
Playing at home (PH) 0.50 0.0
Minutes losing (ML) 23.09 29.1
Minutes drawing (MD) 43.81 28.8
Determinants of possession of the ball in soccer 971
Statistical analysis
Two linear regression models were used to identify
the determinants of the teams’ possession: (i) an
additive model, with time losing, time drawing, the
dummy variables that identify the 20 teams compet-
ing in the Spanish Soccer League, and whether
playing at home or away as regressors; (ii) an
interactive model, in which a multiplicative combi-
nation of the home team and the time drawing is
added to the previous model. The models are as
follows:
POi ¼ b1 þ b2  PHi þ b3  MLi þ b4  MDi
þ b5  TEi þ b6 OPi þ ei ð1Þ
POi ¼ b1 þ b2  PHi þ b3  MLi þ b4  MDi
þ b5  ðMDi  HTi Þ þ b6  TEi þ b7 OPi þ ei
ð2Þ
When estimating both models, no evidence of
heteroscedasticity in residuals or multicollinearity
among regressors was found (King, Keohane, &
Verba, 2000). Moreover, the RESET test of Ramsey
(1969) did not reveal specification problems. RE-
SET stands for Regression Specification Error Test.
The classical normal linear regression model is
specified as:
y ¼ Xb þ e
The error vector e is presumed to follow the
multivariate normal distribution N(0,s2I). Specifi-
cation error is an omnibus term that covers any
departure from the assumptions of the maintained
model. Serial correlation, heteroscedasticity and
non-normality all violate the assumption that the
errors are distributed [N(0,s2I)]. Tests for these
specification errors have been described above. In
contrast, RESET is a general test for the following
types of specification errors:
. Omitted variables: X does not include all relevant
variables.
Minimum Maximum Observations
33.3 66.6 340
0 1 340
0 90 340
0 90 340
 972 C. Lago & R. Martı́n
. Incorrect functional form: some or all of the
variables in y and X should be transformed
to logs, powers, reciprocals or in some other
way.
. Correlation between X and e, which could be
caused by measurement error in X, simultaneity
or the presence of lagged y values and serially
correlated disturbances.
Under such specification errors, Ordinary Least
Squares estimators will be biased and inconsistent,
and conventional inference procedures will be
invalidated.
Results and discussion
The results are displayed in Table III.
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 09:11 25 July 2013
The coefficient of determination and the intercept
of the two regression models
The coefficient of determination was similar for the
two models. The first model, with the variables
playing at home or away, time losing, time drawing,
team, and opponent as regressors, explained about
65% of the variance in teams’ possession. In the
second model, in which the multiplicative combina-
tion of home team and time drawing was added to
the first model, R2 was 0.66. For both models, the
fit was satisfactory. The intercept was statistically
significant at the 0.01 level in both models and did
not reveal relevant changes. When all the indepen-
dent variables were equal to zero, possession was
43% in model 1 and 44% in model 2.
The impact of playing at home or away
on teams’ possession
The variable playing at home was significant at the
0.01 level in both regression models and had the
anticipated coefficient: home teams have more
possession of the ball than away teams. In line with
the results of the first regression model, playing at
home increased possession by 6% compared with
playing away. That is, if team A has 50% possession
when playing away, it is predicted to have 55.7%
possession when playing at home.
In the second regression model, the inclusion of the
interaction between playing at home and time losing in
a match decreases the effect of playing at home from
5.7 to 3.8%. Moreover, the interaction was significant
at the 0.05 level and its coefficient had the anticipated
sign: when the score is level, home teams have more
possession than away teams. Each minute drawing
increases the possession of home teams by 0.04%. For
example, if a match ends 0 – 0, the expected possession
Table III. Determinants of possession in the Spanish Soccer
League.
Model
Dependent variable 1 2
Playing at home (PH) 5.672* 3.813*
(0.487) (0.899)
Minutes losing (ML) 0.091* 0.089*
(0.011) (0.010)
Minutes drawing (MD) 0.045* 0.023***
(0.011) (0.014)
PH * MD – 0.042**
(0.017)
Intercept 43.02* 44.09*
(1.941) (1.645)
R2 0.65 0.66
Number of observations 340 340
Note: Estimation in by ordinary least squares. Standard errors are
in parentheses.
*P 5 0.01; **P 5 0.05; ***P 5 0.10.
Estimated coefficients for each team of the Spanish Soccer League
(TE) are as follows. The reference category is Real Madrid.
Standard errors are in parentheses. *P 5 0.01 **P 5 0.05, and
***P 5 0.10. For the first model: Valencia 75.27* (1.59),
Deportivo 75.77* (1.68), Osasuna 71.10 (1.72), Villarreal
73.26*** (1.80), Atlético de Madrid 75.69* (1.50), Málaga
710.12* (1,82), Athletic de Bilbao 75.17* (1.39), Barcelona
0.42 (1.61), Valladolid 77.75* (1.48), Mallorca 74.87* (1.51),
Racing de Santander 710.72* (1.70), Sevilla 75.97* (1.52),
Albacete 78.90* (1.86), Zaragoza 73.36** (1.78), Betis 72.20
(1.55), Celta de Vigo 71.67 (1.94), Real Sociedad 73.81**
(1.56), Murcia 78.99* (1.51), Espanyol 78.01* (1.73).
Estimated coefficients for each opponent of the Spanisch Soccer
League (OP) are as follows: Valencia 5.21 (1.60)*, Deportivo 5.94*
(1.71), Osasuna 1.29 (1.76), Villarreal 3.25*** (1.80), Atlético de
Madrid 5.91* (1.53), Málaga 8.64* (1.82), Athletic de Bilbao 5.17*
(1.41), Barcelona 0.57 (1.60), Valladolid 7.78* (1.53), Mallorca
4.75* (1.52), Racing de Santander 10.73* (1.71), Sevilla 6.03*
(1.53), Albacete 8,95* (1.83), Zaragoza 5.18* (1.80), Betis 2,14
(1.54), Celta de Vigo 1.81 (1.93), Real Sociedad 3.81* (1.54),
Murcia 9.03* (1.51), Espanyol 78.03* (1.74).
For the second model, estimated coefficients for each team are as
follows: Valencia 75.20* (1.45), Deportivo 75.51* (1,48), Osasuna
70.82 (1.46), Villarreal 73.14** (1.46), Atlético de Madrid 75.87*
(1.47), Málaga 710,01 (1.44)*, Athletic de Bilbao 75.03* (1.45),
Barcelona 70.57 (1.45), Valladolid 77.68 (1.42)*, Mallorca
74.71* (1.47), Racing de Santander 710.71* (1.48), Sevilla
76.01* (1.41), Albacete 78.83* (1.46), Zaragoza 73.40* (1.51),
Betis 72.16 (1.45), Celta de Vigo 71.41 (1.51), Real Sociedad
3.87** (1.43), Murcia 78.82* (1.41), Espanyol 78.13* (1.47).
Estimated coefficients for each opponent are as follows: Valencia
5.14* (1.45), Deportivo 5.68* (1.48), Osasuna 1.01 (1.46),
Villarreal 3.13*** (1.46), Atlético de Madrid 6.08* (1.48), Málaga
8.56* (1.44), Athletic de Bilbao 5.03* (1.45), Barcelona 0.71
(1.45), Valladolid 7.71 (1.42)*, Mallorca 4.60* (1.47)*, Racing de
Santander 10.73* (1.48), Sevilla 6.05* (1.41), Albacete 8.88*
(1.46), Zaragoza 5.18* (1.51), Betis 2.11 (1.45), Celta de Vigo
1.54 (1.51), Real Sociedad 3.83* (1.43), Murcia 8.86* (1.42),
Espanyol 8.15* (1.47).
by the home team would be 7.6% more than that of
the away team: 3.78 (90 min drawing  0.042) þ 3.81
(expected possession for home teams).
 Determinants of possession of the ball in soccer 973

These results provide evidence of home advantage Table IV. Simulated possessions for Real Madrid in the match
in soccer. This is in line with the findings of Pollard Real Madrid vs. Barcelona.
(1986) and Thomas and colleagues (2004). Minutes losing
Minutes
drawing 0 15 30 45 60 75 90
The impact of evolving match status
on teams’ possession 0 48.69 50.06 51.43 52.81 54.19 55.56 56.83
15 49.36 50.73 52.11 53.49 54.86 56.23
The variable time losing was significant in both 30 50.04 51.41 52.78 54.16 55.53
models at the 0.01 level and had the anticipated sign: 45 50.71 52.08 53.46 54.83
teams have greater possession of the ball when they 60 51.38 52.75 54.13
75 52.05 53.43
are losing than when they are winning or drawing. In 90 52.73
line with the results of the two regression models,
every 11 min losing increases possession by 1%. For
example, if team A was losing for 90 minutes the
predicted possession would be 8% higher than that of
the opponent’s possession (90 minutes losing  0.09). Table V. Simulated possessions for Real Madrid in the match
These results are similar to the findings of James Barcelona vs. Real Madrid.
et al. (2004). Teams (successful or unsuccessful)
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 09:11 25 July 2013

Minutes losing
have greater possession when they are losing than Minutes
when they are wining. In support of this finding, drawing 0 15 30 45 60 75 90
Blommfield et al. (2005) report that possession is 0 43.02 44.39 45.76 47.14 48.51 49.89 51.26
influenced by the score. 15 43.69 45.06 46.44 47.81 49.18 50.56
30 44.37 45.74 47.11 48.48 49.86
45 45.04 46.41 47.79 49.16
The impact of the team and the opponent 60 45.71 47.09 48.46
on teams’ possession 75 46.38 47.76
90 47.06
Regarding the variables team and opponent, 14 teams
differed at the 0.01 level when compared with the
reference team, Real Madrid. For the other teams,
differences can be rejected. It is likely that differences
in teams’ possession are due to the tactics and the Finally, to illustrate the findings, estimates of actual
style of play adopted. Possession is affected by the and simulated possession for a match between Real
score, but different teams appear to follow different Madrid and Barcelona under different scenarios are
strategies (retaining more or less possession) that displayed. What possession would be predicted for
reflect the individual style of coaching and manage- Real Madrid when the evolving match status differs?
ment, the characteristics of the players, team forma- Is it similar when Real Madrid plays at home or away?
tion, and philosophy of play based on tradition of the In Tables IV and V, different possibilities for each
clubs (Hughes & Franks, 2005). Blommfield et al. variable of the regression model are included. For
(2005), for example, showed that the top three teams example, in the match Barcelona vs. Real Madrid, the
in the Premier League in the 2003 – 2004 season predicted possession for Real Madrid differs signifi-
(Chelsea, Arsenal, and Manchester United) domi- cantly according to match status (by 8.3%). If the
nated possession against their opponents whether final result were 1 – 0 to Real Madrid and they scored
winning, drawing or losing. Hughes and Franks the goal in the first minute (0 min losing and 0 min
(2005) suggested that because successful (League drawing), their possession would be 43.0%. If
champions, World champions, European cham- Barcelona won 1 – 0 and scored the goal in the first
pions) teams do not resort to ‘‘direct play’’, there minute, the possession of Real Madrid would be
are patterns of play for successful and unsuccessful 51.3%. Which of these scenarios is realistic? Nobody
teams. For the 1986 World Cup Finals, Hughes, can know. But, if the variables that affect teams’
Robertson, and Nicholson (1988) found that suc- possession are known, coaches and analysts could
cessful teams had more touches of the ball during implement more effective practice.
each period of possession than unsuccessful teams.
It would be useful in the future if teams
Conclusions
were grouped according to their style of play (‘‘direct
play’’ or ‘‘possession play’’) and if the homogeneity of The main findings of the empirical analysis reported
estimated coefficients was checked. Our hypothesis is here are as follows. First, teams’ possession depends
that teams’ possession would differ depending on the on the evolving match status – that is, whether the
style of play of the two teams in each match. team is winning, losing (P 5 0.01) or drawing
 974 C. Lago & R. Martı́n
(P 5 0.01). Teams have greater possession of the ball
when they are losing than when they are winning or
drawing. Second, playing at home increases posses-
sion by 6% compared with playing away (P 5 0.01).
These results support home advantage in soccer.
Third, there are differences in possession depending
on the identities of the team and the opponent. This
study has not considered the reasons for this
observation. It is likely that the style of play is the
reason for teams’ differences in possession. Our
results highlight a number of variables that explain
possession of the ball in soccer. Combinations of
these variables could be used to develop a model that
predicts possession in soccer.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express their thanks to GECA
Downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1] at 09:11 25 July 2013
Sport for supplying the data used in this paper. We
are also grateful to Jorge Álvarez and Pedro
Docampo for their helpful comments.
References
Agnew, G. A., & Carrow, A. V. (1994). Crowd effects and the
home advantage. International Journal of Sports Psychology, 25,
53 – 62.
Bate, R. (1988). Football chance: Tactics and strategy. In
T. Reilly, A. Lees, K. Davids, & W. Murphy (Eds.), Science
and football (pp. 293 – 301). London: E & FN Spon.
Blommfield, J. R., Polman, R. C. J., & O’Donoghue, P. G. (2005).
Effects of score-line on team strategies in FA Premier League
Soccer. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23, 192 – 193.
Bray, S. R. (1999). The home advantage from an individual
team perspective. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 11, 116 –
125.
Bray, S. R., & Widmeyer, W. N. (2000). Athletes’ perceptions of
the home advantage: An investigation of perceived causal
factors. Journal of Sports Behavior, 23, 1 – 10.
Carmichael, F., Thomas, D., & Ward, R. (2001). Production and
efficiency in Association Football. Journal of Sports Economics, 2,
228 – 243.
Dawson, P., Dobson, S., & Gerrard, B. (2000). Stochastic
frontiers and the temporal structure of managerial efficiency
in English soccer. Journal of Sports Economics, 1, 24 – 32.
Dowie, J. (1982). Why Spain should win the World Cup. New
Scientist, 94, 693 – 695.
Ensum, R., Pollard, R., & Taylor, S. (2005). Applications of
logistic regression to shots at goal in association football. In
T. Reilly, J. Cabri, & D. Araújo (Eds.), Science and football IV
(pp. 211 – 218). London: Routledge.
Garganta, J. (2000) Análisis del juego del fútbol. El recorrido
evolutivo de las concepciones, métodos e instrumentos’’.
Revista de Entrenamiento Deportivo, Tomo, XIV, 2, 6 – 13.
Gómez López, M., & Álvaro, J. (2002). El tiempo de posesión
como variable no determinante del resultado en los partidos de
fútbol. El Entrenador Español, 97, 39 – 47.
Greene, W. H. 1997. Econometric analysis (3rd edn.). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hadley, L., Poitras, M., Ruggiero, J., & Knowles, S (2000).
Performance evaluation of National Football League teams.
Managerial and Decision Economics, 21, 45 – 56.
Hughes, M. D. (1993). Notational analysis of football. In
T. Reilly, J. Clarys, & A. Stibbe (Eds.), Science and football II
(pp. 151 – 159). London: E & FN Spon.
Hughes, M. D. (2003). Notational analysis. In T. Reilly &
M. Williams (Eds.), Science and soccer (pp. 245 – 264). London:
Routledge.
Hughes, M. D., & Bartlett, R. (2002). The use of performance
indicators in performance analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20,
739 – 754.
Hughes, M. D., & Franks, I. (2005). Analysis of passing
sequences, shots and goals in soccer. Journal of Sports Sciences,
23, 509 – 514.
Hughes, M. D., Langridge, C., & Dawkin, N. (2001). Perturba-
tion leading to shooting in soccer. In M. D. Hughes &
F. Tavares (Eds.), Notational analysis of sport IV (pp. 23 – 32).
Porto: University of Porto.
Hughes, M. D., Robertson, K., & Nicholson, A. (1988). An
analysis of 1986 World Cup of Association Football. In
T. Reilly, A. Lees, K. Davids, & W. Murphy (Eds.), Science
and football (pp. 363 – 367). London: E & FN Spon.
James, N., Jones, P. D., & Mellalieu, S. D. (2004). Possession
as a performance indicator in soccer. International Journal of
Performance Analysis in Sport, 4, 98 – 102.
King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (2000). Designing social
inquiry: Scientific inferencia in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ:
Priceton University Press.
Lago, C. (2005). To win or to lose in soccer: A matter of
performance or chance? European Journal of Human Movement,
14, 137 – 152.
McGarry, T., & Franks, I. (1994). A stochastic approach to
predicting competition squash match-play. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 12, 573 – 584.
McGarry, T., & Franks, I. (2003). The science of match analysis.
In V (Eds.), Science and soccer (pp. 265 – 275). London:
Routledge.
Moore, J. C., & Brylinsky, J. A. (1995). Facility, familiarity and the
home advantage. Journal of Sport Behavior, 18, 302 – 310.
Pace, A. D., & Carron, A. V. (1992). Travel and the home
advantage. Canadian Journal of Sport Sciences, 51, 60 – 64.
Pettit, A., & Huhges, M. D. (2001). Crossing and shooting
patterns in the 1986 and 1998 World Cups for soccer. In
M. D. Hughes & I. M. Franks (Eds.), Pass.com (pp. 267 – 276).
Cardiff: Centre for Performance Analysis, UWIC.
Pollard, R. (1986). Home advantage in soccer: A retrospective
analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 4, 237 – 246.
Ramsey, J. B. (1969). Test for specification errors in classical lineal
least squares regression analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society B, 31, 350 – 371.
Read, B., & Edwards, P. (1992). Teaching children to play games.
Leeds: White Line Publishing.
Schwartz, B., & Barsky, S. F. (1977). The home advantage. Social
Forces, 55, 641 – 661.
Thomas, S., Reeves, C., & Davies, S. (2004). An analysis of home
advantage in the English Football Premiership. Perceptual and
Motor Skill, 99, 1212 – 1216.
Wright, E. F., Voyer, D., Wright, R. D., & Roney, C. (1995).
Supporting audiences and performance under pressure: The
home-ice disadvantage in hockey championships. Journal of
Sport Behavior, 18, 21E28.