Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013;31(12):1261-70.
doi: 10.1080/02640414.2013.786185. Epub 2013 May 22.

The effect of high and low percentage ball possession on physical and technical profiles in English FA Premier League soccer matches

Affiliations

The effect of high and low percentage ball possession on physical and technical profiles in English FA Premier League soccer matches

Paul S Bradley et al. J Sports Sci. 2013.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the effects of high (HPBPT) and low percentage ball possession teams (LPBPT) on physical and technical profiles in elite soccer matches. Match performance data were collected from players in the English FA Premier League (n = 810) using a multiple-camera computerised tracking system. Physical indicators such as the total (10690 ± 996 vs 10778 ± 979 m; effect size [ES] = 0.11) and high-intensity running distance covered in matches (931 ± 299 vs 938 ± 311 m; ES = 0.13) did not differ between HPBPT and LPBPT. However, high-intensity running with ball possession in HPBPT was 31% higher (P < 0.01) than LPBPT (449 ± 266 vs 343 ± 236 m; ES = 0.42) but 22% lower without ball possession (423 ± 153 vs 539 ± 177 m; ES = 0.73). Players in HPBPT performed 44% more (P < 0.01) passes than those in LPBPT (35.3 ± 14.2 vs 24.6 ± 11.2; ES = 0.83). This trend was also evident (P < 0.05) for successful passes, received passes, touches per possession, shots, dribbles and final-third entries (ES range of 0.20-0.94). Central defenders of LPBPT covered 33% less (P < 0.01) high-intensity running with ball possession than central defenders of HPBPT. While fullbacks, attackers, central and wide midfielders of LPBPT covered more (P < 0.01) high-intensity running without and less with ball possession than their HPBPT counterparts (ES range of 0.91-1.23). Technical indicators such as total passes and passes received were higher (P < 0.01) across all positions in HPBPT than LPBPT (ES range of 0.82-1.52). The data demonstrate that percentage ball possession does not influence the overall activity profile of a team but impacts on the composition of high-intensity running efforts (with and without ball) and some technical elements of performance. Position-specific changes in physical and technical profiles were evident for teams employing different ball possession percentages and this information could aid training preparation.

PubMed Disclaimer

LinkOut - more resources