Analysis of Serbia UEFA Futsal Euro 2016 Competitions in Terms of Some Variables

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to analyze the Serbia UEFA Futsal Euro 2016 competitions in terms of some variables. Range of goals scored by winner and defeated teams in form of 5 minute periods, shots on goal, corner, contributing to the score by starting 5 and substitutes, fouls, yellow-red cards, the range of goals according to shot techniques and goal zones were examined. While a total of 129 goals were scored with an average of 6.45 goals per game, with 25 goals (19.38%) most goals was scored between 36 and 40 minutes. 41.1% of goals were scored in penalty area, 58.9% of goals were scored from outside penalty area. While the rate of shots on goal in winner teams was 55.6%, this rate in defeated teams was 44.4%. In winner teams the players started in first 5 scored 50 goals (56.8%) and players joined from bench scored 38 goals (43.2%) and in defeated teams the first 5 scored 21 goals (60%) and the players joined from bench scored only 14 goals (40%). Winner teams while playing with flying keeper has scored 1 goal (16.7%) and conceded no goal; also, the defeated teams have scored 5 goals (83.3%) and conceded 13 goals when flying keeper in game. Substitutions in winner teams scored 133 goals, in defeated teams only 31 goals were scored by substitutions. As a result; accurate shots on goal, scoring in between 36-40th minutes, starting in first 5 and also joining from bench are accepted as an important factor to win a match, but despite providing an advantage of attacking with more player, the flying keeper tactic is not considered an effective element of winning the game according to the analysis of the data.

Examining the key performance indicators of all-star players and winning teams in elite futsal

“…In terms of shooting, the results showed no differences in total shots made and in the rate shots on target. This is at variance with previous studies analysing similar competitions (Abdel-Hakim, 2014;Göral, 2018;Souza et al, 2013), in which these two variables distinguished winning from losing teams (i.e. reporting better performance on winning teams).…”

“…the passes which contributed directly to a finalisation situation and could facilitate the chance to score a goal in the best group. That is, such results come to reinforce previous results that stressed that all star players distinguish their performance from the other players not achieving more actions per se but achieving higher levels of individual and collective effectiveness (Abdel-Hakim, 2014;Göral, 2018;Souza et al, 2013).…”

“…At the same time, these two variables were the only ones that discriminated winning from losing matches at Miloski et al (2014). Our own results showed no differences in faults or card-related variables; in contrast, Göral (2018) found that winning teams had fewer yellow cards and fouls than losing teams (based only on frequencies, as opposed to statistical analyses).…”

“…Secondly, regarding the KPI that best discriminate winning and losing teams or best and worst teams, several studies have identified contradictory results. On the one hand, some analyses of World Cup and UEFA Futsal Euro (Abdel-Hakim, 2014;Göral, 2018;Souza, Ribeiro, Rocha, Fernandes, & Moreira, 2013) reported that winning teams were characterised by higher number of goals scored, total shots, shots on target, and more effectiveness than losing teams. However, other study examining 40 matches from the first Brazilian league identified that winning teams were differentiated from losing teams by a higher number of ball recoveries and a lower number of lost balls (Miloski, Pinho, Freitas, Marcelino, & Arruda, 2014).…”

Goals scored and received in 5vs4 GK game strategy are constrained by critical moment and situational variables in elite futsal

“…Consistently with the previous results, the classification tree revealed that the greatest efficacy of the 5vs4+ GK game strategy was achieved when the attacking team was winning (34.7% of attacks with goals scored, 63.3% of attacks without goals, 2% of attacks with goals received), while the least efficacy was revealed when the attacking team was losing (3.6% of attacks with goals scored, 90.3% of attacks without goals, and 6.1% of attacks with goals received). Similarly, in a recent study from the UEFA futsal Euro 2016, it was found that the national teams that were losing and at the end were defeated scored more goals with the 5vs4 + GK strategy, but they also received more goals compared to the teams that were winning and at the end won (Göral, 2018). And another recently published study revealed that the 5vs4+ GK strategy was the most powerful match variable for discriminating losing teams, and confirmed again that the losing teams used the 5vs4+ GK strategy much more than the winning teams (Mendez, Gonçalves, Santos, Ribeiro, & Travassos, 2019).…”