Interação e network de sequências ofensivas coletivas: Análise de uma seleção de Sub-20 no Campeonato do Mundo de Futebol

Abstract

Este estudo teve como objetivo analisar a interação e network de sequências ofensivas coletivas que resultaram em finalização de uma Seleção de Futebol de Sub-20. A amostra consistiu na análise de 76 ações ofensivas que foram transformadas em golo. Foi realizada uma análise quantitativa e qualitativa das ações de jogo através do software VideObserver ®. As networks de interação entre jogadores foram obtidas através do mesmo programa. As métricas de centralidade foram calculadas através do software Social Network Visualizer ®. Os resultados indicaram que as ações ofensivas que terminaram em finalização ocorreram em sequências de passe mais curtas e emergiram com um maior número de finalizações e golos. Por seu lado, o maior nível de interação ocorreu entre o jogador 9 (avançado) e o jogador 18 (extremo direito). Concluiu-se que as interações que emergiram durante as ações ofensivas que resultaram em golo foram originadas, maioritariamente, pelos médios, extremos e avançados, ocorrendo, sobretudo, no setor ofensivo. Neste sentido, o jogador 7 (médio centro) foi considerado o jogador-chave na circulação e desenvolvimento das ações ofensivas que resultaram em finalização da equipa, assumindo um papel preponderante na dinâmica coletiva da equipa.

Analysis of the interaction and offensive network of the Portuguese national team at the 2016 European Football Championship

“…The passing sequences results are in accordance with the studies of Reep and Benjamin (1968), Hughes and Franks (2005) and Alves et al (2016) where most of the actions and goals scored occurred in shorter passing sequences. The data are also in agreement with McLean, Salmon, Gorman, Naughton and Solomon (2017a), who compared the Euro 2016 and American Cup 2016 and found that most of the goals scored occurred from shorter passing sequences.…”

“…On the other hand, the player who received the most interactions was player number 7 (forward), with a total of 65 interactions received. Finally, at the level of interventions (sum of interactions made and received (Gama et al, 2014;Alves et al, 2016), the players with the highest values were player number 7 (forward), with a total of 103 interventions, followed by player number 10 (midfielder), with a total of 90 interventions, and finally player number 17 (number), with a total of 89 interventions. Caption: The team's direction of attack is displayed through the black arrow displayed along the playing field charts.…”

“…It is important to note that player number 10 (midfielder) was the player who made the most interactions, with a total of 46 interactions. This is due to the fact that this player played in a position that allowed him to manage the organization of the team's match, on the other hand, player number 7 (forward) was the player who received the most interactions throughout the matches in a total of 65 interactions, being the reference of the team (Alves et al, 2016). These values make sense because it is usually the midfielders who seek to organize the team match and the forwards seek to receive the ball in the more advanced sectors of the field in order to finish the team's passing sequences (Peña and Touchette, 2012;Clemente et al, 2016b).…”

“…Through the Instat platform we had access to the video matches and the match data was obtained through the Software VideObserver®, allowing to analyze all collective offensive sequences that resulted in finishing. To this end, in the course of each collective offensive action, originated from the recovery of the team's possession until the moment of completion, all contacts with the ball from the team were made on the field (e.g., passes, reception of the ball, crosses, shots, recoveries and losses of the ball) (Alves, Dias, Gama, Vaz and Couceiro, 2016) were recorded. In order to analyze the level of intra-team interaction, the technical actions were selected: passing and receiving the ball, with a view to mapping the network of interactions that took place among the players of the selection.…”

“…In order to identify the areas of greatest intervention of the team in the match(s), the VideObserver software®, which considered the sub-division of the field adopted by Alves et al, 2016), being operationalized for this specific program (Figure 1). This field had a division of 9 areas of play, consisting of 3 sectors (defensive, medium and offensive) and 3 lateral areas (left, central and right).…”