img.fifa.com · foreword dazzling technical skill, packed stadiums and a surge in interest all over...

PHYSICALANALYSISOF THE FIFA WOMEN'S WORLD CUP FRANCE 2019™

FOREWORD

Dazzling technical skill, packed stadiums and a surge in interest all over the world: the FIFA Women’s World Cup

France 2019™ was both a sporting and a commercial success. The tournament marked a turning point in the

development of women’s football, as it convinced even the more sceptical fans of the power, beauty and impact

of the game.

The development of women’s football is a priority for FIFA and, following the tournament, we announced the

doubling of our investment in this area to USD 1 billion over four years. The action in France showed that we

are on the right track, providing undeniable evidence of the progress that has already been made on and off

the pitch.

Financial support is one thing, but information is key to professionalise the sport even further. Only by making

the most of data can we work effectively and sustainably on the development of the women’s game and take it

forward – whether through a tailor-made talent development approach or through targeted coach education.

The insights gained can also be harnessed to optimise players’ preparations and thus their performance.

The third edition of the physical analysis is an important building block to improve and reach our goal. It not

only provides an analysis of the matches and teams at France 2019, but also includes trends observed at the

tournament and practical recommendations on how best to react and train in order to be successful.

I hope that it will be a valuable resource for everyone who shares our ambition to drive women’s football on to

the next level.

Arsène Wenger

FIFA Chief of Global Football Development

3 Physical Analysis of the FIFA Women’s World Cup France 2019™

TABLE OF CONTENTS

05 Author interviews

10 CHAPTER 1 Introduction

16 CHAPTER 2 Methodology

20 CHAPTER 3 Results and analyses

TEAM ANALYSIS

20 SECTION 1 Playing time

23 SECTION 2 Distances and speed zones during matches

31 SECTION 3 Activity in high-speed zones

45 SECTION 4 Distances covered in ball-out-of-play situations, in and out of possession

57 SECTION 5 Distances covered in relation to contextual factors

70 SECTION 6 Final four teams: distances, passes, possession and compactness

POSITIONAL ANALYSIS

99 SECTION 7 Absolute distance and frequency of actions in various speed zones

115 SECTION 8 Relative distance and distance covered in both halves in various speed zones

129 SECTION 9 Absolute distances in all three ball-related scenarios

138 SECTION 10 Heat maps by position

149 CHAPTER 4 Practical recommendations

163 CHAPTER 5 References

166 Glossary

168 Authors and technical support


AUTHOR INTERVIEWS

Dr Paul BradleyAuthor

How important is scientific research in the development

of sport?

Research is absolutely critical to the future development

of most sports, including football. Although football is not

necessarily a science, the application of scientific principles

to football is how research impacts the game. The adoption

of scientific research within the football domain has

undoubtedly revolutionised the game in the form of advances

in monitoring, match analytics, training, nutrition, psychology

and technology, amongst others. This progress will continue

to gain even more momentum if research and development

are an integral part of sport.

What implications does scientific research have for the

women’s game?

The FIFA Women’s World Cup in France clearly highlighted

the growing popularity of the women’s game and, for this

to continue, then investment is vital. To ensure that this time

and financial investment is applied wisely and in the most

appropriate manner, it’s imperative that stakeholders have

the relevant information to make informed decisions. Thus,

science is the perfect vehicle for this, given the objectivity and

rigour that go into conducting research. This is especially true

for women’s football, as there is currently a limited number

of research publications on all aspects of the women’s game,

ranging from the science/medicine perspective through to

the psychological/social aspects. More investment is needed

to ensure the women’s game doesn’t just reach the required

standard but actually sets the standard! High-quality research

will be an important driver of this in the future.

What are some key areas of the women’s game that

need further research and why?

The very short answer would be all aspects, given the scarcity

of information on women’s football. However, a really good

start would be to comprehensively evaluate the modern

demands of the women’s game, as most research questions

will be informed by this. For instance, a really granular

overview of the physical demands of elite women’s football

will allow each nation to benchmark themselves against

each other. This will help the coach to design conditioning

drills to enable players to be fully prepared in relation to

performance, but more so in relation to mitigating the risk

of injury. This latter point is particularly important, given

that injuries are by far the greatest problem we encounter in

football in terms of their impact on players. This is especially

relevant for the women’s game, given the potentially greater

occurrence of serious, long-term injuries (e.g. knee ligament

injuries) compared to male players. Another important

avenue for future research is a continued endeavour to

understand the true impact of the menstrual cycle on female

players’ performance, injury risk and general well-being.

But a “bigger-picture” perspective is needed, as we should

ensure all of the aforementioned research is not reductionist

About the authors

Paul Bradley and Dawn Scott are leaders in high-performance research and in implementing findings in the field.

They both work at the highest levels of football, translating the latest research data into best practice.

Paul Bradley is a BASES-accredited sports

scientist with chartered status from the Science

Council (CSci). He has published over 60 peer-

reviewed articles on the science of football and

is currently an Associate Editor for the journal

Science and Medicine in Football and an Advisory

Board member for the Journal of Sports Sciences.

In addition, he works as a Reader in Sports

Performance at Liverpool John Moores University

(LJMU), leads the Vizrt/LJMU football portfolio

and is a consultant for FC Barcelona.


We observed that intense running had increased across various playing positions by approximately 16-32% from Canada 2015 to France 2019

in nature (e.g. conducted in isolation). A more joined-up/

integrative approach to research is needed that links all

aspects to a global research framework on women’s football

(e.g. the demands linked to performance, injury and the

menstrual cycle, as everything is connected!).

How can MAs/clubs encourage universities to get

involved in research on women’s football?

Collaborative research relationships between various MAs/

clubs and universities are vital for the future development of

the women’s game. A key barrier is the perceived benefit of

research in this area. So, it’s imperative that there be dialogue

between parties about key research questions that actually

have a real- world impact. The most impactful questions

usually come from the industry via stakeholders, coaches

and even players themselves. These questions can then be

explored scientifically by academics to provide appropriate

solutions and ultimately drive change. Conducting more

impactful research would allow MAs/clubs to see the benefits

of research and development and this would feed into a

positive loop of appreciation for this type of activity. Another

issue that halts research progress in the women’s game is the

lack of funding for projects in this area at both the university

and industry level. The creation of specialised grants or even

symposia/conferences is key to bring academics and MA/club

representatives to the table for further dialogue.

While working on the Physical Analysis of the FIFA

Women’s World Cup France 2019, what surprised you

about some of the outcomes?

The first surprising outcome was the sheer magnitude of

the change in demands from the Women’s World Cup 2015

in Canada compared to the 2019 tournament in France –

especially given there was very little change in the demands

between the 2011 and 2015 competitions. Although there

was a belief amongst the media, coaches and players that

the game had recently evolved, this position lacked evidence.

‘‘Collaborative research relationships between various MAs/clubs and universities are vital for the future development of the women’s game ‘‘

Intuitively, the avid observer of women’s football could clearly

perceive this change in demands subjectively. However, in

science, a more objective, tangible overview is needed, not

only to confirm this observation but more importantly to

indicate its magnitude of change. So, when we observed

that intense running had increased across various playing

positions by approximately 16-32% from Canada 2015

to France 2019, it was a clear confirmation of the game’s

evolution. To put this into perspective, some of my previous

research found a similar increase in the demands observed

in the English Premier League across a seven-year period. By

contrast, this trend for the women’s game was over just a

four-year period, which could indicate a more rapid evolution.

The second unique outcome of the research was the

realisation that “context is king” when interpreting the

physical demands of women’s football. For instance, the

same player in two separate matches would have vastly

different demands based on the context of the game (e.g.

the opposition standard, score, tactics and system employed).

The most striking example was from a full- back across two

games. In the first game, the team was much more attack-

minded, thus the full-back had a dual role that required her to

be defensive out of possession (closing down, doing recovery

running, covering, etc.) but very attacking in possession

‘‘

‘‘


You have participated in four FIFA Women’s World

Cups. Were there any differences in the physical

performances of teams? If so, what were the biggest

differences?

I have now been fortunate enough to support teams across

the past four World Cups: England (2007) and the USA (2011,

2015 and 2019). A big difference across the tournaments

was an apparent increase in the overall fitness of all of the

competing nations, largely due to increased resources in the

female game. In comparing the 2015 and 2019 tournament

data, it is evident that there was more distance completed at

the higher speeds in 2019 and that the range of high-speed

distance completed by teams (i.e. the difference between

how much such distance the top and bottom teams covered)

was reduced. Again, this means that some of the lower-

ranked teams completed significantly more higher-intensity

activity in 2019 compared to 2015, which could be reflective

of higher fitness levels. Obviously, you cannot discount the

effect of the type of surface, environmental conditions,

travel/jet lag and the number of days between games on the

recovery and subsequent physical capability of teams.

The work that you did around a player’s menstrual cycle

was one of the key difference-makers for the USA and

is an important factor for female athletes. How did you

get the players to buy in and how did you approach the

discussion with the male coaching staff?

In preparing the players for the World Cup, we focused on

the aggregation of gains and covered many areas of every

player’s performance, and the work and education around

the menstrual cycle were one facet of that performance

Dawn ScottAuthor

(overlapping and running with the ball in wide areas). The

second game, meanwhile, was against a team that were

more astute tactically and in attack. This resulted in the

full-back spending more time carrying out defensive duties

like closing down and covering space/opposition players in

wide defensive areas. This deeper position resulted in a more

compact shape out of possession for the team. The dual role

of the full-back in the first game required a higher work rate

and this is probably the reason for her covering not only a

greater total distance but also >100% more sprinting distance

(Zone 5). Therefore, using contextualised physical data (e.g.

indicating the tactical purpose of the physical efforts) to

provide more insight can be valuable for practitioners. More

research in future should consider linking the physical and

tactical data together to provide more insight and to get

greater coach and player buy-in.

Dawn Scott has worked extensively in the high-

performance area of women’s football both in

England and in the USA, at the pinnacle of the

youth and senior game alike. Dawn was part

of the USA teams that won two FIFA Women’s

World Cups (2015 and 2019) and the gold medal

at the 2012 Olympics. She is now working with

the English national team as the Senior Women’s

Physical Performance Manager, a role that she

took up at the end of 2019.


model. I feel that if an area can impact player performance

and you educate players, as well as the coaches and relevant

staff, on the benefits, then player buy-in is the easy part of the

process. We had been tracking the menstrual cycle of players

for the previous two years and then started to conduct some

correlation analysis with wellness markers, and for some

players, there seemed to be a higher incidence of certain

symptoms (sore muscles, poor sleep and general fatigue)

close to the onset of their period (day 1 of the menstrual

cycle). Julian Haigh (an NWSL Sport Scientist) and I travelled

to all of the NWSL teams during pre-season and delivered

an educational session on the menstrual cycle, highlighting

symptoms that players might be experiencing and, even

more so, stressing that they could be reduced through simple

changes/additions to their diet and lifestyle. At each club,

we asked the male staff (coaches and support staff) to sit in

on those meetings to start breaking down that taboo and

embarrassment of talking about it with male staff. By the end

of each of those sessions, the players were more engaged

and willing to talk about it.

How important is athlete monitoring and what are the

implications for training if coaches have access to this

information? What changes?

I feel that this is a crucial part of the planning process for

training and ultimately player preparation. The first step is for

the coaches and the performance staff to plan the training

periodisation model, largely depending on the individual

needs of players, the match schedule and the phase of the

season. From this model, individual training sessions will

be planned, with a technical, tactical and physical focus as

appropriate. In preparation for that training, it is important to

know the physical status of all the players in terms of whether

they are available for that training session, and generally how

they are feeling and/or have responded to the previous day’s

training (the training dose response). It is standard practice

now for players to complete a wellness check-in every day;

this generally consists of subjective questions related to sleep,

fatigue, muscle soreness and readiness to train, and can also

include more objective measures such as hydration and range

of motion/tightness around specific joints. Once players have

completed this, their final participation in training can be

determined, and at times, training may need to be modified

for individual players and/or the whole group if many players

display increased markers of fatigue/soreness. Additionally,

in training, players now wear tracking systems, such as

heart-rate and GPS units. This enables performance staff to

track internal (heart rate) and external load measures (GPS –

distance, speed and acceleration) in training and match play,

as well as collecting each player’s rating of perceived exertion

(RPE; internal load) for the session. This information can then

be used to meet with the technical coaches and medical

staff, to then plan and finalise the next training session/

match availability. This integration of athlete monitoring

data enables the individual player to be supported and the

physical preparation to be adjusted to the individual needs

of the player.

What are the key areas in physical performance that

teams need to focus on and what/how many staff do

you feel that teams need?

I feel that an integrated and cohesive medical and physical-

performance team is essential for preparing players, as

ultimately, the aim is to maximise player availability for

the coaches by optimising physical performance, whilst

minimising injury risk. From a physical perspective, I feel that

the key areas are to monitor the wellness of the players,

plan and track training and match loads, and then oversee

the recovery strategies of the players, also encompassing

nutrition and hydration practices. I feel that one full-time

high-performance coach can oversee that support for a team

effectively, but a second coach can assist in that process and

increase the capability for individualising that support.

When you were working within the team environment,

how many staff members worked with you and what

were their roles? How did you work with your head

coach, Jill Ellis?

In total, the US women’s national team had 43 staff members

for the World Cup in France, comprised as follows: four

members of coaching staff, seven scouts (one with the

team and six remote), three performance analysts, three

administrators, two equipment managers, one chef, seven

media officers/content editors, two doctors, four athletic

trainers, three massage therapists, five security officers and

two high-performance coaches. Myself and the other high-

performance coach worked together to support the players,

in conjunction with the medical staff, in relation to nutrition

and recovery strategies, strength sessions, warm-ups and

physical training on the pitch. We monitored the training load

‘‘An integrated and cohesive medical and physical-performance team is essential for preparing players ‘‘


on the pitch, working with individual players using return-to-

play (RTP) protocols, and communicating and meeting with

the coaches daily to review the training/match completed

and to plan the next session. We would also meet daily with

the medical staff to discuss individual players and anything

specific each player would need. Myself and Jill Ellis would

speak multiple times each day in camp; even mealtimes can

be important for discussing the finer details of training or

planning.

How much communication and planning are done with

your head coach and other coaching staff?

This is crucial to ensure the physical preparation is aligned

with the technical and tactical strategy of the coaching staff.

Jill and her assistants wanted the team to play a high-pressing

game, and that meant the players needed to have a high

endurance capacity and the capability for repeated sprint

activity during matches. Outside of camp, we would all speak

regularly every week, which would involve debriefing one

camp and then planning for the next one. In camp, we would

all speak several times each day.

How closely do you work with the medical team when

you are planning sessions, periodisation and recovery,

etc.?

As highlighted previously, this is crucial for the effective

management of players. There should be integration of

high-performance and medical support for all elements of

a player’s preparation; the person taking the lead on that

would just depend on the needs of the individual player.

‘‘The players need to take ownership of what they need to do to be prepared to perform‘‘What do MAs/clubs need to ensure they do to help their

players to compete and/or stay ahead of the pack?

I feel that a big part of this is the education of the players,

especially in terms of the physical demands of their position

on the pitch, first and foremost, and what it takes to be

physically prepared to perform in that position. Ultimately,

the players need to take ownership of what they need to do

to be prepared to perform. That includes training on and off

the pitch, as well as the other 22 hours outside of training,

encompassing recovery strategies and lifestyle. As soon as

one training session/match ends, players are now preparing

for the next training session/match and everything they do

in that time period will impact how available they are to

perform. It is important that MAs and clubs work together

to provide integrated support for international players, as

ultimately, everyone wants the same outcome in terms of

optimising the performance of the player.

How can smaller MAs bridge the gap in the physical

performance of their teams?

If MAs don’t have the staff and resources, then there are

resources available to help inform them in certain areas,

such as the FIFA 11+ injury-prevention programme, the FIFA

Technical Report and the physical analysis.


This Women’s World Cup in

France has been phenomenal,

emotional, passionate,

fantastic. The best Women’s

World Cup ever. Something

extraordinary happened here.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

‘‘

‘‘

FIFA President Gianni Infantino’s verdict during the closing

press conference at the FIFA Women’s World Cup 2019™

was emphatically upbeat. Indeed, women’s football

continues to flourish. The FIFA Women’s World Cup™ is

the largest women’s sporting tournament in the world,

showcasing some of the best athletes on the planet. France

2019 saw unprecedented interest in the tournament, with

viewership, attendances and digital engagement reaching

record heights across the globe. With 52 matches in 30 days,

FIFA (2019) reported broadcast audiences of over 1 billion,

over 1.1 billion views on the tournament’s official digital

channels and over 1.1 million attendees – all records for the

competition. The final between the USA and the Netherlands

was the most-watched FIFA Women’s World Cup match ever,

with an average live audience of 82.18 million (up by 56%

on the 2015 final audience: 52.56 million). Over the whole

tournament, matches were played in nine Host Cities across

France and broadcast in 205 territories around the world, and

the average live-match audience was 17.27 million viewers –

more than double the 8.39 million average of Canada 2015.

A total of 146 goals were scored at the 2019 tournament, the

exact number of goals scored in 2015, equalling the highest

yet, with an average of 2.8 goals per game, which is higher

than the rate in 2011, but a lower scoring rate compared to

previous tournaments. Attendances at the games have been

consistent across the previous three tournaments, with many

sold-out games, which shows continued support for and

interest in women’s football. FIFA and individual nations also

reported many media and digital records during the 2019

tournament, again reflecting the ever-increasing popularity

of the women’s game. Furthermore, according to The FA

in England (2019), there has been a 42% increase in the

number of regional centres for five- to 11-year-olds to play

football nationwide, and the number of female clubs went

up by 32% in the six months immediately following the

competition. Following the World Cup, there were record

attendances at English Women’s Super League (WSL) games,

with more than 100,000 people attending the opening


RECORD GLOBAL BROADCAST

AUDIENCE

France 2019

France 2019

130% 1.12 billion

Canada 2015

52.56 million

82.18 milion

LIVE AUDIENCE FOR THE FINAL

three rounds of the WSL, topping the approximately 92,000

who attended across all 110 games in the 2018/19 season,

and many games were hosted at Premier League stadiums.

England also entertained Germany in front of a crowd of

almost 80,000 fans at Wembley Stadium, which was close

to the 80,203 who watched the USA’s defeat of Japan at

Wembley in the final of the 2012 Women’s Olympic Football

Tournament. Similarly, in the National Women’s Soccer League

(NWSL) in the US, attendance numbers skyrocketed after the

World Cup. League-wide attendances increased 70% from

games before the World Cup to games after the tournament,

whilst attendances following the World Cup showed a 53%

increase from average numbers in 2018.

Despite this continued growth in women’s football, there is

still a lack of scientific literature on female athletes generally

(Mujika and Taipale, 2019; Nimphius, 2019)., and whilst

a wealth of data exists regarding the physical demands of

men’s football, this is still sparse regarding the women’s

game. Much of the research on women’s football to date

(Datson et al., 2014; Scott et al., 2020a) has focused on

the physical characteristics of female players, encompassing

demographic variables (age, body height and weight), as well

as their physical fitness profiles. However, such research has

largely featured a small number of players and/or a variety

of assessment methods, making comparisons difficult. Much

less research has focused on training quantification and

the match physical demands on female football players.

An understanding of the demands of match play is vital to

develop a systematic training model, and programmes that

reflect and are specific to the physical loads players will

complete during games. In conjunction with the technical,

tactical and psychological preparation of players, specialised

physical preparation can make the difference in success at

the elite level. Competing in multiple games over a short

period of time further increases the physical demands on

players to maintain performance and be successful. Physical

planning and preparation can be key in ensuring players are

optimally prepared to deal with successive games with limited

recovery time. The more information available in relation to

the physical match demands, especially during tournament

play, the more specific it is possible to be with the physical

preparation of players to cope with such loads, thereby

optimising performance and mitigating the risk of injury.

Davis and Brewer (1993) were the first to report any data on

female players, with unpublished data on female national-

team players (N=7) using a very basic video-based method.

This study provided information on general activity, with

very limited detail reported pertaining to high-speed activity.

Further research using a similar method (Krustrup et al., 2008;

Mohr et al., 2008; Andersson et al., 2010), but with larger

sample sizes (n=13-58), reported that female players generally

covered 10km during match play, with top international

female players engaging in an average of 1.7km of high-

speed running (HSR) during matches, which differed from

elite male players, who covered approximately 2-3km in HSR

during a match (Mohr et al., 2003). This finding is consistent

with the higher endurance levels (senior males completed

97% more distance during the Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery

Test Level 1 compared to senior female players) found in

senior male compared to female players at a professional

football club (Mujika et al., 2009) and hence indicative of a

reduced capability to recover and subsequently complete the

same amount of HSR as male players. Additionally, previous

research reported the amount of HSR performed by female

football players as being related to the competition level and

ranging between 0.7 and 2.0km during a match (Krustrup et

al., 2005; Mohr et al., 2008). It has also been demonstrated

that the same female player covered a greater amount of HSR


With the advancement of technology and the evolution of

women’s football in general, and in an attempt to address

some of the limitations of the earlier research, more recent

studies have used more sophisticated data analysis and

capture methods (GPS technology and semi-automated

camera systems), which have been commonplace in male

football for some time now (Bradley et al., 2014; Hewitt et al.,

2014; Vescovi, 2012; Vescovi and Favero, 2014; Bradley and

Vescovi, 2015; Datson et al., 2016; Meylan et al., 2016; Datson

et al., 2019; Trewin et al., 2018a, 2018b; Scott et al., 2020a,

2020b). Few studies to date have used GPS technology to

determine the match demands on female players, however, in

part because the use of wearables to obtain such data during

games was only approved by FIFA in 2015. In unpublished

data collected during the 2018 NWSL season, using 10Hz

GPS technology, the analysis of 2,552 individual game files

across 181 games showed the average total distance (ToDi)

covered by players to be 9.8km, with an average of 531m

covered in HSR (>19km/h). On average, players completed

40 high-speed (>19km/h) and 11 sprint efforts (>22.5km/h).

Scott et al. (2020b) also reported that, across two seasons

in the NWSL, players clocked up 10,068±615m, covering

2,401±454m, 398±143m and 122±69m in the generic total

HSR (>12.5km/h), very-high-speed running (VHSR; >19km/h)

and sprint-distance (SPR; >22.5km/h) load categories. In

the largest study to date on women’s football, Scott et al.

(2020a) conducted an analysis of 220 players during 3,268

individual match observations, comparing domestic and

international players during match play within the NWSL

using 10Hz GPS. Although not significant, domestic players

covered slightly more total distance (10,092±420m compared

to 10,046±456m for international players), whereas

international players completed slightly – but not significantly

– more HSR (2,412±288m v. 2,406±262m), VHSR (507±123m

v. 452±108m) and SPR (160±66m v. 118±54m) compared

to domestic players. Whilst physical qualities and output

in matches may impact upon performance outcomes, they

were not generally indicative of player levels (international or

domestic) in elite women’s football in the NWSL. Such analysis

shows that the average physical game demands of domestic

and international players competing in the same league,

as well as domestic compared to international football, are

very similar in terms of ToDi and HSR, which challenges the

earlier work by Mohr et al. (2008). This could be due to the

development of the women’s game, an increase in the funding

Datson et al. (2016) used a semi-automatic camera system

to conduct an analysis of the physical demands of different

playing positions during competitive female international

match play. A total of 148 individual match observations

were undertaken on 107 outfield players, with a median

of two matches per player and only full matches being

included. The data demonstrated that central midfielders

(CMs) completed the highest total distance and high-speed

running (10,985±706m and 2,882±500m), whilst central

defenders (CDs) posted the lowest figures (9,489±562m and

1,901±268m). The researchers also found that there was a

reduction in work rate from the first to the second half. Using

the same data set, Datson et al. (2019) did a more in-depth

analysis of high-speed activity, which has been determined to

be an integral component of football performance (Bradley

et al., 2009; Di Salvo et al., 2009). The authors provided a

detailed analysis of position-specific repeated sprint activity

(RSA) and repeated high-speed activity (RHSA), the latter

also including HSR, which helps to provide a more practically

valid representation of the repeated high-speed demands of

match play. The key findings showed that 2-3 effort RHSA

(>19.8km/h) bouts of ~6m occurred most frequently during

international female match play, with maximum requirements

of 4-effort RSA of ~5m observed. The study also found

that the mean recovery duration between HSR efforts was

~40 seconds; however, over 40% of all recovery durations

recorded were under ten seconds, both of which can have

implications for training prescription, to ensure players are

prepared for the physical demands they will face during

match play. Additionally, when comparing positions, Datson

et al. (2019) found that central defenders completed fewer

short-duration (<10-second) recoveries (34% compared to

40-43%) and more long-duration (>60-second) recoveries

(33% compared to 19-23%) compared to players in other

positions. These findings should be taken into account when

considering the type of training prescription for individual

players.

Recently, Trewin et al. (2018a) examined the match-to-match

when playing an international match than when competing

in a domestic league match (Andersson et al., 2010), which

again is important for preparing players for any additional

physical load they could face during international football.

and level of professionalism and players now completing full-

time training with their clubs (Emmonds et al., 2018), as well

as the advancement of technology and methods used. The

comparison of data captured from different methodologies

(data using video editing v. GPS technology methods) should

always be made with caution, since the between-system

agreement is problematic (Anderson et al., 2016), and

simply comparing data between different systems would

be erroneous given the lack of interchangeability between

technologies (Buchheit and Simpson, 2016).


One inconsistent area in women’s football research to date

concerns the speed zones used. Bradley et al. (2013) examined

the gender differences in match-performance characteristics

of elite football players during UEFA Champions League

matches using a multi-camera system. The authors used the

same speed zones for both genders and generally found

variation in elite women’s football using 10Hz GPS. Elite

female football players (n=45) from the same national team

were observed during 55 international fixtures across a five-

year period (2012-2016), which made for a total of 172 match

files. Their results showed that total distance per minute

exhibited the smallest variation when both the full match and

peak-five-minute running periods were examined (coefficient

of variance (CV) is the spread of data as a percentage:

CV=6.8-7.2%). Sprint efforts were the most variable during a

full match (CV=53%), whilst high-speed running per minute

exhibited the greatest variation in the post-peak five-minute

period (CV=143%). Peak running periods were observed as

more variable than full-match analyses, with the post-peak

period proving highly variable. Such findings highlight the

variability of physical match demands, with the higher-speed

activity being the most variable, which again is important for

ensuring players are prepared for the most intense periods of

match play from both a performance-capability and an injury-

prevention perspective.

large gender differences, specifically for the higher speed

zones, and they concluded that research was warranted to

establish gender-specific speed thresholds for elite football

players. Datson et al. (2016, 2019) used velocity thresholds

that have commonly been used in the analysis of male players

(Bradley et al., 2013; Di Salvo et al., 2013), with 19.8km/h as

the zone for HSR and 25.1km/h for the SPR zone; the authors

felt that the speed zones previously proposed for female

players (Bradley and Vescovi, 2015) were not representative

of the physical characteristics of elite female players. Again,

this highlights the differing opinions on the speed zones that

should be used for female players. A few studies (Dwyer and

Gabbett, 2012; Vescovi, 2012; Bradley and Vescovi, 2015)

more recently have tried to standardise such zones and be

more reflective of the physical capabilities of female players.

Park et al. (2018) aimed to develop generic zones for the

analysis of external load data collected in international

women’s football matches. The authors examined methods

to identify four zones in each completed half of match play

(277 observations). The analysis determined that 12.5, 19.0

and 22.5km/h were most appropriate as entry criteria into

HSR, VHSR and SPR locomotor categories respectively, for

the purpose of external load assessments in elite women’s

football; these thresholds were adopted in the most recent

studies by Scott et al. (2020a, 2020b). The more data that

can be collected on female players, the better the insight that


In comparison to 2015, the 2019 tournament presented

different physical challenges to the competing teams,

which should be factored in when comparing between the

tournaments. These encompassed:

1. Surface. During the 2015 tournament, all the games

were played on football turf for the first time in a FIFA

tournament. On the other hand, all the games in 2019

were played on grass.

2. Environmental conditions. During the 2015

tournament, the average temperature (mean±SD)

for games was 22.1±2.7°C (range: 16-27°C), relative

humidity was 50.3±12.6% (30-79%) and wind velocity

was 12.8±6.6km/h (1-25)km/h, so the conditions varied

between games and locations. Additionally, nine games

were played indoors. During the 2019 tournament,

all the games were played outdoors and the average

temperature and relative humidity were 22.9±4.9°C

(range: 15-32°C) and 58.3±11.8% (range: 35-82%)

respectively. Hence, the environmental conditions, at the

extreme, were more challenging in 2019 and could have

had a bigger impact on the physical output of players

during some of those games, in accordance with the

arguments put forward by Trewin et al., (2018b).

3. Jet lag and travel fatigue. In 2015, the six match

venues in Canada were spread across five time zones,

meaning that long distances were sometimes travelled

between games. All the games during the 2019

tournament were contested in the same time zone. For

the 2015 final alone, the USA travelled from Montreal to

Vancouver, a journey of around 3,000 miles and a three-

hour time-zone shift.

can be gained in terms of the physical demands that players

will face during games, which can help with the planning

of specific conditioning programmes to ensure players are

better prepared for those physical demands. Furthermore,

with larger sample sizes and more information regarding

positional and tactical impact and age-specific demands

for female players, the preparation can become even more

refined and specialised.

Whilst the current analysis of physical match performances

does not aim to be scientific in nature, it will take into account

the challenges outlined above with regard to the interpretation

and application of the data, and make reference to some of

the scientific data now available on women’s football. The

analysis will be descriptive in nature but will aim to increase

the understanding of the physical demands of elite football

match play and thus help to continue developing the game

across the world. Therefore, the key aims of this analysis are

as follows:

1. to increase the knowledge base and information

available on the physical demands placed on elite female

football players, and the associated physical match

demands during tournament play;

2. to provide a comprehensive analysis of the physical

workloads completed by individual teams, with

consideration of the effects of successive games,

stage in the game, tournament phase, confederation


The FIFA President is continuing to raise the stakes, and at the

FIFA Football Conference in September 2019, promised to

invest USD 1 billion in the women’s game over the following

four years. This came on the back of confirming that the

tournament will expand to a 32-team format for the 2023

membership and final tournament ranking;

3. to give an overview of the positional demands of elite

female match play;

4. to provide guidelines on the general and position-

specific physical preparation and training of female

players based on the findings of this report; and

5. to provide recommendations for further research to

continue to assist in the development of women’s

football worldwide, including an attempt to standardise

the speed zones used in the analysis of elite female

football players.

event, in a bid to exploit the game’s new boom. As FIFA

redoubles its commitment to the development of the women’s

game, the more information that can be gathered about

the physical demands during match play, the more it will be

possible to help in the physical preparation of players, enabling

the development of more effective training programmes.

Improving the physical status of players worldwide can only

serve to further increase the level and intensity of match play

in the women’s game, and keep the best players on the pitch

to improve the standard and entertainment as a spectator

sport. In addition, this publication will give less developed

countries in women’s football and their coaches, technical

directors, physical trainers and support staff a good overview

of where the top women’s teams in the world stand in terms

of their physical fitness and the demands of the game.


CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY

Players’ characteristicsIn total, 552 players from 24 countries were officially

registered to participate in the FIFA Women’s World Cup

France 2019 (France 2019) from 7 June to 7 July. Prior to

the commencement of the tournament, the players’ age,

height and body mass (mean±SD) were 26.1±4.1yr (range:

16-41yr), 167.5±6.4cm (range: 148-187cm) and 61.1±6.4kg

(range: 46-88kg) respectively. Nevertheless, only 436 of

these players recorded any official playing time according

to the data provider. The average age, height and body

mass (mean±SD) of this distinct group of players, and the

corresponding spreads, were 26.3±4.0yr (range: 17-41yr),

167.3±6.5cm (range: 148-187cm) and 60.7±6.3kg (range:

46-80kg) respectively.

NB: the physical characteristics above were submitted by

each of the registered national teams according to articles

25 and 26 of the competition regulations. Thus, the above

data was not measured independently for the purposes of

this report and could be subject to accuracy variations based

on the procedures used by each national team.

Venue information and environmental conditions for matchesData was collected from all 52 matches at France 2019 and is

presented in the results and analyses sections. Matches were

distributed across nine Host Cities/venues across France, the

specific details of which are found in the figure below. During

the tournament, the average temperature and humidity were

22.9±4.9°C (range: 15-32°C) and 58.3±11.8% (range: 35-

82%) respectively, but environmental conditions varied

somewhat by venue, as summarised below.

Match analysis systemGames during the FIFA Women’s World Cup Canada 2015™

(Canada 2015) and France 2019 were analysed using the

same multi-camera computerised tracking system (STATS

LLC, Chicago, IL, USA). All player movements were captured

by three high-definition cameras operating at 20Hz. Cameras

were positioned near the halfway line at a minimum height

of 10m above pitch level. The reliability and validity of this

system have been quantified to verify the capture process and

subsequent accuracy of the data (Bradley et al., 2009; Linke

et al., 2018). After system calibration and various stringent

quality control processes, the data captured was analysed

using match analysis software. This produced a data set on

each team and player’s activity pattern during a match using

specified speed zones.

Speed zones Players’ activities were coded into the following:

Zone 1 (0-7km/h)

Zone 2 (7-13km/h)

Zone 3 (13-19km/h)

Zone 4 (19-23km/h)

Zone 5 (>23km/h)

SPEED ZONES

1 2 3 4 50-7km/h 7-13km/h 13-19km/h 19-23km/h >23km/h


These zones were employed after extensively reviewing the women’s match analysis literature (Bradley et al., 2014; Bradley

and Vescovi, 2015; Datson et al., 2014; Nakamura et al., 2017; Park et al., 2018) and on the basis of speed thresholds used

by applied sports scientists working with some of the top-ranked women’s teams. As there was no general consensus across

studies, it was decided that no attempt would be made to link speed zones to movement categories (e.g. jogging, running

and sprinting). The selection of the aforementioned zones is in line with recent scientific work that used advanced statistical

techniques (k-means, Gaussian-mixture-model and spectral-clustering methods) on elite women’s match analysis data and

determined that the most appropriate upper speed demarcations would be approximately 13-19, 19-23 and >23km/h (Park

et al., 2018). Additional justification for these zones is provided by maximal aerobic speed indices derived from international

women’s players matching the upper thresholds (Scott and Lovell, 2017).

Data analyses

Venue information and environmental conditions for France 2019 matches. Note: the figures displayed above reflect the capacities

for the tournament, which do not always coincide with the usual maximum capacities.

Grenoble

Stade des Alpes

18,000 stadium capacity

23.6°C range 19-27

59.8% range 44-79

5 matches staged

Le Havre

Stade Océane


20.0°C range 17-26

62.7% range 55-71

7 matches staged

Rennes

Roazhon Park


20.7°C range 15-32

63.3% range 51-82

7 matches staged

Montpellier

Stade de la Mosson


25.4°C range 21-28

48.6% range 37-64

5 matches staged

Valenciennes

Stade du Hainaut


23.3°C range 17-32

54.3% range 36-70

6 matches staged

Reims

Stade Auguste-Delaune


21.3°C range 15-30

57.2% range 42-65

6 matches staged Paris

FRANCEParc des Princes


21.9°C range 15-30

59.0% range 41-78

7 matches staged

Lyon

Stade de Lyon


29.0°C range 28-30

40.3% range 35-44

3 matches staged

Nice

Stade de Nice


25.3°C range 22-29

67.5% range 53-79

6 matches staged


Match data was broken down into various categories for

analysis based on:

• level of analysis (match, team and individual level)

• match period (full match, first and second half, 15-minute

intervals, added time)

• tournament phase (group and knockout stages, final)

• confederation membership:

o the AFC (five teams: Australia (AUS), China PR

(CHN), Japan (JPN), Korea Republic (KOR) and

Thailand (THA))

o CAF (three teams: Cameroon (CMR), Nigeria

(NGA) and South Africa (RSA))

o Concacaf (three teams: Canada (CAN), Jamaica

(JAM) and the United States of America (USA))

o CONMEBOL (three teams: Argentina (ARG), Brazil

(BRA) and Chile (CHI))

o the OFC (one team: New Zealand (NZL))

o UEFA (nine teams: England (ENG), France (FRA),

Germany (GER), Italy (ITA), the Netherlands (NED),

Norway (NOR), Scotland (SCO), Spain (ESP) and

Sweden (SWE))

• final tournament ranking

• playing position (goalkeepers and outfield players

including central defenders, full-backs, central

midfielders, wide midfielders and forwards)

• comparison of main results for France 2019 v. Canada

2015

• match outcome: win, loss or draw

• round of game

• number of days between games

• tactical formation

NB: the match data from Canada 2015 had to be reanalysed

using the new speed zones and data analysis procedures

used in the current report in order to compare it with the

France 2019 results more accurately. Differences in the

methodological and data analysis procedures between

the current report and the previously published report on

the 2015 tournament (FIFA, 2015) may account for some

discrepancies in the final results and the reader must interpret

the between-tournament results with this in mind. The

comparison is further impacted by incomplete data sets. For

instance, due to technical difficulties, data from some of the

2015 matches (Canada v. China PR, Sweden v. Nigeria, USA

v. Australia, Nigeria v. USA, Mexico v. France, Korea Republic

v. Spain, Germany v. France and Germany v. England) was

missing, with all other games included in the data analyses.

All France 2019 matches were included.

All data was reported as averages unless otherwise stated,

with some standard deviations and ranges included to

provide more insight to the reader regarding the data spread.

When appropriate, data was analysed using statistical

software (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA), but it is worth noting that

the results of these analyses are not displayed and were only

used by the researchers to interpret data trends. In such cases,

data normality was verified using histograms and z-scores.

To quantify statistical differences between measures, various

t-tests and analysis-of-variance measures were used. Effect

sizes were also calculated to determine the meaningfulness

of the differences. Relationships between selected variables

were evaluated using Pearson’s product-moment correlation

test. Statistical significance was set at P<0.05.

Team analyses involved the summation of all match-physical-

performance values of outfield players who participated in


games, including substitutes (no goalkeeper data included).

Thus, data trends were the sum of all individual outfield player

values presented as team totals. All analyses were performed

on match data collected over the duration of a normal match

or regular time plus added time (e.g. 90-94 minutes), but no

extra-time data was included.

Positional analyses involved the examination of the match

physical performances of individual players in various

tactical roles in the team. Only players who completed the

entire match were evaluated. Match data collected over the

duration of a normal match or regular time plus added time

(e.g. 90-94 minutes) was computed, but no extra-time data

was included. Player roles were specific to each match and

were verified after watching the game.


The average duration of all matches during France 2019 was 97:43min (range: 93:13-107:54min) including added time, but without taking extra time into account, whereas the actual playing time on average was 54:41min (range: 42:03-66:25min), 56% of the overall match duration. As can be seen from Table 1, out of the last four editions of the FIFA Women’s World Cup, the actual playing time was highest in 2011, both as an absolute figure and relative to the match duration, 56:21min and 59% respectively.

Match duration3.1.1

VARs

France 2019 was the first women’s

football tournament that used VARs.

Team analysis | Playing time

CHAPTER 3 SECTION 1

FIFA Women’sWorld Cup

Actual playing time(min:ss)

Match duration(min:ss)

Actual playing time(%)

2007 53:40 94:23 57

2011 56:21 95:07 59

2015 53:21 95:02 56

2019 54:41 97:43 56

Table 1. Comparison of actual playing time and match duration at recent FIFA Women’s World Cups

GROUP STAGE (GS) KNOCKOUT STAGE (KO)

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R7R6Roundof 16

Round1

Round2

Round3

Quarter-finals

Semi-finals

Final

As can be seen, the match duration in 2019 was more than two minutes longer than at the tournaments in 2011 and 2015, which could be in part due to the introduction of the video assistant referee (VAR) system at the latest tournament, with the delay in making decisions being factored in and resulting in increased stoppage time being added at the end of matches. Moreover, during the 2019 tournament (Table 2), the match duration for the knockout stage was three minutes longer than the average for the group stage, and two minutes longer than the average for all games. However, the actual playing time was lower, 54:05 compared to 54:56 and 54:41min for the group stage and all matches respectively.

3.1


Finally, the average duration of the first half of matches was 47:35min, with the ball in play for 27:38min (58% of the half’s duration), whilst the second half lasted around three minutes longer on average, with an average duration of 50:23min; however, the actual playing time was slightly lower at 27:17min (54%).

Table 2. Comparison of actual playing time and match duration at France 2019 by tournament stage

Summary

• Matches during France 2019 lasted more than two minutes longer than at any of the previous three tournaments, with the average duration being 99:44 min (9:44min of added time) during the knockout stage.

• The actual playing time, relative to the match duration, was similar to at the 2015 and 2007 tournaments, but slightly lower than at the 2011 tournament.

• The longest match duration in 2019 was 107:54min, which can have implications for the physical preparation of players in ensuring they are able to maintain performance beyond 90 minutes only.

• Some of the factors that could explain the variation in actual playing time between and within tournaments include the introduction of the VAR system in 2019, the playing surface (football turf was used in 2015), the timing and logistics of the ball being returned after going out of play, as well as the tactical strategies employed by individual teams.

France 2019: stage of tournament

Actual playing time (min:ss)

Match duration (min:ss)

Actual playing time (%)

All games 54:41 97:43 56

Group stage 54:56 96:49 57

Knockout stage 54:05 99:44 54

3.1.2


3.1

An analysis of the distances covered by all of the teams across the last two tournaments (Figure 1) shows an average total distance (ToDi) of 105,007m per match during Canada 2015 and 104,364m during the most recent edition in 2019. *Please note that the speed zones for the 2011 data are slightly different to the 2015 and 2019 tournaments, hence only the total distance for that tournament can be compared to the more recent tournaments.

Analysis of total distances covered and speed zones during matches

3.2.1

SPEED ZONES


Team analysis | Distances and speed zones during matches

CHAPTER 3 SECTION 2

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5

37,418 41,255 20,625 4,310 1,399


37,355 38,563 21,681 4,957 1,808

3.2 Figure 1

2019

2015

Tota

l dis

tan

ce (m

)

Speed zone


36% 39% 20% 4% 1%


36% 37% 21% 5% 2%

CHAPTER 3 SECTION 2

Figure 1. Analysis of the average distances covered at Canada 2015 and France 2019

Relative to the average total distance covered (Figure 1), the distances clocked up in each of the speed zones were very similar in 2015 and 2019. However, in absolute terms, during the 2019 tournament, teams averaged slightly less distance (38,563m v. 41,255m, -7%) in Zone 2, but more distance in Zone 3 (21,681m v. 20,625m, 5%), and much greater distances in Zone 4 (4,957m v. 4,310m, 15%) and Zone 5 (1,808m v. 1,399m, 29%). This suggests that whilst the total distance was comparable between the two tournaments, on average teams covered a much greater amount of ground at higher speeds in 2019, running an additional 15% and 29% in zones 4 and 5 respectively.



Round1

Round2

Round3

Quarter-finals

Semi-finals

Final

3.2


Table 3 shows a summary of the average distances covered and the percentage breakdown relative to the total distance at Canada 2015 and France 2019, for all speed zones and depending on the stage of the tournament: all games, the group stage and the knockout stage. As can be seen, the per-match average for the full tournament was slightly lower (<1%) in 2019 compared to 2015. For the group stage only, teams on average covered 3% more total distance in 2019. However, for the knockout stage, teams averaged 7% less total distance in 2019.

Generally, teams covered more ground in the higher speed zones during the 2019 tournament compared to 2015 (Table 4). Whilst distances at speeds <13km/h tended to decrease in 2019, distances covered above 13km/h and more noticeably >23km/h were far greater in 2019, suggesting a faster, higher-tempo game in 2019 compared to 2015.

Table 3. Analysis of the average distances covered per match and tournament stage at Canada 2015 and France 2019

Stage of tournament

Total distance

(m)

Zone 1(m)

Zone 1(%)

Zone 2(m)

Zone 2(%)

Zone 3(m)

Zone 3(%)

Zone 4(m)

Zone 4(%)

Zone 5 (m)

Zone 5(%)

2015

All games 105,007 37,418 36 41,255 39 20,625 20 4,310 4 1,399 1

Group stage 101,174 36,195 36 39,357 39 20,098 20 4,191 4 1,334 1

Knockout stage 112,194 39,712 35 44,815 40 21,614 19 4,533 4 1,521 1

2019

All games 104,364 37,355 36 38,563 37 21,681 21 4,957 5 1,808 2

Group stage 104,192 36,880 35 38,785 37 21,823 21 4,957 5 1,747 2

Knockout stage 104,759 38,444 37 38,054 36 21,357 20 4,958 5 1,948 2

Stage of tournament

Total distance

(%)

Zone 1 (%)

Zone 2 (%)

Zone 3 (%)

Zone 4 (%)

Zone 5 (%)

All games -1 -0.2 -7 5 15 29

Group stage 3 2 -1 9 18 31

Knockout stage -7 -3 -15 -1 9 28

Table 4. Analysis of the percentage change for each speed zone from Canada 2015 to France 2019

Generally, teams covered more ground in the higher speed zones during the 2019 tournament compared to 2015


3.2

Metreage 94 110

103

104

107

105

102

97 98 102

99 96 107

103

99 101

102

93 101

92 99 102

106

103

Figures 2 and 3 show the average total distance per team covered at speeds of 0-13km/h and >13km/h, plotted against the average team metreage for all of their matches throughout the 2015 and 2019 tournaments respectively. The figures are ranked by distance at >13km/h, with the lowest values from left to right. At both the 2015 and 2019 tournaments, six of the seven teams that covered the lowest amount of ground at >13km/h were eliminated from the tournament in the group stage. In 2015 (Figure 2), Sweden, Germany and the USA (all 37%) – a trio including two of the four semi-finalists – covered the greatest amount of distance at >13km/h, whilst the other two semi-finalists, Japan and England, both covered 35% of their total distance at >13km/h. In 2019 (Figure 3), Germany, China PR and Australia (all 41%) – none of whom reached the semi-finals – covered the most distance at >13km/h, which was higher than the distance at those speeds in 2015. The four semi-finalists in 2019 – the USA, the Netherlands, Sweden and England – respectively covered 38%, 35%, 35% and 38% of their distance at those higher speeds. In 2015, Côte d’Ivoire and Spain (both 28%) covered the least distance at >13km/h and neither team progressed beyond the group stage. Similarly, during the 2019 tournament, Jamaica and Scotland (both 34%) covered the lowest distance at >13km/h and were knocked out in the group stage. Interestingly, 2019 runners-up the Netherlands covered the fifth-lowest distance at >13km/h from an absolute perspective (26,907m, 35%).

Stage of tournament

Total distance

(m)

Zone 1(m)

Zone 1(%)

Zone 2(m)

Zone 2(%)

Zone 3(m)

Zone 3(%)

Zone 4(m)

Zone 4(%)

Zone 5 (m)

Zone 5(%)

2015

All games 105,007 37,418 36 41,255 39 20,625 20 4,310 4 1,399 1

Group stage 101,174 36,195 36 39,357 39 20,098 20 4,191 4 1,334 1

Knockout stage 112,194 39,712 35 44,815 40 21,614 19 4,533 4 1,521 1

2019

All games 104,364 37,355 36 38,563 37 21,681 21 4,957 5 1,808 2

Group stage 104,192 36,880 35 38,785 37 21,823 21 4,957 5 1,747 2

Knockout stage 104,759 38,444 37 38,054 36 21,357 20 4,958 5 1,948 2

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

CIV

ESP

ECU

NG

A

COL

THA

KOR

BRA

NO

R

CMR

CHN

NED FR

A

MEX

CAN

AU

S

ENG

NZL JPN

CRC

SUI

USA GER

SWE

3.2 Figure 2

<13km/h

>13km/h

Metreage

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Met

reag

e (m

/min

)

2015

50

70

90

110

130

150

CIV

ESP

ECU

NG

A

CO

L

THA

KO

R

BR

A

NO

R

CM

R

CH

N

NED FR

A

MEX

CA

N

AU

S

ENG

NZ

L

JPN

CR

C

SUI

USA

GER

SWE

73,8

06

77,9

94

71,6

01

68,0

77

75,1

06

76,6

10

76,7

72

76,6

25

79,3

46

72,6

86

75,2

39

76,7

11

77,4

98

75,9

03

74,9

82

75,9

94

76,0

12

69,2

10

78,0

06

78,3

65

75,3

89

76,6

86

77,6

08

79,3

65

20,9

68 22,0

72

22,2

45

23,0

51 23,6

61

23,8

20

24,2

11

25,0

75

25,0

82

25,2

46

25,2

69

25,5

16

25,6

59

26,0

79

26,1

68

26,4

64

26,4

71

26,7

67

27,0

05

27,1

77

27,2

46

28,5

09

29,0

22

29,3

98

Figure 2. Analysis of the total distance covered (at 0-13km/h and >13km/h) and metreage at Canada 2015

3.2


0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

JAM

SCO

NG

A

CMR

NED

THA

RSA

FRA

ARG IT

A

ESP

SWE

BRA

KOR

NZL

ENG

USA JP

N

NO

R

CHI

CAN

AU

S

CHN

GER

3.2 Figure 3

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Met

reag

e (m

/min

)

2019

<13km/h

>13km/h

Metreage

50

70

90

110

130

150

JAM

SCO

NG

A

CM

R

NED

THA

RSA FR

A

AR

G

ITA

ESP

SWE

BR

A

KO

R

NZ

L

ENG

USA

JPN

NO

R

CH

I

CA

N

AU

S

CH

N

GER

75,1

60

75,5

17

70,6

53

73,6

73

76,7

27

76,1

07

73,3

39

75,0

03

75,0

65

74,0

86

75,5

34

79,5

84

73,4

40

76,3

50

77,9

80

75,3

04

76,2

07

79,4

45

76,7

24

77,6

11

77,4

95

75,1

35

75,8

36

77,2

88

25,6

58

25,9

08

25,9

42

26,4

92

26,9

07

26,9

99

27,4

08

27,4

16

27,6

19

27,6

24

27,8

25 28,0

42

28,2

49

28,3

38

28,6

37

28,7

53

29,0

38

29,4

82

29,9

77

30,0

47

30,2

75

30,7

49

31,4

08

31,5

26

Figure 3. Analysis of the total distance covered (at 0-13km/h and >13km/h) and metreage at France 2019

In 2015, there was a moderate correlation between the distance covered at 0-13km/h (r=0.39) and the final placing of the team, whilst there was a much stronger correlation (r=0.57) with the distance that teams covered at >13km/h, and the relationship with the metreage for total distance was small (r=0.15). This suggests that teams that covered more distance at >13km/h had a greater chance of success. For 2019, the correlations between distance covered at 0-13km/h (r=0.32) and >13km/h (r=0.37), and metreage for total distance (r=0.24), were moderate to small, suggesting less of a relationship with the outcome of games/team success. During the 2015 tournament, there was a much greater range of total distance (91,128-108,763m; 17,635m) covered by each team compared to the 2019 tournament (96,595-108,926m; 12,331m), suggesting an increase in the ability to complete higher physical loads during the 2019 competition. Similarly, the range of distance covered at >13km/h was higher during the 2015 tournament (20,968-29,398m; 8,430m) compared to 2019 (25,658-31,526m; 5,868m), again suggesting that teams at the 2019 tournament, overall, had a greater capacity to complete activity at higher speeds, and those distances covered were more equitable between teams.

Metreage 100

101

93 107

100

100

100

99 100

99 102

104

98 103

104

101

102

107

104

105

104

104

97 107


3.2

ARG AU

S

BRA

CMR

CAN

CHI

CHN

ENG

FRA

GER ITA

JAM JPN

KOR

NED NZL

NG

A

NO

R

SCO

RSA

ESP

SWE

THA

USA A

G

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

3.2 Figure 5

Met

reag

e (m

/min

)

1st half

2nd half

2019

Figure 4. Analysis of the average metreage for total distance during the first and second half of matches at Canada 2015

Figures 4 and 5 show the metreage for total distance for the first and second half of matches for each team, throughout the 2015 and 2019 tournaments respectively. In 2015, the only teams to increase their metreage in the second half were New Zealand (14%) and Canada (3%), albeit New Zealand also had the lowest first-half metreage (89m/min), whilst all other teams had a decrease in their total-distance metreage from the first to the second half. The greatest decreases were registered by Thailand (-9%) and Nigeria (-13%), two of the lowest-ranked teams at the tournament. As an average, for the full tournament, metreage for total distance generally decreased from 104m/min in the first half to 100m/min in the second half, a 4% decrease in overall work rate.

Figure 5. Analysis of the average metreage for total distance during the first and second half of matches at France 2019

AU

S

BRA

CMR

CAN

CHN

COL

CRC

CIV

ECU

ENG

FRA

GER JP

N

KOR

MEX

NED NZL

NG

A

NO

R

ESP

SWE

SUI

THA

USA A

G

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

3.2 Figure 4

Met

reag

e (m

/min

)

1st half

2nd half

2015

1st half 107

102

100

100

100

100

110

95 98 105

105

110

108

102

105

104

89 99 107

99 113

107

104

107

104

2nd half 102

101

94 103

98 97 104

88 90 101

99 104

104

101

100

103

102

86 102

97 108

100

95 103

100

AU

S

BRA

CMR

CAN

CHN

COL

CRC

CIV

ECU

ENG

FRA

GER JPN

KO

R

MEX

NED NZL

NG

A

NO

R

ESP

SWE

SUI

THA

USA AG

1st half 102

108

101

97 108

107

109

103

101

109

103

103

110

103

102

104

94 107

104

105

106

109

105

106

105

2nd half 99 100

96 97 105

101

101

99 97 105

96 98 105

104

99 105

92 102

99 95 97 101

95 99 99

ARG

AU

S

BRA

CMR

CAN

CHI

CHN

ENG

FRA

GER ITA

JAM

JPN

KO

R

NED NZL

NG

A

NO

R

SCO

RSA

ESP

SWE

THA

USA AG

3.2


Figure 6 shows the total distance covered in each half by each team at France 2019, as well as the percentage difference between each half. Whilst the metreage for total distance for most teams decreased from the first to the second half, the absolute total distance covered was the same or

Figure 6. Analysis of the total distances covered during the first and second half of matches at France 2019

Similarly, at the 2019 tournament, only two teams increased their metreage for the total distance they completed from the first to the second half, with New Zealand again being one of those with an increased work rate, although only slightly from 104m/min to 105m/min (a 1% increase). Cameroon were the only other team to very slightly increase their metreage from the first to the second half, although they also had the second-lowest overall metreage (97m/min for each half). All other teams decreased the metreage of their total distance from the first to the second half, with the greatest decreases (all -9%) coming from Thailand – who had posted the same drop in 2015 – and South Africa, both of whom were eliminated in the group stage, and Spain, who were eliminated in the round of 16. Many factors may have contributed to this, including the nature of the match, the need to defend/score a goal, tactical strategy, fatigue, individual player fitness levels, and substitution patterns and impact, as well as technical factors.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

RSA

CHN

ESP

THA

ITA

AU

S

NED SC

O

JAM

SWE

USA GER

BRA

JAP

NO

R

ENG

CAN

FRA

ARG

CMR

CHI

KOR

NZL

NG

A

51,7

61

54,8

94

52,6

34

51,5

73

51,5

39

53,4

38

51,8

74

51,0

13

50,6

60

54,0

12

52,7

94

54,5

13

50,8

98

54,4

63

53,3

44

51,9

03

53,5

95

50,9

04

50,8

24

49,5

57

53,1

46

51,5

85

52,3

59

47,2

54

48,9

86

52,3

51

50,7

25

50,1

88

50,1

71

52,4

46

51,1

15

50,4

11

50,1

58

53,6

15

52,4

51

54,3

00

50,7

91

54,4

63

53,3

57

52,1

53

54,1

75

51,5

15

51,8

60

50,6

08

54,5

12

53,1

03

54,2

58

49,3

42

3.2 Figure 6

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Ch

ang

e in

to

tal d

ista

nce

(%)

2nd half

1st half

Change intotal distance

-9

-6

-3

0

3

6

Change in total distance -5

.4

-4.6

-3.6

-2.7

-2.7

-1.9

-1.5

-1.2

-1.0

-0.7

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.0

0.5

1.1

1.2

2.0

2.1

2.6

2.9

3.6

4.4


3.2

• Where the last three tournaments are concerned, total distance decreased from 2011 to 2015 but then increased again in 2019.

• One of the biggest differences from 2015 to 2019 was that the range of total distance covered by teams was much reduced in 2019 (30% lower), suggesting that teams are more able to cover a similar amount of distance during matches. Similarly, the range of distance covered at >13km/h also dropped by 30% in 2019, again suggesting that all teams are now capable of completing a greater amount of higher-intensity running activity during matches. This could be a result of the tactical systems employed by teams and the physical output required to be successful; it could also suggest that players’ individual fitness levels have improved, resulting in a greater capacity to complete higher-intensity actions.

• Although the average total distance at the 2015 and 2019 tournaments was comparable, during the 2019 tournament, on average, teams completed slightly less lower-speed running (<13km/h) per match and 5%, 15% and 29% more distance in zones 3, 4 and 5 respectively. This again suggests that distance was covered at a greater intensity during matches, which could be the result of players’ improved fitness levels as well as the tactical strategies of individual teams.

• By expressing the total distance per minute, the work rate (metreage) of teams can be determined. Based on this, Thailand, South Africa and Spain (-9%) all had the biggest drop in work rate from the first to the second half, the first two teams being eliminated in the group stage. Thailand also had the biggest decrease in 2015, suggesting that their players tired the most from the first to the second half of matches.

• Some of the factors that could contribute to these observations include the playing surface (football turf in 2015), the nature of the match (e.g. first v. third group game and needing a result, group stage v. knockout round), the ranking/level of the opposition, the need to defend/score a goal, tactical formation and strategy and how that changes throughout the match, fatigue, match in tournament, individual player fitness levels, substitution patterns and impact, VAR decisions and delays, as well as technical factors, amongst others.

• What is apparent from these results alone is that the amount of higher-intensity activity completed by teams has increased from 2015, and the physical preparation of players therefore needs to reflect that and prepare players optimally.

Summary3.2.2

increased for over half of the teams. More added time is generally included at the end of games, and at the 2019 tournament, the second half of games was, on average, almost three minutes longer than the first half; this may have influenced the reduced metreage for total distance observed, especially in cases where there were stoppages in play for substitutions, VAR reviews and tactical ploys. Nigeria (4%) and New Zealand (4%) both had the biggest increase in total distance from the first to the second half, although Nigeria also covered the lowest absolute total distance of the 24 competing teams. The four teams reaching the semi-finals of the tournament (the USA, the Netherlands, Sweden and England) completed a similar amount of total distance in the first and second half of games. During the 2015 tournament, the difference in total distance from the first to the second half ranged from -6% (Côte d’Ivoire) to 8% (New Zealand, China PR) – a much larger range compared to the 2019 tournament. As for the four semi-finalists in 2015, the USA and England covered a similar amount of ground from the first to the second half of matches, whilst Germany (-3%) completed less distance on average during the second half of matches and Japan (3%) covered more distance in the second half.

3.2


Figures 7 and 8 show the average total distance per team covered at >13km/h (broken down into zones 3, 4 and 5), plotted against the team’s average possession for all matches throughout the 2015 and 2019 tournaments respectively. The figures are ranked by distance at >19km/h, with the lowest values from left to right. Such speeds are generally when players are more involved in the match, on and off the ball, and can have more impact on the match outcome. For the 2015 tournament, there was a

Analysis of Zone 3, Zone 4 and Zone 5 activity

3.3.1

Team analysis | Activity in high-speed zones

CHAPTER 3 SECTION 3

SPEED ZONES


0

10,000

20,000

30,000

ESP

ECU

KO

R

CIV

CO

L

NG

A

CM

R

THA

NED

NO

R

CH

N

BR

A

JPN

SWE

CR

C

SUI

FRA

MEX

CA

N

ENG

AU

S

GER

NZL

USA

3.3 Figure 7

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Team

po

sses

sio

n (%

)

Zone 4

Zone 5

Zone 3

2015

opmerking: geen datalabels bij team IP

Teampossession

0

30

60

90

ESP

ECU

KO

R

CIV

CO

L

NG

A

CM

R

THA

NED

NO

R

CH

N

BR

A

JPN

SWE

CR

C

SUI

FRA

MEX

CA

N

ENG

AU

S

GER

NZ

L

USA

17,8

56

17,7

02

19,3

34

15,9

75

18,5

75

17,7

67

19,9

32

18,4

72

20,1

33

19,6

81

19,8

54

19,5

20

21,3

82

23,7

61

21,5

31

21,5

62

19,9

69

20,3

41

20,2

85

20,5

18

20,4

61

22,8

43

20,5

57

22,1

23

3,24

4

3,67

0 3,91

0

3,57

0

3,89

0

3,96

4 3,96

8

3,95

1 3,98

0

4,01

6

4,22

6

4,15

3 4,39

0

4,38

6

4,38

7

4,38

4

4,25

3

4,12

0

4,30

7

4,38

1

4,32

6

4,73

2

4,77

1 4,70

2

971

874

966

1,42

2

1,19

6

1,32

1 1,34

6

1,39

7 1,40

3

1,38

5

1,18

8

1,40

2 1,23

4

1,25

1

1,26

0

1,30

0

1,43

6

1,61

8

1,57

5

1,57

0

1,67

7

1,44

8

1,43

8 1,68

4

Figure 7. Analysis of the distances covered at >13km/h and average team ball possession at Canada 2015

Team possession 53 39 43 49 42 51 48 39 51 54 50 58 55 50 43 57 60 48 51 46 46 53 49 52

ESP

ECU

KO

R

CIV

COL

NG

A

CMR

THA

NED

NO

R

CHN

BRA

JPN

SWE

CRC

SUI

FRA

MEX

CAN

ENG

AU

S

GER NZL

USA

moderate correlation between the average team possession and distance covered in Zone 3 (r=0.28), Zone 4 (r=0.25) and Zone 5 (r=0.26). During the 2019 tournament, these correlations increased slightly, as follows: Zone 3 (r=0.39), Zone 4 (r=0.31) and Zone 5 (r=0.32), with the strongest correlation being with the distance covered in Zone 3. This suggests that even when teams are in possession of the ball, they are completing higher-intensity running as a team, on and off the ball, as part of their tactical strategy to create space, lose their markers and be able to receive the ball and/or play a ball through opposing defensive lines, and hence break opposing teams down.



Round1

Round2

Round3

Quarter-finals

Semi-finals

Final

During the 2015 tournament (Figure 7), four of the six teams that covered the least distance at >19km/h were eliminated in the group stage. In 2019, all six of the teams that covered the least distance at >19km/h were eliminated in the group stage, suggesting that the teams that covered a greater amount of ground at >19km/h were more successful, although due to the complex nature of football match play, this is not the only indicator of success. This is consistent with the overall finding that, compared to 2015, in 2019, teams covered 15% and 29% more distance in Zone 4 and Zone 5 respectively. This again highlights the increasing speed, tempo and development of the women’s game. In addition, in 2015, there was a moderate correlation (r=0.37) between average team possession and the final placing of teams, while this correlation increased (r=0.66) in 2019, suggesting that teams have also become more tactically astute and require a good amount of ball possession as well as movement on and off the ball at a higher pace to be successful.

3.3


0

2,000

4,000

6,000

AG GS KS AG1 GS1 KS1

4,95

7

4,95

7

4,95

8

4,21

1

4,19

1

4,25

5

1,80

8

1,74

7

1,94

8

1,36

6

1,33

4

1,43

6

Efforts inZone 5

Zone 5

Zone 4

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

3.3 Figure 9

Nu

mb

er o

f ef

fort

s in

Zo

ne

52019 2015

AllGames

GroupStage

KnockoutStage

AllGames

GroupStage

KnockoutStage

0

50

100

150

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

SCO

AR

G

RSA

KO

R

THA

NZL

NED FRA

CM

R

JPN

CH

I

SWE

JAM

ESP

ITA

USA

ENG

NO

R

CA

N

BR

A

NG

A

CH

N

GER

AU

S

3.3 Figure 8

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

2019

Zone 4

Zone 5

Zone 3

opmerking: geen datalabels bij team IP

Team

po

sses

sio

n (%

)

Teampossession

0

30

60

90

SCO

AR

G

RSA

KO

R

THA

NZ

L

NED FR

A

CM

R

JPN

CH

I

SWE

JAM

ESP

ITA

USA

ENG

NO

R

CA

N

BR

A

NG

A

CH

N

GER

AU

S

20,3

71

21,6

28

21,3

43

22,1

94

20,7

61

22,3

53

20,6

15

21,0

58

20,1

25

23,1

09

23,6

72

21,5

34

19,1

44

21,2

45

20,9

58

22,2

43

21,7

78

22,8

35

23,0

38

20,8

96

18,2

85

23,6

45

23,7

35

22,7

50

4,17

0 4,60

2

4,47

4

4,73

7

4,70

5 4,81

2

4,49

6

4,60

6

4,77

4

4,92

1

4,89

3

4,73

9

4,46

0 4,98

5

4,91

6 4,95

2

4,96

3

5,15

9

5,30

0

5,17

1

5,18

3

6,12

6

5,70

8

5,61

01,36

7 1,38

8

1,59

1

1,40

7

1,53

3 1,47

3

1,79

6

1,75

2

1,59

3

1,45

1

1,48

2

1,76

9

2,05

4

1,59

6

1,75

1 1,84

3

2,01

2 1,98

2

1,93

8

2,18

2

2,47

4

1,63

7

2,08

3

2,39

0

Figure 9 shows a comparison of the average total distance covered at >19km/h (broken down into Zone 4 and Zone 5), plotted against the average number of team efforts in Zone 5 for the 2015 and 2019 tournaments, showing a breakdown for the group stage, knockout stage and all games. As can easily be seen, all of the distances and efforts completed at these higher speeds were much higher during the 2019 tournament. For the all-game average in 2019, distances covered in zones 4 and 5 increased by 15% and 29% respectively, and the number of Zone 5 efforts increased by 24%, compared to the 2015 tournament. The differences between the distances and efforts completed during the group stage and knockout rounds only can also be compared (Figure 9). For the 2015 tournament, the distances covered in zones 4 and 5 during the knockout stage increased by 2% and 8% respectively, and the number of Zone 5 efforts increased by 9%, compared to the group stage. In 2019, there was a negligible difference in distance completed in Zone 4 between the group and knockout stages; however, the

Figure 8. Analysis of the distances covered at >13km/h and average team ball possession at France 2019

Team possession 48 40 42 50 34 40 56 57 40 52 44 48 41 58 45 55 57 49 61 52 40 46 56 59

SCO

ARG RS

A

KO

R

THA

NZL

NED FRA

CMR

JPN

CHI

SWE

JAM

ESP

ITA

USA

ENG

NO

R

CAN

BRA

NG

A

CHN

GER

AU

S

0

2,000

4,000

6,000


4,95

7

4,95

7

4,95

8

4,21

1

4,19

1

4,25

5

1,80

8

1,74

7

1,94

8

1,36

6

1,33

4

1,43

6

Efforts inZone 5

Zone 5

Zone 4

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

3.3 Figure 9

Nu

mb

er o

f ef

fort

s in

Zo

ne

52019 2015

AllGames

GroupStage

KnockoutStage

AllGames

GroupStage

KnockoutStage

0

50

100

150

0

2,000

4,000

6,000


4,95

7

4,95

7

4,95

8

4,21

1

4,19

1

4,25

5

1,80

8

1,74

7

1,94

8

1,36

6

1,33

4

1,43

6

Efforts inZone 5

Zone 5

Zone 4

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

3.3 Figure 9

Nu

mb

er o

f ef

fort

s in

Zo

ne

5

2019 2015

AllGames

GroupStage

KnockoutStage

AllGames

GroupStage

KnockoutStage

0

50

100

150

0

2,000

4,000

6,000


4,95

7

4,95

7

4,95

8

4,21

1

4,19

1

4,25

5

1,80

8

1,74

7

1,94

8

1,36

6

1,33

4

1,43

6

Efforts inZone 5

Zone 5

Zone 4

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

3.3 Figure 9

Nu

mb

er o

f ef

fort

s in

Zo

ne

5

2019 2015

AllGames

GroupStage

KnockoutStage

AllGames

GroupStage

KnockoutStage

0

50

100

150

Efforts in Zone 5 80 78 85 99 98 107

Allgames

Groupstage

Knockoutstage

Allgames

Groupstage

Knockoutstage

Figure 9. Analysis of the distances covered at >19km/h and efforts in Zone 5 at France 2019 and Canada 2015


3.3

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

ESP

ECU

KO

R

CIV

CO

L

NG

A

CM

R

THA

NED

NO

R

CH

N

BR

A

JPN

SWE

CR

C

SUI

FRA

MEX

CA

N

ENG

AU

S

GER

NZL

USA

3.3 Figure 10

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Nu

mb

er o

f ef

fort

s in

Zo

ne

5

Zone 4

Zone 5

Efforts inZone 5

2015

0

50

100

150

200

ESP

ECU

KO

R

CIV

CO

L

NG

A

CM

R

THA

NED

NO

R

CH

N

BR

A

JPN

SWE

CR

C

SUI

FRA

MEX

CA

N

ENG

AU

S

GER

NZ

L

USA

3,24

4

3,67

0

3,91

0

3,57

0

3,89

0

3,96

4

3,96

8

3,95

1

3,98

0

4,01

6

4,22

6

4,15

3

4,39

0

4,38

6

4,38

7

4,38

4

4,25

3

4,12

0

4,30

7

4,38

1

4,32

6

4,73

2

4,77

1

4,70

2

971 87

4 966

1,42

2

1,19

6

1,32

1

1,34

6

1,39

7

1,40

3

1,38

5

1,18

8

1,40

2

1,23

4

1,25

1

1,26

0

1,30

0

1,43

6

1,61

8

1,57

5

1,57

0

1,67

7 1,44

8

1,43

8

1,68

4

Figures 10 and 11 show the average total distance, for each team, covered at >19km/h (broken down into Zone 4 and Zone 5), plotted against the average number of team efforts in Zone 5 for all of their matches throughout the 2015 and 2019 tournaments respectively. The figures are ranked by distance at >19km/h, with the lowest values from left to right. On average, throughout the 2015 tournament, the winners the USA completed the most distance in Zone 5, followed by New Zealand, who were eliminated in the group stage; hence, whilst completing more running at higher intensities has been shown to lead to more success in teams, simply completing more higher-speed activity is not a guarantee of success alone. The USA also completed an average of 100 efforts in Zone 5 for each match, compared to 75 on average for the eight teams eliminated in the group stage. At the 2015 tournament, there was a moderate correlation between the final ranking of the team and the distance covered in Zone 5 (r=0.40), as well as the number of Zone 5 efforts (r=0.42). There was a much stronger correlation (r=0.54) between the distance covered by teams in Zone 5 and the final placing of teams at the 2019 tournament. This is consistent with the strong correlation (r=0.57) outlined above between the final placing of teams and the distance covered at >13km/h.

Figure 10. Analysis of the distances covered at >19km/h and efforts in Zone 5 at Canada 2015

As was shown previously (Figure 9), all distances covered at >19km/h and efforts completed in Zone 5 were higher during the 2019 tournament, and this is evident in Figure 11. Six of the eight teams that were eliminated in the group stage in France covered the least distance at >19km/h; however, unlike in 2015, where three of the four semi-finalists were in the top five for the most distance at >19km/h, the teams that reached the semi-finals in 2019 ranked eighth, ninth, 13th and 18th (out of 24) for the most distance covered at >19km/h. This suggests that despite the average increase in the distance covered at higher speeds from 2015 to 2019, and from the group stage to the knockout rounds, the tactical strategy and understanding of teams and individual players alike are also important to be successful.

Efforts inZone 5 5

8

46

60

83

72

76

80

82

81

82

73

81

74

73

77

79

79

92

92

91

93

84

83

100

ESP

ECU

KO

R

CIV

COL

NG

A

CMR

THA

NED

NO

R

CHN

BRA

JPN

SWE

CRC

SUI

FRA

MEX

CAN

ENG

AU

S

GER NZL

USA

distance completed in Zone 5 during the knockout stage increased by 12%, and the number of Zone 5 efforts increased by 8%, compared to the group stage. In comparison, for both tournaments, there was only a very small increase in total distance from the group to the knockout stage, 2% and 1% for 2015 and 2019 respectively. This again suggests that, whilst there is very little difference in the total distance completed in the group stage compared to the knockout rounds, the amount of distance and number of efforts completed at the higher-intensity speeds are greater again, suggesting a further increase in the pace of the games involving the higher-ranked teams, and an increased physical load placed on players for their team to be successful.


3.3

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

SCO

AR

G

RSA

KO

R

THA

NZL

NED FRA

CM

R

JPN

CH

I

SWE

JAM

ESP

ITA

USA

ENG

NO

R

CA

N

BR

A

NG

A

CH

N

GER

AU

S

3.3 Figure 11

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Nu

mb

er o

f ef

fort

s in

Zo

ne

5

Zone 4

Zone 5

Efforts inZone 5

2019

0

50

100

150

200

SCO

AR

G

RSA

KO

R

THA

NZ

L

NED FR

A

CM

R

JPN

CH

I

SWE

JAM

ESP

ITA

USA

ENG

NO

R

CA

N

BR

A

NG

A

CH

N

GER

AU

S

4,17

0

4,60

2

4,47

4

4,73

7

4,70

5

4,81

2

4,49

6

4,60

6

4,77

4

4,92

1

4,89

3

4,73

9

4,46

0

4,98

5

4,91

6

4,95

2

4,96

3

5,15

9

5,30

0

5,17

1

5,18

3

6,12

6

5,70

8

5,61

0

1,36

7 1,38

8

1,59

1

1,40

7

1,53

3

1,47

3

1,79

6

1,75

2

1,59

3

1,45

1

1,48

2

1,76

9

2,05

4 1,59

6

1,75

1

1,84

3

2,01

2

1,98

2

1,93

8

2,18

2

2,47

4

1,63

7

2,08

3

2,39

0

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

ESP

ECU

KO

R

CIV

CO

L

NG

A

CM

R

THA

NED

NO

R

CH

N

BR

A

JPN

SWE

CR

C

SUI

FRA

MEX

CA

N

ENG

AU

S

GER

NZL

USA

3.3 Figure 10

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Nu

mb

er o

f ef

fort

s in

Zo

ne

5

Zone 4

Zone 5

Efforts inZone 5

2015

0

50

100

150

200

ESP

ECU

KO

R

CIV

CO

L

NG

A

CM

R

THA

NED

NO

R

CH

N

BR

A

JPN

SWE

CR

C

SUI

FRA

MEX

CA

N

ENG

AU

S

GER

NZ

L

USA

3,24

4

3,67

0

3,91

0

3,57

0

3,89

0

3,96

4

3,96

8

3,95

1

3,98

0

4,01

6

4,22

6

4,15

3

4,39

0

4,38

6

4,38

7

4,38

4

4,25

3

4,12

0

4,30

7

4,38

1

4,32

6

4,73

2

4,77

1

4,70

2

971 87

4 966

1,42

2

1,19

6

1,32

1

1,34

6

1,39

7

1,40

3

1,38

5

1,18

8

1,40

2

1,23

4

1,25

1

1,26

0

1,30

0

1,43

6

1,61

8

1,57

5

1,57

0

1,67

7 1,44

8

1,43

8

1,68

4

Figure 11. Analysis of the distances covered at >19km/h and efforts in Zone 5 at France 2019

For the 2019 tournament, there was a moderate correlation between the final ranking of the team and the distance covered in Zone 4 (r=0.31). However, the correlation between final ranking and the number of efforts in Zone 5 (r=0.51) and distance in Zone 5 (r=0.54) was much stronger, suggesting that distance covered, and efforts completed, in the top speed zone are a much stronger indicator of team success. When the same data is ranked by distance in Zone 5 (Figure 12), the four semi-finalists are sixth, ninth, tenth and 11th highest for the amount of distance completed in Zone 5. It is also interesting that Nigeria, who were eliminated in the round of 16, completed the lowest overall total distance, on average, but more distance in Zone 5 than any other team at the tournament. Again, such findings suggest that more teams, and players, have the capacity to complete higher-intensity workloads during matches, thereby increasing the physical demands of elite female football.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

SCO

AR

G

KO

R

JPN

NZL CH

I

THA

RSA

CM

R

ESP

CH

N

ITA

FRA

SWE

NED

USA

CA

N

NO

R

ENG

JAM

GER

BR

A

AU

S

NG

A

3.3 Figure 12

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Nu

mb

er o

f ef

fort

s in

Zo

ne

5

Zone 4

Zone 5

Efforts inZone 5

0

50

100

150

200

SCO

AR

G

KO

R

JPN

NZ

L

CH

I

THA

RSA

CM

R

ESP

CH

N

ITA

FRA

SWE

NED

USA

CA

N

NO

R

ENG

JAM

GER

BR

A

AU

S

NG

A

4,17

0

4,60

2

4,73

7

4,92

1

4,81

2

4,89

3

4,70

5

4,47

4

4,77

4

4,98

5

6,12

6

4,91

6

4,60

6

4,73

9

4,49

6

4,95

2

5,30

0

5,15

9

4,96

3

4,46

0

5,70

8

5,17

1

5,61

0

5,18

3

1,36

7 1,38

8

1,40

7

1,45

1

1,47

3

1,48

2

1,53

3

1,59

1

1,59

3

1,59

6

1,63

7

1,75

1

1,75

2

1,76

9

1,79

6 1,84

3

1,93

8

1,98

2

2,01

2

2,05

4

2,08

3

2,18

2 2,39

0

2,47

4

Figure 12. Analysis of the distances covered at >19km/h and efforts in Zone 5 at France 2019, ranked by Zone 5 distance

Efforts inZone 5 76 82 94 78 91 83 10

3

100

92 82 84 97 113

89 94 101

111

105

112

118

135

100

115

129

SCO

ARG RS

A

KO

R

THA

NZL

NED FRA

CMR

JPN

CHI

SWE

JAM

ESP

ITA

USA

ENG

NO

R

CAN

BRA

NG

A

CHN

GER

AU

S

Efforts inZone 5 76 82 78 82 83 84 91 94 92 89 10

0

94 100

97 103

101

112

105

111

113

115

118

129

135

SCO

ARG

KO

R

JPN

NZL CH

I

THA

RSA

CMR

ESP

CHN

ITA

FRA

SWE

NED

USA

CAN

NO

R

ENG

JAM

GER

BRA

AU

SN

GA

3.3


0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

NG

A

CM

R

JMA

THA

SCO

NED

AR

G

BR

A

NZL

FRA

ENG

SWE

KO

R

ITA

RSA ES

P

USA CH

I

NO

R

JPN

AU

S

CA

N

GER

CH

N

AG GS

KS

3.3 Figure 13

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

1st half

2nd half

% difference

opmerking: % di�erence

Dif

fere

nce

in t

ota

l dis

tan

ce (%

)

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

NG

A

CM

R

JMA

THA

SCO

NED

AR

G

BR

A

NZ

L

FRA

ENG

SWE

KO

R

ITA

RSA ES

P

USA CH

I

NO

R

JPN

AU

S

CA

N

GER

CH

N

AG GS

KS

9,02

7

9,60

1

9,70

7

9,93

9

10,3

29

10,3

44

10,5

19

10,5

67

10,6

61

10,6

75

10,8

59

10,8

91

10,9

49

10,9

92

10,9

97

11,1

29

11,4

59

11,5

22

11,5

75

11,7

15

11,7

42

11,7

79

12,2

15

12,6

62

10,9

51

11,0

04

10,8

69

9,25

9

10,5

24

9,43

8

9,61

2

10,0

42

10,0

13

11,1

09

10,3

29

11,6

91

10,3

84

10,9

19

10,6

43

11,2

44

9,96

6

10,3

46

10,1

15

10,7

84

12,1

50

11,2

60

11,3

94

11,0

08

11,2

59

11,5

19

10,9

83

10,6

59

10,7

54

10,6

09

Analysis of distance covered in Zone 33.3.2

Figure 13 shows the Zone 3 distance covered by each team during each half of the games and for each stage of the tournament, as well as the percentage difference from the first to the second half, at France 2019 only. The figure is ranked by the amount of distance covered in the first half, with the lowest values from left to right. Only seven of the 24 teams increased the amount of distance that they covered from the first to the second half, which could be the result of fatigue as well as changes in tactical focus/formation, amongst other factors. Cameroon and New Zealand (10%) had the joint-greatest increase in Zone 3 distance covered from the first to the second half, with Cameroon covering the second-lowest amount in the first half. China PR (-13%), who covered the most distance in the first half, had the greatest drop in distance covered. When looking at the differences depending on the stage of the tournament, on average, there was a small drop at all stages from the first to the second half: all games (AG; -3%), the group stage (GS; -2%) and the knockout rounds (KO; -2%).

Figure 14 shows the metreage in Zone 3 for each team during each half of the games and for each stage of the tournament, as well as the percentage difference from the first to the second half, at France 2019 only. The figure is ranked by the decrease in metreage from the first to the second half, with the greatest drop from left to right. Similar to the drop in absolute distance covered from the first to the second half (Figure 13), China PR (-16%) had the biggest drop in metreage from the first to the second half, although they also had the highest metreage (24.3m/min) in the first half. Cameroon (8%) had the biggest increase in metreage from the first to the second half, but also had the second-lowest metreage (18.1m/min) of all teams in the first half. The metreage for the group stage (21.4m/min) was higher than for the knockout stage (20.5m/min), while the metreage dropped more for the knockout stage compared to the group stage (-8% and -6% respectively).

Figure 13. Analysis of the total distance covered by each team, and for each stage of the tournament, in Zone 3 during the first and second half of matches at France 2019

313-19km/h

% difference 3 10 -3 -3 -3 -3 6 -2 10 -3 1 -2 3 -9 -6 -9 -6 5 -3 -3 -6 -4 -6 -13 -3 -2 -2

NG

A

CMR

JAM

THA

SCO

NED

ARG

BRA

NZL

FRA

ENG

SWE

KO

R

ITA

RSA

ESP

USA CH

I

NO

R

JPN

AU

S

CAN

GER

CHN

AG GS

KO


3.3

CHN

ITA

ESP

USA

AU

STH

ARS

ASW

EG

ERFR

ACA

NN

OR

BRA

SCO

JMA

JPN

NED

ENG

NG

ACH

IA

RG KOR

NZL

CMR

AG GS

KO

15

17

19

21

23

25

3.3 Figure 14

Met

reag

e (m

/min

)

1st half

2nd half

1st half 24.3

21.0

21.6

22.3

22.8

19.5

21.5

21.1

23.6

20.4

22.9

22.3

20.3

20.3

19.1

22.8

19.5

20.8

17.3

22.2

20.5

21.0

20.3

18.1

21.1

21.4

20.5

2nd half 20.5

18.1

18.7

19.5

20.3

17.5

19.4

19.2

21.5

18.8

21.2

20.6

18.8

18.9

17.8

21.4

18.6

19.9

16.7

21.8

20.5

21.3

21.8

19.5

19.6

20.0

18.9

CHN

ITA

ESP

USA

AU

STH

ARS

ASW

EG

ERFR

ACA

NN

OR

BRA

SCO

JAM

JPN

NED

ENG

NG

ACH

I A

RGK

OR

N

ZLCM

RA

G GS

KO

0-15 15-30 30-45 45+ 45-60 60-75 75-90 90+

16

18

20

22

24

3.3 Figure 15

Met

reag

e (m

/min

)

All games

Group stage

Knockoutstage

All games 24.1 20.3 19.3 18.4 21.0 19.3 18.5 19.8

Group stage

24.1 20.5 19.9 18.5 21.3 19.7 19.0 20.1

Knockoutstage

24.2 19.9 17.8 18.1 20.4 18.6 17.4 19.1

Period of game

(min)0-15 15-30 30-45 45+ 45-60 60-75 75-90 90+

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

NG

A

CM

R

JMA

THA

SCO

NED

AR

G

BR

A

NZL

FRA

ENG

SWE

KO

R

ITA

RSA ES

P

USA CH

I

NO

R

JPN

AU

S

CA

N

GER

CH

N

AG GS

KS

3.3 Figure 13

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

1st half

2nd half

% difference

opmerking: % di�erence

Dif

fere

nce

in t

ota

l dis

tan

ce (%

)

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

NG

A

CM

R

JMA

THA

SCO

NED

AR

G

BR

A

NZ

L

FRA

ENG

SWE

KO

R

ITA

RSA ES

P

USA CH

I

NO

R

JPN

AU

S

CA

N

GER

CH

N

AG GS

KS

9,02

7

9,60

1

9,70

7

9,93

9

10,3

29

10,3

44

10,5

19

10,5

67

10,6

61

10,6

75

10,8

59

10,8

91

10,9

49

10,9

92

10,9

97

11,1

29

11,4

59

11,5

22

11,5

75

11,7

15

11,7

42

11,7

79

12,2

15

12,6

62

10,9

51

11,0

04

10,8

69

9,25

9

10,5

24

9,43

8

9,61

2

10,0

42

10,0

13

11,1

09

10,3

29

11,6

91

10,3

84

10,9

19

10,6

43

11,2

44

9,96

6

10,3

46

10,1

15

10,7

84

12,1

50

11,2

60

11,3

94

11,0

08

11,2

59

11,5

19

10,9

83

10,6

59

10,7

54

10,6

09

Perc

enta

ge

chan

ge

(%)

Decrease

Increase

3.3 Figure 14B

CH

NIT

AES

PU

SAA

US

THA

RSA

SWE

GER

FRA

CA

NN

OR

BR

ASC

OJA

MJP

NN

EDEN

GN

GA

CH

IA

RG

KO

RN

ZLC

MR

AG GS

KO

-16

-14

-13-12

-11-11

-10-9

-9-8

-8-7

-7-7

-7-6

-5 -4 -3 -2-0

-2-7

-8 -7-6

-8

Figure 14. Comparison of the Zone 3 metreage during the first and second half of matches, and percentage change, for all teams and all stages of the tournament, at France 2019

Figure 15. Comparison of the Zone 3 metreage for every 15-min interval, during all stages of the tournament, for France 2019

3.3


0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

SCO

RSA

CM

R

THA

JMA

NED

AR

G

CH

I

NZL

FRA

NG

A

KO

R

SWE

ENG

JPN

ITA

CA

N

USA ES

P

BR

A

NO

R

AU

S

GER

CH

N

AG GS

KS

1,95

5

2,08

1

2,13

1

2,15

5

2,17

9

2,19

9

2,20

1

2,23

8

2,27

6

2,35

9

2,39

5

2,40

5

2,42

7

2,45

2

2,45

2

2,47

7

2,55

6

2,56

4

2,60

5

2,65

3

2,69

5

2,79

9

2,86

2

3,22

0

2,45

4

2,45

2

2,50

4

2,21

5

2,39

2

2,64

3

2,25

0

2,28

1

2,19

3

2,40

1

2,65

5

2,53

6

2,24

7

2,78

8

2,33

2

2,31

2

2,51

1

2,46

9

2,43

9

2,74

3

2,38

8

2,38

0

2,51

8

2,46

5

2,81

0

2,84

6

2,90

6

2,48

1

2,48

9

2,59

4

3.3 Figure 16

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Dif

fere

nce

in t

ota

l dis

tan

ce (%

)

1st half

2nd half

% difference

-24

-16

-8

0

8

16

24

% difference 13 15 24 4 5 0 9 19 11 -5 16 -3 -5 2 1 -2 7 -7 -9 -5 -9 0 -1 -10 1 1 4

SCO

RSA

CMR

THA

JAM

NED

ARG

CHI

NZL

FRA

NG

A

KO

R

SWE

ENG

JPN

ITA

CAN

USA ES

P

BRA

NO

R

AU

S

GER

CHN

AG GS

KO

419-23km/h


Figure 16 shows the distance covered in Zone 4 for each team during each half of the games and for each stage of the tournament, as well as the percentage difference from the first to the second half, at France 2019 only. The figure is ranked by distance covered in the first half, with the lowest values from left to right. Compared to Zone 3, 14 of the 24 teams increased the amount of distance covered from the first to the second half at speeds in Zone 4; however, as highlighted earlier, there was only a moderate (r=0.31) correlation between distances in this zone and the final placing of the teams. Three of the five teams with the greatest increase from the first to the second half, Scotland (13%), South Africa (15%) and Cameroon (24%), were the three lowest-ranking sides for the amount of

Figure 16. Analysis of the total distance covered by each team, and for each stage of the tournament, in Zone 4 during the first and second half of matches at France 2019

Figure 15 shows the metreage in Zone 3 for every 15-min period, across the stages of the tournament at France 2019 only. The metreage was highest for all three stages during 0-15min, and was very similar. The metreage for all stages declined as the half progressed, with the decreases being -24% (all games), -23% (group stage) and -25% (knockout stage) immediately before the end of the first half (45+min). During 45-60min, the metreage was higher than the end of the first half, but was lower than the first 15-min period of the game for all stages: all games (21.0m/min; -13%), the group stage (21.3m/min; -12%) and the knockout stage (20.4m/min; -16%). For all three stages of the tournament, the metreage then dropped before increasing during the final period of games (90+min), which could be due to the need to score/defend and more urgency around the game outcome during the latter stages of games. During 75-90min and 90+min, the metreage dropped from the first period of the game for all stages of the tournament – all games (-23%, -18%), the group stage (-21%, -17%) and the knockout stage (-28%, -21%) – with the metreage being the lowest in the knockout rounds for both of those periods in the game.


3.3

Perc

enta

ge

chan

ge

(%)

Decrease

Increase

3.3 Figure 17B

USA

NO

RES

PC

HN

SWE

FRA

BR

AIT

AA

US

KO

RTH

AG

ER JPN

NED

ENG

JAM

CA

NA

RG

SCO

NZL

NG

AC

HI

RSA

CM

RA

G GS

KO

-13

-13

-13

-12

-12

-10

-10

-6-5

-4 -4-3

-2 -2 -2 -0 -3 -3-8

-9

-9

-10

-11

-21 -3 -3 -7

USA

NO

RES

PC

HN

SWE

FRA

BR

AIT

AA

US

KO

RTH

AG

ER JPN

NED

ENG

JMA

CA

NA

RG

SCO

NZL

NG

AC

HI

RSA

CM

RA

G GS

KO

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

3.3 Figure 17A

Met

reag

e (m

/min

)

1st half

2nd half

1st half 5.0

5.2

5.0

6.2

4.7

4.5

5.1

4.7

5.4

4.6

4.2

5.4

4.8

4.1

4.7

4.3

5.0

4.3

3.8

4.3

4.6

4.3

4.1

4.0

4.7

4.6

4.7

2nd half 4.3

4.5

4.3

5.4

4.1

4.0

4.6

4.4

5.1

4.4

4.1

5.3

4.6

4.1

4.6

4.3

5.1

4.4

4.1

4.7

5.0

4.7

4.5

4.8

4.5

4.5

4.4

USA

NO

RES

PCH

NSW

EFR

ABR

AIT

AA

US

KO

R

THA

GER JPN

NED

ENG

JAM

CAN

ARG SCO

NZL

NG

ACH

I RS

ACM

RA

G GS

KO

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

SCO

RSA

CM

R

THA

JMA

NED

AR

G

CH

I

NZL

FRA

NG

A

KO

R

SWE

ENG

JPN

ITA

CA

N

USA ES

P

BR

A

NO

R

AU

S

GER

CH

N

AG GS

KS

1,95

5

2,08

1

2,13

1

2,15

5

2,17

9

2,19

9

2,20

1

2,23

8

2,27

6

2,35

9

2,39

5

2,40

5

2,42

7

2,45

2

2,45

2

2,47

7

2,55

6

2,56

4

2,60

5

2,65

3

2,69

5

2,79

9

2,86

2

3,22

0

2,45

4

2,45

2

2,50

4

2,21

5

2,39

2

2,64

3

2,25

0

2,28

1

2,19

3

2,40

1

2,65

5

2,53

6

2,24

7

2,78

8

2,33

2

2,31

2

2,51

1

2,46

9

2,43

9

2,74

3

2,38

8

2,38

0

2,51

8

2,46

5

2,81

0

2,84

6

2,90

6

2,48

1

2,48

9

2,59

4

3.3 Figure 16

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Dif

fere

nce

in t

ota

l dis

tan

ce (%

)

1st half

2nd half

% difference

-24

-16

-8

0

8

16

24

Figure 17. Comparison of the Zone 4 metreage during the first and second half of matches, and percentage change, for all teams and all stages of the tournament, at France 2019

Figure 17 shows the metreage in Zone 4 for each team during each half of the games and for each stage of the tournament, as well as the percentage difference from the first to the second half. The figure is ranked by the decrease in metreage from the first to the second half, with the greatest drop from left to right. Similar to the decline in absolute distance covered from the first to the second half (Figure 16), the USA, Norway and Spain (-13%) had the biggest drop in metreage from the first to the second half, with China PR and Sweden (-12%) having the next-biggest decrease, although China PR again also had the highest metreage (6.16m/min) in the first half. Cameroon (21%), again, had the biggest increase in metreage from the first to the second half (3.99 to 4.84m/min), but also had the second-lowest metreage of all teams in the first half. The metreage for the knockout stage (4.74m/min) was higher than for the group stage (4.62m/min), while the metreage dropped more for the knockout stage compared to the group stage (-7% and -3% respectively).

distance covered in the first half. Similar to the previous zone, China PR (-10%), who covered the most distance in the first half, had the greatest drop in distance covered in the second half. When looking at the differences depending on the stage of the tournament, on average there was an increase for all stages: all games (1%), the group stage (1%) and the knockout stage (4%); the higher increase for the knockout rounds could be due to teams needing to press more to force a goal and change the outcome of the game in the elimination stage.

3.3


0-15 15-30 30-45 45+ 45-60 60-75 75-90 90+3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

3.3 Figure 18

Met

reag

e (m

/min

)

All games

Group stage

Knockoutstage

All games 5.4 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.9 4.5 4.2 4.5

Group stage

5.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.9 4.5 4.4 4.6

Knockoutstage

5.5 4.5 4.0 3.8 4.8 4.4 4.0 4.5

Period of game

(min)0-15 15-30 30-45 45+ 45-60 60-75 75-90 90+

Figure 18 shows the metreage in Zone 4 for every 15-min period, across the stages of the tournament. The metreage was highest for all three stages during 0-15min, and was highest for the knockout stage, 5.55m/min, compared to 5.27m/min during the group stage. The metreage for all stages decreased as the half progressed, doing so most sharply in the knockout stage, with the decreases being -19% (all games), -13% (group stage) and -32% (knockout stage) immediately before the end of the first half (45+min). At the start of the second half (45-60min), the metreage was higher than at the end of the first half, but was lower than in the first 15-min period of the game for all stages: all games (4.88m/min; -9%), the group stage (4.92m/min; -7%) and the knockout stage (4.78m/min; -14%). For all three stages of the tournament, the metreage then dropped before increasing during the final period of games (90+min), which again could be due to the need to score/defend and more urgency around the game outcome during the latter stages of games. During 75-90min and 90+min, the metreage dropped from the first period of the game for all stages of the tournament – all games (-21%, -15%), the group stage (-17%, -13%) and the knockout stage (-28%, -19%) – with the metreage being the lowest for the knockout stage for both of those periods in the game. This could in part be due to the extra games teams have accumulated once they reach the knockout stage of the tournament, and an increasing level of fatigue and inability to sustain higher-workload intensities.

Figure 18. Comparison of the Zone 4 metreage for every 15-min interval, during all stages of the tournament, for France 2019


3.3

0

300

600

900

1,200

NZL CH

I

RSA

JPN

CMR

ESP

CHN

NED USA

JAM

NG

A

AG GS KS

576

669

675

696

701

706

715

716

760

792

802

863

892

917

936

962

972

999

1,00

1

1,03

2

1,04

3

1,07

5

1,17

3

1,23

4

897

868

951

791

804

807

895

751

682

811

691

832

804

835

882

860

834

1,00

2

807

1,11

1

844

1,05

3

1,14

9

970

907

1,30

1

1,15

6

904

875

1,00

6

3.3 Figure 19

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

1st half

2nd half

% difference

Dif

fere

nce

in t

ota

l dis

tan

ce (%

)

-40

-20

0

20

40

% difference 37 20 20 29 7 -3 14 -4 9 2 4 2 -4 -9 7 -16

14 -15 5 11 -7 -16

11 -6 1 1 6

SCO

NZL CH

I

RSA

JPN

ARG

THA

KO

R

CMR

ESP

CHN

NED FRA

ITA

CAN

SWE

GER

USA

JAM

BRA

ENG

NO

R

NG

A

AU

S

AG

GS

KO


Figure 19 shows the Zone 5 distance covered for each team during each half of the games and for each stage of the tournament, as well as the percentage difference from the first to the second half, at France 2019 only. The figure is ranked by distance covered in the first half, with the lowest values from left to right. The majority of teams (15 of the 24) increased the amount of distance covered from the first to the second half. Scotland completed the least amount of distance in Zone 5 during the first half (576m) and increased this the most (37%) in the second half. Sweden, Norway (-16%) and the USA (-15%) decreased the amount of distance they covered from the first to the second half by the most. When looking at the differences depending on the stage of the tournament, on average, there was an increase for all stages: all games (1%), the group stage (1%) and the knockout stage (6%); the higher increase for the knockout stage could again be due to teams needing to press more to force a goal and change the outcome of the game in the elimination stage, and this metric had a strong correlation (r=0.54) with final placing in the tournament.

Figure 19. Analysis of the total distance covered in Zone 5 by each team, and for each stage of the tournament, during the first and second half of matches at France 2019

5>23km/h


3.3

USA

SWE

NO

RIT

AA

US

ENG

FRA

ARG KO

RES

PN

EDJM

ACH

NCA

NN

GA

THA

JPN

BRA

CMR

GER CH

IN

ZLRS

ASC

O AG GS

KO

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.3 Figure 20

Met

reag

e (m

/min

)

1st half

2nd half

1st half 1.9

1.8

2.1

1.7

2.4

2.0

1.7

1.4

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.0

1.5

1.8

2.2

1.4

1.4

2.0

1.4

1.8

1.3

1.3

1.4

1.1

1.7

1.8

1.7

2nd half 1.5

1.4

1.6

1.5

2.1

1.8

1.5

1.3

1.3

1.5

1.6

2.0

1.5

1.8

2.3

1.5

1.4

2.1

1.5

2.0

1.5

1.5

1.7

1.5

1.7

1.4

1.7

USA

SWE

NO

RIT

AA

US

ENG

FRA

ARG

KO

R

ESP

NED

JAM

CHN

CAN

NG

ATH

AJP

NBR

ACM

RG

ER CHI

NZL

RSA

SCO

AG GS

KO

Perc

enta

ge

chan

ge

(%)

Decrease

Increase

3.3 Figure 20B

USA

SWE

NO

RIT

AA

US

ENG

FRA

AR

GK

OR

ESP

NED

JAM

CH

NC

AN

NG

ATH

AJP

NB

RA

CM

RG

ER CH

IN

ZLR

SASC

OA

G GS

KO

-21

-21

-20

-14

-11-11

-10-8

-5-4 -0 -0 -1 -2 -4 -5

-5-5

-9-11

-12

-18

-24

-31 -4 -22

-3

Figure 20 shows the metreage in Zone 5 for each team during each half of the games and for each stage of the tournament, as well as the percentage difference, at France 2019 only. The figure is ranked by the decrease in metreage from the first to the second half, with the greatest drop from left to right. Similar to the decline in absolute distance covered from the first to the second half (Figure 19), the USA, Sweden (-21%) and Norway (-20%) had the biggest drop in metreage from the first to the second half. Australia (2.38m/min) had the highest metreage in the first half, which dropped by 11% in the second half (2.11m/min). Nigeria (2.25m/min) had the second-highest metreage in the first half, and then increased that by 4% (2.34m/min) in the second half. Chile, New Zealand, South Africa and Scotland, who were all eliminated in the group stage, completed the lowest metreage in the first half of their games, and all had the highest increase in their metreage in the second half (12%, 18%, 24% and 31% respectively). This could be due to increased urgency in the second half to change the result in a game and avoid being eliminated in the group stage of the tournament. The metreage for all games, the group stage and the knockout stage in the first half was 1.72m/min, 1.81m/min and 1.68m/min respectively. This dropped in the second half for all games (-4%) and the group stage (-22%), but slightly increased for the knockout stage (3%).

Figure 20. Comparison of the metreage in Zone 5 during the first and second half of matches, and percentage change, for all teams and all stages of the tournament, at France 2019

3.3


0-15 15-30 30-45 45+ 45-60 60-75 75-90 90+1

1.5

2

2.5

3.3 Figure 21M

etre

age

(m/m

in)

All games

Group stage

Knockoutstage

All games 2.0 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.8

Group stage

1.9 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.7

Knockoutstage

2.2 1.8 1.5 1.7 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.8

Time in game (min)

0-15 15-30 30-45 45+ 45-60 60-75 75-90 90+

Figure 21 shows the Zone 5 metreage for every 15-min period, across the stages of the tournament. The metreage was highest for all three stages during 0-15min, and was highest for the knockout stage, 2.22m/min, compared to 1.86m/min during the group stage. The metreage for all stages decreased as the half progressed, doing so most sharply in the knockout stage, with the decreases being -16% (all games), -11% (group stage) and -24% (knockout stage) immediately before the end of the first half (45+min). At the start of the second half (45-60min), the metreage was higher than at the end of the first half, but lower than in the first 15-min period of the game for all stages: all games (1.80m/min; -9%), the group stage (1.73m/min; -7%) and the knockout stage (1.96m/min; -12%). For all three

Figure 21. Comparison of the metreage in Zone 5 for every 15-min interval, during all stages of the tournament, for France 2019

3.3.5


3.3

Summary

• The amount of higher-speed activity (>13km/h) completed during the 2019 tournament was higher than in 2015, with an increase of 5%, 15% and 29% for distance in zones 3, 4 and 5 respectively. This alone reflects an increase in the intensity of the game demands for elite female players.

• In 2019, there was a stronger correlation between team ball possession and running at the higher speeds, suggesting that, even where teams are in possession of the ball, they are completing higher-intensity running as a team, on and off the ball, as part of their tactical strategy.

• In 2019, there was an increase in running and efforts in Zone 5 from the group stage to the knockout rounds, which again reflects an increase in the pace of the games in the later stages, contested by the higher-ranked teams, and an increased physical load on players to be successful.

• For the 2019 tournament, there was a moderate correlation between the final ranking of the team and the distance covered in Zone 4 (r=0.31). However, the correlation between final ranking and the number of efforts (r=0.51) and distance in Zone 5 (r=0.54) was much stronger, suggesting that distance covered, and efforts completed, in the top speed zone are a much stronger indicator of team success.

• The metreage for all of the higher speed zones in 2019 was highest during the first quarter of an hour of games, and then dropped as the game progressed. There was generally an increase in the work rate for these speed zones from 75-90min to 90+min, suggesting that teams were completing more high-intensity running in an attempt to protect or force a result based on their tactical strategy.

• Moreover, in 2019, during the first 15-min period of the second half, all teams covered less distance at the higher intensities than during the first 15-min period of the match, suggesting players were not physically prepared to start the second half of the match, as well as accumulated fatigue from the first half. With this in mind, trainers and coaches should review half-time strategies and then look to introduce a re-warm-up strategy (Lovell et al., 2007) that is optimal and appropriate for players starting the second half.

• Teams that tended to complete the lowest metreage (New Zealand, South Africa and Scotland) for the higher-speed activities in the first half of games in 2019 would make the biggest improvement in the second half, but would be less successful in the tournament and were generally eliminated in the group stage, suggesting that their tactical system was not optimal for game success.

• Conversely, also in 2019, the USA generally had the highest drop-off in the metreage for the higher-intensity running from the first to the second half of games; however, they also scored a goal during the first 15min of all of their first six games at the tournament, suggesting that this was part of their tactical strategy and game plan. Substitution plans and changes in tactical formation during the second half of games would also have a big impact on the metreage of these metrics as games progress.

3.3.5

stages of the tournament, the metreage then dropped before increasing during the final period of games (90+min), which again could be due to the need to score/defend and more urgency around the game outcome during the latter stages of games. During 75-90min and 90+min, the metreage dropped from the first period of the game for all stages of the tournament – all games (-21%, -11%), the group stage (-15%, -8%) and the knockout stage (-33%, -18%) – with the metreage being the highest (1.83m/min) during the final period (90+min) of the game in the knockout stage.

3.3


At any one point during a game, either the ball is out of play (BOOP) or a team is in possession of the ball (IP) or out of possession of the ball (OOP). The amount of distance that teams complete during each of those moments will largely depend on their tactical formation and their resulting shape and compactness, both in and out of possession of the ball, as well as their urgency (or not) to gain possession of the ball if there is a need to score a goal, depending on the stage of the game and the tournament. This will also be determined by the tactical understanding of each individual player, as well as the commitment to the formation and game plan developed by the head coach.

Analysis of the distance covered in all three ball-related scenarios for all stages of the tournament

3.4.1

Team analysis | Distances covered in ball-out-of-play situations, in and out of possession

3.4

CHAPTER 3 SECTION 4

IN POSSESSION

IP

OUT OF POSSESSION

OOP

BALL OUT OF PLAY

BOOP

Figure 22 shows a comparison of the total distance covered in ball-out-of-play situations, in possession and out of possession, comparing the group stage, the knockout stage and all games throughout the tournament. When the ball was out of play, teams on average covered 27%, 28% and 27% of their total distance for the group stage, knockout stage and all games respectively. The greatest proportion of total distance was covered when out of possession, with teams respectively covering 38% (group stage), 37% (knockout stage) and 38% (all games) when attempting to regain the ball. For all stages of the tournament, teams on average covered 35% of their total distance when in possession of the ball.

0

25,000

50,000

75,000

100,000

Group stage Knockout stage All games

36,883 36,376 36,727

39,350 38,920 39,218

27,888 29,288 28,319

3.4 Figure 22

OOP

BOOP

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

IP


Figure 22. Summary of the total distance covered in ball-out-of-play situations and whilst in possession and out of possession of the ball across the stages of the tournament

When looking at the distribution of the type of distance that teams covered in ball-out-of-play situations only (Figure 23), the breakdown was extremely similar across all phases of the tournament, with minimal running completed at >19km/h (1% for Zone 4 and negligible for Zone 5). The majority of the distance was completed in Zone 1 (67%) and Zone 2 (25%), with the remaining distance being completed in Zone 3 (7%).

BOOP

0

10,000

20,000

30,000


18,550 19,866 18,955

6,9777,039

6,996

2,0382,082

2,052251

23624672

6570

3.4 Figure 23

Dis

tan

ce (m

)


7265

70

251236

246BOOP

Zone 4

Zone 5

Zone 3

Zone 2

Zone 1

Figure 23. Summary of the distribution of the distance covered in the various speed zones in ball-out-of-play situations across the stages of the tournament

3.4


3.4

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000


8,735 8,773 8,747

16,195 15,858 16,092

10,881 10,621 10,801

2,695 2,719 2,702844 949 876

3.4 Figure 25

Dis

tan

ce (m

)


844 949 876OOP

Zone 4

Zone 5

Zone 3

Zone 2

Zone 1

When looking at the distribution of the type of running that teams completed whilst out of possession (Figure 25), for all phases of the tournament, the breakdown was very similar for all speeds, with 23%, 41%, 28%, 7% and 2% of the distance respectively being covered in the five speed zones. Again, similar to the figures for distance whilst in possession, as an absolute value, during the knockout stage, slightly more distance in Zone 5 (approximately 100m) was completed compared to in the group stage. During the knockout rounds, this could be due to the need to regain possession of the ball in order to score a goal, thereby preventing elimination from the tournament.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000


9,662 9,817 9,710

15,559 15,101 15,418

8,838 8,574 8,757

1,995 1,966 1,986828 918 855

3.4 Figure 24

Dis

tan

ce (m

)


828 918 855

IP

Zone 4

Zone 5

Zone 3

Zone 2

Zone 1

Figure 24. Summary of the distribution of the distance covered in the various speed zones whilst in possession across the stages of the tournament

Figure 25. Summary of the distribution of the distance covered in the various speed zones whilst out of possession of the ball across the stages of the tournament

Figure 25. Summary of the distribution of the distance covered in the various speed zones whilst out of possession of the ball across the stages of the tournament

OOP

When looking at the distribution of the type of running that teams completed whilst in possession (Figure 24), for all phases of the tournament, the breakdown was again highly similar for all speeds, with 26%, 42%, 24%, 5% and 2% of the distance respectively being covered in the five increasing speed zones. As an absolute value, during the knockout stage, slightly more distance in Zone 5 (around 100m) was completed compared to the group stage. This could be due to teams being in control of the ball and the game, and thus retaining possession to secure a result; conversely, a team could need to attack to get a goal to prevent elimination from the tournament.

IP


3.4

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

THA

NG

AA

RG

CM

RN

ZLJA

MR

SA ITA

CH

ISC

OC

HN

NO

RA

GSW

EB

RA

KO

RFR

AU

SAN

EDEN

GES

PG

ERA

US

JPN

CA

N

IP depth

IP height

IP width

IP totaldistance

Tota

l dis

tan

ce (m

)

3.4 Figure 26

Hei

gh

t/w

idth

/dep

th IP

(m)

20

25

30

35

40

THA

NG

AA

RG

CM

RN

ZL

JAM

RSA IT

AC

HI

SCO

CH

NN

OR

AG

SWE

BR

AK

OR

FRA

USA

NED

ENG

ESP

GER

AU

SJP

NC

AN

25,6

26

26,5

06

27,5

41

28,2

79

30,2

49

30,2

62

30,6

89

30,9

29

32,7

10

33,7

11

33,7

96

36,6

36

36,7

27

36,9

74

37,2

65

37,3

97

38,6

42

40,5

69

40,8

25

41,6

37

42,4

15

42,6

08

43,8

93

44,2

38

46,3

43

Figure 26 shows the relationship between the team total distance covered and the height, width and depth of the team shape whilst in possession of the ball. The figure is ranked by the total distance covered by the team whilst in possession, with the lowest values from left to right. Seven of the eight teams that covered the least total distance whilst in possession of the ball were eliminated in the group stage. There was a strong relationship between the total distance covered by teams and the height (r=0.82) and depth (r=0.64) of their formation whilst in possession of the ball. In other words, the higher up the pitch the team’s final defender was, and the greater the distance between its last defender and most advanced forward, the more total distance it tended to cover when in possession of the ball.

As can be seen, Thailand had the lowest defensive line (24m) and also covered the least total distance when in possession of the ball. This could be due to the physical capabilities of the players, but also due to their tactical formation and ability to retain the ball when in possession. Indeed, throughout the tournament, Thailand (34%) averaged the lowest ball possession. When correlating the average team ball possession with the total distance covered by teams, there was a very strong relationship (r=0.96), meaning that teams that generally had more ball possession covered a greater total distance. Obviously, this has implications for the preparation of players and teams, as players must be primed for the physical demands that they will face based on the tactical strategies employed by their coach.

Analysis of the distance covered whilst in possession of the ball only

3.4.2

IP

Figure 26. The relationship between the total distance covered and the height, width and depth of the team shape whilst in possession of the ball

IP depth 30

30

25

29

31

31

29

32

26

29

28

29

30

30

30

28

29

31

31

31

28

29

32

29

28

IP height 24

32

32

34

32

31

30

31

32

35

37

32

35

38

33

35

41

39

37

37

41

41

38

38

39

IP width 35

36

31

34

39

36

39

40

36

42

37

41

39

39

38

40

43

39

40

40

37

38

42

43

39

THA

N

GA

ARG

CM

RN

ZLJA

M

RSA

IT

A

CHI

SCO

CH

N

NO

R

AG

SWE

BRA

K

OR

FR

A

USA

N

EDEN

G

ESP

GER

A

US

JPN

CAN

3.4


3.4

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

THA

NG

AA

RG

CM

RN

ZLJA

MR

SA ITA

CH

ISC

OC

HN

NO

RA

GSW

EB

RA

KO

RFR

AU

SAN

EDEN

GES

PG

ERA

US

JPN

CA

N

3.4 Figure 27

IPcompactness

Tota

l dis

tan

ce (m

)

Co

mp

actn

ess

(m2 )

IP totaldistance

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

THA

NG

AA

RG

CM

RN

ZL

JAM

RSA IT

AC

HI

SCO

CH

NN

OR

All

gam

esSW

EB

RA

KO

RFR

AU

SAN

EDEN

GES

PG

ERA

US

JPN

CA

N

25,6

26

26,5

06

27,5

41

28,2

79

30,2

49

30,2

62

30,6

89

30,9

29

32,7

10

33,7

11

33,7

96

36,6

36

36,7

27

36,9

74

37,2

65

37,3

97

38,6

42

40,5

69

40,8

25

41,6

37

42,4

15

42,6

08

43,8

93

44,2

38

46,3

43

Figure 27 shows the relationship between the team total distance covered and the compactness (for compactness, a higher distance means the team is more spread out, whereas a lower distance means the team has a tighter shape) of the team shape whilst in possession of the ball. The figure is ranked by the total distance covered by the team whilst in possession of the ball, with the lowest values from left to right. Australia (1,072m2) had the biggest shape (least compact) whilst in possession of the ball, whilst Argentina (569m2) had the narrowest team shape (most compact), on average, whilst in possession. There was a moderate (r=0.54) correlation between the total distance covered by teams and the size of their shape, meaning that teams that had a bigger shape generally covered more total distance compared to more compact teams (smaller shape). Again, this has implications for the physical load that players will face during games, and if the tactical strategy of the coach is to play out with a bigger shape, then the players will be required to cover a greater amount of total distance.

Figure 27. The relationship between team total distance and compactness whilst in possession of the ball

IP compactness 7

38

762

569

703

727

795

827

863

704

901

738

706

826

810

806

802

893

953

991

922

832

715

1,0

72

835

786

THA

N

GA

ARG

CM

R

NZL

JAM

RS

A

ITA

CHI

SCO

CH

N

NO

R

AG

SWE

BRA

K

OR

FR

A

USA

N

EDEN

G

ESP

GER

AU

S JP

NCA

N

3.4


3.4

0

4,000

8,000

12,000

16,000

AR

GC

HI

ITA

CM

RK

OR

NZL

THA

SCO

RSA

NED ES

PJP

NJA

MN

OR

SWE

AG

FRA

CH

NN

GA

USA

ENG

AU

SC

AN

GER

BR

A

IP Zone 4

IP Zone 5

IP Zone 3

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

3.4 Figure 28

Hei

gh

t/w

idth

/dep

th IP

(m)

IP depth

IP effortsin Zone 5

IP height

IP width

10

30

50

70

90

AR

GC

HI

ITA

CM

RK

OR

NZ

LTH

ASC

OR

SAN

ED ESP

JPN

JAM

NO

RSW

EA

ll ga

mes

FRA

CH

NN

GA

USA

ENG

AU

SC

AN

GER

BR

A

6,51

5

7,81

6

6,93

0

6,82

8

8,95

7

7,33

6

5,86

1

7,64

6

7,86

4

9,25

0

9,73

1

10,6

51

6,84

2

8,51

6

8,45

3

8,75

7

9,36

0

8,66

1

6,28

6

10,0

15

9,93

1

10,3

71

11,3

16

10,7

17

9,42

1

1,34

1

1,38

0

1,60

3

1,60

6

1,84

2

1,75

0

1,56

2

1,74

8

1,74

5

1,79

8

2,01

2 1,93

6

1,69

8

1,85

0

1,90

3

1,98

6

2,04

0

2,23

1

1,91

7

2,17

6

2,30

3

2,41

7 2,62

3

2,66

3

2,59

5

475

467

676

673

530

633

841

747

774

785 61

0

688

933

876

838 85

5 834

691

1,09

9

993

1,06

1

1,19

3 1,07

0

1,09

3

1,38

8

IP effortsin Zone 5 2

8

26

37

38

30

33

44

41

42

44

34

37

48

47

47

47

45

44

56

56

55

64

60

59

73

IP depth 25

26

32

29

28

31

30

29

29

31

28

29

31

29

30

30

29

28

30

31

31

32

28

29

30

IP height 32

32

31

34

35

32

24

35

30

37

41

38

31

32

38

35

41

37

32

39

37

38

39

41

33

IP width 31

36

40

34

40

39

35

42

39

40

37

43

36

41

39

39

43

37

36

39

40

42

39

38

38

ARG

CH

IIT

A

CMR

KO

R

NZL

THA

SC

O

RSA

N

ED ESP

JPN

JAM

N

OR

SW

E A

GFR

A

CHN

N

GA

USA

EN

G

AU

S CA

N

GER

BR

A

Figure 28. The relationship between team running in higher-speed activities (Zone 3, Zone 4 and Zone 5) and the height, width and depth of the team shape whilst in possession of the ball

Figure 28 shows the relationship between the team distances covered in the higher speed zones and the height, width and depth of the team shape whilst in possession of the ball. The figure is ranked by the total distance covered at >19km/h by the team whilst in possession, with the lowest values from left to right. There was a strong relationship between distance covered by teams in Zone 4 and the height (r=0.61) of their formation whilst in possession of the ball, with a more moderate correlation with the width (r=0.41) of their formation. In other words, the higher up the pitch the team’s last defender was, and the wider the team’s shape, the more distance (Zone 4) the team tended to cover when in possession of the ball. A higher defensive line suggests that a team is more determined and prepared to attack, and with a wider shape, it would be anticipated that more space has been created and that players could potentially run into those spaces at a higher speed in an attempt to create an attack on the opposition goal.

Figure 29 shows the relationship between the team distances covered in the higher speed zones and the compactness of the team shape whilst in possession of the ball. The figure is ranked by the total distance covered at >19km/h by the team whilst in possession, with the lowest values from left to right. Australia (1,072m2) had the biggest shape (least compact) whilst in possession of the ball, whilst Argentina (569m2) had the narrowest team shape (most compact), on average, whilst in possession of the ball. There were small relationships between the distances covered in Zone 4 (r=0.36) and Zone 5 (r=0.39) and the size of teams’ shape, meaning that teams that had a bigger shape generally covered more total distance compared to more compact teams (smaller shape). The strongest relationship in terms of running in the various zones whilst in possession of the ball was during activity at <13km/h (r=0.55), as can be seen in Figure 30.

3.4


3.4

3.4

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

THA

AR

GC

MR

ITA

NG

AJA

MC

HI

NZL

SCO

RSA

SWE

NO

RK

OR

CH

NA

GN

ED FRA

ESP

USA JPN

ENG

BR

AA

US

GER

CA

N

IP <13km/h

IP >13km/h

IPcompactness

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

3.4 Figure 30

Co

mp

actn

ess (

m2 )

500

750

1,000

1,250

1,500

THA

AR

GC

MR

ITA

NG

AJA

MC

HI

NZ

LSC

OR

SASW

EN

OR

KO

RC

HN

All

gam

esN

ED FRA

ESP

USA

JPN

ENG

BR

AA

US

GER

CA

N

17,3

63

19,2

10

19,1

71

21,7

20

17,2

04

20,7

89

23,0

47

20,5

29

23,5

70

20,3

05

25,7

79

25,3

94

26,0

68

22,2

14

25,1

28

28,9

93

26,4

08

30,0

63

27,3

85

30,9

63

28,3

42

23,8

61

29,9

13

28,1

35

31,3

34

8,26

3 8,33

1

9,10

8 9,20

9

9,30

2

9,47

3 9,66

3

9,72

0 10,1

41

10,3

83

11,1

95

11,2

42

11,3

29

11,5

82 11,5

99

11,8

32

12,2

34

12,3

52

13,1

84

13,2

75

13,2

95

13,4

04

13,9

80

14,4

73 15,0

09

IP compactness 73

8

569

703

863

762

795

704

727

901

827

810

706

802

738

826

991

893

832

953

835

922

806

1,07

2

715

786

THA

A

RG

CMR

ITA

NG

AJA

M

CHI

NZL

SCO

RS

A

SWE

NO

R

KO

R

CHN

A

GN

ED FRA

ES

PU

SA

JPN

ENG

BRA

AU

S

GER

CA

N

0

4,000

8,000

12,000

16,000

AR

GC

HI

ITA

CM

RK

OR

NZL

THA

SCO

RSA

NED ES

PJP

NJA

MN

OR

SWE

AG

FRA

CH

NN

GA

USA

ENG

AU

SC

AN

GER

BR

A

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

3.4 Figure 29

Co

mp

actn

ess (

m2 )

IPcompactness

IP Zone 4

IP Zone 5

IP Zone 3

500

800

1,100

1,400

1,700

AR

GC

HI

ITA

CM

RK

OR

NZ

LTH

ASC

OR

SAN

ED ESP

JPN

JAM

NO

RSW

EA

ll ga

mes

FRA

CH

NN

GA

USA

ENG

AU

SC

AN

GER

BR

A

6,51

5

7,81

6

6,93

0

6,82

8

8,95

7

7,33

6

5,86

1

7,64

6

7,86

4

9,25

0

9,73

1

10,6

51

6,84

2

8,51

6

8,45

3

8,75

7

9,36

0

8,66

1

6,28

6

10,0

15

9,93

1

10,3

71

11,3

16

10,7

17

9,42

1

1,34

1

1,38

0

1,60

3

1,60

6

1,84

2

1,75

0

1,56

2

1,74

8

1,74

5

1,79

8

2,01

2 1,93

6

1,69

8

1,85

0

1,90

3

1,98

6

2,04

0

2,23

1

1,91

7

2,17

6

2,30

3

2,41

7 2,62

3

2,66

3

2,59

5

475

467

676

673

530

633

841

747

774

785 61

0

688

933

876

838 85

5 834

691

1,09

9

993

1,06

1

1,19

3 1,07

0

1,09

3

1,38

8

Figure 29. The relationship between team running in higher-speed activities (Zone 3, Zone 4 and Zone 5) and compactness whilst in possession of the ball

Figure 30. The relationship between team running at <13km/h and >13km/h and compactness whilst in possession of the ball

IP compactness 5

69

704

863

703

802

727

738

901

827

991

832

835

795

706

810

826

893

738

762

953

922

1,0

72

786

715

806

ARG

CH

IIT

A

CMR

KO

R

NZL

THA

SC

O

RSA

N

ED ESP

JPN

JAM

N

OR

SW

E A

GFR

A

CHN

N

GA

USA

ENG

AU

S

CAN

GER

BR

A


3.4

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

FRA

CA

NES

PA

US

USA

BR

AEN

GN

EDG

ER AG

SCO

KO

RN

GA

ITA

NO

RSW

EJP

NR

SAC

MR

JAM

CH

NC

HI

AR

GN

ZLTH

A

3.4 Figure 31

OOP depth

OOP height

OOP width

OOP totaldistance

Tota

l dis

tan

ce (m

)

Hei

gh

t/w

idth

/dep

th O

OP

(m)

20

25

30

35

40

45

FRA

CA

NES

PA

US

USA

BR

AEN

GN

EDG

ER AG

SCO

KO

RN

GA

ITA

NO

RSW

EJP

NR

SAC

MR

JAM

CH

NC

HI

AR

GN

ZL

THA

32,1

19

32,2

12

33,1

45

33,8

23

34,2

26

34,6

04

34,7

40

35,2

05

36,0

32

39,2

18

39,4

58

40,5

34

40,7

25

41,2

97

41,5

30

41,6

89

41,9

08

43,7

74

44,0

02

44,5

77

44,6

85

45,0

38

47,5

01

48,9

56

50,9

24

OOP depth 26 26 27 29 26 27 28 29 26 26 27 24 25 28 27 28 25 23 27 29 25 24 23 26 24

OOP height 43 41 40 43 40 34 39 38 43 37 35 36 35 36 34 39 41 33 34 35 38 33 31 33 25

OOP width 32 29 31 29 31 30 31 30 31 30 30 32 33 31 28 30 32 31 31 29 30 30 30 30 30

FRA

CA

N

ESP

AU

S U

SA

BRA

EN

G

NED GER

A

GSC

O

KO

R

NG

AIT

A

NO

R

SWE

JPN

RSA

CM

RJA

M

CHN

CH

IA

RG

NZL

THA

Figure 31 shows the relationship between the team total distance covered and the height, width and depth of the team shape whilst out of possession of the ball. The figure is ranked by the total distance covered by the team whilst out of possession, with the lowest values from left to right. Five of the six teams that covered the highest amount of total distance whilst out of possession of the ball were eliminated in the group stage. There was a strong inverse relationship between the total distance covered by team, and the height (r=-0.79) and depth (r=-0.46) of their formation whilst out of possession of the ball. In other words, teams that defended closer to their own penalty box, and to a lesser extent teams with the lowest distance between their last defender and most advanced forward, tended to cover the most total distance when out of possession of the ball.

As can be seen, Thailand had the lowest defensive line (25m), similar to their height when in possession of the ball, and also covered the highest total distance when out of possession of the ball, meaning that, due to their defensive shape, they had to run more to try to regain the ball. Again, this is also linked to Thailand having the lowest possession of all teams, and hence having to complete more running and total distance generally to try to prevent the opposition from scoring, and also ultimately to win back possession of the ball. Conversely, France (43m), Canada (41m), Spain (40m) and Australia (43m) were amongst the teams with the highest defensive line when out of possession of the ball, and covered the lowest total distance in such situations. Those four teams also averaged the highest possession of all teams at the tournament.

Analysis of distance covered whilst out of possession of the ball only

3.4.3

OOP

Figure 31. The relationship between the total distance covered and the height, width and depth of the team shape whilst out of possession of the ball

3.4


3.4

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

FRA

CA

NES

PA

US

USA

BR

AEN

GN

EDG

ER AG

SCO

KO

RN

GA

ITA

NO

RSW

EJP

NR

SAC

MR

JAM

CH

NC

HI

AR

GN

ZLTH

A

3.4 Figure 32

OOPcompactness

Tota

l dis

tan

ce (m

)

Co

mp

actn

ess

(m2 )

OOP totaldistance

300

400

500

600

700

800

FRA

CA

NES

PA

US

USA

BR

AEN

GN

EDG

ERA

ll ga

mes

SCO

KO

RN

GA

ITA

NO

RSW

EJP

NR

SAC

MR

JAM

CH

NC

HI

AR

GN

ZL

THA

32,1

19

32,2

12

33,1

45

33,8

23

34,2

26

34,6

04

34,7

40

35,2

05

36,0

32

39,2

18

39,4

58

40,5

34

40,7

25

41,2

97

41,5

30

41,6

89

41,9

08

43,7

74

44,0

02

44,5

77

44,6

85

45,0

38

47,5

01

48,9

56

50,9

24

The tactical formation of the coach is key in terms of player positioning and the physical demands that players need to meet to be successful

Figure 32 shows the relationship between the team total distance covered and the compactness of the team shape whilst out of possession of the ball. The figure is ranked by the total distance covered by the team whilst out of possession, with the lowest values from left to right. The Netherlands (677m2) had the biggest shape (least compact) whilst out of possession of the ball, whereas New Zealand (479m2) had the narrowest team shape (most compact), on average, whilst out of possession. There was a strong inverse (r=-0.71) correlation between the total distance covered by teams and the size of their shape, meaning that teams with a smaller shape generally covered more total distance compared to less compact teams (bigger shape). The three teams that covered the most total distance whilst out of possession of the ball had the most compact formation, so they had to rack up more distance in an attempt to win the ball back. Being more compact when out of possession of the ball means that, when teams are attempting to win the ball back, they would generally have to cover more space to close players down and press the ball; this would also be largely related to the compactness of the team in possession of the ball. Again, the tactical formation of the coach is key in terms of player positioning and the physical demands that players need to meet to be successful.

Figure 32. The relationship between team total distance and compactness whilst out of possession of the ball

Figure 33 shows the relationship between the team distances covered in the higher speed zones and the height, width and depth of the team shape whilst out of possession of the ball. The figure is ranked by the total distance covered at >19km/h by the team whilst out of possession, with the lowest values from left to right. The strongest relationship when out of possession of the ball was between the distance covered by teams in Zone 4 and the depth (r=-0.37) of their formation. This inverse relationship means that, when a team’s depth (the distance between its last defender and most advanced forward) was

OOP compactness 57

9

561

651

623

636

558

641

677

548

578

577

553

551

593

514

603

519

533

598

553

525

525

502

479

509

FRA

CA

N

ESP

AU

S

USA

BR

A

ENG

N

ED GER

A

GSC

O

KO

R

NG

AIT

A

NO

R

SWE

JPN

RSA

CM

RJA

M

CHN

CHI

ARG

NZL

THA


3.4

Figure 33. The relationship between team running in higher-speed activities (Zone 4 and Zone 5) and the height, width and depth of the team shape whilst out of possession of the ball

Figure 34 shows the relationship between the team distances covered in the higher speed zones and the compactness of the team shape whilst out of possession of the ball. The figure is ranked by the total distance covered at >19km/h by the team whilst out of possession, with the lowest values from left to right. The Netherlands (677m2) and Spain (651m2) had the biggest shape (least compact) whilst out of possession of the ball. There was a moderate inverse relationship between the size of teams’ shape and running in Zone 4 (r=-0.43), meaning that teams with a smaller shape had to complete more running in this speed zone to attempt to win the ball back.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

SCO

BR

AFR

AN

EDC

AN

USA

ENG

RSA

THA

SWE

JPN

KO

RG

ER AG

JAM

ESP

NZL

CM

RA

RG

AU

SIT

AN

OR

CH

IN

GA

CH

NOOP depth

OOP effortsin Zone 5

OOP height

OOP width

3.4 Figure 33

OOPZone 4

OOPZone 5

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Hei

gh

t/w

idth

/dep

th O

OP

(m)

0

20

40

60

80

100

SCO

BR

AFR

AN

EDC

AN

USA

ENG

RSA

THA

SWE

JPN

KO

RG

ERA

ll ga

mes

JAM

ESP

NZ

LC

MR

AR

GA

US

ITA

NO

RC

HI

NG

AC

HN

2,09

0

2,29

6

2,29

4

2,36

6

2,43

6

2,49

6

2,40

9

2,57

6

2,68

7

2,60

7

2,81

1

2,73

4

2,68

3

2,70

2

2,55

1

2,70

7

2,88

5

2,92

6

3,02

1

2,84

6

3,01

0

3,06

8

3,26

8

3,05

4

3,71

1

567 75

4

860

851

790

761

886 76

7 666

868 72

2

802

891

876

1,05

6

924 81

5

886 85

2

1,05

2

970

1,05

3 936

1,30

8

893

OOP effortsin Zone 5 31 42 52 48 47 40 52 49 41 46 43 44 50 50 63 51 49 52 49 60 52 55 53 74 53

OOP depth 27 27 26 29 26 26 28 23 24 28 25 24 26 26 29 27 26 27 23 29 28 27 24 25 25

OOP height 35 34 43 38 41 40 39 33 25 39 41 36 43 37 35 40 33 34 31 43 36 34 33 35 38

OOP width 30 30 32 30 29 31 31 31 30 30 32 32 31 30 29 31 30 31 30 29 31 28 30 33 30

SCO

BR

A

FRA

N

EDCA

N

USA

EN

G

RSA

TH

A

SWE

JPN

KO

R

GER

A

GJA

M

ESP

NZL

CMR

ARG

A

US

ITA

N

OR

CH

IN

GA

CHN

low, then the team ran slightly more in Zone 4. This suggests that, due to a shallow shape when out of possession, teams need to cover more distance – and at higher speeds – to close down space and attempt to win the ball back.

3.4


3.4

0

4,500

9,000

13,500

18,000

SCO

BR

AFR

AN

EDC

AN

USA

ENG

RSA

THA

SWE

JPN

KO

RG

ER AG

JAM

ESP

NZL

CM

RA

RG

AU

SIT

AN

OR

CH

IN

GA

CH

N

3.4 Figure 34

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Co

mp

actn

ess (

m2 )

OOPcompactness

OOPZone 4

OOPZone 5

OOPZone 3

300

500

700

900

1,100

SCO

BR

AFR

AN

EDC

AN

USA

ENG

RSA

THA

SWE

JPN

KO

RG

ERA

ll ga

mes

JAM

ESP

NZ

LC

MR

AR

GA

US

ITA

NO

RC

HI

NG

AC

HN

10,2

32

9,20

8

9,04

7

9,26

1

9,79

5

9,75

0

9,74

3

11,6

77

12,5

66

11,0

39

10,9

52

11,5

00

10,2

41

10,8

01

10,6

03

9,32

2

13,1

20

11,7

48

13,5

49

9,85

7

11,5

85

12,1

30

13,5

72

10,4

62

13,4

80

2,09

0

2,29

6

2,29

4

2,36

6

2,43

6

2,49

6

2,40

9

2,57

6 2,68

7

2,60

7

2,81

1

2,73

4

2,68

3

2,70

2

2,55

1

2,70

7

2,88

5

2,92

6

3,02

1

2,84

6

3,01

0

3,06

8

3,26

8

3,05

4

3,71

1

567

754

860 851 79

0

761

886

767

666

868

722 80

2

891 87

6

1,05

6

924

815

886

852

1,05

2

970 1,

053

936

1,30

8

893

OOP compactness 57

7

558

579

677

561

636

641

533

509

603

519

553

548

578

553

651

479

598

502

623

593

514

525

551

525

SCO

BR

A

FRA

N

ED

CAN

U

SA

ENG

RS

A

THA

SW

E JP

NK

OR

G

ER

AG

JAM

ES

PN

ZLCM

RA

RG

AU

S

ITA

NO

R

CHI

NG

ACH

N

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

FRA

BR

AN

EDSC

OES

PU

SAC

AN

ENG

AU

SG

ERJA

M AG

JPN

SWE

NG

AR

SAK

OR

CM

RIT

ATH

AN

OR

NZL

AR

GC

HI

CH

N

3.4 Figure 35

OOP<13km/h

OOP>13km/h

OOPcompactness

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Co

mp

actn

ess (

m2 )

300

500

700

900

1,100

1,300

FRA

BR

AN

EDSC

OES

PU

SAC

AN

ENG

AU

SG

ERJA

MA

ll ga

mes

JPN

SWE

NG

AR

SAK

OR

CM

RIT

ATH

AN

OR

NZ

LA

RG

CH

IC

HN

19,9

19

22,3

46

22,7

27

26,5

69

20,1

91

21,2

18

19,1

91

21,7

03

20,0

68

22,2

16

30,3

67

24,8

38

27,4

24

27,1

76

25,9

01

28,7

54

25,4

98

28,4

42

25,7

32

35,0

05

25,2

79

32,1

36

30,0

80

27,2

62

26,6

01

12,2

01 12,2

58

12,4

78

12,8

89

12,9

53

13,0

08

13,0

21 13,0

38

13,7

55 13,8

16

14,2

11

14,3

79 14,4

84

14,5

14

14,8

24 15,0

20

15,0

36 15,5

60

15,5

65

15,9

19

16,2

51

16,8

20

17,4

22

17,7

76

18,0

84

OOP compactness 57

9

558

677

577

651

636

561

641

623

548

553

578

519

603

551

533

553

598

593

509

514

479

502

525

525

FRA

BR

A

NED SCO

ESP

USA

CA

N

ENG

AU

S G

ER

JAM

A

GJP

NSW

E N

GA

RSA

K

OR

CM

RIT

A

THA

NO

R

NZL

ARG

CHI

CHN

Figure 34. The relationship between team running in higher-speed activities (Zone 3, Zone 4 and Zone 5) and compactness whilst out of possession of the ball

Figure 35. The relationship between team running at <13km/h and >13km/h and compactness whilst out of possession of the ball

There was a strong inverse relationship (r=-0.68) between the running that teams completed at >13km/h and the size of their shape whilst out of possession of the ball (Figure 35). This means that, when teams had a smaller shape, they completed more distance at >13km/h in an attempt to win the ball back. Three of the five teams that were the most compact when out of possession of the ball were eliminated in the group stage.


3.4

Summary

• The tactical formation and organisation of teams can impact the amount and type of running that teams need to complete in and out of possession of the ball, and the coach should therefore take this into account when implementing a system of play.

• The greatest proportion of total distance is covered when teams are out of possession of the ball, compared to in possession and in ball-out-of-play situations, with a similar distribution throughout all stages of the tournament.

• Teams generally completed more distance at >19km/h when out of possession of the ball, largely in an attempt to close the opposition down and win the ball back.

• First and foremost, the amount of ball possession will determine the amount of total distance that a team will complete in possession of the ball. Additionally, the amount of total distance that teams completed was strongly correlated with the height (r=0.82) and depth (r=0.64) of their formation whilst in possession. Having a high defensive line whilst in possession of the ball also meant that teams generally covered more distance in Zone 4.

• The strongest relationship between the compactness of teams and the speed at which running was completed in possession was with the distance covered at <13km/h (r=0.55); running at the higher speeds was less correlated when teams were in possession of the ball. This suggests that teams that were more compact (smaller shape) completed less running whilst in possession of the ball – this would also be due to their lower ball possession, which was apparent for Thailand, Nigeria, Argentina, Cameroon, New Zealand, Jamaica and South Africa, who were amongst the teams with the lowest average ball possession.

• There was a strong inverse relationship between the total distance covered by teams and the height (r=-0.79) and depth (r=-0.46) of their formation whilst out of possession of the ball. This means that teams that defended closer to their own penalty box, and to a lesser extent teams with the lowest distance between their last defender and most advanced forward, tended to cover the highest total distance when out of possession of the ball.

• The strongest relationship between the size of teams’ shape and the speed at which running was completed out of possession was with the distance covered at >13km/h (r=-0.68), with the strongest correlation being with Zone 3 (r= -0.72), compared to running in Zone 4 (r=-0.43) and Zone 5 (r=-0.08). These relationships suggest that teams that had a smaller shape (more compact) whilst out of possession of the ball completed more running, particularly in Zone 3, in an attempt to close the opponent down and win the ball back.

3.4.4

3.4


3.4

Figure 36 shows a comparison of the percentage of total distance covered at above and below 13km/h when teams won, lost or drew. The percentage of the distance at <13km/h (73%) and >13km/h (27%) was identical for all three match outcomes. In absolute terms, there was a minimal difference between the distance covered at >13km/h and match outcome, although this was lowest on average for a loss, with 101m more for a draw compared to a win, 827m more for a win compared to a loss, and 928m more for a draw compared to a loss.

Many factors can impact the physical output of players during football matches, such as environmental conditions, accumulated game time, lack of fitness, team ranking and tactical formation; moreover, the physical output of players can also impact the game outcome (Trewin et al., 2018a, 2018b). This section analyses the distances covered by teams and the relation to the game outcome, round of game, number of days between games, tactical formation and confederation.

Team distance covered and game outcome3.5.1

Team analysis | Distances covered in relation to contextual factors

3.5

CHAPTER 3 SECTION 5

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

Draw Loss Win

4,919 4,859 5,028

1,684 1,778 1,850

3.5 Figure 37

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Nu

mb

er o

f ef

fort

s

Efforts inZone 5

Efforts inZone 4

Zone 5

Zone 4

0

100

200

300

Effortsin Zone 5

96 98 104

Effortsin Zone 4

325 318 331

Draw Loss Win

Game outcome

Figure 36. Summary of the total distance covered at <13km/h and >13km/h according to the game outcome

0

25

50

75

100

Draw Loss Win

3.5 Figure 36

>13km/h

<13km/h

Perc

enta

ge

of

tota

l dis

tan

ce (%

)

Game outcomeDraw Loss Win

76,760 75,437 76,325

28,841 27,913 28,740



Round1

Round2

Round3

Quarter-finals

Semi-finals

Final

Figure 37 shows a comparison between the distances covered and efforts completed at the higher speeds (>19km/h) and the match outcome. The total distance covered and efforts completed by teams at >19km/h were slightly higher for a win compared to a draw (275m; 14 efforts) and a loss (241m; 19 efforts). When looking at distance and efforts in Zone 4, for a win compared to a loss, teams averaged 3% more distance and 4% more efforts. Similarly, for Zone 5, teams that won covered 4% more distance and completed 6% more efforts on average compared to teams that lost. These findings suggest that winning teams, on average, did complete more higher-speed activities.

Figure 37. Summary of the total distance covered and efforts completed at >19km/h according to the game outcome

3.5


3.5

0

25

50

75

100

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7

>13km/h

<13km/h

Perc

enta

ge

of

tota

l dis

tan

ce (%

)

3.5 Figure 38

Round of game

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7

75,549 75,199 76,288 76,459 76,924 75,705 76,841

28,255 28,304 28,768 28,968 28,307 26,677 26,191

Figure 38 shows a comparison of the percentage of total distance covered at above and below 13km/h and the round of the game. As the tournament progresses and teams advance, players will be accumulating more playing time, and the chances of accumulated fatigue having an impact on the physical and technical output of players increases. Obviously, there are more match observations in rounds 1-3 (48 apiece for each of those rounds), compared to the knockout rounds of the tournament (32 in round 4, 16 in round 5 and eight in both rounds 6 and 7), which would impact the average and range of values observed. The percentage of the distance at <13km/h (73%) and >13km/h (27%) was identical for the first five rounds of games. For rounds 6 and 7, the distance at <13km/h increased to 74% and 75% respectively. As an absolute value, on average, the distance at >13km/h was highest during round 4 and lowest during round 7 (7% lower in comparison to round 1).

Team distance covered and round of game3.5.2

Figure 38. Summary of the total distance covered at <13km/h and >13km/h according to the game round

3.5


3.5

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7

3.5 Figure 40

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Round of game

Nu

mb

er o

f ef

fort

s

Efforts inZone 5

Efforts inZone 4

Zone 5

Zone 4

0

100

200

300

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7

4,865 4,973 4,985 5,200 4,816 4,518 4,548

1,742 1,711 1,777 1,9981,820

1,806 2,056

Efforts in Zone 5

98 94 102 111 99 98 108

Efforts in Zone 4

318 330 328 340 312 302 293

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7

52,1

44

51,7

86

52,3

45

52,4

33

53,4

93

52,2

74

51,1

76

51,6

59

51,7

17

52,7

11

52,9

94

51,7

38

49,1

93

51,8

56

3.5 Figure 39

2nd half

1st half

Tota

l dis

tan

ce (m

)

Round of game

Figure 39. Summary of the total distance covered during the first and second half according to the game round

Figure 40. Summary of the total distance covered and efforts completed at >19km/h according to the game round

There was minimal difference (<1%) between the total distance covered during the first and second half of games for rounds 1-4, with the highest total distance on average being during round 4. For rounds 5 and 6 respectively, there was a decrease of 3% and 6% in total distance from the first to the second half. For round 7, similar to rounds 1-4, there was a slight difference (1%) in total distance from the first to the second half of the games. See Figure 39.

SPEED ZONES



3.5

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7

3,28

6

3,32

1

3,35

4

3,47

4

3,45

5

3,01

0

3,54

6

3,32

0

3,36

3

3,40

8

3,72

4

3,18

1

3,14

1

3,05

8

3.5 Figure 41

Dis

tan

ce a

t >

19km

/h (m

)

Nu

mb

er o

f ef

fort

s at

>19

km/h

2nd-half distanceat >19km/h

1st-half distanceat >19km/h

1st-half effortsat >19km/h

2nd-half effortsat >19km/h

Round of game

100

150

200

250

1st-half effortsat >19 km/h

207 209 214 216 212 192 208

2nd-half effortsat >19 km/h

209 216 216 235 199 195 194

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7

Figure 40 shows a comparison between the distances covered and efforts completed at the higher speeds (>19km/h) and the round of the game. The total distance covered and efforts completed by teams at >19km/h were highest during round 4 (7,198m; 450 efforts), which in part could be due to this being the start of the knockout stage and teams facing elimination if they failed to win, and therefore needing to press for a goal. The lowest figures for distance covered and efforts completed at >19km/h came during round 6 (6,324m; 400 efforts), which only comprised eight match observations, compared to 32 for round 4. The distance at >19km/h in round 7 was very similar to round 1, whilst the number of efforts at >19km/h was 15 (-4%) lower during the last round of games. However, the distance covered and efforts completed in Zone 4 were respectively 317m (-7%) and 25 (-8%) lower in round 7 compared to the first round of games, when you would expect players to be at their freshest, with an optimal ability to complete physical outputs. Conversely, the distance covered and efforts completed in Zone 5 were respectively 314m (18%) and 10 (10%) higher in round 7 compared to the first round of games, which means that the teams in those games were able to complete more running and efforts in the highest speed zone during the last round of matches.

There was minimal difference between the distance covered and efforts completed at >19km/h for the first and second half of games during rounds 1-3. During round 4, there was the biggest increase in distance (7%) and efforts (9%) at >19km/h from the first to the second period. Conversely, round 7 saw the biggest reduction in distance (488m; -14%) and efforts (14; -7%) at >19km/h from the first to the second half of the games, which could in part be due to accumulated fatigue by that stage of the tournament. This notwithstanding, the absolute distance in Zone 5 (Figure 40) was actually highest in round 7, suggesting that this could rather have been a tactical ploy by teams to slow down the play.

Figure 41. Summary of the total distance covered and efforts completed at >19km/h during the first and second half according to the game round

3.5


3.5

0

25

50

75

100

0 days 3 days 4 days 5 days 6 days 7 days 8 days

3.5 Figure 42

>13km/h

<13km/h

Perc

enta

ge

of

tota

l dis

tan

ce (%

)

Number of days since last game


75,549 78,546 75,719 75,956 78,060 77,459 77,302

28,255 26,461 28,276 28,465 30,637 27,949 29,279

Team distance covered and numberof days since last game

Figure 42 shows a comparison of the percentage of total distance covered at above and below 13km/h and the number of days since the teams’ last game. Zero days refers to the first game for each team in the tournament, which is the key focus for teams when preparing for the competition, and you would assume that players and teams should be the most rested and prepared going into that game. Depending on their draw, every team has a unique path for both the group stages and for the latter stages in the case of the teams that progress. Generally, the number of days between games for teams varied from three days (two match observations) to eight days (one match observation), with only one team (China PR) having eight days between matches – specifically, this came between their final group game and their round-of-16 encounter. There were more match observations with four days (30) and five days (42) between the games. Other than three days (75% and 25% respectively), the percentage of the distance at <13km/h (72-73%) and >13km/h (27-28%) was extremely similar for all of the other intervals between games. As an absolute value, the highest overall total distance was covered when there were six days between games (108,697m), whilst the lowest was during the first round of games (zero days, 103,803m). For distance at <13km/h, the highest value was for three days between games (78,546m), whilst the lowest was also during the first round of games (75,549m). For distance at >13km/h, the highest value was with six days (30,637m) between matches, with the lowest value being with three days (26,461m; 14% lower than six days) between games.

Figure 42. Summary of the total distance covered at <13km/h and >13km/h according to the number of days since the teams’ last game

3.5.3

The highest overall total distance was covered when there were six days between games


3.5

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000


52,1

44

53,1

05

51,9

72

52,1

06

53,7

65

55,0

07

53,4

27

51,6

59

53,0

82

51,5

27

52,6

91

49,5

79

52,2

82

51,2

51

3.5 Figure 43

1st half

2nd half

Tota

l dis

tan

ce (m

)


There was minimal difference (<1%) between the total distance covered during the first and second half of games for 0-5 days between games. When the period between matches was longer, there was a more substantial decrease in the total distance from the first to the second half of the games: -8% for a six-day spell between matches, -5% for a seven-day interval and -4% for an eight-day hiatus. This suggests that, whilst enough recovery days between games is important for physical performance, having too many days between games, especially during tournament play, can affect the rhythm of the team and actually lead to a decrease in the physical output of the team and individual players.

Figure 43. Summary of the total distance covered during the first and second half according to the number of days since the teams’ last game

3.5


3.5

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

0 Days 3 Days 4 Days 5 Days 6 Days 7 Days 8 Days

3,28

6

3,40

1

3,29

1

3,39

1

3,96

2

3,46

4

3,37

2

3,32

0

3,38

3

3,27

9

3,46

8

3,73

6

3,57

9

3,37

0

3.5 Figure 45

Dis

tan

ce a

t >

19km

/h (m

)

Nu

mb

er o

f ef

fort

s at

>19

km/h



2nd-half distance at >19km/h



150

175

200

225

250

0

1,250

2,500

3,750

5,000

6,250


4,865 4,826 4,906 4,974 5,392 5,058 5,257

1,742 1,879 1,844 1,8241,786

1,675 1,404

3.5 Figure 44

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Nu

mb

er o

f ef

fort

s


Efforts inZone 5

Efforts inZone 4

Zone 5

Zone 4

0

70

140

210

280

350

Efforts inZone 5

318 313 324 327 343 333 341

Efforts inZone 4

98 101 102 102 104 93 90


1st-half effortsat >19 km/h

207 201 206 213 247 217 231

2nd-half effortsat >19 km/h

209 228 207 220 230 224 212


Figure 44 shows a comparison between the distances covered and efforts completed at the higher speeds (>19km/h) and the number of days between games. The total distance covered and efforts completed by teams at >19km/h were highest with six days between games (7,178m; 447 efforts), with the lowest distance at >19km/h being during the first round of games (zero days, 6,607m) and the number of efforts completed at >19km/h being lowest with three days between games (414). When breaking the distance covered down into zones 4 and 5, for Zone 4, the greatest distance was covered with six to eight days between games, while the lowest came with three days between games, which would suggest that a certain level of fatigue may have hindered teams’ ability to work in this speed zone with only three days between games. However, the highest amount of distance in Zone 5 was also covered, on average, after three days between games, suggesting that players are actually still capable

Figure 44. Summary of the total distance covered and efforts completed at >19km/h according to the number of days since the teams’ last game

Figure 45. Summary of the total distance covered and efforts completed at >19km/h during the first and second half according to the number of days since the teams’ last game


3.5

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000


3,28

6

3,40

1

3,29

1

3,39

1

3,96

2

3,46

4

3,37

2

3,32

0

3,38

3

3,27

9

3,46

8

3,73

6

3,57

9

3,37

0

3.5 Figure 45

Dis

tan

ce a

t >

19km

/h (m

)

Nu

mb

er o

f ef

fort

s at

>19

km/h



2nd-half distance at >19km/h



150

175

200

225

250

0

25

50

75

100

1-3-5-2 (1) 1-4-4-1-1 (1) 1-5-4-1 (1) 1-3-4-3 (2) 1-4-5-1 (9) 1-4-2-3-1 (11) 1-4-4-2 (34) 1-4-3-3 (45)

3.5 Figure 46

>13km/h

<13km/h

Perc

enta

ge

of

tota

l dis

tan

ce (%

)

Team formation3-5-2 (1) 4-4-1-1 (1) 5-4-1 (1) 3-4-3 (2) 4-5-1 (9) 4-2-3-1 (11) 4-4-2 (34) 4-3-3 (45)

76,270 76,743 72,395 74,680 75,751 76,435 76,623 75,339

25,416 23,42729,125 26,706 26,913 27,477 29,627 28,184

There was minimal difference between the distance covered at >19km/h for the first and second half of games during the first round of games (zero days), and when there were three, four, five and eight days between matches; with six days between games, such distance decreased by 6%. The key differences for efforts at >19km/h included a 13% increase from the first to the second half following three days between games, as well as decreases when there were six days (-7%) and eight days (-8%) between games. While it is once more necessary to be mindful of the different number of match observations for each case, this again suggests that, whilst there can be too little time between games, having too many days between games can disrupt match rhythm and players’ physical preparation.

Figure 46 shows a comparison of the percentage of total distance covered at above and below 13km/h based on the tactical formation at the start of a game, as defined by the FIFA Technical Study Group. The number of match observations for each formation varied and that is indicated in brackets next to the formation on the graphs. As can be seen, there was only one match observation for three of the formations (1-3-5-2, 1-4-4-1-1 and 1-5-4-1), which should be considered when interpreting the data. The percentage of the distance at <13km/h was highest for 1-3-5-2 (75%) and lowest for 1-5-4-1 (71%). The amount of distance – relative to total distance – covered at above and below 13km/h was similar for all of the other formations. In absolute terms, the distance covered at <13km/h was similar and highest for 1-4-4-1-1 and 1-4-4-2, with the most distance at >13km/h also whilst in a 1-4-4-2 formation. The lowest distance at >13km/h was whilst in a 1-4-4-1-1 formation, but only one team played that formation (Scotland), and in one match only.

Team distance covered and tactical formation

3.5.4

Figure 46. Summary of the total distance covered at <13km/h and >13km/h according to the tactical formation. * (x) is the number of occasions that the formation was used in the tournament (only the starting formations for each match were computed).

of working in the highest speed zone with fewer recovery days. The most efforts in Zone 4 and Zone 5 both occurred with six days between games, with the least for Zone 4 being with a three-day gap and the least for Zone 5 coming after an eight-day interval; nonetheless, it must be remembered that only one team had eight days between games.

1-3-5-2 (1)*

1-4-4-1-1 (1)*

1-5-4-1 (1)*

1-3-4-3 (2)*

1-4-5-1 (9)*

1-4-2-3-1 (11)*

1-4-4-2 (34)*

1-4-3-3 (45)*

3.5


3.5

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

3-5-2 (1) 4-4-1-1 (1) 5-4-1 (1) 3-4-3 (2) 4-5-1 (9) 4-2-3-1 (11) 4-4-2 (34) 4-3-3 (45)

1,167

1,243

1,6991,458 1,641 1,811

1,8571,833

3.5 Figure 47D

ista

nce

(m)

Nu

mb

er o

f ef

fort

s

Efforts inZone 5

Efforts inZone 4

Zone 5

Zone 4

0

200

400

600

3-5-2 (1) 4-4-1-1 (1) 5-4-1 (1) 3-4-3 (2) 4-5-1 (9) 4-2-3-1 (11) 4-4-2 (34) 4-3-3 (45)

4,487 3,532 4,941 4,683 4,660 4,601 5,258 4,879

1,167

1,243

1,6991,458 1,641 1,811

1,8571,833

Efforts inZone 5

71 69 98 90 93 99 102 103

Efforts inZone 4

317 217 332 316 304 303 345 320

1-3-5-2 (1)*

1-4-4-1-1 (1)*

1-5-4-1 (1)*

1-3-4-3 (2)*

1-4-5-1 (9)*

1-4-2-3-1 (11)*

1-4-4-2 (34)*

1-4-3-3 (45)*

Team formation

Figure 47 shows a comparison between the distances covered and efforts completed at the higher speeds (>19km/h) and the tactical formation. The total distance covered and efforts completed at >19km/h were generally highest for teams that set up in a 1-4-4-2 formation. The team that set up in a 1-4-4-1-1 formation completed the least distance and fewest efforts at >19km/h, although again, this was only one team and in one match, but their distance at >19km/h was 33% lower than teams competing in a 1-4-4-2 formation, and they completed 37% and 32% fewer efforts in Zone 4 and Zone 5 respectively compared to teams in a 1-4-4-2. Such findings are important so that coaches have a good understanding of the physical demands of the tactical formation that they wish to employ and, along with the fitness coach, can then prepare the players optimally for those demands.

Figure 47. Summary of the total distance covered and efforts completed at >19km/h according to the tactical formation. *(x) is the number of occasions that the formation was used in the tournament (only the starting formations for each match were computed).

Team distance covered and confederation

A comparison of the total distance covered at <13km/h and >13km/h by the teams representing the respective confederations at Canada 2015 (Figure 48) and France 2019 (Figure 49) can be seen below. As was outlined in the methods, the OFC (1) was represented by the lowest number of teams, whilst UEFA (9) had the greatest number of representatives, and this should be considered when interpreting the data. In 2015, the amount of distance completed at <13km/h, as a proportion of total distance, ranged from 72% (the OFC) to 76% (CONMEBOL). This means that teams from CONMEBOL covered the lowest proportion of distance at >13km/h. In absolute terms, in 2015, UEFA teams completed the highest overall distance, and the most distance at <13km/h (84,199m) and >13km/h (27,796m).

3.5.5


3.5

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

AFC CAF Concacaf CONMEBOL OFC UEFA

3.5 Figure 49

>13km/h

<13km/h

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Confederation

2019


76,643 72,484 76,351 75,179 77,980 76,357

29,73926,542

28,667 28,599 28,637 28,314

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000


3.5 Figure 48

>13km/h

<13km/hD

ista

nce

(m)

Confederation

2015


76,720 72,530 76,447 74,702 69,210 84,199

25,71723,367

27,208 23,78926,767

27,796

Figure 48. Summary of the total distance covered at <13km/h and >13km/h per confederation at Canada 2015

In 2019, teams from all confederations covered a very similar proportion of distance at <13km/h (72/73%). In other words, teams in 2019 broadly covered a higher proportion of total distance at >13km/h, as has already been highlighted. Overall, the change in total distance went from -7% (UEFA) to an increase of 11% (the OFC) from 2015 to 2019. When looking at the distance at <13km/h, the comparison ranged from -9.3% (UEFA) to an increase of 12.7% (the OFC) in 2019. For distance at >13km/h, CONMEBOL (20.2%) had the biggest increase, followed by the AFC (15.6%) and CAF (13.6%); UEFA teams (1.9%) had the lowest increase for this higher-speed running compared to 2015.

Figure 49. Summary of the total distance covered at <13km/h and >13km/h per confederation at France 2019

A comparison of the total distance covered and efforts completed in the higher speed zones (>19km/h) by the teams representing the respective confederations at Canada 2015 (Figure 50) and France 2019 (Figure 51) can be seen below. Teams from all confederations increased the amount of distance completed at >19km/h, ranging from an increase of 1.2% (the OFC) to 30.1% (CONMEBOL/CAF). In 2015, the OFC team, on average, covered the greatest distance at >19km/h, whereas in 2019, AFC teams covered the most distance above that threshold. When breaking it down into distance covered in Zone 4, AFC teams (5,309m) again covered the most distance in 2019, whilst the OFC team (4,812m) managed the least distance and the AFC contingent (28.7%) had the greatest increase from 2015 to 2019.

3.5


3.5

0

2,000

4,000

6,000


5,309 4,841 4,946 4,917 4,812 4,878

1,7181,913 1,915 1,734 1,473 1,821

3.5 Figure 51

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Nu

mb

er o

f ef

fort

s in

Zo

ne

52019

Confederation

Efforts inZone 5

Zone 5

Zone 4

0

50

100

150

Efforts inZone 5

97 108 107 97 83 101


0

2,000

4,000

6,000


4,215 3,818 4,439 3,925 4,771 4,508

1,2951,371

1,552

1,183

1,4381,471

3.5 Figure 50

Dis

tan

ce (m

)Efforts inZone 5

Zone 5

Zone 4

Nu

mb

er o

f ef

fort

s in

Zo

ne

5

Confederation

2015

0

50

100

150

Figure 50. Summary of the total distance covered and efforts completed at >19km/h per confederation at Canada 2015

For distance in Zone 5 in 2019, Concacaf (1,915m) followed closely by CAF (1,913m) teams covered the most distance, with the OFC team (1,473m) covering the lowest distance in this speed zone; CONMEBOL (46.5%) had the biggest increase in this distance from 2015, followed by CAF (39.5%) and AFC (32.7%) teams. Teams from all confederations other than the OFC also completed a higher number of efforts in Zone 5 in 2019, with CONMEBOL (42.4%) and CAF (34%) showing the biggest increases. Again, when making comparisons of the data, it should be borne in mind that the OFC was only represented by one team (New Zealand) at both editions of the competition. However, it is again apparent that there have been big increases in the physical outputs, especially at the higher

Figure 51. Summary of the total distance covered and efforts completed at >19km/h per confederation at France 2019

3.5.6

Efforts inZone 5

76 81 92 68 83 85



3.5

0

2,000

4,000

6,000


4,215 3,818 4,439 3,925 4,771 4,508

1,2951,371

1,552

1,183

1,4381,471

3.5 Figure 50

Dis

tan

ce (m

)Efforts inZone 5

Zone 5

Zone 4

Nu

mb

er o

f ef

fort

s in

Zo

ne

5

Confederation

2015

0

50

100

150

intensities, by teams from the CONMEBOL and CAF regions, which have historically been lower-ranked teams eliminated during the group stage or in the early knockout rounds, so it is pleasing to see the increases for those regions. Conversely, the improvements from the UEFA teams were evident, but less pronounced, which could be a reflection of the current development of those teams and many of those countries already having professional environments and leagues to develop their players. In addition, seven of the eight quarter-finalists were from UEFA, again highlighting the strength of the teams in that confederation.

Summary

• The physical loads completed by teams were very similar, regardless of the match outcome, with a slightly higher distance covered at >19km/h (4%) by teams that won compared to teams that lost.

• When comparing the physical outputs to the round of the game, on average, the loads were very similar for rounds 1-3, and generally the highest for the distance and efforts at >19km/h in round 4, the first knockout round. The distance covered and efforts in Zone 5 were higher in round 7 compared to the first round of games, which means that the teams in those games were able to complete more running and efforts in the highest speed zone during their final fixture. However, there was a reduction in such high-speed running from the first to the second half of the games in round 7, which could have been a tactical ploy by teams in those games to slow down play.

• The number of days between games is important for player recovery and subsequent preparation, physically and tactically, for the next game and opponent. Throughout the 2019 tournament, that interval varied from three to eight days. One of the main findings was that some of the distances and efforts at the higher speeds (>19km/h) were lower with more days between games, although there were also fewer match observations. However, whilst having too little time between games will hinder players’ recovery, having too many days can also disrupt the match rhythm, meaning that the physical preparation of players with a greater hiatus can be more challenging. For tournament play, it is important to take this into consideration and prepare players optimally for the game schedule that they will face.

• Throughout France 2019, eight different tactical formations, as defined by the FIFA Technical Study Group at the start of games, were used by coaches, although three of the formations were only used by one team and for one match. The lowest overall total distance and distance at >19km/h were completed by the team that lined up in a 1-4-4-1-1 formation. Generally, teams using a 1-4-4-2 formation covered the most total distance, and racked up the most distance and efforts at >19km/h. Such findings are important so that coaches have a good understanding of the physical demands of the tactical formation that they wish to employ, and along with the fitness coach, can then prepare the players optimally for those demands.

• When comparing the physical output of teams from the different confederations, compared to 2015, the majority of the confederations registered substantial upturns. For distances at >13km/h specifically, CONMEBOL (20.2%) had the biggest increase, followed by the AFC (15.6%) and CAF (13.6%). Those confederations also had the biggest increase from 2015 for the distances and efforts completed at >19km/h. It is apparent that there have been big increases in the physical outputs, especially at the higher intensities, by teams from the CONMEBOL and CAF regions, which have historically been lower-ranked teams eliminated during the group stage or in the early knockout rounds, so it is pleasing to see the increases for those regions. Conversely, the improvements from the UEFA teams were evident, but less pronounced, which could be a reflection of the current development of those teams and many of those countries already having professional environments and leagues to develop their players.

3.5.6

3.5


3.5

Figure 52 shows a comparison of the average distances covered at <13km/h and >13km/h, and the average number of passes made per game, by the final four teams at the 2019 tournament and the same four teams at Canada 2015. The USA and England both reached the final four in 2015 as well, whereas both the Netherlands and Sweden were eliminated in the round of 16, meaning that they only completed four games each in that tournament. Sweden completed the overall highest distance of the four teams in both of the tournaments: 108,763m in 2015, which decreased slightly in 2019 (-1%). The USA’s total distance was almost identical across both tournaments, whilst England had a

3.6.1

3.6

Comparison with their output at Canada 2015

Team analysis | Final four teams: distances, passes, possession and compactness

CHAPTER 3 SECTION 6

3.6

2% increase in total distance (1,573m) and the Netherlands posted a 1% increase (762m) from 2015 to the 2019 edition. As an absolute value, all four teams covered a similar distance at <13km/h across the tournaments, with Sweden covering the highest amount and England the lowest. For distance covered at >13km/h, Sweden were the only team with a decrease (-5%) from 2015 to 2019; the three other teams increased their distance above this threshold, with England showing the greatest increase (9%). In terms of efforts at >19km/h, all teams increased their average number of efforts from 2015 to 2019, with the USA (11; 3%) showing the lowest increase and England (65; 17%) the greatest. In absolute terms, in 2019, England (437) completed the most efforts at >19km/h on average throughout the tournament out of the final four. With regard to technical elements, when looking at the average number of passes per game, England again had the highest overall total in 2019 (573) and the biggest increase (74%) from 2015. The USA also had a large increase (43%) in total passes from 2015, whilst Sweden had the lowest number out of the four teams in 2019 (443) and actually registered a decrease (-2%) in their average number of passes with respect to 2015.

Figure 52. Comparison of the distances covered at <13km/h and >13km/h, efforts at >19km/h and total team passes for the final four teams at France 2019, alongside their Canada 2015 output

0

25,000

50,000

75,000

100,000

ENG 2015 ENG 2019 NED 2015 NED 2019 SWE 2015SWE 2019 USA 2015 USA 2019

76,013 75,304 76,711 76,495 79,365 79,584 76,686 76,207

26,470 28,753 25,516 26,494 29,398 28,042 28,509 29,038

3.6 Figure 52

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Tota

l pas

ses/

effo

rts

at >

19km

/h

>13km/h

<13km/h

Efforts at>19km/h

Total passes

300

375

450

525

600


76,013 75,304 76,711 76,495 79,365 79,584 76,686 76,207

26,470 28,753 25,516 26,494 29,398 28,042 28,509 29,038

Effortsat >19 km/h

372 437 334 388 366 413 412 423

Total passes 329 573 452 539 452 443 354 505

ENG2015

ENG2019

NED2015

NED2019

SWE2015

SWE2019

USA2015

USA 2019

SPEED ZONES


3.6

3.6


Figure 53 shows a comparison of the average distances covered at >19km/h, Zone 5 efforts completed and ball possession recorded by the final four teams at the 2019 tournament, compared to their output in 2015. When looking at the overall distance at >19km/h, England (6,975m) followed by the USA (6,795m) covered the most ground in 2019; England (1,023m; 17%) also had the biggest increase from 2015. When looking at distance covered in Zone 4 only, England (4,963m) and the USA (4,952m) again covered the highest absolute distance in 2019, with England (13%) having the biggest increase from 2015 and the USA (5%) the lowest. For distance and efforts in Zone 5, England completed the most distance (2,012m) and efforts (111) in 2019, whilst Sweden had the biggest increase in distance (41%) and efforts (33%) from 2015. All four teams increased their distance and efforts completed in the highest speed zone compared to 2015, with the USA having the smallest increase on both fronts (9% and 1% respectively). When looking at ball possession, England again had the highest increase (24%) from 2015, whilst Sweden’s average ball possession decreased (-4%) from 2015 to 2019. Overall, England (57%) and the Netherlands (56%) had the greatest ball possession out of the semi-finalists during the 2019 tournament. These findings demonstrate that whilst all four teams increased their physical outputs – especially in the highest speed zones – from 2015 to 2019, the USA had the lowest increases, meaning that their physical output was very similar for the 2015 and 2019 tournaments; England, on the other hand, had by far the biggest increases in both technical elements and the highest-intensity distances and efforts completed during games. Such findings are in keeping with earlier sections of this report showing that total distance was consistent across the 2015 and 2019 tournaments, but that whilst some of the lower-speed distances and efforts decreased, distances and efforts at the higher speeds increased, reflecting a higher-paced game at the elite level.

Figure 53. Comparison of the distances covered at >19km/h, efforts in Zone 5 and average ball possession for the final four teams at France 2019, set against their Canada 2015 output

0

2,000

4,000

6,000


4,381 4,963 3,980 4,392 4,386 4,739 4,702 4,952

1,570

2,012

1,4031,745 1,251

1,769 1,6841,843

3.6 Figure 53

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Team

po

sses

sio

n (

%)/

effo

rts

in Z

on

e 5

Zone 5

Zone 4

Efforts inZone 5

Teampossession

40

65

90

115


4,381 4,963 3,980 4,392 4,386 4,739 4,702 4,952

1,570

2,012

1,4031,745 1,251

1,769 1,6841,843

Effortsin Zone 5

91 111 81 99 73 97 100 101

Team possession

46 57 51 56 50 48 52 55

ENG2015

ENG2019

NED2015

NED2019

SWE2015

SWE2019

USA2015

USA 2019



Round1

Round2

Round3

Quarter-finals

Semi-finals

Final


3.6

0

2,000

4,000

6,000


4,381 4,963 3,980 4,392 4,386 4,739 4,702 4,952

1,570

2,012

1,4031,745 1,251

1,769 1,6841,843

3.6 Figure 53

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Team

po

sses

sio

n (

%)/

effo

rts

in Z

on

e 5

Zone 5

Zone 4

Efforts inZone 5

Teampossession

40

65

90

115


4,381 4,963 3,980 4,392 4,386 4,739 4,702 4,952

1,570

2,012

1,4031,745 1,251

1,769 1,6841,843

Figure 54 shows a comparison of the average distances covered at <13km/h and >13km/h, and the average number of passes played per game, by the final four teams at the 2019 tournament only, broken down by the stage of the tournament (group stage and knockout rounds). Of the four semi-finalists, Sweden covered the most distance at <13km/h in both the group stage (79,426m) and the knockout rounds (79,703m). England (74,354m) and the USA (74,920m) respectively covered the least distance at such speeds during the group stage and the knockout rounds. The USA (-4%) notably decreased the amount of distance they covered at <13km/h from group to knockout action, whilst the other teams had minimal change. When looking at distance covered at >13km/h, the USA covered the most during the group stage (30,811m), whilst England led the way during the knockout phase (29,290m). England increased (4%) the distance that they covered from the group stage to the knockout rounds, whilst the other three teams decreased their distance covered at >13km/h, with the USA (-10%) having the biggest decrease. Sweden (447) registered the most efforts at >19km/h during the group stage, whilst England (453) completed the most during the knockout rounds; England also increased (9%) the number from the group stage, whilst all other teams produced fewer in the knockout rounds compared to the group stage, Sweden (-13%) having the biggest drop. All four teams decreased their number of total passes from the group stage to knockout action; ball possession also decreased for every team (Figure 55), with the USA (-26%) and Sweden (-23%) having the biggest reductions. The big drops in the number of passes and amount of higher-speed running observed for both Sweden and the USA from the group phase to the knockout rounds could in part be due to the other two teams in their group being amongst the lowest-ranked of the 24 teams in the tournament, and Sweden and the USA therefore being technically and physically dominant against those teams prior to facing stronger opposition in the latter stages of the tournament.

Output in 2019 only and breakdown by the stage of the tournament

Figure 54. Comparison of the distances covered at <13km/h and >13km/h, efforts at >19km/h and total number of passes for the final four teams, for the group stage and knockout rounds

3.6.2

0

25,000

50,000

75,000

100,000

ENG Group stageENG Knockout stageNED Group stageNED Knockout stageSWE Group stageSWE Knockout stageUSA Group stageUSA Knockout stage

74,354 76,016 76,175 76,735 79,426 79,703 77,924 74,920

28,037 29,290 27,472 25,760 29,642 26,843 30,81127,709

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Tota

l pas

ses/

effo

rts

at >

19km

/h

Efforts at>19km/h

Total passes

>13km/h

<13km/h

3.6 Figure 54

300

400

500

600

700

Effortsat >19 km/h

417 453 404 375 447 387 432 416

Total passes 585 565 570 553 549 397 640 404

ENGGS

ENGKO

NEDGS

NEDKO

SWEGS

SWEKO

USAGS

USAKO

3.6

3.6


Figure 55. Comparison of the distances covered at >19km/h, efforts in Zone 5 and average team ball possession for the final four teams

Figure 55 shows a comparison of the average distances covered at >19km/h and efforts completed in Zone 5 by the final four teams during the group stage and knockout rounds at the 2019 tournament only, alongside their ball possession. The USA (6,896m) completed the most distance at >19km/h during the group stage, whilst England (7,307m) completed the most distance at >19km/h during the knockout rounds. England (12%) were the only of the semi-finalists to increase the amount of distance at >19km/h from group to knockout action, with Sweden (-10%) having the biggest decline out of the other three teams. For distance covered in Zone 4 only, the USA (5,142m) and England (5,064m) respectively covered the most during the group stage and knockout phase, with England again being the only of the semi-finalists with an increase from group to knockout action (5%). For distance in Zone 5, Sweden (1,802m) completed the most in the group stage, whilst England completed the lowest amount in the group stage (1,704m), but the most in the knockout rounds (2,243m), thereby registering the greatest increase (32%) from the group stage to the knockout phase. The USA (9%) also increased the amount of distance they completed in Zone 5, whilst both Sweden and the Netherlands did less such running (-3%) during the knockout rounds. The Netherlands (100) completed the most Zone 5 efforts during the group stage, whilst England (120) completed the most during the knockout rounds; England (21%) and the USA (9%) both increased their number of such efforts in the knockout phase, whilst the Netherlands (-2%) and Sweden (-3%) both posted decreases. Finally, similar to the total passes completed, each of the four teams’ ball possession decreased from the group stage to the knockout rounds, with the USA (-26%) and Sweden (-23%) having a greater decline. Again, this could be the result of playing stronger opponents during the latter stages of the tournament.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000


4,828 5,064 4,655 4,195 5,086 4,479 5,142 4,810

1,7042,243

1,7741,724

1,802

1,744

1,7541,909

3.6 Figure 55

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Team

po

sses

sio

n (%

)/eff

ort

s in

Zo

ne

5

Zone 5

Zone 4

Efforts inZone 5

Teampossession

40

65

90

115


4,828 5,064 4,655 4,195 5,086 4,479 5,142 4,810

1,7042,243

1,7741,724

1,802

1,744

1,7541,909

Effortsin Zone 5

99 120 100 98 99 96 96 105

Team possession

58 56 57 55 56 43 65 48

ENGGS

ENGKO

NEDGS

NEDKO

SWEGS

SWEKO

USAGS

USAKO


3.6

0

3,000

6,000

9,000

SCO (57%) ARG (65%) JPN (51%) CMR (64%) NOR (50%) USA (54%) SWE (55%)

4,526 5,024 4,933 4,986 6,084 4,442 4,744

1,6731,850 1,589 1,756

2,875

2,1432,198

3.6 Figure 56

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Tota

l pas

ses/

effo

rts

at >

19km

/h

Efforts at>19km/h

Total passes

Zone 5

Zone 4

300

450

600

750


4,526 5,024 4,933 4,986 6,084 4,442 4,744

1,6731,850 1,589 1,756

2,875

2,1432,198

Figure 56. Comparison of the distances covered at >19km/h, efforts at >19km/h, average team passes and ball possession (%) for England in each of their games

Figure 56 shows a comparison of the average distances covered and efforts completed at >19km/h, alongside total passes, for England against their seven opponents at the 2019 tournament only. England completed their lowest distance and fewest efforts at >19km/h in their first game against Scotland, which they won 2-1. As can be seen, England recorded their highest figures for distance and efforts at >19km/h in their fifth game of the tournament against Norway, which were respectively 45% and 43% higher than their output during their first game against Scotland. Moreover, in the Norway game, England had their lowest possession (50%) of all of their games, and similarly had their second-lowest number of passes. All of this suggests that the Norwegians made England work harder to win the ball back. England then completed much less distance (-26%) and fewer efforts (-27%) at >19km/h in their next game, game six against the USA. Although their overall distance at >19km/h was lower in games six and seven, their proportion of distance in Zone 5 (48%) was highest in those final two games. Such data indicates that England were able to sustain their physical capacity as a team across their seven games, albeit their physical output peaked during game 5, and in fact, it is more likely that the level of the opposition and their tactical formation and tendencies influenced the physical output of the English players and team.

Effortsat >19 km/h

386 436 428 443 552 405 412

Total passes 570 605 580 654 516 504 586

SCO (57%)

ARG (65%)

JPN(51%)

CMR (64%)

NOR (50%)

USA (54%)

SWE (55%)

Comparison of output against each opponent

3.6.3

Data indicates that England were able to sustain their

physical capacity as a team across their seven games

3.6

3.6


Figure 57 shows a comparison of the average distances covered and efforts completed at >19km/h, alongside total passes, for Sweden against their seven opponents at the 2019 tournament only. Sweden completed their lowest distance and fewest efforts at >19km/h in their second game against Thailand, a game they won 5-1, in which they had their greatest ball possession and total passes. As can be seen, they recorded their highest figures for distance and efforts at >19km/h in their third game of the tournament, against the USA, which were respectively 52% and 56% higher than the output during their previous game against Thailand; incidentally, the Americans also registered their most distance and efforts at >19km/h in that game against the Swedes (Figure 59). Sweden’s proportion of distance in Zone 5 was lowest (28%) for their second game against Thailand, which was likely due to them having so much possession and not being forced to exert themselves at the highest speeds. Their highest proportion of distance in Zone 5 (43%) was in their final game against England. Again, these results show that Sweden were able to sustain their physical capacity as a team across their seven games, as evidenced by the consistency of their physical output in the higher speed zones, and in fact, it is more likely that the level of the opposition and their tactical formation and tendencies influenced the physical output of the Swedish players and team.

Figure 57. Comparison of the distances covered at >19km/h, efforts at >19km/h, average team passes and ball possession (%) for Sweden in each of their games

0

3,000

6,000

9,000

CHI (64%) THA (66%) USA (40%) CAN (41%) GER (40%) NED (44%) ENG (45%)

4,926 4,246 6,086 4,474 4,604 4,297 4,540

2,028

1,187

2,192

1,585 1,8371,608 1,947

3.6 Figure 57

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Tota

l pas

ses/

effo

rts

at >

19km

/h

Efforts at>19km/h

Total passes

Zone 5

Zone 4

200

400

600

800

Effortsat >19 km/h

459 345 537 385 394 377 391

Total passes 576 652 418 393 331 494 370

CHI(64%)

THA(66%)

USA(40%)

CAN(41%)

GER(40%)

NED(44%)

ENG(45%)


3.6

0

3,000

6,000

9,000


4,926 4,246 6,086 4,474 4,604 4,297 4,540

2,028

1,187

2,192

1,585 1,8371,608 1,947

3.6 Figure 57

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Tota

l pas

ses/

effo

rts

at >

19km

/h

Efforts at>19km/h

Total passes

Zone 5

Zone 4

200

400

600

800

Figure 58 shows a comparison of the average distances covered and efforts completed at >19km/h, alongside total passes, for the Netherlands against their seven opponents at the 2019 tournament only. The Netherlands completed their lowest distance and fewest efforts at >19km/h in their fifth game against Italy, a game they won 2-0 and in which they also had their second-highest amount of ball possession (60%). As can be seen, they recorded their highest figures for distance and efforts at >19km/h in their previous game, against Japan, with a drop in distance and efforts at >19km/h (-35% and -33% respectively) in that game against Italy. That could imply that they were not able to sustain the work rate that they put in against Japan; however, they did still beat Italy, so it must be remembered that physical output alone is not a determinant of match outcome in football. Their proportion of distance in Zone 5 was lowest (33%) in that game against Italy; however, their highest proportion of distance in Zone 5 (50%) came in their final game against the USA, suggesting that they were able to produce a higher physical output when required, which may have been dictated by the physical output of the opposition and the need to complete that kind of running in a defensive capacity.

Figure 58. Comparison of the distances covered at >19km/h, efforts at >19km/h and average team passes and ball possession (%) for the Netherlands in each of their games

0

3,000

6,000

9,000

NZL (66%) CMR (57%) CAN (48%) JPN (55%) ITA (60%) SWE (56%) USA (48%)

4,470 4,660 4,835 5,163 3,559 3,772 4,287

1,762 1,699 1,8602,137

1,162 1,4382,158

3.6 Figure 58

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Efforts at>19km/h

Total passes

Zone 5

Zone 4To

tal p

asse

s/ef

fort

s at

>19

km/h

200

400

600

800


4,470 4,660 4,835 5,163 3,559 3,772 4,287

1,762 1,699 1,8602,137

1,162 1,4382,158

Effortsat >19 km/h

402 394 417 468 310 328 394

Total passes 708 531 472 622 507 662 420

NZL (66%)

CMR (57%)

CAN (48%)

JPN (55%)

ITA (60%)

SWE (56%)

USA (48%)

3.6

3.6


Figure 59 shows a comparison of the average distances covered and efforts completed at >19km/h, alongside total passes, for the USA against their seven opponents at the 2019 tournament only. The USA completed their lowest distance and fewest efforts at >19km/h in their opening group game against Thailand, a game they won 13-0 and in which they had their greatest ball possession (69%) and total passes (696), hence the team did enough physical work to ease to victory. As can be seen, they completed their highest figures for distance and efforts at >19km/h in their third game of the tournament, against Sweden (whose performance above this threshold also peaked in that match – Figure 57), which were respectively 41% and 36% higher than their output during that first game against Thailand. The USA’s proportion of distance in Zone 5 was lowest (29%) in that game against Thailand, which was likely due to them having so much possession and not having to cover distance in the highest speed zone. Their highest proportion of distance in Zone 5 came in their fourth game against Spain (45%), followed by their final game against the Netherlands (42%). It was very apparent that the USA’s technical output was highest in their three group games, in which they played two of the lower-ranked teams, with their distance at >19km/h and specifically in Zone 5 being lowest for those two games, suggesting that those opponents were not able to match the USA. These results show that the USA were able to sustain their physical capacity, as a team, across their seven games, as evidenced by the consistency of their physical output in the higher speed zones, and in fact, it is more likely that the level of the opposition and their tactical formation and tendencies influenced the physical output of the US players and team.

Figure 59. Comparison of the distances covered at >19km/h, efforts at >19km/h, average team passes and ball possession (%) for the USA in each of their games

0

3,000

6,000

9,000

THA (69%) CHI (66%) SWE (60%) ESP (55%) FRA (41%) ENG (46%) NED (52%)

4,644 4,681 6,100 4,590 4,993 5,037 4,621

1,359 1,535

2,370

2,0511,801 1,865

1,920

3.6 Figure 59

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Efforts at>19km/h

Total passes

Zone 5

Zone 4

Tota

l pas

ses/

effo

rts

at >

19km

/h

200

400

600

800


4,644 4,681 6,100 4,590 4,993 5,037 4,621

1,359 1,535

2,370

2,0511,801 1,865

1,920

Effortsat >19 km/h

389 379 529 408 408 439 407

Total passes 696 583 640 456 341 377 441

THA (69%)

CHI (66%)

SWE (60%)

ESP (55%)

FRA (41%)

ENG (46%)

NED (52%)


3.6

Figure 60 shows the total distance covered by each of the final four teams across each game of the tournament, as well as a comparison with the average for all games in the tournament. As can be seen, Sweden (115,239m) and the USA (114,021m) both covered their highest total distance in their third game of the tournament, which was against each other. This implies that the higher physical output was necessary for each team in that game, to be able to compete against each other. England (99,837m) completed their lowest total distance in their first game of the tournament, their highest in game 5 (111,312m) and more in game 7 than in game 1 (105,250m; 5% increase). The USA completed less total distance in game 7 (100,264m; -7%) compared to game 1; however, they won both games, which highlights that physical output alone is not an indicator of performance or game success. Throughout the tournament, on average, the total distance for round 1 of games (103,803m) was similar to round 7 (103,032m).

Figure 61 shows the total distance covered at >19km/h by each of the final four teams across each game of the tournament, as well as a comparison with the average for all games in the tournament. Again, the USA (8,470m) and Sweden (8,278m) completed their highest distance at >19km/h in game 3, in which they competed against each other, whilst England completed their highest amount in game 5 (8,960m), which was 6% more than the amount completed by the USA in game 3. Compared to game 1, Sweden (-7%) completed less distance at >19km/h in game 7, whilst the Netherlands (3%), the USA (9%) and England (12%) covered more such distance in game 7 compared to game 1. The Netherlands completed their lowest amount of distance at >19km/h (4,720m) in their fifth game, having just recorded their highest distance at such speeds (7,300m) in their previous match. This sizeable drop could have been the result of accumulated fatigue and a lack of recovery, or it could also have been linked to the tactics of the opponent and doing what was necessary, given they won both of those games. Such findings again suggest that the teams have the physical capacity to complete high workloads over successive games, and it is more that the output varies depending on the opponent and their formation, as well as the tactical strategy and game plan to beat that opponent. On average for all games, teams completed a similar amount of distance at >19km/h in the first round of games and in round seven.

3.6 Figure 60

Tota

l dis

tan

ce (m

)

Sweden

USA

England

Netherlands

All games

Round of game

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R795,000

100,000

105,000

110,000

115,000

Figure 60. Comparison of the total distance covered by each of the final four teams, and the average for all games, according to the game round

England 99,837 99,854 107,482 104,678 111,312 99,981 105,250

Netherlands 106,589 99,082 105,270 112,097 99,776 99,119 98,990

Sweden 109,173 102,791 115,239 108,294 107,490 102,774 107,622

USA 107,395 104,788 114,021 103,026 103,230 103,995 100,264

All games 103,803 103,503 105,056 105,426 105,230 102,250 103,032

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7

Round of game

3.6

3.6


3.6 Figure 62

Tota

l dis

tan

ce m

etre

age

(m/m

in)

Sweden

USA

England

Netherlands

All games

Time in game (min)

0-15 15-30 30-45 45+ 45-60 60-75 75-90 90+90

100

110

120

England 109 104 98 105 100 100 94 105

Netherlands 108 103 96 94 105 95 95 100

Sweden 117 111 109 111 98 105 103 92

USA 113 106 101 101 102 101 93 98

All games 110 104 100 100 103 99 96 100

0-15 15-30 30-45 45+ 45-60 60-75 75-90 90+

Period of game (min)

3.6 Figure 61

Dis

tan

ce a

t >

19km

/h (m

)

Sweden

USA

England

Netherlands

All games

Round of game

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R74,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

Figure 61. Comparison of the total distance covered at >19km/h by each of the final four teams, and the average for all games, according to the game round

England 6,199 6,874 6,523 6,742 8,960 6,585 6,942

Netherlands 6,232 6,358 6,695 7,300 4,720 5,211 6,445

Sweden 6,954 5,433 8,278 6,058 6,440 5,905 6,486

USA 6,002 6,216 8,470 6,642 6,794 6,902 6,541

All games 6,607 6,684 6,762 7,198 6,637 6,464 6,603

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7

Round of game

Figure 62 shows the metreage for total distance for the final four teams across each 15-min period and during added time at the end of each half, as well as a comparison with the average for all games in the tournament. Generally, Sweden – other than 45-60min and 90+min – had the highest metreage of the final four teams for each period of games. Their metreage at the start of games was the highest, 117m/min, with the Netherlands (108m/min) having the lowest team work rate early in matches. All four teams generally had their lowest metreage during the final periods of games, 75-90min and 90+min, with Sweden (-21%) having the biggest decline compared to the first period and England (-4%) having

Figure 62. Comparison of the metreage by each of the final four teams, and the average for all games, for each 15-min period of the game


3.6

the lowest such decrease. All four teams generally had their highest work rate in the opening quarter of an hour of games, before having a decrease in work rate through to 30-45min, with England and Sweden then having an increase in the 45+min period immediately before half-time. England (31%) and the USA (23%) both scored their highest proportion of goals (Figure 63A) during the first 15-min period, which could have been the result of the higher work rate and a strategy by those teams to start off at a high pace in order to pressure the opposition. As some teams were then able to increase their work rate during 45+min (England, Sweden), this suggests that whilst there will still be some accumulated fatigue from the first 45-min of the game, players still have the capacity to increase their physical output if necessary. At the start of the second half, all four of the teams had a lower work rate than at the start of the game, with Sweden (-16%) having the biggest decrease and the Netherlands the smallest (-3%), although the Dutch also had the lowest overall work rate at the start of games. Tactical and physical preparation work during half-time is important in getting players ready for the start of the second half, and research has shown (Lovell et al., 2007; Towlson et al., 2013) that a re-warm-up protocol during half-time can enhance players’ physical output during the second half of games, particularly during 45-60min, which was a period when the USA (Figure 63A: 19%) and teams overall (Figure 63B; 18%) scored a highly substantial proportion of their goals.

Figure 63. Comparison of the number of goals scored in each 15-min period of the game: (A) by the final four teams and (B) across all games of the tournament

0

2

4

6

0-15 15-30 30-45 45+ 45-60 60-75 75-90 90+ Extra time

4

1

3

1

2

1 1

0 00

1 1

0

2 2

3

1 1

2

3

1

0

2

0

2 2

0

6

2

3

0

5

4

5

1

0

min min min min min min min min

Nu

mb

er o

f g

oal

s sc

ore

d

Period of game

3.6 Figure 63A

Sweden

USA

England

Netherlands

A

0

10

20

30

0-15 15-30 30-45 45+ 45-60 60-75 75-90 90+ Extra time

20 19 21 3 27 19 27 8 2

min min min min min min min min

3.6 Figure 63B

Nu

mb

er o

f g

oal

s sc

ore

d

All games

Period of game

B

3.6

3.6


Figure 64 shows the metreage for distance covered in Zone 4 for the final four teams across each 15-min period and during added time at the end of each half, as well as a comparison with the average for all games in the tournament. Sweden had the largest decline in metreage in Zone 4 from the start of the game to 45+mins (-39%). The USA (5.8m/min) started with the highest metreage at these speeds, which had dropped by 29% by the period immediately before half-time. England completed their lowest metreage at these speeds (3.8m/min) during 30-45min, which is also when they scored their second-highest proportion of goals (3; 23%); this again highlights that physical output alone does not determine success in football. Following that lowest period, England then completed their highest metreage in Zone 4 (5.7m/min) in the period immediately before half-time. All teams decreased their metreage from the start to the end of the game, with England (-9%) having the lowest decrease.

3.6 Figure 64

Met

reag

e in

Zo

ne

4 (m

/min

)

Sweden

USA

England

Netherlands

All games

Round of game

0-15 15-30 30-45 45 45+ 60-75 75-90 90+3

4

5

6

Figure 64. Comparison of the metreage in Zone 4 by each of the final four teams, and the average for all games, for each 15-min period of the game

England 5.6 4.5 3.8 5.7 4.9 4.6 4.0 5.1

Netherlands 4.7 4.1 3.6 4.0 4.6 3.8 3.8 3.9

Sweden 5.6 4.7 3.8 3.4 4.5 3.8 4.1 4.1

USA 5.8 4.8 4.4 4.1 4.7 4.6 3.6 4.1

All games 5.4 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.9 4.5 4.2 4.5

0-15 15-30 30-45 45+ 45-60 60-75 75-90 90+


Figure 65 shows the metreage for distance covered in Zone 5 for the final four teams across each 15-min period and during added time at the end of each half, as well as a comparison with the average for all games in the tournament. Out of the four semi-finalists, England (2.4m/min) started games with the highest metreage in Zone 5 and showed the lowest decline from the start to the end of the game (-8%). Sweden had the biggest decline from the start (2.1m/min) of the game to 45+min (1.2m/min; -43%), which could be a tactical ploy or could imply fatigue as the first half progressed. Conversely, the USA had a higher metreage in Zone 5 during the period immediately before half-time (2.2m/min) as compared to the start of the game (2.0m/min; 10%), which suggests a good physical capacity to increase their work rate at the highest speeds during the latter stages of the first half of games.


3.6

3.6 Figure 65

Met

reag

e in

Zo

ne

5 (m

/min

)

Sweden

USA

England

Netherlands

All games

Round of game

0-15 15-30 30-45 45 45+ 60-75 75-90 90+1

1.3

1.6

1.9

2.2

2.5

Figure 65. Comparison of the metreage in Zone 5 by each of the final four teams, and the average for all games, for each 15-min period of the game

England 2.4 2.1 1.4 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.4 2.2

Netherlands 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.8 1.3

Sweden 2.1 1.7 1.3 1.2 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.6

USA 2.0 2.0 1.8 2.2 1.8 1.5 1.3 1.2

All games 2.0 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.8

0-15 15-30 30-45 45+ 45-60 60-75 75-90 90+


Comparison of the distances covered by and spatial positioning of the final four teams whilst in possession of the ball, overall and against each opponent

3.6.4

Table 5 shows the total distance and the distances covered at <13km/h and >13km/h for the final four teams whilst in possession of the ball, alongside the teams’ average ball possession. As can be seen, England averaged the highest overall ball possession out of the four, and concurrently covered the highest total distance (41,637m) whilst in possession. Although the Netherlands covered the second-highest total distance whilst in possession, they also did the smallest proportion of that running at >13km/h (29%). Similarly, whilst in possession of the ball, England (206) completed the most efforts at >19km/h, with the Netherlands completing the fewest (164); such efforts are largely related to movements off the ball in a bid to create and attack space when attempting to score.

Table 5. Summary of the average total distance, distance covered at <13km/h and >13km/h and efforts at >19km/h for the final four teams whilst in possession of the ball, alongside their average ball possession

Team Total distance at <13km/h (m)

IP

Total distance at >13km/h (m)

IP

Total distance (m)IP

Efforts at >19km/h

IP

Ball possession (%)

England 28,342 13,295 41,637 206 57

Netherlands 28,993 11,832 40,825 164 56

Sweden 25,779 11,195 36,974 175 49

USA 27,385 13,184 40,569 195 56

IP

3.6

3.6


0

15,000

30,000

45,000


28,288 29,570 28,132 31,378 27,525 24,856 28,646

11,359 17,24411,790

13,820

14,55211,171

13,130

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Hei

gh

t/w

idth

/dep

th IP

(m)

Formationheight IP

Formationwidth IP

>13km/h

<13km/h

Formationdepth IP

25

33

41

49


28,288 29,570 28,132 31,378 27,525 24,856 28,646

11,359 17,24411,790

13,820

14,55211,171

13,130

3.6 Figure 66

Figures 66-69 show the distances covered at <13km/h and >13km/h, as well as the height, width and depth of formation, for the final four teams whilst in possession of the ball during each of their games at the tournament. The strongest relationship overall was between distance covered at <13km/h and the height of the defensive line. From these figures alone, it is apparent that the distances covered, as well as the spatial positioning of the teams, vary greatly based on the opponent and their individual tactical strategy. England (Figure 66) had their highest defensive line (45m) in their second game, against Argentina, in which they also recorded their highest ball possession, total distance in possession of the ball and formation width. Their formation depth with the ball only varied by 4m across their seven games. In their sixth game, against the USA, they covered their lowest amount of total distance in possession of the ball; that match also saw their second-lowest defensive line (32m) in possession, behind only their game against Japan (31m).

Figure 66. Comparison of the distances covered at <13km/h and >13km/h with the height, width and depth of formation for England when in possession of the ball, alongside their ball possession (%) in each of their games

Sweden (Figure 67) had their highest defensive line (49m) in their second game against Thailand, in which they recorded their biggest win and their highest ball possession; their formation width was also their second-highest in this game. In contrast, in their third game, against the USA, their defensive line with the ball was 17m lower (32m), although their depth was the same, and they had their lowest ball possession (40%). Their depth whilst in possession hardly varied across all seven of their games, whilst their defensive height and formation width were very similar from their third game onwards, suggesting that they were very consistent in their tactical strategy across those games.

Formation height IP

41 45 31 35 36 32 39

Formation width IP

40 43 40 37 36 42 40

Formation depth IP

30 31 31 33 32 31 29

SCO (57%)

ARG (65%)

JPN (51%)

CMR (64%)

NOR (50%)

USA (54%)

SWE (55%)


3.6

0

15,000

30,000

45,000


30,999 35,828 23,269 21,898 22,517 20,863 25,079

17,501

12,623

11,3609,217 9,717

8,759

9,185

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Hei

gh

t/w

idth

/dep

th IP

(m)

Formationheight IP

Formationwidth IP

>13km/h

<13km/h

Formationdepth IP

25

33

41

49


30,999 35,828 23,269 21,898 22,517 20,863 25,079

17,501

12,623

11,3609,217 9,717

8,759

9,185

3.6 Figure 67

Figure 67. Comparison of the distances covered at <13km/h and >13km/h with the height, width and depth of formation for Sweden when in possession of the ball, alongside their ball possession (%) in each of their games

Formation height IP

43 49 32 35 36 36 33

Formation width IP

43 43 38 35 37 38 38

Formation depth IP

30 30 30 30 32 30 30

CHI(64%)

THA(66%)

USA(40%)

CAN(41%)

GER(40%)

NED(44%)

ENG (45%)

The Netherlands (Figure 68) had their highest defensive line (40m) in their first game, against New Zealand, in which they also recorded their highest ball possession and total distance in possession of the ball and second-highest formation width. Their formation width was pretty similar across their first six games, but much narrower (36m) in their final game, against the USA. Similarly, whilst in possession of the ball, their defensive height was lowest against the USA and they covered their lowest amount of total distance; this would suggest that they set up in a more compact and defensive shape in an attempt to nullify the USA’s attacking threat.

0

15,000

30,000

45,000

NZL (66%) CMR (57%) CAN (48%) JAP (55%) ITA (60%) SWE (56%) USA (48%)

37,225 28,069 23,824 33,498 30,434 26,882 23,018

13,731

12,645

11,296

12,73511,715

10,907

9,796

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Hei

gh

t/w

idth

/dep

th IP

(m)

Formationheight IP

Formationwidth IP

>13km/h

<13km/h

Formationdepth IP

25

33

41

49

NZL (66%) CMR (57%) CAN (48%) JAP (55%) ITA (60%) SWE (56%) USA (48%)

37,225 28,069 23,824 33,498 30,434 26,882 23,018

13,731

12,645

11,296

12,73511,715

10,907

9,796

3.6 Figure 68

Figure 68. Comparison of the distances covered at <13km/h and >13km/h with the height, width and depth of formation for the Netherlands when in possession of the ball, alongside their ball possession (%) in each of their games

Formation height IP

40 36 36 37 38 35 34

Formation width IP

42 41 42 42 40 40 36

Formation depth IP

33 32 31 31 33 30 31

NZL (66%)

CMR(57%)

CAN(48%)

JAP(55%)

ITA(60%)

SWE(56%)

USA (48%)

3.6

3.6


0

15,000

30,000

45,000


35,663 32,695 32,829 25,311 18,180 21,131 25,886

15,33514,319 17,071

12,350

10,53511,772

10,903

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Hei

gh

t/w

idth

/dep

th IP

(m)

Formationheight IP

Formationwidth IP

>13km/h

<13km/h

Formationdepth IP

25

33

41

49


35,663 32,695 32,829 25,311 18,180 21,131 25,886

15,33514,319 17,071

12,350

10,53511,772

10,903

3.6 Figure 69

Figure 69. Comparison of the distances covered at <13km/h and >13km/h with the height, width and depth of formation for the USA when in possession of the ball, alongside their ball possession (%) in each of their games

Formation height IP

47 46 35 38 30 36 39

Formation width IP

39 37 40 41 40 39 39

Formation depth IP

33 28 31 32 31 31 31

THA (69%)

CHI(66%)

SWE(60%)

ESP (55%)

FRA(41%)

ENG(46%)

NED (52%)

The USA (Figure 69) had their highest defensive line (47m and 46m respectively) in their first two games, in which they also recorded their highest ball possession, and which were against two teams who were amongst the lowest-ranked in the tournament. Such a high defensive line in those first two games resulted in the USA being extremely dominant with the ball and covering amongst their highest distances whilst in possession. Conversely, their defensive height was the lowest (30m) in their fifth game, against France, which was also the match in which they had the least ball possession (41%) and covered the least amount of distance both overall and at <13km/h and >13km/h in possession of the ball. The USA were generally consistent with their formation width and depth; it was more the height of their defensive line that varied in relation to their opponent.

Table 6 shows the total distance and the distances covered at <13km/h and >13km/h for the final four teams whilst out of possession of the ball, alongside the teams’ average ball possession. Sweden were out of possession of the ball, on average, the most out of the four and so, as would be expected, also covered the highest total distance (41,689m) whilst out of possession. The other three teams had a similar amount of ball possession and also covered a similar amount of total distance without the ball.

Comparison of the distances covered by and spatial positioning of the final four teams whilst out of possession of the ball, overall and against each opponent

3.6.5

OOP


3.6

0

15,000

30,000

45,000


35,663 32,695 32,829 25,311 18,180 21,131 25,886

15,33514,319 17,071

12,350

10,53511,772

10,903

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Hei

gh

t/w

idth

/dep

th IP

(m)

Formationheight IP

Formationwidth IP

>13km/h

<13km/h

Formationdepth IP

25

33

41

49


35,663 32,695 32,829 25,311 18,180 21,131 25,886

15,33514,319 17,071

12,350

10,53511,772

10,903

3.6 Figure 69

Table 6. Summary of the average total distance, distance covered at <13km/h and >13km/h and efforts at >19km/h for the final four teams whilst out of possession of the ball, alongside their average ball possession

Team Total distance at <13km/h (m)

OOP

Total distance at >13km/h (m)

OOP

Total distance (m)

OOP

Efforts at >19km/h

OOP

Ball possession (%)

England 21,703 13,038 34,740 211 57

Netherlands 22,727 12,478 35,205 202 56

Sweden 27,176 14,514 41,689 220 49

USA 21,218 13,008 34,226 205 56

Figures 70-73 show the distances covered at <13km/h and >13km/h, as well as the height, width and depth of formation, for the final four teams whilst out of possession of the ball during each of their games at the tournament, together with their ball possession. The strongest relationship overall was between distance covered at <13km/h and the height of the defensive line. From these figures alone, it is apparent that – similar to whilst in possession of the ball – the distances covered, as well as the spatial positioning of the teams, vary greatly based on the opponent and their individual tactical strategy. England (Figure 70) covered their greatest distances whilst out of possession of the ball in games three and five, in which they had their lowest figures for ball possession; they also covered

Figure 70. Comparison of the distances covered at <13km/h and >13km/h with the height, width and depth of formation for England when out of possession of the ball, alongside their ball possession (%) in each of their games

0

15,000

30,000

45,000


21,164 14,861 27,817 17,420 27,331 20,300 23,024

12,575

8,652

15,609

10,944

16,959

13,61612,909

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Hei

gh

t/w

idth

/dep

th O

OP

(m)

Formationheight OOP

Formationwidth OOP

>13km/h

<13km/h

Formationdepth OOP

20

30

40

50

3.6 Figure 70

Formation height OOP

41 44 36 38 37 37 40

Formation width OOP

33 27 33 26 30 34 32

Formation depth OOP

30 29 26 32 27 28 27

SCO (57%)

ARG(65%)

JPN(51%)

CMR(64%)

NOR(50%)

USA(54%)

SWE (55%)

England and the USA covered a similar proportion (38%) of their total distance at >13km/h, whilst Sweden and the Netherlands both completed 35% of their total distance at >13km/h. Sweden also completed the most efforts at >19km/h; again, since they had more time out of possession of the ball, it follows that they had to complete more running and thus efforts in the higher speed zones in an attempt to win the ball back.

3.6

3.6


Sweden (Figure 71) covered their greatest distances whilst out of possession of the ball in games three, four and five, in which they had their lowest figures for ball possession; they also completed their highest amount of out-of-possession distance at >13km/h in these matches (peaking in the USA game), when they would have been working hard to regain the ball. During their first two games, when they had the most ball possession, they had their highest defensive line whilst out of possession, obviously highlighting a strategy to attempt to win the ball back higher up the pitch in games that they were dominating. Generally, their width and depth of formation whilst out of possession of the ball did not vary greatly across their games, especially from game four onwards; as was the case for their shape in possession of the ball, this suggests a consistent formation and strategy regardless of the opponent.

Figure 71. Comparison of the distances covered at <13km/h and >13km/h with the height, width and depth of formation for Sweden when out of possession of the ball, alongside their ball possession (%) in each of their games

0

15,000

30,000

45,000


17,950 16,998 33,736 30,494 33,238 27,464 30,348

8,630 10,118

20,58916,941

16,014

14,24015,063

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Hei

gh

t/w

idth

/dep

th O

OP

(m)

Formationheight OOP

Formationwidth OOP

>13km/h

<13km/h

Formationdepth OOP

20

30

40

50

3.6 Figure 71


45 48 37 36 37 37 34

Formation width OOP

29 32 34 28 29 31 31

Formation depth OOP

27 31 28 26 29 29 28

CHI(64%)

THA(66%)

USA(40%)

CAN(41%)

GER(40%)

NED(44%)

ENG (45%)

their highest amount of out-of-possession distance at >13km/h in these matches, when they would have been working hard to regain the ball. During their first two games, when they had plenty of ball possession, they had their highest defensive line whilst out of possession, obviously highlighting a strategy to attempt to win the ball back higher up the pitch. In game four, they also enjoyed a lot of ball possession; however, they had a lower defensive line and greater depth whilst out of possession, suggesting a more stretched defensive formation. This could also have been dictated by the opponent’s formation in possession of the ball. England’s width of formation whilst out of possession of the ball varied from 26m (v. Cameroon) to 34m (v. the USA), which, again, may have been dictated by the opposition formation and positioning, and what England needed to do to win the ball back.

Sweden covered their greatest distances whilst out of possession of the ball in games three, four and five, in which they had their lowest figures for ball possession


3.6

0

15,000

30,000

45,000


17,950 16,998 33,736 30,494 33,238 27,464 30,348

8,630 10,118

20,58916,941

16,014

14,24015,063

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Hei

gh

t/w

idth

/dep

th O

OP

(m)

Formationheight OOP

Formationwidth OOP

>13km/h

<13km/h

Formationdepth OOP

20

30

40

50

3.6 Figure 71

The Netherlands (Figure 72) covered their greatest overall distance and distance at >13km/h whilst out of possession of the ball in game four against Japan; this game was also when they had one of their highest defensive lines (40m), which could reflect a strategy to attempt to win the ball back higher and prevent the opposition from getting into attacking areas. In their final game, against the USA, they generally had a more compact shape (height, depth and width) when trying to win the ball back. Their width and depth of formation did not tend to vary in the rest of their games, and they were by far dominant in terms of ball possession in five of their seven matches.

Figure 72. Comparison of the distances covered at <13km/h and >13km/h with the height, width and depth of formation for the Netherlands when out of possession of the ball, alongside their ball possession (%) in each of their games

0

15,000

30,000

45,000

NZL (66%) CMR (57%) CAN(48%) JPN (55%) ITA (60%) SWE (56%) USA (48%)

18,780 21,093 25,542 27,807 20,637 19,918 25,307

11,54611,693

14,67515,912

8,770 11,087

13,662

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Hei

gh

t/w

idth

/dep

th O

OP

(m)

Formationheight OOP

Formationwidth OOP

>13km/h

<13km/h

Formationdepth OOP

20

30

40

50

NZL (66%) CMR (57%) CAN(48%) JPN (55%) ITA (60%) SWE (56%) USA (48%)

18,780 21,093 25,542 27,807 20,637 19,918 25,307

11,54611,693

14,67515,912

8,770 11,087

13,662

3.6 Figure 72


41 36 37 40 40 37 33

Formation width OOP

29 29 31 32 30 31 29

Formation depth OOP

31 30 29 27 29 27 28

NZL (66%)

CMR(57%)

CAN(48%)

JPN(55%)

ITA(60%)

SWE(56%)

USA (48%)

Figure 73. Comparison of the distances covered at <13km/h and >13km/h with the height, width and depth of formation for the USA when out of possession of the ball, alongside their ball possession (%) in each of their games

0

15,000

30,000

45,000


15,912 15,681 21,597 20,109 26,507 25,540 23,180

9,700 11,744

15,35912,280

15,315 14,41912,239

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Hei

gh

t/w

idth

/dep

th O

OP

(m)

Formationheight OOP

Formationwidth OOP

>13km/h

<13km/h

Formationdepth OOP

20

30

40

50


15,912 15,681 21,597 20,109 26,507 25,540 23,180

9,700 11,744

15,35912,280

15,315 14,41912,239

3.6 Figure 73


45 50 37 37 33 39 39

Formation width OOP

30 28 29 31 33 32 31

Formation depth OOP

29 25 25 26 24 25 27

THA (69%)

CHI(66%)

SWE(60%)

ESP(55%)

FRA(41%)

ENG(46%)

NED (52%)

3.6

3.6


The USA (Figure 73) covered their greatest distances whilst out of possession of the ball in games five and six, in which they had their lowest ball possession; two of their highest figures for out-of-possession distance at >13km/h also came in those matches (although they peaked on this front in game three against Sweden), when they would have been working hard to regain the ball. During their first two games, when they enjoyed the most ball possession, they had their highest defensive line whilst out of possession, obviously highlighting a strategy to attempt to win the ball back higher up the pitch in games that they were dominating. Their formation depth was the lowest of all of the final four teams, again suggesting a more compact shape without the ball and all lines working together in an attempt to win back possession. Similarly, their width of formation whilst out of possession did not vary greatly across their games, especially from game three onwards, which suggests a consistent defensive formation and strategy to win back the ball, regardless of the opponent.

3.6.6

Figures 74-77 show the total distance covered at >19km/h and the compactness for the final four teams whilst in and out of possession of the ball during each of their games at the tournament, together with their ball possession. England (Figure 74) were their most compact in possession (761m2) in their final game, against Sweden, in which they also had their second-most-compact shape out of possession (566m2). Conversely, against the USA, they were in their biggest shape both in possession (1,001m2) and out of possession of the ball (732m2), which, again, could have been a tactical ploy and/or a spur-of-the-moment response to the shape of their opponent. The Norway game was when they covered their highest total distance at >19km/h (8,960m), and their compactness in and out of possession of the ball was similar in that game to in three of their other matches. Other than in that game against Norway, their compactness with and without the ball was seemingly correlated in that when one increased or decreased, then so did the other one.

Figure 74. Comparison of the total distance covered at >19km/h and compactness for England when in and out of possession of the ball, alongside their ball possession (%) in each of their games

0

3,000

6,000

9,000


6,199 6,874 6,523 6,742 8,960 6,585 6,942

Dis

tan

ce a

t >19

km/h

(m)

Co

mp

actn

ess

(m2 )

CompactnessIP

CompactnessOOP

>19km/h

400

600

800

1,000

3.6 Figure 74

Compactness IP

944 931 987 912 915 1,001 761

Compactness OOP

716 559 667 629 616 732 566

SCO (57%)

ARG(65%)

JPN(51%)

CMR(64%)

NOR(50%)

USA(54%)

SWE (55%)

Comparison of the total distance covered at >19km/h by and compactness of the final four teams against each opponent


3.6

0

3,000

6,000

9,000


6,199 6,874 6,523 6,742 8,960 6,585 6,942

Dis

tan

ce a

t >19

km/h

(m)

Co

mp

actn

ess

(m2 )

CompactnessIP

CompactnessOOP

>19km/h

400

600

800

1,000

3.6 Figure 74

Sweden (Figure 75) were their most compact in possession (667m2) and out of possession (448m2) in their fourth game, against Canada, in which they also had a low amount of ball possession (41%). Against Chile, in their opening game, they had a big shape in possession (881m2), but were much more compact (566m2) when out of possession of the ball. From their third game onwards, their compactness in and out of possession was seemingly correlated in that when one increased or decreased, then so did the other one. Of the final four teams, Sweden were the most compact overall when in possession (810m2) and out of possession (603m2) of the ball, which could be a reflection of their 1-3-5-2 formation and tactical strategy.

0

3,000

6,000

9,000

CHI (64%) THA (66%) UAS (40%) CAN (41%) GER (40%) NED (44%) ENG (45%)

6,954 5,433 8,278 6,058 6,441 5,905 6,486

Dis

tan

ce a

t >19

km/h

(m)

Co

mp

actn

ess

(m2 )

CompactnessIP

CompactnessOOP

>19km/h

400

600

800

1,000

3.6 Figure 75

Figure 75. Comparison of the total distance covered at >19km/h and compactness for Sweden when in and out of possession of the ball, alongside their ball possession (%) in each of their games

Compactness IP

881 813 864 667 754 855 834

Compactness OOP

566 697 697 448 539 700 573

CHI(64%)

THA(66%)

USA(40%)

CAN(41%)

GER(40%)

NED(44%)

ENG (45%)

Figure 76. Comparison of the total distance covered at >19km/h and compactness for the Netherlands when in and out of possession of the ball, alongside their ball possession (%) in each of their games

0

3,000

6,000

9,000


6,232 6,358 6,695 7,300 4,720 5,211 6,445

Dis

tan

ce a

t >1

9km

/h (m

)

Co

mp

actn

ess

(m2 )

CompactnessIP

CompactnessOOP

>19km/h

400

600

800

1,000

3.6 Figure 76

Compactness IP

1,068 1,084 1,025 1,038 1,105 971 647

Compactness OOP

729 749 714 666 715 638 526

NZL (66%)

CMR(57%)

CAN(48%)

JPN(55%)

ITA(60%)

SWE(56%)

USA (48%)

3.6

3.6


The Netherlands’ (Figure 76) compactness out of possession (666-749m2) and in possession (1,025- 1,105m2) of the ball was very similar for their first five games of the tournament. In game six, they were more compact both in possession (971m2) and out of possession (638m2), which, again, could have been a strategy to defeat the opponent. In their final game, against the USA, they were even more compact both in possession (647m2) and without the ball (526m2), which was 41% and 30% more compact than the biggest shape they had in their previous games. Again, this would suggest a concerted effort to tighten up in an attempt to counteract their opponent.

The USA (Figure 77) were their most compact (568m2) out of possession in their third game, against Sweden, which was likely a tactical ploy due to the Swedes also being compact. They were their most compact in possession of the ball (809m2) in their second game, against Chile, in which they played a very different line-up than in their first game and indeed than in the rest of the tournament. They were their least compact (1,072m2) in possession of the ball in their fourth game, against Spain, which was likely a tactical strategy to stretch the Spaniards while the latter attempted to win the ball back. Their compactness in possession (919-1,072m2) and out of possession (600-665m2) of the ball was very similar during their final four games of the tournament. This suggests that the USA had a strategy that they felt was optimal for their line-up and formation to be successful and did not deviate from this.

Figure 77. Comparison of the total distance covered at >19km/h and compactness for the USA when in and out of possession of the ball, alongside their ball possession (%) in each of their games

0

3,000

6,000

9,000


6,002 6,216 8,470 6,642 6,794 6,902 6,541

Dis

tan

ce a

t >19

km/h

(m)

Co

mp

actn

ess

(m2 )

CompactnessIP

CompactnessOOP

>19km/h

400

600

800

1,000

3.6 Figure 77

Compactness IP

951 809 1,015 1,072 951 919 956

Compactness OOP

712 604 568 665 642 600 659

THA (69%)

CHI(66%)

SWE(60%)

ESP(55%)

FRA(41%)

ENG(46%)

NED (52%)


3.6

Table 7 shows the semi-finalists’ average total distance at >19km/h as well as their average compactness whilst in and out of possession of the ball. England (3,364m) had the highest distance at >19km/h whilst in possession of the ball, whilst Sweden (3,475m) recorded the highest distance at >19km/h whilst out of possession of the ball. Sweden were the most compact (810m2) whilst in possession of the ball, whilst the Netherlands (991m2) were the most spread out. Out of possession of the ball, Sweden (603m2) again had the most compact shape and the Netherlands (677m2) again had the biggest, although the range between the teams was much lower, 74m2 without the ball compared to 181m2 in possession. This suggests that the four teams were more similar when defending and trying to regain the ball, whilst they were more variable when attacking and being creative.

Comparison of the distances covered at >19km/h by and compactness of the final four teams whilst in and out of possession of the ball, overall and against each opponent

3.6.7

In possession Out of possession

Team ToDi Zone 4

(m)

ToDi Zone 5

(m)

ToDi >19km/h

(m)

Compact-ness (m2)

ToDi Zone 4

(m)

ToDi Zone 5

(m)

ToDi >19km/h

(m)

Compact-ness (m2)

England 2,303 1,061 3,364 922 2,409 886 3,295 641

Netherlands 1,798 785 2,582 991 2,366 851 3,217 677

Sweden 1,903 838 2,741 810 2,607 868 3,475 603

USA 2,176 993 3,169 953 2,496 761 3,258 636

Table 7. Summary of the average total distance at >19km/h and compactness in and out of possession of the ball for the final four teams

3.6

3.6


0

1,500

3,000

4,500


2,328 1,658 2,832 2,041 3,230 2,472 2,302

698

531

863

632

1,370

1,0281,082

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Cp

mp

actn

ess

(m2 )Compactness

OOP

Zone 5

Zone 4

OOP | B

400

600

800

1,000

3.6 Figure 78B

Figures 78-81 show the distances covered at >19km/h and compactness a) in possession and b) out of possession of the ball for each game played by the final four teams. Such information evidences how the distance that each team covered in and out of possession of the ball and the compactness of their shape varied according to the opposition. England (Figure 78A) were their most compact in possession (761m2) in their final game, against Sweden, whilst in their other six games, their compactness with the ball only varied by 89m². They covered their highest distance at >19km/h in possession in their second game, against Argentina, which is also when they had their highest ball possession (65%). Their shape in possession of the ball was biggest for their game against the USA (1,001m²), in which their shape out of possession (Figure 78B) was also the most stretched (732m²). They covered their highest distance in Zone 5 in their game against Norway, both in possession (1,452m) and out of possession (1,370m) of the ball. They covered their lowest distance in Zone 5 in possession in the game against Japan (680m), whilst their out-of-possession distance in Zone 5 was lowest in their match against Cameroon (632m), in which they posted their second-highest figure for possession.

Figure 78. Comparison of total distance covered at >19km/h and compactness for England when A) in possession and B) out of possession of the ball against each opponent, alongside their ball possession (%)

0

1,500

3,000

4,500


1,956 3,117 1,937 2,568 2,509 1,762 2,274

866

1,263

680

992 1,452

1,069

1,104

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Cp

mp

actn

ess

(m2 )Compactness

IP

Zone 5

Zone 4

IP | A

400

600

800

1,000

3.6 Figure 78A

Compactness OOP

716 559 667 629 616 732 566

SCO (57%)

ARG(65%)

JPN(51%)

CMR(64%)

NOR(50%)

USA(54%)

SWE (55%)

Compactness IP

944 931 987 912 915 1,001 761

SCO (57%)

ARG(65%)

JPN(51%)

CMR(64%)

NOR(50%)

USA(54%)

SWE (55%)


3.6

0

1,500

3,000

4,500


2,328 1,658 2,832 2,041 3,230 2,472 2,302

698

531

863

632

1,370

1,0281,082

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Cp

mp

actn

ess

(m2 )Compactness

OOP

Zone 5

Zone 4

OOP | B

400

600

800

1,000

3.6 Figure 78B

0

1,500

3,000

4,500


1,536 2,057 3,952 2,758 2,783 2,581 2,580

527

676

1,382

809 846849 991

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Cp

mp

actn

ess

(m2 )

CompactnessOOP

Zone 5

Zone 4

OOP | B

400

600

800

1,000


1,536 2,057 3,952 2,758 2,783 2,581 2,580

527

676

1,382

809 846849 991

3.6 Figure 79B0

1,500

3,000

4,500


1,956 3,117 1,937 2,568 2,509 1,762 2,274

866

1,263

680

992 1,452

1,069

1,104

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Cp

mp

actn

ess

(m2 )Compactness

IP

Zone 5

Zone 4

IP | A

400

600

800

1,000

3.6 Figure 78A

Sweden (Figure 79A) were their most compact in possession of the ball (667m²) in their fourth game, against Canada, in which they had one of their lowest figures for ball possession (41%); their shape out of possession of the ball (Figure 79B, 448m²) was also smallest in this game. They covered their highest distance at >19km/h in possession in their first game, against Chile, which is also when they had their second-highest ball possession (64%) and their shape in possession was the largest (881m²). Their shape out of possession of the ball was biggest (700m²) in their sixth game, against the Netherlands; their compactness out of possession against the USA (697m²) was similar, but they covered much more distance at >19km/h in the USA game, suggesting that they had to work harder to win the ball back in that match.

Figure 79. Comparison of total distance covered at >19km/h and compactness for Sweden when A) in possession and B) out of possession of the ball against each opponent, alongside their ball possession (%)

0

1,500

3,000

4,500


3,010 2,072 1,837 1,482 1,591 1,545 1,787

1,322

474763

745 949 704910

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Cp

mp

actn

ess

(m2 )

CompactnessIP

Zone 5

Zone 4

IP | A

400

600

800

1,000

3.6 Figure 79A

Compactness OOP

566 697 697 448 539 700 573

CHI(64%)

THA(66%)

USA(40%)

CAN(41%)

GER(40%)

NED(44%)

ENG (45%)

Compactness IP

881 813 864 667 754 855 834

CHI(64%)

THA(66%)

USA(40%)

CAN(41%)

GER(40%)

NED(44%)

ENG (45%)

3.

6

3.6


0

1,500

3,000

4,500


2,415 2,241 2,837 2,991 1,446 2,063 2,570

974827

916952

709

1,241

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Cp

mp

actn

ess

(m2 )

CompactnessOOP

Zone 5

Zone 4

OOP | B

400

600

800

1,000


2,415 2,241 2,837 2,991 1,446 2,063 2,570

974827

916952

334

709

1,241

3.6 Figure 80B0

1,500

3,000

4,500


1,860 2,114 1,723 1,871 1,806 1,575 1,633

661812

776939 729

707 868Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Cp

mp

actn

ess

(m2 )

CompactnessIP

Zone 5

Zone 4

IP | A

400

600

800

1,000


1,860 2,114 1,723 1,871 1,806 1,575 1,633

661812

776939 729

707 868

3.6 Figure 80A

Compactness IP

1,068 1,084 1,025 1,038 1,105 971 647

NZL (66%)

CMR(57%)

CAN(48%)

JPN(55%)

ITA(60%)

SWE(56%)

USA (48%)

The Netherlands’ (Figure 80A) compactness whilst in possession of the ball was very similar for their first six games, whilst their distance covered at >19km/h with the ball was fairly consistent across each of their matches. Nevertheless, it was evident that in their final game, against the USA, they were much more compact whilst in possession, which may have been a tactical strategy for that specific game. Furthermore, whilst out of possession of the ball (Figure 80B), their compactness was similar for their first five games, and a similar distance at >19km/h was covered, except for their game against Italy, in which they covered much less ground. However, for their final two games, they became more compact, with a small shape whilst out of possession of the ball, namely 638m² and 526m² respectively for the matches against Sweden and the USA. Moreover, in the final against the USA, they covered their highest distance out of possession in Zone 5 (1,241m), which suggests that this was necessary in order for them to close down space and pressure the Americans in an attempt to win the ball back. Again, such results highlight the different strategies and physical demands that teams and individual players face depending on the opposition, as well as the variability in their own system, strategy and physical qualities.

Figure 80. Comparison of total distance covered at >19km/h and compactness for the Netherlands when A) in possession and B) out of possession of the ball against each opponent, alongside their ball possession (%)

Compactness OOP

729 749 714 666 715 638 526

NZL (66%)

CMR(57%)

CAN(48%)

JPN(55%)

ITA(60%)

SWE(56%)

USA (48%)


3.6

0

1,500

3,000

4,500


1,944 2,140 2,917 2,319 2,919 2,779 2,456

419670

910

781

6351,011

903

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Cp

mp

actn

ess

(m2 )

CompactnessOOP

Zone 5

Zone 4

OOP | B

400

600

800

1,000


1,944 2,140 2,917 2,319 2,919 2,779 2,456

419670

910

781

6351,011

903

3.6 Figure 81B 0

1,500

3,000

4,500


2,408 2,267 2,874 2,004 1,655 2,102 1,926

914827

1,258

1,230

970

833916

Dis

tan

ce (m

)

Cp

mp

actn

ess

(m2 )

CompactnessIP

Zone 5

Zone 4

IP | A

400

600

800

1,000

3.6 Figure 81A

The USA (Figure 81A) had a very similar compactness in possession of the ball in all of their games, except for in their second game, against Chile, when their shape was 15% more compact than in their opener. Compared to game 1, the USA changed the majority of their line-up in game 2, and this was different to their general line-up for the rest of the tournament, so this may, in part, explain them being more compact in game 2. The USA had their biggest shape whilst in possession in games 4 and 3, in which they also covered their highest distance in Zone 5. When out of possession of the ball (Figure 81B), the USA had their biggest shape in their first game (712m²), which is also when they covered their lowest distance at >19km/h and had their greatest ball possession (69%). These elements, combined with the fact that they won that game 13-0, suggest that the USA were in control of the game and didn’t need to defend in a more compact shape. Their most compact shape whilst out of possession was against Sweden (568m²), which is also when they covered their highest distance at >19km/h without the ball.

Figure 81. Comparison of total distance covered at >19km/h and compactness for the USA when A) in possession and B) out of possession of the ball against each opponent, alongside their ball possession (%)

Compactness OOP

712 604 568 665 642 600 659

THA (69%)

CHI(66%)

SWE(60%)

ESP(55%)

FRA(41%)

ENG(46%)

NED (52%)

Compactness IP

951 809 1,015 1,072 951 919 956

THA (69%)

CHI(66%)

SWE(60%)

ESP(55%)

FRA(41%)

ENG(46%)

NED (52%)

3.

6

3.6


Summary

• When comparing the 2015 and 2019 tournaments, the total distance posted by England, the Netherlands, Sweden and the USA – the final four teams in 2019 – was very similar to in the 2015 edition; however, the number of higher-intensity outputs and some technical elements was distinctly greater in 2019. For distance covered at >13km/h, Sweden were the only team with a decrease (-5%) from 2015, with England showing the greatest increase (9%). In terms of efforts at >19km/h, all four teams increased their average number of efforts from 2015 to 2019, with the USA (11; 3%) showing the lowest increase and England (65; 17%) the greatest. When looking at the average number of passes per game, England again had the highest overall total in 2019 (573) and the biggest increase (74%) from 2015. The USA also had a large increase (43%) in total passes from 2015, whilst Sweden had the lowest number out of the four teams in 2019 (443) and actually registered a decrease (-2%) in their average number of passes with respect to 2015.

• When looking at the overall distance at >19km/h, England (6,975m) followed by the USA (6,795m) covered the highest amount in 2019; England (1,023m; 17%) also had the biggest increase from 2015.

• When looking at the 2019 tournament only, the USA (6,896m) completed the most distance at >19km/h during the group stage, whilst England (7,307m) completed the most distance at >19km/h during the knockout rounds. England (12%) were the only of the semi-finalists to increase the amount of distance at >19km/h from group to knockout action, with Sweden (-10%) having the biggest decline out of the other three teams. Since the USA and Sweden both faced lower-ranked teams in the group stage, this suggests that their loads were higher against those teams due to being more dominant in those matches, compared to against their more challenging and higher-ranked opponents in the knockout rounds.

• All of the final four teams were able to complete high physical loads in repeated games, and regardless of the round of the game, which suggests that they were able to sustain their physical capacity, as a team, across their seven matches. In fact, it is more likely that the opposition and their tactical formation and tendencies influenced the variance in the semi-finalists’ physical output, both individually and as a team, for each game.

• Whilst in possession of the ball, England (206) completed the most efforts at >19km/h, with the Netherlands completing the fewest (164); such efforts are largely related to movements off the ball in a bid to create and attack space when attempting to score.

• Sweden were the most compact (810m²) whilst in possession of the ball, whilst the Netherlands (991m²) were the most spread out. Out of possession of the ball, Sweden (603m²) again had the most compact shape and the Netherlands (677m²) again had the biggest, although the range between the teams was much lower, 74m² without the ball compared to 181m² in possession. This suggests that the four teams were more similar when defending and trying to regain the ball, whilst they were more variable when attacking and being creative.

• By looking at the shape and compactness of the final four teams in each of their seven games during the 2019 tournament, it is possible to identify the differences and modifications depending on the actual opponent. Again, such results highlight the different strategies and physical demands that teams and individual players face depending on the opposition, as well as the variability in their own system, strategy and physical qualities. This once again reinforces the fact that, as the women’s game continues to progress and grow, the technical and physical aspects of game performance are equally important to determine game success.

3.6.8


3.6

One of the most consistent trends within the football science area is positional differences in physical characteristics and performance. Thus, this section will detail the positional analyses in relation to descriptive characteristics such as age, height and body mass in addition to match running performances across multiple variables. These types of analyses are especially important as they not only report common trends (e.g. wide midfielders cover more Zone 4 distance than central defenders) but also longitudinal changes across different FIFA Women’s World Cups due to the evolution of the game (e.g. wide midfielders covered more Zone 5 distance at France 2019 compared to Canada 2015). Specifically identifying such positional trends provides insight to coaches and practitioners about specific training recommendations that replicate the match physical performance of these positions. The playing positions used in the analyses below were based on the following classifications: goalkeepers (GK), full-backs (FB), central defenders (CD), central midfielders (CM), wide midfielders (WM) and forwards (FW).

Positional trends3.7.1

Physical characteristics in relation to tactical role

Positional analysis | Absolute distance and frequency of actions in various speed zones

CHAPTER 3 SECTION 7

3.7

Positions

Forward

Central defenderCD

CM Central midfielder

FB

Wide midfielder

Full-back

WM

FW

GK Goalkeeper

OP Outfield position

ALL All positions

Please note: the physical characteristics above were submitted by each of the registered national teams according to articles 25 and 26 of the competition regulations. Thus, the above data was not measured for the purposes of this report and could be subject to accuracy variations based on the procedures used by each national team. The age, height and body mass of each player was matched to the playing positions assigned to them for each match. If a player competed in two different roles across the competition, then the position that was most common and/or had accumulated the most game minutes was selected.

Data is presented as an average and spread (mean ± standard deviation).

Match physical performance data presented below is only from players who completed all of their team’s regular-time matches at Canada 2015 and France 2019. The tactical role of each player corresponded to the main positional role for each of them during each match. Please note that the refiltering of the 2015 data may have modified the data trends and thus caution is needed when comparing between tournaments.

Playing position

Players (n)

Age(yr)

Height(cm)

Body mass(kg)

2015 2019 2015 2019 2015 2019 2015 2019

GK 33 29 28.9±4.3 28.6±5.0 173.6±4.9 174.4±5.1 67.0±5.2 68.3±5.8

OP 405 407 25.7±3.9 26.1±3.9 166.4±6.6 166.7±6.3 59.8±6.1 60.2±6.0

ALL 438 436 25.9±4.0 26.3±4.0 167.0±6.7 167.3±6.5 60.3±6.3 60.7±6.3

CD 66 62 26.5±4.0 27.5±3.8 170.5±5.1 170.9±5.5 62.8±5.8 63.8±5.5

FB 72 74 25.3±3.7 26.0±3.5 165.3±5.9 165.5±5.0 59.0±6.1 58.9±4.9

CM 112 110 25.2±4.1 26.4±4.1 166.0±6.6 165.5±6.6 59.7±5.9 59.7±6.1

WM 95 101 25.4±3.7 25.1±3.5 164.7±6.6 165.7±6.0 57.9±6.1 58.8±5.7

FW 60 60 26.5±3.9 26.1±4.3 166.9±6.9 168.1±6.7 60.6±5.8 61.4±6.5

The positional trends for descriptive data such as age, height and body mass of players who recorded official game time at both Canada 2015 and France 2019 can be found in Table 8 below. Consistent trends were found across both Women’s World Cup competitions, with goalkeepers being older, taller and heavier than all other playing positions. In relation to outfield player trends across the last two competitions, it was clear that central defenders were the tallest and heaviest players followed by forwards and central midfielders, with similar characteristics for wide players like full-backs and wide midfielders. Although most descriptive characteristics across positions for both competitions showed some minor changes, most of these were not practically meaningful. Interestingly, goalkeepers and central defenders were on average 1.0-1.3kg heavier in 2019 compared with the 2015 competition.

Table 8. Positional trends in age, height and body mass across Canada 2015 and France 2019

Descriptive characteristics of age, height and body mass

Match physical performances in relation to tactical roleKG

21AGE

3.7


3.7

3.7 Figure 82A+B

0

4,000

8,000

12,000

GK CD FB CM WM FW

5,028 9,586 10,279 10,861 10,573 10,267

0

4,000

8,000

12,000

GK CD FB CM WM FW

4,783 9,344 9,993 10,608 10,247 10,154

GK CD FB CM WM FW

GK CD FB CM WM FW

Tota

l dis

tan

ce (m

)To

tal d

ista

nce

(m)

Position

Position

Standarddeviation

Player matchobservation

2015 | A

2019 | B

Standarddeviation


The average and data spread of the total distance covered by position during all regular-time matches of Canada 2015 and France 2019 are summarised in Figure 82A (2015) and Figure 82B (2019).

Absolute total distance covered

Figure 82. Averages and data spread across various positional subsets in the absolute total distance covered in a match for (A) Canada 2015 and (B) France 2019. Each individual dot equates to a player match observation (bars = mean; T above and below bars = standard deviation).

3.7.2

General positional trends and tournament comparison

3.7


3.7

3.7 Figure 83

0

4,000

8,000

12,000

GK CD FB CM WM FW

4,78

3

9,34

4

9,99

3

10,6

08

10,2

47

10,1

54

5,02

8

9,58

6

10,2

79

10,8

61

10,5

73

10,2

67

GK CD FB CM WM FW

Tota

l dis

tan

ce (m

)

Position

Standarddeviation

2019

2015

Figure 83. Comparison of the absolute total distances covered by various positional subsets at Canada 2015 and France 2019. Data is presented as an average and spread (bars = mean; T above bars = standard deviation). Please note that the refiltering of the 2015 data may have modified the data trends and thus caution is needed when comparing between tournaments.

As expected, goalkeepers covered lower absolute total distances than all outfield players across both competitions. Regarding outfield positions, central defenders covered the lowest overall distance while central midfielders and wide midfielders covered the greatest distance, with full-backs and forwards falling somewhere between these two extremes. The lowest total distance covered was recorded by a full-back (6,738m) in 2015 and a central defender in 2019 (7,991m), while the highest was from a central midfielder (12,231 and 12,750m) in 2015 and 2019, respectively. The dots in both Figures 82A and 82B indicate individual player observations and you can visualise the ranges clearly. The range for goalkeepers was 3,034-6,361m and 3,001-6,527m, while the ranges for outfield positions were 6,738-12,231m and 7,991-12,750m for the 2015 and 2019 competitions, respectively. This spread as a percentage (e.g. coefficient of variation) indicated that across the 2015 and 2019 tournaments, goalkeepers demonstrated the most variation in total distance covered (15-17%), with similar variations for outfield positions such as central defenders (7-8%), full-backs (6-9%), central midfielders (6-7%), wide midfielders (7-8%) and forwards (8-10%).

A comparative illustration of the absolute total distance covered by various positional subsets at Canada 2015 (dark blue) and France 2019 (light blue) can be found in Figure 83. Please note that the refiltering of the 2015 data may have modified the data trends and thus caution is needed when comparing between tournaments. It was evident that all playing positions covered more total distance at France 2019 than at Canada 2015. Although the magnitude of the increase across tournaments was only small for most outfield positions (percentage increase from 2015 to 2019: central defenders=2.6%, full-backs=2.9%, central midfielders=2.4%), this percentage increase was more pronounced for wide midfielders (3.2%; 10,247 v. 10,573m) and least evident for forwards (1.1%; 10,154 v. 10,267m). The total distance for goalkeepers was substantially lower than for outfield players but the percentage increase from Canada 2015 to France 2019 was 5.1%. This overall trend could have been related to much more consistent total distances, as evidenced by more variability across most positions in Canada 2015 (Figure 82A) compared to France 2019 (Figure 82B). For instance, the percentage variance in 2019 was approximately 2-3% lower than in 2015 for goalkeepers, full-backs and forwards, highlighting more consistent total distances across each position in the modern game.


3.7

As there is no general consensus across studies regarding the speed zones of elite women’s football players, it was decided that no attempt would be made to link speed zones to movement categories (e.g. jogging, running and sprinting). However, Zone 1 and Zone 2 could be classified as low intensity, while Zone 3, Zone 4 and Zone 5 could be classified as moderate to high intensity. The average absolute distance covered by playing positions in various speed zones during regular-time matches of Canada 2015 and France 2019 can be found in Table 9 and Figures 84-91.

Absolute distance covered in various speed zones

3.7.3

For zones 1 and 2, goalkeepers covered the highest proportion of their total distance in zones 1 (77-78%) and 2 (17-19%) compared to all outfield positions (37% and 37-38%) across the two tournaments. For the absolute distance covered in Zone 1, most playing positions covered similar distances across positions at both the 2015 (3,527-3,755m) and 2019 World Cups (3,670-3,894m). However, in Zone 2, central midfielders covered more distance than other outfield positions in the 2015 and 2019 tournaments (4,283 and 4,134m).

Table 9. Positional trends in the distance covered in zones 1 and 2 at Canada 2015 and France 2019

Data is presented as an average and spread (mean ± standard deviation) and as a percentage of the total distance covered (ToDi).

Playing position

Zone 1(m)

Zone 1:percent (% ToDi)

Zone 2(m)

Zone 2:percent (% ToDi)

2015 2019 2015 2019 2015 2019 2015 2019

GK 3,658±484 3,894±428 77±6 78±5 910±334 896±292 19±4 17±4

OP 3,681±281 3,754±300 37±5 37±5 3,864±630 3,815±538 38±4 37±4

ALL 3,639±324 3,771±321 41±14 42±14 3,571±1,115 3,457±1,088 37±7 35±8

CD 3,704±272 3,745±231 40±5 39±4 3,711±496 3,693±417 40±3 39±3

FB 3,527±334 3,706±276 36±4 36±4 3,852±549 3,810±472 39±3 37±4

CM 3,556±267 3,670±305 34±4 34±4 4,283±492 4,134±502 40±3 38±3

WM 3,755±314 3,840±342 37±5 37±5 3,809±600 3,692±645 37±4 35±5

FW 3,688±275 3,979±304 37±5 39±5 3,833±634 3,524±538 38±4 34±4


Zone 1 and Zone 21

0-7km/h

27-13km/h

SPEED ZONES


3.7


3.7

A comparison of the distance covered in zones 1 and 2 by various positional subsets at Canada 2015 and France 2019 can be found in Table 9. It was evident that all playing positions covered marginally more Zone 1 distance at France 2019 than at Canada 2015. Although the magnitude of the increase across tournaments was only small for most outfield positions (percentage increase from 2015 to 2019: full-backs=5.1%, central midfielders=3.2%, wide midfielders=2.3%), this percentage increase was the most pronounced for forwards (7.9%) and least evident in central defenders (1.1%). In 2019 compared to 2015, there was a tendency for Zone 2 distance to stay stable (percentage decrease from 2015 to 2019: goalkeepers=1.5%, central defenders=0.5%, full-backs=1.1%) or decrease for selected positions (central midfielders=3.5%, wide midfielders=3.1%, forwards=8.1%).

Figure 3. Averages and data spread across various positional subsets in the absolute distance covered in Zone 3 for (A) Canada 2015 and (B) France 2019. Each individual dot equates to a player match observation. (Bars = mean; T above bars = standard deviation).

The average and data spread of the absolute distance covered in Zone 3 by position during all regular-time matches of Canada 2015 and France 2019 are summarised in Figure 84A (2015) and Figure 84B (2019).

Zone 3

Figure 84. Averages and data spread across various positional subsets in the absolute distance covered in Zone 3 for (A) Canada 2015 and (B) France 2019. Each individual dot equates to a player match observation (bars = mean; T above bars = standard deviation).

313-19km/h3.7 Figure 84A+B

0

1,400

2,800

4,200

GK CD FB CM WM FW

209 1,676 2,059 2,488 2,195 2,013

0

1,400

2,800

4,200

GK CD FB CM WM FW

190 1,547 1,957 2,294 2,043 1,992

GK CD FB CM WM FW

GK CD FB CM WM FW

Zon

e 3

dis

tan

ce (m

)Zo

ne

3 d

ista

nce

(m)

Position

Position

190

209

Standarddeviation


2015 | A

2019 | B

Standarddeviation



3.7

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

GK CD FB CM WM FW

190

1,54

7

1,95

7

2,29

4

2,04

3

1,99

2

209

1,67

6

2,05

9

2,48

8

2,19

5

2,01

3190

209

GK CD FB CM WM FW

Zon

e 3

dis

tan

ce (m

)

Position

3.7 Figure 85

Standarddeviation

2019

2015

Regarding Zone 3, goalkeepers covered substantially lower distances (190 and 209m) compared to all outfield positions at both the 2015 (1,946m) and 2019 tournaments (2,080m). Additionally, the Zone 3 distance was substantially higher for central midfielders (2,294 and 2,488m) than for all other outfield positions, with central defenders producing the lowest Zone 3 distance (1,547 and 1,676m). However, similar distances were covered by full-backs (1,957 and 2,059m), wide midfielders (2,043 and 2,195m) and forwards (1,992 and 2,013m) across both tournaments. The dots in both Figures 84A and 84B indicate individual player observations and you can visualise the Zone 3 ranges clearly. The range for goalkeepers was 38-790m and 26-507m, while the ranges for outfield positions were 705-3,359m and 841-4,013m for the 2015 and 2019 competitions, respectively. This spread as a percentage (e.g. coefficient of variation) indicated that across the 2015 and 2019 tournaments, goalkeepers demonstrated the most variation in Zone 3 distance (49-66%) with similar variations for most outfield positions such as central defenders (20-21%), full-backs (18-20%), central midfielders (19-20%), and wide midfielders (18-21%). However, forwards displayed more spread (24-25%), indicating less consistent Zone 3 distances in matches.

A comparative illustration of the distance covered in Zone 3 by various positional subsets at Canada 2015 (dark blue) and France 2019 (light blue) can be found in Figure 85. Please note that the refiltering of the 2015 data may have modified the data trends and thus caution is needed when comparing between tournaments. It is clear that all playing positions covered more Zone 3 distance at France 2019 than at Canada 2015. Although the magnitude of the increase across tournaments was only small to moderate for most outfield positions (percentage increase from 2015 to 2019: full-backs=6.4%, wide midfielders=7.4%), this increase was more pronounced for central defenders (8.4%; 1,547 v. 1,676m) and central midfielders (8.4%; 2,294 v. 2,488m) and least pronounced for forwards (1.1%; 1,992 v. 2,013m). Despite the very low absolute Zone 3 distance covered by goalkeepers, they still demonstrated a 9.9% increase in distance from 2015 to 2019. This overall trend could have been related to much more consistent Zone 3 distances, as evidenced by more variability across most positions at Canada

Figure 85. Comparison of the distances covered in Zone 3 by various positional subsets at Canada 2015 and France 2019. Data is presented as an average and spread (bars = mean; T above bars = standard deviation). Please note that the refiltering of the 2015 data may have modified the data trends and thus caution is needed when comparing between tournaments.

The Zone 3 distance was substantially higher for central

midfielders than for all other outfield positions

3.7


3.7

2015 (Figure 84A) compared to France 2019 (Figure 84B). For instance, this spread as a percentage (e.g. coefficient of variation) was higher in 2015 compared with 2019 for goalkeepers (66 v. 49%), full-backs (20 v. 18%) and wide midfielders (21 v. 18%), while for central defenders (21 v. 20%), central midfielders (20 v. 19%) and forwards (24 v. 25%) it was similar. This generally highlights more consistent Zone 3 distances across some positions in the modern game.

The average and data spread of the distance covered in Zone 4 by position during all regular-time matches of Canada 2015 and France 2019 are summarised in Figure 86A (2015) and Figure 86B (2019). In Zone 4, goalkeepers covered only 21-24m in matches, with approximately 29-38% of all goalkeeper match observations producing <10m in Zone 4 across the 2015 and 2019 competitions. More distance was covered across the 2015 and 2019 competitions by full-backs (449 and 501m), wide midfielders (467 and 591m) and forwards (468 and 530m) compared to central defenders (292 and 349m) and central midfielders (382 and 460m). In both 2015 and 2019, the lowest distance recorded for an outfield player was from a central defender (109 and 146m), while the highest value in 2015 was from a forward (795m) and in 2019 it was from a wide midfielder (1,009m).

In Figures 86A and 86B you can observe the dots that represent individual player observations, and this provides the reader with insight into the spread of the Zone 4 distances for each position. The range for goalkeepers was 0-107 and 0-132m, while the ranges for outfield positions were 109-795m and 146-1,009m for the 2015 and 2019 competitions, respectively. The percentage spread (e.g. coefficient of variation) was 22-29% for central defenders, full-backs, wide midfielders and forwards, with central midfielders displaying the highest Zone 4 spread (32-33%) for outfield positions in both the 2015 and 2019 competitions. Goalkeepers demonstrated a spread of 89-105% for Zone 4 distances across tournaments.

A comparative illustration of the distance covered in Zone 4 by various positional subsets at Canada 2015 (dark blue) and France 2019 (light blue) can be found in Figure 87. It is clear that all outfield playing positions covered substantially more Zone 4 distance at France 2019 than at Canada 2015.

Zone 44

19-23km/h


3.7

3.7 Figure 86A+B

0

300

600

900

GK CD FB CM WM FW

23.55 349 501 460 591 530

0

300

600

900

GK CD FB CM WM FW

21 292 449 382 467 468

GK CD FB CM WM FW

GK CD FB CM WM FW

Zon

e 4

dis

tan

ce (m

)Zo

ne

4 d

ista

nce

(m)

Position

Position

21

24

Standarddeviation


2015 | A

2019 | B

Standarddeviation


Figure 86. Averages and data spread across various positional subsets in the absolute distance covered in Zone 4 for (A) Canada 2015 and (B) France 2019. Each individual dot equates to a player match observation (bars = mean; T above bars = standard deviation).

GK CD FB CM WM FW

3.7 Figure 87

0

250

500

750

GK CD FB CM WM FW

21 292

449

382

467

468

24 349

501

460

591

530

Zon

e 4

dis

tan

ce (m

)

Position

21 24

Standarddeviation

2019

2015


3.7


3.7

3.7 Figure 88A+B

0

250

500

750

GK CD FB CM WM FW

0

250

500

750

GK CD FB CM WM FW

GK CD FB CM WM FW

GK CD FB CM WM FW

Zon

e 5

dis

tan

ce (m

)Zo

ne

5 d

ista

nce

(m)

Position

Position

4

91

157

93

173

174

6

123

204

111

255

220

Standarddeviation


2015 | A

2019 | B

Standarddeviation


Figure 88. Averages and data spread across various positional subsets in the distance covered in Zone 5 for (A) Canada 2015 and (B) France 2019. Each individual dot equates to a player match observation (bars = mean; T above bars = standard deviation).

The average and data spread of the absolute distance covered in Zone 5 by position during all regular-time matches of Canada 2015 and France 2019 are summarised in Figure 88A (2015) and Figure 88B (2019). In relation to Zone 5, the positional trends are very distinct, with full-backs (157 and 204m), wide midfielders (173 and 255m) and forwards (174 and 220m) producing more distance than central defenders (91 and 123m) and central midfielders (93 and 111m) across Canada 2015 and France 2019, respectively.

Although the magnitude of the increase across tournaments varied, it was generally large for most outfield positions (percentage increase from 2015 to 2019: central defenders=19%, central midfielders=20.4%, forwards=13.3%). This percentage increase was more pronounced for wide midfielders (26.6%; 467 v. 591m) and least pronounced for full-backs (11.6%; 449 v. 501m). Despite the very low absolute Zone 4 distance covered by goalkeepers, they still demonstrated a 12.3% increase in Zone 4 distance from 2015 to 2019. This overall trend could have been related to more consistent Zone 4 distances, as evidenced by more variability across most positions at Canada 2015 (Figure 86A) compared to France 2019 (Figure 86B). For instance, this spread as a percentage (e.g. coefficient of variation) was higher in 2015 compared with 2019 for goalkeepers (105 v. 89%), full-backs (27 v. 25%) and wide midfielders (25 v. 23%), while for central defenders (26 v. 26%), central midfielders (32 v. 33%) and forwards (28 v. 29%) it was similar. This generally highlights more consistent Zone 4 distances across selected positions in the modern game.

Zone 55

>23km/h

3.7


3.7

As expected, goalkeepers covered only 4-6m in Zone 5 across matches, with approximately 44-61% of all goalkeeper match observations producing 0m in Zone 5 across the 2015 and 2019 competitions. The lowest Zone 5 distance recorded for an outfield player was from a central defender (3m) in 2015 and a central midfielder in 2019 (0m), while the highest values in both the 2015 and 2019 competitions were from a wide midfielder (510 and 651m).

In Figures 88A and 88B you can observe the dots that represent individual player observations, and this provides the reader with insight into the spread of the Zone 5 distances for each position. The range for goalkeepers was 0-42 and 0-63m, while the ranges for outfield positions were 3-510 and 0-651m for the 2015 and 2019 competitions, respectively. The percentage spread (e.g. coefficient of variation) demonstrated that the most consistent Zone 5 distance was from wide midfielders (44-49%) and the most variable Zone 5 distances during matches were from central midfielders (64-66%) across Canada 2015 and France 2019, respectively. Central defenders (48-51%), full-backs (49-54%) and forwards (52-60%) were somewhere between these extremes. Goalkeepers demonstrated a spread of 154-212% for Zone 5 distances across tournaments.

A comparative illustration of the distance covered in Zone 5 by various positional subsets at Canada 2015 (dark blue) and France 2019 (light blue) can be found in Figure 89. Please note that the refiltering of the 2015 data may have modified the data trends and thus caution is needed when comparing between tournaments. It is clear that all playing positions covered more Zone 5 distance at France 2019 than at Canada 2015. Although the magnitude of the increase across tournaments varied, it was generally large for most outfield positions (percentage increase from 2015 to 2019: central defenders=35.7%, full-backs=30.1%, forwards=26.9%). This percentage increase was more pronounced for wide midfielders (47.3%; 173 v. 255m) and least pronounced for central midfielders (18.6%; 93 v. 111m).


GK CD FB CM WM FW

3.7 Figure 89

0

100

200

300

400

GK CD FB CM WM FW

4 91 157

93 173

174

6 123

204

111

255

220

Zon

e 5

dis

tan

ce (m

)

Position

4 6

Standarddeviation

2019

2015


3.7

3.7 Figure 90A+B

0

300

600

900

GK CD FB CM WM FW

24 349 501 460 591 5306

123

204111

255220

0

300

600

900

GK CD FB CM WM FW

21 292 449 382 467 4684

91

15793

173 174

246

421

Dis

tan

ce (m

)D

ista

nce

(m)

Position

Position

Zone 4

2015 | A

Zone 5

2019 | B

Zone 4

Zone 5

Figure 90. Averages across various positional subsets in the combined distance covered in zones 4 and 5 for (A) Canada 2015 and (B) France 2019

The average of the combined absolute distance covered in zones 4 and 5 by position during all regular-time matches of Canada 2015 and France 2019 is summarised in Figure 90A (2015) and Figure 90B (2019). Please note that these two upper speed zones generally represent the high-intensity running profile of players, and thus combining them provides more insight on intense activity from a positional perspective. At both Canada 2015 and France 2019, wide midfielders, forwards and full-backs covered more combined zone 4 and 5 distance than central defenders and central midfielders. In 2015, wide midfielders and forwards produced very similar combined zone 4 and 5 distances, but in 2019 this increased in wide midfielders due to an elevation in Zone 5 distance.

Combined zones 4 and 54

19-23km/h

5>23km/h

3.7


3.7

GK CD FB CM WM FW

3.7 Figure 91

0

250

500

750

1,000

GK CD FB CM WM FW

25 383

606

475

640

642

30 472

705

570

846

750

Co

mb

ined

Zo

ne

4 an

d 5

dis

tan

ce (m

)

Position

25 30

Standarddeviation

2019

2015

Figure 91. Comparison of the combined distances covered in zones 4 and 5 by various positional subsets at Canada 2015 and France 2019. Data is presented as an average and spread (bars = mean; T above bars = standard deviation). Please note that the refiltering of the 2015 data may have modified the data trends and thus caution is needed when comparing between tournaments.

Although the absolute distance covered demonstrates differences across positions, the relative composition of Zone 4 and Zone 5 in the total high-intensity running profile is very similar across positions and tournaments. For instance, central defenders (Zone 4 = 76-74%; Zone 5 = 24-26%), full-backs (Zone 4 = 75-71%; Zone 5 = 25-29%), wide midfielders (Zone 4 = 73-70%; Zone 5 = 27-30%) and forwards (Zone 4 = 73-71%; Zone 5 = 27-29%) illustrate similar relative proportions from zones 4 and 5 in relation to the total high-intensity running distance across the 2015 and 2019 competitions, respectively. However, central midfielders indicated a much higher proportion from Zone 4 than Zone 5 (Zone 4 = 80-81%; Zone 5 = 20-19%). For goalkeepers, only a minimal amount of combined Zone 4 and 5 distance was covered, but the relative proportion of each to the total high-intensity distance was 86-79% from Zone 4 and 14-21% from Zone 5 across the 2015 and 2019 competitions, respectively.

A comparative illustration of the combined absolute distance covered in zones 4 and 5 by various positional subsets at Canada 2015 (dark blue) and France 2019 (light blue) can be found in Figure 91. Please note that the refiltering of the 2015 data may have modified the data trends and thus caution is needed when comparing between tournaments. It is clear that all playing positions covered substantially more combined distance in zones 4 and 5 at France 2019 than at Canada 2015. Although the magnitude of the increase across tournaments varied, it was generally large for most positions (percentage increase from 2015 to 2019: goalkeepers=22.0%, central defenders=23.4%, central midfielders=20.1%, forwards=17.0%). This percentage increase was more pronounced for wide midfielders (32.2%; 640 v. 846m) and least pronounced for full-backs (16.4%; 606 v. 705m).


3.7

The average and data spread of the frequency of actions in zones 1-5 by position during all regular-time matches of Canada 2015 and France 2019 are summarised in Table 10. As expected, goalkeepers produced the lowest frequency of combined actions across zones 1-2, lower than all outfield players, across both competitions (297-336 v. 801-902 bouts). Regarding outfield positions, central midfielders produced the highest number of combined Zone 1 and 2 efforts compared to all other positions across both Canada 2015 and France 2019. The average distance travelled per bout in Zone 1 for goalkeepers (18-23m per bout) was substantially higher than for outfield players (8-10m per bout) in both tournaments. All outfield positions produced similar distances per bout in Zone 1 (central defenders=8; full-backs=8; central midfielders=8; wide midfielders=9; forwards=9m per bout). Zone 2 distance travelled per bout was similar across all positions (7-10m per bout) at both Canada 2015 and France 2019. Goalkeepers typically produced a substantially lower Zone 3 frequency (18-20 bouts) than outfield positions (168-172 bouts). The frequency of occurrence of Zone 3 actions across tournaments was lowest for central defenders (140-145 bouts) and highest for central midfielders (198-201 bouts), with full-backs, wide midfielders and forwards demonstrating a similar number of actions (167-180 bouts). The average distance travelled per bout in Zone 4 was very similar across all positions for Canada 2015 and France 2019, respectively (goalkeepers=11 and 11; central defenders=11 and 12; full-backs=12 and 12; central midfielders=12 and 12; wide midfielders=12 and 12; forwards=12 and 12m per bout).

Frequency of actions and average distance per bout in various zones

3.7.4

Table 10. Positional trends for the frequency of actions in various zones across Canada 2015 and France 2019

Data is presented as an average and spread (mean ± standard deviation). Zones 1-3 are reported as integers due to the large frequency of them. However, zones 4 and 5 are reported as decimals due to the low occurrence of these actions and to inform the reader of the precise value. Please note that the refiltering of the data could have impacted the accuracy of the frequency counts and the average-distance-per-bout calculations, particularly for zones 4 and 5.

Playing position

Zone 1 and 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5

2015 2019 2015 2019 2015 2019 2015 2019

GK 336±114 297±83 18±12 20±10 1.3±1.9 1.4±1.6 0.2±0.5 0.3±0.6

OP 902±116 801±95 168±41 172±38 27.9±10.2 30.6±10.3 7.9±4.9 9.4±5.6

ALL 843±217 739±190 152±62 154±61 23.4±11.9 27.0±13.6 6.7±4.8 8.3±6.1

CD 897±117 806±96 140±29 145±28 19.2±6.0 23.0±6.4 6.0±2.7 7.3±3.6

FB 883±108 811±87 167±31 170±26 30.0±8.0 32.7±8.6 9.1±3.7 11.2±5.5

CM 968±105 831±82 198±37 201±37 25.4±8.3 30.8±10.6 5.6±3.7 6.3±3.8

WM 881±115 767±102 173±36 180±31 31.3±8.8 38.2±9.4 9.9±4.7 14.1±5.8

FW 887±120 740±95 174±43 166±40 30.4±9.2 34.8±10.7 10.0±5.3 12.0±6.8


3.7


3.7

3.7.5

The frequency of Zone 4 actions was much higher across the 2015 and 2019 competitions by full-backs (30 and 33 bouts), central midfielders (25 and 31 bouts), wide midfielders (31 and 38 bouts) and forwards (30 and 35 bouts) compared to central defenders (19 and 23 bouts). The average distance travelled per bout in Zone 4 was very similar across all outfield positions for Canada 2015 and France 2019, respectively (central defenders=15 and 15; full-backs=15 and 15; central midfielders=15 and 15; wide midfielders=15 and 15; forwards=15 and 15m per bout). The frequency of Zone 5 actions was much higher across the 2015 and 2019 competitions by full-backs (9 and 11 bouts), wide midfielders (10 and 14 bouts) and forwards (10 and 12 bouts) compared to central defenders (6 and 7 bouts) and central midfielders (6 and 6 bouts). The average distance travelled per bout in Zone 5 was very similar across all outfield positions for Canada 2015 and France 2019, respectively (central defenders=17 and 17; full-backs=17 and 18; central midfielders=17 and 18; wide midfielders=18 and 18; forwards=17 and 18m per bout).

Table 10 also compares the frequency of actions in various zones at both Canada 2015 and France 2019. Please note that the refiltering of the 2015 data may have modified the data trends and thus caution is needed when comparing between tournaments. All positions produced a lower number of bouts in zones 1-2 at France 2019 compared to Canada 2015 (percentage decrease from 2019 to 2015: goalkeepers=11.6%; central defenders=10.2%; full-backs=8.2%; central midfielders=14.2%; wide midfielders=12.9%; forwards=16.6%). However, most outfield playing positions produced more bouts in zones 3-5 at France 2019 than at Canada 2015. Although the magnitude of the increase across tournaments for zones 3-5 varied, it was generally moderate to large for most positions (percentage increase across zones 3-5 from 2015 to 2019: goalkeepers Z3=11.1%, Z4=7.7%, Z5= 50%; central defenders Z3=3.6%, Z4=19.8%, Z5=21.7%; full-backs Z3=1.8%, Z4=9.0%, Z5=23.1%; central midfielders Z3=1.5%, Z4=21.3%, Z5=12.5%; and wide midfielders Z3=4.1%, Z4=22%, Z5=42%). Although forwards produced more bouts in zones 4 and 5 in 2019 than in 2015 (Z4=14.5%, Z5=20%), they actually produced 4.6% fewer Zone 3 actions.


3.7

Summary

• Central defenders covered the lowest overall distance amongst outfield players, while central midfielders and wide midfielders covered the greatest distance, with full-backs and forwards falling somewhere between these two extremes.

• It was evident that all playing positions covered slightly more total distance at France 2019 than at Canada 2015, although the magnitude of the increase across tournaments was only small.

• Zone 3 distance was substantially higher in central midfielders than all other outfield positions, with central defenders producing the lowest distance. Similar distances were covered by full-backs, wide midfielders and forwards across both tournaments.

• All playing positions covered more Zone 3 distance at France 2019 than at Canada 2015.

• Full-backs, wide midfielders and forwards covered more Zone 4 distance across the 2015 and 2019 competitions than central defenders and central midfielders.

• All outfield playing positions covered substantially more Zone 4 distance at France 2019 than at Canada 2015, although this was particularly evident for wide midfielders.

• Zone 5 distance was substantially higher for full-backs, wide midfielders and forwards than for central defenders and central midfielders across Canada 2015 and France 2019, respectively.

• Zone 5 distance was 18.6-47.3% higher at France 2019 than at Canada 2015 across positions, although this was especially evident for wide midfielders.

• The frequency of actions in zones 3 and 4 was higher in full-backs, central midfielders, wide midfielders and forwards compared with central defenders.

• The number of Zone 5 actions was greater across the 2015 and 2019 competitions for full-backs, wide midfielders and forwards compared to central defenders and central midfielders.

• More actions were performed in zones 3-5 at France 2019 than at Canada 2015.

• Finally, the overall trend above could have been related to much more consistent distances covered/frequency of actions overall and in selected zones at France 2019 than at Canada 2015 across positions.

3.7.5

3.7


3.7

In previous sections, the absolute distance was calculated in total and in various speed zones. However, this next section will analyse the data trends when the distance is normalised for the duration of the match (e.g. m/min). The use of video assistant referees (VARs) at France 2019 changed the average match duration compared to Canada 2015. Thus, a more appropriate comparison of the physical demands across position and tournament can be established through relative analyses.

Positional trends: relative distance covered in total and in various speed zones

3.8.1


Positional analysis | Relative distance and distance covered in both halves in various speed zones

3.8

CHAPTER 3 SECTION 8

Positions

Forward

Central defenderCD

CM Central midfielder

FB

Wide midfielder

Full-back

WM

FW

GK Goalkeeper

OP Outfield position

ALL All positions

The average and data spread of the total distance covered relative to the duration of the match by position during all regular-time matches of Canada 2015 (dark blue) and France 2019 (light blue) are summarised in Figure 92. For outfield players, when accounting for the duration of the match, central defenders covered the lowest overall relative distance (98m/min) whilst central midfielders (111-112m/min) covered the greatest relative distance, with full-backs (104-105m/min), wide midfielders (108m/min) and forwards (106-107m/min) falling somewhere between these two extremes across both tournaments. Goalkeepers covered substantially lower relative distances than all outfield players across both competitions (50-52m/min). A comparative analysis of the last two tournaments revealed that all playing positions covered marginally more absolute total distance at France 2019 than at Canada 2015 (1.1-3.2% more in 2019 than in 2015). However, the relative trends in Figure 92 demonstrated no meaningful differences across the tournaments for all positions when match duration is accounted for.

Relative total distance covered

0

40

80

120

GK CD FB CM WM FW

50 98 104

112

108

107

52 98 105

111

108

106

GK CD FB CM WM FW

3.8 Figure 92

Standarddeviation

2019

2015

Rel

ativ

e to

tal d

ista

nce

(m/m

in)

Position

Figure 92. Comparison of the total relative distance covered by various positional subsets at Canada 2015 and France 2019. Data is presented as an average and spread (bars = mean; T above bars = standard deviation). Please note that the refiltering of the 2015 data may have modified the data trends and thus caution is needed when comparing between tournaments.

3.8


3.8

In Zone 1, most playing positions covered similar relative distances at both the 2015 (37.0-39.5m/min) and 2019 World Cups (37.6-40.9m/min). For Zone 2, relative distance was generally higher for central midfielders (45.0 and 42.3m/min) than for other outfield positions in the 2015 and 2019 tournaments (39.0-40.5 and 36.3-39.0m/min). A comparison of the relative distance covered in zones 1 and 2 by various positional subsets at Canada 2015 and France 2019 can be found in Table 11. It was evident that all playing positions covered similar Zone 1 relative distances across tournaments, with forwards and goalkeepers being the only exceptions with a 3.6-5.4% increase from Canada 2015 to France 2019. In 2019 compared to 2015, there was a tendency for relative Zone 2 distance to stay stable (percentage decrease from 2015 to 2019: goalkeepers=4.2%, central defenders=2.8%, full-backs=3.7%) or decrease for selected positions (central midfielders=6.0%, wide midfielders=5.7%, forwards=9.9%).

Zones 1 and 2

Table 11. Positional trends in the relative distance covered in zones 1 and 2 at Canada 2015 and France 2019

Data is presented as an average and spread (mean ± standard deviation).

Playing position

Zone 1 (m/min)

Zone 2 (m/min)

2015 2019 2015 2019

GK 38.5±5.1 39.9±4.2 9.6±3.5 9.2±3.0

OP 38.3±3.0 38.5±3.0 40.3±6.7 39.1±5.7

ALL 38.2±3.4 38.6±3.2 37.5±11.8 35.4±11.2

CD 38.9±2.8 38.4±2.2 39.0±5.4 37.9±4.5

FB 37.0±3.5 37.9±2.8 40.5±6.0 39.0±5.0

CM 37.3±2.7 37.6±3.2 45.0±5.4 42.3±5.4

WM 39.5±3.1 39.3±3.4 40.1±6.5 37.8±6.7

FW 38.8±2.9 40.9±2.9 40.3±6.7 36.3±5.8

10-7km/h

27-13km/h

SPEED ZONES


3.8


3.8

Zone 3 The average and data spread of the relative distance covered in Zone 3 by position during all regular-time matches of Canada 2015 (dark blue) and France 2019 (light blue) are summarised in Figure 93. In Zone 3, goalkeepers covered substantially lower relative distances (2.0 and 2.1m/min) compared to all outfield positions in both the 2015 (20.3m/min) and 2019 tournaments (21.3m/min). Relative Zone 3 distance was substantially higher in central midfielders (24.1 and 25.5m/min) than all other outfield positions, with central defenders producing the lowest Zone 3 distance (16.3 and 17.2m/min). However, similar distances were covered by full-backs (20.3 and 21.1m/min), wide midfielders (21.5 and 22.5m/min) and forwards (21.0 and 20.7m/min) across both tournaments.

It is clear that most playing positions covered more relative Zone 3 distance at France 2019 than at Canada 2015. Accounting for the match duration led to a less pronounced difference between tournaments compared to the trends for the absolute distance. Although the magnitude of the increase across tournaments was still small for most outfield positions (percentage increase from 2015 to 2019: full-backs=3.7%, wide midfielders=4.7%), this percentage increase was more pronounced for central defenders (5.7%) and central midfielders (5.8%), with forwards illustrating hardly any difference at all. Despite the very low relative Zone 3 distance covered by goalkeepers, they still demonstrated a 6.5% increase in Zone 3 distance from 2015 to 2019.

0

10

20

30

GK CD FB CM WM FW

2 16.3

20.3

24.1

21.5

212.1

17.2

21.1

25.5

22.5

20.7

GK CD FB CM WM FW

3.8 Figure 93

Standarddeviation

2019

2015

Rel

ativ

e zo

ne

3 d

ista

nce

(m/m

in)

Position

2.0

2.1

Figure 93. Comparison of the relative Zone 3 distance covered by various positional subsets at Canada 2015 and France 2019. Data is presented as an average and spread (bars = mean; T above bars = standard deviation). Please note that the refiltering of the 2015 data may have modified the data trends and thus caution is needed when comparing between tournaments.

313-19km/h


3.8

The average and data spread of the relative distance covered in Zone 4 by position during all regular-time matches of Canada 2015 and France 2019 are summarised in Figure 94. More relative Zone 4 distance was covered across the 2015 and 2019 competitions by full-backs (4.7 and 5.1m/min), wide midfielders (4.9 and 6.0m/min) and forwards (4.9 and 5.4m/min) compared to central defenders (3.1 and 3.6m/min) and central midfielders (4.0 and 4.7m/min).

All playing positions covered more relative Zone 4 distance at France 2019 than at Canada 2015. Accounting for the match duration led to a less pronounced difference between tournaments compared to the trends for the absolute distance. Although the magnitude of the increase across tournaments varied, it was generally moderate to large for most outfield positions (percentage increase from 2015 to 2019: central defenders=16.6%, central midfielders=17.5%, forwards=10.6%). This percentage increase was more pronounced for wide midfielders (23.0%) and least pronounced for full-backs (8.2%). Despite the very low relative Zone 4 distance covered by goalkeepers, they still demonstrated a 9.1% increase in Zone 4 distance from 2015 to 2019 (0.22 v. 0.24m/min).

Zone 4

0

2

4

6

8

GK CD FB CM WM FW

0.2

3.1

4.7

4 4.9

4.9

0.2

3.6

5.1

4.7

6 5.4

GK CD FB CM WM FW

3.8 Figure 94

Standarddeviation

2019

2015

Rel

ativ

e zo

ne

4 d

ista

nce

(m/m

in)

Position

0.2

0.2


419-23km/h

3.8


3.8

The average and data spread of the relative distance covered in Zone 5 by position during all regular-time matches of Canada 2015 and France 2019 are summarised in Figure 95. In relation to Zone 5, the positional trends are very distinct, with full-backs (1.6 and 2.1m/min), wide midfielders (1.8 and 2.6m/min) and forwards (1.8 and 2.3m/min) producing more relative distance than central defenders (1.0 and 1.3m/min) and central midfielders (1.0 and 1.1m/min) across Canada 2015 and France 2019, respectively.

Accounting for the match duration led to a less marked difference between tournaments compared to the trends for the absolute Zone 5 distance. Although the magnitude of the increase across tournaments varied, it was generally large for most outfield positions (percentage increase from 2015 to 2019: central defenders=32.6%, full-backs=29.0%, forwards=23.5%). This percentage increase was more pronounced for wide midfielders (43.4%) and least evident for central midfielders (15.3%). Despite the very low relative Zone 5 distance covered by goalkeepers, they still demonstrated a 50% increase in Zone 5 distance from 2015 to 2019.

Zone 5

0

1

2

3

4

GK CD FB CM WM FW

0 1 1.6

1 1.8

1.8

0.1

1.3

2.1

1.1

2.6

2.3

GK CD FB CM WM FW

3.8 Figure 95

Standarddeviation

2019

2015

Rel

ativ

e zo

ne

5 d

ista

nce

(m/m

in)

Position

0.0 0.

1


5>23km/h

3.8


3.8

0

2.5

5

7.5

10

GK CD FB CM WM FW

0.3

4 6.4

5 6.7

6.8

0.3

4.8

7.2

5.8

8.7

7.7

GK CD FB CM WM FW

3.8 Figure 96

Standarddeviation

2019

2015

Position

0.3

0.3

Co

mb

ined

rel

ativ

ezo

ne

4 an

d 5

dis

tan

ce (m

/min

)

Figure 96. Comparison of the relative combined Zone 4 and 5 distance covered by various positional subsets at Canada 2015 and France 2019. Data is presented as an average and spread (bars = mean; T above bars = standard deviation). Please note that the refiltering of the 2015 data may have modified the data trends and thus caution is needed when comparing between tournaments.

Although the magnitude of the increase across tournaments varied, it was generally large for most outfield positions

The average and data spread of the relative combined distance covered in zones 4 and 5 by position during all regular-time matches of Canada 2015 and France 2019 are summarised in Figure 96. Please note that these two upper speed zones generally represent the high-intensity running profile of players, and thus combining them provides more insight on intense activity from a positional perspective. At both Canada 2015 and France 2019, wide midfielders (6.7 and 8.7m/min), forwards (6.8 and 7.7m/min) and full-backs (6.4 and 7.2m/min) covered more relative combined zone 4 and 5 distance than central defenders (4.0 and 4.8m/min) and central midfielders (5.0 and 5.8m/min). In 2015, wide midfielders and forwards produced very similar combined zone 4 and 5 distances (wide midfielders=6.7 and forwards=6.8m/min). Although this increased substantially for both positions in 2019, the increase was more pronounced in wide midfielders (8.7m/min) than in forwards (7.7m/min).

A comparative analysis of the combined relative distance covered in zones 4 and 5 by various positional subsets at Canada 2015 (dark blue) and France 2019 (light blue) can be found in Figure 96. It is clear that all playing positions covered more combined distance in zones 4 and 5 at France 2019 than at Canada 2015. Accounting for the match duration led to a less marked difference between tournaments compared to the trends for the absolute distance. Although the magnitude of the increase across tournaments varied, it was generally moderate to large for most positions (percentage increase from 2015 to 2019: goalkeepers=19.2%, central defenders=20.4%, central midfielders=17.0%, forwards=14.1%). This percentage increase was more pronounced for wide midfielders (28.5%) and least pronounced for full-backs (13.5%).

Combined zones 4 and 5 4

19-23km/h

5>23km/h

3.8


3.8

3.8

GK CD FB CM WM FW

GK CD FB CM WM FW0

4,000

8,000

12,000

GK CD FB CM WM FW

2,52

1

4,82

3

5,16

5

5,48

0

5,32

7

5,17

0

2,50

7

4,76

2

5,11

3

5,38

2

5,24

6

5,09

7

5,02

8

9,58

5

10,2

78

10,8

61

10,5

73

10,2

67

0

4,000

8,000

12,000

GK CD FB CM WM FW

2,36

5

4,64

9

4,95

5

5,33

2

5,10

6

5,10

8

2,41

7

4,69

5

5,03

9

5,27

6

5,14

1

5,04

6

4,78

3

9,34

4

9,99

3

10,6

08

10,2

47

10,1

54

3.8 Figure 97A+B

2nd half

2015 | A

1st half

2019 | B

Tota

l dis

tan

ce (m

)To

tal d

ista

nce

(m)

Position

Position

Total

Standarddeviation

2nd half

1st half

Total

Standarddeviation

Figure 97. Comparison of the half-by-half total distance covered by various positional subsets at Canada 2015 (A) and France 2019 (B). Data is presented as an average and spread (bars = mean; T above bars = standard deviation). Please note that the refiltering of the 2015 data may have modified the data trends and thus caution is needed when comparing between tournaments.

Half-by-half match physical performances can provide added insight to the demands placed on players across major segments of the game. It is important to note that fluctuations in running profiles across these periods are extremely complex and can be related to a multitude of factors (e.g. fatigue, tactics, game tempo and scoreline to name just a few). Thus, the reader should be mindful of these factors before interpreting the trends below.


First- and second-half distance covered in total and in various speed zones

3.8.2

Half-by-half total distance covered The average and data spread of the total distance covered in each half by position during all regular-time matches of Canada 2015 and France 2019 are summarised in Figure 97A and 97B. The total distance covered was highest in central midfielders in the first (5,332 and 5,480m) and second half (5,276 and 5,382m), and lowest (for the outfield players) in central defenders for the first (4,649 and 4,823m) and second half (4,695 and 4,762m) across Canada 2015 and France 2019, respectively. At Canada 2015, most positions produced similar total distance in the second half compared with

3.8


3.8

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

GK CD FB CM WM FW

103

867

1,05

0

1,29

4

1,12

4

1,03

8

106

810

1,00

9

1,19

4

1,07

1

975

209

1,67

6

2,05

9

2,48

8

2,19

5

2,01

40

1,000

2,000

3,000

GK CD FB CM WM FW

102

790

991

1,18

9

1,02

2

1,02

9

88 757

966

1,10

6

1,02

1

963

190

1,54

7

1,95

7

2,29

5

2,04

3

1,99

2

GK CD FB CM WM FW

GK CD FB CM WM FW

3.8 Figure 98A+B

2019 | B

Zon

e 3

dis

tan

ce (m

)Zo

ne

3 d

ista

nce

(m)

Position

Position

102

88

190

103

106 20

9

2nd half

1st half

Total

Standarddeviation

2015 | A

2nd half

1st half

Total

Standarddeviation

Figure 98. Comparison of the half-by-half distance covered in Zone 3 by various positional subsets at Canada 2015 (A) and France 2019 (B). Data is presented as an average and spread (bars = mean; T above bars = standard deviation). Please note that the refiltering of the 2015 data may have modified the data trends and thus caution is needed when comparing between tournaments.

the first half, with small reductions in central midfielders and forwards (percentage decrease of 1.1-1.2%). In 2019, all positions illustrated a small reduction in the total distance covered in the second compared with the first half: (percentage decrease: goalkeepers=0.6%, central defenders=1.3%, full-backs=1.0%, central midfielders=1.8%, wide midfielders=1.5%, forwards=1.4%). A comparative analysis across tournaments demonstrates that first-half total distances were higher for all positions in 2019 compared with 2015 (percentage increase: goalkeepers=6.6%, central defenders=3.7%, full-backs=4.2%, central midfielders=2.8%, wide midfielders=4.3%, forwards=1.2%). However, the difference between 2015 and 2019 was less pronounced in the second-half total distances (percentage increase: goalkeepers=3.7%, central defenders=1.4%, full-backs=1.5%, central midfielders=2.0%, wide midfielders=2.0%, forwards=1.0%).


3.8

At Canada 2015, most positions produced either similar (percentage decrease: wide midfielders=0.1%) or reduced Zone 3 distances in the second half compared with the first half (percentage decrease: goalkeepers=14.0%, central defenders=4.3%, full-backs=2.5%, central midfielders=7.0%, forwards=6.4%). At France 2019, all positions demonstrated a reduction in Zone 3 distance covered in the second compared with the first half (central defenders=6.6%, full-backs=3.9%, central midfielders=7.7%, wide midfielders=4.7%, forwards=6.1%), with goalkeepers the only exception with a 2.4% increase in the second half. A comparative analysis across tournaments demonstrates that first-half Zone 3 distances were higher for all positions in 2019 compared with 2015 (percentage increase: goalkeepers=1.0%, central defenders=9.7%, full-backs=6.0%, central midfielders=8.8%, wide midfielders=9.9%, forwards=0.9%). However, the difference between 2015 and 2019 was less pronounced in the second-half total distances for most positions (percentage increase: central defenders=7.0%, full-backs=4.5%, central midfielders=8.0%, wide midfielders=4.9%), with the exception of goalkeepers and forwards.

The average and data spread of the Zone 4 distance covered in each half by position during all regular-time matches of Canada 2015 and France 2019 are summarised in Figure 99A and 99B. In the first half, for the outfield positions, Zone 4 distance was highest for full-backs (226 and 255m), wide midfielders (234 and 305m) and forwards (243 and 267m), and lowest for central defenders (147 and 174m) across Canada 2015 and France 2019, respectively. At Canada 2015, all positions produced reduced Zone 4 distances in the second half compared with the first half but this varied in magnitude for selected positions (percentage decrease: goalkeepers=11.4%, central defenders=1.8%, full-backs=1.3%, central midfielders=6.6%, forwards=7.4%). Wide midfielders were the only exception, as they maintained their Zone 4 distance in the second half (percentage decrease: 0.4%). At France 2019, some outfield positions demonstrated a reduction in Zone 4 distance covered in the second compared with the first half (full-backs=3.5%, central midfielders=3.0%, wide midfielders=6.3%, forwards=1.5%), with central defenders producing comparable half-by-half distances (percentage

Half-by-half Zone 3 The average and data spread of the Zone 3 distance covered in each half by position during all regular-time matches of Canada 2015 and France 2019 are summarised in Figure 98A and 98B. For outfield players, the Zone 3 distance was highest in central midfielders in the first (1,189 and 1,294m) and second half (1,106 and 1,194m), and lowest in central defenders for the first (790 and 867m) and second half (757 and 810m) across Canada 2015 and France 2019, respectively.

Half-by-half Zone 4

At France 2019, all outfield positions demonstrated a

reduction in Zone 3 distance covered in the second compared

with the first half

313-19km/h

419-23km/h

3.8


3.8

0

250

500

750

GK CD FB CM WM FW

12 174

255

233

305

267

12 175

246

226

286

263

24 349

501

460

591

530

0

250

500

750

GK CD FB CM WM FW

11 147

226

197

234

243

10 145

223

184

233

225

21 292

449

382

467

468

GK CD FB CM WM FW

GK CD FB CM WM FW

3.8 Figure 99A+B

2019 | B

Position

Position

11 10

21

12 12

24

Zon

e 4

dis

tan

ce (m

)Zo

ne

4 d

ista

nce

(m)

2nd half

1st half

Total

Standarddeviation

2015 | A

2nd half

1st half

Total

Standarddeviation


decrease: 0.2%). Goalkeepers actually covered 5.2% more distance in the second half than in the first half. A comparative analysis across tournaments demonstrates that first-half Zone 4 distances were higher for all positions in 2019 compared with 2015 (percentage increase: goalkeepers=3.6%, central defenders=18.4%, full-backs=12.8%, central midfielders=18.3%, wide midfielders=30.3%, forwards=9.9%). Players also covered more Zone 4 distance in the second half of matches at France 2019 than at Canada 2015 (percentage increase: goalkeepers=23.5%, central defenders=20.8%, full-backs=10.3%, central midfielders=22.8%, wide midfielders=22.8%, forwards=16.9%).


3.8

0

100

200

300

400

GK CD FB CM WM FW

2 60 105

56 132

115

4 63 98 54 123

105

6 123

204

111

255

220

0

100

200

300

400

GK CD FB CM WM FW

2 45 79 48 95 921 46 78 46 78 814 91 157

93 173

174

GK CD FB CM WM FW

GK CD FB CM WM FW

3.8 Figure 100A+B

2019 | B

Position

Position

Zzo

ne

5 d

ista

nce

(m)

Zon

e 5

dis

tan

ce (m

)

2 4 6

2 1 4

2nd half

1st half

Total

Standarddeviation

2015 | A

2nd half

1st half

Total

Standarddeviation


The average and data spread of the Zone 5 distance covered in each half by position during all regular-time matches of Canada 2015 and France 2019 are summarised in Figure 100A and 100B. In the first half, for the outfield positions, Zone 5 distance was highest for full-backs (79 and 105m), wide midfielders (95 and 132m) and forwards (92 and 115m), and lowest for central defenders (45 and 60m) and central midfielders (48 and 56m) across Canada 2015 and France 2019, respectively.

Half-by-half Zone 5 5>23km/h

3.8


3.8

At Canada 2015, first-half Zone 5 distances were similar to second-half Zone 5 distances for central defenders, full-backs and central midfielders, but wide midfielders and forwards demonstrated second-half reductions of 12.0-17.9%. At France 2019, Zone 5 distances in the second half were maintained compared to the first half in central defenders and central midfielders, but full-backs, wide midfielders and forwards demonstrated second-half reductions of 6.7-8.7%. A comparative analysis across tournaments demonstrates that first-half Zone 5 distances were higher for all outfield positions in 2019 compared with 2015 (percentage increase: central defenders=34.8%, full-backs=32.9%, central midfielders=18.7%, wide midfielders=38.9%, forwards=25.0%). More Zone 5 distance was also covered in the second half of matches at France 2019 than at Canada 2015 (percentage increase: central defenders=36.6%, full-backs=25.6%, central midfielders=18.6%, wide midfielders=57.7%, forwards=29.6%).

3.8.3


3.8

Summary

• For outfield players, when accounting for the duration of the match, central defenders covered the lowest overall relative distance, whilst central midfielders covered the greatest relative distance in m/min.

• All playing positions covered marginally more absolute total distance at France 2019 than at Canada 2015 (1.1-3.2% more in 2019 than in 2015). However, the relative distance trends in m/min demonstrated no meaningful differences across tournaments for all positions when match duration was accounted for.

• Relative Zone 3 distance in m/min was substantially higher in central midfielders than all other positions, with central defenders producing the lowest Zone 3 distance in m/min for the outfield positions across both tournaments.

• Accounting for the match duration led to a less pronounced difference in relative Zone 3 distance between tournaments compared to the trends for the absolute Zone 3 distance.

• More relative Zone 4 distance in m/min was covered across the 2015 and 2019 competitions by full-backs, wide midfielders and forwards compared to central defenders and central midfielders.

• All playing positions covered more relative Zone 4 distance at France 2019 than at Canada 2015, and this increase was much more pronounced for wide midfielders. Although normalising the data for match duration led to less pronounced differences across tournaments versus absolute distances, most positions still demonstrated an 8-23% increase in relative Zone 4 distance at France 2019 compared to Canada 2015.

• In relation to relative Zone 5 distance in m/min, the positional trends were distinct for the outfield positions, with full-backs, wide midfielders and forwards producing more relative distance than central defenders and central midfielders across Canada 2015 and France 2019, respectively. All positions covered much more relative Zone 5 distance at France 2019 than at Canada 2015. This increase was more pronounced for wide midfielders (43.4%) and less marked for central midfielders (15.3%).

• The total distance covered was highest in central midfielders but lowest (for the outfield positions) in central defenders in the first and second half across Canada 2015 and France 2019, respectively.

• At Canada 2015, most positions produced similar total distances in the second half compared with the first half. In 2019, all positions illustrated a small reduction in the total distance covered in the second compared with the first half.

• Comparative analysis across tournaments demonstrated that first-half total distances were much higher for all positions in 2019 compared with 2015, but this difference was less pronounced in the second half.

• In the first half of matches, Zone 4 and Zone 5 distances were highest for full-backs, wide midfielders and forwards, and lowest (for the outfield positions) for central defenders across Canada 2015 and France 2019, respectively.

• At Canada 2015 and France 2019, most positions produced reduced Zone 4 distances in the second half compared with the first half.

• A comparative analysis across tournaments demonstrated that first- and second-half Zone 4 distances were higher for all positions in 2019 compared with 2015.

• At Canada 2015, first-half Zone 5 distances were similar to second-half Zone 5 distances for central defenders, full-backs and central midfielders, but wide midfielders and forwards demonstrated second-half reductions. At France 2019, Zone 5 distances in the second half were maintained compared to the first half in central defenders and central midfielders, but full-backs, wide midfielders and forwards demonstrated second-half reductions.

3.8.3

3.8


3.8

In previous sections, the absolute and relative distance was calculated without considering the possession status of the team. However, this next section will analyse the data trends in relation to this. The data provider splits distance into: in possession of the ball, out of possession of the ball or ball out of play. Thus, a more appropriate comparison of the physical demands across these three distinct elements will be presented below.

In possession, out of possession and ball out of play: absolute distance covered

3.9.1


Positional analysis | Absolute distances in all three ball-related scenarios

CHAPTER 3 SECTION 9

GK CD FB CM WM FW

GK CD FB CM WM FW0

4,000

8,000

12,000

GK CD FB CM WM FW

1,668 3,263 3,561 3,805 3,798 3,904

1,673

2,569 2,813 2,835 3,007 2,7821,687

3,7543,905 4,222 3,768 3,581

0

4,000

8,000

12,000

GK CD FB CM WM FW

1,538 3,026 3,360 3,524 3,628 3,731

1,682

2,822 2,994 3,129 3,180 3,0651,563

3,4973,640 3,955 3,439 3,358

3.9 Figure 101A+B

BOOP

2015 | A

OOP

2019 | B

Dis

tan

ce (m

)D

ista

nce

(m)

Position

Position

IP

Standarddeviation

BOOP

OOP

IP

Standarddeviation

Figure 101. Comparison of the total absolute distance covered whilst in possession of the ball, whilst out of possession of the ball and in ball-out-of-play situations by position at Canada 2015 (A) and France 2019 (B). Data is presented as an average and spread (bars = mean; T above bars = standard deviation). Please note that the refiltering of the 2015 data may have modified the data trends and thus caution is needed when comparing between tournaments.

IN POSSESSION

IP

OUT OF POSSESSION

OOP

BALL OUT OF PLAY

BOOP


3.9

The average and data spread of the total absolute distance covered whilst in possession of the ball, whilst out of possession of the ball and in ball-out-of-play situations by position during all regular-time matches of Canada 2015 (A) and France 2019 (B) are summarised in Figure 101. At both Canada 2015 and France 2019, players who had a more attacking role in the team, such as central midfielders (3,524m and 3,805m or 33% and 35% of total distance covered), wide midfielders (3,628m and 3,798m or 35% and 36% of total distance covered) and forwards (3,731m and 3,904m or 37% and 38% of total distance covered) covered more distance whilst in possession of the ball than players who had a more defensive role, like central defenders (3,026m and 3,263m or 32% and 34% of total distance covered). At both Canada 2015 and France 2019, central midfielders covered the most distance whilst out of possession of the ball (3,955m and 4,222m or 37% and 39% of total distance covered), while forwards covered the least distance whilst out of possession (3,358m and 3,581m or 33% and 35% of total distance covered). At both Canada 2015 and France 2019, distance covered in ball-out-of-play situations was highest for wide midfielders (3,180m and 3,007m or 28% and 31% of total distance covered) and lowest for central defenders (2,822m and 2,569m or 30% and 27% of total distance covered). Goalkeepers produced substantially lower values than all outfield players in all three categories (in possession, out of possession, ball out of play). Goalkeepers produced similar distances whilst in possession (1,538m and 1,668m or 32% and 33% of total distance covered), whilst out of possession (1,563m and 1,687m or 33% and 33% of total distance covered) and in ball-out-of-play situations (1,682m and 1,673m or 35% and 33% of total distance covered) across Canada 2015 and France 2019.

Interestingly, distance covered in ball-out-of-play situations actually decreased for all positions at France 2019 compared to Canada 2015 (percentage decrease: central defenders=9.0%, full-backs=6.1%, central midfielders=9.4%, wide midfielders=5.4% and forwards=9.2%). By contrast, distance covered whilst in possession increased for all positions at France 2019 compared to Canada 2015 (percentage increase: central defenders=7.8%, full-backs=6.0%, central midfielders=8.0%, wide midfielders=4.7% and forwards=4.7%). Similarly, distance covered whilst out of possession increased for all positions at France 2019 compared to Canada 2015 (percentage increase: central defenders=7.3%, full-backs=7.2%, central midfielders=6.8%, wide midfielders=9.6% and forwards=6.6%).

Total absolute distance covered whilst in possession of the ball, whilst out of possession of the ball and in ball-out-of-play situations

3.9


3.9

Zone 3: in possession, out of possession and ball out of playThe average and data spread of the Zone 3 absolute distance covered whilst in possession of the ball, whilst out of possession of the ball and in ball-out-of-play situations by position during all regular-time matches of Canada 2015 (A) and France 2019 (B) are summarised in Figure 102. Across both Canada 2015 and France 2019, Zone 3 distance covered whilst in possession of the ball was greatest for central midfielders (850m and 965m or 37% and 39% of Zone 3 distance), wide midfielders (932m and 1,008m or 46% and 46% of Zone 3 distance) and forwards (969m and 968m or 49% and 48% of Zone 3 distance) but lowest for central defenders (510m and 587m or 33% and 35% of Zone 3 distance). At both Canada 2015 and France 2019, central midfielders covered the most Zone 3 distance whilst out of possession (1,217m and 1,350m or 53% and 54% of Zone 3 distance) while forwards covered the least distance whilst out of possession (787m and 850m or 40% and 42% of Zone 3 distance). Zone 3 distance covered when the ball was out of play was similar across outfield positions at both Canada 2015 (203-261m) and France 2019 (173-226m). Goalkeepers produced more Zone 3 distance whilst out of possession (80m and 96m or 42% and 46% of Zone 3 distance) than whilst in possession (59m and 67m or 31% or 32% of Zone 3 distance) and in ball-out-of-play situations (52m and 46m or 27% and 22%

SPEED ZONES


313-19km/h


3.9

GK CD FB CM WM FW

GK CD FB CM WM FW0

750

1,500

2,250

3,000

GK CD FB CM WM FW

67 587 786 965 1,008 96846

181219

173 226 196

96

909

1,0551,350

961 850

0

750

1,500

2,250

3,000

GK CD FB CM WM FW

59 510 747 850 932 96952

203

252227 261 236

80

834

959 1,217851 787

3.9 Figure 102A+B

BOOP

2015 | A

OOP

2019 | B

Zon

e 3

dis

tan

ce (m

)Zo

ne

3 d

ista

nce

(m)

Position

Position

IP

Standarddeviation

BOOP

OOP

IP

Standarddeviation

964667

805259

of Zone 3 distance) at both Canada 2015 and France 2019. Zone 3 distance in ball-out-of-play situations actually decreased for all positions at France 2019 compared to Canada 2015 (percentage decrease: central defenders=11.0%, full-backs=13.1%, central midfielders=23.9%, wide midfielders=13.1% and forwards=17.0%). Zone 3 distance whilst in possession actually increased for most positions at France 2019 compared to Canada 2015 (percentage increase: central defenders=15.1%, full-backs=5.2%, central midfielders=13.5%, wide midfielders=8.1%), with the sole exception of forwards, who produced a similar Zone 3 distance whilst in possession. Zone 3 distance covered whilst out of possession also increased for all positions at France 2019 compared to Canada 2015 (percentage increase: central defenders=9.0%, full-backs=10.1%, central midfielders=10.9%, wide midfielders=13.0% and forwards=8.1%).

Figure 102. Comparison of the Zone 3 absolute distance covered whilst in possession of the ball, whilst out of possession of the ball and in ball-out-of-play situations by position during all regular-time matches at Canada 2015 (A) and France 2019 (B). Data is presented as an average and spread (bars = mean; T above bars = standard deviation). Please note that the refiltering of the 2015 data may have modified the data trends and thus caution is needed when comparing between tournaments.

3.9


3.9

GK CD FB CM WM FW

GK CD FB CM WM FW0

250

500

750

GK CD FB CM WM FW

5 59 179 155 317 300328

2516

25 20

16

262

297289

249 210

0

250

500

750

GK CD FB CM WM FW

6 60 171 125 251 270527

2721

26 30

10

204

251236

190168

3.9 Figure 103A+B

BOOP

2015 | A

OOP

2019 | B

Zon

e 4

dis

tan

ce (m

)Zo

ne

4 d

ista

nce

(m)

Position

Position

IP

Standarddeviation

BOOP

OOP

IP

Standarddeviation

1635

1056

The average and data spread of the Zone 4 absolute distance covered whilst in possession of the ball, whilst out of possession of the ball and in ball-out-of-play situations by position during all regular-time matches of Canada 2015 (A) and France 2019 (B) are summarised in Figure 103. Across both Canada 2015 and France 2019, Zone 4 distance covered whilst in possession was greatest for wide midfielders (251m and 317m or 54% and 54% of Zone 4 distance) and forwards (270m and 300m or 58% and 57% of Zone 4 distance) but lowest for central defenders (60m and 59m or 21% and 17% of Zone 4 distance).

Across both Canada 2015 and France 2019, Zone 4 distance covered whilst out of possession was greatest for full-backs (251m and 297m or 56% and 59% of Zone 4 distance) and central midfielders (236m and 289m or 62% and 63% of Zone 4 distance) but lowest for forwards (168m and 210m or 36% and 40% of Zone 4 distance). Zone 4 distance covered when the ball was out of play was similar across outfield positions at both Canada 2015 (21-30m) and France 2019 (20-28m), with the

Zone 4: in possession, out of possession and ball out of play

Figure 103. Comparison of the Zone 4 absolute distance covered whilst in possession of the ball, whilst out of possession of the ball and in ball-out-of-play situations by position during all regular-time matches of Canada 2015 (A) and France 2019 (B). Data is presented as an average and spread (bars = mean; T above bars = standard deviation). Please note that the refiltering of the 2015 data may have modified the data trends and thus caution is needed when comparing between tournaments.

419-23km/h


3.9

The average and data spread of the Zone 5 absolute distance covered whilst in possession of the ball, whilst out of possession of the ball and in ball-out-of-play situations by position during all regular-time matches of Canada 2015 (A) and France 2019 (B) are summarised in Figure 104.

Zone 5: in possession, out of possession and ball out of play

Figure 104. Comparison of the Zone 5 absolute distance covered whilst in possession of the ball, whilst out of possession of the ball, and in ball-out-of-play situations by position during all regular-time matches at Canada 2015 (A) and France 2019 (B). Data is presented as an average and spread (bars = mean; T above bars = standard deviation). Please note that the refiltering of the 2015 data may have modified the data trends and thus caution is needed when comparing between tournaments.

GK CD FB CM WM FW

GK CD FB CM WM FW0

100

200

300

GK CD FB CM WM FW

1 13 77 41 164 15418

7

3

8 6

4103

119

67

8361

0

100

200

300

GK CD FB CM WM FW

1 13 66 32 112 11717

5

4

6 7

271

86

57

55 49

3.9 Figure 104A+B

Zon

e 5

dis

tan

ce (m

)Zo

ne

5 d

ista

nce

(m)

Position

Position

411

103813

211

71713

BOOP

2015 | A

OOP

2019 | B

IP

Standarddeviation

BOOP

OOP

IP

Standarddeviation

sole exception of central midfielders, who only covered 16m in ball-out-of-play situations at France 2019. Zone 4 distance covered when the ball was out of play actually remained very stable for all positions across France 2019 and Canada 2015, with the sole exception of central midfielders, who illustrated a 25.2% reduction at France 2019 compared to Canada 2015. Zone 4 distance covered whilst in possession actually increased for most outfield positions at France 2019 compared to Canada 2015 (percentage increase: full-backs=4.4%, central midfielders=23.9%, wide midfielders=26.5%, forwards=11.1%), with the sole exception of central defenders, who produced a similar Zone 4 distance whilst in possession. Distance covered whilst out of possession also increased for all positions at France 2019 compared to Canada 2015 (percentage increase: central defenders=28.3%, full-backs=18.5%, central midfielders=22.8%, wide midfielders=30.7% and forwards=24.7%).

5>23km/h

3.9


3.9

At Canada 2015 and France 2019, Zone 5 distance covered by outfield players whilst in possession was greatest for players who were more attacking, such as wide midfielders (112m and 164m or 65% and 64% of Zone 5 distance) and forwards (117m and 154m or 68% and 70% of Zone 5 distance) but lowest for defensive players, like central defenders (13m and 13m or 14% and 10% of Zone 5 distance). Across both Canada 2015 and France 2019, Zone 5 distance covered by outfield players whilst out of possession was greatest for full-backs (86m and 119m or 56% and 59% of Zone 5 distance) and central defenders (71m and 103m or 70% and 75% of Zone 5 distance) but lowest for forwards (49m and 61m or 28% and 28% of Zone 5 distance). Zone 5 distance covered in ball-out-of-play situations was similar across outfield positions at both Canada 2015 (4-7m) and France 2019 (6-8m), with the sole exception of central midfielders, who only covered 3m in ball-out-of-play situations at France 2019.

Zone 5 distance covered in ball-out-of-play situations actually remained very stable for all positions across France 2019 and Canada 2015. Zone 5 distance covered whilst in possession increased for most outfield positions at France 2019 compared to Canada 2015 (percentage increase: full-backs=16.6%, central midfielders=27.2%, wide midfielders=46.4%, forwards=30.8%), with the sole exception of central defenders, who produced similar Zone 5 distance whilst in possession. Distance covered whilst out of possession also increased for all outfield positions at France 2019 compared to Canada 2015 (percentage increase: central defenders=44.3%, full-backs=39.0%, central midfielders=17.9%, wide midfielders=49.6% and forwards=24.4%).

3.9.2


3.9

Summary

• At both Canada 2015 and France 2019, players who had a more attacking role in the team, such as central midfielders, wide midfielders and forwards, covered more overall distance whilst in possession than players who had a more defensive role, like central defenders.

• At both Canada 2015 and France 2019, central midfielders covered the most overall distance whilst out of possession, whereas forwards covered the least such distance amongst outfield players.

• Overall distance covered in ball-out-of-play situations decreased for all positions at France 2019 compared to Canada 2015. In contrast, overall distance covered whilst in possession and whilst out of possession increased for all positions at France 2019 compared to Canada 2015.

• Across both Canada 2015 and France 2019, Zone 3 distance whilst in possession was greatest for central midfielders, wide midfielders and forwards, but lowest for central defenders amongst outfield players.

• Central midfielders covered the most Zone 3 distance whilst out of possession, whereas forwards covered the least such distance amongst outfield players at both Canada 2015 and France 2019.

• Zone 3 distance covered in ball-out-of-play situations actually decreased for all positions at France 2019 compared to

Canada 2015, whereas distance covered whilst in possession and whilst out of possession actually increased for most positions at France 2019 compared to Canada 2015.

• Zone 4 distance covered by outfield players whilst in possession was greatest for wide midfielders and forwards but lowest for central defenders across the 2015 and 2019 competitions.

• Distance covered in Zone 4 by outfield players whilst out of possession was greatest for full-backs and central midfielders but lowest for forwards.

• Zone 4 distance covered whilst in possession actually increased for most outfield positions at France 2019 compared to

Canada 2015, with the sole exception of central defenders, who produced similar Zone 4 distance whilst in possession. Distance covered whilst out of possession also increased for all positions at France 2019 compared to Canada 2015.

• At Canada 2015 and France 2019, Zone 5 distance covered whilst in possession was greatest for players who were more

attacking, such as wide midfielders and forwards.

• Across both Canada 2015 and France 2019, Zone 5 distance whilst out of possession was greatest for full-backs but lowest for forwards amongst outfield players.

• Zone 5 distance whilst in possession and whilst out of possession increased for most positions at France 2019 compared

to Canada 2015.

3.9.2

3.9


3.9

Previous sections of this report have analysed positional trends for the absolute (m) and relative (m/min) distances covered overall and in various speed zones in all matches at France 2019. However, these distances are usually the summation of all efforts produced by a large sample of players in 15-, 45- and 90-minute periods without considering the location or tactical purpose of the actions. Using heat maps to provide more context can be valuable to practitioners, as they do not necessarily want to determine which positions are the most demanding or cover the most distance, but rather how each individual player/position performs their actions in relation to a specific opponent and team philosophy. Thus, this section will use heat maps of different playing positions across multiple games to quantify the location/tactical purpose of actions but to also demonstrate the variation in physical demands due to changes in tactical context. Data was obtained from two games for individual players of teams that reached the semi-final stage to enable enough heat maps/games to be analysed per position. Videos of games were also used to help interpret these heat maps. The heat maps in Figures 105-110 specifically detail full-game activity (e.g. all positional data for in/out of possession and when the ball is out of play). The direction of play (arrow) and intensity of activity (colours) are depicted clearly in each heat map.

CHAPTER 3 SECTION 10

Positional analysis | Heat maps by position

Contextualising positional demands using heat maps

3.10.13.

10

CHAPTER 3 SECTION 10

Heat maps and additional context can be found in Figure 105 for the same forward in two games. The Game 1 and 2 labels do not denote the chronological order in which the games were played but are simply reference points for the presentation of information.

Context:3-0 win. Knockout stage

Tactics for forward’s team:Attacking: 1-4-3-3 and Defending: 1-4-2-3-1 50% ball possession

Tactics for opposition team: Attacking: 1-4-4-2 and Defending: 1-4-4-2 50% ball possession

Physical profile:Total distance covered = 11,337mZone 4 = 972mZone 5 = 432m

Direction of attack

Game 1 Game 2

Figure 105. Heat maps for the same forward in two different games at France 2019. Context: Game (1) Dominated in attack against lower-standard opposition, and Game (2) Competitive game against similar-standard opposition using a more defensive approach. Maps are specifically of full-game activity (e.g. all positional data for in/out of possession and when the ball is out of play).

From the heat map for Game 1 and by using match data and video, it was clear that this forward had a high proportion of activity in the middle and attacking thirds of the pitch when her team was in possession. Although ball possession was the same for both sides (50% v. 50%), the forward’s team was much more dominant in the attacking third and as a result produced over 50% more attempts on goal than the opposition. The forward produced frequent activities when the team was in possession, driving through the middle of the pitch to support attacking sequences. Final-third activities are well visualised on the map and include attacking efforts running in behind the defensive line and in particular breaking into the box to create a threat. Specifically, the forward’s team scored three goals from attacks coming from wide areas. In each instance, the forward was an option for the player crossing after breaking into the box at high intensity. These tactics exploit space in order to score and create opportunities for team-mates, so they provide added context to practitioners about purposeful attacking running for this forward. From three shots, this forward also scored once and hit the bar with another effort. Out-of-possession activity was also verified by video. This forward pressed fairly high up the pitch (another reason for the advanced heat map activity) but most of the purposeful work was while in possession of the ball. As a result of the above activities and the attacking nature of the game, this forward produced her highest overall distance as well as her greatest distance in Zone 4 and Zone 5 in the tournament.

Context: 2-0 win. Group stage

Tactics for forward’s team: Attacking: 1-4-3-3 and Defending: 1-4-3-3 51% ball possession

Tactics for opposition team:Attacking: 1-4-4-2 and Defending: 1-4-4-2 49% ball possession

Physical profile: Total distance covered = 10,621mZone 4 = 688mZone 5 = 287m

Heat maps for a forward3.10.2


3.10

3.10

In the heat map for Game 2, there is clearly a much deeper overall position for the forward as the match was more competitive, with both teams having similar possession and a comparable number of shots on goal. The forward’s team sat back and absorbed pressure at times in an attempt to hit the opposition on the counter and/or with quick attacks. This tactic worked, as this forward ran in behind the defensive line at high intensity to score on two occasions during brief attacking sequences (verified by video). However, the majority of the forward’s activity was spent waiting for breaks on the halfway line or defending from the front while out of possession (clearly visible in the heat map). As a result, the forward would frequently perform runs out of possession to either close down the opponent directly or to delay the opposition’s attacks and enable team-mates to support the press. In fact, the forward’s team produced 70% more tackles than the opposition. The proportion of distance covered in defensive activities such as closing down/pressing is usually one of the highest in the team for more attacking positions when employing such tactics. The lower distance that this forward covered in total and in Zone 4 and Zone 5 probably reflects the more defensive approach employed for this game. Interestingly, this player covered approximately 40-50% more distance in Zone 4 and Zone 5 in Game 1 than in Game 2. This example demonstrates the dynamic role of an attacking player like a forward and how tactical context has an impact on these physical demands.

Heat maps and additional context can be found in Figure 106 for the same full-back in two games. The Game 1 and 2 labels do not denote the chronological order in which the games were played but are simply reference points for the presentation of information.

Direction of attack

Game 1 Game 2

Figure 106. Heat maps for the same full-back in two different games at France 2019. Context: Game (1) Attacking throughout and dominated against lower-standard opposition, and Game (2) Competitive game against more attacking opposition. Maps are specifically of full-game activity (e.g. all positional data for in/out of possession and when the ball is out of play).

Context: 3-0 win. Knockout stage

Tactics for full-back’s team: Attacking: 1-4-3-3 and Defending: 1-4-2-3-1 50% ball possession




Tactics for full-back’s team: Attacking: 1-4-3-3 and Defending: 1-4-3-3 51% ball possession



Heat maps for a full-back3.10.3


3.10

From the heat map for Game 1, the full-back was very attacking and covered a significant amount of distance in possession of the ball, particularly in Zone 4 and Zone 5. The heat map clearly shows that the full-back completed more activity higher up the pitch than in the other game. The tactical purpose of these runs included running down the channel, dribbling the ball or pushing up the pitch to support play (sometimes more centrally, as can be seen on the map). Other common in-possession activities included overlapping, driving inside and crossing from wide attacking areas. In fact, the first goal in Game 1 was the result of the full-back running down the channel with the ball before crossing into the box to provide an assist for a central midfielder to score (verified by video). The sequence of passes that resulted in the second goal was initiated by the full-back running with the ball out wide and playing it inside to a forward, who then broke into the box to cross the ball for another forward to score. The final goal was actually scored from a free kick outside the box that was played to the full-back to shoot from long range to score. In contrast, when the team was out of possession, the full-back also had to carry out duties to maintain the team’s defensive shape. For example, the full-back conducted the attacking actions described above, but when she was high up the pitch and a turnover in possession occurred, she was required to produce long recovery runs back into the middle and defensive thirds to maintain defensive compactness. Closing down/pressing opposition players was also a common activity in the defensive/middle thirds in addition to covering space and opposition players by moving from wide positions to more narrow central positions (this activity is clear on the heat map). Thus, in Game 1 the full-back had a dual role that required her to be defensive when out of possession but very attacking when in possession. This dual role usually requires a high work rate, and this is probably why this full-back covered the greatest total distance and the most Zone 5 distance in any of her tournament matches.

The heat map for Game 2 indicates a deeper, more concentrated area of activity in the wide areas of the defensive and middle thirds. This is unsurprising given the competitive standard of the opposition, who were astute both tactically and in attack. This resulted in the full-back spending more time carrying out defensive duties like pressing/closing down and covering space/opposition players in wide defensive areas. The deeper position resulted in a more compact shape out of possession but meant less reliance on recovery running from more advanced positions. The heat map illustrates some activity in more advanced positions, and one notable sequence of play was the full-back underlapping a player on the ball after starting an intense run from the middle into the attacking third before receiving the ball to run down the channel to cross the ball into the box (verified by video). This led to a shot on target from a forward. These attacking activities were limited throughout Game 2, however. Thus, this more defensive role probably led to one of the lowest Zone 5 distances covered by the full-back in the tournament. In fact, in Game 1, this full-back covered only 5% more total distance than in Game 2. However, the full-back covered more than double the Zone 5 distance in Game 1 than in Game 2. This clearly demonstrates that the demands on this full-back were impacted substantially if a dual attacking-defensive role was employed as opposed to a more defensive role.


3.10

3.10


Tactics for central defender’s team: Attacking: 1-4-3-3 and Defending: not quantifiable 64% ball possession

Tactics for opposition team:Attacking: 1-4-3-3 and Defending: not quantifiable 36% ball possession



Tactics for central defender’s team: Attacking: 1-4-4-2 and Defending: 1-4-4-2 41% ball possession

Tactics for opposition team:Attacking: 1-4-4-2 and Defending: 1-4-2-3-1 59% ball possession


Heat maps and additional context can be found in Figure 107 for the same central defender in two games. The Game 1 and 2 labels do not denote the chronological order in which the games were played but are simply reference points for the presentation of information.

Game 1 Game 2Direction of attack

Figure 107. Heat maps for the same central defender in two different games at France 2019. Context: Game (1) Dominating possession against lower- standard opposition, and Game (2) Competitive game against possession-based opposition. Maps are specifically of full-game activity (e.g. all positional data for in/out of possession and when the ball is out of play).

From the heat map of Game 1, the central defender’s activity was clearly in a higher central area compared to Game 2. The central defender’s team dominated possession (64% v. 36%) and had more than twice as many attempts on goal and more corners than the opposition (11 v. 0). The central defender played a pivotal role at corners and this led to a high presence in the box (the heat map shows this clearly). On one occasion, this led to a header on target followed by a high-intensity recovery run to get back into the middle third of the pitch after the ball was cleared (verified by video). As the central defender’s team dominated the middle and final thirds for long periods, the central defender was able to push up the pitch with the ball on a few occasions to start off attacking sequences, some of which led to attempts on goal. Out-of-possession activity such as recovery running (e.g. when the ball was played over the top of the defensive line or down the side of the player) and closing down also occurred during quick counter-attacks from the opposition. As the central defender had to combine attacking roles (multiple set pieces and bringing the ball out from the back) with defensive roles (covering, recovery running and closing down players), the total distance covered by this player was her highest out of all tournament games, while the Zone 5 distance was her third highest over the competition.

Heat maps for a central defender3.10.4


3.10

The heat map of Game 2 depicts more activity in deeper central areas such as the middle and defensive thirds. This is not surprising given the competitive nature of the game, with the opposition dominating ball possession (59% v. 41%), but both teams had comparable attempts on goal. Thus, more of the central defender’s distance was covered out of possession in deep areas covering space or players while goal side of the ball. Due to the central defender’s deeper position, this resulted in less recovery running but more covering by the backline to remain compact to limit space for the opposition (particularly attacking threats down one side of the pitch, hence the slant to one side in the heat map activity). Another common activity that was conducted out of possession was closing down. For instance, the opening goal, which was conceded by the central defender’s team, occurred after she pressed the player on the ball outside the box before the ball was played to the opposition forward, who scored (verified by video). In-possession activities were substantially lower in this game, with a few noticeable exceptions of important build-up sequences and a long direct pass from the defensive third over the top of the opposition’s defence to assist a forward in scoring the equaliser. This tactical approach resulted in a total distance covered that was similar to her average for the tournament but produced the lowest Zone 5 distance. In fact, her Zone 5 distance was approximately 70% higher in Game 1 than in Game 2 and this clearly shows how a central defender’s physical demands are modulated by tactical context.

Heat maps and additional context can be found in Figure 108 for the same wide midfielder in two games. The Game 1 and 2 labels do not denote the chronological order in which the games were played but are simply reference points for the presentation of information.


Tactics for wide midfielder’s team: Attacking: 1-4-3-3 and Defending: not quantifiable 64% ball possession

Tactics for opposition team:Attacking: 1-4-3-3 and Defending: not quantifiable 36% ball possession



Tactics for wide midfielder’s team: Attacking: 1-4-4-2 and Defending: 1-4-4-2 41% ball possession

Tactics for opposition team:Attacking: 1-4-4-2 and Defending: 1-4-2-3-1 59% ball possession



Figure 108. Heat maps for the same wide midfielder in two different games at France 2019. Context: Game (1) Dominated ball possession against lower- standard opposition, and Game (2) Competitive game against possession-based opposition. Maps are specifically of full-game activity (e.g. all positional data for in/out of possession and when the ball is out of play).

Heat maps for a wide midfielder3.10.5


3.10

3.10

The heat map of Game 1 clearly depicts plenty of activity for this wide midfielder in high wide and central areas. The magnitude of the activity in these regions for the wide midfielder is understandable given her team’s dominance over the entire game. For instance, the wide midfielder’s team made more than twice as many passes as the opposition, with the number of tackles much higher for the opponents, who repeatedly attempted to nullify their plays and win back possession (28 v. 11). In possession, this wide midfielder had plenty of activity in wide attacking areas, either running the channel, dribbling the ball or supporting attacking play. These wide positions are clearly visible on the heat map. However, what is more unique is the mapping intensity that indicates plenty of driving inside from wide to central attacking areas. For instance, hotspots in and around the box are the result of the player supporting attacking sequences or getting directly involved (five shots in total in this game). A specific example was when the wide midfielder moved inside from the far right-hand flank to receive a pass on the edge of the box, before rapidly swivelling to make space for a long-range shot that was saved by the goalkeeper (verified by video). Another notable run occurred when her team quickly transitioned for the second goal and she ran on the outside of the scoring player to offer attacking support. Some out-of-possession activities were completed during opposition attacks (recovery running and closing down in the attacking and middle thirds) but the majority of the physical demands were higher up the pitch. This resulted in her covering the highest Zone 4 and Zone 5 distances of her tournament.

The heat map for Game 2 illustrates a very different visualisation of activity that suggests a much more dual role. This was evident in the style of play and the change in formation to 1-4-4-2. Although the numbers of attempts on goal were similar and the score differential was only one goal, the opposition had much more of the ball throughout the game. This meant that the wide midfielder was generally in a much deeper position as she had to conduct numerous out-of-possession physical actions such as closing down and recovery running. Although in-possession activity was much lower in this game for the wide midfielder, it was crucial to the outcome of the game. For instance, the wide midfielder scored her team’s first goal by running at high speed onto a ball played over the top of the defence to score (verified by video). The wide midfielder also dribbled the ball at speed down the channel at the opposition full-back, and on one occasion she crossed the ball into the box and this resulted in the winning goal. Given that the majority of the game’s activities for the wide midfielder were defensive (with some crucial attacking activity), this meant that her Zone 4 and Zone 5 distances were approximately 20-40% lower compared to Game 1. Different tactical strategies/opposition resulted in the wide midfielder being employed in various ways, and this had a resultant impact on the physical demands.


3.10

Heat maps and additional context can be found in Figure 109 for the same central midfielder in two games. The Game 1 and 2 labels do not denote the chronological order in which the games were played but are simply reference points for the presentation of information.


Tactics for central midfielder’s team: Attacking: 1-4-3-3 and Defending: 1-4-3-356% ball possession

Tactics for opposition team:Attacking: 1-4-4-2 and Defending: 1-4-4-1-144% ball possession



Tactics for central midfielder’s team: Attacking: 1-4-2-3-1 and Defending: not quantifiable69% ball possession

Tactics for opposition team:Attacking: 1-4-4-2 and Defending: 1-4-4-231% ball possession



Figure 109. Heat maps for the same central midfielder in two different games at France 2019. Context: Game (1) Competitive game against similar- standard opposition in the knockout stage, and Game (2) Complete dominance over lower-standard opposition during the group stage. Maps are specifically of full-game activity (e.g. all positional data for in/out of possession and when the ball is out of play).

The heat map for Game 1 depicts large amounts of activity for the central midfielder in the centre of the middle third with some movement into the attacking and defensive thirds. The central midfielder was playing in the centre of three midfielders in a 1-4-3-3 formation and thus behind three attacking players. Game 1 was a knockout-stage match and was very competitive throughout, with the central midfielder’s team having a greater amount of the ball (56% v. 44%), producing double the number of tackles and having slightly more goal attempts (15 v. 11). The opposition did have significantly more corners, however (12 v. 4). The dual role of this central midfielder required her to be defensive when out of possession, but if the opportunity presented itself, to be attack-minded when in possession. The hotspot of activity in the box while the central midfielder was defending numerous opposition corners when out of possession is clearly visible. Multiple high-intensity efforts were performed by the central midfielder while covering space/other players or pressing players once the corner had been cleared in addition to chasing down the second ball. Some recovery running from more advanced positions was evident during fast transitions. In possession, the central midfielder produced efforts by driving through the middle of the pitch with the ball, and this either led to a shot on goal or the player being fouled. Other in-possession activities included supporting the attack. One example involved her breaking into the box to create a threat during a quick transition. The central midfielder was also a key player in

Heat maps for a central midfielder3.10.6


3.10

3.10

In contrast, the heat map for Game 2 demonstrates more activity in the final third. Due to the lower standard of opposition, the team was set up to employ a more attacking strategy. Due to the additional cover provided by the holding midfielders in this match, the central midfielder worked more in attack in Game 2. The game statistics show the dominance of the central midfielder’s team as they had significantly more of the ball (69% v. 31%), more goal attempts (17 v. 6) and more corners (8 v. 1), but they tackled less (5 v. 15). The opposition sat back and absorbed the pressure at times in an attempt to hit the central midfielder’s team on the counter and/or with quick attacks. Given the above, this central midfielder produced more of her activity while her team was in possession. As the heat map shows, this central midfielder patrolled the attacking midfield area just outside the box and this can be seen on the mapping pattern and intensity. This is specifically evident in the hotspots that represent the player’s position outside the box during corners. Positioning in this specific area allowed her to support and create attacks but to also press during turnovers in possession (verified by video). Recovery running was performed by the central midfielder during counter-attacks but at a moderate speed due to the defensive coverage offered by the holding midfielders. This could be one of the reasons for an elevated Zone 2 and Zone 3 distance and a lower Zone 4-5 distance. Some well-timed runs from deep to enter the box/or reach the outer box area also occurred during this game and her activity can be seen on the map. This player also produced some dribbling efforts and received the ball in intelligent positions between the lines. She produced her highest total distance across the tournament in this game but her lowest Zone 5 distance. Interestingly, the elevated total distance was the direct result of more distance covered in Zone 2 and Zone 3. This example illustrates the diversity of the central midfielder role and the impact that tactical context has on the physical demands of midfielders (e.g. employed more in attack or defensively). This diversity was evident in the large data spread presented in the positional results section for central midfielders. This probably reflects the multiple variations of the central midfielder role (primarily defensive role v. dual role v. primarily attacking role).

moving between the lines to receive passes from players and starting off attacking sequences. For instance, one of her through-balls allowed a player to run in on goal and score the only goal of the game. When games are competitive and a central midfielder has a dual role, this typically requires a high work rate. When analysing the physical demands for this central midfielder, this was clearly the case as she covered her highest combined Zone 4 and 5 distance of the tournament.


3.10

Heat maps and additional context can be found in Figure 110 for the same goalkeeper in two games. The Game 1 and 2 labels do not denote the chronological order in which the games were played but are simply reference points for the presentation of information.


Tactics for goalkeeper’s team: Attacking: 1-4-3-3 and Defending: 1-4-3-3 58% ball possession


Physical profile:Total distance covered = 5,898mZone 2 = 1,243mZone 3 = 343m


Tactics for goalkeeper’s team: Attacking: 1-4-3-3 and Defending: 1-4-3-3 or 1-5-4-1 40% ball possession

Tactics for opposition team:Attacking: 1-4-2-3-1 and Defending: 1-4-4-1-1 60% ball possession



Figure 110. Heat maps for the same goalkeeper in two different games at France 2019. Context: Game (1) Dominated opposition during a less competitive game in a group-stage match, and Game (2) Really competitive game against a team that dominated possession. Maps are specifically of full-game activity (e.g. all positional data for in/out of possession and when the ball is out of play).

Heat maps for goalkeepers are less distinctive compared to the equivalent maps for outfield players given the substantially lower distance covered by goalkeepers and as the distribution of activity is largely confined to the penalty area. The physical demands of goalkeepers are also more difficult to quantify because using distance alone fails to capture most of the purposeful energetic activities such as micro- activities (saves, jumping, catching, turning, throwing and kicking).

In Game 1, the goalkeeper’s team was dominant in possession (58% v. 42%) and had a greater number of attempts on goal (18 v. 6). Thus, the goalkeeper’s team had a high defensive line for long periods, and as such the space behind this line could therefore be exploited by the opposition during counter-attacks. This goalkeeper’s heat map illustrates a fairly high position to enable her to guard this area or potentially attack the ball by intercepting it as early as possible after a through-ball, and clearing

Heat maps for a goalkeeper3.10.7


3.10

3.10

In Game 2, the goalkeeper’s team had less of the ball (40% v. 60%) and only half the number of goal attempts compared to the opposition. As a result, her team’s defensive line was much deeper for long periods, which resulted in a less advanced position when her team was in possession (clearly visible in the heat map). The goalkeeper distributed the ball less often with her feet than in the other game (a total of 21 v. 36 balls played with the foot). Although the distance covered in Zone 2 and Zone 3 was approximately 40-50% lower in Game 2 compared with Game 1, the occurrence of micro-activities (saves, jumping, catching, turning, throwing and kicking) was significantly higher. For instance, there were eight goalkeeper interventions such as catches, dropped catches, deviations and punches, and four saves in the whole game (double the number in the other game). For instance, these common activities for this goalkeeper when out of possession illustrated her ability to reach aerial balls. This goalkeeper also stamped her authority on the game by claiming multiple crosses and passes by collecting them in flight while being challenged by opposition players. In-possession activities also included throwing the ball to distribute it quickly and effectively (twice the number of throws in Game 2 compared to Game 1).

Summary

• Traditionally, the demands of football are quantified by the accumulated distance overall and in various speed zones in 15-, 45- and 90-minute periods without considering the location or tactical purpose of the individual actions.

• Using heat maps to provide more context allows practitioners to visualise how each individual player/position performs their duties in relation to a specific opponent and team philosophy.

• Interestingly, each position reviewed above had a unique physical signature when displayed in a heat map, and this is highly dependent on the location and tactical purpose of the activity.

• The tactical context of the game can have a dramatic influence on not only the overall distance a player covers but particularly the distance covered at higher intensities.

• Using the physical data alongside the location and tactical purpose of the activity can potentially aid applied sports scientists to develop not only position-specific training but also individual-specific training for elite female players.

many dangerous situations before they start. The goalkeeper also displayed proficient ball control and distribution and even started plays from the back (a total of 36 balls played with the foot). The most distinct visuals from this heat map are the goalkeeper patrolling the spaces outside of her area and adjusting regularly based on her situational awareness. The distances covered in Zone 2 and Zone 3 were the highest for this goalkeeper in the whole tournament. This was probably due to the quick adjustments needed when positioned higher up the pitch. The frequency of micro-activities (saves, jumping, catching, turning, throwing and kicking) was relatively low for this match. For instance, there were four goalkeeper interventions such as catches, dropped catches, deviations and punches, and two saves in the whole game.

3.10.8


3.10

The physical analysis of the France 2019 tournament demonstrates that the game demands had increased compared to the Canada 2015 competition, particularly at the higher intensities (zones 4 and 5). Thus, greater importance should be placed on training methods to prepare players for the rigours of the modern women’s game. This could require the coach to complement existing generic training practices with conditioning drills related to a player’s tactical role (e.g. position-specific) and even elements of the team’s playing style/energetic profile (e.g. positional play). Thus, this section will explore how the physical data trends from this report can be incorporated into football conditioning drills.

As football is a combination of physical-, tactical- and technical-performance elements, it is important to include a multitude of these whilst conditioning players. Training that emphasises passing and combination play whilst loading players physically can be advantageous, as players become accustomed to working proficiently with the ball whilst under fatigued conditions (Bradley et al., 2018). Notwithstanding, running-based drills can also be successfully implemented if applicable (e.g. to attain higher physiological responses or to mimic out-of-possession football scenarios).

Introduction4.1

CHAPTER 4 PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Prior to completing any of these drills, it is important that the players be prepared, hence they should complete an appropriate warm-up session. The main aim of the warm-up is to prepare the body for the activity that the player is about to complete. Therefore, the warm-up should consist of actions that the player will be required to complete throughout a match or training session. Warm-up exercises increase the cardiac output and blood flow to the muscles during the session. The duration of the warm-up should be 15-20 minutes depending on what activity the player will be completing following this period; at times, it may be possible to combine the physical element of the warm-up with a more technical focus. Generally, the warm-up should consist of four phases:

Preparation for training 4.2

The first part of the warm-up is designed to loosen up players’ bodies, as well as activate the appropriate muscles in preparation for training. Choose 2-3 exercises from each focus group each time you complete any training on the pitch.

General focus:1. Lumbar rotation stretch, moving knees side to side x 10 (each side)2. Brettzel stretch x 3 (hold for 5 seconds on each side)3. Scorpion x 5 (each side)4. Pigeon/piriformis stretch x 3 (hold for 5 seconds on each side)5. Kneeling lunge/hip flexor stretch x 3 (3-point clock, in and out = 1 rep)6. Balancing on each leg for 5-10 seconds x 3; this can be made more challenging by the players lifting their free leg higher, standing on a foam cushion/wobble board and/or closing their eyes

Glut focus:1. Side plank with clam x 10 (each side) 2. Quadruped (all-fours) hydrant x 10 (each side)3. Single-leg stance (standing clam) with 45-degree hip extension x 10 (each side)4. Monster walk x 10 steps forwards/backwards5. Lateral band walks, 5 yards right/left

Hamstring focus:1. Glut bridge walkouts x 5 (4 steps out/back = 1 rep) 2. Single-leg glut bridge with knee hug x 8 (each side)3. Single-leg glut bridge hold with leg whip x 5 (each side)4. Single-leg Romanian dead lift x 5 (each side)5. Posterior and lateral lunges x 5 (each side)6. Squats (band at knees) x 10

To add an extra layer of detail to these training recommendations, each national team could examine its own physical performance in matches or tournament averages to prepare game scenarios and/or training drills. By observing some of the match-running performance trends from France 2019, it is clear that full-backs, wide midfielders and forwards covered more combined distance in zones 4-5 (approximately 700-850m) than central defenders and central midfielders (approximately 470-570m). This intense running also increased across positions by approximately 16-32% from Canada 2015 to France 2019, indicating the importance of including high-intensity conditioning modes in each team’s training methodology. This information can be combined with football-specific context from each team to create conditioning practices for the collective but also per position and individually (Bradley and Ade, 2018). Conditioning modes detailed below include speed-endurance training and high-intensity aerobic training in the form of team and individual drills.

Movement preparation (5 minutes)1.


The next part of the warm-up should consist of the players completing continuous jogging and functional movements (skipping, sidesteps and backward jogging) involving moving from A to B to C, then back to A, and then repeating the same movements to the left pole.

Following the initial phase of the warm-up, the players should complete some stretching. The majority of this should be short, static stretching, followed by dynamic stretching, where the player moves into the stretch. For example, a hamstring stretch should consist of the players holding that stretch and then following it with controlled straight leg kicks. The players should think about how they could stretch other parts of their body dynamically. The players should also be given some time to complete their own stretches, as well as any prehabilitation-type work.

The final part of the warm-up should consist of the players completing high-speed activity, such as striding and sprinting through the ladder, and change-of-direction movements specific to football. The main aim of this final part is to prepare the players for the activity that they are about to complete. Figure B shows an example of this, which involves acceleration, deceleration and changes of direction, all of which will be required of players during training and match play. You should aim to vary the movements that the players complete, as well as the starting position and signal.

Core focus:1. Dead bug x 202. Plank with shoulder taps x 10 (each side)3. Bear crawl (5 yards forwards/backwards)4. Bird dog x 105 Side plank with top leg raise 2 x 20 seconds on each side

Jogging and dynamic movements (4-5 minutes)2.

Stretching (3-5 minutes)3.

High-intensity (3-5 minutes)4.

A

C

B

Session information(parts 2-4 of the warm-up) Duration: 10-15 minutes

Session set-upEquipment:

2 cones2 poles1 ladder

Place cones, poles and ladders as shown. 10m x 20m.

Figure A. Set-up for the warm-up (parts 2-3)


A

C

A

C

B

Figure B. Movement for the final phase of the warm-up (part 4)

When possible and appropriate, a ball could be incorporated throughout the warm-up. The FIFA 11+ is also a warm-up developed specifically for football. The FIFA 11+ is an injury-prevention programme that has been specifically designed to reduce football injuries. It was developed by a panel of international experts to build on earlier injury-prevention efforts, including the PEP (“Prevent injury, Enhance Performance”) programme and the FIFA 11. The programme takes 20 minutes to complete and is designed to be performed twice a week. No specific equipment is needed. The FIFA 11+ consists of 15 exercises divided into three separate components. You can find information regarding the programme here: https://www.fifamedicalnetwork.com/lessons/prevention-fifa-11/.

Aerobic high-intensity training aims to improve a player’s ability to perform prolonged high-intensity activity and to recover quickly between intense periods (Bangsbo, 2015). This requires a player to perform intervals at around 90% of maximal heart rate for 2-4 minutes using a work-to-rest ratio of approximately 2:1. This has been shown to improve the physical capacity of players (Fransson et al., 2018) and would be advantageous for the modern female player.

Selected simulated situations used by coaches that have a subtler positional stimulus and are more dynamic than the speed-endurance drills in the latter part of this section are small-sided positional drills (Martín-García et al., 2018). In these drills, players have priority areas in which space is tailored to their customary context in competition but without any rules restricting the players’ space during the task (Casamichana et al., 2018). Some games adhere to the principle of “positional play”, whereby players collectively work at a high tempo to pass the ball to each other in tight spaces and draw in pressing players, so that they can pass to a wide-open player to exploit space. Although these drills are certainly not position-specific, they require selected roles to position themselves intelligently (e.g. full-backs/wide midfielders are wide and can move up and down the line, whilst central players like central midfielders and forwards can move between the lines in highly dense middle areas) and the team works dynamically and collectively in synergy. These positional games do place different physical demands on particular

Training drills4.3

High-intensity, aerobic, positional-play drill


4v4+35v5+3

7v7+3

8v8+3

Positional-play drill

17m

13m

20m

25m

29m

36m

35m

40m

Session information for positional-play drill (high-intensity aerobic)Total duration: approximately 15-25 minutes.Work: 180 seconds. Rest: 90 seconds.Repetitions: 4-6.

Session set-upEquipment: 4-8 cones and 4 balls (one ball in use and the extra balls placed outside the box to introduce quickly if a ball goes out of play). Place cones to create the appropriate square (select one drill per training session).

Session information• These drills use a work-to-rest ratio of 2:1, whereby players produce 4-6 work periods of 180 seconds with 90

seconds of recovery.• These drills adhere to the principle of “positional play”, whereby players collectively work at a high tempo to

pass the ball to each other in tight spaces and draw in pressing players.• The coach/player should ensure extra balls are present so the players’ activity is high for the full duration of

each work period.

Figure C. Game formats of positional-play drills. The orange circles represent team A, the white circles represent team B and the blue circles are the “jokers” (sometimes known as “floating” players). Adapted from Casamichana et al., 2018

roles. For example, using “joker” players (also known as “floating” players) encourages ball retention and generates numerical superiority for the team in possession. Thus, “joker” players only experience an attacking role, as they always play for the team in possession; this can be tailored towards distinct players. The physical demands placed on the “joker” players in Figure C are lower than those imposed on others in the game (particularly for 8v8+3 versus 4v4+3 formats; Casamichana et al., 2018). These drills use a work-to-rest ratio of 2:1, whereby players produce 4-6 work periods of 180 seconds with 90 seconds of recovery. This typically elicits an average heart rate of approximately 90% of maximal values during the exercise periods. The rules, player numbers, area and work-to-rest ratio can all be adjusted based on the conditioning aim and the individual needs of the players.


Position-specific speed-endurance drillDrills using intervals enable practitioners to target certain physical qualities. Given such pronounced elevations in high-intensity running from Canada 2015 to France 2019, an effective mode would be speed-endurance training, as it improves football-specific endurance and sprinting abilities (Bangsbo, 2015). This requires a player to perform intense football activity for 20-30 seconds followed by recovery periods of 40-180 seconds, which is repeated 8-10 times depending on the aim of the drill (production training has a work-to-rest ratio of 1:5-1:6 and maintenance training has a work-to-rest ratio of 1:1-1:3; Ade et al., 2014)*. Production training improves a player’s ability to perform maximal high-intensity activities for short periods, whilst maintenance training enhances a player’s capacity to sustain such high-intensity activities and recover from intense periods (Bangsbo, 2015). Thus, this type of training taxes players aerobically and anaerobically whilst involving the ball, so is ideal to prepare players for the modern demands of the women’s game.

These individual drills were designed by blending data from match analysis and the art of coaching to create position-specific speed-endurance drills (Ade et al., 2016, 2018). Match analysis demonstrates that the number of combined Zone 4-5 efforts during games at France 2019 was higher for full-backs, forwards and wide midfielders (44-52) than central defenders and central midfielders (30-37). Contextualised match data provides insight into purposeful efforts in and out of possession and not just “blind” distances and frequencies (Bradley and Ade, 2018). Additional context is provided in the heat map section of the analysis of each position. For example, in possession, forwards generally perform more efforts in the attacking third, whilst driving through the middle, running in behind and breaking into the box. Meanwhile, full-backs and wide midfielders typically produce more efforts down the channels, with full-backs completing a greater number of overlapping runs. They also put in more crosses after these runs than other positions due to efforts finishing in wide attacking areas. Out of possession, positions with a major defensive role in the team like central defenders, full-backs and central midfielders generally produce more intense efforts to cover space and in the form of recovery running, whilst all positions perform frequent efforts to close down the opposition. Thus, these patterns were translated into isolated, position-specific conditioning drills for players. Examples for all positions can be found in Figures D-H, although drill movements can be adapted to the team’s tactical requirements for each position. Research using GPS technology revealed that full-backs, wide midfielders and forwards covered greater high-intensity distances per repetition across these drills than central defenders and central midfielders, which is consistent with match trends from France 2019. This type of training generally elicits an average and peak heart-rate response respectively of approximately 80 and >90% of maximal heart rate (Ade et al., 2018).

*Although the ratios quoted are within typical ranges, these may be adapted. For example, work-to-rest ratios of 1:≥5 can also be used to develop speed-endurance production qualities.


12

6

43

5

Run

Pass/shot

Run with ball

Central defender

Coach/player

Ball Mannequin

Figure D. Position-specific drill for a central defender. Adapted from Ade et al., 2018

Session information for central-defender drill (speed endurance)Total duration: approximately 15-35 minutes (depending on aim of drill).Work: 30 seconds. Rest: 40-180 seconds (depending on aim of drill).Repetitions: 8-10.

Session set-upEquipment: 2 mannequins, 4 mini-goals, 2-3 balls.

Session information• Players perform intense football activity for 30 seconds, followed by a recovery period of 40-180 seconds. The sequence

is repeated 8-10 times depending on the aim of the drill (production training has a work-to-rest ratio of 1:5-1:6 and maintenance training has a work-to-rest ratio of 1:1-1:3).

• Players should be working maximally for the full work period (detailed description below). 1. The central defender performs two headers behind the mannequin with backward and lateral movements.2. The central defender reacts to a ball over the top/through-ball from the coach/player.3. The central defender sprints onto the ball, takes a touch and clears to a mini-goal of choice.4. The central defender closes down the mannequin and intercepts a pass from the coach/player, clearing to another

goal.5. The central defender runs around the mannequin and defends a cross into the box delivered by the coach/player. 6. The central defender counter-defends/pushes up the pitch to the edge of the centre circle as if to play offside.

Central Defender Speed Endurance Drill1. CD performs two headers behind mannequin with backward and lateral movements2. CD reacts to ball over the top / through ball from the coach3. CD sprints onto ball, has a touch and clears to mini goal of choice4. CD closes down mannequin and intercepts pass from coach clearing to another goal5. CD runs around mannequin and defends cross in the box delivered by coach 6. CD counter-defends / pushes up pitch to play offside to front of centre circle

Variations:• Open / spin on different shoulder for through ball / clear to different area (coach shout)• Through ball in air / on floor• Go left or right of mannequins• Shoot off left and right foot• Attack front or far post for cross (header / volley etc.)1 x 8 reps working equal reps from left and right (SEM 1:2 / SEP 1:5)


1

23645

Run

Pass/shot

Run with ball

Full-back

Coach/player

Ball

MannequinReboundboard

Pole

Figure E. Position-specific drill for a full-back. Adapted from Ade et al., 2018

Session information for full-back drill (speed endurance)Total duration: approximately 15-35 minutes (depending on aim of drill).Work: 30 seconds. Rest: 40-180 seconds (depending on aim of drill).Repetitions: 8-10.

Session set-upEquipment: 4 mannequins, 1 mini-goal, 2-3 balls, 1 pole (rebound board optional).



• Players should be working maximally for the full work period (detailed description below). 1. The coach/player and full-back play one-twos on either side of the mannequin, moving the full-back side to side.2. The coach/player plays the ball down the inside for the full-back to recover.3. The full-back sprints to recover the ball, runs with it and passes to the coach/player. 4. The full-back overlaps the coach/player around the pole and receives the pass in the final third.5. The full-back dribbles through the mannequins and delivers a cross into the mini-goal.6. The full-back recovers back to the halfway line.


14

5

6

23

Run

Pass/shot

Run with ball

Centralmidfielder

Coach/playerBall

Reboundboard

Pole

Cone

Session information for central-midfielder drill (speed endurance)Total duration: approximately 15-35 minutes (depending on aim of drill).Work: 30 seconds. Rest: 40-180 seconds (depending on aim of drill).Repetitions: 8-10.

Session set-upEquipment: 3 rebound boards, 2-3 balls, 8 cones, 2 mini-goals, 2 poles.



• Players should be working maximally for the full work period (detailed description below). 1. The central midfielder plays a one-two off the rebound board and hits a long diagonal pass to the coach/player

in the coned area.2. The central midfielder sprints to pick up the ball and plays off both the rebound boards as fast as possible.3. The central midfielder runs forward and hits the coach/player with a long pass.4. The central midfielder runs into the box, performing an arced run.5. The central midfielder finishes the cross from the coach/player into the small goal from between the six-yard box

and the penalty spot.6. The central midfielder recovers back to the halfway line.

Figure F. Position-specific drill for a central midfielder. Adapted from Ade et al., 2018


1

4

5

6

7

8

2

3

Run

Pass/shot

Run with ballWide midfielder

Coach/player

Ball MannequinPole

Figure G. Position-specific drill for a wide midfielder. Adapted from Ade et al., 2018

Session information for wide-midfielder drill (speed endurance)Total duration: approximately 15-35 minutes (depending on aim of drill).Work: 30 seconds. Rest: 40-180 seconds (depending on aim of drill).Repetitions: 8-10.

Session set-upEquipment: 2 mannequins, 2-3 balls, 3 mini-goals, 4 poles.


is repeated 8-10 times depending on the aim of the drill (production training has a work-to-rest ratio of 1:5-1:6 and maintenance training has a work to-rest ratio of 1:1-1:3).

• Players should be working maximally for the full work period (detailed description below). 1. The wide midfielder sprints deep to play a one-two with the coach/player, then up the pitch to provide an outlet

out wide.2. The coach/player passes the ball for the wide midfielder to sprint onto and run with the ball. 3. The wide midfielder checks back, performing a trick, and delivers an inswinging cross into the mini-goal.4. The wide midfielder performs a recovery run to the pole on the halfway line.5. The wide midfielder drives infield to receive a pass from the coach/player.6. The wide midfielder runs infield with the ball and plays a reverse ball out wide to the coach/player.7. The wide midfielder sprints into the box around the mannequin to finish a cross around the six-yard box.8. The wide midfielder performs a recovery run to the inside pole on the halfway line.


1

26

4

3

5

Run

Pass/shot

Run with ballForward

Coach/playerBall

Mannequin

Figure H. Position-specific drill for a forward. Adapted from Ade et al., 2018

Session information for forward drill (speed endurance)Total duration: approximately 15-35 minutes (depending on aim of drill).Work: 30 seconds. Rest: 40-180 seconds (depending on aim of drill).Repetitions: 8-10.

Session set-upEquipment: 4 mannequins, 2-3 balls, 2 mini-goals.


is repeated 8-10 times depending on the aim of the drill (production training has a work-to-rest ratio of 1:5-1:6 and maintenance training has a work to-rest ratio of 1:1-1:3).

• Players should be working maximally for the full work period (detailed description below). 1. The forward performs two headers behind the mannequin and then passes on either side.2. The forward spins away from the mannequin for the coach/player to play a through-ball.3. The forward sprints onto the through-ball to beat two mannequins and finish from inside the 18-yard box.4. The forward closes down a central defender (mannequin) and then attacks a near-post cross delivered by the

coach/player.5. The forward closes down a central defender (mannequin) and then attacks a far-post cross delivered by the coach/

player. 6. The forward recovers back to the edge of the centre circle.


30:15 Intermittent Fitness Test

Run

20m

Recovery

20m

40m

A B C

3m zone 3m zone 3m zone 3m zone

The 30-15 IFT consists of 30-second shuttle runs interspersed with 15-second passive recovery periods (Buchheit, 2008). The velocity is set at 8km/h for the first 30-second run and the speed is increased by 0.5km/h for every 30-second stage thereafter. Players are required to run back and forth between two lines set 40m apart (Figure I) at a pace dictated by a pre-recorded beep. This pre-recorded beep allows the players to adjust their running speed when they enter a 3m zone placed in the middle and at each end of the pitch. During the 15-second recovery period, players walk forwards towards the closest line,

Running-based high-intensity interval training (HIIT)

4.4

30-15 IFT protocol

Despite the growing interest and specificity of technical- and positional-focused conditioning drills, running-based HIIT is a preferred method of training on occasions, especially when there are time constraints, players are training individually or in smaller groups, and/or to ensure a prescribed physical output is achieved, which cannot always be guaranteed in a more technical-focused session. To ensure players are running at the optimal intensity for training adaptations to occur, the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test (30-15 IFT) was developed (Buchheit, 2008). The 30-15 IFT was designed to elicit maximal heart rates and oxygen uptake, as well as to optimise anaerobic capacity, acceleration, deceleration and change of direction (COD) abilities, which are all common actions in football match play. The final speed reached at the end of the test, VIFT, can then be used to prescribe the HIIT distances that individual players should achieve to accrue the desired training effect.

Figure I. The configuration for the standard 30:15 IFT


Finish line

Starting cones

VIFT = 20km/h / distance = 79m




4.5

Once the test has been performed, individual running distances on the pitch for each player (Figure J) can be calculated. The distance that each player should aim to cover is calculated from a set running time and the chosen percentage of VIFT. For example, for a player with a VIFT of 19km/h, and for a 15s-15s HIIT run at 95% of VIFT, the target distance will be as follows: (19/3.6) x 0.95 x 15 = 75m (19 is divided by 3.6 to convert the speed in km/h into m/s, for the sake of convenience). This can be repeated for each player (Buchheit, 2008). On the pitch, it is recommended to have the players start from their own cone and then finish all together on the same line. If runs have to be performed with a COD, which is a key component of football, the time needed for a COD has to be taken into consideration when calculating the target running distance, to ensure a similar cardiorespiratory load in comparison with straight-line runs whilst taking into account the necessary time to decelerate, make the turn and accelerate. Table a) shows a variety of HIIT sessions that could be used, all of which have an impact on developing cardiorespiratory function (Buchheit et al., 2011). The most appropriate form of HIIT should generally be selected based on the weekly training schedule, position-specific match demands, players’ individual needs and the phase of the season.

Prescribing HIIT for individual players

Figure J. Area prepared for a straight-line HIIT exercise (15s-15s run at 95% of VIFT)

which will either be in the middle or at the end of the running area, depending on where their previous run stopped. This line is their starting point for their next run stage. Players are instructed to complete as many stages as possible and the test ends when they can no longer maintain the required running speed or are unable to reach a 3m zone in time with the audio signal for three consecutive beeps. The velocity attained during the last completed stage is noted as the player’s VIFT. The audio file and further information regarding the test can be found here: https://30-15ift.com/.


Summary

This report demonstrates that the physical demands of the modern women’s game have increased in recent years. Thus, importance must be placed on the most appropriate training drills to prepare players for these demands. Speed-endurance, high-intensity aerobic and HIIT training methods are appropriate modes to use to develop players’ physical capacities. Elite football training requires a blend of science and the art of coaching to design appropriate team and individual drills, although sometimes, with time constraints, running-based drills are necessary to elicit a specific physical load. The approaches presented (general, position-specific and positional play) illustrate that football training that replicates game and positional movement patterns can be used to condition players. It might be advantageous to supplement training with a stimulus related to a player’s tactical role in the team and even elements of the club’s playing style/energetic profile. It is important to stress that there are many effective ways to accomplish this type of work and this section has only provided a few examples for the interested reader (e.g. many approaches can be used that are specific to the methodological and cultural aspects of each team).

4.5

Table a). Examples of high-intensity intermittent shuttle runs using VIFT as a reference speed to individualise running distance (Buchheit, 2008)

Running time

Running intensity

(%VIFT)

Recovery duration

Recovery intensity

(%VIFT)

Running modality

Max series duration

Number of series

Recovery time

between series

3' 85-88% - - straight line - 5 to 6 3'

45" 90% 15" passive straight line 7'-8' 2 to 3 3'

30" 90% 15" passive straight line 7'-8' 2 to 3 3'

30" 90% 30" 40% straight line >12 2 3'

30" 93% 30” passive shuttle 40m 10'-12' 2 to 3 3'

15" 100% 15" passive straight line 10' 2 to 3 3'

15" 95% 15" 25% shuttle 40m 15' 2 3'

20" 95% 20" passive straight line 7'-8' 2 6'-7' active

20" 90% 20” 45% shuttle 30m 7'-8' 2 6'-7' active

20" 95% 15" passive shuttle 30m 7'-8' 2 6'-7' active

15" 100% 15" passive shuttle 40m 7'-8' 2 6'-7' active

15" 95% 15" 25% straight line 7' 2 6'-7' active

15" 95% 10" passive shuttle 40m 7' 2 6'-7' active

10" 90% 10" passive shuttle 20m 6' 2 6'-7' active

10" 100-105% 20" passive straight line 6' 2 6'-7' active

3" sprint 17" passive20m sprint or 2x10m shuttle

6' 2 6'-7' active


CHAPTER 5 REFERENCES

Ade JD, Harley JA, & Bradley PS. (2014). Physiological response, time-motion characteristics, and reproducibility of various speed-endurance drills in elite youth soccer players: small-sided games versus generic running. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 9(3):471-479.

Ade JD, Fitzpatrick J, & Bradley PS. (2016). High-intensity efforts in elite soccer matches and associated movement patterns, technical skills and tactical actions. Information for position-specific training drills. Journal of Sports Sciences, 34(24): 2205-2214.

Ade JD, Drust B, Morgan O, & Bradley PS. (2018). Physiological Characteristics and Acute Fatigue Associated with Position-Specific Speed Endurance Soccer Drills: Production vs Maintenance Training. BASES Conference, Free Communication – Sport & Performance. Anderson L, Orme P, Di Michele R, Close GL, Morgans R, Drust B, & Morton JP. (2016). Quantification of training load during one-, two-and three-game week schedules in professional soccer players from the English Premier League: implications for carbohydrate periodisation. Journal of Sports Sciences, 34: 1250-1259.

Andersson HA, Randers MB, Heiner-Møller A, Krustrup P, & Mohr, M. (2010). Elite female soccer players perform more high-intensity running when playing in international games compared with domestic league games. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24: 912-919.

Bangsbo J. (2015). Performance in sports – with specific emphasis on the effect of intensified training. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 15; 25 (Suppl. 4): 88-99.

Barnes C, Archer DT, Hogg B, Bush M, & Bradley PS. (2014). The Evolution of Physical and Technical Performance Parameters in the English Premier League. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 35: 1095-1100.

Bradley PS, & Ade JD. (2018). Are current physical match performance metrics in elite soccer fit for purpose or is the adoption of an integrated approach needed? International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 13: 656–664.

Bradley PS, Carling C, Gómez Díaz A, Hood P, Barnes C, Ade J, Boddy M, Krustrup P, & Mohr M. (2013). Match performance and physical capacity of players in the top three competitive standards of English professional soccer. Human Movement Science, 32: 808-821.

Bradley PS, Mascio MD, Mohr M, Fransson D, Wells C, Moreira A, Castellano J, Gómez Díaz A & Ade JD. (2018). Can Modern Trends in Elite Football Match Demands Be Translated into Novel Training and Testing Modes? Aspetar Sports Medicine Journal, 7: 46-52.

Bradley PS, Dellal A, Mohr M, Castellano J, & Wilkie A. (2014). Gender Differences in Match Performance Characteristics of Soccer Players Competing in the UEFA Champions League. Human Movement Science, 33: 159-171.

Bradley PS, Sheldon W, Wooster B, Olsen P, Boanas P & Krustrup P. (2009). High-intensity running in English FA Premier League soccer matches. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27: 159-168.

Bradley PS, & Vescovi J. (2015). Velocity thresholds for women’s soccer matches: sex specificity dictates high-speed running and sprinting thresholds - Female Athletes in Motion (FAiM). International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 10: 112-116.

Buchheit, M. (2008). 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test et répétition de sprints. Science & Sports, 23(1): 26-28.

Buchheit, M. (2010). The 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test :10 year review. Myorobie Journal, 1: 1-9.

Buchheit M, Simpson BM, Al Haddad H, Bourdon PC, & Mendez-Villanueva A. (2011). Monitoring changes in physical performance with heart rate measures in young soccer players. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 112(2): 711-23.

Buchheit, M & Simpson, BM. (2016). Player-tracking technology: half-full or half-empty glass? International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 12 (Suppl 2): S235-S241.


Casamichana D, Díaz AG, Morera FC, & Martin-García A. (2018). Jugadores comodines durante diferentes juegos de posición [Wildcard Players during Positional Games]. Apunts. Educación física y deportes, 3(133): 85-97.

Castellano J, Alvarez D, & Bradley PS. (2014). Evaluation of research using computerised tracking systems (Amisco® and Prozone®) to analyse physical performance in elite soccer: a systematic review. Sports Medicine, 44: 701-712.

Datson N, Drust B, Weston M, Jarman IH, Lisboa PJ, & Gregson W. (2016). Match physical performance of elite female soccer players during international competition. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 31: 2379-2387.

Datson N, Drust B, Weston M & Gregson W. (2019). Repeated high-speed running in elite female soccer players during international competition. Science and Medicine in Football, 3:2, 150-156.

Datson N, Hulton A, Andersson H, Lewis T, Weston M, Drust B, & Gregson W. (2014). Applied physiology of female soccer: An update. Sports Medicine, 44: 1225-1240.

Davis, JA & Brewer, J. (1993). Applied physiology of female soccer players. Sports Medicine, 16 (3), 180-189.

Di Salvo V, Gregson W, Atkinson G, Tordoff P, & Drust B. (2009). Analysis of high intensity activity in Premier League soccer. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 30: 205- 212.

Di Salvo V, Pigozzi F, González-Haro C, Laughlin M, & De Witt J. (2013). Match performance comparison in top English soccer leagues. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 34: 526-532.

Dwyer DB, & Gabbett T. (2012). Global positioning system data analysis: velocity ranges and a new definition of sprinting for field sport athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 26: 818-824.

Emmonds S, Till K, Redgrave J, Murray E, & Turner L. (2018). The influence of age on the anthropometric and performance characteristics of high-level youth female soccer players. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 13: 779-786.

Football Association, The. (2019). England’s World Cup success inspires growth in women’s football participation. http://www.thefa.com/news/2019/nov/05/womens-participation-growth-world-cup-051119, retrieved on 20 February 2020.

Fransson D, Nielsen TS, Olsson K, Christensson T, Bradley PS, Fatouros IG, Krustrup P, Nordsborg NB, & Mohr M. (2018). Skeletal muscle and performance adaptations to high-intensity training in elite male soccer players: speed endurance runs versus small-sided game training. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 118: 111-121.

Hewitt A, Norton K, & Lyons K. (2014). Movement profiles of elite women soccer players during international matches and the effect of opposition’s team ranking. Journal of Sports Sciences, 32(20): 1-7.

Krustrup P, Andersson H, Mohr M, Randers MB, Jensen M, Zebis M, Kirkendal D, & Bangsbo J. (2008). Match activities and fatigue development of elite female soccer players at different levels of competition. In: Reilly T, & Korkusuz F, eds. Science and Football VI. Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge, 205-211.

Krustrup P, Mohr M, Ellingsgaard H, & Bangsbo J. (2005). Physical demands during an elite female soccer game: importance of training status. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 37: 1242-1248.

Linke D, Link D, & Lames M. (2018). Validation of electronic performance and tracking systems EPTS under field conditions. PLoS One 13: e0199519.

Lovell R, Kirke I, Siegler J, McNaughton L, & Greig M. (2007). Soccer half-time strategy influences thermoregulation and endurance performance. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 47(3): 263-269.

Martín-García A, Gómez AD, Bradley PS, Morera F, & Casamichana D. (2018). Quantification of a Professional Football Team’s External Load Using a Microcycle Structure. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 32(12): 3511-3518.

Meylan C, Trewin J, & McKean K. (2016). Quantifying Explosive Actions in International Women’s Soccer. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 12(3): 310-315.

Mohr M, Krustrup P, & Bangsbo J. (2003). Match performance of high-standard soccer players with special reference to development of fatigue. Journal of Sports Science, 21: 519-528.

Mohr M, Krustrup P, Andersson H, Kirkendal D, and Bangsbo J. (2008). Match activities of elite women soccer players at different performance levels. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22: 341–349.


Morrison S, Ward P, & duManoir GR. (2017). Energy system development and load management through the rehabilitation and return to play process. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy, 12(4): 697-710.

Mujika I, Santisteban JM, Impellizzeri FM, & Castagna C. (2009). Fitness determinants of success in men’s and women’s football. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(2): 107-14.

Mujika I, & Taipale RT. (2019). Sport Science on Women, Women in Sport Science. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 14(8): 1013-1014.

Nakamura FY, Pereira LA, Loturco I, Rosseti M, Moura FA, & Bradley PS. (2017). Repeated-Sprint Sequences During Female Soccer Matches Using Fixed and Individual Speed Thresholds. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 31: 1802-1810.

Nimphius S. (2019). Exercise and Sport Science Failing by Design in Understanding Female Athletes. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 14 (9): 1157-1158.

Park LAF, Scott D, & Lovell R. (2018). Velocity zone classification in elite women’s football: where do we draw the lines? Science and Medicine in Football, 3: 21-28.

Scott D, & Lovell R. (2017). Individualisation of speed thresholds does not enhance the dose-response determination in football training. Journal of Sports Sciences, 36(13): 1523-1532.

Scott D, Haigh J, & Lovell R. (2020a). Physical characteristics and match performances in women’s international versus domestic-level football players: a 2-year, league-wide study. Science and Medicine in Football.

Scott D, Norris D, & Lovell R. (2020b). Dose-response relationship between external load and wellness in elite women’s soccer matches: do customized velocity thresholds add value? International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, in press.

Towlson C, Midgley AW, & Lovell R. (2013). Warm-up strategies of professional soccer players: practitioners’ perspectives. Journal of Sports Sciences, 31(13): 1393-1401.

Trewin J, Meylan C, Varley MC, & Cronin J. (2018a). The match-to-match variation of match-running in elite female soccer. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 21(2): 196-201.

Trewin J, Meylan C, Varley MC, Cronin J, & Ling D. (2018b). Effect of Match Factors on the Running Performance of Elite Female Soccer Players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 32(7): 2002-2009.

Vescovi JD. (2012). Sprint profile of professional female soccer players during competitive matches: Female Athletes in Motion (FAiM) study. Journal of Sports Sciences, 30(12): 1259-1265.

Vescovi JD, & Favero TG. (2014). Motion characteristics of women’s college soccer matches: Female Athletes in Motion (FAiM) study. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 9(3): 405-414.


Actual playing time – The amount of time for which the ball is in play during a match.

Ball out of play (BOOP) – Situations either when the ball is off the pitch or when play has been stopped (such as prior to the taking of a set piece).

Bout – A short period of activity of a specified kind (see also “Effort”).

COD – Change of direction.

Coefficient of variance (CV) – The ratio of the standard deviation to the mean.

Compactness – The average area covered by the team shape in or out of possession (m2). Correlation coefficient (r=) – A numerical measure of some type of correlation, i.e. a statistical relationship between two variables.

Effort – A short period of activity of a specified kind (see also “Bout”).

Football turf – Artificial turf.

Global positioning system (GPS) – A type of technology that tracks location and is used in football to measure movement, distance and speed.

Height, width and depth of the team shape – The distance respectively between a team’s own goal line and its closest outfield player to that line, between a team’s widest outfield players, and between a team’s highest and lowest outfield players.

Hertz (Hz) – A unit of frequency, defined as cycles per one second.

High-speed running (HSR) – A running metric that can be measured from data recorded by GPS technology units, providing an enhanced degree of specificity for conditioning sessions or rehabilitation running.

High-intensity interval training (HIIT) – A form of exercise that involves short bursts of intense anaerobic activity with less intense recovery periods.

In possession of the ball (IP) – The team that has the ball (attacking team) at any given time while the ball is in play or the time spent/distance covered by a team with the ball.

Match duration – The total time for which a game lasts, including stoppages, but excluding half-time and extra time.

Match observation – A unit defining the period (for this report, sometimes half a match and sometimes a full match) for which a team or measure is under observation. With two halves and two teams per match, each game features up to four match observations.

GLOSSARY


Maximal aerobic speed (MAS) – The lowest running speed at which maximum oxygen uptake occurs.

Mean±SD – A statistic representing the average value and the positive and negative variation.

Metreage – The number of metres covered (in this report, per minute).

National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL) – The top division of women’s football in the USA.

Out of possession of the ball (OOP) – The team without the ball (defending team) at any given time while the ball is in play or the time spent/distance covered without the ball by a team.

Periodisation – The process of dividing the annual training plan into a series of manageable phases with a view to maintaining performance across a season and achieving peak performance at key moments.

Practitioners – Head coaches, assistant coaches, high-performance coaches and conditioning coaches.

Repeated high-speed activity (RHSA) – A minimum of two high-speed runs or sprints with less than 20 seconds of recovery between efforts.

Repeated sprint activity (RSA) – A minimum of two sprints with less than 20 seconds of recovery between efforts.

Relative distance – The amount of distance covered, adjusted for the match duration.

Standard deviation (SD) – A statistic that measures the variation of a data set relative to its average.

Speed threshold – The upper and lower limits of a speed zone.

Speed zone – A speed range at which a player covers distance or completes an activity, such as an effort.

Women’s Super League (WSL) – The top division of women’s football in England.

Video assistant referee (VAR) – A match official who monitors games using live footage and reviews key incidents using video-replay technology to ensure that the decision reached by the referee is correct.

Wearable – A GPS/heart-rate system that can be worn.

Work-to-rest ratio – The comparison between the amount of time respectively spent performing an exercise (working) and recovering (resting).

Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test Level 1 – A maximal aerobic fitness test involving running between two markers placed 20 metres apart, at increasing speeds, until exhaustion.

30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test (IFT) – A test to measure physical capabilities and geared towards intermittent sports, which alternates 30 seconds of running at increasing speeds with 15 seconds of walking.


AUTHORS AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT

RESEARCHERS

Dawn ScottPaul Bradley

FIFA INTERNAL SUPPORT

FIFA Women’s Football DivisionPatricia González (Senior Technical Development Manager)Belinda Wilson (Technical Consultant)

FIFA Technical Development DivisionChris Loxston (Performance & Game Analyst)Prisca Steinegger (Senior High-Performance Manager)

FIFA Translation & Interpretation Department

FIFA Media Relations

EXTERNAL SUPPORT

Insight Analysis (performance data analysis)SBG Sports Software (performance data analysis)Jaaf Design (graphic design support)


Fédération Internationale de Football AssociationFIFA-Strasse 20

P.O. Box 8044 Zurich, SwitzerlandTel. +41 (0)43 222 7777

FIFA.com

CAN ‘15 FRA ‘19

+16-32%

img.fifa.com · foreword dazzling technical skill, packed stadiums and a surge in interest all over...

Documents