Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
The aim of this study was to exam ine the contribution of the systemic approach to the analysis of play in team
sports. We rst focus on the theory of dynamical systems and consider the interactions between the main
variables of the different components of systems and subsystems in soccer. In team sports, these variables
represent uctuating conditions, which momentarily constrain the organization of action for the players. Thus
changes in the momentary con guration of the game have to be exam ined in the light of previous
con gurations, the outline of the defensive strategy and the tactical choices involved. To study this problem, we
analyse the antecedents of goals in soccer. A procedure is proposed which analyses transitions between
con gurations of play, thus allowing time to be taken into consideration when studying the evolution of a
match. To illustrate the use and bene t of the analytic procedure, two goals are described in terms of dynamic
con gurations of play and opportunity of choices made by attackers.
K eywords : Con guration of play, goals, soccer, space, systemic approach, tactics.
Introduction
T here has been growing interest recently in m atch
analysis of football. Generally, notational analysis uses
num erical data to study and assess the quality of a
m atch. H owever, there is a dearth of published
research with regard to the theoretical bases of the
analysis of the tactical aspects of the gam e. To that end,
we examined the contribution of a dynam ic system s
app roach to the analysis of play in team sports and
especially in soccer. T he system s perspective has been
developed as a reaction to the reductionist app roach
that dom inated science for centuries.
The m ain challenge in team sports is that, in an opposition relationship (Deleplace, 1979), a team m ust
coordinate its actions to recapture, conserve and m ove
the ball so as to bring it within the scoring zone and to
score a goal. Brackenbridge (1979; cited in Thorpe et
al., 1986) suggested the following de nition for the
gam e: `a struggle for a territorial dom inance within a
set of rules which includes signi cant strategic and
*Author to whom all correspondence should be addressed.
0264 -0414/97
138
the system (e.g. Atlan, 1979). T he reduction of uncertainty for the team in possession of the ball is a function
of the quality of the comm unication codes and the
choice of explicit tactics, thus allowing app ropriate
choices, understood by all partners, according to
m omentary con gurations of play.
3. Problems related to orga nization. Players m ust
accept the m ove from an individual to a collective project. A player m ust truly m erge the collective project
with his personal actions while giving the best of him self to the group.
To understand better the principles at work in soccer, one approach would be to m odel the interactions
between the players and their environm ent as a complex system . The system s perspective attem pts to
reduce the phenom ena involved in interactions between
the m ain variab les of the different com ponents in order
to study them. In team sports, these variab les represent
uctuating conditions w hich mom entarily constrain the
organ ization of action for the players. (e.g. Walliser,
1977; Bouthier, 1988; Gr e haigne, 1988; Ali and
Farraly, 1990; D avids et al., 1994; Gr e haigne and
G odbout, 1995). According to the space available, the
choices a player in possession of the ball has should be
related to the success of an attack. To im prove our
understanding of such choices, we rst examine the
system ic nature of soccer. Then we present a descriptive research procedure which makes it possible to
study transition between con gurations of play.
Grehaigne et al.
3. T he need, in the face of fragm entation and dispersal
of knowledge (analytical approach), to prom ote a
utilitarian language that could support the articulation and integration of theoretical models and m ethodological precepts scattered am ong various
disciplines.
General properties of systems. The analytical approach
tries to break a system down into its m ost sim ple constituent elements. T hen, by m odifying one variable at a
time, it tries to deduce general law s which m ake it possible to predict the properties of the system in different
conditions. For such predictions to be feasible, additive
laws of elementary properties m ust com e into play.
However, in the case of high ly com plex systems (such
as a soccer m atch), these additive law s do not work.
Therefore, such system s m ust be approached using
new m ethods, such as those that are part of the systemic approach. Studying a system s behavio ur over
time leads to the determination of action rules, w hich
are used to in uence or m odify the state of the system.
To achieve this, the system ic app roach relies on the
notion of a system or a w hole m ade up of interacting
elem ents:
1. A w hole that has a reciprocal relationship with its
environm ent; such a relationship will provide it w ith
som e autonomy.
2. A whole composed of interacting subsystems; such
interdependence will ensure a degree of coherence.
3. A whole submitted to m ore or less im portant modi cations over time while m aintaining a certain
perm anence.
O ften, in a classical approach, an exp lanation of phenom ena will rely on linear causality: it is an exp lanator y
m ode based on a logical chain of causes and effects.
W ith the system ic approach, m ovem ent replaces perm anence, exibility replaces in exibility and adaptability replaces stability. N otions of ow and ow balance
join those of forces and force balance. By integrating
time, the systemic approach reveals the interdependence of phenom ena and their gradual change. Causality
becom es circular and a regulation loop (see Bertalanffy,
1972; Rosnay, 1975; M orin, 1986; C averni et al.,
1988).
Two main categories of system are de ned: closed
system s and open system s. A closed system exchanges
neither energy nor matter with its environm ent; it is
self-su f cient. O n the other hand, an open system
relates constantly w ith its environment. It exchanges
energy, m atter and inform ation useful for m aintaining
its organization. Its com plexity takes into account variety and interaction between elements. Som e liaisons
139
140
Grehaigne et al.
141
Grehaigne et al.
142
F igure 3 Con gurations where defenders do not have suf cient time to intercept the trajectory of the ball.
Figu re 6 Example of a grid overlay, each square representing
2 m 2 on the ground.
kicked and its clearing the sector m ust be less than the
time taken by the defender to cut the trajectory of the
ball. It m ust arrive in a free sector of play or a partially
free one in the case of a pass. Figure 4 shows that an
accurately played ball will leave a free or partly free
sector of play and reach another sector of play, also free
or partially free. In the case of a successful shot on
target, only the strikers sector of play need be free or
partly free. Figure 5 shows that w hen a player decides
to dribble the ball, that sector of play m ust be free or
partly free. T he difference in speed is also im portant.
Tools used for analysis
To analyse con gurations of play, we used a video
recorder to note the positions and speeds of the players,
together with the types of m oves. Since the recording
gave 25 fram es per second, it was easy to construct an
accurate representation of the action. D ifferent lines on
the ground were used to estim ate the position of the
143
Stop
M ean
Range
S .D .
Walk
180
180-180
0
120
105-140
9.5
Jog
51
40 -60
6.7
Cruise
42
30-60
6.9
Sprint
21
10-30
6.9
Speed
(m s -1 )
>
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Angle
()
Depth of
angle (cm)
360
240
240
100
100
80
80
40
40
0.35
0.7
1.0
1.4
1.7
2.1
2.45
2.8
Grehaigne et al.
144
-8
s and M
-7
s.
145
-6
s.
-5
s and M
-4
s.
Grehaigne et al.
146
-3
s.
-2
s.
147
-1
- 0.
s.
Grehaigne et al.
148
M - 0 (Fig. 9g). PA, who was ahead of defender d5,
decided to shoot at goal. T he trajectory of the ball
crossed the sector of play of the Swedish goalkeeper,
G K. However, the time elapsing between the striking of
the ball and the ball entering the target was less than
0.5 s. Consequently, the last defender could not change
the trajectory of the ball because the time he needed to
cut the trajectory inside his sector of play was longer
than the time between the ball leaving PAs boot and it
crossing his sector (thus respecting the second param eter; F ig. 3). As a consequence, a goal was scored.
D iscussion
T he analysis of collective m ovements show s that, generally, different holders of the ball respect the param eters of success. C hoices are m ade based on position,
m ovem ent and the speed of ones team m ates and
opponents. A prelim inar y analysis of 110 dynam ical
con gurations of play showed that 102 respected the
principle of passin g the ball into an open space. This
principle can be seen as a constant of the system
(G r e haign e and Bouthier, 1994).
N evertheless, at the end of the collective m ovem ents
to which they belonged, eight goals were scored,
although they did not respect this principle. U pon
closer analysis of those eight con gurations, holders of
the ball m ade bad choices (no respect for the param eters). T he defender should have intercepted the ball,
but because of his clum siness the ball was intercepted
by the attacker.
For example, during the Sweden vs D enm ark gam e,
the collective m ovem ent w hich led to a goal in the 58th
m inute showed a m istake at M - 1 (Fig. 10). A1 had
elected to pass the ball to A2 (M - 2). T he ball was
interceptable and reached defender d1. D efender d1
F igure 10 From M
-2
s to M
-1
s and then M
- 0:
tried to get the ball, but failed and sent the ball into
A2s sector of play. A2, with a location advantage over
d2, seized the opportunity and scored.
T he contexts in which actions occur in soccer are so
varied that, in most instances, the concepts of `principle
of play and `constant of the system are useful to
understand how players treat inform ation. O ur results
show that the position and the m ovem ent of players are
reliable and faithfu l param eters for the analysis of play.
M odels of the sectors of play and sectors of intervention can be used to pattern attacks and obtain m ore
inform ation about the functioning of the system . In
addition to its reliability, the analysis shows that a goal
has to be constructed and the tactical choices of the
players optim ized. A goal can only be scored if the principles of play are m et; if they are not, the only way to
score is by virtue of a m istake on the part of the
defenders.
T his type of analysis can be considered as a starting
point because, from a m ethodological point of view, it
is a rst step to obtaining tools which allow sim ulation
of m ovem ent in soccer and the production of a m odel
with good predictive power. M oreover, this m odel
m aterializes and objecti es abstract param eters, such
as the assessm ent of relative speed and orientation of
ones opponents.
T he organizational level `match or `system m atch (a
group of players playing together as a w hole) is an
interesting way of analysing soccer. W ith the opposition
relationship, order and disorder can emerge from the
play at any m om ent. In this way, the energy and
choices of the players serve to create the conditions for
transitions between con gurations of play and thus
transfor m the play. However, in soccer, the different
states of the system operate fundamentally according
to states of equilibrium . If a goal is scored, it m eans
that the organ izational level `defence has not respon-
Sweden vs Denmark.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Paul Godbout and Lew Hardy
for their help, suggestions and feedback throughout this
project.
References
Ali, A.H. and Farraly, M. (1990). An analysis of patterns of
play in soccer. Science and Football , 3 , 37 -44.
Atlan, H. (1979). E ntre le Cr istal et la Fum e e . Paris: Seuil.
Bertalanffy, L.V. (1972). The or ie G e n e rale des Syst`e mes . Paris:
Dunod.
Bouthier, D. (1988). Les conditions cognitives de la formation d actions sportives collectives. Unpublished thesis,
Universite Paris V, EPH E.
Bouthier, D., Barthes, D., David, B. and Grehaigne, J.F.
(1994). Tactical analysis of play combinations in rugby
with video-computer: Rationalising `French- air . Communication to the Second World C ong ress of Notation al
Analysis , Cardiff, November.
Caverni, J.P., Bastien, C., M endelsohn, P. and Tiberghien, G.
(1988). Psychologie Cognitive: M od e` les et M e th odes . Grenoble: Presses Universitaires.
Davids, K., Handford, C. and Williams, M . (1994). The natural alternative to cognitive theories of motor behaviour:
An invitation for interdisciplinary research in sport science? Jour nal of Sports Science s, 12 , 495 -528.
Deleplace, R. (1979). Rugby de M ouvem ent-R ugby Total . Paris:
EPS.
Dufour, W. (1989). Les techniques d observation du comportement moteur. E ducation Physique et Sport , 217 ,
68 -71.
149
Grehaigne, J.F. (1988). Game systems in soccer. In Science
and Football (edited by T. Reilly, A. Lees, K. Davids and
W.J. Murphy), pp. 316 -321. London: E. and F.N.
Spon.
Grehaigne, J.F. (1989). Football de mouvement: Vers une
approche system ique du jeu. Unpublished thesis, U niversite de Bourgogne.
Grehaigne, J.F. (1991). A new method of goal analysis. Science and Football , 5 , 10 -16.
Grehaigne, J.F. (1992a). L organisation du Jeu en Football.
Paris: ACTIO.
Grehaigne, J.F. (1992b). A weighted model to analyse the
conditions of scoring in soccer. Comm unication to the
First World C ong ress of Notationa l A nalysis , Liverpool,
November.
Grehaigne, J.F. and Bouthier, D. (1994). Analyse des e volutions entre deux con gurations du jeu en football. Science
et M otricite , 24 , 44 -52.
Grehaigne, J.F. and Godbout, P. (1995). Tactical knowledge
in team sports from a constructivist and cognitivist perspective. Q uest , 47 , 490 -505.
Grehaigne, J.F., Bouthier, D. and David, B. (1994). The players action zone in soccer. Com munication to the Second
World C ong ress of Nota tional Analysis , Cardiff, November.
Lacour, J.R. (1983). Aspects physiologiques du football.
L Entra neur Fran ais , 183 , 1 -6.
Malho, F. (1974). L acte Tactique en Jeu . Paris: Vigot.
Morin, E. (1986). La C onna issance de la Connaissance . Paris:
Seuil.
Reilly, T. and Thomas, V. (1976). A motion analysis of workrate in different positional roles in professional football
m atch play. Jour na l of H um an M ovem ent Studies , 2 ,
87 -97.
Rosnay, J. de (1975). Le M acroscope . Paris: Seuil.
Thorpe, R., Bunker, D. and Almond, L. (1986). R ethink ing
G am es Teaching . Loughborough: Loughborough University of Technology, Department of Physical Education,
Sport Science and Recreation M anagement.
Villepreux, P. (1987). Rugby de M ouvem ent et D isponibilite du
Joueur . Paris: M e m oire IN SEP.
Walliser, B. (1977). Syst`e mes et M od`e les: Introdu ction C ritique a`
l Analyse de Syst`e m es . Paris: Seuil.
Winkler, W. (1984). Sport Strategie als Lehrfach. Leitungss port , 2 , 5 -13.