Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
SPODO2-Performance Indicators in Football
Transcript of SPODO2-Performance Indicators in Football
'Winning and mistakes made are the most common ways to judge technical competence and due to this are often used in net and wall based team sports' (Hughes and Bartlett, 2002).
The U12 team were more adapted technically than the U9's. However this could have been due to the 3 year age gap, and more experience playing the game, However the U9's were gifted when it came to passing the football and were already passing the ball around in triangles, however this was never reflected in matches and the U9's seemed to just follow the ball and when they had possession they were all over the place and couldn't pass to anybody. Another strength of the U9's was shooting accuracy. In the game chosen to analyse for this research they had 12 shots and 10 of them were on target. This is therefore a 80% Accuracy rate. Notable differences between the U12's and U9's vary. The U12's had a better first touch, and passed better in games however both of the teams were technically gifted when passing the football. The U9's had more shots on target, however this could have been due to the lack of defending from their opposition. Defensively the U12's were better this could have been due to experience or just a better view tactically about the game.
Hughes and Bartlett state that "tactical performance indicators seek to refect the relative importance of the use of pace, space, fitness and movement, and how players use these aspects of performance, of themselves and their opponents, targeting the technical strengths and weaknesses of the respective performers" (Hughes and Bartlett,2002).
When analysing the two two teams it can be seen that there are many tactical differences. This can first be seen in training due to the fact that the U12's focus most weeks on one or more tactical aspects. (2v1 Defending/Attacking, Movement off the ball, creating space for others and themselves to recieve or move into with the ball, whilst the U9's don't particularly focus on any tactical aspects due to the fact that they are still developing the technical skills within the game of football.
The common tactical difference between the two age groups is the counterattacking style of play. The U12's try and catch teams on the break and cause a 2x1 or more situation, so there is a higher chance of ending the play with a goal, whilst the U9's sit back and try and play the ball wide to the wing players. This is the only tactical indicator I have seen used within any of the U9 fixtures.
What are Performance Indicators?
'Performance Indicators are a form of Performance Analysis. Hughes and Franks did research into the different areas of notational analysis. They called these areas performance indicators. They stated that these indicators were 'tactical, technical, psychological and physiological'(Hughes and Franks, 2008).
"Performance indicators, should relate to successful performance or outcome. Therefore effective evaluation of these components requires knowledge of the contextual factors that can potentially affect performance" (Clemete et al., 2012:13)
Who? The Under 9 and Under 12 Marjon Youth Football Teams were involved for this particular assignment.
How? The process of collecting the information involved staying behind on Tuesday evenings to research the training sessions taking place for the two chosen teams, and then involved filming one of these teams over every two weeks to see whether the coaching process has been applied within each match by breaking each skill trained into the four performance indicator categories.
Clemete, F., Couceiro, M., Martins, F.M.L. and Mendes, R. (2012) Teams Performance on FIFA U17 World Cup 2011:Based on Notational Analysis. Journal of Physical Education and Sport. Vol. 12, No. 1: 13-17.
Hughes, M.D. and Bartlett, R.M. (2002) The use of Performance Indicators in Performance Analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences. Vol. 20: 739-754
Hughes, M. and Franks, I.M. (2008) The Essentials of Performance Analysis: An Introduction. London: Routledge.
Podlog, L., Lochbaum, M. and Stevens, T. (2010) Need Satisfaction, Well Being and Perceived Return to Sport Outcomes Among Injured Athletes. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. Vol. 22: 167-182.
Sliwowski, R., Laurentowska, M., Michalak, E., Wieczorek, A. and Wieczorek, J. (2006) Changes in Anaerobic Performance in Young Football Players in an Annual Training Cycle. Studies in Physical Culture and Tourism. Vol. 13: 173-175.
Effective Passing Triangle
When analysing the two teams minimal psychological indicators were identified. The first indicator being the orientation of players within each team. A majority of the U9's were task motivated and were focused on adapting and improving their skills as footballers. This was similar in the U12's team, however there was certain individual that stuck out as ego orientated athletes. There are a number of situations that could have caused this. The first being the fact that they were the top goalscorer so far this season which could mean there is high confidence, and self-esteem at the moment. Another reason could be that they were slightly more advanced in certain areas of the game than others, and was focused purely on achievement.
Psychological Indicators Continued
There were however quiet individuals in both teams. A factor that could influence this is the return from an injury as they may suffer from re-injury anxiety. 'Returning to sport following injury has been highlighted as a potentially troubling return period among athletes. Difficulties such as re-injury anxiety , concerns about performing to pre-injury levels' (Podlog et al., 2010)
The hardest indicator to identify were physical indicators, as I didn't plan to push them to to maximal exertion when planning for this module, so instead it became a case of analysing the games and training session. 'When identifying physiological indicators the major aspect looked at relate to aerobic performance'(Sliwowski et al., 2006).The U12's were physically built compared to the U9's, however this comes down to age and maturation. Both age groups were made up of mostly aerobic athletes. This was identified when analysing a football match and it seemed that all individuals had a high work rate, but still managed to maintain themselves to almost complete a full game. This could be due to the fact that in each training session the two age groups run as a set warm up, which gradually over time would have influenced the athletes Cardiovascular Systems and the muscle fibres within their muscles so they became more aerobic than anaerobic. Each individual seemed relatively free of injuries as well, this could have been due to the fact that they stretched appropriately before and after training and games to prevent strains and pulls of the major football muscle groups (Gastrocnemius, Hamstrings and Quadriceps).
Technical Indicator Results U9's
Shots on Target-10(83%)
Shots off Target-2(17%)
Technical Indicator Results U12's
Shots on Target-6(43%)
Shots off Target-8(57%)
I expect to find that the U12's are more technically and tactically gifted than the U9's
I expect the U9's to be influenced psychologically by either peers or parents