Analysis of Goal Scoring During the 2010 FIFA World Cup and

Abstract

Goal scoring is the primary objective of association football with many performance indicators combining to achieve the overall goal. Although within performance analysis it is imperative that a variety of performance indicators are recorded in order for whole performance to be acknowledged rather than goals to be purely counted (Lanham, 2005). Therefore the aim of the current study was to analyse combinations of goal scoring variables. All performance indicators were derived from relevant literature which had previously analysed such variables in isolation (Hughes and Franks, 2005; Hughes and Snook, 2006; Smith et al., 2013; Wright et al., 2011). Open play goals from the 2010 World Cup (n=127) and 2012 European Championships (n=64) and Spain (n=19) (the winners of both tournaments) were analysed in lapsed-time using Nacsport Elite (Nacsport, Las Palamas de Gran Canaria) software. Mann Whitney U tests revealed no significant difference (p>0.05) between the absolute mean possession time of the World Cup and the European Championships, stages of the tournaments or between the winners of both tournaments (Spain) against the larger dataset. In accordance with previous literature more goal scoring possessions originated from interceptions (29.4% World Cup and 42.2% European Championships). Data mining was undertaken to evaluate the combination of variables that contributed to a goal scoring possession Variables were grouped and analysed using Market Basket Analysis highlighting combinations of variables. During both tournaments possessions less than five passes, less than five players when possession was gained in the opposition half and assisted centrally achieved the most significantly supported and greatest strength of agreement (51 and 0.944 respectively). A case study of Spain concluded the majority of their goals derived from possessions longer than ten seconds (52.6%). Contradicting previous literature which suggests successful teams predominantly score in less than five seconds (Acar et al., 2009) to highlight differences in research.