CC BY
25
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The efficiency of action of futsal goalkeepers in game situations with varying results of competition
Andrzej Szwarc1ACDE, Mateusz Oszmaniec2ABCE
'Gdansk University of Physical Education and Sport, Poland
2Town Hall of Bytow, Poland
Authors' Contribution: A - Study design; B - Data collection; C - Statistical analysis; D - Manuscript Preparation; E - Funds Collection
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of the study was to expand knowledge of the efficiency of actions from top-level futsal teams.
Goalkeepers' activity, effectiveness and reliability were estimated with a view to implementing the objectives of the game in offence and defence and depending on the changing match status.
Material: Data about the game were registered on a self-developed observation sheet. 23 goalkeepers
participating in 31 matches of the World and the European Championships and the UEFA Futsal Cup played in the years 2012-2015 were observed. In order to estimate statistically significant differences in goalkeepers' activity in situations of neutral, favorable and unfavorable competition scores, the results were averaged by dividing each of the applied actions in a given match by the number of minutes played during a given competition result. The outcome was the average performance of a goalkeeper in one minute of the match during a given score. The results of the activity scale, depending on the result of the match, were compared with the Kruskal-Wallis test and the post hoc Dunn Bonferroni test and the Jonckheere-Terpstra trend test. Statistical analysis was conducted with a use of the statistical package R and STATISTICA 10.
Results: It was found that actions to gain the playfield with the ball and to prevent a loss of a goal dominated in
futsal goalkeepers' both when drawing as well as winning and losing game and that game status does not determine the style of play of the goalkeeper. Only in nine of the 60 types of actions examined significant differences in activity were fund
Conclusions: The unequivocal claim that the current score during the competition determines the style of the
futsal goalkeeper's game (the frequency of taking actions in the game characteristic of his position), is unauthorized at this stage of research. The obtained significant differences in his activity in nine types of actions constitute only a small percentage (15%) of all his skills in the game.
Keywords: notational analysis, match status, activity of actions
Introduction
In a sport team game, a reliable assessment of a player is possible only through repeated observations of his actions in real-life conditions with an opponent of a similar level of sports proficiency, which is carried out with a use of objective research tools [1]. While assessing players' performance, one should primarily take into account those situational variables that determine the complexity of the game situation. The game situation is determined by the time, the place of the player's action and the tasks he needs to implement, other players' skills and the rules of the game, the place and the current result of competition [2, 3]. The measure of a player's championship lies in his ability to cooperate efficiently and perform various individual actions to achieve a specific goal in the game in increasingly difficult conditions of competition.
For several years, there has been intensive research on futsal players' efficiency of action. A review of the literature [4-7] shows that conceptual eclecticism and a variety of methodological approaches dominate studies of this game. As a rule, research focuses on selected aspects of offensive actions aiming to score goals and position the game (types of attack, ways of scoring goals, set pieces
© Andrzej Szwarc, Mateusz Oszmaniec, 2021 doi:10.15561/26649837.2021.0204
of the game and their effectiveness) and of defensive actions (types of defence, methods and places of receiving the ball). Comprehensive analyses of various variables are rare, and yet an integrated approach that considers multiple aspects is now recognized as crucial in studying sport team games [8].
The game of futsal still remains unknown in many areas, especially in terms of game analysis [5]. This also applies to the position of the goalkeeper. Most analyses focus on the goalkeeper's participation in offensive actions, in situations of outnumbering when each team uses the 5vs4+GK format [9, 10], on his efficiency in preventing the loss of a goal and ways of saving shots at the goal [11, 12]. Comprehensive assessments of the goalkeeper's efficient performance in the game are rare and rather contributory [13]. Therefore, despite a need for systemic approaches to the assessment of football players' performance skills, as regards futsal, firstly, one must accurately describe and define the variables relevant to effective competition [4], primarily in relation to the players' positions [5], and only then estimate their mutual impact on success in the game.
Szwarc et al. [14] and Oszmaniec & Szwarc [15] already attempted to describe goalkeepers' actions in the game of futsal. They characterized particular actions
and assessed their efficiency* in terms of offensive and defensive objectives pursued by the goalkeeper, namely: keeping the ball, gaining the playfield with the ball, creating goal-scoring situations, scoring goals and preventing such situations. However, the purpose of this research is to broaden knowledge about the efficiency of futsal goalkeepers of teams of the highest level of sport proficiency in the context of different results of the competition. The following research questions have been formulated: (i) what is the activity, efficiency and reliability of futsal goalkeepers in game situations with a neutral, favorable and unfavorable result? (ii) are there any significant differences in the activity of the top-level futsal goalkeepers in game situations with a neutral, favorable and unfavorable match result?
Material and Methods
Participants
23 goalkeepers (age: 27.03 ± 3.86 y, body height: 182 ± 5.64 cm) were examined in 31 matches, rendering 62 game analyses in total (Table 1). The examined group comprised players of the highest level of sports proficiency, competing for the World and the European Championship (all matches of the knockout phase, from the quarter-finals to the finals) and for the UEFA Futsal Cup (all matches of the semi-finals and the finals) held in 2012-2015. The study was conducted in a manner that respected the principles established by the Declaration of Helsinki and it was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University.
Measures
This study used the method of observation. The analysis was made with a use of video footage recorded on a DVD, where during a multiple replay of a game situation the tested action was observed. Data about the game were recorded on a special originally developed observation sheet meeting scientific requirements (the ICC test was used, the intra-rater reliability - 1.00 (95% CI 1.00-1.00) and the inter-rater reliability - 0.99 (95% CI 0.99-1.00) [14].
Activity, effectiveness and reliability of goalkeepers' actions in terms of objectives of the game were investigated. In attacking, the efficiency of actions aiming at keeping the ball, gaining the playfield with the ball, creating goal-scoring situations and scoring a goal were estimated, while in defence, the efficiency of actions against losing a goal and against creating a goal-scoring situation was evaluated. Goalkeepers' game was analysed within the regular, 40-minute game time. The analysis excluded the goalkeepers' play time in which they were substituted by players from the field in case of
* In praxeological terms [18], efficiency of action is understood as a total of practical qualities of play, which includes: activity (number of actions performed by players of one team during a match), effectiveness (number of positive actions with reference to the game's aims) and reliability (ratio between the number of effective actions and the number of all actions of one type during the game). Other indices of play efficiency encompass rationality (actions cognitively justified), valuableness (value of assessment of action efficiency) and economy (loss-gain ratio).
an unfavorable competition result. Activity in action was examined with regard to all actions occurring in the game (Table 2), taking into account the division of the pitch into 2 sectors and 3 zones (Figure 1). Two zones were distinguished in sector A: A1 - the goal area and A2 - the defence area, from the goal line to the centre line of the pitch, excluding the goal area. In sector B, zone A3 was distinguished - the area of the field of attack, from the centre line of the pitch to the end line of the pitch.
Statistical analysis
In order to estimate statistically significant differences in goalkeepers' activity in situations of neutral, favorable and unfavorable competition scores, the results were averaged by dividing each of the applied actions in a given match by the number of minutes played during a given competition result. The outcome was the average performance of a goalkeeper in one minute of the match during a given score. This procedure was necessary because the examined goalkeepers acted for various lengths of time in situations of neutral, favorable and unfavorable scores. The normality of the distribution of activity results in these situations was analysed with the Shapiro-Wilk test, and after finding significant deviations from the normal distribution, further analyses were carried out with nonparametric methods. The results of the activity scale, depending on the result of the match, were compared with the Kruskal-Wallis test and the post hoc Dunn Bonferroni test and the Jonckheere-Terpstra trend test. Statistical analysis was conducted with a use of the statistical package R and STATISTICA 10.
Results
The data in Table 3 refer to the competition of goalkeepers from the best futsal teams participating in matches of the knockout phase of the World and European Championships and in the UEFA Futsal Cup in the years 2012-2015. In situations of neutral, favorable and unfavorable score, dominated the actions of gaining the playfield with the ball (711, 560 and 528 actions, respectively) and of preventing a loss of a goal (459, 424 and 353 actions, respectively). Goalkeepers most rarely executed actions aimed at scoring a goal (17, 31 and 20 actions, respectively). The analysed goalkeepers achieved the highest reliability in situations of neutral, favorable and unfavorable scores in actions aimed at keeping the ball and preventing the creation of scoring situations. They failed the most often while scoring a goal. They played the longest in a neutral competition result (974 minutes). During a favorable result, they played for 753 minutes, and in a situation of an unfavorable result for 586 minutes.
A comparison of the averaged results of the studied players' activity in 12 actions of keeping the ball (Table 2, items 30-41) in the context of three different scores of competition showed that only during keeping the ball by receiving it from a partner in zone A1 (Table 2, item 35) there were significant differences between the frequency of performing this action in game situations with neutral, favorable and unfavorable results. Analysis with a use of the post-hoc Dunn Bonferroni test showed (Table 4)
Table 1. List of the examined futsal goalkeepers from teams of the highest sports level along with their playing time in situations of a neutral, favorable and unfavorable result of the competition.
Number Goalkeeper's playing time
No. or club (country) Goalkeeper Age [years] Body height [cm] of matches played Actual playing time [min' sec] Neutral result [min] Favorable result [min] Unfavorable result [min' sec]
1. Italy Mammarella 28 176 8 269'44 100 112 57'44
2. Russia Gustavo 33 184 6 229'51 82 96 85'08
Marca Futsal 86 77 33'01
(Italy)
3. Higuita 26 181 5 196'01
Kairat Almaty
(Kazakhstan) 66 54 30'03
4. Barcelona Sedaño 33 188 4 151'03
5. Sporting CP IPn rti 1 CT3 1 1 Benedito 34 177 4 146'33 79 35 32'33
6. IrUI LUgd 1J Dinamo Moscow Popov 32 185 4 142'42 36 60 46'42
(Russia)
7. Croatia Jukic 26 190 4 137'30 34 12 96'41
8. Brazil Tiago 31 173 3 120 62 34 24
9. Spain Juanjo 27 185 3 120 49 64 7
10. Spain Amado 36 185 3 115'12 52 62 1'12
11. Colombia Lozano 30 180 2 80 34 17 29
12. Spain Rafa 34 192 2 78'18 33 35 10'18
13. Ukraine Ivanyak 30 180 2 78'08 51 0 27'08
14. Russia Zuev 32 186 2 75'45 53 6 16'45
15. Romania Lancu 34 180 2 41 14 0 27
16. Argentina Elias 29 182 1 40 22 18 0
17. Colombia Nanez 28 180 1 40 28 0 12
18. Sporting Lisbon Cristiano 36 170 40 13 22 5
1
(Portugal) 30 4 3'02
19. Serbia Aksentijevic 29 189 1 37;02
20. Ukraine Lytvynenko 27 175 1 37'10 13 0 24'10
21. Slovenia Mordej 24 182 1 35'15 11 0 24'15
22. Iberia Star Celio 28 178 25'51 12 0 13'51
1
(Georgia) 13 5 7'55
23. Moscow (Russia) Trushkin 21 188 1 35'55
Table 2. Types of analysed actions performed in the game by the examined goalkeepers.
No. Type of action
1. 2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10. 11. 12.
Gaining Gaining Gaining Gaining Gaining Gaining Gaining Gaining Gaining Gaining Gaining Gaining
the playf the playf the playf the playf the playf the playf the playf the playf the playf the playf the playf the playf
eld by throwing the ball with an underhand swing in zone A1
eld by throwing the ball overhead single-handedly in zone A1
eld by throwing the ball in "another way" - hip throw, two-handed throw in zone A1
eld by a short pass of the ball with a foot after receiving in zone A1
eld by a short pass of the ball with a foot after receiving in zone A2
eld by a short pass of the ball with a foot after receiving in zone A3
eld by a long pass of the ball with a foot after receiving in zone A1
eld by a long pass of the ball with a foot after receiving in zone A2
eld by a short pass of the ball with a foot without receiving in zone A1
eld by a short pass of the ball with a foot without receiving in zone A2
eld by a short pass of the ball with a foot without receiving in zone A3
eld by a long pass of the ball with a foot without receiving in zone A1
2021
Table 2. Continuation
No. Type of action
13. Gaining the playfield by a long pass of the ball with a foot without receiving in zone A2
14. Gaining the playfield by a long pass of the ball with a foot without a pass in zone A3
15 Gaining the playfield by passing the ball with a foot in "another way", i.e. after intercepting, after faking and/or dribbling the ball, from a set piece in zone A1
16 Gaining the playfield by passing the ball with a foot in "another way" - after intercepting, after faking and/or dribbling the ball, from a set piece in zone A2
17 Gaining the playfield by passing the ball with a foot in "another way" - after intercepting, after faking and/or dribbling the ball, from a set piece in zone A3
18. Gaining the playfield by faking and/or dribbling the ball in zone A1
19. Gaining the playfield by faking and/or dribbling the ball in zone A2
20. Gaining the playfield by faking and/or dribbling the ball in zone A3
21. Scoring a goal (in contact or without contact with an opponent) by hitting the ball with a foot in zone A1
22. Scoring a goal (in contact or without contact with an opponent) by hitting the ball with a foot in zone A2
23. Scoring a goal (in contact or without contact with an opponent) by hitting the ball with a foot in zone A3 24 Scoring a goal (in contact or without contact with an opponent) by hitting the ball dropped from a hand in
24. zone A1
25. Creating a goal-scoring situation by throwing the ball overhead single-handedly in zone A1
26 Creating a goal-scoring situation by throwing the ball with a hand in "another way" - hip throw, two-handed throw in zone A1
27. Creating a goal-scoring situation by passing the ball with a foot from the ground after receiving in zone A1
28. Creating a goal-scoring situation by passing the ball with a foot from the ground after receiving in zone A2
29. Creating a goal-scoring situation by passing the ball with a foot from the ground after receiving in zone A3
30. Sliding tackle to keep the ball in play in zone A2
31. Keeping the ball by faking and/or dribbling in zone A1
32. Keeping the ball by faking and/or dribbling in zone A2
33. Keeping the ball by catching it after faking and/or dribbling in zone A1
34. Keeping the ball by catching the ball after partner's playing in zone A1
35. Keeping the ball by receiving the ball from a partner in zone A1
36. Keeping the ball by receiving the ball from a partner in zone A2
37. Keeping the ball by receiving the ball from a partner in zone A3
38. Keeping the ball by passing the ball backwards in zone A1
39. Keeping the ball by passing the ball backwards in zone A2
40. Keeping the ball by passing the ball backwards in zone A3
41. Keeping the ball by passing the ball from a set-piece in zone A2
42 Preventing the loss of a goal by catching the ball (in place, in half-kneeling, in kneeling, in jumping, in
robinsonade, in the hurdle sit) in zone A1
43. Preventing the loss of a goal by punching the ball in zone A1
44 Preventing the loss of a goal by pushing the ball (in place, in half-kneeling, in kneeling, in jumping, in robinsonade, in the hurdle sit) in zone A1
45. Preventing the loss of a goal through defence with legs in zone A1
46. Preventing the loss of a goal through situational defence in zone A1
47. Preventing the loss of a goal through defence in a 1x1 situation in zone A1
48 Preventing the loss of a goal by defending a set piece (penalty kick, direct and / or indirect free kick, throw-
in and corner kick) in zone A1
49. Preventing the loss of a goal through intervention without contact with the ball in zone A1
50 Preventing the loss of a goal by consequential doubling (catching the ball, situational defence, defence without contact with the ball) in zone A1
51 Preventing the creation of a goal-scoring situation by catching the ball (in place, in half-kneeling, in kneeling,
' in jumping, in robinsonade) in zone A1_
Table 2. Continuation
No. Type of action
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
Preventing the creation of a Preventing the creation of a in jumping, in robinsonade) Preventing the creation of a the ground in zone A1 Preventing the creation of a the ground in zone A2 Preventing the creation of a Preventing the creation of a Preventing the creation of a Preventing the creation of a ball with / without falling to Preventing the creation of a ball with / without falling to
goal-scoring situation by goal-scoring situation by in zone A1
goal-scoring situation by
punching the ball in zone A1
pushing the ball (in place, in half-kneeling, in kneeling,
intercepting / clearing the ball with / without falling to
goal-scoring situation by intercepting / clearing the ball with / without falling to
goal-scoring situation by intervening without contact with the ball in zone A1 goal-scoring situation by intervening without contact with the ball in zone A2 goal-scoring situation by intervening without contact with the ball in zone A3 goal-scoring situation by consequential doubling (catching the ball, clearing the the ground, intervention without contact with the ball) in zone A1 goal-scoring situation by consequential doubling (catching the ball, clearing the the ground, intervention without contact with the ball) in zone A2_
Figure 1. Division of the field into zones and sectors.
Table 3. The efficiency of offensive and defensive actions of the examined goalkeepers in the context of the implemented objectives of the game in situations of different competition results.
Number of actions
Type of actions Neutral score_Favorable score Unfavorable score
A E R A E R A E R
Keeping the ball 205 197 96 177 173 98 173 168 97
Gaining the playfield with the ball 711 632 89 560 475 85 528 474 90
Creating goal-scoring situations 52 32 62 42 29 69 33 20 61
Scoring a goal 17 0 0 31 4 13 20 1 5
Preventing the loss of a goal 459 396 86 424 364 86 353 316 90
Preventing the creation of goal-scoring situations 218 209 96 170 166 98 218 205 94
Total playing time of the examined goalkeepers [min] 974 753 586
Match participation rate [number of full matches] 24.23 18.55 14.65
A - activity (number of actions), E - efficiency (number of actions), R - reliability (%)
Table 4. List of actions in which the activity of the examined goalkeepers significantly differed depending on the competition result.
No of action1 Game status X SD Min Qa Q 2 Q3 Max p Kruskal-Wallis p (Jonckheere-Terpstra test) P (post-hoc Dunn Bonferroni test)
test W D L
W .17 .21 .00 .00 .07 .34 1.00 .0023** .3035
1 D .30 .22 .00 .17 .29 .45 1.00 .0035** .0846 .0023** .2543
L .33 .62 .00 .00 .17 .48 4.46 .3035 .2543
W .01 .03 .00 .00 .00 .00 .17 .0406* .0406
22 D .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0172* .0135* .0406* 1.00
L .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0406* 1.00
W .01 .03 .00 .00 .00 .00 .12 .0005*** .0005
24 D .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0001*** .0002** .0005*** 1.00
L .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .0005*** 1.00
W .09 .14 .00 .00 .00 .14 0.50 .0323* 1.00
35 D .16 .27 .00 .00 .12 .20 2.00 .0133* .9894 .0323* .0331
L .09 .13 .00 .00 .00 .16 .48 1.00 .0331*
W .07 .12 .00 .00 .00 .11 .50 .7052 .5001
42 D .09 .15 .00 .00 .04 .11 1.00 .0365* .1683 .7052 .0305
L .04 .08 .00 .00 .00 .07 .44 .5001 .0305*
W .12 .16 .00 .00 .06 .18 .80 .5941 .6620
44 D .14 .19 .00 .01 .09 .18 1.00 .0426* .2039* .5941 0.0360
L .10 .19 .00 .00 .00 .15 1.00 .6620 .0360*
W .05 .08 .00 .00 .00 .07 .32 .1951 .8357
45 D .07 .14 .00 .00 .04 .09 1.00 .0125* .2845* .1951 .0102
L .03 .07 .00 .00 .00 .04 .32 .8357 .0102*
W .02 .04 .00 .00 .00 .00 .20 .0288* .1136
55 D .04 .06 .00 .00 .00 .07 .27 .0233* .0344* .0288* 1.00
L .06 .13 .00 .00 .00 .06 .66 .1136 1.00
W .02 .05 .00 .00 .00 .00 .25 .1163 1.00
56 D .05 .14 .00 .00 .00 .05 1.00 .0321* .7454 .1163 .0452
L .02 .07 .00 .00 .00 .00 .33 1.00 .0452*
1 according to Table 2, W- winning, 0.001
D- drawing, L- losing, p - level of significance, * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p <
that the respondents performed this action significantly more often in a game situation with a neutral score than during competition with a favorable or unfavorable score (p<0.05). In the remaining 11 actions of keeping the ball, such differences were not found. On average, goalkeepers were active in this action during one minute of the game, playing in situations of a neutral score (0.16), and slightly less during a favorable or an unfavorable competitive result (0.09).
On the other hand, out of 20 actions of gaining the playfield with the ball (Table 2, items 1-20) only in only action - gaining the playfield by throwing the ball with an underhand swing in zone A1 (Table 2, item 1) - did the players' activity significantly vary depending on different scores. The examined goalkeepers significantly more often (p<0.01) performed these actions in a game
situation with a neutral result than during competition with a favorable score (Table 4). On average, they performed the most actions during one minute of the game when playing in situations of unfavorable scores (0.33), slightly less during neutral situations (0.3), and the least in game situations with favorable scores (0.17).
Of the four types of goal-scoring actions (Table 2, items 21-24), in two (scoring a goal in contact or without contact with an opponent by hitting the ball with a leg in zone A2 and by hitting the ball dropped from the hand in zone A1), statistically significant differences were found in the activity of actions depending on the score. It follows from statistical analysis (Table 4) that goalkeepers performed these actions significantly more often in a game situation with a favorable result than during competition with a neutral or an unfavorable score
(p<0.05). On average, the most actions during one minute of the match occurred in situations of a favorable score (0.01); these actions were not used in game situations with neutral and unfavorable scores.
A comparison of the average results of the examined players' activity in 9 actions against the loss of a goal in the context of three different results of competition showed (Table 2, items 42-50) that while preventing the loss of a goal, i.e. while catching the ball - in place, in half-kneeling, in kneeing, in jumping, in robinsonade, in the hurdle sit in zone A1 (Table 2, item 42), while pushing the ball - in place, in half-kneeling, in kneeing, in jumping, in robinsonade, in the hurdle sit in zone A1 (Table 2, item 44) and while defending the ball with legs in zone A1 (Table 2, item 45), there were significant differences between the frequency of performing these actions by the examined players in game situations with neutral, favorable and unfavorable results. According to the data presented in Table 4, goalkeepers performed these three actions significantly more often in game situations with a neutral result than in those with an unfavorable score (p<0.05). In the remaining six actions against losing a goal (Table 2, items 43, 46-50), there were no statistically significant differences in the frequency of performing these actions. On average, during one minute of the match, goalkeepers most often caught the ball playing in situations of a neutral score (0.9), slightly less in favorable ones (0.7), and the least in situation of a unfavorable score in the competition (0.4). When pushing the ball, this was respectively: 0.14, 0.12 and 0.1, and when defending the goal with legs: 0.07, 0.05 and 0.03, respectively.
On the other hand, a comparison of the average results of the examined players in 10 actions against creating goal-scoring situations (Table 2, items 51-60) in the context of three different scores showed that when preventing the creation of goal-scoring situations, i.e. while intercepting / clearing the ball with/without falling to the ground in zone A2 (Table 2, item 55) and defence / intervention without contact with the ball in zone A1 (Table 2, item 56) there were significant differences in the frequency of performing these actions in game situations with neutral, favorable and unfavorable scores. Analysis of the data in Table 4 shows that in preventing the creation of goal-scoring situations by intercepting / clearing the ball with/ without falling to the ground in zone A2, goalkeepers performed these actions significantly more often in game situations with a neutral score than when playing with a favorable score (p<0.05), and in preventing the creation of goal-scoring situations through defence / intervention without contact with the ball in zone A1 significantly more often in game situations with a neutral result than with an unfavorable one (p<0.05). In the former case, on average, during one minute of the match, they performed the most actions in situations of an unfavorable score (0.06), slightly less when the score was neutral (0.04), and the least in situations of a favorable competition result (0.02), while in the latter case, they performed the most actions when playing in situations of a neutral result (0.05), and slightly less when the competition result was favorable
or unfavorable (0.02). In the remaining 8 actions against creating goal-scoring situations (Table 2, items 52-54 and 57-60) no statistically significant differences were found in the frequency of these actions depending on the game result.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to broaden knowledge about the efficiency of futsal goalkeepers from teams of the highest level of sport proficiency in the context of the variable of playing in situations with varying results of the competition and about goalkeepers' activity during competition with neutral, favorable and unfavorable scores.
Our research shows (Table 3) that futsal goalkeepers are more often involved in offensive than defensive actions (58% and 42%, respectively), but slightly more often in game situations with a neutral result (59% and 41%) than while playing with a favorable score (58% and 42%) or an unfavorable one (57% and 43%). These general trends are also confirmed in 11-player soccer, where there are even three times more offensive than defensive actions [16, 17]. When attacking, futsal goalkeepers usually use actions aimed to gain the playfield with the ball and to keep the ball (41% and 13% of all actions performed in the game, respectively) in both neutral, favorable and unfavorable results. They perform these actions with very high reliability (88% and 97%, respectively). In turn, they create scoring situations a lot less often. This offensive action accounted for 3% of all actions performed in the game and was most often performed in game situations with a neutral score. In contrast, scoring goals was performed the least often (1.5% of all actions), and it was the most unreliable (7% reliability) in the game of futsal goalkeepers. In total, in all matches they made only 68 shots at the goal, and the most often they shot at the opponents' goal in game situations with a favorable result (31 actions with 13% reliability), and the least often with a neutral score (17 shots, all ineffective). It is worth adding that our study corresponds with reports by Kunze et al. [12], who also found 40% activity in Brazilian futsal goalkeepers' actions aiming to gain the playfield, by and Paz-Franco et al. [13], who proved that gaining the playfield by a passing the ball with a foot or hand dominates offensive actions of goalkeepers of the best Spanish teams. Szwarc et al. [16] also found a similar structure of the efficiency of offensive actions among goalkeepers of 11-person teams.
In defence, the examined goalkeepers more than twice more often prevented the loss of a goal than they acted against creating a goal-scoring situation (Table 3), respectively, in situations of a neutral, favorable and unfavorable score: 68% and 32%, 71% and 29% and 61% and 39%. They were the most active in the game with a neutral result (459 actions), and the number of their actions when the score of the game was favorable was 16% higher than the number of actions taken when the score was unfavorable (424 and 353 actions, respectively). Our results find confirmation in research on
goalkeepers in 11-player teams. Szwarc et al. [18] noted that goalkeepers' activity in matches concluded in a draw was significantly higher than in won or lost matches, and Taylor et al. [19], Lago-Peñas & Dellal [20], Castellano et al. [21] and Gómez et al. [22] proved that players of teams with an unfavorable score strive to change the status of the result, usually by attacking more often, thus forcing more activity in defensive actions from players and goalkeepers of the team holding the favorable score.
In this study, sixty actions of goalkeepers in the context of a neutral, favorable and unfavorable competition result were statistically analysed (Table 2). It was proved that only in nine of them they achieve statistically significant differences. In attack, the subjects achieved the highest level of statistically significant differences when scoring a goal in contact or without contact with the opponent by hitting the ball dropped from their hand in zone A1 and by hitting the ball from the ground in zone A2, when they performed these actions significantly more often in game situations with a favorable score than during competition with a neutral and unfavorable result (p<0.001 and p<0.05, respectively). Still, they performed these actions sporadically (Table 4). These situations most often occurred when the "losing" team was building a positional attack using the goalkeeper on the opponent's half or played without him using the 5vs4+GK format [11, 12], and upon taking possession of the ball the goalkeeper of the "winning" team immediately tried to score a goal. In principle, such actions do not occur in the game of goalkeepers from 11-person teams [17, 23, 24].
The examined goalkeepers playing in a situation of a neutral score applied actions to keep the ball by receiving it from a partner in zone A1 significantly more often than during a favorable or an unfavorable score (p<0.05). Analysing the game in 11-player soccer, it was proved [25] that the teams tying at the given moment focus on defensive actions on their own half of the pitch, and this causes an increase in their goalkeepers' involvement in positioning the game. Similar behaviors occur in futsal teams in game situations with a neutral score - their goalkeepers also more often receive and play the ball from their own penalty area, without taking excessive risk in the defensive game.
Similar conclusions can be drawn from the analysis of gaining the playfield with the ball. The examined players gained it by throwing the ball with an underhand swing in zone A1 significantly more often in game situations with a neutral result than in those with a favorable result (p<0.01). This is due to using a positional attack (game without excessive risk) with the goalkeeper's help more frequently. However, no significant differences were found in positioning the game involving the goalkeeper in zones A2 and A3. This is seemingly surprising, especially as regards the unfavorable outcome of the game. After all, teams in these situations are forced by rivals to attack positionally [9], also with the goalkeeper's participation [10], and this means their significant involvement in the actions of gaining the playfield with the ball. Yet, it should be remembered that in consistence with the methodology
adopted in this research, the analysis excluded the game time in which the goalkeeper was replaced by another player in situations of an unfavorable score. From among the examined goalkeepers only Higuita (Marca Futsal, Kairat Aimaty) regularly participated in building a positional attack on the opponent's half in the 5vv4+GK situation, hence this explains the results obtained in this study.
In turn, in three out of nine defensive actions (Table 2), i.e. preventing the loss of a goal in zone A1 by: catching the ball, pushing the ball out and defending the goal with legs, the examined goalkeepers significantly more often used these methods of defending the goal in game situations with a neutral result than during competition with an unfavorable one (p<0.05). The obtained results show that the goalkeepers of the "losing" teams significantly less often prevented the loss of a goal. This should be explained by the fact that players of "losing" teams usually strive to change the status of the game, they attack more often, and thus, their goalkeeper' involvement in defence is much smaller. Such a strategy, the so-called "offensive" defensive has been confirmed by many researchers with respect to 11-player soccer [among others, 26, 27, 28].
In two of the ten actions against creating goal-scoring situations, the examined futsal goalkeepers were significantly more active in situations of varying scores (Table 2). In actions preventing scoring a goal by intercepting / clearing the ball with / without falling to the ground in zone A2, they significantly differed in activity in a game situation with a neutral and favorable result (p<0.05), and in preventing scoring a goal by defence / intervention without contact with the ball in zone A1 in a game situation with a neutral and unfavorable result (p<0.05). In the first case, interpretation of the results for actions against the loss of a goal can also be used to explain the results of this study, but in the second case, unequivocal explanation is difficult to provide. After all, teams playing in situations of an unfavorable score attack more often, and hence their goalkeepers are less often involved in defensive game in their own goal area. This issue requires clarification in subsequent studies.
Conclusion
The unequivocal claim that the current score during the competition determines the style of the futsal goalkeeper's game, i.e. the frequency of taking actions in the game characteristic of his position, is unauthorized at this stage of research, as the obtained significant differences in his activity in nine types of actions constitute only a small percentage (15%) of all his skills in the game. Therefore, research on his activity in game situations with neutral, favorable and unfavorable results should be continued.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the financial support by Gdansk University of Physical Education and Sport.
Conflict of interests
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
1. O'Donoghue P. Research methods for sports performance analysis. London: Routledge; 2010. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203878309
2. Lepschy H, Wäsche H, Woll A. How to be successful in football: a systematic review. The Open Sports Sciences Journal. 2018; 11: 3-23. https://doi.org/10.2174/1875399X01811010003
3. Sarmento H, Clemente FM, Araújo D, Davids K, Mc Robert A, Figueiredo A. What performance analysts need to know about research trends in association football (2012-2016): a systematic review. Sports Medicine, 2018; 48: 799-836. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s40279-017-0836-6
4. Moore R, Bullough S, Goldsmith S, Edmondson L. A systematic review of futsal literature. American Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 2014; 2(3): 108-116. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajssm-2-3-8
5. Agras H, Ferragut C, Abraldes JA. Match analysis in futsal: a systematic review. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 2016; 16(2): 652-686. https://doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2016.11868915
6. Sarmento H, Bradley P, Anguera MT, Polido T, Resende R, Campando J. Quantifying the offensive sequences that result in goals in elite futsal matches. Journal of Sports Sciences, 2016; 34(7): 621-629. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2015.1066024
7. Méndez C, Gonjalves B, Santos J, Ribeiro JN, Travassos B. Attacking profiles of the best ranked teams from elite futsal leagues. Frontiers in Psychology, 2019; 10(1370): 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01370
8. Ävila-Moreno FM, Chirosa-Rios LJ, Ureña-Espá A, Lozano-Jarque D, Ulloa-Diaz D. Evaluation of tactical performance in mvasiontea.msports:asystematicreview.InternationalJournal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 2018; 18(2): 195-216. https://doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2018.1460054
9. Vicente-Vila P, Lago-Peñas C. The goalkeeper influence on ball possession effectiveness in futsal. Journal of Human Kinetics, 2016; 51(1): 217-224. https://doi.org/10.1515/hukin-2015-0185
10.Méndez-Domínguez C, Gómez-Ruano MA, Rúiz-Pérez LM, Travassos B. Goals scored and received in 5vs4 GK game strategy are constrained by critical moment and situational variables in elite futsal. Journal of Sports Sciences, 2019; 37(21): 2443-2451. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2019.1640567
11.Leite W. Analysis of offensive process of the Portuguese futsal team. Pamukkale Journal ofSport Sciences, 2012; 3(3): 78-89. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/psbd/issue/20578/219244
12.Kunze A, Schlosser MW, Brancher EA. Analysis of the most used techniques goalkeeper during the men's futsal games. Revista Brasileira de Futsal e Futebol, 2016; 8(30): 228-234.
13.Paz-Franco A, Bores Cerezal A, Barcala Furelos R, Mecias Calvo M. Analysis of the conducts of elite futsal goalkeeper in the different situations of the game. American Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 2014; 2(3): 71-76. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajssm-2-3-1
14.Szwarc A, Oszmaniec M, Lipinska P. The method of goalkeeper's evaluation in futsal. Baltic Journal of Health & Physical Activity, 2014; 6(2): 100-113. https://doi.org/10.2478/bjha-2014-0010
15.Oszmaniec M, Szwarc A. The efficiency of actions of goalkeepers from sports effective teams in a game of
futsal in matches of the final tournament of the World and European Championships in 2012. Baltic Journal of Health & Physical Activity, 2015; 7(4): 15-27. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2265.1281
16.Szwarc A, Lipiñska P, Chamera M. The efficiency model of goalkeeper's actions in soccer. Baltic Journal of Health & Physical Activity, 2010; 2(2): 132-138. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10131-0013-x
17.Liu H, Gómez MA, Lago-Peñas C. Match Performance Profiles of Goalkeepers of Elite Football Teams. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 2015; 10(4): 669-682. https://doi.org/1260/1747-9541.10A669
18.Szwarc A, Jaszczur-Nowicki J, Aschenbrenner P, Zasada M, Padulo J, Lipinska P. Motion analysis of elite Polish soccer goalkeepers throughout a season. Biology of Sport, 2019; 36(4): 357-363. https://doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2019.88758
19.Taylor JB, Mellalieu SD, James N, Shearer DA. The influence of match location, quality of opposition, and match status on technical performance in professional association football. Journal of Sports Sciences, 2008; 26(9): 885-895. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/02640410701836887
20.Lago-Peñas C, Dellal A. Ball possession strategies in elite soccer according to the evolution of the match-score: the influence of situational variables. Journal of Human Kinetics, 2010; 25: 93-100. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10078-010-0036-z
21.Castellano J, Casamichana D, Lago-Peñas C. The use of match statistics that discriminate between successful and unsuccessful soccer teams. Journal of Human Kinetics, 2012; 31(1): 139-147. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10078-012-0015-7
22.Gómez MA, Reus M, Parmar N, Travossos B. Exploring elite soccer teams' performances during different match-status periods of close matches' comebacks. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 2020; 132: 109566. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.chaos.2019.109566
23.Di Salvo V, Benito PJ, Calderon FJ, Di Salvo M, Pigozzi F. Activity profile of elite goalkeepers during football matchplay. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 2008: 48(4), 443-446.
24.Sainz de Baranda P, Ortega E, Palao JM. Analysis of goalkeepers' defence in the World Cup in Korea and Japan in 2002. European Journal of Sport Science, 2008; 8(3): 127-134. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461390801919045
25.Almeida C, Ferreira AP, Volossovitch A. Effects of match location, match status and quality of opposition on regaining possession in UEFA champions league. Journal of Human Kinetics, 2014; 41(1): 203-2014. https://doi.org/10.2478/ hukin-2014-0048
26.Lago-Ballesteros J, Lago-Peñas C, Rey E. The effect of playing tactics and situational variables on achieving score-box possessions in a professional soccer team. Journal of Sports Sciences, 2012; 30(14): 1455-1461. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2012.712715
27.Bradley P, Lago-Peñas C, Rey E, Sampaio J. The influence of situational variables on ball possession in the English Premier League. JournalofSportsSciences, 2014; 32(20): 1867-1873. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2014.887850
28.Santos P, Lago-Peñas C, García-García O. The influence of situational variables on defensive positioning in professional soccer. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 2017; 17(3): 212-219. https://doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2017.1331571
2021
Information about the authors:
Andrzej Szwarc; (Corresponding author); https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1959-3902; andrzej.szwarc@awf.gda.pl; Gdansk University of Physical Education and Sport ; Kazimierza Gorskiego 1, 80-336 Gdansk, Poland.
Mateusz Oszmaniec; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4317-0478; mateuszoszman@op.pli.Town Hall of Bytow; 1 Maja 15, 77-100 Bytow, Poland.
Cite this article as:
Szwarc A, Oszmaniec M. The efficiency of action of futsal goalkeepers in game situations with varying results of competition.
Pedagogy of Physical Culture and Sports, 2021;25(2):98-107.
https://doi.org/10.15561/26649837.2021.0204
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en).
Received: 10.07.2020
Accepted: 25.08.2020; Published: 30.04.2021
