Influence of opposition team formation on physical and skill‐related performance in a professional soccer team

This study examined the influence of opposition team formation on physical and skill‐related performance in a professional soccer team. Performance in 45 French League 1 matches played over three competitive seasons (2007–2008, 2008–2009, and 2009–2010) was analysed using multi‐camera computerized tracking. Players ( n =21) in the reference team (using a 4‐3‐3/4‐5‐1 formation) were analysed in matches against three opposition team formations: 4‐4‐2 (11 games), 4‐3‐3/4‐5‐1 (16 games), and 4‐2‐3‐1 (18 games). Performance was compared for defending and midfield units as a whole and individually across four positions: full backs, central defenders, central midfielders, and wide midfielders. Collectively, players covered a greater total distance ( P <0.05) and distance in low‐ to moderate‐intensity running (0–14.3 km · h −1 ) ( P <0.05) in matches against a 4‐2‐3‐1 compared with a 4‐4‐2 formation. Distance covered in high‐intensity (14.4–19.7 km · h −1 ) and very high‐intensity running (≥19.8 km · h −1 ) was not affected by opposition formation. In contrast, players covered more distance in total high‐intensity performance (≥14.4 km · h −1 ) when the reference team was in possession against a 4‐4‐2 compared with a 4‐2‐3‐1 formation ( P <0.05), while a greater distance was run at these speeds when the reference team was not in possession against a 4‐2‐3‐1 ( P <0.01) and a 4‐3‐3 ( P <0.05) compared with a 4‐4‐2 formation. Players ran less distance at low‐to‐moderate intensities in the second‐ versus first‐half of matches against all three formations ( P <0.01 to P <0.05), whereas total distance and high‐intensity performance were unaffected. None of the measures of physical performance across the individual playing positions were affected by opposition team formation. Skill‐related performance varied according to opposition formation: players as a whole performed more passes versus a 4‐4‐2 than a 4‐2‐3‐1 formation ( P <0.01); ground and aerial duels versus a 4‐2‐3‐1 compared with a 4‐4‐2 formation (both P <0.01); one‐touch passes versus a 4‐2‐3‐1 compared with a 4‐4‐2 formation ( P <0.01) and a 4‐3‐3/4‐5‐1 formation ( P <0.05). The mean number of touches per possession was highest versus a 4‐4‐2 compared with a 4‐3‐3/4‐5‐1 ( P <0.01) and a 4‐2‐3‐1 formation ( P <0.01). While skill‐related performance across the four individual playing positions was generally unaffected by opposition team formation, mean pass length was greater for central midfielders against a 4‐4‐2 compared with a 4‐3‐3/4‐5‐1 ( P <0.05) and a 4‐2‐3‐1 formation ( P <0.01). In general, the findings suggest that physical performance in the reference team was not greatly affected by opposition team formation. In contrast, skill‐related demands varied substantially according to opponent formation and may have consequences for tactical and technical preparation and team selection policies.