Methods of performance analysis in team invasion sports: A systematic review

Felicity Lord*, David B. Pyne, Marijke Welvaert, Jocelyn K. Mara

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    63 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    The objective of this review was to systematically describe the traditional and contemporary data capture and analytic methods employed in performance analysis research in team invasion sports, evaluate the practicality of these methods, and formulate practical recommendations on methods for analysing tactics and strategies in team invasion sports. A systematic search of the databases SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, Scopus, MEDLINE and PubMed was performed. Keywords addressed performance analysis methods and team invasion sports, with all other disciplines of sports science excluded. A total of 537 articles were included in the review and six main themes of research identified. Themes included game actions, dynamic game actions, movement patterns, collective team behaviours, social network analysis and game styles. Performance analysis research has predominantly focused on identifying key performance indicators related to success by analysing differences in game actions between successful and less successful teams. However, these measures are outcome-focused and only provide limited insight into winning team’s strategy. Team invasion sports are now viewed as dynamic, complex systems with opposing teams as interacting parts. Strategies and tactics should be analysed using a holistic process-orientated approach by recording dynamic actions, collective team behaviours and passing networks, and viewing them in game styles.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)2338-2349
    Number of pages12
    JournalJournal of Sports Sciences
    Volume38
    Issue number20
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 17 Oct 2020

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Methods of performance analysis in team invasion sports: A systematic review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this