(1)Testing the Validity of a University Football Team’s Half-Time Team Talk with the Use of Videotape.         Benjamin Ro...
Contents                        Page No.             Page No.List of Tables and Figures                           3List of...
List of TablesTable 1 (p.g. 17) – Advantages and Disadvantages of the Interview MethodTable 2 (p.g. 18) – Definitions of c...
List of AppendicesTechnical Definitions employed in the Analysis (Dunn et al., 2003) – Appendix 1Laws of the Game, FIFA – ...
AcknowledgmentsI would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank the following peopleGraham Turner Constantly...
AbstractThere are many advantages of videotape feedback within a sporting context and one is to provide augmented feedback...
1.0: IntroductionIn the past two decades, there have been studies researching what and how muchcoaches perceive during a c...
studies stating coach’s cannot see everything and respond accurately to theirfindings within a period of a game (Galsworth...
subjective. What is this subjective feedback based on? Philosophy? Knowledge,background and experience in the sport? The p...
Figure 2 – Cloes et al.,           2001; p.g. 4Furthermore, the concept of this on-going project derived from a video I wa...
the sense of constructing training programs, player recruitments, motivational videos,and many more (Carling et al., 2005)...
Carling et al (p.g. 35, 2005) provides a list of some computerised match analysis         systems that are used around the...
Figure 5 - Professional FootballClub’s Staff Diagram (devised byAuthor)performance analysts and outline the roles and resp...
1.2 Previous ResearchThe first study that is related to my project was the work of Franks and Miller (1986),where they rel...
match period. They split the 8 match period into two four matches in order to seekprogression and to prove the effectivene...
All these researches are similar to my overall aim, to prove the effectiveness ofvideotape feedback and match statistics a...
The research will be primarily qualitative; transcribing the pre-interview along withthe two half-time team talks, however...
relationship with the subjects with knowledge of the project may prove behaviouralchanges and affect the validity of the r...
Advantages                                   DisadvantagesEnables the participant to talk about their      As the intervie...
Successful Dribble                        From the first touch of the player to their last                                ...
During the matches, I would have normally used scaffolding, in order to get a betterview and angle of the game. However, w...
The team’s half-time team talk only lasted 04:10 minutes, comparing to the FIFA’s15 minute regulation (see Appendix 3), it...
3.1: First Match  Looking at the first game, there were three more key points to analyse than the second game. The first p...
Another point made by the team was that they felt that the opposition only had ‘one   chance’ (see Appendix H1, p.g. 1, Li...
Along with the pitch map, I could provide a shot analysis for our team (see Figure 7),displaying which shot went where; al...
Another point raised by the team, was that we ‘passed the ball well through the  midfield’ (see Appendix H1, p.g. 2, Line ...
H1, p.g. 2, Line 7-9). He felt that the opposite player marking this certain player was not at the same calibre, and so he...
Figure 10 - Basic Pitch Map  As you can see in Figure 10, the results show that 62% of ball retention between in the middl...
As you can see from Table 7, the coach was right in that the opposition’s playerwanted to go inside, as 86% of his dribble...
their staff are experienced and qualified, where the volunteers at university may nothave the knowledge and training. Also...
players’ opinion of the first half. Of course there will be for’s and against’s toward theidea, however it is important to...
Doing this project has opened my eyes and made me aware of limitations andbarriers to overcome for future work. For exampl...
References(1) Leeds Metropolitan University Logo. (n.d.) [Online Image] Available from:<http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?img...
Carling, C., Reilly, T. and Williams, A. M. (2009). Performance Assessment forField Sports: Physiological, Psychological a...
Gratton, C. and Jones, I. (2004). Research Methods for Sport Studies. London,Routledge.Groom, R. and Cushion, C. (2004). C...
Markland, R. and Martinek, T. J. (1988). Descriptive analysis of coach augmentedfeedback given to high school varsity fema...
Taylor, J. B., Mellalieu, S. D. and James, N. (2004). Behavioural comparisons ofpositional demands in professional soccer....
AppendixAppendix 1 – Dunn et al., 2003; p.g. 42                                          38
Appendix G1Interview Questions (Semi-Structured)Coaching Pathway       Participation and Coaching – Sampled other sports?...
Appendix H2Key Points:         Had 10 shots (Objective) - 9 Shots         They had 1 chance (Objective (Subjective) – 4 ...
Their               Zone Ball         How           Players       Passes       Shot        Shot             Shot        Sh...
coming from the left, outside of the area and off target. And therefore it can provide a foundationfor feedback.Looking at...
Giving the Ball away to EasilyPassing Well through the Midfield          Leeds Met.                          Successful   ...
The diagram above shows the pass success rate in each third of the pitch. It is also a nice visual forthe players to see, ...
Appendix I2Key Points       Constant pressure even from front – 13 Ball Retentions       Unorganised in 1st ten minutes ...
Opposition’s Key FKThere would be a video highlight of the foul and the free kick. From the free kick, the oppositiondidn’...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Testing the Validity of a University Football Team’s Half-Time Team Talk with the Use of Videotape.

1,144

Published on

Dissertation

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,144
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
23
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Testing the Validity of a University Football Team’s Half-Time Team Talk with the Use of Videotape."

  1. 1. (1)Testing the Validity of a University Football Team’s Half-Time Team Talk with the Use of Videotape. Benjamin Robert Wrigglesworth Student ID: 33248922 Leeds Metropolitan University Carnegie Faculty of Sport and Education Submitted in part fulfilment of the degree of BSc (Hons) Sports Coaching
  2. 2. Contents Page No. Page No.List of Tables and Figures 3List of Appendices 4Acknowledgements 5Abstract 61.0: Introduction 7-151.1: What is Match Analysis? 10-131.2 Previous Research 14-152.0: Methodology 15-212.1: Subjects 162.2: Reliability and Validity 162.3: Procedure 17-192.4: Data Collection 19-202.5: Data Analysis 20-213.0: Results 21-283.1: First Match 21-263.2: Second Match 26-284.0: Discussion 28-295.0: Conclusion 29-305.1: Limitations 305.2: Future Research 306.0: Personal Reflection 30-31References 32-36 Word Count:6,272 2
  3. 3. List of TablesTable 1 (p.g. 17) – Advantages and Disadvantages of the Interview MethodTable 2 (p.g. 18) – Definitions of certain Football TechniquesTable 3 (p.g. 22) – Breakdown of Our Shots (Match 1)Table 4 (p.g. 23) – Breakdown of the Opposition’s Shots (Match 1)Table 5 (p.g. 25) – Breakdown of Our Passes (Match 1)Table 6 (p.g. 26) – Our Player’s Dribble SuccessTable 7 (p.g. 27) – Opposition’s Player Dribble Analysis (Match 2)List of FiguresFigure 1 (p.g. 8) – Coaching Process Model (Franks, 2004).Figure 2 (p.g. 10) – Three steps model of coaches’ decision making related totactics (Cloes et al., 2001).Figure 3 (p.g. 11) – The major factors to take into account when purchasing acomputerised match analysis system (Carling et al., 2005).Figure 4 (p.g. 12) – Some of the video and computerised soccer match analysissystems currently on the market (Carling et al., 2005).Figure 5 (p.g. 13) – Professional Football Club’s Staff Diagram (devised by Author)Figure 6 (p.g. 23) – Pitch Map, Analysis of Shots (Adapted by Author)Figure 7 (p.g. 24) – Shot Analysis of our Team (Created by Author)Figure 8 (p.g. 24) – Key of the Pitch Map and Shot Analysis (Created by Author)Figure 9 (p.g. 25) – Basic Pitch Map, showing the three zones (created by Author)Figure 10 (p.g. 27) – Pitch Map showing Ball Retention (Match 2) 3
  4. 4. List of AppendicesTechnical Definitions employed in the Analysis (Dunn et al., 2003) – Appendix 1Laws of the Game, FIFA – Appendix 2Risk Assessment Summary Form – Appendix AResources for Data Collection Summary Form – Appendix BResearch Project Ethics Form – Appendix CProgress Forms – Appendix D1-6Coach’s Information Sheet – Appendix E1Consent Form for the Coach – Appendix E2Participants’ Information Sheet – Appendix F1Consent Form for the Participants – Appendix F2Interview Topics and Questions – Appendix G1Pre-Project Coach Interview Transcript – Appendix G2First Match Half Time Team Talk Transcript – Appendix H1First Match Analysis and Results – Appendix H2Second Match Half Time Team Talk Transcript – Appendix I1Second Match Analysis and Results – Appendix I2 4
  5. 5. AcknowledgmentsI would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank the following peopleGraham Turner Constantly challenging and supporting me, always getting the best out of me and reminding me to strive for excellence. Thank You.Participants I would like to thank the team and the coach to allow me to film their matches and supporting me throughout my workMatt Round and Tom Stratful Helping me film the matches, making the data collection fun, having some great banter. Thanks guys.My FamilyConstant support from them, always wanting the best out of me and putting me first. Thank you. 5
  6. 6. AbstractThere are many advantages of videotape feedback within a sporting context and one is to provide augmented feedback. The purpose of the current investigation was tostudy the validity of a football team’s half-time team talk. This investigation is an on- going project, exploring different aspects of the half-time team talks from different perspectives, all with a final aim to find the effectiveness of videotape feedback at half-time. This current piece is focused on the coach of a university football Men’s team and it was monitored over two matches (one home and one away).The team talks were recorded and cross-referenced with the match footage. The resultsshowed that the validity of the team’s half-time talks were not significantly different tothe footage of the matches, however the role of the performance analyst can provide further information for the manager and impact the coaching process model. As a result, it suggests further research is needed in this area to prove the effectiveness of video tape feedback at half-time.Key Words: Videotape, Feedback, Validity, Football, Performance Analyst,Coaching Process Model 6
  7. 7. 1.0: IntroductionIn the past two decades, there have been studies researching what and how muchcoaches perceive during a competitive match across different sports and howvideotape is used to either match these decisions or aid them for further feedback(Ice-Hockey, Gilbert et al., 1999; Netball, Jenkins et al. 2007; Basketball andVolleyball, Cloes et al., 2001; Squash, Murray et al., 1998). This project is looking ata university football team’s half-time team talk during two competitive footballmatches and seeking its validity.Performance analysis has come a long way in the past few decades (Hughes andFranks, 2004; Carling et al., 2005), from the hand notation to the computerisedsystems. The purpose of performance analysis in a coaching context is to provideaugmented feedback to players (Hodges and Franks, 2004). Performance analysistoday predominately uses the source of video, which has the advantages ofplayback, slow-motion and editing the footage (Carling et al., 2005; Jenkins et al.,2007; Hughes and Franks, 2004). Within the use of video, people can use it forvarious of reasons; such as injury prevention, motivational videos, referee decisionsand media-use (Carling et al., 2005). However this piece is focusing on videotapefeedback within football solely, and James (2006) stated that in football, video-basedperformance analysis is so established that most, if not all professional teams usethis form of analysis (Groom et al., 2011).There are coaches who are sceptical of the process of using video analysis fornumerous of reasons; decrease in performance after viewing the video (for earlylearners: Ross et al., 1985), little evidence in proving the effectiveness of videotapefeedback (Rothstein and Arnold, 1976) and distracting for players prior toperformance (Jenkins et al., 2007). Also the fact that there has been success prior totechnology being introduced is a factor coaches will stick by (Liebermann andFranks, 2004), along with people not being I.T literate (Carling et al., 2005).Nevertheless today it is evident that performance analysis is becoming moreapparent and beneficial (Jenkins et al., 2007), with introductions of different systemsthat are able to provide statistical data and videotape evidence of the match. Ofcourse it comes with their limitations, involving; costs, training, logistics and I.Treliability. (Carling et al., 2005; Bartlett, 2001). The use of video analysis supports 7
  8. 8. studies stating coach’s cannot see everything and respond accurately to theirfindings within a period of a game (Galsworthy, 1990; Franks and Miller, 1986, 1991;Franks, 2004). As a result in today’s game, the role of the performance analyst hasbecome more established and providing the services and tools for the manager todecide upon.One of the main reasons I feel that performance analysis is becoming moreapparent within football and other sports, is the recall memory of the coach and thevalidity of that feedback. There have numerous of studies that seek the recall of acoach during a competitive match (Netball, Jenkins et al., 2007; Football, Franks andMiller, 1991; Laird and Waters, 2008) Without objective feedback, the coach willresort to his subjective observations and in turn may not be able to recall eventsreliably (Franks and Miller, 1986; Franks and McGarry, 1996). Franks et al (1983a)stated that more objective the feedback, the greater the effect it has on performance.Therefore as the performance analyst, I need to ensure this is the case, whilst alsoremembering that it is only a tool and that the manager will have the final say. Figure 1- Coaching Process ModelFranks (2004) proposed how performance analysis now fits into the coachingprocess model (see Figure 1). This is a small part of a big picture in howperformance analysis is becoming a norm within the coaching process (Franks,2004; Maslovat and Franks, 2008; Carling et al., 2005 (p.g. 10), 2009; Jenkins et al.,2007). The role of the coach is to provide information to their players (Jenkins et al.,2007; Markland and Martinek, 1988); however the information they provide is 8
  9. 9. subjective. What is this subjective feedback based on? Philosophy? Knowledge,background and experience in the sport? The philosophy of the coach plays a majorfactor in the role of the coach (Cassidy et al., 2004; Lyle, 2002). And this links withthe scepticism of video analysis, is it needed? Does it benefit the team? This projectis not looking to change the participant’s philosophy about video analysis, it is tounderstand what a coach and team views in a match and where these views haveoriginated from. The results can then be fed back to the coach, and he can choose touse it or not.This research project is solely a case study to gain an insight, as I have an aspirationto become a performance analyst within professional football, and so to understandwhat the coach looks out for and does with the objective, video information isinteresting and beneficial. The related, previous literature is all based within elitesports and as I stated that is where I want to work within. This suggests a lack ofresearch within different levels of sport; amateur, university, semi-professional. Cloeset al (p.g. 4, 2001) proposed a model displaying the coach’s thinking process; pre-,during and post-match (see Figure 2). Therefore this is not an intervention, such ashow could he improve his retention through observation training, as there has beenresearch on this with minimal success (Franks and Miller, 1991). However the resultsand information will be provided to the coach as a feedback source and therefore atool that they can then use. 9
  10. 10. Figure 2 – Cloes et al., 2001; p.g. 4Furthermore, the concept of this on-going project derived from a video I watched onthe internet. It looked at what a performance analysis department of an elite footballclub did on a match day (Manchester City, 2011). They have the resources andtherefore are able to have more than one analyst. With this they showed how theylive coded a match and was then able to provide video highlights and stats to themanager and coaches at half-time, which can then back up their originalinterpretation of the first half and decide upon whether to show the team.1.1: What is Match Analysis?O’Donoghue (2006) stated that the purpose of match analysis is to provideaugmented feedback to players. There are many forms of match analysis, whichprovide quantitative and qualitative feedback to the performers and coaching staff.The primary purpose of this is to improve performance, however it is very versatile in 10
  11. 11. the sense of constructing training programs, player recruitments, motivational videos,and many more (Carling et al., 2005). Video-based performance analysis is seen asan important tool to provide feedback with an aim of modifying athletes’ behaviourand improve their understanding (Court, 2004; Groom and Cushion, 2004).Thelwell (2005) stated that football uses match analysis primarily to form the basisof weekly training programmes. However, I personally feel performance analysis isexpanding in football and many other sports and can be used other many areas,such as; coaching, fitness, injuries and so it is up to the club how they organise itwithin their structure and more to the point how the performance analyst offers theirservices. Not just providing the match statistics and video highlights, but going intofurther depth in order to show the value of the analyst.Figure 3 outlines major factors with computerised match analysis systems (Carling etal., 2005; p.g. 55). Therefore acknowledging these factors, as the performanceanalyst I would need to overcome and minimise these. Figure 3 – Carling et al, 2005: p.g. 55 11
  12. 12. Carling et al (p.g. 35, 2005) provides a list of some computerised match analysis systems that are used around the world (see Figure 4). Going back to Figure 3, many of the restrictions clubs have to accessing these systems is price (Carling et al., 2005), in that they are very expensive. In this study, I was fortunate to access two of these programs the university had, focusing on one for the data collection and analysis.Figure 4 –Carling et al.,2005: p.g. 35 Figure 5 is an example I designed from my experience as an intern within a professional football club. It outlines who is who and who answers to whom. It provides an insight in how a club can be run and inevitable it is independent to that club as others may have the performance analyst interacting with the fitness and physio departments. A website I check regularly for opportunities within the profession is ‘videoanalyst.com’, they allow clubs to advertise positions, specifically 12
  13. 13. Figure 5 - Professional FootballClub’s Staff Diagram (devised byAuthor)performance analysts and outline the roles and responsibilities and who they workfor within their club. There will be some clubs who feel that the performance analystis within the sport science department, so to refer to Figure 4, the arrow would bepointing from the analyst to the sport scientist and then to the manager. Otherexamples I have seen are within the coaching setting, the fitness department (i.e.strength and conditioning) and even their own department, as I stated before it isbecoming more renowned.Groom et al (2011) looked at what England national team youth football coaches didwith match analysis and why. They stated how video-based performance analysisfitted into the coaching process model presented by Lyle (2002). The coaches saidthat they used the video tape for specific incidents within certain matches, positionspecific. However, the most interesting finding was the players’ reaction towards thevideo. One quote within the piece (p.g. 24) was;‘I didn’t enjoy being singled out in front of 18 people, because you can see I’ve made a mistake, it’s obvious I’ve made a mistake, and the coaches turned it into, ‘that’s your fault’. What I wanted him to do was help me correct the mistake; ‘what did I do wrong?’ I feel this quote is great advert for the use of video-based match analysis, as theplayer wants to know what he did wrong, and the video can show that, but it comesdown to the coach and their philosophy that affects the effect (Groom et al., 2011). 13
  14. 14. 1.2 Previous ResearchThe first study that is related to my project was the work of Franks and Miller (1986),where they related sport to crime scene investigations and looked at coaches’observation and recall abilities. They examined 30 novice coaches with limitedfootball experience and assigned them to three groups. Each group would watch thesame 45 minute period of an international football match; however each group wouldbe given definitions of the game in different ways. So one group would have it beforethe game, where another would have it after. After that process was carried out, theywould then have to answer a 30 question questionnaire related to the match. Theresults showed that were no significant difference across the groups and that theoverall observational accuracy was only 42%. But looking at each category of thequestionnaire it was split into, the coaches recalled set-pieces the best with a score71%.After this study, Franks and Miller (1991) went onto look specifically at football andsee how much a football coach can recall during a 30 minute period of aninternational football match and then implement a training programme to seekimprovement. They had an aim of devising an observational training programme inorder to improve coaches’ recall ability. Their method was similar to their previousstudy (1986) but with different subjects. This time they used 28 males and 8 femalefootball qualified coaches. They used the three groups and questionnaire methodfrom their 1986 project, but they only watched 30 minutes of an international footballmatch. The results from this showed that the ability of the coaches to remember keyevents during the match were extremely limited. And so overall, even though thecoaches were incapable of remembering more than 40% of relevant information, thesubjects in the experimental group (the ones who underwent the trainingprogramme) improved their ability to recall all events that surrounded the ‘taking ofshots’. This gives an impression that an observational training programme could beimplemented in order to improve coaches recall ability, however the use of videotape feedback could replace this.Another related piece but in a different sport (Netball, Jenkins et al., 2007) looked atthe effectiveness of computerised match analysis and motivational videos. Theyprovided quantitative match statistics and video highlights to the coach over an 8 14
  15. 15. match period. They split the 8 match period into two four matches in order to seekprogression and to prove the effectiveness of the analysis process. They looked atfitting the analysis process into the coaching process model. They stated that therewas no really improvement in performance, but stated it as a limitation and noted itfor future research to increase the period of matches. As for their findings from themotivational videos prior to the match for the players were distracting and madethem over think. Therefore I feel it comes down to knowing your athletes and theirlearning styles and routines. This is because in another case of pre-matchmotivational videos it worked, as FC Barcelona in the 2009 UEFA ChampionsLeague Final in Rome (p.g. 121-122, Hunter, 2012). The manager of the teamshowed a video of their road to the final and related it to the movie ‘The Gladiator’. ASpanish newspaper stated how the players were ‘crying and their shouts indicatedthat the aim had been achieved’ (El Pais, 2009).In Murray et al’s work (1998), they looked at both elite and sub-elite and focused onquantitative feedback and the influence of it on the players. They based it on Brownand Hughes’ work (1995), with junior squash players and the effects of bothquantitative and qualitative feedback. The findings in that study showed that therewas no change in the overall group, only one player showed a slight improvement.They wanted the squash players to produce more total winners and decrease theirtotal errors. They recorded it over four matches and found that the sub-elite playersshowed a greater improvement in the specific shot types and that the elite playersonly displayed a slight increase in performance. I feel this study is the most relevantto mine, in that it is not just looking at elite level and it was recorded over a smallperiod, four matches.Going back to football, Laird and Waters (2008) used Franks and Millers (1986)Eyewitness Recollection work as a basis for their research and assessedexperienced, qualified football coaches to recollect critical events from a 45 minutesof a football match. However, they were allowed to take notes during the videobefore answering the questionnaire. The results showed that the probability ofqualified, experienced football coaches recalling critical events accurately is 59.2%(SD ± 15.3) therefore being 17.2% greater than the novice coaches from the Franksand Miller study (1986). Concluding that qualified coaches who have a greaterfamiliarity with the sport have a greater recall accuracy. 15
  16. 16. All these researches are similar to my overall aim, to prove the effectiveness ofvideotape feedback and match statistics at half-time as a source of feedback. Theprevious researches are looking at the coaches’ ability to recall during a half of amatch in order to develop their feedback to the players during the break. This pieceis a foundation of an on-going project to reach that aim. As stated prior, this part islooking at what coaches do and say in their team talks. As it is an independent study,I have only been able to do it with one coach and one team at a university level,therefore in order to improve the reliability; I can return and sample more coaches,maybe at different levels over more games.All these researches are similar to my overall aim, to prove the effectiveness ofvideotape feedback and match statistics at half-time as a source of feedback. Theprevious researches are looking at the coaches’ ability to recall during a half of amatch in order to develop their feedback to the players during the break. This pieceis a foundation of an on-going project to reach that aim. As stated prior, this part islooking at what coaches do and say in their team talks. As it is an independent study,I have only been able to do it with one coach and one team at a university level,therefore in order to improve the reliability; I can return and sample more coaches,maybe at different levels over more games.2.0: MethodThis research project is set in a case-study manner as the definition stated byGratton and Jones (2004) involves a study of a specific case. That case being asports team; a men’s university football team. Gratton and Jones (p.g. 97, 2004)stated that the use of the case study design is based upon the argument thatunderstanding human activity requires analysis of both its development over timeand the context within which the activity occurs. The overall aim in gaining theholistic understanding of a set of issues, that being what is included in a universityfootball half-time team talk? Why I have chosen to use a case study design, Yin(1994) provided three instances in the reasoning of using a case-study method.From the three instances I felt the final two applied to this study; ‘to be able todescribe and explain a unique situation’ and ‘to describe and explain a case that hasyet to be studied in any detail.’ As looking through the previous research, they arefocusing more within elite sports with different methods. 16
  17. 17. The research will be primarily qualitative; transcribing the pre-interview along withthe two half-time team talks, however there will be some quantitative results in termsof match statistics. Nau (1995, In: Gratton and Jones, 2004; p.p. 25) suggested that‘blending qualitative and quantitative methods of research can produce a finalproduct which can highlight the significant contributions of both’. Therefore thequalitative data can support the quantitative research.Reading these relevant literatures has provided me with a platform and ideas for howto approach it. With Franks and Miller’s (1986, 1991) and Laird and Waters (2008),they did theirs over a period of a match, which is the route I decided to use, as I wantto know what is said in a half time talk and whether it is valid, it will be about the firsthalf, lasting 45 minutes. However they used questionnaires to data collect, where Idecided to use videotape and attempt to cross-reference the key themes from theteam talk with the video of the first half. Inevitably subjectivity comes in, and that iswhy further research is needed in this idea, however it does provide a basic pictureof the validity of a half-time team talk.All of these had similar outcomes in that they wanted to seek a coach’s recall abilityand prove the effectiveness and usefulness of videotape feedback. Therefore thispart of the on-going study is focusing on a sole member, and the idea of it is to seekwhether videotape feedback is needed within a sporting context?2.1: SubjectsThe participant was a university Men’s football team, with one manager and a squadof 14 players. Usually within an university setting, the squads are inconsistent andchange quite a lot within the other teams, however the two matches recorded wereback to back and fortunately the squad was the same. The players are numberedPlayer 1 to Player 9 in both matches, and this indicates that five of the 14 players donot interact within the team talk, attributing maybe to social groups and hierarchy.Something I can feed back to the coach to consider. As for the manager, he islabelled Coach.2.2: Reliability and ValidityGratton and Jones (p.g. 104, 2004) noted mistakes in selecting a sample and someapply to this and are reasons for future research in this on-going project. A previous 17
  18. 18. relationship with the subjects with knowledge of the project may prove behaviouralchanges and affect the validity of the results.However as it is an independent research project with a view of future research,recognising the limitations, I will be able to overcome the barriers when I return.2.3: ProcedurePrior to the data collection, I wanted to know the coach’s philosophy towards half-time team talks and perceptions to video tape feedback. I asked him what he wouldtypically do at his half-time team talk and replied: ‘…at the break I would always first ask the players how they thought they’d done.’ (see Appendix G2, p.g. 10, Line 12)So straight away you can see he gives the players responsibility to reflect the firsthalf. And from this within my data collection I would pick out key, critical incidentsfrom both the players and the coach. This study is focused on the first half of thematch and what is said at the half-time team talk. However wanted to know what hedid at the end of the match, whether he provided feedback or just if he just let thematch end and to move one, he answered: ‘I’ve got to say I’m not much into discussing and feedback after games.’ (see Appendix G2, p.g. 12, Line 6)The interview was set in a semi-structured manner, with the topics emailed to himprior to the interview (see Appendix G1). I decided to use a semi-structuredtechnique as it allows flexibility and further follow up questions that may not havebeen originally planned (Gratton and Jones, 2004; p.g.141). The pre-interview wasset face to face with a table in the middle and lasted for 41 minutes.Gratton and Jones (p.g. 142, 2004) provided advantages and disadvantages ofusing the interview methods. Here below is a table of advantages and disadvantagesof the interview method (see Table 1); 18
  19. 19. Advantages DisadvantagesEnables the participant to talk about their As the interviewer, I may add bias own experiences in their own words. unconsciously, such as encouraging answers that I may want. A face to face interview allows you to This can also work in the other way, in assess the participant’s body language, that the interviewee wants to ‘look good’ facial expressions, one of voice, etc. and give the right answer, instead of a which may be useful in some cases. true answer. Interviews allow unexpected data to The quality of the data is dependent on emerge. the responses of the interviewee.Table 1Knowing his philosophy and method towards half-time team talks, it provides me anindication of how it will run for when I am analysing the data. Also within thisinterview, we would have generally meetings during training, giving me anopportunity to agree upon certain terms, such as a cross, a dribble and so forth.From this we also agreed what is successful and not, which provides a limitation aswith other samples they may find something we feel is successful as beingunsuccessful. We based the definitions on Dunn et al (2003) (see Appendix 2),Tenga (p.g. 41-46, 2009) and Taylor et al (2004) and adapted them to our agreedversions. Here are the basic definitions we concluded (see Table 2): Successful Shot A shot that is on target, resulting in either a goal or a save from the opposition’s goalkeeper. Unsuccessful Shot A shot that is off target, resulting in a change of possession. Successful Pass A pass made from one player to another player, resulting in retained possession. Unsuccessful Pass A pass that either does not reach the player due to; technique, power and/or direction or the receiving player having a poor ball control, all resulting in a change of possession. Successful Cross Referring to the pitch map (Figure 6), zone 1 and 3 (flanks), a delivery from one player reaching another player. Subjectivity comes into this and an unsuccessful cross, as me and the coach felt if the delivery is good and it was the fault of the player’s positioning and the off the ball movement, then the player who played the cross was not at fault. Unsuccessful Cross A cross made from zones 1 and 3 (Figure 6) that is of a poor quality, such as; going out of play, overhitting or underhitting it. 19
  20. 20. Successful Dribble From the first touch of the player to their last resulting in retained possession or an end product, such as; a pass to another teammate, a shot, a cross, winning a foul. Unsuccessful Dribble Same as above, however resulting in a change of possession, such as; being tackled, dribbling out of play, unsuccessful pass or cross as the end product.Table 2 – Definitions of certain Football SkillsAs for recording the half-time team talk, both of them took place on the side of thefield, not in the changing rooms. I used a standard Dictaphone and stood near thegroup as they spoke. Referring back to Table 2, the quality of the data is dependenton the responses and from the two matches they varied in quantity2.4: Data CollectionAs stated previously the study was conducted over two matches, one being homeand the next match followed the week after which was away. Does the matchlocation influence the performance? Home advantage? (Taylor et al., 2008)something I have considered as future research. This again relates to the coachknowing his athletes, in terms of what he is going to say at half-time. The players willall have different mental states depending on the match status, the score, beinghome or away and many more factors. As a result, the coach will need to becautious of what feedback to provide.When video recording the two matches, I used a video camera that had internalmemory and recorded it at a standard quality. This was due to the high quality notbeing able to record the full match. There were two match analysis systems I had theavailability to use within university; Dartfish and Gamebreaker (see Figure 4).Dartfish was used on a Windows computer, whereas Gamebreaker was onlycompatible with an Apple MacBook. Prior to the data collection, I tested differentcameras and the two systems to seek which was the best in both productivity andquality. Even though I preferred using Gamebreaker, the software was onlycompatible with video cameras that used DV Tapes that were highly unreliable andthe quality was poor. As a result, I used the video camera with internal memory andafter the game I was able to plug it up to a computer that had Dartfish installed anddownload the game. 20
  21. 21. During the matches, I would have normally used scaffolding, in order to get a betterview and angle of the game. However, with the change in management, I wasunable to get scaffolding and as a result I had to record it from pitch level, using thetripod at its highest point. The first game was at the opposition’s pitch, and it wasplayed on artificial surface, 3G. The second match was the week after and wasplayed at our home pitch which was on grass. Whilst videoing the game, I wouldprimarily follow the ball action, which led to restrictions of the ball, for example if wewere attacking and in the half-time team talk, the team states how we werepositioned well or bad at the back, there would not be any footage to back it up orcontradict it. Also, whilst being on internships with a professional football team,working with a professional performance analyst, they provided me with an insight inwhat they would focus on, for example with a corner, they would zoom in on thepenalty area, instead of getting the whole picture.2.5: Data AnalysisThe data were analysed manually from transcribing the half-time team talks, tocross-referencing the critical points that arose to the videotape of the first half. As itis done manually, the data and results are subjective and therefore may be invalid;however there were agreed definitions with the coach.The first game, as stated before, took place at the opposition’s pitch. Aftertranscribing the half-time team talk, I picked out eight critical points to find within thefirst half period (see Appendix H1, p.g. 3, Line 7). The five critical points are asfollowed:  Had 10 shots  They had 1 chance  Passed it well through midfield  Pressed them well  Gave the ball away to cheaply  Scored in the last 10  Opposition formation uncertainty  WM doing tricks and when should be easily taking him on without using tricks, but pace. 21
  22. 22. The team’s half-time team talk only lasted 04:10 minutes, comparing to the FIFA’s15 minute regulation (see Appendix 3), it was an interesting observation, that theyused so little time.As for the second match, it took place at our home pitch a week after the first match.In this team talk, there were less content and critical points to analyse. The team talkonly lasted 03:23, so again a short period compared to the regulated time period.There were eight points I picked out of the team talk (see Appendix I1, p.g. 2, Line11), here as followed:  Constant pressure even from front  Unorganised in 1st ten minutes?  Their 32 (best player?) wants to cut inside  Winning a lot in midfield  Gave away a key FK to themThere were more to find in the first than the second, showing that there is no realpattern in terms of their team talks, however to improve the reliability, I would need todo more than two games. It is also dependent on the philosophy of the coach, asanother coach may want to take the lead and so the content and duration wouldvary. Furthermore, the match status and score as well needs to be taken intoconsideration. In these two games, our team was leading in both at the end of thefirst half. However, would the content and duration change if they were losing?(Taylor et al., 2008).Once I transcribed the two team talks and analysed them I would go through the firsthalf of both games, twice, in order to improve the validity and match up or notate theincidents stated at the half time team talk and seek the legitimacy of their words. Asstated prior, subjectivity comes into it, as I may deem a successful shot differently tosomeone else, however using the literature’s definitions (Dunn et al., 2003; Tenga,2009; Taylor et al., 2004), and agreeing upon them with the coach allows for morestability and inevitably it is unique with this coach and team.3.0: ResultsAs you can see in the Data Analysis (see Section 2.5), there were eight criticalpoints in the first game and five in the second. 22
  23. 23. 3.1: First Match Looking at the first game, there were three more key points to analyse than the second game. The first point was that we had ten shots, stated by one of the players (see Appendix H1, p.g. 1, Line 1). As a result, I went through the game and evidenced every shot our team took, by taking a screen shot of each one (see Appendix H1, p.g. 1-3). We actually had nine shots, not the ten that one of the players thought we had. However, as I want to prove the effectiveness of videotape analysis and match statistics, correcting a player’s guess and only by one, is not proving its worth. Therefore, I broke down each shot, such as;  On/Off Target  Inside/Outside the Penalty Area  The build-up towards the shots o Where and How we retained it o How many players were involved o How many passes took place Once I had the results of each individual shot (see Table 3) I then made it look more presentable for the manager, and potentially the players, by putting the data onto a pitch map. The pitch map was adapted by me from an internship I had within a performance analysis company (see Figure 6). Our Zone Ball How Players Passes Shot Shot Shot Shots Retention Retained Involved Zone Location Outcome 1 D2 Loose 3 2 B1 BR On Target - Ball Goal 2 E11 Throw 5 6 D2 Left Off Target 3 D2 FK 1 0 D2 TR On Target - Save 4 E22 Loose 5 4 D1 Left Off Target Ball 5 E22 Loose 1 0 D1 Over Off Target Ball 6 E13 Tackle 5 3 B2 Blocked Blocked 7 D3 Loose 2 1 D2 Over Off Target Ball 8 E12 Loose 6 8 C2 Over Off Target Ball 9 I2 GK 5 9 B2 MR On Target - GoalTable 3 – Breakdown of Our Shots 23
  24. 24. Another point made by the team was that they felt that the opposition only had ‘one chance’ (see Appendix H1, p.g. 1, Line 24). Therefore, I went through the same process as with my team for the opposition (see Table 4). And input their data along with our data onto the pitch map (see Figure 6). Looking at Table 4, you can see that they had more than ‘one chance’ and using the Figure 6, shows the coach and the team where and how they had them, in order to counter it. Their Zone Ball How Players Passes Shot Shot Shot Shots Retention Retained Involved Zone Location Outcome 1 D3 Throw 3 2 D3 BL On Target – Save 2 A2 Loose 1 0 A2 BL On Target – Ball Save 3 A3 CK 3 2 A2 Over Off Target 4 E22 Loose 6 6 B2 Left Off Target Ball Table 4 – Breakdown of Opposition Shots A B C D F G H I 3 7 Opp. 6 4 Opp. 2 9 2 3 Opp. 2 3 Opp. 8 1 1 5 4 1 E1 E2Figure 6 – Pitch Map of both teams’ shots 24
  25. 25. Along with the pitch map, I could provide a shot analysis for our team (see Figure 7),displaying which shot went where; all being referenced with a key (see Figure 8).Figure 7 – Our Team’s Shot Analysis Figure 8 – Key for the Pitch Map and Shot Analysis So in conclusion of the shots of both teams, it was evident looking at the pitch mapthat 0.56 of our shots were from outside the area and on the left side of the field.Also 0.67 of the shots were off target, so even though we had a lot of shots, we werenot clinical with them. This is highlighted through the use of performance analysisand videotape, which can then aid the coaching process for training and futurematches (Bishop, n.d.; Thelwell, 2005). 25
  26. 26. Another point raised by the team, was that we ‘passed the ball well through the midfield’ (see Appendix H1, p.g. 2, Line 1-2). Therefore, I would do a notation of all our passes, open play (see Table 6) and split them into three zones of the pitch; Defensive, Middle and Attacking. Looking at Table 5, you can see how many passes our team make, and a breakdown within each zone. Leeds Met. Successful Unsuccessful All 129 39 Defensive 3rd Pass 19 6 Middle 3rd Pass 70 20 Attacking 3rd Pass 40 13Table 5 – Breakdown of our Passes As you can see in Table 5, 54% of all the passes were from the Middle third, 77.7% of the Middle third passes proving successful. To make it look more presentable, I can insert the data onto a pitch map (see Figure 9). Figure 9 – Breakdown of Our Passing Success An interesting point was brought up by the coach to a certain individual on the team, in that he was not being as confident as the coach knew he could be (see Appendix 26
  27. 27. H1, p.g. 2, Line 7-9). He felt that the opposite player marking this certain player was not at the same calibre, and so he should be able to take the ball past him more than he did in the first half (see Appendix H1, p.g. 2, Line 11-12). This is a great opportunity to take the individual to the side and show all the dribbles he did and to focus on the opposition’s body shape and technique in tackling, in order to counter in the second half. I notated every dribble this player, whether they were successful or not (see Table 2, p.g. 20) and the results showed that the player dribbled the ball successful 50% of the time (see Table 6). Player Successful Unsuccessful Dribbles 5 5Table 6 – Breakdown of our Player’s Dribbling Success Another point that arose from the team talk in the first match was that we closed down well (see Appendix H1, p.g. 1, Line 16). A great way to prove the effectiveness of videotape replay, would be to show clips of our team doubling, even tripling up on the player on the ball, leading them into making a mistake. 3.2: Second Match As for the second game, they stated how they closed down the opposition’s defenders (see Appendix I1, p.g. 1, Line 8). Another one of the critical points was regaining possession a lot in the midfield (see Appendix I1, p.g. 1, Line 27), so there was a theme of the team working hard, and as I result I combined these two together and notated every time one of our players won the ball in the middle and final third of the field. I created a simple pitch map that was equally divided into three zones (see Figure 10). 27
  28. 28. Figure 10 - Basic Pitch Map As you can see in Figure 10, the results show that 62% of ball retention between in the middle and final third took place in the middle. As a result, relating that to Player 8 stating, ‘You three are winning a lot in midfield, well done…’ (see Appendix I1, p.g. 1, Line 27) Therefore, I can provide the manager with the numbers and he can then decide whether to use them or not. The next point was that we were unorganised in the first ten minutes of the match (see Appendix I1, p.g. 1, Line 9) and after viewing the match, from a personal view, I did not feel that this was a case. Consequently, I could provide video highlights of our shape within the first ten minutes. One of the main critical points from the second game was the team and coach picking up on a certain opposition player (see Appendix I1, p.g. 1, Line 12-16) and stating how to counter him. The coach stated how the player wanted to ‘go inside’ (see Appendix I1, p.g. 1, Line 13) and therefore I notated how many times the player either went inside or outside on the flank. Goes Inside 6 Goes Outside 1Table 7 – Opposition Player’s Dribble Outcome 28
  29. 29. As you can see from Table 7, the coach was right in that the opposition’s playerwanted to go inside, as 86% of his dribbles resulted with the player going inside.The final point of the second match, was giving away a key free kick (see AppendixI1, p.g. 1-2, Line 31, 32, 1-3). In terms of presenting this as result, was only toprovide it as a video. As you can see in the transcript, one of the players asks,‘When was that’, (see Appendix I1, p.g. 2, Line 1). Therefore, uncertainty took place,and with the access to video replay, I could present it to them.4.0: DiscussionWhen I first went through the two first-halves and matched up the video to thecritical points. The results were fairly accurate to the teams’ recall and so not reallyproving the effectiveness of videotape analysis and match statistics. For example, inthe game, when one of the players stated that ‘we must have had about then shotsthere’ (see Appendix H1, p.g. 1, Line 15) and the results showed that they actuallyonly had nine, does not prove the effectiveness of the video analysis. As a result,you can see in the Results section (see 3.0), that I then went into further analysis,using the tool of the videotape and DartFish. Consequently, I can then provide this tothe coach, who can decide whether to use the feedback during the team-talk, alsohas the opportunity to use it after in training (Bishop, n.d.; Thelwell, 2005). As aresult, this shows some sign of effectiveness with videotape analysis.Looking at what is deemed successful or not is a subjective decision as statedbefore, me and the coach agreed upon definitions from the literature (Table 2, p.g.20) and he trusted me when analysing the matches.It is easy to say that live coding is clicking what you see, however it is very complexprocess in which you need to be familiar with the product and lots of practice isneeded. Creating your own tagging panel that suits your own needs is imperative, inorder to know where everything is and so when that action occurs in the match, youcan code it as close to action as possible. Looking back at the Manchester City video(2011), they have the resources of having multiple members of staff, who can focuson different areas of the match, one for the team, another on the opposition, anotheron set-pieces and so forth. As for this project is based on university level, it wouldnot be difficult to have multiple people to volunteer and to be assigned to differentareas, however, the differences between this and Manchester City would be that 29
  30. 30. their staff are experienced and qualified, where the volunteers at university may nothave the knowledge and training. Also the software for live coding is expensive andtherefore another limitation.Having the clips, whether they can be provided at half time or after the game can bemotivational for the players (Jenkins et al., 2007). However in their piece, they statedhow it can be distracting for the players if played prior to the game, and as a resultcould have similar implications at half time, prior to the second half. Nevertheless, Ifeel it comes down to the player and therefore as the manager knowing yourathletes. Some players may enjoy seeing themselves, where others may feelintimidated and be under the ‘Big Brother Effect’.The aim of this project was to not to test the team’s recall ability, but to seek whatthey say in a half-time tea talk and whether videotape analysis and match statisticscan be provided as a tool to the coach. Inevitably, each half-time team talk isdifferent, but examples in this project, such as breaking down the shots and passesand presenting them on pitch maps, show how the performance analysis can beused.5.0 ConclusionThis small study is part of a big picture. I wanted to know what was included within atypical team talk and whether the feedback was valid to the videotape. Initially, I waslooking if the team were valid in their observations, however when the results didn’tshow significant findings, I felt it was necessary to show how performance analysis isused and how it can be an effective tool for the coach to use in his/her half-time teamtalk.There are many factors to consider prior to a match and during, such as; thelocation, the opposition, the status of the match, the score and even the weather(Taylor et al, 2008). As a result, I return to the coach needing know each individual inthe team and their learning styles. If the team are losing, should he provide longvideo highlights of why they are doing badly? Again, that comes down to the coach’sphilosophy.Overall, this is an on-going project to seek whether videotape feedback along withstats can be effective at half-time in providing validity to the manager and the 30
  31. 31. players’ opinion of the first half. Of course there will be for’s and against’s toward theidea, however it is important to remember that it is a tool and therefore it is notmandatory to use it. Consequently, it is the manager’s decision and therefore as theanalyst, I would need to ensure that the information is there for the coaches and theplayers, if needed.5.1 LimitationsMany of the limitations were mentioned throughout this report;  Subjective Analysis of the Videotape  Change in Management, affecting the playing style  Participants’ knowledge of the project, affecting their behaviour  Different team-talks with different coaches and teams5.2 Future ResearchAs this was a basic individual case study, the need for further research is a given.  Increasing the sample size – vary in philosophies  More matches - increase reliability  Players’ perspective similar to Jenkins et al’s work (2007)  Vary the level of the teams  Actually carrying out the experiment of live coding and providing video highlights and match statistics to the team at half-time6.0: Personal ReflectionThroughout my time with this research project I have been able to develop myindependence in many factors. I was able to plan, research, collect data and analyseit along with similar literature, independently.All of this is relevant and helpful for my future aspirations working in professionalfootball. My aim is to become a performance analyst and within the role I need tocollate stats for the players and team and keep them up to date. This project isrelevant to what I have done in my time on internships with professional footballclubs, where I provide information to the coach and players. 31
  32. 32. Doing this project has opened my eyes and made me aware of limitations andbarriers to overcome for future work. For example, ensuring the results meansomething and taking it that extra mile in ensuring my role as an analyst is beneficial.In this report I stated how one of the players said that ‘we had ten shots’ whereas weonly had nine. Now is that useful information to the coach and players? For me, itcertainly corrects the player’s observation however I feel it is not beneficial to team togo into the second half or future matches. Therefore as the analyst, I can go furtherinto detail, such as on target or off, shot location, build-up and more information.Through my experience with this research and my internships, I realise that it is onlya tool and the manager will have the final say.Overall, this research and other extra, related activities have provided me afoundation for my aspirations in working as a performance analyst in professionalfootball. I have developed my data collecting and analysing skills which has mademe become more meticulous and aware in ensuring that the information is valid andmeaningful for the team.If I was to do this project again I would do more games in order to seek reliabilityand find trends such as is feedback affected by the score or the opposition or matchlocation? Is there a ‘home advantage’? (Taylor et al., 2008). 32
  33. 33. References(1) Leeds Metropolitan University Logo. (n.d.) [Online Image] Available from:<http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8a/Leeds_Metropolitan_University_logo.png&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Leeds_Metropolitan_University_logo.png&h=255&w=400&sz=16&tbnid=wdr4i4AgFCasVM:&tbnh=77&tbnw=121&zoom=1&docid=349Skj2-dibHhM&sa=X&ei=wD2hT5W8LOSl4gSa25jtCA&ved=0CEwQ9QEwBw&dur=1532>[Accessed 02 May 2012].Bartlett, R. (2001). Performance analysis: can bringing together biomechanics andnotational analysis benefit coaches? International Journal of PerformanceAnalysis of Sport, 1 (1), July, p.p. 122-126.Behind the Scenes: Performance Analysis Part 2. (2011). Manchester CityFootball Club [video: internet<http://www.mcfc.co.uk/citytv/Features/2011/September/Performance-analysis-II>].Bishop, D. (n.d.). How Performance Analysis can Improve your CoachingMethods: What is Performance Analysis and How can it be Integrated withinthe Coaching Process to Benefit Performance? [Internet], London, PeakPerformance. Available from: <http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/how-performance-analysis-can-improve-your-coaching-methods-39> [Accessed 08th May 2012].Borrie, A. and Knowles, Z. (2005). Coaching science and soccer. In: Reilly, T. andWillians, M. (Eds.) Science and Soccer, Second Edition, London, Routledge, p.p.187-197.Brown, D. and Hughes, M. (1995). The effectiveness of quantitative and qualitativefeedback on performance in squash. In: Reilly, T., Hughes, M. and Lees, A. (Eds.)Science and Racquet Sports. Leeds, E and FN Spon, p.p. 232-237.Carling, C., Williams, A. M. and Reilly, T. (2005). Handbook of Soccer MatchAnalysis: A Systematic Approach to Improving Performance. London,Routledge. 33
  34. 34. Carling, C., Reilly, T. and Williams, A. M. (2009). Performance Assessment forField Sports: Physiological, Psychological and Match Notational Assessmentin Practice. Oxon, Routledge.Cassidy, T., Jones, R. and Potrac, P. (2004). Understanding Sports Coaching:The Social, Cultural and Pedagogical Foundations of Coaching Practice. Oxon,Routledge.Cloes, M. Bavier, K. and Pieron, M. (2001). Coaches’ thinking process: Analysis ofdecisions related to tactics during sports games (p.p. 1-18). In: Chin, M. K., HensleyL. D. and Liu, Y. K. Innovation and application of physical education and sportsscience in the new millennium: An Asia-Pacific perspective. Hong Kong, HongKong Institute of Education, p.p 329-341.Court, M. (2004). Perceptions of performance analysis. Insight, Winter, p.p. 8-11.Dunn, A., Ford, P. and Williams, M. (2003). A technical profile of different plyingpositions. Insight, 6 (4), p.p. 41-45.Franks, I. M. (2004). The need for feedback. In: Hughes, M. and Franks, I.M. (Eds.)Notational Analysis of Sport, London, Routledge.Franks, I. M., Goodman, D. and Miller, G. (1983a). Analysis of performance:Qualitative or quantitative. SPORTS, March.Frank, I. M. and McGarry, T. (1996). The science of Match Analysis, In: Reilly, T.(Ed.) Science and Soccer, London, E and F. N. Spon.Franks, I. M. and Miller, G. (1986). Eyewitness testimony in sport. Journal of SportBehaviour, 9, p.p. 39-45.Franks, I. M. and Miller, G. (1991). Training coaches to observe an d remember.Journal of Sport Behaviour, 9, p.p. 285-297.Galsworthy, B. (1990), Netball: The skills of the game. The Crowood Press.London.Gilbert, W., Trudel, P. & Haughian, L. (1999). Interactive decision making factorsconsidered by coaches of youth ice hockey during games. Journal of Teaching inPhysical Education, 18, 290-311. 34
  35. 35. Gratton, C. and Jones, I. (2004). Research Methods for Sport Studies. London,Routledge.Groom, R. and Cushion, C. (2004). Coaches perceptions of the use of videoanalysis: A case study. Insight, 7, p.p. 56-58.Groom, R. and Cushion, C. (2005). Using of video based coaching with players: Acase study. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 5 (3), p.p.40-46.Groom, R., Cushion, C. and Nelson, L. (2011). The delivery of video-basedperformance analysis by England youth soccer coaches: Towards a groundedtheory. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 23 (1), p.p. 16-32.Hodges, N. J. and Franks, I.M. (2004). The nature of feedback. In NotationalAnalysis of Sport, Second Edition (Edited by Hughes, M. and Franks, I.M.),London, Routledge, pp. 17-39.Hunter, G. (2012). Barca: The Making of the Greatest Team in the World. UK,Backpage Press.James, N. (2006). The role of notational analysis in soccer coaching. InternationalJournal of Sports Science and Coaching, 1, p.p. 185-198.Jenkins, R. E., Morgan, L. and O’Donoghue, P. G. (2007). A case study into theeffectiveness of computerised match analysis and motivational videos within thecoaching of a league netball team. International Journal of Performance Analysisof Sport, 7 (2), p.p. 59-80.Laird, P. and Water, L. (2008). Eyewitness recollection of sport coaches.International Journal of Performance Analysis of Sport, 8 (1), p.p. 76-84.Liebermann, D.G, and Franks, I.M. (2004) The use of feedback-basedtechnologies. , In Notational Analysis of Sport, Second Edition (Edited byHughes, M. and Franks, I.M.), London, Routledge, pp. 40-58.Lyle, J. (2002). Sports Coaching Concepts: A Framework for Coaches’Behaviour. London, Routledge. 35
  36. 36. Markland, R. and Martinek, T. J. (1988). Descriptive analysis of coach augmentedfeedback given to high school varsity female volleyball players. Journal of Teachingin Physical Education, 5 (1), p.p. 22-33.Martín, L. (2009). ‘Gladiator’ como Motivación [Internet], Barcelona, El Pais.Available from:<http://elpais.com/diario/2009/05/29/deportes/1243548001_850215.html> [Accessed03 May 2012].Maslovat, D. and Franks, I. M. (2008). The need for feedback, In: Hughes, M andFranks, I.M. (Eds.) The Essentials of Performance Analysis: An Introduction.Oxon, Routledge.Murray, S., Maylor, D. and Hughes, M. (1998). The effect of computerised analysisas feedback on the performance of elite squash players. In: Lees, A., Maynard, I.,Hughes, M. and Reilly, T. (Eds.) Science and Racquet Sport II. London, E and FNSpon, p.p. 235-246.Nau, D. (1995). Mixing methodologies: Can bimodal research be a viable post-positivist tool? In: Gratton, C. and Jones, I. (Eds.) Research Methods for SportStudies. London, Routledge, p.g. 25.O’Donoghue, P. (2006). The use of feedback videos in sport. International Journalof Performance Analysis in Sport, 6 (12), p.p. 1-14.Rosado, A., Mesquita, I., Breia, E. and Januario, N. (2008). Athlete’s retention ofcoach’s instruction on task preparation and feedback. International Journal ofPerformance Analysis in Sport, 8 (1), p.p. 19-30.Ross, D., Bird, A. M., Doody, A. and Zoeller, S. M. (1985). Effects of modelling andvideotape feedback with knowledge of results on motor performance. HumanMovement Science, 4, p.p. 149-157.Rothstein, A. L. and Arnold, R. K. (1976). Bridging the gap: Application of researchon videotape feedback and bowling. Motor Skills: Theory into Practice, 1, p.p. 36-61. 36
  37. 37. Taylor, J. B., Mellalieu, S. D. and James, N. (2004). Behavioural comparisons ofpositional demands in professional soccer. International Journal of PerformanceAnalysis of Sport, 4 (1), p.p. 81-97.Taylor, J. B., Mellalieu, S. D., James, N. and Shearer, D. A. (2008). The influence ofmatch location, quality of opposition, and match status on technical performance inprofessional association football. Journal of Sports Sciences, 26 (9), p.p. 885-895.Tenga, A. P. C. (2009). Reliability and Validity of Match Performance Analysis inSoccer: A Multidimensional Qualitative Evaluation of Opponent Interaction.Dissertation, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences.Thewell, K. (2005). Forward, In: Carling, C., Wliiams, A. M. and Reilly, T. (Eds.)Handbook of Soccer Match Analysis: A Systematic Approach to ImprovingPerformance, London, Routledge, p.g. XVII.Yin, R. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 2nd Ed, Beverly Hills,CA. 37
  38. 38. AppendixAppendix 1 – Dunn et al., 2003; p.g. 42 38
  39. 39. Appendix G1Interview Questions (Semi-Structured)Coaching Pathway  Participation and Coaching – Sampled other sports?  Qualifications – FA? Any others?  Experience – How many years? o Why did you start? Role Models?Coaching Philosophy  Where does it derive from? Role Models? Others? Experience?  Do you feel it always changes?  Do you believe in Ericsson et al.’s theory (1991) of 10 years deliberate practice to become expert?Style of Play  What would be your preferable style of play?  Is that what you instil into your team or do you believe you need to have the players’ of certain technical ability? o Therefore do you play with what you have or use the tactics you feel is best even if the players cannot carry them out?What indicators do you focus/look out for during a match?  Do you take notes?  What do you generally say in your team talks? o Motivational? Tactical? Individual? Criticism? Any others? o Do you feel its dependant on the result of the game?Video Analysis  Pre-conceived beliefs of videotape feedback  Pros and Cons  Have you had any experience with it?Are you hoping that the Videotape Feedback (Objective) can replace/aid your SubjectiveObservations? 39
  40. 40. Appendix H2Key Points:  Had 10 shots (Objective) - 9 Shots  They had 1 chance (Objective (Subjective) – 4 Shots  Passed it well through midfield (Subjective (Objective) – Middle 3rd Pass Success Rate 77.7%  Pressed them well (Subjective) Watch the video to see how we win the ball back  Gave the ball away to cheaply (Objective (Subjective) – Pass Success Rate = %  Scored in the last 10 (Objective) - Scored in last 5mins = 43:30  Opposition formation uncertainty (Subjective) Watch video where opp. is in poss. and not  WM doing tricks and when should be easily taking him on without using tricks, but pace. (Objective and Subjective) – Dribble Success Rate = 50%As for the oppositions chances, one of the players said they only had one chance, however lookingback, you can see they had 3 chances, with a total of 4 shots. With the video, it can make thedefence aware of how the opposition are creating their chances in order to counter it. Shot Leeds Met. Newcastle On Target 3 2 Off Target 5 and 1 Blocked 2 Shot Leeds Met. Newcastle Inside Area 4 3 Outside Area 5 1Breakdown of Shots Our Zone Ball How Players Passes Shot Shot ShotShots Retention Retained Involved Zone Location Outcome 1 D2 Loose Ball 3 2 B1 BR On Target - Goal 2 E11 Throw 5 6 D2 Left Off Target 3 D2 FK 1 0 D2 TR On Target - Save 4 E22 Loose Ball 5 4 D1 Left Off Target 5 E22 Loose Ball 1 0 D1 Over Off Target 6 E13 Tackle 5 3 B2 Blocked Blocked 7 D3 Loose Ball 2 1 D2 Over Off Target 8 E12 Loose Ball 6 8 C2 Over Off Target 9 I2 GK 5 9 B2 MR On Target - Goal 40
  41. 41. Their Zone Ball How Players Passes Shot Shot Shot Shots Retention Retained Involved Zone Location Outcome 1 D3 Throw 3 2 D3 BL On Target – Save 2 A2 Loose Ball 1 0 A2 BL On Target – Save 3 A3 CK 3 2 A2 Over Off Target 4 E22 Loose Ball 6 6 B2 Left Off Target A B C D F G H I 3 7 Opp. 6  Opp. 4  2 9  2 3   2 Opp. 3  8 Opp.  1  1 5 4 1 E1 E2 8 OVER 7 1 – (Shot Number) Shot Location 52  3 TL TM TR LEFT ML MM MR 9 RIGHT – Shot Off Target 4 1 BL BM BR – Shot On Target Instead of just providing meaningless information, such as ‘we had nine shots not ten’, I had the ability to pause the footage and break each shot down in order to find trends. I devised a pitch map which is adapted from my time with a media company. Also having visuals, such as pitch maps with drawings of shots, can allow it be easier to process for the players and manager. So looking at the visual on the pitch map, it gives the manager and the team an impression that most of the shots are 41
  42. 42. coming from the left, outside of the area and off target. And therefore it can provide a foundationfor feedback.Looking at the results, yes we had more chances but breaking them down you can see that 56% ofthe shots were outside of the area compared to 25% of the opposition. Other trends that werefound that the opposition gave the impression that they were more direct in that their shots camefrom possession build-up of less than two passes 75% of the time and got into the penalty area75% of the time, compared to our 44%. However the most important stat is the amount of goalsand from having more shots we increased our likelihood of scoring. But having this informationcan indicate the manager to be more clinical.Penalty Area Entries (Passes, Crosses and Dribbles): Pen. Area Entry Successful Unsuccessful Pass 9 6 Cross 4 3 Dribble 1 2Looking at the first half subjectively, they definitely created chances and played balls into theattacking third (see Penalty Area Entries Table). In the half time team talk, one of the players statedthat we had ten shots and he wasn’t far off with nine shots, so his recall memory wasn’t too invalid.However, with live coding and notating, I could break their shots down, tell them where they werestriking; inside or outside of the area, whether they were on target or not, or whether they werefrom open play or set-pieces, with video highlights to back them up.Therefore having instant notational stats and video highlights to prove it, it can show the team; ‘yesyou are getting to these dangerous areas, but you are not finishing your chances’. A successful entrywould apply similarly to Dunn et al (2003) and Taylor et al (2004) definitions, in that success is wherepossession is maintained. As for the penalty area entry, it is something from outside the areaentering into it. Again this would be agreed with the manager.Wide Midfielder Dribble Success Rate – 50%Relating again to Dunn et al (2003) and Taylor et al (2004) works on defining actions in football, for asuccessful dribble, they state that the player has to hold onto the ball for more than four seconds,however after telling the coach this definition and explaining that didn’t agree with it, he agreedwith me and we agreed upon our own definition for a dribble as the first touch of the player to thelast. A successful one then is a player holding onto a ball and either passing, crossing or shooting,whereas an unsuccessful one being tackled or losing control of the ball.The coach stated how this player could do better in taking on the opposition using his speed and notskill. As you can see he achieved a 50% success rate in dribbling in the first half.Having video footage, I can clip the dribbles from this player and he can look through what he isdoing wrong or what the manager deemed he needed to improve on. It also provides the player withknowledge of hi opposition, to seek their technique in order to overcome. 42
  43. 43. Giving the Ball away to EasilyPassing Well through the Midfield Leeds Met. Successful Unsuccessful Pass 129 39 Leeds Met. Successful Unsuccessful Defensive 3rd Pass 19 6 Middle 3rd Pass 70 20 Attacking 3rd Pass 40 13The passes notated were from open play (not including free kicks, goal kicks and corners) and thevalidity of the results are tested to determine what is a successful pass and not. Looking at Dunn etal (2003) and Taylor et al (2004) they characterised a pass as an attempt to kick the ball to ateammate (picture from on email). They stated that a successful ball is where the receiver receivesthe ball and possession is maintained and therefore an unsuccessful pass is where the pass is notmet and possession is lost. Me and the coach also decided it is not just down to the passer, it’s alsowhether the receiver comes to the ball or his first touch is good enough whether the pass issuccessful or not. Products such as Prozone will do it for you if you have the money, however, going through thematch, similar to the shots, I can break them down. I have already looked at success and thelocation, however I could further in distances of passes. Using the product of Prozone on a course,they categorised a short pass as <10 metres (m), medium is 10-25m and long 25>m. 76% 77.7% 75% 43
  44. 44. The diagram above shows the pass success rate in each third of the pitch. It is also a nice visual forthe players to see, as it is very basic and easy to interpret.Closing Down Well Would be difficult to code live with just one person, considering some many aspects, howeverlooking through the video, our players are closing down quickly and sometimes are doubling iftripling up on the opposition with the ball. Player Successful Unsuccessful Dribbles 5 5Conclusion First ten minutes, the opposition could not get the ball out of their half and Leeds Met had fourshots, one of them being a goal. The oppositions first entry into Leeds Met defending third createdtwo shots on target, one of them being one v one. 44
  45. 45. Appendix I2Key Points  Constant pressure even from front – 13 Ball Retentions  Unorganised in 1st ten minutes ?  Their 32 (best player?) wants to cut inside – 86% of his dribbles, he cut inside  Winning a lot in midfield – 21 Ball Retentions  Gave away a key FK to them – 37:21Ball Retention/Opposition MistakesAtt. Third: 13Mid. Third: 21 62% 38%Also can clip highlights of the forward’s constant pressure, causing mistakes from the opposition.Watching the first half, there is constant closing down from the midfield and attack.Oppoistion No. 32Right midfielderCut Inside: 6Goes Outside: 186% goes insideWith the video, I can clip all his dribbles and show the players who will counter him, such as the leftback. This way they can evaluate him and provide an insight for themselves.Unorganised in First Ten MinutesGo through the video and related to original manager’s formation and strategy.From a personal point of view, Leeds were in control of possession in the first ten minutes, scoring agoal and restricting them of chances and entries. 45
  46. 46. Opposition’s Key FKThere would be a video highlight of the foul and the free kick. From the free kick, the oppositiondidn’t succeed with the opportunity and the hit the wall, and we countered them.37:21 46

×