Design

The present systematic review of the studies related to ball possession was executed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses) statement [33]. The publication date of the retrieved literature is set from January 2000 to December 2020. In order to improve the efficiency and accuracy of the search, ensure the quality of the articles. The databases of Web of Science, Scopus and Pub Med were searched by using the keywords ‘football or soccer’ and combining the following terms, such as ‘ball possession’ ‘ball recovery’, ‘ball regain’, ‘transition’, ‘playing style’, ‘possession zone’, ‘possession duration’ and ‘running performance’. Each of these keywords was first carried out independently and then combined into Boolean search using the AND operator. In order to ensure maximum retrieval of articles, the keywords in all fields were searched and extracted the needed information for this study.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The following inclusion criteria for these articles were used: (1) the research variables were performance indicators related to ball possession; (2) the population was limited to healthy professional male or female adult football players and (3) the language of the article was English. The articles were excluded if they: (1) the sample were children or adolescents (under 18 years); (2) the research has no data support (3) were conference abstracts; and (4) the article was written in other language and did not provide an English abstract and method information. If there was a disagreement on the inclusion of articles between the two independent reviewers, the final decision was delivered to the senior author due to the greater experience on these matters. In the process of screening articles, the assessment of eligibility of the articles was performed by one review author. All articles were screened from titles and abstracts. Once there is ambiguity or indecision, two other reviewers will be invited to judge the disagreement, and the differences between inclusion or exclusion of research will be resolved through consensus.

Quality of the articles

As in previous research [26], to make a fair comparison between studies of different designs, the decision was taken to calculate a percentage score as a final measure of methodological quality. In the present study, the quality score of all included articles was evaluated by two authors from the following 13 critical components: (1) clarify the purpose of the research; (2) relevant literature review; (3) rationality of research design; (4) participants; (5) rationality of sample size; (6) informed consent; (7) reliability and validity of measurement results; (8) detailed description of experimental method; (9) research results; (10) analysis of research methods; (11) theoretical connection; (12) conclusion; (13) implication. Then sum up the binary scores of each item, calculate the final average score, and present it as a percentage to reflect the quality standard of the article. The standard classification of the score is as follows: low quality of research method scored ≤ 50%; good quality of research method scored between 51% and 75%; and high quality of research method scored ≥ 75%. The scoring and classification methods used in this paper are consistent with the statistical methods used in previous literature reviews. By calculating the Kappa value of Cohen, an independent reliability analysis between raters was made for the quality scores [34].

Data extraction

From each study, relevant data were extracted by one review author and checked by a second author. Disagreements between the two authors were resolved by discussion and if no agreement could be reached, a third author would make the final decision. The following information was extracted from each included study: (1) the study sample, i,e., the season and location of the leagues, the number of players and matches; (2) the purpose of the study; (3) ball possession related variable analysed, i,e., ball possession percentage, possession time, ball recoveries; (4) main results, the impact of ball possession related indicators to the team performance.

Search results

By searching keywords on the Web of Science, Scopus and Pub Med, 2,436 articles were initially searched, and then 824 duplicate articles were eliminated. Then the articles were screened out based on screening the titles and abstracts. After excluding the studies with small sample size, the sample participants were young or amateur football players, and the scale of matches were small-sided games, only 71 articles were left. Subsequently, after manually searching related journals and reference pages, it was found that 5 articles were of good quality and met the selection criteria, but they were not included in the review list. Eventually, after adding these 5 articles, a total of 76 articles were comprehensively reviewed. The process of screening the primary documents (see Fig 1) is shown in the following PRISMA flow diagram [35].

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Flow diagram of study selection process.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265540.g001

Quality of the articles

In a previous study, Sarmento et al. [36] proved the quality of the literature through the database of Web of Science. In the present review, according to the scores of 76 articles given by two authors, it was concluded that the average quality score of all articles is 85.9%. In previous studies, there has never been a research method that can achieve the highest score of 100% or less than 50%. 5 studies were classified as having good methodological quality (the quality score is between 51% and 75%), while 71 studies had excellent methodological quality (the quality score is greater than 75%). The inter-rater reliability analysis obtained a Kappa value of 0.88, which indicated that the consistency among the observers was very good [26]. The main defects of methodological quality involve rationality of research sample size and confirmation and description of research limitations.

Data organization

All included studies were published ranged from 2002 to 2020, 19 articles (25%) were published from 2002 to 2012, while 57 articles (75%) were published from 2013 to 2020. The geographic origins of the included studies were: Spain(n = 22), England (n = 21), Germany (n = 7), France (n = 3), Italy (n = 3) and other countries (n = 10). In addition, 25 studies analysed World Cup matches, while 16 studies analysed UEFA Champion League matches, 6 studies analysed European Football Championship matches, comprising teams from different European countries and clubs. The sample participants of this review are all professional football players. The participants of most studies (n = 73) were male football players, only 4 studies involved female football players. Since the majority of studies only record the number of matches, but neglect the number of players, this review can not calculate the number of participants, and the number of matches observed varied from 6 [37] to 6,078 [38]. The variables related to ball possession were: ball possession (n = 21), ball possession strategies (n = 17), ball possession duration (n = 9), ball recovery patterns (n = 15), running performance (n = 14). The types of reviewed studies included: descriptive analysis (n = 17), comparative analysis (n = 29) and predictive analysis (n = 30).

Research topic

Ball possession percentage

Ball possession has always been regarded as an important technical indicator to measure the match performance of a team, and it has also been widely studied in recent years [6]. The studies related to ball possession percentage mainly focus on the following aspects: the influence of ball possession percentage on the match success, the indicators that affect the status of ball possession percentage and the impact of different status of ball possession percentage on team performance, as presented in Table 1.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. The studies of ball possession percentage.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265540.t001

In the research on the relationship between the ball possession percentage and match success. Previous studies found that the ball possession percentage can significantly affect the outcome of the match, and the success of the game is often won by the team with a higher percentage of ball possession [7,11]. Goral and Kemal [8] confirmed the viewpoint in the study of the 2014 FIFA World Cup tournament, the lead in ball possession percentage is one of the important characteristics of successful teams, and winning teams often have a higher ball possession percentage, especially in the final third. However, Kempe et al. [46] regarded that the ball possession percentage may have a positive impact on the outcome of the game, but it cannot fully reflect the real situation of the game. A higher ball possession percentage does not mean that the number of shots and goals are higher, the key to match success lies in the quality of shooting [13] and the effectiveness of attack [38]. Conversely, the results of some studies [17,53,54] showed that the differences in the impact of ball possession percentage on the match outcome. For instance, Aquino et al. [17] reported that the ball possession percentage is irrelevant to the outcome of the game, but the match outcome is related to the playing formation of the team. Mohd et al. [54] reported that during the 2010 FIFA World Cup and the 2009–2010 Bundesliga season, there was no obvious relationship between ball possession percentage and the match outcome, but the match success was significantly influenced by the number of shots.

In the research related to the indicators that affect the status of ball possession percentage, previous studies have found that the factors include: match location [49], the quality of opponents [50], match status [47], playing formation [17], passes accuracy [8], cognitive ability and awareness of players [51]. For example, Kubayi and Toriola [50] reported that match location has significant effects on ball possession, the home teams had a higher ball possession percentage than the away teams. Which was in line with the findings from Aquino et al. [45]. However, Dizdar et al. [49] found that the home advantage cannot be represented in the ball possession percentage in the First Croatian Football League. Bradley et al. [47] and Maneiro et al. [19] demonstrated that the ball possession percentage was higher when the team was losing rather than winning. The reason for the increase in ball possession may be the desire of the losing team to regain the score. They are inclining to take more risky offensive actions to possess the ball and create the scoring opportunities, while the leading team focused their attention on the defense and consolidated its advantages. Aquino et al. [17] indicated that during the 2018 FIFA World Cup, the ball possession percentage of the team with 4231 formation had a higher ball possession percentage than 442 formation. The reason is that the 4231 formation team has wider passing routes and more diversified playing styles. Aquino et al. [45] reported that during the 2015–2016 season in EPL, home teams presented higher ball possession value than away teams, the ball possession percentage was higher when playing against weak teams than strong teams.

As for the studies on the impact of different status of ball possession percentage on team performance, Bradley et al. [16] analyzed the 2013–2014 seasons in EPL (English Premier League) and found that the total passes and passes received in HPBPT (high-percentage ball possession teams) was higher across all playing positions than LPBPT (low-percentage ball possession teams), and HPBPT performed 44% more passes than the players in LPBPT. Bradley et al. [47] reported that the variables that discriminated between HPBPT and LPBPT were different for various playing positions, the successful passes were the most common discriminating variable. Tschopp and Cavin [53] indicated that during the 2016 European Football Championship, HPBPT teams performed more passes and successful passes than LPBPT. But Mota et al. [29] indicated that during the 2014 FIFA World Cup tournament, the differences between HPBPT and LPBPT in technical and physical performance were not significant.

Ball possession strategy

Team performance involves the interactions of technical, tactical and physical activities among players [56]. These interactions are the result of coaches’ tactical arrangement and game dynamics, and they can be explained by measuring the offensive and defensive behaviors of players and opponents of a team [57]. Previous studies have made some findings as shown in Table 2. Fernandez-Navarro et al. [58] found that possession play and direct play were the most commonly used tactical strategies during the 2006–2007 and 2010–2011 seasons in EPL and Spanish first division teams (La Liga). Lago-Peñas et al. [24] reported that the playing style of the Chinese Soccer League was various, including counterattack, direct attack, and possession play. Gonzalez-Rodenas et al. [59] reported that during the 2010 FIFA World Cup, the teams with possession type of play achieved more scoring opportunities than counterattack teams, and the scoring efficiency of set-piece tactics was also higher than ball recoveries and restarts. The value of ball possession percentage in the score box of counterattack teams was lower than the style of possession play teams, this may be due to the reason that counterattack teams were more inclined to organize attacks by long passes [60]. Yi et al. [61] recorded that during the 2018 FIFA World Cup, the passing, goal scoring performance of possession play teams was superior than direct play teams. But Sarmento et al. [26] indicated that the offense efficiency of counterattacks is 40% higher than positional attacks. Gonzalez-Rodenas et al. [59] demonstrated that counterattack was more efficient than mixed play and direct attack only when the opponent’s defense was weak, and the long passing sequence could achieve more scoring opportunities when the defense was organized.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Studies of the ball possession strategies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265540.t002

Lago-Peñas and Dellal [12] reported that during the 2008–2009 season in EPL, the ball possession strategy was influenced by situational variables, and the ball possession time would be reduced when the team was ahead. When the home team plays against the away teams with defensive tactics, they tend to adopt the ball possession strategies such as counterattack or aggressive tactics. Regardless of home advantages, when against strong teams, it is more likely to adopt a defensive playing style and counterattack than an elaborate attack. And the likelihood of adopting an aggressive playing style was higher than a defensive playing style and counterattack when against weak opponents. This is in accordance with the results of several studies [7,25,48,64]. Sarmento et al. [36] compared the ball possession strategies for the two consecutive seasons from 2013 to 2015 in EPL, La Liga, Serie A and Bundesliga League and pointed out that the playing styles in different leagues were influenced by many factors, such as regional culture, coaching philosophy [22] and the technical and tactical ability of players [65]. English Premier League teams prefer direct attack. Serie A teams are more inclined to traditional defensive style, while La Liga teams advocate the tactical style of ball possession. However, the direct attack of EPL, which is characterized by long passing, can make the penetrating attack in the final third more effective, and the number of threatening attack opportunities per game is three times that in the European Champions League, although it is closely related to the disparity of opponents in the domestic league. And Castellano and Pic [22] indicated that the ball possession strategies of the teams should be flexible to formulate tactics according to the situation on the field and around the key players.

Ball possession duration

The duration of each ball possession is the epitome of the team’s tactics [25]. Reep, Benjamin [67], Hughes and Franks [5] reported that the shorter the ball possession time and short passing sequence could create more opportunities for goal scoring. As Table 3 presented, Harrop et al. [9] found that 38.8% of the possession lasted for 5–12 seconds, while the possession lasted for more than 12 seconds accounted for 37.3% in La Liga. This shows that the teams in the English Premier League prefer the tactics of direct attack, while the teams in La Liga prefer the patience of passing and organizing. Moreover, the players in La Liga usually have prowess individual ability and brilliant passing and receiving skills, which is one of the reasons why they can maintain a high ball possession percentage. At the same time, the La Liga team scored more goals in the ball possession duration for more than 12 seconds than the EPL teams, which also reflects that the La Liga teams were not only higher than the EPL teams in the frequency of passing, but also higher in the success rate of shooting. In addition, Lago-Ballesteros et al. [23] found in the La Liga in the 2009–2010 season that the La Liga teams had longer possession time than EPL teams in the penalty area. This trend is consistent with the findings of Tenga et al. [42], who discovered the most goals were scored when the possession time lasted for more than 12 seconds, and the number of possessions lasted more than 12 seconds was significantly larger than the bottom teams.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 3. Studies of the duration of ball possession.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265540.t003

However, the findings differed from the diverse seasons and competitive level matches. Tenga et al. [42] found the number of goals that scored in less than 5 seconds attacks in EPL was higher than La Liga teams, which demonstrated that EPL teams had higher attacking efficiency in counterattack. In the 5–12 seconds possessions, the probability of scoring goals in La Liga is 0.3%, which is lower than that in Premier League (0.7%), but the number and efficiency of attacks of La Liga were higher than EPL teams in >12 seconds possessions. Sarmento et al. [26] reported that during the 2013–2015 two consecutive seasons in La Liga, Premier League, Serie A, and Bundesliga, the possibility of creating a successful attack opportunity will decrease by 2% when the possession duration of the team increases by one second, and the possibility of creating a successful attack opportunity will decrease by 7% when the number of passes increases. When considering the influence of situational variables on the possession time, Bradley et al. [47] investigated the matches in the 2013–2014 seasons in EPL and found that the number and duration of possessions could increase when against weak teams, and when the teams were losing, the team will pay more attention to fighting for the ball possession in the final third, they will not keep the ball too long in the defensive half, hence, the possession time in attacking half will increase, and the more rank points a team had, the longer duration time in ball possession [16]. But Taylor et al. [71] found that the quality of opponents will not affect the team’s overall technical performance.which is lower than that in Premier League (0.7%), but the number and efficiency of attacks of La Liga were higher than EPL teams in >12 seconds possessions. Sarmento et al. [26] reported that during the 2013–2015 two consecutive seasons in La Liga, Premier League, Serie A, and Bundesliga, the possibility of creating a successful attack opportunity will decrease by 2% when the possession duration of the team increases by one second, and the possibility of creating a successful attack opportunity will decrease by 7% when the number of passes increases. When considering the influence of situational variables on the possession time, Bradley et al. [47] investigated the matches in the 2013–2014 seasons in EPL and found that the number and duration of possessions could increase when against weak teams, and when the teams were losing, the team will pay more attention to fighting for the ball possession in the final third, they will not keep the ball too long in the defensive half, in hence, the possession time in attacking half will increase, and the more rank points a team had, the longer duration time in ball possession [16]. But Taylor et al. [71] found that the quality of opponents will not affect the team’s overall technical performance.

The patterns of ball recovery

The team success of elite football teams also depends on the patterns of ball recovery, which includes the types of ball recovery and the zone that the ball is regained. As for the types of ball recoveries, previous studies have not reached a consensus in this respect (as shown in Table 4). Oberstone et al. [72] found that the most common ball recovery type in EPL was an interception. While in La Liga, set-plays (29.2%) were the most common ball recovery type in La Liga. The reason for this difference may be that the penalty scale of referees in EPL was not as strict as that in La Liga, and the number of set pieces was less. Barreira et al. [30] investigated the ball recovery patterns in the different zones on the pitch during the 2010 World Cup tournament and found that the tackles usually occurred in the defend third, and the interception mainly occurred in the central zone. In summary, the frequency of direct ball recovery type (interceptions, tackles, goalkeeper saves) was higher than indirect ball recovery type (set pieces, turnover). Rowlinson and Donoghue [73] found during the knockout stage of 2012 UEFA Championship League matches, the tackle was the most common type of ball recovery. Several findings were consistent with this viewpoint [74–76]. The reason for the differences in the type of ball recoveries may be due to the situational variable effects. When the team was losing, the defensive pressure of the winning teams was increasing, and the probability of making mistakes of defenders would increase as well. It was more likely to seem that the defenders kicked the ball out of the pitch for clearance. In that way, the set pieces may also become the most common ball recovery type.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 4. Studies of the patterns of ball recovery.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265540.t004

Although most ball possessions were regained by interceptions, it was difficult to convert the interceptions into goals [72]. Hughes and Lovell [77] found that 0.82% of interceptions resulted in goals and 12.12% of interceptions completed shots during the 2014–2015 UEFA Championship League tournament, which is much higher than the shooting accuracy after an interception in the English Premier League (5.7%) and La Liga (7%). This coincided with the viewpoint of Wright et al. [84], who discovered that only a low proportion of shots or goals were preceded by interceptions. However, there are also some studies considering that the attack efficiency was higher when the ball possession was regained by tackles. Cooper and Pulling [40] found that during the 2017–2018 season in the EPL and La Liga, the team from La Liga had superior scoring efficiency (2.5%) compared with the team from the EPL after tackling. Hugh and Franks [5] reported the most goals were scored in the possession regained by tackles in La Liga. This is because the teams in La Liga can better grasp the opportunities of unbalanced defense, properly dominate the tempo of attack after tackling, and can take advantage of the chance to launch a threatening attack.

In the studies of the effects on the ball recovery types, the area of losing ball possession was most related to the type of ball recovery [80], but Barreira et al. [30] disapproved of the view by studying the matches in 2010 FIFA World Cup, who reported that the zone of ball recovery was not significantly associated with ball recovery actions. Alemida et al. [78] discovered that the match location could affect the type of ball recoveries, the home teams performed better defensive performance, so the possession regained by goalkeeper saves was the least. In the matches between teams were at a similar level, the quantities of ball possessions regained by tackle were higher than the unbalanced matches, the differences may be influenced by the tactical strategy and mistakes that players made [57]. For example, in order to maintain a high ball possession percentage to dominate the match tempo, they needn’t take much defensive action against weak teams for regaining ball possession. In addition, the scoreline will also affect the type of ball recovery [32]. When the team was losing, they will duel more fiercely to regain ball possession and organize the attack, while the leading team will focus on the defense task and will not take too aggressive defensive actions.

The area where the ball possession was regained marked the initiative zone of offense [83]. Tenga et al. [42] recorded the Norweigan top league for three consecutive seasons from 2008 to 2010 and found that most of the ball possession exchanges took place in the defensive half. Makleki et al. [82] supported these findings by studying the elite matches in the 2014 FIFA World Cup and found that most ball recoveries were performed in the defensive and middle-defensive zones. Barreira et al. [74] observed that during the 2010 FIFA world cup, the ball possession recoveries often occupied in the defensive third, but the champion of the tournament regained most ball possessions at the right side, the least at the central zone. Jamil [31] also found this tendency when observing the EPL matches and complemented that this phenomenon can be explained from the tactical point of view. The tactical play of the Premier League teams prefers carrying out high-intensity defense in the final third, which leads to the midfielder of opponents being can not easily organize the offense and only releasing the ball to both sides. Therefore, the quantities of ball possession regained in the attacking half were larger than the defensive half, especially in the side area.

In the comparative study of attacking efficiency of regaining the ball possession in different areas, Tenga et al. [42] declared that the attacking efficiency of the successful teams in different zones of pitches was higher than unsuccessful teams, especially when the ball recovery occurred in the defensive zone. Since most successful attacks initiated in the defensive zone require players to achieve penetration with well-timed runs and accurate passes at a high tempo, which is often rarely performed by the players of unsuccessful teams. Hughes and Lovell [77] observed the knockout stage of the Champions League in the 2014–2015 season and found that the goal scoring opportunities created by the ball regained in the offensive area were 7 times higher than the defensive area, and the number of goals scored was 11 times higher. Some studies have pointed out that the attacking efficiency of the ball regained in the offensive area was higher, such as the number of goals, shots, and set-piece won [59]. Specifically, Cooper and Pulling [40] found that most goals were achieved after the ball was regained in the attacking area, while the ball possession obtained from the defending area scored fewer goals. Casal et al. [18] found that most of the threatening attacks were launched after the ball was regained from the mid-defensive area and the mid-offensive area, and the attacks initiated from the mid-offensive area were even more threatening, because it was the weakest moment for the team to transition from attack to defense, and it was easy for opponents to goal scoring in the situation of imbalanced defense.

Running performance

Running performance in football matches has been widely discussed by experts over the last two decades. As Table 5 depicted. The previous focused on the running distance at the different speed categories, but there are few studies on the association between running performance and ball possession [85].

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 5. Studies of the running performance with possession of the ball.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265540.t005

During the 2007–2009 two consecutive seasons in French League 1, the average running distance with the ball of possession was 191 ± 38 m, the mean speed per possession was 12.9 ± 1.8 km·h-1 [90]. Bradley et al. [16] found that there was a significant difference in the running distance with or without the ball. This finding coincided with that of Mota et al. [28]. Miguel [89] complemented that the total distance covered and the distance in out of ball possession for HPBPT was lower than the LPBPT, especially at the low and medium speed, but the distance covered with the ball was higher. Dellal et al. [20] made a comparative study of La Liga and the English Premier League in the 2006–2007 season and found that the La Liga teams covered more distance in the possession with the ball due to the differences in ball possession strategies. The La Liga teams attacks with long passes.

There are also some studies that the running distance with balls is related to other factors [21]. In particular, the top ranked teams performed more distance with the ball than the bottom teams. The unsuccessful teams covered more distance without the ball possession, but the contribution was limited [43]. Aquino et al. [17] examined the running performance in the 2018 FIFA World Cup and reported that 4231 formation covered more distance with ball, and the match outcome was not significantly affected by running distance with or without the ball of possession. Conversely, in the matches from 2012–2013 season in German Bundesliga, Hoppe et al. [93] found that the match outcome was related to the running distance with the ball, and the greater the running distance with the ball, the more likely the team will win. As for different playing positions, the wide midfield covered the greatest running distance with ball possession, while the forwards covered the greatest running distance without the ball [44]. In the different competition periods, Bradley et al. [91] observed the matches from 2005–2006 season in EPL and found that the distance covered with ball possession in the last 15-min was greater than the first 15-min, this may be due to the players’ willingness to reverse the score, which prompted them to cover more distances.