RESEARCH ARTICLE
A comparison of match-physical demands
between different tactical systems: 1-4-5-1 vs
1-3-5-2
Ivan BaptistaID1*, Dag Johansen2, Pedro Figueiredo3,4, Anto´nio RebeloID5, Svein
Arne Pettersen1
1 School of Sport Sciences, University of Tromsø, the Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway,
2 Computer Science Department, University of Tromsø, the Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway,
3 Portugal Football School, Portuguese Football Federation, Lisboa, Portugal, 4 Research Center in Sports
Sciences, Health Sciences and Human Development, CIDESD, University Institute of Maia, ISMAI, Maia,
Portugal, 5 Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
* ivan.a.baptista@uit.no
Abstract
The team tactical system and distribution of the football players on the pitch is considered
fundamental in team performance. The present study used time-motion analysis and triax-
ial-accelerometers to obtain new insights about the impact of different tactical systems (1-4-
5-1 and 1-3-5-2) on physical performance, across different playing positions, in a profes-
sional football team. Player performance data in fifteen official home matches was collected
for analysis. The sample included twenty-two players from five playing positions (centre
backs: n = 4; full-back/wide midfielder/ wing-back: n = 9; centre midfielder: n = 6 and centre
forward: n = 3), making a total of 108 match observations. A novel finding was that general
match physical demands do not differ considerably between these tactical formations, prob-
ably because match-to-match variability (variation of players’ running profile from match-to-
match) might be higher than the differences in physical performance between tactical sys-
tems. However, change of formation had a different impact across playing positions, with
centre backs playing in 1-4-5-1 performing significant more HIRcounts than in 1-3-5-2 (p =
0.031). Furthermore, a medium effect size (r = 0.33) was observed in HIRdist, with wide
players covering higher distances when playing in 1-3-5-2 than in 1-4-5-1. These findings
may help coaches to develop individualised training programs to meet the demands of each
playing position according to the tactical system adopted.
Introduction
To better understand the constraints correlated with sporting success, match analysis has
become an important tool in team sports. Nowadays it is well accepted among coaches and
sport scientists that the match performance of a football team is, basically, based on four fac-
tors: physical, technical, tactical and mental [1]. Even though, the majority of research has
been executed within the physical and technical performance domain, previous studies have
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214952
April 4, 2019
1 / 12
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
OPEN ACCESS
Citation: Baptista I, Johansen D, Figueiredo P,
Rebelo A, Pettersen SA (2019) A comparison of
match-physical demands between different tactical
systems: 1-4-5-1 vs 1-3-5-2. PLoS ONE 14(4):
e0214952. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0214952
Editor: Luca Paolo Ardigò, Universita degli Studi di
Verona, ITALY
Received: November 23, 2018
Accepted: March 22, 2019
Published: April 4, 2019
Copyright: © 2019 Baptista et al. This is an open
access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are
within the manuscript and its Supporting
Information files.
Funding: The authors received no specific funding
for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared
that no competing interests exist.
started to establish connections between physiological demands and tactical behaviour in elite
football [2–5].
The lack of research and information about this field can be observed in a systematic review
(2012–2016) on match analysis in adult male football [6], where the contextual variables of
research analysed (match half, quality of opposition, match location, scoring first, group stage
vs knockout phase, substitutions, competitive level and different competitions) did not include
the tactical systems used by teams.
The team tactical system and the positioning and distribution of the players on the pitch is
considered one of the most important strategic decisions in football [5, 7, 8] and, it is evident
that player match-load is influenced by different factors, such as the playing position [2, 9, 10]
and the tactical system [11]. This highlights the importance of understanding how physical
demands may be affected by playing position in various tactical systems [6]. Despite some pre-
vious research [12, 13] addressing the team global positioning on the field, using the measures
of centre and dispersion, the role of the tactical system regarding the players’ physical perfor-
mance, has not been fully described.
Previous studies have concluded that the manipulation of playing formations in small sided
games promotes changes in physical performance of teams and players in training [14]. Also,
the success of different tactics and strategies depend on the capacities and abilities of the play-
ers to perform specific actions during the match. Consequently, players must fulfil the neces-
sary physiological requirements of their playing position inside the tactical system adopted [5,
15, 16].
Previous research has investigated the influence of opposition tactical formation on physio-
logical performance variables and reported higher running distances when playing against a 1-
4-2-3-1 formation compared to a 1-4-4-2 formation [17]. In opposition, other studies [11, 18]
using various teams and/or different players across different seasons have concluded that tacti-
cal systems do not influence the match activity profiles of players. A pilot study with youth
players [19] reported no correlation between physical/technical levels and tactical prominence
in football matches. However, the identification of the tactical system adopted by a particular
team is not a trivial step and previous studies have subjectively defined the tactical formations
analysed by using qualified coaches to identify the different formations, as well as to verify if
those formations were consistent throughout the game [17, 20]. To the best of our knowledge,
no other study has examined the effect of playing formation on player load by position within
the same team, in one full season.
An in-depth analysis of match physical performance across playing positions, in different
tactical formations, could provide a better understanding of position-specific demands and
provide an useful insight to optimize training programs [11]. Therefore, the present study
aimed to analyse how tactical systems affect the physical performance of a professional football
team across different playing positions in all official home matches during one season. We
hypothesize that, despite playing in their specific position, players will accumulate different
external workload in matches, depending on the tactical formation deployed.
Methods
Participants and match analysis
With institutional ethics approval from UiT The Arctic University of Norway Institutional
Review Board, written informed consent from players and approval from the Norwegian Cen-
tre for Research Data, data on performance in 15 official home matches from the professional
team of a Norwegian elite football club, during one season (2017), was collected for analysis.
The matches were all played on artificial grass surface, as described in detail previously [10].
Match-physical demands across tactical systems
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214952
April 4, 2019
2 / 12
The sample included 22 players (25.2 ± 4.4 years of age; 76.2 ± 6.4 kg of body mass; and,
181.6 ± 5.6 cm of height) across four different playing positions: centre back, CB (n = 4, obser-
vations[obs] = 37), full-back/wide midfielder/ wing-back, FB/WM/WB (n = 9, obs = 31), cen-
tre midfielder, CM (n = 6, obs = 26), and centre forward, CF (n = 3, obs = 14), making a total
of 139 match observations (Table 1). Playing-positions were chosen according to the two tacti-
cal formations used by the team and previous research [9, 21, 22]. Team tactical systems and
playing positions were determined by two UEFA-qualified coaches (one from the coaching
staff of the team analysed) after visualizing video recordings of the sampled matches [17, 20].
These observers subjectively determined the tactical systems used at the beginning of the
match and verified if the formations were consistent throughout the matches [17]. Further-
more, 1-4-5-1 and 1-4-3-3 formations were combined, as well as 1-3-5-2 and 1-5-3-2. This
procedure was applied due to difficulties in establishing specific differences between similar
playing formations when in attacking and defending. When analysing the 1-3-5-2 formation
the observers realized that the team often played in 1-5-3-2 formation when not in ball posses-
sion (defending) and in 1-3-5-2 with ball possession (attacking). On the other hand, when
observing the 1-4-5-1 formation, the observers concluded that the team played in 1-4-5-1
when defending and in 1-4-3-3 when attacking [11, 17]. No other changes in formations
throughout the matches were noticed by the observers, therefor no matches were excluded
from the analysis.
Data was analysed only if: (a) players completed the full match (90 minutes), (b) the player
played in the same position during all the match and (c) the team used 1-4-5-1 (1 goalkeeper; 2
CB + 2 FB; 3 CM + 2 WM; 1 CF) or 1-3-5-2 (1 goalkeeper; 3 CB; 3 CM + 2 WB; 2 CF) tactical
formations during the entire match.
To ensure players confidentiality, all data was anonymized before analyses.
Procedures
A stationary radio wave-based Local Positioning Measurement (LPM) tracking system (ZXY
Sport Tracking System, Trondheim, Norway), with a default resolution of 20Hz, was used to
characterize match activity profiles within the team. Each player wore a specially designed belt,
wrapped tightly around the waist, with an electronic sensor system at the player’s lumbar
spine, as reported previously [10]. At the stadium, where the matches occurred, there are 6
RadioEyes for optimal coverage, resulting in practically zero packet loss for transponders on
the field. If packet loss occurred, the data was linearly interpolated. The accuracy and reliability
of the system in measuring player movements in elite soccer competitions have been described
in more detail in previous studies [23–25].
Physical performance variables
Physical parameters analysed included: total distance (TotDist) number of accelerations
(acccounts), acceleration distance (accdist), number of decelerations (deccounts), deceleration
Table 1. Number of match observations per player and tactical system.
Player
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Observations per tactical system
1-4-5-1
3
5
7
1
3
5
1
0
6
2
4
2
6
0
6
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1-3-5-2
0
7
7
7
2
0
0
6
5
0
5
3
0
1
6
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
Total observations
3
12
14
8
5
5
1
6
11
2
9
5
6
1
12
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214952.t001
Match-physical demands across tactical systems
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214952
April 4, 2019
3 / 12
distance (decdist), number of HIR (HIRcounts), HIR distance (HIRdist), number of sprints
(sprintcounts), sprint distance (sprintdist) and turns.
The HIR (19.8 kmh−1) and sprinting (25.2 kmh−1) speed thresholds are similar to
those reported in previous research [10, 22, 24, 26].
According to the ZXY Sport Tracking system accelerations were quantified through numer-
ical derivation from positional data with a sampling frequency of 20Hz [25]. Furthermore,
accelerations are defined by four event markers: (a) the start of the acceleration event is
marked by the acceleration reaching the minimum limit of 1 ms −2, (b) the acceleration
reaches the acceleration limit of 2 ms −2, (c) the acceleration remains above the 2 ms −2 for at
least 0.5 seconds and (d) the duration of the acceleration ends when it decreases below the
minimum acceleration limit (1 ms −2).
Turns were counted only if the player performed a continuous and significant body rota-
tion of more than 90˚ in one direction (derived from gyroscope and compass data). The end of
a turn and the start of another occurs when a rotation in the opposite direction is measured.
The angle threshold used by ZXY Sport Tracking system allowed us to analyse only angles
90˚.
Statistical analysis
The results are presented as mean and 95% confidence interval, unless otherwise stated. A lin-
ear mixed-effects model with restricted maximum likelihood estimations was used to examine
differences in Local Positioning Measurement-derived variables and match duration between
1-3-5-2 and 1-4-5-1 formations. Mixed models can account for unbalanced repeats per player
and thus used to model the data. Tactical formation, playing position and their interaction was
modelled as fixed effects (effects describing the association between the dependent variable
and covariates), while ‘athlete ID’ was included as a random effect (effects generally represent-
ing random deviations from the relationships of the fixed part of the model). An α-level of
0.05 was used as level of significance for statistical comparisons. Furthermore, multiple com-
parisons were adjusted using the Tukey method. The t statistics from the mixed models were
converted to effect size correlations [27]. Effect sizes were interpreted as <0.1, trivial; 0.1–0.3,
small; 0.3–0.5, moderate; 0.5–0.7, large; 0.7–0.9, very large; 0.9–0.99, almost perfect; 1.0, perfect
[28]. All statistical analyses were conducted using the lme4, lsmeans and psychometric pack-
ages in R statistical software (version 3.4.1, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna,
Austria).
Results
Centre-backs
Slightly higher values, though not statistically significant, were found in HIRdist, Acc and Dec
(counts and distance), sprintcounts and turns when playing in 1-4-5-1 compared to 1-3-5-2 for-
mation (Table 2). Furthermore, CB playing in 1-4-5-1 were observed to perform significant
more HIRcounts (36.1 ± 3.5) than in 1-3-5-2 (28.2 ± 3.5) (p = 0.008), with a correspondent
medium effect size (r = 0.37).
Wide positions
No significant differences were observed between the tactical formations analysed from players
playing in wide positions (Table 3). However, higher values in HIRdist (r = 0.19) and sprintdist
(r = 0.16) were found when playing with 1-3-5-2 (977.2 ± 73.7; 236.9 ± 26.8) compared to 1-4-
5-1 (838.9 ± 62.5; 195.3 ± 22.7) formation.
Match-physical demands across tactical systems
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214952
April 4, 2019
4 / 12
Centre midfielders
Small effect sizes were observed in HIRcounts (r = 0.12) and Acccounts (r = 0.14) (Table 4), with
higher values being observed when playing in 1-4-5-1 (38.5 ± 3.2; 62.3 ± 5.5) than in 1-3-5-2
(35.7 ± 3.4; 55.9 ± 5.9). A similar effect size was also observed in turns (r = 0.15), with CM per-
forming more turns when playing in 1-3-5-2 (40.3 ± 3.7) than in 1-4-5-1 (34.7 ± 3.4).
Centre forwards
No significant differences were found regarding any parameter analysed. However, higher val-
ues, though with a trivial effect size, in HIRdist and sprintdist can be observed (Table 5) when
playing in 1-3-5-2.
Tactical system
Significant differences were found in various parameters when comparing the physical perfor-
mance of the whole team when playing with different tactical systems (Table 6). Significant
higher values were observed in HIRcounts (r = 0.25) and sprintcounts (r = 0.22) when playing in
Table 2. Mean and 95% confidence interval estimates of different physical parameters from centre backs, analysed according to the tactical system used, and respec-
tive p-value and effect size of differences observed (n = 4; observations = 37).
Variables
CB
p-value
Effect Size (r)
1-4-5-1
1-3-5-2
TotDist (m)
10865.0 (227.6)
10591.8 (224.0)
0.825
0.15
HIR counts
36.1 (3.5)
28.2 (3.5)
0.008
0.37
HIR dist (m)
512.0 (81.5)
431.0 (81.3)
0.658
0.18
Sprint counts
6.6 (1.9)
5.4 (1.9)
0.871
0.15
Sprint dist (m)
64.4 (29.6)
74.2 (29.5)
0.999
0.06
Acc dist (m)
325.6 (37.6)
306.9 (37.6)
0.982
0.10
Acc counts
63.2 (6.1)
59.7 (6.1)
0.983
0.10
Dec dist (m)
321.2 (41.7)
278.5 (41.6)
0.543
0.20
Dec counts
60.3 (6.9)
53.6 (6.9)
0.680
0.18
Turns
32.2 (3.5)
25.8 (3.4)
0.437
0.21
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214952.t002
Table 3. Mean and 95% confidence interval estimates of different physical parameters from full-backs, wide midfielders and wing-backs analysed according to the
tactical system used, and respective p-value and effect size of differences observed (n = 9; observations = 31).
Variables
FB/WM/WB
p-value
Effect Size (r)
1-4-5-1
1-3-5-2
TotDist
10842.6 (188.8)
11143.0 (233.0)
0.942
0.13
HIR counts
45.9 (2.7)
46.9 (3.2)
1.000
0.03
HIR dist
838.9 (62.5)
977.2 (73.7)
0.523
0.19
Sprint counts
14.1 (1.4)
14.0 (1.6)
1.000
0.01
Sprint dist
195.3 (22.7)
236.9 (26.8)
0.747
0.16
Acc dist
462.2 (28.5)
447.1 (33.2)
1.000
0.05
Acc counts
83.2 (4.7)
76.8 (5.7)
0.950
0.12
Dec dist
501.2 (31.5)
505.4 (36.9)
1.000
0.01
Dec counts
86.9 (5.3)
86.1 (6.2)
1.000
0.01
Turns
42.1 (2.9)
38.8 (3.7)
0.993
0.11
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214952.t003
Match-physical demands across tactical systems
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214952
April 4, 2019
5 / 12
1-4-5-1 (43.6 ± 1.9; 11.4 ± 1.1) compared with 1-3-5-2 (40.0 ± 2.0; 10.0 ± 1.1) (p = 0.005 and
p = 0.015, respectively). Furthermore, when playing in 1-4-5-1, the team was observed to per-
form more Acccounts (75.8 ± 3.2) and Deccounts (77.8 ± 3.5), as well as covering higher distances
in Decdist (440.3 ± 23.3) than when playing in 1-3-5-2 (71.1 ± 3.4; 72.5 ± 3.6; 413.7 ± 24.2; for
Acccounts, Deccounts and Decdist) (p = 0.022; p = 0.014 and p = 0.032, respectively).
Discussion
Context
The present study provides new insights into the physical demands of two common tactical
formations, in elite football players across different playing positions. The context of this study
appeared with the change of the head-coach, and consequently, the tactical formation and
style of play used of the professional football team analysed. Since this replacement happened
in the middle of the season, both tactical formations analysed were composed by an almost
equal number of matches (7 and 8 home matches each). It is also important to refer that the
change of head-coach led not only to a simple switch of the tactical structure used, but also to a
change to a more complex style of play. A more possession and position-oriented style of play
Table 4. Mean and 95% confidence interval estimates of different physical parameters from centre midfielders, analysed according to the tactical system used, and
respective p-value and effect size of differences observed (n = 6; observations = 26).
Variables
CM
p-value
Effect Size (r)
1-4-5-1
1-3-5-2
TotDist
12009.0 (218.5)
11820.8 (238.7)
1.000
0.09
HIR counts
38.5 (3.2)
35.7 (3.4)
0.948
0.12
HIR dist
643.2 (73.1)
610.9 (78.1)
1.000
0.06
Sprint counts
7.0 (1.6)
7.0 (1.7)
1.000
0.05
Sprint dist
101.4 (26.6)
94.8 (28.4)
1.000
0.03
Acc dist
313.3 (33.4)
289.6 (35.5)
0.973
0.10
Acc counts
62.3 (5.5)
55.9 (5.9)
0.845
0.14
Dec dist
358.3 (37.0)
326.0 (39.4)
0.923
0.13
Dec counts
69.4 (6.2)
64.2 (6.6)
0.951
0.11
Turns
34.7 (3.4)
40.3 (3.7)
0.782
0.15
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214952.t004
Table 5. Mean and 95% confidence interval estimates of different physical parameters from centre forwards, analysed according to the tactical system used, and
respective p-value and effect size of differences observed (n = 3; observations = 14).
Variables
CF
p-value
Effect Size (r)
1-4-5-1
1-3-5-2
TotDist
10724.4 (328.6)
10732.8 (328.6)
1.000
>0.01
HIR counts
48.6 (4.7)
47.1 (4.7)
1.000
0.05
HIR dist
835.2 (108.5)
930.5 (108.5)
0.881
0.14
Sprint counts
11.7 (2.4)
12.8 (2.4)
0.993
0.08
Sprint dist
164.5 (39.5)
208.5 (39.5)
0.689
0.18
Acc dist
483.4 (49.4)
477.7 (49.4)
1.000
0.02
Acc counts
82.9 (8.2)
80.2 (8.2)
1.000
0.05
Dec dist
461.4 (54.8)
470.8 (54.8)
1.000
0.03
Dec counts
78.3 (9.2)
73.4 (9.2)
0.992
0.09
Turns
36.8 (5.1)
29.7 (5.1)
0.810
0.16
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214952.t005
Match-physical demands across tactical systems
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214952
April 4, 2019
6 / 12
were adopted (1-3-5-2) instead of the more direct play and counter-attack strategy used in the
first half of the season (1-4-5-1). However, even with all these changes, the context remained
the same (same players with similar physical capacities).
Comparison according to playing position
The results suggest that general match physical demands do not differ considerably between
these two tactical formations when compared by playing position. Independent of formation
and with few exceptions, players presented similar profiles in all the physical parameters ana-
lysed. The most relevant exceptions were the higher HIRcounts in CB (1-4-5-1) and longer HIRdist
in FB/WM/WB (1-3-5-2), with a medium and small effect size, respectively.
CB playing in 1-4-5-1 performed more HIRcounts, probably due to the larger area they
needed to cover when compared to the area covered by the three CBs when playing in 1-3-5-2.
When in defensive organisation (without ball possession), the defensive line of three CBs
became most of the time a defensive line composed by 5 players (three CBs and two WBs).
The increased number of players playing in the defensive line leads to less m2 per player to
cover.
Players in wide positions covered more HIRdist when playing in 1-3-5-2 most likely because
in this formation the team played with only two wide players (WB), and they needed to cover
all the flank, while with 1-4-5-1 formation, those flanks were covered by a total of four players
(two on each side).
It has been speculated that match physical demands are higher for CF when playing “alone”
in the offensive line (e.g. 1-4-5-1; 1-5-4-1), as they are very often isolated and marked by sev-
eral opponents [29]. However, the results of the present study are slightly different, since
higher, though not significant, values were found in HIRdist and sprintdist for CF, when playing
with two attackers (1-3-5-2) compared with playing with only one (1-4-5-1).
Furthermore, no differences in playing time (substitutions) were observed in any playing
position between the two tactical systems analysed.
Comparison according to team workload
When playing position was not taken into consideration and the work-load of the whole team
was analysed, the physical workload in some variables was significantly different between tacti-
cal systems used. Small significant differences were observed in HIRcounts and sprintcounts, with
the team performing more runs (>19,8 km/h) when playing in 1-4-5-1. The number of Acc
Table 6. Mean and 95% confidence interval estimates of different physical parameters from the whole team, analysed according to the tactical system used, and
respective p-value and effect size of differences observed.
Variables
Tactical system
p-value
Effect Size (r)
1-4-5-1
1-3-5-2
TotDist
11048.5 (140.2)
11091.2 (149.5)
0.705
0.03
HIR counts
43.6 (1.9)
40.0 (2.0)
0.005
0.25
HIR dist
779.9 (50.9)
762.8 (52.7)
0.541
0.06
Sprint counts
11.4 (1.1)
10.0 (1.1)
0.015
0.22
Sprint dist
156.9 (19.1)
158.6 (19.8)
0.867
0.02
Acc dist
420.7 (23.1)
401.1 (23.8)
0.085
0.16
Acc counts
75.8 (3.2)
71.1 (3.4)
0.022
0.20
Dec dist
440.3 (23.3)
413.7 (24.2)
0.032
0.19
Dec counts
77.8 (3.5)
72.5 (3.6)
0.014
0.22
Turns
36.9 (1.9)
33.5 (2.0)
0.057
0.16
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214952.t006
Match-physical demands across tactical systems
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214952
April 4, 2019
7 / 12
and Dec was also higher when the 1-4-5-1 system was used. In general, almost all variables ana-
lysed presented higher values during the first period of the season (1-4-5-1) than in the second
(1-3-5-2).
Previous research [30, 31] has suggested that teams who are winning the match tend to
relax and decrease their work-rate. Alternatively, although teams who are losing the match
may increase their work-rate during a specified period [32, 33], they may quickly lose the moti-
vation to keep the elevated work rate, which may be especially evident when the goal difference
increases negatively (conceding more goals) [34]. In fact, the differences observed between
these two tactical systems might be, in part, justified by the significant discrepancy between
the score line and match final results achieved during the first and second part of the season.
While playing in 1-4-5-1 the team achieved one victory, four draws and three defeats in the
eight home matches played. On the other hand, while playing in 1-3-5-2, the team had better
results, with five victories, one draw and one defeat in the last seven home matches played.
The match results (considerably more draws) and the differences in style of play may therefore,
partly justify the higher work-rate of the 1-4-5-1 tactical system.
Limitations
Our initial hypothesis was that, despite playing in their specific positions, players would accumu-
late different external workload in matches, depending on the preferred tactical formation. How-
ever, the results presented in this study do not fully support the hypothesis, probably because the
match-to-match variability might be larger than the differences in physical performance between
tactical systems. Like most of the measures in team sports performance, the physical variables
used in this study are not stable and are subject to a high variation between successive matches
[35]. Furthermore, it has been proved that within-subject (player) and between-match variation
in physical performance across the season might be experienced due to changes in the physical
condition of the player [36, 37] and environmental conditions [38]. Previous studies have shown
that match-to-match variability in performance characteristics of elite soccer players is high [35,
39, 40] and that future research based in match performance requires large sample sizes to iden-
tify true systematic changes in workload. In fact, the sample size (22 players/108 observations)
might be of such small numbers that true differences can be masked due to a statistical type 2
error, and such a consequence cannot be conclusively ruled out. Previous similar studies have
analysed more matches [17] or used considerably larger sample sizes [11] than in the present
study. However, they have not compared the physical demands of different tactical systems
within the same players in the same context (same team and season) and to do so, a larger sample
size than the one used in the present study becomes a difficult task to fulfil.
Even though, the methodology used to determine the team formations is in line with previ-
ous studies [11, 14, 17, 20, 41, 42], the process of defining team formations and controlling
their consistency throughout the matches was based on the subjective assessment of observers.
Further research is needed to attempt to define objectively team formations and to identify
when changes occur [17].
Goalkeepers were not included in the present study, however their match activity profiles
might be useful and interesting to analyse in different tactical systems and styles of play in
future research. All these limitations should be taken into consideration when designing future
studies.
Perspectives and practical application
Since previous research has shown that the players’ physical demands in matches are highly
dependent on their positional role in the team [43, 44], analytics, in general, have become a
Match-physical demands across tactical systems
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214952
April 4, 2019
8 / 12
crucial component of team organization and content of training, to meet the position-specific
requirements of physical conditioning [45]. This study goes beyond the individualization of
training demands according to playing position, also suggesting that the change of tactical sys-
tem might influence, specific variables of the team’s overall match activity profile, and those
differences should be taken into consideration when designing training programs. On the
other hand, differences are not notable in all playing positions and these findings should be
interpreted with caution, as differences might be team dependent since other teams using the
same tactical systems, probably appear with different styles of play.
Change of formation had a different impact on different playing positions, with CB and
wide positions presenting more substantial differences than CM and CF. As previously men-
tioned, the present study and its findings may provide useful and novel insights for coaches on
physical performance demands in different tactical formations across playing positions. The
information provided should be taken into consideration when designing and implementing
training program cycles, according to players’ playing position, the team’s tactical formation
and style of play. The individualization and specialization of the training should, therefore, be
a matter of reflection and analysis from practitioners.
Supporting information
S1 File. Data review.
(XLSX)
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Ivan Baptista.
Data curation: Pedro Figueiredo.
Formal analysis: Pedro Figueiredo.
Investigation: Ivan Baptista.
Methodology: Ivan Baptista, Anto´nio Rebelo, Svein Arne Pettersen.
Project administration: Svein Arne Pettersen.
Supervision: Dag Johansen, Svein Arne Pettersen.
Visualization: Ivan Baptista.
Writing – original draft: Ivan Baptista.
Writing – review & editing: Dag Johansen, Pedro Figueiredo, Anto´nio Rebelo, Svein Arne
Pettersen.
References
1.
Sarmento H, Marcelino R, Anguera MT, CampaniCo J, Matos N, LeitAo JC. Match analysis in football: a
systematic review. J Sports Sci. 2014; 32(20):1831–43. Epub 2014/05/03. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02640414.2014.898852 PMID: 24787442.
2.
Bloomfield J, Polman R, O’Donoghue P. Physical Demands of Different Positions in FA Premier League
Soccer. Journal of sports science & medicine. 2007; 6(1):63–70. Epub 2007/01/01. PMID: 24149226;
PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3778701.
3.
Drust B, Atkinson G, Reilly T. Future perspectives in the evaluation of the physiological demands of soc-
cer. Sports medicine (Auckland, NZ). 2007; 37(9):783–805. Epub 2007/08/29. https://doi.org/10.2165/
00007256-200737090-00003 PMID: 17722949.
Match-physical demands across tactical systems
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214952
April 4, 2019
9 / 12
4.
Moura FA, Martins LE, Anido Rde O, de Barros RM, Cunha SA. Quantitative analysis of Brazilian foot-
ball players’ organisation on the pitch. Sports biomechanics. 2012; 11(1):85–96. Epub 2012/04/24.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2011.637123 PMID: 22518947.
5.
Rein R, Memmert D. Big data and tactical analysis in elite soccer: future challenges and opportunities
for sports science. SpringerPlus. 2016; 5(1):1410. Epub 2016/09/10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-
016-3108-2 PMID: 27610328; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4996805.
6.
Sarmento H, Clemente FM, Araujo D, Davids K, McRobert A, Figueiredo A. What Performance Analysts
Need to Know About Research Trends in Association Football (2012–2016): A Systematic Review.
Sports medicine (Auckland, NZ). 2018; 48(4):799–836. Epub 2017/12/16. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40279-017-0836-6 PMID: 29243038.
7.
Kannekens R, Elferink-Gemser MT, Visscher C. Positioning and deciding: key factors for talent devel-
opment in soccer. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports. 2011; 21(6):846–52. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01104.x PMID: 22126715
8.
Sampaio J, Macas V. Measuring tactical behaviour in football. Int J Sports Med. 2012; 33(5):395–401.
Epub 2012/03/02. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1301320 PMID: 22377947.
9.
Schuth G, Carr G, Barnes C, Carling C, Bradley PS. Positional interchanges influence the physical and
technical match performance variables of elite soccer players. J Sports Sci. 2016; 34(6):501–8. Epub
2015/12/25. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2015.1127402 PMID: 26700131.
10.
Baptista I, Johansen D, Seabra A, Pettersen SA. Position specific player load during match-play in a
professional football club. PLoS One. 2018; 13(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198115 PMID:
29795703; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5967838.
11.
Bradley P, Carling C, Archer D, Roberts J, Dodds A, Di Mascio M, et al. The effect of playing formation
on high-intensity running and technical profiles in English FA Premier League soccer matches. J Sports
Sci. 2011; 29(8):821–30. Epub 2011/04/23. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2011.561868 PMID:
21512949.
12.
Bartlett R, Button C, Robins M, Dutt-Mazumder A, Kennedy G. Analysing Team Coordination Patterns
from Player Movement Trajectories in Soccer: Methodological Considerations. International Journal of
Performance Analysis in Sport International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport. 2017; 12
(2):398–424.
13.
Moura FA, Martins LE, Anido RO, Ruffino PR, Barros RM, Cunha SA. A spectral analysis of team
dynamics and tactics in Brazilian football. J Sports Sci. 2013; 31(14):1568–77. Epub 2013/05/02.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2013.789920 PMID: 23631771.
14.
Baptista J, Travassos B, Goncalves B, Mourao P, Viana JL, Sampaio J. Exploring the effects of playing
formations on tactical behaviour and external workload during football small-sided games. J Strength
Cond Res. 2018. Epub 2018/01/18. https://doi.org/10.1519/jsc.0000000000002445 PMID: 29337830.
15.
Clemente FM, Couceiro MS, Martins FM, Ivanova MO, Mendes R. Activity profiles of soccer players
during the 2010 world cup. J Hum Kinet. 2013; 38:201–11. Epub 2013/11/16. https://doi.org/10.2478/
hukin-2013-0060 PMID: 24235995; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3827759.
16.
Silva JR, Magalhaes J, Ascensao A, Seabra AF, Rebelo AN. Training status and match activity of pro-
fessional soccer players throughout a season. J Strength Cond Res. 2013; 27(1):20–30. Epub 2012/02/
22. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e31824e1946 PMID: 22344051.
17.
Carling C. Influence of opposition team formation on physical and skill-related performance in a profes-
sional soccer team. European Journal of Sport Science. 2011; 11(3):155–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17461391.2010.499972
18.
Palucci Vieira LH, Aquino R, Lago-Penas C, Munhoz Martins GH, Puggina EF, Barbieri FA. Running
Performance in Brazilian Professional Football Players During a Congested Match Schedule. J Strength
Cond Res. 2018; 32(2):313–25. Epub 2018/01/26. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002342
PMID: 29369952.
19.
Clemente FM, Figueiredo AJ, Martins FM, Mendes RS, Wong DP. Physical and technical performances
are not associated with tactical prominence in U14 soccer matches. Research in sports medicine
(Print). 2016; 24(4):352–62. Epub 2016/10/30. https://doi.org/10.1080/15438627.2016.1222277 PMID:
27533018.
20.
Aquino R, Carling C, Palucci Vieira LH, Martins G, Jabor G, Machado J, et al. Influence of Situational
Variables, Team Formation, and Playing Position on Match Running Performance and Social Network
Analysis in Brazilian Professional Soccer Players. J Strength Cond Res. 2018. Epub 2018/07/10.
https://doi.org/10.1519/jsc.0000000000002725 PMID: 29985222.
21.
Carling C, Le Gall F, Dupont G. Analysis of repeated high-intensity running performance in professional
soccer. J Sports Sci. 2012; 30(4):325–36. Epub 2012/01/18. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2011.
652655 PMID: 22248291.
Match-physical demands across tactical systems
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214952
April 4, 2019
10 / 12
22.
Bradley P, Sheldon W, Wooster B, Olsen P, Boanas P, Krustrup P. High-intensity running in English FA
Premier League soccer matches. J Sports Sci. 2009; 27(2):159–68. Epub 2009/01/21. https://doi.org/
10.1080/02640410802512775 PMID: 19153866.
23.
Bendiksen M, Pettersen SA, Ingebrigtsen J, Randers MB, Brito J, Mohr M, et al. Application of the
Copenhagen Soccer Test in high-level women players—locomotor activities, physiological response
and sprint performance. Human movement science. 2013; 32(6):1430–42. Epub 2013/09/11. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2013.07.011 PMID: 24016711.
24.
Ingebrigtsen J, Dalen T, Hjelde GH, Drust B, Wisloff U. Acceleration and sprint profiles of a professional
elite football team in match play. Eur J Sport Sci. 2015; 15(2):101–10. Epub 2014/07/10. https://doi.org/
10.1080/17461391.2014.933879 PMID: 25005777.
25.
Pettersen SA, Johansen HD, Baptista IAM, Halvorsen P, Johansen D. Quantified Soccer Using Posi-
tional Data: A Case Study. Frontiers in Physiology. 2018; 9(866). https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.
00866 PMID: 30034347
26.
Dalen T, Ingebrigtsen J, Ettema G, Hjelde GH, Wisloff U. Player Load, Acceleration, and Deceleration
During Forty-Five Competitive Matches of Elite Soccer. J Strength Cond Res. 2016; 30(2):351–9. Epub
2015/06/10. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001063 PMID: 26057190.
27.
Rosnow RL, Rosenthal R, Rubin DB. Contrasts and correlations in effect-size estimation. Psychological
science. 2000; 11(6):446–53. Epub 2001/02/24. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00287 PMID:
11202488.
28.
Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, Hanin J. Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine
and exercise science. Medicine and science in sports and exercise. 2009; 41(1):3–13. Epub 2008/12/
19. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e31818cb278 PMID: 19092709.
29.
Bangsbo J, Peitersen B. Soccer systems and strategies. Champaign IL: Human Kinetics; 2000.
30.
Lago C. The influence of match location, quality of opposition, and match status on possession strate-
gies in professional association football. J Sports Sci. 2009; 27(13):1463–9. Epub 2009/09/17. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02640410903131681 PMID: 19757296.
31.
Paul DJ, Bradley PS, Nassis GP. Factors affecting match running performance of elite soccer players:
shedding some light on the complexity. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2015; 10(4):516–9. https://doi.org/
10.1123/IJSPP.2015-0029 PMID: 25928752.
32.
Castellano J, Blanco-Villasenor A, Alvarez D. Contextual variables and time-motion analysis in soccer.
Int J Sports Med. 2011; 32(6):415–21. Epub 2011/05/19. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1271771
PMID: 21590641.
33.
Lago-Penas C, Dellal A. Ball possession strategies in elite soccer according to the evolution of the
match-score: the influence of situational variables. J Hum Kinet. 2010; 25:93–100.
34.
Redwood-Brown AJ, O’Donoghue PG, Nevill AM, Saward C, Dyer N, Sunderland C. Effects of situa-
tional variables on the physical activity profiles of elite soccer players in different score line states.
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2018. Epub 2018/07/29. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.13271 PMID: 30055045.
35.
Gregson W, Drust B, Atkinson G, Salvo VD. Match-to-match variability of high-speed activities in pre-
mier league soccer. Int J Sports Med. 2010; 31(4):237–42. Epub 2010/02/17. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-
0030-1247546 PMID: 20157871.
36.
Krustrup P, Bangsbo J. Physiological demands of top-class soccer refereeing in relation to physical
capacity: effect of intense intermittent exercise training. J Sports Sci. 2001; 19(11):881–91. Epub 2001/
11/07. https://doi.org/10.1080/026404101753113831 PMID: 11695510.
37.
Mohr M, Krustrup P, Bangsbo J. Match performance of high-standard soccer players with special refer-
ence to development of fatigue. J Sports Sci. 2003; 21(7):519–28. Epub 2003/07/10. https://doi.org/10.
1080/0264041031000071182 PMID: 12848386.
38.
Ekblom B. Applied physiology of soccer. Sports medicine (Auckland, NZ). 1986; 3(1):50–60. Epub
1986/01/01. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-198603010-00005 PMID: 3633120.
39.
Carling C, Bradley P, McCall A, Dupont G. Match-to-match variability in high-speed running activity in a
professional soccer team. J Sports Sci. 2016; 34(24):2215–23. Epub 2016/05/05. https://doi.org/10.
1080/02640414.2016.1176228 PMID: 27144879.
40.
Trewin J, Meylan C, Varley MC, Cronin J. The match-to-match variation of match-running in elite female
soccer. J Sci Med Sport. 2018; 21(2):196–201. Epub 2017/06/10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2017.
05.009 PMID: 28595867.
41.
Lacome M, Simpson BM, Cholley Y, Lambert P, Buchheit M. Small-Sided Games in Elite Soccer: Does
One Size Fit All? International journal of sports physiology and performance. 2018; 13(5):568–76. Epub
2017/07/18. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2017-0214 PMID: 28714774.
Match-physical demands across tactical systems
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214952
April 4, 2019
11 / 12
42.
Silva P, Chung D, Carvalho T, Cardoso T, Davids K, Araujo D, et al. Practice effects on intra-team syn-
ergies in football teams. Human movement science. 2016; 46:39–51. Epub 2015/12/29. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.humov.2015.11.017 PMID: 26707679.
43.
Di Salvo V, Baron R, Tschan H, Calderon Montero FJ, Bachl N, Pigozzi F. Performance characteristics
according to playing position in elite soccer. Int J Sports Med. 2007; 28(3):222–7. Epub 2006/10/07.
https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-924294 PMID: 17024626.
44.
Mohr M, Krustrup P, Andersson H, Kirkendal D, Bangsbo J. Match activities of elite women soccer play-
ers at different performance levels. J Strength Cond Res. 2008; 22(2):341–9. Epub 2008/06/14. https://
doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e318165fef6 PMID: 18550946.
45.
Carling C, Bloomfield J, Nelsen L, Reilly T. The role of motion analysis in elite soccer: contemporary per-
formance measurement techniques and work rate data. Sports medicine (Auckland, NZ). 2008; 38
(10):839–62. Epub 2008/09/23. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200838100-00004 PMID: 18803436.
Match-physical demands across tactical systems
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214952
April 4, 2019
12 / 12

A comparison of match-physical demands between different tactical systems: 1-4-5-1 vs 1-3-5-2.
Baptista, Ivan,Johansen, Dag,Figueiredo, Pedro,Rebelo, António,Pettersen, Svein Arne