The purpose of this study was to analyze the influence of tactical behavior on physical performance of the three best Spanish soccer teams. Team 1 employed a 1-4-4-2 formation with compact defence and direct attacks, Team 2 employed an indirect style of play with a 1-4-3-3 formation and Team 3 used a 1-4-3-3 formation with elaborate attacks and strong counter-attacks. 816 individual situations of 54 professional soccer players categorized as fullbacks (FB), central defenders (CD), central midfielders (MF), wide midfielders (WM), and strikers (S) were included in the analysis. Their performance was examined with a player-tracking system. The analyzed variables included total distance covered, distance covered above 14, 21 and 24 km·h-1, as well as distance covered in possession of the ball and without possession of the ball. Team 2 covered a substantially lower distance >14 km·h–1 than Team 1 and substantially lower distances >14, >21, and >25km·h–1 than Team 3. No differences in running activity were found between Teams 1 and 3. However, there were substantial differences between the specific positions of the three teams. CD in Team 1 covered the lowest distance by a substantial margin in almost all variables analysed, whereas MF travelled substantially greater distances than did other positions. WM in Team 1 covered the greatest distance >18 and >21km·h– 1, while S in Team 2 had the lowest distance covered in almost all the variables, and FB in Team 3 showed the lowest total distance covered and distance covered >14km·h–1. WM in Team 2 had the greatest distance covered in possession, while S in Team 3 had the greatest distance covered out of possession. The results indicate that different team formations and associated tactical demands have a significant influence on running performance.
Key words
- time-motion
- soccer
- match-analysis
- training
- physical demands
Running demands of professional soccer players during match-play have been widely studied in the last 20 years (Rivilla-García et al., 2019). This increase in time-motion research has improved our understanding of the global match demands (Paul et al., 2015) and position-specific locomotor activity profiles (Dalen et al., 2016; Suarez-Arrones et al., 2015). Most studies have described differences in the activity profile according to the player’s position and its relationship with match performance (Di Salvo et al., 2007; Goncalves et al., 2014; Suarez-Arrones et al., 2015; Torreno et al., 2016; Krosta et al., 2020). As a result of these studies, it is known that central defenders (CD) cover less total distance during the game and less distance at a high-intensity sprint, while both central and wide-midfielders (MF and WM, respectively) run greater total distances. WM is the position that covers more distance during high- and very high-intensity running and, together with S, the one who covers more distance when sprinting (Bradley et al., 2010; Di Salvo et al., 2007; Suarez-Arrones et al., 2015; Torreno et al., 2016).
In addition to the player’s position, other contextual factors must be considered to understand running performance of soccer players (Carling, 2013). The playing formation and competitive level are two aspects that, despite their significance, have received less attention in the literature (Memmert et al., 2019). Research on position-specific running demands remains scarce and inconclusive. While Bradley et al. (2011) showed that running demands were not influenced by the playing formation, Tierney et al. (2016) reached the opposite conclusion. Likewise, there is not a consensus about the running demands of the teams according to their competitive level (Di Salvo et al., 2009; Rampinini et al., 2009). Currently, there are no studies analyzing the team and individual running demands depending on tactical behavior between the teams of the same level. Therefore, the aims of this study were to 1) examine the influence of tactical behaviour on running demands of the three best teams of a highly competitive national soccer league, and 2) to determine differences in running demands of each individual position depending on team characteristics.
Match physical performance data were collected from 54 soccer players, from the top three teams of the Spanish
A multiple-camera, semi-automatic, computerised player-tracking system (MediaPro, Barcelona, Spain) was used to record and evaluate match-running performance (Pons et al., 2019; Rivilla-García et al., 2019). As in previous studies, locomotor performance was examined by distinguishing a set of running activity categories: total distance covered (TD), distance covered above 14km·h-1 (DC>14km·h-1), distance covered above 21km·h-1 (DC>21km·h-1), distance covered above 24km·h-1 (DC>24km·h-1), distance covered in possession of the ball (DC in possession) and distance covered without possession of the ball (DC out possession) (Asian Clemente et al., 2019; Bradley et al., 2011).
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD). All variables presented normal distribution (Shapiro-Wilk test). A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine differences between teams and playing positions. In the event of a significant difference, Bonferroni’s post-hoc tests were used to identify any localized effects. The standardized difference or effect size (ES, 90% confidence limit [90%CL]) in the selected variables was calculated. Threshold values for assessing the magnitude of the ES (changes as a fraction or multiple of baseline standard deviation) were <0.20, 0.20, 0.60, 1.2 and 2.0 for trivial, small, moderate, large and very large ES, respectively (Hopkins et al., 2009).
Table 1 and Figure 1 show running activity of each team throughout the season. Team 2 covered a substantially lower distance >14km·h–1 than Team 1 and substantially lower distances >14, >21, and >25km·h–1 than Team 3. No differences in running activity were found between Teams 1 and 3.
Figure 1
Running activity comparison between the three teams. TD=total distance covered; DC=Distance covered; **=p< 0.01; Bars indicate uncertainty in the true mean changes with 90% confidence intervals. The trivial area was calculated from the smallest worthwhile change (SWC).

Running activity characteristics adjusted by the position and team.
Team 1 | Team 2 | Team 3 | |
---|---|---|---|
DC | 10361±1104 | 10088±1164 | 10168±748 |
DC In Possession | 4006±916 | 3858±926 | 3961±809 |
DC Out Possession | 3611±876 | 3835±907 | 3777±683 |
DC >14 km·h−1 | 2491±801 | 2255±513 | 2462±445 |
DC >21 km·h−1 | 486±198 | 451±217 | 517±207 |
DC >24 km·h−1 | 236±131 | 221±142 | 263±147 |
Data are presented as mean±standard deviation. TD=Total distance covered; DC=Distance covered.
Table 2 and Figures 2–4 show match running activity by the position of the three teams during the season. There were substantial differences between the specific positions of the three teams. CD in Team 1 covered the lowest distance by a substantial margin in almost all variables analysed, whereas MF travelled substantially greater distances than did other positions. WM in Team 1 travelled the greatest DC >18 and >21km·h–1, S in Team 2 had the lowest DC in almost all the variables, and FB in Team 3 showed the lowest total DC and DC >14km·h–1. WM in Team 2 had the greatest DC in possession, while S in Team 3 had the greatest DC out of possession.
Figure 2
Running activity comparison between Teams 1 and 2 according to each position. TD=total distance covered; DC=Distance covered; *=p <0.05; **=p<0.01; Bars indicate uncertainty in the true mean changes with 90% confidence intervals. The trivial area was calculated from the smallest worthwhile change (SWC).

Figure 3
Running activity comparison between Teams 1 and 3 according to each position. TD=total distance covered; DC=Distance covered; *=p<0.05; **=p<0.01; Bars indicate uncertainty in the true mean changes with 90% confidence intervals. The trivial area was calculated from the smallest worthwhile change (SWC).

Figure 4
Running activity comparison between Teams 2 and 3 according to each position. TD=total distance covered; DC=Distance covered; *=p<0.05; **=p<0.01; Bars indicate uncertainty in the true mean changes with 90% confidence intervals. The trivial area was calculated from the smallest worthwhile change (SWC).

Running activity characteristics adjusted by the position and team.
Team 1 | Team 2 | Team 3 | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FB | CD | MF | WM | S | FB | CD | MF | WM | S | FB | CD | MF | WM | S | |
TD | 10666 | 9230 | 11464 | 11121 | 9327 | 10767 | 9266 | 10808 | 10200 | 8084 | 10096 | 9788 | 10855 | 9986 | 10092 |
SD | ±523 | ±586 | ±598 | ±458 | ±568 | ±571 | ±751 | ±683 | ±478 | ±1025 | ±614 | ±412 | ±814 | ±626 | ±631 |
DC In Possession | 4126 | 3477 | 4533 | 4601 | 3494 | 4136 | 3552 | 4137 | 3864 | 3084 | 3911 | 3728 | 4350 | 3580 | 3859 |
SD | ±741 | ±661 | ±982 | ±847 | ±679 | ±783 | ±526 | ±923 | ±1134 | ±1128 | ±602 | ±510 | ±825 | ±1170 | ±938 |
DC Out Possession | 3711 | 3159 | 4090 | 3517 | 3247 | 4045 | 3479 | 4195 | 3933 | 3060 | 3738 | 3525 | 4195 | 3547 | 3871 |
SD | ±655 | ±737 | ±960 | ±951 | ±581 | ±786 | ±458 | ±648 | ±1050 | ±1146 | ±527 | ±399 | ±648 | ±1105 | ±717 |
DC >14km·h−1 | 2816 | 1523 | 3147 | 2839 | 2440 | 2708 | 1951 | 2261 | 2516 | 1607 | 2591 | 2022 | 2746 | 2321 | 2527 |
SD | ±470 | ±278 | ±633 | ±280 | ±294 | ±320 | ±352 | ±429 | ±322 | ±398 | ±348 | ±254 | ±358 | ±185 | ±368 |
DC >21km·h−1 | 610 | 302 | 457 | 544 | 680 | 639 | 391 | 255 | 722 | 370 | 603 | 381 | 380 | 748 | 596 |
SD | ±142 | ±93 | ±181 | ±99 | ±160 | ±163 | ±100 | ±99 | ±188 | ±135 | ±178 | ±84 | ±178 | ±163 | ±101 |
DC >24km·h−1 | 293 | 148 | 188 | 245 | 420 | 332 | 193 | 93 | 398 | 175 | 300 | 190 | 154 | 439 | 290 |
SD | ±99 | ±67 | ±97 | ±82 | ±142 | ±121 | ±66 | ±56 | ±131 | ±83 | ±132 | ±75 | ±86 | ±126 | ±67 |
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation. FB=Fullbacks; CD=Central-defenders; MF=Central-midfielders; WM=Wide-midfielders; S=Strikers; TD=Total distance covered; DC=Distance covered; SD=Standard deviation.
The purposes of this study were 1) to analyse the influence of tactical behaviour (i.e., playing formation, playing style, and tactics) on physical performance of competition-level-matched top teams in Europe, and 2) to describe the differences in the locomotor demands of individual positions depending on the team’s characteristics. The results indicated that different team formations and associated tactical demands had significant influence on running performance of elite soccer players.
Outcomes indicated that the running activity of more successful teams in
Results showed differences between Teams 2 and 3 in running performance over DC >14, >18, and >24km·h–1, and between Teams 1 and 2 in DC at >14 km·h1. These differences could be due to the fact that Team 3 typically demonstrated greater counter-attacks covering greater distances at higher speeds. In contrast, Team 2 employed more elaborate attacks using shorter movements and a higher number of passes between teammates. This offensive style could explain the differences seen in DC relative to Team 1, who presented a greater defensive style and expended more time defending and initiating more direct attacks.
The playing position is well known to impact the demands of players during matches (Di Salvo et al., 2009; Suarez-Arrones et al., 2015; Torreno et al., 2016) and our results show that the tactical profile of teams affected individual positions differently. In Teams 2 and 3 CD had higher demands than in Team 1, which could be related to the offensive attitude of these teams who defended farther to their goalkeepers what provoked that their CD accumulated more running activity. For their part, FB in Teams 1 and 2 achieved more TD and DC >14km·h-1 than in Team 3. Team 3 played with WM opened in the wings what could have limited the demands of their FB.
Defensive mentality could explain the greater running demands of MF in Team 1 with respect to Teams 2 and 3 accumulating more TD, DC>14, 21 and 24km·h-1. This defensive attitude was also shown in their WM who occupied central positions in Team 1 while in the other teams WM played more opened. This behaviour could have provoked higher speed running in Teams 2 and 3 (>21 and 24km·h-1) and in Team 1 more TD and distance covered at lower intensity (>14km·h-1).
The playing position is well known to impact the demands of players during matches (Di Salvo et al., 2009; Suarez-Arrones et al., 2015; Torreno et al., 2016) and our results show that the tactical profile of teams affected individual positions differently. In Teams 2 and 3 CD had higher demands than in Team 1, which could be related to the offensive attitude of these teams who defended farther to their goalkeepers what provoked that their CD accumulated more running activity. For their part, FB in Teams 1 and 2 achieved more TD and DC>14km·h-1 than in Team 3. Team 3 played with WM opened in the wings what could have limited the demands of their FB.
Defensive mentality could explain the greater running demands of MF in Team 1 with respect to Teams 2 and 3 accumulating more TD, DC>14, 21 and 24km·h-1. This defensive attitude was also shown in their WM who occupied central positions in Team 1 while in the other teams WM played more opened. This behaviour could have provoked higher speed running in Teams 2 and 3 (>21 and 24km·h-1) and in Team 1 more TD and distance covered at lower intensity (>14 km·h-1).
The offensive and defensive team’s tactics could also have affected running demands of S. S of Teams 1 and 3 achieved greater TD, DC>14, 21 and >24km·h–1 than S of Team 2. In these teams, they employed fast counter-attacks with the intention of attacking the space behind the defensive line of the opponents by mobilizing to the free space. Conversely, S of Team 2 were situated closer to the opponent’s goal during attack and thus performing shorter movements, which may have allowed them to cover smaller distances. DC>24km·h–1 differences between S of Teams 1 and 3 could be because S of Team 1 sometimes began a counterattack farther from the opponent’s goal, placing more responsibility on defensive work.
Despite the results of this study, certain limitations should be considered. We only compared three teams from the Spanish first division; it would be interesting to reproduce this analysis with other top European league teams. Likewise, although an analysis of running performance of teams has been shown, more physical and physiological information, including other locomotor variables (e.g., accelerations and decelerations) or internal load variables (e.g., rating of perceived exertion, heart rate) could be more informative.
The results of the present study showed that the movement patterns of teams and each position were influenced by tactical behaviour chosen by coaches. Technical staff should better understand what are the running demands of their players during competition according to their tactical instructions because in teams of the same competitive level behaviour during matches would be different. With this in mind, coaches should design specific training programs using drills which simulate the specific requirements of the game considering tactical behaviour in order to best prepare soccer players.
Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Running activity characteristics adjusted by the position and team.
Team 1 | Team 2 | Team 3 | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FB | CD | MF | WM | S | FB | CD | MF | WM | S | FB | CD | MF | WM | S | |
TD | 10666 | 9230 | 11464 | 11121 | 9327 | 10767 | 9266 | 10808 | 10200 | 8084 | 10096 | 9788 | 10855 | 9986 | 10092 |
SD | ±523 | ±586 | ±598 | ±458 | ±568 | ±571 | ±751 | ±683 | ±478 | ±1025 | ±614 | ±412 | ±814 | ±626 | ±631 |
DC In Possession | 4126 | 3477 | 4533 | 4601 | 3494 | 4136 | 3552 | 4137 | 3864 | 3084 | 3911 | 3728 | 4350 | 3580 | 3859 |
SD | ±741 | ±661 | ±982 | ±847 | ±679 | ±783 | ±526 | ±923 | ±1134 | ±1128 | ±602 | ±510 | ±825 | ±1170 | ±938 |
DC Out Possession | 3711 | 3159 | 4090 | 3517 | 3247 | 4045 | 3479 | 4195 | 3933 | 3060 | 3738 | 3525 | 4195 | 3547 | 3871 |
SD | ±655 | ±737 | ±960 | ±951 | ±581 | ±786 | ±458 | ±648 | ±1050 | ±1146 | ±527 | ±399 | ±648 | ±1105 | ±717 |
DC >14km·h−1 | 2816 | 1523 | 3147 | 2839 | 2440 | 2708 | 1951 | 2261 | 2516 | 1607 | 2591 | 2022 | 2746 | 2321 | 2527 |
SD | ±470 | ±278 | ±633 | ±280 | ±294 | ±320 | ±352 | ±429 | ±322 | ±398 | ±348 | ±254 | ±358 | ±185 | ±368 |
DC >21km·h−1 | 610 | 302 | 457 | 544 | 680 | 639 | 391 | 255 | 722 | 370 | 603 | 381 | 380 | 748 | 596 |
SD | ±142 | ±93 | ±181 | ±99 | ±160 | ±163 | ±100 | ±99 | ±188 | ±135 | ±178 | ±84 | ±178 | ±163 | ±101 |
DC >24km·h−1 | 293 | 148 | 188 | 245 | 420 | 332 | 193 | 93 | 398 | 175 | 300 | 190 | 154 | 439 | 290 |
SD | ±99 | ±67 | ±97 | ±82 | ±142 | ±121 | ±66 | ±56 | ±131 | ±83 | ±132 | ±75 | ±86 | ±126 | ±67 |
Inter-Limb Muscle Property Differences in Junior Tennis Players The Pre-Exhaustion Method Does Not Increase Muscle Activity in Target Muscle During Strength Training in Untrained Individuals Neuromuscular Impact of Acute Hypertrophic Resistance Loading With and Without Blood-Flow Restriction Validity and Reliability of the Smart Groin Trainer for Measuring Hip Adduction Strength The Repeated Curve Sprint Test Appears to be an Appropriate Tool for Estimating Anaerobic Fitness in Young Trained Male Futsal Players Training with a Heavy Puck Elicits a Higher Increase of Shooting Speed Than Unloaded Training in Midget Ice Hockey Players Accuracy of Predicting One-Repetition Maximum from Submaximal Velocity in the Barbell Back Squat and Bench Press The Importance of Posture And Body Composition for the Stability and Selected Motor Abilities of Professional Handball Players Influence of Tactical Behaviour on Running Performance in the Three Most Successful Soccer Teams During the Competitive Season of the Spanish First Division Post-Activation Performance Enhancement in Sprinters: Effects of Hard Versus Sand Surfaces Cognitive Factors in Elite Handball: Do Players’ Positions Determine their Cognitive Processes? Effects of Postactivation Performance Enhancement on the Vertical Jump in High-Level Volleyball Athletes On-Court Change of Direction Test: An Effective Approach to Assess COD Performance in Badminton Players Movement Patterns of Polish National Paralympic Team Wheelchair Fencers with Regard to Muscle Activity and Co-Activation Time The Creation of Goal-Scoring Opportunities at the 2019 FIFA Women’s World Cup Assessing the Sprint Force-Velocity Profile in International Football Players with Cerebral Palsy: Validity, Reliability and Sport Class’ Profiles Handcycling Training in Men with Spinal Cord Injury Increases Tolerance to High Intensity Exercise Hand Grip Strength vs. Locomotor Efficiency in Sitting Volleyball Players Evidence‐Based Recovery in Soccer – Low‐Effort Approaches for Practitioners Anaerobic Variables as Specific Determinants of Functional Classification in Wheelchair Basketball Addition of in‐Play Cooling Breaks During Intermittent Exercise while Wearing Lacrosse Uniforms in the Heat Attenuates Increases in Rectal Temperature The Effects of Preferred Music and Its Timing on Performance, Pacing, and Psychophysiological Responses During the 6‐min Test Prevalence of Dehydration and the Relationship with Fluid Intake and Self‐Assessment of Hydration Status in Czech First League Soccer Players A Study Comparing Gait and Lower Limb Muscle Activity During Aquatic Treadmill Running With Different Water Depth and Land Treadmill Running Changes in Heart Rate Variability and Post‐Exercise Blood Pressure from Manipulating Rest Intervals Between Sets of Resistance Training