Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
194,161 studies31 sourcesUpdated 48 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Biology of Sport

Performance profiles and match-to-match variability of the kinematic most demanding passages in elite men’s football: analysis of the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022

  • Alberto Cortez1,2,3
  • Hugo Folgado1,2
  • João Brito3,4
  • Farzad Yousefian3,5
  • Eduardo Abade3,6,7
  • Bruno Travassos3,5
  • Bruno Gonçalves1,2,3
7 affiliations
  1. 1Universidade de Évora, Escola de Saúde e Desenvolvimento Humano, Departamento de Desporto e Saúde, Évora, Portugal
  2. 2Universidade de Évora, Comprehensive Health Research Centre (CHRC), Évora, Portugal
  3. 3FPF Academy, Portuguese Football Federation, Oeiras, Portugal
  4. 4CIPER, Faculdade de Motricidade Humana, Universidade de Lisboa
  5. 5Research Centre in Sports Sciences, Health Sciences and Human Development (CIDESD), Department of Sport Sciences, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal
  6. 6Research Centre in Sports Sciences, Health Sciences and Human Development (CIDESD), Elite Research Community, Vila Real, Portugal
  7. 7Department of Sports Science, Exercise and Health, School of Life Sciences and Environment, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal
Read full textPDFDOICite

Abstract

This study investigated individual performance profiles and match-to-match variability of the kinematically defined most demanding passages (MDP) during the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022. The analysis considered different contextual factors: tournament phase (group phase vs. knockout), team ranking (top-tier vs. not-top-tier teams), match status (winning vs. not winning), and match outcome (win vs. not win), across three rolling durations (1, 3, and 5 min). A multifactorial kinematic MDP variable (MDPk) was computed as the maximal sum of the rolling average of distance covered at speeds above 15 km · h−1 across the defined durations and then decomposed into moderate-speed running (MSR; 15–19.8 km · h−1), high-speed running (HSR; 19.8–25.2 km · h−1), and sprinting (SPR; > 25.2 km · h−1). The total distance (TD) performed within the window was also considered. Cohen’s effect size analysis was used to compare players’ performance profiles and match-to-match variability. In performance profiling, trivial results were observed, with the only significant difference occurring in 1-min SPR when the team was winning (23.0 ± 19.6 m/min) compared to when it was not winning (19.6 ± 18.0 m/min) (d = 0.19 [-0.94; 1.31]). Regarding match-to-match variability, the 5-min window showed the highest variability, with all contextual factors displaying small to moderate effect sizes. This was particularly evident for match status when not winning (TD, d = 0.60 [0.90; 0.19]; MDPk, d = 0.24 [0.55; -0.17]; MSR, d = 0.38 [0.74; -0.04]; SPR, d = 0.44 [0.73; 0.06]). These findings indicate that individual MDPk may not depend on contextual factors, but match-to-match variability should be expected when MDPk is analysed across different time windows. The existence of significant variability emphasizes the necessity for individualized training approaches to optimize preparation. This underscores the importance of monitoring these passages to enhance player conditioning and improve overall performance.

Related

  1. Do strategically demanding sports shape hand function alike? Distinct profiles of dexterity and grip strength in basketball and badminton athletes
    Xinpeng Gao, Jinlong Hou, Chengzhe Du +3
    Frontiers in physiologyPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC
  2. Phase-specific neuromechanical signatures of 40-m sprint performance: an integrated two-dimensional kinematic and surface electromyographic profiling study
    Xin Wang
    Frontiers in physiologyPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC
  3. Evaluation of the performance and temporal variability of large language models in patient education regarding pneumothorax: a seven-day analysis
    Ömer Önal, Suzan Temiz Bekce
    Scientific ReportsPeer-reviewedCC BYFull text1 citedEpidemiology & public healthDOAJ
  4. More effort, more variability, but greater relative precision: Distributional modeling of effort-performance coupling
    Lukas Hack, Katja Rewitz, Silas Wagner +1
    PsyArXivPreprintCC BY 4.0Full textNeurosciencePhysiologyOSF
  5. The impact of stress on cognitive performance in remote smartphone-based assessments: exploring within-person variability
    Sarah Prieto, Louisa Thompson, Molly Split +8
    Frontiers in digital healthPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textPsychiatry & mental healthEurope PMCPMC

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{cortez2026performance,
  title = {{Performance profiles and match-to-match variability of the kinematic most demanding passages in elite men’s football: analysis of the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022}},
  author = {Alberto Cortez and Hugo Folgado and João Brito and Farzad Yousefian and Eduardo Abade and Bruno Travassos and Bruno Gonçalves},
  journal = {Biology of Sport},
  year = {2026},
  month = aug,
  doi = {10.5114/biolsport.2026.160856},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2026.160856},
  note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Performance profiles and match-to-match variability of the kinematic most demanding passages in elite men’s football: analysis of the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022
AU  - Alberto Cortez
AU  - Hugo Folgado
AU  - João Brito
AU  - Farzad Yousefian
AU  - Eduardo Abade
AU  - Bruno Travassos
AU  - Bruno Gonçalves
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/08/24
JO  - Biology of Sport
DO  - 10.5114/biolsport.2026.160856
UR  - https://doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2026.160856
AB  - This study investigated individual performance profiles and match-to-match variability of the kinematically defined most demanding passages (MDP) during the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022. The analysis considered different contextual factors: tournament phase (group phase vs. knockout), team ranking (top-tier vs. not-top-tier teams), match status (winning vs. not winning), and match outcome (win vs. not win), across three rolling durations (1, 3, and 5 min). A multifactorial kinematic MDP variable (MDPk) was computed as the maximal sum of the rolling average of distance covered at speeds above 15 km · h−1 across the defined durations and then decomposed into moderate-speed running (MSR; 15–19.8 km · h−1), high-speed running (HSR; 19.8–25.2 km · h−1), and sprinting (SPR; > 25.2 km · h−1). The total distance (TD) performed within the window was also considered. Cohen’s effect size analysis was used to compare players’ performance profiles and match-to-match variability. In performance profiling, trivial results were observed, with the only significant difference occurring in 1-min SPR when the team was winning (23.0 ± 19.6 m/min) compared to when it was not winning (19.6 ± 18.0 m/min) (d = 0.19 [-0.94; 1.31]). Regarding match-to-match variability, the 5-min window showed the highest variability, with all contextual factors displaying small to moderate effect sizes. This was particularly evident for match status when not winning (TD, d = 0.60 [0.90; 0.19]; MDPk, d = 0.24 [0.55; -0.17]; MSR, d = 0.38 [0.74; -0.04]; SPR, d = 0.44 [0.73; 0.06]). These findings indicate that individual MDPk may not depend on contextual factors, but match-to-match variability should be expected when MDPk is analysed across different time windows. The existence of significant variability emphasizes the necessity for individualized training approaches to optimize preparation. This underscores the importance of monitoring these passages to enhance player conditioning and improve overall performance.
SN  - 0860-021X
SN  - 2083-1862
ER  -