Match Analysis: Morocco 1-0 Portugal

2022 FIFA World Cup | Round of 16 | 2022.12.10

⚽ Youssef En-Nesyri 42’

Introduction

Morocco entered the 2022 FIFA World Cup tournament as the 22nd ranked team in the FIFA Men’s World Ranking, the 20th highest rank of the 32 teams participating. Their quarter-final opponents Portugal were ranked 9th (8th highest in the tournament), and had just beaten the 10th ranked Denmark 6-1 in the Round of 16. Morocco defeated Spain on penalties after a 0-0 draw. With a 1-0 win, Morocco became the first African nation to reach a World Cup semi-final. At the conclusion of the tournament, Morocco’s FIFA ranking rose to 11th in the world, whereas Portugal’s ranking did not change (FIFA, 2022). Morocco defeated Portugal despite being outperformed in several performance indicators, suggesting the need for performance analysis research to place a greater emphasis on defensive actions and tactical behaviours in tournament football.

Performance Indicators

Performance indicators in football are the action variables most relevant to winning the game (Hughes & Bartlett, 2002). The use of performance indicators in match analysis can provide an objective and reliable framework to evaluate performance and inform the coaching process (Liu et al., 2015). In the context of the FIFA World Cup, this information is critical as time spent in a team training environment is more limited than club competitions. In this match analysis, the performance indicators examined were possession, shots, crosses and passes per defensive action.

Match Analysis

Although Morocco was given a red card in the match, the sending off took place in the third minute of second half stoppage time, late enough that it had no effect on any performance indicators. This is consistent with the finding from the Caliendo and Radic (2006) study of FIFA World Cup matches between 1930 and 2002, where there is no longer an advantage for the non-sanctioned team after half-time.

Possession

The relationship between greater possession percentage and team success is commonly cited in football research (Carling et al., 2005; Collet, 2013). Longer and more frequent opportunities to control the play can lead a team to take the initiative of attacking, but does not necessarily result in winning the match (Casal et al., 2015). Portugal dominated possession throughout the game, averaging 73% of possession (67% in the first half, rising to 79% in the second half). Morocco had less possession at every stage of the match, but scored the only goal in the 42nd minute, during the 15-minute interval where they had their highest possession percentage (43% possession between minute 30-45+). Portugal had 81% of their possessions reach the opponent half, however only 12% reached the opponent’s penalty area. For comparison, Morocco had 29% of their possessions reach the opponent half, and 9% reach the opponent’s penalty area. An analysis of ball possession during UEFA Euro 2016 identified that successful national teams had greater possession in the middle offensive zone (Casal et al., 2017). After Morocco’s goal, Portugal conceded the initiative of attacking and had increased possession, consistent with findings that possession is greater for teams that are losing compared to winning, with longer possessions in the attacking half (Lago, 2009). However, the study of national teams during UEFA Euro 2016 found the opposite effect, with winning teams retaining possession for longer periods (Casal et al. 2017). As the FIFA World Cup includes national teams from all regions, the key performance indicators may be different from intracontinental and domestic competitions because of differences in play styles and tactical behaviour (Liu et al., 2015).

Shots

In a football match, the quality of shots is more important than the quantity (Yue at al., 2014). For example, the likelihood of a shot resulting in a goal is contingent on its distance and angle from the opponent’s goal. Goals scored from inside the penalty area account for 80-90% of all goals in various football competitions, with 20% scored inside the goal area (Michalidis, Michalidis & Primpa, 2013). Shots on goal in the penalty area were the only variable to have statistically significant individual influence on match outcome in UEFA Euro 2008 (Kapidžić, 2009). Portugal had a total of 12 shots (3 on target) whereas Morocco had 9 (3 on target). Portugal only had two on-target attempts inside the penalty area, while Morocco had one. Portugal losing the match as predicted by their poor shot accuracy in the match is consistent with technical analysis during the 2014 FIFA World Cup (Rumpf et al., 2015). Furthermore, only 16% of Portugal’s positional attacks resulted in shots. A positional attack is any open play attack not involving a quick transition or counterattacking situation (Wyscout, 2022). Morocco was more efficient in this regard, with 57% of their positional attacks resulting in shots. The relationship between match success and the frequency of positional attacks leading to shots is an area for further investigation.

Crosses

A cross is a pass from a wide area, aimed towards a teammate in front of the opponent’s goal, and is considered successful if a teammate makes the following touch (Opta, 2018). In several studies of club football, the number of crosses attempted were associated with a decreased probability of winning, as long distance passes are generally ineffective and lead to a loss of possession (Lago-Penas et al. 2010; Lepschy, Wäsche & Woll, 2020; Liu et al. 2015; Reis, Vasconcellos & Almeida, 2017). These findings are consistent with the outcome of the match. However, these studies were not in the context of international tournament football and did not consider the success rate of the crosses or the number of teammates and opponents in the area being targeted. Portugal had 21 crossing attempts in the match, 5 of which were successful. Morocco had 4 attempts, with 1 successful and resulting in a goal. Morocco’s goal came from a left flank cross, with 4 Moroccan players inside the penalty area and positioned in the width of the goalposts, as well as 4 Portuguese defenders and the Portuguese goalkeeper. The numbers involved in crossing situations, and how they may influence the decision to cross the ball, are important to consider for a more detailed understanding of crossing as a performance indicator. Morocco were successful in clearing and blocking the majority of Portugal’s crossing attempts. Of the 21 cross attempts made, none of Portugal’s crosses had the same 1-to-1 outfield player match-up in the area being targeted. Interestingly, Portugal only attempted 3 crosses in the first half. An area for further research is whether defensive behaviours (i.e. compactness) have a correlation with the opposition’s increase in crossing behaviour. Based on the number of crossing attempts successfully defended by Morocco, it would be interesting to investigate if their tactical approach was designed to allow crossing opportunities as a tradeoff for denying penetration. If the attacking team is good at crossing, the defending team is more likely to position themselves in such a way to prevent access to the flanks (Sarkar, 2018). It makes sense for attacking trends to change between World Cups as opponents seek specific defensive strategies to nullify them. In a study of World Cups between 2002 and 2014, Smith & Lyons (2017) found that a through pass was the most successful action involved in scoring a goal during open play. During the 2018 FIFA World Cup however, crossing represented the highest proportion of goals scored from open play (Vergonis et al., 2019). A limitation of this study was that it did not consider match status or investigate how many of these goals were the go-ahead goal, as was the case in the Morocco-Portugal match.

Pressing

In a single elimination match, the urgency to score provides a different incentive and risk profile for a losing team compared to one that holds the lead. It makes sense for Portugal to outperform Morocco in attacking metrics such as possession, shots and crosses if Morocco already has a lead. Observing ball recovery patterns and pressing behaviour can provide a performance profile for Morocco’s defensive actions. Passes allowed per defensive action (PPDA) is a metric used to quantify pressing behaviour (Trainor, 2014). Its utility as a performance indicator has not been rigorously assessed, however it can be a useful metric for understanding a team’s tactical behaviour. Morocco saw a drastic increase in pressing intensity during the second half (PPDA dropped from 44.5 in the first half to 18.1 in the second). This is despite the fact that Portugal had more possession in the second half. Morocco were allowing fewer passes of the ball before applying pressure, despite Portugal having longer durations in possession of the ball. The relationship between PPDA and possession is one that should be investigated more closely in tournament football.

Discussion

This World Cup match was played at a neutral venue in Qatar. However, there still may have been a “home” advantage for Morocco as they were one of the three other Arab nations at the tournament. There were over 44 000 in attendance, however, there is no precise record of the number of supporters representing either Morocco or Portugal (FIFA, 2022). Knock-out football provides less incentive for teams to score additional goals compared to league play, where goal difference is important in determining standings. Teams in a winning position are more likely to defend a lead than look to extend it, particularly as the game progresses. One area of further research is the effect of frequency and length of in-game stoppages (i.e. time-wasting, fouls, injuries, substitutions) on match outcome. The game between Morocco and Portugal had 24 fouls (1 every 3.75 minutes). This disruption of match tempo may favour the team that is defending a lead. Future research should consider the relevant action variables of a team defending a lead in a knock-out competition, when the primary objective is no longer about scoring a goal. A team out of possession does not have control of the ball or the initiative of attack, but can still influence play based on the spaces they occupy on the field. It would be interesting to investigate if Portugal’s utilization of crosses as a method of attack was a product of their own strategy or because of Morocco’s defensive organization. Also, the relationship between PPDA and possession could also offer insight about defensive behavior in this context.

Conclusion

With a fourth place finish in 2022, Morocco became the highest ranked African nation in FIFA World Cup history. The successful run is an interesting case study for performance analysis research when considering the pre-tournament context for the Moroccan national team. Head coach Walid Regragui was appointed just over two months before the tournament began (FIFA, 2022). In practice, one of the challenges of effective performance analysis is the time constraints placed on athletes and teams. The action variables that most accurately predict a team’s sporting success may be contingent on the specific coaching timeframe. Performance analysis research in football generally cites the competition format, but perhaps the timeline to implement a coaching process is just as important when identifying key performance indicators.

References

Caliendo, M., Radic, D. (2006). ‘Ten do it better, do they? An empirical analysis of an old football myth’. IZA Discussion Papers 2158. Available at: http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:iza:izadps:dp2158 (Accessed: 07 January 2023).

Carling, C., Williams, A., & Reilly, T. (2005). ‘The handbook of Número 37’, 2020 (1º semestre) RETOS. Nuevas tendencias en Educación Física, Deporte y Recreación - 783 - soccer match analysis. London: Routledge

Casal, C. A., Maneiro, R., Ardá, T., Losada, J. L., Rial, A. (2015). ‘Analysis of Corner Kick Success in Elite Football’. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport. 15(2), 430-451.

Casal, C.A., Maneiro, R., Ardá, T., Marí, F.J., Losada, J.L. (2017). ‘Possession Zone as a Performance Indicator in Football. The Game of the Best Teams’. Front Psychol. 8,1176. Available at: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01176.

Collet, C. (2013). ‘The possession game? A comparative analysis of ball retention and team success in European and international football, 2007–2010’. Journal of Sports Sciences. 31(2), 123–136.

FIFA (2022). Men’s Ranking. https://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/men?dateId=id13869

FIFA (2022). The Atlas Lions turn to rising star Regragui. https://www.fifa.com/fifaplus/en/articles/walid-regragui-moroccan-guardiola-new-morocco-atlas-lionscoach-fifa-world-cup

Hughes, M.D., Bartlett, R.M. (2002). ‘The use of performance indicators in performance analysis’. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20 (10), 739 — 754.

Kapidžić, A., Bećirović, E., Imamović, J. (2009). ‘Situational efficiency analysis of the teams that participated in 2008 European football championship’. Sport Sci Pract Asp. 38.

Lago, C. (2009). ‘The influence of match location, quality of opposition, and match status on possession strategies in professional association football’. Journal of Sports Sciences. 27(13), 1463–1469.

Lago-Peñas, C., Dellal, A. (2010). ‘Ball Possession Strategies in Elite Soccer According to the Evolution of the Match-Score: the Influence of Situational Variables’. Journal of Human Kinetics. 25(2010), 93- 100. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10078-010-0036-z

Lepschy, H., Wäsche, H., Woll, A. (2020). ‘Success factors in football: an analysis of the German Bundesliga’. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport. 20(2), 150-164. Available at: 10.1080/24748668.2020.1726157

Liu, H., Gomez, M., Lago-Peñas, C., Sampaio, J. (2015). ‘Match statistics related to winning in the group stage of 2014 Brazil FIFA World Cup’. Journal of Sports Sciences, Available: 10.1080/02640414.2015.1022578.

Michaildis, Y., Michaildis, C., Primpa, E. (2013). ‘Analysis of goals scored in European Championship 2012’. Journal of Human Sport and Exercise. 8(2), 367-375.

Reis, M., Vasconcellos, F., Almeida, M. (2017). ‘Analysis of the Effectiveness of Long Distance Passes in 2014 Brazil FIFA World Cup’. SciELO journals. Dataset. Accessed at: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.5930971.v1

Rumpf, M.C., Silva, J.R., Hertzog, M., Farooq, A., Nassis, G. (2017). ‘Technical and physical analysis of the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil: winners vs. losers’. Journal of Sports Med Phys Fitness. 57(10):1338- 1343. Available at: 10.23736/S0022-4707.16.06440-9.

Sarkar, S. (2018). ‘Paradox of crosses in association football (soccer) – a game-theoretic explanation’. Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports. 14 (1), 25-36. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1515/jqas-2017- 0073 (Accessed: 07 January 2023).

Smith, R., Lyons, K. (2017). ‘A strategic analysis of goals scored in open play in four FIFA World Cup football championships between 2002 and 2014’.

International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching. 12(3), 398–403. Accessed at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1747954117710516

Trainor, Colin (2014). Defensive Metrics: Measuring the Intensity of a High Press. Available at: https://statsbomb.com/articles/soccer/defensive-metrics-measuring-the-intensity-of-a-high-press/

Vergonis, A., Michailidis,Y., Mikikis, D., Semaltianou, E., Mavrommatis, G., Christoulas, K., Metaxas. (2019). ‘Technical and Tactical Analysis of Goal Scoring Patterns in the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia.’ Facta Universitatis Series Physical Education and Sport. 17(2), 181-193. Accessed at:10.22190/FUPES190612019V

Yue, Z., Broich, H., Mester, J. (2014). ‘Statistical Analysis for the Soccer Matches of the First Bundesliga’. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching. 9(3), 553–560. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1260/1747-9541.9.3.553