Excessive Use of the Preferred Foot in on-The-Ball Skills Execution Compromises Performance and Tactical Behaviour of Football Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to compare tactical behaviour and performance of football players with different on-the-ball skills execution functional technical asymmetry levels and to verify whether functional technical and tactical performance indexes of football players are associated. The sample included 59 football players (14.2 ± 1.5 years of age). FUT-SAT and SAFALL-FOOT were used as instruments for performance analysis. Participants were divided in two groups: higher and lower functional technical asymmetry. Student’s t -test was used to compare the behaviour and tactical performance of the groups, and the Pearson test was used to verify associations between functional technical asymmetry and tactical performance indexes. A significance level of 5% was adopted. The higher functional technical asymmetry group showed less tactical efficiency ( t 57 = 1.9; p = .05; d = .17) and low performance results in the execution of defensive actions ( t 57 = 2.1; p = .04; d = .55; t 57 = 2.1; p = .04; d = .61) compared to the lower functional technical asymmetry group. No association was found between the functional technical asymmetry and tactical performance indexes ( r = -.06; p = .66). It is concluded that the levels of functional technical asymmetry affected the behaviour and tactical performance of players although functional technical asymmetry and tactical performance indexes values are not associated. Future investigations may verify how football players with high and low levels of functional technical asymmetry change their behaviour and tactical performance from different kinds of training .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".