Skip to main content
Log in

Chance involvement in goal scoring in football – an empirical approach

Die Beteiligung des Zufalls bei der Entstehung von Toren im Fußball – eine empirische Annäherung

  • Brief Communication
  • Published:
German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examines the impact of chance in football using the case of goal scoring. For this purpose, chance in goal scoring is defined as goals involving uncontrollable or not planned aspects. “Chance variables” were defined according to the principle of downward estimation, i.e. when one of these variables is involved this is an uncontrollable or not planned aspect of scoring a goal, although chance may also have an impact in instances other than those collected. Six “chance variables” were identified: deflection, rebound, goalkeeper involvement, post/bar hits, long distance shots, and defence involvement. In the 2011/2012 season, the 875 goals in German Bundesliga and the 1056 goals in English Premier League were examined for the presence of these variables. Of the goals examined, 47.0% showed at least one chance variable (deflection: 4.8%; rebound: 9.4%, goalkeeper: 2.5%; post/bar: 5.2%; distance: 13.1%, and defence: 22.5%). The two leagues differed significantly only in the sense of more goalkeeper interventions in the Bundesliga and more distance goals in the Premier League. The rate of chance-goals drops significantly with the number of prior goals in a match (χ2 = 17.59; p = 0.004). In both leagues, there is no significant correlation between final ranking and the percentage of chance-goals scored or conceded. If one accepts the selected chance variables as indicators of uncontrollable or not planned aspects of scoring, the results of this study can be taken as empirical proof for the existence and widespread prevalence of chance involvement in goal scoring in football with many interesting consequences.

Zusammenfassung

In der vorliegenden Studie wurde der Einfluss des Zufalls im Fußball am Beispiel der Torerzielung untersucht. Hierzu wurden Zufälle bei der Torerzielung als Tore mit nicht kontrollierbaren oder ungeplanten Komponenten definiert. „Zufallsvariablen“ wurden gemäß dem Prinzip der Abschätzung nach unten definiert, das heißt, wenn eine dieser Variablen beteiligt ist, stellt dies eine nicht kontrollierbare oder ungeplante Komponente der Torerzielung dar, auch wenn in den nicht erfassten Fällen ebenso der Zufall eine Rolle gespielt haben kann. Sechs „Zufallsvariablen“ wurden identifiziert: Abgefälscht, Abpraller, Torhüterbeteiligung, Pfosten‑/Lattentreffer, Fernschüsse und Abwehrbeteiligung. Für die Spielzeit 2011/2012 wurden die 875 Tore in der deutschen Bundesliga und die 1056 Tore in der englischen Premier League auf das Vorliegen dieser Variablen überprüft. Ein Anteil von 47,0 % der untersuchten Tore wies mindestens eine Zufallsvariable auf (Abgefälscht: 4,8 %; Abpraller: 9,4 %, Torhüterbeteiligung: 2,5 %; Pfosten‑/Lattentreffer: 5,2 %; Fernschuss: 13,1 %; Abwehrbeteiligung: 22,5 %). Die beiden Ligen unterschieden sich nur signifikant durch mehr Torhütereingriffe in der Bundesliga und mehr Tore aus der Distanz in der Premier League. Der Anteil der Zufallstore sank signifikant mit der Zahl der zuvor in einem Spiel erzielten Tore (χ2 = 17,59; p = 0,004). In keiner der beiden Ligen bestand eine signifikante Korrelation zwischen der abschließenden Tabellenplatzierung und dem prozentualen Anteil erzielter oder zugelassener Zufallstore. Unter der Annahme, dass die ausgewählten Zufallsvariablen Indikatoren nicht kontrollierbarer oder ungeplanter Komponenten der Torerzielung sind, können die Ergebnisse dieser Studie als empirischer Beleg für die Zufallsbeteiligung und ihr häufiges Vorkommen bei der Torerzielung im Fußball betrachtet werden – mit vielen interessanten Auswirkungen.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. If one would delete these two “critical” variables from the list of chance variables, despite the arguments quoted above, one would obtain a reduction of the overall chance rate of 47.0% by 7.3% (distance) and 16.9% (defence). Considering only the chance mechanism of uncontrollable events by eliminating distance and defence would lead to an overall rate of 20.3%.

  2. There is an early predecessor of this study (Lames, 1999) published in an informal conference proceedings. Using very similarly defined chance variables 46.6% chance goals were found in a sample of 920 goals. The results for the six chance variables were goalkeeper, 4.7%; deflection, 2.5%; post/bar, 4.5%; rebound, 6.7%; distance, 13.2%; and defence, 22.2%.

References

  • Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1986). Observing interaction: an introduction to sequential analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carling, C., Williams, M. A., & Reilly, T. (2005). Handbook of soccer match analysis. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elaydi, S. N. (1999). Discrete chaos. London: Chapman & Hall/CRC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frick, T., & Semmel, M. I. (1978). Observer agreement and reliability of classroom observational measures. Review of Educational Research, 48(1), 157–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, A., & Nolan, D. (2002). A probability model for golf putting. Teaching Statistics, 24(3), 93–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giannakos, A., & Armatas, V. (2006). Evaluation of the goal scoring patterns in European Championship in Portugal 2004. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 6(1), 178–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heuer, A., Müller, C., & Rubner, O. (2010). Soccer: Is scoring goals a predictable Poissonian process? Epl. https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/89/38007. www.epljournal.org.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, M., & Franks, I. (Eds.). (2004). Notational analysis of sport (2nd edn.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, M., & Franks, I. (2005). Analysis of passing sequences, shots and goals in soccer. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23, 509–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, M., & Franks, I. (2008). The essentials of performance analysis. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lago, C. (2007). Are winners different from losers? Performance and chance in the FIFA World Cup Germany 2006. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 7(2), 36–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lames, M. (1999). Fußball – Ein Chaosspiel? In J.-P. Janssen, A. Wilhelm & M. Wegner (Eds.), Empirische Forschung im Sportspiel – Methodologie, Fakten und Reflektionen (pp. 141–156). Kiel: Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lames, M., & McGarry, T. (2007). On the search for reliable performance indicators in game sports. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 7(1), 62–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz, E. N. (1963). Deterministic non-periodic flow. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 20(2), 130–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loy, R. (2014). Der Faktor Zufall im Sportspiel [The Factor Chance in Sports Games]. Leistungssport, 44(4), 39–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lüthy, C. H., & Palmerino, C. R. (2016). Conceptual and historical reflections on chance (and related concepts). In K. Landsman & E. van Wolde (Eds.), The challenge of chance—a multidisciplinary approach from science and the humanities (pp. 9–47). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mainzer, K. (2007). Der kreative Zufall. Wie das Neue in die Welt kommt [Creative chance. How the new comes into the world]. München: Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massie, P. (2011). Contingency, time, and possibility. Plymouth: Lexington.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donoghue, P. (2010). Research methods for sports performance analysis. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Passos, P., Araujo, D., & Volossovitch, A. (2017). Performance analysis in team sports. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reep, C., & Benjamin, B. (1968). Skill and chance in association football. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), 131(4), 581–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reep, C., Pollard, R., & Benjamin, B. (1971). Skill and chance in ball games. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), 134(4), 623–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampaio, J., McGarry, T., & O’Donoghue, P. (2013). Introduction. In T. McGarry, P. O’Donoghue & J. Sampaio (Eds.), Handbook of sports performance analysis (pp. 1–2). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheskin, D. J. (1997). Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wirtz, M., & Caspar, F. (2002). Beurteilerübereinstimmung und Beurteilerreliabilität [Observer Agreement and Observer Reliability]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, C., Atkins, S., Polman, R., Jones, B., & Sargeson, L. (2011). Factors associated with goals and goal scoring opportunities in professional soccer. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 11(3), 438–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Christian Dietrich for collecting data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Lames.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

M. Lames declares that he has no competing interests.

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lames, M. Chance involvement in goal scoring in football – an empirical approach. Ger J Exerc Sport Res 48, 278–286 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12662-018-0518-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12662-018-0518-z

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Navigation