Part 2.1: Possession-based v. defensive styles of play

Due to the strong connection between playing philosophy and possession, analysing a team’s possession shares can reveal their overall playing philosophy. In light of this, the following section of part 2 aims to categorise the teams participating in the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™ and FIFA Women’s World Cup Australia & New Zealand 2023™ based on the average possession gap they achieved throughout their campaigns.

This classification helps us understand whether teams prioritise controlling possession as a crucial aspect of their game or prefer a more defensive style. By determining the average size of the possession gap, we can also distinguish between teams that adopt a balanced approach and those with a more extreme philosophy. Additionally, this analysis evaluates the success of teams belonging to different possession categories in both competitions. While this approach has its limitations, it serves as a valuable starting point for classifying playing philosophies, particularly for teams that fall on the extreme ends of the possession spectrum.

Figure 2.1 provides an overview of the average possession gaps of teams that participated in the FIFA World Cup 2022. A “possession gap” refers to the difference in possession between teams during matches (for more detailed information on the possession gap, please refer to section 1.2 of this study). In the figure, teams with the highest average surplus (when a team averaged more possession than their opponents) are positioned on the left, while teams with the highest average deficit (when a team averaged less than their opponents) are positioned on the right. Teams are also divided into the six possession categories outlined in part 1 of the study: 

• 30% or more (very strongly possession-based);

• 15% to 30% (strongly possession-based);

• 0% to 15% (moderately possession-based);

• 0% to -15% (moderately defensive-based);

• -15% to -30% (strongly defensive-based); and

• less than -30% (very strongly defensive-based).

When examining figure 2.1, Spain emerges as the most possession-dominant team in Qatar by far. Over their four games, Spain accumulated an average of 47.6% more possession than their opponents, showcasing a philosophy that placed extreme focus on controlling the ball. In contrast, Costa Rica averaged a 33.1% less than their opponent, demonstrating game plans that involved extended periods without the ball.

The category count in figure 2.1 also highlights the distribution of teams across different possession categories. Interestingly, the majority of teams (21) fell within the middle two categories, indicating that these sides struck a balance between possession dominance and defensive orientation. Five teams (Spain, England, Portugal, Denmark, and Germany) averaged a possession surplus of 15% or more, suggesting that possession played a more deliberate part in their philosophy during the tournament. In the bottom two sections of the category count, six teams (Morocco, Australia, Iran, Poland, Japan, and Costa Rica) registered averages smaller than -15%. The low figures produced by these teams suggest that they either consciously decided to adopt a defensive-orientated playing style or were unable to control the ball due to the opposition’s influence (the topic of part 2.3). 

Figure 2.2 takes the possession gap averages and orders teams by tournament progression. The results vary when considering the success teams had with different possession gap averages in Qatar. Teams with various averages managed to advance to the Round of 16 and beyond, reaffirming the findings in part 1 of the study: possession-based and defensive-based teams can both be successful and possession statistics alone cannot explain their success. 

When analysing the teams that advanced to the later stages of the competition, the most successful teams predominantly fall within the possession gap range of 0% to 15%. Three out of the four semi-finalists and five out of the eight quarter-finalists belong to this category. On the other hand, teams with higher possession averages and stronger possession-based approaches faced more challenges in Qatar. Only two of five teams with an average possession gap of 15% or more managed to progress past the Round of 16.

Defensive-based teams also achieved some level of success, although only one out of eight quarter-finalists had a negative possession gap on average. Interestingly, the teams with a more extreme possession deficit ranging from -15% to -30% outperformed the more balanced teams in the 0% to -15% possession gap group. It is worth noting that four out of six of these teams which used a more extreme defensive approach managed to advance past the group stages, with Morocco even reaching the semi-finals.

Figures 2.3 and 2.4 consists of the same charts as 2.1 and 2.2 but focusing on the participants of the FIFA Women’s World Cup 2023. A comparison between figure 2.3 and 2.1 reveals a more evenly distributed category count in the women’s competition than the men’s version (2-6-7-7-7-3 v. 1-4-10-11-5-1). This distribution is attributed to more teams falling into the upper and lower possession gap categories, indicating a greater prevalence of extremely possession-dominant teams (8) and extremely defence-orientated teams (10) at this particular tournament. The difference in distribution between the two competitions also suggests a more distinct division of roles in the women’s tournament, with teams either focusing on dominating possession or willingly relinquishing significant shares of it rather than seeking a balanced approach.

Comparing figures 2.3 and 2.1 also highlights how styles of play can be embraced by an entire football federation rather than just one team. Spain, Germany, and England serve as prime examples of teams that seem to adhere to a national philosophy that produces high shares of possession, while Morocco stands out as a unique case with a low-possession style of play.

Another of the main findings from part 1 is reconfirmed when comparing figures 2.2 and 2.4: while defensive styles have achieved success in the men’s competition, they have shown relatively less effectiveness in the women’s tournament. Conversely, possession-oriented styles of play have yielded better results in the women’s tournament compared to the men’s. In Australia and New Zealand, four out of the eight teams that advanced to the quarter-finals belonged to the two highest possession gap categories. Notably, no team with a prominent defensive style (-15% or less) progressed to the Round of 16. However, similar to the tournament in Qatar, the ability to dominate possession alone did not guarantee success Down Under, as the remaining four possession-dominant teams were eliminated in the group stage.

It is important to note that relying solely on possession gap averages may not provide a complete understanding of a team's playing philosophy, especially for teams with moderate possession gaps. However, analysing these statistics for teams participating in FIFA tournaments does help in forming an initial understanding of the different approaches and their success in each competition. This analysis becomes particularly insightful for teams that fall into the more extreme possession gap categories. The very high and low possession shares achieved by these teams throughout their campaigns serve as valuable indicators of their playing philosophies. Additionally, it is important to consider whether teams adapted their approaches to possession on a match-by-match basis, as this further enhances our understanding of their strategies. This will be analysed in the following section. By examining both overall possession averages and match-specific adaptations, we can gain a deeper insight into how teams strategically used possession.

(Next section coming soon)