Learning platform
en 
To provide a holistic summary, this article presents defensive, passing and finishing data at the team, campaign and tournament level. The metrics used are phases of play, key distributions and goal types. When combined, these three groups of FIFA metrics offer a unique overview of performance at the tournament and paint a picture that can support futsal coaches, players and enthusiasts’ understanding of the current state of the game. At times, tournament winners Brazil are used as a case study to demonstrate the potential tactical and strategic take-aways behind the data.
Out of possession: Phases of play
One set of FIFA’s unique metrics are the “phases of play.” Phases of play break a team’s ball-in-play time down into different categories. They cover in-possession, out-of-possession, and set-play moments within a game. Measuring a performance through phases of play offers a separate yardstick to gauge a team’s tactical intentions. The outputs a team generates in the different phases offer numbers to reinforce, and sometimes reinterpret, what the eye has already seen.
By covering periods where a team is out of possession, the phases of play can provide insight into a team’s defensive game plan and tell the story of how they operated without the ball: where on the court were the team positioned when defending (high, mid or low)? From this position, did they press or opt to retain their shape (block or press)?
FIFA measure nine phases in futsal for when teams are defending: the high block, high press, mid-block, mid-press, low block, low press, counter-press, defensive transition and recovery. To about these phases in more detail, click here. Below are video examples of the three block phases:
An advantage of phases of play metrics is that they can be aggregated in different ways. For example, we can measure a team’s output for a given performance or across their entire campaign. We can also measure the output of a whole tournament – all participants included. Thus, the dial of inquiry can be shifted from obtaining tactical insights for a given performance to entire campaigns or tournaments, which can shed light on the broader trends in elite futsal.
Defensive phases of play at FIFA Futsal World Cup 2024
Figure 1 displays the ball-in-play time spent in the different defensive phases of play by all tournament participants in Uzbekistan. Although this macro-level aggregation is more nuanced beneath the surface (something discussed later on), the distribution does provide some insights into the tactical construction of futsal games generally and how the different phases compare. One standout figure is the combined total of the low and mid-block (30.18% + 20.56%), which accounts for half of all ball-in-play time where teams were out of possession. At the tournament level, these two block phases overshadow the time teams spent in the high block, whose share of 2.87% implies this aggressive defensive positioning accounts for just a fraction of total defensive moments.
As mentioned above, there are nuances within these tournament-level averages. A tournament consists of different playing styles, game plans and various external factors that influence defensive performances. Teams also adopt different approaches from one game to the next. Figure 2 factors in the range of performances within each defensive phase of play, revealing the array of approaches teams used out of possession during FIFA Futsal World Cup 2024. For example, the tournament witnessed matches where teams spent 73.5% of their time defending in a low block, whereas other teams spent as little as 4.0% of their time defending in this structure. To highlight the variety, below are breakdowns of the defensive phases for the two winning performances with high and low shares of time spent in the low block:
POR 1-2 KAZ / Round of 16
Low block: 72.60%
Low press: 0%
Mid-block: 2.80%
Mid-press: 0%
High block: 0%
High press: 0%
Counter-press: 0.55%
Recovery: 0.16%
Transition: 1.30%
Set play against: 9.50%
ANG 2-7 UKR / Group Stage
Low block: 16.80%
Low press: 0%
Mid-block: 30.20%
Mid-press: 0%
High block: 4.00%
High press: 0.36%
Counter-press: 1.30%
Recovery: 1.90%
Transition: 0.88%
Set play against: 7.70%
FIFA Futsal World Cup Uzbekistan 2024™ is the first time FIFA can apply its metrics’ identical parameters to a previous futsal world cup. Comparing the time teams spent in defensive phases of play at the tournament level can reveal unique tactical shifts or consistencies in how teams defended across FIFA Futsal World Cup Lithuania 2021™ and the 2024 tournament (Figure 3). For example, one of the standout findings noted by the Technical Study Group was increased time teams seemed to be defending in a low block. Cross-checking this with phases data reinforces this and depicts the reduced time spent in the high block, which is undoubtedly connected to the low-block trend.
Champions Brazil’s defensive phases
Figure 4 stacks eventual-winners Brazil’s campaign percentages against those of the tournament. The now six-time winners spent 42.79% of their time without the ball in a low block, superseding the tournament’s share by 12%.
Comparing Brazil’s time spent in defensive phases of play in 2024 to 2021 re-emphasises Marquinhos Xavier focus on solidity in Uzbekistan. The Seleção’s share of time spent in the low block almost doubled from 24.15% in 2021 to the 42.79% registered in 2024. This considerable shift aligns with Xavier’s plan, who, in an interview with the FIFA Training Centre, stressed his team’s focus on defending their own space (Zone 1) and the idea that defensive acumen is a strong indication of tournament progression.
Figure 6 shows this was the sixth-longest relative low-block duration out of the 24 participants. Conceding just six goals across their seven games, Brazil’s defensive stability was plauded by those following the tournament, including FIFA’s Technical Study Group, which was unusual for a team that usually receives attention for their attacking prowess.
In possession: Key distributions
Another set of metrics FIFA collects during futsal matches are “key distributions”. These are the different types of passes a team performs during a game. Tracking key distributions, as with phases of play, offers a degree of insight into a team’s in-possession tactical profile and passing tendencies. This section looks at three key distributions in particular: pivot balls, to-attack balls and long balls. Below are clips with examples of these types of passes and their tactical uses:
Key distributions at FIFA Futsal World Cup 2024
When looking at the per-match averages for the three key distributions at the FIFA Futsal World Cup 2024 in Figure 7, long balls are the most frequent, with teams averaging this type of pass 24.50 times per match. Pivot balls are second-most popular, with teams performing 10.50 per match, followed by to-attack balls with 6.30 passes per match. Comparing the 2024 tournament’s averages for key distributions with 2021 reveals little change (Figure 8). The only noticeable difference is the slight decrease in to-attack balls. This correlates with an increase in the number of attacking phases initiated by players dribbling the ball over the halfway line instead of playing to-attack balls. The former, referred to by FIFA as “crossing the line”, registered a 20.6% increase.
Brazil’s key distributions
As with the defensive phases of play, key distributions at the tournament level reveal broader shifts but cannot capture the nuances at the team level nor the tactical variability of one participant from one game to another. To demonstrate, Figure 9 again measures the campaign averages of winners Brazil against those of the entire tournament. The Seleção on average played three times more pivot balls per game than the tournament rate and registered four long balls fewer than the tournament rate (20.27 v. 24.50).
Matching up Brazil’s key distributions from 2024 to the 2021 campaign suggests their emphasis on the pivot increased in the last three years; the 2024 winners on average tripled the number of pivot balls played per 20 minutes in possession compared to their performances in Lithuania. Shifts are also visible in the other two distributions, although less pronounced, with the number of long balls increasing and to-attack balls dropping in line with the overarching tournament trend.
Singling out the Brazilian pivot play and comparing it to the rest of the tournament participants reveals the extent the Seleção utilised this position in their attacking game. Brazil’s pivots accounted for 7.86% of all their receptions. This share was the second highest of all participants and, as seen in Figure 11, significantly higher than the majority of teams. Brazil’s pivots also accounted for 34.9% of all attacking-phase receptions and 53.9% of goals in Uzbekistan. These numbers show a distinct stylistic profile of Brazil in comparison to the rest of the tournament and reflect Xavier’s belief that the pivot is integral to the Brazilian style of play.
Like for all statistics, context is key. Brazil ranks second for the percentage of total receptions performed by the pivot, behind New Zealand. However, when looking at how many pivot balls were made during the attacking phase, the Futsal Whites’ ranking drops to eighth while the Seleção remain second. This suggests that the passes into Brazil’s pivots tended to be preceded by a thread of passes as part of a well-worked attack, whereas New Zealand’s were more direct.
Types of goals scored
In-possession phases of play deconstruct a team’s ball-in-play time when they have the ball. Since teams are, by nature of the game, in possession of the ball when they score, in possession phases of play can be linked to every goal to reveal these conversions’ surrounding contexts at the team, campaign and tournament level.
Goals scored at FIFA Futsal World Cup 2024
Figure 12 breaks down the types of goals scored in Uzbekistan. Attacking-phase goals account for 30.9% of all goals scored. The second largest tracked category is counter-attacking goals, with 16.6%. Surprisingly, 10.5% of all goals scored were against teams enacting a powerplay.
Comparing the 2024 distribution to 2021 (Figure 13) reveals two noteworthy shifts. Firstly, the portion of attacking-phase goals increased by 10.3%, a shift identified by the Technical Study Group and connected with the increased time teams spent in low blocks in Uzbekistan. Secondly, the 2024 edition witnessed an increase in the portion of counter-attacking goals. This is despite a reduction in time teams spent in the counter-attacking phase more generally. Scoring more counter-attacking goals despite there being fewer counter-attacks could signal improved potency scoring from these moments of the game. Examples of these two types of goals are provided below.
Sorting types of goals scored according to team level again visualises the spread among the different tournament participants. Figure 14 includes all 2024 teams to have scored more than 3.5 goals per match.
Brazil’s goal breakdown
Looking at Figure 15, the standout difference when comparing Brazil’s goals from 2024 to 2021 is the total goal output. The tournament winners in 2024 scored 40 goals from their seven games – 12 more than they managed in Lithuania over the same amount of games (Brazil won the third-place match in Kaunas). Looking at the specific categories, one notable change is the increase in counter-attacking goals in Uzbekistan. These types of goals accounted for 15% of conversions in 2024, whereas in 2021 counter-attacking goals were just 7.14% of Brazil’s total tally. The jump is in line with the tournament-wide increase in counter-attacking goals, and also reinforces the Brazil’s increased time in the low block – a necessary pretext for counter-attacks.
Two high-scoring teams can have substantially different methods of scoring. Figure 16 isolates Brazil’s goals alongside third-place finishers, Ukraine. Contrary to Brazil’s stacked bar, Ukraine has a small portion of goals from when in the attacking phase (15% v. Brazil’s 37.5%) and higher shares from interceptions, counter-attacks and during opposition power plays. Scoring goals in these situations reflects Ukraine’s patient approach in defence, followed by rapid attacks in transition. At times, the European side often deployed an aggressive counter-pressing style, seeking to take advantage of the opposition’s errors. This style also explains the high shares in these types of goals.
Rate your experience
