#FIFA Futsal World Cup

Attacking power play

FIFA, 09 Feb 2022

FIFA
left
right

The evidence of the Futsal World Cup is that attacking teams are gaining little advantage from the power play.

Power play efficiency

We have seen an ongoing trend, also identified at the 2018 Youth Olympic Games, whereby teams have largely used the power play ineffectively. This is almost certainly down to the lack of a clear understanding of how to apply the tactic, but also to the limited knowledge of what the power play has to achieve in order to be successful.

Of course the power play can be used to retain possession, yet in this tournament it was evident that it was almost entirely used with an intention to create goalscoring opportunities – and to limited effect. Statistically we can show that teams scored only 16 goals from a power-play phase (an efficiency ratio of just 7%). Of the 219 power-play actions in total, the number leading to a shot or goal was just below 20%, with 42 resulting in at least a shot. This underlines the observation of the TSG that tactics are only effectively deployed when supported by the required technical capability.

The TSG also observed the risk-versus-reward question, with the power play leading to more conceded goals when adopting the tactic as those scored. This begs questions about the be the correct application of the tactic.

Power play principles and forms

The principles of the power play are to create numerical superiority, whose importance is heightened on a futsal pitch where space is at a premium. By moving the ball quickly, by using the overload to ‘cut’ the defensive lines through passes and player movement, a team looks to open up opportunities through the space created by a defensive imbalance.

Venezuela used the goalkeeper in the power play but with limited impact against Kazakhstan

Playing too close to the defensive block will reduce the possibility of space creation and risk an interception; moving the ball too slowly from side to side will not imbalance the defence, while minimal rotational movement from the wide ‘pairs’ will not create the elusive shot opportunity.

Understanding how to deploy the power play is a key coaching requirement. If the power play is to be effective, teams must work hard to train all components and hone the technical requirements while understanding how these interrelate, yet even at this elite level it could be argued the preparations appeared inadequate.

There were some cases, such as Thailand for example, of a team achieving success with this tactic and with that gave them confidence to keep using it in-game. Yet this was an exception.

Thailand were one of the few teams to enjoy success on the power play
Initial success on the power play encouraged Thailand to continue deploying the tactic

Portugal exemplified how to defend the power play, specifically in the final stages of the World Cup final against Argentina.

Despite facing a dangerous Argentine attack in the final, Portugal superbly executed their power-play defence

There are also instances where the power play is used to deny the opposition ball supremacy and we saw good examples in the Iran vs USA game, with the Americans deploying the tactic in an attempt to prevent Iran having possession.

The US employ the power play to deny Iran possession but are unable to create a goalscoring opportunity

Explaining the trend

In considering the effectiveness of the power play, the data delivers a very different picture from the common view of what a power play is intended to achieve.

A total of 16 goals were scored from the power-play phase in contrast to the 19 scored when the opponent regained possession, indicating a general principle that teams at this World Cup were more likely to concede when seeking a benefit from numerical superiority in the overload than to score. This can be seen as a trend across the game, and tactically it should be a concerning one. Power plays yielded 194 shots overall resulting in those 16 goals, yet the breakdowns in power plays offered the opposition 99 shots resulting in 21 goals on counter. It may reasonably be considered through this data that there is actually an advantage in playing against the power play than with it. This is certainly not the intention of the Law, yet the data offers food for thought.

Power plays yielded 194 shots overall resulting in those 16 goals, yet the breakdowns in power plays offered the opposition 99 shots resulting in 21 goals on counter

The TSG were of the view, as previously noted, that these outcomes are down to a blend of misunderstanding how and when to deploy the power play by players and coaches alike, and also the technical inability to retain good possession leading to a definitive shot. It is in all of these areas that more work across the game needs to be conducted to improve the intended outcomes if the power play is to remain a meaningful tactical advantage as intended by the Laws.

Rate your experience

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

The site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.