When I analysed the U11’s Marjon football team I had to decide which key performance indicators I would look at. Without key performance indicators the analysis would not have taken place as I needed to focus on a specific area, in this case it was defending. The defensive KPI’s that I decided to use were tackling, clearances and passing. The data that I received from these Key performance indicators were based on successful and unsuccessful. In this assignment I worked with Dan who analysed the match that we recorded so that we had two separate sets of results. We recorded the last ten minutes of the first half and the first ten minutes of the second half, which allowed us to analyse if the team talk had much effect. As we got two different sets of results it allowed us to compare the results from notational analysis and LongoMatch. The results that we gathered were different in each section, which shows that data that is collected is not always reliable information. Especially notational analysis as when results are being recorded some data may be missed, whereas using software such as LongoMatch allows you to pause and replay. This links to Maslovat and Franks quote “Human memory systems have limitations, and it is almost impossible to remember accurately all the meaningful events that take place during an entire competition” (Maslovat and Franks, 2008:3). Data may become corrupted due to human error using both methods, so data may not always be reliable. Furthermore if someone from Marjon football club had been recording the game would they have got the same results as us as they could have been biased towards their team.
From our analysis we found that defensively Marjon were very good at the three key performance indicators we looked at and there was not a specific area that they should have improved on. However Dan’s and my results did not match an example of this is where I had one clearance for defender 6 in the first half, whereas Dan had five clearances for the same defender. This either shows that whilst I was recording the live game I may have missed key data or that Dan and I had different definitions for each KPI. If we had the same definition of each skill then we may have had reliable results. Furthermore if we had recorded it from more than one angle it may have become easier to tell which KPI was being used as the footage would have been closer. We measured the KPI’s by recording successful and unsuccessful, however if we want to proceed with finding areas of improvement then Dan and I should record further games to get more data. This links to Hynuk and Benoit’s quote “In addition, a KPI should be complemented by a target representing the... desired level of performance. KPI’s can be nonfinancial and they must be frequently measured” (Hynuk and Benoit, 2010:65). Frequently getting results will mean that we will be able to give feedback to participants and even set them goals. If a coach uses notational analysis then they can give feedback straight away this could be through a half time team talk or during training. Furthermore if photos or videos have been taken then a coach can give one to one information with a participant. Whereas using software such as LongoMatch can take a couple days to feedback to participants, this may not be the best methods as the participants may have forgotten.
From our analysis we found that from the KPI’s that we recorded there was not much of an impact between both half’s, the results actually show that the defence did better in the first half. This could mean that during the second half the ball was further up the pitch means fewer touches for the defenders. Furthermore this could mean that the team talk had a good impact on the players boosting confidence and performance levels. The only defender that increased his performance was defender 6; this could mean that Plymstock went down a certain side of the pitch meaning that defender 6 had more to do. From my results defender 3, who came on for the second half, had an average game and did not see much of the ball. However from Dan’s data his results have increased showing that he had a good game. This could be because of misinterpretation, where Dan was recording results for him instead of someone else.
From our analysis we found that defensively Marjon were very good at the three key performance indicators we looked at and there was not a specific area that they should have improved on. However Dan’s and my results did not match an example of this is where I had one clearance for defender 6 in the first half, whereas Dan had five clearances for the same defender. This either shows that whilst I was recording the live game I may have missed key data or that Dan and I had different definitions for each KPI. If we had the same definition of each skill then we may have had reliable results. Furthermore if we had recorded it from more than one angle it may have become easier to tell which KPI was being used as the footage would have been closer. We measured the KPI’s by recording successful and unsuccessful, however if we want to proceed with finding areas of improvement then Dan and I should record further games to get more data. This links to Hynuk and Benoit’s quote “In addition, a KPI should be complemented by a target representing the... desired level of performance. KPI’s can be nonfinancial and they must be frequently measured” (Hynuk and Benoit, 2010:65). Frequently getting results will mean that we will be able to give feedback to participants and even set them goals. If a coach uses notational analysis then they can give feedback straight away this could be through a half time team talk or during training. Furthermore if photos or videos have been taken then a coach can give one to one information with a participant. Whereas using software such as LongoMatch can take a couple days to feedback to participants, this may not be the best methods as the participants may have forgotten.
From our analysis we found that from the KPI’s that we recorded there was not much of an impact between both half’s, the results actually show that the defence did better in the first half. This could mean that during the second half the ball was further up the pitch means fewer touches for the defenders. Furthermore this could mean that the team talk had a good impact on the players boosting confidence and performance levels. The only defender that increased his performance was defender 6; this could mean that Plymstock went down a certain side of the pitch meaning that defender 6 had more to do. From my results defender 3, who came on for the second half, had an average game and did not see much of the ball. However from Dan’s data his results have increased showing that he had a good game. This could be because of misinterpretation, where Dan was recording results for him instead of someone else.