ArticleJournal of human kinetics2020
Water Polo Shooting Performance: Differences Between World Championship Winning, Drawing and Losing Teams.
Article in Journal of human kinetics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of Surface Structure on Ball Properties during a Professional Water Polo Game.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Youth Water Polo Performance Determinants: The INEX Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Water Polo Offensive Methods after the 2018 FINA Rules Update.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Shooting performance of globally ranked winning, drawing and losing water polo teams was compared, and technical and tactical success indicators were identified. In total, 886 shots from a world championship final round were videotaped and teams were clustered for a performance evaluation (considering differences between game outcomes). Shooting speeds were assessed by a radar, with higher values observed at further distances from the goal than in the central area close to the goal (p ≤ 0.00, ES: 2.54). Shots tended to be more frequent from the central corridor, with ≤50% and >75% relative shot efficacy attained from field areas 3 and 6; winning teams obtained better results. Furthermore, winners had greater success than losers when shooting from field area 2 (p ≤ 0.04, ES: 1.13) and towards the goal zone 2 (p < 0.03, ES: 1.10). They also attained better efficacy regarding shots towards goal zone 1, had better efficacy on the part of centre-forwards (p ≤ 0.05, ES: 0.85-1.27), and were more effective regarding shots without a frontal defensive block. In addition, contingency analysis highlighted shots performed from field area 6, without a defensive block, toward the bottom left goal corner, and through man-up play as success indicators (all for p ≤ 0.005). We concluded that world-level winning teams homogeneously distributed their shot opportunities at the second offensive line with balanced efficacy, creating variability and uncertainty in their opponents' defensive action. Elite level players must be capable of interpreting game situations with intelligence and proper decision making. This information may be useful for improving teams performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.