ArticleBiology of sport2026
The relationship between penetrative actions and football match outcomes: evidence from the 2022 FIFA World Cup.
Article in Biology of sport, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Penetrative actions play a crucial role in determining success in football. The aim of this study was to quantify the association between penetrative actions and match outcomes at the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Statistical analyses were conducted on 59 matches decided within regular time. The generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) and magnitude-based inference (MBI) were employed to examine the association between various penetrative action parameters and match outcomes (win/draw/loss) at both between- and within-team levels. The results showed that differences in penetrative actions between teams did not yield clear differences in winning probability (all likelihood effects < 95%). However, a two-within-team standard deviation (SD) increased in (i) attempted line breaks, (ii) completed line breaks, (iii) attempted line-breaking passes, (iv) attempted over-the-top line breaks, and (v) completed over-the-top line breaks raised a team's probability of winning by 34.3% (90% CI ± 15.1%), 30.8% (± 14.6%), 33.8% (± 15.1%), 34.8% (± 15.0%), and 38.2% (± 15.5%), respectively. When playing against opponents utilizing a three-line defensive structure, a two-within-team SD increased in (i) attempted line breaks, (ii) attempted line breaks within the opponent's formation, (iii) attempted final defensive line breaks, (iv) attempted second defensive line breaks, and (v) completed second defensive line breaks elevated the winning probability by 34.0% (± 14.4%), 32.0% (± 14.6%), 29.4% (± 14.6%), 37.9% (± 14.5%), and 33.3% (± 14.4%), respectively. It is concluded that penetrative actions demonstrate a clear positive association with within-team winning probability. Different types of penetrative actions were associated with different levels of winning probability. The association between penetrative actions and winning probability varies across tactical contexts. These findings provide practicable insights for optimising offensive strategies in elite football.
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.