Examining how data becomes information for an upcoming opponent in football

Saumya Mehta, P. Furley, Dominik Raabe, D. Memmert
{"title":"Examining how data becomes information for an upcoming opponent in football","authors":"Saumya Mehta, P. Furley, Dominik Raabe, D. Memmert","doi":"10.1177/17479541231187871","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As the sport industry witnesses a surge in the type and volume of data-driven decisions, the general question of the process of information development remains: how is data used to develop meaningful information? And does the presence of novel quantitative data sources lend greater objectivity to match analysis? Study 1 examines how 12 football analysts use the same qualitative (video) and quantitative (event and position) data to develop information constituting a typical opponent report for an upcoming match, while Study 2 investigates the agreement between grade evaluations of these opponent reports by numerous professional coaches. Findings of Study 1 through independent-samples t-tests ( t(18) = 3.922, p = 0.001) indicate a clear dominance of qualitative video data over quantitative event and position data in all opponent reports. Despite the presence of quantitative data sources, analysts tend to prefer annotated video data. Possible relations to previous experience and familiarity with data, coach–analyst preferences and biases are discussed. Results from Study 2 show extremely weak intra-class correlations (ICC) ( r = 0.147; p = 0.011) between different grades awarded to the same video, depicting a clear lack of agreement in what coaches consider a good opponent report. Furthermore, coaches most valued the comprehensibility and relevance of the report. No significant associations were found between use of either data type and better grades. The subjectivity of the coaching process highlighting preferences regarding data validity and negotiations of adopting new key performance indicators (KPIs) is discussed, alongside limitations of the sample as well as the level of coach–analysts involved.","PeriodicalId":182483,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching","volume":"120 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17479541231187871","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

As the sport industry witnesses a surge in the type and volume of data-driven decisions, the general question of the process of information development remains: how is data used to develop meaningful information? And does the presence of novel quantitative data sources lend greater objectivity to match analysis? Study 1 examines how 12 football analysts use the same qualitative (video) and quantitative (event and position) data to develop information constituting a typical opponent report for an upcoming match, while Study 2 investigates the agreement between grade evaluations of these opponent reports by numerous professional coaches. Findings of Study 1 through independent-samples t-tests ( t(18) = 3.922, p = 0.001) indicate a clear dominance of qualitative video data over quantitative event and position data in all opponent reports. Despite the presence of quantitative data sources, analysts tend to prefer annotated video data. Possible relations to previous experience and familiarity with data, coach–analyst preferences and biases are discussed. Results from Study 2 show extremely weak intra-class correlations (ICC) ( r = 0.147; p = 0.011) between different grades awarded to the same video, depicting a clear lack of agreement in what coaches consider a good opponent report. Furthermore, coaches most valued the comprehensibility and relevance of the report. No significant associations were found between use of either data type and better grades. The subjectivity of the coaching process highlighting preferences regarding data validity and negotiations of adopting new key performance indicators (KPIs) is discussed, alongside limitations of the sample as well as the level of coach–analysts involved.
研究数据如何成为即将到来的足球对手的信息
随着体育产业见证了数据驱动决策类型和数量的激增,信息开发过程的一般问题仍然存在:如何使用数据来开发有意义的信息?新的定量数据源的存在是否为匹配分析提供了更大的客观性?研究1研究了12名足球分析师如何使用相同的定性(视频)和定量(事件和位置)数据来为即将到来的比赛开发构成典型对手报告的信息,而研究2调查了众多专业教练对这些对手报告的等级评估之间的一致性。研究1通过独立样本t检验的结果(t(18) = 3.922, p = 0.001)表明,在所有对手报告中,定性视频数据明显优于定量事件和位置数据。尽管存在定量数据源,分析师倾向于更喜欢注释的视频数据。可能的关系,以前的经验和熟悉的数据,教练-分析师的偏好和偏见进行了讨论。研究2的结果显示极弱的类内相关性(ICC) (r = 0.147;P = 0.011),这表明在教练认为好的对手报告上明显缺乏一致性。此外,教练们最看重的是报告的可理解性和相关性。在使用任何一种数据类型和更好的成绩之间没有发现显著的关联。讨论了教练过程的主观性,突出了对数据有效性的偏好,并讨论了采用新的关键绩效指标(kpi)的谈判,以及样本的局限性以及所涉及的教练分析师水平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信