Finding the gap: An empirical study of the most effective shots in elite goalball

PLoS One. 2018 Apr 26;13(4):e0196679. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196679. eCollection 2018.

Abstract

This research identifies which shots types in goalball are most likely to lead to a goal and herby provides background information for improving training and competition. Therefore, we observed 117 elite level matches including 20,541 shots played in the regular situation (3 vs. 3) using notational analysis. We characterized the shots by using their target sector (A-E), technique (traditional, rotation), trajectory (flat, bounce), angle (straight, diagonal and outcome (goal, violation, out, blocked). In our data, a χ2-test showed a significantly higher goal rate for men (3.9%) compared to women (3.0%). For men, we found a significantly higher goal rate in the intersection sectors between players C (5.6%), D (4.9%), and in the outer sector A. In sector A, goal rate was higher only for straight shots (6.6%). Technique and trajectory did not affect goal rate for men, but flat shots showed a higher violation rate (3.2%) compared to bounce shouts (2.0%). In women's goalball, goal rate was higher only on sector D (4.4%). Bounce-rotation shots were the most successful (5.5%). We conclude that men should focus on shots to sectors C and D (called pocket) and straight shots to sector A, as long as there are no other tactical considerations. Women should shoot primarily towards the pocket. It might also be worth playing more bounce-rotation shots and practicing them in training.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Athletic Performance*
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Sex Factors
  • Young Adult

Grants and funding

The study was supported by the German Federal Institute of Sport Science (BISp, www.bisp.de). Grant numbers: A1-070405/12-13, A1-070406/14, I1-071615/15, I1-081616/16. The publication of the study was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG, www.dfg.de) and the Technical University of Munich (TUM, www.tum.de) in the framework of the Open Access Publishing Program. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Both authors were funded.