CMC PROLICENSE Thesis - RicardoVasconcelos

EHF MASTER COACH/PRO-LICENSE
Offensive Models used by the top four teams on the

decisive games of the EHF Euro 2016 in Poland
Ricardo Vasconcelos
(GBR)
Lisbon, 2016
Offensive Models used by the top four teams on the decisive games of the EHF Euro 2016 in
Poland
2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Summary.............................................................................................................
2. Key Words...........................................................................................................
3. Introduction........................................................................................................
4. Methods..............................................................................................................
5. Results.................................................................................................................
5.1. Norway.........................................................................................................
5.2. Croatia..........................................................................................................
12
5.3. Spain.............................................................................................................
16
5.4. Germany.......................................................................................................
22
5.5. Observations.................................................................................................
29
6. Conclusion...........................................................................................................
30
7. Symbol Index.......................................................................................................
31
8. References..........................................................................................................
32
EHF Master Coach/PRO-LICENSE
Ricardo Vasconcelos
Poland
2016
1. Summary
The aim of this paper is to analyse describe the offensive models of the Nations
classified in the four first places on the last 2016 European Championship in Poland.
The goal is to allow us to better understand the tactical options that some of the better
Nations are using offensively as well as unveil the common characteristics and trends
in current senior male high performance handball.
The analysis undertaken revealed that the ratio of usage of Team Offensive Tactical
Movements on the overall number of positional attacks was above 69% on all four first
teams of the competition achieving values around 80% on two of them.
The analysis also revealed common trends amongst all teams such as offensive
system transformations - 3:3 to 2:4 or 3:3 with one of the Wing players moving to
second pivot (Pv). This situation was more obvious even when on numerical superiority
situation where all the teams opted for a system transformation where the playmaker
(PL) would move to second pivot (Pv).
2. Key Words
National Team, European Championship, Handball, Offensive Model, Offensive
System, Decision Making.
3. Introduction
Handball is a sport that consists on both group and individual actions. Focusing on the
offensive side of the game, the main objective of the attackers is to score goals as
easily as possible and, if that cant be achieved on a fast break or offensive transition
situation (second wave), then the teams will relate to a group of previously established
group elements trying to guarantee and accomplish ideal shooting contexts that will
increase the chances of scoring and that constitute the team offensive tactical model
(TOTM).
One of many definitions that we could apply and relate to the concept of tactic comes
from the bridge with the business world that define tactics as means by which
a strategy is carried out; planned and ad hoc activities meant to deal with
the demands of the moment, and to move from one milestone to other in pursuit of the
overall goals (Business Dictionary).
The way that handball has evolved on the past few years with a clear increase on the
overall speed of the game and on the number of goals scored per match indicates the
gradual increase of the useful game time and, as a consequence, the possibility of a
bigger number of attacking situations (Alvarez, 2012).With that in mind, the necessity
for different strategies to overcome better prepared defences - with physically and
conceptually better prepared defenders, with higher levels of proactiveness working to
3
Ricardo Vasconcelos
Poland
2016
actually promote the mistake in the attack rather than wait for it to happen has led to
a fast and clear evolution on those TOTMs constituted by pre-established group
movements or set-plays to face virtually any and every defensive system that the
opposition might use with the objective of creating an optimal shooting situation and, at
the same time, decrease the number of turnovers and technical faults.
As described by Garcia (1998) and Laguna (1996) those tactical elements can be
classified as (as cited by Alvarez 2012):
-
Elementary representing superiority situations in attack where there

exists cooperation between teammates 2x1, 3x2 or 4x3.
Simple simple situations of numerical equality, like the movement of the

ball or players to different positions, that are present in any game level.
Basic represent a group of actions with cooperation as pass and go,

attacking the gaps, crosses, screens, switches or blocks that are always
done by two players versus a numerical equality defence.
Complex they imply the participation of a larger number of teammates and

consist on the articulation of all the above mentioned means (...).
The use of the TOTM is, therefore, one of common use regardless of the offensive
system that the overall model of play of the team establishes (3:3, 2:4 or 4:2).
4. Methods
The research was made through video analysis from the last four games of the EHF
EURO 2016 in Poland. The games taken into consideration were both semi-finals
(CRO X SPA and NOR X GER), the Bronze medal game (NOR X CRO) and the Final
(GER X SPA).
On each of those games weve analysed and counted the offensive tactical movements
from both teams (basic and complex mainly) in organised/positional attack and their
context (numerical equality/inferiority/superiority and against which defence).
Ricardo Vasconcelos
Poland
2016
5. Results
To better express the outcome of this analysis and provide a better reading and
understanding, the tactical movements and related data will be presented team-byteam starting on the 4th place and moving to the gold medallist.
The objective is not to show all the specific basic and complex type TOTMs up to their
conclusion but to give an analysis of the overall Team Offensive Tactical Model.
Further, the images and Team Offensive Tactical Movements (TOTM) descriptions will
be categorized accordingly to the defensive system they were used against.
5.1.
NORWAY
Positional Attacks (Total)
95
TOTMs (Total)*
66
69.47%
*Basic and Complex

5.1.1. TOTM when facing a team using the 6:0 defensive System
Switch between Center Back/Playmaker (CB/PL) and Left or Right Back (LB/RB)
without ball:
Acting as a trigger movement to flatten the 6:0 for a distance shooting or

Ricardo Vasconcelos
Poland
2016
Continuity using the 2x2 that the position of the pivot/Line Player (Pv/LP)
creates.
Right Wing to second Pivot/Line Player (Pv/LP):
Positional Pv facing a theoretically lighter wing defender forcing a decision

on the immediate 2x2.
Flatten the 6:0 to allow distance shooting.
3x2 situations on the opposite side.
Playmaker (PL) and Pivot (Pv) cross combined with Playmaker and Right/Left
Back (RB/LB) cross:
Ricardo Vasconcelos
Poland
2016
- Flatten the 6:0 defence allowing distance shooting from the Back players.
- 3 x 2 situations on the side of the positional Pv.
- Positional Pv facing a theoretically lighter wing defender.
LB/RB to second Pv (2:4 - System Transformation):
Creating uncertainty on the point defender allowing momentarily a 2x2

situation on the side of the transformation (PL x Pv) and/or a 3x2 situation
on the opposite side RB/LB (now as 2nd Pv) + Back and Wing.
Ricardo Vasconcelos
Poland
2016
LW/RW to 2nd Pv:

situation on the side of the transformation (LB/RB x Pv) and/or a 3x2
situation on the opposite side RB/LB + RW/LW (now as 2nd Pv) and Wing.

PL cross with Pv, combination with R/L Back to second Pv (2:4 - System
Transformation):
5.1.3. TOTM when facing a team using the 5+1 defensive System
Ricardo Vasconcelos
Poland
2016
Create uncertainty on the point defender, trying to make him commit to a

decision or hesitate and provoking the same reaction on the number 3
(Center Back defender) allowing 3x2 situations on the outside of the
defence in both sides.
Variations include the same PL and Pv cross without the combination hence
without the 2:4 system transformation.
5.1.3 TOTM when facing a team using the 5+1 defensive System
RW/LW to second Pv:

Ricardo Vasconcelos
Poland
2016
3x2 on the opposite side of the transformation if the defender 3 (CB

defender) commits to the first attack.
PL and Pv cross:
Create a 2x2 between the RB/LB and the Pv and/or a clearing zone on the
opposite side with large space for a 1x1 or 2x2 with Back and/or Wing.
5.1.4. Special Game Situations

Numerical Inferiority combination
10
Ricardo Vasconcelos
Poland
2016
Complex type combination, designed to create a numerical equality or

superiority situation (3x3 or 3x2) and cancel the numerical advantage from
the defence.
In this specific situation, theres a cross with ball between both wings (top
left image), the LW passes the ball to the PL and returns to his position (top
right image) whilst the RW tries to split the defence by positioning himself
between defenders 2 and 3. At the same time PL passes the ball to RB and
switches with LB. LB receives the ball from RB and realizes a wide attack on
the RB zone (bottom left image) promoting a simple cross and committing
defenders to the right side of the attack. RB then passes the ball at pace to
the PL (now at LB position) and the situation is created depending on the
executants decision making (bottom right image).
Numerical Superiority (2:4 - System Transformation)
11
The option in numerical superiority was for the introduction of a second

positional Pv.
Ricardo Vasconcelos
Poland
5.2.
2016
CROATIA
5.2.1
89
TOTMs (Total)
70
78.65%
TOTM when facing a team using the 6:0 defensive System
Switch between PL and LB/RB:
12
Purpose of flattening the defence and creating momentum for the RB/LB
promoting distance shooting or 2x2 situations with the Pv in case the
defenders commit and step out of the 6m increasing pressure on the
shooter.
The variations observed include (after or during the above described

switch):
Simple Cross;
Double Cross;
Combination with one of the wings moving in to

second Pv.
Ricardo Vasconcelos
Poland
2016
Cross between PL and Pv:
Vs 5:1
Special Game Situation
13
promoting distance shooting or 2x2 and 3x2 situations with the Pv in case
de defenders step out to put pressure on the shooter.
As a variation after the cross between the PL and Pv one of the Back
players moves to 2nd Pv on a 2:4 system transformation.
Ricardo Vasconcelos
Poland
2016
5.2.2 Special Game Situations

14

superiority situation (3x3 or 3x2) with the inclusion of the GK
replacement as LW to promote equality in attack.
The situation is created to be concluded on the opposite side of the GK

replacement (Libero, Bib/vest Player) providing enough time for the
substitution to occur and the GK to be back in goal.
In this specific situation, theres a cross with ball between PL and RW (top
left image), the RW passes the ball to the RB (top right image) and returns
to his position whilst the Pv tries to split the defence by positioning himself
between defenders 2 and 3 (or alternatively between the two CBs). RB
realizes a wide attack on the LB zone promoting a simple cross and
committing defenders to the left side of the attack (bottom left image). LB
then passes the ball at pace to the PL (now at RB position) and the situation
is created depending on the executants decision making (bottom right
image).
Ricardo Vasconcelos
Poland
2016
Numerical Superiority combination (2:4 System Transformation)
15
The option when in numerical advantage was for the system transformation
through the PL moving into the 2nd Pv position creating a 2x1 on the side of
the positional Pv, a 3x2 in the middle and a 3x2 on the opposite side.
Ricardo Vasconcelos
Poland
5.3.
2016
SPAIN
5.3.1
88
TOTMs (Total)
63
71.6%
TOTM when facing a team using the 6:0 defensive System
3:3 with LW at 2nd Pv Combination with cross PL with Pv and LW back to his
normal position:
16
Complex combination where the LW is used as a second line at the initial

stage of the tactical movement with the intention of maintaining the defence
flat and to create uncertainty.
After the cross between the PL and the Pv the LW starts moving back to his
original position, screening on his way the defenders creating, in this
specific case, a situation where the Pv is open and unmarked.
In other cases, the screening caused by the return from the LW to his
position will contribute to a shooting situation from the Back as the
defenders will remain flat on the 6m without any aggressiveness towards the
shooter.
Ricardo Vasconcelos
Poland
2016
PL and LB/RB switch combined with the opposite wing moving to 2nd Pv:
17
Complex combination where the switch between PL and Back (R/L) is

combined with the opposite wing moving to 2nd Pv.
The switch intends to provide momentum to the Back (R/L) when

approaching the central zone and the movement of the Wing (R/L) to
second line has the goal of screening the defenders, keeping them flat and
looking to provide a favourable shooting situation from the Back (R/L)
moving to the central zone.
In case the decision of the Back favours the continuity of play, theres a 2x2
situation created on the side from where the Wing moved out and a 3x2
situation on the opposite side (in this specific case LB, LW and 2nd Pv).
Ricardo Vasconcelos
Poland
2016
LW to second Pv:
The movement of the Wing (R/L) to second Pv will promote a clearing

zone for a 2x2 between the playmaker and the positional Pv when the
number 1 defender behaves as above man-marking the Back (R/L) from the
side of the transformation.
If the PL decides to attack between both central defenders he has a 3x2

situation with both lines and a 3x2 continuity option on the opposite side of
the transformation.
Other alternatives started with the positioning of the original Pv between the
defenders 1 and 2 on the side of the transformation creating a situation
where the Pv is facing a theoretically lighter wing defender forcing a
decision on the immediate 2x2 (depending on the defenders behaviour).
LB to second Pv (2:4 System Transformation):
18
Ricardo Vasconcelos
Poland
2016
Creates a 3x2 situation on the side of the transformation and a 3x3 situation
in the central zone promoting uncertainty on the point defender as, if he
doesnt commit to the side of the transformation, the PL will have a 3x2
situation with both Pvs.
As the image sequence demonstrates this uncertainty and posterior

commitment of the point defender to the ball carrier created a 2x1 situation
on the opposite side that allowed a favourable shooting situation.
The same situation was promoted with the RB and the PL moving into 2nd
Pv with the same intentions as described above.
Structural 3:3 change - 2 Pvs and no LW:
19
The structural change occurred when facing a 6:0 defence the coach from
Germany opted to change his defensive system to a 5+1.
Ricardo Vasconcelos
Poland
2016
5.3.4 Special Game Situations

20

superiority situation (3x3 or 3x2).
The team plays without one of the Wings;
In this specific situation, theres a cross with ball between PL and Pv, the Pv
passes the ball to the LB (could be RB) and returns to his position either
between the defenders number 2 and 3 (or both central defenders) whilst
the LW (could be RW) makes an in and out movement to create
uncertainty on the defenders going back to his position. LB passes the ball
to the RB that realizes a deep attack on the central zone returning the ball at
pace to the LB and the situation is created depending on the executants
decision making.
Ricardo Vasconcelos
Poland
2016
Numerical Superiority combination
21
The option in numerical superiority in this situation was for the introduction
of a second positional Pv.
Other option when in numerical advantage was for the system

transformation through the PL moving into the 2nd Pv position creating a 2x1
on the side of the positional Pv, a 3x2 in the middle and a 3x2 on the
opposite side.
Ricardo Vasconcelos
Poland
2016
5.4 GERMANY
101
TOTMs (Total)
81
80.19%
PL switch with LB/RB:
22
promoting distance shooting or 2x2 situations with the Pv in case the
defenders commit and step out of the 6m increasing pressure on the
shooter.
The variations observed include (after or during the above described

switch):
Simple Cross;
Double Cross.
Ricardo Vasconcelos
Poland
2016
3:3 Structural Change back to normal 3:3:
23
Complex type combination where both Wings start as Pvs and step back to
their respective positions with the purpose of flattening the defence, screen
the defenders and create uncertainty amongst the defenders.
At the same time that the above situation takes place, the PL switches
position with LB that moves to 2nd Pv between the 2 and 3 defender on the
opposite side creating the following context:
A clearing zone on the left for a 2x2 with LW and LB;
A 3x2 situation with the 2nd Pv, the RB and the RW;
A 2x2 situation with the 2 center defenders and the

positional Pv.
Ricardo Vasconcelos
Poland
2016
RW/LW to 2nd Pv:
The movement of the Wing (R/L) to second Pv create a situation where the
Pv is facing a theoretically lighter wing defender forcing a decision on the
immediate 2x2 (depending on the defenders behaviour).
The positioning of the Wing as 2nd Pv between defenders 1 and 2 of the

opposite side creates a potential 3x2 alternative of continuity to the pressure
exerted by the PL
PL and Pv cross with ball
24
Ricardo Vasconcelos
Poland
2016
promoting distance shooting or 2x2 and 3x2 situations with the Pv in case
de defenders step out to put pressure on the shooter.
As a variation after the cross between the PL and Pv one of the Back
players moves to 2nd Pv on a 2:4 system transformation.
RW to 2nd Pv:
25

situation on the side of the transformation (LB/RB x Pv) and/or a 3x2
situation on the opposite side RB/LB + RW/LW (now as 2nd Pv) and Wing.

on the 2x2.
Ricardo Vasconcelos
Poland
2016
PL cross with Pv with ball:
26
Create uncertainty on the point defender, trying to make him commit to a

decision or hesitate and provoking the same reaction on the number 3
(Center Back defender) allowing (in this case) a 3x2 situation on the outside
of the defence on the side of the Pv block.
Variations used include the same PL and Pv cross with combination with
R/L Back or PL to second Pv (2:4 - System Transformation).
Ricardo Vasconcelos
Poland
2016
5.4.3. Special Game Situations

Numerical Inferiority:
27
Combination designed to create a numerical equality or superiority situation

(3x3 or 3x2) with the inclusion of the GK replacement to promote
equality in attack.
In this specific situation the GK replacement (libero, Bib/vest) is used as a

LB (opposite side of the substitutions bench), the Pv positions himself
between defenders 2 and 3 on the left side (top left image). The libero
passes the ball to the (PL that is repositioning himself as LB) and moves to
2nd Pv looking to create uncertainty amongst the defenders (top right
image). The PL (now at LB) passes the ball to the RB (that repositioned
himself as PL) that executes a full pressure attack trying to commit both
central defenders and creating a 3x2 (or 3x3) situation on the left (bottom
image).
Ricardo Vasconcelos
Poland
2016
Numerical Superiority
The option in numerical superiority in this situation was for the introduction
of a second positional Pv.
Other option when in numerical advantage was for the system

transformation through the PL moving into the 2nd Pv position creating a 2x1
on the side of the positional Pv, a 3x2 in the middle and a 3x2 on the
opposite side.
Free (9m) Throw
28
This 7x6 system transformation was only used on this specific context with
the intent of promoting a favourable distance shooting situation or taking
advantage of the possible confusion at the defence organization to assist
one of the Pv resultant from the four players unfolding the attacking barrier
on the free throw.
Ricardo Vasconcelos
Poland
2016
5.5. Observations
Despite all the described above there are, in this sort of analytical observation, a few
conditionings that one has to work with and cant deny.
The analysis of complex situations as the one described above, will always tend to
provide an endless number of continuity possibilities depending on the behaviour
(reaction) of the defenders and decision of the attackers and the desired outcome
and specific nuances would require an extended process of analysis and questioning
with the coach of each team and each of the players that made decisions on the
observed situations. This way, what you see above is the analysis of each situation
through my own lenses which, Im happy to accept, will certainly be different - in
some cases, if not all - from other readers.
The goal of this study, as explained earlier, wasnt to show all the specific basic and
complex type TOTMs up to their conclusion but to give an analysis of the overall
Team Offensive Tactical Model. This is, in itself, a somewhat constrained observation
as relates to only two games per team on a decisive moment of an International
Senior Competition. To give a clear example of the constraints we are mentioning,
we can use the fact that the Croatia National Team faced the same defensive system
throughout both matches (6:0) limiting their TOTM analysis to the situations prepared
to face that system only.
On an ideal context, I would have had the time to observe the teams throughout all
the games at the competition facing more defensive systems and providing more
data, however and due to several factors, this is what was possible and, hopefully will
raise the readers awareness and willingness to study this theme deeper.
29
Ricardo Vasconcelos
Poland
6.
2016
Conclusion
With the evolution of the game throughout the past decades, the volume and
intensity of the game has changed exponentially.
With that, the biological, anthropometrical, psychological, technical and tactical
elements inherent to the optimal handball player have changed promoting, in a
team organisation perspective, a clear evolution not only on the used defensive
systems but also on the nuances and behaviours on the roles of the players on
each system with more proactive defences looking to anticipate the attackers and
promote mistakes rather than waiting for them to happen.
Side by side with this evolution in defence, the attack evolved as well, increasing
his speed and complexity of tactical movements trying to promote ideal shooting
situations leading to high shooting effectiveness.
If it is true that the optimal context would be to recover balls in defence promoting
fast breaks and transitions (1st and 2nd waves) therefore easy shots (1x0
situations), the reality is that this is not always possible and the organised
positional attacks are still the situation most used when trying to score and, as
observed, over 69% of the time the option is for a basic or complex Team
Offensive Tactical Movement or System Transformation looking to disrupt and
break those highly organised and structured defensive models.
This is, on my perspective, a clear indicator that the Team Offensive Tactical
Movements are a fundamental aspect on any handball team and this situation will
be emphasised on a larger scale with the introduction of the new rules concerning
the GK substitution.
30
Ricardo Vasconcelos
Poland
7.
2016
Symbol Index
Symbol
Definition
Player Movement
Pass Direction
31
Ricardo Vasconcelos
Poland
8.
2016
References
Matches Analysis: ehftv.com

Statistical Data: http://pol2016.ehf-euro.com/
Arraya, M. e Sequeira, P.: Andebol Um caminho para o Alto Rendimento, Janeiro
de 2012.
Kovacs, P.: Trend analysis of
eurohandball.com, February 2016.
the 12th
Mens EHF EURO
2016 POL,
Moreno, F. Avila: Set Offence Design, IHF Periodical Article.

Prudente, J.: Anlise da performance tctica-tcnica no andebol de alto nvel - estudo
das aces ofensivas com recurso anlise sequencial, Tese de Doutoramento,
Universidade da Madeira, 2016.
32
Ricardo Vasconcelos

CMC PROLICENSE Thesis - RicardoVasconcelos

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CMC PROLICENSE Thesis - RicardoVasconcelos

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

EHF MASTER COACH/PRO-LICENSE

Offensive Models used by the top four teams on the

EHF Master Coach/PRO-LICENSE

EHF Master Coach/PRO-LICENSE

Elementary representing superiority situations in attack where there

Simple simple situations of numerical equality, like the movement of the

Basic represent a group of actions with cooperation as pass and go,

Complex they imply the participation of a larger number of teammates and

EHF Master Coach/PRO-LICENSE

*Basic and Complex

Acting as a trigger movement to flatten the 6:0 for a distance shooting or

Right Wing to second Pivot/Line Player (Pv/LP):

Positional Pv facing a theoretically lighter wing defender forcing a decision

Flatten the 6:0 to allow distance shooting.

3x2 situations on the opposite side.

EHF Master Coach/PRO-LICENSE

Creating uncertainty on the point defender allowing momentarily a 2x2

EHF Master Coach/PRO-LICENSE

LW/RW to 2nd Pv:

Creating uncertainty on the point defender allowing momentarily a 2x2

Positional Pv facing a theoretically lighter wing defender forcing a decision

EHF Master Coach/PRO-LICENSE

Create uncertainty on the point defender, trying to make him commit to a

Positional Pv facing a theoretically lighter wing defender forcing a decision

3x2 on the opposite side of the transformation if the defender 3 (CB

5.1.4. Special Game Situations

EHF Master Coach/PRO-LICENSE

Complex type combination, designed to create a numerical equality or

Numerical Superiority (2:4 - System Transformation)

The option in numerical superiority was for the introduction of a second

EHF Master Coach/PRO-LICENSE

Positional Attacks (Total)

TOTM when facing a team using the 6:0 defensive System

Switch between PL and LB/RB:

The variations observed include (after or during the above described

Combination with one of the wings moving in to

EHF Master Coach/PRO-LICENSE

Cross between PL and Pv:

EHF Master Coach/PRO-LICENSE

5.2.2 Special Game Situations

Complex type combination, designed to create a numerical equality or

The situation is created to be concluded on the opposite side of the GK

EHF Master Coach/PRO-LICENSE

Numerical Superiority combination (2:4 System Transformation)

EHF Master Coach/PRO-LICENSE

Positional Attacks (Total)

TOTM when facing a team using the 6:0 defensive System

Complex combination where the LW is used as a second line at the initial

EHF Master Coach/PRO-LICENSE

Complex combination where the switch between PL and Back (R/L) is

The switch intends to provide momentum to the Back (R/L) when

EHF Master Coach/PRO-LICENSE

The movement of the Wing (R/L) to second Pv will promote a clearing

If the PL decides to attack between both central defenders he has a 3x2

EHF Master Coach/PRO-LICENSE

As the image sequence demonstrates this uncertainty and posterior

EHF Master Coach/PRO-LICENSE

5.3.4 Special Game Situations

Complex type combination, designed to create a numerical equality or

The team plays without one of the Wings;

EHF Master Coach/PRO-LICENSE

Numerical Superiority combination

Other option when in numerical advantage was for the system