CHARACTERISTICS AND SUCCESS OF FIRST AND SECOND WAVE FAST BREAKS IN ELITE HANDBALL TEAMS

YIANNAKOS A., Department of Physical Education And Sport Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

GALAZOULAS CH., Department of Physical Education And Sport Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

GERODIMOS V., Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, University of Thessaly, Trikala, Greece

SILELOGLOU P, ARMATAS V., Sports Performance & Coaching Laboratory, Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, University of Thessaly, Trikala, Greece

Keywords: Handball, fast break, tactics, team sports, video analysis

Introduction

The success in team sports depends largely on profound and continuous analysis of the statistical elements of the game, on technical and tactical aspects of the teams as well as on analysis of the performance of individual players (Gomelski, 1990). This view is supported by Klein (1998) following the analysis of the games in the 1997 World Men Championship and those in the 1998 European Men Championship in Italy. More specifically, the investigator noticed that in the 1997 World Championship there was a great improvement and success during attacks against defensive methods. However, in the 1998 European Men Championship in Italy the defence had already worked out methods of responding to these attacks reducing not only the number of attacks but also their success. The author considered that these changes were due to game analysis that preceded the 1998 Championship in Italy that resulted in improved playing attitude approaching the technical and tactical perfection of teams.

Fast break is an element that when executed correctly is probably the most effective offensive mean (Βagios et al., 1991; Czervinski, 2000) and one of the most spectacular aspects of modern handball. Scoring goals as a result of fast break brings satisfaction, trust, and courage to the scoring side and has a negative impact to the opponents (Cercel, 1983).

Game analysis from the European and World championships verify the growing use of fast break attack during the handball game (Konig et al., 1997; Ambrus, 2003; Seco, 1998). According to Bota (1984) fast break represents a 15-25% of total attacks in a typical handball game. Furthermore, 30-35% of goals are scored after an execution of a fast break attack (Spate, 1984; Bota, 1984; Czervinski, 1997). Czerwinski et al. (1993) report that an average of 19% of fast breaks take place during a handball game.

The significance of the use of fast breaks in handball is of extreme importance and there is a belief that an evaluation of their deployment, frequency and effectiveness becomes a valuable tool for coaches to schedule and employ successfully the daily training. Thus, it is of importance to analyze games and produce their statistical elements for teams of different performance level such as national and international levels. It's commonly accepted that a good defence tactic may provide its team with the opportunity of a quick attack against a team returning back (1^st wave fast break) or to score against a defence already back but not in position (2^nd and 3^rd waves) (Mocsai, 2002). The distinction between the 1^st and 2^nd waves of fast break is determined by the duration and the number of players participating in a fast break (Stein & Federhoff, 1977; Valtzev & Petrov, 1985; Bota, 1984; Kotzamanidis, 2000).

If the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd waves of fast break are considered an important aspect of the game tactic and the team success, as previously reported, then a more detailed analysis of the fast break frequency and effectiveness is essential. These issues will help coaches to direct more correctly the fast break training, focusing on the reasons that prevent the final throw and success, in order to achieve better results. Moreover, the knowledge of statistical elements of the 1^st and 2^nd wave of fast break, such as the final attempt areas in conjunction with shot direction might assist in the fast break confrontation.

Therefore, this research aims to study the specific elements of 1^st and 2^nd wave fast break. More specifically, this study reports for each type of fast break the frequency, the effectiveness (throw at the goal post), the reasons not achieving the final throw, the areas from where the final throw usually takes place, the successful throws, and the goalpost area where the successful attempt has been directed.

Methods

Subjects

One thousand five hundreds three (1503) attacks from 15 matches of 8 teams participating in the men's first division of the 2003 Greek Handball Championships were studied. All their fast breaks (successful or not) were considered.

Study Design - Instrumentation

Fifteen matches were video-recorded and digitized using a JVC VCR and a Pentium Intel computer. The study is based on the personal observation of the researcher's who was keeping the relevant records. The recording of the data for each game was achieved by using the "Sport Scout" video analysis program for PC that was created to accomplish this task. The program is written in Visual Basic v.6.0 (Craig & Webb, 1998). The standard observation and recording protocol for the "on-screen" game is a multi-search system applied to Team Handball. This way, the researcher is able to enter all the important information for his research activities and analyze them by using a PC (Tsamourtzis et al., 2001).

In the analysis, all attacks were recorded, and categorized as 1^st and 2^nd fast breaks, and as possession attacks. Furthermore, for each type of attack we recorded the place from where the final attempt (shot) took place, the outcome of the shot (goal, saved by goalkeeper, missed the goalpost), the goalpost position (in case of a successful attempt), the offensive mistakes, as well as the defensive fouls.

Data Analysis

 All data were analyzed using the statistical package SPSS 12.0. Cross tabulation analysis was used to determine the frequency and the percent occurrence of each statistical element of the game for each type of fast break. Chi-square analysis was used to determine the statistically significant differences in statistical elements between the different types of fast breaks. The level of significance was set at p<0.05.

Results

Figure 1 represents the percentage distribution of possession attacks and 1^st and 2^nd wave fast breaks attacks as of the total of attacks. Possession attacks were 80.2% and fast breaks were 19.8% of the total of attacks (p<0.05). Out of the 19.8% fast breaks, 10.2% were executed using 1^st wave and 9.6% were executed using the 2^nd wave (p>0.05).

The analysis revealed that from the total number of attacks, 52.8% resulted to a shot to the goalpost and in 47.2% attacks a shot was not committed (p>0.05). During possession attacks, 49.5% resulted in shot, and in fast breaks (both 1^st and 2^nd wave) 72.1% resulted in shot (p<0.01). When the fast breaks were divided to 1^st and 2^nd wave, the results showed that a relatively greater percentage of shots were committed in 1^st wave compared to 2^nd wave, however the difference was not statistically significant (77.1% and 66.9%, respectively; p>0.05).

Figure 1 - Percentages of possession and fast breaks (1^st and 2^nd wave) attacks as of the total of attacks (* p<0.05 vs. 1^st and 2^nd wave fast breaks attacks)

Furthermore, the 1^st and the 2^nd wave fast breaks resulted to higher percentage of shot compared to possession attacks (77.1% and 66.9% vs. 49.5%, respectively; p<0.05). The percentages of possession and 1^st and 2^nd wave fast breaks that resulted in shot to the goalpost are presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2 - The percentages of possession and 1^st and 2^nd wave fast breaks that resulted in shot to the goalpost (* p<0.05 vs.1^st and 2^nd wave fast breaks attacks)

 The shot outcome of possession attacks and 1^st and 2^nd wave fast breaks are shown in Figure 3. The percentage of success (goal achievement) was 47.5% in possession attacks and 58.7% considering both fast breaks attacks (χ²=2.518, p=0.11). However, significantly greaten % of goals was scored after 1^st wave fast breaks attacks vs. possession attacks (62.7% vs. 47.5%, respectively; p<0.05). The percentages of goals scored in 1^st and 2^nd wave fast breaks were not significantly different (62.7% and 54.6%, respectively; p>0.05). The percentage of goalkeepers' rejections in possession attacks was not significantly different compared to that in fast breaks attacks (38.1% and 32.1% respectively; p>0.05). Furthermore, comparisons among the three types of attacks revealed that the goalkeepers' rejection were not significantly different between possession attack and that of 1^st wave (38.1 vs. 27.1%, respectively; x²=2,424, p=0.12).

Figure 3 -Shot outcome as a result of possession attacks and both types of fast break (*p<0.05 possession attack vs. 1^st wave fast break attack within goal)

A greater percentage of throw-out shots was detected in the possession attacks compared to that in fast breaks (14.4% and 9.2%; p=0.056). Furthermore, there were no significant differences in throw-out attempts among possession attack and the 1^st and the 2^nd wave attack (14.4%, 10.2%, and 8.2%, respectively; p>0.05).

The offensive mistakes and the defensive fouls during execution of the 1^st and 2^nd wave's fast breaks are presented in Figure 4. Chi square analysis showed a significant difference between 1^st and 2^nd waves fast breaks in wrong passes (15.2% and 5.1%, respectively; p<0.05), defensive fouls (45.7% and 62.7%, respectively; p<0.05), 7m-throw (19.6% vs. 6.8%, respectively; p<0.01), and 6m-line violation (2,2% and 8.5%, respectively; p<0.05). However, no significant differences between 1^st and 2^nd waves fast breaks were found for steps regulation (6.5% vs. 1.7%, respectively; p>0.05), offensive fouls (2.2% vs. 5.1%, respectively; p>0.05) and ball stealing (8.7% vs. 10.2%, respectively; p>0.05).

Figure 4 - Percentages of offensive mistakes and defensive fouls in the 1^st and 2^nd fast break waves (*p<0.05 1^st vs. 2^nd wave fast break)

The outcome of final throw in conjunction to the area from where the attempt was committed during the fast break is presented in Figure 5. No differences were found between 1^st and 2^nd wave fast break in percentage of goals from the wing, centre, and back position (p>0.05). Chi square analysis showed significant differences between 1^st and 2^nd waves fast breaks in goalkeeper saves (repost) from wing position (39% vs. 58%, respectively; p<0.01) and from central position (42% vs. 30%, respectively; p<0.01). Finally, significantly higher rate of throw out attempts was committed in 1^st wave vs. 2^nd wave from the back position (10% vs. 38%, respectively; p<0.01) and from the central position (40% vs.12% respectively; p<0.001).

Figure 5 - The outcome of final attempt in conjunction to the area from where the attempt was committed during the 1^st and 2^nd wave fast breaks. p<0.01. 1st vs 2nd wave fast breaks (*p<0.05 1^st vs. 2^nd wave fast break)

In figure 6 are represented the areas of the goalpost were successful (goal achievement) 1^st and 2^nd waves fast breaks were directed. Chi square analysis showed significantly greater percentage of successful final attempts in low throws comparing to those of middle and high throws in the 1^st (60.5% vs. 19.1% and 20.4%; p<0.05; Figure 6A) and in the 2^nd waves (52.4% vs. 22.7% and 24.9%; p<0.05; Figure 6B)fast breaks.

Successful throw percentages in the areas of the goalpost during the 1st wave Successful throw percentages in the areas of the goalpost during the 2nd wave

Figure 6 - The percentages of the successful (goal achievement) 1^st and 2^nd waves fast break attacks relative to the different areas of the goalpost (*p<0.05 vs. middle and high areas)

Discussion

Greek Handball shows an extreme improvement during the last few years, as indicated by the results of the Olympic Games in Athens and the World Championship in Tunisia in 2004. Especially, regarding the use of fast break attacks the technique of Greek players has been improved considerably. The present study examined the frequency of possession and fast break attacks, the types of fast breaks, and the effectiveness and the success of each type of fast break in Greek elite handball teams. The results demonstrated that there is no significant difference between 1^st and 2^nd wave fast break deployment (10.2 and 9.6%, respectively) and success (62.7 and 54.6%, respectively). However, significantly greater % of goals was scored after 1^st wave fast breaks attacks vs. possession attacks (62.7% vs. 47.5% respectively; p<0.05). The percentages of goals achieved in 1^st and 2^nd wave fast breaks were not significantly different (62.7% and 54.6%, respectively).

To our knowledge, there is a lack of studies that investigated the frequency, the effectiveness, the success, the offensive mistakes, the defensive fouls, and the areas from where a final throw usually takes place in 1^st and 2^nd wave fast break. Statistical analysis in many international events report that 75-80% of the attacks end up in a throw towards the goal post, while in 20-25% of attacks a mistake has been committed that prevents the deployment of the attack (Jaworski et al, 1982). The data analysis of the present research showed that 53% (794 of 1503) of the attacks ended to a throw towards the goal post. More detailed analysis of the attacks in this study revealed that 80% of total attacks involved organized attacks, while 20% were fast break attacks. This is in accordance with previous studies that report 17-25% occurrence of fast break attacks in various international events from 1972 to 2002 (Seco, 1999; Spate 1984; Seco 2001; Taborsky et al. 1999; Czerwinski 1993; Czerwinski 2000; Kuchta 2002). A more detailed analysis of fast break revealed that the occurrence of 1^st wave and 2^nd wave fast break during the recorded games was almost identical. More specifically, 1^st wave fast break was employed in 10.2% and 2^nd wave in 9.6% of all attacks, which means 51% and 49% of fast breaks for 1^st and 2^nd wave, respectively. However, Seco et al. (1999) reports that in the World Men's Championships in Egypt in 1999, 22% of fast breaks were 1^st wave and 78% were 2^nd wave. Third wave fast breaks were not recorded in this study possibly due to the fact that players prefer to play in a 1:0, 2:1, 3:2 situation, which gives larger rates of success, rather than a game against an organised 5:5 or 6:6 defence.

In the present study 27% of the throws towards the goal post occurred after a deployment of fast break. The combined fast break effectiveness (shot at the goal post) of both 1^st and 2^nd wave in this study was 72%. This is in accordance with Czerwinski (1998), Seco (2001) and Mocsai (2002) who reported the average team effectiveness of 75-77% in the European Championships in Italy, in European Junior Championships in Luxemburg, and in the 5^th European Men's Championships in Sweden. However, Seco (1999) and Czerwinski (2000) report that at the World Men's Championships in Egypt and in the European Men's Championship in Croatia, the teams had an average effectiveness of only 60-63%, which the authors consider as extremely low. When fast breaks were analysed to 1^st and 2^nd wave the results revealed that 77% of the 1^st wave fast break came to a direct throw towards the goalpost and 23% did not result in final throw due to an offensive mistake or defensive foul. The percentage for the 2^nd wave fast break that resulted in final throw (67%) was lower compared to that in the 1^st wave (77%). Although the difference was not statistically significant (p>0,05), this implies a higher possibility to success (goal achievement) following the deployment of fast break with 1^st wave compared to 2^nd wave. A 3^rd fast break wave might get higher effectiveness percentages as a comparison of the Greek handball effectiveness rates with the ones during international events shows similarities.

The goals scored in the present study by a fast break were 31% of the total goals recorded in 1,503 attacks. This rate of success is similar to 30% observed by Bota (1984). However, Saco (1999) reports considerably lower percentage of goals achieved by fast break in the World Men's Championships in Egypt (19%) and in the European Junior Championships in Luxemburg in 2001 (16%). The results of this study demonstrate that the rate of success was not significantly different between 1^st and 2^nd wave fast break attack (62.7 and 54.6%, respectively). However, significantly greater percentage of success was recorded for 1^st wave fast break compared to the respective for possession attack (62.7 and 47.5%, respectively).

Offensive mistakes and defensive fouls are the causes that considerable number of fast breaks is not getting to shot at goalpost. In the present study, the combined rate of offensive mistakes (wrong passes, ball steeling, step regulation, offensive fouls and 6m-line violation) for 1^st and 2^nd wave fast breaks was 32%, which is similar to 30% recorded by Kouchta (2002) in the European U-16 Championships in Gdansk, Poland. Defensive fouls in this study were present at 68% of the fast breaks that didn't result to a throw towards the goalpost. This rate is higher compared to those reported by Seco (1999) from the World Men's Championships in Egypt (12%) and by Kouchta (2002) from the European U-16 Championships in Poland (14%). This difference might reflect the obvious game tendency and quality, as well as the tolerance of the referees. Furthermore, as expected significantly higher percentage of fouls in this study was committed during deployment of 2^nd wave fast break, while increased rate of penalties (7m-throws) was recorded in 1^st vs. 2^nd wave fast break.

 The results of this study demonstrate that during fast breaks, the area with the higher rate of final attempts and success was committed from the centre position (6-9m) (26% attempts and 17% success) compared to the wings (25% attempts and 11% success) and to the second attacking areas (15% attempts and 10% success). No differences were found between 1^st and 2^nd wave fast break in percentage of goals from the wing, centre, and back position. Chi-square analysis showed statistically significant differences between 1^st and 2^nd wave fast break in percentage in goalkeeper saves (repost) from wing position (39% vs. 58%, respectively) and from center position (42% vs. 30% respectively). Also significantly higher rate of throw out attempts was committed in 1^st wave vs. 2^nd wave from the back position (10% vs. 38%, respectively) and from centre position (40% vs.12% respectively).The areas of the goalpost with the largest scoring percentage were the low ones irrespective of the type of fast break, 61% and 52% in 1st and 2nd waves, respectively. These findings agree with those presented by Norkowski (2000) from the 3rd European Junior Championships in Athens.

Conclusions

 The findings of the present study show that there are no differences in the rate of occurrence and success between the 1^st and 2^nd wave fast breaks in Greek Championship. However, it should be pointed out that the effectiveness (final throw to goalpost) was relatively higher in 1^st wave compared to 2^nd wave however not significant. Third wave fast breaks were recorded in this study. The above facts demand from coaches to enhance training sessions for the 2^nd and 3^rd waves of fast break, which are valuable and effective offensive solutions. Furthermore, there is a need for a special defensive training of the players, so they provide defensive solutions through their competitiveness rather through the use of illegal actions (foul abuse, destructive game, etc), and for improvement of their physical condition in order to fulfil the continuing increased metabolic needs of the game. Finally, parameters such as defensive and offensive team tactics, ball retrieval methods, and number of passes that may affect the start and effectiveness of fast breaks would be extremely useful to be examined. The authors believe that this study will provide the coaches with the necessary information to determine and direct correctly training methods and athlete's preparation, avoiding the reasons preventing the final throw and presenting the best possible results in the element of fast break.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to analyze the 1^st and 2^nd wave fast breaks as an offensive tactic in handball through video monitoring. Fifteen matches of the eight best Greek handball teams from the national 2002-2003 Championship were recorded. The data analysis was conducted using Crosstabulation and chi-square tests. The results revealed that possession and fast breaks attacks were 80.2% and 19.8%, respectively, of the total of attacks. Out of the 19.8% fast breaks, 10.2% were executed using 1^st wave and 9.6% using the 2^nd wave. Third wave fast break attack was not recorded. The 1^st and the 2^nd wave fast breaks resulted to higher percentage of shots vs. possession attacks (p<0.05). A significantly greater percentage of goals was scored after 1^st wave fast breaks, attack vs. possession attack (p<0.05). There was no significant effect of the type of the fast break deployment in the success of the fast break. In 1^st wave fast break there were higher percentage of wrong passes and 7m-throw violation and lower percentage of defensive fouls and 6m-line violation compared to those of 2^nd wave (p<0.05). Finally, higher success was documented in low throws comparing to those of middle and high throws in both 1^st and 2^nd fast breaks attacks (p<0.05). In conclusion, there are no differences in the rate of occurrence and success between the 1^st and 2^nd wave fast breaks. It should be pointed out that the effectiveness was relatively higher in 1^st vs. 2^nd wave, although not significant.

This study probably will provide the coaches with the necessary information to determine and direct correctly training methods and athletes' preparation, avoiding the reasons preventing the final throw and presenting the best possible results in the element of fast break.

References

AMBRUS, J., Analysis 5th men's European championship. In: European Handball Federation Periodical for coaches, 1/2002

BOTA, Ι., Handball, Models of game and preparation. Bucharest, Edit. Sport-Turism, 1984

BAGIOS I., KARRA, D., KOYTOPOULIS, A., KOROROS, P., Handball. ATHENS, Editorial Bagios, I, 1991

CERCEL, P., Handball, Εxercises for the phases of game. Bucuresti, Edit.Sport-Turism, 1980

CERCEL, P., Training of men's teams. Bucharest, Editorial Sport-Tourism, 1983

CZERVINSKI, J., Handball Editorial A.W.T. Morskiego Gdansk, 1983

CZERVINSKI, J., Handball, a description of the game. In: European Handball Federation Periodical for coaches, Vienna, 1993

CZERVINSKI, J., The Level of Youth Handball Development. Methods Commission. In: European Handball Federation, Periodical for coaches, 2/1997

CZERVINSKI, J., Statistical analysis of the men's European Championship Held in Italy. In: European Handball Federation Periodical for coaches, 2/1998

CZERVINSKI, J., Statistical analysis and remarks on the game character based on the European championship in Croatia. In: European Handball Federation Periodical for coaches 1, pp. 5-10, 2002

CRAIG G. C., WEBB, G., Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0 developer's workshop. Microsoft press, 1998

FOTINAKIS, P., KARIPIDIS, A., TAXILDARIS, K., Factors characterising the transition game in European basketball. In: Journal of Human Movement Studies 42 (4): 305-316, 2002

GKEHAIGNE, J. ,F., BOUTHIER, D., BERNARD, D. Dynamic system analysis of opponent relationships in collective actions in soccer. In: Sports Sciences, 1997, 15, 137-149, 1977

HATTING, F., HATTING, P., Handball. F.R.G., 1979

JAWORSKI, J., KRAWCSYK,A. and NORKOWSKI, H., In: Handball Editorial A.W.F. Warsaw, pp. 10-12, 1982

SECO, R., Men's junior European championship/ AUT. In: European Handball Federation Periodical for coaches, S 6 2/1998

SECO, R. Reflexions and trends in handball starting from world championship, Egypt' 99 analysis. In: European Handball Federation, periodical for coaches 2/1999

SECO, R. Men's Youth European Championship Luxemburg. In: European Handball Federation Periodical for coaches 2/2001.

KIOUMOURTZOGLOY, E., MAVROMATIS, G., MPEXRAKIS, G., Structures and tendencies in the euro-basket 1987. In: Athletic science Theory and Act, 3: 133-149. 1988

KONIG, S., and ARMIN, E. Handball unterrichten Gesamtrediktion: Karen Zentgraf, Verlag Karl Hofman 1997

KOTZAMANIDIS, C., Theory and methodical of handball training. Thessalonik, A. & P. Xristodoulidis Publishing Company, 2000

KUCHTA, Z., 4th men's junior European handball championship Gdansk, Poland.  In: European Handball Federation Periodical for coaches pp. 17-28, 2/200

MOCSAI, L., Analyzing and evaluating 5th men European Championship 2002. In: European Handball Federation Periodical for coaches 3/2002

NORKOWSKI, H., Analysis of the 3rd men s junior European championship in Athens / Gre. European Handball Federation Periodical for coaches 2/2000

SPATE, D., Gegenstosse mit konzept. In: Handball spezial 5, 1984

Stein, H.G. and FEDERHOFF, E., Handball, Berlin. 1977

TABORSKZY, F., and LUND, A.H., 3rd Women's junior European handball championship in st. Raphael/ Fra. In: European Handball Federation Periodical for coaches, 2, pp. 22-32, 2000

TABORSKZY, F. and LINDER, T., The third European championship in women's handball. In: European Handball Federation Periodical for coaches, 1, 1999

TSAMOURTZIS, E., SFIGGOS, N. and TSIMPIRIS, A., Software for video analysis in the basketball. In: 9th Congress of Physical Education and Sports. 18-20 May Komotin, 2001

VALTZEV T., and PETROV, N., Imitatzionen model na handbalnata igkra. In: Viprosi na fizicesca kultura. Bulgarie, 11, 1985