Attacking 7
6 in the German DKB Handball-Bundesliga: An empirical analysis
1st Edition
Published in June 2019
Book
Paperback/Softback
92 pages
978-3-96146-723-5 (ISBN)
Description
The aim of the study is to investigate the effect an implementation of a 7th court player has on the efficiency to score for teams of the German DKB Handball-Bundesliga. The study will fill the gap in analyzing the changes following the amendment of rule 4:1 with the highest number of cases (n= 2,336) of all studies published yet with a qualitative as well as quantitative, mixed-methods design. Moreover, practical training and coaching implications will be discussed. A measurement theoretical approach will be performed together with interference statistical connections. The variable, goal or no goal, will be the dichotomous variable in a cross sectional design.
The sample consists of all DKB Handball-Bundesliga teams that were part of the first league during the last 2 years since the amendment of rule 4:1. This led to 15 teams having 2 years and 6 teams having 1 year of analysis due to relegation. Change of ball possession was the category, which defined a finished attack. An exception was made for 7m penalties awarded in the respective player constellation.
The sample consists of all DKB Handball-Bundesliga teams that were part of the first league during the last 2 years since the amendment of rule 4:1. This led to 15 teams having 2 years and 6 teams having 1 year of analysis due to relegation. Change of ball possession was the category, which defined a finished attack. An exception was made for 7m penalties awarded in the respective player constellation.
More details
Edition
Erstauflage
Language
English
Place of publication
Germany
Product notice
Paperback (trade)
Unsewn / adhesive bound
Illustrations
100 Abb.
Dimensions
Height: 220 mm
Width: 155 mm
Thickness: 5 mm
Weight
122 gr
ISBN-13
978-3-96146-723-5 (9783961467235)
Copyright in bibliographic data and cover images is held by Nielsen Book Services Limited or by the publishers or by their respective licensors: all rights reserved.
Schweitzer Classification
Person
Dr. Julian Bauer studied Sports Sciences and English at the Universities of Duisburg-Essen, Malta, Wuppertal, Maastricht and Mallorca. After completing his PhD in training sciences, he worked as a coach at the NRW-Sports school in Düsseldorf and as a sport teacher.
Moreover he is a coach of the Handballverband Niederrhein. Since 2017 he is also a lecturer at the Institution of Sports- and Movement sciences at the University of Duisburg-Essen.
He is a member of the teaching staff of the Handballverband Niederrhein and the German Handball Association and worked as a speaker for different institutions such as the International Handball Federation, the District Government and the Chinese Handball Association.
Besides numerous publications e.g. for the journal of Handballtraining his main research interest focuses on sport specific training sciences, quantitative analysis methods and collective sports games teaching.
Moreover he is a coach of the Handballverband Niederrhein. Since 2017 he is also a lecturer at the Institution of Sports- and Movement sciences at the University of Duisburg-Essen.
He is a member of the teaching staff of the Handballverband Niederrhein and the German Handball Association and worked as a speaker for different institutions such as the International Handball Federation, the District Government and the Chinese Handball Association.
Besides numerous publications e.g. for the journal of Handballtraining his main research interest focuses on sport specific training sciences, quantitative analysis methods and collective sports games teaching.
Content
Text Sample:
Chapter 2, Literature Review:
[.] One phenomenon that can be observed quite often is that teams using the additional court player, mostly the 7th court player, try to go for the 1st wave when having the chance to go for a fast break, however, they opt not to go for a 2nd and 3rd wave or fast throw-off (Feldmann, 2016) in order to have time to include their additional player into the positional attack. As the rates of the extended fast breaks are still rather high (Bauer, 2016), the question arises if that is a reasonable choice (Riemschneider, 2018). Consequently, when playing without fast breaks or fast throw-offs, the chance of situational numerical advantages is lost, whereas a systematic numerical court player superiority in the positional attack is achieved.
Typical usage of the 7th court player includes
- man-marking of one player by the opposing defense. However, this often leads to the advantage for the offense, that the marked player has a shorter way to the bench to substitute
- offensive man-oriented defense formations (3:3, 1:5, man-to-man). Using a 7th court player leads to the consequence that man-orientation is not possible anymore and the often standard offensive defense formation is given up (Bauer, 2010; Burkowski, 2013)
- being behind on the scoreboard (Feldmann, 2016)
- immediately before the half-time break, as an opposing attack gets unlikely
- when having problems to score in general (Bachmann, 2014; Bauer, 2010; Burkowski, 2013)
- the last attacks of a game (when a goal is needed)
Often the release action is started from a standing position with tempo changes, as the defense does not pressurize the offense due to its rather defensive formation (Späte, 2016a), leading to higher demands in precision and timing of the attack, as less space is available in depth, but also less technical faults of the attack are present (Riemschneider, 2018) probably due to the reduced defense pressure.
In 6 against 6 with an additional court player in numerical inferiority, it seems that all release actions are played as in the normal 6:6 formation. In 7:6, however, the four classical release actions are played in unequal amounts. As already two pivots are positioned near the circle, transitions are seldom observable (Riemschneider, 2018). The amount of crossings is lower compared with the attacking in 6:6 (ib.). However, contradictory to the finding of Späte (2016b) it was still present in 21.2% of the attacks in the European Championships 2018 (Riemschneider, 2018). Parallel-movements together with screen & roll seem to be the main tactical moves, mostly in combination with each other, to play in the widely used 3:4 formation when attacking with 7 players. The question arises why the normal playing concepts of a team are seldom used in playing 7:6 and if doing so would make the offense actions even more unpredictable. All teams on all levels analyzed did not mark one specific player, so that all players were eligible to re-change with the goalkeeper if the ball possession changed or even earlier because of tactical reasons.
Many authors, who found descriptive improvements (see figure 6) following the use of a 7th court player, criticized the small sample sizes of their own study, which partly may have led to the lack of significant results.
The present study will deliver the highest number of cases in which a 7th court player was utilized by including all DKB Handball-Bundesliga teams for the period of 2 years since the amendment of rule 4:1, leading to 15 teams having 2 years and 6 teams having 1 year of analysis due to relegation.
Chapter 2, Literature Review:
[.] One phenomenon that can be observed quite often is that teams using the additional court player, mostly the 7th court player, try to go for the 1st wave when having the chance to go for a fast break, however, they opt not to go for a 2nd and 3rd wave or fast throw-off (Feldmann, 2016) in order to have time to include their additional player into the positional attack. As the rates of the extended fast breaks are still rather high (Bauer, 2016), the question arises if that is a reasonable choice (Riemschneider, 2018). Consequently, when playing without fast breaks or fast throw-offs, the chance of situational numerical advantages is lost, whereas a systematic numerical court player superiority in the positional attack is achieved.
Typical usage of the 7th court player includes
- man-marking of one player by the opposing defense. However, this often leads to the advantage for the offense, that the marked player has a shorter way to the bench to substitute
- offensive man-oriented defense formations (3:3, 1:5, man-to-man). Using a 7th court player leads to the consequence that man-orientation is not possible anymore and the often standard offensive defense formation is given up (Bauer, 2010; Burkowski, 2013)
- being behind on the scoreboard (Feldmann, 2016)
- immediately before the half-time break, as an opposing attack gets unlikely
- when having problems to score in general (Bachmann, 2014; Bauer, 2010; Burkowski, 2013)
- the last attacks of a game (when a goal is needed)
Often the release action is started from a standing position with tempo changes, as the defense does not pressurize the offense due to its rather defensive formation (Späte, 2016a), leading to higher demands in precision and timing of the attack, as less space is available in depth, but also less technical faults of the attack are present (Riemschneider, 2018) probably due to the reduced defense pressure.
In 6 against 6 with an additional court player in numerical inferiority, it seems that all release actions are played as in the normal 6:6 formation. In 7:6, however, the four classical release actions are played in unequal amounts. As already two pivots are positioned near the circle, transitions are seldom observable (Riemschneider, 2018). The amount of crossings is lower compared with the attacking in 6:6 (ib.). However, contradictory to the finding of Späte (2016b) it was still present in 21.2% of the attacks in the European Championships 2018 (Riemschneider, 2018). Parallel-movements together with screen & roll seem to be the main tactical moves, mostly in combination with each other, to play in the widely used 3:4 formation when attacking with 7 players. The question arises why the normal playing concepts of a team are seldom used in playing 7:6 and if doing so would make the offense actions even more unpredictable. All teams on all levels analyzed did not mark one specific player, so that all players were eligible to re-change with the goalkeeper if the ball possession changed or even earlier because of tactical reasons.
Many authors, who found descriptive improvements (see figure 6) following the use of a 7th court player, criticized the small sample sizes of their own study, which partly may have led to the lack of significant results.
The present study will deliver the highest number of cases in which a 7th court player was utilized by including all DKB Handball-Bundesliga teams for the period of 2 years since the amendment of rule 4:1, leading to 15 teams having 2 years and 6 teams having 1 year of analysis due to relegation.