10 Jul Do you measure how long a player is on the pitch—or what they actually do while they are there?
Football performance is usually normalised by time.
Metres per minute. High-intensity distance per minute. Accelerations per minute. Technical actions per 90.
This approach is useful, consolidated and easy to interpret. But it places one variable at the centre of the analysis: time on the pitch.
What happens when we change the unit of exposure?
Instead of asking how much physical work a player performs per minute, we can ask:
How much physical work does a player accumulate for every recorded action in the game?
This changes the focus from being on the pitch to participating in the game.
It does not mean that actions are a better denominator in every context. They are a different denominator for a different question.
Minutes describe exposure time.
Actions describe observable participation.
Physical output per action describes the relationship between them.
A different way to interpret physical performance
For this initial analysis, we used aggregated data from the complete LALIGA EA Sports 2025/26 season, including players who accumulated more than 400 minutes.
Players were classified into seven positional groups:
- GK: Goalkeepers
- CB: Centre-backs
- FB/WB: Full-backs and wing-backs
- DM: Defensive midfielders
- CM: Central midfielders
- AM/W: Attacking midfielders and wingers
- FW: Forwards
Two indicators were calculated:Total distance per action=Total recorded actionsTotal distance coveredDistance above 21 km/h per action=Total recorded actionsDistance above 21 km/h
These ratios do not represent the exact distance directly caused by each event. They relate two accumulated season-level quantities: physical output and recorded participation.
A high value may reflect extensive off-ball work, a low frequency of recorded involvement, or both. The metric cannot separate these mechanisms on its own, but it makes their combined effect visible.
The further forward the player, the greater the distance per action
The first result reveals a remarkably clear positional gradient.
| Position | Average total distance per action |
|---|---|
| GK | 133.0 m |
| CB | 164.0 m |
| FB/WB | 177.4 m |
| DM | 198.9 m |
| CM | 230.7 m |
| AM/W | 267.8 m |
| FW | 391.7 m |
The further forward a player operates, the more distance they accumulate for every recorded action.
A forward covers, on average, almost three times more distance per action than a goalkeeper, 2.4 times more than a centre-back and almost twice as much as a defensive midfielder.
This does not mean that forwards are less efficient.
It reflects the different relationship each position has with the observable game.
Centre-backs and midfielders can accumulate repeated interventions during the same possession sequence: receiving, passing, carrying or defending within relatively compact spaces.
Forwards may press, stretch the defensive line, attack depth, reposition or make repeated off-ball runs before appearing in the event data again.
The intervention is recorded. Much of the work that makes the intervention possible is not.
This is where the indicator becomes useful. It does not simply tell us how much a player runs. It tells us how much physical work is accumulated relative to how frequently that player appears in the recorded game.
Adding intensity changes part of the pattern
The second analysis considered only distance accumulated above 21 km/h.
| Position | Average distance above 21 km/h per action |
|---|---|
| GK | 0.6 m |
| CB | 7.9 m |
| DM | 10.7 m |
| FB/WB | 13.3 m |
| CM | 15.5 m |
| AM/W | 22.4 m |
| FW | 28.8 m |
The overall gradient remains: players in more advanced positions accumulate more high-intensity distance for every recorded action.
However, one relevant change appears.
In total distance per action, defensive midfielders were above full-backs and wing-backs. When only distance above 21 km/h is considered, the order reverses.
This is tactically coherent.
Defensive midfielders may accumulate substantial distance through continuous positioning, support movements and short-to-medium adjustments. Full-backs and wing-backs are more frequently exposed to high-speed overlaps, recovery runs, wide transitions and longer defensive movements.
The action-based approach therefore does not simply reproduce the total-distance hierarchy. It begins to reveal the physical nature of participation.
Why could this matter to coaches and analysts?
Traditional physical metrics tell us how much work a player performs during a given period.
This alternative perspective adds another question:
How much physical work does the player accumulate relative to how often they intervene?
That distinction may help identify different profiles within the same position.
Two players can accumulate similar minutes and similar physical outputs, but their relationship with the game may be very different.
One may intervene frequently, combining physical work with a high volume of recorded actions.
Another may accumulate large amounts of movement between relatively few interventions.
The metric may therefore help coaches and analysts:
- compare participation profiles within the same position;
- identify players whose roles involve substantial movement between recorded actions;
- distinguish roles based on continuity from those based on width, depth or transition;
- detect physical contributions that event counts alone may underrepresent;
- complement established time-normalised indicators with a participation-based perspective.
Its value lies in combination, not substitution.
Actions are not necessarily a better denominator than minutes. They are a different denominator for a different analytical question.
Higher is not automatically better
Distance per action should not be interpreted as a measure of quality or efficiency.
A high value may indicate:
- extensive off-ball work;
- low involvement in possession;
- a role based on depth or width;
- frequent transitions;
- greater spatial separation between interventions;
- reduced access to the ball.
A lower value may indicate:
- frequent involvement;
- greater centrality in possession;
- repeated actions within short sequences;
- proximity to the ball;
- a more compact positional role.
Neither profile is inherently superior.
The indicator describes how physical output and observable participation interact. Its meaning depends on the player’s position, tactical role, team structure and match context.
This is why comparisons should primarily be made within the same positional group.
The differences between positions were statistically significant for both total distance per action and distance above 21 km/h per action, reinforcing the need for position-specific reference values.
What are we really measuring?
A critical interpretation would be that forwards produce higher values simply because they perform fewer recorded actions.
That is partly true.
The ratio increases when a player accumulates more physical output, performs fewer recorded actions, or both.
But that is not a methodological flaw. It is the relationship the metric is designed to expose.
The indicator does not prove why a player accumulates more physical work per action. It reveals a positional pattern that traditional time-based normalisation cannot show in the same way.
It makes visible the distance between two dimensions that are often analysed separately:
- the physical work performed;
- the frequency with which the player appears in the event data.
The next analytical step would be to separate offensive and defensive phases, examine other manifestations of physical demand and compare players within each position.
But even this first analysis raises a relevant question.
Is football performance about being—or doing?
Traditional physical analysis asks:
How much physical work did the player perform during the time they were on the pitch?
An action-based approach asks:
How much physical work did the player accumulate relative to how often they appeared in the recorded game?
Both questions are valid.
But they describe different dimensions of performance.
Minutes tell us how long the player was there.
Actions tell us how often the player appeared in the observable game.
Physical output per action tells us how much work accumulated between those appearances.
And the first result is clear:
The further forward a player operates, the greater the physical distance accumulated for every recorded action—especially at high intensity.
Perhaps performance analysis should not only ask how long a player was on the pitch.
Perhaps it should also ask what they did while they were there.
Methodological note
The analysis used aggregated full-season data from LALIGA EA Sports 2025/26 and included players with more than 400 minutes.
Positions were grouped into seven functional categories according to each player’s predominant specific position.
The ratios were calculated from season totals. They represent the relationship between accumulated physical output and accumulated recorded actions, not the physical distance directly attributable to each individual event.
All positional groups differed significantly in total distance per action and distance above 21 km/h per action following pairwise comparisons with Holm correction,