05 Nov The interplay between pitch control and top speed in soccer considering the stamina factor
How much does speed really matter in controlling space?
Pitch control models have become one of the most powerful tools in modern football analytics. They estimate the probability that a player or team will gain possession if the ball moves to a specific location on the field.
But most traditional pitch control models assume something unrealistic.
They assume that all players have the same top speed.
This study challenges that assumption.
Using tracking data from 100 professional LaLiga matches (2019/2020 season), the authors developed a pitch control model that incorporates each player’s actual top speed, calculated as the 95th percentile of their match running speed distribution (v95).
Instead of assigning a uniform speed to all players, the model simulates individual arrival times based on each player’s real physical capacity.
The result?
Pitch control changes.
At player level, a clear positive correlation appears between top speed and accumulated pitch control.
Faster players generally control more space.
However, speed is not everything.
Defenders accumulate the highest pitch control values overall, despite not being the fastest players on the pitch.
This is a crucial insight.
Pitch control is not only a function of physical speed.
It is also constrained by positional role and tactical function.
Forwards typically have the highest v95 values, followed by midfielders and then defenders. Yet defenders often dominate pitch control because of their structural positioning and role in spatial organization.
Speed amplifies influence.
But role defines where that influence matters.
At team level, incorporating real top speeds alters pitch control rankings.
Although classical pitch control and speed-dependent pitch control are positively correlated, some teams benefit more than others when player-specific speeds are considered.
For example, teams such as Sevilla show increased pitch control when real speed heterogeneity is included.
Others, like Villarreal or Real Valladolid, experience a relative decrease.
This does not imply better or worse performance.
It reveals that ignoring speed heterogeneity misrepresents spatial dominance for certain teams.
Another layer of complexity emerges when splitting analysis by match halves.
Some teams maintain or increase pitch control in the second half.
Others show significant declines.
This indicates that physical capacity and tactical structure interact dynamically throughout the match.
To explore how physical performance changes affect spatial dominance, the authors introduced a new parameter: the stamina factor (ξ).
The stamina factor multiplies a player’s top speed.
If ξ > 1, top speed increases.
If ξ < 1, top speed decreases.
By recalculating pitch control under different stamina values, the model estimates how improvements or declines in physical performance would influence spatial dominance.
The relationship is not linear.
Pitch control varies logarithmically with the stamina factor.
Small increases in speed produce meaningful gains in pitch control initially, but the marginal benefit decreases as speed continues to rise.
The scaling factor (λs) quantifies how sensitive each team is to speed changes.
Some teams, such as Real Valladolid, Alavés and Valencia CF, show higher λs values. These teams would benefit more from increases in player top speed.
Others, like FC Barcelona or Sevilla, show lower sensitivity. Their pitch control depends less on speed and more on tactical organization.
Phase of play also matters.
Increasing top speed has a larger impact on defensive pitch control than offensive pitch control.
In other words, speed improvements may be especially valuable for defensive recovery and spatial protection.
At positional level, forwards benefit the most from increases in top speed.
Midfielders show moderate sensitivity.
Defenders are the least affected.
However, the effect is asymmetric.
Forwards gain more from speed increases than they lose from speed decreases.
This asymmetry reinforces the idea that sprint capacity is especially critical for attacking roles.
From an applied perspective, this model opens important possibilities.
It allows:
– Simulation of fitness improvements and their spatial consequences
– Identification of teams most sensitive to physical performance
– Role-specific conditioning priorities
– Phase-dependent physical preparation strategies
The broader message is clear.
Speed matters.
But its effect on spatial dominance depends on role, tactical system and match context.
Pitch control is not static.
It emerges from the interaction between physical capacity and collective organization.
Improving top speed does not uniformly improve spatial control.
It reshapes it.
Understanding this interplay allows coaches, analysts and performance staff to connect physical preparation with tactical outcomes.
In modern football, physical performance is not isolated from strategy.
It defines the geometry of the game.