25 Ago Same Position, Different WCS: Why Peak Match Demands Need a Tactical Explanation
The most demanding minute is not just a physical event. It is the consequence of a football problem.
We can identify a player’s most demanding minute with remarkable precision.
Tracking systems allow practitioners to calculate peak running demands through rolling averages and establish how many metres, accelerations or high-intensity actions a player may need to tolerate during the most demanding passages of a match.
But the physical data leave an important question unanswered:
What was the player actually trying to achieve?
The same external load could emerge while a full-back attacks the space behind the opposition, recovers after losing possession or moves inside to provide cover. The metres may be similar. The football problem is not.
This distinction matters because training the physical output without reproducing its tactical purpose may prepare the player for the load while removing the situation that originally generated it.
A new study conducted in Spanish LALIGA matches examined precisely this issue: the individual tactical behaviours performed by professional players during one-minute Worst-Case Scenarios.
What did the study investigate?
The researchers analysed 334 individual one-minute WCS involving 107 outfield players from four professional teams across 23 matches.
Two teams were classified as having an associative-pressing profile, while the other two represented a direct-retreating profile. To improve comparability, all four teams were observed against the same three opponents: one from the top four, one from mid-table and one involved in the relegation zone.
For each player, the researchers identified the most intense one-minute period using rolling averages. They then reviewed the corresponding video to determine:
- the moment of play in which the WCS occurred;
- the tactical principles represented during that period;
- the individual attacking and defensive actions performed;
- whether players in the same position showed similar behaviours across teams with comparable game-model profiles.
The study therefore moved beyond asking how much the player ran. It examined what the player was doing while that peak demand emerged.
Game style was associated with the general context of the WCS
At collective level, the two selected associative-pressing teams experienced most of their WCS during established phases of play.
Established attack and defence accounted for:
- 64.1% of WCS moments in Team A;
- 61.3% in Team B.
The two direct-retreating teams showed a much more balanced distribution, with transitions representing:
- 50.3% in Team C;
- 51.9% in Team D.
These results should not be interpreted as a universal distinction between game models. The sample included only four teams and the analysis was descriptive. Nevertheless, within this sample, the tactical profile of the team was associated with the general moment of play in which peak demands tended to emerge.
For the selected associative-pressing teams, WCS appeared more frequently while the game was already organised. For the direct-retreating teams, transitions had a slightly greater presence, although their distribution was close to an even split.
This provides useful context, but it does not explain the complete WCS.
Knowing that a peak occurred during established play or a transition still does not tell the coach which tactical function created the demand for a particular player.
The individual analysis disrupted the simple game-model explanation
If the collective game model determined individual WCS behaviour, teams sharing the same profile would be expected to reproduce similar tactical actions, particularly among players occupying the same positions.
That pattern was not consistently observed.
Across all four teams, the most frequent attacking behaviours during WCS were:
- moving to receive;
- running progression;
- penetrating the space behind;
- running with the ball.
The principal defensive behaviours were:
- recovery runs;
- collective runs;
- pressing;
- chasing;
- providing cover.
However, the frequency and positional distribution of these actions varied considerably, including between teams classified under the same game-model profile.
This was the central finding of the study:
The collective game model provided some information about the context in which WCS emerged, but it did not fully explain the tactical behaviour of the individual player.
The team’s game model matters, but it interacts with the team’s specific organisation, the player’s positional function, individual characteristics, relationships with teammates and the constraints created by the opposition.
Same position does not necessarily mean the same WCS
The positional analysis provides some of the most relevant information for coaches.
Centre-backs
The two associative-pressing teams did not demand the same attacking behaviours from their centre-backs.
Centre-backs in one team showed greater involvement in moving to receive and running with the ball. In the other team, these behaviours were much less prominent.
Both teams belonged to the same broad game-model category, but their centre-backs reached their peak physical periods through different tactical contributions to possession.
For training design, “centre-back WCS” is therefore too generic. The coach must first establish whether the player is expected to advance with the ball, support possession, protect space behind the attack or recover defensive balance after a turnover.
Central midfielders
The midfield results also indicated functional diversity.
In some teams, central midfielders penetrated beyond their normal positional line. In others, their demanding actions were more closely associated with running progression, collective movement, pressing or protecting the defensive structure.
A midfielder’s WCS may consequently arise from attacking space ahead of the ball or from compensating for a teammate who has done so.
The physical demand cannot be understood independently of that relationship.
Wingers
Different winger profiles were visible even across teams with contrasting game models.
Some wingers accumulated demanding actions by running with the ball. Others moved inside or away from their direct opponent to receive, potentially leaving the outside lane available for an advancing full-back.
These behaviours may generate comparable running outputs but represent different tactical problems:
- progressing through an individual carry;
- creating a passing line;
- freeing space for an overlapping teammate;
- pressing immediately after losing possession;
- recovering within the team’s defensive shape.
Prescribing the same WCS exercise to every winger would overlook these differences.
Strikers
Strikers displayed some of the greatest variability.
Depending on the team, their WCS actions resembled those of a dribbler, a box attacker, a link player or a runner threatening the space behind. Their defensive actions also ranged from pressing and orienting the opponent to collective retreat and recovery running.
A striker’s most demanding minute is therefore not necessarily a succession of forward sprints. It may be created through repeated support movements, pressure on the first pass, penetration behind the defence or recovery into the collective block.
The clearest shared positional pattern: the full-back
Only a limited number of position-specific tendencies were reproduced across both selected teams within each game-model profile.
The clearest example involved full-backs.
In the two associative-pressing teams, full-backs showed a shared tendency towards Penetrate: attacking the space behind, overtaking an opponent or unbalancing the defensive line.
In the two direct-retreating teams, full-backs showed a shared tendency towards Providing Cover: moving to protect space or an opponent while remaining goal-side and supporting defensive stability.
This is an important result, but it must be interpreted at the correct level.
It does not demonstrate that every associative full-back will reach a WCS through penetration, or that every direct-retreating full-back will do so through covering. It identifies a directional tendency reproduced in the two selected teams representing each profile.
Most other behaviours remained team-specific.
How to read the quadrant
The quadrant separates two levels of evidence.
The highlighted behaviours are tendencies reproduced across both selected teams within a profile:
- full-back penetration in Teams A and B;
- full-back providing cover in Teams C and D.
The remaining behaviours are team-specific signals. They show how particular positions contributed to WCS in one team, but they should not be presented as defining characteristics of the broader game model.
The quadrant also does not demonstrate that every listed action occurred during the dominant moment of play shown for that profile. The study described the distribution of moments at team level and the tactical actions by team and position, but it did not statistically cross game model, position, moment of play and action simultaneously.
Its value is therefore organisational rather than causal: it distinguishes the few shared tendencies from the much larger set of team-specific positional behaviours.
What does this change for WCS training?
The study does not suggest abandoning physical targets. Metres per minute, high-intensity distance, accelerations and sprint exposure remain essential for training prescription.
The practical message is that these metrics are necessary but insufficient.
A task may reproduce the correct metres per minute while removing:
- the tactical trigger that initiated the movement;
- the space the player had to recognise;
- the teammate whose action required compensation;
- the opponent whose behaviour shaped the decision;
- the transition that changed the player’s responsibility.
In that situation, the exercise reproduces the load but may not reproduce the WCS.
A more representative approach would begin with the football problem and then manipulate the task until it also produces the intended physical demand.
Four applications for training design
1. Centre-back involvement followed by defensive restoration
If centre-backs are expected to build possession from advanced or wide positions, the task should not finish once the ball has progressed.
A game-based practice can require the centre-back to participate in build-up and then respond immediately to a turnover. The key demand is the transition from an expansive attacking position to a narrower defensive one.
The coach can manipulate:
- the starting height of the centre-backs;
- the space behind the defensive line;
- the location and timing of the turnover;
- the number of opponents attacking the exposed space;
- the recovery distance and available time.
The physical objective is integrated into a real defensive-restoration problem.
2. Midfield penetration with compensatory balance
If one midfielder penetrates beyond the ball, another player must normally protect the space that has been vacated.
A practice involving a midfield trio can reward well-timed penetration while requiring the other two midfielders to maintain appropriate cover and distances.
The relevant WCS is not only the penetrating run. It includes the relationship between the runner and the players responsible for stabilising the team.
3. Full-back penetration followed by a press-or-recover decision
For full-backs expected to attack high areas, a lateral-channel practice can create repeated opportunities to penetrate before introducing a controlled possession loss.
After the turnover, the full-back must decide whether to:
- press immediately;
- recover towards the defensive line;
- protect the inside space;
- provide cover for a teammate engaging the ball carrier.
This is more representative than prescribing an isolated high-speed run because the player must perceive the turnover and select the appropriate defensive response.
4. Different tasks for different winger and striker profiles
A winger who reaches WCS through carrying the ball should not necessarily receive the same task as a winger whose role involves moving inside to receive or creating the lane for a full-back.
The same applies to strikers. A box attacker, link player, dribbler and deep runner may occupy the same nominal position while requiring different patterns of high-intensity activity.
Pattern practices can help reproduce specific attacking relationships, but they should be combined with more open game-based scenarios when perception, timing and adaptation are central to the behaviour.
A practical checklist for coaches
Before designing a WCS task, the coaching staff should be able to answer six questions:
- In which moment of play should the WCS emerge?
Established attack, defensive organisation, attacking transition or defensive transition? - What tactical action should generate the demand?
Penetration, support movement, pressing, recovery running, covering or collective progression? - What triggers that action?
A pass, an opponent’s movement, a turnover, a teammate leaving position or the opening of a specific space? - Which player relationships must be preserved?
Who creates the space, who attacks it and who provides balance? - Which task constraints make the behaviour likely?
Pitch dimensions, zones, numerical relations, rules, scoring systems and starting positions? - Does the task actually produce the required physical exposure?
Once the football problem is represented, the physical output still needs to be measured and adjusted.
This sequence avoids choosing between tactical and physical training. It connects them.
What the study cannot tell us
The findings should be interpreted within the boundaries of the research design.
The study involved four teams, 23 matches, three common opponents and one competitive season. The same players contributed multiple observations, and the analyses were descriptive rather than inferential.
The results should therefore not be treated as universal positional profiles or as evidence that a particular game model causes a particular WCS behaviour.
Pitch location, team surface area, interpersonal distances and the exact interaction between moment of play and individual action were not directly incorporated into the analysis. These variables could help future studies explain more precisely why a particular tactical behaviour generated a player’s peak demand.
The quadrant should consequently be used as a framework for asking better questions, not as a catalogue of fixed prescriptions.
The coaching takeaway
The most demanding minute is not a decontextualised physical event.
It is produced by a player trying to solve a football problem within a specific team structure, position, space and relationship with teammates and opponents.
Game style can help identify the general context in which WCS are more likely to emerge. Position can narrow the range of probable demands. Neither is sufficient on its own.
Two players in the same position — even within teams classified under the same game model — may reach their WCS through different tactical functions.
The objective should not be to replace physical WCS targets with tactical interpretation. It should be to connect both:
identify the load, understand the football problem that generated it and design a task capable of reproducing them together.
Reference
Raya-Castellano, P. E., Lobo-Triviño, D., Polo-Tejada, J., Sanabria-Pino, B., López Del Campo, R., Nevado-Garrosa, F., & García-Calvo, T. (2026). The individual tactical behaviours of professional football players during Worst-Case Scenarios: a comparison between teams and positions in the Spanish LaLiga. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport.