PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 31, 2026BMC Sports Science Medicine and Rehabilitation0 citationsOpen Access

Match success in football: insights from raw and possession-normalized key performance indicators in the Turkish professional league

OSOzan SeverÇÖÇağdaş ÖncüYÖYunus Öztaşyonar

Key Points

  • The study aims to analyze the relationship between match-performance indicators and success in Turkish football, considering both absolute and normalized metrics.
  • Examined 2,728 team observations from 1,364 win-loss matches over six seasons using a validated event-based database.
  • Conducted descriptive comparisons and multivariate binary logistic regression analyses to determine performance indicators associated with match success.
  • Utilized both raw KPI models and possession-normalized models for comprehensive analysis.
  • Winning teams had significantly higher shots on target (OR = 1.58), accurate crosses (OR = 1.10), and opponent-half accurate passes (OR = 1.01).
  • Losing teams received more yellow and red cards, while fouls committed were higher in winning teams (p = 0.014).
  • Normalized models identified performance indicators such as shots on target per possession and fouls committed per out-of-possession as key predictors of match success.

Abstract

Match-performance indicators are widely used to explain success in football; however, traditional analyses based solely on absolute key performance indicators (KPIs) may overlook contextual factors such as ball possession and phase of play. This study aimed to examine match-performance indicators associated with winning in Turkish professional football using two complementary approaches: a raw KPI model based on absolute match actions and a possession- and phase-of-play–normalized KPI model accounting for contextual opportunity. Match data were obtained from a validated event-based database covering six consecutive seasons, yielding 2,728 team observations from 1,364 win–loss matches. Descriptive comparisons between winning and losing teams were conducted, followed by multivariate binary logistic regression analyses to identify performance indicators independently associated with match success under both modeling approaches. At the descriptive level, winning teams demonstrated higher values for shots, shots on target, accurate passes, opponent-half accurate passes, accurate crosses (%), and opponent-half accurate passes (%), whereas total possession and total passes did not differ significantly between groups. In terms of disciplinary indicators, losing teams received significantly more yellow and red cards, whereas fouls committed were significantly higher in winning teams (p = 0.014). However, the normalized indicator (fouls committed per out-of-possession) did not differ significantly between groups. In the raw KPI model, positive predictors of match success included shots on target (OR = 1.58), accurate crosses (OR = 1.10), opponent-half accurate passes (OR = 1.01), and fouls committed (OR = 1.04). Negative predictors were total crosses (OR = 0.92), yellow cards (OR = 0.89), and red cards (OR = 0.49). In the possession-normalized model, significant positive predictors were shots on target per possession, accurate crosses per possession, and fouls committed per out-of-possession. Significant negative predictors included crosses per possession, accurate crosses (%), yellow cards per out-of-possession, and red cards per out-of-possession. The findings indicate that combining absolute performance indicators with context-sensitive normalized metrics may provide a more comprehensive perspective on match success in football. Offensive efficiency and disciplinary control emerged as key correlates of winning, particularly when evaluated relative to possession and phase-of-play contexts. These findings suggest the potential value of integrating contextualized performance analysis into match evaluation and performance analysis frameworks.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Sever et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a1bd1745783ba022b6fd06fhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s13102-026-01768-9
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper