## 4 Results
### Decision Tree with the Following Variables: SC, MS, IRPSG and FR  
Figure 2 shows the results of the decision tree designed with the six variables SC, MS, PST, RPSG and IRPSG as independent variables and FR as the dependent variable. The PST and RPSG were eliminated because they did not have a significant influence in this model. The decision tree is composed of 14 nodes shown from top to bottom and from left to right. In this regard, node 0 describes the dependent variable in percentages (tie, win and loss). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Relationship** & \(\mathbf{X^{2}}\) & \(\mathbf{df}\) & \(\mathbf{p\text{-Value}}\) & \(\mathbf{Vc}\) & **Strength** \\ \hline Home team * FR * MS & 520.144 & 4 & 0.00 * & 0.61 & High \\ Visiting team * FR * MS & 520.144 & 4 & 0.00 * & 0.61 & High \\ Neutral team * FR * MS & 12.000 & 1 & 0.01* & 1.00 & High \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: \(X^{2}\) = Chi-square test; \(df\) = Degrees of freedom; \(Vc\) = Cramer’s V coefficient; ML = Match Location; FR = Final Result; MS = Match Status. * \(p<0.05\).  
\end{table} 
Table 6: Degree of relationship between the ML, FR and MS variables. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**ML**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**MS**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Tie**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Win**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Loss**} \\ \cline{3-10}  & & \(\mathbf{n}\) & \% & \(ASRs\) & \(\mathbf{n}\) & \% & \(ASRs\) & \(\mathbf{n}\) & \% & \(ASRs\) \\ \hline Home team & Tying & 100 & 48.80 & 10.70 * & 58 & 28.30 & \(-\)6.20 * & 47 & 22.90 & \(-\)3.00 * \\  & Winning & 28 & 9.40 & \(-\)7.20 * & 260 & 87.00 & 18.50 * & 11 & 3.70 & \(-\)13.50 * \\  & Losing & 30 & 15.20 & \(-\)2.90 * & 8 & 4.10 & \(-\)14.10 * & 159 & 80.70 & 17.80 * \\ \hline Visiting team & Tying & 100 & 48.80 & 10.70 * & 47 & 22.90 & \(-\)3.00 * & 58 & 28.30 & \(-\)6.20 * \\  & Winning & 30 & 15.20 & \(-\)2.90 * & 159 & 80.70 & 17.80 * & 8 & 4.10 & \(-\)14.10 * \\  & Losing & 28 & 9.40 & \(-\)7.20 * & 11 & 3.70 & \(-\)13.50 * & 260 & 87.00 & 18.50 * \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: \(n\) = Frequency; ML = Match Location; FR = Final Result; MS = Match Status. * \(ASRs>11.961\).  
\end{table} 
Table 7: \(ASRs\) of the crossover of the ML, FR and MS variables. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Relationship** & \(\mathbf{X^{2}}\) & \(\mathbf{df}\) & \(\mathbf{p\text{-Value}}\) & \(\mathbf{Vc}\) & **Strength** \\ \hline Tying * FR * PST & 54.596 & 22 & 0.00 * & 0.26 & Low \\ Winning * FR * PST & 21.992 & 24 & 0.58 & 0.15 & Low \\ Losing * FR * PST & 20.249 & 24 & 0.68 & 0.14 & Low \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: \(X^{2}\) = Chi-square test; \(df\) = Degrees of freedom; \(Vc\) = Cramer’s V coefficient; MS = Match Status; FR = Final Result; PST = Player Substitutions Time. * \(p<0.05\).  
\end{table} 
Table 8: Degree of relationship between the MS, FR and PST variables. Moreover, node 1 indicates that 48.80% of the matches in which a team is tying end in a tie. Node 2 indicates that 84.70% of the matches in which a team is winning end in a win. Node 3 indicates that 84.70% of the matches in which a team is losing end in a loss.