## 3 Results
### Effectiveness of Shooting
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Variables**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Quarterfinals**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Semifinals**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Finals**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**m**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**R\({}^{2}\)**} \\  & & \(\pm\)**DP** & \(\pm\)**DP** & \(\pm\)**DP** & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Action Type-I} & Winners & 66.53 \(\pm\) 6.38 & 69.21 \(\pm\) 4.84 & 69.17 \(\pm\) 6.39 & 1.37 & 0.73 ** \\  & Losers & 72.67 \(\pm\) 6.08 & 66.29 \(\pm\) 2.32 & 63.63 \(\pm\) 8.48 & \(-\)4.51 & 0.94 *** \\ \multirow{4}{*}{Action Type-III} & Winners & 68.08 \(\pm\) 15.75 & 67.70 \(\pm\) 17.19 & 45.25 \(\pm\) 19.60 & \(-\)11.41 & 0.88 ** \\  & Losers & 65.64 \(\pm\) 21.69 & 67.70 \(\pm\) 14.87 & 57.76 \(\pm\) 8.66 & \(-\)3.94 & 0.56 * \\ \multirow{4}{*}{Goals Attack Positioned} & Winners & 63.61 \(\pm\) 8.33 & 63.51 \(\pm\) 4.77 & 62.12 \(\pm\) 8.93 & \(-\)0.74 & 0.80 ** \\  & Losers & 67.48 \(\pm\) 8.82 & 58.09 \(\pm\) 7.75 & 57.88 \(\pm\) 9.60 & \(-\)4.80 & 0.76 ** \\ \multirow{4}{*}{Goals Fast Attack} & Winners & 79.75 \(\pm\) 17.34 & 77.90 \(\pm\) 14.91 & 74.05 \(\pm\) 16.12 & \(-\)2.85 & 0.96 *** \\  & Losers & 75.03 \(\pm\) 13.13 & 70.89 \(\pm\) 17.13 & 69.43 \(\pm\) 9.82 & \(-\)2.77 & 0.92 ** \\ \multirow{4}{*}{Goals} & Winners & 66.39 \(\pm\) 4.72 & 66.32 \(\pm\) 3.43 & 65.43 \(\pm\) 6.24 & \(-\)0.47 & 0.80 ** \\  & Losers & 70.71 \(\pm\) 5.71 & 65.57 \(\pm\) 3.06 & 61.15 \(\pm\) 7.02 & \(-\)4.78 & 0.99 *** \\ \multirow{4}{*}{9 m} & Winners & 47.43 \(\pm\) 9.71 & 46.91 \(\pm\) 12.02 & 35.67 \(\pm\) 7.70 & \(-\)5.88 & 0.78 ** \\  & Losers & 55.49 \(\pm\) 4.23 & 52.42 \(\pm\) 8.86 & 51.44 \(\pm\) 14.49 & \(-\)2.02 & 0.91 *** \\ \multirow{4}{*}{9–6 m} & Winners & 55.23 \(\pm\) 13.95 & 52.74 \(\pm\) 13.56 & 52.61 \(\pm\) 8.78 & \(-\)1.30 & 0.78 ** \\  & Losers & 65.24 \(\pm\) 12.41 & 54.43 \(\pm\) 13.45 & 50.94 \(\pm\) 13.28 & \(-\)7.14 & 0.91 *** \\ \multirow{4}{*}{6 m} & Winners & 72.74 \(\pm\) 5.63 & 71.67 \(\pm\) 10.71 & 75.67 \(\pm\) 7.45 & 1.50 & 0.51 * \\ \cline{1-1}  & Losers & 76.28 \(\pm\) 8.78 & 79.42 \(\pm\) 7.52 & 66.43 \(\pm\) 8.34 & \(-\)4.67 & 0.52 * \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note. m = matrix; * moderate correlation; ** strong correlation; *** very strong correlation.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Descriptive analysis of the effectiveness of shooting performed in matches. The effectiveness of teams has always been very close, forming two very similar lines; however, the winning team only demonstrates a growing line in the effectiveness of shots from collective actions type-I. As to the effectiveness of shooting in organized attack and fast attack, winning teams presented a tendency line that was superior to defeated teams, and even when there was a negative slope in the line, it was less declivity than the tendency line of defeated teams. The opposite is shown in the effectiveness of the collective actions type-III, where the slope of the winning teams' line is much steeper in comparison to that of defeated teams (Figure A3). The effectiveness of completed shots displayed the most dispersion in tendency lines, where teams presented the most significant discrepancies between them. Defeated teams exhibited a higher average in all analyzed variables in the quarterfinals of the EHF CL, but along the competition, their effectiveness of shots tended to decrease and to exhibit a much higher slope than winning teams for the effectiveness of shots and goals, the effectiveness of shots between 9 and 6 m, and shots at 6 m. Only in the effectiveness of the shots from the 9 m did defeated teams present better results than winning teams (Figure A4). When we evaluated all of the tendency lines in our study, the results indicated that 21 of those lines were statistically valid according to [PERSON]'s correlation.