## 4 Discussion
Reference [15] concluded that long possessions (\(\geq\)5 passes) were more effective than short possessions when facing an imbalanced defense, but not against a balanced one. Results of the present study did not show significative differences in the possession type before the goal, contrary to what could be expected due to the nature of the counterattack possessions requiring fast progression from start to end in a way that the defending teams fail to regain defensive balance [5]. Contrary to [5], no relation was found between counterattack, possession length, and possession type; for example, EPL showed a higher percentage of counterattacks than SLL, but possession length also showed superior values in \"very long\" possessions and no differences were found on possession type. This highlights the importance of having more variables that can complement the goals analysis (such as ball possession, success to the box, or the offensive third) and others that will affect ball possession (type of opposition). It also should be noted that the match status can affect passing sequences [43] and consequently affect the attacking game style. The present study found differences between leagues in \"possession duration\" only in the \"very long\" category, with the EPL having more of these (45% vs. 21%; \(p>0.05\)). This is somehow unexpected to the general beliefs [44] and different from the results of [10], which can be caused by several factors: different management of the possession according to the result, teams in EPL may allow more possession in some zones or circumstances. In addition, the quality of the opponent is a factor that influences the goal-scoring pattern, with more positional attacks being performed against theoretically inferior teams than superior ones [45]. [PERSON] et al. [16] indicate a higher percentage of goals scored in EPL started in the offensive midfield (62%), while [46] reported 60% in SLL. In the current study, we divided the pitch into three-thirds, but the results for EPL and SLL seem clear and in line with [16]. In references [5,15], both studies concluded that the possessions starting in the final third of the pitch were more effective in goal-scoring and entering in the score box and in contrast, possessions starting in the first third are less effective. The results of [35] confirm the idea, with possessions starting in the offensive third having significantly fewer passes than in the other thirds of the pitch. Furthermore, starting possession closer to the opponent's goal can make it easier to penetrate in shooting zones [2,41]. In this line, [16] state that teams should apply pressure within the defensive third of the opposition territory [39] to force turnovers of possession and create more goal-scoring opportunities. This shows the importance of the articulation between offensive and defensive methods, and coaches must be aware of that to implement and develop it in their training sessions. For instance, when pressuring the opponent on the offensive third, the consequent exploration of the recovery of the ball must be present, aiming to enter end zones as fast as possible. The results regarding the comparison between the two leagues showed statistically significant differences in the beginning of the possession, with the SLL exhibiting more goals in the middle third (36% vs. 22%; \(p<0.001\)) and the EPL in the offensive third (50% vs. 43%; \(p>0.05\)). The results for EPL are in line with [10] in goal-scoring opportunities and for SLL the pattern is to start possession lower in the pitch. In both leagues, the percentage of initial pressure of the opponent is high. Significant differences were found in some scoring areas: CWGAP (advantage to SLL, 32% vs. 22%; \(p<0.001\)), BWRIB (advantage to SLL, 5% vs. 2%; \(p<0.005\)) and CWPGA (advantage to EPL, 34% vs. 22%; \(p<0.001\)).