# Automated Discovery of Successful Strategies in Association Football
## 3 Results
### Discovery of Strategies with PBC4 cip
#### 3.2.4 Description of Unfavorable Conditions  
For the **near post** tactic, plays which were executed by offensive team players whose average market value was 31.15 ME or less (_play avg. off. market val.\(\leq\)_ 31.15 ME), which at the time of execution were winning by at most one goal (_goal difference_\(<\) 2), and which were facing a team whose goalkeeper market value was 33.5 ME or less (_def. goalkeeper market val.\(\leq\)_ 33.5 ME), led to more failed than successful plays. These conditions were present in 83% (58/70) of the failed plays using this tactic but only in 42% (11/26) of the successful ones, resulting in a support difference of 0.41, the largest among the unfavorable conditions in our tactics. Interestingly, this pattern depends on the market value of both the defensive and offensive teams. However, in both cases, the threshold is set at values close to the 90 th percentile of the attribute, likely indicating that these conditions are applicable for most of the cases, except for those with atypically large market values. For the **direct** tactic, plays executed by relatively short offensive team players (178 cm \(\leq\)_play avg. off. height_\(<\) 186 cm), where less than two ducks occurred (_num. duels_\(<\) 2), led to more failed than successful plays. These conditions were present in 51% (1760/3459) of the failed plays using this tactic but only in 12% (178/1515) of the successful ones, resulting in a support difference of 0.39, the second largest across the unfavorable conditions in our tactics. Lastly, for the **short** tactic, plays where no duels occurred (_num. duels_\(<\) 2), executed against teams whose average market value is greater than 2.15 ME (_team avg. def. market val. \(>\) 2.15 ME) and whose average age was 25 years or more (_team avg. def. age_\(\geq\) 25 years) led to more failed than successful plays. These conditions were present in 52% (113/217) of the failed plays using this tactic but only in 18% (13/73) of the successful ones, resulting in a support difference of 0.34, the third largest across the unfavorable conditions in our tactics. Interestingly, for this tactic, an increased defensive age (in combination with other contextual conditions) is linked to an increased number of failed plays, or conversely, to a positive impact on defensive performance. At the same time, in the previous section, we saw that for the _Rebound_ tactic, an increased defensive age (in combination with other contextual conditions) negatively impacted defensive performance. This behavior suggests a benefit in performing an analysis that treats different tactics separately. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**CPID**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Tactic**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Contrast Pattern**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Support**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & & **Success** & **Fail** & **Difference** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{7} & \multirow{2}{*}{Near post} & play avg. off. market val. \(\leq\) 31.15 ME & \multirow{2}{*}{0.42 = (11/26)} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.83 = (58/70)} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.41} \\  & & \(\wedge\) goal difference \(<\) 2 \(\wedge\) def. & & & \\  & & goalkeeper market val. \(\leq\) 33.5 ME & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{8} & \multirow{2}{*}{Direct} & (178 cm \(\leq\) play avg. off. height \(<\) 186 cm) \(\wedge\) num. duels \(<\) 2 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.12 = (178/1515)} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.51 = (1760/3459)} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.39} \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{5-5}  & & team avg. def. market val. \(>\) 2.15 ME & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{5-5}  & & \(\wedge\) team avg. def. age \(\geq\) 25 years \(\wedge\) num. duels \(<\) 2 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.18 = (13/73)} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.52 = (113/217)} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.34} \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{5-5}  & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Unfavorable conditions for tactic application.