## 4 Discussion  
This study aimed to describe offensive sequences that resulted in goals from the two major club's domestic competitions and, simultaneously, compare both leagues in the same selected variable, targeting to understand the trends of the game and analyze possible differences. In our study, the positional play/fast attack was the most used means to \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variables**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Competition**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Student’s \(t\)-Test**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Magnitude Effects**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **SLL** & **EPL** & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Mean**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(t\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{**p**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**d**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**(Qualitative)**} \\  & & & & & & & \\ \hline
**Offensive pattern** & & & & & & & \\ Positional play/fast attack & 0.46 & 0.31 & \(-\)0.15 & 5.659 & \(<\)0.001 ** & 0.30 & (small) \\ Counterattack & 0.22 & 0.34 & 0.12 & \(-\)5.370 & \(<\)0.001 ** & 0.27 & (small) \\ Direct free kick & 0.02 & 0.02 & 0.00 & 0.192 & 0.848 & 0.00 & - \\ Indirect free kick & 0.04 & 0.05 & 0.01 & \(-\)0.262 & 0.793 & 0.05 & (trivial) \\ Corner kick & 0.10 & 0.13 & 0.03 & \(-\)2.048 & 0.041 * & 0.10 & (trivial) \\ Throw-in & 0.03 & 0.02 & \(-\)0.01 & 1.334 & 0.183 & 0.06 & (trivial) \\ Penalty & 0.12 & 0.11 & 0.01 & 0.430 & 0.667 & 0.03 & (trivial) \\ Self-goal & 0.03 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.343 & 0.732 & 0.06 & (trivial) \\
**Ball possession duration** & & & & & & & \\ Short (0–10 s) & 0.51 & 0.49 & \(-\)0.01 & 0.712 & 0.477 & 0.04 & (trivial) \\ Medium (10–20 s) & 0.26 & 0.29 & 0.03 & \(-\)1.154 & 0.249 & 0.07 & (trivial) \\ Long (20–45 s) & 0.19 & 0.16 & \(-\)0.03 & 1.780 & 0.075 & 0.08 & (trivial) \\ Very long (>45 s) & 0.03 & 0.06 & 0.03 & \(-\)3.017 & 0.003 * & 0.14 & (trivial) \\
**Ball possession type** & & & & & & & \\ Short (1–3 passes) & 0.58 & 0.56 & \(-\)0.02 & 0.817 & 0.414 & 0.04 & (trivial) \\ Medium (4–6 passes) & 0.20 & 0.21 & 0.01 & \(-\)0.662 & 0.508 & 0.02 & (trivial) \\ Long (7 passes) & 0.22 & 0.22 & 0.00 & \(-\)0.317 & 0.752 & 0.00 & - \\
**Beginning of the possession** & & & & & & & \\ Defensive third & 0.21 & 0.25 & 0.04 & \(-\)1.596 & 0.111 & 0.10 & (trivial) \\ Medium third & 0.36 & 0.25 & \(-\)0.11 & 4.545 & \(<\)0.001 ** & 0.24 & (small) \\ Offensive third & & 0.43 & 0.50 & 0.07 & \(-\)2.597 & 0.010 * & 0.14 & (trivial) \\
**Finalization zones** & & & & & & & \\ OB & 0.11 & 0.12 & 0.01 & \(-\)0.163 & 0.870 & 0.03 & (trivial) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Abbreviations: OB (out of the box); CWGA (central wing goal area); CWGAP (central wing between goal area and penalty); CWPGA (central wing between penalty and goal area); BWRB (between wings right bottom); BWRIB (between wings left bottom); BWRIB (between wings right in the box); RWIB (right wing) and LW (left wing). * Significance level: \(p<0.05\); ** Significance level: \(p<0.01\).  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Means comparison between the two leagues: SLL and EPL. score (38%), followed by set pieces (30%), counterattack (28%), and self-goal (2%). The literature presents contradictory results; for example, the results of [34; 35] agree with the present study in the major preponderance of positional play. However, [5; 15; 36] reported different results, with counterattack being the means to score more goals, especially against imbalanced defenses. This can be emphasized by an impact of interceptions and others (rebounds, deflections, flick-on from a contested header, etc.) higher than 56% in the total attempts and goals scored [16]. Recoveries of the ball seem to lead to a higher percentage of scoring opportunities than restarts or set plays [2] which may be an argument in favor of counterattack in the way it depends on the recovery of the ball and in a fast progression to take advantage of defensive imbalances of the other team.