Revealing Pitch-passing Network Differences Between UEFA Euro 2024 Quarterfinalists and Non-Quarterfinalists

Pitch-passing networks have gained importance in studying team collaboration, tactical execution, and on-field interaction among players. This study investigates the structural differences in pitch-passing networks between the eight teams that qualified for the quarter-finals and those that did not in the 2024 UEFA European Championship. For better data description, the football pitch has been divided into 48 zones with a 6×8 grid, and we adopted the “x-y” coordinate system for defining the respective lateral and longitudinal positions. Following the description above, we have subsequently measured the respective eigenvector centrality, degree centrality, closeness centrality, and betweenness centrality indicators of each of the pitch-passing networks, after visualizing their respective zonal interaction patterns representing the strategic importance of every zone within the network. Non-parametric Mann-Whitney U tests were applied to examine the significant differences in centrality indicators between teams, with effect sizes indicated by \({\eta }^2\). The results suggest that QF teams have a significantly higher value of EC in the left midfield area, such as 6-6_block and 7-6_block, compared with NQF teams, while the latter significantly outperformed the QF teams in the defensive areas like 4-3_block and 3-3_block (p<0.05). QF teams have a large difference in DC both in midfield and right forward area, such as 6-4_block, \({\eta }^2\)=0.174; 7-1_block, \({\eta }^2\)=0.180, and in CC of both sides in midfield, (4∼6)-1_block, \({\eta }^2\)=0.146∼0.238; 6-4_block, \({\eta }^2\)=0.186 (p<0.05). BC presents moderate significant differences in the forward area, such as 6-4_block, \({\eta }^2\)=0.122. While the NQF teams show moderate significant differences in the defensive area, such as 4-4_block,\({\eta }^2\)=0.072 (p<0.05). The ZIP analysis has shown QF teams a high level of connectedness in midfield and wings, such as 6-3 is connected to 6-1_block, 6-6 to 5-5_block, while NQF teams presented a medium connection between the defense and wing, such as 3-2 to 4-3_block, 2-4 to 3-4_block (p < 0.05). This study concludes that QF teams are more offensive and effective in passing networks in midfield and wing areas, while NQF teams are more defensive in strategy with their passing in the backfield. The difference in facts points out that effectively controlling midfield space and establishing an efficient wing-passing network may be one of the most important keys to success in high-level football matches. Future research should be directed to the inclusion of more match variables, such as individual players’ capabilities and defensive strategies, for an enriched perspective on the passing network analysis.