Торгуулийн цохилтын үеэр гүйлтээ түр зогсоож хаалгачийг төөрөлдүүлэх нь зөвхөн үзүүлбэр бус, нарийн тооцоолсон тактик болохыг мэргэжилтнүүд онцолж байна.
Норвегийн Спортын шинжлэх ухааны сургуулийн шинжээч Гейр Жордетийн судалгаагаар, торгуулийн цохилтын үеэр гүйлтээ түр зогсоох нь хаалгачийг эрт хөдөлгөөнд оруулах зорилготой функциональ техник юм. Килиан Мбаппегийн Мороккогийн эсрэг тоглолтод хийсэн цохилт амжилтгүй болсноор энэхүү аргын талаарх шүүмжлэл олширсон ч, үүнийг зөвхөн гоо зүйн талаас нь дүгнэх нь учир дутагдалтай. Уг техник нь хаалгачийн хөдөлгөөнийг ажиглаж, эсрэг тал руу нь бөмбөгийг илгээхэд чиглэсэн танин мэдэхүйн өндөр төвлөрөл шаарддаг нарийн ажиллагаа ажээ.
Түүхэн судалгаагаар, 1982-2022 оны хооронд болсон ДАШТ-ий цуврал торгуулийн цохилтуудын 76 хувь нь хаалгачаас хамааралтай буюу ийм төрлийн техникээр гүйцэтгэгдсэн нь амжилттай болсон байна. Харин 2026 оны ДАШТ-д энэ тоо өсөж, цуврал цохилтуудын 23 хувийг эзэлж байгаа ч амжилтын хувь нь уламжлалт цохилттой ижил буюу 65 хувьтай байна. Роберт Левандовски, Бруну Фернандеш, Харри Кэйн зэрэг шилдэг тоглогчид энэ техникийг ашиглан 90 орчим хувийн амжилттай тоглодог нь уг арга хэрэгсэл өндөр үр дүнтэй болохыг баталж байна.
Торгуулийн цохилтыг зөвхөн бөмбөгний хөдөлгөөнөөр дүгнэх нь буруу бөгөөд гол асуудал нь цохигч хаалгачийн хөдөлгөөнийг хэрхэн уншиж буйд оршдог. Энэхүү тактик нь тоглогч болон хаалгачийн хоорондох сэтгэл зүйн нарийн тэмцэл бөгөөд амжилтгүй болсон тохиолдолд үүнийг “ичгүүртэй” хэмээн тодорхойлох нь хэт өрөөсгөл юм. ДАШТ-үүдийн түүхэн өгөгдөл нь энэ төрлийн цохилт нь уламжлалт цохилтоос дутахааргүй, зарим тохиолдолд илүү үр дүнтэй болохыг харуулж байна.
Дэлгэрэнгүй эх сурвалжийг харах
Эх сурвалжийг нээх ↓
Geir Jordet is an industry-leading expert on penalties and the author of Pressure, a book about the psychology of shootouts. Jordet teaches and conducts research on psychology and elite performance at the Norwegian School of Sport Sciences and is part of The Athletic’s World Cup coverage this summer.
It seems like everyone is talking about stutter penalty kicks, especially after Kylian Mbappe’s effort was saved against Morocco in the World Cup quarter-final.
To be very honest, most of the commentary I hear on these kicks is flawed, because people fundamentally fail to analyse them correctly.
First, there seems to be some confusion about what a stutter kick is and the different ways to identify them. People probably, and understandably so, categorise every penalty kick where there is some start/stop/skip/jump in the run-up as a stutter kick. This makes sense. However, it disguises something important.
We always need to consider the “why” of the stutter.
Stutters are not engaged in for fun or showmanship; there is a functional purpose. The aim is to force a reaction from the goalkeeper. The stutter, in this case, provides a sudden stimulus that triggers the ’keeper to commit to going in a certain direction early, which can then be exploited with a shot sent the other way.
The most common mistake people make when they see a stutter penalty is to judge the kick in the same way that they judge an attempt without the stutter.
This is an unfair comparison.
Players performing stutters typically execute a ‘goalkeeper-dependent’ technique. They will try to, as accurately as possible, perceive the movements of the ’keeper on the goal line just before they hit their shot. Thus, they often make contact with the ball at the same time that they look up from it.
Lionel Messi of Argentina looks up at the Austria goalkeeper before having his penalty saved in the group stage (Reuters/Hannah McKay)
This is an exceptionally sophisticated cognitive procedure and obviously produces a less powerful and precise strike than those performing goalkeeper-independent kicks, without a stutter. Simply put, a taker who has the luxury of focusing 100 per cent on the ball while making contact with it will kick it with more precision.
A goalkeeper-dependent shot performed well doesn’t need to be hit very hard or placed just inside the post. It only needs to beat the goalkeeper, preferably with the ’keeper going too early in the wrong direction, and the ball safely and slowly rolling over the line in the other. If this process is unsuccessful and the slowly rolling ball is easily saved, the problem wasn’t necessarily the kick itself. The critical moment took place before that, when the taker didn’t accurately perceive or interpret the movements of the ’keeper.
So, to judge penalty takers who miss these shots only by the aesthetics of how the ball is moving towards the goal is as irrelevant as it is unreasonable. Yet this is what most people do, particularly when the shooters miss, often describing these failed kicks as “horrible”, “ludicrous” or “embarrassing”.
Together with my student, Sebastian Hoyvik Skjold, I carefully inspected every single shot in World Cup penalty shootouts from 1982 until today.
On average, in the 1980s and 1990s, only about four per cent of all such kicks were goalkeeper-dependent. This rose to 12 per cent for the tournaments between 2002 and 2022, and was relatively stable at around 15 per cent for the previous three tournaments (2014, 2018 and 2022).
In the 2026 World Cup, 23 per cent of all shootout penalties have been goalkeeper-dependent.
We do not have data on in-game penalty kicks from previous tournaments, but if we add those to the mix for 2026, 17 of all 60 taken, or 28 per cent, have been goalkeeper-dependent. There are more of this type in the current World Cup than we have seen before.
Given this increase in popularity, it makes sense that people speak about stutter kicks now. However, much of the talk seems to be about how many players miss them, and how much better the conventional type are. This begs the question: how effective are these kinds of penalties?
Well, first, several of the best penalty takers in the world use this technique, and they are masters at it — Robert Lewandowski, Raul Jimenez, Ivan Toney, Bruno Fernandes, Harry Kane, Mikel Oyarzabal… the list goes on. These specialist penalty takers, with their extremely skilful ability to pick up microscopic goalkeeper movements under high pressure, are not only beautiful to watch, but they are also highly effective over time. These players achieve around 90 per cent success rates with their penalties — 10 per cent higher than average in the top European leagues.
Historically, in the World Cup, goalkeeper-dependent kicks have not been so bad. In our examination of 40 years of shootouts in the tournament, from 1982 to 2022, we found 76 per cent of goalkeeper-dependent kicks were scored, compared with 68 per cent of more conventional goalkeeper-independent ones.
I see the same trend in the past five seasons of the Premier League, where penalty takers using the goalkeeper-dependent technique have scored more goals than those using a more conventional style.
“How about in this World Cup?”, you ask.
So far: 65 per cent of goalkeeper-dependent kicks have been scored, and 65 per cent of conventional ones. There is no difference in outcome whatsoever.
I understand the chatter around stutter kicks, because there are more of them now, and when they fail, they fail spectacularly. But we need to better understand them. And to achieve that, we need more psychological nuance in our analysis, most fundamentally accounting for what these players are trying to achieve with these erratic-looking movements.
This makes it possible for us to better understand what matters, which is the intricate and nuanced dynamic between the penalty taker and the goalkeeper.
Writing and editorial help by Yanique Fletcher. Data analysis help by Sebastian Hoyvik Skjold.
