Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 34 references

Diagnosing Performance in Invasion-Based Esports: The Esports Performance Screening (EPS) Framework

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that a five-level Esports Performance Screening framework lets coaches locate performance breakdowns at the strategic, tactical, task, action, or operational level, and distinguish mental mistakes from motor slips.

desk verdict Useful conceptual synthesis for esports coaching; the diagnostic claim outruns the operational definitions, but the vocabulary is genuinely worth having. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09156 v1 pith:MNCNGZVX submitted 2026-08-10 cs.HC

Michael Trotter , Frauke Kubischta , Matthew Watson , Bastian Hougaard , Hendrik Knoche This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords esportscoachinginvasiongamesprinciplesofplayperformanceanalysiserrordiagnosisLeagueLegendsstability–instability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that esports coaching lacks a structured way to tell mental errors from motor slips, and offers the Esports Performance Screening (EPS) framework to fill that gap. The framework maps performance onto five connected levels—strategy, tactics, tasks, actions, and operations—and claims that coaches working through this hierarchy during video review can pinpoint where a breakdown actually began, then choose a training response matched to that level. The same hierarchy is meant to work in compressed form during live play, where shared tactical principles act as quick anchors for coordination. The authors are explicit that the framework is a conceptual synthesis, not an empirically validated model; its case demonstrations are hypothetical League of Legends scenarios. If it works, it would give coaches a shared vocabulary for diagnosis, reduce misattribution of failures, and connect reflection to targeted practice.

What carries the argument

The central object is the five-level hierarchy of strategy, tactics, tasks, actions, and operations, assembled by integrating the Principles of Play from soccer, the Core Task Framework from gameplay research, and the Stability/Instability Exchange Model from interceptive sports coaching. The Principles of Play supply the tactical heuristics (e.g., Penetration, Delay, Balance, Offensive Unity); the Core Task Framework supplies the motor and perceptual task vocabulary (aiming, pointing, steering, activation); and the stability–instability cycle supplies the dynamic layer that lets coaches read whether a team's current plan can be sustained. A new taxonomy of superiorities—mechanical, contextual, and player—connects hierarchical decisions to the evolving game state. The mechanism does its work by making each failure type visible as a distinct level, so a coach can ask which level would yield the largest training gain.

What would settle it

Take a set of professional League of Legends matches, have multiple coaches independently use the EPS hierarchy to label the primary level of each critical error, and measure inter-rater agreement. If agreement is no higher than unstructured review, or if most errors are tagged at several levels at once, the diagnostic logic collapses. A second observation: if telemetry after objective captures shows that teams with clear tactical anchoring still lose advantage as often as teams with conflicting anchors, the framework's real-time screening claim would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that performance breakdowns in invasion-based esports can be located at one of five hierarchical levels, and that the observable outcome of a play does not reveal which level produced it. The EPS framework therefore gives coaches a diagnostic path: first check strategic alignment, then tactical principle selection, then task definition, then action-level judgement, then operational execution, distinguishing the standard mistakes-versus-slips split (wrong plan or interpretation versus right plan with failed execution). Across these levels, teams create, preserve, exploit, or deny superiorities—mechanical, contextual, and player advantages—and those superiorities drive transitions between stability and instability. The paper claims this structure works in two temporal modes: retrospective diagnostic screening during VOD review, and real-time screening where players use principles of play as heuristics under time pressure. Two illustrative League of Legends scenarios show instability arising from conflicting tactical principles after a dragon objective, rather than from mechanical failure.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes that tactical principles of play developed for soccer transfer to invasion-based esports and that each performance breakdown can be located at one of the five levels.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Coaches can move from vague labels like 'bad mechanics' or 'bad decision-making' to level-specific diagnoses, and each diagnosis maps to a different intervention: strategy work, clearer tactical principles, task clarification, situational judgement, or mechanical practice.
  • In post-game review, the hierarchy lets teams separate slips (operational execution failures) from mistakes (strategic or tactical reasoning failures), reducing the tendency to over-attribute losses to logical errors.
  • In live play, a compressed version of the hierarchy—anchoring to shared principles such as Balance before switching to Penetration—can help teams regulate transitions without traversing all five layers under time pressure.
  • The framework implies that replay tools and dashboards could tag events by level, principle of play, and superiority gained or lost, surfacing patterns such as repeated tactical incoherence during defence–attack transitions.
  • Teams gain a shared vocabulary that reduces cross-talk, because players analysing the same event at different levels can name those differences explicitly.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, the framework's taxonomy is testable as an annotation scheme: if expert raters tag VOD events with the five levels plus superiority types, one can measure inter-rater agreement; low agreement would indicate the levels are not as distinct as the diagnostic logic requires.
  • Beyond the paper, the claim that tactical incoherence after objectives is a common failure point in MOBAs could be tested with telemetry, e.g., measuring spatial dispersion in the seconds after a dragon or Baron capture; the framework predicts that coordinated transitions convert objective advantages into map control more often than fragmented ones.
  • Beyond the paper, the title-agnostic claim suggests the framework should transfer from MOBAs to shooters like Counter-Strike and Valorant; a comparative study across genres could identify which principles and superiority subtypes need game-specific calibration, thereby delimiting the framework's actual scope.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the Esports Performance Screening (EPS) framework, a conceptual synthesis of the Principles of Play from soccer, the Core Tasks Framework from gaming research, Wharton's stability/instability exchange model, and an author-defined taxonomy of superiorities. The framework organizes esports performance into five interconnected levels—strategy, tactics, tasks, actions, operations—and proposes two modes of use: diagnostic screening during reflective review and real-time screening during live play. Two hypothetical League of Legends scenarios illustrate how the framework can be used to locate the origin of a performance breakdown and to regulate decision-making after a major objective. The authors repeatedly state that the framework is not empirically validated and that its implications are conceptual and applied possibilities, with empirical testing deferred to future work.

Significance. The paper addresses a real gap in esports coaching: a lack of structured vocabulary for distinguishing mental mistakes from physical slips. Its integration of existing models into a single hierarchy is a useful pedagogical and analytical starting point, and it is transparent about its status as a conceptual synthesis rather than an empirically tested intervention. The explicit provenance of the component theories, the careful hedging throughout, and the concrete hypothetical illustrations are strengths. However, the central diagnostic claim—that the framework allows coaches to 'systematically locate' the origin of a breakdown—is underspecified because the level boundaries are not operationalized and the illustrative analysis is author-constructed rather than independently testable. With a modest reframing and an explicit application protocol, the framework could be a valuable foundation for future tool development and empirical study.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; §5.2 (Example Scenario 1)] The central claim is that the framework enables coaches to 'systematically diagnose performance breakdowns' by locating errors at one of five hierarchical levels. In the dragon example, however, the tactical-layer verdict is reached by verbal elimination ('No concentrated mechanical breakdown was identified') rather than by applying a decision rule that an independent coder could apply. Given that §2.2 describes the levels as 'interconnected' and §4.1 states that superiorities 'often interact' and are not 'exhaustive or mutually exclusive', the framework currently supplies an interpretive vocabulary, not a diagnostic method. Please add an explicit decision procedure—for example, ordered questions, observable indicators per level, or exclusion rules—or soften the central claim to 'structured interpretation' rather than 'systematic diagnosis'.
  2. [§2.1; §4.1; Table 3] The superiority taxonomy is developed through iterative author discussion and informally stress-tested against game situations, and the categories are explicitly non-exhaustive and non-exclusive. This is acceptable for a descriptive vocabulary, but the manuscript then uses superiorities to explain transitions between stability and instability (§4.2) as if the taxonomy had empirical content. If 'superiority' is defined simply as 'game-relevant advantage', the statement that teams pursue superiorities is close to tautological, and the claim that superiorities drive stability/instability is not testable as stated. Please specify what would count as evidence for or against the taxonomy's usefulness—for example, inter-coder agreement on tagging gameplay events, or a prediction that certain superiority combinations precede objective outcomes.
  3. [§2.1; §3.4; Table 2] The framework imports the soccer Principles of Play and generalizes their terminology to invasion-based esports without an explicit justification of the mapping to MOBA mechanics. For example, 'Offensive Unity' and 'Balance' are defined abstractly, and the LoL illustration in §5.3 is the only concrete instantiation. If these principles do not map cleanly onto esports, the tactical-level diagnostic logic loses its foundation. Please provide a more systematic mapping of each principle to observable esports behaviours, or explicitly frame the transfer as a hypothesis to be tested in future work rather than as an established basis of the framework.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.1] The sentence 'Superiorities are defined here as the game-relevant advantages ... (Table 2)' refers to a table that actually lists Principles of Play; the superiority taxonomy appears in Table 3. Please correct the cross-reference.
  2. [§2.3] The phrase 'the specific motor tasks which are preformed during the game' contains a typo: 'preformed' should be 'performed'.
  3. [§3.4] The sentence 'In invasion-games opponents offensive and defensive offensive decisions and behaviours can rapidly alter the balance of stability and instability' is garbled and should be rewritten for clarity.
  4. [Abstract; §5] The abstract describes the framework as 'title-agnostic', but the illustrative material and most of the discussion are specific to League of Legends; the paper would benefit from an early clarification of the intended generalization, e.g., which structural features of MOBAs are assumed to carry over to other invasion-based esports.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the EPS framework is an explicitly conceptual synthesis grounded in external models, with no fitted inputs disguised as predictions.

full rationale

The paper presents a conceptual framework, not an empirical derivation, and it explicitly disclaims empirical validation: Section 2.1 states the EPS framework 'was developed as a conceptual synthesis rather than as an empirically validated model,' and Section 6 states that the implications 'should be understood as conceptual and applied possibilities rather than empirically validated outcomes.' The main building blocks are external works: the Principles of Play from Teoldo da Costa et al., the Stability/Instability Exchange Model from Wharton, and the Core Tasks Framework from Hougaard and Knoche. The last of these is prior work by co-authors, but it is a published, independent artifact used as a source of definitions rather than as a self-cited uniqueness or fitness argument, so it does not make the argument circular. The superiority taxonomy is admittedly author-constructed through iterative discussion, but the paper does not claim to fit any parameters or to predict empirical outcomes from that taxonomy; the League of Legends scenarios are labeled hypothetical and illustrative. The diagnostic conclusion in Example 1 is an authored illustration of how the framework could be applied, not an empirical test, and the paper explicitly lists empirical evaluation as future work. Concerns about inter-rater reliability or the lack of an operational decision rule for assigning a breakdown to one level are validity and construct-clarity limitations, not circularity of derivation. There are no equations, fitted parameters, or borrowed uniqueness theorems by which a claimed result reduces to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on several domain-transfer assumptions and on two author-generated conceptual constructs (the superiority taxonomy and the five-level arrangement). No numerical free parameters are used. The framework has no empirical benchmark or falsifiable prediction, so its axioms are largely untested domain assumptions.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Tactical principles of play from soccer transfer to invasion-based esports.
    Invoked in Sections 2.1 and 2.3 to structure the strategy and tactics levels; no empirical test in esports is presented.
  • domain assumption The Core Task Framework motor taxonomy (Aiming, Pointing, Steering, Activation) covers the primary motor demands of invasion-based esports.
    Section 3.2 adapts CTF and drops Drawing and Typing; this selection is justified by domain reasoning, not by data.
  • domain assumption Wharton's Stability and Instability Exchange Model applies to esports as it does to interceptive sports.
    Section 4.2 borrows the model without empirical validation in esports.
  • ad hoc to paper Performance breakdowns can be localized to one or more of the five hierarchical levels.
    The diagnostic claim depends on this decomposition being meaningful; the paper does not test inter-rater reliability or explanatory power.
  • ad hoc to paper The superiority taxonomy (mechanical, contextual, player) is analytically useful and non-exhaustive.
    Developed through author discussion in Section 2.1; no independent validation or empirical inter-rater agreement.
invented entities (2)
  • Superiority taxonomy (mechanical, contextual, player superiorities)
    purpose: To link hierarchical decisions to game-state advantage and stability changes.
    Created by the authors through iterative discussion in Section 2.1; no falsifiable predictions are made.
  • Five-level EPS hierarchy (strategy, tactics, tasks, actions, operations)
    purpose: To stratify performance for diagnosis and real-time regulation.
    Inspired by prior models, but the specific five-level arrangement and its diagnostic use is new and not empirically benchmarked.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Diagnosing Performance in Invasion-Based Esports: The Esports Performance Screening (EPS) Framework." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MNCNGZVX

@misc{pith2026260809156,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Diagnosing Performance in Invasion-Based Esports: The Esports Performance Screening (EPS) Framework},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MNCNGZVX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09156}
}
read the original abstract

Coaching in esports continues to become more common, yet conceptual tools for coaches to analyse performance breakdowns in esports remain limited. Existing approaches lack a way to distinguish between mental errors (i.e., mistakes relate to strategy and tactics), and physical slips (i.e., motor execution). This paper introduces the Esports Performance Screening (EPS) framework, that integrates several frameworks and models from sport and computing science which can be used to analyse mental and motor performance in esports. The EPS framework organises performance into five interconnected levels: strategy, tactics, tasks, actions and operations. Across these levels, teams pursue forms of superiority that influence transitions between stability and instability during invasion-based esports competition. The framework supports two complementary modes of screening use: diagnostic during reflective review and real-time screening during live play. Through illustrative esports scenarios, we demonstrate how instability can originate at different hierarchical layers and how misattribution of failure can obscure underlying causes. The purpose of the EPS framework is to help coaches systematically diagnose performance breakdowns, and act as heuristics to aid gameplay analysis during a match. The paper contributes a theoretically grounded, title-agnostic esports framework to support systematic performance analysis and pedagogical development in invasion-based esports.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09156 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Conceptual architecture of the Esports Performance Screening (EPS) framework (1) including its [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The Esports Performance Screening framework.Performance is conceptualised as a cyclical interaction between player state and game state. The framework integrates five hierarchical levels (strategy, tactics, tasks, actions and operations) and two temporal modes: diagnostic screening (retrospective traversal) and real-time screening (live regulation under time pressure). changes in the rapport of strength between oppo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The Stability–Instability Exchange Cycle. Adapted from Wharton [32]. Teams alternate between offensive and defensive attempts to induce instability. Instability represents a state in which resources, positioning, timing or coordination are insufficient to sustain the current plan without unacceptable risk. the offensive phase, a team attempts to create instability in the opponent’s defensive organisation by applying… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Left) A typical League of Legends battle arena places each team’s base in opposite corners, requiring players to navigate in either lanes or through jungle, where additional neutral objectives exists. (Right) A simplified example of players’ view of the map, as they a…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Callum Abbott, Matthew Watson, and Phil Birch. 2023. Perceptions of Effective Training Practices in League of Legends: A Qualitative Exploration.Journal of Electronic Gaming and Esports1, 1 (Jan. 2023), jege.2022–0011. doi:10. 1123/jege.2022-0011

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Andrew Abraham and Dave Collins. 2011. Taking the next Step: Ways Forward for Coaching Science.Quest (Grand Rapids, Mich.)63, 4 (Nov. 2011), 366–384. doi:10.1080/00336297.2011.10483687

    work page arXiv 2011

  3. [3]

    Bedny and Steven Robert Harris

    Gregory Z. Bedny and Steven Robert Harris. 2005. The Systemic-Structural Theory of Activity: Applications to the Study of Human Work.Mind, Culture, and Activity12, 2 (May 2005), 128–147. doi:10.1207/s15327884mca1202_4

    work page doi:10.1207/s15327884mca1202_4 2005

  4. [4]

    Trotter, and Matthew Watson

    Kabir Bubna, Michael G. Trotter, and Matthew Watson. 2024. Esports Coaching: Applying a Constraints-Led Approach to Develop Team Coordination and Communication.Case Studies in Sport and Exercise Psychology8, S1 (Jan. 2024), S1–9–S1–17. doi:10.1123/cssep.2023-0022

    work page doi:10.1123/cssep.2023-0022 2024

  5. [5]

    Martinus Buekers, Gilles Montagne, and Jorge Ibáñez-Gijón. 2020. Strategy and Tactics in Sports from an Ecological- Dynamical-Perspective: What Is in There for Coaches and Players?Movement & Sport Sciences - Science & Motricité 106, 108 (2020), 1–11. doi:10.1051/sm/2019026

    work page arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Filipe Manuel Clemente and Martins, Fernando Manuel Lourenço. 2014. A Systemic Overview of Football Game: The Principles behind the Game.Journal of Human Sport and Exercise9, 2 (2014), 656–667. doi:10.14198/jhse.2014.92.05

    work page doi:10.14198/jhse.2014.92.05 2014

  7. [7]

    Bastian Ilsø Hougaard and Hendrik Knoche. 2024. Aiming, Pointing, Steering: A Core Task Analysis Framework for Gameplay.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction8, CHI PLAY (Oct. 2024), 1–48. doi:10.1145/3677057

    doi:10.1145/3677057 2024

  8. [8]

    Joshua Inns, Emma L Petancevski, Andrew R Novak, and Job Fransen. 2023. Decision-Making Assessments in Youth Team Invasion Game Athletes: A Systematic Scoping Review.International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching18, 6 (Dec. 2023), 2360–2381. doi:10.1177/17479541231185779

    work page doi:10.1177/17479541231185779 2023

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    2024.Win Probability Estimation for Strategic Decision-Making in Esports

    Perttu Jalovaara. 2024.Win Probability Estimation for Strategic Decision-Making in Esports. Master’s thesis. Aalto University. https://sal.aalto.fi/publications/pdf-files/theses/mas/tjal24a_public.pdf

    2024

  2. [10]

    2022.The Challenges of European Esports Coaching from the Coach’s Perspective

    Tero Juntunen. 2022.The Challenges of European Esports Coaching from the Coach’s Perspective. Bachelor’s Thesis. Jamk University of Applied Sciences, Jyväskylä

    2022

  3. [11]

    Trust the Process

    Erica Kleinman, Jason Xu, Johannes Pfau, and Magy Seif El-Nasr. 2024. "Trust the Process": An Exploratory Study of Process Visualizations for Self-Reflection in League of Legends.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 8, CHI PLAY (Oct. 2024), 1–28. doi:10.1145/3677111

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    Hanbyeol Lee, Erica Kleinman, Namsub Kim, Sangbeom Park, Casper Harteveld, and Byungjoo Lee. 2025. Crafting Champions: An Observation Study of Esports Coaching Processes. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Yokohama Japan, 1–20....

    2025

  5. [13]

    Felicity Lord, David B Pyne, Marijke Welvaert, and Jocelyn K Mara. 2020. Methods of performance analysis in team invasion sports: A systematic review.Journal of Sports Sciences38, 20 (2020), 2338–2349. doi:10.1080/02640414.2020. 1785185

    2020

  6. [14]

    Daniel Memmert and Stephen Harvey. 2008. The Game Performance Assessment Instrument (GPAI): Some Conceptual and Methodological Issues to Improve the Quality of Game Performance Assessment.Journal of Teaching in Physical Education27, 2 (2008), 220–240. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article ...

    2008

  7. [15]

    Eugen Nagorsky and Josef Wiemeyer. 2020. The Structure of Performance and Training in Esports.PLOS ONE15, 8 (Aug. 2020), e0237584. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0237584

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    2022.Newzoo Free Global Esports Live Streaming Market Report

    Newzoo. 2022.Newzoo Free Global Esports Live Streaming Market Report. Technical Report. Newzoo

    2022

  9. [17]

    2013.The Design of Everyday Things(revised and expanded edition ed.)

    Don Norman. 2013.The Design of Everyday Things(revised and expanded edition ed.). Basic Books, New York

    2013

  10. [18]

    Andrew R Novak, Kyle Jm Bennett, Matthew A Pluss, and Job Fransen. 2020. Performance Analysis in Esports: Modelling Performance at the 2018 League of Legends World Championship.International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching15, 5-6 (Dec. 2020), 809–817. doi:10.1177/1747954120932853

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    Oslin, Stephen A

    Judith L. Oslin, Stephen A. Mitchell, and Linda L. Griffin. 1998. The Game Performance Assessment Instrument (GPAI): Development and Preliminary Validation.Journal of Teaching in Physical Education17, 2 (1998), 231–243. doi:10.1123/jtpe.17.2.231

    1998 doi

  12. [20]

    Novak, Rhys Tribolet, Mark L

    Sam Palmer, Andrew R. Novak, Rhys Tribolet, Mark L. Watsford, and Job Fransen. 2023. Cooperative Networks in Team Invasion Games: A Systematic Mapping Review.International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching18, 6 (Dec. 2023), 2347–2359. doi:10.1177/17479541231177133

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    Rogers, Michael G

    Ethan J. Rogers, Michael G. Trotter, Daniel Johnson, Ben Desbrow, and Neil King. 2024. KovaaK’s Aim Trainer as a Reliable Metrics Platform for Assessing Shooting Proficiency in Esports Players: A Pilot Study.Frontiers in Sports and Active Living6 (Feb. 2024), 1309991. doi:10.3...

    2024

  14. [22]

    Rumpf, Johannes Jäger, Rhodri S

    Michael C. Rumpf, Johannes Jäger, Rhodri S. Lloyd, and Matthias Lochmann. 2026. Manipulating Player Numbers in Small-Sided Soccer Games: Effects on Numerical Superiority and Inferiority across Physiological, Physical, Technical, and Tactical Performance.Frontiers in Sports and...

    2026

  15. [23]

    Bader Sabtan, Shi Cao, and Naomi Paul. 2022. Current Practice and Challenges in Coaching Esports Players: An Interview Study with League of Legends Professional Team Coaches.Entertainment Computing42 (May 2022), 100481. doi:10.1016/j.entcom.2022.100481

    2022

  16. [24]

    Sharpe, Nicolas Besombes, Matthew R

    Benjamin T. Sharpe, Nicolas Besombes, Matthew R. Welsh, and Phil D.J. Birch. 2023. Indexing Esport Performance. Journal of Electronic Gaming and Esports1, 1 (Jan. 2023), jege.2022–0017. doi:10.1123/jege.2022-0017

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    Nacke, Anders Drachen, and Alex Wade

    Evelyn T S Tan, Katja Rogers, Lennart E. Nacke, Anders Drachen, and Alex Wade. 2022. Communication Sequences Indicate Team Cohesion: A Mixed-Methods Study of Ad Hoc League of Legends Teams.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction6, CHI PLAY (Oct. 2022), 1–27. doi:1...

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    Israel Teoldo da Costa, Júlio Manuel Garganta da Silva, Pablo Juan Greco, and Isabel Mesquita. 2009. Tactical Principles of Soccer: Concepts and Application.Motriz : revista de educação física. UNESP15, 3 (2009), 657–668

    2009

  19. [27]

    Michael Trotter, Viktor Gredin, Erica Kleinmann, Gustaf Wadenholt, and Joar Svennson. 2026. Decision-Making and Strategic Thinking in Esports. InThe Psychology of Esports Performance. Routledge, London, 75–95

    2026

  20. [28]

    Michael Trotter, Joar Svensson, and Evelyn Tan. 2025. Goal Systems and Regulatory Processes in Esports: A Pilot Study on League of Legends Players.Journal of Electronic Gaming and Esports3, 1 (2025), jege.2024–0048. doi:10.1123/jege.2024- 0048

    2025 doi

  21. [29]

    Esteves, Bruno Travassos, Pedro Passos, Carlos Lago-Peñas, and Keith Davids

    Luís Vilar, Pedro T. Esteves, Bruno Travassos, Pedro Passos, Carlos Lago-Peñas, and Keith Davids. 2014. Varying Numbers of Players in Small-Sided Soccer Games Modifies Action Opportunities during Training.International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching9, 5 (Oct. 2014), 1007...

    2014 doi

  22. [30]

    Matthew Watson, David Smith, Jack Fenton, Ismael Pedraza-Ramirez, Sylvain Laborde, and Colum Cronin. 2022. Introducing Esports Coaching to Sport Coaching (Not as Sport Coaching).Sports Coaching Review14 (Sept. 2022), 1–20. Issue 2. doi:10.1080/21640629.2022.2123960

    2022

  23. [31]

    I Don’t Believe Any Qualifications Are Required

    Matthew Watson, Michael G. Trotter, Sylvain Laborde, and Thomas M. Leeder. 2025. “I Don’t Believe Any Qualifications Are Required”: Exploring Global Stakeholders’ Perspectives towards the Developmental Experiences of Esports Coaches. Education Sciences15, 7 (July 2025), 858. d...

    2025 doi

  24. [32]

    2014.Expertise in Coaching Interceptive Sports: A Grounded Theory Model

    Donald Lee Wharton. 2014.Expertise in Coaching Interceptive Sports: A Grounded Theory Model. Ph. D. Dissertation. The University of Queensland. doi:10.14264/uql.2015.106

    2014 doi

  25. [33]

    Bang Xia, Huiwen Wang, and Ronggang Zhou. 2019. What Contributes to Success in MOBA Games? An Empirical Study of Defense of the Ancients 2.Games and Culture14, 5 (July 2019), 498–522. doi:10.1177/1555412017710599

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    Zhang and Pavan Naidu

    Amy X. Zhang and Pavan Naidu. 2024. The SIDO Performance Model for League of Legends. arXiv:2403.04873 [cs.LG] Preprint. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: August 2026

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.