Abstract
Coaches of sports clubs aim to form the team that optimally determines the roles of positions before the match. These types of decisions are referred to as the team formation problem, and they are critical for the sports industry in the financial sense. Finding the optimal solution to the team formation problem is more difficult without the use of systematical approaches, as the number of players and their past performance records have increased substantially in recent years. In this paper, we discuss previous studies on the team formation problems of sports clubs and outline the deficiencies of their results in real-life decision processes. Then, we propose two new formulations that address coaches’ preferences in the decision-making process. A real-life application of the proposed models is displayed for a volleyball team that participates in the first division of the Turkish Volleyball League.

Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ahmed F, Deb K, Jindal A (2013) Multi-objective optimization and decision making approaches to cricket team selection. Appl Soft Comput 13(1):402–414
Atkinson MP, Kress M, Szechtman R (2012) Carrots, sticks and fog during insurgencies. Math Soc Sci 64(3):203–213
Boon BH, Sierksma G (2003) Team formation: matching quality supply and quality demand. Eur J Oper Res 148(2):277–292
Budak G, Kara İ, İç YT (2017) Weighting the positions and skills of volleyball sport by using AHP: a real life application. IOSR J Sports Phys Educ 4(1):23–29
Caro CA (2012) College football success: the relationship between recruiting and winning. Int J Sports Sci Coach 7(1):139–152
Cattrysse DG, Van Wassenhove LN (1992) A survey of algorithms for the generalized assignment problem. Eur J Oper Res 60(3):260–272
Chen CC, Lee YT, Tsai CM (2014) Professional baseball team starting pitcher selection using AHP and TOPSIS methods. Int J Perform Anal Sport 14(2):545–563
Dadelo S, Turskis Z, Zavadskas EK, Dadeliene R (2014) Multi-criteria assessment and ranking system of sport team formation based on objective-measured values of criteria set. Expert Syst Appl 41(14):6106–6113
Downward P, Dawson A (2000) The economics of professional team sports. Psychology Press, Palo Alto
Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W (2011) Heuristic decision making. Annu Rev Psychol 62:451–482
Hillier FS (2012) Introduction to operations research. Tata McGraw-Hill Education, New Delhi
Liebermann DG, Katz L, Hughes MD, Bartlett RM, McClements J, Franks IM (2002) Advances in the application of information technology to sport performance. J Sports Sci 20(10):755–769
Locke EA, Latham GP (1985) The application of goal setting to sports. J Sport Psychol 7(3):205–222
Lorains M, Ball K, MacMahon C (2012) Performance analysis of decision making in team sports. In: Proceedings of the world congress of performance analysis in sport IX, Worcester, England
Makridakis SG, Wheelwright SC (1978) Forecasting: methods and applications. Wiley/Hamilton series in management and administration, Wisconsin
Özceylan E (2016) A mathematical model using AHP priorities for soccer player selection: a case study. S Afr J Ind Eng 27(2):190–205
Romero C (2014) Handbook of critical issues in goal programming. Elsevier, New York
Rosner S, Shropshire KL (2004) The business of sports. Jones & Bartlett Learning, Burlington
Saaty TL (1990) Decision making for leaders: the analytic hierarchy process for decisions in a complex world. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh
Tavana M, Azizi F, Azizi F, Behzadian M (2013) A fuzzy inference system with application to player selection and team formation in multi-player sports. Sport Manag Rev 16(1):97–110
Toyoda H (2011) Fédération Internationale de Volleyball: coaches manual I: chapter V-Volleyball for beginners, [EBOOK]
Villa G, Lozano S (2016) Assessing the scoring efficiency of a football match. Eur J Oper Res 255(2):559–569
Wang J, Zhang J (2015) A win-win team formation problem based on the negotiation. Eng Appl Artif Intell 44:137–152
Winter EM, Jones AM, Davison RR, Bromley PD, Mercer TH (eds) (2006) Sport and exercise physiology testing guidelines: volume I-sport testing: the British association of sport and exercise sciences guide. Routledge, New York
Zardari NH, Ahmed K, Shirazi SM, Yusop ZB (2015) Literature Review. In: Weighting methods and their effects on multi-criteria decision making model outcomes in water resources management, SpringerBriefs in Water Science and Technology. Springer, New York, pp 7–67
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1: Weights of positions \((MS_j)\) (Budak et al. 2017)
Positions | S | L | MB 1 | MB 2 | SP 1 | SP 2 | OP |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Weights | 0.26 | 0.07 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.18 |
Weights of skills for each position \((SM_{yj})\) (Budak et al. 2017)
Skills/positions | S | L | MB 1 | MB 2 | SP 1 | SP 2 | OP |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SE | 0.21 | 0.00 | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0.21 | 0.21 | 0.27 |
R | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.44 | 0.44 | 0.00 |
B | 0.16 | 0.00 | 0.54 | 0.54 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.22 |
A | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.18 | 0.18 | 0.22 | 0.22 | 0.51 |
P | 0.63 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Appendix 2: Forecasts of player skill performances \((SS_{iy})\)
Player/skills | SE | R | B | A | P |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Player #1 | 50.0 | 0.0 | 33.3 | 25.0 | 0.0 |
Player #2 | 50.0 | 16.7 | 8.3 | 58.3 | 42.8 |
Player #3 | 0.0 | 66.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Player #4 | 52.4 | 33.3 | 11.0 | 90.3 | 0.0 |
Player #5 | 31.3 | 33.3 | 33.3 | 65.2 | 0.0 |
Player #6 | 23.6 | 30.3 | 24.3 | 74.2 | 0.0 |
Player #7 | 42.6 | 33.3 | 37.7 | 72.2 | 0.0 |
Player #8 | 41.2 | 0.0 | 33.0 | 72.7 | 0.0 |
Player #9 | 40.4 | 60.3 | 35.3 | 69.5 | 0.0 |
Player #10 | 46.5 | 0.0 | 35.7 | 79.0 | 0.0 |
Player #11 | 50.3 | 0.0 | 55.7 | 87.3 | 0.0 |
Player #12 | 16.7 | 0.0 | 11.0 | 26.7 | 0.0 |
Player #13 | 0.0 | 16.7 | 0.0 | 4.2 | 0.0 |
Player #14 | 45.0 | 0.0 | 20.0 | 0.0 | 48.0 |
Appendix 3: Possible position that players are able to play \((PM_{ij})\)
Player/positions | S | L | MB 1 | MB 2 | SP 1 | SP 2 | OP |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Player #1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Player #2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Player #3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Player #4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Player #5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Player #6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Player #7 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Player #8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Player #9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Player #10 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Player #11 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Player #12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Player #13 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Player #14 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Thresholds for each position’s skill \((TH_{jy})\):
\(\hbox {Position}\backslash \hbox {skill}\) | S | L | MB 1 | MB 2 | SP 1 | SP 2 | OP |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SE | 35 | 0 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
R | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 20 | 0 |
B | 10 | 0 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
A | 0 | 0 | 25 | 25 | 20 | 20 | 40 |
P | 40 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Appendix 4: Higher thresholds for each position’s skill \((TH_{jy})\)
\(\hbox {Position}\backslash \hbox {skill}\) | S | L | MB 1 | MB 2 | SP 1 | SP 2 | OP |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SE | 40 | 0 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 |
R | 0 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 30 | 0 |
B | 25 | 0 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 |
A | 0 | 0 | 35 | 35 | 30 | 30 | 50 |
P | 50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Budak, G., Kara, İ., İç, Y.T. et al. New mathematical models for team formation of sports clubs before the match. Cent Eur J Oper Res 27, 93–109 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-017-0491-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-017-0491-x