|
Post by scfc75 on May 18, 2022 22:34:56 GMT
It’s happened a few times this season tbf but only him. There must be some stats or something they’d read that tells them it works. Because there’s no logical explanation to it without such “wisdom”. I think its just football manager fashion, at some point a manager will start regularly leaving two or more players up and they all will start doing it and declare it innovation Someone will have a player on the post too. Someone will start playing wingers on their natural side and be declared a genius Witchcraft
|
|
|
Post by skip on May 19, 2022 0:43:20 GMT
Short corners? No thank you. It's not hockey, it's football.
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on May 19, 2022 3:44:36 GMT
Crorners seem to be overlooked. In each game, even when against teams much better it'd be rare not to get a corner or two. Despite being a clear opportunity to create a goalscoring chance only 6% of corners produce goals.
They need movement as the ball is struck. The ball in doesn't have to be 100% accurate but it does have to go to the right areas of the goalmouth. The best place for a corner to land is usually around the penalty spot. However a good headerer a forward is, if the delivery isn't at the right pace and height it'll be wasted.
One great one would be being able to land the ball just below the bar at the dark post. Imagine the chaos. Defences having to pack the far post meaning you could land one elsewhere into more space. So if short corners work then good but why faff about?
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on May 19, 2022 8:04:31 GMT
Data analysis, virtually overnight, killed off perceived old school football "wisdom", such as leaving players up and having men on posts. These two "strategies" were, at best, nonsense and at worst positively suicidal.
"Men on posts" concede an eyewatering 35% more goals than not having men on posts. And it was only when data pointed this out that the reasons (which "football men" had missed for years) became blindingly obvious.
I'm sure I don't have to point out the two major design flaws that made this tactic such a dreadful idea in the first place ;-).
It's not 1990 anymore.
Next, leaving men upfield also tips defensive corner strategy towards the foolhardy.
You defend corners by denying space. You defend space by occupying it. You occupy it by having bodies. Further, if you're going to have a hybrid zonal/man marking strategy you need bodies.
Common denominator here is having as many players in and immediately around your penalty area, not isolated 40 yards away.
There are much better ways to retain clearances and perhaps counter attack based around supported players picking up cleared balls closer to your own goal.
Attacking teams have gotten ever so smart at creating from corners by emulating the master of misdirection/dark arts etc (Pulis) and it's only in the last three or four seasons that the quality and quantity of chances created from corner kicks has finally started to fall.
But that has needed an acknowledgement that sticking players on the halfway line is from a bygone age of data ignorance.
Historically, around 3% of goals come from corner situations for the attacking side, just 0.7% from counters by the corner allowing team after defending one.
Good luck trying to squeeze more out of that 0.7% at the expense of an already dangerous 3%. Rather than eating into the much larger 3% by becoming more secure defensvely thru wrangling the attackers into submission. (again as per Pulis).
|
|
|
Post by skip on May 19, 2022 12:53:07 GMT
^ I love you responses to these subjects. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by AlliG on May 19, 2022 17:03:07 GMT
Data analysis, virtually overnight, killed off perceived old school football "wisdom", such as leaving players up and having men on posts. These two "strategies" were, at best, nonsense and at worst positively suicidal. "Men on posts" concede an eyewatering 35% more goals than not having men on posts. And it was only when data pointed this out that the reasons (which "football men" had missed for years) became blindingly obvious. I'm sure I don't have to point out the two major design flaws that made this tactic such a dreadful idea in the first place ;-). It's not 1990 anymore. Next, leaving men upfield also tips defensive corner strategy towards the foolhardy. You defend corners by denying space. You defend space by occupying it. You occupy it by having bodies. Further, if you're going to have a hybrid zonal/man marking strategy you need bodies. Common denominator here is having as many players in and immediately around your penalty area, not isolated 40 yards away. There are much better ways to retain clearances and perhaps counter attack based around supported players picking up cleared balls closer to your own goal. Attacking teams have gotten ever so smart at creating from corners by emulating the master of misdirection/dark arts etc (Pulis) and it's only in the last three or four seasons that the quality and quantity of chances created from corner kicks has finally started to fall. But that has needed an acknowledgement that sticking players on the halfway line is from a bygone age of data ignorance. Historically, around 3% of goals come from corner situations for the attacking side, just 0.7% from counters by the corner allowing team after defending one. Good luck trying to squeeze more out of that 0.7% at the expense of an already dangerous 3%. Rather than eating into the much larger 3% by becoming more secure defensvely thru wrangling the attackers into submission. (again as per Pulis). Thanks. That expands on what I heard 10+ years ago when a manager (probably TP) was asked in one of those long end or pre season interviews to explain the reasoning behind bringing everyone back for corners. Presume all the last 10 years have done is to provide plenty more data to support. I would suggest that you keep a copy of your reply handy ready to paste in the thread for the next time that the usual suspect comes on and says he doesn't know why teams bring everyone back for corners. He has been saying the same thing for the last 5+ years, despite being basically told what you have said, so I assume he will be back sometime next season. The one question I would ask would be whether the introduction of VAR in the Premier League has provided any workable stats to show whether there is any benefit for the defender marking space at the near post dropping back onto the line if the ball is hit deep to/beyond the far post as against holding the line, or pushing out? (Is catching an attacker offside more likely than the defender clearing any knock back or looped header?)
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on May 20, 2022 8:36:08 GMT
That expands on what I heard 10+ years ago when a manager (probably TP) was asked in one of those long end or pre season interviews to explain the reasoning behind bringing everyone back for corners. Presume all the last 10 years have done is to provide plenty more data to support. I would suggest that you keep a copy of your reply handy ready to paste in the thread for the next time that the usual suspect comes on and says he doesn't know why teams bring everyone back for corners. He has been saying the same thing for the last 5+ years, despite being basically told what you have said, so I assume he will be back sometime next season. The one question I would ask would be whether the introduction of VAR in the Premier League has provided any workable stats to show whether there is any benefit for the defender marking space at the near post dropping back onto the line if the ball is hit deep to/beyond the far post as against holding the line, or pushing out? (Is catching an attacker offside more likely than the defender clearing any knock back or looped header?) That's a great point. The offside line from 2nd balls (if you count the corner as the 1st) is what killed off "men on posts". You not only play everyone onside, you also expand the area to be defended instead of compressing it. The other reason "mops" got dumped was they were a last line of defence that invariable didn't come into play & as a defense you outnumbered yourself by letting 20% of your outfield defensive resources prop up a post. You want active, not passive defenders in a corner situation. Guard the front post space, maybe, but then get the heck out. Problem with VAR is we don't know how many correct/incorrect decision would have been reversed (some teams will have applied VAR to historical footage to see which side of the line the credit/debit currently lies). But I think you still assume offsides and clearing the six yard box for your keeper still trumps any benefit from having defensive bodies in or around the goal line. Data gains you knowledge, with that knowledge you can sensibly reconstruct what might be happening on the pitch, once you better understand what is taking place on the pitch, then you can try to enhance or prevent it. Rinse/repeat from the past, with little or no foundation is no longer an option (unless you want a co-commentator gig on Jaurassic TV). Standing on a post got you a good view of your team conceding, nothing more & the same's true for leaving men up top.
|
|
|
Post by AlliG on May 20, 2022 11:31:26 GMT
That expands on what I heard 10+ years ago when a manager (probably TP) was asked in one of those long end or pre season interviews to explain the reasoning behind bringing everyone back for corners. Presume all the last 10 years have done is to provide plenty more data to support. I would suggest that you keep a copy of your reply handy ready to paste in the thread for the next time that the usual suspect comes on and says he doesn't know why teams bring everyone back for corners. He has been saying the same thing for the last 5+ years, despite being basically told what you have said, so I assume he will be back sometime next season. The one question I would ask would be whether the introduction of VAR in the Premier League has provided any workable stats to show whether there is any benefit for the defender marking space at the near post dropping back onto the line if the ball is hit deep to/beyond the far post as against holding the line, or pushing out? (Is catching an attacker offside more likely than the defender clearing any knock back or looped header?) That's a great point. The offside line from 2nd balls (if you count the corner as the 1st) is what killed off "men on posts". You not only play everyone onside, you also expand the area to be defended instead of compressing it. The other reason "mops" got dumped was they were a last line of defence that invariable didn't come into play & as a defense you outnumbered yourself by letting 20% of your outfield defensive resources prop up a post. You want active, not passive defenders in a corner situation. Guard the front post space, maybe, but then get the heck out. Problem with VAR is we don't know how many correct/incorrect decision would have been reversed (some teams will have applied VAR to historical footage to see which side of the line the credit/debit currently lies). But I think you still assume offsides and clearing the six yard box for your keeper still trumps any benefit from having defensive bodies in or around the goal line. Data gains you knowledge, with that knowledge you can sensibly reconstruct what might be happening on the pitch, once you better understand what is taking place on the pitch, then you can try to enhance or prevent it. Rinse/repeat from the past, with little or no foundation is no longer an option (unless you want a co-commentator gig on Jaurassic TV). Standing on a post got you a good view of your team conceding, nothing more & the same's true for leaving men up top. Thanks. I was watching a game a couple of weeks ago where the near post defender dropped back and cleared the ball off the line and this thread got me wondering whether it was one of those occasions when I remembered the 1 time it worked but forgot the 9 where it didn't. (I guess a bit like we all remember Ben Wilmot smashing one into the top corner from 35 yards but tend to forget that most 35 yarders tend to take out some poor bloke sitting in Row 20).
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on May 20, 2022 15:25:28 GMT
I was watching a game a couple of weeks ago where the near post defender dropped back and cleared the ball off the line and this thread got me wondering whether it was one of those occasions when I remembered the 1 time it worked but forgot the 9 where it didn't. (I guess a bit like we all remember Ben Wilmot smashing one into the top corner from 35 yards but tend to forget that most 35 yarders tend to take out some poor bloke sitting in Row 20). Lol, data analysts = anecdote slayer
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on May 20, 2022 15:43:23 GMT
And that just proves data is bollocks
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on May 20, 2022 15:48:26 GMT
Data analysis, virtually overnight, killed off perceived old school football "wisdom", such as leaving players up and having men on posts. These two "strategies" were, at best, nonsense and at worst positively suicidal. "Men on posts" concede an eyewatering 35% more goals than not having men on posts. And it was only when data pointed this out that the reasons (which "football men" had missed for years) became blindingly obvious. I'm sure I don't have to point out the two major design flaws that made this tactic such a dreadful idea in the first place ;-). It's not 1990 anymore. Next, leaving men upfield also tips defensive corner strategy towards the foolhardy. You defend corners by denying space. You defend space by occupying it. You occupy it by having bodies. Further, if you're going to have a hybrid zonal/man marking strategy you need bodies. Common denominator here is having as many players in and immediately around your penalty area, not isolated 40 yards away. There are much better ways to retain clearances and perhaps counter attack based around supported players picking up cleared balls closer to your own goal. Attacking teams have gotten ever so smart at creating from corners by emulating the master of misdirection/dark arts etc (Pulis) and it's only in the last three or four seasons that the quality and quantity of chances created from corner kicks has finally started to fall. But that has needed an acknowledgement that sticking players on the halfway line is from a bygone age of data ignorance. Historically, around 3% of goals come from corner situations for the attacking side, just 0.7% from counters by the corner allowing team after defending one. Good luck trying to squeeze more out of that 0.7% at the expense of an already dangerous 3%. Rather than eating into the much larger 3% by becoming more secure defensvely thru wrangling the attackers into submission. (again as per Pulis). I think this is from before a lot of the data might have been available, but what happened with Delap's long throws, both offensively and defensively? Offensively, we seemed to go from an all-out melee of bodies and runs (see Ryan's goal vs Middlesbrough with Mama holding off three defenders) to all of our attacking players standing completely motionless while they waited for the ball. Presumably there was a logic to this? I'm also guessing that the perceived crappiness of this approach was as much down to teams finding a more effective way to defend against them as a unit? I'm also also guessing that even when we stopped scoring as many from them, we stuck by them because they were more likely to produce further set plays than normal throws.
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on May 21, 2022 6:46:21 GMT
I think this is from before a lot of the data might have been available, but what happened with Delap's long throws, both offensively and defensively? Offensively, we seemed to go from an all-out melee of bodies and runs (see Ryan's goal vs Middlesbrough with Mama holding off three defenders) to all of our attacking players standing completely motionless while they waited for the ball. Presumably there was a logic to this? I'm also guessing that the perceived crappiness of this approach was as much down to teams finding a more effective way to defend against them as a unit? I'm also also guessing that even when we stopped scoring as many from them, we stuck by them because they were more likely to produce further set plays than normal throws. Stoke created 50+ attempts on goal and scored 8 goals from Delap's throws in the first PL season. Those numbers gradually declined as the opposition saw more of the tactic (flat throws, speed, unusual trajectory). Even Arsenal managed to find a way to defend it. The longthrow influence made it to a wider audience & highlighted the importance of set pieces, overall as a "cheap" source of goals. The Brentford lads took it to Denmark & won the title with a lot of help from long throws at MFC and set play construction/defensive recognition/route running etc remains a key goals ingredient for their customers. There's still some set play goals aren't real goals snobbery in favour of open play chance creation, but they count the same.
|
|
|
Post by tachyon on May 21, 2022 6:50:36 GMT
And that just proves data is bollocks Please elaborate.
|
|