Goals from crosses

[Pirate55]

I think it's become more of a weapon this season, it's a good bit of variation in our attack.

Bingo. To rule out crossing altogether because it apparently has a less chance of being successful is just plain daft. A successful side will have a variety of different options and game plans to score goals. It is pleasing to see we are now increasingly using much more variation into our game plan.

 

[milo]

Bingo. To rule out crossing altogether because it apparently has a less chance of being successful is just plain daft. A successful side will have a variety of different options and game plans to score goals. It is pleasing to see we are now increasingly using much more variation into our game plan.

Who's done that?

 

[Bullet]

Admittedly I haven't read the article as I'm about to go to bed, but isn't part of the reason the fact that brickter teams tend to cross more, because they lack the technical quality to play accurate through balls? Correlation vs causation and all that.

Also, this doesn't take into account how much harder it is to play a through ball compared to a cross. If it's 6-7 times easier to play a cross than a through ball into the area, statistically crossing would be a better option.

Indeed, through balls seem to be very strictly defined in the world of football statistics - according to Whoscored, as a team we've only played 9 successful through balls all season in the PL.

Bingo Trevor, correlation vs causation.

 

[scaramanga]

Admittedly I haven't read the article as I'm about to go to bed, but isn't part of the reason the fact that brickter teams tend to cross more, because they lack the technical quality to play accurate through balls? Correlation vs causation and all that.

Also, this doesn't take into account how much harder it is to play a through ball compared to a cross. If it's 6-7 times easier to play a cross than a through ball into the area, statistically crossing would be a better option.

Indeed, through balls seem to be very strictly defined in the world of football statistics - according to Whoscored, as a team we've only played 9 successful through balls all season in the PL.

could that not be because its an easier way to play so the worse sides in the league go down that route rather than try and match the better sides on the deck?

There's certainly an element that brick teams don't have the ability to do much else.

If it were that easy to score that way though, they wouldn't be at the bottom of the table.

 

[scaramanga]

Bingo Trevor, correlation vs causation.

Yet if crossing had an even half-decent xG, those teams that lob in 30+ crosses a match would be successful wouldn't they?

 

[scaramanga]

Who's done that?

^ He did.

 

[the dza]

Yet if crossing had an even half-decent xG, those teams that lob in 30+ crosses a match would be successful wouldn't they?

Not necessarily -- if sh1t teams throw in crosses because they don't have the quality to build more intricate attacks, then it follows that the quality of said crosses will be worse; what's more, sh1t teams will not commit as many players into the box to attack these crosses or benefit from the defensive chaos that a cross can cause via half-clearances etc.

A full-back lobbing in a hopeful ball to the big man and one or two other attackers (sh1t team crosses) isn't the same as precision from a player like Eriksen, or a quality full-back getting to the by-line and putting the ball into a dangerous area where 4 or 5 attacking players can potentially score (good team crosses). Yet in the stats, these all get lumped together to produce an overall xG, which kinda hides the effectiveness of crossing for a quality side like ourselves.

In that case, you can just look at the goals we score, the wing play of our full-backs etc. to see that crossing, for a quality side like us, can be a very good strategy with a better xG than the overall stats for the league suggest.

 

[scaramanga]

Not necessarily -- if sh1t teams throw in crosses because they don't have the quality to build more intricate attacks, then it follows that the quality of said crosses will be worse; what's more, sh1t teams will not commit as many players into the box to attack these crosses or benefit from the defensive chaos that a cross can cause via half-clearances etc.

A full-back lobbing in a hopeful ball to the big man and one or two other attackers (sh1t team crosses) isn't the same as precision from a player like Eriksen, or a quality full-back getting to the by-line and putting the ball into a dangerous area where 4 or 5 attacking players can potentially score (good team crosses). Yet in the stats, these all get lumped together to produce an overall xG, which kinda hides the effectiveness of crossing for a quality side like ourselves.

In that case, you can just look at the goals we score, the wing play of our full-backs etc. to see that crossing, for a quality side like us, can be a very good strategy with a better xG than the overall stats for the league suggest.

The xG between good and bad teams is fairly flat for crosses IIRC.

In fact, the teams with the highest xG were the ones you'd expect - Pulis teams, etc.

Sent from my SM-G925F using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[the dza]

The xG between good and bad teams is fairly flat for crosses IIRC.

In fact, the teams with the highest xG were the ones you'd expect - Pulis teams, etc.

Sent from my SM-G925F using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

Well, that's my argument phucked then!

 

[elltrev]

The xG between good and bad teams is fairly flat for crosses IIRC.

In fact, the teams with the highest xG were the ones you'd expect - Pulis teams, etc.

Sent from my SM-G925F using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

Have you got a link? And when you say xG, are you talking about actual goals divided by actual crosses, or xG per actual cross (as per the Michael Caley stat)?

Going back to my point about how easy it is to cross and play through balls - interestingly only Arsenal have a cross to through ball ratio that's smaller than 6 to 1 - e.g. Crystal Palace have 24 to 0, Spurs have 20 to 1, Liverpool have 10 to 1 (20 to 2 per game). So if we take how often teams cross and play through balls as a measure of how possible it is to do so, then on average focusing on crossing will lead to more goals. (Stats from whoscored.)

But maybe all 19 teams could play successful through balls more and are just make the wrong decisions. And I don't know if true above stats on crossing include set pieces.

To be honest, I think the most sensible conclusion is that statistics alone can't tell us whether crossing or other approaches to scoring are inherently better options than one another - and intuitively I'd say the best approach for us is to mix things up, to keep opponents on their toes and make the most of our varied skill set.

Scara, if you see that previous argument as a straw man, can you remind me what your opinion on crossing is?

 

[braineclipse]

For me crosses should be a part of an overall attacking strategy. But it has to be based on picking when to cross. Like Eriksen vs Chelsea. Not a fan of the head down, get to the byline and whip it in wingers whose job it is to try to get a cross in most of the time they get the ball.

I think we're finding a very good balance at the moment. Rose and Walker have obviously worked on their final ball and they're making good decisions on when to cross at the moment.

 

[parklane1]

.

To be honest, I think the most sensible conclusion is that statistics alone can't tell us whether crossing or other approaches to scoring are inherently better options than one another - .

?

I will say the same thing about stats ( having worked with them in the game for several years) that i usually do. Stats are a useful tool to work with but they very seldom tell the full story ( no matter how many folks try to make out they do).

In most cases they are wrongly used to put a argument/ point that the user is trying to push.

 

[parklane1]

For me crosses should be a part of an overall attacking strategy. But it has to be based on picking when to cross. Like Eriksen vs Chelsea. Not a fan of the head down, get to the byline and whip it in wingers whose job it is to try to get a cross in most of the time they get the ball.

I think we're finding a very good balance at the moment. Rose and Walker have obviously worked on their final ball and they're making good decisions on when to cross at the moment.

Would agree with this, and add that as well as getting Rose and Walker working on their final ball Poch has also worked on getting runners to get into the box and attacking the space better then we were doing.

 

[billyiddo]

You should point out which posts you think are using stats in the wrong way Parklane rather than just saying the same thing each time stats come up in conversation - would be interesting to see where you think people are going wrong, and it may lead to some good conversation

 

[glorygloryeze]

For me crosses should be a part of an overall attacking strategy. But it has to be based on picking when to cross. Like Eriksen vs Chelsea. Not a fan of the head down, get to the byline and whip it in wingers whose job it is to try to get a cross in most of the time they get the ball.

I think we're finding a very good balance at the moment. Rose and Walker have obviously worked on their final ball and they're making good decisions on when to cross at the moment.

Absolutely this! Rose and Walker's final ball these recent weeks is testament to Pochettino's great ability to seemingly improve players (on things which often seem beyond help: something i should learn to have more faith in Pochettino on tbh)

 

[parklane1]

You should point out which posts you think are using stats in the wrong way Parklane rather than just saying the same thing each time stats come up in conversation - would be interesting to see where you think people are going wrong, and it may lead to some good conversation

Do you believe every stat you read billyido? and if not what makes you choose between the ones you do and d'ont. I am not trawling through every post that mention stats on here ( after all folks generally believe what they want to).

If you do have a different opinion on some stats '( ie believe or not believe) then maybe you could point out the ones you agree with and those you d'ont.

 

[billyiddo]

Do you believe every stat you read billyido? and if not what makes you choose between the ones you do and d'ont. I am not trawling through every post that mention stats on here ( after all folks generally believe what they want to).

If you do have a different opinion on some stats '( ie believe or not believe) then maybe you could point out the ones you agree with and those you d'ont.

What do you mean? A stat is a recording of something which has happened, there's nothing to 'believe'.

You shouldn't have to trawl through anything because you've just come in to make a point about using stats in the wrong way so I presume you've seen someone in this very thread doing so, otherwise why would you say it? Would be interesting to see where you think people are misusing stats is all - might be enlightenimg to hear your reasoning, or indeed their reply to you

 

[parklane1]

What do you mean? A stat is a recording of something which has happened, there's nothing to 'believe'.

You shouldn't have to trawl through anything because you've just come in to make a point about using stats in the wrong way so I presume you've seen someone in this very thread doing so, otherwise why would you say it? Would be interesting to see where people are misusing stats is all - might be enlightenimg to hear your reasoning, or indeed their reply to you

I was giving a opinion on how stats are used in football ( something i worked with for many years) stats in football ( and i guess in other sports) are often misleading. I have heard some say that doing this in ( crossing, dribbling, shooting etc) football is a waste of time because the stats show it very rarely has a end product. However that assumes that all the above mentioned are done in a specific way when they are different ways of doing all the above.

Now judging them all the same way (which in most cases is what stats do) is obviously wrong and that is why i say stats do not always tell the full story. Now you did not answer my question ( do you believe every stat you read about football) i would be interested to hear your true answer.

 

[Bullet]

To be honest, I think the most sensible conclusion is that statistics alone can't tell us whether crossing or other approaches to scoring are inherently better options than one another - and intuitively I'd say the best approach for us is to mix things up, to keep opponents on their toes and make the most of our varied skill set.

Scara, if you see that previous argument as a straw man, can you remind me what your opinion on crossing is?

Indeed, we need to mix up our attacks in as many ways as possible. Some intricate play, some long passes to feet, some long passes into space, some dribbles, some crosses, some cutbacks. That is what causes problems for defences, if they don't know what is coming next. If you always do 1 or 2 things they can get set and are comfortable.

If a team only dribbles through the middle the back 4 can stay compact and fend off the attack, but if we sometimes go wide and sometimes don't, it causes problems and fractures in the defensive line.

 

[billyiddo]

I was giving a opinion on how stats are used in football ( something i worked with for many years) stats in football ( and i guess in other sports) are often misleading. I have heard some say that doing this in ( crossing, dribbling, shooting etc) football is a waste of time because the stats show it very rarely has a end product. However that assumes that all the above mentioned are done in a specific way when they are different ways of doing all the above.

Now judging them all the same way (which in most cases is what stats do) is obviously wrong and that is why i say stats do not always tell the full story. Now you did not answer my question ( do you believe every stat you read about football) i would be interested to hear your true answer.

Your question doesn't make any sense mate - stats are a recording of something which has happened, assists goals shots clean sheets etc - I don't believe someone is recording fake stats and publishing them, though I guess its possible.

I was just hoping that you would offer some specific counter argument to the points being made in here that you seem to disagree with - much better for us neutrals to hear both sides in order to help shape our opinion, just making vague statements doesn't really help in that regard but fair enough if you don't want to expand on that