He hasn't used stats he's misused stats. He compares a corner with a pass from a keeper to a defender or a back pass to the keeper.
With thinking like that I'm surprised he managed to tie his own shoelaces, let alone write an article.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Throw ins
- Thread starter Cochise
- Start date
With thinking like that I'm surprised he managed to tie his own shoelaces, let alone write an article.
OPTA aren't known for their lack of accuracy.
What you've calculated is correct.
No, you misunderstand.
Of those that end up in a shot, the goal ratios are decent - mostly because of the expg of the area those shots are taken from.
The problem with direct corners is how few of them end up in a shot - 12% is a pathetic pass completion rate by any measure.
Then factor in how dangerous a counter attack is compared with normal play (how often are both your centre backs in the opposition's box?) and then they really are a low benefit option.
Leaving the discussions we've had before about your belief that time is infinite, let's just assume that modern managers have made training either as long as they believe players will accept or as long as is optimum.
In that case, there are far better things to spend our time on - methods that have a far higher rate of return. Once we've perfected them, then we can start learning to play Pulisball
milo
Jack L. Jones
I am not writing anything off. I am just saying that we should prioritise areas that we work on based on how effective they will be and that we should use evidence to inform this.
I'm not sure that your one up top example is a fair comparison. The old 4-5-1 formation was most frequently a defensive formation, whereas the idea of 4-2-3-1 is normally to get more attacking players into areas where they can do the most damage. Unless you are suggesting a change in tactics to increase chances of scoring from corners, I don't get how the comparison holds.
Even the very best at scoring from corners (from a very limited data set that seemed overall to lean heavily towards corners) were only scoring 1 in every 18 or so. That's one every 2-3 matches on average.I think looking at overall corner stats can be a bit misleading. Just like the title of this thread, which is about throw ins.
Back to my point, however, overall corner stats can be misleading. You have players who deliver excellent dead balls and a majority who are average to poor. If you average them out, you'll conclude that corners provide paltry returns. However, if a player hones his skills to deliver excellent corners all the time, I would have to believe that the percentages that @milo quoted would be higher. Lamela is a good example. How many assists has he gotten from corners compared to how many he has taken? If anyone has those stats, they'd be interesting to see. As well as stats on any other good corner takers.
Baleforce
Ron Henry
it doesn't have to be hours of practice on the training field, we have all these kids doing analysis now, it could be as simple as saying that team A are better at defending near post corners so Lamela has to put another 6 yards on em today, or team B's keeper has extra long arms so crosses need to be nearer the penalty spot than the goal line, it only has to be a line on the whiteboard or notes in the takers playbook, Poch doesn't even need to be involved
we don't have all the time in the world, but we do have what effectively amounts to infinite statistics and analysis, in professional sport it's those that think of everything that succeed, the club should be continuously analysing and improving every little factor that affects the players and the pitch, a 1% improvement in 100 things could be huge
we don't have all the time in the world, but we do have what effectively amounts to infinite statistics and analysis, in professional sport it's those that think of everything that succeed, the club should be continuously analysing and improving every little factor that affects the players and the pitch, a 1% improvement in 100 things could be huge
I'd be very surprised if all of that wasn't already happening and therefore already factored into the stats.
milo
Jack L. Jones
I agree.
I don't think anyone is arguing that we should not work on corners in training. Just that it is not something that we should prioritise spending more time on or that if we did, we could expect a significant change in the number of goals we scored from them as a result.
Baleforce
Ron Henry
wel if its happening the stats will improve over time
marginal gains are still gains
Only if the info we're collecting is improving. If we're collecting the same data as we did last year then I don't see why it would continue to improve.
Baleforce
Ron Henry
... or if we come to more astute conclusions, and have players capable of actioning it
Don't hit the first man on corners. There, instant improvement.
milo
Jack L. Jones
Would you expect to see more goals scored in all areas of play year on year?
Baleforce
Ron Henry
no, absolutely not, i'd expect a positive trend in effective targeting of perceived opposition weakness, not necessarily year on year but certainly across longer time frames, and, as i've said before, we shouldn't place to much stock in actual goals, they really do confuse things
gains will also be found in destructive actions, almost certainly faster as destruction is easier than creation, so, if anything, long term, I would expect fewer goals to be scored generally, assuming the laws of the game stay relatively the same
I wonder what the stats are on 'big games' (cup finals and the like) being decided by set-pieces, or set-pieces scoring a crucial equaliser in those games or whatever. To me, they always seem more likely to deliver in high pressure moments, probably because defensive mistakes are more likely in those moments.
milo
Jack L. Jones
Corners or set pieces?
Corners or crossed free-kicks -- any 'into the mixer' style set-piece.
milo
Jack L. Jones
A lot more goal scoring opportunities are created from free kicks that corners. I would expect that to carry across to big games but have not seen any stats to support this.
Also, in those scenarios, sometimes a corner/free-kick allows the box to get loaded up with players and the confusion helps assist the goal, even if the corner is half-cleared and another cross or pass is played back into the box. In that instance, the corner didn't directly assist, but the break in play allowed 6 or 7 players to be in attacking positions in the opposition penalty area and that in itself might have helped to fashion the chance. An example would be Sheringham's equaliser in the 99 Champions League final (there was a corner, half cleared and then put back into the box).
Bedfordspurs
Martin Peters
The problem I have is the argument around working on where we statistically good which I may be inferring
We should always work on where we're weak and therefore have scope for improvement
As someone mentioned... Man Utds biggest win was because of scoring set plays in a stereotypical English fashion
Maybe, just maybe we're trying to recreate a style of football that doesn't suit our league or our players rather than playing to our strengths as British players
It's always why I me tired the 4-2-3-1.. It's incredibly defensive when you see the likes of Palace play it becaus desire the set up they only have 4 players attacking generally. 4-4-2 you would normally get 5 as you would get a central midfielder having a go too. But now stats are sowing an argument for 4-2-3-1 yet still the highest scoring side in history didn't play that way... Football follows trends and that's clear even to the most ignorant fan, but the best innovate and thrive
We should always work on where we're weak and therefore have scope for improvement
As someone mentioned... Man Utds biggest win was because of scoring set plays in a stereotypical English fashion
Maybe, just maybe we're trying to recreate a style of football that doesn't suit our league or our players rather than playing to our strengths as British players
It's always why I me tired the 4-2-3-1.. It's incredibly defensive when you see the likes of Palace play it becaus desire the set up they only have 4 players attacking generally. 4-4-2 you would normally get 5 as you would get a central midfielder having a go too. But now stats are sowing an argument for 4-2-3-1 yet still the highest scoring side in history didn't play that way... Football follows trends and that's clear even to the most ignorant fan, but the best innovate and thrive