Goals from crosses

[scaramanga]

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)?

The blog post I read was xG. I'm trying to find it, it was linked from a link from a Statsbomb post IIRC. As you'd expect, the xG correlated very closely to goals over the piece.

Here's the latest data i can find regarding crossing prowess, it certainly looks more like a physicality list than it does a league table:

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.)

I think that's a very narrow definition of through ball. The stats I've seen are closer to that number per match than per season.

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.

Set pieces are far more effective, I believe.

I think there certainly is an element of poor choice going on. Just look at the blog post I linked to in the MoTD thread - there's a clear belief that an attacker contacting the ball in the box should result in a goal. I genuinely think both fans and traditional managers make that same mistake. We see a cross nearly reach a striker and all get excited, we see a player head a ball from a cross and think it's a nailed on goal. The fact is though, that neither are the case.

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.

I disagree with the first statement, I think stats quite clearly show what we, as humans, are incredibly poor at recognising.

The second part about mixing it up is absolutely true.

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

I think that we have to mix things up in order to keep defences guessing, although we also need to be aware of the increased risk that crossing brings in terms of the kind of possession turnover it leads to.

If defences are set up to stop us playing more valuable passes then they should increase the likelihood of a cross being effective. I would try and restrict them to periods of possession turnover when defences aren't settled and ready for them.

 

[Finney Is Back]

Here's the latest data i can find regarding crossing prowess, it certainly looks more like a physicality list than it does a league table:

What do you mean by that Scara?

I think that we have to mix things up in order to keep defences guessing, although we also need to be aware of the increased risk that crossing brings in terms of the kind of possession turnover it leads to.

Also can you explain this one further? Why is turning over possession via a cross more dangerous than turning over possession via a pass in (say) the final third?

 

[scaramanga]

What do you mean by that Scara?

The suggestion was that cross stats are as they are because they're mainly attempted by poor teams, and that if good teams crossed more the stats would be improved.

Whilst that would have a marginal difference, the table I posted would look more like a league table if that were the case. In reality, some very poor teams are towards the top of the conversion rate and some very good ones at the bottom.

Also can you explain this one further? Why is turning over possession via a cross more dangerous than turning over possession via a pass in (say) the final third?

Crossing in the traditional sense (not as a snap response to a turnover from pressing) usually requires a number of advanced players central and in the box, with at least one very advanced wide player. Turnover at that point is usually to a team of defenders facing away from their goal and able to exploit the space left behind.

Turnover from most final third passes would see much of our team behind the ball, trying to draw the opposition out of shape, with fewer players trying to exploit the space behind the opposition.

 

[milo]

One point I would make about a lot of our crosses is that they often happen from narrow positions. Eriksen's couple for Alli against Chelsea were both from positions close to the width of the box.

Our backup fullbacks and Sissoko are the only players in the squad who frequently put in traditional, whipped in from the touchline crosses.

 

[parklane1]

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

Sorry about the late reply but i have been out. You say my question does not make sense, well maybe i should rephrase it for you seeing as you are having difficulty understanding it.
Firstly i never said "that someone is recording false stats and publishing them" so lets clear that up.


My rephrased question is do you think ( sometimes) that stats can be misinterpreted by some who read them and by those that quote them?. I understand that in todays game ( especially with all the blogs and stat forums that saturate the market) that fans are bombarded with stats and seem to think that they are infallible. They are a tool but ( i say again) they do not always tell the whole truth and i have tried to explain why. Now if you ( or others) think they are 100% right then that is fine and you ( and others) have every right to believe that. On the other hand i ( having worked in the game and used them) have found them to very useful but do not always tell the complete picture.

Now if you can will you answer my question which i hope makes more sense for you. I will understand if you feel that you do not want to do so.

 

[billyiddo]

Of course stats can be misinterpreted, that goes without saying.

 

[parklane1]

Of course stats can be misinterpreted, that goes without saying.

Which is the point i have tried to make all along.

 

[billyiddo]

Which is the point i have tried to make all along.

A point that everyone already knows I'd imagine. The reason I replied to you initially was to ask you to expand on that and explain where it was you thought people were misinterpreting them in the thread

 

[parklane1]

A point that everyone already knows I'd imagine. The reason I replied to you initially was to ask you to expand on that and explain where it was you thought people were misinterpreting them in the thread

So if someone posts something once they are not allowed to comment on it if it is raised by another poster?. What i said is that stats can be misleading. Your the one who turned it into war and peace.

 

[billyiddo]

im asking you where you think people are misinterpreting stats in this thread - if you cant answer fine but it was a simple question and seeings as you always raise this opinion and mention that you have worked with stats in the past i thought you might like to expand on it.

 

[Lemonade Money]

So if someone posts something once they are not allowed to comment on it if it is raised by another poster?. What i said is that stats can be misleading. Your the one who turned it into war and peace.

I took it that @billyiddo meant, instead of saying stats can be misleading, say that stat is misleading because it doesn't take into consideration...
That way you'll get people onside, rather than just repeating stats can be misleading, which doesn't educate the people you think are doing it wrong.

 

[parklane1]

I took it that @billyiddo meant, instead of saying stats can be misleading, say that stat is misleading because it doesn't take into consideration...
That way you'll get people onside, rather than just repeating stats can be misleading, which doesn't educate the people you think are doing it wrong.

I understand that i really do, but seeing as stats are quoted so many times on here i would spend all my time doing just that. And some would still object to that.

 

[milo]

I understand that i really do, but seeing as stats are quoted so many times on here i would spend all my time doing just that. And some would still object to that.

I don't understand the point of saying that you disagree with something but not what or why you disagree.

 

[parklane1]

I don't understand the point of saying that you disagree with something but not what or why you disagree.

I am going to bow out of this for now as it seems some want to go round in circles.

 

[scaramanga]

On the other hand i ( having worked in the game and used them) have found them to very useful but do not always tell the complete picture.

Do you think that stats are more or less reliable than your short-term memory and interpretation?

 

[Jurgen the German]

Scara, I know you're not a fan of crossing and I personally also don't think it's a tactic we should overuse, but given how well Rose, Walker and Eriksen are currently playing, do you not think it's an effective tactic to have in our locker just for variation?

 

[scaramanga]

Scara, I know you're not a fan of crossing and I personally also don't think it's a tactic we should overuse, but given how well Rose, Walker and Eriksen are currently playing, do you not think it's an effective tactic to have in our locker just for variation?

Quality of those players has little to do with it. Even teams that play Pulisball convert crosses at an incredibly low rate.

As I said earlier in this thread, if we never cross then teams will just pack the centre and defend the more effective methods of scoring. But we shouldn't consider it as anything other than support for more reliable scoring methods.

 

[SteveAWOL]

https://twitter.com/x/status/955378870944976896

A few stats here about crosses/crossing accuracy in the Premier League (with thanks to @oilysailor and @GarryGelade)

https://twitter.com/x/status/900027786710192134

 

[scaramanga]

https://twitter.com/x/status/955378870944976896

A few stats here about crosses/crossing accuracy in the Premier League (with thanks to @oilysailor and @GarryGelade)

https://twitter.com/x/status/900027786710192134

Interesting article.

I don't agree with his causality analysis though. If that were true, all the other forms of attack would suffer as well. Teams that score more also play more through balls and cut backs than teams who score fewer. If his causal analysis were true then surely those methods would also show the same comparison as crosses.

I also disagree with his summary. We're still looking at very low return options and he's completely failed to analyse the defensive problems cause by the method.

 

[Bullet]

Scara, he was only talking about crosses, so I'm not sure it is fair to mention "other forms of attack" nor "defensive problems caused". Perhaps you could expand your comment, I don't really follow your point.

Having said that... I am about to do the same thing!

For me the HUGE question which needs answering is this: If crossing can vary from about 0% (for poor crosses) to about 7% (for great crosses)... how does that compare to throughballs or longshots or dribbles?

It is only fair to criticise a return of 5% or whatever, if you can show that throughballs / longshots / dribbles yields higher results.