• 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

Match Ratings vs Soton

Disagree a bit on crosses, as I imagine we do on long balls. Although I agree about wanting a balanced approach.

I do want players that are better crossers, particularly our full backs I would really want to do better. Eriksen is very GHod, Chadli, Lamela and Townsend alright at least.
I'm more than happy for our players to get better at all skills but I'd certainly put the emphasis on creating space/working in tight areas ahead of crossing.

What to me is important though is the way we work our way into a crossing positions. I'm not a fan of the "pumping a ball into a crowded box" type crossing that I imagine is the kind of crossing you're talking about as boring. Particularly if it's from quite far out. Both the Lamela and second Pelle goal vs. Southampton were good crossed goals for me because of the way space was worked and how there was space and movement in the box when the cross came in. To do that we need to move the ball quickly and with accuracy and crossing can become a valuable attacking option. To succeed with the kind of crossing I imagine you're not a fan of I think we would require players that are too specialized and it wouldn't be great.
Yeah, when I generalise crosses it's mostly because of the ones that I would describe as being the old English method of scoring. Ones where the ball is "whipped into the danger area" as pundits like to call it, for a big striker to bully his way onto.

Crosses that are on the end of a through ball into the dangerous areas that Lennon used to get into for what I'd term a cut back (but some would call a cross) are not only enjoyable football but a fairly effective method of scoring. These become more and more difficult to work as teams are less willing to attack us though, and we'd need a lot of skill to work them.

Similarly I want us to use long balls to our advantage. As we have at times in the past, though we're often not good enough at it. Thought Pochettino used Lambert as a good target man under Pochettino and I would like us to have the same option. I think that a good target man option can help open up space for technical, pretty football too. And finding a target man that is also good with the ball at his feet should be doable.
As I said in an earlier post, I can accept that a pressured player can use a long ball to relieve pressure - obviously that should open up a bit of space under a heavy press. Ideally, in the longer-term, I'd like to see our players able to play their way through and out of a heavy press. Obviously I do realise that usually only the very best teams do that and we're not there yet.

I still believe, in principle, that using the long ball as a method of attack when there are other options is not only a low-return style of play but also incredibly unattractive.
 
I'm more than happy for our players to get better at all skills but I'd certainly put the emphasis on creating space/working in tight areas ahead of crossing.


Yeah, when I generalise crosses it's mostly because of the ones that I would describe as being the old English method of scoring. Ones where the ball is "whipped into the danger area" as pundits like to call it, for a big striker to bully his way onto.

Crosses that are on the end of a through ball into the dangerous areas that Lennon used to get into for what I'd term a cut back (but some would call a cross) are not only enjoyable football but a fairly effective method of scoring. These become more and more difficult to work as teams are less willing to attack us though, and we'd need a lot of skill to work them.


As I said in an earlier post, I can accept that a pressured player can use a long ball to relieve pressure - obviously that should open up a bit of space under a heavy press. Ideally, in the longer-term, I'd like to see our players able to play their way through and out of a heavy press. Obviously I do realise that usually only the very best teams do that and we're not there yet.

I still believe, in principle, that using the long ball as a method of attack when there are other options is not only a low-return style of play but also incredibly unattractive.

As I kinda suspected we pretty much agree on crosses.

I agree that I want us to be able to play through pressure. But I don't think it's likely, or even necessarily necessary that we manage to do that well enough to not benefit from a target man type player. I also think having a real option for a direct long ball forward makes it a lot tougher for teams to defend and it can make it easier to play through pressure.

I don't want the target man option just to relieve pressure though. It can be useful for that, but also as an attacking option for knock downs, flick-ons and even for a player to just bring it down in advanced areas. Again it would make us tougher to defend against and make our play more varied. As well as giving us someone to cross towards.
 
Disagree a bit on crosses, as I imagine we do on long balls. Although I agree about wanting a balanced approach.

I do want players that are better crossers, particularly our full backs I would really want to do better. Eriksen is very GHod, Chadli, Lamela and Townsend alright at least.

What to me is important though is the way we work our way into a crossing positions. I'm not a fan of the "pumping a ball into a crowded box" type crossing that I imagine is the kind of crossing you're talking about as boring. Particularly if it's from quite far out. Both the Lamela and second Pelle goal vs. Southampton were good crossed goals for me because of the way space was worked and how there was space and movement in the box when the cross came in. To do that we need to move the ball quickly and with accuracy and crossing can become a valuable attacking option. To succeed with the kind of crossing I imagine you're not a fan of I think we would require players that are too specialized and it wouldn't be great.

Similarly I want us to use long balls to our advantage. As we have at times in the past, though we're often not good enough at it. Thought Pochettino used Lambert as a good target man under Pochettino and I would like us to have the same option. I think that a good target man option can help open up space for technical, pretty football too. And finding a target man that is also good with the ball at his feet should be doable.

For once, I 100% agree.
 
How do you think it would happen? Last time I saw, opponents tended not to just step aside and allow our team to walk through the middle. Of course they would know what to do - it's just all about judgement (which is why employing people like Townsend is a bad idea).


No, it really shouldn't (unless we have an excess of energy and possession and wish to waste large amounts of both).

We should be buying players and setting up the team in a manner that utilises the most effective attacking methods (short through balls in and around the box) the most, working down to the least effective (crosses and long balls). Why would any team plan to use a playing style proven to be less effective than all of the others? The only outlier here is Pulisball (currently known as Allardyceball) but I certainly don't want us playing that kind of football. Again though, that's personal preference - you can enjoy whatever you choose.
Where does this idea come from that crosses are not effective anyway?
 
Where does this idea come from that crosses are not effective anyway?

As a means of creating goal scoring opportunities crossing has a low return. Having this as your primary attacking tactic would therefore be foolish. Quite a few have interpreted this as 'we should never ever cross the ball into the box'.
 
As a means of creating goal scoring opportunities crossing has a low return. Having this as your primary attacking tactic would therefore be foolish. Quite a few have interpreted this as 'we should never ever cross the ball into the box'.
If that were true then wouldn't every single team in the World only ever take short corners?
 
If that were true then wouldn't every single team in the World only ever take short corners?

From a set piece there's nothing providing a disturbance to the crosser. The inability of footballers to put in accurate corners continue to amaze me.
 
From a set piece there's nothing providing a disturbance to the crosser. The inability of footballers to put in accurate corners continue to amaze me.
True.... but that advantage is countered by the fact that the opposition are able to perfectly set themselves to counter the corner.

As as aside - does anyone have the stats of how many goals we have scored/conceded from crosses this season in the league?
 
Where does this idea come from that crosses are not effective anyway?
Based on pretty much any relevant metric you can find - shots per cross, completion rate, goals per cross, etc. pretty much everything about crosses (from outside the box, in the air) makes it a low value option. There's also some positive correlation between the success of a team and what portion of their crosses are along the ground.
 
Set piece goals: 15

Direct free kicks: 4
Crossed free kicks: 5
Corners: 6
Throw ins: 0

Penalties: 3

All of WBA's set piece goals have come from crossed free kicks and corners.

Total shots: 476
Total goals: 55
Shots outside area: 248 (highest in the league)
Goals from outside area: 11
Shots inside area: 223
Goals from inside area: 55

Scored with right foot: 31
Scored with left foot: 13
Scored with head: 7
Other: 4 (by far highest in the league, lol)

http://www.squawka.com/football-team-rankings
 
Based on pretty much any relevant metric you can find - shots per cross, completion rate, goals per cross, etc. pretty much everything about crosses (from outside the box, in the air) makes it a low value option. There's also some positive correlation between the success of a team and what portion of their crosses are along the ground.
So in that case why on earth do football teams not take every single corner short? You would've thought that some bright (no doubt continental european/south american) spark would've realised this by now and stopped bothering playing the ball into the box.
 
So in that case why on earth do football teams not take every single corner short? You would've thought that some bright (no doubt continental european/south american) spark would've realised this by now and stopped bothering playing the ball into the box.

Especially when corners are the worst possible type of crosses - with the opposition set out in its most effective manner...
 
Interestingly enough this statistical analysis of goals scored at the 2012 Euro Championships in Poland and Ukraine found that most goals were scored after a cross, totaling 43.7% of all goals scored in the competition:
http://thesportjournal.org/article/...s-in-the-2012-european-football-championship/

Crosses: 43.7%
Short pass: 35.2%
Individual action: 9.9%
Shot: 7.0%
Pass of between 10 and 20 meters: 4.2%

Has football changed that much since 2012?!?
 
Back