Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
king canary

For the love of all that is holy...

Recommended Posts

...can we please stop the short corners? They are never done with any real semblance of plan and I think I counted three or four wasted today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess the reason we took short corners was the same reason ipswich were quite happy to concede corners. Set plays is their strong point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will ask the same question on here that I asked at the game...

When was the last time we scored from a short corner?

It''s something we seem to do a couple of times a game, every game, with no end product

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Rogue Baboon"]I will ask the same question on here that I asked at the game...

When was the last time we scored from a short corner?

It''s something we seem to do a couple of times a game, every game, with no end product[/quote]A better question might be "How many times have we conceded from one of our corners taken long?" Taking a corner short is a way of keeping possession; given how few goals we score from long corners and how often we are undone by fast counters from cleared corners, keeping possession may well be the best strategy. If we had the players to make better use of long corners, it would be a different matter. As it is, our long corners are little more than a hit-and-hope strategy doomed to fail against any well-organised defence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Westcoast

I take it from that post you didn''t see the game yesterday? Our short corners were not helping us keep possession, they were usually just giving it away in different manners. We actually made a couple of decent chances from our direct corners (when Wes wasn''t taking them).

A well worked short corner can be a dangerous thing but as I said ours often don''t seem to be planned or well executed. We had one yesterday where Murphy went short to Wes, who got his return pass wrong so Murphy had to take a touch, giving Ipswich time to close him down. This then led to him playing a poor ball to Tettey who had to stretch to control it and was under pressure, so the ball went all the way back to Ruddy, who launched it long and Ipswich won possession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was clear players had been told to go for short corners.

Ironically our normal corners caused them far more problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am fairly confident that if we only ever took long corners and failed to score from [m]any of them there would be questions on here asking why we never mix it up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@king canary
[Y] kc, I was really replying to RB''s comment about short corners in general. Re. yesterday, however rational a strategy, it can always be derailed by inept execution ........
Just as a general point, I think a lot of the discussion on here takes too little notice of what years of soundly based research have yielded in terms of best practice. Another example would be the discussion around substitutions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''m intiruged as to what you mean by best practice. I don''t think such a thing really exists in football as there are so many variables.

I was involved in a debate once on twitter with someone who got annoyed that fans thoughts corners that didn''t beat the first man were bad- in his eyes a corner like that was better than an aimless lofted ball as there was less chances of the first one leading to a counter attack and a goal. This POV baffled me- I don''t think you take corners with the primary concern of not conceeding at the other end...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="king canary"]I''m intiruged as to what you mean by best practice. I don''t think such a thing really exists in football as there are so many variables.

I was involved in a debate once on twitter with someone who got annoyed that fans thoughts corners that didn''t beat the first man were bad- in his eyes a corner like that was better than an aimless lofted ball as there was less chances of the first one leading to a counter attack and a goal. This POV baffled me- I don''t think you take corners with the primary concern of not conceeding at the other end...[/quote]There''s no single objective in taking corners; the objective varies with the game situation and priority at that time. For instance, if you win a corner in the 90+3 minute of 5 mins of added time while leading 1:0, the last thing you would want to do is lump a ball into the opposition box with the intention of scoring again. Best practice is always doing everything you can to weight the odds in your favour, however slightly. Individual games are decided by small margins in a context in which luck plays a major part. Much of best practice involves trying to reduce the role of fortune through game control. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess the principle of a short corner is to allow the attackers to either create a 2 v 1 attacking position to move the ball into a more dangerous position or to pull a defender out of position to mark the player who''s gone to cover the extra attacker.

I agree that it looks rubbish when it goes wrong, but no worse than a ''long'' corner that doesn''t beat the first defender - unless it results in a spectacular volleyed goal as per Howson''s strike v Forest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...