Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
lake district canary

The art of the early cross

Recommended Posts

Seems to have gone missing at Norwich in recent seasons.  I went to a match yesterday where the tactic that won the game was the early cross, yet we so rarely see it.  The wingers as soon as they got forwards passed it back to the player behind them who immediately put in an early curling cross which caused no end of problems for the opposition, the early nature of he cross allowing the forward players to run aggressively on to the ball, resulted in the first goal and caused problems neary every time.  A simple tactic, but direct and effective. We see it in other teams in the championship - why has it gone missing at Norwich?  Or has it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You obviously weren''t at Carrow Road yesterday then?!

A common fault of Norwichs play in recent years has been a lack of urgency at times and fathing about with the ball when an opportunity cross was available!

Football can be a simple game but in the modern era many managers and coaches try to over complicate and forget that simplifying the game with things like early crossing can be the most effective!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spot on kingo, obviously not at Norwich yesterday. Anyone who was would notice that this is unlikely to feature as a tactic.

One there is obviously a Farke instruction for the team to not all attack at once, at speed, maybe risk one or two, but definitely no more. If someone were in a position to cross early there would likely be no one in the box, or one being marked by 3 or 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="kingsway"]You obviously weren''t at Carrow Road yesterday then?!

A common fault of Norwichs play in recent years has been a lack of urgency at times and fathing about with the ball when an opportunity cross was available!

Football can be a simple game but in the modern era many managers and coaches try to over complicate and forget that simplifying the game with things like early crossing can be the most effective![/quote]

What relevance has being at yesterday''s game got or did we magically start throwing in eary crosses for the first time in years yesterday?  Would like to hear that early crosses were put in as part of an overall tactic and not just as a last desperate fling in the last few minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didn''t see any early crosses and I wouldn''t say it was a ''last desperate fling either''.

The pressure at the end came from the build-up around the Hull box and persistently trying to get down to the goal-line - on both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="lake district canary"]Seems to have gone missing at Norwich in recent seasons.[/quote]Snoddy was the last but only had RVW to aim for. [:)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You need to have players who can cross to make it work. Wildschut is one of the worst crossers I''ve ever seen.

Yesterday our crosses were either floated up and easily dealt with or played on the floor and cleared by the first man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that is because we are not using that tactic,The ball is either played parallel to the box or worked down to the touchline for pulling back.. on the floor. Notice how we haven''t really threatened from corners. bat Jerome''s goal where the idea seemed to have been to hit the ball beyond those in the middle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well for me, if it is not used occasionally as a tactic during a match, it is a waste.  Mixing up the way you play keeps defenders guessing and putting on the occasional early cross is a good way of doing that - even the ocasional punt up the middle is a good tactic if used occasionally.    You want shape and cohesion in a team, but you also need to have a varying approach so as not to be too predictable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed, we want the defenders out of shape and not set waiting for us to attack, if the ball gets headed out from a corner, it should be put straight back in the box. Too many times it gets played and played until it reaches the goalie !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my opinion far too much time is wasted passing the ball backwards and a crossed the back line. It is almost as if the opposition half is for most of the match no go territory.

A greater percentage of play in the opposition half would result in more opportunities and hopefully more goals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The goal I saw on Saturday was brilliant in it''s simplicity, the early cross situation was there for the taking - the forward bust a gut to get in the penalty box for the first time cross, arriving at a great pace and giving the defender no chance.  I can''t remember the last time I saw a goal like that with Norwich.  The best goal from at least from someone not messing about and just getting the ball into a dangerous area quickly was this one...gives me goose bumps every time I see it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTZf1gZctyg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Early crosses are often encouraged against as they are the least effective way of creating a scoring chance, and 99% lead to possession being lost.

Garry Gelade did a huge study into this - the article is here (http://www.optasportspro.com/about/optapro-blog/posts/2017/blog-the-art-of-crossing/).

I can see why Farke, a man who likes to minimise turnovers, would not want his team hitting early crosses - especially as there is usually only one striker to aim for and neither Jerome or Nelson are particularly dominant in the air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beckham was quite successful at it.

The point surely is the one Bethnal makes about strikers, we don''t play a style of football that would make this tactic a success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]Early crosses are often encouraged against as they are the least effective way of creating a scoring chance, and 99% lead to possession being lost.

Garry Gelade did a huge study into this - the article is here (http://www.optasportspro.com/about/optapro-blog/posts/2017/blog-the-art-of-crossing/).

I can see why Farke, a man who likes to minimise turnovers, would not want his team hitting early crosses - especially as there is usually only one striker to aim for and neither Jerome or Nelson are particularly dominant in the air.[/quote]

I find that staggering.  No wonder football is becoming predictable and less exciting to watch.  The conclusion to that article is really my point - you need to mix it up and keep the opposition guessing.  Never early crossing because it is low percentage is ridiculous. From that article -   "It’s much easier to defend if you know how your opponent is going to

play, and common sense suggests it’s good to have a variety of attacking

options. If you never cross the ball, or never play through the centre,

your opponents have a better chance of nullifying you. So although

crossing in isolation may not be the most effective way to score goals, I

think it’s important to keep it in the mix."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And in the paragraph above that he says that the reason why Liverpool only achieved 4 assists from 787 crosses in 2011/12 was "crosses being delivered too early".

Of course a mix of styles is an important part of a successful attack. However, it doesn''t mean Norwich should suddenly start shooting from 80 yards out - it would be a different tactic, but almost entirely unproductive.

Crossing is most successful when done low and from the byline - that is the hardest to defend against. The early cross should not be ignored, but it has to be used sparingly as it will most likely return no results and a better attacking position has potentially been lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Statistics are misleading imo. Does it say anywhere what effect it had on opponents to have to deal with being stretched by early crosses, like not giving them time to organise and the cumulative effect of that over the course of a match?  What about a team who spends the first 70 minutes purposely putting in early crosses and then doing the opposite as a surprise tactic, much like a tennis player will attack one side of his opponents relentlessly in a match, getting the opponent in a mindset and then switch it to the other side as a surprise move.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It''s pretty frustrating when we have the ball in a good crossing position, then pass it back and eventually turn it over without getting near the box again. Especially if the whole exercise eats up several minutes of our time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lake district canary"]Statistics are misleading imo. Does it say anywhere what effect it had on opponents to have to deal with being stretched by early crosses, like not giving them time to organise and the cumulative effect of that over the course of a match?[/quote]You can try to spin it however you like LDC, but 99% ineffective is still 99% ineffective.You claim this makes football stale or similar, but the point is, that it makes little to no sense to keep doing something that will result in a loss of possession for zero gain 99 times out of 100!Would you rather have a striker who scores a tap-in every game or two, or a striker who scores a single ''worldie'' once every season....???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="lake district canary"]Statistics are misleading imo. Does it say anywhere what effect it had on opponents to have to deal with being stretched by early crosses, like not giving them time to organise and the cumulative effect of that over the course of a match?[/quote]You can try to spin it however you like LDC, but 99% ineffective is still 99% ineffective.You claim this makes football stale or similar, but the point is, that it makes little to no sense to keep doing something that will result in a loss of possession for zero gain 99 times out of 100! Would you rather have a striker who scores a tap-in every game or two, or a striker who scores a single ''worldie'' once every season....???[/quote]

We lose possession regularly anyway regardless of tactics - or have done up to this season - so I don''t really see the problem. I accept that early crossing may be statistically a less potent way of attacking - but keeping a side guessing how you are going to attack is the more important.Just because you don''t score from an attack, does not necessarily make it a bad tactic - in the overall story of a match, putting pressure on a defence by stretching it and regularly keeping it unsettled HAS to be a good thing as the unsettled defence is more likely to be susceptible for the times when the attack is more calculated.  Modern day football, which seems to pay more attention to stats and ipads than to common sense is in danger of making football as mechanical as a computer game - artificial and devoid of spontaneity. I want to see early crosses put in during a game - not as a main tactic, but as part of a strategy to keep the opponents guessing.  An early cross is better for the fans too as it demonstrates an urgency to attack that they need to feel the team is being positive - and encourage them to be positive in their support too.  Fannying around with the ball and losing it with no shot on goal is just as bad.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''m in favour of any cross that gets to one of our players. This seems to me to be the most important element of crossing the ball. Our play on Saturday was slow and mostly ineffective.

Loved having both strikers on the pitch at the same time. I''m probably old fashioned but give me two centre forwards anyway over the lone striker. Watching Jerome put crosses in to nobody is not my idea of fun.

as for attics and iPads I think they are a good idea too.

OTBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You’re an odd one LDC. You say you want to see early crosses put in during a game yet you don’t go to many games so it doesn’t seem like it would make much difference to you. Also you seemed quite excited after your last game, and raving about our new found defensive tactics, I doubt there were many early crosses then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey, I basically said the same as Bethnal. Just less eloquently and without the evidence. So my post was therefore more ''pinkuny'' and therefore i win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="The gut"]You’re an odd one LDC. You say you want to see early crosses put in during a game yet you don’t go to many games so it doesn’t seem like it would make much difference to you. Also you seemed quite excited after your last game, and raving about our new found defensive tactics, I doubt there were many early crosses then.[/quote]Yes, I''m odd, I''ve seen nearly every minute of this season one way or another and appreciate seeing good defending after years of porous defending - but I want to see good attacking too. Not so strange really, eh - after all, I''m a fan - I want it all!

 

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...