Set Pieces

[KiwiScot 1,684]

Are we any good at set pieces at the moment?

[TCCANARY 263]

Yes.

[king canary 8,736]

No.

We miss Maddison''s delivery- we''ve had quite a few corners but don''t create much from them.

[TCCANARY 263]

Our rating is 6.7.

[TCCANARY 263]

Sorry, our set piece is 0.2.

What would you like it to be?

[king canary 8,736]

Errrm...what?

[Hairy Canary 746]

Taking them or defending them?

[KiwiScot 1,684]

[quote user="Hairy Canary"]Taking them or defending them?[/quote]

Taking them. Gathering opinions for PUPs selection since I read on the binners forum they had conceded most of their goals from set pieces

[king canary 8,736]

In that case Kiwi- we get a lot of them and if Ipswich can''t defend them then it might be a good bet that we''ll score from one on the sheer law of averages.

We''ve apparently had the 5th most corners this season and the most freekicks.

[hogesar 10,713]

We generally look dangerous, Leitner was good with them vs Leeds, Marshall wasn''t so good vs Preston.

[lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0]

[quote user="KiwiScot"]Are we any good at set pieces at the moment?[/quote]

Defending? No we''re pretty bad.

Attack? Better than defending them, but nothing special.

[Guest]

I can''t make out whether we are zonal defending at set pieces still or markers just aren''t picking up their man.

I keep looking at Carfdiff''s goal last night and can''t make up my mind.

[ZLF 334]

whether zonal or not we are second to the ball too often at set pieces

[Dr Greenthumb 789]

It’s zonal and it doesn’t work!

[Mello Yello 2,553]

I think we set......then go to Pieces.....

[Van wink 2,994]

We are fair at best at attacking and defending set piece, corners in particular.

If it were we were to improve it could make such a difference to our results.

[Badger 2,745]

I''d say that to describe our defending of set pieces as "fair" is too generous VW! It is probably one of, if not the, biggest weakness we have and already a fair proportion of our goals conceded have come through this. It "feels" like one a game almost.

[ZLF 334]

As I said elsewhere I would describe both sides as ok at attacking set pieces but woeful at defending them. Could be the key feature of the game, and undoubtedly will be their main (only??) threat.

As far as zonal is concerned the evidence is clear that it works and is successful, but whether it works (as with any tactical approach) is entirely down to how well the players do their allotted jobs.

We def need to be more focused, stronger and more determined to make that ball ours than we have done so far - and all of those factors apply when man marking too.

[Guest]

I have never been a fan of zonal as it depends on everyone doing their job.

Of course you can argue that man for man needs the same commitment.

But I have always thought that man for man means you have only one man to watch for. Not all footballers are bright enough to multi task.

[Mason 47 1,903]

The problem with zonal at the moment is the opposition are dictating the little battles at set piece and we''re losing them.

At Cardiff, their goal came from Manga, whose nearest marker was Cantwell. I think when he clicks he will be some player, but you can''t think he''s going to win a duel for an aerial ball from a standing start against 6ft+ centre halves.

Against WBA, Tettey dealing with the monstrous Hegazi. Sheff U, both Rhodes and Tettey backpedalling to try and deal with Egan.

Should be letting the Hanley, Klose and Godfreys of the squad do what they''re naturally better at and man-mark the threats. And leave an out-ball up the pitch!

[ZLF 334]

If it is man for man the opponent will still target the set pieces to our weaknesses.

We simply do not have enough players who are good in the air; Klose, Hanley, Godfrey (?), Rhodes is probably it; Zimm struggles for a big bloke. So, all you need is 5 players in the opposition strong in the air and we would be overloaded and struggling, irrespective of whether it is zonal or man for man. There are plenty of "big" sides in the champs. We have seen Tettey used and struggle for that aerial protection, particularly at the back post.

It was pretty clear last season that we struggled, and that following the world cup that set pieces and aerial strength was likely to have an increasing value in the league this season. For me it is the main area we failed to strengthen in the summer.

[Alan 0]

I don''t think that our set pieces are good enough in defence or attack. In defence we do not have enough big blokes.

In attack we could vary it a bit more to get people into better positions because in many cases the opposition are bigger so we have to rely on moving people around and changing things.

[Big Vince 420]

It all comes down to the man in charge.

Can you imagine Pulis, Allardyce or Warnock having teams that were so easy to beat at set pieces?

But if you are going to persist with the so-called Norwich way, then that type of manager with his type of football is not going to find his way into the Norwich job.

[king canary 8,736]

@Zimmers

I''d actually say Klose is pretty poor in the air for a big guy.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="keelansgrandad"]I have never been a fan of zonal as it depends on everyone doing their job.

Of course you can argue that man for man needs the same commitment.

But I have always thought that man for man means you have only one man to watch for. Not all footballers are bright enough to multi task.[/quote]

No, it depends upon the opposition being daft enough o do likewise.

Unsurprisingly none do.

It has to be one of the stupidest ideas in football I have ever seen, if only on the basis that it allows the attacking side to have as many of their players attacking the ball as possible whereas the defenders are supposed to defend their ''area'' irrespective of where the ball is heading.

Not all City players will be great in the air so it doesn''t take much for the person taking the kick to aim the ball at him and allow the attacking side to crowd him out.

Spaces (or zones) do not score. Attacking players do.

[CANARYKING 706]

We need a big CH who can head the ball ......oops we let one go on loan

[Bill 1,788]

Pretty pointless if he is obliged to stand on his ''square of the pitch'' whilst the ball goes to another part of the box.

[FenwayFrank 2,699]

Will that be the same centre half that is good in the air but no good with the ball at his feet ?

[ZLF 334]

I agree that Klose could be stronger but that only highlights the issue we have;

He is comfortably the strongest in the air at the club, no player has won more headers.

Klose has won more (31) than the rest of the defence combined (26, incl Hanleys 17) . He also wins roughly 3 out of every 4 challenges, more than any player this season bar Steipermanns 6 from 7..

[westcoastcanary 173]

[quote user="Zimmers Left Foot"]I agree that Klose could be stronger but that only highlights the issue we have;

He is comfortably the strongest in the air at the club, no player has won more headers.

Klose has won more (31) than the rest of the defence combined (26, incl Hanleys 17) . He also wins roughly 3 out of every 4 challenges, more than any player this season bar Steipermanns 6 from 7..[/quote] Careful Zimmer. You''ll be classified as a sad statto and advised to attend matches if you carry on like this. No statistic you quote can alter a know-all''s faith in his own subjective impressions. Still, you do have every professional coach and manager on your side if that''s any consolation [:D]