I was very surprised when Barnet got their corner from which they scored and we kept 2 players on the half way line. How many other teams would do that away from home and 2.0 up. And it cost us. Managerial inexperience I would say, again.
-
This site is sponsored by Lang & Potter.
Defending corners
- Thread starter Balham Green
- Start date
A
Argyle1886
Guest
I think its very refreshing. I remember when Sturrock used to pull everyone back, and it would leave just one opposition defender with absolutely nothing to worry about. Having two speedy attackers on the halfway when we're defending a corner shows intent and it means opposition have to have three defenders back.
Obviously if we start conceding from corners more often...........
Obviously if we start conceding from corners more often...........
GreenSam":11ere93z said:
Wrong. The more players in the box the more crowded and it will be and the less chance of a player having a free shot on goal(or 2 shots as happened for this corner). San Marino proved that no matter how bad you are if you crowd your box its very difficult to break down.
I would rather have the 2 pacey guys on the half way line in my opinion. Good chance of a break plus they wont be too much use in the box if they are under say 6ft
The first priority when you are 2 up away from home is to DEFEND that lead and not let the opposition back in to the game as we did on Saturday. I am not aware of other teams with that tactic - are they all wrong? Sturrock used to bring all 11 back and he didnt do so badly did he?
Crowding your box can make it difficult to break down, but so can having a healthier attack-defence ratio. The fact that we left 2 up meant that they left 3 back to deal with them. Therefore we had a 9-6 ratio when you account their taker and their keeper. Barnet only leaving one man up for the corner from which Blanchard scored, meant that we could push more men forward and left less men up the pitch meaning we had a healthier ratio of players in the area that it was being fed into. Perhaps it's not the quantity of men back, but the ratio of attackers-defenders. I think having for the attacking side having the tighter ratio can be more beneficial than having less men to compete against. Barnet would have wanted to get some of their tall players who they had to leave up the pitch to be able to help defend the corner.Balham_Green":1xg4a0ux said:
GreenSam":ni8ym9cu said:
Its the number of bodies in the box who can make blocks thats counts. All those other maangers e.g. Sturrrock cant be wrong.
Lots of different managers try different approaches. Fletch isn't the first to leave men up either. You could say all those can't be wrong, you could say all the others can't be wrong.
Whether having a wall of bodies matters more or whether having a wide ratio or defenders to attackers matters more to the defending side is based on a lot of stuff I'd guess. Style of play, pace of players left forward, size of players forced back compared to ones own defenders, capability of the side to perform a transition into a quick counter attack etc.
Whether having a wall of bodies matters more or whether having a wide ratio or defenders to attackers matters more to the defending side is based on a lot of stuff I'd guess. Style of play, pace of players left forward, size of players forced back compared to ones own defenders, capability of the side to perform a transition into a quick counter attack etc.
Not that I would blame him on this occassion, but you do need a keeper who can come and claim the ball every now and again.
Larry-O gives Cole a very "light" practice at this in the warm ups, when he stands in front of Cole and kind of shouts "boo" when he is about to catch the ball on the 6 yard line. That's as far out as he ever gets in a game.
Larry-O gives Cole a very "light" practice at this in the warm ups, when he stands in front of Cole and kind of shouts "boo" when he is about to catch the ball on the 6 yard line. That's as far out as he ever gets in a game.
