Free Kicks vs Corners

[Muggins]

Problem with corners is that Martinez by his own admission doesn't like them, and that filters through to the team inevitably, so when we get one we don't expect to do much with them - indeed, we play a sizeable amount short.

What do you think is best? I mean, a manager who studies stats would surely see that crossing the ball in such a congested area is pot luck at best, and could be 50/50 to losing possession and not taking advantage of the corner.

I find I'm preferring the short corners better as we keep possession, the players in the box spread out and the ball can be moved across into a shooting position easier. That doesn't mean I didn't like Big Dunc and Cahill scoring those goals.

 

[hudd101]

Is it 5 or 6 free kicks we've scored from this season?

 

[AndyZ]

Problem with corners is that Martinez by his own admission doesn't like them, and that filters through to the team inevitably, so when we get one we don't expect to do much with them - indeed, we play a sizeable amount short.

only played one short today that I saw and we had at least ten corners. Like I said in the first post, should play more short until Lukaku returns. Only makes sense.

 

[davidloach]

Is it 5 or 6 free kicks we've scored from this season?

5 I think. Mirallas and Baines both have two and then Barkley has one, right?

 

[Sona]

The majority of corner kicks should be taken short.

Statistics show that only 20.5% of corners lead to a shot on goal.

Of that 20.5%, 89% of the shots created from corners are not converted into goals.

Think of that:

4 out of 5 corners don't lead to a shot.

And even when they do lead to a shot, 9 out of 10 times, that shot does not lead to a goal.

 

[Tubey]

What do you think is best? I mean, a manager who studies stats would surely see that crossing the ball in such a congested area is pot luck at best, and could be 50/50 to losing possession and not taking advantage of the corner.

I find I'm preferring the short corners better as we keep possession, the players in the box spread out and the ball can be moved across into a shooting position easier. That doesn't mean I didn't like Big Dunc and Cahill scoring those goals.

Wasn't criticising Martinez's approach, just pointing out what it is.

Personally, I prefer inswinging corners to the area in and around the penalty spot and the six yard box - reason being that whilst it may be cleared in the first instance it will still result in an out of shape defence pushing out and possession for your side more often that not.

The short corner has its place for the same reason as it forced a defence to push out towards it and gaps can emerge, but I personally would advocate putting the ball in the mix and instilling a bit of confidence in getting a result from it, but it's not in Martinez's philosophy.

only played one short today that I saw and we had at least ten corners. Like I said in the first post, should play more short until Lukaku returns. Only makes sense.

It depends if you believe a corner is only worth while in the first phase of play. If we're looking to just batter a header in from a cross and that's the only value you see in a corner, then yes, it's pointless without the players to do it, but if you look to play off the second phase from a well delivered corner half cleared, then it's a different story.

 

[Sona]

So to sum up, you statistically need 50 corners for one to lead to a shot, which leads to a goal!!!

 

[Tubey]

So to sum up, you statistically need 50 corners for one to lead to a shot, which leads to a goal!!!

I'd question the stats in that they are a blanket assessment of all sides. One side would benefit much more than another from corners depending on the personnel on hand and how they use them.

I'd also ask whether those stats count when the second phase of attack starts - the ball is half cleared, picked up, worked wide, cut back in and converted a minute later; do the stats include that as a chance coming about from a corner?

 

[Fearthainn]

So to sum up, you statistically need 50 corners for one to lead to a shot, which leads to a goal!!!

That sounds off. Only 2% of corners result in a goal?

I'd love to see the PL statistics for that. Granted, we keep possession by playing short corners, but how many of them result in shots/goals also?

 

[Sona]

I'd question the stats in that they are a blanket assessment of all sides. One side would benefit much more than another from corners depending on the personnel on hand and how they use them.

I'd also ask whether those stats count when the second phase of attack starts - the ball is half cleared, picked up, worked wide, cut back in and converted a minute later; do the stats include that as a chance coming about from a corner?

I believe they do, yes.

Of course there are variants and anomalies (for example, Stoke with a team of six footers), but the data is taken from a premier League analysis between season 2001/02 to 2010/11 so it is relevant.

Statistically, a one in 50 chance of scoring from a delivered corner, which also has the possibility of conceding a goal on a quick counter attack.

Obviously if you have a team full of tall players and/or proficient headerers of the ball, plus you're playing against a small side with poor organisation, then the percentage increases.

But on a blanket analysis like that, it isn't worthwhile "getting it in the mixer". It'd be much more beneficial to play a couple into the box (to keep the opposition on their toes), but play the majority short to keep possession and build an attack from open play.

 

[Sona]

That sounds off. Only 2% of corners result in a goal?

I'd love to see the PL statistics for that. Granted, we keep possession by playing short corners, but how many of them result in shots/goals also?

As I said in my other quote mate, it IS premier league data!

It's counter-intuitive to think that there aren't goals and shots produced from corners, as the majority of us watch MOTD each week, which only shows the good ones.

We see balls flying into the area and being contested, but obviously it doesn't show the other 7-8 corners that drift out, are headed away, are caught by the keeper, etc.

However, the statistics show that isn't the case!

 

[toffeejack]

i'm content tbh, it's a sign of a bad team who have to resort to hours of practice on the training ground purely at corners, because they believe that's their only means of scoring.

 

[Tubey]

I believe they do, yes.

Of course there are variants and anomalies (for example, Stoke with a team of six footers), but the data is taken from a premier League analysis between season 2001/02 to 2010/11 so it is relevant.

Statistically, a one in 50 chance of scoring from a delivered corner, which also has the possibility of conceding a goal on a quick counter attack.

Obviously if you have a team full of tall players and/or proficient headerers of the ball, plus you're playing against a small side with poor organisation, then the percentage increases.

But on a blanket analysis like that, it isn't worthwhile "getting it in the mixer". It'd be much more beneficial to play a couple into the box (to keep the opposition on their toes), but play the majority short to keep possession and build an attack from open play.

Seems far too small a percentage to include second phase attacks mate, I'd like to see how they came up with the stat personally.

 

[Furey1878]

When Everton get corners I'd rather we just immediately hit it out for a goal kick.

 

[bainesontoast]

Every single corner should be taken short in my opinion. The only exception should be if you're desperate for a goal with 5 minutes or less to go.