Inability to convert corners?

[Ryn]

Inability to convert or indeed defend against corners is probably down the the general lack of height and physical presence in the current team.

I hate short corners, they are a total waste of time, but if we could work out some sort of routine where we say play the ball to the corner of the penalty box and then chip it in, or drill it at the bottom corner, that might help to mix things up a bit.

All else failing we need our corner taker to be able to consistently deliver an inswinging ball into the box coming down somewhere between the keeper and the penalty spot - maximum confusion where the keeper can't catch it due to players being in the way, but defenders are reluctant to go for it as the keeper is calling to claim it. Any touch and it goes in the net or bobbles free for a bit of pinball in the box.

Outswingers really need to be going onto Matt Mills/Ian Harte's head around the penalty spot area and into the back of the net.

I'd like to see Kebe and McAnuff taking some corners as the role of a winger during corners is pretty vague anyway.

I'd also like to see a big target man striker brought in to cause havoc during set pieces/challenge the goal keeper/break up opponents walls but that's for another thread.

[Kitson12]

But Kebe needs to be in the box seeing as he now has added headers to his ever growing footballing CV!

[Ryn]

Despite Kebe scoring a header this weekend I would rather see Harte on the end of a corner and Kebe delivering it.

In the pushing and shoving melee of a corner ball, Kebe's lightweight frame is not much use, better off having a more solidly built defender in there for me. Have the winger float the ball in and then use his pace to follow up if the ball gets nodded back out.

[Snowball]

According to stats posted we should expect to score a goal every 37 corners

UPDATE We have had 80 corners this season and scored 4 goals from them, 1 goal every 20 corners

Kebe at Portsmouth, Mills v Northampton, Mills at Leicester, Karacan/Church v Ipswich

Another five corners to defend v Ipswich, so..

We have defended 69 corners and conceded 4 goals including the goal when Hamer double-dropped the ball


149 corners, 8 goals = 1 goal every 18.5 corners

[Snowball]

According to stats posted we should expect to score a goal every 37 corners

UPDATE We have had 80 corners this season and scored 4 goals from them, 1 goal every 20 corners
Kebe at Portsmouth, Mills v Northampton, Mills at Leicester, Karacan/Church v Ipswich
Another five corners to defend v Ipswich, so..
We have defended 69 corners and conceded 4 goals including the goal when Hamer double-dropped the ball
149 corners, 8 goals = 1 goal every 18.5 corners

We scored from a corner at Preston this weekend, corner count 9-3

That means (UPDATE) we have had 89 corners and scored 5 goals, a goal every 18 corners, twice the so-called average

We have defended 78 corners and conceded 4 goals, a goal every 19.5 corners.

So currently we are BETTER than the opposition at converting corners. So much for "useless"...

[Stuka]

A couple of seasons ago we were devestating from corners, I seem to remember both our goals coming from Bikey headers in our first home game back in the Championship (Plymouth?) and we just went on from there scoring from a corner once every 2 or 3 games?!

yeah Bikey was good at heading in corners for a while. Still can't forgive him for throwing his shirt on the ground during that playoff game vs. Burnley though.

[Ryn]

Even if we are scoring corners at twice the 'average', we're still conceding goals from corners at twice the average.

[Tony Le Mesmer]

Im surprised its as high as 2.7% to be honest, I call them 1%'s.

The "Corner short corner wasted" brigade couldnt be further from the truth imo. I doubt you could find and stats, but i would guess the success rate is much higher than from long corners. Its much harder to defend a short one, you dont know where the cross is coming from and the keeper is less likely to take an easy catch and create a counter attack.

[Snowball]

Even if we are scoring corners at twice the 'average', we're still conceding goals from corners at twice the average.

Personally, I think that study that was quoted was a bit iffy.

Either way, what matters is we are scoring from 1 in 20 (good enough)
and doing a little bit better than our opposition does against us.



But, IF it is true that on average only 2.5% of corners result in a goal,
then why do attacking players so often let the ball go for a corner,
as if we now will have a great chance to score?

Surely, if the stats are accurate, players should try to keep the ball alive?

[Ian Royal]

Even if we are scoring corners at twice the 'average', we're still conceding goals from corners at twice the average.

Personally, I think that study that was quoted was a bit iffy.

Either way, what matters is we are scoring from 1 in 20 (good enough)
and doing a little bit better than our opposition does against us.



But, IF it is true that on average only 2.5% of corners result in a goal,
then why do attacking players so often let the ball go for a corner,
as if we now will have a great chance to score?

Surely, if the stats are accurate, players should try to keep the ball alive?

Guaranteed kick into box with good support in place > possible kick into box with likely more limited support in place.

You're making a comparison on which is best with no figures on conversion rates for attacking open play in wide areas.

[The Real Sandhurst Royal]

Not enough movement in the box for me when we have a corner.

We will get lucky once or twice but we always look static and line up in the same formation.

[Snowball]

Guaranteed kick into box with good support in place >

That apparently only results in a goal every 37 corners (overall average)

Keeper fully ready, all defenders back, player on the post(s) etc

versus:

possible kick into box with likely more limited support in place.

Yes, and defence LESS ready, having to turn, more space, possibility of the cross, or shot, or a tackle resulting in a free-kick or penalty

You're making a comparison on which is best with no figures on conversion rates for attacking open play in wide areas.

I'm not "making a comparison". I have NO IDEA what the best strategy is.

I was very surprised to hear that on average 36 corners out of 37 are wasted.

Had I ventured a guess I'd've thought we scored from 1 in 10 or slightly better.

It would be fascinating to see what would happen if a manager told his players NOT to win the corner
but to try and keep the ball live. I'd also like to see more short corners, and different ideas from corners.

I think, overall, it would mean more goals scored

[Ian Royal]

Guaranteed kick into box with good support in place >

That apparently only results in a goal every 37 corners (overall average)
Keeper fully ready, all defenders back, player on the post(s) etc
versus:

possible kick into box with likely more limited support in place.

Yes, and defence LESS ready, having to turn, more space, possibility of the cross, or shot, or a tackle resulting in a free-kick or penalty

You're making a comparison on which is best with no figures on conversion rates for attacking open play in wide areas.

I'm not "making a comparison". I have NO IDEA what the best strategy is. I was very surprised to hear that on average 36 corners out of 37 are wasted. Had I ventured a guess I'd've thought we scored from 1 in 10 or slightly better.

It would be fascinating to see what would happen if a manager told his players NOT to win the corner
but to try and keep the ball live. I'd also like to see more short corners, and different ideas from corners. I think, overall, it would mean more goals scored

Surely, if the stats are accurate, players should try to keep the ball alive?

I'm sorry, you aren't suggesting it is better to keep the ball alive based on corner stats compared to nothing about live ball stats with that statement? I must be misunderstanding you somewhere.

[Snowball]

I'm sorry, you aren't suggesting it is better to keep the ball alive based on corner stats compared to nothing about live ball stats with that statement? I must be misunderstanding you somewhere.

No I am NOT. Sorry you're a bit thick and don't understand the difference
between EXAMINING an IDEA and making actual suggestions.

For one thing, I didn't post the results of the official study which appeared to suggest
corners were pretty useless. My subjective opinion was that corners were about 4 times
more likely to produce a goal than the posted stats suggested.

Secondly, I checked the evidence. Looking at Reading games, both in terms of corners we take
and corners we defend, it seems to be that about 55 of corners result in a goal.

So firstly, we would need to know what is the true percentage across many
clubs, say for a season. Within that average, one or two clubs may beat the average
by a big margin. They might have "brilliant" attackers and score, say 20% of corners,
or they might have a superb defence and keep the opposition down to 2%


Mind you, we have now scored 5/14 = 36% of our goals from corners (tho' 2 were not "immediately" from a corner)

We have conceded 9 goals, four from corners. That's 44.44%

I think, because a large percentage of our goals for/against clearly do result from corners,
there's a natural belief that corners themselves are good methods of scoring

[Snowball]

Sheesh

14 league goals this season. 8 from dead-ball situations (57%)

05 from corners
02 Penalties
01 Free Kick

01 Pearce goal, "open play" goalmouth scramble, almost... was this from a corner?

02 Gylfi goals (open play)
01 HRK goal, open play, break
01 Kebe, goal, open play, beat players, one-two, beat more players
01 Kebe goal, open play, header from HRK cross
01 Kebe goal, open play, on the break

[Ian Royal]

I give up, it's utterly pointless... in the hope that it prevents some stat spamming drivel from you I'm putting you back on ignore for the good of the board, so please... don't waste your time with any more for my benefit.

I apologise to everyone for ever taking him off and hoping it might be alright.

[Snowball]

Go watch some live games, Dear.

[Snowball]

I looked at Reading's League Games for last season.

Basically, we might as well not take corners!

We had one run of (at least) 138 consecutive corners without scoring

and a second sequence of (at least) 104 consecutive corners without scoring

We had 330 = THREE-HUNDRED-AND-THIRTY CORNERS in total

and we scored (ourselves) three goals from that. 1 goal every 110 corners.

We actually got a fourth goal in the home game versus Newcastle where
a defender blasted a clearance into the back of one of his own players.

So 4 goals from 330 corners = 1 goal every 77.5 corners!!!!!!!!


Our opponents got 6 goals from 218 corners, 1 goal every 36.5 corners twice as good as us.


Overall (both teams) 548 corners, 10 goals = 1 goal every 55 corners, just like the stats someone else posted.


ONE SMALL NOTE. It is possible that the OS has failed to note a corner that resulted in a goal.

I can only go by what is posted.

[From Despair To Where?]

...and hands up who gives a toss!!!

<sits on hands>


Once again discussion is stiffled by a masterclass in anal retention.

[sandman]

Not enough movement in the box for me when we have a corner.

We will get lucky once or twice but we always look static and line up in the same formation.

Statistically 100% of players on the pitch will move at some point during a match but some will move less than others on account of being substituted.

I'm not sure of the average percentage of players that are in the box for corners but I'll make sure to pi$$ about counting them at the Swansea game so I can trot out a string of stats instead of supporting the team.

Note: This statistical stuff is fcuking boring.