Tacticians to the main board

Other than the obvious, can anyone tell me the reason why we keep all our players back to defend a corner? Someone like Mane would scare the opposition and force them to leave more than one covering player back.

Our current approach often leaves no outlet so the attack is recycled.

I suspect there isca tactical reason but wondered if anyone had any insight?

To not concede from the corner.

Agree though, surely a player like Mane could be left upfield.

I suspect there is a tactical reason but wondered if anyone had any insight?

Yep, to not concede goals. In 2014/15 Saints conceded the fewest goals from corners of any Premier League team... so it clearly works.

I think it is just a matter of probability - that Management think there is less chance of conceding a goal from all men back even if the ball gets recycled back into the box after clearing it than if we had a man upfield and two of the opposition defenders covering him. They probably think the chances of scoring from a break from a corner are remote.

On corners, I would always offer a man to go short as a decoy - more often than not it drags two men out to cover (meaning the opposition lose a defender in the box) or if they only take one it preoccupies another defender in the box who is detailed to run out if the corner is taken short.

The theory goes that instead of an out ball to the player left up the field, a series of short passes and enough players breaking out of defence gives more options for the transition. And of course the more players back to defend. We are currently conceding more from our own corners than our oppositions.

The theory goes that instead of an out ball to the player left up the field, a series of short passes and enough players breaking out of defence gives more options for the transition. And of course the more players back to defend. We are currently conceding more from our own corners than our oppositions.

Agreed! Wouldn't mind seeing an in-swinger for a change

Yep, to not concede goals. In 2014/15 Saints conceded the fewest goals from corners of any Premier League team... so it clearly works.

How does it clearly work? How do you know that our effectiveness at defending corners is (partly) due to having Mané back? Don't think your reasoning proves anything of the sort.

Never been a fan of this nor the awful zonal marking.

I was thinking the same thing on Sunday, we should at least have Mane up on the half way line.

I was thinking the same thing on Sunday, we should at least have Mane up on the half way line.

You were not alone in thinking that, once Stekelenburg hoofed it clear and had Mane been lurking on the half way line there was a 50/50 chance of a goal. Koeman baffles me sometimes

It is nuts. We even had 11 back on Sunday for corners when Naarwich were down to 10 men. I understand the theoretical reason for having everyone back, but it is really not very bright and there is no real evidence that it is worthwhile. You should always have an "out", it not only gives an option and prevents the ball being recycled back in after we hoof it away from the corner but also occupies another opposition player, nearly all teams only push max 8 players up for a corner, usually like us with one centrally just outside the pen and two back at the halfway line. It is one defensive tactic by Ron that really doesn't make sense in my opinion and that of many other people.

Yep, to not concede goals. In 2014/15 Saints conceded the fewest goals from corners of any Premier League team... so it clearly works.

Just to counter, we also scored the fewest goals on counteracttacks of all teams in the Premier League last season, with a mighty zero.

Heard this mentioned on the radio (5Live) commentary the other day. One Premier League team were leaving 2 or 3 up at corners.

Perhaps MLG can tell us the last time Mane made a headed clearance from a corner.

Never been a fan of this nor the awful zonal marking.

This is interesting from a coach... is that because you think it's too easy to exploit the seams between the zones or just because man-marking makes it easier to identify the flaws?

This is interesting from a coach... is that because you think it's too easy to exploit the seams between the zones or just because man-marking makes it easier to identify the flaws?

A few years ago I believe the stats showed that less goals were conceded by teams that had zonal marking. The types of goals that were conceded from zonal marking highlighted it's issues but the stats showed that fewer goals were conceded when compared to man marking. I think that has changed now though. Like most things that become popular, football then finds a way of overcoming / exploiting it and then we move onto the next thing.

A few years ago I believe the stats showed that less goals were conceded by teams that had zonal marking. The types of goals that were conceded from zonal marking highlighted it's issues but the stats showed that fewer goals were conceded when compared to man marking. I think that has changed now though. Like most things that become popular' date=' football then finds a way of overcoming / exploiting it and then we move onto the next thing.[/quote']

 

I would also say it's player dependent, in terms of height and ability to adapt on which is the preferred method.

Other than the obvious, can anyone tell me the reason why we keep all our players back to defend a corner? Someone like Mane would scare the opposition and force them to leave more than one covering player back.

 

Our current approach often leaves no outlet so the attack is recycled.

 

I suspect there isca tactical reason but wondered if anyone had any insight?

Our players man mark (as opposed to zonal) so the extra players just pick up a space Inbetween. See Pellè the other day. Cleared it but wasn't actually marking anyone. We have enough pace in Manè, Jay, Tadic etc to launch a counter. It's like a man mark zonal mark hybrid.

I think it is just a matter of probability - that Management think there is less chance of conceding a goal from all men back even if the ball gets recycled back into the box after clearing it than if we had a man upfield and two of the opposition defenders covering him. They probably think the chances of scoring from a break from a corner are remote.

 

On corners, I would always offer a man to go short as a decoy - more often than not it drags two men out to cover (meaning the opposition lose a defender in the box) or if they only take one it preoccupies another defender in the box who is detailed to run out if the corner is taken short.

Whereas if you are playing Southampton, the probability of scoring on the break from a corner are extremely high...!

We were only saying this on Sunday get Mane up on the half way line we we are defending a corner and that would pull two of the oppositions players back to mark him.

I'm another one in the agree corner. When we clear from the corner 9/10 we just give it straight back to the opposition who under no pressure from our players have time to tee up another attack. If we leave someone like Mane up not only can we perhaps profit from a freak bounce or mistimed clearance but we can also put their last man under pressure so he doesn't have time to put the ball straight back in to our penalty box.

I'm no tactician, but we say this all the time so I kept an eye on it Sunday. There was an instance on Sunday where Mané wasn't really marking anyone (zonal perhaps, but the guy nearest him didn't even make a run), and JWP cleared the ball upfield straight back to their player, since we had no-one up there. They had at least two defenders back, so it wasn't as if we really needed 11 men in the box anyway. Had Mané been up there he could have potentially latched on to that clearance. Instead, it goes straight back to Norwich. I don't get it?

I think more of a focus should be on how terrible we are at conceding when we ATTACK corners, i still have nightmares of us trying to chip the ball to Danny Fox(Danny fûckingggg Fox!) for a volley on the edge of the box at home to man city.... Why?!?

We were all saying this at the game on Sunday too. Then we cleared it and the ball was launched straight back into our box. Mane should be positioned roughly 10 yards inside our own half ready to close down a clearance, occupy an extra opposition player and potentially receive the ball to counter with.

The positive to having everyone back is the obvious more 'floating' defenders when everyone is man marked as well as less space for an attacker to make a long run and jump. That's the key reason RK does it imo. Crystal Palace are great at exploiting space in the box from set pieces for a couple of their team to have a long run up to attack the cross. All they then need to do is put the ball in a general area, not even with much pace and their attacker will have an advantage. With more players back this is a lot harder therefore you're far less likely to concede.

Although easier said than done, when employing this tactic the clearances should always go out for a throw in as far up the pitch as possible. This gives the defensive team more time to regain their shape and not have the ball 'recycled'.

I prefer leaving 1 up but obviously Ronald doesn't agree and has a few more coaching qualifications than I do.

I can see why we do it, and up to a point 'fewest goals conceded from corners' is a stat well worth having, but I'm not sure I agree with it.

Against 10 men it just looked like tactical inflexibility from us, we had 10 defenders in the box against a max of 6 attackers (or 9 v 5 if they took a short corner). We also have a very confident and capable GK who totally bosses his 6 yd area and has very quick and accurate distribution. If we had stationed Mane 40yds upfield they would have had as an absolute max of 6 attackers in the box v 9 defenders plus the keeper, more likely they would keep one more player outside the box/one fewer attacker inside which would increase our chances of gaining possession (now 9 v 5 again) and would open our options to play out short, or long to Mane.

I don't think you can say that Mane would necessarily have got on the end of that long hoof out on Sunday, it would depend on his starting position and the relative position of their defenders, plus most likely they would have one more defender in that middle third too, but I'm slightly puzzled as to why we bring all 10 back, even when playing against 10 men.

The 10 men example is an unusual one but agree it gave a licence for us to push someone up which we didn't use.

My theory is pushing someone up also forces the other team to keep someone extra back. It's defensive as much as offensive.

Let's say they keep one of their CM's in the centre circle. If Mane stayed up and hugged the line, the other team would need to put someone extra on him or pull the man from the centre.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

I am also in the leave a man up front camp. It really bugs me to see a ball, cleared from a corner, coming straight back into our box simply because we didn't have 'an out' further up the pitch.

Also, I fondly remember the amount of goals and chances scored/created by Danny and Rod Wallace; simply because they remained on the halfway line whenever the opposition had a corner.

I am also in the leave a man up front camp. It really bugs me to see a ball, cleared from a corner, coming straight back into our box simply because we didn't have 'an out' further up the pitch.

 

Also, I fondly remember the amount of goals and chances scored/created by Danny and Rod Wallace; simply because they remained on the halfway line whenever the opposition had a corner.

I would like us to use some more old school tactics occasionally, like leaving men upfield at corners, booting the ball into row z if not sure etc etc.

The amount of times, not just us, but other Prem teams should just hoof the ball into row z, but don't, is getting silly now. We see more and more errors like Lovren's because he didn't just clear it.

In my opinion.

Adkins did it a couple of times IIRC - i always thought it was a good idea...

it allows us an immediate outlet (position defined in training, therefore any player clearing the ball already knows where to punt it) and gives the opposition something unexpected to think about.

i was thinking exactly this on Sunday - esp when they were down to 10

Even if you have an "out" up the pitch, the chances of a clearance falling to them are slim. The exception would be where the GK gathers the ball and can distribute it accurately - in that scenario, I expect we instruct our quicker players, Mane included, to get up the pitch quickly. Mane does not go deep to make headed clearances, he stays by the edge of the box to pick up second balls and pressure the clearance; if Stek catches it then it's not going to take him long to get to the half-way line.

We do a mixture of man-marking and zonal. We tend to man-mark the other team's biggest threats but also zonally mark the post and the six yard box in front of the keeper.

Worth noting that our team is not the biggest, which means it is probably sensible to concentrate first-and-foremost on defending corners. I can well imagine the reaction on here when a corner bounces in our six yard box or gets headed home by the opposition having had a free run at the ball whilst three of our players hang about on the half-way line. Having Mane back allows us to make our box a difficult place to get a decent contact at goal away.

If we had a back four of, for example, Terry, Cahill, Ivanovic, Azpillicueta and we also had Matic and Costa in our team we might think it worth leaving a few more players upfield. But we don't have six players like that. We had, at the weekend, two full-backs unlikely to win a contested header and no really big midfielder. Basically, we were relying on Yoshi, Fonte and Pelle to stick something on it or block their runners, with the zonal players as back-up (I remember JWP doing a headed clearance from the mid-six-yard box zonal position).

Given last season's goal difference it seems a bit baseless to criticise a tactical set-up unless anyone is going to bring any persuasive argument or analysis that suggests an alternative would be better. So far, the counterargument seems to be a vague hope that Mane might dribble past two players and finish.

Even if you have an "out" up the pitch, the chances of a clearance falling to them are slim. The exception would be where the GK gathers the ball and can distribute it accurately - in that scenario, I expect we instruct our quicker players, Mane included, to get up the pitch quickly. Mane does not go deep to make headed clearances, he stays by the edge of the box to pick up second balls and pressure the clearance; if Stek catches it then it's not going to take him long to get to the half-way line.

 

We do a mixture of man-marking and zonal. We tend to man-mark the other team's biggest threats but also zonally mark the post and the six yard box in front of the keeper.

 

Worth noting that our team is not the biggest, which means it is probably sensible to concentrate first-and-foremost on defending corners. I can well imagine the reaction on here when a corner bounces in our six yard box or gets headed home by the opposition having had a free run at the ball whilst three of our players hang about on the half-way line. Having Mane back allows us to make our box a difficult place to get a decent contact at goal away.

 

If we had a back four of, for example, Terry, Cahill, Ivanovic, Azpillicueta and we also had Matic and Costa in our team we might think it worth leaving a few more players upfield. But we don't have six players like that. We had, at the weekend, two full-backs unlikely to win a contested header and no really big midfielder. Basically, we were relying on Yoshi, Fonte and Pelle to stick something on it or block their runners, with the zonal players as back-up (I remember JWP doing a headed clearance from the mid-six-yard box zonal position).

 

Given last season's goal difference it seems a bit baseless to criticise a tactical set-up unless anyone is going to bring any persuasive argument or analysis that suggests an alternative would be better. So far, the counterargument seems to be a vague hope that Mane might dribble past two players and finish.

But at least he'd be able to challenge for the ball giving the opposition player less time to put the ball straight back in to our area. As it is we just clear the ball to which ever player the other team has left back on the half way line who than has an age, under no pressure, to gather the ball and put it back into our area.

To not concede from the corner.

 

Agree though, surely a player like Mane could be left upfield.

.......and likely see their last defender get a" red " into the bargain - if he fouls Mané in full flight......

I would like us to use some more old school tactics occasionally, like leaving men upfield at corners, booting the ball into row z if not sure etc etc.

 

The amount of times, not just us, but other Prem teams should just hoof the ball into row z, but don't, is getting silly now. We see more and more errors like Lovren's because he didn't just clear it.

 

In my opinion.

J-Rod last Thursday, for example. Just stick it out for a throw or, once you've turned the man, hoof it up the line...

The main argument for leaving someone like Mane up field is that, because of pace and guile, it will force opposition to hold back not one, but two extra players. That means you have a better edge in your own penalty box defending... AND at least a chance of a breakaway goal.

Would like to see us mix it up a bit.

We could bring back Mane with the opponents leaving one back, at the moment the corner is taken Mane heads off back to the middle takiing advantage of any quick clearance (deliberate or otherwise) having the momentum over the defender and also disrupting other attacking defenders concentration.

The 10 men example is an unusual one but....

...It highlights the "issue". Saints had 11 players defending v Norwich's 8 attacking

The main argument for leaving someone like Mane up field is that, because of pace and guile, it will force opposition to hold back not one, but two extra players. That means you have a better edge in your own penalty box defending... AND at least a chance of a breakaway goal.

.......and likely see their last defender get a" red " into the bargain - if he fouls Mané in full flight......

- what they said.

This is interesting from a coach... is that because you think it's too easy to exploit the seams between the zones or just because man-marking makes it easier to identify the flaws?

I've always found its main flaw is that its too easy to overload a zone from an attacking perspective and create too much for a defender to deal with....