Goal kicks out to the touchline

Noticed a fair few goalies routinely send their goal kicks out to the touchline and to the full back. We do it a lot when the short pass to the centre backs isn't on but it always seems like a pointless ball to me. Nearly always goes out of play directly or off the player and if the player does get it, they are usually instantly under pressure.

Any reason why keepers are instructed to do this?

Kicking from all 3 of our keepers is generally appalling. Really ****es me off

What's worse, kicking to a full back or hoofing it up field ala wet spam style!!

What's worse, kicking to a full back or hoofing it up field ala wet spam style!!

Worked for Begovic :-D

What's worse, kicking to a full back or hoofing it up field ala wet spam style!!

If there is nothing really on in your own half, kick it long in a measured and controlled way!

Silly tactic. Even when its a rare good pass it leaves the full back with nowhere to go.

Because the best defensive headers are in the centre back positions.

Noticed a fair few goalies routinely send their goal kicks out to the touchline and to the full back. We do it a lot when the short pass to the centre backs isn't on but it always seems like a pointless ball to me. Nearly always goes out of play directly or off the player and if the player does get it, they are usually instantly under pressure.

 

Any reason why keepers are instructed to do this?

I noticed this from the U18s keeper too, first options are the centre backs in the full back positions, with options to go direct to the defensive midfielder if they're all marked. The next choice then seems to be to chip one onto the head of the left back on the touchline, with them nodding it infield to the CM position. This seems rather a high risk given the lack of defenders in front of our own goal at this point if the ball is intercepted by an opposition player.

The theory overall, as discussed before on here, is that you'll score more goals from having possession despite the higher risk of conceding possession nearer your goal, than you will from hoofing it up the pitch and only having about a 50% chance of retaining the ball from an initial aerial challenge. Not sure if I agree with it, but at least the overall theory is in line with our possession ethic.

Anyone notice Guzans Banana long ball to Abonglahor or Benteke for Villa, what a weapon! if their first goal v us came from one of those kick outs (sorry I can't recall) no wonder Yoshida was foxed.

I noticed this from the U18s keeper too, first options are the centre backs in the full back positions, with options to go direct to the defensive midfielder if they're all marked. The next choice then seems to be to chip one onto the head of the left back on the touchline, with them nodding it infield to the CM position. This seems rather a high risk given the lack of defenders in front of our own goal at this point if the ball is intercepted by an opposition player.

 

The theory overall, as discussed before on here, is that you'll score more goals from having possession despite the higher risk of conceding possession nearer your goal, than you will from hoofing it up the pitch and only having about a 50% chance of retaining the ball from an initial aerial challenge. Not sure if I agree with it, but at least the overall theory is in line with our possession ethic.

Personally I think it's better in our situation to boot it long, take the risk and then if we DO lose possession our high pressing means that we have a good chance of winning it back early and further up the pitch.

FFS, booting it long, then trying to win it back in their third went out with graham Taylor and Howard Wilkinson. As already stated centre halves split , and cm come short for ball, if those options are closed down we can knock it to the full back and if a decent ball we should be able to get a 2 on 1 and overload that side of the pitch as the opposition have committed men forward closing us down. . Worst that can happen is the ball is given away near the half way line outwide or a throw in. With our high energy pressing game our front players and attacking midfielders will be absolutely whacked by half time if we keep pumping fighting ball's up for them to chase down and then try and win the ball back. Most of their "rest" is taken when our back 4 and keeper keep the ball.If we start hoofing it long sides can defend with 2 banks of 4 and we just haven't got the physicality in our attacking players to effect the game.

Noticed a fair few goalies routinely send their goal kicks out to the touchline and to the full back. We do it a lot when the short pass to the centre backs isn't on but it always seems like a pointless ball to me. Nearly always goes out of play directly or off the player and if the player does get it, they are usually instantly under pressure.

 

Any reason why keepers are instructed to do this?

The Goal Keepers Union has a lot of money riding on Spot Betting Throw Ins ala MLT ?

Our first play is for the CBs to move to the fullback position to receive the first ball and for the fluuback to move up to give an outlet option in midfield.

What worries me is when the obvious midfield outlets are shut off we pass the ball across the back four - always gives me the willies.

Our first play is for the CBs to move to the fullback position to receive the first ball and for the fluuback to move up to give an outlet option in midfield.

 

What worries me is when the obvious midfield outlets are shut off we pass the ball across the back four - always gives me the willies.

Fonte in particular often dithers and is closed down then passes back to the keeper who, unless another open outlet is available then sends it long. In those circumstances I would prefer the keeper to aim for Lambert further up rather than the chip down the line often creating a 50/50 inside our half.

Boruc often kicks it directly out when aiming for our fullback on the touchline and it looks a bit ridiculous when it happens

Fonte in particular often dithers and is closed down then passes back to the keeper who, unless another open outlet is available then sends it long. In those circumstances I would prefer the keeper to aim for Lambert further up rather than the chip down the line often creating a 50/50 inside our half.

But I thought Fonte was good enough on the ball to play Centre Midfield.

I especially like the floated ball out to Clyne standing on the sideline that is measured perfectly so that lands on his head just as some monster come flying in to win the header. I call it the aerial hospital ball. Gazza has it down to a fine art.

Personally I think it's better in our situation to boot it long, take the risk and then if we DO lose possession our high pressing means that we have a good chance of winning it back early and further up the pitch.

Sort of makes sense, but in that situation we don't have the players far enough up the pitch to press the second ball from the kick to begin with, and the second ball could go in any direction. Making the passing options for the opponents predictable is a key part of our pressing, and we can't control that with a long ball.

Always play it out from the back.

FFS, booting it long, then trying to win it back in their third went out with graham Taylor and Howard Wilkinson. As already stated centre halves split , and cm come short for ball, if those options are closed down we can knock it to the full back and if a decent ball we should be able to get a 2 on 1 and overload that side of the pitch as the opposition have committed men forward closing us down. . Worst that can happen is the ball is given away near the half way line outwide or a throw in. With our high energy pressing game our front players and attacking midfielders will be absolutely whacked by half time if we keep pumping fighting ball's up for them to chase down and then try and win the ball back. Most of their "rest" is taken when our back 4 and keeper keep the ball.If we start hoofing it long sides can defend with 2 banks of 4 and we just haven't got the physicality in our attacking players to effect the game.

Yeah, with the full back left for dead. I agree that the short option is always the best, but the lofted, slow ball out to the full back is even riskier. It gives the opposition plenty of time to get over to where the ball is going.

But I thought Fonte was good enough on the ball to play Centre Midfield.

At a time we needed to try and shore up a back four leaking goals. Now we play two there.

But I thought Fonte was good enough on the ball to play Centre Midfield.

At a time we needed to try and shore up a back four leaking goals. Now we play two there.