Corners

[WolfOfWestStreet]

Were shit today.

[MC RISK77]

Eliasson normally delivers a great set piece but his were dreadful...will forgive him for the sublime assist

[Silvio Dante]

I’m of the mind that if something looked that poor that often it has to be intentional (bear with me!)

Their keeper was a big unit - and the risk was that anything in or around middle of the goal he’d come and claim - and the few we hit the middle, he did.

So, I think we intentionally tried to go near post so he couldn’t come. The problem was that we didn’t win the ball at the near post for the flick and changing the angle when it went in the middle (again, keeper can’t come for a flick as angle change happens too quick).

I think they looked worse than they were because it seemed we couldn’t get the ball past front post - but the intent was to hit that space

[TonyTonyTony]

Good observation. The number of times we pissed around with short corners only to lose the ball. Eliasson had about 4 attempts when he came on before actually beating the first man

More practice needed I would suggest 

[Roe]

10 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

I’m of the mind that if something looked that poor that often it has to be intentional (bear with me!)

Their keeper was a big unit - and the risk was that anything in or around middle of the goal he’d come and claim - and the few we hit the middle, he did.

So, I think we intentionally tried to go near post so he couldn’t come. The problem was that we didn’t win the ball at the near post for the flick and changing the angle when it went in the middle (again, keeper can’t come for a flick as angle change happens too quick).

I think they looked worse than they were because it seemed we couldn’t get the ball past front post - but the intent was to hit that space

This.  The fact is a large majority of corners go to waste anyway so a home crowd always getting hyped up whenever we get one is odd.

One of our best chances to score today came from a near post Da Silva corner that Fam headed wide.  The rest of his corners were disappointing for sure, but Eliasson's were a bit better in general when he came on.  He was struggling to beat the first man a bit, but he still put them in with enough pace and bend that they were only able to clear for another corner.  One of the few that went longer was quite comfortably caught by their keeper anyway.

[Davefevs]

45 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

I’m of the mind that if something looked that poor that often it has to be intentional (bear with me!)

Their keeper was a big unit - and the risk was that anything in or around middle of the goal he’d come and claim - and the few we hit the middle, he did.

So, I think we intentionally tried to go near post so he couldn’t come. The problem was that we didn’t win the ball at the near post for the flick and changing the angle when it went in the middle (again, keeper can’t come for a flick as angle change happens too quick).

I think they looked worse than they were because it seemed we couldn’t get the ball past front post - but the intent was to hit that space

Think you’re right, think the near post corners were deliberate.

[redsince1994]

Elliason was doing his best Charlie Mulgrew impression as 2 in a row were on their way in and needed clearing. Not sure if it was intentional or just crap deliveries. Would have been quite the goal(s).

 

[TonyTonyTony]

2 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

Their keeper was a big unit

You can say that again. I thought his play acting during the game made him look like a massive c**k

[Lanterne Rouge]

Would it not be a better idea for someone to just knock the ball about ten yards back to Niclas so he can get one of his virtually undefendable crosses in like he did for Taylor`s goal? He always seems to get a better angle when he`s in that position rather than when he`s actually taking the corner himself. It would also pull a defender out of the box as someone would have to get near him if they knew it was a tactic we use. We`d have to watch the offsides but could it work?

[1960maaan]

38 minutes ago, Red Right Hand said:

Would it not be a better idea for someone to just knock the ball about ten yards back to Niclas so he can get one of his virtually undefendable crosses in like he did for Taylor`s goal?

They did seem to try that at least once, didn't come to much. I think it was Pack leaving the front post. Just Pack being that close to the front post suggests it was a tactic. It does put a lot of pressure on the corner taker, as there is very ltittle room for error, and they did put a big bloke with him too. The one (?) he did curl into the 6 yard box was caught easily. Needs work.

[Simon79]

7 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

They did seem to try that at least once, didn't come to much. I think it was Pack leaving the front post. Just Pack being that close to the front post suggests it was a tactic. It does put a lot of pressure on the corner taker, as there is very ltittle room for error, and they did put a big bloke with him too. The one (?) he did curl into the 6 yard box was caught easily. Needs work.

Fairly sure it was a deliberate tactic. Think Pack was definitely the target. Noticed LJ & JM shouting at Elliason to go longer after his first failed attempt. Liverpool in the early 90’s use to run that routine very well, but they had John Barnes attempting the delivery! COYR

[steveybadger]

There was some research carried out a while back to see which corners were the most dangerous: my memory is a bit hazy (hopefully somebody can clarify), but basically the flicked on near post version was the most likely to result in a goal, hence why so many corners seem to hit the first man. That said I think it also said that corners still aren't (statistically anyway) the most likely source of goals.

[PooPants]

21 hours ago, TonyTonyTony said:

You can say that again. I thought his play acting during the game made him look like a massive c**k

Did you see when he got slammed by his own defender way harder than we ever hit him, and he was straight back up? Pussyhole.