Full backs on both posts

[Champagneblade]

This has been a feature of late and got mentioned on the Tufty club and it brought me back to an exchange I remember from my youth.

With my albeit limited footballing ability, I was brought up in the simple basis that once the opposition gets a corner then the full backs take front and back post. This was pretty much a given and was never even up for debate.

Under Bassett we also didn't have a man on both posts. I think we may have had back post but not front. I could be wrong on that aspect. It might have been the opposite but not both.

So like me, my Dad would exchange correspondence with the managers. I did a fair bit with Warnock, McCabe, Terry Robinson, Mark Fenoughty, to name but a few.

I digress. I got it from my Dad who did the same Haslam, Porterfield, Bassett etc.

So he raised the full backs issue to Bassett. Bassett's reply was that he preferred to not have a full back on the line because he thought you could push out quicker and had more chance of catching the opposition offside and ending their attack.

We both loved Bassett but we thought this was nonsense. There seemed a far greater chance of the opposition getting an effort on goal in a 50/50 contested ball, where narrowing the goal size is an advantage to the defending team. This seemed to us to be a far more likely nad serious outcome when pitted against looking to catch them offside.

So that was the reasoning shared. Now Chris we part of that team and is obviously close to Bassett as a friend. So perhaps he goes along with what one of his mentors adopted.

Any other thoughts or insights?

 

[Nicolaus_Copernicus]

Buy a dog & get out more.

 

[A Storm of Blades]

This has been a feature of late and got mentioned on the Tufty club and it brought me back to an exchange I remember from my youth.

With my albeit limited footballing ability, I was brought up in the simple basis that once the opposition gets a corner then the full backs take front and back post. This was pretty much a given and was never even up for debate.

Under Bassett we also didn't have a man on both posts. I think we may have had back post but not front. I could be wrong on that aspect. It might have been the opposite but not both.

So like me, my Dad would exchange correspondence with the managers. I did a fair bit with Warnock, McCabe, Terry Robinson, Mark Fenoughty, to name but a few.

I digress. I got it from my Dad who did the same Haslam, Porterfield, Bassett etc.

So he raised the full backs issue to Bassett. Bassett's reply was that he preferred to not have a full back on the line because he thought you could push out quicker and had more chance of catching the opposition offside and ending their attack.

We both loved Bassett but we thought this was nonsense. There seemed a far greater chance of the opposition getting an effort on goal in a 50/50 contested ball, where narrowing the goal size is an advantage to the defending team. This seemed to us to be a far more likely nad serious outcome when pitted against looking to catch them offside.

So that was the reasoning shared. Now Chris we part of that team and is obviously close to Bassett as a friend. So perhaps he goes along with what one of his mentors adopted.

Any other thoughts or insights?

I’d always prefer someone on both posts. They both protect against goal bound efforts, and serve as zonal markers that can clear it, if the flight of the ball comes their way. Bassett’s argument about being easier to push up for offside in any potential second phase doesn’t hold much water in my view. That’s like putting alarm sensors on every window, but leaving the front door open every night.

 

[vas borbokis]

I agree. We would have shipped fewer goals if we did put men on the posts. Particularly with our current team selections which are not strong in the air.

Another thing that really does my nut is free kicks around the half way line. I would always load the box and launch it in there hoping for a 50/50 to break for us to get a shot off.
Instead we always take it short, try and pass it around, get pressed backwards 'till it goes back to Rammers who then launches it skywards, and we have to fight for a 50/50 on the half way line. What is the point? We should follow Burnleys example and put it in the mixer.

 

[Geordie Blade]

It’s a trade-off. Having men on both posts takes 20% off the people available to win the header. If you leave someone on the halfway line, and two people get drawn out for a short corner, then it reduces the heading population by 30%.

This means that you’ll probably lose about twice as many headers (unmarked attacked now have a lot more freedom).

So, you would rather have (say) two headers on goal with no post-markers, or four headers on goal with men on the posts? Keep in mind that the headers won’t always go in the corner and, even if they do, the defender isn’t guaranteed to stop them (hello, Nigel Worthington).

The simplest answer is to look at how many professional teams actually have two men on the posts. You see it in pub football all the time, but never in the Premier League. They have analysts that work all this stuff out, watching tens of thousands of set pieces, and realise that the trade-off isn’t worth it.

 

[Alf Tuppers Shorts]

My observation of late is from a free kick ;say 30 yard out the defenders all line up on the edge of the box ;then as the ball is kicked they all as one drop back. Again not a professional manager but we would all “Get out” leaving the attacking players IN catching them offside(hopefully). Doing it this way surely at least gave the attacking forwards a disadvantage because they would have to come out with you leaving them with their back to goal ; where as now dropping back gives the forwards that bit of advantage as they have the forward momentum going towards the goal.
Every team in all divisions now drop back so would assume they all see it as a better way of defending. Get a well drilled defence and move out always worked well , probably would even more so with VAR picking up on attackers toe nails. Please enlighten with the dropping back routine.

 

[Geordie Blade]

I agree. We would have shipped fewer goals if we did put men on the posts.

You can’t just subtract the ones that went in the corner and assume that everything else stays the same. You’d have to know how many extra headers we would lose.

 

[vas borbokis]

You can’t just subtract the ones that went in the corner and assume that everything else stays the same. You’d have to know how many extra headers we would lose.

Wed struggle to lose more headers tbh!
If its not near Egan we basically lose it!

 

[Webding]

My point on the pod was that if you’re going to have multiple free men not marking anyone (or marking zones where nobody is likely to appear), then why not stick at least one of them on the line? Even if that’s with a view to coming out and attacking the ball if it looks to drop nearby.

Or if you’re only going to put one man on the posts, why (as at Old Trafford) the front over the back? We often have a man attacking the near post area anyway (to clear 20-21-vintage-Norwood-esque deliveries), and given the flight of the ball and possibility for nicks and flicks as it comes over, you’d expect it’s slightly more likely to end up heading towards the far post than near.

I’ve absolutely zero statistical basis for any of this - and could be even more wrong than usual - but my feeling is that if you’re only going to go with one man on the posts, it seems more useful to have him on the back rather than the front.

Plus, if it’s anything like playing full-back for the school, you get to absolutely leg it off the line and shout GET OOOOOUUUT as soon as anyone makes even the most feeble of clearances.

 

[norfolkblade]

For me I’d rather have someone on the back post than the front post. I’d like to think as a keeper I can deal with things at the front post far easier than I can at the back post due to momentum and the like. We must have conceded at least half a dozen at the back post this season now?

 

[The Crab]

I can see both arguments, but it is "tradition" to have both posts covered whenever I have played. If not, then might have been helpful to Rammers if he had been a little more to his left as it gave a large gap for Maguire to place his header. and his subsequent dive for the ball was more in hope than expectation.

 

[Stu_Blade]

Agreed if you were going to. Back post is the preferred as otherwise at risk of obscuring the Keepers vision if whipped in. Personally that should be the keepers decision just like walls on free kicks.

 

[Houston_Blade]

If we could start winning the headers and clearing the ball we wouldn’t need to have anyone on the posts. I understand the front post being covered as the player can attack a front post corner.

If we started doing basics like following an opposition player when they inevitably move towards the ball and not acting surprised when it happens it should negate the need for a back post man.

 

[BlairBlade]

I can see both arguments, but it is "tradition" to have both posts covered whenever I have played. If not, then might have been helpful to Rammers if he had been a little more to his left as it gave a large gap for Maguire to place his header. and his subsequent dive for the ball was more in hope than expectation.

But if you are going to give Maguire a free header the matter of marking opponents as well as the posts become rather more relevant.

 

[tincan]

At PL level corners are 50/50 opportunities for possession. As possession is the best defence, to win it while most of the opposition are 60m from their goal means it is a great chance to counter attack.
Far more attacks are possible if the fast fullbacks are in position to react to the second ball at a corner and launch the attack.
Conversely an attacking corner is a huge defensive risk for the attacking team for that reason. I heard it said that Ferguson and Wenger were happy to concede corners if they lost possession, as they practiced defending them relentlessly.
Further down the league's, where skills are weaker, possession is not then the advantage it is and brute force is a greater option.

 

[Sheffsteel]

It’s a trade-off. Having men on both posts takes 20% off the people available to win the header. If you leave someone on the halfway line, and two people get drawn out for a short corner, then it reduces the heading population by 30%.

This means that you’ll probably lose about twice as many headers (unmarked attacked now have a lot more freedom).

So, you would rather have (say) two headers on goal with no post-markers, or four headers on goal with men on the posts? Keep in mind that the headers won’t always go in the corner and, even if they do, the defender isn’t guaranteed to stop them (hello, Nigel Worthington).

The simplest answer is to look at how many professional teams actually have two men on the posts. You see it in pub football all the time, but never in the Premier League. They have analysts that work all this stuff out, watching tens of thousands of set pieces, and realise that the trade-off isn’t worth it.

Agree....its always the same....we concede a goal from a corner and people say “use 2 defenders and put one on each post”

The problem with that...is we’ve then lost almost half of our defence....so we will be so vulnerable and likely to lose duels in the box.
The alternative is that defenders should defend properly.....then someone stood on a post protecting the goal isn’t required.

Also regards the Harry Maguire goal....his header was really powerful and wasn’t right in the corner.
Even if we had someone stood on the post...it’s likely the Maguire header would still have gone in.

 

[Trafford]

Having men on both posts takes 20% off the people available to win the header.

That’s true but you should still have enough. The attacking team always keeps at least one spare man back and they have to have somebody to take the corner. Add in their keeper (unless he’s joined the attack) and we have more men than them to attack the ball, so it could be argued that not having somebody on both posts means that they are more likely go get in the way of our nominated man-markers.

 

[jt64]

This is one of many areas which will have been analysed to death, and it'll have been worked out that having men on the post is less efficient at dealing with corners. Simple as. Drop Bogle onto the post for Spurs' first? Aurier now suddenly has a completely free header rather than a barely contested header.

 

[Webding]

This is one of many areas which will have been analysed to death, and it'll have been worked out that having men on the post is less efficient at dealing with corners. Simple as. Drop Bogle onto the post for Spurs' first? Aurier now suddenly has a completely free header rather than a barely contested header.

Yeah, it will have been analysed to death (and the conclusions mean they do it for a reason), so I asked on Twitter and the experts pretty much confirmed this. Basically you run out of men, as expected...

Also regards the Harry Maguire goal....his header was really powerful and wasn’t right in the corner.
Even if we had someone stood on the post...it’s likely the Maguire header would still have gone in.

Don't agree with this though - someone on the post easily sticks their right foot through this.

 

[Espania blade]

This has been a feature of late and got mentioned on the Tufty club and it brought me back to an exchange I remember from my youth.

With my albeit limited footballing ability, I was brought up in the simple basis that once the opposition gets a corner then the full backs take front and back post. This was pretty much a given and was never even up for debate.

Under Bassett we also didn't have a man on both posts. I think we may have had back post but not front. I could be wrong on that aspect. It might have been the opposite but not both.

So like me, my Dad would exchange correspondence with the managers. I did a fair bit with Warnock, McCabe, Terry Robinson, Mark Fenoughty, to name but a few.

I digress. I got it from my Dad who did the same Haslam, Porterfield, Bassett etc.

So he raised the full backs issue to Bassett. Bassett's reply was that he preferred to not have a full back on the line because he thought you could push out quicker and had more chance of catching the opposition offside and ending their attack.

We both loved Bassett but we thought this was nonsense. There seemed a far greater chance of the opposition getting an effort on goal in a 50/50 contested ball, where narrowing the goal size is an advantage to the defending team. This seemed to us to be a far more likely nad serious outcome when pitted against looking to catch them offside.

So that was the reasoning shared. Now Chris we part of that team and is obviously close to Bassett as a friend. So perhaps he goes along with what one of his mentors adopted.

Any other thoughts or insights?

He (CW) should stop using Bassett as a mentor, his days are gone.

As for having somebody on the back post, when it's a corner the ball either hits the first man who can't really get a meaningful shot away from the front post, AKA McBurnie who is always to near the front post when we take our corners, any way if the corner clears the front post (first man) it usually ends up on the back post and that is why the attacking team should always have a man on the back post, needless to say his marker should be with him.
I get Bassetts point about not having defenders on the goal line as it does make it easier for a "offside" decision to be made, but on the other hand someone like Ramsdale for instance who often comes out to collect and then drops the ball it is better to have a man on the line to clear the "lines"
and his marker should be with him

 

[essexblade73]

Always had man on each post at corners when I played. Moat teams I played in we had a mix of zonal and man marking, your 2 guys on the posts plus a man on the side of the 6 yard box facing the corner taker to clear any corners that went in low, rest of them were man marking, with 1 man up front just in case a break happens.

1 example of how this worked was in a cup final down here, 2004. We were defending a corner from the left, I was the man looking to clear anything low. We kept 1 man up and another man just outside the pen box on the left. Anyway corner came in and was low, i cleared to my mate on the left hand edge of the pen box and started sprinting up the pitch, man with the ball laid it up to our striker who was in the middle of the pitch near the halfway line, i continued running and just as I got to the halfway line the striker thread a lovely through ball to me, none of the defenders could keep up, got to the edge of their pen box with the ball, i could hear their defender chasing me, keeper came out, i slipped it past him into the bottom right hand corner, then ran to their corner flag, got on all fours, and did a dog piss on it (didnt actually piss on it btw)

 

[Houston_Blade]

Yeah, it will have been analysed to death (and the conclusions mean they do it for a reason), so I asked on Twitter and the experts pretty much confirmed this. Basically you run out of men, as expected...





Don't agree with this though - someone on the post easily sticks their right foot through this.

View attachment 104214

That dive from Ramsdale was similar to the shithouse dive that Henderson did last season at home (I think it was against Norwich). Absolutely pointless and slow motion!

 

[Trigger]

The problem is this season we are hardly winning any headers at corners, and when the keeper comes he’s not the most reliable at catching it. The ball went into the back of the net twice against Scumchester. Both would have been probably cleared if men had been on both posts.

 

[DaveBassettsgoneonholiday]

In the dim and dark days of playing in the Chesterfield Sunday League (Division 13) we generally kept both full backs on the posts at coners. One particular day the ball was semi cleared from a corner, most players were running out of our box but I was told to stay on my post by the skipper, also the other full back.
We stayed put, their centre forward was promptly put clean through but the ref blew for offside before he netted.
Some of us on the pitch found it more amusing than others.

 

[bakeblade]

Yeah, it will have been analysed to death (and the conclusions mean they do it for a reason), so I asked on Twitter and the experts pretty much confirmed this. Basically you run out of men, as expected...





Don't agree with this though - someone on the post easily sticks their right foot through this.

View attachment 104214

If Ramsdale had got his positioning better (more central, rather than stood next to Norwood), he might have saved it.

 

[SwissBlade]

If we could start winning the headers and clearing the ball we wouldn’t need to have anyone on the posts. I understand the front post being covered as the player can attack a front post corner.

If we started doing basics like following an opposition player when they inevitably move towards the ball and not acting surprised when it happens it should negate the need for a back post man.

I think this is the simple answer you’d get from Wilder. We have confidence that our defenders win more headers than they lose on corners. The odd free header will happen but our players should be so well drilled on which players/ zone they’re marking/ defending that a post man shouldn’t be required.

There’s probably some stats on how effective a post man is compared to having those 1-2 defenders in the mix affecting play.

 

[Trafford]

Yeah, it will have been analysed to death (and the conclusions mean they do it for a reason), so I asked on Twitter and the experts pretty much confirmed this. Basically you run out of men, as expected...

All that this says is that you run out of men if you have 2 zonal players, ie they aren’t marking anybody! Put them on the posts and even if the 1:1 marking fails there are people in the middle (GK) and both sides of the goal (defenders) to stop the ball going in the net.

In the reverse scenario, the 1:1 marking may still fail and then there is only the GK to cover the whole of the net.

 

[Yoonited]

I can see both arguments, but it is "tradition" to have both posts covered whenever I have played. If not, then might have been helpful to Rammers if he had been a little more to his left as it gave a large gap for Maguire to place his header. and his subsequent dive for the ball was more in hope than expectation.

I thought exactly the same,especially as he doesn't seem to have the best spring and doesn't take a step first before diving either way. Seems to dive in slow motion bless him.

 

[The Crab]

I thought exactly the same,especially as he doesn't seem to have the best spring and doesn't take a step first before diving either way. Seems to dive in slow motion bless him.

Yep, I felt maybe I was being a bit hyper critical as it was a good header, with power. I just think he'd have given himself a better chance, and maybe someone on the post gives Maguire a bit more to think about as he had quite a large margin of error with his header.

 

[Snowflake]

If Ramsdale had got his positioning better (more central, rather than stood next to Norwood), he might have saved it.

If he had stood next to his left hand post he would have saved it, but his original position was correct when you don’t know where it will go.
Don’t blame the keeper when there is a free header from a corner