Full backs on both posts

[Yoonited]

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.

It's easy to feel hyper critical perhaps cos we are becoming used to his errors so expect them,if that makes sense.
I hope he fulfills his potential, seems a good lad and doesn't lack a bit of fire in his belly.
Whatever happens, as a team we will grow plenty this season I feel and be all the better for it long term.
Amazing how a win like t'other neet can put such a spring in thi step.

 

[bakeblade]

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

Surely the correct position is middle of the goal, I'm sure that's still the default position to save either side

 

[jt64]

Surely the correct position is middle of the goal, I'm sure that's still the default position to save either side

It's going to depend on where the opposition are positioned, isn't it? If he saw Harry and whatever other aerial threats they have all make near post runs, do you want him staying in the middle?

 

[Pedro Verde]

With regard to men on posts
I thought when Fernandes had that free kick we should have had a man on a post as he certainly wasnt going to cross it. There maybe a valid reason we didnt

 

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

One of my few contributions to the art of goalkeeping (with no stats to support it) was to insist that the defenders stood about 2-3 feet in from the post, so they could protect more of the goal. Why protect the area one foot wide of the goal?

 

[Silent Blade]

Champagneblade show us examples of PL clubs having players guarding the near and back posts?

 

[XM657]

One of my few contributions to the art of goalkeeping (with no stats to support it) was to insist that the defenders stood about 2-3 feet in from the post, so they could protect more of the goal. Why protect the area one foot wide of the goal?

Played full back and that's where we stood, looking to cover the 'keeper either if he dropped it or missed it and a header came in and also to protect your 'keeper when he had the ball.
In my day the attackers would and could shoulder charge a 'keeper with the ball in his hands and feet on the ground.
At corners once the 'keeper was stood on the ground with the ball we would be looking to get between him and any attacker who looked like having a go, so being on the posts was a good position for this protection.

 

[burncross blade]

played over 700 games ok amatuer level sat / sun . seemed simple to me ,your biggest player picked there biggest player up an d the rest matched up any spare defenders picked a post up . if your marker scored you got a bollocking because it was youre fault

 

[Karlos]

Champagneblade show us examples of PL clubs having players guarding the near and back posts?

Burnley v villa in the week.

Burnley do it regularly but not all of the time.dyche us a bit more old school than some of the other managers but I agree with him.
Some of this zonal marking is utter shit. 4 sometimes 5 players marking about 5 yards of space and there are men unmarked all over.
Talking of Burnley again , watch Ben Mee's last couple of goals (one of which is against us) and it shows how to attack corners against teams with zonal marking.

I just wish we would use corners and free kick as ideal opportunities to score.instead we sometimes fanny around a bit too much and the chance is gone.

 

[jt64]

With regard to men on posts
I thought when Fernandes had that free kick we should have had a man on a post as he certainly wasnt going to cross it. There maybe a valid reason we didnt

I'm not sure which free kick this was, but bear in mind that doing that plays the entirety of their team onside wherever they stand

 

[Pedro Verde]

I'm not sure which free kick this was, but bear in mind that doing that plays the entirety of their team onside wherever they stand

Yes realise that and thought that might the case why teams dont do that
I think occasionally it might be a risk worth taking with a player like Fernandes that is so good with free kicks around the box

 

[Champagneblade]

Another one last night which would have been kicked away by the fullback.

Happy to bow to those who have done extensive analysis but I also think there is an element of horse for courses depending on each team. Stats are looked at on an aggregate level but individual teams don't have an average of those stats they have specific unique components.

United don't have a lot of big headers in the team as such, given the chances of us winning those first headers is decreasing now we are minus Egan, as well as O'Connell and Berge and on team selection McBurnie, so surely having a Ben Osborn on your back post doesn't compromise your marking a great deal?

Not even on both posts. Keeper also take the front post but back post you have a man.

We've been poor from set pieces and corners so doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Insanity, right?

 

[Webding]

I noticed it too but didn’t even mention it on the pod last night, partially because I was thinking about pancakes, but mostly because the stats boys have refuted it.

I suppose the thinking is that the two free men (one on the front post, one attacking the ball) are more likely to deal with things than if you ‘waste’ one of them on the line. Not sure if these studies take into account our ineffectual aerial challenges though.

 

[Champagneblade]

I noticed it too but didn’t even mention it on the pod last night, partially because I was thinking about pancakes, but mostly because the stats boys have refuted it.

I suppose the thinking is that the two free men (one on the front post, one attacking the ball) are more likely to deal with things than if you ‘waste’ one of them on the line. Not sure if these studies take into account our ineffectual aerial challenges though.

I think you are right that the assumption is that you have an above average chance, as most defences seem to, of winning more of the defensive headers.

I wouldn't say that is the case with United and that in the world of all things being equal, we are the exception because we are so shite at winning those first balls.

At some point you have to accept those limitations and deal with them.

No Egan, no O'Connell, no Berge, not that the latter was that good at heading but he did provide height.

So let's assume you want 4-6 of your outfield players to be above 6 foot. West Ham, not a big side last night, had 4. Who do we have 183cm (and not injured):

Basham (1.90)
Bryan (1.85)
Stevens (1.83)
Rodwell (1.88)
Burke (1.88)
McBurnie (1.88)
Mousset (1.84)
McGoldrick (1.84)

The other defenders are down as being shorter - Ampadu (1.82), Jagielka (1.80)

Of those listed, Mousset seems to have fallen off a cliff, with Rodwell clinging to his ankles. I'd argue despite their height, both Basham and Stevens are pretty poor in those defensive corner situations and Stevens did nothing to retain his place last night.

So you're looking at Bryan as the only potential defender with height and heading capability potentially coming in somewhere to help with set pieces.

I do wonder if this now features in Chris' future selection thoughts. Does he need to look at the defence against Man U with Bryan at LWB to get some more height in the team for instance?

 

[Webding]

I think you are right that the assumption is that you have an above average chance, as most defences seem to, of winning more of the defensive headers.

I wouldn't say that is the case with United and that in the world of all things being equal, we are the exception because we are so shite at winning those first balls.

At some point you have to accept those limitations and deal with them.

No Egan, no O'Connell, no Berge, not that the latter was that good at heading but he did provide height.

So let's assume you want 4-6 of your outfield players to be above 6 foot. West Ham, not a big side last night, had 4. Who do we have 183cm (and not injured):

Basham (1.90)
Bryan (1.85)
Stevens (1.83)
Rodwell (1.88)
Burke (1.88)
McBurnie (1.88)
Mousset (1.84)
McGoldrick (1.84)

The other defenders are down as being shorter - Ampadu (1.82), Jagielka (1.80)

Of those listed, Mousset seems to have fallen off a cliff, with Rodwell clinging to his ankles. I'd argue despite their height, both Basham and Stevens are pretty poor in those defensive corner situations and Stevens did nothing to retain his place last night.

So you're looking at Bryan as the only potential defender with height and heading capability potentially coming in somewhere to help with set pieces.

I do wonder if this now features in Chris' future selection thoughts. Does he need to look at the defence against Man U with Bryan at LWB to get some more height in the team for instance?

Yeah, it’s a good point and maybe a reason he’s rushed Stevens back in. Bryan had been fine, and I’d bring him back now Egan is likely out. Ampadu has looked too weak lately.

 

[PokerBlade]

It depends on how deep you want to go with the analysis. Just at face value the fact that so few teams do it should be a hint that it's not as simple as just sticking a man on the post. I imagine all those professional managers and coaches with the statisticians at their disposal have had a good think about this and us armchair fans are likely to be the ones missing something.

It reminds of when people say you should leave a striker high up to stop the opposition bringing more players in the box. Ferguson stopped doing that years back because having a crowded box makes it harder for them to score but provided you have pace you're potentially an even bigger threat on the counter now they're more committed. Most teams followed suit.

But then the interesting thing about that to me is the caveat that you need players with pace. And I wonder how much of the decision to leave the posts free comes down to the expectation that your players will 1. mark properly, and 2. win their share of headers. When people talk about doing it at Sunday league level, maybe it makes sense because teams either don't have the tactical resources, players with the ability, or simply don't have the time to drill more complicated set ups.

Then the problem is it seems like last night's goal was another example of one of our defenders not being strong enough to even prevent a clear header. Ampadu gets bullied too easily. We routinely fail to block or track runners, and we lose far more than our share of aerial battles for a team with three centre halves. Could be this is a point where a back-to-basics approach would more effective than the absolute mess we're creating.

I guess the short version would be that Premier League coaches will have their reasons but maybe in our current situation it couldn't be much worse.

 

[Champagneblade]

Yeah, it’s a good point and maybe a reason he’s rushed Stevens back in. Bryan had been fine, and I’d bring him back now Egan is likely out. Ampadu has looked too weak lately.

I'd just assumed Enda has some incriminating photos of Wilder and that was why he was rushed back! It's certainly not on form as he's been terrible since lockdown.

But it got me thinking a little of the Clough team. Inadvertently he managed to fill the team with an absence of height and it became a regular talking point in interviews, something it seemed obvious he should have been aware of as he brought in Scougs, McNulty, Harris etc al to join other small playees like Jose Baxter.

 

[Webding]

On a brighter note, at least Wilder put a man on the back post at corners last night. I’m not sure it’s progress, but at least it’s something different.