I realise that there has been a shift in approach in recent years which has been driven by data supporting the view that fewer goals are conceded from corners when all 11 players are back. What that ignores (and is hard to measure) is whether the tactic makes it more likely that you concede from the next phase of play, or the one after that because you've allowed the opposition to put you under greater pressure than would otherwise happen if you left one or more players out. Or indeed whether there's a reduction in the likelihood that you create an opportunity yourself on the break. Either way the thing that winds me up the most is the blind application of the tactic regardless of the game situation. I can *almost* stomach having all of the players back for the first corner of the game when it's 0-0, but when you need a goal for a draw/win late in the game and still pull everyone back, you're going to attract criticism.
Is it that negative though? I seem to remember earlier on in the season Devante breaking from a corner and us countering like lighting. Don’t believe anyone was stood on the half way line
For me it was the quality of the cross that did for us, reight corner. Having said that we, should do better.
They were queuing up for it, any 1 of 3 players could’ve scored that. It’s the lack of a challenge that’s annoying
Somebody tell the coach before Saturday. 2 games left now, and this corner defending might be becoming a priority. The other sides seem to be scoring regularly from them now.
if all teams do what reading did there and pack the near post zone - if they get the ball in that area it effectively takes 8 of our players out of the game at that point. Its like blocking the keeper. Looks like an achillees heel of the zonal 11 men back tactic.