4 hours ago, boltonboris said:

Yep. They have the same data and use it to the same way, which means the data is most likely correct and it should be take into consideration and used to make an informed decision on how many defenders to have back on a set-piece. They have almost universally agreed on it so why now, are we championing the opposite? I'm not sure if the argument is now against the use of data, or if we're still thinking we should take unnecessary risks by putting players on the half way line where the ball will never reach them

That pass from Olazabal to McAtee was longer than halfway from memory, and we could well have scored from it.

It happened because we were defending in open play, so we didn't have to defend with 11 men, we left someone up (obviously taking a huge risk that we would concede by not having 21 men crowding the box).

If it had been a corner, the attack can't happen, same as our 2nd goal. Its relatively easy to pass the ball 35 yards for someone on the halfway line to run onto. That Port Vale goal against us a few months ago, etc.

4 hours ago, Rival Son said:

The unit of measurement will not be time, it will be events (corners). And there are tens of thousands of them every season, upon which the analysis will be conducted.

I’m not privy to the data, as I’ve never worked in the industry. But I understand how the specialism and (just a little bit) the sport function.

It's the additional piece on how often goals are scored after the initial corner that masi is saying needs to be added for the benefit of packing the box and allowing uncontested second phase attacks.

1 minute is too long but I'd love to see the data overall that says "if you pack the box you reduce the chance of the opposition scoring off the first phase by x% but increase the chance of conceding over the next 20ish seconds from allowing another attack by y%"

I doubt that's been done. And even if it has, your point of there now being no alternative approach to compare to means we don't know whether packing the box is still the best way to defend against teams that have now adapted their attacks to also swamp the 6 yard box.

9 hours ago, Stig said:

It's the additional piece on how often goals are scored after the initial corner that masi is saying needs to be added for the benefit of packing the box and allowing uncontested second phase attacks.

1 minute is too long but I'd love to see the data overall that says "if you pack the box you reduce the chance of the opposition scoring off the first phase by x% but increase the chance of conceding over the next 20ish seconds from allowing another attack by y%"

I doubt that's been done. And even if it has, your point of there now being no alternative approach to compare to means we don't know whether packing the box is still the best way to defend against teams that have now adapted their attacks to also swamp the 6 yard box.

I think the point you are on about was my bug bear last season when we got a corner... All our defence went up for it. It would end up in the keepers hands and a long punt up field would either result in a clear chance for the opposition or we would clear it out for a throw in or corner and concede from the second phase.

11 minutes ago, masi 51 said:

I think the point you are on about was my bug bear last season when we got a corner... All our defence went up for it. It would end up in the keepers hands and a long punt up field would either result in a clear chance for the opposition or we would clear it out for a throw in or corner and concede from the second phase.

Exactly. And that won't be in the stats. Just that we didn't concede from the corner...

14 hours ago, Stig said:

It's the additional piece on how often goals are scored after the initial corner that masi is saying needs to be added for the benefit of packing the box and allowing uncontested second phase attacks.

1 minute is too long but I'd love to see the data overall that says "if you pack the box you reduce the chance of the opposition scoring off the first phase by x% but increase the chance of conceding over the next 20ish seconds from allowing another attack by y%"

I doubt that's been done. And even if it has, your point of there now being no alternative approach to compare to means we don't know whether packing the box is still the best way to defend against teams that have now adapted their attacks to also swamp the 6 yard box.

you reckon?

millions of pounds worth of equipment and analysis folk and nobody has thought to do something that a few folk on a forum have come up with

im calling bullshit, fwiw

4 hours ago, Casino said:

you reckon?

millions of pounds worth of equipment and analysis folk and nobody has thought to do something that a few folk on a forum have come up with

im calling bullshit, fwiw

There's far too many variables for this to be done accurately. If you're looking for something that tells you bringing every man back in the box is definitively the best tactic then you'll be waiting a long time.

Surely you know football goes through trends and cycles and what's being claimed to be the best tactic won't be in a few years.

5 hours ago, Stig said:

...what's being claimed to be the best tactic won't be in a few years.

Like shit defenders tippy tappying the ball across the front of their own box and playing 1-2's with the keeper?

What’s putting players on the half way line on corners got to do with injuries ffs