Topic: Defending Set Pieces

[dr.dracco]

Just seen this stat:

Skrtel's fault in Kompany's goal means he's now been directly at fault for 5 aerial goals, one every 284.2mins, the worst of any LFC CB.

putting that into context, nearly 25% of our goals conceded this season has came directly from Skrtel getting best in the air

Honestly it's not good enough, and the myth that Skrtel is 'a Hardman who eats nails for breakfast' needs to go away, I just can't comprehend why he's starting every game ahead of Toure or Agger

Name me those 5 aerial goals with direct culpa from Skrtel. I can not remember any bar the Kompany goal.

[PhaseOfPlay]

I haven't got the stats but have we now conceded more set pieces than we've scored? If we have then that's poor for a team who probably outnumbers the opposition 2 or 3 to 1 on average in terms of corner count and free kicks.

No. We've scored nearly twice as many as we've conceded on set pieces.

[mrantarctica]

Point 1 is a good one.

Point 2 about the narrow window... I don't know. We know that there are some people who can deliver good corners/free kicks quite consistently - Gerrard's been doing pretty well for us this season. It stands to reason that effective free kick takers will be tasked to take them more often than not.

I just feel really uncomfortable relying on poor delivery to justify that they aren't much of a threat. I'd imagine that good delivery can be trained quite easily, since it begins from a static position.

But we're not talking about training delivery mate! We're talking about how to improve our corner defending. If a corner is delivered poorly then they wont score now matter how badly you defend (short of conceding a penalty or putting it into your own net). If it's delivered well (which it rarely is because statistically not many corners end up as goals), then there's probably little you can train your defenders to do other than to contest, and have your keeper in the right place.

I think there's enough evidence to corroborate point 2. The fact that many corners are taking short and played deeper in order to get a better angle and pace on the delivery to me suggests that it's difficult to send in a ball from the corner compared to free kicks or crosses from open play, where there is inherently more variability to how you can deliver the ball. This variability generates a greater degree of uncertainty because the defenders have to prepare for more possible ways that the attacking team can score from such set pieces. In contrast, there's only really a small number of ways an attacking team can deliver a ball from the corner in order to effect a goal. There is less space and angle to work with, there are no offsides so defending teams can just pack the box (hence all the jostling and shoving), and there's less of a concern from a corner taker actually scoring themselves.

I'm not saying it's no risk. But I think the potential reward of lining your lads up and practising thousands of corners, which is time consuming, is probably not all that high. We'd have to look at some stats, but over the course of a season, how many goals from corners can be prevented from training (NB not simply better defending, players make mistakes all the time despite training every day) - I'd say probably maybe 2-3 goals. Could we use the time to work on things that would save more goals by better use of our midfield, better use of the ball, better passing and better finishing at the other end? I don't know for sure but I'm inclined to think so.

Also worth noting what training would actually constitute. Would it be corner specific tactics, or more generic skills that'll have spin offs elsewhere, like working on players jumping/spring, their balance, stability and flexibility in the air, ability to judge flight etc.

Set pieces, as I said, possibly different story.

[Red number seven]

I believe I answered your question, which PoP validated.

We considered that the dynamics of corner taking and free kick taking are really not similar except in a very rudimentary sense (I.e. The ball is swung in usually in the air and players get on the end of it to try and score or head away). This has two major consequences (which we didn't talk about)

1) the statistics of corner taking should be considered separately from free kicks (comparing apples with apples)

Yes, but if you're bad at defending both their may be some common reasons. I think we are poor at both, and there are (some) common reasons. We do not appear to be a side that has a clear idea of what it is meant to be doing for set plays, which is an issue for the coaches (who are otherwise doing really, really good things with the club)

2) there is an extremely narrow window for which corners can be considered goal threats (to do with angle, ball speed, swerve etc) which would effectively explain why they are a pretty low risk event with regard to conceding goals. It also means that if you simply stand around marking nobody, a significant proportion of the time the ball won't end up in the net. This is probably the threshold you're referring to and has more to do with how a corner is delivered rather than who marks who and whether you mark zonal or man vs man etc. If the delivery is good, then the chances of scoring are higher, but then how do you train your defenders to prevent good delivery from corners?

I accept the "low event rate" thing to an extent, but we have conceeded corners in 3 tight games, all of which have cost us points against sides near the top of the table, and went out fo the league cup because of another one. Lukaku's for Everton was simply a really good corner, really well attacked, (though arguably having Glen Johnson marking Lukaku is setting up to fail). The other three had elements of poor defending that can be addressed.


In my view, to defend corners you need to try to do a few things:
1. "Front Screen" well to ensure that it is really, really difficult to get good ball into the key area of the front half of the 6 yard box.
2. Ensure that the space where corners are generally scored (front half of six yard box) from is well defended.
3. Decide on how to mark the rest of the areas and/or players, practise it and stick to it.

We failed to do the first two against City and United. The Southampton one was a failure to mark (and there have been several "near misses" with failure to mark)


I make no secret of the fact that I rated Benitez and his methods very highly. Rodgers' approach is very, very different, and, to be fair, is reaping good results. He has us a far more free flowing, exciting and incisive team in an attacking capacity than Rafa did, but more drilling (I suspect) and rigid planning from the book of Rafa would not, in my opinion, be a bad thing for defending both corners and free kicks.

[BazC]

I'd like to see us defend by attack.

Get Suarez, Sterling, Coutinho, Henderson and Sturridge out the box ready to counter attack. Pace and power - let the opposition decide what gambles they want to take.

I wondered the other day if we were already doing this - setting up for them with an eye on being able to break from the corner.

It would be interesting to see how many breakaways we've had from an opposition corner/free kick delivery into the box, and how many goals we've scored from them relative to how many we concede from those situations.



Also, PoP, 33% of our goals coming from set pieces doesn't tell us we're average at defending set pieces (or above set pieces). It tells us how much of an impact to our goals conceded stat could have, given the number of set piece goals we concede relative to total goals conceded. The stat that shows us how good we are at defending set pieces would be the amount of shots we let through from them (ie, they've not been defended). Also, we don't seem good enough at getting the ball away - we may get the first touch, but it's not good enough and the ball's going back in the box. It's like the Everton goal, when Lukaku levels - just shoddy defending. I'm guessing that 33% fraction doesn't include those goals (and the Hull one as you mentioned)? I would include them as they're a result of not defending a set piece well enough.

If we could improve this in the 2nd half of the season, I think we'll turn a few losses to draws and draws to wins. Had we done it in the first half of the season (and with a week between games, you'd wonder why they're not working on such things, there's plenty of time in between match days...) we'd be sitting pretty on top of the table I'm sure.

[PhaseOfPlay]

I wondered the other day if we were already doing this - setting up for them with an eye on being able to break from the corner.

It would be interesting to see how many breakaways we've had from an opposition corner/free kick delivery into the box, and how many goals we've scored from them relative to how many we concede from those situations.



Also, PoP, 33% of our goals coming from set pieces doesn't tell us we're average at defending set pieces (or above set pieces). It tells us how much of an impact to our goals conceded stat could have, given the number of set piece goals we concede relative to total goals conceded. The stat that shows us how good we are at defending set pieces would be the amount of shots we let through from them (ie, they've not been defended). Also, we don't seem good enough at getting the ball away - we may get the first touch, but it's not good enough and the ball's going back in the box. It's like the Everton goal, when Lukaku levels - just shoddy defending. I'm guessing that 33% fraction doesn't include those goals (and the Hull one as you mentioned)? I would include them as they're a result of not defending a set piece well enough.

If we could improve this in the 2nd half of the season, I think we'll turn a few losses to draws and draws to wins. Had we done it in the first half of the season (and with a week between games, you'd wonder why they're not working on such things, there's plenty of time in between match days...) we'd be sitting pretty on top of the table I'm sure.

I didn't say the statistic showed we are average at set pieces. I said that we are conceding at an average or better than average rate.

[BazC]

I didn't say the statistic showed we are average at set pieces. I said that we are conceding at an average or better than average rate.

Sure - but I don't think it actually show that. It shows that the *proportion* of our goals conceded from set pieces is average or better than average.

We'd be conceding from an average or better than average rate if the absolute number of goals we conceded from set pieces was average/better than average, and this should be taken relative to the number of set pieces we give away. That would give you a better insight into how good we were at defending set pieces.

The proportion of total goals gives you an idea of how much of an impact it would have in the context of overall goals conceded. Another way to gauge impact would be to look at it anecdotally this season - where have we lost points, at the margin, because of set pieces? There've been a handful of games there too.

[PhaseOfPlay]

Sure - but I don't think it actually show that. It shows that the *proportion* of our goals conceded from set pieces is average or better than average.

We'd be conceding from an average or better than average rate if the absolute number of goals we conceded from set pieces was average/better than average, and this should be taken relative to the number of set pieces we give away. That would give you a better insight into how good we were at defending set pieces.

The proportion of total goals gives you an idea of how much of an impact it would have in the context of overall goals conceded. Another way to gauge impact would be to look at it anecdotally this season - where have we lost points, at the margin, because of set pieces? There've been a handful of games there too.

I don't think I used any statistics to make the statement that we are defending the set pieces well. In fact, I've said all along we are defending them very badly. I mentioned the statistic to show that we shouldn't be worrying about corners the way people are worrying about them, but that we're interestingly still within the margins of what would be deemed "acceptable" over the course of the season. I might be wrong, but I didn't once say "we are within the normal range of conceding set-piece goals, so that means we are good at defending set pieces"? I've been very clear and vocal from the beginning that we are tactically rank awful at defending free kicks. I separate them from corners, because good or bad defending, they just don't contribute enough goals to be overly worried about them.

[BazC]

Ah fair enough mate - I misread your points, apologies.

I do wonder why things are so bad for us at times. There's a lot of time before games to be able to spend some of it on sorting out the smaller niggly issues even, so I'd have thought it'd be something they were working on. Just don't understand why there's not been much improvement. Perhaps it's a systemic thing - change the whole way of doing it? I don't know. Mignolet also needs to come off his line more often to challenge that 1st ball. At the moment he doesn't do it at all - just seems to stand on the goal line waiting to save rather than being pro active and coming out to challenge it.

It is something that needs to be improved if we're going for a title tilt though. A decent amount of points dropped thus far due to shoddy set piece defending I think.

[PhaseOfPlay]

Ah fair enough mate - I misread your points, apologies.

I do wonder why things are so bad for us at times. There's a lot of time before games to be able to spend some of it on sorting out the smaller niggly issues even, so I'd have thought it'd be something they were working on. Just don't understand why there's not been much improvement. Perhaps it's a systemic thing - change the whole way of doing it? I don't know. Mignolet also needs to come off his line more often to challenge that 1st ball. At the moment he doesn't do it at all - just seems to stand on the goal line waiting to save rather than being pro active and coming out to challenge it.

It is something that needs to be improved if we're going for a title tilt though. A decent amount of points dropped thus far due to shoddy set piece defending I think.

As has been mentioned above a few times by other posters - it could be as simple as Rodgers not really wanting to spend time on it, given the complexity of our attacking play. It needs repetitions, and maybe he's hoping we'll get those in the game, such that by the end of the season we will have a pattern set just from playing games. This is a risky approach of course, because you're learning on the job and making costly mistakes. Or he could just be one of those coaches who doesn't really care for the mind-numbing stop-start nature of set-piece tactical training, which is essentially a lot of standing around. He also uses a lot of small group training, so the team is only ever together in large enough units in the 15 minute 10v9 training game at the end. So he probably doesn't have much room for it in his methodology. Which is a shame.

[steveeastend]

Skrtel, Agger and Sakho definitely have proved to be able to perform on the very highest level, Skrtel f.e. played in those games when we beat Real 5:0, was a regular in a lot of games under Rafa and, just as Agger, played substantial number of international games for his country.

We have the right players, we just need a little bit more patience as the tactics can only be adopted step by step and I think there were way more important things to take care of first.

I think defending set pieces to be Rodgers achilles heel although the importance of this issue is totally blown out of proportion around here. We were good in this respect under Kenny and what did it help? Considering our position in the table, Rodgers got this one right again..

[jepovic]

I think we have improved on defending set pieces. Kompany's goal was very well done by him, much more so than a mistake by Skrtel.

The problem now is that we are a very short team. We have recently swapped Gerrard - Allen and Sturridge-Sterling, which made things even worse than before in this respect.  We only have two good aerial defenders.

[conman]

As has been mentioned above a few times by other posters - it could be as simple as Rodgers not really wanting to spend time on it, given the complexity of our attacking play. It needs repetitions, and maybe he's hoping we'll get those in the game, such that by the end of the season we will have a pattern set just from playing games. This is a risky approach of course, because you're learning on the job and making costly mistakes. Or he could just be one of those coaches who doesn't really care for the mind-numbing stop-start nature of set-piece tactical training, which is essentially a lot of standing around. He also uses a lot of small group training, so the team is only ever together in large enough units in the 15 minute 10v9 training game at the end. So he probably doesn't have much room for it in his methodology. Which is a shame.

surely he has an eye on these stats like ourselves, so it should be painfully obvious to Brendan and the coaching staff that it needs addressing.

It's quite baffling that he doesn't seem to have addressed it yet, considering the points it's costing us.

It's comparable to carrying a bucket of water with a hole in it, you don't have to be a blacksmith to attempt to repair it.

[PhaseOfPlay]

surely he has an eye on these stats like ourselves, so it should be painfully obvious to Brendan and the coaching staff that it needs addressing.

It's quite baffling that he doesn't seem to have addressed it yet, considering the points it's costing us.

It's comparable to carrying a bucket of water with a hole in it, you don't have to be a blacksmith to attempt to repair it.

It's not really. It's more like carrying a bucket of water, while spinning plates, on your way to a place with a big well, while balancing an expensive vase on your head. At some point you have to look at what takes priority - the plate spinning, the balancing act, or the bucket of water. You might get to a point where the plates are spinning themselves, and the plate is attached to your head through grime and sweat - at that point the bucket can be dealt with. Otherwise, you're always looking to what takes precedence. At this point in the season, perhaps Rodgers doesn't feel comfortable stepping away from the attacking work to deal with something that is an issue, but is far outweighed by the events of the rest of the game.

[Red Bird]

Skrtel, Agger and Sakho definitely have proved to be able to perform on the very highest level, Skrtel f.e. played in those games when we beat Real 5:0, was a regular in a lot of games under Rafa and, just as Agger, played substantial number of international games for his country.

We have the right players, we just need a little bit more patience as the tactics can only be adopted step by step and I think there were way more important things to take care of first.

I think defending set pieces to be Rodgers achilles heel although the importance of this issue is totally blown out of proportion around here. We were good in this respect under Kenny and what did it help? Considering our position in the table, Rodgers got this one right again..

I think this point is under so much scrutiny as it's largely why we have lost points this season.

[Dave D]

I wouldn't get too worked up over it lads. There's a reason why we, a bunch of nobodies, are posting on an internet forum and Brendan is managing a premier league team.

[PhaseOfPlay]

I wouldn't get too worked up over it lads. There's a reason why we, a bunch of nobodies, are posting on an internet forum and Brendan is managing a premier league team.

Yep - Brendan forgot his password

[Red number seven]

As has been mentioned above a few times by other posters - it could be as simple as Rodgers not really wanting to spend time on it, given the complexity of our attacking play. It needs repetitions, and maybe he's hoping we'll get those in the game, such that by the end of the season we will have a pattern set just from playing games. This is a risky approach of course, because you're learning on the job and making costly mistakes. Or he could just be one of those coaches who doesn't really care for the mind-numbing stop-start nature of set-piece tactical training, which is essentially a lot of standing around. He also uses a lot of small group training, so the team is only ever together in large enough units in the 15 minute 10v9 training game at the end. So he probably doesn't have much room for it in his methodology. Which is a shame.

Really interesting that, in your opinion, it may be the case that Rodgers doesn't bother with defending set pieces because, essentially, he has bigger fish to fry in terms of training. That seems fair enough, especially given the explanation of the "low event rate" of goals from corners (although I have a slight issue with that as I think that goals from corners are more likely to be critical in tight games vs high quality opposition). Essentially, you are suggesting there is an opportunity cost to practising defending corners, which is practising something else, in this case our attacking interchanges

But is there? If Andy Murray was shit at, say, overhead volleys, would he not practise them because there are more points to be won with other shots? Or would he practise more and practise both until he gets both of them as good as he can? Serious question, as it may well be that tennis players concentrate more on the shots statistically more likely to win them points.

One obvious solution for LFC would be an extra period of training. Obviously, given that defending set pieces is all about drilling and repetition, this would need to be very regular, though not necessarily, I think, for very long.

What do you think is the downside? Information overload? Physical overload? Or could it be the risk of contaminating the philosophy of "educating" rather than drilling players?

[Red Bird]

Really interesting that, in your opinion, it may be the case that Rodgers doesn't bother with defending set pieces because, essentially, he has bigger fish to fry in terms of training. That seems fair enough, especially given the explanation of the "low event rate" of goals from corners (although I have a slight issue with that as I think that goals from corners are more likely to be critical in tight games vs high quality opposition). Essentially, you are suggesting there is an opportunity cost to practising defending corners, which is practising something else, in this case our attacking interchanges

But is there? If Andy Murray was shit at, say, overhead volleys, would he not practise them because there are more points to be won with other shots? Or would he practise more and practise both until he gets both of them as good as he can? Serious question, as it may well be that tennis players concentrate more on the shots statistically more likely to win them points.

One obvious solution for LFC would be an extra period of training. Obviously, given that defending set pieces is all about drilling and repetition, this would need to be very regular, though not necessarily, I think, for very long.

What do you think is the downside? Information overload? Physical overload? Or could it be the risk of contaminating the philosophy of "educating" rather than drilling players?

He is sh!t at the  overhead smash and he doesn't seem to have addressed it. Could be the same with us at set-pieces.

[Red number seven]

He is sh!t at the  overhead smash and he doesn't seem to have addressed it. Could be the same with us at set-pieces.

Would be interesting to know if he just "accepts" he is shit at a particular shot, and works more on what he is good at, or works on both, but just doesn't improve massively. My point is is it not possible to do more practice (ie practice both elements), or is there an element of diminishing returns and physical/information overload that prevents us practising both our attacking play and our set piece defending.

[PhaseOfPlay]

Really interesting that, in your opinion, it may be the case that Rodgers doesn't bother with defending set pieces because, essentially, he has bigger fish to fry in terms of training. That seems fair enough, especially given the explanation of the "low event rate" of goals from corners (although I have a slight issue with that as I think that goals from corners are more likely to be critical in tight games vs high quality opposition). Essentially, you are suggesting there is an opportunity cost to practising defending corners, which is practising something else, in this case our attacking interchanges

But is there? If Andy Murray was shit at, say, overhead volleys, would he not practise them because there are more points to be won with other shots? Or would he practise more and practise both until he gets both of them as good as he can? Serious question, as it may well be that tennis players concentrate more on the shots statistically more likely to win them points.

One obvious solution for LFC would be an extra period of training. Obviously, given that defending set pieces is all about drilling and repetition, this would need to be very regular, though not necessarily, I think, for very long.

What do you think is the downside? Information overload? Physical overload? Or could it be the risk of contaminating the philosophy of "educating" rather than drilling players?

You can't compare tennis to Football. Different types of skill, different environments. Tennis lends itself to repetition, because it is a closed-skill sport. Football is an open-skill sport, with more variables, so it's not really the same thing. The closes comparison wouldn't be "working on set-pieces because it's a weakness", but "working on passing with the same quality with the left foot as the right foot", or "working on headers to compliment ground passing".

As for the opportunity cost - there is a physical component to it, because there is a lot of standing around - so you're working exclusively on generating short bursts of power, which requires slightly longer recovery. Without the recovery, you are increasing the risk of injury. In order to reduce the boredom of the players, then, you would need to have many repetitions in a shorter space of time - which, as mentioned, increases the risk of injury again. So you have to put that up against working with the ball in a fluid environment (small sided games). Small sided wins out. Then to add an extra session onto what you've already done, you are again looking at the physical impact. Extra work means less compensation and adaptation, so you're losing rest hours for something that you, as a coach/manager, might not see as the highest priority. So your players accumulate fatigue quicker. So the opportunity cost of NOT doing them, is that you get more rest, recovery, and fitness adaptation. Additionally, working on set-pieces follows the same training principle of reversibility that everything else follows - so you'd have to tweak/refresh it now and again to keep it sharp - which means cutting something else out. Or, alternatively, every time you work on set-pieces, you're losing repetitions of the main thing you want to work on - in Rodgers' case, possession and mobility and technique at speed. These are the hardest things to get right, and so need the most work. So it really is all opportunity cost. I don't necessarily agree with that, as I think you CAN use certain periods of the season to use set-piece training as the main body of the session (certainly, this period with an intense schedule lends itself well to that); but I suspect that Rodgers looks at the time it takes to work on set-pieces, the time it takes to master the possession game with the players he has, and decides to focus on what will get him the most return.

[Eeyore]

A couple of things from Rafa's sight that back up what PoP says.





If you want to be really good at set plays then you have to put the hard work in on the training pitch.

A link to the site http://www.rafabenitez.com/web/in/blog/the-truth-about-marking-set-pieces/32/pag/1/

[OldBloke]

Statistics don't matter much. Simple fact is that if we concede a free kick say 20 yards out close to the touch line I EXPECT us to concede a goal! We are just useless at defending those free kicks where everyone charges in. So bad in fact I'd rather see us just put eight men on the line. It couldn't have a worse result!

[Red number seven]

As for the opportunity cost - there is a physical component to it, because there is a lot of standing around - so you're working exclusively on generating short bursts of power, which requires slightly longer recovery. Without the recovery, you are increasing the risk of injury. In order to reduce the boredom of the players, then, you would need to have many repetitions in a shorter space of time - which, as mentioned, increases the risk of injury again. So you have to put that up against working with the ball in a fluid environment (small sided games). Small sided wins out. Then to add an extra session onto what you've already done, you are again looking at the physical impact. Extra work means less compensation and adaptation, so you're losing rest hours for something that you, as a coach/manager, might not see as the highest priority. So your players accumulate fatigue quicker. So the opportunity cost of NOT doing them, is that you get more rest, recovery, and fitness adaptation. Additionally, working on set-pieces follows the same training principle of reversibility that everything else follows - so you'd have to tweak/refresh it now and again to keep it sharp - which means cutting something else out. Or, alternatively, every time you work on set-pieces, you're losing repetitions of the main thing you want to work on - in Rodgers' case, possession and mobility and technique at speed. These are the hardest things to get right, and so need the most work. So it really is all opportunity cost. I don't necessarily agree with that, as I think you CAN use certain periods of the season to use set-piece training as the main body of the session (certainly, this period with an intense schedule lends itself well to that); but I suspect that Rodgers looks at the time it takes to work on set-pieces, the time it takes to master the possession game with the players he has, and decides to focus on what will get him the most return.

Interesting. Makes sense.

I presume then that, as the side evolves and the aspects Rodgers currently concentrates on become excellent, and the players are essentially self educating on attacking patterns etc, then conceeding goals from free kicks and corners may become more of an issue and a priority for training. In the interim, whenever we conceed from a corner, we all just have to sit there and say "that's the price we pay for playing the attacking football we do!"

[Trendisnotdestiny]

nah mate, ta, you've been doing this recently. First of all pulling an "I know better" (probably true but I'm really not interested without you making the argument). And then a just splendidly patronising "do you want to guess... ?" with a "I'll give you a little clue lad" for some extra condescension added on. No, I sodding don't. I'm not interested in playing guessing games with you. It was a shite result that I still feel bad about, I've an exceedingly long day with the inlaws, and I don't come on here to be talked down to.

And also, you don't bother actually taking on any of the substantive bits of my post—just dismissive.

This is what is infuriating.  PoP is about as knowledgeable a resource for football analysis as you will find online.  Yet, your sensibilities are triggered because you have much less knowledge.  PoP is not someone to get in your face, but will challenge ignorance and error.  I appreciate this in RAWK, as I would like to learn more about the club I love.  When you stop learning from those who have more information, like our friend Brendan Rodgers did at Chelsea, you stop growing.   

Lastly, for the amount of time, energy and patience PoP shows, you might thank him rather than be combative.  While PoP is more than capable of defending himself and probably already has, it is very tiresome to see some of the replies PoP gets.   He is a cut of grass higher than most.

[PhaseOfPlay]

Interesting. Makes sense.

I presume then that, as the side evolves and the aspects Rodgers currently concentrates on become excellent, and the players are essentially self educating on attacking patterns etc, then conceeding goals from free kicks and corners may become more of an issue and a priority for training. In the interim, whenever we conceed from a corner, we all just have to sit there and say "that's the price we pay for playing the attacking football we do!"

Almost certainly, that will be the case. It's about prioritising, and I think that's what Rodgers is doing right now. We've had a sharp upward turn in our attacking play, and he's probably prepared to wing it on set-pieces for now, in order to get close to perfection in open play, because once the players have that in their system, it almost becomes self-governing.

[PhaseOfPlay]

This is what is infuriating.  PoP is about as knowledgeable a resource for football analysis as you will find online.  Yet, your sensibilities are triggered because you have much less knowledge.  PoP is not someone to get in your face, but will challenge ignorance and error.  I appreciate this in RAWK, as I would like to learn more about the club I love.  When you stop learning from those who have more information, like our friend Brendan Rodgers did at Chelsea, you stop growing.   

Lastly, for the amount of time, energy and patience PoP shows, you might thank him rather than be combative.  While PoP is more than capable of defending himself and probably already has, it is very tiresome to see some of the replies PoP gets.   He is a cut of grass higher than most.

Thanks for that, but I'm only 5'5"

[Trendisnotdestiny]

2nd Division in Germany or a reserve team or something. Think it's more of a Fifa tactic imo.

Skrtel is pathetic with set-pieces. Needs addressing. End of.

Skrtel is not pathetic with set-pieces.  This is a systemic issue that covers everyone from Gerrard, Johnson, Cissokho, Agger et al.
As many here have spent time and energy explaining, improvement in this area takes time on the practice pitch to implement for long term success.  What we know about Rogers' work patterns is that he may be more apt to privilege offensive-pattern play and small group training as a part of the tika-taka style (PoP, 2013).   Picking out one member of defense to malign or assign the black sheep label is unproductive, and inaccurate.   This is an area where the system, approach and organization falls upon the coaching staff first and individual players last.  The best example I could give you is looking at how the German National Team organizes their restarts.  Repetition breeds success.

[Trendisnotdestiny]

Thanks for that, but I'm only 5'5"

Feeling a bit chippy today and needed to get stuck in.  I'm 5'6" mate, dynamite comes in small packages 

[Hollywood Balls]

I suspect the issue is simply that brendan has been concentrating training time on getting our attacking up to speed; now that we have identified set pieces as a problem I'm sure we will be working hard to address them - of course something else will emerge as an issue in a few weeks time and so the cycle will go on.

I don't have the statistics but as far as I remember Swansea, for a newly promoted club, didn't have a particular problem with defending setpieces.

Also I'm not sure why Skrtel is getting flak for playing a bit dirty - the fact is he's getting away with it (from the officials) - it's as though he has been conceding penalties hand-over-fist. Carra didn't seem to get the same abuse - it's a skill in itself.

[BazC]

You can't compare tennis to Football. Different types of skill, different environments. Tennis lends itself to repetition, because it is a closed-skill sport. Football is an open-skill sport, with more variables, so it's not really the same thing. The closes comparison wouldn't be "working on set-pieces because it's a weakness", but "working on passing with the same quality with the left foot as the right foot", or "working on headers to compliment ground passing".

As for the opportunity cost - there is a physical component to it, because there is a lot of standing around - so you're working exclusively on generating short bursts of power, which requires slightly longer recovery. Without the recovery, you are increasing the risk of injury. In order to reduce the boredom of the players, then, you would need to have many repetitions in a shorter space of time - which, as mentioned, increases the risk of injury again. So you have to put that up against working with the ball in a fluid environment (small sided games). Small sided wins out. Then to add an extra session onto what you've already done, you are again looking at the physical impact. Extra work means less compensation and adaptation, so you're losing rest hours for something that you, as a coach/manager, might not see as the highest priority. So your players accumulate fatigue quicker. So the opportunity cost of NOT doing them, is that you get more rest, recovery, and fitness adaptation. Additionally, working on set-pieces follows the same training principle of reversibility that everything else follows - so you'd have to tweak/refresh it now and again to keep it sharp - which means cutting something else out. Or, alternatively, every time you work on set-pieces, you're losing repetitions of the main thing you want to work on - in Rodgers' case, possession and mobility and technique at speed. These are the hardest things to get right, and so need the most work. So it really is all opportunity cost. I don't necessarily agree with that, as I think you CAN use certain periods of the season to use set-piece training as the main body of the session (certainly, this period with an intense schedule lends itself well to that); but I suspect that Rodgers looks at the time it takes to work on set-pieces, the time it takes to master the possession game with the players he has, and decides to focus on what will get him the most return.

Interesting stuff- thanks.

That makes complete sense - and we can clearly see this season how the team's passing and movement is reaping rewards. Some of the football we've played looks telepathic, and that's not going to be by accident. The move that led to Coutinho's goal, the one that led to Coutinho's miss, the Spurs game, the Cardiff game... so many examples of quality attacking football.

And I guess some may wonder why they can't just stick an extra half an hour on the end of a session/in the middle of one (as I have), but then I guess the thinking there may be that the players get too much thrown at them in terms of focus points?

The good thing is this season, there's a lot of time between games to work on such stuff. So hopefully there'll be time to really nail a few big points, and Rodgers gets the chance to properly implement this style this season.

[Not A Scouser]

The most effective way to defend set pieces is to have as few set pieces to defend as possible. The second best method of defending set pieces is to have the fouls committed to be as far from our own goal as possible.

I would be interested to see how many fouls we give away in dangerous areas compared to other teams.  Give away half as many fouls in dangerous areas and you can be twice as bad at defending set pieces without giving up more goals.  At this point it should be obvious that I'm not actually interested for me to find this data from scratch.

I have noticed that starting with the Spurs game we have started actually pressing the ball (3/4 press, starting around the half-way line) which I imagine to be a far more complicated technical defensive skill.  With pressing you defend far enough out to mitigate the danger of set pieces and have a better base from which to attack.  The way to break a press is with the long ball, but that plays into the strengths of Sakho and Skrtel.

Given a limited amount of practice time I would prefer every minute be given to pressing rather than set pieces, partly because pressing actually helps set piece defending by reducing thedifficult set pieces you have to defend.

[PhaseOfPlay]

The most effective way to defend set pieces is to have as few set pieces to defend as possible. The second best method of defending set pieces is to have the fouls committed to be as far from our own goal as possible.

I would be interested to see how many fouls we give away in dangerous areas compared to other teams.  Give away half as many fouls in dangerous areas and you can be twice as bad at defending set pieces without giving up more goals.  At this point it should be obvious that I'm not actually interested for me to find this data from scratch.

I have noticed that starting with the Spurs game we have started actually pressing the ball (3/4 press, starting around the half-way line) which I imagine to be a far more complicated technical defensive skill.  With pressing you defend far enough out to mitigate the danger of set pieces and have a better base from which to attack.  The way to break a press is with the long ball, but that plays into the strengths of Sakho and Skrtel.

Given a limited amount of practice time I would prefer every minute be given to pressing rather than set pieces, partly because pressing actually helps set piece defending by reducing thedifficult set pieces you have to defend.

Excellent post, with a lot of truths in it.

[Eeyore]

Almost certainly, that will be the case. It's about prioritising, and I think that's what Rodgers is doing right now. We've had a sharp upward turn in our attacking play, and he's probably prepared to wing it on set-pieces for now, in order to get close to perfection in open play, because once the players have that in their system, it almost becomes self-governing.

Makes sense PoP. The thing I don't get is why Rodgers has changed from largely zonal last season to largely man to man this season or would that be down to what Mignolet felt more comfortable with.

[bepoq]

Feeling a bit chippy today and needed to get stuck in.  I'm 5'6" mate, dynamite comes in small packages 

you've got the wrong end of the stick (of dynamite) there mate. I'm only 5' 6" too, so there.

Anyway, I suspect you didn't read the rest—I value POP's view as much as anyone actually—I've said it in this thread and I've said it before in another. My sensibilities were not triggered because I know less (as I afterward pointed out, I acknowledge that I know considerably less, and I'm happy in this instance and in general to know less and learn), my sensibilities were triggered because he wasn't guiding at all, he was engaging in the rather less useful and condescending pedagogical gambit of I'm-thinking-of-something—can-you-guess-what-it-is? and I didn't have the patience for it. I spend a lot of time studying and considering pedagogy, and while the socratic method is great—it is "guidance" by leading question—this was not that. My earlier interaction with POP involved no guidance.  "You're wrong, can you guess why" involves almost guidance whatsoever, certainly nothing Plato would recognise as that. Now, I imagine it might be sometimes frustrating to be in the role of guide all the time, and particularly when one is not in top form after a tough loss I'm sure it would have tried Socrates himself's patience, and I also reckon that it is also a difficult line to walk on here in any case, so I'm cool with it, but if I'm in a poor mood after a tough loss myself and come on here to do some reading and make the odd post and get that sort of condescending response, I'm afraid I'm well too weak an individual to put up with it, and he's likely to hear about it.

Having said that, and it seems clear that POP has decided to deal with it by not responding directly to my posts regarding it or the initial issue (which is fine), I've nevertheless managed to pull out of his post above that the key point is is that he thinks we're still in a not good, but acceptable rate of return on conceding corners, such that Brendan shouldn't be turning his attention away from other more immediately useful facets of play (or at least that that is the way Brendan himself probably sees it). I'd still quite like to know if there is a drop off on the general efficacy of corner statistic anyway and we're just still above it. The other thing I'd wonder about, seeing that even when we don't concede, we often don't seem to clear very effectively and appear panicked and struggling, is if our weakness in defending them contributes to a ratcheting up of pressure on our goal, and maybe a difficulty in reestablishing our positions up the pitch, where we seem, recently anway, to be most effective.

[bepoq]

Given a limited amount of practice time I would prefer every minute be given to pressing rather than set pieces, partly because pressing actually helps set piece defending by reducing the difficult set pieces you have to defend.

Aye, I think this, with the rest of its accompanying post is the way of it—and our condition further up the pitch has been fantastic recently and getting it solidified is worth a fair few poor corner concessions, irritating and damaging though they might be.

[PhaseOfPlay]

Makes sense PoP. The thing I don't get is why Rodgers has changed from largely zonal last season to largely man to man this season or would that be down to what Mignolet felt more comfortable with.

Could be. Maybe they're working on Mignolet coming out more for the ball - or just holding off on that part of his game and working to his strengths for now until pre-season for next year?

[Redeo]

Just seen this stat:

Skrtel's fault in Kompany's goal means he's now been directly at fault for 5 aerial goals, one every 284.2mins, the worst of any LFC CB.

putting that into context, nearly 25% of our goals conceded this season has came directly from Skrtel getting best in the air

Honestly it's not good enough, and the myth that Skrtel is 'a Hardman who eats nails for breakfast' needs to go away, I just can't comprehend why he's starting every game ahead of Toure or Agger

One should say, in Skrtel's defence, that he assumes most of the responsibility when defending free kicks by, for example, defending main aerial threats such as Kompany. And there is probably a good reason for that which is evident to Rodgers from the training ground. If the team collectively struggles with defending set pieces, or even if they are not practiced much, it is somewhat unfair to lay most or all of the blame on the one person who steps up to take the brunt of the responsibility.

[bepoq]

Could be. Maybe they're working on Mignolet coming out more for the ball - or just holding off on that part of his game and working to his strengths for now until pre-season for next year?

What's the thinking on that in general—the goalie coming for crosses business? It obviously isn't a well developed part of Mig's game—is it thought to be something reasonable to work around and mitigate in the long term if it isn't your goalie's strength, or is it thought to be an absolutely necessary part of his game that must be developed if it isn't there? i.e. can you think you have a great goalie if he doesn't have that?

[Eeyore]

Could be. Maybe they're working on Mignolet coming out more for the ball - or just holding off on that part of his game and working to his strengths for now until pre-season for next year?

Makes sense PoP let's hope Belgium don't go too far in the World Cup .