*SPECULATION* Oguchi Onyewu

[Ian Royal]

7 out of Stoke's first 13 goals last season came from long throws

I don't give a flying oxf*rd what Stoke do. We aren't Stoke.

[Snowball]

Corners are hardly goal magnets and long throws are a shit version of corners. .

Point is, MAESTRO, that you were wrong.

Again.

[SydenhamRoyal]

Corners are hardly goal magnets and long throws are a shit version of corners. .

Point is, MAESTRO, that you were wrong.

Again.

Useful stats on this, that I had have thought Snowball would have known. These stats suggest that every corner leads, on average, to about .02 goals. Or, another way, a goal is scored for every 50 corners. Throw-ins leading directly to shots which end up as goals are certainly even less. This might tend to back up the statement that corners are hardly goal magnets, and that long throws are a shit version of corners.

[Ian Royal]

Yeah, that's particularly funny, because I remember a massive spazzfest from snowy about how we shouldn't play for corners because they're a terrible way to try to score a goal. Completely ignoring, that we had, iirc, quite a good record compared to the average, because it was clearly something we focussed a lot in training.

Which is precisely the reason why I hate long throws. Because they're the last resort of the tediously desperate. And for them to be effective, you have to set your team up specifically to be good at them and spend hours and hours on the training ground perfecting the throws and your routines around them. Which the vast majority of clubs aren't going to do. And unless you do it, it's a complete waste of oxf*rd time. And you could be spending the time faaaaaaaaaar more productively on something else. Like corners. Or passing. Or penalties. Or crossing. They're no better, if not worse, than "throwing it in the mixer" from your goalkeeper.

Especially seeing as if not most, then a whole lot of the 'long throw specialists' out there, are just players who can throw the ball far enough it goes into the box. Which is like saying that anyone can take a corner as long as they can kick the ball far enough to reach the six yard box.

Shit. Shit. Shit.

[Snowball]

The argument is about whether the long throw is effective or not.

Despite Ian Royal's bluster, the long throw is far more effective than the corner as a quick perusal of

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rory_Delap


Shows

[stealthpapes]

The argument is about whether the long throw is effective or not.

Despite Ian Royal's bluster, the long throw is far more effective than the corner as a quick perusal of

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rory_Delap


Shows

One player. One team. And, incidentally, a team that is set up to its strengths around set pieces and the throw in skills of Delap there.

Now there is an argument that a team should develop the strengths of its main throw-in taker (field sports would provide a lot of possible drills). Its not a case of just landing it in the box. If you look at Delap's technique, its a flatter trajectory and basically becomes a second type of corner albeit one that's much more common.

But you're not making it.

[paddy20]

Corners are hardly goal magnets and long throws are a shit version of corners. They're almost without exception unremittingly shit. They've been of oxf*rd all benefit to Reading whenever we've had someone who was allegedly a long throw specialist. They're even shitter than short corners. Which I also hate with a oxf*rd passion.

Only 1 in 10 corners result in an attempt at goal. Of those only 1 in 9 result in a goal. Goals are oftern given away at the other end as the big defenders are in the wrong box

[Elm Park Pasty]

The argument is about whether the long throw is effective or not.

Despite Ian Royal's bluster, the long throw is far more effective than the corner as a quick perusal of

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rory_Delap


Shows

Ok now I am gonna sound a like a bit of a saddo but here goes..... I can remember someone analysing why Delap's throw was so effective compared to others (some of which is mentioned in the Wiki note). They found that other long throw exponents would loop the ball up (as per a corner) which allowed the defender/goalkeeper to trace the trajectory of the ball and then attack the ball in such a manner so the ball could be headed or punched away from the penalty area or caught. What was so important about the low trajectory mentioned that Delap employs is that while it is hard for the defender/goalkeeper to call the trajectory (and especially catch it), any attempt to head or punch the ball usually fired the ball upwards into the air above the penalty area. The vertically dropping ball is very hard for the defender to head away, and if the goalkeeper punches the ball, it is not always possible to be in position to make a catch as the ball comes back down. All of this, of course, gives the attacking team more opportunity to make something happen in the box. I am not going to say Delap is a freak, but if someone really wants to make a long throw a weapon then they need to see what he did and start practising from a very early age.

[Nameless]

was Delap's throw effective because Stoke had 10 massive players who could outfight almost any opposition, who hadn't selected a side with the idea of defending long throws ? Almost inevitable that Delap would look more successful because more than any other team Stoke built their game round it.

Have to say I agree to some extent with Ian about long throws, although for different reasons. if you are effective using them you change your game so that rather than playing to score goals you play to win corners. I recall Stoke used to quite obviously be looking to win throws anywhere in their opponents half in order to bring Delap into play. It's legal, but it's a horrible way to play the game and in my mind as bad as sides who constantly look to manufacture penalties.

[stealthpapes]

There's also that.

I read somewhere that Stoke essentially played a twisted possession game, recognising that if the ball was out of play or bouncing around the opposition box, they couldn't concede. So they went out of their way to put the ball out of play in areas that couldn't damage them and to maximise their own set pieces.

So, yes, we could play like that. But I wouldn't want to be around in the season where we're learning how to play like that.

[stealthpapes]

If ever someone says Moneyball doesn't work in football, then Stoke in their earlier seasons are the counter-argument. Taking the Gladwell argument that underdogs win by changing the rules of the game and combining it with seeing unrealised truths in football (and Pulis couldn't have guessed at that), its fairly compelling.

[YateleyRoyal]

You guys seem to have taken the argument of 'dat man frows da ball gud' and made it something much more than it needs to be.

[stealthpapes]

You guys seem to have taken the argument of 'dat man frows da ball gud' and made it something much more than it needs to be.

or you're stupid.

One of the two.

[YateleyRoyal]

You guys seem to have taken the argument of 'dat man frows da ball gud' and made it something much more than it needs to be.

or you're stupid.

One of the two.

At what point did I indicate stupidity. I understood all of what was said above perfectly well. The point still stands, you lot have made a big deal about how a former player of a team completely unrelated to ours used to be able to throw the ball well.

[Ian Royal]

The argument is about whether the long throw is effective or not.

Despite Ian Royal's bluster, the long throw is far more effective than the corner as a quick perusal of

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rory_Delap


Shows

Comprehension fail

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

Why does it have to go straight into the box. Cant he offside from a throw in, so a quick throw from inside our half by the right bck could be an option.

[Nameless]

At what point did I indicate stupidity. I understood all of what was said above perfectly well. The point still stands, you lot have made a big deal about how a former player of a team completely unrelated to ours used to be able to throw the ball well.

That's how discussions work, someone makes a comment, someone adds their thoughts and inside a few minutes you're heading off in a tangent.
Would be dull if every thread had to keep to strict parameters of relevance.

Presumably you have no views on long throws but decided to make a big thing of a few people having a related but slightly off topic chat....

[YateleyRoyal]

At what point did I indicate stupidity. I understood all of what was said above perfectly well. The point still stands, you lot have made a big deal about how a former player of a team completely unrelated to ours used to be able to throw the ball well.

That's how discussions work, someone makes a comment, someone adds their thoughts and inside a few minutes you're heading off in a tangent.
Would be dull if every thread had to keep to strict parameters of relevance.

Presumably you have no views on long throws but decided to make a big thing of a few people having a related but slightly off topic chat....

Calm down sweetheart.

I have no thoughts on long throws. They have their uses in some circumstances. What i was taking issue with above was someone calling me stupid.

Glad that someone with your knowledge and experience has come on to explain to me what a discussion was though. Lord knows how I've got this far in life without that crucial insight.

[royalhaven]

Guch was a beast in his day. Well past it now though due to blowing out his knee and never fully recovering. I was at the CR match when that happened. It was ugly.

Gorks is better. Sadly Sonko at his most recent trial with RFC would be a better choice than Onyewu. Not even sure he could be a starter in the MLS frankly. He was one of the best center backs that the US had before he went to Milan.

However, he never took throw-ins so...

[seahawk10]

GUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCH!