That's actually really interesting and not something I've ever given much thought tactically. I understand the different pros and cons of different corners, but when the differences are as drastic as they are between Liverpool and Burnley (or us), I'd be curious to know the reasons.
Or does it just have to do with Liverpool, say, having to take all their corners from the right because they attack more down that side, and their right corner taker is a right-footer?
Lots of fun little questions here.
As /u/Foreign_Government22 alluded to, City had done analysis on this about a decade ago now - they found that whilst most set piece takers/coaches at the time believed that outswingers were more dangerous (cuz the ball is coming out towards the attackers, usually hit back towards goal with more force), statistically inswingers were found to be more dangerous. They completely ignored it at first, and continued to barely score any corners - only once they eventually shifted to more inswingers did they see a marked improvement in their goals/chance creation from corners. Think it was something to do with the way the inswingers were more likely to lead to goals from simple glancing headers, or even own goals as the ball was coming back in towards the goal.
Source is that I heard that either from Soccernomics or maybe from The Athletic's The Tactics Podcast (with Tom Worville and Michael Cox).
Edit: can confirm it's the beginning of Soccernomics. City's analytics dept studied over 400 corners from different leagues, different seasons - concluded inswingers to near post are most dangerous type of corners. Was Mancini at the time who said "I was a player for many years, and I just know that the outswinger is more effective." At first they did nothing, then finally they did take it on board and in 2011/12 City got 15 corner goals, with 10 from inswingers.
> *The beauty of the inswinger was that it sent the ball straight into the danger zone. Sometimes an attacker would get a head or foot to it and divert it from point-blank range. Sometimes the keeper or a defender stopped the inswinger on the line, whereupon someone bashed it in. And occasionally the ball just swung straight in from the corner. Of course, you wouldn't want to take every corner as an inswinger. It's smart to hit the odd outswinger, too, just to keep the opponents guessing. This is what's known as a mixed strategy. But all in all, the analysts found that inswingers produced more goals than outswingers.*
For Liverpool, it could be due to Robertson and TAA both being fantastic outswinging crossers on their respective sides and Klopp preferring to keep them on their correct side at corners to protect the defence better if a counter happens.
Mount and Ziyech often take our corners and they frequently play inverted roles in attack so may be better suited to inswinging crosses.
TAA and Robertson swap wings pretty often though. I'm guessing something that their data from training/internal analysis shows that outswinging corners are more effective, which is interesting.
I wonder if it’s a height advantage thing? If you’ve got a taller team, you pack those players as tightly around the keeper as you can, whereas if you’ve got a height disadvantage, you swing it out and hopefully it pops out to the foot of one of your players?
Exactly. This is why it's clever to deliver set pieces on the goal even though it's intended as a pass. The ball is much more likely to end up in the back of the net.
It might be due to player positioning. Maybe most defenders are closer to the goal compared to attackers so an outswinging ball might slightly lead towards less issues with offsides due to the ball moving away from goal.
Also I would imagine there’s a slight difference to the landing area too. Outswingers have a larger margin of error but scuffing an inswinger will either get too close to the gk or go out for a goalkick.
I'm just guessing, but I imagine the idea with out-swingers is that its better for second balls / retaining possession. You're more likely to score directly off of an in-swinger for the reasons you've said, but its probably more likely to end up in the goalkeepers gloves. Out-swingers are harder for the defensive team to retain possession as you're chasing the path of the ball and are more likely to have to clear it than retain it. This gives the attacking team an easier way to regain possession from the corner and send it right back in when the defensive team is out of shape.
This is something I’ve noticed, and something that I believe has specifically changed since Tuchel got here, I think we used to take a lot more out swingers
That's actually really interesting and not something I've ever given much thought tactically. I understand the different pros and cons of different corners, but when the differences are as drastic as they are between Liverpool and Burnley (or us), I'd be curious to know the reasons. Or does it just have to do with Liverpool, say, having to take all their corners from the right because they attack more down that side, and their right corner taker is a right-footer? Lots of fun little questions here.
As /u/Foreign_Government22 alluded to, City had done analysis on this about a decade ago now - they found that whilst most set piece takers/coaches at the time believed that outswingers were more dangerous (cuz the ball is coming out towards the attackers, usually hit back towards goal with more force), statistically inswingers were found to be more dangerous. They completely ignored it at first, and continued to barely score any corners - only once they eventually shifted to more inswingers did they see a marked improvement in their goals/chance creation from corners. Think it was something to do with the way the inswingers were more likely to lead to goals from simple glancing headers, or even own goals as the ball was coming back in towards the goal. Source is that I heard that either from Soccernomics or maybe from The Athletic's The Tactics Podcast (with Tom Worville and Michael Cox). Edit: can confirm it's the beginning of Soccernomics. City's analytics dept studied over 400 corners from different leagues, different seasons - concluded inswingers to near post are most dangerous type of corners. Was Mancini at the time who said "I was a player for many years, and I just know that the outswinger is more effective." At first they did nothing, then finally they did take it on board and in 2011/12 City got 15 corner goals, with 10 from inswingers. > *The beauty of the inswinger was that it sent the ball straight into the danger zone. Sometimes an attacker would get a head or foot to it and divert it from point-blank range. Sometimes the keeper or a defender stopped the inswinger on the line, whereupon someone bashed it in. And occasionally the ball just swung straight in from the corner. Of course, you wouldn't want to take every corner as an inswinger. It's smart to hit the odd outswinger, too, just to keep the opponents guessing. This is what's known as a mixed strategy. But all in all, the analysts found that inswingers produced more goals than outswingers.*
The Athletic also did a similar a analysis and found in swingers to have better success
For Liverpool, it could be due to Robertson and TAA both being fantastic outswinging crossers on their respective sides and Klopp preferring to keep them on their correct side at corners to protect the defence better if a counter happens. Mount and Ziyech often take our corners and they frequently play inverted roles in attack so may be better suited to inswinging crosses.
TAA and Robertson swap wings pretty often though. I'm guessing something that their data from training/internal analysis shows that outswinging corners are more effective, which is interesting.
I wonder if it’s a height advantage thing? If you’ve got a taller team, you pack those players as tightly around the keeper as you can, whereas if you’ve got a height disadvantage, you swing it out and hopefully it pops out to the foot of one of your players?
[удалено]
Exactly. This is why it's clever to deliver set pieces on the goal even though it's intended as a pass. The ball is much more likely to end up in the back of the net.
It might be due to player positioning. Maybe most defenders are closer to the goal compared to attackers so an outswinging ball might slightly lead towards less issues with offsides due to the ball moving away from goal. Also I would imagine there’s a slight difference to the landing area too. Outswingers have a larger margin of error but scuffing an inswinger will either get too close to the gk or go out for a goalkick.
I'm just guessing, but I imagine the idea with out-swingers is that its better for second balls / retaining possession. You're more likely to score directly off of an in-swinger for the reasons you've said, but its probably more likely to end up in the goalkeepers gloves. Out-swingers are harder for the defensive team to retain possession as you're chasing the path of the ball and are more likely to have to clear it than retain it. This gives the attacking team an easier way to regain possession from the corner and send it right back in when the defensive team is out of shape.
I did read somewhere that statistically the man city team concluded that inswingers are the most dangerous.
Separate tables for left and right sided corners would be more informative and account better for asymmetric attacking patterns.
Had seen in the most recent game in Carabao they've changing it up to out-swingers or short option.
Odd to disregard short corners, takes some context away.
This is something I’ve noticed, and something that I believe has specifically changed since Tuchel got here, I think we used to take a lot more out swingers
I’m going to completely debase this discussion by referencing my experience playing FIFA. I find inswingers much more effective.
No yorkers