1st goal at Everton

[parkerblue]

Sorry ninja, Im struggling to understand your point. Are you saying the wall on Saturday should have been more to the RHS (from the free kick takers view) and if so by how much. A diagram would be useful.

Not one of my diagrams mate :-)!

What I am saying about the wall on Sat and in general is that the wall is always placed by the keeper to cover the near post. Meaning that if the free kick taker clears the wall the distance to the goal then is shorter than what it would be if the wall was set up to cover the far post.

The World and his wife knew before Pienaar took the free kick on Saturday where he was going to put it, I would suggest that decent free kick takers actually see the wall as an advantage these days to shield the ball from the keeper because the keeper doesnt see the ball until it has gone over the wall.

Hope this has cleared up any confusion with my 1st post?

Think what ninja is suggesting that the keeper and wall swap sides i.e the keeper covers the near post and the wall the far

I guess the theory makes sense but in my view the way they currently set up like most do, is the best method.

Even if the keeper has less time to get across to a near post effort, the time it takes to get the ball up & down over the wall is much more difficult. If the wall fails like on sat and Garrido @ wolves (poor positioning more than anything on the latter) then the keeper will struggle to get across - thats why positioning and the wall integrity are so important.

If Pienaar was trying to bend it to the right hand post and given on the left - it would be easier to get the desired height over the wall and also have enough distance to give you an extra margin for error to get the ball back down again

    |  Given           |
               Wall

Pienaar

as apposed to


    |        Given     |
     Wall

Pienaar

 

[masterwig]

I blame Given for this! the wall had the wrong men in it, it was unbalanced, it was too far to the left (Givens right) to stop a Garrido@Wolves style goal but a man on the post would have stopped that, it outlines that we have very small players in too many positions in our team (Given Zab DeJong Robi Tevez Bellers SWP, Ireland if he plays etc etc ... we got bullied throughout the game on Sat and were just easily brushed aside by bigger stronger faster men and it will happen in other games against similar teams in this league!!) as we had to use up our few bigger men to mark their big men in the box!

I dont think putting a man on the post at a free kick is the wisest decision allowing a huge team like Everton to then stand on top of Given.

But in a crowded box the chances are the free-kick would be headed away. We wouldn't just put a man on the post and leave Given on his own with a load of opponents. I think the future of defending free-kicks from that sort of angle is to have a man on the post and a crowded box. Would make it virtually impossible to float one into the corner relying on accuracy. Teams would have to either cross or opt for power which usually results in hitting the wall.

 

[feedthegreek]

dont know why they have walls at all.
most times it just blinds the keeper.
and it leaves a massive gap for the ball to go in.
when its a pen usually the keeper stays in the middle of the goal.
so why with all these free kick experts do we leave a massive gap
at one side of the net,
i mean its like a goalie leaning on the post at a pen.

 

[parkerblue]

dont know why they have walls at all.
most times it just blinds the keeper.
and it leaves a massive gap for the ball to go in.
when its a pen usually the keeper stays in the middle of the goal.
so why with all these free kick experts do we leave a massive gap
at one side of the net,
i mean its like a goalie leaning on the post at a pen.

I think if you could have a wall for a penalty most would. Keeper doesnt have much choice but to stand in the middle and gues which way to go - odds stacked in the favour of the taker.
With a wall its an extra obstacle to have to avoid - they aren't 100% solid and there are ways round them but it generally has to be a great free kick with power and acuracy for it to go in. Hence why you see the vast majority of them in and around the box going harmlessly over the bar - odds lean towards the defending side imo

 

[OrigamiNinja]

Not one of my diagrams mate :-)!

What I am saying about the wall on Sat and in general is that the wall is always placed by the keeper to cover the near post. Meaning that if the free kick taker clears the wall the distance to the goal then is shorter than what it would be if the wall was set up to cover the far post.

The World and his wife knew before Pienaar took the free kick on Saturday where he was going to put it, I would suggest that decent free kick takers actually see the wall as an advantage these days to shield the ball from the keeper because the keeper doesnt see the ball until it has gone over the wall.

Hope this has cleared up any confusion with my 1st post?

Think what ninja is suggesting that the keeper and wall swap sides i.e the keeper covers the near post and the wall the far

I guess the theory makes sense but in my view the way they currently set up like most do, is the best method.

Even if the keeper has less time to get across to a near post effort, the time it takes to get the ball up & down over the wall is much more difficult. If the wall fails like on sat and Garrido @ wolves (poor positioning more than anything on the latter) then the keeper will struggle to get across - thats why positioning and the wall integrity are so important.

If Pienaar was trying to bend it to the right hand post and given on the left - it would be easier to get the desired height over the wall and also have enough distance to give you an extra margin for error to get the ball back down again

    |  Given           |
               Wall

Pienaar

as apposed to


    |        Given     |
     Wall

Pienaar

Thanks for the diagram mate, that is what I meant!

Also I understand your argument as to why everyone sets up the way they do and whilst it makes sense for that reason I am still unconvinced. The main points of concern for me is that when set up the way they are the ball has a shorter distance to travel to end up in the net and that the keeper struggles to see the ball until it is past the wall which leads to keepers incorrectly anticipating where the ball is going eg Cech vs Tevez at Eastlands! If the keeper and wall swap sides the keeper should not make these errors as he will have full view of the ball from when it is kicked. The keeper would also have the extra fractions of a second to get across his line if the ball is hit over the wall!

I am obviously incorrect on my views because all teams set up the opposite way to what I suggest but I can not see why it is deemed to be so clear cut as to where the wall stands, in fact I find it unbelievable that EVERY single wall is set up the same way, there surely must be an exact reason as to why this is done?

 

[svennis pennis]

I dont think putting a man on the post at a free kick is the wisest decision allowing a huge team like Everton to then stand on top of Given.

But in a crowded box the chances are the free-kick would be headed away. We wouldn't just put a man on the post and leave Given on his own with a load of opponents. I think the future of defending free-kicks from that sort of angle is to have a man on the post and a crowded box. Would make it virtually impossible to float one into the corner relying on accuracy. Teams would have to either cross or opt for power which usually results in hitting the wall.

So you would still have a wall? That would mean having 4 people on the edge of the box, and players on the posts, That would mean 6 outfield players plus Given, so seven static players. Leaving only four to potentially mark however many the opposition put into our box? Considering they would probably leave 2 on the halfway line, plus their free kick taker, that would leave them 7 outfield players against our four. I dont like those odds. I also dont like the idea of removing the wall. To be honest, the system as it is works well enough in my opinion.

 

[masterwig]

But in a crowded box the chances are the free-kick would be headed away. We wouldn't just put a man on the post and leave Given on his own with a load of opponents. I think the future of defending free-kicks from that sort of angle is to have a man on the post and a crowded box. Would make it virtually impossible to float one into the corner relying on accuracy. Teams would have to either cross or opt for power which usually results in hitting the wall.

So you would still have a wall? That would mean having 4 people on the edge of the box, and players on the posts, That would mean 6 outfield players plus Given, so seven static players. Leaving only four to potentially mark however many the opposition put into our box? Considering they would probably leave 2 on the halfway line, plus their free kick taker, that would leave them 7 outfield players against our four. I dont like those odds. I also dont like the idea of removing the wall. To be honest, the system as it is works well enough in my opinion.

You could have a wall of 3. A player on the near post. The goalkeeper fairly central and because of the man on the post the opponent attackers would automatically move closer to the net so we could mark those players leaving a crowded area. You won't need a man on the far post as there would presumably be several players between the free-kick and that part of the goal.

Essentially the only change would be a man out of the wall (the outside man) and moved onto the post. The rest would mark as usual.

 

[Anonymous]

It doesn't matter how big the players in the wall are if , when the ball is struck , one of them is gonna jump out of the fuckin' way!

 

[juhanni]

It was a beautiful goal. Given cant save us every time !

 

[bluethai]

With the right height in the wall, it should cover all goal keeper's nearest area and it will be very difficult to bent a perfect free kick pass the giant wall from that distance.
(My drawing was not exact measured but it should give a clearer picture on my point.)