No offence intended

By analysing one week’s goals it can provide a flavour of how goals are conceded in the general way over the course of the whole season.   Each week will provide different scenarios but there will also be a lot of similarities in the way goals are conceded.

 

This analysis is based on real situations where goals have been scored.   It doesn’t attempt to analyse potential defensive frailties in the cases that did not result in a goal being conceded.

 

Inevitably, a certain amount of interpretation has to be imparted to ascertain the main criteria of whether the player scoring the goal is being put under sufficient pressure by an opponent to warrant them being marked.   Two categories have been identified: either there was some evidence of the defender trying to pressurise the player scoring the goal or, the goal-scorer was completely unmarked.

 

 

Table:

 

Premier League 10-12 August 2018	Defender trying to pressurise the player scoring the goal.	The player scoring the goal is completely unmarked.
Man Utd v Leicester 2-1	l	l l (pen)
B’mouth v Cardiff 2-0	l	l
Fulham v Crystal Palace 0-2	l l
Huddersfield v Chelsea 0-3		l l l (pen)
Newcastle v Tottenham 1-2	l	l l
Watford v Brighton 2-0		l l
Wolves v Everton 2-2	l l	l l
Arsenal v Man City 0-2	l	l
Liverpool v West Ham 4-0	l	l l l
Southampton v Burnley 0-0
	9	16	25

As you might expect, the fact that a goal is scored may well imply that the scorer is less likely to be marked.   But this is also the point that is being highlighted.   If you can reduce the number of incidences where the player scoring the goal is completely unmarked, you may also then reduce the number of goals being conceded.

 

Every team prides themselves on keeping a clean sheet.   The table shows eight out of the twenty teams kept a clean sheet.   It also shows that sixteen of the total twenty-five goals scored were by players that were completely unmarked.   This represents 64% of goals that were conceded in this way.  One ought not be so surprised by this statistic.   An analysis of the first week’s games in the Premier League season 2015-16 saw twenty of the thirty goals scored where the scorer was completely unmarked.   This is equivalent to 67%.

 

Given the primary purpose of defensive play is to prevent goals from being scored, it seems that the role of any defensive strategy ought to ensure, as far as possible, that opponents are at least being marked.   This is easier said than done.   It is perhaps easy to blame the system when goals are being scored and there is no evidence of proper marking.   Is it fair comment to say the system is not working?   Rather than just say that, it would be helpful to explain why the system may not be meeting its objectives.   It could be to do with the interpretation of the system or it may be the system itself is not fit for purpose.   Nothing happens in an arbitrary way.   There are usually reasons.

 

Whenever a goal is scored, it is usually down to some defensive frailty.   Human error will always play a part.    The question that is being debated here is whether the system of defending being operated is making the conceding of goals that much more likely.   It may not be possible to get full agreement about what constitutes being marked or not, but this will not conceal the fact that a high percentage of goals seem to be conceded in this way.

 

 

From the table, two of the goals constituting being ‘completely unmarked’ were penalties.   Clearly it is not possible for this player to be marked but the circumstances that led to the awarding of the penalty ought to be considered in terms of defensive technique.   Manchester United scored one for a handball offence and Chelsea for a foul.

 

Two other goals, also in this category, were scored from free-kicks.   Wolves scored one goal directly from a free-kick and Everton scored one following a cross into the box.   Again, consideration of the circumstances by which such free-kicks were awarded might be appropriate.   Two goals were scored following corners, Liverpool and Watford, the remaining nineteen goals were all scored from open play.

 

It is important to reiterate that the data collected is only in relation to actual goals scored.  There are many occasions where goal-scoring opportunities are thwarted and prevented due to good defending.  This point ought to be factored in when assessing a team’s overall performance.   It also should be noted that even within category 1 where there is an attempt by the defender to pressurise the player scoring the goal, this does not necessarily prove that good defensive technique was in evidence.

 

Coaches are grappling with systems all the time; switching from a back four to a back three.   Experimenting with man-to-man, as opposed to zonal marking, when defending corners.   Such tactical changes can make a difference but do these modifications really get to grips with the technicalities or principles of sound defensive play?

 

Arguably, the broad principles of defensive systems haven’t changed much in decades.   For example, would it be correct to say that all teams play a zonal defensive system in open play?   Within this zonal system, all teams play with a flat back line.   By implication of the flat back line, all teams set out their defensive strategy based around the offside rule.

 

In so doing, regardless of whether the flat back line is high or low, this strategy is incompatible with sound defensive technique from the point of view the defender is not able to retain a goal-side position on the opponent.   The principle of maintaining a goal-side position on one’s opponent is clearly a relevant one.   It is perhaps best demonstrated when the opponents are awarded a free-kick somewhere outside the penalty box.   The defending team rightly have to hold a defensive line in this situation but also, have to try to steal a march on the attacking team by timing their move into that corridor of space between the defensive line and the goalkeeper, before the ball is kicked but also before the opponent controls that space.

 

It is largely the same scenario in open play.   The opposition forwards are positioned in and around the defensive line, poised and ready to feed off any through-ball or ball over the top.   This raises the concern, to what extent are sound principles of defending being eroded in favour of strategies of play that teams unanimously choose to adopt?   And, how do these systems of play impact on the manner in which goals are scored?

 

If these strategies are conducive to opponents not being marked and goals being scored as a result, it may be time to acknowledge that the model doesn’t work and there is a need to find an alternative way to play.

 

 

 

 

 

Upcoming blog – A critique of zonal defending.