Why no-one on the post at corners ?

CapitalBear1973

Well-Known Member
Obviously Mcgregor has to take the blame for the goal conceded but a defender at the back post would've cleared that header off the line easily. What is the thinking behind having no-one on the posts at corners?
 

Wilkinsvolley

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
Players on the post leave less to mark space in the box or have an out ball. Can’t remember who explained it within the last few weeks but a manager or pundit did. Personally I think having somebody on the back post at least would be sensible but people who know a lot more about football than me have thought much more about it than me.
 

Captain_Buns

Well-Known Member
If we’d put a man on the post then a Hearts player would’ve been left unmarked since they had everyone forward apart from their keeper.
 

ForGodForCountryForever

Well-Known Member
Obviously Mcgregor has to take the blame for the goal conceded but a defender at the back post would've cleared that header off the line easily. What is the thinking behind having no-one on the posts at corners?
Goldson gave a visible FFS reaction when it went in but really he should be the one organising someone onto the post before the ball comes over.

If you want to apportion blame theres plenty to share.
 

Rangersnumberfour

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
someone shared an article just last week that only 1 in 40 corners result in a goal.

Same article said slightly more goals are conceded with men on the post.
 

Mearns Ranger

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
For me it’s just something that you do automatically.
The fact that we don’t really pisses me off.
As above its cost us 2 goals in a month.
As for the article mentioned, we have lost 2 goals in 3 games from 7 corners conceded that men on the posts would have stopped.
Hearts 4
Hibs 1
Sparta 2

That could’ve meant a point in Europe and 3 points yesterday.

Put men on the posts at all times. It is always worth it.
 

Mearns Ranger

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
For me it’s just something that you do automatically.
The fact that we don’t really pisses me off.
As above its cost us 2 goals in a month.
As for the article mentioned, we have lost 2 goals in 3 games from 7 corners conceded that men on the posts would have stopped.
Hearts 4
Hibs 1
Sparta 2

That could’ve meant a point in Europe and 3 points yesterday.

Put men on the posts at all times. It is always worth it.
If you’re supposed to lose 1 goal every 40 corners, we must be fucking terrible at defending them as we’re currently losing them at a rate of 1 in every 3.5 corners conceded.
 

Rule Britannia

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
Roofe was on the back post was he not? My biggest concern is the boy getting a free header 5 yards out. Forget the posts, pick up your men and win your headers
 

GF7

Well-Known Member
Players on the post leave less to mark space in the box or have an out ball. Can’t remember who explained it within the last few weeks but a manager or pundit did. Personally I think having somebody on the back post at least would be sensible but people who know a lot more about football than me have thought much more about it than me.
McInnes was arguing with Ally about it.
 

Mview83

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
The keeper fucked up. It’s irrelevant if someone was in the post or not.
 

Billy72

Well-Known Member
Some say man on post means man not marked,as they have put everyone in box.so why not put smallest man on half way line,takes two men to mark him?no surrender w.a.t.p
 

GF7

Well-Known Member
We did , that’s how they scored.
I didn't say we didn't.

The question was what is thinking of not having someone on the back post at corners. Not to leave someone unmarked is the answer - the fact that we didn't mark properly doesn't change the reasons behind not doing it in the first place.
 

BlueSevenTwo

Well-Known Member
I didn't say we didn't.

The question was what is thinking of not having someone on the back post at corners. Not to leave someone unmarked is the answer - the fact that we didn't mark properly doesn't change the reasons behind not doing it in the first place.
Basically we need leadership and instruction at set pieces but when you have a captain who leaves his man and a vice captain who blames everyone else rather than accepting his responsibility it is always going to be difficult.
 

GF7

Well-Known Member
Basically we need leadership and instruction at set pieces but when you have a captain who leaves his man and a vice captain who blames everyone else rather than accepting his responsibility it is always going to be difficult.
McGregor is at fault more than most for the goal
 

cooprfc

Well-Known Member
You might prefer men on the post. There's pros and cons.

You might prefer everyone back at corners. There's pros and cons.

You might prefer zonal marking. There's pros and cons.

This idea that it's some mental fundamental and basic mistake not to is completely false.
 

Macky1986

Well-Known Member
Can someone who is complaining about no man on the post please explain to me who then marks the spare Hearts player that would be in the box?

They had every man forward so a player on the post leaves one of them spare.

This goal came about because McGregor made an arse of it, no other reason.
 

cooprfc

Well-Known Member
Additionally, people would do well to remember that it's Hearts attacking corner so it's them who are dictating the situation at that point in the game. If they out everyone forward on account of it being so late then they have 9 players in or around the box.

We have ten outfield players. So we are a man up. We put men on the posts and we are a man down. We also want to limit the space in the box they have to get a run for any corner so the more men in the box the better for us.
 

exiled_bear

Well-Known Member
You might prefer men on the post. There's pros and cons.

You might prefer everyone back at corners. There's pros and cons.

You might prefer zonal marking. There's pros and cons.

This idea that it's some mental fundamental and basic mistake not to is completely false.
I tell you what I do prefer - and that’s keepers catching crosses. I’m not sure when this punching balls out started, but keepers not that long ago would attempt to catch crosses. It gives them better decisions what do with the ball when it’s in their hands. McGregor could easily have caught that ball yesterday.
 

cooprfc

Well-Known Member
I tell you what I do prefer - and that’s keepers catching crosses. I’m not sure when this punching balls out started, but keepers not that long ago would attempt to catch crosses. It gives them better decisions what do with the ball when it’s in their hands. McGregor could easily have caught that ball yesterday.

You're absolutely correct and this is where the blame for the goal lies. It was an individual error and the touch McGregor takes on the ball wrong foots our defence as well as the pace of the ball changes. No one to blame but the normally outstanding McGregor.
 

rabbie73

Well-Known Member
We should be leaving a man up front when the opposition have a corner. CPL times yesterday we booted the ball up just for it to come back in straight away. Leave a man up and put a bit of pressure on the opposition.
 

Macky1986

Well-Known Member
We should be leaving a man up front when the opposition have a corner. CPL times yesterday we booted the ball up just for it to come back in straight away. Leave a man up and put a bit of pressure on the opposition.
This is one of my pet hates with corners. Leave someone with pace up front. It means they will leave an extra man back too.

Walter and Ally had a habit of having nobody up the park when defending corners too.
 

John MacKenzie

Well-Known Member
McGregor either miss-timed the flight of the ball or had not enough spring in his legs to get high enough,either way his fault mainly.
However he was let down by the marking of both our captain and vice-captain.
As for man on the post,although good in theory still leaves problems.BTW there is no front/back post as either depends on what side corners are coming from.
Finally I think defense panicked when Hearts brought on what looked like a 7foot attacker,like a giraffe with that height.
 

Mearns Ranger

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
To point to that stat is crazy in my eyes.
You can argue it all you want, but what is an undeniable stat is that no team wins the headers for 100% of corners they defend.
So the automatic default for me is that you put men on the posts to lessen the size of the goal/area they can score into.
It is an absolute fact that we’ve lost 2 goals from our last 7 corners conceded. That blows these stats out of the water.
We can’t say it’s a definite fact, but I’m fairly sure a man on the post stops both of those goals, certainly the Hearts one.
 

Mearns Ranger

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
To point to that stat is crazy in my eyes.
You can argue it all you want, but what is an undeniable stat is that no team wins the headers for 100% of corners they defend.
So the automatic default for me is that you put men on the posts to lessen the size of the goal/area they can score into.
It is an absolute fact that we’ve lost 2 goals from our last 7 corners conceded. That blows these stats out of the water.
We can’t say it’s a definite fact, but I’m fairly sure a man on the post stops both of those goals, certainly the Hearts one.
Just to add to that, leave one man up the park, they absolutely have to leave a man back. In most cases the keeper will be back too. No way they’re gonna leave a man with a clear run on goal.
And to be petty, if you’re going to mark like Tav and Goldson do, they might as well just take a fucking post anyway!
 

strider

Well-Known Member
For me it’s just something that you do automatically.
The fact that we don’t really pisses me off.
As above its cost us 2 goals in a month.
As for the article mentioned, we have lost 2 goals in 3 games from 7 corners conceded that men on the posts would have stopped.
Hearts 4
Hibs 1
Sparta 2

That could’ve meant a point in Europe and 3 points yesterday.

Put men on the posts at all times. It is always worth it.

It's not always worth it though. Plenty of teams who have done it over the years have lost goals from set pieces. They may not have lost them had they not had the man on the post but instead in an area where the ball actually went.

This notion of a perfect way of defending set pieces existing is just wrong.
 

skorn

Well-Known Member
Roofe was on the back post was he not? My biggest concern is the boy getting a free header 5 yards out. Forget the posts, pick up your men and win your headers
This is what gets me.

McGregor certainly made a complete ar*e of it, but he didn't hit the ball into his own net.
The ball still had to travel across to past the back post and get headed in by an unmarked tall opposition centre half (one of the very players that should be getting marked in a corner).

We have a problem with these back post headers, especially on that side.
Whether that's down to Tav or Goldson or whatever is something else.

One of the points about having a guy AT the back post is that he can see the flight of the ball going across and either stay on the line to defend it, or better yet go out and attack it.
Unfortunately we don't seem to do "attacking the ball".

Halkett should have been properly marked -- simple as that.
We need our defensive coaches to up the coaching on "clearing" headers, with an emphasis on getting to the ball before the opponent does !!
 

Barbarossa

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
I’m sure the stattos will have it, but there’s no benefit statistically to putting men on the post.
 

Whosthedado9

Well-Known Member
If we Insist on every player being back in our own box at corners then we should have a player on each post with still everyone being marked. Davis twice cleared off the line last season against the peados. Twice in a few weeks we have lost a goal and if someone was on the post it could have been prevented.
 

Mearns Ranger

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
So another goal lost from a corner tonight.
5 goals lost from corners in our last 8 games.
5 goals from 26 corners conceded.
It would seem these stats don’t apply to Rangers and it might well be worth our while putting men on the posts after all.
 

Valley Bluenose

RTV? Completed it mate!
So another goal lost from a corner tonight.
5 goals lost from corners in our last 8 games.
5 goals from 26 corners conceded.
It would seem these stats don’t apply to Rangers and it might well be worth our while putting men on the posts after all.
Could have had two on each post tonight and Balogun would still have scored mate.:(
 
Top