Coaches - What do you look for?

Supermodel56 said:
I would even venture to say you don't need all tall forwards depending on formation and skill levels - better to mix it up, give the defense different looks and styles of play to deal with, and exploit the mismatches.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. Tall forwards are good for over the top and chase it kind of tactics but not a discriminator for possession-based attacks. I know everyone points to Messi (5'6"-ish) but look at many other successful forwards (e.g., Aguero, Naymar, Griezmann,...) and none of them are more than 5-10ish. Ibra is an exception, along with Christiano - both over 6' tall. Luis Suarez, who I consider to be the most complete forward player today, is 5'-11".

As for winning headers, there are two components in the equation. Timing and vertical leap ability. Many shorter players win headers over taller. What you care is the players ability to jump high (for the ultimate vertical reach) and ability to read the ball for timing the jump. The key is to execute the jump at the right moment.
 
How many goals are scored and games won because of a set piece? According to one source (http://eplindex.com/19280/importance-set-pieces-stats-analysis.html ), nearly 40% come from set pieces. According to another site, http://statsbomb.com/2013/07/how-do-headers-compare-to-shots/ , headers score 12% of the time whereas shots are at 9.1%. So if you can add some height to your team, especially for set pieces, there is probably a greater chance for a goal and thus a victory. So, as one of hundreds of college coaches that have money to spend (some more and some less), you want people that can get their head on the ball.
 
Bdobyns said:
How many goals are scored and games won because of a set piece? According to one source (http://eplindex.com/19280/importance-set-pieces-stats-analysis.html ), nearly 40% come from set pieces. According to another site, http://statsbomb.com/2013/07/how-do-headers-compare-to-shots/ , headers score 12% of the time whereas shots are at 9.1%. So if you can add some height to your team, especially for set pieces, there is probably a greater chance for a goal and thus a victory. So, as one of hundreds of college coaches that have money to spend (some more and some less), you want people that can get their head on the ball.
Click to expand...

In high school games, many coaches sub in a tall player on corner kicks, or a big thrower for a throwin. Under competition rules that inhibit substitutions, those players have value only if they can play effectively the other 90% of the game.

Here is another silly stat - 25% to 30% of corner kick attempts result with the ball going all the way through or over the crowd in front of the goal. Very few teams station a player over there.
 
I remember a game earlier this season where we had a fill-in coach. Normally our team has a tall forward playing the #9 and the team often plays over the top, run and dump balls to him. Pretty much anytime the ball is in the midfield, the players look to put the ball over the top to the forward.

But about half-way through the game, the guest coach took out the tall forward and put in a small technical player at the #9 position. You could hear an audible groan from the parents on the sideline. For about the first 5 minutes, the team continued to play over the top balls to the little forward. It soon became painfully obvious they were just giving the ball away playing it over the top. So about 10 minutes in, you could see the players start playing the ball to the little forward's feet. He would check in and lay-off the ball for combination plays. Pretty soon our team was actually getting possession in the attacking 3rd and the outside mids and attacking mid were getting more involved in the attack and began creating higher quality chances on goal.

For much of the season, our team had been playing a counter-attacking style, but within just 15 minutes of changing the forward, it completely changed the look of the offense. There's nothing wrong with having a tall forward, I just think coaches should be more willing to experiment, particularly with their smaller players.

After that game, the smaller player never played forward again. Not sure if the guest coach ever relayed a complete game summary. So the tall player returned to forward permanently. Though I did hear the parents weren't happy when he was on the bench much of that game.
 
Bdobyns said:
How many goals are scored and games won because of a set piece? According to one source (http://eplindex.com/19280/importance-set-pieces-stats-analysis.html ), nearly 40% come from set pieces.
Click to expand...
No ... that's not what it says at all.

Here is the image from that story link - only 15% of plays in the 2011-12 EPL season coverted. Only 4 of 20 EPL teams converted at >20% that year.
Table-2-percent-of-goals-scored-from-set-pieces.png
 
jrcaesar said:
No ... that's not what it says at all.

Here is the image from that story link - only 15% of plays in the 2011-12 EPL season coverted. Only 4 of 20 EPL teams converted at >20% that year.
Table-2-percent-of-goals-scored-from-set-pieces.png
Click to expand...
Unless there is more data in the story, you cannot determine the percentage of set pieces were "converted" into goals. This would require knowing how many set pieces were taken, and how many goals were scored off those. Neither of these figures are included here.

This graph simply tells us that of X number of goals, Y number were scored off set pieces, and the percentage that represents (and of course X-Y goals were not scored on set pieces.)
 
jrcaesar said:
No ... that's not what it says at all.

Here is the image from that story link - only 15% of plays in the 2011-12 EPL season coverted. Only 4 of 20 EPL teams converted at >20% that year.
Table-2-percent-of-goals-scored-from-set-pieces.png
Click to expand...

If you look at the numbers - the highest number of goals scored off set pieces is 14 - and that was for Stoke - which if you look at total # of goals scored - was just 36... it's clear they were missing a significant component of their game outside of set pieces. Set pieces alone do not win games or seasons. I'm guessing that statistically, there's a fairly narrow range of avg # of set pieces that occur in a game. So you're only going to get so many chances - the teams and players that can capitalize on both are the ones that score the most goals. Look at Man City and Man United- they've "maximized" their set pieces and also show a very strong game in regular play with 93 & 89 total goals. If Newcastle could capitalize on more of their set pieces, they could bring it up to maybe 66 total goals. Whereas Blackburn and Chelsea need to score more from the field...

Thinking we're going to just have all tall players so we can win all the set pieces is just plain dumb. The height certainly can play a role, but the reality, you need the speed, agility, and skills to be able to get yourselves into scoring positions and create opportunities. Shorter players have an advantage because of their lower center of gravity and short legs - making them much more nimble - in a football analogy, running backs (with some exceptions) tend to be much shorter so they can make frequent cuts vs. wide receivers who are generally taller so they can run faster, stretch the field, and reach up to grab the passes. WR's just need to be able to make 1-2 cuts per play. Think a giraffe vs a cheetah.
 
jrcaesar said:
No ... that's not what it says at all.

Here is the image from that story link - only 15% of plays in the 2011-12 EPL season coverted. Only 4 of 20 EPL teams converted at >20% that year.
Table-2-percent-of-goals-scored-from-set-pieces.png
Click to expand...

There is also a missing view - what percentage of a team's shots on goal were from set pieces?
 
Supermodel56 said:
If you look at the numbers - the highest number of goals scored off set pieces is 14 - and that was for Stoke - which if you look at total # of goals scored - was just 36... it's clear they were missing a significant component of their game outside of set pieces. Set pieces alone do not win games or seasons. I'm guessing that statistically, there's a fairly narrow range of avg # of set pieces that occur in a game. So you're only going to get so many chances - the teams and players that can capitalize on both are the ones that score the most goals. Look at Man City and Man United- they've "maximized" their set pieces and also show a very strong game in regular play with 93 & 89 total goals. If Newcastle could capitalize on more of their set pieces, they could bring it up to maybe 66 total goals. Whereas Blackburn and Chelsea need to score more from the field...

Thinking we're going to just have all tall players so we can win all the set pieces is just plain dumb. The height certainly can play a role, but the reality, you need the speed, agility, and skills to be able to get yourselves into scoring positions and create opportunities. Shorter players have an advantage because of their lower center of gravity and short legs - making them much more nimble - in a football analogy, running backs (with some exceptions) tend to be much shorter so they can make frequent cuts vs. wide receivers who are generally taller so they can run faster, stretch the field, and reach up to grab the passes. WR's just need to be able to make 1-2 cuts per play. Think a giraffe vs a cheetah.
Click to expand...

And not all set piece plays intend the ball to go to a tall player.
 
I think for youngers, its better to have a more skills/technical based tryout.

I personally coach olders and feel that a fairly short passing / dribble drill followed by a longer session of small sided scrimmages are the best way to see a player. Rotate teams and put everyone against everyone. Especially when an awful lot of players show up and there is limited time, while every other team is doing tryouts that same week...

Evaluation wise their first touch, positioning and awareness are critical to me but I can afford to be a little more picky with my selections as we have a solid squad previously.

The kid who gives a lot of energy from the get go [the Alexis], the vocal one [knows the game], and the one who is always moving into space [aware] are usually ones to look out for. I feel it is quite easy to tell who will perform and develop, and who is not quite there yet but of course anyone can be good if so motivated and driven enough.
 
mirage said:
Completely agree. Tall forwards are good for over the top and chase it kind of tactics but not a discriminator for possession-based attacks. I know everyone points to Messi (5'6"-ish) but look at many other successful forwards (e.g., Aguero, Naymar, Griezmann,...) and none of them are more than 5-10ish. Ibra is an exception, along with Christiano - both over 6' tall. Luis Suarez, who I consider to be the most complete forward player today, is 5'-11".

As for winning headers, there are two components in the equation. Timing and vertical leap ability. Many shorter players win headers over taller. What you care is the players ability to jump high (for the ultimate vertical reach) and ability to read the ball for timing the jump. The key is to execute the jump at the right moment.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. My first season doing HS futbol here, my shortest kid was by far the best at heading. He'd often win heads over people seemingly twice his size.

On the flip side I wasn't blessed with forwards but did have a very tall FWD, and someone who could take throws like a set piece. Saw a couple of times the ball hit my FWDs face and deflect away. Not much use there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top