Yeah, which he did, so what is the argument here? You can’t just keep doing that over and over for two reasons - it’s difficult, and the shot usually isn’t on because somebody is in front of you.
There’s a game I remember us (gerrard in particular) taking too many potshots from outside the area. There is a very good reason Klopp discourages it unless the situation has opened up properly.
But we did that and nothing came of it. Chelsea did a good job of getting their two lines in the right place. It meant that the long shots we did have were from further out than you’d ideally like and the balls into the box were coming from deeper than you’d ideally like which makes them easier to defend.
It’s not exactly a huge failure to not be able to break down the best defensive side in the league who parked nine men behind the ball. We won’t come up against that approach and quality very often.
@ILLOK and @rab you’re both kind of missing the one of the main benefits of that kind of thunderous shot from a central position, after a couple their defence has to start breaking those highly organised lines and closing the player on the ball down. It doesn’t matter if its keeper, the woodwork or a defender the ball cannons off it creates chaos in the box and all their well drilled defensive formations fall apart as a mad scramble begins to clear the ball. After a few of those they start having to step out to close down the ball it’s one way to disrupt that deep block. Not saying it’s a magical fix and will always work but the one notable shot like that I really remember from VvD made things happen and Fabinho for one, who is very good at them, spurned multiple chances to have similar pops when they just stood back and let him be on the ball.
Nobody is missing the benefit, it’s not a particularly hard concept to understand.
This comment completed missed two of the three benefits of that kind of shot and just focused on the chances of scoring: “and the shot usually isn’t on because somebody is in front of you.” That was what I was replying to.
I wonder if there are going to be any shocks today?
What you’re missing is that we took seven long shots in the game and they resulted in nothing, not even much of a follow up chance.
If the line of defence higher up the pitch keeps its shape, they are the ones forcing the long shots to be taken from further back than you want. That’s what happened and why our two most memorable long shots came from Virgil and Fabinho and both were easily dealt with by Mendy.
They don’t have to worry too much about closing those down because it would take a wonder strike to beat a very good keeper from there. It’s the lowest percentage way of scoring and therefore the one they are happiest to give up, especially if the shots are coming from that far out from defensive players.
You say the shots from Virgil and Fabinho made things happen but nothing came from either of them or the other five we took. The one that was actually quite threatening was Robertson’s volley which was pushed out into a dangerous area but this shot is as a result of a cross into the box not being cleared very well.
Really?
So crosses are good because we put in hundreds to a lone Jota and it creates one long shot chance. Yet a couple of long shots are bad.
This is just crazy use of stats and match situation.
Take for instance Trent who played a verticle ball to Salah’s feet against an agressive defense who attack the ball. Salah never attacks the ball and was offering no movement, that vericle ball is for the defense all day long. Yet, Trent runs past his man expecting a 1 2. He’s now completely out of postion for the counter attack (and believe me it was a dangerous counter). If instead he had played it inside to Fabs who takes a long shot he’s still in position to defend any counter.
My point is looking for xG isn’t always the way forward we need to mix it up more. I would go as far as to say our tactics even expose us as in this case, particularly as our CBs back up faster than the counter moves forward leaving our midfield uselessly in the lurch.
An advantage of some long shots is our players are in position to counter the counter. So it really is a very bad use of stats and tactical analysis.
… and no I’m not advocating hitting the ball from 30 yards all the time just saying at times it has its advantages, particularly over hitting crosses in to a static Jota that as you pointed out created 1 long shot chance. Out of interest how many crosses do we need to put in to get even a 1/2 chance?
Sorry if there’s a misunderstanding somewhere along the way but this is not what I’m saying at all.
There was a lot of noise about taking more long shots and I merely pointed out we did actually take quite a few. 30% of our shots were in fact long shots. We also chucked in loads of crosses too, all of which were equally as unsuccessful but I wasn’t sure why there was a call for more long shots when the ones we had delivered nothing.
Statistically, long shots are one of the lowest converting types of shots at goal. That’s why teams prefer to play deep and give away these types of chances rather than give up space out wide or through the middle that result in higher percentage chances being made.
My actual point was actually to say that Chelsea did a very good job of nullifying our attack and that isn’t the “end of the world” scenario some seem to see it as. They’re an exceptionally good defensive side who put nine men behind the ball. They limited us to very few chances of every type but they were happier to give us long shots over crosses into the box.
Given so much of our creativity and chance creation comes from the full backs and wide forwards that’s a pretty sensible approach. It let us get off a few long shots that were relatively easily dealt with but stopped a lot of the dangerous balls in we usually thrive on. Most of our goals this season have been as a result of crosses into the box or lateral passes in from wider positions so that’s what they cut off.
The penalty comes from the result of a corner into the box.The Jota header over the bar was one of our higher xG chances and that came from a cross into the box. The Robertson long shot was the best of our long-range efforts and came from a cross into the box. That doesn’t mean I’m saying we should only cross the ball but when 30% of your shots in a game are long ones I don’t know why there’s such an outcry for more of them given they so rarely deliver positive outcomes and it’s not like we didn’t try that approach either.
Damn you and your facts spoiling a good narrative… 
But on another day, one of those long shots is spilled and we have someone on hand to tap it in.
Or a long shot simply flies, arrow-like, into the proverbial postage stamp in the top corner.
Or a long shot results in a corner, from which Virgil plants a towering header past the ‘keeper.
Or one of those long shots takes a deflection, wrong-foots the goalie and nestles in the bottom corner. Frank Lampard made an entire career out of that one.
This is the Who Would You Buy? thread, in case anyone is like me and got confused and scared about where they are and what is happening.
Fair enough. I would buy a cloning machine, make a new Frank Lampard, and get him to shoot from outside the box.
I’d clone Frank Lampard and punch him in his smarmy face.
And on most days they don’t. But we did try that route and that was the point, people said we needed to do more of it when actually 30% of the shots we took were already long shots but they were so poor most people can’t even remember more than one or two.
They weren’t even poor IMO, the 4 I can remember were good efforts. Virgil couldn’t have hit his any sweeter if he took it again 50 times. And they still didn’t result in a goal, or even a clear cut chance.
I bet Vincent Kompany really regrets trying his luck from distance against Leicester in 2019.
Or Stevie in the 2006 Cup Final.
The list goes on…
I don’t know where your picking up the noise from, going by this forum there’s a few on here like ARD and I who have put forward quite balanced arguements of a feeling a few more long shots might have been a good idea. Yet in match we stopped that approach.
Going by that match our prefered opyion is crosses into a lone static little guy, which of course is better than crosses into Firmino attacking the bos as he’s invariably 2 yards off. (Sorry for the sarcasm but we’re getting it as well, being treated as obsessive idiots who just want to see long shots all day. But no, thats not what we are saying).
The point about keeping their defense honest is valid and you even allude to it saying how they set up. How would they set up if we were a team known for hitting it from outside the box?
Sure however it is a chance where as a cross isn’t. This I believe is where the stats and tactics are getting fogged. What are our chances of even creating a chance from a cross to a static Jota?
The thing is we end up getting bogged down and end up with little to no movement up front and too many players out wide. It gets boring as we end up not creating anything of interest and even exposing ourselves to counter attacks. It is not just about shooting from outside the box it’s a whole tactical thing however yes if a defense is leaving that door open go for it and embarras them, Fabs and VVD from a far, Hendo, Thiago, Salah … with placed, a la Coutinho, shots from just outside the area. Surely it’s worth a shot when we have run out of ideas.
How many is a few more? 35%? 40%? 50%? More than that?
I would suggest that in most cases resorting to distance shots is lacking ideas.
Two examples in a span of 15 years, fair play you’ve proved your point.
My point, going all the way back to the start of this when I probably should have kept my mouth shut, was that someone said something along the lines of “I find it strange we don’t take opportunities to shoot from outside the box” or words to that effect. I simply highlighted that we did take quite a few shots from distance. I have no vendetta against long shots and actually thought the ones we took were reasonably sensible options rather than desperate punts but Chelsea would have been delighted to see Virgil lining up 35 yarders and confident in their keeper to save those types of efforts.
I have no idea the chances of creating a chance from a cross and I don’t really care. I do know if you look at our goals from this season they typically come from crosses and lateral passes and that for the last three or four years our full backs are amongst the highest chance creators and assisters in the league and that doesn’t come from them taking a lot of long shots.