Roberts Long Throw

[jedi_master]

Not for me, this.

We got nothing from any of these and would have been far better doing the throw and laying off to Westwood, McNeil or whoever to swing an actual cross (with pace) in. We have a 6’6 lad in the box and he had absolutely NO crosses of note to attack all game.

Please end this desperate tactic before it becomes the norm and start getting some bloody crosses into the box please.

[PremierLeagueClass]

Awful conditions today, not the game to judge it on.

[RVclaret]

Not for me, this.

We got nothing from any of these and would have been far better doing the throw and laying off to Westwood, McNeil or whoever to swing an actual cross (with pace) in. We have a 6’6 lad in the box and he had absolutely NO crosses of note to attack all game.

Please end this desperate tactic before it becomes the norm and start getting some bloody crosses into the box please.

Agree, it was as repetitive as the rest of our predictable football. Maybe the odd one but it’s hardly a Rory Delap bullet throw.

[burnleymik]

Think it's a decent weapon in our arsenal. If we have it, utilise it.

[IanMcL]

Too windy for long throws.

[fungus_the_bogeyman]

Watford were playing for it. Easily defended every one of them.

[DCWat]

It was like trying to gain yards until we got to a point where the ball could be thrown into the box.

I was expecting a far more threatening throw - it was more like a big up and over that gives the defence an age to pick up the flight.

[Cheshireclaret]

We’ve produced the square root of f all from throw ins for as long as I can remember. We’re pathetic at them. No movement. Just statues. So this at least gives us something different to watch.

[Peter Loo]

Awful conditions today, not the game to judge it on.

I agree it has to be an advantage to have long throw player advantage over a season.

[gawthorpe_view]

Just need to mix it up a bit so we don't get even more predictable.

[Bordeauxclaret]

Difficult conditions to judge but it didn’t look to be thrown with any force. I’m not sure it’ll cause too many problems.

[NewClaret]

We’ve produced the square root of f all from throw ins for as long as I can remember. We’re pathetic at them. No movement. Just statues. So this at least gives us something different to watch.

Agree. We invariably lose possession from throw ins, never mind whip crosses in.

The long throw pins them right back in and I thought Watford looked at sixes and sevens. Not comfortable at all. Although we didn’t play them as well as we could.

Need to keep them up but mix them up sometimes too.

[Steve1956]

Long throw....Stoke about ten years ago,where are they now....

[NewClaret]

Long throw....Stoke about ten years ago,where are they now....

Not sure their long throw had anything to do with their demise Steve!

[Steve1956]

Not sure their long throw had anything to do with their demise Steve!

Stoke/Burnley....2 balls in the same sack.

[RalphCoatesComb]

Awful conditions today, not the game to judge it on.

Corect. A good weapon to have if used correctly

[Burnley1989]

**** poor today

[jedi_master]

Corect. A good weapon to have if used correctly

But surely not every single time the ball was out of play down the right hand side? We moved the territory up the pitch gradually and then rather than ever considering a cross, just left it to Roberts to float a throw in.

It nullifies that entire wing for crosses/overlaps/beating the left back if all we’re aiming for/hoping for is a punt at a long throw. It needs to be at best ‘an option’ and never the immediate answer to trying to score a goal.

[RalphCoatesComb]

But surely not every single time the ball was out of play down the right hand side?

Correct. As I said, if used correctly

[Steve1956]

Corect. A good weapon to have if used correctly

Wind up merchant!

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Clubs across Europe are utilising long throws, there's even a specialist coach who works with clubs like Ajax, Liverpool and even Brentford.

If we can work on this aspect of our game then we will be better for it, but in those conditions it wasn't guaranteed to get results.

[jedi_master]

Correct. As I said, if used correctly

That’s fine. No issue with the occasional ‘last 10 minutes, why not?’ lob. I just hated to see this being our sole ambition down that side for the entire 92 minutes.

[Rombald]

That’s fine. No issue with the occasional ‘last 10 minutes, why not?’ lob. I just hated to see this being our sole ambition down that side for the entire 92 minutes.

So, I thought they were poor. However, why or how, is a good throw any different to a good cross?

[Lew200100]

Goodness me how can you expect perfection in those conditions. His throws will pay off in Better conditions. I suppose throwing it to Mcneils feet would have been better then he could put a pinpoint cross with his right foot.

[RalphCoatesComb]

Wind up merchant!

No, but Spot is

[NewClaret]

Stoke/Burnley....2 balls in the same sack.

Stoke lasted 10 years I think. I’d take that right now!

Went down when trying to adapt their style. From what I read on The Oatcake, they’re not serving up much better football now.

[jedi_master]

So, I thought they were poor. However, why or how, is a good throw any different to a good cross?

Potentially no difference - but when you’re throwing in a ball with no pace in swirling wind that gives a defence an age to anticipate, it’s not hard to defend. I thought Roberts was meant to be an attacking right back who could cross a ball?

We have a giant of a striker and as I say, he didn’t have one opportunity to challenge for a cross thrown in with pace at him. We create bugger all on the deck so are generally relying on set pieces and headers from crosses, it just seemed utterly bizarre to me we cut off half of the potential supply line to do these throw ins.

[Steve1956]

Stoke lasted 10 years I think. I’d take that right now!

Went down when trying to adapt their style. From what I read on The Oatcake, they’re not serving up much better football now.

Give it 18 months and we will be 10 years behind Stoke

[jrgbfc]

Maybe take the odd short one to keep teams guessing a bit. Easy to defend when you know it's coming.

[Steve1956]

No, but Spot is

Stop hiding behind your poor pooch and man up.....man

[Rombald]

Potentially no difference - but when you’re throwing in a ball with no pace in swirling wind that gives a defence an age to anticipate, it’s not hard to defend. I thought Roberts was meant to be an attacking right back who could cross a ball?

We have a giant of a striker and as I say, he didn’t have one opportunity to challenge for a cross thrown in with pace at him. We create bugger all on the deck so are generally relying on set pieces and headers from crosses, it just seemed utterly bizarre to me we cut off half of the potential supply line to do these throw ins.

However from a throw in why not throw it into the box?
If Watford were picking it up then we could. I think we seem to forget that front 2 probably had on a few hours together this week. Roberts started game well in my opinion..Watford seemed to negate this after 30 mins.

[Woodleyclaret]

It will be a serious weapon in our defeat of Manure with their shite defence.

[boatshed bill]

A long throw into the danger area probably produces a maximum of 5% success rate...
or am I being too generous here?

[Boroclaret]

It is absolutely crap. A big looping throw that can easily be headed away.

[TsarBomba]

It was like trying to gain yards until we got to a point where the ball could be thrown into the box.

I was expecting a far more threatening throw - it was more like a big up and over that gives the defence an age to pick up the flight.

Exactly what I thought.

It was like an Allardyce team of old that purposely played for positions, whether that be free kicks or throw ins deep in the opposite half.

But Allardyce’s teams could also play a bit, too.

[RalphCoatesComb]

Stop hiding behind your poor pooch and man up.....man

[GodIsADeeJay81]

A long throw into the danger area probably produces a maximum of 5% success rate...
or am I being too generous here?

Just under 50% of throw ins aimed in an attacking direction are classed as successful, ie reach the intended player.
Throw ins aimed in a defensive or sideways direction are pretty much 100% successful in reaching their intended target.

On average there are 40 throw ins per game, that number is often greater than the number of free kicks, corners and penalties combined.

The longer a player takes to throw the ball, the lower the success rate because the opposition players become more prepared for it.

Our throw ins need to be taken faster and the ball needs to move quicker/flatter when thrown, a higher arc just makes it easier to defend against and have a lower success rate as a result.

Throw ins and their usefulness have been discussed for years, there have even been suggestions they should be replaced with kick ins.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/1 ... 4121991447

[dougcollins]

It'll potentially become as dangerous to us as our short corner routines.

[NewClaret]

A long throw into the danger area probably produces a maximum of 5% success rate...
or am I being too generous here?

Tonight it was less the throw and more the second balls it created. Pretty sure both Pieters effort, which looked like it would trouble Foster but was diverted wide, and Stephen’s sliced effort, came from those throws. We need to do better with the shots though.

[Vegas Claret]

Too windy for long throws.

**** me, that's as bad as Arteta blaming the length of the grass. I'd question why it was Tarkowski trying to win the flick ons instead of WW long before I blamed the weather

Just remember what Dyche always says - "We work in a no excuses environment"

Seen plenty making them on here tonight

[Cirrus_Minor]

I think there was a couple of ‘second ball’ chances from clearances to the ende of the penalty area but if this is to be an option then work is needed. Noticed that if the throw in was within 20 yards of the by line then Tarkowski went up to join the throng, but I can’t say it merited much.

[NewClaret]

Our throw ins need to be taken faster and the ball needs to move quicker/flatter when thrown, a higher arc just makes it easier to defend against and have a lower success rate as a result.

One thing I liked about Roberts today was he ran over to take the throws and on a couple of occasions threw it quickly down the line to the winger. The defenders had to come across and deal with it and we won another throw in further up the pitch. I agree we need to take them more quickly and that’s an example of how it can be effective.

Also completely agree about keeping them flat. I didn’t think they were too loopy tbh but something to work on.

Tarks took up an interesting position for one of them, sat on the keeper. We need to get players in different positions - one on the goal line near the corner flag, for example - and some different routines to keep the opposition guessing.

[claretandy]

Tarky won 1 flick on from it in the second half, sadly no-one was following in.

[KRBFC]

Really depressing and desperate, sad to see. It was like we were playing rugby, trying desperately to get the ball out of play for a throw in anywhere near their penalty box. Just praying for a lucky bounce is about our limit on creativity.

[NewClaret]

Tarky won 1 flick on from it in the second half, sadly no-one was following in.

Had forgotten about that one. Yep, there was at least 3 decent chances created from them. Whereas typically we create nothing from a throw in and often concede possession.

Just need to work on a bit of variety - some different routines/directions/flights to keep the defence guessing.

[warksclaret]

As with most of our play, there was no plan. Who was it aimed at, who was there for the flick on. It just seemed to be hurled in to no mans land. Our set pieces have deteriorated-we used to be so productive. What the hell do coaches do all week

[Stayingup]

Use occasionally. But its another boring tactic to add to our boring football.

[boatshed bill]

Just under 50% of throw ins aimed in an attacking direction are classed as successful, ie reach the intended player.
Throw ins aimed in a defensive or sideways direction are pretty much 100% successful in reaching their intended target.

On average there are 40 throw ins per game, that number is often greater than the number of free kicks, corners and penalties combined.

The longer a player takes to throw the ball, the lower the success rate because the opposition players become more prepared for it.

Our throw ins need to be taken faster and the ball needs to move quicker/flatter when thrown, a higher arc just makes it easier to defend against and have a lower success rate as a result.

Throw ins and their usefulness have been discussed for years, there have even been suggestions they should be replaced with kick ins.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/1 ... 4121991447

I was suggesting that they don't produce many goals, rather than reach the intended recipient.
I'm sure we all realise it's one of the crudest attacking moves in football, which is probably why the top sides don't use it.

[beddie]

Let’s see what happens with them in calmer conditions. They certainly need more pace on them and to be straighter rather than arced. Some of Rory Delap’s throws were like missiles coming in.

[Rileybobs]

Useful to get us out of our half when we win a throw in in a defensive position but otherwise fairly useless and mundane. Another example of players bottling any kind of responsibility to make things happen by not showing for the short throw and waving the centre backs forward.