Get Bruno off corners and FKs he's dreadful at both. Eriksen has the most consistent delivery from corners but of the starting 11, I'd take anybody over Bruno.
Andreas Georgson - New Set-Piece Coach
- Thread starter RedRocket9908
- Start date
If you’re wondering what the point of a set piece specialist is, just look at Arsenal, who scores a fourth of their goals or so from set pieces, an has had one for years, notably Georgson as well.
If you’re wondering what the point of us having a set piece coach is, it’s that we have effectively lacked one since Solskjær was fired, and our set pieces both ways have given us a huge handicap.
If you’re wondering when we are gonna see an uptick in set piece ability, it’s a bit more complex answer. We have already improved very clearly on defensive set pieces, which are normally the first focus of a set piece coach. That’s the first part of the answer. The second part, regarding attacking set poeces, is that it depends on a lot. Set piece training takes time from a lot of the other training, so it’s a trade-off. In periods with a new coach, or many injuries, or when basic play isn’t working, a team aiming to dominate games will not prioritize set piece training. In preseason it’s possible to get some done, but with United it’s challenging since we have many key players with late vacations, so many of the key players are not on on much of the drills. Additionally, in s short time you can only implement a few variants. The way to be effective on attacking set pieces over a time span, is to have many variants, otherwise the opposition will quickly know what to expect. For Georgson, he probably has been tasked primarily with defensive set pieces for this preseason, and then given training time for a few attacking variants, which we saw in the first games of the season. When basic play was suffering, attacking set piece training has likely been set aside for later.
Van Nistelrooy taking over and now Amorim, will likely mean that Georgson is not going to be able to affect our attacking set pieces much this side of February anyway.
Bruno's corners are really not that good, though. He frequently hits them too low and straight at the front post defenders.
Mount's corners are better than Fernandes'. Even if we played with 10 men and he just sat in a mobility scooter waiting to be driven to whichever side of the pitch the corner was awarded from, we'd have more success.
I agree. I was more referring to Telles who use to bag tons of assist of them.
Delivery is the problem. Fernandes delivery technique is just poor.
Even if someone connects with one of his deliveries, the ball isn't hit in such a way that allows someone to direct it towards goal successfully. Height, spin & power determine how a header might be able to redirect the ball towards goal. His are low, flat and hit too hard and direct, doesn't leave players with much opportunity to adjust and attack the ball.
His run up is wrong and how he strikes the ball is wrong. It's not rocket science, either he needs to adjust his technique or someone takes them.
We aren’t exactly blessed with players who specialise in crossing a ball. Luke shaw use to take them whenever he plays.
People on the internet telling footballers how to play football will never not be funny. If it’s a technical issue, I would imagine one of the professional coaches from the last decade of his career may have noticed.
Nothing to do with telling him how to play football, it's as plain as day that it's a technique issue and a lot of it is down to understanding ball physics and how a cross can be met and where the ball will likely go after.
You don't need to be a professional coach or footballer to understand that, just look at his delivery and compare it someone who can deliver a good corner into a good area. It very much looks nobody has ever tried to work with him to improve the quality and consistency of his deliveries from corners.
Should teams have attacking set piece coaches and defensive ones?
Random thought I'm having seeing this thread near the top again. Would think they're very different skills.
Here's another - how much work do teams actually do on them? If I'd come up with a new routine I think I'd like to test it a lot in training to see how many we goals we actually score over 100 or 200 repetitions comparing it to all the other routines I had up my sleeve and doing the same for them. Need substantial testing to see if they actually work. Couldn't tell the defenders in training which one we were doing each time either and actually would want them coached by someone else to see what they come up with to stop us which would truly see how effective each routine was. Would make adjustments / tweaks from there or chuck out a particular routine altogehter. Then you'd have to deal with getting enough repetiton into everyone as big centre halves would have to be on the attacking team and the defensive one half the time each so you can double that workload.
I don't think there's any way they can put in that kind of volume or would I be wrong? Without that it would seem all a bit imprecise as a discipline. Players would be bored out of their mind if you did go that far of course and I'd doubt there's enough time for that anyway. Imagine set piece coaches must alway be nagging the manager for additional practice time though.
Random thought I'm having seeing this thread near the top again. Would think they're very different skills.
Here's another - how much work do teams actually do on them? If I'd come up with a new routine I think I'd like to test it a lot in training to see how many we goals we actually score over 100 or 200 repetitions comparing it to all the other routines I had up my sleeve and doing the same for them. Need substantial testing to see if they actually work. Couldn't tell the defenders in training which one we were doing each time either and actually would want them coached by someone else to see what they come up with to stop us which would truly see how effective each routine was. Would make adjustments / tweaks from there or chuck out a particular routine altogehter. Then you'd have to deal with getting enough repetiton into everyone as big centre halves would have to be on the attacking team and the defensive one half the time each so you can double that workload.
I don't think there's any way they can put in that kind of volume or would I be wrong? Without that it would seem all a bit imprecise as a discipline. Players would be bored out of their mind if you did go that far of course and I'd doubt there's enough time for that anyway. Imagine set piece coaches must alway be nagging the manager for additional practice time though.
Last edited:
Absolutely in my opinion, and there's no better argument for this than simply pointing to Aston Villa. Since MacPhee joined they've been great at attacking set pieces, but that's undermined by the fact that they ship so many defending them. Even for us, there was that insanely long period where we couldn't score from any set piece to save our lives, but it flew under the radar a bit that we improved markedly at defending them when they fell under the purview of Eric Ramsay.
From what I've read teams typically spend practically a whole day on them, usually as close to match day as possible. Teams without midweek games naturally have a bit more time to work on them if they want.
The problem is, people think that it is an instant impact.. hire a set piece coach and suddenly we are better... it doesn't work like that.
We will have to see how we look at set plays during the season and how we have improved as the season goes on, as he was only appointed at the start of the season.
Needing 100-200 practice runs on a single routine is a ridiculous over-exaggeration. Set piece coaches will devise the routines based on video analysis of the team and their opponents, not by using the first team as test subjects. And professional footballers do not need 100-200 attempts to figure out a set piece routine. My 12 yo son and his mates could get consistent in fewer attempts than that.
I don't expect that they would do anywhere near that, and in terms of consistently having your players make the movements asked of them with the correct timing and the right delivery I'm sure it could be done as little as 6-10 attempts.
Still, that leaves a lot guesswork and makes the whole thing a bit vague, or difficult to assess I'd have thought.
4.8% of corners resulted in a goal last season according to this. Roughly 1 in 25. So if you ran a routine 10 times in practice there's huge chance you'd score 0 goals even if it was an average sort of routine and a perfectly average sort of idea. How does the set piece coach have confidence to take one idea into a game more than another if they'd pretty much all tend to result in 0 goals when practicing?
If video analysis shows an opponent is weak at the far post for example you'd seek to exploit that, but I'd have thought there's a huge number of possible ways to try and do that in theory.
Last edited:
I don’t think that’s true. Set pieces in training are very different to in a game situation. Defenders won’t defend them as intensely (and sometimes not at all)
I remember Jose Mourinho said that Marcus Rahford had the ideal technique for corners and freekicks from wide areas, because he could hit them low, flat, hard and direct, because too much height and spin makes it difficult to redirect the ball towards goal with any speed and precision.
Good point. Suppose that adds even more noise and uncertainty to everything.
Maybe that should be a new venture of mine, start a school exclusively for set piece coaches with full time guinea pig practice players so they can test out whether or not some ideas even work in principle better than others. Different kettle of fish in the real world though as different squads will have different profiles of players when it comes to who can deliver what sort of ball, how many they have who are good at attacking the ball etc. and my poor employees will end up brain damaged from all the heading.
The set piece coach needs to walk Bruno over to a corner quadrant and get someone to stand facing them on the edge of the penalty area.
Then present him with a Subbuteo piece and instruct him:
"Ok. One last time. This man is small. The man over there is faaar awaaaaay"
Then present him with a Subbuteo piece and instruct him:
"Ok. One last time. This man is small. The man over there is faaar awaaaaay"
I recall he put him on set pieces for one game against Chelsea and never really did it ever again. I think aiming for just beyond the far post was Mourinho's go to corner, Rashford could barely ever beat the first man either.
You would work top down, not bottom up. You would review hundreds, if not thousands, of set pieces across lots of different games. Then you would extrapolate which principles or ideas worked most often, and in what context. Then you would devise routines that fit within those principles, in conjunction your understanding of the team and your opponent. You'd train the ideas and principles via a handful of routines that showed variation on a theme. Then you would judge their net effect over a long period of time, not a single game. Refine as needed.
Yeah, I think he was saying more about what makes a good corner than about Rashfords ability as a set piece taker tbh
That was a delicious bit of deliberate set-piece magic.
Apparently that routine was down to one of Amorim's coaches, so I wonder what Georgson's role is here.
Regardless who is in charge, we simply must copy paste what Arsenal do for the corners and if Bruno can't start clearing the first man and place it properly, we have to find someone who can, while loading the team behind the keeper. It's just so effective.
Everyone will be doing this soon enough.
Regardless who is in charge, we simply must copy paste what Arsenal do for the corners and if Bruno can't start clearing the first man and place it properly, we have to find someone who can, while loading the team behind the keeper. It's just so effective.
Everyone will be doing this soon enough.
Their tactic is twofold. Perfect cross and foul the defenders. As long as referees allow the fouling the tactic will work so I assume until end of time given how Pep tactics of stopping counters are still perfectly fine.
That depends entirely on which team is doing the fouling.
Give him what he wants
It all just seems like a diversionary tactic to me, aim to move the defenders around and have them run back and forwards across the box, which creates space / chaos.
If you just stood still and attacked the ball in your zone it wouldn't be a problem.
If you just stood still and attacked the ball in your zone it wouldn't be a problem.
You can’t stand still and attack the ball when you’re getting two handed shove in the back.
Thought for a moment you were talking about the one which put Antony through. That was pretty neat too.
Just go poach Jover from Arsenal ffs
Meh. Sooner or later refs will crack down on the fouling and the fun will be over for them. It’s hardly rocket science what they’re doing.
For the most part you're right, the only difference is that where the Arsenal players go to could impede where you were moving. As its zonal you dont get a run at the ball so its already an advantage to the attacking team, although with Arsenal's tactic most of the players are picking up an area and being still also.
I don't think it's just about fouling. That's a pretty sore take. They go behind the keeper so the defenders turn away from the corner taker which keeps them guessing. It's an absolute nuisance to deal with and they happen to have two very good corner takers (amazed that Rice has that delivery).
If we can start teaching Bruno to clear the first man and huddle up behind the GK like that we'll immediately improve on corners.
I remember Rooney talking about taking notes from other people's set pieces and thinking to have them coming from all angles from the edge of the four corners of the box just to create chaos. It's maybe a bit extreme, but we clearly saw tonight that we could not deal with how they set up. It maybe requires an Oliver Kahn to come out with violence to claim the ball and a couple of rough centre backs, none of which we possess.
Anyhow, I don't blame Arsenal for using what is an incredibly effective strategy there.
If we can start teaching Bruno to clear the first man and huddle up behind the GK like that we'll immediately improve on corners.
I remember Rooney talking about taking notes from other people's set pieces and thinking to have them coming from all angles from the edge of the four corners of the box just to create chaos. It's maybe a bit extreme, but we clearly saw tonight that we could not deal with how they set up. It maybe requires an Oliver Kahn to come out with violence to claim the ball and a couple of rough centre backs, none of which we possess.
Anyhow, I don't blame Arsenal for using what is an incredibly effective strategy there.
That's not quite true though, it's a common misconception, caused by commentators and pundits not really understanding zonal marking and writing it off as some flawed Continental nonsense.
You don't just stand still and wait for the ball to land on your head, you're meant to attack the ball within your zone.
Trust me, man marking might work at Sunday League level, when you're up against lads who, even if they're tall, don't attack the ball with power, intent and timing...but as soon as you start to encounter better opponents it's impossible.
The problem we had last night is we allowed what Arsenal were doing to distract us, hence why I call it a "diversionary tactic".
Fundamentally, all they're doing is having players rush the front post to create chaos as the blockers try to track their runners etc...and the defensive headers in their zones panic and vacate their area / forget to attack the ball.
I wouldn't have bothered acknowledging the players at the back post at all. Simplify the strategy by having your two best headers in tight zones at the front post. I wouldn't be worried about the nonsense going on at the back post, it's designed to distract, like England's set-up at the World Cup.
You might be meant to but you dont have 5-10 yards to run into. The opposition does. Its that simple. They come in with momentum and you're surrounded by players in their own zones
Georgson is no longer a set piece coach here.
I am absolutely buzzing about Amorim so far but I must say that this Georgsen thing gives me some very slight pause for concern. Amorim has been upfront about wanting to have a lot of control at his clubs because the on pitch responsibility lands with him. I totally get that. I also agree with his conviction to hold a strong identity in the style of play etc. Fantastic.
However, by all accounts, Georgsen is a very good set piece coach who is spoken about in the same vein as Jover at Arsenal. Last night had Jover’s fingerprints all over it and credit to Arteta for embracing his work. I’m sure Carlos Fernandes is a good coach but he isn’t a specific set piece coach; it’s just one of his remits. To really get the marginal gains (that can actually turn into pivotal gains), a specific set piece coach is widely accepted to be a must. American Football has been way ahead on this for years.
It was obvious when Ruben was asked about Georgsen that he isn’t part of his inner circle and isn’t trusted. Maybe he’s not good enough - fine. But this, to me, has shades of ETH dismissing Ralf Rangnick. Trusting one’s own people is understandable but I wonder whether this points to a slight element of stubbornness and inability to embrace other ideas. I hope it doesn’t and I understand if people think I’m being dramatic.
However, by all accounts, Georgsen is a very good set piece coach who is spoken about in the same vein as Jover at Arsenal. Last night had Jover’s fingerprints all over it and credit to Arteta for embracing his work. I’m sure Carlos Fernandes is a good coach but he isn’t a specific set piece coach; it’s just one of his remits. To really get the marginal gains (that can actually turn into pivotal gains), a specific set piece coach is widely accepted to be a must. American Football has been way ahead on this for years.
It was obvious when Ruben was asked about Georgsen that he isn’t part of his inner circle and isn’t trusted. Maybe he’s not good enough - fine. But this, to me, has shades of ETH dismissing Ralf Rangnick. Trusting one’s own people is understandable but I wonder whether this points to a slight element of stubbornness and inability to embrace other ideas. I hope it doesn’t and I understand if people think I’m being dramatic.
You can do all the routines and coaching of positions for set pieces you like, but if the taker isn't consistently putting the ball into dangerous areas it is pretty pointless. Our current takers can't be relied upon to consistently put the opposition under pressure to defend in dangerous areas.