Football
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
02 Jan 26
10:55
Joined:
Date Joined:
03 Dec 15
The attacking value of set pieces for teams such as Arsenal, Chelsea and Leeds United, or the defensive vulnerability of sides including Bournemouth, Crystal Palace and Liverpool, has been covered extensively. However, the extent to which it has changed football has not.
Now, with nearly half a season’s worth of data, we can see its distortive effect, specifically, how it is making games more risk-averse and boring.
A set piece goal is scored, on average, every 0.8 games — a 31 per cent increase compared to last season. That means the average Premier League weekend features eight more goals from set pieces.
Corners are the biggest contributor. Last season 0.36 corners were scored per game, 0.2 for free kicks, and 0.05 for throw-ins — they have increased to 0.52, 0.17 and 0.1 respectively.
The phenomenon has spread to Italy, where set pieces have led to 24 per cent of goals this season, and continues to affect the Bundesliga (21 per cent) after a spike to 23 per cent last season.
Set pieces are, fundamentally, “easy” goals. Teams can rehearse them on the training pitch and transpose them to a match, in a way they cannot in open play.
Whereas it is challenging to win possession, move upfield and deconstruct a settled defence (often by taking risks such as moving players into the area), for set pieces it is simple.
Win a free kick 40 yards from goal and you can pack the box with more players than you would in open play: one long kick, and you have a decent chance of a shot; one smart routine with some blocking, and you have a great chance of a high-quality shot. Likewise with winning cheap throw-ins if you have a long-throw specialist in your team.
Corners require more work to earn, but if you are good at them, they are easier to convert into goals than a normal possession sequence.
Think of how many possessions a team has every game, and how many turn into shots (and goals). Then consider how many set pieces a team has, and how often they are converted into shots (and goals).
Eight Premier League teams have scored 33 per cent or more of their goals from set pieces this season, primarily from corners.
Given the Premier League’s wealth and how that money has attracted the world’s best players, coaches and analysts, it feels perverse that many clubs use tactics that are antithetical to celebrating technical skills and instead focus on maximising physical attributes.
Yet, optimising set pieces is logical. For years data analysts insisted they are an underutilised resource, ripe for exploitation.
With just a bit of attention — 15 or so minutes at the end of a day’s training session — the returns can outstrip the value of a new signing.
It makes sense financially: why commit millions to a new striker in the hope they score 20 goals, when a set-piece coach could potentially add ten goals to a team and help them concede ten fewer, for a fraction of the price?
Likewise, tactically: why labour over long possession sequences designed to deconstruct an opponent’s defence and create one-on-ones with the goalkeeper when you can launch the ball into the box, block the goalkeeper and get a tall defender to head it?
The issue is that football is a low-scoring sport. It is meant to be hard to score goals. “Easy” goals upset football’s fine calibration between defensive and attacking tactics.
In other words: the incentive to try to score open-play goals is reduced when set pieces offer an easier alternative — this is why games feel more boring.
I asked a senior Ifab official in late September if they were concerned about the rise in set-piece goals. However, their view was that more set-piece goals was a positive.
“It means more goals overall — who doesn’t want more goals?” they contended.
The official was surprised by my question and said this was the first time anyone had raised it (the following month, Ifab discussed the possibility of limiting the time teams could spend on throw-ins and goal kicks).
They made an intriguing point: more goals equals more entertainment. However, more set-piece goals doesn’t necessitate more goals overall.
In fact, this Premier League season has featured fewer goals per game (2.78), as the rate of set-piece goals has increased, while the rate of open-play goals has fallen to a greater degree.
On average, there are 0.18 more goals per game from set pieces, but 0.35 fewer goals from open play, and 0.5 fewer goals overall.
This season, 64.6 per cent of goals are from open play — the lowest percentage since 2009-10 and the second-lowest in the Premier League era.
Set pieces, meanwhile, comprise 28.4 per cent of goals — the highest rate since 2009-10.
I think the point the Ifab official was making was that more goals should lead to greater entertainment. But I don’t think that holds true, either; more goals can lead to greater entertainment, but not necessarily.
What underpins entertainment (and quality) is how closely contested matches are.
A shorthand measure of competitiveness is the victory margin. Of the matches played this season, 21.7 per cent are draws; 40 per cent have been settled by one goal, 22 per cent by two, and the remaining 16 per cent by three or more.
But that data is aggregated (and therefore imperfect); when we take a deeper look (and watch matches) we can see they play out differently.
Over the past two seasons set pieces have become more important to shaping matches: 70.8 per cent of set-piece goals this season have either been equalisers or given teams the lead.
Equalisers or go-ahead goals are the most valuable goals, as they earn points and turn potential losses into draws, or draws into wins. “Game-state” — whether a team is winning, losing or drawing — is the single most influential determinant of tactics: a team that is in the lead can take fewer risks, and vice versa. This is how set pieces are changing the game and tactics, and why games feel more boring.
Arsenal’s 4-1 win over Aston Villa on Tuesday is the logical extension of a set-piece oriented line of thinking.
If a team, such as Arsenal, can consistently score goals from set pieces, why should they take risks in open play when the game is level?
Why not keep the game tight and scrappy, get a set-piece goal, then sit back and counter?
It is much less risky. In fact, that is exactly what they did after a slow, uninspiring first half. After taking the lead from a corner, they picked Villa off as the visiting side took more risks to chase the game.
It makes tactical sense but it’s less entertaining to watch. And Arsenal are by no means the only team that has embraced these tactics.
So, how do we fix this?
Maybe teams simply need to improve at defending set pieces by reacting to the increasingly complex attacking tactics. But referees in the Premier League allow players to grapple, block and jostle more than in Europe, so it is not straightforward.
Simply recruiting a set-piece coach is not the answer either. Liverpool’s former set piece coach Aaron Briggs departed on Tuesday, after struggling to improve the team’s vulnerability from them.
One expert says that there is a scarcity of elite set-piece coaches, which further complicates matters. Those that have come through Brentford — Nicolas Jover (now at Arsenal), Bernardo Cueva (Chelsea), and Andreas Georgson (Tottenham) — are particularly prized.
Perhaps teams need to think about set pieces differently.
When organising defensive set pieces, coaches often have a few fundamental principles but after that, it is a matter of taste. A coach may wish to reinforce the front-post area, protect the penalty spot, or ensure there is a good aerial presence positioned deep. But just like in open play, it is impossible to cover everything, so it is a matter of prioritisation.
The issue with prioritising is it is easy for opponents to identify weaknesses.
But just as an attacking team has a range of routines used to exploit weaknesses, why shouldn’t the defending team have a selection of set-ups to surprise the attacking team? Moving a couple of players from one zone to another can keep the opponent guessing, and disrupt their plans to exploit vulnerabilities.
Or maybe it requires Ifab to introduce set-pieces timers or ensure that all throw-ins are legal and taken from where the ball went out, to clamp down on dark arts in the box.
The optimisation of set pieces is the latest consequence of data and analytics changing football. American sports such as basketball and baseball encountered similar phenomena, but dealt with them differently.
For example, the number of shots taken from mid-range in basketball has declined as teams identified that shooting from close range for a near-guaranteed two points was a better play compared to the slightly more risky mid-range shots. Likewise, attempting three-point shots was worth the risk of a slightly lower scoring rate.
In baseball, fielding teams tended to spread their players out evenly, but smarter teams realised they could just move their fielders to where a specific batter was most likely to hit the ball. For example, if the data showed that a hitter rarely hit the ball to the third baseman but hit a lot of balls between the first and second baseman, teams would move the third baseman to the right side of the diamond to make it harder for the batter to record a hit.
This was known as the “infield shift”. It was intelligent, effective and reduced the opposition’s batting average — but in 2023 the shift was banned. Why? Because it made the game worse as a spectacle, and sports need to be calibrated so one tactic is never too under or overpowered.
We can let football change or resist it. But it is unavoidable that results are increasingly affected, if not determined, by set pieces, and it has begun to affect selection (taller players being picked), coaches, and recruitment.
Some clubs and sporting directors have bet on set pieces and directness being the future — you can tell which ones believe set pieces will be even more important by the tall and physical players they sign.
Set pieces are not going anywhere, but the question is how will football respond to their growing influence, and rebalance matches to be more entertaining again?
Now, with nearly half a season’s worth of data, we can see its distortive effect, specifically, how it is making games more risk-averse and boring.
A set piece goal is scored, on average, every 0.8 games — a 31 per cent increase compared to last season. That means the average Premier League weekend features eight more goals from set pieces.
Corners are the biggest contributor. Last season 0.36 corners were scored per game, 0.2 for free kicks, and 0.05 for throw-ins — they have increased to 0.52, 0.17 and 0.1 respectively.
The phenomenon has spread to Italy, where set pieces have led to 24 per cent of goals this season, and continues to affect the Bundesliga (21 per cent) after a spike to 23 per cent last season.
Set pieces are, fundamentally, “easy” goals. Teams can rehearse them on the training pitch and transpose them to a match, in a way they cannot in open play.
Whereas it is challenging to win possession, move upfield and deconstruct a settled defence (often by taking risks such as moving players into the area), for set pieces it is simple.
Win a free kick 40 yards from goal and you can pack the box with more players than you would in open play: one long kick, and you have a decent chance of a shot; one smart routine with some blocking, and you have a great chance of a high-quality shot. Likewise with winning cheap throw-ins if you have a long-throw specialist in your team.
Corners require more work to earn, but if you are good at them, they are easier to convert into goals than a normal possession sequence.
Think of how many possessions a team has every game, and how many turn into shots (and goals). Then consider how many set pieces a team has, and how often they are converted into shots (and goals).
Eight Premier League teams have scored 33 per cent or more of their goals from set pieces this season, primarily from corners.
Given the Premier League’s wealth and how that money has attracted the world’s best players, coaches and analysts, it feels perverse that many clubs use tactics that are antithetical to celebrating technical skills and instead focus on maximising physical attributes.
Yet, optimising set pieces is logical. For years data analysts insisted they are an underutilised resource, ripe for exploitation.
With just a bit of attention — 15 or so minutes at the end of a day’s training session — the returns can outstrip the value of a new signing.
It makes sense financially: why commit millions to a new striker in the hope they score 20 goals, when a set-piece coach could potentially add ten goals to a team and help them concede ten fewer, for a fraction of the price?
Likewise, tactically: why labour over long possession sequences designed to deconstruct an opponent’s defence and create one-on-ones with the goalkeeper when you can launch the ball into the box, block the goalkeeper and get a tall defender to head it?
The issue is that football is a low-scoring sport. It is meant to be hard to score goals. “Easy” goals upset football’s fine calibration between defensive and attacking tactics.
In other words: the incentive to try to score open-play goals is reduced when set pieces offer an easier alternative — this is why games feel more boring.
I asked a senior Ifab official in late September if they were concerned about the rise in set-piece goals. However, their view was that more set-piece goals was a positive.
“It means more goals overall — who doesn’t want more goals?” they contended.
The official was surprised by my question and said this was the first time anyone had raised it (the following month, Ifab discussed the possibility of limiting the time teams could spend on throw-ins and goal kicks).
They made an intriguing point: more goals equals more entertainment. However, more set-piece goals doesn’t necessitate more goals overall.
In fact, this Premier League season has featured fewer goals per game (2.78), as the rate of set-piece goals has increased, while the rate of open-play goals has fallen to a greater degree.
On average, there are 0.18 more goals per game from set pieces, but 0.35 fewer goals from open play, and 0.5 fewer goals overall.
This season, 64.6 per cent of goals are from open play — the lowest percentage since 2009-10 and the second-lowest in the Premier League era.
Set pieces, meanwhile, comprise 28.4 per cent of goals — the highest rate since 2009-10.
I think the point the Ifab official was making was that more goals should lead to greater entertainment. But I don’t think that holds true, either; more goals can lead to greater entertainment, but not necessarily.
What underpins entertainment (and quality) is how closely contested matches are.
A shorthand measure of competitiveness is the victory margin. Of the matches played this season, 21.7 per cent are draws; 40 per cent have been settled by one goal, 22 per cent by two, and the remaining 16 per cent by three or more.
But that data is aggregated (and therefore imperfect); when we take a deeper look (and watch matches) we can see they play out differently.
Over the past two seasons set pieces have become more important to shaping matches: 70.8 per cent of set-piece goals this season have either been equalisers or given teams the lead.
Equalisers or go-ahead goals are the most valuable goals, as they earn points and turn potential losses into draws, or draws into wins. “Game-state” — whether a team is winning, losing or drawing — is the single most influential determinant of tactics: a team that is in the lead can take fewer risks, and vice versa. This is how set pieces are changing the game and tactics, and why games feel more boring.
Arsenal’s 4-1 win over Aston Villa on Tuesday is the logical extension of a set-piece oriented line of thinking.
If a team, such as Arsenal, can consistently score goals from set pieces, why should they take risks in open play when the game is level?
Why not keep the game tight and scrappy, get a set-piece goal, then sit back and counter?
It is much less risky. In fact, that is exactly what they did after a slow, uninspiring first half. After taking the lead from a corner, they picked Villa off as the visiting side took more risks to chase the game.
It makes tactical sense but it’s less entertaining to watch. And Arsenal are by no means the only team that has embraced these tactics.
So, how do we fix this?
Maybe teams simply need to improve at defending set pieces by reacting to the increasingly complex attacking tactics. But referees in the Premier League allow players to grapple, block and jostle more than in Europe, so it is not straightforward.
Simply recruiting a set-piece coach is not the answer either. Liverpool’s former set piece coach Aaron Briggs departed on Tuesday, after struggling to improve the team’s vulnerability from them.
One expert says that there is a scarcity of elite set-piece coaches, which further complicates matters. Those that have come through Brentford — Nicolas Jover (now at Arsenal), Bernardo Cueva (Chelsea), and Andreas Georgson (Tottenham) — are particularly prized.
Perhaps teams need to think about set pieces differently.
When organising defensive set pieces, coaches often have a few fundamental principles but after that, it is a matter of taste. A coach may wish to reinforce the front-post area, protect the penalty spot, or ensure there is a good aerial presence positioned deep. But just like in open play, it is impossible to cover everything, so it is a matter of prioritisation.
The issue with prioritising is it is easy for opponents to identify weaknesses.
But just as an attacking team has a range of routines used to exploit weaknesses, why shouldn’t the defending team have a selection of set-ups to surprise the attacking team? Moving a couple of players from one zone to another can keep the opponent guessing, and disrupt their plans to exploit vulnerabilities.
Or maybe it requires Ifab to introduce set-pieces timers or ensure that all throw-ins are legal and taken from where the ball went out, to clamp down on dark arts in the box.
The optimisation of set pieces is the latest consequence of data and analytics changing football. American sports such as basketball and baseball encountered similar phenomena, but dealt with them differently.
For example, the number of shots taken from mid-range in basketball has declined as teams identified that shooting from close range for a near-guaranteed two points was a better play compared to the slightly more risky mid-range shots. Likewise, attempting three-point shots was worth the risk of a slightly lower scoring rate.
In baseball, fielding teams tended to spread their players out evenly, but smarter teams realised they could just move their fielders to where a specific batter was most likely to hit the ball. For example, if the data showed that a hitter rarely hit the ball to the third baseman but hit a lot of balls between the first and second baseman, teams would move the third baseman to the right side of the diamond to make it harder for the batter to record a hit.
This was known as the “infield shift”. It was intelligent, effective and reduced the opposition’s batting average — but in 2023 the shift was banned. Why? Because it made the game worse as a spectacle, and sports need to be calibrated so one tactic is never too under or overpowered.
We can let football change or resist it. But it is unavoidable that results are increasingly affected, if not determined, by set pieces, and it has begun to affect selection (taller players being picked), coaches, and recruitment.
Some clubs and sporting directors have bet on set pieces and directness being the future — you can tell which ones believe set pieces will be even more important by the tall and physical players they sign.
Set pieces are not going anywhere, but the question is how will football respond to their growing influence, and rebalance matches to be more entertaining again?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 59
|
By:
Win a free kick 40 yards from goal and you can pack the box with more players than you would in open play: one long kick, and you have a decent chance of a shot;
Pity about offside, so corners and throw ins are far more valuable. Can see them changing offside law to stop long throws if it's working against big teams. Liverpool ain't got a long throw, what's slot gonna do... |
|
By:
They'll eventually catch up and do what others are doing: buy players based on their size and ability to grapple rather than on technical skill.
yippee. |
|
By:
Go get themselves a top set piece coach, and play for corners and free kicks rather than risk a counter by threading a dangerous ball.
A goal's a goal. When you value a scrappy set piece goal over a beautiful team move, and the former is so much easier, then logic dictates you prioritise that. Because results are all that matters. Who cares if the atmosphere is dead and the entertainment level is sinking through the floor? Let's just have twenty teams all playing the low block, exaggerating every contact and taking 45 seconds over every throw in. And charge the public a small fortune to enjoy it. |
|
By:
officials dont enforce foul throws anymore particularly the foot on the touchline or pitch from long throws
|
|
By:
African Premier League
 |
|
By:
Brazil 1970 gave a blueprint.
If referees want to allow pushing and shirt pulling and holding, so they can decide how much of each is actually a foul so decisions increasingly fall in their hands then this is where we are. It's a joke that fullbacks routinely don't contest headers but time their push to disrupt opposition, without using enough force to see a free kick awarded, unless ref fancies giving one. |
|
By:
The one that really grinds my gears right now is the attacker stepping across a defender or putting the brakes on to force a foul. VAR should be able to intervene there and see who caused the collision.
|
|
By:
Lost its panache is for ballerinas and pumperdinks now is getting less and less enjoyable to watch to the point of being soooooooooooo boring - last night was a yawn fest and dreadful. VAR is such a massive contributory factor there is no flow this is not football anymore is it let's be honest the refs are just pawns of the geezers in the ivory towers.
|
|
By:
Nah the refs are the main attraction as they can
penalise any foul, push, shirt pull, or hold... But choose to let most of them go. Messi would be an 8 goal a season man in his prime in current Premier league rule interpretations |
|
By:
Porcupine, I disagree
If a forward gets across in front of a defender he is in control...if he wants to check his stride and make the defender commit a foul, then the defender must tread carefully otherwise indeed a foul is commited Defenders get their own back at set pieces when their holding usually goes completely unpunished...you could have 5 or 6 penalties a game, which wouldn't be great viewing |
|
By:
"In fact, this Premier League season has featured fewer goals per game (2.78), as the rate of set-piece goals has increased, while the rate of open-play goals has fallen to a greater degree.
On average, there are 0.18 more goals per game from set pieces, but 0.35 fewer goals from open play, and 0.5 fewer goals overall." There were 3.28 gpg in 23/24 which is where the 0.5 figure comes from. That is a massive outlier season by 0.5 gpg, the bottom 3 were atrociously bad for conceding with Sheff U breaking the record (104 conceded). 2.78 gpg is slightly above average and quite normal. Fewer teams are defending with high line & press as much as prev years, they are parking the bus more which leads to fewer open play goals and more set-piece goals. |
|
By:
to cut down on long throw-ins I would change the rules so that the ball must bounce or touch a player before entering the penalty area from a throw-in
|
|
By:
reg - but I think it crosses the line into, well, cheating. And again, it goes to the main point of the current game being too set-piece focused, piecemeal, stop start and low on flow and entertainment.
I know the letter of the law says he's entitled to do it, but it's clear that he's instigating the challenge, potentially causing an injury for the opponent and then feigning injury. Don't disagree on grappling at set pieces particularly. I'd say blocking is probably the bigger thing now. It's more like NFL sometimes. There should simply be a law stating that impeding your opponent from winning the ball (I'd also include the ridiculous shepherding the ball out crap) is a foul in itself. Just play the game clean. |
|
By:
Porky.. Reg played Centre Forward
 |
|
By:
I always felt at its heart football was quite a boring game. Punctuated by moments of brilliance.
From what I have noticed, this season has seen the abandonment of the Guardiola experiment. Hi-press & passing out from the back. So the emphasis on set pieces as a goalscoring threat has been heightened. What we may have to suffer for some time is Long Ball English football with added VAR to knock even more joy out of the game. Sort of like the Football League, but without the fun. |
|
By:
What naysayers who hate Arsenal scoring from corners neglect is the delivery from Rice & Saka is usually very accurate.
It's as daft as criticising Beckham for being good at free kicks from 25 yards out. Corners only come about from attacking play. If you fear conceding from corners, then don't give corners away - the same as not giving free kicks away from just outside the box if there's a specialist dead ball player who might score from them. |
|
By:
More set-piece goals, fewer mug goals playing out. A proper title race and 2 of the promoted sides not in the bottom 3.
|
|
By:
I remember when Arsenal used to get stick for not scoring goals from corners.
|
|
By:
Typical Gooners.
Game is going to ratchet and they are wallowing in it. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
As Wesdag says, other teams don't have Saka and Rice to take corners.
It is still not luck. |
|
By:
Yeah right.
Because thats the true metric of football greatness. The ability to take a corner. If thats not the most English argument I have heard, I don't know what is. Wasnt long ago that Declan Rice was getting criticised by Graeme Souness for being unable to play on the half-turn. Fair play to Arteta. Cos him & young Kroenke have worked out what it takes to win this league. Which it looks like they will. But his team is the true heir to the Boring Arsenal sides of George Graham. Packed full of runners in midfield and just enough goals in the forward line. Some muppets like Piers Morgan think they are going to win the UCL as well. Dream on. |
|
By:
The game is always evolving.
Corners have been a neglected aspect of the game which teams/managers are paying more attention to. It's all about "marginal gains" etc. If you have an aspect of your game which you can exploit, why not do so? It really is no different to 25 yard free kicks. If delivering the perfect corner/25 yard free kick is so easy, why isn't every team do the same? Should we also castigate Cantona & Le Tissier for being so good from the spot? |
|
By:
I don’t care how teams score goals. Without them the game would be unwatchable. Indeed, we wouldn’t be interested in it.
|
|
By:
I think the last few posts make some valid points, but I actually think the issue is at the other end.
The problem with the game isn't marginal gains, or teams winning the league because they're better at corners. The problem is that there are no Ipswiches or Swanseas any more. Teams who want to succeed on their game. Who have tactically innovative plays and exciting players. Everyone now - everyone - is simply just trying to spoil games, slow play down, stop any sense of momentum that would get the home fans energised and might feed back to the players, and look to win free kicks, corners, and now throw ins up the pitch and play the percentages and try to snatch a goal that way. As with the dodgy attacker conning a free kick, it's all within the laws of the game, but the problem is that those laws are being abused and it's the quality of the spectacle that is suffering. Rules need to be rapidly updated before we have a generation turned off the game and looking elsewhere for fun |
|
By:
Tbh, the only really decent games to watch now are in the CL.
That's because all the teams fancy themselves & will go for it. No parking the bus nonsense. Most EPL fare is turgid cat & mouse bs. |
|
By:
Newcastle home games v Liverpool, arsenal, citeh
and Chelsea were all good games. Some poor stuff too, but folk can always watch highlights and usually looks good. |
|
By:
Not too long until managers get AI reports in running, telling them what to do.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Is one of the problems with the preponderance of set pieces, corners, etc the fact that they are encouraged by the almost complete lack of any referee action with the constant scrummaging and wrestling which goes entirely unpunished? It is appalling to witness how it goes undealt with. Coaches will play on that too.
|
|
By:
Anyone know why it's so hard to find official attendances for yesterday's games?
Had the telly on after Traitors. Man City seemed half empty as usual, and there were a good few empty seats at St James Park too. Talk is that the atmosphere at Everton was flatter than Kate Moss, so I thought to look if there were many games a fair bit below capacity* but seems like the figures haven't been released. Obviously City will have officially broken their attendance record again because putting your bag on a seat counts. |
|
By:
City going for the title yet had tons of empty seats
West Ham looked even worse although their fans are p5ssed off and seemed to have voted with their feet |
|
By:
Sjp
Crowd: 52,176 There were 200-300 tickets on sale very late so dunno if they got sold. Ground looked fairly full, guy in front of me missing otherwise our section was full. 50,000 still there at 10.15 pm as some Leeds fans left. Bar still packed at 11pm when called last orders |
|
By:
West Ham’s official attendance of 62,429 for their 2-1 defeat by Nottingham Forest was almost twice as high as the number of fans who went through the turnstiles at the London Stadium on Tuesday night.
The club have an increasingly apathetic fanbase and were unable to convince a big crowd to turn out for a crucial clash in the battle against relegation from the Premier League. It is understood the real attendance was closer to 34,000 than the figure given by West Ham on their website. |
|
By:
City's hardcore support is a lot lower than the other 'big 6' and sheer weight of games in recent years is having some effect with them as well. They didn't sell out their FA Cup semi final allocation last season by some margin.
|
|
By:
Only 0.9 of 4.3xg in Newcastle v Leeds was from open play.
Only 17 of 32 shots were from open play. This is getting silly now #EPL |
|
By:
Newcastle quoted as 51,176 for last night on soccerway which is pretty close to capacity though plenty of clubs seem to be a bit economical with the truth as has been alluded to..but can't imagine Newcastle is an easy ticket to get currently.
|
|
By:
I was surprised too. But the gaps were clearly visible on telly.
|