- Joined
- 8 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 13,769
But your theory doesn't hold necessarily. You said putting players on the post will encourage the attacking team to flood the six-yard box, they can flood the six-yard box irrespective of players on the posts. And if that was their tactic, the ball wouldn't be swung wide out towards the penalty spot but delivered tighter. Plus you can guarantee if there were a lot of attackers in the six-yard box, the defence would drop to accommodate. Players on the post should react to the deeper ball, if it comes they can then move out.It's more about the second ball. It's unlikely that anyone in or around the goal line would be making first contact, but a touch from any attacking player and there is greater risk of them being caught offside.
The point you should be arguing, is the difference between passive and active defending. Putting a player on the post is passive defending, it is basically the same as putting a sweeper on the boundary in cricket, it is an insurance policy for not defending correctly in the first place. What we should be doing better is actually winning the ball from the corner, not relying on a last-ditch block from a defender on the line. The other variable is of course what the opposition are doing with their corners. If they are using inswingers to pressure the box, then you have someone on the post. If they are using outswingers then you concentrate more on winning the ball and marking players rather than having someone on the post.
Haven't touched on Zonal v M2M defending, much less likely to have a post man when M2M.