At the weekend, I watched London Seaward FC play Hackney Women’s FC in the Adobe Women’s FA Cup.
A proper cup tie — skill, energy, drama. Hackney came back strongly in the second half, after their keeper was sent off, but the extra player counted in the end as Seaward ran out 3-1 winners.
Although my football coaching badge lapsed 7 years ago, I couldn’t help watching the patterns of play. And wondering what Seaward’s coaches (and data analyst) might have made of the game.
Watching the game
This was a very local game, for me — just a 20 minute walk from home — although it was my first visit to Oakside (now the Tech-Soc Stadium, home of London Seaward FC and Redbridge FC) since 1976, when I played a season with Barkingside Juniors.
It was interesting seeing how the dead-ball situations played out on Sunday, and, with my coaching hat on, wondering if the teams were taking the right options.
There were quite a lot of corners, to both teams, almost all clipped in towards the goal, to little effect.
For the home side, three or four times their keeper caught the ball in her 6 yard box, hands above her head but without having to jump. She did look to be a handy keeper…so perhaps get the ball away from her?
At the other end, Seaward had a sequence of four or five successive corners at one point in the second half. Although the visitors had to scramble the ball to safety, I don’t think their keeper had to make a save in this sequence, not even a blocked shot on target.
Several free kicks within 40 yards of goal saw the attacking team retire to the far post, waiting for a long cross-field ball.
The coaching observational bit
Now, the dead-ball stalemate could be down to very good defensive organisation…but I’m not sure that any player, on either side, was going to run on to a cross, out-jump the defenders, and head the ball in from the penalty spot.† Maybe a bundle on the 6-yard line, at best?
And the crosses weren’t perhaps being delivered with enough pace, in any case.
But, from an admittedly small sample (perhaps 10 plays, across the 90 minutes), simply swinging the ball into the box didn’t seem to be a winning tactic on Sunday. So why persist?
Because that’s what their coaches tell them to do? It’s what they see on the telly? Because the stats tell them that if they swing in enough crosses, they’ll score (eventually)?
Or would it have been better to play to strengths?
London Seaward had a couple of properly skilful ball players; Hackney several strong runners. Proper footballers. Players who can commit defenders, the beat them. A nightmare to defend when they were running into the box.
Maybe both teams could have tried to create more open play situations, perhaps playing short at corners or free kicks, to utilise these strengths?
As a coach, or a leader on the pitch, perhaps sometimes you have to disregard convention, or the data, and play what you see in front of you.
† To be fair, the Seaward’s no.9 did score with her head…but from open play, and more of a placed header from just outside the 6m yard box.
I’m half expecting someone to remind me that Seaward’s second goal actually came from a towering header, or was a thunderous volley from a dead-ball knock-down…but a single goal from 10 attempts would still seem a poor return, to me!
The Teesra 
What do you think? Leave a reply.