lack of quality crossing

[victor A block]

The crossing isn't great. However Langstaff would have bagged a few from them. Particularly from low balls not headers. Our strikers are always behind the defenders. (Akins in particular)

[oldweststander]

Ok crosses in general were poor but worse was our corner taking.

[Chrisuknottm]

The crosses don't always look great because there's no out and out goalscorer getting in there and attacking them.....3 or 4 today especially in the first half were excellent but there's no one anticipating or getting into the 6 yard box to get on the end of them

[adamstag]

Ok crosses in general were poor but worse was our corner taking.

It’s more the corner taking which i wanted to raise, but i couldn’t find the thread for it, as i pointed out in the original post.

Just seems to be we consistently always have the corner on the first man, something we need to address. Can be the difference between wins/draws/losses especially in games like this today.

Given we struggle to score at home, these are the chances which would could’ve made a difference today.

[gazza1988]

it's chicken and the egg.

Are the balls into the area poor or are the runs into the area poor?

You'd have to ask Clough but he wont tell you (and rightly so). The poor low crosses could have been what Clough told them to do, low ball to the near post or far post. When it works makes it hard for defenders to clear cleanly and makes it harder for the keeper to handle the ball. The downside is it can be blocked fairly easily, especially if they know to expect it.

I noticed from the right we "overhit" the cross but Quinn (or Macca) collected it easily which means it could have been a legit strategy to throw the defence off guard by switching play.

The only truly poor cross is the one shanked for a goal kick, Otherwise, you could have a case for good defending, and poor anticipation of the attackers in that situation.

I can't see Clough instructing us to just put it out either.