(10.7%); defensive player only at far post (14.8%); and defensive players positioned at both posts (17.9%). It should also be noted that seven defensive blocks were performed by players positioned at the goalposts. Four of these blocks were performed at the far post and three were performed at the near post. Four of the seven blocks performed by players positioned at goalposts, were observed when teams positioned defensive players at both goalposts (Table 5). Table 5. Defensive players positioned at goalposts and attempts at goal. Defenders Frequency Goal GK save Defensive Block at Block at Attempt block far post near post off target positioned at goalposts Only on far 206 9 6 2 2 0 42 (47.3) (4.3) (2.9) (1.0) (1.0) (0) (20.4) post (%) No defensive 97 3 6 2 0 0 17 (22.2) (3.1) (6.2) (2.1) (0) (0) (17.5) players on goalposts (%) 68 1 1 1 0 1 15 Only on near (15.6) (1.5) (1.5) (1.5) (0) (1.5) (22.0) post (%) Defensive 65 5 2 1 2 2 16 (14.9) (7.7) (3.1) (1.5) (3.1) (3.1) (24.6) players on both goalposts (%) There was no significant association between the positioning of defensive players on the goalposts and the non-scoring defending outcomes (ᵡ23 = 2.05, p = 0.562). When a team positioned only a defensive player at the near post when defending corner kicks, they were able to clear the ball out of the 18 yard box for 58.8% of corner kicks. This was higher than any of the other positions at goalposts; only on far post (53.9%); no defensive players on goalposts (48.5%); and defensive players on both goalposts (46.2%). The other outcomes were fairly similar but it appears that defensive teams were awarded more when they had no defensive players positioned on the goalposts (Table 6).
(10.7%); defensive player only at far post (14.8%); and defensive players positioned at both posts (17.9%). It should also be noted that seven defensive blocks were performed by players positioned at the goalposts. Four of these blocks were performed at the far post and three were performed at the near post. Four of the seven blocks performed by players positioned at goalposts, were observed when teams positioned defensive players at both goalposts (Table 5). Table 5. Defensive players positioned at goalposts and attempts at goal. Defenders positioned at goalposts Frequency Goal GK save Defensive block Block at far post Block at near post Attempt off target Only on far post (%) 206 (47.3) 9 (4.3) 6 (2.9) 2 (1.0) 2 (1.0) 0 (0) 42 (20.4) No defensive players on goalposts (%) 97 (22.2) 3 (3.1) 6 (6.2) 2 (2.1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 17 (17.5) Only on near post (%) 68 (15.6) 1 (1.5) 1 (1.5) 1 (1.5) 0 (0) 1 (1.5) 15 (22.0) Defensive players on both goalposts (%) 65 (14.9) 5 (7.7) 2 (3.1) 1 (1.5) 2 (3.1) 2 (3.1) 16 (24.6) There was no significant association between the positioning of defensive players on the goalposts and the non-scoring defending outcomes (ᵡ23 = 2.05, p = 0.562). When a team positioned only a defensive player at the near post when defending corner kicks, they were able to clear the ball out of the 18 yard box for 58.8% of corner kicks. This was higher than any of the other positions at goalposts; only on far post (53.9%); no defensive players on goalposts (48.5%); and defensive players on both goalposts (46.2%). The other outcomes were fairly similar but it appears that defensive teams were awarded more when they had no defensive players positioned on the goalposts (Table 6).
Pulling%202013%20defending%20corner%20kicks.docx