{"id":2967,"date":"2017-11-26T21:38:05","date_gmt":"2017-11-26T20:38:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/soccerment.com\/?p=2967"},"modified":"2024-06-14T13:16:35","modified_gmt":"2024-06-14T13:16:35","slug":"crossing-effective-strategy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/soccerment.com\/it\/crossing-effective-strategy\/","title":{"rendered":"Crossing: An effective strategy?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Crossing is still very much used by the top European teams (18.6 per match, on average). However, we doubt the efficiency of such an attacking strategy. We calculate that only 1 every 64 crosses is directly translated into a goal. Is it worth trying? We conclude it is not, unless you have someone like Mauro Icardi, of course.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

37 crosses per match<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Our dataset comprises all the matches played so far this year in the five major European leagues: English Premier League (\u2018EPL\u2019), Spanish La Liga (\u2018SLL\u2019), Italian Serie A (\u2018ISA\u2019), German Bundesliga (\u2018GB\u2019) and French Ligue 1 (\u2018FL1\u2019). A grand total of 98 teams.<\/p>\n

\"Average<\/a>
Chart 1: Crosses per match by league<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

We define a cross as \u2018an attempted\/accurate pass from a wide position to a central attacking area\u2019. Our database shows that the European teams are still very much into crossing: on average, a team crosses the ball 18.6 times per match<\/strong>. As shown by Chart 1, the ISA and the EPL are the leagues displaying the highest propensity for crossing (19.4 and 19.3 P90, respectively).<\/p>\n

Quite a lot of crosses, right? It must mean that crossing is deemed as a very effective attacking strategy, otherwise it wouldn\u2019t be rationale pursuing it.<\/p>\n

Ahead of the decisive World-Cup-qualifier return match against Sweden, Italy\u2019s coach Gian Piero Ventura certainly seemed to rely a lot on this attacking option. Despite our warning<\/a>, he used a 3-5-2 formation, specifically designed to allow Candreva (on the wide right) and Darmian (on the wide left), to cross the ball as often as they could. They certainly adhered to the task: at the San Siro stadium, against Sweden, Italy put together 51 crosses in a single match<\/strong>. Quite an accomplishment. What Italy did not accomplish, however, was the qualification to the World Cup, as the team failed to score a single goal.<\/p>\n

Were the Italians just unlucky that night? Or, maybe, this strategy does not do well against very tall defenders (Lindel\u00f6f is 187cm tall, Granqvist 192cm)?<\/p>\n

There is a third option, in our view. Simply put, crossing might be \u2013 against common beliefs – a very inefficient strategy.<\/strong><\/p>\n

More than 3 out of 4 crosses get lost<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\"Cross<\/a>
Chart 2: Cross accuracy by league<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Crossing is difficult.<\/strong> There are many physical and technical abilities required to consistently cross accurate balls in the box. Speed, stamina, dribbling, precision, tempo, to name a few. The crosser and the receiver also need a lot of coordination between the two of them. Not easy.<\/p>\n

In the five top European leagues (mind that we are not talking about Sunday-league football), the average cross accuracy is 23.5<\/strong>% (the percentage of crosses actually delivered to a teammate). This means that more than 3 out of 4 crosses get lost<\/strong> (the ball is intercepted by an opponent, or goes out of the pitch).<\/p>\n

We notice a small difference across leagues, the only number standing out here, as shown in Chart 2, is the higher cross accuracy in the German Bundesliga (26.5%).<\/p>\n

Only 1 every 64 crosses is directly translated into a goal<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Even when the ball is accurately crossed and directly goes to a teammate, the chances of scoring remain poor.<\/p>\n

Volleys, headers, bicycle kicks, are generally selected as the top candidates for best-goal rankings at the end a season. The reason is that these goals are extremely difficult. And they are extremely rare.<\/p>\n

First of all, not every time a ball directly goes to a teammate, she\/he is able to shoot. That happens slightly more than half of the times, 56% on average.<\/p>\n

Secondly, as aforementioned, scoring from a cross is tough and entails outperforming xG, as xG cannot be but low in these cases. The percentage of key passes from crossing becoming assists (i.e. a goal) is 11.9% on average. We note this is well below the total percentage of goals from key passes (14.1%).<\/p>\n

\n

Cross accuracy [23.5%]<\/p>\n

x<\/p>\n

Crosses translating into shots [56%]<\/p>\n

x<\/p>\n

Key passes from crosses becoming a goal [11.9%]<\/p>\n

=<\/p>\n

PROBABILITY OF SCORING A GOAL FROM A CROSS [1.6%].<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

This means that, on average, it takes 64 crosses to score a goal.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Obviously, from these stats we cannot extrapolate the number of times a goal is\u00a0indirectly<\/strong> scored after cross, like after a failed clearance by the opponents. However, we are not sure this really matters. Our point is: should you really base your attacking strategy on exploiting the opponents’ defensive mistakes?<\/p>\n

What are the teams relying the least on crosses?<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The list of teams relying the least<\/strong> on crossing should not be too surprising. Well, maybe with one exception<\/span>:<\/p>\n