Introduction My research project is based on the University’s Men's 1st Football Team. After having a meeting with the coach, we discussed through the numerous of factors he wanted me to analyse and he was very keen on his short corners and worked with this at training (see Coach Report 3). Therefore, I decided to research which was the more effective between long and short corners. Prior to data collection and analysis, I searched through previous, related literature, to determine some uncertainties. These include; what determines a short corner? What is a successful corner? Along with the literature, I spoke to the coach and we used the literature as a basis for our own markers for what was a short corner or what was deemed successful? Therefore, below are our definitions of the key terms; Short Corner: A pass made in the two nearby zones (refer to Fig. 1) generally

on the floor. Long Corner: Reaching the penalty area and beyond (generally in the air), split

into different types; inswing, outswing and driven. Successful: An attempt on goal Unsuccessful: Not meeting a player Driven: A type of delivery with no movement, just straight. The main results I gained from previous research were that most of the goals from corners came from inswing deliveries and that most attempts from outswings (Taylor et al., 2005). Hughes (1999) found that 40% of all goals came from set-pieces. More recent research on the 2006 World Cup (Armatas et al., 2007) found that 32.6% of all the goals came from set-pieces, 26.7% of that were from corners. Refer to the literature review for further findings.

Method As stated prior, this was a football team, comprising of eleven players plus substi-tutes. However, there is an inconsistency in both selection and availability as it at university level and there are other commitments, The match is recorded using a standard video camera and tripod (preferably on a platform higher than pitch level, such as scaffolding). The footage is focused on the ball, therefore there are off the ball restrictions. Once the match has been recorded, I then link it up to the computer and use a program that’s called Dartfish. From this I can go through the game at a quick speed, rewind when necessary and find all the corners our team takes. Thus cut-ting the whole match into clippings just of the corners. A typical corner clip would consist of the corner taker approaching the corner and focusing on the movement and positioning of the players in the penalty box. It would conclude when the ball is out of play, either; through scoring, making a shot and going out of play or the goal-keeper saves it, the ball getting cleared out of play. However the clip would contin-ue if the ball was cleared and then sent back in as this was known as a 2nd phase, nevertheless this did not occur. Once all the videos were clipped, I would go through each one and note down many variables (see drawn pitch maps). I would look at the positioning (man/zonal marking), off the ball runs, delivery type, delivery location and outcome, all being qualitative information. After going through each and every corner and would go through the process again, ensuring the validity, even though I was aware there was some subjectivity in whether the ball was in a certain zone or the delivery was an outswing or driven, however having a good relationship with the coach and gaining trust, this aids the process. After that process was gone through, I would go through the quantitative aspects and collate graphs and charts in certain variables (see below and results).

Which is more effective in taking corners in Football; Short or Long?

Notational Data Table

Student ID: 33248922

Limitations and Future Research Looking at some of the screenshots, you can see that it is focusing on both the play-ers in the penalty area and the corner taker. Whereas, it should be primarily focused on the penalty area, giving us a full image and there is evidence of change (Picture 1). I feel that if I was to do this again, I would look at the importance of corners in rela-tion to all types of goals, similar to previous research (see Literature Review).

Results After collecting all of the data from the five matches that were filmed, there was a to-tal number of 13 corners. Looking at research in elite football for the average number of corners per game; Chelsea FC last season (10/11) (Slaton, 2011) had the most corners with 220, averaging 5.8 a game. Comparing that to my study at University level, Leeds Met. had 13 corners over 5 games, so averaging 2.6 a game, so less than half than the elite level. As there were more long corners than short, I needed to find a lower common de-nominator in order to find the more successful corner (See Appendix (Analysis)). Looking at Table 1, the results show that the short corner provides a successful at-tempt 0.5 of the time compared to 0.44 from the long corners. So the short corners are more successful but not significantly. I felt I needed to go more in depth and ex-plore all the angles of the corners, such as shots on and off target (Graph 1), location outcome (Figure 1 and Graph 3) and the type of delivery (Graph 4). Concerning the best place to deliver a corner for a successful outcome, you can see that zone 2 and 4 (see Figure 1) provided the most success (Graph 3). As for the type of delivery, the inswing was used the most, however in terms of success rate there was no signif-icant advantage in delivery type (Graph 4). Along with quantitative data, I was able to provide the coach and team with qualita-tive information, such as positioning and player runs. From the videos, I was able to draw player runs (see Pitch Maps) and show the manager in order for him to ensure that his players are doing their jobs. Giving the players videos to view can provide them with external feedback and can be motivational (Jenkins et al. 2007). I found trends from viewing the videos (see Analysis) such as; our player on the front post offers a short option and this confuses his marker and the player marking the front post, creating space to exploit. Also I saw that the opposition ball watch a lot on 2nd balls, however our team did not take advantage of this, proving the value of videos.

Discussion and Conclusion The purpose of this study was to find which was more successful between short and long corners and from the 13 corners, six of them provided an attempt and only one provided a goal from a short delivery. From a personal point of view after watching these videos and having meetings with the coach, we concluded that the deliveries were mostly good; it was the movement and anticipation of the players in the box that didn't provide the end product of a goal, or even an attempt. When there was no real significant advantage between the two, the coach decided that he would give the players’ freedom and independence to de-cide upon which type of corner to take. After speaking to the coach and the team, showing them the visuals (video high-lights, graphs and pitch maps) it made them aware and there were positive reactions towards the results, similar to results from Jenkins et al’s work (2007). The results should provide useful information to the coach and players in giving them awareness and aiding the coach to design more effective tactical training. And so in conclusion of this study, there was no real significant difference in the type of delivery in getting the team success.

Long Short

Successful 4 2

Unsuccessful 5 2

This is the tagging paneI used when I used Dartfish. It is very basic and it is sup-posed to be designed around me in order I know what is what and where each tab is. I could have made it more in depth, relating it to the zones of the area, however keeping it simple works for me.

Table 1

Graph 1 Graph 2

Graph 3 Graph 4

Picture 1

Picture 1 Picture 2