So what exactly is a set piece goal?

[Olly]

Probably according to some.

[Olly]

So a team takes a free kick and the ball doesnt go out of play for five minutes and both teams have touched the ball untold times and then one of the players whos side who took the free kick earlier strikes it into the net, is that a set piece goal?

Kevin, seen the goal?

[West Acton]

Planned is when it's decided in advance that the ball will go to players A,B etc. If it's hoofed in it isn't planned.

Look at the goal, it's come off two Wigan players, first the header, then a short touch, there's no way in a million years that's a goal from a set piece. Nasser reads that whoscored.com give it as a set piece, and doesn't question it, I do. Question everything.


https://www.youtube.com/user/OfficialQPuR

Spot on as is Kev it was not set piece goal

[Kevin Mcleod]

Yes Greengrass mate, i am saying it took to manny touches from both sides to be classed a goal from a set piece.

[Hubble]

Planned is when it's decided in advance that the ball will go to players A,B etc. If it's hoofed in it isn't planned.

Look at the goal, it's come off two Wigan players, first the header, then a short touch, there's no way in a million years that's a goal from a set piece. Nasser reads that whoscored.com give it as a set piece, and doesn't question it, I do. Question everything. Maybe their criteria is if it happens within 'x' amount of seconds of a set piece? Lazy judgement.


https://www.youtube.com/user/OfficialQPR

Agreed, Chief's goal can't be called a set-piece goal, since it does not meet the criteria defined above (even if you removed the word planned!). However, even if it is hoofed at a set-piece, surely you agree the intention/wish/desire is for a goal to result?

[West Acton]

Agreed, Chief's goal can't be called a set-piece goal, since it does not meet the criteria defined above (even if you removed the word planned!). However, even if it is hoofed at a set-piece, surely you agree the intention/wish/desire is for a goal to result?

Until you consider some of our set pieces and I would question if the intention is to even get the ball in the box past the first man let alone score

[Olly]

Lol

[tomfiend]

I think the term 'set piece' is the problem here. You could say that all of our goals this season have come from dead-ball situations. Yesterday's goal would be counted as such as it resulted from the 'scramble play' that results after a ball is put into a dangerous area from a dead ball opportunity. The same can be said of Polter's goal at the end of the match vs Leeds.

It's somewhat (not overly) concerning that the only times we have created enough danger for the opposition that we score, is when there is a dead ball situation.

[stanistheman]

As soon as the 1st set piece takes place in the game, any goal after that is considered to have come from a set-piece as it may have been influenced by the taking of previous said set piece.

So the near or far post flick on used by Terry Venables QPR team for corners and throw ins were not set pieces as the player receiving the ball got it from open play.
What about the free kicks taken short that involve three or more passes before the shot at goal?
For me the set piece is the whole phase of that play, whether it is one pass or five.

[nasser95]

This is why the term is so convoluted. The fact is that were it not for the set piece, the ball wouldn't get into the box in that way. The suggestion that it isn't a set piece goal because it touched loads of players in the box before reaching Ned is misunderstanding and ignoring the fact that everyone is in the box because of the set piece. For me, a set piece goal is one where the danger leading to the goal has been the direct cause of a set piece.

[stanistheman]

So a team takes a free kick and the ball doesnt go out of play for five minutes and both teams have touched the ball untold times and then one of the players whos side who took the free kick earlier strikes it into the net, is that a set piece goal?

No, that is clearly no longer a set piece as the move broke down.

[stanistheman]

I think the term 'set piece' is the problem here. You could say that all of our goals this season have come from dead-ball situations. Yesterday's goal would be counted as such as it resulted from the 'scramble play' that results after a ball is put into a dangerous area from a dead ball opportunity. The same can be said of Polter's goal at the end of the match vs Leeds.

It's somewhat (not overly) concerning that the only times we have created enough danger for the opposition that we score, is when there is a dead ball situation.

That's a very good way of putting it. And yes, I am concerned that this seems to be the only way thst QPR appear to be putting teams in any real danger of conceding a goal.

[Olly]

The move broke down for Ned's goal, was that a set piece goal?

[nasser95]

The move broke down for Ned's goal, was that a set piece goal?

It didn't though... the ball was still in a dangerous area, brought about by the set piece.

[Olly]

So a long throw in to the box could be a set piece goal on that 'dangerous area' logic if it pings around in there?