Do we have unrealistic expectations of what a "good" crosser is?

[Brwned]

I get why Valencia's crossing is incredibly annoying, but what I don't understand is why people think it's seen to be particuarly poor in comparison to others. Isn't it just the case that most fullbacks aren't very good crossers? Or just that we set the bar exceedingly high for what a "good" crosser is?

I had a look into the figures for last season for fullbacks that featured in the last 16 of the CL, and the top 10 most prolific crossers in the Premier League, and it seems to suggest one of those two answers (see below).

It seems pretty clear that 1 in every 4 crosses being successful is around about what you'd expect from fullbacks at the elite clubs, but if a fullback lands 2 out of 8 crosses in one game, everybody's fuming...so haven't we got things a bit mixed up, one way or another?

Or looking at it another way, elite fullbacks make an average of 3 crosses per game, and as a result the average number of accurate crosses per game is less than 1. The fullbacks that manage more than 1 a game are the prolific ones. Valencia is one of those 5 from the list of 25, yet his crossing is torn apart most games.

Of course, a "successful" cross isn't particularly useful if it doesn't directly create something...but then the vast, vast majority of crosses don't. Take someone like Mendy, City's new signing. He attempted just under 200 crosses last season and made just 5 assists. If we assume that all 5 of those assists were crosses, which is generous in itself, that's 1 assist every 40 crosses. This is from someone who from a technical perspective has a "great" cross - loads of power, curl and accuracy.

So if we accept that most crosses don't directly contribute to goals, is there really much difference between an aimless cross drilled across the box or a well-aimed, nicely curved cross into a mass of players?

Spoiler: Crossing Accuracy - CL Last 16 Fullbacks

Spoiler: Number of Accurate Crosses per game - CL Last 16 Fullbacks

Spoiler: Crossing Accuracy - Premier League Top 10 Most Prolific Crossers

 

[MyOnlySolskjaer]

Possibly it stems from a lack of variation? It's pretty predictable when and how Valencia is going to cross the ball. We're hardly going to see a cutback from him and it can be frustrating to see a low cross drill into the defender's shins time and time again. Often, when he does float a cross it seems like it's over hit and recovered by our players so I'm not sure how much that influences the 'success rate.' Our fullbacks get a lot of time and space so it really feels like a chance is wasted when we hit the first man with all the height at our disposal.

Really interesting stats though, good post.

 

[Kazi]

I don't think we'd get as many complaints if majority of our crosses beat the first man.

 

[Massive Spanner]

If a full back was a great crosser, he's probably be a winger.

E.g. Bale.

 

[TehRed]

We've been spoiled as fans of this club, we had Beckham after all.

 

[Yagami]

We've been spoiled as fans of this club, we had Beckham after all.

Irwin, G.Neville, Giggs, Beckham, Ronaldo all in succession. Probably did spoil us a bit in that regard.

 

[BluesJr]

There is simply no justification for Valencia's poor crossing. It's just awful the majority of the time. He rarely even lifts his head to try to pick anyone out. His lack of technique also adds to the overall bad quality of the deliveries.

 

[Pexbo]

There is simply no justification for Valencia's poor crossing. It's just awful the majority of the time. He rarely even lifts his head to try to pick anyone out. His lack of technique also adds to the overall bad quality of the deliveries.

Yet look at his statistics...

 

[BluesJr]

Yet look at his statistics...

Look at the game... I'm sorry but you can't possibly watch Valencia and think how good he is at crossing. I really don't care what the stats say. Law of averages says he'll contribute with the amount he's on the ball. He could be so much better with a little more technique and intelligence.

 

[Rossa]

Irwin, G.Neville, Giggs, Beckham, Ronaldo all in succession. Probably did spoil us a bit in that regard.

The young Giggs wasn't a great crosser. He had a really good cross on him, but he was inconsistent. Beckham was very consistently good, which separated him from pretty much any winger. Ronaldo was terrible in comparison when he arrived at the club. Nani had a sweet cross but also very inconsistent.

People do expect perfection, which is impossible. Valencia is just as good as the other fullbacks, and he provides width. Blind is definitely not any better. Crossing at speed is quite difficult, and it will always look like a poor cross if the forwards mistimes their runs or they are simply not there. I wonder how many assists Evra would have had with Lampard in the team with all the 45 degree back passes he made, which none ever got to. Evra wasn't a great crosser either - still probably the best left back in the world for a period.

 

[Rossa]

There is simply no justification for Valencia's poor crossing. It's just awful the majority of the time. He rarely even lifts his head to try to pick anyone out. His lack of technique also adds to the overall bad quality of the deliveries.

Say what now? Lack of technique?

 

[Brightonian]

I just don't think Valencia's ever got over 2010, when that low drilled cross found Rooney pretty much every time and they were the most dangerous attacking partnership in the league. It's hardly worked since - with a few very notable exceptions, of course - but it's like he can't quite bring himself to go back to normal crossing again. Also it's a very quick action, so lends itself to the way he steals a yard and crosses rather than bothering to actually beat his defender.

I don't have that much of a problem with it, to be honest. It may sometimes come off his marker, but when it does go through it creates chaos in the box because it's too fast to easily react to as a defender. I find myself groaning much more when Blind hits the first man/finds the keeper with a very normal curling cross, because it's really not hard to make those decently dangerous - vaguely the right combination of height and pace and a defender is at least going to have to deal with it somewhere in the six yard box. It's a shame because Blind has at times in his career - with us but especially with the Netherlands - looked like an excellent crosser. He has the technique, he just doesn't seem to concentrate at the key moment. Laziness, basically.

 

[VorZakone]

Look at Carvajal's crossing.

 

[Brwned]

There is simply no justification for Valencia's poor crossing. It's just awful the majority of the time. He rarely even lifts his head to try to pick anyone out. His lack of technique also adds to the overall bad quality of the deliveries.

Awful in comparison to who? Gael Clichy? Danny Rose? Jordi Alba? Benjamin Mendy? Or is almost every fullback just crap at crossing?

There's a reason why he gets on the ball so often in advanced positions, by the way. It's the same reason Evra did. His crossing was demonstrably worse than Valencia's for the vast majority of his time here, if you remember...

Look at Carvajal's crossing.

The stats tell us that he makes than one accurate cross per game, lands about 1 in 4 crosses, made just 4 league assists last season, and assuming just one of those wasn't from a cross (and instead was like his assist against us), he gets an assist every 25 crosses. Better than most, sure, and there's no doubt his technique looks beautiful, but it comes back to the original point...aren't our expectations significantly above that?

Possibly it stems from a lack of variation? It's pretty predictable when and how Valencia is going to cross the ball. We're hardly going to see a cutback from him and it can be frustrating to see a low cross drill into the defender's shins time and time again. Often, when he does float a cross it seems like it's over hit and recovered by our players so I'm not sure how much that influences the 'success rate.' Our fullbacks get a lot of time and space so it really feels like a chance is wasted when we hit the first man with all the height at our disposal.

Really interesting stats though, good post.

Can definitely understand that from a frustration perspective, but from a practical perspective do you think it makes that much of a difference?

 

[Minimalist]

For me it's less about the technique or the delivery and more the lack of variety and poor decision making from Valencia.

He comes across as a robot. Defensively it's a plus, as you get reliability. But when you consider what he used to be like as a winger back in 2009-2011, it's pretty depressing.

 

[Yagami]

The young Giggs wasn't a great crosser. He had a really good cross on him, but he was inconsistent. Beckham was very consistently good, which separated him from pretty much any winger. Ronaldo was terrible in comparison when he arrived at the club. Nani had a sweet cross but also very inconsistent.

People do expect perfection, which is impossible. Valencia is just as good as the other fullbacks, and he provides width. Blind is definitely not any better. Crossing at speed is quite difficult, and it will always look like a poor cross if the forwards mistimes their runs or they are simply not there. I wonder how many assists Evra would have had with Lampard in the team with all the 45 degree back passes he made, which none ever got to. Evra wasn't a great crosser either - still probably the best left back in the world for a period.

Oh, I agree that they weren't great crossers to begin with, but we always had someone who could deliver a great ball regardless. Ronaldo wasn't the best but we still had Giggs and Neville, and then when Ronaldo was at his peak Nani wasn't the best but when Ronaldo left Nani started delivering ball after ball for Rooney. We were fortunate that we had so many good crossers in succession. Beckham indeed spoilt us a bit as his crossing was just out of this world so, rightly or wrongly, that upped the standard.

I completely agree with you on Evra. His crossing was never great but he had other attributes which helped him become the best LB in the world for a period.

I think our best crosser at the moment is Rashford, for what it's worth.

 

[Nighteyes]

I have to agree. People's expectations are quite unreasonable if you purely go by stats. I remember doing a bit of research after the Fulham game and the successful crossing %age in the bigger leagues was between 22-25% on an average.

That said, talking specifically about Valencia, I think there are a couple of problems with him. One, he crosses too much. Stats tell us that putting in a bunch of crosses isn't a good way of forcing a goal. Two, a lot of his unsuccessful crosses don't even reach the danger area and thus are utterly pointless. Ashley Young is a good counter example. His crosses, even the unsuccessful ones, pose at least some danger and ask questions of the defense.

 

[Dante]

I think a lot of people miss the fact that Valencia "hits it into the shins" of defenders on purpose in order to win a corner when no other options are viable. I've also found it odd how much criticism he gets for it, when it's quite obviously deliberate half the time.

 

[catmandeu]

My god, with all those numbers out there, it is quite easy to hide our frustration regarding valencia's crosses. The problem is not that valencia is not very accurate or anything, the problem is valencia simply kick the ball with very high speed on the very first defender in front of him. I mean, why does he do that?

 

[Pexbo]

My god, with all those numbers out there, it is quite easy to hide our frustration regarding valencia's crosses. The problem is not that valencia is not very accurate or anything, the problem is valencia simply kick the ball with very high speed on the very first defender in front of him. I mean, why does he do that?

If only someone in this thread would explain that.

 

[Fahad Jawaid]

Well i just saw liverpool vs arsenal. And their was a world of difference between the crosses of those full backs and valencia. For instance Firmino's first goal was a great cross, similarly fourth goal was a great pick out by Salah. I think lately the only player who had a good cross in him was di maria, when he was arsed. His crossing was great. In this side Herrera and pogba have a good cross in them. Before,I loved Gary and Rafael's crosses though.

 

[lawliet354]

If the ball doesn't hit the first player or going behind the goal ala Bebe I count it as accurate, at least make it threatening

Crossing is very different than pass, when a player has crossing accuracy of 20-30 percent doesn't always mean he is bad crosser, because unlike simple passes where most of the work is in the passer, in crossing both the crosser and the receiver do the work equally, you can put Beckham in the team but if the striker is poor header of the ball you can bet his accuracy is not as good

Stats for me simply do not tell the whole story, especially for crosses, you just have to see for yourself

 

[Godfather]

The one from Salah today. When was the last time anyone of our guys put in a ball like that?

 

[iAm20Legend]

Well i just saw liverpool vs arsenal. And their was a world of difference between the crosses of those full backs and valencia. For instance Firmino's first goal was a great cross, similarly fourth goal was a great pick out by Salah. I think lately the only player who had a good cross in him was di maria, when he was arsed. His crossing was great. In this side Herrera and pogba have a good cross in them. Before,I loved Gary and Rafael's crosses though.

I hate Lvg for selling Rafael

 

[ayushreddevil9]

Well i just saw liverpool vs arsenal. And their was a world of difference between the crosses of those full backs and valencia. For instance Firmino's first goal was a great cross, similarly fourth goal was a great pick out by Salah. I think lately the only player who had a good cross in him was di maria, when he was arsed. His crossing was great. In this side Herrera and pogba have a good cross in them. Before,I loved Gary and Rafael's crosses though.

Also Azpilicueta's cross for Morata in the earlier game. Pinpoint delivery.

 

[ivaldo]

I think a lot of people miss the fact that Valencia "hits it into the shins" of defenders on purpose in order to win a corner when no other options are viable. I've also found it odd how much criticism he gets for it, when it's quite obviously deliberate half the time.

Considering how lethal we have been from corners over the last few seasons it's a great tactic.

Crossing accuracy isn't a great identifier either, all it tells us is one of our players managed to get on the end of it first. Its no better than using pass accuracy to measure creativity. Actually picking out a player is only one aspect of a good cross. The cross needs to carry enough pace for the attacker to get a good connection on it and at an angle where the attacker can put it out of reach of the goalkeeper. Simply drilling the ball as hard as you can or lofting it to the back post doesn't give the attacker the chance to get a decent shot off.

Although putting pace and whip on a cross might reduce the chance of a teammate connecting with it, if they do there is a far higher chance or it resulting in a goal.

 

[Amar__]

Surely his blocked crosses aren't included in those stats? Because half of his crosses are probably blocked, and that's big reason why people are annoyed at his crossing.

 

[12OunceEpilogue]

Those stats paint Valencia in a better light than I expected I must admit.

However I'd like to see a more detailed methodology. For example if the only factor in successful/unsuccessful is whether or not the ball reaches a teammate the usefulness of the numbers is flawed. You could argue the job of the crosser is to get the ball into the correct area and it is then down to those in the middle to make sure they connect. If finding a teammate with a shitty loop outside the back post that finishes near the corner flag is successful while your centre forward misjudging a demon of a ball that then gets headed away is unsuccessful I'm not sure we learn that much about the actual quality of the crosses.

 

[NinjaFletch]

We're going to need 'crossing accuracy' as used in the OP defined for this to be a meaningful discussion.

 

[Delano]

The frustrating thing is the amount of time Valencia gets to put a cross in. It is unbelievably frustrating that a player who is our main attacking outlet gets about 8 opportunities to create a chance and invariably, he doesn't. He hits the first man, pulls it back to far, or overhits it. Time and time again.

 

[AdnanRED]

Crossing accurately seems a thing of the past in todays football especially for the top clubs.

Quality cross by Salah today for Sturridge event though I think 9/10 times he wouldnt have delivered it that sweetly.

 

[Andersons Dietician]

Crossing and stats probably shouldn't be used together. It depends on so many variables. Striker movement, quality of defence, striker height, aggression, defensive aggression and so on.

Better to use your eyes on this one. Valencia last year if I recall had some of the highest stats for cross completion but yet they were diagonal long balls from about 10-20 yards further back from where he should be crossing and more often than not they were absolute garbage floated things only hitting one of our players due to the height, strength and ability of Zlatan and Fellaini.

Compare that to Blind,CBJ or even Shaw delivery and Darmian,Young and even Bailly and Herrera who did RB andLB stints and all of them put in better more threatening crosses than Valencia.

The quality and threat of a cross is something that can't really be measured and that is what really separates a good crosser from a bad one.

 

[lawliet354]

Crossing and stats probably shouldn't be used together. It depends on so many variables. Striker movement, quality of defence, striker height, aggression, defensive aggression and so on.

Better to use your eyes on this one. Valencia last year if I recall had some of the highest stats for cross completion but yet they were diagonal long balls from about 10-20 yards further back from where he should be crossing and more often than not they were absolute garbage floated things only hitting one of our players due to the height, strength and ability of Zlatan and Fellaini.

Compare that to Blind,CBJ or even Shaw delivery and Darmian,Young and even Bailly and Herrera who did RB andLB stints and all of them put in better more threatening crosses than Valencia.

The quality and threat of a cross is something that can't really be measured and that is what really separates a good crosser from a bad one.

Basically this, you worded it very brilliantly, using stats to measure crossing ability is useless

 

[Saf94]

There's 2 differences which is why we get so frustrated

1) Our entire team is so centrally stacked that Valencia pretty much gets free roam on the wing. He has a lot of time and many many opportunities to pick out good crosses. A lot of other fullbacks will be crossing from deeper positions with more pressure on them

2) Our team this season has so much height and aerial ability that frankly if even 1 or 2 of his crosses hit the target with decent pace we'd be scoring from them. Most other teams aren't stacked aerially like we are

 

[Brwned]

Those stats paint Valencia in a better light than I expected I must admit.

However I'd like to see a more detailed methodology. For example if the only factor in successful/unsuccessful is whether or not the ball reaches a teammate the usefulness of the numbers is flawed. You could argue the job of the crosser is to get the ball into the correct area and it is then down to those in the middle to make sure they connect. If finding a teammate with a shitty loop outside the back post that finishes near the corner flag is successful while your centre forward misjudging a demon of a ball that then gets headed away is unsuccessful I'm not sure we learn that much about the actual quality of the crosses.

No, absolutely. In the same way that a goal stat doesn't tell you anything about the quality of the goal, or a pass completion % doesn't tell you anything about the quality of the successful passes, or the number of tackles doesn't tell you anything about the importance of the tackles, this particular stat is limited. It can only be used to tell you certain things.

What it tells you is that the majority of crosses are unsuccessful, the majority of successful crosses do not lead directly to goals and the level of variation between a "good" crosser and a "bad" crosser in both of those areas is pretty limited. While intuitively we all know this to be true I think we frequently ignore the scale of it.

The question to me is about two things.

1. Is the bar we set for a "good" crosser entirely incorrect, both in terms of numbers and in terms of skill?
2. Is there any real merit to the idea than an unsuccessful cross which is of a higher quality - curve, power, placement - is "better" than an unsuccessful cross of a lower quality - an aimless punt?

I would say the the stats portray crossing as being a bit of a lottery, and if we care enough to look, we can come to the same qualitative conclusion when watching. That adds credence to the notion that there's a lot of mythology about the value of a "good" cross.

What we can all agree on is that Beckham was a significantly better crosser than Valencia because he was more accurate in finding a man, and the quality of the cross made it easier for the recipient to score.

If you remove that factor of accuracy then you're relying on airy-fairy ideas like "piling pressure on the defence" to support the long-held belief that a "good" cross is better than a "bad" cross even if it doesn't land. If there's no evidence to support either of those notions then I don't know why we so readily believe them.

The fact people are so quick to say "those numbers aren't the answer" suggests to me people aren't open to the idea of considering an alternative viewpoint, regardless of what evidence is put their way. Of course they aren't the answer. They're just a factor to consider.

We're going to need 'crossing accuracy' as used in the OP defined for this to be a meaningful discussion.

I'll leave it up to your imagination. Or you can find the details on WhoScored, if that tickles your fancy. To me that's like asking to define passing accuracy.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I just don't think Valencia's ever got over 2010, when that low drilled cross found Rooney pretty much every time and they were the most dangerous attacking partnership in the league. It's hardly worked since - with a few very notable exceptions, of course - but it's like he can't quite bring himself to go back to normal crossing again. Also it's a very quick action, so lends itself to the way he steals a yard and crosses rather than bothering to actually beat his defender.

I don't have that much of a problem with it, to be honest. It may sometimes come off his marker, but when it does go through it creates chaos in the box because it's too fast to easily react to as a defender. I find myself groaning much more when Blind hits the first man/finds the keeper with a very normal curling cross, because it's really not hard to make those decently dangerous - vaguely the right combination of height and pace and a defender is at least going to have to deal with it somewhere in the six yard box. It's a shame because Blind has at times in his career - with us but especially with the Netherlands - looked like an excellent crosser. He has the technique, he just doesn't seem to concentrate at the key moment. Laziness, basically.

Rooney scored a shit-load of headers that season. The most of his career. Usually from a Valencia cross.

 

[Jaybomb]

Gary Neville was a great crosser.

 

[hobbers]

I don't think you're considering the uniqueness of a failed Valencia cross.

A failed Valencia cross doesn't even make it inside the box. If you at least deliver the ball into a good area it then falls on the forwards if it doesnt amount to anything.

Then you can also consider how long it takes wingers and fullbacks to actually deliver a cross. Valencia likes to take about 8 touches before he even tries.

 

[Brwned]

I don't think you're considering the uniqueness of a failed Valencia cross.

A failed Valencia cross doesn't even make it inside the box. If you at least deliver the ball into a good area it then falls on the forwards if it doesnt amount to anything.

Then you can also consider how long it takes wingers and fullbacks to actually deliver a cross. Valencia likes to take about 8 touches before he even tries.

So this is predicated on the idea that someone like James Milner doesn't hit the first man, doesn't endlessly chop back and forth from one foot to the other, and that when he does make it past the first man, as if by magic, it gets headed directly back to his team. Similarly the idea that a cross that is blocked by the first man never comes back into your team's possession, either through a corner, a throw-in or through re-bounding to a team-mates feet, and never rebounds into a dangerous area. Can't see any problems with any of that.

 

[R'hllor]

Imagine Missandei introducing Valencia. "Ecuadorian prince" "Breaker of ankles" "Bunny hopper around the ball" etc.