![Prost International [PINT]](https://prostinternational.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/PINTtFontLogoRoboto1536x78.jpg)
Southampton and Ralph Hasenhuttl have been flawless in most aspects of their game this season. Well, that’s if you don’t count taking a throw as part of it.
Prior to Sunday’s 3-0 victory over Sheffield United, virtually one in every two throw-ins were being embellished by a turnover in possession. Statistics show Southampton are the worst performing side in the Premier League when it comes to throw-ins. A staggering 48.7 percent of all touchline restarts are being squandered.
Arsenal and Manchester City top the rankings for the lowest wasted throw-in rate, with just 23.5 and 25.5 percent misused respectively – a significant improvement in relation to Southampton’s success rate. Irrespective of the figures, a positive caveat for Ralph Hasenhuttl’s side is at least their throw-ins are legitimate. Since September, Arsenal have ceded more foul throws than they have scored goals.
Photo: The Athletic
The table above shows Southampton have recorded and completed the lowest percentage of successful throws. The only side in close alliance to those lowly metrics is Crystal Palace, who still have a vastly better success rate with an uptick of more than three percent.
When asked about this in a fans forum, by a supporter who must share an admirable enthusiasm for paying attention to the finest of details, Ralph Hasenhuttl admitted this was a jurisdiction within his side’s play that requires addressing. “It’s definitely it’s a good question. We look at the statistics at how many balls we get to our own player and how many balls we loose.
“(It is) interesting that we’ve tried different things but we still haven’t found the perfect way to do it. But you see how complex this game is and how detailed it is and you can be sure the rest our set-pieces – how much we score from them – but with throw-ins I’m not perfectly happy, I can tell.”
Mitigating factors can cause particular statistics like this to appear slightly opaque. A pertinent case being Southampton rank the 16th lowest for long throw-in percentage, with just 18.5 percent being thrown long. According to various data recordings, a long throw is measured by a ball that travels 20 metres or more.
To put the rather modest number into context, Fulham tend to throw the longest of any side, with a fraction under 40 per cent (39.7) being launched the minimum 20 metre distance. Southampton’s scant tendency to throw an extensive range means they place greater value on short throws, increasing the likelihood of working in congested areas of the pitch, where opposition teams are presented with multiple opportunities throughout the course of the game to press the initial receiver’s first touch.
A consequence of these natural inclinations are a sharp increase in the amount of turnovers attempted and therefore, successfully completed by the opposing team. However, given Hasenhuttl’s preference is to throw short, the current success rate should not be as severely low as it presently is.
A case in point would be Leeds, who throw the shortest of any team in the league, with just 12.7 percent resorted in going long. Yet they have shown a proficient ability to resist opposition team’s press, with just 30.4 percent of them being wasted.
The table below illustrates the bottom half of Premier League sides who have recorded the lowest percentage of long throw-ins. Surprisingly out of the traditional ‘big-six’, only Manchester United (10th) and Chelsea (13th) feature within the teams that tend to play short.
Two years ago, Liverpool made the headlines after Jurgen Klopp appointed Thomas Gronnemark, the self-proclaimed world’s first throw-in specialist, who incidentally also holds the world record for the longest throw, peaking at a distance of 51.33 metres.
At the time, Klopp and Liverpool were the subject of much chortle, given the unprecedented appointment. Though Klopp’s intentions in hoping to further refine his side and extract any lingering remnants out of them was commendable, many mocked the initial notion.
In football, a throw-in is perceived as a trivial element of the game. But with data highlighting a typical 90 minute game consists of 40 to 50 throws – with anywhere between 15-25 the standard mean per side – it a component of the game that could prove fruitful if sculpted correctly.
Essentially, statistics show there are roughly around 15 to 25 renewed chances to put the ball back into play, unmarked and unchallenged. It is a cornerstone of football that has long been neglected and subsequently undervalued.
Gronnemark calculates that some teams end up losing the ball on more than 50 percent of the occasions their players receive throw-ins when under pressure. And for a team like Southampton whose natural pressing propensity sometimes leaves them prone to being exposed on transitions, nailing a common occurrence such as throw-ins is a significant matter that needs solving.
While what constitutes as a successful throw remains ambiguous, in prelude to the Sheffield United fixture, this writer constructed a fixed checklist to measure the success rate of a throw:
They can be number-crunched by the following three questions: Do Saints keep the ball within the initial first three passes? Did Saints make meaningful ball progression up the field as a result of the throw? Did Saints successfully switch the play or drag opposition players out of their customary position?
If they managed any one of the three, it would be classed as a successful action.
Against Sheffield United, the total throw-in count was a slight anomaly if referring to Gronnemark’s understanding of the average quantity. Southampton only attempted 13 throw-ins in the 90 minutes and nine of them were completed successfully.
This lowly number is slightly skewed due to Sheffield United’s deep set-up and allowance for Saints to have possession, meaning there was a void of ball engagements out wide, which so often swells the rate of throw-ins. In fact, Sheffield United had three times the amount of throws, largely due to Saints’ yearning romanticism in winning the ball back in tight areas.
Nonetheless, despite the small sample size, Southampton significantly improved on their average success rate to 69 percent, an excessive incline on the 48.7 percent in the previous 11 games. But Southampton’s uptick in throw-ins was largely down to Sheffield United’s tendency – or inability – to not press the first one or two phases of the throw.
This example below is Southampton’s first throw-in of the game. Despite this particular action being successful, you can see prospective chink within this configuration.
Under Hasenhuttl, there are custom patterns. Full-backs take the throw, and the centre-back usually drops ten yards deeper from the situated position in order to provide depth. One of the two archetypal ‘number sixes’ offer a passing lane in-line with the thrower. The closest inverted winger and striker interchange positions to work an angle in front of the ball.
When Kyle Walker-Peters picks up the ball, Bednarek (the closest centre-back) recognises the trigger to give depth. Oriol Romeu, who has the best ball shielding capabilities in the side, runs in line with Walker-Peters to receive the ball.
Notice how James Ward-Prowse is blocking Sheffield United’s number 10 (Billy Sharp) from closing the initial pass into Romeu. Meanwhile, Stuart Armstrong’s side-on body position enables him to run in behind the number 4 (John Fleck).
But the second phase of the throw-in is where Saints can come unstuck. As seen in the first picture, Walker-Peters’ throw is of a loopy trajectory. This means the ball will take a split second longer to come down to a height in which Romeu is able to control. An upward throw can tempt an opposition team to press, due to the slowness of speed through the air.
Under challenge from Oli McBurnie, Romeu decides to bounce the ball back to Walker-Peters. Throughout the brief sequence of play, note how none of the other Southampton players – including Theo Walcott on the far side – have altered their body shape or provided an alternative passing angle. The inert movement means Walker-Peters cannot immediately recognise where his next pass is.
Fortunately for Southampton, the former Tottenham full-back is supremely gifted at manipulating the ball in tights areas and biding time while pictures in front of him develop. On this occasion, the throw results in possession being switched to opposing full-back Ryan Bertrand. Bear in mind the substantial proviso to this case is not all Saints players have the technical ability to retain possession as well as Walker-Peters, meaning there is a significantly higher chance of a turnover in play.
Throw-ins are becoming a severe paradox to Saints’ discernible progression in their ball retention this season. While in open play Saints continue to add layers upon layers to their interchangeable 4-2-2-2 system, all of which is largely down to them becoming increasingly adept and press-resistant to opposition team’s harrying, a throw in – an undeterred, unchallenged action – is seeming to cause more issues than keeping the ball when under pressure.
On closer introspection, Saints’ throw-in habits have a wide scope for improvement. In order to successfully retain possession in the ensuing sequences of a throw, there are a number of tangibles to be completed. Is the throw accurate? Is the movement sufficient and creative? Are the players receiving protecting the ball?
An ample reason as to why Saints are inaccurate with throw-ins is the lack of ingenuity near the touchline, as witnessed in the example above. If a throw doesn’t occur within the first couple of seconds of the full-back having the ball in his hands, rotations can stagnate. Aside from the number 10 and forward who infrequently switch positions, movement can appear rather prosaic and rudimentary.
Looking at Saints against Sheffield United, all of the 13 throws were to a teammates feet. This methodical approach can make it easier to press as triggers are simpler to read. For instance, a rotation in the middle of the park would be more conducive for a throw into space. But because Southampton are predictable in movement, this has a direct knock-on effect towards the quality of throw.
Before we conclude, we must point out supporters have no reason to be concerned, or for the most part, let this acute topic enter their line of thinking.
This type of analytic splits hairs, and collates the fine oddities in Southampton’s game. But as you will already have learned with Ralph Hasenhuttl, the Austrian has a natural penchant for paying attention to any detail, no matter how marginal or cute it may be.
And as Hasenhuttl alluded to earlier on the week, this area of improvement has already been identified and is in the process of being tweaked. “Let’s keep on going and let’s keep on going on this topic as there always other opportunities you can find, because we are still not happy with this.”
Next time the ball goes out of play, perhaps you could have a little look out for the devil in the detail of Saints’ throw-ins. Take a glance and notice any changes. But as Hasenhuttl has proved on a multitude of occasions, expect this particular loose strand of hair to be platted to perfection some time soon.
Follow us on Twitter @ProstInt
[columns]
[column size=”1/2″][blog type=”timeline” posts=”10″ cats=”651″ heading=”Southampton” heading_type=”timeline” /][/column]
[column size=”1/2″][blog type=”timeline” posts=”10″ cats=”1085″ heading=”Sheffield United” heading_type=”timeline” /][/column]
[/columns]
