There’s more to throw-ins than just restarting play—they offer valuable opportunities to influence the game. If you want to understand how to assess the effectiveness of your team’s throw-ins, it’s important to look beyond basic stats and consider factors like expected goals, possession retention, and on-ball value. In this post, you’ll learn practical methods to measure throw-in success, helping you identify what works best for your strategy and how to leverage these moments for greater control and impact on the pitch.
Key Takeaways:
- Success in throw-ins is subjective and depends on a team’s objectives, such as retaining possession, regaining territory, switching play, or directly creating chances.
- xG per throw-in measures threat generation but can be skewed by rare events and depends on teams’ ability and willingness to create shots from throw-ins.
- On-Ball Value (OBV) captures the increase in scoring opportunity within 5 seconds of a throw-in, offering a broader measure of impact beyond just shots.
- Teams like Liverpool, Man City, and Brighton emphasize possession retention after throw-ins rather than immediate threat creation, reflected in longer possession durations.
- Throwing long into the box is linked to winning first contacts and increasing chaos; teams that combine distance and first-touch success tend to generate more attacking opportunities.
Defining Success in Throw-Ins
Success in throw-ins varies widely depending on your team’s tactical priorities and game context. While some teams aim to create immediate scoring chances directly from these restarts, others focus more on retaining possession or advancing territorial control. Throw-ins occur frequently—about 20 per team each match—offering repeated opportunities to assert influence. How you define success will shape the metrics you trust, whether that’s expected goals, possession maintenance, or incremental positional gains. Understanding this subjective nature is key to interpreting performance data meaningfully.
Subjectivity of Success Metrics
Throw-in success isn’t a one-size-fits-all concept; it shifts based on what you value. Some analyses prioritize xG created, spotlighting teams like Brentford that threaten within seconds of a throw. Others weigh On-Ball Value or possession length, capturing more subtle but still impactful outcomes. Given that some squads rarely force shots from throws yet excel at building controlled attacks, your chosen metric must match the team’s strategic intent and style, or you risk misjudging their effectiveness.
Different Objectives: Possession vs. Threat Creation
Throw-ins serve different roles depending on your objectives: Either sustain possession to build patiently or generate immediate threat by advancing into dangerous areas. Teams like Liverpool and Manchester City emphasize possession retention following attacking throw-ins, using them as tools to maintain control rather than create rapid scoring chances. Conversely, Brentford often opts for aggressive long throws aimed rapidly at attacking zones, seeking to unsettle the defense and produce high xG opportunities.
Retention-oriented teams typically achieve longer possession times after throw-ins—City, Liverpool, and Brighton lead the Premier League here—reflecting a deliberate process over flair. This approach leverages technical proficiency to reduce turnovers but tends to score lower on direct threat metrics like xG from throw-ins. Meanwhile, teams focusing on threat creation accept higher risks, using throws as launchpads into the penalty area or half-spaces to generate chances quickly. Recognizing this duality helps you align analytic strategies and coaching feedback with what your team truly needs from throw-in situations.
Analyzing Throw-in Effectiveness with xG
xG provides a clear snapshot of how threatening a team’s play becomes following a throw-in, capturing the expected goals generated from that possession phase. Brentford and Sheffield United lead the 2023/24 Premier League in xG from throw-in sequences, underscoring their ability to turn these restarts into genuine attacking opportunities. Meanwhile, sides like Wolves, Palace, and Chelsea produce minimal xG, highlighting the variance in how teams approach or leverage throw-ins as offensive chances. If your primary focus is to convert throw-ins into direct scoring threats, xG offers a tangible, though sometimes narrow, lens for evaluation.
Understanding xG Limitations in Throw-in Context
xG inherently depends on shots being taken, which can understate the value of smart build-up or territorial gains from throw-ins that don’t immediately lead to shots. Small sample sizes can skew data, and teams that prefer maintaining possession or creating space without shooting immediately might appear ineffective by xG standards. Additionally, teams with long-throw specialists skew xG upwards due to the chaotic nature of aerial duels in the box, which isn’t always reflective of systematic quality. You need to balance xG insights with awareness of these nuances.
Identifying Top Performers: A Look at Brentford and Sheffield United
Brentford and Sheffield United stand out for consistently translating throw-ins into meaningful attacking phases, with high xG values reflecting their long-throw emphasis and subsequent shot creation. Their throw-in effectiveness goes beyond mere distance; coordinated runs, aerial prowess, and quick transitions from these restarts often culminate in dangerous chances. Observing their sequences reveals a mix of well-rehearsed set-piece routines combined with opportunistic chaos management, making them top performers in turning throw-ins into goal-scoring opportunities.
Diving deeper, Brentford’s prowess is partly built on meticulously crafted plays designed to exploit the aerial confusion their long throws generate. Their players exhibit strong positional awareness, maximizing flick-ons and second balls around the penalty area. Sheffield United likewise capitalizes on the physicality and timing of their forwards, routinely winning first contacts that destabilize defenses. Both teams’ ability to blend planned structure with adaptive chaos allows them to consistently amplify the threat following throw-ins, setting them apart in the 2023/24 season.
Beyond Goals: Utilizing On-Ball Value (OBV)
On-Ball Value offers a more nuanced lens on throw-in effectiveness by measuring the increase in scoring opportunity after the throw, without requiring an immediate shot. This method captures the progression and buildup in the game’s flow over a short window, acknowledging successful possession transitions or positional advancements that don’t necessarily end with an attempt on goal, but still move you closer to dangerous situations.
Methodology for OBV Analysis
The OBV approach calculates the change between the throw-in’s starting value and the highest On-Ball Value achieved within the next five seconds. This allows you to quantify the peak scoring potential arising shortly after the restart, catching moments when your team gains advantage, even if possession fluctuates. That five-second frame aligns with other key metrics and balances capturing meaningful impact while avoiding too distant consequences.
Comparing OBV Results Across Teams
Looking at the median OBV from attacking third throw-ins reveals patterns hidden from raw xG data. Brentford and Sheffield United maintain top positions, bolstered by their dynamic long throws, though Brentford’s spread suggests additional tactical layers. Nottingham Forest sits mid-table but demonstrates bursts of threat. Meanwhile, teams like Luton, Palace, and Chelsea rank noticeably higher than their xG values imply, hinting at successful ball progression even without shots launched.
Median OBV Values by Team (Attacking Third Throw-Ins)
| Team | Median OBV Change |
|---|---|
| Brentford | +0.045 |
| Sheffield United | +0.040 |
| Nottingham Forest | +0.030 |
| Luton Town | +0.028 |
| Crystal Palace | +0.025 |
| Chelsea | +0.022 |
| Liverpool | +0.015 |
| Manchester City | +0.013 |
| Brighton | +0.012 |
This OBV distribution highlights how some teams achieve value by skillfully using throw-ins as launching pads for creative buildup rather than immediate threats. The gap between possession-heavy clubs and those leveraging chaos or long throws invites a deeper look at differing strategic philosophies. Your own analysis might benefit from tracking OBV alongside traditional metrics to identify how throw-ins contribute to overall attacking momentum beyond just shots created.
The Dynamics of Possession Retention
Possession retention after a throw-in offers a different lens through which you can assess effectiveness. Rather than immediately seeking to create shots or directly threaten goal, some teams focus on maintaining control and patiently building attacks. This approach can frustrate opponents and slowly bend the field in your favor. Understanding how long your team holds onto the ball after a throw-in, and under what circumstances possession is lost, reveals much about your tactical priorities and execution.
Measuring Possession Length Post-Throw-in
Tracking median possession time after attacking third throw-ins highlights teams that prioritize ball retention over direct chance creation. In the 2023/24 Premier League, Manchester City, Liverpool, and Brighton topped this metric, maintaining control for noticeably longer than peers. This suggests their throw-in strategy often emphasizes safe ball progression or switching play, creating fewer immediate threat spikes but setting up sustained pressure and opportunity downstream.
Implications for High-Pressure Teams
Your top pressing sides might appear less effective on xG or OBV metrics from throw-ins, yet they excel in sustaining possession, which indirectly contributes to their dominance. High-pressure teams such as Liverpool and Man City leverage throw-ins to reset positioning and control tempo rather than seek shot-heavy transitions. This aligns with their broader playing philosophy of patient buildup and territorial advantage rather than quick-fire opportunities from set pieces.
Examining high-pressure teams reveals an intentional trade-off: these sides accept lower immediate threat metrics like xG or OBV from throw-ins in return for greater possession stability and tactical control. The ability to retain possession following throw-ins bolsters their defensive shape and allows them to manipulate the opponent into mistakes or gaps over time. For you, understanding this nuanced tactic means recognizing that throw-in success isn’t just about direct chances but also about leveraging possession to shape the game’s flow on your terms.
Harnessing the Power of Long Throws
Long throws remain a specialized weapon that some teams exploit with remarkable efficiency. When executed well, these throws flood the penalty area with aerial chaos, creating scoring chances that defy traditional build-up play. By capitalizing on strength, timing, and effective delivery, you can transform a simple restart into a set-piece threat that unsettles even the most organized defenses.
Identifying Teams That Excel in Long Throws
Augsburg stands out for deploying long throws into the box on nearly half of their attacking third throw-ins, making them a clear case study in leveraging this ability. Brentford and Sheffield United also consistently generate danger from long-distance throws, while teams like Rennes show a gap between their throw distance capacity and how often they actually use it strategically.
Strategic Trends: Throwing into the Box vs. Territory
Teams differ significantly in how they use long throws—some prioritize direct deliveries into the penalty area, while others focus on gaining ground and retaining possession. High-possession sides like Manchester City and Liverpool opt for controlled, shorter throws aimed at maintaining territorial advantage over immediate threat, whereas other teams use aerial bombardment to create chaos and unsettle defenses.
This contrast reflects broader tactical identities. Direct long throws into the box, favored by teams such as Augsburg and Brentford, often aim to win first contacts and generate scoring opportunities from chaos, relying on physicality and aerial prowess. Conversely, possession-oriented teams use throw-ins for territorial progression and controlled build-up, minimizing risk and emphasizing ball retention. These distinct approaches highlight how you can tailor throw-in strategies based on squad strengths and match objectives.
Winning the Chaos: First Contact Success Rates
Securing that initial touch from a long throw-in often sets the tone for what follows amid the ensuing scramble. Teams like Augsburg and Bochum not only commit frequently to those throwing into the box but also excel at winning the first contact, giving them an edge in shaping the direction of play. Brentford’s notable proficiency here ties directly to their ability to convert throw-ins into meaningful attacking moments. Your ability to control that chaotic first touch can differentiate between a speculative chance and a structured opportunity.
Assessing Teams That Dominate First Contacts
Augsburg’s nearly 50% rate of long throws into the penalty area pairs with a top-tier first contact win percentage, demonstrating a commitment to maximizing aerial duels post-throw. Bochum follows closely, with aggressive entries into the box matched by their success in securing the initial ball control. Brentford stands out as well, linking these first contacts to their overall attacking threat. If you’re analyzing teams, look at how often they combine volume in long throws with efficiency in that vital first touch to judge their set-piece resilience.
Correlation Between First Contacts and Scoring Opportunities
Winning the first contact isn’t just an isolated stat—it correlates strongly with the likelihood of creating quality scoring chances. Brentford’s proficiency in clinching first touches aligns with their higher xG and OBV metrics from throw-ins, highlighting how controlling the ball early can translate into concrete attacking threat. Conversely, teams like Rennes show less inclination to throw long or win first contacts, which corresponds with fewer immediate opportunities. Understanding this link allows you to predict how threatening a throw-in might become after the initial aerial tussle.
Delving deeper, first contact success acts as a pivotal gateway for sustained attacking sequences. Teams that effectively flick or settle the ball right after the throw-in can bypass defensive pressure and swiftly transition into dangerous zones. Data shows that when the thrower’s team wins the initial touch, the subsequent 5 seconds often see elevated OBV values, indicating an increased chance of creating a shot or penetrating final-third positions. For you analyzing opponents or your own side, prioritizing drills or tactics that enhance first-contact control can yield more frequent and higher-quality scoring opportunities from throw-ins.
Final Words
So when measuring throw-in success, it’s important for you to consider multiple dimensions beyond just direct chances created. Your evaluation should include metrics like xG, OBV, possession retention, and the effectiveness of first contacts, tailored to your team’s strategy and strengths. By understanding these varied aspects, you gain a clearer picture of how throw-ins influence your game and where improvements can be made to maximize their impact.
FAQ
Q: How can expected goals (xG) be used to measure the success of throw-ins?
A: Expected goals (xG) quantify the likelihood of a shot resulting in a goal and can be used to assess how threatening a throw-in is in terms of generating scoring opportunities. By evaluating the xG created from sequences starting with a throw-in, teams can identify which throw-ins lead to higher quality chances. However, it is important to note that xG focuses on shot outcomes and may not capture other successful objectives such as maintaining possession or territorial gains.
Q: What does On-Ball Value (OBV) add to the analysis of throw-in effectiveness?
A: On-Ball Value (OBV) offers a dynamic way to measure the impact of throw-ins by assessing changes in scoring probability within a short time frame after the throw. Unlike xG, OBV does not rely on a shot being taken immediately; instead, it captures the best chance in the 5 seconds following the throw-in. This helps recognize teams that influence the play positively after a throw without necessarily generating an immediate shot.
Q: Why is possession length after a throw-in an important metric?
A: Measuring possession length after a throw-in provides insight into a team’s ability to retain control and build up play, even if they are not directly threatening the goal right away. Some teams prioritize keeping the ball and creating sustainable attacks rather than producing immediate scoring opportunities. Tracking possession time helps illustrate how different teams approach throw-ins and their tactical emphasis.
Q: How does the distance of a throw-in influence its effectiveness?
A: The ability to throw the ball longer distances can impact how a team uses throw-ins, especially in the attacking third. Teams that can consistently launch longer throws into the penalty area often convert these restarts into dangerous situations by creating chaos and opportunities for winning first contacts. However, not all successful teams rely on long throws; some prefer short throws to maintain possession or reposition the play.
Q: What is the significance of winning the first contact following a long throw-in?
A: Winning the first contact after a long throw-in into the box helps a team control the chaotic environment that often arises. It increases the chance of directing the ball toward a scoring opportunity, whether via a flick-on, direct shot, or creating space for a teammate. Teams proficient at securing these initial touches tend to generate more threats from throw-ins by capitalizing on second-phase plays.