Thinking outside the six-yard box

Football and the concept of innovation are normally not comfortable bedfellows.

Let’s be honest, what new stuff have we seen tried out in the modern game recently? Anyone? Anything? Didn’t think so.

The most innovative – and I use that word in its loosest possible form – new tactic I think we’ve seen over the last decade is taking corners from just outside the designated area.

Some smart arse worked out that provided the ball is hanging over the line, it’s technically still legal, and now everyone’s doing it. Does it make any difference to the corner? Not that I have noticed. But it seems players enjoy the fact that they are almost, but not quite, breaking the rules.

That that is the only thing I can think of, proves the point that inspirational innovation is not exactly football’s strong point.

Which is precisely why I absolutely loved what Chelsea did against Arsenal in the League Cup semi-final second leg.

Faced with the daunting task of defending Arsenal’s extremely potent corner routine, Chelsea boss Liam Rosenior tried something a little bit different.

Seconds before Arsenal were due to take a corner, he sent three players running up the pitch, forcing Arsenal to drop men back to defend. Of course, it’s a move that comes at a risk – if the opponents hadn’t responded they would’ve had a massive numerical advantage in the box.

But they did respond, because the counterargument is that if those three players had been left alone near the halfway line and the defending team had won possession from the corner, then it would almost certainly have resulted in a Chelsea breakaway goal.

The move was, if nothing else, a disruptor, and I love that sort of thing.

Football should be clever, it should be brave and, occasionally, it should surprise us

To give credit where it’s due, this wasn’t entirely a Rosenior original. Retired goalkeeper Shay Given had floated the idea a few days before on Match of the Day, where he had been practically begging someone to stop treating Arsenal set-pieces like a natural disaster you simply endure.

So no, this wasn’t a tactical revelation beamed down from the future.

But that almost makes Rosenior’s decision more interesting, not less. Plenty of people can have ideas in a studio. The hard part is walking into a semi-final, knowing one misjudged move will make you look like a complete idiot, and still backing yourself anyway. Modern football is packed with managers who’d rather be predictably wrong than creatively brave.

So is this the future of corners, or is it an innovation that was intriguing, but doomed to die out?

You know what, I think it might stick around.

Teams up and down the pyramid will have seen Chelsea’s move and thought to themselves, hey, that might be an interesting thing to chuck in the mix every now and then. Not all the time, but once a match maybe.

Corners have become very predictable. Lots of pushing, lots of shoving, lots of complaining and lots of referees trying to untangle a mass of bodies. And I would say nine out of 10 of these rugby-like scrums result in either a foul or a goal kick.

So managers having a new weapon to deploy is something they will quite probably welcome. And that’s the beauty of this tactic – it can always be a surprise. You don’t need to be playing at the top for it to work, it will disrupt Colchester United’s corners as much as it did Arsenal’s.

Well done Shay for the idea. And well done Liam for having the balls to try it out.

Football should be clever, it should be brave and, occasionally, it should surprise us.

Gianni’s conflict of interest

There’s something oddly consistent about Gianni Infantino’s public comments: each new one quietly confirms how tentative his relationship with reality has become.

His latest suggestion that FIFA should “definitely” consider lifting Russia’s international football ban while the war in Ukraine continues, perfectly captures how out of step football’s governing elite can be.

On the surface, Infantino’s reasoning almost sounds plausible. Banning countries from football does not stop wars, nor does it topple governments or force ceasefires. Isolation often hardens attitudes rather than softening them.

But that has never been the point.

Allowing Russia back into competition would not be a neutral or humanitarian gesture. It would signal that normality – and by extension, acceptance – can resume even while an active conflict rages. At that moment, football starts conferring legitimacy on Russian actions.

FIFA bans are not meant to solve geopolitical crises, they are meant to draw a line about what the game is willing to endorse. Sport and politics may be uncomfortable partners, but when flags are raised and anthems played, pretending they don’t mix is a myth.

Infantino talks about unity and harmony, awards peace prizes, and frames himself as a bridge-builder. But the more he speaks, the less it seems he knows what he is talking about.

Given his inability to realise that football fans should be the number-one priority when it comes to organising football tournaments, why on earth should we trust him when it comes to decisions involving wars?

The sleepy window

The transfer window shut last week, not with a bang, but with a polite cough and an apologetic shrug.

Winter deadline day, often football’s annual theatre of panic, gossip and last-minute nonsense, passed with barely a ripple. Seven deals in total, no frenzy, no helicopters, no Sky Sports presenters pretending a loan deal for a reserve full-back was ‘huge’.

So what happened?

One reading is that the Premier League has finally grown up. Clubs have spent years hoovering up players, bloating squads and paying today’s wages with tomorrow’s TV money. Perhaps we are now seeing the hangover. Better planning, clearer squad structures and fewer impulse buys. January, after all, is a dreadful time to recruit unless you’re desperate.

Another explanation is less romantic: the money may not be drying up, but the fear is seeping in. With new financial rules looming, clubs are suddenly aware that every rash decision now has consequences later. Nobody wants to be clever in February and punished in June. Caution, not creativity, has become the dominant mood.

There is also the possibility that many clubs are simply content. The big hitters spent obscene sums in the summer. They backed their managers, filled their squads and decided to trust what they already have.

And make no mistake, the rest of Europe will be quietly delighted. For years, Premier League clubs turned January into a distortion field, splashing cash that others could only react to. A calmer window allows everyone else to breathe, regroup and, maybe, compete on something closer to equal terms.

Of course, perspective matters. A ‘quiet’ Premier League window still involved close to £400 million being spent, more than any other league managed. Even when England slows down, it still laps the field.

But perhaps this window marks a shift in tone. Whether it’s maturity, fear, or temporary restraint, football might finally be learning that doing nothing can sometimes be the smartest move of all.

E-mail: jamescalvertmalta@gmail.com

X: @maltablade