It will be justified in some way by statistics. Our success rate from long throws might not seem to suggest as much, but we have been very good from set plays generally since Glasner took over. We are in the top half for goals scored from them and top five for defending against them.
Years ago I did the coaching badges, and was exposed to a range of influences from tiki-taka total football disciples to long ball merchants. The latter involves a surprising amount of science, extending beyond detailed roles for the actual initial ball into the box to roles for the second and third phases thereafter.
The famous lower league promotion specialist and long ball guru John Beck once told us all about it. Essentially, a lot of the set up on long throws and corners is to do with a 'ring of steel' around the edge of the box, trying to ensure that we regain the second ball and put it back in the box, and the same for a third ball. Statistically, your chances of scoring increase exponentially each time (so the second entry is more dangerous than the first, and the third more so again).
Much the same logic applies to using all ten outfield players to defend corners, rather than leaving a fast forward up front. Statistically it is more effective.
Of course, none of it is guaranteed to win you a game, and it gets tedious, whatever the stats say.
The really interesting thing I learned on the coaching courses was that players often don't like it either. They will tolerate a direct, statistics based approach if they are winning, but are often quick to rebel as soon as results wobble. That was 15-20 year ago, though, and modern players seem less inclined to think for themselves so will perhaps just get on with it.
I suppose Richards could mix it up once in a while, catching the opponents by surprise with a short throw to a team mate who passes it back to him in space on the wing. Thing is, the end result would be Chris Richards with the ball at his feet on the wing, so perhaps better just to launch it after all!
Ireland
England
