- Feb 8, 2007
- 11,942
- 21,098
The late goals argument is specious. Here's a list of all the games (incl. European games) where we have conceded goals in the last 10 minutes.
Southampton: 90th minute penalty;
Newcastle: 97th minute penalty;
Wet Spam: 82nd minute goal, 85th minute own goal, 94th minute goal;
LASK: 84th minute goal, 93rd minute goal;
Crystal Palace: 81st minute;
Liverpool: 90th minute
In the broadest view, that's six games. Out of 23! That's a little over 25% of games. That's not a systemic problem. But we can do even better than that.
We can discount the penalties, so that's two of the nine goals already outside the scope of the late goals conceded argument. Now, some may argue that conceding territory can lead to situations like that. Fair enough, of course, except that in both the respective games we weren't sitting back when the penalties were awarded.
Furthermore, the Newcastle penalty was, in and of itself, utter bullshit and additionally came from a freekick that shouldn't have been given. For those who have shorter memories (like me), Joelinton poleaxed Hojbjerg a few yards from our box, long after the former had passed to a teammate and the moron ref gave them the freekick. If people are still having trouble remembering, the blog below has a vid of the incident:
So, that's two of the nine struck from consideration.
Of the remaining, the LASK game was a poor day at the office. It was a very bad overall performance. But again, that doesn't point to a systemic problem, only a single match where things went wrong.
And that's the same for the West Ham game. It was one performance where a combination of complacency, bad luck, and a once-in-a-lifetime strike unravelled a game in which we had been in complete control. Even if we played badly throughout the whole match, it still doesn't point to a systemic problem.
Palace: a set-piece goal which was very very well taken. That's not to say we couldn't have done better, but it wasn't soft. Hugo was unsighted for most of the flight of the ball and even then he got down to it. He just couldn't hold onto it which again, can happen. Again, it's not a systemic problem.
And Liverpool. The first goal we have conceded from a corner this season and one in which there is a question mark over whether there was a foul in the build-up. Whether there was or wasn't isn't at issue, but it does demonstrate that there isn't a systemic problem.
Of the nine, two were penalties, two were set-pieces (with a question mark over one of them), one was an own-goal and four were from open play. If all nine (or a significant proportion, at least) had been late penalties, if all nine had been freekicks, if all nine had been corners, then you can point to a systemic problem. But there isn't one.
Let's cast this specious argument aside, shall we?
Southampton: 90th minute penalty;
Newcastle: 97th minute penalty;
Wet Spam: 82nd minute goal, 85th minute own goal, 94th minute goal;
LASK: 84th minute goal, 93rd minute goal;
Crystal Palace: 81st minute;
Liverpool: 90th minute
In the broadest view, that's six games. Out of 23! That's a little over 25% of games. That's not a systemic problem. But we can do even better than that.
We can discount the penalties, so that's two of the nine goals already outside the scope of the late goals conceded argument. Now, some may argue that conceding territory can lead to situations like that. Fair enough, of course, except that in both the respective games we weren't sitting back when the penalties were awarded.
Furthermore, the Newcastle penalty was, in and of itself, utter bullshit and additionally came from a freekick that shouldn't have been given. For those who have shorter memories (like me), Joelinton poleaxed Hojbjerg a few yards from our box, long after the former had passed to a teammate and the moron ref gave them the freekick. If people are still having trouble remembering, the blog below has a vid of the incident:
Joelinton vs Hojbjerg Incident- Controversial "foul" before free kick that lead to Newcastle penalty against Spurs
This Joelinton vs Hojbjerg incident was a controversial one, with this supposed foul essentially leading to a Newcastle free kick which in turn lead to the pena
www.soccer-blogger.com
So, that's two of the nine struck from consideration.
Of the remaining, the LASK game was a poor day at the office. It was a very bad overall performance. But again, that doesn't point to a systemic problem, only a single match where things went wrong.
And that's the same for the West Ham game. It was one performance where a combination of complacency, bad luck, and a once-in-a-lifetime strike unravelled a game in which we had been in complete control. Even if we played badly throughout the whole match, it still doesn't point to a systemic problem.
Palace: a set-piece goal which was very very well taken. That's not to say we couldn't have done better, but it wasn't soft. Hugo was unsighted for most of the flight of the ball and even then he got down to it. He just couldn't hold onto it which again, can happen. Again, it's not a systemic problem.
And Liverpool. The first goal we have conceded from a corner this season and one in which there is a question mark over whether there was a foul in the build-up. Whether there was or wasn't isn't at issue, but it does demonstrate that there isn't a systemic problem.
Of the nine, two were penalties, two were set-pieces (with a question mark over one of them), one was an own-goal and four were from open play. If all nine (or a significant proportion, at least) had been late penalties, if all nine had been freekicks, if all nine had been corners, then you can point to a systemic problem. But there isn't one.
Let's cast this specious argument aside, shall we?