Sunday, September 02, 2007

More on why I hate assumptions in football

The first rule of life should be not assume anything. It's very applicable in football, and I've vented about it before. Last time, my rant was angled towards strikers (using Ronaldo as an example) and had a bit to do with the second ball. i.e. the ball the occurs when the keeper spills it, parries it, or if the ball hits the post.

This time I will rage against defenders. So many times in my playing days I was let down by my defenders, who would assume that I would safely deal with the ball. It was really only in my final full season that I played that I came across a defender who would always back me up (loved that sweeper to bits), and more often that not you'll see defenders slow down when the ball gets closer to the keeper. What I mean is, there's a shot, and once it's taken the defenders back off, preparing to receive the ball from the keeper once s/he has it. But what if the keeper doesn't end up with it?

When I got to my seat at Telstra Dome last night, Dad warned me about Sydney's first goal. No hello or how was work, just a "When you see Sydney's penalty you will fume." I suspected the worst - and when I saw the penalty, my fears were realised. No one should ever assume that a penalty will end with the kick itself. What if the shot hits the post or the 'keeper attacks it? The defence (and the attacking team) should be ready to run into the box as soon as the ball is hit. Not after you see that the ball is still in play.

Where were the Adelaide defence!? Alagich was the only one who reacted, and even then, you could have measured his reaction with a calender.

No comments: