Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
Post Reply
dsr
Posts: 15132
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4548 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by dsr » Sun Apr 17, 2022 4:37 pm

He stopped during the run up, which isn't allowed. You can slow down, like Richarlison did to an extreme degree last week, but you can't stop.

I think the rule is that if you stop in the run up, it's no goal and no retake. Can anyone confirm?

spt_claret
Posts: 1891
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 6:52 pm
Been Liked: 728 times
Has Liked: 456 times

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by spt_claret » Sun Apr 17, 2022 4:39 pm

Encroachment is the other issue- a zealous VAR operator could have forced a retake for that, or for Fabianski leaving his line. But given one of the Everton penalties saw Everton encroach with no action taken, the cynic in me is at the stage where I think it'd only have been retaken if we had scored it, or Everton missed theirs.
I'm a supporter of VAR big time in principle but cannot abide the pick & choose approach it often takes.
These 2 users liked this post: warksclaret IanMcL

Milltown1882
Posts: 3063
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 5:47 pm
Been Liked: 1102 times
Has Liked: 854 times

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by Milltown1882 » Sun Apr 17, 2022 4:39 pm

Keeper off his line, 3 players in the box. How that isn’t retaken is beyond me.

HahaYeah
Posts: 2075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2020 11:33 am
Been Liked: 343 times
Has Liked: 323 times

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by HahaYeah » Sun Apr 17, 2022 4:42 pm

Not a fan of jazzy stop start run ups - just run and kick the bloody ball and stop showing off.
These 3 users liked this post: longsidepies Dark Cloud Juan Tanamera

Iloveyoubrady
Posts: 1845
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:30 am
Been Liked: 296 times
Has Liked: 28 times

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by Iloveyoubrady » Sun Apr 17, 2022 4:44 pm

HahaYeah wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 4:42 pm
Not a fan of jazzy stop start run ups - just run and kick the bloody ball and stop showing off.
Stupid thing is it worked, keeper sat down, then he had to roll it in but ****** it.
This user liked this post: Elizabeth

Claret
Posts: 1215
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:57 pm
Been Liked: 400 times
Has Liked: 655 times

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by Claret » Sun Apr 17, 2022 4:45 pm

dsr wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 4:37 pm
He stopped during the run up, which isn't allowed. You can slow down, like Richarlison did to an extreme degree last week, but you can't stop.

I think the rule is that if you stop in the run up, it's no goal and no retake. Can anyone confirm?
You’re allowed to stop in the run up but not as you are about to kick the ball. The rule says the following is an offence:

“...feinting to kick the ball once the kicker has completed the run-up (feinting in the run-up is permitted); the referee cautions the kicker”

Buxtonclaret
Posts: 16616
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:05 am
Been Liked: 3747 times
Has Liked: 7520 times
Location: Derbyshire

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by Buxtonclaret » Sun Apr 17, 2022 4:54 pm

It should have been retaken.
Unless they changed they rules again earlier on today, which is entirely possible.

FCBurnley
Posts: 9695
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:56 pm
Been Liked: 1967 times
Has Liked: 1132 times

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by FCBurnley » Sun Apr 17, 2022 4:56 pm

Assume if pen is missed rather than saved then no retake however it was a clear red card offense. Keeper clearly was intent at bringing Cornet down and was not attempting to play the ball. No different to Collins at Brentford.

Vegas Claret
Posts: 30273
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 10916 times
Has Liked: 5594 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by Vegas Claret » Sun Apr 17, 2022 5:08 pm

either way, it was a **** penalty.
This user liked this post: Goobs

Goobs
Posts: 4386
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:43 am
Been Liked: 1459 times
Has Liked: 992 times
Location: Burnley

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by Goobs » Sun Apr 17, 2022 5:12 pm

Never a red and no retake as offences on both sides.

Simple fact is Jay should have told him to do one and Cornet should have put it away when Jay bottled it.

Elizabeth
Posts: 4377
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 12:13 am
Been Liked: 1250 times
Has Liked: 1367 times

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by Elizabeth » Sun Apr 17, 2022 5:25 pm

Get that right, there is no way Jay bottled out of taking that penalty . What actually did you want him to do to get the ball off Cornet ?

beddie
Posts: 5133
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:10 pm
Been Liked: 1380 times
Has Liked: 511 times

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by beddie » Sun Apr 17, 2022 5:33 pm

Elizabeth wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 5:25 pm
Get that right, there is no way Jay bottled out of taking that penalty . What actually did you want him to do to get the ball off Cornet ?
Jay looked to have the ball in his hands when Cornet came up to him for it, it’s at that point Jay should have told him where to go.

Quickenthetempo
Posts: 17913
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
Been Liked: 3841 times
Has Liked: 2065 times

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by Quickenthetempo » Sun Apr 17, 2022 6:28 pm

Jay wasn't happy giving the ball up

dandeclaret
Posts: 3513
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:55 am
Been Liked: 2560 times
Has Liked: 300 times

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by dandeclaret » Sun Apr 17, 2022 6:33 pm

I'm surprised there wasn't a retake, given the encroachment, and the fact the keeper had both feet well off the line. Isn't that a VAR responsibility to check for that?

nil_desperandum
Posts: 7301
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
Been Liked: 1823 times
Has Liked: 3948 times

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by nil_desperandum » Sun Apr 17, 2022 6:34 pm

Rather like when Matt Taylor famously missed against Leicester, there was absolutely no reason why Cornet shouldn't take that penalty.
Taylor was a proven penalty taker over many seasons, and Cornet put away his last penalty in the AFCON with confidence and ease. He was the last Burnley player to score a penalty in a competitive match. If Jay had taken it and missed, all those now criticising the fact that Cornet took it would probably now be saying. "Why didn't Cornet take it?"
As it turned out I'm afraid he missed, but I don't see much wrong with the logic of him taking it.

Ric_C
Posts: 2050
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:22 am
Been Liked: 742 times
Has Liked: 122 times

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by Ric_C » Sun Apr 17, 2022 6:37 pm

That was more of a red than Collins the other week. In slo mo Max is just about to tap it into an empty net and Fabianski lifts his arm up to trip him, ball is long gone

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5202 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by Devils_Advocate » Sun Apr 17, 2022 6:40 pm

As per Law 14 if the penalty misses the target and the ref believes the goalkeeper offence did not clearly impact the penalty taker then the penalty should not be retaken.

- if the ball enters the goal, a goal is awarded
- if the ball misses the goal or rebounds from the crossbar or goalpost(s), the kick is only retaken if the goalkeeper’s offence clearly impacted on the kicker
- if the ball is prevented from entering the goal by the goalkeeper, the kick is retaken[/i]

fanzone
Posts: 801
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:00 pm
Been Liked: 226 times
Has Liked: 65 times

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by fanzone » Sun Apr 17, 2022 7:20 pm

It wasn't retaken as no save were made. Had it been saved with the keeper a yard or two off his line it would have been retaken.

Fact is it were an absolute shambolic effort, he AND Jay need a bollo8ing for assumingly going against the set up of Jay taking penaltys.

Ontop of that I don't think it were a pen. Fabianski didn't seem to touch Cornet

JohnMcGreal
Posts: 2206
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:37 am
Been Liked: 1344 times
Has Liked: 438 times

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by JohnMcGreal » Sun Apr 17, 2022 7:24 pm

It looked to me like the ref pointed at Cornet just after he stalled/stopped during his run up. I assume that had he scored the ref would have blown and made him retake it, but he missed anyway, so there was no need.

Jakubclaret
Posts: 9434
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 1179 times
Has Liked: 778 times

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by Jakubclaret » Sun Apr 17, 2022 7:43 pm

JohnMcGreal wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 7:24 pm
It looked to me like the ref pointed at Cornet just after he stalled/stopped during his run up. I assume that had he scored the ref would have blown and made him retake it, but he missed anyway, so there was no need.
Don’t say that it goes against the conspiracy straw clutching agenda the footballing world have against Burnley, I see it simply as we were rightly awarded a penalty we didn’t capitalise on that opportunity & that’s it.

beddie
Posts: 5133
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:10 pm
Been Liked: 1380 times
Has Liked: 511 times

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by beddie » Sun Apr 17, 2022 7:46 pm

I noticed encroachment from both sides, however, if only the West Ham players had encroached would Cornet have been allowed to re take it?

Roosterbooster
Posts: 2582
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:22 pm
Been Liked: 688 times
Has Liked: 361 times

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by Roosterbooster » Sun Apr 17, 2022 9:57 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 6:40 pm
As per Law 14 if the penalty misses the target and the ref believes the goalkeeper offence did not clearly impact the penalty taker then the penalty should not be retaken.

- if the ball enters the goal, a goal is awarded
- if the ball misses the goal or rebounds from the crossbar or goalpost(s), the kick is only retaken if the goalkeeper’s offence clearly impacted on the kicker
- if the ball is prevented from entering the goal by the goalkeeper, the kick is retaken[/i]
Well I'd say in this instance the goalkeepers actions clearly impacted the kicker because Cornet waited for Fabianski to move before then shanking it. Its not as if he'd already picked a side and then skied it. If Fabianski is a foot further back, then the available goal visible to Cornet is widened, and he goes more for accuracy than power

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5202 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by Devils_Advocate » Sun Apr 17, 2022 10:32 pm

Roosterbooster wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 9:57 pm
Well I'd say in this instance the goalkeepers actions clearly impacted the kicker because Cornet waited for Fabianski to move before then shanking it. Its not as if he'd already picked a side and then skied it. If Fabianski is a foot further back, then the available goal visible to Cornet is widened, and he goes more for accuracy than power
Fabianski is allowed to move, the rule is he must have one foot on the line. You then mention that Fabianski being off his line narrows the goal but then if that is the case how can this law exist because by your logic it would be impossible for a keeper to be off his line and not be narrowing the goal.

The fact that this scenario has been specifically created indicates that your definition which would render it useless is not a correct interpretation. They key to this part of the law is the phrasing "clearly impacted" with the emphasis on clearly and in this case where Cornet has sent the keeper the wrong way and then screwed it wide Fabianski being off his line did not have a clear impact to Cornet missing.
This user liked this post: boatshed bill

Bin Ont Turf
Posts: 10948
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:38 am
Been Liked: 5154 times
Has Liked: 795 times
Location: On top of a pink elephant riding to the Democratic Republic of Congo

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by Bin Ont Turf » Sun Apr 17, 2022 11:09 pm

Just f***ing hit the thing and stop p1ssing about.
These 2 users liked this post: Tricky Trevor jjclaret

Tricky Trevor
Posts: 8322
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:06 pm
Been Liked: 2439 times
Has Liked: 1978 times

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by Tricky Trevor » Mon Apr 18, 2022 12:03 am

Hypothetically would we have been better off if he had gone down just outside the box?
Johnson would have been off for DGSO and we would have had a central FK, 20yds out.

Rileybobs
Posts: 16681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6891 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by Rileybobs » Mon Apr 18, 2022 1:07 am

Tricky Trevor wrote:
Mon Apr 18, 2022 12:03 am
Hypothetically would we have been better off if he had gone down just outside the box?
Johnson would have been off for DGSO and we would have had a central FK, 20yds out.
Hypothetically yes, because we missed the penalty. But you don’t get a much better chance to win a game than to be given a free shot at goal from 12 yards to take a 2 goal lead.
This user liked this post: addisclaret

addisclaret
Posts: 666
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 4:10 pm
Been Liked: 172 times
Has Liked: 699 times

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by addisclaret » Mon Apr 18, 2022 1:29 am

Tricky Trevor wrote:
Mon Apr 18, 2022 12:03 am
Hypothetically would we have been better off if he had gone down just outside the box?
Johnson would have been off for DGSO and we would have had a central FK, 20yds out.
Less than hypothetically we would have been better if he had just scored, which was the easier option.

Roosterbooster
Posts: 2582
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:22 pm
Been Liked: 688 times
Has Liked: 361 times

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by Roosterbooster » Mon Apr 18, 2022 2:26 am

Devils_Advocate wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 10:32 pm
Fabianski is allowed to move, the rule is he must have one foot on the line. You then mention that Fabianski being off his line narrows the goal but then if that is the case how can this law exist because by your logic it would be impossible for a keeper to be off his line and not be narrowing the goal.

The fact that this scenario has been specifically created indicates that your definition which would render it useless is not a correct interpretation. They key to this part of the law is the phrasing "clearly impacted" with the emphasis on clearly and in this case where Cornet has sent the keeper the wrong way and then screwed it wide Fabianski being off his line did not have a clear impact to Cornet missing.
I'm not disputing that Fabianski is allowed to move. My point is that Cornet's technique and placement is dependent on knowing where the goalkeeper is, rather than just picking a side and giving it a good welly

Yes, being off you line narrows the goal. That's basic geometry. But if you put your head down and welly it, then the position of the keeper and his effect on the goal is irrelevant if you miss the target. However, if your placement depends on the keeper's position, as it did for Cornet, then that narrowing of the space affects the finish.

So with this technique, the position of the keeper as you strike the ball can clearly affect the result.

And even if you disagree with all that, it seems bizarre to me that a keeper can break the rules, and a player miss but still not have a retake, but when an opposing player behind them encroaches and they miss, then it it is a retake. How is someone 10 yards behind you more important than the opposing player directly between you and the goal??

Taffy on the wing
Posts: 4600
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 3:41 am
Been Liked: 1020 times
Has Liked: 3162 times

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by Taffy on the wing » Mon Apr 18, 2022 5:22 am

dandeclaret wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 6:33 pm
I'm surprised there wasn't a retake, given the encroachment, and the fact the keeper had both feet well off the line. Isn't that a VAR responsibility to check for that?
ONLY FOR THE TOP TEAMS!

Middle-agedClaret
Posts: 1039
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 7:55 pm
Been Liked: 314 times
Has Liked: 1069 times

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by Middle-agedClaret » Mon Apr 18, 2022 6:42 am

Taffy on the wing wrote:
Mon Apr 18, 2022 5:22 am
ONLY FOR THE TOP TEAMS!
😴😴😴

Tread Warily
Posts: 302
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 1:02 pm
Been Liked: 23 times
Has Liked: 123 times

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by Tread Warily » Mon Apr 18, 2022 7:10 am

He did'nt score, the selfish ####,end of story. :roll:

beddie
Posts: 5133
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:10 pm
Been Liked: 1380 times
Has Liked: 511 times

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by beddie » Mon Apr 18, 2022 8:00 am

I’m sending videos to Cornet of Graham Alexander and Alan Shearer on exactly how to score a penalty. None of this stupid and pathetic running up and stop starting. It’s called hitting the bloody thing.
This user liked this post: jjclaret

Hipper
Posts: 5681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:33 pm
Been Liked: 1175 times
Has Liked: 918 times

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by Hipper » Mon Apr 18, 2022 9:06 am

Goobs wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 5:12 pm
Never a red and no retake as offences on both sides.

Simple fact is Jay should have told him to do one and Cornet should have put it away when Jay bottled it.
Actually that's not true about 'offences from both sides' - two wrongs don't make a right. The advantage was with West Ham as Cornet missed so if a West Ham player encroached, or the goalkeeper broke the Law, the kick should be retaken. It's irrelevant if a Burnley player also encroached.

'If a defending team player (including the goalkeeper) commits an offence and the penalty is missed/saved, the penalty is retaken.'

'a player of both teams offends, the kick is retaken unless a player commits a more serious offence (e.g. 'illegal' feinting).'

https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-go ... nalty-kick

Goobs
Posts: 4386
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:43 am
Been Liked: 1459 times
Has Liked: 992 times
Location: Burnley

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by Goobs » Mon Apr 18, 2022 9:13 am

Hipper wrote:
Mon Apr 18, 2022 9:06 am
Actually that's not true about 'offences from both sides' - two wrongs don't make a right. The advantage was with West Ham as Cornet missed so if a West Ham player encroached, or the goalkeeper broke the Law, the kick should be retaken. It's irrelevant if a Burnley player also encroached.

'If a defending team player (including the goalkeeper) commits an offence and the penalty is missed/saved, the penalty is retaken.'

'a player of both teams offends, the kick is retaken unless a player commits a more serious offence (e.g. 'illegal' feinting).'

https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-go ... nalty-kick
Fair enough. I should have checked.

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5202 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by Devils_Advocate » Mon Apr 18, 2022 11:07 am

Roosterbooster wrote:
Mon Apr 18, 2022 2:26 am
I'm not disputing that Fabianski is allowed to move. My point is that Cornet's technique and placement is dependent on knowing where the goalkeeper is, rather than just picking a side and giving it a good welly

Yes, being off you line narrows the goal. That's basic geometry. But if you put your head down and welly it, then the position of the keeper and his effect on the goal is irrelevant if you miss the target. However, if your placement depends on the keeper's position, as it did for Cornet, then that narrowing of the space affects the finish.

So with this technique, the position of the keeper as you strike the ball can clearly affect the result.

And even if you disagree with all that, it seems bizarre to me that a keeper can break the rules, and a player miss but still not have a retake, but when an opposing player behind them encroaches and they miss, then it it is a retake. How is someone 10 yards behind you more important than the opposing player directly between you and the goal??
You might think the rule is bizarre and you might have a valid point but at the end of the day that is the rule and that is why the ref allowed the penalty miss to stand and why VAR did not get involved.

Im not interested what you and others think about the laws of the game because I was just explaining to anyone wondering why the penalty was not required to be retaken because of the keeper not being on his line.
This user liked this post: Middle-agedClaret

jojomk1
Posts: 4735
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 11:20 am
Been Liked: 836 times
Has Liked: 574 times

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by jojomk1 » Mon Apr 18, 2022 11:18 am

Elizabeth wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 5:25 pm
Get that right, there is no way Jay bottled out of taking that penalty . What actually did you want him to do to get the ball off Cornet ?
We had a manager on the sidelines and a captain on the pitch - didn't they know who was designated to take pens

If Cornet was not the designated pen taker then some people just needed to grow some and take charge

HahaYeah
Posts: 2075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2020 11:33 am
Been Liked: 343 times
Has Liked: 323 times

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by HahaYeah » Mon Apr 18, 2022 11:33 am

At Burnley, if you win the penalty you can take it,that's why Maxwel took it.
This user liked this post: jjclaret

Taffy on the wing
Posts: 4600
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 3:41 am
Been Liked: 1020 times
Has Liked: 3162 times

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by Taffy on the wing » Mon Apr 18, 2022 3:18 pm

Middle-agedClaret wrote:
Mon Apr 18, 2022 6:42 am
😴😴😴
If it was Liverpool you'd see a replay of it followed by a retake........just saying.
Plus their goalie was off his line.

jjclaret
Posts: 261
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:39 pm
Been Liked: 117 times
Has Liked: 441 times

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by jjclaret » Mon Apr 18, 2022 3:45 pm

The good news, if there is any, is that both Max and J Rod were up to and felt confident enough to take it. Just hope his bad miss doesn’t effect him too much, think he’ll be fine.

IanMcL
Posts: 30123
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:27 pm
Been Liked: 6340 times
Has Liked: 8651 times

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by IanMcL » Tue Apr 19, 2022 6:22 pm

HahaYeah wrote:
Sun Apr 17, 2022 4:42 pm
Not a fan of jazzy stop start run ups - just run and kick the bloody ball and stop showing off.
Not a fan of our rare penalties being missed, in such an absurd way.

claretandy
Posts: 4751
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 953 times
Has Liked: 238 times

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by claretandy » Wed Apr 20, 2022 7:24 am

We would have never won that penalty under Dyche, Cornet was positioned on the edge of the box, under Dyche he would have been on the post.

This is another small tweek in tactics.

RVclaret
Posts: 13836
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:30 am
Been Liked: 3707 times
Has Liked: 2499 times

Re: Would Cornet's penalty have been disallowed?

Post by RVclaret » Wed Apr 20, 2022 7:49 am

claretandy wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2022 7:24 am
We would have never won that penalty under Dyche, Cornet was positioned on the edge of the box, under Dyche he would have been on the post.

This is another small tweek in tactics.
This is actually an interesting point.

I can’t remember us ever looking threatening from a corner counter attack.

For a team that doesn’t have much possession, it’s quite strange that we’ve never really caught teams on the break.

Definitely a threat that Cornet adds if used properly.

Post Reply