I just watched the goal through several times, and the people stating unequivocally that it wasn't a shot attempt (I'm looking at you, Cuch) are amusing. Your adamant stance prompted me to go watch the goal for myself.
I'm not absolutely sure whether it was a real shot attempt or a cross. I do think it was a real shot on goal, though, for a few reasons. One, if it was a cross attempt, he missed his mark on the ball by a mile, because he was hitting it way too low on the ball to hit it that hard (making an assist virtually impossible). It might have been a viable cross lower down, but a chest-high bullet? Sure, it's possible he miss hit it, but then the only possibility is that he's enormously lucky the ball went right between the keeper and the goal. Also, if you look at the back angle from
this video, the ball had a little backspin, more consistent with a smash laces-hit than a missed toe-hit.
Cuch, your main piece of "evidence" is that he appeared to look up and straight, not towards the goal. Yeah, obviously he'd look up right where he did, regardless of what he was ultimately going to do: to see if someone was open, to see where the keeper was, etc. He also would have seen that there was a sea of red in front of him, with no one open -- and the keeper was standing several feet in front of the goal (expecting cross, I'm sure). I don't think he meant to fool the keeper, just that he meant to look up and see the field. He was not looking opposite the goal, so there's absolutely no way you can say he did not see the goal and keeper. If anything, the fact that he looked up (meaning he saw the goal, keeper, and the swarm of red in front of his teammates) is more support that he tried a shot.
It seems like it requires less explanation that it was a good shot. I just have to assume he saw an opening (which he would've seen when he looked up) To say it was a missed cross, you have to assume that all of the following happened: 1) he was making an awful cross attempt in the first place; 2) he miss hit the ball but still smashed it; 3) he miss hit the ball in a perfect location with a very small window. All of that is certainly possible, but it seems simpler that he just saw an opening and took it, and I don't see any evidence that contradicts that, so I have to go with Occam's Razor on this one.
Originally Posted by Cuchulainn
I think if you watch the whole thing you will realise it was a fluke. He bombed down, looked behind him slightly into the box, looked down & banged it. When he banged it he twisted his body to shoot diagonally behind. It was a glorious fluke.
Reply With Quote
