Why do we concede so many last minute goals?

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

3 hours ago, davulsukur said:

Basically what Mogga wanted to use Chapman for?

Or somebody with some pace who carries a goal threat . If I had a £1 for every time I've seen a team try to hang on for a win and then get pipped in injury time I'd be a very rich man.

[Herbie6590]

7 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

I'm compiling a list of goals scored and conceded in the period 85 mins plus . So I make that we are minus 1 goal and 2 points.

This kind of implies that if we concede in the 84th minute then it would be OK ? 

A goal is a goal, whether conceded in the 1st or 90th. It just feels different psychologically so close to the end of a game.

A defensive lapse, a piece of brilliance, a bit of luck....can happen at any point in the 90 minutes.?‍♂️

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

You've got to draw the line somewhere. I think these days when you regularly get 5 minutes time added on that 85 minutes is about right.

[Al]

It could be because we have too many players who can't last 90minutes. The team that finished yesterday were not a patch on the starting eleven.

[Stuart]

Rangers have just conceded and equaliser in the 93rd minutes. Injury time now seems to regularly hit 5+ minutes and at a time when players are tiring, it’s no wonder goals tend to go in that late.

Felt a bit for Rangers. They had a red card in the 12th minute for a minimal of petulant kick out after the Aberdeen defender shoulder barged the Rangers lad with the ball on the other side of the pitch. It was nothing and a yellow card for both players would have been OTT. However, it’s no wonder players roll around on the ground after a bit of contact because referees don’t do anything otherwise.

[JeffRover]

Last season we scored 8 goals from 85 minutes onwards. We conceded 5 from 85 minutes onwards. We come out on the favourable side more often than the opposition in terms of late goals and that is a fact! I read somewhere that 15% of goals come after 85 mins! It means that we are bound to concede some late goals as well as score some also.

Edited August 5, 2018 by JeffRover

[Exiled in Toronto]

The World Cup showed that late goals aren’t anything peculiar to us.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

2 hours ago, JeffRover said:

Last season we scored 8 goals from 85 minutes onwards. We conceded 5 from 85 minutes onwards. We come out on the favourable side more often than the opposition in terms of late goals and that is a fact! I read somewhere that 15% of goals come after 85 mins! It means that we are bound to concede some late goals as well as score some also.

I'm not on about last season. The opposition last season was very poor by and large, it took most of them all their time to score at any point in the game. It's the seasons before that when we were playing at this level and conceding late goals regularly that worries me.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

1 hour ago, Exiled in Toronto said:

The World Cup showed that late goals aren’t anything peculiar to us.

At the end of the season we'll see. At the moment not being able to play out a game has cost us 2 points already.  I hope we don't need them come next May.

[Exiled in Toronto]

3 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

At the end of the season we'll see. At the moment not being able to play out a game has cost us 2 points already.  I hope we don't need them come next May.

If we get relegated, I’m sure there’ll be bigger reasons than a scabby goal in the first week of August.

[Herbie6590]

54 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

At the end of the season we'll see. At the moment not being able to play out a game has cost us 2 points already.  I hope we don't need them come next May.

...but this implies that the 1st goal is irrelevant...it carries just as much weight as the 2nd one...why not the same level of outrage at being “caught cold” in the opening 10minutes ? ?

 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

25 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

...but this implies that the 1st goal is irrelevant...it carries just as much weight as the 2nd one...why not the same level of outrage at being “caught cold” in the opening 10minutes ? ?

 

In that case why don't you start a thread regarding goals in the first ten minutes ?

[JeffRover]

In the 15 games of the 16/17 season that TM had we scored 2 after 85 minutes and conceded 2!

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

How many did we concede when that shyster Coyle was in charge that season ? I don't see the point of being economical with the facts. You're not a teacher are you ?

[tomphil]

Lack of commanding vocal keepers and centre halves can't help although there's always been late goals, as they say you play to the final whistle.

We are in an era of nice lads and players coming from academies where they are more encouraged to be all rounder's rather than specialists in what they are good at.

[JeffRover]

22 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

How many did we concede when that shyster Coyle was in charge that season ? I don't see the point of being economical with the facts. You're not a teacher are you ?

Exactly, under Coyle! We currently aren’t managed by Coyle thank the lord and so I’m going to wait to criticise TM when and if it becomes a recurring theme under his management. So far it hasn’t. We’ve actually come out on the good side of late goals during his tenure.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

I've not got a problem with that. I'll just keep my eye on the stats for this season.

[roversfan99]

People seem to get really uptight about any hint of anything that will paint Mowbray in an unfavourable light, to the extent that they become slightly paranoid and tell others to trust Mowbray etc even when nothing has been said to the contrary. Really frustrating. 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

13 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

People seem to get really uptight about any hint of anything that will paint Mowbray in an unfavourable light, to the extent that they become slightly paranoid and tell others to trust Mowbray etc even when nothing has been said to the contrary. Really frustrating. 

I agree. Nobody is above criticism in my book. The manager gets the pats on the back when things are going well, he gets kicked up the backside when they aren't . That's fair enough for me , any other way is just asking for trouble.

[roversfan99]

Just now, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

I agree. Nobody is above criticism in my book. The manager gets the pats on the back when things are going well, he gets kicked up the backside when they aren't . That's fair enough for me , any other way is just asking for trouble.

The transfer thread is a case in point. People have defended Mowbray when the point being made wasnt even about him!

[RovingRover]

I'm not so much concerned with Ipswich's equalizer. It was a fluke.

What concerns me more is the 1st goal we conceded.

I still think Mulgrew's goals last season covered for some defensive lapses.
In particular, he seems to struggle tracking, covering and heading in the box when under pressure.

As I have said elsewhere. I do wonder sometimes if Mulgrew would be better in CM and a new, tall commanding CB take his place at the back.

[roversfan99]

5 minutes ago, RovingRover said:

I'm not so much concerned with Ipswich's equalizer. It was a fluke.

What concerns me more is the 1st goal we conceded.

I still think Mulgrew's goals last season covered for some defensive lapses.
In particular, he seems to struggle tracking, covering and heading in the box when under pressure.

As I have said elsewhere. I do wonder sometimes if Mulgrew would be better in CM and a new, tall commanding CB take his place at the back.

Would personally strongly disagree and think its a bit of a myth. I think the fact hes such a threat going forward, plus that hes so elegant in bringing the ball out, seems to make people take for granted and underappreciated his obvious defensive qualities. Hes the leader, something I particularly appreciate at Ewood when I can see him organising. He heads away far more than he gets credit for, and his positioning is better than Lenihan hence not needing to throw himself in last ditch as much.

Mulgrew doesnt have the legs to play in midfield at his age, plus many of his aforementioned qualitys are wasted there.

Its almost as if people have a preset image of what a centre back looks like, and how he should play, blood and thunder, old school and Mulgrews pretty unique for a Rovers centre back in recent years, centre backs shouldnt be scoring free kicks, really good on the ball and taking risks that rarely dont come off, have long hair tied up. Hes a very good defender. And certainly not at all to blame for their first goal.

[SBlue]

13 minutes ago, RovingRover said:

I'm not so much concerned with Ipswich's equalizer. It was a fluke.

What concerns me more is the 1st goal we conceded.

I still think Mulgrew's goals last season covered for some defensive lapses.
In particular, he seems to struggle tracking, covering and heading in the box when under pressure.

As I have said elsewhere. I do wonder sometimes if Mulgrew would be better in CM and a new, tall commanding CB take his place at the back.

Not sure he’s got the mobility for CM and think you’re underrating his defensive qualities to be honest.

If anyone is to blame it’s the full back tracking his winger.

 

edit - yeah what @roversfan99 just said.

Edited August 5, 2018 by S8 & Blue

[Herbie6590]

12 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

In that case why don't you start a thread regarding goals in the first ten minutes ?

Because a goal is worth a goal irrespective of when scored.

Fixating purely on conceding a late one is a very specific crusade IMHO. ?‍♂️

[Mattyblue]

Get your point Ian, but I think late goals are slightly different.

Remember 'Fergie Time' and all that, nowt to do with luck (or refs! ), his team scored a load of last minute goals because they were very fit players with a never say die attitude.

By the same token, a team that concedes a load of last minute goals wil be lacking something