clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

All those late goals are actually a good sign. Kind of.

New, 1 comment

Yes, TFC let in a lot of late goals again this year, but let's take a glass half full approach. At least under Mariner, the opposition often had to score late.

Cheer up Milos. At least we forced them to try and score late. That's something, right?
Cheer up Milos. At least we forced them to try and score late. That's something, right?
Abelimages

Inspired by Michael's article earlier in the week, and especially Kent Martin's observation in the comments section, my lates for Sportsnet is a look at TFC's late goals, and the difference between under Winter and under Mariner. Looking at it in a glass half full way, I decide that the increase is actually a good thing.

We went from a terrible team who was always behind after 75 minutes (9 out of 10 games under Winter) to merely a poor team, good enough to be in with a chance, but often not good enough to hold on to the result. The next step, learn how to consistently hold on to results, do that and we might be upgraded to average (we lost 11 points under Mariner, if results after 75 had held, we'd have had 31 points in 24 games, that'd be 44 points in 34 games, average, but better than Vancouver).

To further illustrate my point that late goals at least show some competitiveness, which TFC team conceded the least amount? 2007, only 8.

Click here to read the full article.