If I hear the phrase “the lottery of the penalty shoot-out” one more time in this World Cup, I think I may cry.

A game only needs to be locked at 0-0 for five minutes before this tired, overused and entirely inaccurate expression is dragged out by cliché-happy commentators.

The word ‘lottery’ by its very nature is closely associated with the concepts of luck and fortune.

But a penalty shoot-out, although arguably one of the least satisfactory ways of deciding a football match, is anything but a game of chance.

Winning a penalty shoot-out is about skill. It’s about having nerves of steel. It’s about keeping your cool in a cauldron of boiling hot raw emotion. It’s about the art of scoring goals and saving shots in its most basic and raw form.

As an England supporter I know all about shoot-out failure. The inability to win a game that has gone to penalties is something English fans are prepared for from birth. It’s a father’s uncomfortable duty. I’m not afraid of having the birds and the bees conversation with my son, but the day when I have to break his heart and explain that he will probably never see England win a penalty shoot-out fills me with dread.

Even so, I wouldn’t be as delusional as to put this down to bad luck, because it’s not. Scoring a perfectly legitimate goal but having it ruled out for a non-existent offside, for example, is bad luck.

Seeing your best player stretchered off after tripping on a particularly tough blade of grass would be bad luck.

But failing to beat a goalkeeper from 12 yards means something is lacking in your game: preparation, the ability to deal with pressure or, in some cases, nothing more sinister than not having the ability to put the ball where you want it to be.

I’m not suggesting scoring is easy – if it was, nobody would ever miss them – but it is certainly not a skill for which divine intervention is needed. Saving shots is slightly less of an exact science as there is a certain amount of guesswork involved. But that still doesn’t make it pure luck.

Ultimately, a player shoots and it is either on target or not. If it is on target then the goalkeeper either saves it or he doesn’t. There is nothing even remotely fortuitous about any of those possibilities. Whichever team has the best penalty-takers or most inspired keeper on the night, wins the match. Just as whichever team has the better players and tactics on the night will probably win the match without the need for penalties.

We’ve already seen a couple of matches in Brazil settled by penalties and there is the possibility that we might even see one or two more.

But don’t let commentators fool you with this ‘lottery’ nonsense because, love them or loathe them, shoot-outs are really the ultimate test of skill.

Thankfully, with Roy Hodgson in charge of the national team, penalty shoot-outs are not something England fans need to worry about for the foreseeable future.

His bite is worse than his Barca

Hmm. So serial-biter Luis Suarez issues a public apology for sinking his teeth into Italian defender Chiellini at the World Cup and just a matter of hours later it is announced that Barcelona’s lawyers have flown to England to negotiate his transfer from Liverpool.

Call me cynical but isn’t that just a happy coincidence.

I wonder if maybe, just maybe, Barcelona’s legal people had anything to do with the Uruguayan’s sudden and unexpected bout of remorse? Either apologise and start to put it behind you, or we won’t be making any offers…?

Suarez’s apology would have come across so much more sincere if it had taken place straight after his latest display of football cannibalism, rather than a week later.

Who knows, some people might actually have believed he was sorry.

Failing to beat a goalkeeper from 12 yards means something is lacking in your game

Of course, for the people in his homeland this is all irrelevant. From the country’s President downwards, since the incident happened they have displayed a singular and collective ability not to let reality get in the way of their adoration.

I have nothing against Uruguay as a nation or Uruguayans in general (in fact, I don’t recall ever having met one) but the way they have treated Suarez as a hero while blaming the rest of the planet for his stupidity is utterly embarrassing.

And the truth is this blind support hasn’t done Suarez any favours. If he had been forced to sulk back to his homeland clear in the knowledge he had let down his entire country, then it might just have been the jolt he needed to get his head sorted out.

Instead he will continue to believe he can keep getting away with behaviour that would even be reprehensible in a kindergarten playground.

So how does all this affect Liverpool, the people that have been paying him to sit on the bench picking bits of opponents out of his teeth?

I’ve heard it argued – many, many times – that despite last season’s lengthy ban for biting, Suarez came back into the Liverpool team and almost helped them to the title and that was why they were happy to forgive him.

I would argue it differently: If he hadn’t been banned for those first games of the season then maybe Liverpool would have won the title. He may have scored 31 goals when he was available for selection, but who’s to say he couldn’t have added five or six more if he had been around from the start? And that might have been enough for the few extra points Liverpool needed.

His latest ban means he will miss a similar amount of games this season, including three crucial Champions League matches. And that is too much baggage for a team like Liverpool to carry.

Barcelona are undoubtedly getting themselves a brilliant footballer. But considering his questionable mental state and his irreparable reputation, he’s not one I would want playing for my team.

And despite everything he’s done for them, I’m sure most Liverpool supporters now feel the same way.

sportscolumnist@timesofmalta.com
Twitter: @maltablade