Sociedad Won Late Again After Losing Two Leads

How much can another late winner tell us?

Real Sociedad have now won late away from home twice, at Elche and then at Valencia. It is easy to see an identity taking shape in that sequence: this side can absorb the noise of a hostile finish and still find a goal. Ander Barrenetxea's stoppage-time strike from a corner at Mestalla gave Sociedad a 3-2 win and supporters every reason to enjoy the trip home. Pellegrino Matarazzo has another reason to revisit it. His team had led twice and needed a third goal anyway.

Barrenetxea entered in the second half and finished under the pressure of an almost lost result. His goal changed the points and sent Sociedad into a lengthy league break with more calm, as the club put it. It did not retroactively make the lead safe or the earlier chances scored. For a club whose supporters want more than a dramatic postcard from an away ground, both truths should travel home together.

The chances before the crisis

Local Cadena SER discussion after the match divided the evidence sharply: the first half offered good play, while the second-half drop and the management of the game remained concerns. The score sequence makes that more than a critic's refusal to enjoy a winner. It also asks which parts of the first half Sociedad can carry through an opponent's response.

Luka Sučić gave Sociedad the lead before the half-hour after Ochieng laid the ball into his path. The club describes two more counter-attacking chances before the interval, one each for Gonçalo Guedes and Mikel Oyarzabal. AS counted 14 first-half attempts and judged that the visitors had room to settle the match earlier. That number alone does not measure the quality of every opening. It does establish that the late winner was not the team's first useful route to goal.

This is where the result can mislead. A visitor that creates repeatedly at Mestalla has done significant work; treating the first half as a failure because it ended 1-0 would be crude. But an away lead of one goal leaves every opponent adjustment capable of resetting the argument. Chance conversion is partly variable. The quality and placement of the chances are more actionable, as is the team's ability to turn a spell of control into a less fragile game state.

Matarazzo does not need to make the players more urgent because a dramatic winner is attractive on television. He needs the first period's passing clarity to survive when Valencia press higher, and he needs the forward line to turn at least some of that clarity into finishes before the opponent's first answer. That demands specific work from the entire team, not merely a demand that one striker become clinical.

Two leads had two different leaks

Valencia's Aaron Mayol equalized after the interval with a powerful half-volley. Yangel Herrera then won a penalty, which Carlos Soler converted to restore Sociedad's lead. The second equalizer came as Luken Beitia turned a ball into his own net while trying to prevent a close-range finish. The two concessions were not one repeated error. One was a shot that beat the goalkeeper; the other grew from pressure inside the area.

That difference is an argument against a sweeping verdict on Sociedad's defending. No team can guarantee that a fine strike will miss. It can decide how it meets the period after an opponent raises its lines and whether a restored lead becomes a signal to retreat without an exit. AS described Valencia returning from the interval with more speed, then later using fresh attackers. The local SER panel saw a collective drop after a strong opening period. Those observations point toward game management rather than a single culprit.

The fairest counterargument is simple: winning away despite two equalizers shows the squad can absorb shocks. Barrenetxea's finish and the penalty won by Herrera are evidence of that resilience. The objection limits criticism; it does not settle the question. If a team must keep scoring to repair a lead it cannot stabilize, the required scoring rate becomes an expensive way to live. Sociedad should preserve its willingness to go forward while making the next opponent work harder to turn one change of pace into territorial command.

Make the interval matter

Sociedad's own report framed the three points as a source of calm before the break. Calm is useful only if it gives Matarazzo room to be precise. The staff can review the minutes after both Valencia goals, and especially the spell after Soler's penalty, to decide whether the nearest passing outlets were available and whether the side could move the ball away from its own area without handing it straight back.

There is no reason to strip away the attacking ambition that gave Sučić, Guedes and Oyarzabal early opportunities. A club that starts fast away from home should keep that part of its identity. The adjustment belongs in the moments after the opponent pushes back: who offers the short exit, who threatens the space behind the raised line, and who stays close enough to challenge the second ball if the first pass fails. That is a shared assignment a training ground can make visible.

When league play resumes, a late Sociedad goal would still be welcome. The more revealing spell may arrive earlier, just after an opponent equalizes or introduces a fresh attacker. Can a nearby teammate offer an exit pass before the ball returns to Sociedad's box? Can the forward line threaten the ground behind a raised defense? Those are visible tasks for Matarazzo's break. Barrenetxea has already shown the side can rescue a result; its next opponent should have to work much harder to make rescue necessary.