The farewell to the panenka: Hat-trick penalties have become merely ridiculous.

On Monday night, a moment that many considered a bold attempt to score a goal turned into a display of ego and recklessness. Dango Ouattara, a player for Brentford, was the only one among nine takers to fail in converting his penalty in the decisive shootout that saw West Ham advance to the quarter-finals of the FA Cup. His attempt to execute a Panenka, an approach that was once synonymous with class, may have been the final nail in the coffin for this style of penalty, now regarded as more foolish than clever.

The pressure on Ouattara was high, but he chose to take a risk. Instead of opting for a simple and straightforward execution, the forward seemed intent on making his attempt a spectacle, disregarding the consequences this decision could have for his team. The reality is that this selfish choice is not new. Players have repeatedly allowed their pride to dictate decisions in crucial moments. And the history of failures like Ouattara’s is not unprecedented, but each mistake brings with it a new wave of criticism and reflection.

Some might even date the death of the Panenka as a relevant concept in sport to January 18, 2026, when Brahim Diaz delivered the final blow during the AFCON final. Since then, attempts to replicate this style have become a mere shadow of what they once were, as if the takers were kicking a corpse rather than a ball. Ouattara, undoubtedly, was a victim of this phenomenon, attempting an approach that many would consider outdated.

What drives a player to risk a penalty with a Panenka? The motivation always seems to be the same: “Look at me. Am I not just brilliant?” While this audacity has its place in football, the truth is that the need to innovate does not always justify the risk. Antonin Panenka, the creator of this technique, perhaps never imagined that one day his name would be synonymous with failures.

In the past, taking penalties was straightforward; players would choose a side and goalkeepers often guessed wrong. However, the evolution of the game has brought a new approach. Goalkeepers, armed with an immense amount of data about the takers, can now predict and react more effectively. The knowledge they have about players’ habits is astonishing, making the execution of a Panenka an increasingly risky decision.

If you are taking a penalty in high-stakes competition, it is almost certain that the goalkeeper is more prepared than ever. And for Ouattara, the knowledge that Areola would likely be aware of his tendencies should have been a red flag. The goalkeeper, by remaining still, challenged the player to take a risk, and the forward’s lack of foresight was evident.

Keith Andrews, Ouattara’s coach, was understanding after the match, highlighting the courage required to take a penalty. “I’m not upset at all. The easiest thing for a player is to not score. It takes unbelievable courage to be there, taking a penalty. I disdain the culture that makes players who miss the target the subject of criticism. It’s disgusting. Dango will have all the support he needs.” However, it is important to distinguish between courage and recklessness, and what happened with Ouattara was undoubtedly a lesson that should be learned.

Times have changed, and the approach of coaches before penalty kicks is clear: keep things simple. Robbie Savage’s words resonate: “No Panenkas.” What was once a gesture of creativity and audacity now seems more like an unnecessary risk. The beauty of a Panenka lay in its rarity, but it has now become too common to be considered innovative. Ouattara’s mistake will be remembered far more than a successful conversion. Ultimately, his failure was not just a poor execution, but a sign that the Panenka, as we know it, may have already seen its glory days.