Discussion:
PKs vs Corner Kicks?
(too old to reply)
s***@gmail.com
2006-07-03 04:05:35 UTC
Permalink
I'm sure I'm not the first to suggest this, but has there been
any serious thought given to changing the rule about
how drawn matches are settled in the knockout round?
PKs make it into a series of one-on-one contests (reminds
me of baseball, and not in a good way). I think alternating
corner kicks would be much better (keep it a team effort),
not that I expect FIFA to go for ideas like this....

Steve
Get a Clue Idiotas
2006-07-03 04:12:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
I'm sure I'm not the first to suggest this, but has there been
any serious thought given to changing the rule about
how drawn matches are settled in the knockout round?
PKs make it into a series of one-on-one contests (reminds
me of baseball, and not in a good way). I think alternating
corner kicks would be much better (keep it a team effort),
not that I expect FIFA to go for ideas like this....
Steve
That is a ridiculous idea. The probability of scoring thru corner is
much less. It might be possible that there are 100 corners taken by
both teams and the score is still 0-0. Do you want them to continue
till they drop dead?
UC
2006-07-03 23:23:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Get a Clue Idiotas
Post by s***@gmail.com
I'm sure I'm not the first to suggest this, but has there been
any serious thought given to changing the rule about
how drawn matches are settled in the knockout round?
PKs make it into a series of one-on-one contests (reminds
me of baseball, and not in a good way). I think alternating
corner kicks would be much better (keep it a team effort),
not that I expect FIFA to go for ideas like this....
Steve
That is a ridiculous idea. The probability of scoring thru corner is
much less. It might be possible that there are 100 corners taken by
both teams and the score is still 0-0. Do you want them to continue
till they drop dead?
Do away with the offsides rule. Scoring would go up, and the scores
would not go up equally. Thus, fewer ties. 6-3 games would be nice, eh?
Ron
2006-07-04 00:59:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by UC
6-3 games would be nice, eh?
I'm not so sure.

Part of what makes soccer fun is that goals really matter. I like a 3-2
game as much as the next guy, but I don't particularly want to see games
go that high scoring.

-Ron
SHUSSBAR
2006-07-04 01:06:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by UC
Post by Get a Clue Idiotas
Post by s***@gmail.com
I'm sure I'm not the first to suggest this, but has there been
any serious thought given to changing the rule about
how drawn matches are settled in the knockout round?
PKs make it into a series of one-on-one contests (reminds
me of baseball, and not in a good way). I think alternating
corner kicks would be much better (keep it a team effort),
not that I expect FIFA to go for ideas like this....
Steve
That is a ridiculous idea. The probability of scoring thru corner is
much less. It might be possible that there are 100 corners taken by
both teams and the score is still 0-0. Do you want them to continue
till they drop dead?
Do away with the offsides rule. Scoring would go up, and the scores
would not go up equally. Thus, fewer ties. 6-3 games would be nice, eh?
No. I prefer a god 0-0 or a 0-1 hardly fought with good defensive plays
than 9 easy goals because because of crappy Def.
Mark V.
2006-07-03 04:18:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
I'm sure I'm not the first to suggest this, but has there been
any serious thought given to changing the rule about
how drawn matches are settled in the knockout round?
PKs make it into a series of one-on-one contests (reminds
me of baseball, and not in a good way). I think alternating
corner kicks would be much better (keep it a team effort),
not that I expect FIFA to go for ideas like this....
Steve
At what point would you stop play from continuing and give the ball to
the other team for their corner?
s***@gmail.com
2006-07-03 04:39:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark V.
Post by s***@gmail.com
I'm sure I'm not the first to suggest this, but has there been
any serious thought given to changing the rule about
how drawn matches are settled in the knockout round?
PKs make it into a series of one-on-one contests (reminds
me of baseball, and not in a good way). I think alternating
corner kicks would be much better (keep it a team effort),
not that I expect FIFA to go for ideas like this....
Steve
At what point would you stop play from continuing and give the ball to
the other team for their corner?
When the defense gets control of the ball via goal kick, free kick,
etc., or advances the ball to the center line, say.

Also, the number of players on a side could be limited to 6 or 7
so that the defense wouldn't pack the penalty area with 11.

Alternately, one could play regular soccer with 10 v 10 for 15 minutes
and then 9 v 9 for 15 minutes, etc., until a goal is scored.
Might want allow a 4th sub at some point, ha.

Best of all would be to wait a couple of days and play again, but
I imagine that doesn't work well for television....

Steve
Magnus, Robot Fighter
2006-07-03 06:59:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Best of all would be to wait a couple of days and play again, but
I imagine that doesn't work well for television....
Steve
Actually I don't think at least one WC elimination round replay is a
bad idea.
Ron
2006-07-03 08:27:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Magnus, Robot Fighter
Actually I don't think at least one WC elimination round replay is a
bad idea.
But how do you keep everything in synch?

One quarterfinal match needs a replay - now one semifinal can't be
played for an extra three or four days. Do you delay the other
semifinal? If not, you're giving its winner a huge rest advantage going
into the final. And what happens if the semifinal involving the
replaying team has to be replayed?

I don't think there's any question it's the best sporting solution - but
it wrecks total havok on the tourney.

-Ron
s***@gmail.com
2006-07-03 13:33:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron
Post by Magnus, Robot Fighter
Actually I don't think at least one WC elimination round replay is a
bad idea.
But how do you keep everything in synch?
Increase the size of the roster and do the replay the next day,
with teams using all different players if they like. :)

Steve
s***@gmail.com
2006-07-09 20:34:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron
Post by Magnus, Robot Fighter
Actually I don't think at least one WC elimination round replay is a
bad idea.
But how do you keep everything in synch?
One quarterfinal match needs a replay - now one semifinal can't be
played for an extra three or four days. Do you delay the other
semifinal? If not, you're giving its winner a huge rest advantage going
into the final. And what happens if the semifinal involving the
replaying team has to be replayed?
I don't think there's any question it's the best sporting solution - but
it wrecks total havok on the tourney.
-Ron
How about having the replay rule in for just the final? Replay on
the following Wednesday and again on Sunday before going to
penalty kicks or something else.

Steve

Talking Footie
2006-07-03 08:57:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Magnus, Robot Fighter
Post by s***@gmail.com
Best of all would be to wait a couple of days and play again, but
I imagine that doesn't work well for television....
Steve
Actually I don't think at least one WC elimination round replay is a
bad idea.
How about less elimination matches or a 2nd group phase?
anders t
2006-07-03 13:32:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Talking Footie
How about less elimination matches or a 2nd group phase?
I've posted something like this before:

First Round: 8 groups of 4.
3 games each.
Two best teams move on. They bring with them the result between them.

Second Round 4 groups of 4.
2 additional games each.
Two best to QFs.

Using this years WC, the last match day of each Second Round group would
see the following standings before it starts:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
2R1
Germany 2 2 0 0 5-0 6
England 2 1 1 0 3-2 4
Sweden 2 0 1 1 2-4 1
Ecuador 2 0 0 2 0-4 0

Coming Up:
Germany - England
Sweden - Ecuador

Comment:
If Germany goes for it, then Sweden still has the chance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
2R2
Portugal 2 2 0 0 3-1 6
Argentina 2 0 2 0 1-1 2
Mexico 2 0 1 1 2-3 1
Netherlands 2 0 1 1 0-1 1

Coming Up:
Argentina - Portugal
Netherlands - Mexico

Comment:
If Portugal goes for it, then Mexico and Netherlands still have the chance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2R3
Brazil 2 2 0 0 5-0 6
Italy 2 2 0 0 3-0 6
Australia 2 0 0 2 0-3 0
Ghana 2 0 0 2 0-5 0

Coming Up:
Brazil - Italy
Australia - Ghana

Comment:
Dead group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2R4
France 2 1 1 0 3-1 4
Spain 2 1 0 1 5-3 3
Switzerland 2 0 2 0 0-0 2
Ukraine 2 0 1 1 0-4 1

Coming Up:
Switzerland - Spain
France - Ukraine

Comment:
Ukraine needs a big win, so gone in practice, but open for the other three.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predictions for QF pairings:
Germany - Argentina
Portugal - Sweden (!)
Brazil - Spain (!)
France - Italy (!)
--
All that we see, or seem,
is but a dream, within a dream,
installed by the Machine
Talking Footie
2006-07-03 16:21:50 UTC
Permalink
Great post Anders.
My only change would be I would not take the same teams into the next group
with carried over results so my group 1 would be A1. B2, C1. D2 for example.
This way you dont get any dead groups. Also the Quarterfinals still means
you'd have too much possibility for penalty shootout with 7 knockout matches
so I would eliminate the QF and go directly to the SF.

Group 1
Germany
Sweden
Argentina
Mexico

Group 2
England
Ecuador
Portugal
Holland

Group 3
Italy
Australia
Switzerland
Ukraine

Group 4
Brazil
Ghana
Spain
France


Then in the 2nd group stage each team plays 3 matches again and take only
the group winner and have them go directly to the semifinal (Group 1 v Group
3, Group 2 v Group 4). This way you only have 3 knockout matches, instead of
15, the entire tournament and the chances for penalty shootouts is very
slim.

---
www.talkingfootie.com
Post by anders t
Post by Talking Footie
How about less elimination matches or a 2nd group phase?
First Round: 8 groups of 4.
3 games each.
Two best teams move on. They bring with them the result between them.
Second Round 4 groups of 4.
2 additional games each.
Two best to QFs.
Using this years WC, the last match day of each Second Round group would
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
2R1
Germany 2 2 0 0 5-0 6
England 2 1 1 0 3-2 4
Sweden 2 0 1 1 2-4 1
Ecuador 2 0 0 2 0-4 0
Germany - England
Sweden - Ecuador
If Germany goes for it, then Sweden still has the chance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
2R2
Portugal 2 2 0 0 3-1 6
Argentina 2 0 2 0 1-1 2
Mexico 2 0 1 1 2-3 1
Netherlands 2 0 1 1 0-1 1
Argentina - Portugal
Netherlands - Mexico
If Portugal goes for it, then Mexico and Netherlands still have the chance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Post by anders t
2R3
Brazil 2 2 0 0 5-0 6
Italy 2 2 0 0 3-0 6
Australia 2 0 0 2 0-3 0
Ghana 2 0 0 2 0-5 0
Brazil - Italy
Australia - Ghana
Dead group.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Post by anders t
2R4
France 2 1 1 0 3-1 4
Spain 2 1 0 1 5-3 3
Switzerland 2 0 2 0 0-0 2
Ukraine 2 0 1 1 0-4 1
Switzerland - Spain
France - Ukraine
Ukraine needs a big win, so gone in practice, but open for the other three.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Post by anders t
Germany - Argentina
Portugal - Sweden (!)
Brazil - Spain (!)
France - Italy (!)
--
All that we see, or seem,
is but a dream, within a dream,
installed by the Machine
MH
2006-07-03 17:32:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Talking Footie
Great post Anders.
My only change would be I would not take the same teams into the next group
with carried over results so my group 1 would be A1. B2, C1. D2 for example.
This way you dont get any dead groups. Also the Quarterfinals still means
you'd have too much possibility for penalty shootout with 7 knockout matches
so I would eliminate the QF and go directly to the SF.
Both proposals add one extra matchday to an already long tournament.

A second round group stage was tried in 1974, 1978, and (in a bizarre
way) in 1982, and was generally regarded to be a flop.

I don't like PKs as a way of settling games either, but why not use
previous record in tournament instead ? In the order
1) points in all previous games except those against the last place team
in the first group
2) goal difference in above games
3) goals scored in above games
4) go through above process for all games
5) disciplinary record
6) PKs
Mark V.
2006-07-03 19:28:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by MH
I don't like PKs as a way of settling games either, but why not use
previous record in tournament instead ? In the order
1) points in all previous games except those against the last place team
in the first group
2) goal difference in above games
3) goals scored in above games
4) go through above process for all games
5) disciplinary record
6) PKs
Best suggestion so far.
Ron
2006-07-03 19:35:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark V.
Post by MH
I don't like PKs as a way of settling games either, but why not use
previous record in tournament instead ? In the order
1) points in all previous games except those against the last place team
in the first group
2) goal difference in above games
3) goals scored in above games
4) go through above process for all games
5) disciplinary record
6) PKs
Best suggestion so far.
I don't like it, because it favors teams from weak groups. Even
eliminating the "minnow" of each group, it still puts the teams from the
most competitive groups at a disadvantage.

If anything, coming out of a tough group should give you an edge.

-Ron
Talking Footie
2006-07-03 19:52:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron
Post by Mark V.
Post by MH
I don't like PKs as a way of settling games either, but why not use
previous record in tournament instead ? In the order
1) points in all previous games except those against the last place team
in the first group
2) goal difference in above games
3) goals scored in above games
4) go through above process for all games
5) disciplinary record
6) PKs
Best suggestion so far.
I don't like it, because it favors teams from weak groups. Even
eliminating the "minnow" of each group, it still puts the teams from the
most competitive groups at a disadvantage.
If anything, coming out of a tough group should give you an edge.
-Ron
Agreed, I really dont like it. I want the championship decided by whoever is
the best team that day in 1 competitive match.
I dont want to have a championship decided jsut because a team happened to
put 8 past Saudi Arabia.

and to add to a previous post

5) disciplinary record?

You want some bugus yellow card determining the champion?
I actually dont mind penalties. I think it's a fair way to decide a game.
But for those you dont like it, just have less knockout matches.

--
www.takingfootie.com
Mark V.
2006-07-03 20:39:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron
Post by Mark V.
Post by MH
I don't like PKs as a way of settling games either, but why not use
previous record in tournament instead ? In the order
1) points in all previous games except those against the last place team
in the first group
2) goal difference in above games
3) goals scored in above games
4) go through above process for all games
5) disciplinary record
6) PKs
Best suggestion so far.
I don't like it, because it favors teams from weak groups. Even
eliminating the "minnow" of each group, it still puts the teams from the
most competitive groups at a disadvantage.
Having weak groups favors teams from weak groups. That issue needs to
be addressed elsewhere. By acknowledging that there are weak groups,
you are acknowledging that certain teams have an unfair advantage
towards advancing, irrespective of results after ties in knockout
games.
Post by Ron
If anything, coming out of a tough group should give you an edge.
No matter what group you're in, it'll give incentive to teams to keep
playing hard, and to try to win their matches in 90 or 120 minutes of
play in the knockout rounds.
MH
2006-07-03 23:26:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark V.
Post by Ron
Post by Mark V.
Post by MH
I don't like PKs as a way of settling games either, but why not use
previous record in tournament instead ? In the order
1) points in all previous games except those against the last place team
in the first group
2) goal difference in above games
3) goals scored in above games
4) go through above process for all games
5) disciplinary record
6) PKs
Best suggestion so far.
I don't like it, because it favors teams from weak groups. Even
eliminating the "minnow" of each group, it still puts the teams from the
most competitive groups at a disadvantage.
Having weak groups favors teams from weak groups. That issue needs to
be addressed elsewhere. By acknowledging that there are weak groups,
you are acknowledging that certain teams have an unfair advantage
towards advancing, irrespective of results after ties in knockout
games.
Three of our semifinalists came out of what were considered, before the
cup, to be very weak groups anyway.
Post by Mark V.
Post by Ron
If anything, coming out of a tough group should give you an edge.
No matter what group you're in, it'll give incentive to teams to keep
playing hard, and to try to win their matches in 90 or 120 minutes of
play in the knockout rounds.
Yes, for example Argentina would have tried harder to win vs. Holland if
every point might be critical.

By eliminating the bottom team from the equation on the first
go-through, I think you'd avoid any gross injustice being done.

Plus you are counting the results from the knockout stage, so strong
teams have a chance to make up ground on the points and GD side too.

Right now the semifinalists would stack up:

Germany 10 points
Italy 12 points

Portugal 10 points
France 8 points

So Italy is in fact not being penalised by having been in the strongest
group of the 4.
agreed !
Mike Hall
2006-07-04 17:25:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark V.
Post by MH
I don't like PKs as a way of settling games either, but why not use
previous record in tournament instead ? In the order
1) points in all previous games except those against the last place team
in the first group
2) goal difference in above games
3) goals scored in above games
4) go through above process for all games
5) disciplinary record
6) PKs
Best suggestion so far.
The problem with that is knowing that you need only a draw before
the game. If stats should be considered it should be based on the
game being played.
MH
2006-07-04 20:50:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Hall
Post by Mark V.
Post by MH
I don't like PKs as a way of settling games either, but why not use
previous record in tournament instead ? In the order
1) points in all previous games except those against the last place team
in the first group
2) goal difference in above games
3) goals scored in above games
4) go through above process for all games
5) disciplinary record
6) PKs
Best suggestion so far.
The problem with that is knowing that you need only a draw before
the game.
Which is often the case in many many other situations in football - like
two legged affairs in the CL and many other cups, like FA cup ties when
the replay gives you home advantage, and like a lot of games in the
final round of the group stages of the WC and CL. We manage to survive
all those, and in spite of it, there are often good matches with goals.


If stats should be considered it should be based on the
Post by Mike Hall
game being played.
I know what you are saying, and it is a valid point.
However I find penalties very unsatisfactory, and using something like
corner kicks during the game is not as attractive to me as looking at
previous results and deciding which team has actually been better in the
whole tournament.

As I mentioned, the Mexicans use standings during the regular season to
resolve ties after two legs in their twice -a-year playoffs.

Let's look at the last two for results:

Apertura 2005

Quarterfinals

First Legs
[Nov 30]
Tecos 0-3 Monterrey
[Guillermo Franco 5, 53, Carlos Casartelli 87]
Pachuca 2-0 Necaxa
[Luis Landín 16, Juan Carlos Cacho 33]
[Dec 1]
Toluca 1-0 Cruz Azul
[Carlos Esquivel 62]
Tigres 1-3 América
[Julio César Santos 77; Kleber Pereira 40, Pavel Pardo 62,
Cuauhtemoc Blanco 70]

Second Legs
[Dec 3]
Monterrey 4-0 Tecos
[Guillermo Franco 1, Carlos Casartelli 72, Luis Ernesto Pérez 74, 80]
Necaxa 0-2 Pachuca
[Luis Ángel Landín 27, Gabriel Caballero 46]
[Dec 4]
América 1-4 Tigres
[Kléber Pereira 53; Sixto Peralta 17, Walter Gaitán 20, 34,
Julio César Santos 89]
Cruz Azul 0-0 Toluca

Semifinals

First Legs
[Dec 7]
Tigres 1-0 Monterrey
[Sixto Peralta 54]
[Dec 8]
Pachuca 0-0 Toluca

Second Legs
[Dec 10]
Monterrey 2-1 Tigres
[Luis Ernesto Pérez 57, Guillermo Franco 85; Walter Gaitán 73]
[Dec 11]
Toluca 2-1 Pachuca
[Paulo da Silva 10, Carlos Esquivel 43; Sergio Santana 33]

NB: Monterrey qualified on better season record

Final

First Leg [Dec 15]
Toluca 3-3 Monterrey
[Vicente Sánchez 32, José Manuel Abundis 45, Rodrigo Díaz 87;
Luis Ernesto Pérez 3, Carlos Casartelli 8, Paulo César da Silva 61og]

Second Leg [Dec 18]
Monterrey 0-3 Toluca
[Vicente Sánchez 50, 90+1, Rodrigo Díaz 90+3]

Toluca champions Apertura 2005


Clausura 2006

Quarterfinals

First Legs
[May 3]
Toluca 2-1 Cruz Azul
[Ismael Valadez 10, Vicente Sánchez 47; César Villaluz 82]
San Luis 1-0 Atlante
[Sebastiao Pereira 69]
[May 4]
Morelia 2-1 Pachuca
[Rafael Márquez 22, Luis Gabriel Rey 90+3;Richard Nuñez 3]
Guadalajara 2-3 Jaguares
[Sergio Ávila 33, Alberto Medina 85; Salvador Cabañas 42, 51,
Luis Alonso Sandoval 90+2]

Second Legs
[May 6]
Cruz Azul 1-1 Toluca
[Miguel Sabah 90; Ismael Valadez 7]
Atlante 0-0 San Luis
[May 7]
Pachuca 3-1 Morelia
[Richard Nuñez 2, Nelson Cuevas 43, Luis Angel Landín 56;
Luis Gabriel Rey 70]
Jaguares 2-4 Guadalajara
[Walter Jimenez 1, Salvador Cabañas 52; Edwin Borboa 23,
Diego Martinez 31, Adolfo Bautista 82, Johnny García 90]

Semifinals

First Legs
[May 10]
Toluca 1-2 San Luis
[José Manuel Abundis 76; Leonel Olmedo 42, Ángel Reyna 62]
[May 11]
Guadalajara 1-2 Pachuca
[José Antonio Patlán 50; Richard Núñez 55, Héctor Castro 88 og]

Second Legs [May 13]
San Luis 2-1 Toluca
[Ángel Reyna 18, Octavio Valdez 50; Israel López 52]
Pachuca 2-3 Guadalajara
[Richard Nuñez 58, Aquivaldo Mosquera 90+3; Omar Esparza 38,
Adolfo Bautista 64, 71]

NB: Pachuca qualified on better season record

Final

First Leg [May 18]
San Luis 0-0 Pachuca

Second Leg [May 21]
Pachuca 1-0 San Luis
[Richard Nuñez 79]


The tiebreaker of better season record was only invoked twice,and to me
it is better than away goals or PKs - results would seem to support it.
Talking Footie
2006-07-05 00:47:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by MH
Post by Mike Hall
Post by Mark V.
Post by MH
I don't like PKs as a way of settling games either, but why not use
previous record in tournament instead ? In the order
1) points in all previous games except those against the last place team
in the first group
2) goal difference in above games
3) goals scored in above games
4) go through above process for all games
5) disciplinary record
6) PKs
Best suggestion so far.
The problem with that is knowing that you need only a draw before
the game.
Which is often the case in many many other situations in football - like
two legged affairs in the CL and many other cups, like FA cup ties when
the replay gives you home advantage, and like a lot of games in the
final round of the group stages of the WC and CL. We manage to survive
all those, and in spite of it, there are often good matches with goals.
If stats should be considered it should be based on the
Post by Mike Hall
game being played.
I know what you are saying, and it is a valid point.
However I find penalties very unsatisfactory, and using something like
corner kicks during the game is not as attractive to me as looking at
previous results and deciding which team has actually been better in the
whole tournament.
As I mentioned, the Mexicans use standings during the regular season to
resolve ties after two legs in their twice -a-year playoffs.
That's why Mexicans are the worse penalty taking team in the history of the
world! And that's not just shootouts, they cant even score on penalties in
the game :)
At least it's a 2 game playoff tho and you're talking about the Mexican
league where nobody can defend and nobody has any strategy. A one game
playoff using past results in an short tournament such as the world cup with
world class international defenses and tactics. It would be pretty dicey.

And for Americans!? Forget it. They would think it's a farce.

--
www.talkingfootie.com
Talking Footie
2006-07-03 19:48:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by MH
Post by Talking Footie
Great post Anders.
My only change would be I would not take the same teams into the next group
with carried over results so my group 1 would be A1. B2, C1. D2 for example.
This way you dont get any dead groups. Also the Quarterfinals still means
you'd have too much possibility for penalty shootout with 7 knockout matches
so I would eliminate the QF and go directly to the SF.
Both proposals add one extra matchday to an already long tournament.
A second round group stage was tried in 1974, 1978, and (in a bizarre
way) in 1982, and was generally regarded to be a flop.
I don't like PKs as a way of settling games either, but why not use
previous record in tournament instead ? In the order
1) points in all previous games except those against the last place team
in the first group
2) goal difference in above games
3) goals scored in above games
4) go through above process for all games
5) disciplinary record
6) PKs
You really want goal difference deciding the world cup final? What kind of
sport used to previous results to determine a championship match?
You thought defenses were tight now. A team defending what amounts to a 0.5
goal lead before the match even starts will cause nothing but negative
football.

--
www.takingfootie.com
MH
2006-07-03 23:13:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Talking Footie
Post by MH
Post by Talking Footie
Great post Anders.
My only change would be I would not take the same teams into the next
group
Post by MH
Post by Talking Footie
with carried over results so my group 1 would be A1. B2, C1. D2 for
example.
Post by MH
Post by Talking Footie
This way you dont get any dead groups. Also the Quarterfinals still
means
Post by MH
Post by Talking Footie
you'd have too much possibility for penalty shootout with 7 knockout
matches
Post by MH
Post by Talking Footie
so I would eliminate the QF and go directly to the SF.
Both proposals add one extra matchday to an already long tournament.
A second round group stage was tried in 1974, 1978, and (in a bizarre
way) in 1982, and was generally regarded to be a flop.
I don't like PKs as a way of settling games either, but why not use
previous record in tournament instead ? In the order
1) points in all previous games except those against the last place team
in the first group
2) goal difference in above games
3) goals scored in above games
4) go through above process for all games
5) disciplinary record
6) PKs
You really want goal difference deciding the world cup final?
I'd be just as happy with that as with penalty kicks.
Plus, I think in 1950 goal difference could have determined who was
champion, though it didn't work out that way.

We are all used to various tie breakers deciding championships in soccer
leagues around the world, so why should we object to this in the WC ?

Finally, provisions COULD be made for a replay of the final if it wasn't
settled after 120 minutes.



What kind of
Post by Talking Footie
sport used to previous results to determine a championship match?
Used in Mexico and various other countries already.
To an extent used in hockey and basketball, where previous results
determine home advantage.
Post by Talking Footie
You thought defenses were tight now. A team defending what amounts to a 0.5
goal lead before the match even starts will cause nothing but negative
football.
This does not seem to happen in the Mexican league playoffs.
Post by Talking Footie
--
www.takingfootie.com
Futbolmetrix
2006-07-04 13:05:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by MH
Both proposals add one extra matchday to an already long tournament.
A second round group stage was tried in 1974, 1978, and (in a bizarre way)
in 1982, and was generally regarded to be a flop.
I'm not really sure I agree with this statement, but one thing is
undeniable: the main drawback of having a second group stage is that you
will inevitably have decisive matches involving teams with nothing more to
play for, and that is a guarantee of trouble. Think of Peru 1978, but also
Brazil-Norway 1998.
Post by MH
I don't like PKs as a way of settling games either, but why not use
previous record in tournament instead ? In the order
1) points in all previous games except those against the last place team
in the first group
2) goal difference in above games
3) goals scored in above games
4) go through above process for all games
5) disciplinary record
6) PKs
Normally, I would have strongly opposed such a proposal, because it means
that one of the two teams in the knockout round will go into the match
knowing that a 0-0 draw (after 90 or 120 minutes) will send it through to
the next round. This team will play defensive football. If not from the very
beginning, then from the 60th minute on.

However, I now think that this is probably better than both teams knowing
that a 0-0 draw will send them at worst to a PK shootout. I don't know if
anything could have saved Ukraine-Switzerland, but probably forcing one of
the two teams to attack would have helped a little.

And the second half of Germany-Argentina was a much more thrilling affair
than the first half. At least between Ayala's and Klose's goals.

Daniele
anders t
2006-07-04 13:47:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Futbolmetrix
I'm not really sure I agree with this statement, but one thing is
undeniable: the main drawback of having a second group stage is that you
will inevitably have decisive matches involving teams with nothing more to
play for, and that is a guarantee of trouble. Think of Peru 1978, but also
Brazil-Norway 1998.
Perhaps if group placing was made important? More prize money and/or more
seeding points for coming WC(Q)s and/or confederation berths being at
stake?
--
All that we see, or seem,
is but a dream, within a dream,
installed by the Machine
David White
2006-07-03 04:20:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
I'm sure I'm not the first to suggest this, but has there been
any serious thought given to changing the rule about
how drawn matches are settled in the knockout round?
PKs make it into a series of one-on-one contests (reminds
me of baseball, and not in a good way). I think alternating
corner kicks would be much better (keep it a team effort),
not that I expect FIFA to go for ideas like this....
The end would be too uncertain. I don't have any figures, but very few
corners result in a goal. Two very good defensive teams could play corners
for an hour or more without any goals.

My suggestion is to play five a side in extra time.

David
s***@gmail.com
2006-07-03 13:40:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by David White
Post by s***@gmail.com
I'm sure I'm not the first to suggest this, but has there been
any serious thought given to changing the rule about
how drawn matches are settled in the knockout round?
PKs make it into a series of one-on-one contests (reminds
me of baseball, and not in a good way). I think alternating
corner kicks would be much better (keep it a team effort),
not that I expect FIFA to go for ideas like this....
The end would be too uncertain. I don't have any figures, but very few
corners result in a goal. Two very good defensive teams could play corners
for an hour or more without any goals.
Do you think this is still true after they've played for 120 minutes?
Especially if it were limited to 6 on 6 or 7 on 7 (with the offense
having one more field player than the defense), I think it would be
an exciting way to end the match, and it probably wouldn't take
too long. There would be coaching strategy as well, as different
groups of 6 or 7 (out of the players on the field at the end of OT)
could be tried on different kicks.
Post by David White
My suggestion is to play five a side in extra time.
Sounds like a lot of running....

I wouldn't mind these matches starting with 10 a side, actually....

Steve
rhonaldinko
2006-07-03 19:18:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by David White
My suggestion is to play five a side in extra time.
This is even more retarded. Have you tried playing 5 on 5 on a full
size field? Try it. Then try it after a 90min match.
MH
2006-07-03 20:03:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by rhonaldinko
Post by David White
My suggestion is to play five a side in extra time.
This is even more retarded. Have you tried playing 5 on 5 on a full
size field?
Yes
Post by rhonaldinko
Try it. Then try it after a 90min match.
Done that too.
Mark V.
2006-07-03 20:34:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by MH
Post by rhonaldinko
Post by David White
My suggestion is to play five a side in extra time.
This is even more retarded. Have you tried playing 5 on 5 on a full
size field?
Yes
Post by rhonaldinko
Try it. Then try it after a 90min match.
Done that too.
And???
MH
2006-07-03 23:28:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark V.
Post by MH
Post by rhonaldinko
Post by David White
My suggestion is to play five a side in extra time.
This is even more retarded. Have you tried playing 5 on 5 on a full
size field?
Yes
Post by rhonaldinko
Try it. Then try it after a 90min match.
Done that too.
And???
Loved every moment of it . Of course it wasn't WC standard of play.
But then again I am not a highly paid athlete who should be in super
physical shape.
David White
2006-07-03 22:26:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by rhonaldinko
Post by David White
My suggestion is to play five a side in extra time.
This is even more retarded. Have you tried playing 5 on 5 on a full
size field? Try it. Then try it after a 90min match.
What do you think would happen? That the players would suddenly fall over exhausted?
They'd handle it alright, and even if they were too tired to run much it would be the same
for both teams. It would also add another factor to when to bring the subs on.

David
v***@yahoo.com
2006-07-03 07:05:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
I'm sure I'm not the first to suggest this, but has there been
any serious thought given to changing the rule about
how drawn matches are settled in the knockout round?
PKs make it into a series of one-on-one contests (reminds
me of baseball, and not in a good way). I think alternating
corner kicks would be much better (keep it a team effort),
not that I expect FIFA to go for ideas like this....
Not bad...
Benny
2006-07-03 15:05:25 UTC
Permalink
Subject : PKs vs Corner Kicks?
I'm sure I'm not the first to suggest this, but has there been
any serious thought given to changing the rule about
how drawn matches are settled in the knockout round?
PKs make it into a series of one-on-one contests (reminds
me of baseball, and not in a good way). I think alternating
corner kicks would be much better (keep it a team effort),
not that I expect FIFA to go for ideas like this....
Steve
While non footballing men are in charge of the game there won't be any
changes. Five a side in extra time is the best way to settle a tie and
will reward teams that attack. If the scores are level after 30 minutes,
give the teams another 10 minutes and first goal wins, if they are still
level throw both teams out of the tournament.

http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
Walter Garcia-Fontes
2006-07-03 15:23:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Benny
Subject : PKs vs Corner Kicks?
I'm sure I'm not the first to suggest this, but has there been
any serious thought given to changing the rule about
how drawn matches are settled in the knockout round?
PKs make it into a series of one-on-one contests (reminds
me of baseball, and not in a good way). I think alternating
corner kicks would be much better (keep it a team effort),
not that I expect FIFA to go for ideas like this....
Steve
While non footballing men are in charge of the game there won't be any
changes. Five a side in extra time is the best way to settle a tie and
will reward teams that attack. If the scores are level after 30 minutes,
give the teams another 10 minutes and first goal wins, if they are still
level throw both teams out of the tournament.
http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
I proposed another solution long time ago but it seems that nobody in
FIFA (or anywhere else) has heard me...

Just have the penalty shootout right after the game finishes with a tie, and
then play the extra time. This way it will be much more exciting and luck will
play a smaller role, since the unlucky team has still 30 minutes to reverse
its luck. This could cause a defending team to become even more defensive if
it wins the shootout, or a good team who wins the shootout to kill the other
team in counterattacks, but well, it's still tied after all and there is the
chance of breaking the tie, and you know what happens at the end so you will
keep the excitement till almost the end, without playing something different
as some of the other suggestions imply. And very often teams start waiting
for the shootout pretty soon in overtime, this way nobody will have this
option.
--
Walter Garcia-Fontes "Tuya, Hector!"
Barcelona, Spain
s***@hut.fi
2006-07-03 15:50:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walter Garcia-Fontes
Just have the penalty shootout right after the game finishes with a tie, and
then play the extra time. This way it will be much more exciting and luck will
play a smaller role, since the unlucky team has still 30 minutes to reverse
its luck. This could cause a defending team to become even more defensive if
it wins the shootout, or a good team who wins the shootout to kill the other
team in counterattacks, but well, it's still tied after all and there is the
chance of breaking the tie, and you know what happens at the end so you will
keep the excitement till almost the end, without playing something different
as some of the other suggestions imply. And very often teams start waiting
for the shootout pretty soon in overtime, this way nobody will have this
option.
This sounds like a great idea. In addition to what you wrote, there
would be an advantage that the players are not scared to death to take
the penalties since there is still a chance to reverse the result. This
would benefit the skilled players that just can't take the pressure.
Also you don't become your country's biggest villain by missing the
penalty since it's more likely the whole team's fault that they
couldn't score during the extra time and that's what people remember
from the match.

And finally, the penalty shoot-out would give the players 10-15 min
time to rest before the extra time. So they would have a bit more
energy to play than now.


Samuli Saarelma
s***@gmail.com
2006-07-03 18:04:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walter Garcia-Fontes
Just have the penalty shootout right after the game finishes with a tie, and
then play the extra time. This way it will be much more exciting and luck will
play a smaller role, since the unlucky team has still 30 minutes to reverse
its luck. This could cause a defending team to become even more defensive if
it wins the shootout, or a good team who wins the shootout to kill the other
team in counterattacks, but well, it's still tied after all and there is the
chance of breaking the tie, and you know what happens at the end so you will
keep the excitement till almost the end, without playing something different
as some of the other suggestions imply. And very often teams start waiting
for the shootout pretty soon in overtime, this way nobody will have this
option.
I like this idea, although I wonder if the team winning the shootout
would win 90% or more of the time (with no score in OT).

Steve
Ron
2006-07-03 19:04:28 UTC
Permalink
I'm all for incremental changes. Why do something drastic when you can
do something less drastic and see what sort of results it gives you.

So, for starters, I'd say give two extra subs for extra time. I'm
willing to bet that would increase scoring.

If that doesn't do enough, then FIFA could move on to more radical
solutions. But simply allowing an extra pair of subs per side wouldn't
change the nature of the game in the least.

-Ron
anders t
2006-07-03 19:38:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron
I'm all for incremental changes. Why do something drastic when you can
do something less drastic and see what sort of results it gives you.
So, for starters, I'd say give two extra subs for extra time. I'm
willing to bet that would increase scoring.
If that doesn't do enough, then FIFA could move on to more radical
solutions. But simply allowing an extra pair of subs per side wouldn't
change the nature of the game in the least.
It could (would?) also change the substition tactics during RT.

And why isn't it allowed to send a player back in again? It would still
count as a substitution just like sending in a new player.
--
All that we see, or seem,
is but a dream, within a dream,
installed by the Machine
MH
2006-07-03 20:07:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron
I'm all for incremental changes. Why do something drastic when you can
do something less drastic and see what sort of results it gives you.
So, for starters, I'd say give two extra subs for extra time. I'm
willing to bet that would increase scoring.
Would it really ? Often the chances which open up in extra time are due
to tired players making mistakes. Bring on some fresj legs in defence
and you would be very unlikely to concede goals. So some coaches would
do that. I'd prefer the final result to be based on something that has
already happened in the tournament (previous record for example) or
during the match (cards or corner kicks or something). Neither is ideal,
but they have more to do with which was actually the better team than
penalty kicks do.
Post by Ron
If that doesn't do enough, then FIFA could move on to more radical
solutions. But simply allowing an extra pair of subs per side wouldn't
change the nature of the game in the least.
-Ron
Ron
2006-07-03 20:31:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by MH
Would it really ? Often the chances which open up in extra time are due
to tired players making mistakes. Bring on some fresj legs in defence
and you would be very unlikely to concede goals. So some coaches would
do that. I'd prefer the final result to be based on something that has
already happened in the tournament (previous record for example) or
during the match (cards or corner kicks or something). Neither is ideal,
but they have more to do with which was actually the better team than
penalty kicks do.
I think it would, because while I agree tired defenders make mistakes, I
also think that tired attackers are unable to exploit them. And one
fresh defender is going to make less of a different than one fresh
attacker.

-Ron
MH
2006-07-03 23:32:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron
Post by MH
Would it really ? Often the chances which open up in extra time are due
to tired players making mistakes. Bring on some fresj legs in defence
and you would be very unlikely to concede goals. So some coaches would
do that. I'd prefer the final result to be based on something that has
already happened in the tournament (previous record for example) or
during the match (cards or corner kicks or something). Neither is ideal,
but they have more to do with which was actually the better team than
penalty kicks do.
I think it would, because while I agree tired defenders make mistakes, I
also think that tired attackers are unable to exploit them.
Certainly possible. But is easier to defend than attack.

And one
Post by Ron
fresh defender is going to make less of a different than one fresh
attacker.
Usually in a 0-0 game both coaches will bring on 2-3 fresh attacking
players (unless there are injuries or tatical problems). Usually these
fresh attacking players do not get the better of the tired defenders
anyway.
Post by Ron
-Ron
David White
2006-07-03 22:29:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walter Garcia-Fontes
Just have the penalty shootout right after the game finishes with a tie, and
then play the extra time.
Fascinating. I like it.

David
t***@yahoo.ca
2006-07-03 15:29:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
I'm sure I'm not the first to suggest this, but has there been
any serious thought given to changing the rule about
how drawn matches are settled in the knockout round?
PKs make it into a series of one-on-one contests (reminds
me of baseball, and not in a good way). I think alternating
corner kicks would be much better (keep it a team effort),
not that I expect FIFA to go for ideas like this....
Steve
Please don't quit your day job :-)
-----------
World Cup 2006 Live
http://www.YourSportsLive.com
M***@aol.com
2006-07-03 17:22:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
I'm sure I'm not the first to suggest this, but has there been
any serious thought given to changing the rule about
how drawn matches are settled in the knockout round?
PKs make it into a series of one-on-one contests (reminds
me of baseball, and not in a good way). I think alternating
corner kicks would be much better (keep it a team effort),
not that I expect FIFA to go for ideas like this....
Steve
Nobody has suggested this yet, but how about the "shoot-out" which they
used in the United States in the past. Instead of PK's they would have
the goalkeeper and one opposing player go one-on-one, with the kicker
starting at about the 35-yard line (which used to be the offside line,
which is a whole other subject... ) and moving towards the goal after
the whistle. The goalkeeper was free to move off his line at that point
too, with normal rules applying about not being able to handle the ball
past the 18-yard line, etc. I don't remember exactly all the rules
about when the play was called dead. I'm pretty sure the shootout was
over if the ball hit the woodwork, or if the goalkeeper made a clear
save. So there was only one "shot" allowed by the kicker. No follow-up
shots from any kind of rebound. However, he could dribble past the
goalkeeper and keep going even if the goalkeeper got a touch, as long
as it wasnt "rejected" outright by the GK. I remember this was a lot
more entertaining to watch and also required more skill and less luck
than PK's.
David White
2006-07-03 22:35:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by M***@aol.com
Nobody has suggested this yet, but how about the "shoot-out" which they
used in the United States in the past. Instead of PK's they would have
the goalkeeper and one opposing player go one-on-one, with the kicker
starting at about the 35-yard line (which used to be the offside line,
which is a whole other subject... ) and moving towards the goal after
the whistle. The goalkeeper was free to move off his line at that point
too, with normal rules applying about not being able to handle the ball
past the 18-yard line, etc. I don't remember exactly all the rules
about when the play was called dead. I'm pretty sure the shootout was
over if the ball hit the woodwork, or if the goalkeeper made a clear
save. So there was only one "shot" allowed by the kicker. No follow-up
shots from any kind of rebound. However, he could dribble past the
goalkeeper and keep going even if the goalkeeper got a touch, as long
as it wasnt "rejected" outright by the GK. I remember this was a lot
more entertaining to watch and also required more skill and less luck
than PK's.
I would expect even a very average player to beat the world's best goalie easily in this
situation. However, if you've seen it in action and a goal is regularly not scored, then
maybe it's an option. What blunder does the attacker usually make to fail to score?

David
s***@gmail.com
2006-07-03 23:17:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by David White
Post by M***@aol.com
Nobody has suggested this yet, but how about the "shoot-out" which they
used in the United States in the past. Instead of PK's they would have
the goalkeeper and one opposing player go one-on-one, with the kicker
starting at about the 35-yard line (which used to be the offside line,
which is a whole other subject... ) and moving towards the goal after
the whistle. The goalkeeper was free to move off his line at that point
too, with normal rules applying about not being able to handle the ball
past the 18-yard line, etc. I don't remember exactly all the rules
about when the play was called dead. I'm pretty sure the shootout was
over if the ball hit the woodwork, or if the goalkeeper made a clear
save. So there was only one "shot" allowed by the kicker. No follow-up
shots from any kind of rebound. However, he could dribble past the
goalkeeper and keep going even if the goalkeeper got a touch, as long
as it wasnt "rejected" outright by the GK. I remember this was a lot
more entertaining to watch and also required more skill and less luck
than PK's.
I would expect even a very average player to beat the world's best goalie easily in this
situation. However, if you've seen it in action and a goal is regularly not scored, then
maybe it's an option. What blunder does the attacker usually make to fail to score?
As I recall, the kicker had a limit of 5 seconds after the start
whistle, which makes it a bit more difficult.

Steve
s***@yahoo.com
2006-07-03 23:25:20 UTC
Permalink
I humbly proposed the Lampard Method:

They should have free-kicks, with a regular barrier of up to 5 players,
from a distance of, say 25 meters (outside the penalty area). This
would of course take more than 30 extra minutes, but the players would
not get tired and, in case of a draw, the process could be continued
until somebody put it in. The betting possibilities of the Lampard
Method are endless!!

Best,

SMT
M***@aol.com
2006-07-03 23:56:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by David White
Post by M***@aol.com
Nobody has suggested this yet, but how about the "shoot-out" which they
used in the United States in the past. Instead of PK's they would have
the goalkeeper and one opposing player go one-on-one, with the kicker
starting at about the 35-yard line (which used to be the offside line,
which is a whole other subject... ) and moving towards the goal after
the whistle. The goalkeeper was free to move off his line at that point
too, with normal rules applying about not being able to handle the ball
past the 18-yard line, etc. I don't remember exactly all the rules
about when the play was called dead. I'm pretty sure the shootout was
over if the ball hit the woodwork, or if the goalkeeper made a clear
save. So there was only one "shot" allowed by the kicker. No follow-up
shots from any kind of rebound. However, he could dribble past the
goalkeeper and keep going even if the goalkeeper got a touch, as long
as it wasnt "rejected" outright by the GK. I remember this was a lot
more entertaining to watch and also required more skill and less luck
than PK's.
I would expect even a very average player to beat the world's best goalie easily in this
situation. However, if you've seen it in action and a goal is regularly not scored, then
maybe it's an option. What blunder does the attacker usually make to fail to score?
David
The chance of scoring is lower in this situation as opposed to penalty
kicks for the following reasons:

The keeper is coming off his line to tackle the shooter (he can of
course use his hands to tackle inside the 18 yard box). He is also
narrowing the angle to the goalmouth by doing this.

And, as someone else has mentioned in this thread, there is a 5 second
time limit for the kicker to take his shot.

The shooter has to make a decision as to how far he is going to advance
before shooting... if he shoots too early, he is shooting from further
away so less likely to score... if he decides to dribble and try to
beat the keeper, he could run out of time or get tackled successfully
(it is not that easy to dribble past a good goalkeeper). You also have
to factor in the players' knowledge of their opponents.. what habits
does the other guy have, etc. This makes it quite interesting too.

I don't know what happens if the keeper fouls the shooter... hmmm....
that could raise some interesting possibilities... a penalty kick?
wouldn't that be interesting.. then you would have a goalkeeper going
for the foul if he got beat and the score dictated that he must make a
save... he would give himself a second chance at a save by taking the
penalty. I think that it would make the whole thing a lot more
entertaining and interesting, and less of a crap-shoot that PK's.

Below are the rules for the NASL shootout I found in a google search:

NASL-Style Shoot-out: The following procedure shall be used for the
NASL-Style Shoot-Out. For deciding a final round match, only those
players on the field at the end of the overtime period will be allowed
to participate in the shoot-out. For deciding a team's rank, each coach
will identify the 11 players (including the goalkeeper) to participate
in the shoot-out.

The head referee shall choose the goal to use for the shoot-out and
shall identify a mark 35 yards out from the goal line.
A coin toss shall be held and the team winning the toss shall have the
choice of going first or second. Teams will alternate players.
Each coach will identify the order that the team's players will use to
take their initial shots.
Each player will go one-on-one with the opposing goalkeeper starting
from the 35-yard mark identified by the head referee. The goalkeeper
can come off the goal line as soon as the player touches the ball.
The player has 5 seconds to shoot the ball. There is no follow-up on
the kick.
If the score remains tied after each team's first five players have
taken their turn, a sudden-victory situation will be used, wherein if
one team scores and the other team does not score, the match is ended
without more shots being taken.
All eligible players on a team must take their initial shot before any
eligible player can take a subsequent shot. The shooting order used for
the initial shots does not have to be used for any subsequent shots.
Futbolmetrix
2006-07-04 12:47:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by M***@aol.com
I think that it would make the whole thing a lot more
entertaining and interesting, and less of a crap-shoot that PK's.
I don't know exactly what you mean by "crapshoot", but the MLS shootout was
as much of a crapshoot as anything, in the sense that there was no evidence
that better teams (i.e., teams with a better regular season record) did
better in the shootout.

In fact I had done a small statistical analysis on the matter back in 1998
and posted it on RSS.

http://snipurl.com/spjs

It generated quite a few responses from MLS fans, many of them trying to
defend the shootout. (Reading the thread again now, I realize they were
making some very good points, and probably my conclusions were a bit too
hasty). But Kevin Cabral, a Columbus Crew fan and regular RSS poster at the
time, really liked it (I think he really disliked the shootout), and asked
me to prepare a nicely edited version, which he then posted on the Crew
fans' website and sent to Sunil Gulati, the MLS commissioner. Gulati sent us
back a short and polite e-mail thanking us, and told us that he would study
the matter.

Within two years (if I am not mistaken), the MLS shootout was history.

Daniele
Jack Hollis
2006-07-04 00:50:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by David White
I would expect even a very average player to beat the world's best goalie easily in this
situation. However, if you've seen it in action and a goal is regularly not scored, then
maybe it's an option. What blunder does the attacker usually make to fail to score?
David
I remember seeing Johan Cruyff take a shootout try against Shep
Messing in Giant's Stadium. Cruyff tried to dribble around Messing
but Shep dived and got to the ball and Cruyff tripped over him. No
goal and Cruyff was carried off the field.

When Cruyff played for the LA Aztec he refused to take shootouts
because he said it wasn't football, but when he went to Washington he
started taking them. I don't know why he changed his mind, but if I
was a manager, there's no one I'd rather have one-on-one with a keeper
than Cruyff.

Scoring on a shootout was more difficult than a PK. It was also more
interesting to watch and involved more skill from both the shooter and
the keeper.

BTW, once the whistle blew the shooter had 5 seconds to shoot.
Futbolmetrix
2006-07-04 12:27:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by David White
I would expect even a very average player to beat the world's best goalie easily in this
situation. However, if you've seen it in action and a goal is regularly not scored, then
maybe it's an option. What blunder does the attacker usually make to fail to score?
Quite the opposite, for the reasons given by others in this thread. The
percentage of penalty kicks that are scored is about 75%. The scoring
percentage in the MLS shootout was about 45%.

Daniele
Florian
2006-07-04 14:47:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by M***@aol.com
Nobody has suggested this yet, but how about the "shoot-out" which they
used in the United States in the past. Instead of PK's they would have
the goalkeeper and one opposing player go one-on-one, with the kicker
starting at about the 35-yard line (which used to be the offside line,
which is a whole other subject... ) and moving towards the goal after
the whistle.
And why not reduce the team to five players + goalkeeper during the
extended period?
that would be fun!!!!
--
Florian

"Tout est au mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possible"
Voltaire vs Leibniz
Djo
2006-07-04 15:24:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Florian
And why not reduce the team to five players + goalkeeper during the
extended period?
that would be fun!!!!
We could else cut one arm for each goalkeeper.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...