England will not win Euro 2004 - Part 2

[Mobile]

If we manage to emerge from the group stages without our hooligans having renovated Lisbon city centre, we will be eliminated in one of the knockout stages when we fail to score more than one of our spot-kicks in a penalty shoot-out.

Aside from Beckham, I cannot think of a single England player who I would be happy to represent the team in a shoot-out. And even Becks isn't the best at pens.

Scholes, Gerrard, both may score but then again both may completely bottle it in a high-pressure situation like that. I certainly wouldn't be confident about them scoring.

The most telling factor is that none of the current side take pens for their clubs - with the exception of Michael Owen, whose record is less than convincing.

If anyone can suggest 5 names that don't automatically induce a wince of dismay then I'll be impressed.

[RichardL]

Of course before the penalty shoot-out, 'expert opinion' in the studio will tell us all that there's no point practising penalty kicks as you can't create the tension in a training session. Every single other aspect of football training is immune to this fundamental flaw of course, but it's only our lack of football knowledge that's stops us seeing that, or undestanding why picking someone who has never taken a penalty in their life to take the crucial 5th kick is a really good idea.

[sendorange]

It drives me barmy when I hear those 'experts', usually on ITV, saying that about penalties, how it's not worth practising them because you can't replicate the pressure. It irritates me and it happens every single time.

You're right Mobile. Becks I trust but is not infallible, I'm sure Owen would take the second one and bugger it up, Gerrard I think would be solid enough but I doubt people like Lampard and the others would be any good at them. Scholes is very good, but when I've seen him take them he tries to hit them in too perfectly, power and into the roof of the net, just begging to hit the bar and bounce out.

[sinner78]

yeah lets not bother showing up eh..
lets just give up and throw in the towel.

lets all be paranoid and think the worst..
oooh the team might get killed in a plane crash on the way to the tournament.....lets all take a cyanide pill because everything is gonna go wrong.boo hoo hoo hoo im scared,mummy.

[RichardL]

yeah lets not bother showing up eh..
lets just give up and throw in the towel.


or better still actually devote a bit of time to practising a skill which is more likely than not to be called upon if we advance in the tournament. It's a bit like telling Beckham to not bother practising free kicks because there's no way on a training ground to replicate the tension of trying to score in the 92nd minute against Greece in a world cup qualifier.

[Mobile]

yeah lets not bother showing up eh..
lets just give up and throw in the towel.

lets all be paranoid and think the worst..
oooh the team might get killed in a plane crash on the way to the tournament.....lets all take a cyanide pill because everything is gonna go wrong.boo hoo hoo hoo im scared,mummy.

It's not throwing in the towel - I think this team we've got is probably the most efficient we've had in years and we've got a great chance of doing well in this tournament. But I have doubts over our penalty takers. Let's face it, at least one of the knockout games is bound to go to pens - can you name 5 players you'd be confident of scoring?

[jri]

Yeah, you guys suck and you won't make it out of the first round.

:)

However, what kind of sport plays a game for 90 minutes (and/or OT) one way, and then decides on a specific skill (ergo, penalties) to decide the entire match? It makes no sense. They should reward the side that attacks the most (most corner kicks or shots on goal or something) vs. spot kicks, which actually has precious little to do with the game anyway.

Soccer will never change because it is run by the European mafia, which would rather see the sport be boring but stay the same, vs. take a chance at improving it. Every 'exciting' match in the last few years involves goal-scoring (lots), but sadly, major tournaments usually mean very little goals, and there is no reason to expect different this time. Soccer rewards cynical play, so that's what one usually gets. Hey, wasn't that magnificant watching Celtic beat Barcelona?

Sad that a champion(ship) is so often decided by spot kicks...if it goes this way again, you guys are in trouble (I actually like England's team better now then in many years.....if only A. Shearer was 28 again)

[jri]

Another alternative to PKs...would be to play OT, but take off 1 or 2 players every 15/30 minutes (both sides). So what if they wind up playing another 90 minutes, or another 120 minutes before scoring? Its still the same game- the game should be decided as it is played. So what if the winner is then exhausted for their next match" Teams should be punished for not being able to score, or play offensively during the 1st 90 minutes. If they had the "World War 1, trench warfare" OT solution, teams would play more offensively, creating more exciting football in the first 90 minutes, and overtime....vs. waiting for penalties (especially poorer sides). It would force the issue. If I were a minnow vs. England in Euro championship later round, or anyone vs. Brazil in a World Cup later round, I'd play for penalties, because the system rewards a team for such.

Soccer's rules should be changed to avoid cynical play

[Maczebus]

Please stop the inevitable slide into debating 154,000 more acceptable ways to end a match than penalties - it's been done to death.
It always ends up with people pointing out the obvious and coming to the same conclusion as the ruling powers - ie, that penalties, whilst far from perfect if you're on the recieving end of them (as an England fan I testify to that), are by and large the most efficent, least prone to cripple squads and generally the most preferable option.

[Prenn]

It always amazes me that so many intelligent footballing coaches suddenly lose all of the intelligence when it comes to the subject of practicing penalties. Like any performance the result is always dependent on the preperation.

[Sothis]

Yeah, you guys suck and you won't make it out of the first round.

:)

However, what kind of sport plays a game for 90 minutes (and/or OT) one way, and then decides on a specific skill (ergo, penalties) to decide the entire match? It makes no sense. They should reward the side that attacks the most (most corner kicks or shots on goal or something) vs. spot kicks, which actually has precious little to do with the game anyway.

Soccer will never change because it is run by the European mafia, which would rather see the sport be boring but stay the same, vs. take a chance at improving it. Every 'exciting' match in the last few years involves goal-scoring (lots), but sadly, major tournaments usually mean very little goals, and there is no reason to expect different this time. Soccer rewards cynical play, so that's what one usually gets. Hey, wasn't that magnificant watching Celtic beat Barcelona?

Sad that a champion(ship) is so often decided by spot kicks...if it goes this way again, you guys are in trouble (I actually like England's team better now then in many years.....if only A. Shearer was 28 again)

But then who decides the elaborate criteria for who gets to go through? Attacking football stats is all well and good, but should a team who's natural style is to counter-attack and be defensive be marked down for it? Football is not about who attacks more- for the teams on the pitch it's about getting the right result and getting the 3 points/going through to the next round. In other words, it's about EFFECTIVE football. Penalties aren't pretty but they're certainly NOT boring, and resolve the matter.

And just how is the sport boring anyway?

[M]

\. Hey, wasn't that magnificant watching Celtic beat Barcelona?


I'm glad you agree.

[M]

And just how is the sport boring anyway?

It's boring to the folks that think:

"Every 'exciting' match in the last few years involves goal-scoring (lots)"

For the rest of the planet, it's not boring at all.

[Mobile]

Another alternative to PKs...would be to play OT, but take off 1 or 2 players every 15/30 minutes (both sides). So what if they wind up playing another 90 minutes, or another 120 minutes before scoring? Its still the same game- the game should be decided as it is played. So what if the winner is then exhausted for their next match" Teams should be punished for not being able to score, or play offensively during the 1st 90 minutes. If they had the "World War 1, trench warfare" OT solution, teams would play more offensively, creating more exciting football in the first 90 minutes, and overtime....vs. waiting for penalties (especially poorer sides). It would force the issue. If I were a minnow vs. England in Euro championship later round, or anyone vs. Brazil in a World Cup later round, I'd play for penalties, because the system rewards a team for such.

Soccer's rules should be changed to avoid cynical play

What about if both teams attack and the score ends 4-4, or 5-5 or whatever after the 210-odd minutes of action? They'd still end up level but having exhausted themselves in the process.

Penalties are part of the game and are a clear-cut way of deciding a result. Like maczebus, I've been distraught after an England penalty exit, but I've never really wished that we'd played on for another 90 minutes until one of the teams scored.

[Matt Clark]

At least David Batty will not be at Euro 2004.

[jri]

How can one possibly argue/discuss with someone who prefers a 0-0 match vs. 4-4 or 5-5 in which the sides try to attack. If you keep taking players off, eventually one side will score. You go back to golden goal.

Penalties have very little to do with the actual game (90 minutes) of soccer/football, which is about running, defending, skills on the run, etc.
How much of the 90 minutes are penalty kicks (normally)?

[Mobile]

How can one possibly argue/discuss with someone who prefers a 0-0 match vs. 4-4 or 5-5 in which the sides try to attack. If you keep taking players off, eventually one side will score. You go back to golden goal.

I don't necessarily think 0-0 is better than 5-5 but I also don't think that a glut of manufactured goals is the best way to decide a game. 0-0 matches can be just as absorbing as high-scoring games. If you want more goals why not make the goals bigger, stop the keeper from using his hands etc etc etc?

Penalties have very little to do with the actual game (90 minutes) of soccer/football, which is about running, defending, skills on the run, etc.
How much of the 90 minutes are penalty kicks (normally)?

Hmmm. Well, how much of the 90 minutes are actually taken up by scoring goals?

And - to put your point in context - how much of the 90 minutes involves reducing the number of players on each team until one side scores a 'golden goal' after a drawn-out, farcical exhausting game of football? The answer is 'none'.

At least penalties are a recognised part of the game already.

[Matt Clark]

How can one possibly argue/discuss with someone who prefers a 0-0 match vs. 4-4 or 5-5 in which the sides try to attack. If you keep taking players off, eventually one side will score. You go back to golden goal.

Penalties have very little to do with the actual game (90 minutes) of soccer/football, which is about running, defending, skills on the run, etc.
How much of the 90 minutes are penalty kicks (normally)?

A 0-0 is almost always better than a 4-4 because in a freak result like that no one has been doing their job properly. I prefer quality professional football to schoolyard circus shows.

As to the rest of it:

1) this thread is not about penalties as a means of deciding a game
2) only Yanks ever get all hissed up about it, no one else cares
3) no alternative means of deciding the game has much to do with the actual game. Purposely playing with less than 11 men on a full-sized pitch sure as crap doesn't.

So, to return us to the point of the thread, Scholes, Gerrard, Beckham, Rooney and Campbell would all be odds-on to score from the spot.

[Mobile]

So, to return us to the point of the thread, Scholes, Gerrard, Beckham, Rooney and Campbell would all be odds-on to score from the spot.

Oh Christ I can see it now....... England have to score their last penalty to progress to the final, and up steps.......... Sol Campbell.

Oh dear.

[Matt Clark]

I would have no problems whatsoever with that. He was one of five designated penalty taker at Spurs and remains one at Arsenal. He is a big game player.

The best penalty taker at Liverpool, apparently, is Jamie Carragher. Go figure. So I'd have no problems with Sol Campbell taking a penalty for England. Or Jamie Carragher, for that matter. ;)