View Full Version : Sepp Blatter...
drc003
14 Jul 2007, 02:00 PM
...will continue his crusade to prove he is a complete idiot.
Blatter takes a swipe at extra time. (http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=445488&cc=5901)
Someone please get this guy out as FIFA president before he does serious damage. He seems to always be fixated with fixing things that aren't broken instead of focusing on truly important issues. Many of his comments from this article also may be hints that the man is not only ignorant but senile as well.
...will continue his crusade to prove he is a complete idiot.
Blatter takes a swipe at extra time. (http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=445488&cc=5901)
Someone please get this guy out as FIFA president before he does serious damage. He seems to always be fixated with fixing things that aren't broken instead of focusing on truly important issues. Many of his comments from this article also may be hints that the man is not only ignorant but senile as well.
It's too late. He's in there for another 4 years since no one challenged him for the presidency this past May, unfortunately. I agree, he HAS TO GO!
What a ********ing hypocrite too. Who remembers him saying shit about penalties during the WC, especially the Final(since Italy won and he hates Italy, the scumbag).
drc003
14 Jul 2007, 04:14 PM
It's too late. He's in there for another 4 years since no one challenged him for the presidency this past May, unfortunately. I agree, he HAS TO GO!
What a ********ing hypocrite too. Who remembers him saying shit about penalties during the WC, especially the Final(since Italy won and he hates Italy, the scumbag).
Exactly. He is correct that having a game decided on pk's is less than desirable. However you can only play so long and in that case it is necessary. I also agree that he would have said nothing if a team he fancies would have won. Now he thinks it is better to just get straight to penalties and have the matches decided that way? The guy is an idiot.
Gibraldo
15 Jul 2007, 02:55 AM
I think he tries to have a game decided by drawing lots, like it has been done since the late 60es.
Maybe that comes, as he had drawn to many lots for world cup since his job as a general secretary.
england66
15 Jul 2007, 03:13 PM
He still owes Adidas big time for buying him into his positition....guess he figures that if its straight to PK's after 90 mins the Germans will just play for a draw and win the wc every time....
He still owes Adidas big time for buying him into his positition....guess he figures that if its straight to PK's after 90 mins the Germans will just play for a draw and win the wc every time....
LOL, as long as they bring their homework to the field and use it during the PKs.:rolleyes:
england66
15 Jul 2007, 03:18 PM
LOL, as long as they bring their homework to the field and use it during the PKs.:rolleyes:
think about it....had Blatter had his way the Germany vs Italy game would have gone straight to pk's.....and as the Germans haven't lost a pk shootout in almost 40 years.....
Sagy
15 Jul 2007, 03:31 PM
think about it....had Blatter had his way the Germany vs Italy game would have gone straight to pk's.....and as the Germans haven't lost a pk shootout in almost 40 years.....
True, we also would have missed on two of the greatest games in WC history:
1970 Italy-West Germany 4:3 (1:1 at FT)
1982 West Germany-France 3:3 (1:1 at FT)
Without the ET, these two games would be just two more semi-final games.
england66
15 Jul 2007, 05:18 PM
True, we also would have missed on two of the greatest games in WC history:
1970 Italy-West Germany 4:3 (1:1 at FT)
1982 West Germany-France 3:3 (1:1 at FT)
Without the ET, these two games would be just two more semi-final games.
Not to mention the 66 final.....and that, given their history in shootouts, the Germans would have won all three...(I know they won the 82 game anyway)
scorpioxyz
15 Jul 2007, 11:07 PM
...will continue his crusade to prove he is a complete idiot.
Blatter takes a swipe at extra time. (http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=445488&cc=5901)
Someone please get this guy out as FIFA president before he does serious damage. He seems to always be fixated with fixing things that aren't broken instead of focusing on truly important issues. Many of his comments from this article also may be hints that the man is not only ignorant but senile as well.
Would anything make everyone happy ? 90 minutes in a game, I agree with Blatter on this one. It's pointless to add 3 minutes or whatever in extra time in the rounds where there are no shootouts. Even more pointless to play on without the "Golden Goal". And bringing up that Germany hasn't lost a shootout is just as absurd, each team gets 5 kicks, even more after that and it hasn't been decided. If someone can't score the decider in 90 minutes, get it to a shootout as soon as possible. Sudden death has it's possibilities in soccer, I'm somewhat against it in the NFL because a coin flip determines who might have an advantage at winning. Soccer though, they play on and offense and defense is less pronounced in terms of turning from either or at a moment's notice. In USA collegiate football, they take turns trying to score, I like that better than OT in the NFL. The NBA/college basketball, you have 5 minutes, but the teams do score and a basket seems to mean very little as often as one is scored, so a 5 minute time frame makes sense.
Some of you guys sound like you don't want to see a soccer match ever end, especially when your team loses or doesn't have the best record for winning decisions after 90 minutes of regulation. But soccer isn't potentially a high teen inning baseball game for extra innings for duration and wear & tear on players. I have mixed feelings about ties in soccer. It's unfortunate somebody has to lose, but it's the nature of a tournament, someone wins and everyone else loses along the way.
And yes, we would miss the 120 minute shootout classics, they'd be replaced with 90 minute shootout classics. Perhaps, maybe boxing should have unlimited rounds or go back to 15 round fights, that is until there's a knockout ?
Would anything make everyone happy ? 90 minutes in a game, I agree with Blatter on this one. It's pointless to add 3 minutes or whatever in extra time in the rounds where there are no shootouts. Even more pointless to play on without the "Golden Goal".
Huh? The 3 or so minutes added are for injuries and stoppage time/substitutions. Is that what you're talking about?
I don't know if I agree or disagree with the Golden Goal, but the ET added, like the regular 90 mins, can't be contested to be unfair because it's a time issue, not a goal issue. I don't know if that makes any sense, but it's the most "fair and equal" route before the PKs where it's 5vs5. GG leaves questions, whereas the full 30 mins added gives the two as many chances possible within the time limit, and ultimately proves who is in the best form. This also hold true when it passes over to the PKs, where the players are tired. The best last the longest I guess.
scorpioxyz
15 Jul 2007, 11:39 PM
Huh? The 3 or so minutes added are for injuries and stoppage time/substitutions. Is that what you're talking about?
I don't know if I agree or disagree with the Golden Goal, but the ET added, like the regular 90 mins, can't be contested to be unfair because it's a time issue, not a goal issue. I don't know if that makes any sense, but it's the most "fair and equal" route before the PKs where it's 5vs5. GG leaves questions, whereas the full 30 mins added gives the two as many chances possible within the time limit, and ultimately proves who is in the best form. This also hold true when it passes over to the PKs, where the players are tired. The best last the longest I guess.
I realize that the extra time for injuries discourages total flopping issues, but when someone goes down like that and is injured beyond return that is a real serious injury, how can that be argued as fair ? The injured lays out on the field, there is a man advantage/disadvantage there for until they do cart the guy off on a stretcher. The team with the injury not only has to play a man down, they add time back on because the other team may have failed to score ? And then it becomes fair, when those extra 3 minutes is played at even strength ? In those cases, play should be stopped, these are human beings, not cattle. The clock can be started and even reset to keep the aspect of fairness in tact.
The longest ? While that may hold for the current match and would be most applicable, but how fair is it that the winner that has to move on to the next match after having played 30 more minutes ? In that 30 more minutes, how many yellow and red cards were picked up from the additional fatigue ?
I realize that the extra time for injuries discourages total flopping issues, but when someone goes down like that and is injured beyond return that is a real serious injury, how can that be argued as fair ? The injured lays out on the field, there is a man advantage/disadvantage there for until they do cart the guy off on a stretcher. The team with the injury not only has to play a man down, they add time back on because the other team may have failed to score ? And then it becomes fair, when those extra 3 minutes is played at even strength ? In those cases, play should be stopped, these are human beings, not cattle. The clock can be started and even reset to keep the aspect of fairness in tact.
The longest ? While that may hold for the current match and would be most applicable, but how fair is it that the winner that has to move on to the next match after having played 30 more minutes ? In that 30 more minutes, how many yellow and red cards were picked up from the additional fatigue ?
If you stop the clock that stops play...I don't really see much of a difference if they just tact on the extra 3 or whatever minutes due to injury and substitutions. The main concern is continuity, there would be timer problems if the clock had to be stopped on every instance. Normally when an injury occurs the injured is subbed out, so it's an even playing field once again. The other team, who should practice fair play, shouldn't play and injury to their advantage.
There's enough people who dislike PKs, but they make more sense after ET where collapsing from exhaustion was a reality in games of the past. Yes, it's unfortunate they have to play a game after winning in ET, but that's why they train. Good form goes a long way. The point of ET is to eliminate as many "what ifs" questions from fans and spectators IMO. We all like to argue who's better than who, so given and equal amount of time to score after regulation eliminates some doubts. Then when it goes to PKs, it can be said the team with the best stamina, practice, focus, will win and were the better team that day.
Although you agree with Blatter, the whole point of this thread is to point out his hypocrisy. Do you recall his distaste for the WC Final ending in PKs(we all know the underlying reason why he even mentioned anything)? He's a really bad president, and he's very fake.
scorpioxyz
16 Jul 2007, 12:24 AM
If you stop the clock that stops play...I don't really see much of a difference if they just tact on the extra 3 or whatever minutes due to injury and substitutions. The main concern is continuity, there would be timer problems if the clock had to be stopped on every instance. Normally when an injury occurs the injured is subbed out, so it's an even playing field once again. The other team, who should practice fair play, shouldn't play and injury to their advantage.
There's enough people who dislike PKs, but they make more sense after ET where collapsing from exhaustion was a reality in games of the past. Yes, it's unfortunate they have to play a game after winning in ET, but that's why they train. Good form goes a long way. The point of ET is to eliminate as many "what ifs" questions from fans and spectators IMO. We all like to argue who's better than who, so given and equal amount of time to score after regulation eliminates some doubts. Then when it goes to PKs, it can be said the team with the best stamina, practice, focus, will win and were the better team that day.
Although you agree with Blatter, the whole point of this thread is to point out his hypocrisy. Do you recall his distaste for the WC Final ending in PKs(we all know the underlying reason why he even mentioned anything)? He's a really bad president, and he's very fake.
I think when it comes to tournaments, differing rules could also apply. Germany the temperatures were in the mid 60's, that's a far more temperate climate to go 120 minutes in vs starting the Gold Cup final when it's around upper 80's in humid weather that feels 10 degrees hotter. So even his hypocrisy is tempered by conditions for players. I like to see any match at full strength, freshest legs, basically the teams at their best. I feel 2 teams having played 90 minutes and no difference in scores, they've proven an even strength to a large extent for longevity. Have it come down to who can kick the most in a one on one vs the goalie as soon as possible. The winner then is fresher for the next match against another that has moved on. One has to lose, one moves on. Why should the one that moves on have to have played 30 minutes more than who they are playing in that next match ? As a spectator, that leaves more question in my mind as to who was better in the next match, a match that means more because it was the winners moving towards determining a champion. The World Cup turned out to be Italy winning after playing back to back 120 minute matches, but even there the pk victory in the final was hardly a matter of pk's with not enough on them determining whether one lost or won, it was a matter of accuracy and degree of challenge on the shot for a goalie to stop.
Well, I think credit is still due after going 120 mins back to back and hitting 5 for 5. Fatigue still played a roll, and like I mentioned the most fit or in form team is normally the better team and the one who comes out the victor. From my understanding, it was very hot in Germany while it experienced a heat wave. I don't know what to say considering temperatures, but the best team is the one who can play and win in any weather conditions.
I understand what you're saying, but it seems the majority view is the better team will win it when the conditions become tougher(in ET) and fatigue sets in. Then, when it reaches a point where it can become dangerous to play on (120 min mark), have them go to PKs.
If you want to take the WC final for example, would it be fair to Italy if it went to PKs after 90, when France didn't play the previous game for 120 mins? And we all saw the fortitude of some players, I won't mention names:D, when going past 90 and how frustrated they become. That's a true test of a champion.
squidward123
16 Jul 2007, 07:24 AM
eh?
germany and argentina had the same record in world cup penalty shootouts before 2006.
that was 3-0.
in euros germany are 1-1.
Argentina in the copa are a huge number like 6-3 or something.
At least germany haven't won a trophy on penalties unlike czechoslovakia, brazil or italy.
in fact germany lost the 1976 final of the euros on penalties.
just because england always lose to germany on those, no need to make germany famous for penalties ;)
are portugal next? (2-0 all-time so far)
england66
16 Jul 2007, 02:42 PM
At least germany haven't won a trophy on penalties unlike czechoslovakia, brazil or italy.....
Germany have won PLENTY of trophies and reached finals by winning penalty shootouts along the way.....wc 1982,1986,1990 (******** me, thats three in a row)....as well as euro 1996.....(just from memory, didn't have to look it up....there could be others)
McFly31400
16 Jul 2007, 05:41 PM
If you want to take the WC final for example, would it be fair to Italy if it went to PKs after 90, when France didn't play the previous game for 120 mins? And we all saw the fortitude of some players, I won't mention names:D, when going past 90 and how frustrated they become. That's a true test of a champion.
if you talk about Zidane I got a scoop for you he wasnt "sober" since the Brazil game. I dont know what he took before the games but he wasnt normal thats some rumors I heard in france and I believe it.
First there's the penalty kick where he does a "panenka"... the first time I saw him trying that in an official game and he does it in the world cup final wtf?? and then the headbutt... I'm sure he hadn't been drug-free since brazil.
if you talk about Zidane I got a scoop for you he wasnt "sober" since the Brazil game. I dont know what he took before the games but he wasnt normal thats some rumors I heard in france and I believe it.
First there's the penalty kick where he does a "panenka"... the first time I saw him trying that in an official game and he does it in the world cup final wtf?? and then the headbutt... I'm sure he hadn't been drug-free since brazil.
Hmmm, this is the first time hearing this. So maybe he was on some juice? It makes sense considering his aggression. I don't want to turn this into some mud raking, I rather have him retire in peace.
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/Peter_H/esterne061613020607161313_big.jpg
But here's something I found and thought was funny, is it true?
Not to mention the 66 final.....and that, given their history in shootouts, the Germans would have won all three...(I know they won the 82 game anyway)
Actually, I think there was provision for a replay in '66.