Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Copa América Centenario 2016' started by sidspaceman, Jun 23, 2016.
Nah, doubt it.
Don't doubt it, bro.. everybody has lives.. just check your pulse.. if your breathing, that's means you have a life.
Well, I have no life. Need to get back to the gym, my pulse is dangerously low...
Lol our crisis three finals in a row,
We spoiled ********s
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Penalties are not a great way to decide.
There is a lot of status quo and tradition in football so there is resistance to change.
When we consider this, we have to find something much better not slightly better that there can be broad agreement on and I don't think there is such a thing.
Here's my idea. Personally I would go with more and more extra time with players being taken off. Say normal extra time until 120 minutes when golden goal is activated. Then you take off 2 players and go into 9 vs 9. At minute 135 you go to 7 vs 7. At minute 150 penalties or maybe hell with it, 5 vs 5.
Another idea would be to start to forcibly limit defending. Say at minute 120 each team is only allowed to have 6 players stand in their own half at any given point. At minute 135 if still no goals that reduces to 4 players. Might need to tweak the offside rule to have it work.
Damn... you're a masochist. Players get cramps all the time as it is, if we go with this idea at least eliminate the extra time.
As for the Golden goal, that was scrapped because everyone just played ultra-defensive football and attacked with 1 or 2 players at most... it just resulted in a lot of "hail-mary" shots and crosses.
I like it as it is. The way I rationalise it is this:
1) The 90 minutes is mostly a test of skills and tactics. Everyone is super fit, so the only difference between teams comes from skills and tactics. When those 90 minutes are through it is assumed that the sum of tactics+skill of both teams are even.
2) We take the test to the physical domain with the 30 of extra time, and establish that while we might be even on skill and tactics, one of us might come out on top physically. By the time 120 minutes have passed, the human body has been punished enough and y0u increase the risk of injuring players, which would not be good for cups in particular, also quality of play becomes very poor. Time to take it to the final test.
3) We've had skills and tactics, we've had the physical matchup. The last decider is the mind, what better test than penalties? A strong well placed penalty is impossible to save, not demanding in terms of physical exertion either. Technically, a professional football player of sound mind and focus should be able bury it. Yet they still fail because they don't trust themselves enough to go for the 100% shot. Why? Because it is a difficult one, with more power there is usually less control. Here's the fun part. Every player that takes to the spot has to make a placement/strength-of-shot decision. How much you are willing to risk either way comes down largely to your focus of mind over body.
...it's a beautiful thread really.
LOL... poor little sap
He doesn't even realize that saying that I haven't been here proves the fact that it is him that has not been in.
You showed up after you won... you typical pizarrero
And now you're still hanging around 2 weeks after the tournament hoping that somebody says something good about your team to satisfy your inferiority complex... sad really
Nah, I was around after the loss to Argentina and the poor performances vs. Bolivia and Panama. If you can't use a computer or read, well...that shows that your ocmputer knowledge is as basic as your soccer one.
Btw, the Copa finished finished on 6/26: "around 2 weeks" haven't gone by. So you can't count, either. LOLz.
Ah, well: cheers oh and saludos de Venezuela!...again!
Lol you guys are funny
WHERE DID YOU GET THIS FROM???? That's hilarious b/c our coach at Rutgers had the same idea! Go into one 15 minute OT time, and then start taking off a defensive player every 5 mins.
Another way of making OT at least more exciting is take the PK at half time of the OT, so that the second half is played knowing who already won the PK and at least one team is definitely plays offensive.
No matter what, we're all f#$%ed. Even the PK solution was only implemented in 1970, and then 6 world cup later they introduced the "golden goal" concept, which they reversed 2 WC later. FIFA acknowledges that the PK shootout is imperfect, but at least a win via PK doesn't count a true victory. (In the FIFA World Rankings, the base value of a win is three points; a win on penalties is ONLY two; a draw and a loss on penalties are one; a loss is zero. The more complicated ranking system FIFA used from 1999 to 2006 gave a shoot-out winner the same points as for a normal win and a shoot-out loser the same points as for a draw; goals in the match proper, but not the shoot-out, were factored into the calculation)-
That's actually not a bad idea. It prevents the players to be tortured by forcing them to run even more in the final minutes. The other idea was just asking for injuries.
I actually like penalties.. how can you guys not like penalties? It gives you that nervy and intense feeling.. Its a totally nerve wracking moment and I think penalties are a part of futbol culture, in my opinion.. also, something Worse than Penalties, would be a Coin toss.. imagine after extra time, instead of going to penalties, the winner would be decided on a Simple Coin Toss.. Sounds pretty far fetched, right? Well guess what.. this has actually happened before.. I was reading an article about silly ways to decide winners, before penalties were introduced in 1970.. the article also states in 1954, turkey and Spain tied 2 - 2.. so what did they do to break the deadlock?.. they blindfolded a 14 year old kid and told him to pick two balls from a hat.. and he chose Turkey.. Sounds pretty hilarious, huh? So now you guys can see, that penalties are not that bad.. you can complain all you want about penalties not being skillful.. but do you really think a COIN TOSS or TWO BALLS IN A HAT is more skillful? I thought so
Good comments posteador...I sort of like the fact though that 150 minutes of extra time punishes teams that win on penalties, the idea should be to incentivize teams to go out and win in 90 minutes and leave teams that won on penalties for the next round knackered, you don't want teams winning 2-3 shoot outs and winning the competition...ugh. But OK, it's a bit harsh. Another choice is to start taking players off at 90 minutes, 9 vs 9 at 90 minutes, 7 vs 7 at 105 minutes.
You could also allow more substitutions as the game progresses.
Since when, has anyone ever played a match, with 150 minutes of extra time ?
That's even more time, than what it takes for a normal match to finish, including in it, the overtimes after each half.
Why not play the overtime, only after the PK definition gets played, where this one doesn't decide directly whom wins the confrontation.
After the pk definition, the overtime gets played, where whatever happens in it, is what will finally decide, whom wins the confrontation, where goint into the overtime, both teams will know in advance whom will win, if none of them scores a diference on regards to the other team.
It is very likely that whomever wins the pk definition, will play almost completely defensive during the overtime, but whomever loses it, will go with all they got to get that diference, as doing so, will be their only chance to actually win.
For the case, the pk definition gives the winning team here, 2 options to win the match: win by scoring more goals than their opponent and to finish in a draw against them.
For the losing team at the pk definition, will only give them 1 option to win the match : win by scoring more goals than their opponent. A draw at the end, implies their defeat.
I'd say, that the overtime should be also reduced to 2 halves of only 10 minutes each (or only 5 minutes each, with strict stopage time done by the 4th referee, as it is played in basketball, each time a player falls down or the ball is not in play).
With no doubt, they will get played at maximum intensity.
It's not so bad.
Still is through a footballing mean.
It's lots better than how it was decided in the past : flip of a coin, head or tails, you chose right you win, chose wrong you lose.
Gives something very big to think about, to both teams during the whole lapse of the overtime (one of them may think that if they hold on to the draw, they will win the match; while the other team is sure going to think that if they continue doing what they were doing before, they will lose). In this case, there would be no excuses for a losing whiner, that it was not simply bad luck what got them eliminated. Adds more drama to the overtime
Yes, it's definitely better than heads or tails.. I mentioned this in one of my posts in this same thread.
Penalties are not a great solution to find a winner but there really is no other better alternative, or at least no one has come up with one yet.
This is the only way to improve on it IMO.
Was anyone able to get the final Nike gold game ball (Ordem Ciento Campeon)?
Pks are sexy to watch. Maybe not good for the game, but Good for TV which is a big part of these competitions