Do fans REALLY hate PK shootouts?

Discussion in 'FIFA and Tournaments' started by EdsonArantes, Jul 10, 2006.

  1. kidkicker

    kidkicker Member

    United States
    Aug 3, 2000
    NYC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I was watching the 2002 World Cup with my father (who is a complete novice at the game) and he had an interesting idea that stuck with me -- every 5 mins of overtime (or so) disallow one more player from crossing the halfway line to go back on defense, which would push more and more players onto offense. It's sounded a little gimmicky to me at first, and probably would be dismissed as such, but I appreciated that it would keep the players out there playing on the field instead of resorting to penalty kicks. With the right structure (timing and number or players) I think it would be a good alternative.
     
  2. ctruppi

    ctruppi Member

    May 7, 1999
    Annandale, NJ
    I hated PK's in '90, '94 & '98:mad:

    But I loved them yesterday:D
     
  3. random50

    random50 New Member

    Jul 10, 2006
    Sure, but it's different. Short bursts of maximal effort followed by periods of inactivity, and with the coaches able to control just how much inactivity. I've never seen a basketball player who was simply too exhausted to carry on.


    Yeah? How many? 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? The reality is 1 is *usually* enough, 2 is not uncommon. Beyond that it's rare. Presuming you saw the extra time matches at the World Cup that went to penalties, are you really confident there'd have been a goal if they'd played, say, another 30 minutes? I'm not! More subs you say...great, but what happens when the second team's game also ends 0-0 after another 90 minutes? It's really not that unlikely.



    Alternative ideas, yep. Alternative good ideas? Highly subjective but I've never seen one!
     
  4. Lurko

    Lurko Member

    Aug 31, 1999
    DC area
    I, for one, enjoy PKs. After 120 minutes, it would become a slogfest, no thanks.

    PKs are simply a different phase of the game. If the teams can't decide as a team then it comes down to the best individual players. Seems fair enough to me.

    I wouldn't want to be Trez today, though....
     
  5. flyerhawk

    flyerhawk Member

    Feb 5, 2006
    Hoboken NJ
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I've sure seen NFL players like that. Players who are taking IVs on the sidelines or breathing pure oxygen. Same with hockey players.

    In hockey in the regular season you see teams sit back in overtime and play for ties. Happens all the time especially when one team is a bit tired. However in the playoffs this doesn't happen because the game goes on until someone scores. Lots of overtime matches in the playoffs. Most only go 1 overtime. However every playoff has at least 4 or 5 that go 2 or more.

    The only time I have watched a game go to PK in which it seemed like PKs were the only solution is when one team has decided to bunker down and play for PKs.

    Well then I wager you haven't looked much. Lots of ideas. Reducing the number of players on the pitch. Extending the distance of the PKs.
     
  6. Milliano

    Milliano New Member

    Jul 7, 2006
    Most of those players go back out on the field though. And again they only play a few seconds at a time. With unlimited subsitutions. Again it's different. Those are short term anaerobic efforts that they're recovering from. In soccer, players can simply 'run out of gas' in an aerobic sense, completely running out of energy reserves... I've never, ever seen that happen in the NFL or hockey.
     
  7. random50

    random50 New Member

    Jul 10, 2006
    I'll take your word for it. I'm not sure that's a good thing though!



    I've not watched much hockey. I've seen plenty of soccer matches which *were* decided in extra time after more draining matches. (Teams were very defensive this year and whilst a fuss was made about it, the conditions in Germany really weren't *that* tough, comparatively speaking) The deciding goals are often decidedly disappointing, coming from individual errors whilst everybody else on the pitch watches on too tired to try to keep up with the play. To be honest, I'd rather see a match decided by a test of footballing skill, which penalties are, than a test of endurance.

    You think this is a new argument to soccer fans? :D

    Plenty of ideas, many of which I wouldn't say are any better or worse than penalties. Never seen one that really made me think "Wow! Yeah, that's a great idea."

    Overtimes in US sports aren't all that great anyway IMO. I watched a baseball game last year that went something like 14 or 15 innings, which I think I'm right in saying isn't all that exceptional. It was tense and exciting at first but by the end of the game it was tedious and I just wanted *somebody* to end it! US sports fans are used to it, but I'm not so sure the rest of the world would want to put up with it.
     
  8. Milliano

    Milliano New Member

    Jul 7, 2006
    The losing team only 'deserves to win' if the referee completely messes up the match.
    Which isn't often. (Regardless of how much some might complain about the officials)
     
  9. flyerhawk

    flyerhawk Member

    Feb 5, 2006
    Hoboken NJ
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'm not suggesting that a slugfest is the way to go. I just haven't seen much in the way of serious consideration for other ideas.

    You really think that PKs are a test of footballing skill?

    What do you have against moving the spot back further?
     
  10. simonb_nyc

    simonb_nyc New Member

    Jun 7, 2005
    New York
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    I don't think fans hate them as it makes for intense drama. As for whether it's the fairest way to end a match has always been open to debate. FIFA has tried toying with this for years like the sudden death of the "Golden Goal" and always return to penalties. There was the "new" penalty shootout discussed in the 1990s where the shooter had to play more "one-on-one" with the keeper by allowing dribbling and therefore it was less like Russian roulette. Only Johan Cruff voted for it and it was used by the MLS for a couple of seasons before fans wanted the US game to be played like the rest of the world. So love them or hate them, penalties are here to stay.
     
  11. random50

    random50 New Member

    Jul 10, 2006
    Yep. That's why England are so bad at them...our players just aren't technically gifted enough to place them accurately. There's a heavy psychological aspect too.

    At the moment, even if the keeper reads the kicker perfectly (and there's a definite difference between keepers in that regard), the kicker will still score with high quality placement. But even with the spot as close as it is, there's already not a huge margin for error. You won't need to move it much further back before you get to the point where a top quality keeper *will* save it if he reads you right. It becomes more about the keepers ability than the team. Having things depend mostly on (at least) 5 player's ability at spot kicks is pretty arbitrary but I think I prefer that to it depending mostly on 1!
     
  12. smithfan

    smithfan Member+

    Aug 14, 2005
    Waimoana
    Club:
    Borussia Dortmund
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    For once I agree with McDonalds - I'm lovin it (pks) :D

    It's pure drama. I love drama.
     
  13. JohnR

    JohnR Member+

    Jun 23, 2000
    Chicago, IL
    Well hell, then let's skip the fu&%king game and just have a knockout round of giant PK shootouts. Beats waiting for the clock to expire, or seeing the match decided 1-0 on a dive in the box.

    Or we can try to get this game back to where it once was, when teams scored goals in the run of play in important matches. You'll be shocked at how exciting that can be.
     
  14. Tigerpunk

    Tigerpunk Member+

    Jun 17, 2004
    As for the argument that it's unfair to the players - what, they're gonna die? They don't want to win?

    Oh, they might be tired for the next game - well, that's the penalty for not winning the original game in regulation. So sorry. Michigan once beat Colgate in a 4 overtime thriller, then took a 1-0 lead the next day against New Hampshire in the NCAA hockey quarterfinals, and lost 4-1 as you can see they totally ran out of steam. I don't think anyone's saying a shootout would have been more fair.

    It's certainly less fair to the team that loses the shootout.

    Might as well have a coin toss. AND ITS HEADS!!!! ITALY WINS THE WORLD CUP!!!!
     
  15. Prenn

    Prenn Member

    Apr 14, 2000
    Ireland
    Club:
    Bolton Wanderers FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    What utter crap. Do you really think Gerrard/Lampard/Beckham aren't good enough to take a penalty well?
     
  16. smithfan

    smithfan Member+

    Aug 14, 2005
    Waimoana
    Club:
    Borussia Dortmund
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    No need to be that ironic just because you disagree with my opinion. It can really happen that people have different opinions on certain issues y'know. :rolleyes:
     
  17. random50

    random50 New Member

    Jul 10, 2006
    Mock me all you like. I'm sure you will.

    Here's a fact that matters - England took 4 penalties. They scored 1. Ironically, despite the fact you have picked out what's believed to be England's most technically gifted players for your counterexamples, Lampard and Gerrard both had their penalties saved. Good goalkeeping, yes, but their penalties were hardly placed perfectly. Beckham rarely places his all that well. I can't be bothered to check right now, but I'm fairly sure Beckham and Lampard had issues with penalty misses this season.

    Lampard had a shedload of shots in the tournament. More than half weren't even on target. Before you point out his goals in the premiership, he also has a great many attempts there and scores not a few from deflections. Gerrard scores some absolute beauties. More often he misses by a very long way. To me, these are not signs of players with great placement, and we're discussing here the *best* in the team.

    If England's players are so technically gifted, why can they not keep the ball in midfield? Why do so many of their short passes go astray? Gerrard and Beckham play some wonderful long range passes, it's true, but if you *really* analyse it I think you'll find they play a lot more that are harmless and that most of the "middling" ability teams have players who are equally as competent passers, if not better.

    IMO it all adds up to this - English players are simply not very good at kicking the ball *precisely* where they want to. This does not make them bad players. They play in the Premiership where there's often more space in the attacking third so you don't have to be *quite* as accurate with your passes. Give them space and a high tempo game and I firmly believe they're as good as anybody. Unfortunately for England, that style of play is not in fashion in the world game right now, and given the World Cup is played in the summer, I don't think we'll ever see that changing.

    England's sole penalty scorer? Owen Hargreaves, the one guy (who took a penalty) who learned his football in the different technical demands outside the Premiership. A player, I might add, who is correctly highly rated in Germany for his talents as a defensive destroyer. I've never seen him praised particularly for his technical ability.

    The Premiership is overrated, at least in terms of quality (I'd still rather watch it than any other league though). England is *vastly* overrated. How many times do we have to see our supposedly great players resorting to direct football and tamely going out before we'll start to accept that? Hey, if we did we could finally start to be *pleased* about regularly reaching the quarter finals rather than constantly being dissatisfied and miserable with the outcome of every tournament!
     
  18. Spurs74

    Spurs74 Member

    Nov 10, 2003

    Yes that would be good too when you had a Switzerland 5 v Austria 7 in a World Cup and that was 1954, but the mentality of the game then is eons different and that is what will make that change come about, when the shackles of "defence wins" or "playing not to win" mindsets are erased with just having 11 men play as if they were young boys back in the park.

    But because of money, fame, glamour, technocrats,geo-politics,and all the other incentives in winning a World Cup mean having to sell your soul to the devils of corporate influence and the like who hope to make a buck out of it too. The pressures are too high and too much is out of it, so football suffers a bit due to this.

    Or the other reason is that the game has been outright leeched by quasi-intellectuals who can't just learn to make the game fun again!!!

    I don't know, but if I still had that tape from 1954, you'd see what I mean.

    I have to say that the "Golden Goal" was the fairest way to decide a winner because there was no wasting of time and players; if you failed in normal time, make it or break it. Because otherwise, if you really want to make the game fun and go old-school by just having a replay!!!!
     
  19. MaJoR_STG

    MaJoR_STG New Member

    Jul 6, 2006
    Toronto, Canada
    I don't, because Deutschland never loses :D
     
  20. flyerhawk

    flyerhawk Member

    Feb 5, 2006
    Hoboken NJ
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That had to be one of the most absurd commentaries I have ever read.

    So because Lampard, Gerrard, and Beckham are allegedly average passers that means that they can't score from 12 yards out? Are the Argentines equally inept technically or was that just a case of Jens Lehman being lucky?

    Scoring from the penalty spot is one of the LEAST technically challenging tasks for a player to perform. Remove the pressure of the moment and they score almost everytime. Dealing with pressure is NOT a technical skill.

    Seriously that was just some surreal analysis. I didn't it would be possible to pass judgements on an entire football league based on 3 shots made in a single match. But apparently you CAN.

    So let's put the blame squarely where it belongs. Not on Lampard and Gerrard choking but on all of English Football. :rolleyes:
     
  21. Awe-Inspiring

    Awe-Inspiring New Member

    Jan 18, 2000
    I do.

    A much more sensible way to decide ties is 15 minutes of sudden death, followed by removal of one player for each time every 15 minutes, until one team has only 8 players left. Someone will score soon after that.

    Besides, knowing you have to score to win, teams will play the 90 minutes differently.
     
  22. arthur d

    arthur d Member

    Oct 17, 2004
    Cambridge England
    I love them. Especially the ones against England. :D
     
  23. T Nitty

    T Nitty New Member

    Jun 3, 2004
    MD
    I don't hate them. I would rather see the Italy win against Germany than the win against France, but until we build teams of players that can go past 120 minutes, we're stuck with penalties. I've just accepted it, I suppose.

    I like comparing soccer to aspects of life. The ending can't always be perfect.

    The 3 best games I have witnessed went to PKs.
    1. MLS Eastern Conf Finals, 2004, DC vs New England. I was lucky enough to be at this game. Regulation was filled with back and forth goals that were all amazing, ending 3-3. The thing I remember about OT is a few close shots but more fatigue than anything. The PKs were the highest drama of any sporting event I've attended.
    2. Liverpool's 2005 Champions League Final victory. Again 3-3 after Gerard led an amazing comeback from 0-3. OT, not memorable. PKs were dramatic and entertaining because of the Liverpool keeper's antics.
    3. 2006 FA Cup Final. Again Gerard brought his team to a 3-3 tie. OT, not memorable. PKs were dramatic, but not the greatest.

    I think those games were great because of the attacking, and the drama was carried into the PKs. In the WC, we usually get 0-0 or 1-1 ties with lots of conservative play. Those types of games make the PK shoutout seem like a bad ending to a bad movie.
     
  24. XaviandXabi

    XaviandXabi Member

    May 4, 2005
    CT
    what other choice do you have, its how its been decided for years and chaning it to some dumb new way will make it look like a gimmick
     
  25. Tigerpunk

    Tigerpunk Member+

    Jun 17, 2004
    More gimicky, than, say, penalty kicks?
     

Share This Page