After nine (9) pages of BS (not big soccer) it's down to:- Move the spot back to the 15 or 18 yds (I like this) Or paint guns at 10 yards. (I like this better,) you have to shoot with your team colours and the first team to make Light blue and white stripes look all red wins........!!! Let it go girls, let this thread DIE.
Assuming they played on tired legs by saving a sub just for this. Maybe they deserve it then. They were able to hold off a team who most likely used all their subs. - Davidjd
Let's try this out: Take one PK Take one corner (6 v 6 or such) Take one Direct Free Kick from 18 to 25 yards (6v6 or such) Take one 1 v keeper Shootout (NASL style) Take one 3v2 (plus keep) attack from the half line (modified NASL). I'd go further and say the team winning the coin toss at end of regulation gets to pick which one will be attempted first by both teams. The other team then gets to pick the next 2 events. Something creative like this seems MUCH better and more representative of the different aspects of a real game than Kicks from the Penalty Spot. I encourage you not to tear apart the specific events (as I've only spent a few minutes thinking about them), but to criticize the concept of having this type of tie-breaker. - Davidjd
I think it can be real simple.... You play 90+ mins of soccer (football), if the 2 teams are tied, then you just got a 30 min over time (non golden goal). If the teams are still tied after that, you add one sub for each half and make the halves 15 mins each, golden goal. All those who whine about not being able to come back, too bad should have done that in the first 120 mins of football. Now you have to score or die of exhausion. This leaves petty teams like 1990 Argentina WC team to not just "bunker out" the whole game and take their penalties and BS their way through a tournament (see 1990 WC). This makes you play real soccer, real outcome. Hey you still get relief, a sub a half, I think thats fair. Thoughts?
Nothing petty about Argentina! They've won multiple Cups. Please reserve the word "petty" for nations who have one or less. Argentina's 1990 PK opponent was the host team, Italy, and if Zenga hadn't come out for a ball without collecting it, Italy would likely have advanced. "Bunkering" is acceptable when playing a host in the World Cup.
Hmmm...maybe not now, but their team in 1990 was amazingly crappy.They barely got out of the first round (as a 3rd place team if I'm not mistaken) They barely got by Brazil in the second Round with a lucky 1-0 win after Brazil hit the post countless times. Then it was on to Yugolslavia and they won that in Penalties. Then against Italy, more penalties. Then they get to the final and loose (ironically by a penalty) and they cry and Maradonna was all surprised, what's a matter Diego? Thought you could just foul and bunker in all game to win in penalties? Don't believe me, then look they even got a red card, the first team to ever get one in a final. I'm just saying it's not fair for a team to be only good at defense and penalties and make it all the way to the final, like Argentina in 1990.
Heh, 1990 was crappy all around. It's best if we just put the whole tournament out of our memory and never use it as a reference for anything. The problem in that World Cup was not the penalty kicks, but the culture of negative football that had reached its peak. Coaches encouraged negative play, the rules allowed it and the referees let things get out of hand. Things have changed since then. But back on topic. For the reasons I've stated before, there should be no play after 120 minutes. It's simply too dangerous and the quality of play will be astrocious, even with extra substitutions. Instead, you need a tiebreaker that is quick, for all the reasons mentioned before in this thread. You also need a format that is as simple as possible, so as to minimize controversy. Penalty kicks fit the bill. We don't like it, but that's the best we have. To those who disagree, it might surprise you that this isn't exactly a new topic. Most of us have put much thought about replacing the shootout with a better tiebreaker format. But once all the possibilities are considered, the more thoughtful among us end up realizing that the PK shootout is the format that makes the most sense, sadly.
Benine has a good point. Ofcourse not all in a country are alike. But like you said... generalizations can be fun. PS you forgot the tulips and cheese you ignorant yank! PS2. Public drug use and open prostitution is part of that famous, intranslatable Dutch word 'gezelligheid'. Feel free to look it up.
There aren't many good replacements for the penalty shoot-out, but one idea could be to take them like in hockey by running from the centre circle and have a given number of seconds on you to score. At least it requires more skill than the sole kick from the spot.
I don't disagree with anything in your first paragraph, but just how is it "not fair" to win the games by the rules in place at kickoff? I was as hurt as anyone by that '90 game against Brasil, but I didn't hate on Argentina- I blamed Brasil's inability to find the back of the net.
Well I hate Argentina (don't care for Brazil either, it was their fault they didn't beat Argentina), but thats not the point, I'm saying any team can win a friggin penalty shoot-out and make it far in a tournament, but that doesn't measure a teams skill. The whole point of a WC or any cup for that matter is to determine the best. If Argentina would have won in 1990 on a penalty shootout, would they be proper WC champions? I guess it doesn't matter, I just think it's a cheap way to decide a game. How many times has England fallen to Germany just because they can't burry a penalty kick, thats BS! Penalties are meant to decide a goal when there an infraction in the box, not to determine a game if two teams can't score. The best way to go is non-stop golden goal, it'll seperate the men from the boys. Sure there may be controversy over garbage goals winning a game, but it'll be better than teams winning in PK shootout.
If after 120 minutes no team can score then they deserve to go to penalties....if they had the skill they would win in 120 minutes of play. All that talk about deciders which take skill etc..like running from kick off spot....Its not fair for a team with less technical skill. And before you say that it is fair as the most skillful team won. Who said football has to be played by skillful people. Like wimboldon when they won the FA cup, they werent great but they won because of team spirt and unity. Much like the koreans... its not fair for a team that are great teams yet dont have the great players. Also i am english and as you know we have lost many a shootout, yet i still back it as it is the best, fairest way....
As usual the English stand up for dead tradition, even though the tradition is barely 2 decades old. Look, Eurotrash, the idea of this thread, if you go back to page one and bother to read it, was not to defend the undefensable Penality Shoot Out, but to come up with an alternative. And, like all the other Limeys, you would rather wallow in pitty and pain than think of something new and worthy. Well, in other posts I have been attacked for not coming up with a worthy alternative. Though I do not think it is my place in this thread to be imaginative, just to point out all you Eurotrash who are not, I will give it a try. . . As you probably do not know, football was once played before the year 1980. Back in the day, before even your father was born, a typical line up for a match was, and I am not making this up you can look it up 1 2 3 5 I am not kidding, you can look it up. What you see is correct. 1 Goalie, 2 Defenders, 3 Midies, and 5, count 'em 5 forwards. No wonder an typical match score was 4-2, 3-5, or 6-2. That is what they mean when they say that football became more defensive. It was that they turned the line up on its head, and made the back way more important than the front. Well, here is my solution. Play the first 90+ stoppage, any way you want. But in games where there must be a victor, require and strictly enforce the 2-3-5 formation. No golden goal. No overtime over 30 minutes. Than, if there is still a tie, which would be a rather rare occurance, then play a second match 3 days hence. My solution is pure football, has no gimicks, and is way more respectful of the history of the game than anything else you have ever seen.
3 days hence is a master stroke in a world cup when you're in the semis and the final is in two days time, but if we had any sense we would have built a time machine by now.
Oh, come on guys. We can do better than this. In the above scenario, why not have the players on each team vote for the opposing player that has to leave the field - survivor style. Here's another one. We take one player from each team (coach's pick) and have each of them juggle, each with his own ball. The player with the most touches before the ball hits the ground wins. Or you could set up a MLS standard army style obstacle course on each sideline and have a relay race with all the players left on the field. If a team is down a man, we even up the players or make them run it with 2 subs. If you had to, you could incorporate dribbling through cones or something, but I think that would ruin the game. I can hear the fans now chanting for Damarcus to make it over the wall. Another possibility. Have both goalkeepers line up side by side on the end line, each with a ball. The goalkeepers then boot their ball as far as they can. The team whose ball goes the farthest wins. Let's think outside the box, men.
If we are going to play this game then ok.... An American trying to patronise me over football. Its laughable. You say football goes back before i was born...never...jesus i thought football was invented for my ammusement on the day i was born.... As for you saying i am clinging on to "tradition" when did i once say dont change the game because that is how it has always been. huh?...answer..never.... I think penalties are the only feasable(sp?) and practical solution to draws after 120 mins. You say they MUST employ a strict 2-3-5 formation. that is the most comical iea going, even the paintball idea was far superior. How could you possibly enforse such a rule?..answer you couldnt. The game has changed from the old style of 5 up top. If a team played that today they would get beat by 10 goals each time as they would jus pass around the defenders. 4-4-2 has always been the best formation as ong as you have the correct players to play it. (eg) wingers etc.... And you say "respectful of the history of the game than anything else you have ever seen. " If we are going to play that "eurotrash" bollocks. All i have to say is i come from the home of football, while you come from the home of obesaty..... I really think that counterattack has never played the game himself that is why he comes up with such stupid comments.
Exactly. But I guess we shouldn't be surprised that Sepp Blatter lacks the forsight and initiative to create a time machine.
i highly recommend painballing on inner city sunday league games. Imagine the fun of 22 hard nuts taking paintballs and screaming like bitches....too much fun to imagine. it hurts when u get shot...i took one on my jaw...sneaky buger sneaked under my mask...theres me with 4 stitches.... got the b@stard back like...i hit him with my gun...lol
Bottom line, I think it's fair to say (And this is a good thing) You're ***************ty ideas will never ever EVER EVER come into play no matter what nation you slag off on this fourm and we can all sleep easier knowing that. If putting 5 strikers against 2 defenders is fairer then one player against one goalkeeper from 12 yards out then we can all just give up.
This REALLY is really a brilliant idea…!!!! It’s too bad you’re such a moron and have no respect for the game or it’s history. If you did you would know that the reason for the penalty shoot out was TO GET AWAY FROM THIS…your outdated version of how you would end a tied game. If you ever took the time to read before you posted, you foul mouthed bag of snot, you’d have read a post that informed you of this. So once more just for you…. Try and concentrate between sniffs at the contact cement. Games WERE played 90 minutes and then replayed a couple of days later, and a couple of days after that until they had a winner. Liverpool and FC Cologne played 5 and a half hours of football and finally had to end the tie (A European Cup qtr final) with A COIN TOSS. Now isn’t that a fun way to end a match….? With teams playing a season that requires as many as 65 matches, time and the resulting injuries over the season prohibits this. Even here in the US, consider the time it would take and distances the teams would travel to complete a two, three or four game tie. Your puerile comments on how the game was played and the fantastic scores the came up with is just totally bogus. I played in the 1-2-3-5 days and the coaches knew how to drop the centerhalf back as sweep and play the inside forwards deep. You really don’t understand the game at all do you.??? You don’t know how to think for yourself and come up with a real original idea. You probably DO know how to play with yourself…WANKER.
never in the history of football has any player been restricted to noe part of the patch (bar keeper)