Yeah, you can and YOU do, but only when it suits you. You're a character @L'orange . See you in the final. Good luck to both teams. It should be fun.
That is exceptional. Higher percentage than 11.7 million in England (more accurately UK) for the other semi. I expect it was high in Sweden too.
Yes, I'm sure I let my team bias peek through (but only a peek) when it comes to referee calls, what can I say. We all do. But, as mentioned, the play WAS reviewed by VAR and no foul given. I will try to be more objective when it comes to calls in the final! It would be a tough challenge for the Dutch under the best of circumstances, and we'll see if they have enough energy for it. I absolutely do think both semis should be played on the same day--that is not even an arguable point, it has long been standard practice in sports to do so--and Extra Time should be shortened to one 15-minute period and not two, unless there is no score in the first one and thus you need a second. I do hope it's a good match--and I will not even be able to see it as I've got an unbreakable commitment for Sunday at that time.
Yep. According to mms.se there was about 2.3 million viewers in Sweden. That's roughly what their men's team get in World Cups too.
A good question on blanket acceptance of the referees calls and VAR is had that PK been called and converted and the result ended 1-0 would you be supporting it here?
My 0.02€ that doesn't address your exact question: This particular call was so marginal that yes, I would certainly have accepted my team getting a penalty kick, and I would not at all feel bad about it. At the same time, yes, the call was so marginal that I have absolutely no cause to whine about not having gotten it.
I didn't see the broadcast so have no insight into that context, but haven't heard it referred to as marginal, and wouldn't refer to it as that either. So agree to disagree once again.
Was there a reason soccer gave up on the Golden Goal? It seems like in a tournament it would be a better option and save the legs on these players. And seriously, what would be more exciting?
In my opinion, both the semifinal Brazil-USA and the final USA-Japan at WWC 2011 were indeed more exciting that a Golden Goal would have been, just because the team that went behind in the extra-time managed to come back. Seriously, what's more exciting in WWC history than Wambach's goal vs Brazil or Sawa's goal vs USA?
It was generally thought to encourage safety first football whilst the intention was the opposite. Can you imagine the controversy following a 5 minute VAR delay to a golden goal? Whichever way the decision went. Although Man City had a winning goal deep in stoppage time chalked off by VAR at home against Tottenham in the Champions League Qtr Final and took it with good grace. Tottenham advanced on away goals instead. That would have been all but a golden goal.
Hmm, I would say that I passionately hated after the 2000 Olympics, but that's probably for partisan reasons...
And Sweden fans will add Euro 2001 and WM 2003... I understand the intent behind it and all the energy-saving reasons in its favor, but for me, a come-back (or the potential for a come-back) is even better (and as much a part of the game as anything, else why not end all matches after the first goal?).
Not sure if you’re serious on that last statement. They’ve been playing for 90 minutes, have been playing game after game for weeks. It’s practical, for sure, but it’s also exciting. The game could end at any moment. It’s not like the NFL where teams take turns, this is open play. They each have a chance to grab the game and win it.
I'm not totally sure, but it seemed that there were a few reasons: 1 - Didn't really effect the matches it was used in all that much 2 - IIRC, teams played more defensively so as not to lose, rather than wanting to win 3 - It was, for all it's intended purposed, anti-climactic. For me, it was not really all that great. I remember one Euro Champ match where the winning Golden Goal was scored, and I felt "that's it?"
Hmmm. Seems like most of the arguments against Golden Goals is, “my team lost or would have lost.” [emoji196] [emoji477]️ While I’ll grant that whether it is more or less exciting is a matter of preference (e.g. a comeback in extra time doesn’t seem appreciably different or more exciting than in regular time to me, but it clearly does to some), I’d still argue for them from a practicality stance. I’m genuinely concerned the final will be a dull affair largely decided by fitness and depth.
Could be. For instance I remember my only true experience of a match decided by a golden goal goes back to the time when I was still following men's football (it's many years I don't), when France had beaten Italy in the final of the Euro championship, with a goal by Trezeguet, I guess (after a late Wiltord's goal had dragged the match to extra-time). But it's not just the dispppointment of the loser. A game terminated by the golden goal feels wrong, so anticlimatic, as someone already said. It's human nature, after a team has been hit you want them to have chance to hit back: not giving them the chance feels somehow unfair. Even at penalty shootout you always have the chance to respond to your opponent's goal. And even if my team is winning, I guess I prefer them to resist to the opponents' come back with as much grit as they can and to defend their goal, also to show that it wasn't just a random fluke: when two halves of extra-time have finished, there is more satisfaction than finishing just after a single goal. Also, it's true that most extra-times are decided by just one goal, but the few that aren't are among the most epic games I remember and I just don't want to miss them. Yesterday, I was somehow rooting for Netherlands (although I wouldn't have minded Sweden winning it, actually): well, I knew Groenen's goal most probably was ending the game, but not for a moment I wished to skip the rest of extra-time and its additional drama.
Here are my thoughts on Golden Goal: As others have said, it's honestly rather anti-climactic. A good match is suddenly over, and for goals that come out of nowhere (which is a common occurrence in matches where both teams are tired) it leaves the fans usually wanting. And the lack of an opportunity to respond is cruel. While we all know scoring a goal in soccer is hard to do, it can (as mentioned above) come out of nowhere on some odd luck, so I think that A) defending a lead or B) coming back from behind both take even more skill than simply scoring and thus make for better watching, on top of feeling fairer.
At the NT level, both teams bunkered-and-countered, and played for PKs. They kept independently coming to an unspoken consensus that the PK lottery was a better chance than trying to do in 30' tired what you already couldn't do in 90' fresh. It was a Prisoners' Dilemma writ large, and too many pairs of teams in those moments kept choosing to both betray. So it was an unsightly mix of dull and excruciating. NCAA D1 woso (and mso?) still uses golden goal, with 2x10' ETs (and a side switch), for at least the last 10 years. They call it sudden victory (not the NFL's "sudden death"). In regular season, it's a draw after ETs. (In tournaments, they go to KftPM, of course.) It doesn't make a visible difference in how D1 woso teams play, because generally they've already shown that they can defend , so they both keep doing what they're doing, and both keep trying to win. I guess it's different at the NT level, where players are studs and counters are far more lethal. Inevitably, the sudden victory goal that ends somebody's season (or college career) isn't a brilliantly worked combo, but just one bad bounce somewhere, bing pow done. So we learn to cross into mayhem, and hope for a wacky bounce to land at your foot before it lands at theirs. That's not so aesthetic, either, but it's what has advanced, fairly consistently over the ~10 years I've been watching. Case in point: Watch Groenen's 1ET goal again (but focus away from Groenen). van de Donk passes toward Miedema, Sembrant reaches around and pokes ball away -- directly into Groenen's stride, one touch, shot, goal. Watch Sembrant double-facepalm as she realizes her assist was so perfect, it's basically an own-alley-oop for dunk goal. Think of the match ending right there, and having that be ... a legacy. Instead, Sweden still had 21' +1' +2' to respond, and they put some good pressure on. Netherlands had to back up that one "lucky" pass by demonstrating the proper defense, and they did it. That feels ... more worthy, and more complete. It was better to watch, and leaves better memories for both sides.