That would essentially make a draw worth 1.5 points (roughly 50-50 shot at 3) instead of 1 and would create more incentive for weaker teams to park the bus against stronger ones in league or group-stage games, not less. I wouldn't mind seeing a PK shootout after 90 for international friendlies but for league and group games, draws are a necessary evil. If it were up to me I'd also do away with the shootout altogether for tournament finals, if neither team has to play again then keep going until someone scores.
90 minutes and penalties, 1 point per win, period. Nobody wants to see more Mourinhos and their coward tactics.
90 minutes and penalties isn't going to stop teams from bunkering. If anything it guarantees them they won't have to go to extra time.
People are acting like Arena got a really unlikely result by out-coaching his opponent, which he did. I don't know why you are so invested in Osorio, but he sure got his ass out-coached the other day. Give Arena his due.
It was a good result but it was a tie, come one man, what am I supposed to do? Run around the neighborhood celebrating a tie?
They get a point for a draw, that's why they play to tie, let's if they get zero points how many of them play to tie...
Well, for one, our talent pool could be the best we've ever had, depth-wise, but is still not Top 16, so getting to a R16 game anywhere is punching above our weight. Second, Bruce is only a bit better than Bradley/Klinsmann. However, with our pool, it'd make little sense to bring in a top coach. Can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. That's why paying through the nose for a top coach (or one who purports to be a top coach) is silly. If anything, bring an expert (real one, not one who takes credit for the work of a dozen other people) to help develop the program from the ground up, not as a coach but as a technical director solely, focused on a long-term mission, not getting results --and independent from the NT coach.
In which case teams will play for a draw so they can lose in pens and manager can say, "oh well those are the breaks, we played them straight up for 120 (he didn't), what can you do?"
[QUOhillyandBCEagles, post: 35568030, member: 208785"]Well for one there's a small sample size. We've only ever played in 10 WC games in Europe, and the only European WCs since the formation of MLS were in 1998 and 2006.[/QUOTE] actually I think that's 9matches, with 2 against Italy and 1 against Germany that we wouldn't expect to even draw (though we did draw Italy). As for the remaining six, the European teams get a big home field advantage because their fans can get there easily. So the two games against the Czechs, one against Austria and one against Yugoslavia would be tricky. That leaves a pair of 2-1 defeats to Iran and Ghana, both ok teams.
That's terrible. A draw is a draw. At most play an overtime, but frankly penalties are probably the stupidest way to determine a "winner". I can't believe anyone wants that.
If you actually understood the sport, absolutely. Keep watching. You'll get the hang of it eventually
I think penalties are better than a draw, much more exciting for 0-0 games and once on penalties you have 50-50 chances so you may as well try to win in 90 mins. 90 mins and penalties, no over time. If it was my decision, id started tomorrow.
Except in your system (90+PKs, 1 point for a win, 0 for a loss) you don't really get 0 points for a "draw" (ie going to PKs) from a strategic/game theory point of view, you whatever you assess your probability of winning a PK shootout against a given opponent to be (which realistically at the pro/WC level isn't drastically different from a coin flip). As long as you believe you have at least a 1 in 3 chance of winning the PK shootout, you have more incentive to play for a draw under these rules than you do under 3-1-0. Think of it like playing pot odds in poker--if you estimate that you only have a 20% chance to win a given hand but the bet you need to call to stay in is less than 20% of what's already in the pot, the right decision is to call the bet even though you're unlikely to win the hand. Going to 90+PKs with no draws will lead to far more teams playing for a tie score after 90, not fewer. At least under the current system weaker teams have an incentive (2 additional points) to play for a win, under the one you propose they have absolutely no incentive to do anything other than bunker and play for PKs.
We also had the one game in 1934 (got smoked by Italy). But yeah, 9 in the modern era, 6 of which were post-MLS. Although by most accounts we actually had the home field advantage for the 2006 game that was in Kaiserslautern (Italy?).
One week later i still think the same, we needed open wide the field and we couldn't, we missed a lot Tecatito. USA parked the plane at the center of the box, i don't know how Peralta could help in that zone where he usually plays. Gallardo did what he wanted by the left wing but he couldn't connect a good crossing, he was a key player but needs a lot of practice with his left foot.
They will be forced to come up with a better tactic than just sitting back waiting for a miracle tie. I think is a good idea, the heck with 0-0 ties and Mourinho coward coaches.
That's if you're of the opinion our pool won't improve in the next cycle. If that were the case, it brings up a helluva lot of questions of just what it is we're doing. I'm however of the opinion we are going to see a number of these youth break thru in top leagues over the next few years and therefor need a coach capable of true positive tactics, not bunker ball. Legit high level movement and link play. I don't want our NT to become and/or stay a dumbed down version of our players' club levels.
The incredibly bad format FIFA has chosen for the WC in 2026 leaves them little choice because of collusion issues. Only FIFA could screw up the near perfection that was the 32 team format.