Football Talk 2006/2007 Season

[punky]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Tbh I was only talking about the final so any team that reaches the final should be pretty acclimatised, imo international tournements like the World, European (and it's equivalents) Cups are to important to have the winner decided in such a way.

4 weeks of aclimatisation cannot compete with 30 years.

Although it isn't such an issue in European matches (although it was commented on in Germany), my other points still stand for local matches.


How is that any different to having a couple of decent penalty takers on the bench to bring on at the end of extra time, tbh I don't really have a problem with either, substituions are part of the game.[/QUOTE]

[gazzae]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Tbh I was only talking about the final so any team that reaches the final should be pretty acclimatised, imo international tournements like the World, European (and it's equivalents) Cups are to important to have the winner decided in such a way.

---------- Post added at 11:19 ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 ----------



How is that any different to having a couple of decent penalty takers on the bench to bring on at the end of extra time, tbh I don't really have a problem with either, substituions are part of the game.

Its still a lottery.

What if the best team loses the final because they had to play 300 minutes of football in the semi final whereas a poorer team only played 90?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by gazzae

Its still a lottery.

What if the best team loses the final because they had to play 300 minutes of football in the semi final whereas a poorer team only played 90?

I did say that it should only be used for the final of major competitions (World Cup European Cup African Nations etc) and I also pointed out reasons why I thought it was fairer than the current format earlier.

[gazzae]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I did say that it should only be used for the final of major competitions (World Cup European Cup African Nations etc) and I also pointed out reasons why I thought it was fairer than the current format earlier.

Why only the final? If its the fairest way to settle games then why not at every stage?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by punky

4 weeks of aclimatisation cannot compete with 30 years.

Although it isn't such an issue in European matches (although it was commented on in Germany), my other points still stand for local matches.


How is that any different to having a couple of decent penalty takers on the bench to bring on at the end of extra time, tbh I don't really have a problem with either, substituions are part of the game.

I don't really care about domestic football with regard to this tbh, if the leagues and UAFA want to come up with something then fair play to them for trying to be innovative, for a start I am not sure how they could implement it, for instance if Liverpool had reached the European Cup final this year they would have played the FA cup final three or four days before and that could have gone on for quite a while.

---------- Post added at 11:49 ---------- Previous post was at 11:42 ----------

Originally Posted by gazzae

Why only the final? If its the fairest way to settle games then why not at every stage?

Because the World Cup winner is not decided at the second round stage, I am sure people will come up with all sorts of nonsense about the potential winner going out on penalties earlier in the competition but at the end of the day there is only one World Cup final and it should not be decided in this fashion, this is what we hold up as being best about the sport, what inspires youngsters to play the game and imo we devalue it by deciding it on penalties.

[sherer]

just to clarify i wasn't alking abut having a match last for 300 minutes.. i was talking about ending a match after ET and then replaying the match either in the next few days or the next day if possible. that would give people time to recover, maybe not as much as they would like but it would give them some time

if footballers in the 60s could do this and they weren't as fit as today's players then i'm sure we could do this now

[gazzae]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Because the World Cup winner is not decided at the second round stage, I am sure people will come up with all sorts of nonsense about the potential winner going out on penalties earlier in the competition but at the end of the day there is only one World Cup final and it should not be decided in this fashion, this is what we hold up as being best about the sport, what inspires youngsters to play the game and imo we devalue it by deciding it on penalties.

OK.

Punky raised a good point earlier. Goalies are going to get less tired than outfield players. Do you not think that the longer the game goes on, the chances of a goal goes down?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by gazzae

OK.

Punky raised a good point earlier. Goalies are going to get less tired than outfield players. Do you not think that the longer the game goes on, the chances of a goal goes down?

I would say that with everyone being pretty tired the chances of scoring are increased and whilst it is fair to say that the goalkeeper might not be physically tired, I would bet he is mentally and his concentration is flagging.

I think the real point here is that teams would try harder to win the match in ordinary time

[gazzae]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I think the real point here is that teams would try harder to win the match in ordinary time

But if pens are as big a lottery as you say then they would already?

Though, if penalties are a lottery how come the Germans are so good? Their last loss in a penalty shootout was in 1976!

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by gazzae

But if pens are as big a lottery as you say then they would already?

Yet, if penalties are a lottery how come the Germans are so good? Their last loss in a penalty shootout was in 1976!

Penalties are 50/ 50 literally, to be the best at your profession you need to be confident, almost every single player would fancy their chances from the penalty spot, which is why some people believe that if you asked a team in a final if they would take penalties the majority would say yes.

The Germans do have a remarkable record but if they were that confident why don't they play for penalties? I have seen occasions when they have been lucky to get penalties but I don't recall them ever playing for them, even when they have been in decline they don't. Sports psychologists would tell us that taking penalties is all about focusing, confidence and self belief maybe the German footballer has these qualities in abundance.

You talk of lotteries, but sport in general is a lottery, what I feel we have to do though is find a way to get the best result for the game and whilst it is impractical to do this for every game we should at least be able to do it for the sport's showpiece.

In some ways I would say that the goalden goal is more of a lottery than penalties as it could come down to a simple mistake in injury time, or to look at it another way the fear of going into extra time may inspire the players in normal time and I still think it is a better way to decide who is World Champions.

[gazzae]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

The Germans do have a remarkable record but if they were that confident why don't they play for penalties? I have seen occasions when they have been lucky to get penalties but I don't recall them ever playing for them, even when they have been in decline they don't.

If they are good enough to win the game in 90 minutes why would they?

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Sports psychologists would tell us that taking penalties is all about focusing, confidence and self belief maybe the German footballer has these qualities in abundance.

I'm sure the Germans do.

Compare Germany with Englands record in WC and Euro Shootouts.

Germany Won 5 Lost 1
England Won 1 Lost 5

Doesn't look 50/50 to me, looks like something the Germans are good at and the English aren't

Yes I'm sure most footballers are great at pens when there is no pressure, but composure is just as important as his first touch. So why should we get rid of them just cause some players can't cope with the pressure.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

You talk of lotteries, but sport in general is a lottery, what I feel we have to do though is find a way to get the best result for the game and whilst it is impractical to do this for every game we should at least be able to do it for the sport's showpiece.

I only talk of lotteries as you first brought up penalties being lotteries.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

In some ways I would say that the goalden goal is more of a lottery than penalties as it could come down to a simple mistake in injury time, or to look at it another way the fear of going into extra time may inspire the players in normal time and I still think it is a better way to decide who is World Champions

Or the fear of making a mistake might make for cautious games, esp in golden goal time.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by gazzae

If they are good enough to win the game in 90 minutes why would they?

So why should we get rid of them just cause some players can't cope with the pressure.
I only talk of lotteries as you first brought up penalties being lotteries.

Or the fear of making a mistake might make for cautious games, esp in golden goal time.

Penalties are a lottery, the team that holds their nerve best wins and that is not what football is about, when you look in the record books it doesn't say Brazil won the 1994 World Cup it say's Brazil won the 1994 World Cup on pens, it's a sham that the pinnacal of footballing achievement is settled in such a way.

I certainly don't think teams would be cautious in normal time if they had goalden goal extra time, extra time these days is pretty much a complete waste of time, hardly anything ever happens and nobody does anything except wait for penalties.

[gazzae]

And neither is waiting until exhaustion gifts a team a goal.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by gazzae

And neither is waiting until exhaustion gifts a team a goal.

That might be the case in extra time, rather than let that happen though don't you think they might actually try and win it honourably, don't forget it could just as easily be either team that 'gifts' the opposition a goal if they wait for exhaustion to set in, better to go for it.

[gazzae]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

That might be the case in extra time, rather than let that happen though don't you think they might actually try and win it honourably, don't forget it could just as easily be either team that 'gifts' the opposition a goal if they wait for exhaustion to set in, better to go for it.

So you don't think its possible for two teams to go for it for 120 minutes and still end in a draw?