FIFA’s president now feels that World Cup finals should not be decided on penalty kicks. Am I the only person who thinks a PSO is just fine? Sepp Blatter feels it is a tragedy:
‘When it comes to the World Cup final it is passion, and when it goes to extra time it is a drama,’ the head of world football’s governing body said in an earlier speech. ‘But when it comes to penalty kicks it is a tragedy.
‘Football is a team sport and penalties is not a team, it is the individual.’
Well, the teams had 2 hours to try and decide a winner and didn’t. At that point you sort of need to reach a conclusion. I personally thought the PSO in this year’s World Cup was filled with plenty of drama. Buffon vs Barthez. After a hard fought match it all comes down to the keepers.
I know I’m probably in the minority, but I have no problem with deciding a match on penalties. If you’ve played for two hours and you still can’t break the tie – it’s time to shoot.
That said – I think an extra sub for overtime would be a welcome addition. (HT My Soccer Blog)
Loading...
September 27th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
I don’t like ’em. I’ve seen some people propose going on with more overtimes, and allowing extra subs during each overtime. I don’t know what kinds of other solutions have been considered in the past. But I don’t like kicks from the penalty mark. It’s such an anti-climax and IMO shouldn’t count as a real victory. If you can’t win it on the field… you shouldn’t get the trophy.
September 27th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
I’ve heard all sorts of ideas, but in the end, after 2 hours if you can’t determine a winner, there’s something to be said to turn the result over to the shooters and keepers and getting some type of result. Of course you could force the teams to sub everyone and leave it up to the bench 🙂 I’m not sure you can even come up with a method to break a tie that everyone would be comfortable with.
But I must be weird – because I think PSOs are high drama, intense, and exciting. Yeah, Italy won – I hate that. But I don’t discount their win just because it was on penalties.
September 27th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
I didn’t think it felt real when Brazil won on penalties in 1994 either. And, I don’t know… I think if you change the way ties are decided, you change the way the game is played. You change everything. What if it’s something not as highly specialized and luck-based? Then the team who’s being outplayed hasn’t got an incentive to just bunker and hope for the best – they know they’re going ot have to come up with something. What if both teams know they’re darn well going to have to keep at it until there’s a result? Then nobody will want to play for a tie. That’s not to say there will never /be/ ties but it will change how the game is played, for the better.
September 28th, 2006 at 9:31 am
I’d like to take a page out of the NHL playbook. The first extra time session should be played 10 v. 10, the second 9 v. 9. Keep going 15 minutes at a time, reducing a player from each team. This will open up play considerably, particularly as teams tire.
Add an extra sub each period if you need to and that will really rev things up as the game goes on. I can’t imagine too many 7 v. 7 matches wouldn’t find a goal 🙂
September 28th, 2006 at 9:38 am
Actually if you want to appeal to the NHL segment for new fans, we could settle ties ‘Zidane Style’ Last one standing wins. Could be fun to watch! 🙂
JOKE!
September 28th, 2006 at 9:51 am
Hm, the trouble with that, Jarrett, is they’re already exhausted, and playing with fewer people means everyone has to run more.
September 28th, 2006 at 11:42 am
Well, a team that’s running too much usually isn’t passing very well 🙂
But I agree that the players would be exhausted and the level of play much lower. I doubt the extended overtimes would be very exciting, even if they were allowed one extra sub.