No, I’m saying that winning that first game, in virtually all cases, isn’t going to be a fluke, because such a radical set of terms is going to change the way the good teams approach the matter. Consider how you’d actually manage a team if those really were the (granted, stupid) terms–wouldn’t you do your damndest to make sure you won that first game, before you got to the flip? Wouldn’t you be planning and structuring everything you did, long before that day, to that end?
You’re the one with the truly weird notion here–that there’s some kind of abstract quality of “the better soccer team” or “the best baseball team” that can’t be measured by actually playing soccer or baseball games. What the hell is it, then? How can anybody ever know?
Thank you for your wonderful contribution. We are not going to settle anything if everyone has a different definition of choking, to me it has always meant giving away a game you already had won by your own mistakes rather than by the opposition playing well. The U.S. had the game won, their own mistakes cost them the game, mainly missing three pks which can be laid entirely on their own players. This is is a textbook case of my own definition of choking, others might differ.
Bryant Gumbel closed his Real Sports show by saying if the women want to be treated like sports equals, they should be able to face facts. If a mans team had done what the women did, they would likely have a coach fired and the team creamed in the press for choking. A huge team shakeup would have occurred. If women want sports equality, then they should not be treated with kid gloves.
I have to say that I’m surprised at the attitudes in this thread. It would never have occurred to me to describe that performance as “choking”. Being one goal ahead does not mean that a team “has the game won”, and it is not particularly unusual to screw up a penalty shootout like that. It happens to all teams from time to time (well, except the Germans ;)).
I can only conclude that either “choke” means something else on the other side of the Atlantic, or people are overreacting because they confidently expected the US to win. As others on this side of the pond have said, this loss doesn’t even register on the choke-ometer. A choke is when you’re 3-0 up and fail to win. Ask Arsenal fans about choking.
I think you’re on to something with the second paragraph, which is similar to what I was saying when I mentioned the common usage of phrases like “failed to convert chances” and then gave the Man Utd - Bayern Munich game as an example of a proper choke. Letting in a late goal? That’s not choking, that’s football.
I hadn’t looked at this thread since starting it, but one thing is clear… my initial assumption has proven to be wrong. I was basing my comments on the excessive cheerleading that ESPN and most sportscasters engaged in on Sunday.
SINCE then, I’ve seen and heard far more criticism of the women’s soccer squad than I expected, far more than I’d ever heard before. And yes, “choking” has come up semi-regularly.
That’s no fun for the women on the team, but perhaps they should appreciate that this means… to some extent, they’ve arrived. They’ve raised the bar, and will no longer be considered just a feel-good story, win or lose.
It’s not dependent on outside opinion, though. It either happens or doesn’t, according whatever that person’s own subjective views of their situation. A rookie can choke in pre-season. You can choke in an otherwise unimportant game trying to impress someone on the other team or someone in the stands.
I’m surprised some people think choking can only happen if your team is viewed as better by others, or during the closing moments of a game. It’s not like choking is something only those in some sort of competition do. If you’ve ever tried to a woo a girl or go to a job interview and you stumbled over your words or forgot something simple then congrats, you choked. Stage fright can be one continuous choke.
It was sort of forgotten given that they made the final, in part due to a hell of a game against Brazil, but this was arguabnly the WEAKEST squad the U.S. has sent to the Women’s World Cup. It was, if my recollection is correct, the first time at the World Cup that the U.S. failed to win their own qualification group.
Going into the Cup, the USA was ranked #1, but Japan was #4, hardly a huge underdog, and that was before the USA had far more trouble getting out of the first round than anyone would have expected.
So really, you can’t say they were any sort of overwhelming favourite. Any assessment of them that claims they “choked” amounts to giving up two leads, but
A goal scored in the 84th minute is no more or less remarkable or meaningful than one scored in the 4th, and
While the penalty kicking was pretty bad, bear in mind that that amounts to failure by THREE people, not the team. And you’d expect to miss one our of four kicks just by chance. So basically the claim that it’s the PK where they choked amounts to saying that one opr two women choked on a kick, not that he team choked. You can’t blame the women who were watching the penalty kick phase for missing those kicks.
So what we have here is a team that really should not have been considered a huge favourite, who got to the final in part because of a remarkably performance in a previous game against a terrific opponents, being called “chokers” because of two bad kicks. I don’t buy it.
You’re the first person I’ve heard who seems to feel that the PK shootout is a satisfactory way to determine a match. FIFA realizes that something as random as a PK shootout is a silly way to determine a victor.
As the sport gets bigger and television money is so important it becomes increasingly difficult to organise replays, which is how football matches used to be decided if there was a draw. Take England’s FA Cup Final as an example. In this list, games that go to extra time have a (*), games that subsequently have a replay have an (R) and games one on a penalty shootout have a †.
All three finals between 1981 and 1983 went to replays. The first ever final to be won by penalties was in 2005. As the article states, a penalty shootout was only brought in as a possibility in 1999.
Apparently in the men’s World Cup the first ever penalty shootout was in 1982.
As was stated upthread, what do you mean by choke?
The question “Did Japan win or US lose?” gets at a slightly different question and it is a definite US loss. Specifically, the lapse of trying to pass in front of their own goal instead.
I think of choking as a more mental failure, due to the pressure of the big stage and would not use that term for the US team. I think it is vastly over-used in sports.
Without offering an opinion as to how it would apply, there can be a big significance between being the best team and being the team that won the game (tournament, championship, etc.) The fewer contested actions, the better the chance for the weaker team. That is I have a much better chance of winning a closest to the pin on a single hole versus Tiger Woods than winning a tournament, round or even total score on a hole. The shoot-out is the current rule but that “fewer contested actions” is the reason some sports fans don’t like it. Also, it usually comes down to the goalie guessing which way to jump, not how well they jump or how well the other player kicks.
One idea I like is to have a penalty shootout at the start of every knockout game. The game is then played normally, with the penalties winner winning the game if it’s tied after full time and after extra time.
I’m not sure how this would affect in-game strategy - maybe having won the penalties would give too big an incentive to play for a draw. However, one interesting effect is that the game is never really tied, so there’s never a situation where both teams are happy to play cautiously.
Some low scoring games like soccer might have endless overtime if you played sudden death. How many would stick around for 6 or 7 hours of soccer with players getting more and more tired and the game getting sloppier and sloppier?
A shootout is designed to prevent that. The Longest Games in NHL History Stanley Cup Overtimes Hockey has similar scoring. these are the longest games played. Six overtime periods sound like a good way to spend a day?
With due respect, no, it’s not a relevant example. The claim made was that FIFA considers penalty kicks a “silly” way to determine the outcome of a game. The FA Cup is not a FIFA event.
FIFA has used penalty kicks to determine matches since 1966. If they think it’s silly they sure have tolerated it for a long time.
The US team dominated the field and moved the ball around the Japanese team successfully. But when they got to the important part, putting the shots on goal, they failed miserably. That is the pressure spot. That is where games are won and lost. They had 27 shots and put 5 on the net. That is failure and choking.
I’m not in to soccer, but the sports fan in me dislikes changing the game to detirmine a winner (inknockout games, anyway). Some ideas that spring to mind: 1) dueling corner kicks instead of penalty kicks. 2) keep playing normally, but continually reduce the number of players on each side.