Show me a scientific study that such correlations actually exist for elite athletes in a statistically significant manner, and then we have a starting point for that conversation.
Absent that, it’s all just stereotyping, guesswork, myth making, and false pattern identification, the last of which is a major weakness of the human brain. You cannot trust casual observation, instinct, and gossip in these matters.
absolutely! Another thing to keep in mind is that the national sides are continually evolving. The last dutch pk shootout that we lost is over a decade ago, and none of those players are on the national team anymore. Why would the experience of a previous generation be all that indicative of how new payers are going to react?
Robben still is, but most of the others are gone yup
As you just did with your previous claim?
Robben never lost a shoot out with the Netherlands; he scored the deciding one against Sweden in 2004. He wasn’t part of the team in 2000.
The claim is that there is some significant correlation over long periods of time between nationality and performance/habits/style/ability/skill on the field between athletes who come from geographically close advanced economy European countries, independent of personal individual experiences. My position is nothing more than skepticism of that claim.
Right you are. I didnt read the part where you said we lost on PK’s.
Still though, we are no Germany when it comes to penalties 
Hang on, you said
sounds like something rather more advance than “skepticism”. Sounds like a specific claim to me.
Personally I suspect you are right but I’ve no idea how you’d go about proving it. I also suspect that differences between countries may also play a part.
What is absolutely true is that, over history, geographically close neighbours have evolved different ways of playing and have very different ways of developing young players with very different emphasis on the skill sets required to play in that way.
It may not be true to say “Germans are pragmatic and methodical and therefore are better suited to penalty taking” but it may be true to say that " the German football association dictates that young players are coached, drilled and developed in a way that is distinct from their neighbours" and I have no problem entertaining the possibility that such preparation may leave they players better prepared in a particular area of the game.
A good reference work for this would be “inverting the pyramid” by Jonathan Wilson.
You have absolutely no way of knowing that, and I think perpetuating this sort of nonsense is nothing short of treason. The fact is, we have not lost a PK shootout in over a decade; indeed, over that period, we’ve only been in one shootout, which we won. There’s no evidence as to how the Dutch side would perform if you placed them in that position.
Statistically speaking I am right. Germany has a 71% record when it comes to penalties in major tournaments. Holland have a paltry 20% record
Of all the big football nations we are second worst, only England has a shittier record then us
See here: penaltyshootouts.co.uk
You have just dismissed basically all of sports journalism. This cannot stand.
:D;)
So what? That statistic is completely meaningless. Why would this record affect the current players, when most of them have never been in a PK shootout?
For one thing: all these players remember the agony of losing on penalties in three tournaments in a row. They know the Dutch national team is seen as a team that sucks at penalties, etc.
Not saying this will actually happen, but it is at least possible these kind of things will have an effect on the confidence level of the players in a penalty shoot out. Just like it is a sure thing that I’ll be hiding under a desk if we ever have to go through all that again.
That is very specious reasoning to say the least. Treasonous, also, you’re lack of faith is very disturbing. Why would that memory necessarily make them worse, when it can also inspire them to train harder? Why would knowing that other people have fallacious beliefs about the Dutch national team based on a record from the past that none of the current players have any part in cause those current players to perform any different? It’s almost as though you want to believe they’ll do poorly in spite of actual arguments to the contrary.
Yeah, pretty much. I love my Oranje team to death, but we suck at penalties, thats just a fact
I have a group of Dutch friends here in Toronto who we all go to bars with whenever the world cup games are on. One guy automatically leaves whenever it ends up in penalties…LOL. He doesnt even bother to stick around
Back on the OP, while I lean towards the “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” side, I think even many long-standing soccer fans wouldn’t mind seeing a slightly higher goal rate. Yes, 0-0s and 1-0s can sometimes be absorbing, but if you’re watching Match of the Day or whatever and Gary Lineker says “we have some cracking games coming up for you”, chances are he’s not talking about goalless draws. Generally speaking, the games that are remembered as classics tend to be multi-goal thrillers. Meanwhile, we have an expression “bore draw”, but no special term for a dull game that one side won. It seems to me that even among fans there is a tacit feeling that goals and definite results are desirable.
That said, I think there is too much emphasis here on knockout tournaments such as the World Cup, perhaps because that is what non-fans are most familiar with. Knockout formats are never a great way of determining who is the best team, which is why the big league tournaments have so much prestige. And draws are not a problem in a league format.
Isn’t the F.A. Cup a knockout tournament? I was under the impression that that was the most prestigious.
No, not by a long way. It is perhaps the most prestigious of the knock-out cups across Europe but it isn’t as sought-after as the League title and the European Cup (AKA Champions League trophy).
It has a romance and history about it probably because it is a pure, unseeded knock-out and that format throws up many wonderful stories of giant-killing. Nobody for a second thinks it tells you who the best team is overall.
When every game is a classic, then no game is a classic.
You lot just don’t get it do you. Goals in themselves are not exciting, they are just a ball going into a net after all, what is important is the context and what the goal means. Making it easier to score just makes every goal mean less and how the hell can anybody see that as a good thing?
Exactly. The excitement of the game is how it is played, how strategy and athleticism unfold on the pitch. Goals in themselves can be thrilling, but only in the context of what led to them, e.g. an exciting counter-attack, or a probing but determined deconstruction of an opponent’s defense. Focusing on scoring is not primarily what soccer is about. Soccer is realized like poetry, real-time chess.
If you want a game with tons of scoring, go watch basketball, where scoring the whole game is often basically meaningless up until the last minute and a half. (I say this as a fan of basketball.)
This is why these attempts at criticism from semi- or non-fans in the U.S. about soccer being low scoring are met with dismissal by people who really understand and appreciate the game. By which I mean, an overwhelming majority of sports fans worldwide.