I didn’t think this thread was about eliminating tie-break procedures as much as finding a better way than a penalty shootout.
the rare event is happening again now in the Euro tourney
And displays why PK are far from a coin toss since they are also about pressure, just look at the number of top names like Mueller, Pelle, the Pig rider, et al who collapsed.
I do agree that tournament finals should not have PKs. Maybe a 30 minute ET, followed by an unlimited sudden death match.
Two of the last three WC finals have been settled in ET, so I don’t doubt players will eventually score.
Here’s a possibility.
If it is a draw after ET, the team that forced the most number of corners goes through.
They are as good a metric for attacking play as anything else and easy enough to keep track of. It would certainly change the approach of those willing to “park the bus” and hope for penalties.
This strikes me as a flaw, not a feature.
Anything that changes the way the game is played is strictly worse than shoot-outs simply by virtue of that fact. Even teams that don’t normally “park the bus” may change their tactics in service to this tiebreaker.
But even if changing the game like this were desired, wouldn’t it pretty much ruin the late minutes of tie games? Wouldn’t both teams just go nuts forcing corner kicks? (Or is that not possible? I don’t really know soccer.)
As it stands, the teams already adapt their style of play for the current form of tie-breaker, it just so happens that it tends to be an adaptation to defensive football.
I’m not sure if that would count as “ruining” the game. They would both be seeking to attack. The team that thinks it is ahead on corners wouldn’t want to park the bus as that increases the risk of corners for the opposition.
I don’t suggest any changes to game itself, merely an artificial inducement. Just like when you play a two-leg knock-out tie, home and away. In the event of a tied aggregate score then the team with most away goals goes through. That is just as artifical as corners and definitely does provide incentives for teams to attack.
I’m not sure I follow. How do teams adapt their game to penalty kick shoot-outs?
Agreed about that also being artificial, but at least it has the virtue of being based on goals.
The game is level, 10 minutes to go in extra time, teams rarely push hard for a winner in such circumstances and can often settle for the 50/50 chance that is a penalty shoot out.
By setting up your playing style not to lose, you get the chance to win via a shoot-out.
well it is based on the ball going in the net but it isn’t a goal.
I’m not against the shoot-out in principle, the deadlock has to be broken and an arbitrary decision has been taken that this is one way and it is related to a footballing skill. I’m also not precious about it either. If a better way can be found that encourages positive rather than negative play then it is at least worth a try.
That’s not adapting their style for PKs, specifically, just for knowing that if they’re tied after extra time, then there will be a further competition to determine who advances. Whereas, with the idea someone proposed above about counting corner kicks, they would actually be playing very differently, doing things that were not part of their normal score-more-goals-than-the-opponents soccer strategies.
In any case, I continue to endorse the idea of determining who wins a tie BEFORE extra time, so both teams in extra time know who it is. The most exciting soccer is usually when one team is ahead. With a known tie-breaker, one team is ALWAYS ahead.
The point is, if a team knows there will be PK’s they don’t necessarily have a “score-more-goals-than-the-opposition” mentality. How is that not adapting your style of play?
That is an option as well. It tips the balance in favour of attacking play by one team at least. But surely that means teams adapting their style of play?
Which means the game is always warped. One team always has an incentive to play extra-cautiously.
This is even worse than the present arrangement!
Both of the last two World Cup finals have been decided by goals in the last 10 minutes of extra time. In the 116th and 113th minute respectively. I like PK’s, its still a question of skill and nerve, while corners are a fluke statistic and will see teams keep the ball in the middle.
The one change I would make is making them an actual PK’s with permission to take kicks on the rebound and other team members up front. Replace the 5 kicks with sudden death.
In the vast majority of soccer games ever played, you are trying to score more goals than your opponents, and a draw is better than losing.
That is still the case in extra time leading up to PKs.
I think we’re getting off on a bit of a nitpick about “adapting their style of play”, and what precisely that means.
If 5 minutes are left in regular time, and one team is ahead 1-0, the behind team will be attacking all out, and the ahead team will be defending for dear life. This often leads to extremely exciting soccer.
This is exactly what will happen in extra time with both teams already knowing who owns the tiebreaker.
So arguably it transplants a playing style from a different phase of a soccer game, but it certainly does not do something like directly reward teams for winning corner kicks, or for possessing the ball in the opponent’s half, or other such suggestions. (Not that I automatically think such ideas are terrible, but they much more clearly would warp playing styles, to the extent that that’s a bad thing.)
In practice, one team playing extra-cautiously is more than balanced out by the other team playing full out attacking, because they can’t afford caution. At least in my opinion, and my experience watching soccer. You tune into the world cup final with 5 minutes left in regulation. Which is more likely to yield compelling soccer… a score of 1-1 or a score of 1-0?
Avoid ties.
Count shots that score from outside the penalty area as 3.
Count shots that score inside the penalty area as 2.
Count shots that hit the post as 1.
What prevents the team who knows they are going to win from linking arms in front of goal and preventing any shots going in at all?
The same thing that prevents teams from doing that when they’re up 1-0 in regulation with 5 minutes to play… namely, the fact that that wouldn’t work at all.
But you want to see this, not in the waning minutes, but from the first. You want to set up a situation where one team’s best strategy may be to never attack.
Ok, so I was being a bit glib, but honestly do you want to watch 30 minutes of football where the ideal play is 2 tight lines of 5 in the box and every time a player from the winning team gets close they boot it long for a goal kick. As long as everyone stays in the box and doesn’t try to score the chances of the opposing team doing anything are effectively nil. There are several managers of mid table teams who do this quite effectively in the epl. They just wait to score first.
If this stratagem were anywhere near as effective as you claim it is, Iceland would not have been four goals down against France by half-time. The chances of scoring are very, very far from from “effectively nil” if possession is conceded entirely and build-up play not interfered with in any way presuming opposition that is, say, at the very least marginally more competent than the English national team.