How many corner kicks are there in the average game, and how many penalty kicks are there in the average game ignoring shootouts?
I also don’t see how a shootout helps a defensive team more than corner kicks. At least with corner kicks the defense gets to actually participate.
Obviously the latter are much rarer*.
Easy. A corner-kick is an offensive opportunity as are any number of set plays. A series of PKs, in theory, favors neither team. So a lesser – or catenaccio oriented team – squad would rather play the lottery and/or score on a counter than open up their play for fear they’ll get pounded.
See Spain/S Korea 2002 for a perfect example. Well, not exactly perfect as the Koreans played with thirteen – ref included. But the point remains. By taking it to the lottery the lesser team went through.
If you’d like to play with stats and so forth, this is a good place to start:
Analysis of the set-plays in the 18th football World Cup in Germany
PS-Just to be clear: that a team wins with a defensive style does not automatically mean they are the inferior squad. In fact many an Italian side has won through their stellar defensive play…it might not be aesthetically pleasing to some/many of us, but it’s not only perfectly legal, it has a huge following – coaches and fans alike – of its own.
If you said it was cultural, I’d tend to agree. But in the end success is what determines the validity of any system over the other and in football’s capitalist Mecca (Europe) that’s what counts. Which is why I am a huge fan of tiki-taka.
I don’t follow.
What is a defensive team?
For the record, I totally disagree that such a scheme would favor offensive play or offensively-geared sides. I think quite the opposite.
And to the specific example of Italy (the Azzurri, for those scoring at home), I’d argue that they’d be delighted to take a match to corner kicks rather than PKs, for the simple fact that a technically sound team like Italy very often gets its goals from set pieces and corners rather than out of the flow of the game, and is well accustomed to weathering the pressure on defense. You could very easily argue, I think, that a team with a stiff defense and a more opportunistic, counter-attacking approach would benefit from going to corners more than a team that is used to a productive and flowing offensive approach.
One that willingly gives up possession as opposed to one that doesn’t. In simplified form anyway.
Football is rather intricate. And I say that with all due respect as I am not trying to put down your ideas but rather bring you into the game as it is played. No if or buts.
Whether FIFA will agree to revolutionize the game is really not an option seeing the incredible success it enjoys – most popular (caveat emptor*) sport in the world. Other than a tinker or two (I am all for limited replays and/or a fourth assistant) the game is awesome as is. As in the world’s most watched & played sport.
*Regional sports remain just that, as I learned in a thread about “netball”…about which I had no idea.
I don’t know, it sounds fishy to me and “it’s rather intricate” isn’t very compelling. NFL football is rather intricate too, but as a fan I would have no trouble explaining the intricacies that lead me to my opinions about it.
But would your neophyte listener really understand as you discuss the differences between a spread offense and some other offensive scheme? I doubt it. 
If fairness, though, Red Fury is being a bit condescending. 
Yes, such an argument could well be made. But two counters come to mind.
1-High scoring teams are also very good in set plays, so you’d be playing strength to strength.
2-In addition to which coaches would be sure to include a couple of beanpole players in their roster (1.95 and taller) in order to use as targets for just such an occasion. Hell the opposing goalies would be in play as well. So it wouldn’t be a run of the mill type of corner kick but rather an intricate artifice. PKs, if no Golden Goal/unlimited subs allowed, still seem to me as the more direct form.
– bolding mine.
I wasn’t trying to be. Read the bolded part.
However if it still came off that way, my apologies to Ellis Dee.
Accepted. Just for the record, that kind of qualifier isn’t particularly helpful. It’s the classic “no offense but…” type of thing.
Your point #2 above seems to be contrary to the fundamental can’t-change-because-it-would-become-a-different-sport idea of severely restricting substitutions. It’s three per game, right? If it is, does that mean you can’t use your handful of precious substitutions because you want to be able to sub in some beanpoles during the corner kick shootout? Even if you want to do that, it hardly strikes me as an easy or even particularly effective way to game the system.
Quite possibly not. However, if they were making a good faith effort to come up with an alternative to the NFL’s sudden death overtime format that had as much thought and effort as I put into the beginning of this thread, I would either go to the trouble of explaining the nuance or not bother responding at all.
You could argue that, but by the same lights you could argue that giving up goals to a crappy team is much worse than giving up goals to a top team and failing to score against a crappy team is much worse than failing to score against a good team.
And if two teams are tied on goals-for and goals-against, then the team that’s scored more against good teams has failed to score against the bad teams, and the team that’s held good teams to fewer goals has therefore given up more goals to crappy teams.
So your proposal boils down to valuing games against good teams more than games against bad teams; why not just value wins against good teams as 3 ½ points and wins against bad teams as 2 ½ points or something?
There might be good arguments for valuing blowout goals a little less than goals in close games, but I don’t see any particular reason to value games against good teams more than games against bad teams.
This is what my idea does. (Assuming we agree that “good teams” and “bad teams” are decided in the current tournament, as opposed to pre-tournament seedings / power rankings or whatever.)
Yes, all that is factored in. Check out the example data results again. I mentioned that the deciding factor ended up being that Algeria let up a goal to the worst scrub, which doomed them to lose the tiebreaker.
No it doesn’t. It doesn’t weigh either more than the other. Boiled down to the bare essentials, it weighs games against outliers more heavily than games against middle of the road teams. So scoring goals against a pretty good team isn’t as helpful as letting up goals to a total scrub is hurtful. By the same token, letting up goals to a pretty bad team isn’t as hurtful as scoring on a great team is helpful.