Is ending a game on penalty kicks a true assesment of a team's superiority?

Answer 1

They might as well just flip a coin....
Actually back in the day thats how the game was decided before they came up with the penalty shootout. How lame would the world cup final be if it was decided by a coin flip...
Actually I think they should go with an overtime with no time limit and golden goal rules. First team to score a goal in overtime wins. Last night it looked like both team were just letting overtime pass so they could go to penalty shootout, my rules would make for an exciting end to the game...

Answer 2

Well, if the game ends with a tie, both teams are equal. No superiority or inferiority here. But if one team scores thanks to a PK during regulation time, and the other one scores "normally", then the team that has scored "normally" may actually be slightly "better" or the other team's defense or goalie may actually be slightly "worse".

I am Italian and therefore happy about the outcome. But honestly, France played very well and weren't inferior. They had one chance to score too. We had a better goalie, though (that save of his was superb).

PKs are just a practical way to end a match. It's a question of luck, but not entirely. The players who are more concentrated, calm, cool-blooded won't miss them. Look at a world champion like Shevchenko missing his PK against Switzerland. He sure knows how to kick a ball into a net. But he was nervous. Goalie's skills can count too -- Ricardo of Portugal did a good job in the England vs Portugal game. Buffon is a great goalie, but not at PK's. If he was, he would be God ;-)

Answer 3

I think all true soccer players as well as fans hate to see a match end with PK's. It definitely does NOT measure the better team, it does give us a winner though. I am still all for the second ball being put into play after the two fifteen minute overtimes. It would be hysterical and exciting and bring a whole new dimension to the game!

Answer 4

I see what you're saying. Still, keep the additional 15 minute halves. If nobody scores the winning goal, then add additional 10 minute overtime periods with a Golden Goal. Or instead of the additional 10 minute overtime periods with a Golden Goal, how about alternating corner kicks? First to score off of one wins.

Answer 5

no its not the true assessment of a team's superiority. its just a way to get a final result of the game. coz one team has to win. so this is like do or die situation after extra time and everything. the team's superiority is shown by the way they manage to draw the game till this situation. this shows both are at the same level.

Answer 6

No. It's a pointless way to end a sporting event. It would be like ending a tied baseball game with home run derby, or an american football game with five field goal attempts from 30 yards out... They might as well just flip a coin.

Answer 7

It was for Italy......soccer, i.e. football can become quite boring if no goals are being scored and if you go thru overtime as well, then just get it over either by penalty kicks or have the two teams fight it out like gladiators.

Answer 8

It takes guts and nerves to take penatlies, and if the teams haven't been seperated after 120 minutes then penalties is a great option. It may be cruel but it seperates the teams.

Answer 9

only fare way would be to play another game. and one team will probably lose. but if you play one mroe then the other team will probably losse. they are all good and luck is 50%.

btw france won their last two games the ultimate sissy way. PK DURING the actual regular play. their LAST 2!!! and not to mention both werent necessarily fouls. especially the one in the World Cup final.

so if you are angry about PKs. just remember that France won their last two by them.

Answer 10

Not at all - unfortunately, short of playing until somebody scores, nobody has come up with a better method of deciding it without disrupting the tournament schedule