I'm in the U.S. I know the rules of soccer from when I was a kid and follow the World Cup, but no, I'm not a huge fan. Here's my problem. I can accept that pre-final matches end in shootouts (though it would be better if they didn't), but what value is there in a shootout for the final match? You've just whittled a team sport played over several weeks down to 5 guys versus a goaltender to decide who's the best in the world. The team no longer matters.
In the Super Bowl, a tie gets decided in overtime, no matter how long. In baseball, extra innings. In hockey playoffs, extra periods. In most Grand Slam tennis matches, you don't have a tiebreaker for the final set, except for the lame U.S. Open fifth set. At least in tennis, it's always been a 1-on-1 event, so a tiebreaker does not take anyone out of the match.
Does anyone here agree that a final soccer match (including the U.S. NCAA finals) should not be decided in a shootout?
2006-07-14 02:58:18 · 6 answers · asked by Stuck in the Middle Ages 4 in Sports ➔ Football ➔ FIFA World Cup (TM)
I think any elimination games should be decided as follows:
Unlimited substitutions from non red-carded players are now in effect ...
One-minute break, drop ball, five minutes sudden death.
Each team sends off one player.
One-minute break, drop ball, five minutes sudden death.
Each team sends off one player.
Repeat as necessary until someone scores.
2006-07-14 04:18:57 · answer #1 · answered by wmp55 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree that a final decided by penalty kicks is lame, however there is the issue of endurance. The World Cup is a very demanding competition (that's why anyone older than 30 is considered 'old' to play in the World Cup) and after running for 120 minutes the players are just exhausted, they start to get cramps and just cannot run anymore.
The problem lays in modern tactics. Coaches don't want to risk getting a goal scored and they play defensively trying to hold the midfield. FIFA criticized this tendency and they are scheduling meetings with coaches to try and find ways of making the sport more offensive again so that no one has to sit through another PK definition during a World Cup final.
2006-07-14 10:43:01 · answer #2 · answered by Lumas 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, agree. Even a knockout match shouldn't end in a shoot out, it's pure luck and nerves that make the players miss the penalties. But then again I wouldn't want to watch a 5 hour long soccer game as well, and by the end of 120 minutes the players are probably deadbeat, so like I suggested on another post, they should take out the goalkeepers in extra time and maybe bring on a sub or two to liven up the game and increase goal opportunities.
2006-07-14 13:14:13 · answer #3 · answered by Aurora 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree that shootouts doesn't really tell who is the best but who was the luckiest at that moment. However, there has to be a champion and players cannot keep running indefenetly (it is inhuman). I think that a two game series (with aggregated score) would cut down in the number of games decided via penalty kicks but it will make the tournament longer.
2006-07-14 10:06:02 · answer #4 · answered by MartinPalermo 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Quite lame. I think that they should keep playing. The shootout is almost like a different game onto itself and highly unsatisfying...
2006-07-14 10:07:21 · answer #5 · answered by beautifulgamer 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you're lame and please stop asking soccer questions when you obviously know nothing about the sport.....as a true american you should stick to football and leave soccer for the intellligent people of this world
2006-07-14 15:15:11 · answer #6 · answered by fragolina7979 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋