Fútbol chatter

[JayhawkCO]

So Italy's Jorginho is a double European Champion--Champions League and Euro.

And should have been red carded as well.

Chris

[thspfc]

My Euro 2020 team of the tournament:

Starting 11
GK: Donnarumma
LB: Shaw
CB: Bonucci
CB: Chellini
RB: Walker
CMF: Pogba
CMF: Pedri
CMF: Jorginho
LW: Sterling
RW: Chiesa
CF: Schick

Subs
GKs: Sommer, Pickford
LBs: Jordi Alba, Spinazzola
CBs: Maguire, Stones
RBs: Di Lorenzo
CMFs: Wijnaldum, De Bruyne
LWs: Insigne
RWs: Forsberg
CFs: Ronaldo, Lukaku, Kane, Benzema

Sterling would be my best field player of the tournament.

Penalty kick shootouts are very exciting for fans. But the reality is, they stink. It's almost criminal to decide something that important, with so much money, legacy, happiness, and despair on the line, with just one kick of the ball. But at the same time, games need to be decided somehow. Extra time until a goal is scored (like how it is in the NHL playoffs) is not really an option, as matches can and do go for 90 minutes without a goal. The solution to this problem lies somewhere in the middle. So here's my solution: 3 attacking players start with the ball 30 yards away from the goal. Two opposing defenders start at the top of the 18 yard box, with the goalkeeper in net. From there, it's 3 vs 2. The attackers' objective is to score, the defenders' and goalkeeper's objective is to clear the ball out of bounds or out past where the attackers started with the ball. Each team gets five chances to attack, most goals wins.

[Bruce]

Or we just go with NASL/MLS style dribble penalties from 35 yards out instead.

[Alps]

The solution is a game that features nonzero scoring, like hockey.

[hotdogPi]

Outside of actual games, create a test run of 11 vs. 6 and see how long it takes for a goal to be scored on average, making sure the sample size is large enough.

Once this has been figured out, when there's a tie in a game, put that much time on the clock. Flip a coin, and the winner chooses whether they want to be the 11, who has to score, or the 6, who has to run out the clock (or score, but that would be much rarer). The next time it happens, the starting time will be adjusted by a few seconds in either direction, as the sample size has increased by 1.

This is based on this in chess (note that White has a small advantage from moving first):

If the blitz matches had failed to produce a winner, one sudden death "Armageddon" game: White receives 5 minutes and Black receives 4 minutes. Both players receive an increment of 3 seconds starting from move 61. The player who wins the drawing of lots may choose the colour. In case of a draw, the player with the black pieces is declared the winner.

[JayhawkCO]

The best way to end a tie game in tournaments is to do the penalty shootout before the extra time.  Winner of the shootout wins the tiebreak if it's still tied AET.  Makes the extra time far more interesting.

Chris

[Bruce]

The best way to end a tie game in tournaments is to do the penalty shootout before the extra time.  Winner of the shootout wins the tiebreak if it's still tied AET.  Makes the extra time far more interesting.

Chris

That sounds horrible. It takes away all the tension and makes teams park the bus even harder.

[JayhawkCO]

The best way to end a tie game in tournaments is to do the penalty shootout before the extra time.  Winner of the shootout wins the tiebreak if it's still tied AET.  Makes the extra time far more interesting.

Chris

That sounds horrible. It takes away all the tension and makes teams park the bus even harder.

The opposite.  Currently in extra time, both teams play not to lose.  This way, you'd have one team pushing hard for the winner and the other defending as if their lives depended on it.  If the shootout losing team scores, then those roles reverse.

Chris

[NWI_Irish96]

Keep the penalty shootout after extra time, but for any tie other than 0-0, the team that last led in the game gets to start penalty kicks with a 1-0 lead.

[JayhawkCO]

Keep the penalty shootout after extra time, but for any tie other than 0-0, the team that last led in the game gets to start penalty kicks with a 1-0 lead.

Doesn't change the inherent unfairness of losing a game on a "skill" vs. actual gameplay.

Chris

[NWI_Irish96]

Keep the penalty shootout after extra time, but for any tie other than 0-0, the team that last led in the game gets to start penalty kicks with a 1-0 lead.

Doesn't change the inherent unfairness of losing a game on a "skill" vs. actual gameplay.

Chris

No, but it gives one team more incentive to try and score during extra time rather than play defensively. In theory, it ends more games in extra time and reduces the number of shootouts.

[JayhawkCO]

Keep the penalty shootout after extra time, but for any tie other than 0-0, the team that last led in the game gets to start penalty kicks with a 1-0 lead.

Doesn't change the inherent unfairness of losing a game on a "skill" vs. actual gameplay.

Chris

No, but it gives one team more incentive to try and score during extra time rather than play defensively. In theory, it ends more games in extra time and reduces the number of shootouts.

But you still end up with the same situation we have now, where in the 110th minute, both teams are fine settling for penalties and won't push too far forward and actually create any goal scoring chances.  The team with the 1-0 advantage is happy to go in as the favorite, and the other team would probably rather settle for the luck of shootouts than commit everyone forward trying to get a goal.

Chris

[hotdogPi]

Does anyone have any comments (positive or negative) on my proposal?

[JayhawkCO]

Does anyone have any comments (positive or negative) on my proposal?

Feel like it's a little arbitrary.  Why six and not eight for one team?  And it ceases being an actual soccer/football match at that point and becomes "half-court".  Reducing gimmickry is I think everyone's goal, and your plan just changes which gimmick is used.  (I like the thinking out of the box though, so E for effort there.)

Chris

[NWI_Irish96]

Keep the penalty shootout after extra time, but for any tie other than 0-0, the team that last led in the game gets to start penalty kicks with a 1-0 lead.

Doesn't change the inherent unfairness of losing a game on a "skill" vs. actual gameplay.

Chris

No, but it gives one team more incentive to try and score during extra time rather than play defensively. In theory, it ends more games in extra time and reduces the number of shootouts.

But you still end up with the same situation we have now, where in the 110th minute, both teams are fine settling for penalties and won't push too far forward and actually create any goal scoring chances.  The team with the 1-0 advantage is happy to go in as the favorite, and the other team would probably rather settle for the luck of shootouts than commit everyone forward trying to get a goal.

Chris

If a 1-0 deficit isn't enough incentive for the other team to press forward, then make it 2-0.

[JayhawkCO]

Keep the penalty shootout after extra time, but for any tie other than 0-0, the team that last led in the game gets to start penalty kicks with a 1-0 lead.

Doesn't change the inherent unfairness of losing a game on a "skill" vs. actual gameplay.

Chris

No, but it gives one team more incentive to try and score during extra time rather than play defensively. In theory, it ends more games in extra time and reduces the number of shootouts.

But you still end up with the same situation we have now, where in the 110th minute, both teams are fine settling for penalties and won't push too far forward and actually create any goal scoring chances.  The team with the 1-0 advantage is happy to go in as the favorite, and the other team would probably rather settle for the luck of shootouts than commit everyone forward trying to get a goal.

Chris

If a 1-0 deficit isn't enough incentive for the other team to press forward, then make it 2-0.

But then you're severely at a disadvantage.  You worked really hard to tie the game up in regulation and now you're behind the 8-ball by quite a bit.  It would change the rest of the game too because you'd play "not to lose" early in regulation, fearing that giving up a goal first, even if you come back to tie it, will make you lose the game almost certainly.

I think we need to determine what we're trying to get out of this.  For me:
A) Reduce the effect of gimmicks on who wins the game.  It should be primarily based on who plays the best 11 on 11 football (or less people if there has been a red card)
B) Keep the overtime rules fair so that both teams feel like they have pretty equal chances of winning in extra time
C) Keep the play in extra time exciting, so teams will have the desire to go for a goal rather than just saying "we're tired; screw it, let's settle for penalties"
D) If there is some "randomness" involved like the current shootout setup, make it football-related randomness and not coin-related randomness

Obviously others are allowed to disagree (both with my premises and my solution), but I feel like my option ticks all of those boxes.

Chris

[thspfc]

I know too well how penalties even out a game that was previously somewhat one-sided. A few years ago in a tournament quarterfinal my team was better than the opposition for the whole game. We must have outshot them 30-5. But the game ended 0-0 and we lost on penalties. Guess who missed a penalty? 

[thspfc]

The best way to end a tie game in tournaments is to do the penalty shootout before the extra time.  Winner of the shootout wins the tiebreak if it's still tied AET.  Makes the extra time far more interesting.

Chris

I kind of like this proposal, but it doesn't change the fact that many games are going to be decided on a few kicks of the ball. I disagree with Bruce's comment about "parking the bus" - not because teams won't do it (they will), but because that can be exciting. Bruce obviously hasn't watched the second leg of a Champions League knockout. Juventus vs Porto in March comes to mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lfBYyQ2xjo. One of the most entertaining matches I've ever watched.

[thspfc]

Keep the penalty shootout after extra time, but for any tie other than 0-0, the team that last led in the game gets to start penalty kicks with a 1-0 lead.

Doesn't change the inherent unfairness of losing a game on a "skill" vs. actual gameplay.

Chris

No, but it gives one team more incentive to try and score during extra time rather than play defensively. In theory, it ends more games in extra time and reduces the number of shootouts.

But you still end up with the same situation we have now, where in the 110th minute, both teams are fine settling for penalties and won't push too far forward and actually create any goal scoring chances.  The team with the 1-0 advantage is happy to go in as the favorite, and the other team would probably rather settle for the luck of shootouts than commit everyone forward trying to get a goal.

Chris

If a 1-0 deficit isn't enough incentive for the other team to press forward, then make it 2-0.

Goodness no. It doesn't matter when goals are scored. One goal doesn't count for any more than the next.

[thspfc]

More Americans watched the Euros final than the average number across the four NBA finals games so far (9.4 vs 8.9 million). This is both a good sign for soccer and a major problem for the NBA. Thankfully for the NBA their numbers are, at the very least, up significantly compared to last year's abomination that they called the "bubble" .

And then you have the NFL, which frequently draws 20+ million for regular season games and 90-100 million for the Super Bowl . . . 

[rawmustard]

Lionel Messi is leaving Barcelona, the only club he's ever known. The two sides wanted to come to an agreement, but it was structurally impossible with Spanish financial regulations. This means Messi can sign with another club on a free transfer.

[JayhawkCO]

Lionel Messi is leaving Barcelona, the only club he's ever known. The two sides wanted to come to an agreement, but it was structurally impossible with Spanish financial regulations. This means Messi can sign with another club on a free transfer.

The rumor that part of his issue with the club was that they didn't sign his Argentinian teammate, Cuti Romero, who is signing with my club, Tottenham.  Glad they can ruin someone else's life like they often ruin mine.

Chris

[Bruce]

Lionel Messi is leaving Barcelona, the only club he's ever known. The two sides wanted to come to an agreement, but it was structurally impossible with Spanish financial regulations. This means Messi can sign with another club on a free transfer.

The rumor that part of his issue with the club was that they didn't sign his Argentinian teammate, Cuti Romero, who is signing with my club, Tottenham.  Glad they can ruin someone else's life like they often ruin mine.

Chris

That's fake news.

The financial regulations are the main reason Messi isn't able to remain with FC Barcelona. In fact, he was set to sign a new contract anyway but La Liga (rightfully) won't budge on the salary requirements.

Messi is apparently in negotiations with PSG, which has almost no financial regulations to adhere to. Only the very loosely-regulated FFP.

[JayhawkCO]

Yeah, I figured there wasn't much to it.  But it would have been hilarious.  Either way we'll see if Poch can get PSG over the Champions League hump with the legend.

Chris

[thspfc]

I don't think he will end up at Manchester City, but if he does, that's game over for the rest of soccer. And then imagine if they also sign Kane . . .
Man City's squad if they got Messi and Kane:

GK - Ederson
LB - Cancelo
CB - Dias
CB - Stones
RB - Walker
CM - De Bruyne
CM - Gundogan
CM - Bernardo Silva
LW - Messi
RW - Grealish
CF - Kane

With Sterling, Mahrez, Fernandinho, Gabriel Jesus, Foden, Rodri, and Ferran Torres on the BENCH.

Is that late 2000s/early 2010s Barcelona level?