All things Football (soccer) related

[shunwick]

ORIGINAL: Zorch

ORIGINAL: shunwick

ORIGINAL: Zorch

Just a dumb American question...why not have soccer teams play a best of 3 games match? 3 games would would be a better test than deciding on penalty kicks.

The primary reason is that football already has a congested fixture list. Too many players are already playing two games a week with a very short summer or winter break. An international player can easily be playing 65-70 matches a season. Regular players will (providing they have no injuries) will play 45-50 games a season.

Imagine playing American football where instead of offensive, defensive, and special teams, only one team is ever allowed on the field. They have to play for 90 minutes with one half-time break of fifteen minutes and no stops for adverts or breaks of any kind. Now get them to play 65 matches a season with a 6 week break in between seasons. You will then understand why even more matches are not really possible.

Penalty shootouts are a necessary evil. But they also make for some good drama.

Best wishes,
Steve.

Thank you for taking my proposal seriously.

I believe that American football is not the best comparison for soccer; because American football is a COLLISON sport. Every play involves deliberate, violent collisions. Many NFL players are physically unable to play the next day. I don't think the NFL has ever played a game with less than 3 days of rest (Sunday to Thursday). Basketball is a better comparison, and is often played on consecutive days. NBA players play as many 100 games a year (counting playoffs but not pre-season). True, NBA players don't play 90 minutes but that's what a bench is for. Using your bench is a truer test of a team's depth than just the starters and a few late substitutions (maybe soccer should make substitutions more flexible).

What did soccer do before penalty shots? Have a rematch the next day?

Replays. Sometimes multiple replays. But it was the strain they put on the fixture list that demanded another way to end a game if everything was level. Several schemes have been tried over the years including tossing a coin, golden goal, silver goal etc. They are all, including penalty shootouts, in one way or another, unsatisfactory ways to separate tied teams. Penalty shootouts are nothing more than the best of a bad lot.

And... American Football. Take away the crash helmets, the shoulder pads, knee pads, eye liner and lipstick. Amend the rules slightly to allow non-stop play and you have ... rugby. I was being gentle with you. [:D]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JatpVqDGIu4

And Independence Day match at Twickenham. England v USA four days ago.. Highlights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSa92kf3ezk

Best wishes,
Steve

[RFalvo69]

In 1982 if the World Cup Final was not decided after extra time then the match would have been played again three days later. Only if the second match ended up in a draw, too, there would have been a penalty shootout (Italy ended up beating Germany 3 - 1 within the regular 90'). I honestly don't know if the rule was used before 1982, for sure it wasn't anymore in 1986.

[Zorch]

Is there any sentiment towards changing the offsides rule to open up the game? There would be fewer scoreless ties...

[shunwick]

ORIGINAL: Zorch

Is there any sentiment towards changing the offsides rule to open up the game? There would be fewer scoreless ties...

There are constant changes to the offside rules. And they are all with the intention of making life easier for forwards.

Best wishes,
Steve

[shunwick]

Copa America 2021

3rd/4th Place

Colombia 3 Peru 2

A late 92nd minute goal won it for Colombia. Colombia will be happy with 3rd. The Peruvians will shake their heads in resignation.

Highlights:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lz1jP5G9EM

Copa America 2021 Final

Argentina v Brazil

Again, technically tomorrow but in the early hours of morning (UK time) I might forego my beauty sleep and stay up to watch it. The clash of giants. Neymar v Messi. Both players in good form. Hopefully, a good game.

Best wishes,
Steve

[RangerJoe]

To resolve ties, have 15 minute sudden death overtimes with players who were substituted for allowed back into the game. But players who were redcarded are not allowed back in.

[gamer78]

Nothing wrong with a draw. Some wargames have that battle result also. It is more about tempo in 90 minutes I think-at least for the audience-. Throw in, corners, set pieces and lately the VAR decisions. It is not about score&amount of goals but more about the tempo in open play.

[shunwick]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

To resolve ties, have 15 minute sudden death overtimes with players who were substituted for allowed back into the game. But players who were redcarded are not allowed back in.

Wouldn't work. They tried the sudden death overtime thing with the golden goal. Teams just went super defensive and hung on till the time ran out and guess what? They ended up playing for the penalty shootout. It's why the golden goal scheme failed.

As much as everyone complains about the penalty shootouts they remain the best of a bad bunch. Extra time and penalty shootouts are going to be with us until someone comes up with a better idea. Sudden death overtime is most definitely not it.

Best wishes,
Steve

[RFalvo69]

ORIGINAL: shunwick

ORIGINAL: Zorch

Is there any sentiment towards changing the offsides rule to open up the game? There would be fewer scoreless ties...

There are constant changes to the offside rules. And they are all with the intention of making life easier for forwards.

Sometimes with dangerous results...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGAauUP ... n8&index=4

[gamer78]

I saw many injuries with the new rule waiting for VAR to make decision. Typical example in this video -ref and defending players knows well that attacking player is offside- but game keep on going. Very poor rule. They've to change that.

[RFalvo69]

ORIGINAL: gamer78

I saw many injuries with the new rule waiting for VAR to make decision. Typical example in this video -ref and defending players knows well that attacking player is offside- but game keep on going. Very poor rule. They've to change that.

I generally like VAR. Not everyone has the same opinion, but during this Euro we saw many cases where VAR was instrumental in catching (or denying) all kind of fouls. Sure, some believe that not conceding a goal for a three inches-offside (maybe only a knee) is unsportsmanship, but that's the rule...

However, this doctor is right: any rule that allows for players to rush against each other from opposite directions is potentially dangerous. Sometimes you can't avoid it: in Rui Patricio case this kind of clash could have occurred even if the attacker was not offside. But if the officials can do something they should do it at once.

I have seen offsides being called 30-40 seconds after the actual event. What's the good in that?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Zorch

What did soccer do before penalty shots? Have a rematch the next day?

warspite1

In times past, some big matches have been decided on a coin toss. Italy have won the European Championships once - in 1968. They won their semi-final against the Soviet Union on the the toss of a coin. A World Cup qualifier saw Spain miss out to Turkey in 1954. The Turks won on the drawing of lots....

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: shunwick

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

To resolve ties, have 15 minute sudden death overtimes with players who were substituted for allowed back into the game. But players who were redcarded are not allowed back in.

Wouldn't work. They tried the sudden death overtime thing with the golden goal. Teams just went super defensive and hung on till the time ran out and guess what? They ended up playing for the penalty shootout. It's why the golden goal scheme failed.

As much as everyone complains about the penalty shootouts they remain the best of a bad bunch. Extra time and penalty shootouts are going to be with us until someone comes up with a better idea. Sudden death overtime is most definitely not it.

Best wishes,
Steve

Just keep doing it until one side or the other wins. Someone will tire out. If nothing else, if there is no score within a certain period of time, start removing random players from the team. When it gets down to goalie vs goalie . . .

Then when those are gone, simply state that neither team advances to the next round.

[shunwick]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: shunwick

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

To resolve ties, have 15 minute sudden death overtimes with players who were substituted for allowed back into the game. But players who were redcarded are not allowed back in.

Wouldn't work. They tried the sudden death overtime thing with the golden goal. Teams just went super defensive and hung on till the time ran out and guess what? They ended up playing for the penalty shootout. It's why the golden goal scheme failed.

As much as everyone complains about the penalty shootouts they remain the best of a bad bunch. Extra time and penalty shootouts are going to be with us until someone comes up with a better idea. Sudden death overtime is most definitely not it.

Best wishes,
Steve

Just keep doing it until one side or the other wins. Someone will tire out. If nothing else, if there is no score within a certain period of time, start removing random players from the team. When it gets down to goalie vs goalie . . .

Then when those are gone, simply state that neither team advances to the next round.

Stop reading The Big Book of Insane Ideas. You will feel better for it.

Best wishes,
Steve

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: shunwick

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: shunwick



Wouldn't work. They tried the sudden death overtime thing with the golden goal. Teams just went super defensive and hung on till the time ran out and guess what? They ended up playing for the penalty shootout. It's why the golden goal scheme failed.

As much as everyone complains about the penalty shootouts they remain the best of a bad bunch. Extra time and penalty shootouts are going to be with us until someone comes up with a better idea. Sudden death overtime is most definitely not it.

Best wishes,
Steve

Just keep doing it until one side or the other wins. Someone will tire out. If nothing else, if there is no score within a certain period of time, start removing random players from the team. When it gets down to goalie vs goalie . . .

Then when those are gone, simply state that neither team advances to the next round.

Stop reading The Big Book of Insane Ideas. You will feel better for it.

Best wishes,
Steve

Think if one team was already down a player due to a red card. That would make that team very offensive minded.

[shunwick]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: shunwick

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe




Just keep doing it until one side or the other wins. Someone will tire out. If nothing else, if there is no score within a certain period of time, start removing random players from the team. When it gets down to goalie vs goalie . . .

Then when those are gone, simply state that neither team advances to the next round.

Stop reading The Big Book of Insane Ideas. You will feel better for it.

Best wishes,
Steve

Think if one team was already down a player due to a red card. That would make that team very offensive minded.

For God's sake give it up. You are just embarrassing yourself.

[shunwick]

Copa America 2021 Final

Argentina 1 Brazil 0

Di Maria scored the only goal of a tight, highly contested, fouling and diving contest. Argentina could have made dead certain of the result shortly before the end of the game but Messi fluffed it. Yep. Fluffed it. Argentina deserved the victory. Brazil huffed and puffed at them during the second half but barely troubled the Argentinian keeper.

Euro 2020 Final

England v Italy.

Should be a fascinating match. Southgate will not deviate from his defensive safety-first strategy. I really, really hope the Italy don't give England too much respect. Otherwise it is going to be dull.

Good luck to both teams.

Best wishes,
Steve

[warspite1]

Can England end 55 years of hurt tonight?

Well we have some decent players, we have home advantage – so we have a chance, but…….this is England and so even if we do triumph, it will likely not be an easy ride for anyone supporting the three lions…..

1966 – England’s only win in the Football World Cup – but despite being at home and being the better team on the day, England allowed Germany to equalise in the 89th minute. There was then the controversial linesman’s call before Geoff Hurst wrapped it up with the final kick of the game.

2003 – England’s only win in the Rugby World Cup – but despite being the clear favourites and out-playing Australia, the English forwards couldn’t put the game to bed with handling error after handling error, and it took a last kick of the game from Johnny Wilkinson to finally overcome the Aussies.

2019 – England’s only win in the Cricket World Cup – but despite being at home and playing New Zealand in the final (rather than the more fancied Australia or India) it took a super over and a boundary count back to separate the sides.

…so no, what we can I think guarantee, is that even if England prevail, it will be a nail-biting, rollercoaster of emotions that leaves everyone a nerve-shredded, quivering wreck, before we reach the end…..

But if that is a given, the question is, can they even actually win it?

I’d put our chances – playing as we have – as perhaps 20%. Just hope we take any chances that come and Italy have an off day. What is so frustrating is that that % should be much, much higher with the players we have, and if we play to our strengths then I would say this should be a real 50%/50% battle.

Tactics and mental frailty aside, both sides appear to have a good strength in depth. Italy will miss Spinazolla (what a player) and England have doubts over Foden – although he is an unlikely starter based on recent games, and more likely to be used as an impact player. I rate the Italian goalkeeper, Donnarumma, very highly, but Pickford has made some great saves in this tournament too.

If we attack Italy, balls in behind, balls over the top, run at defenders, then we have a good chance of victory because we have the players that can exploit such tactics. We need Shaw and Walker (I assume they will get the nod) to exploit space on the flanks in support of Sterling and Saka/Sancho(?).

Chiellini and Bonucci are highly experienced, top notch campaigners. They will simply lap up slow, predictable, build up play. But their age comes at a cost in mobility. The England wide forwards have to run at them while Harry Kane tries to pull them out of positon.

Which England will turn up tonight? If it’s the one that played Scotland then we might as well not bother playing the game. Because if we resort to square balls in front of the defence, sideways, backwards and unimaginative (Maguire walking everywhere), then Jorginho, Barella and Veratti won’t even need to break sweat.

But if England’s strong suit is pace in attack, Italy have shown just how quickly they can counter, and with Insigne – Walker’s pace may be required to help out Stones and Maguire.

The Italians will be, I suspect, the most ‘street-wise’ of any team we’ve played so far, and England’s defenders and defensive midfielders need to be careful they are not sucked into any tricks and clever play they may employ. That is easier said than done of course because the Italians have some very technically gifted players.

So all is set, in theory – assuming everyone plays to their ability - for a potentially classic encounter, a classic final. But what final we get will depend on so many things. It’s why we love (and hate) football.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: shunwick

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: shunwick



Stop reading The Big Book of Insane Ideas. You will feel better for it.

Best wishes,
Steve

Think if one team was already down a player due to a red card. That would make that team very offensive minded.

For God's sake give it up. You are just embarrassing yourself.

I have been embarrassed before - it is nothing new.

BTW, where did you get that book "The Big Book of Insane Ideas" as I would like to get a copy for myself. Who knows what might actually work that is listed in there.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

BTW, where did you get that book "The Big Book of Insane Ideas" as I would like to get a copy for myself.

warspite1

I've read it - its great.

There is a chapter on "Wouldn't it be great to attack the USA in December 1941"

There is a chapter on "Let's not enter the World Cup of football in 1930 because we're British, we invented the game and we should be in charge, so there".

There is also a chapter on how "I've a great idea for attacking Greece in October 1940, in the mountains, in late autumn, with a fraction of the troops necessary and with little or no warning to the air force and navy"

In fact there is quite a lot of insane ideas that came out of Italy in the 30's and 40's......