Re: The Football Chat (cont) : Fri May 25, 2012 7:04 pm  

Roddy B wrote:

Golden goal was fairer than a shootout IMO, purely because the game was at least being decided by a goal in open play.

It was a good idea in theory, but, in reality, sides just became more negative as the fear of losing overtook any ambition they had to score the decisive goal.

I don't think there is a fair way of doing it.....Shots on target is a reasonable shout, and maybe in a one-off game you could try the team who scored the first goal decides it (though a goaless draw would bollox that one up!!!).

Re: The Football Chat (cont) : Fri May 25, 2012 7:07 pm  

Roddy B wrote:

What if they're the same?

Maybe we should have an ice hockey-esque shootout, where the players have to dribble the ball from the halfway line and score - or score from outside of the box. It would certainly stop things like Bayern sending Neuer in third.

To be honest, there's no real way to decide a game fairly. Golden goal was fairer than a shootout IMO, purely because the game was at least being decided by a goal in open play.

Maybe we should go to a judges scorecard like boxing; the British will be able to come up with even more conspiracy theories.

I'd use a points system.

Most possession 1pt
Most shots 1pt
Most on target 1pt

If it was a tie then you could just use 90 minutes as opposed to 120 and if still level use the number of shots that hit woodwork or corners to decide.

If all things are still level then the two sides are obviously inseperable and should just share the trophy lol.

Re: The Football Chat (cont) : Fri May 25, 2012 7:24 pm  

They should just take it to an American Idol style vote. And forget about the score during the game too. How can it be fair Bayern to be leading a match for 84 minutes, Man Utd to be leading for 2 and Man United be declared the winners? It can't. So lets do away with goals altogether and just go with the voting system.

Arsene Wenger supports it.

Re: The Football Chat (cont) : Fri May 25, 2012 8:04 pm  

Barca starting well here. If you can't appreciate their football you are an imbecile.

Re: The Football Chat (cont) : Fri May 25, 2012 8:10 pm  

Dita's Slot Meter wrote:

It was a good idea in theory, but, in reality, sides just became more negative as the fear of losing overtook any ambition they had to score the decisive goal.

I don't think there is a fair way of doing it.....Shots on target is a reasonable shout, and maybe in a one-off game you could try the team who scored the first goal decides it (though a goaless draw would bollox that one up!!!).

I used to think the NASL shoot outs were a good idea

'NASL Shootout: Cosmos/Diplomats 1980'

Re: The Football Chat (cont) : Fri May 25, 2012 8:39 pm  

The best 'shoot-out' was the one with Diana Ross to open the 1994 world cup.

International soccer has been boring for years. Blatter and his pals fiddling with a few knobs isn't going to change that.

This is the worst Athletic cup performance... since the Wafer League final last month.

Re: The Football Chat (cont) : Sat May 26, 2012 9:18 am  

Roddy B wrote:

Barca starting well here. If you can't appreciate their football you are an imbecile.

Meh. All they do is pass the ball, incredibly accurately, score goals. Have one of the best players to ever grace the game and have been the best side in Europe of the past five years.

Chelsea beat them, so they are rubbish.

Re: The Football Chat (cont) : Sat May 26, 2012 11:01 am  

Just going back to the golden goal, there are two problems that grated. The more practical one was that in itself a golden goal is just as big a lottery as penalties but at least with extra-time you had the chance to claw back goals. However the bigger problem was that it never felt right finishing a football game like that. Perhaps it's different from those that were there and experienced it but whenever there was a golden goal I always felt that it always felt like a damp squib end to a game. Like a false finish. In sports where this is the norm i.e. American sports, it feels fine, but it doesn't suit football.

Re: The Football Chat (cont) : Sun May 27, 2012 7:27 am  

McClennan wrote:

Just going back to the golden goal, there are two problems that grated. The more practical one was that in itself a golden goal is just as big a lottery as penalties but at least with extra-time you had the chance to claw back goals. However the bigger problem was that it never felt right finishing a football game like that. Perhaps it's different from those that were there and experienced it but whenever there was a golden goal I always felt that it always felt like a damp squib end to a game. Like a false finish. In sports where this is the norm i.e. American sports, it feels fine, but it doesn't suit football.

It suits American Football partly because of the "your turn, our turn" nature of the game. There's usually a degree of build up to the score. In football when the goal can come out of the blue, such as the Euro 96 final, it seemed odd.

If they are going to make more of an effort to get a result in extra time I quite like the idea of reducing the game to 9 a side. Would open up the game but still keep it resembling something like the real thing.

Re: The Football Chat (cont) : Sun May 27, 2012 9:50 am  

The pens in yesterdays play off final were shocking, was 2-2 before going to sudden death!