Chelsea are perfectly justified in what they are doing. Mebbe Blatter eh like Abramovich head. I think Chelsea has enough English players as is average for other clubs - Lampard, Wright-Phillips, Terry, Joe Cole...how much Arsenal have?
Chelsea doh really have any 'galactico' players either...Drogba and Carvalho and dem wasn't no big name players before dey join Chelsea. Is all under the leadership and guidance - altho i doh like Mourinho. That team is a perfect example of football as truly the world's game. Players from all over maximizing their potential .
Blatter giving Abramovic criticism is like the drugsman telling the bandit that he "setting a bad example for the youth and them."
Fire Blatter now...after all he is well hated in many quarters.
Put the Europeans in they will do a better job of looking out for the poorer countries :devil:
Fire Blatter now...after all he is well hated in many quarters.
Put the Europeans in they will do a better job of looking out for the poorer countries :devil:
Bossman Blatter is European he is from Switzerland.
5 is enough for africa.leh blatter relax he dead wood.
Dem just vex a english side won lol...Yeah, plus FIFA can't have input in who wins in a shootout.
PKs not ideal but it works - good drama and after 120 mins dem fellas can't run anymore anyway....
I always liked the idea of reducing the number of players during extra time. Start with 10 each, then go to 9 each after 15 minutes. Fitness would really tell then, and if you had a player redcarded, will be even tougher!
Dem just vex a english side won lol...Yeah, plus FIFA can't have input in who wins in a shootout.
PKs not ideal but it works - good drama and after 120 mins dem fellas can't run anymore anyway....
And increase the likelihood of bad/dangerous fouls/late tackles leading to injuries.I always liked the idea of reducing the number of players during extra time. Start with 10 each, then go to 9 each after 15 minutes. Fitness would really tell then, and if you had a player redcarded, will be even tougher!
Breds that is just madness..
Less players = more running for players that already exhausted. That will just decrease the likelihood of goals being scored in extra time, plus more men will cramp up and waste time off the clock.
Shoot out is the biggest drama you could ever get nuttin toppin dat at that stage of the game.
The jokey mls ting with running from half line one on-one with the goalie was the closing thing to a alternative and dat get scrapped.
Nah that was NASL. Different league, different time.
Me eh know. Might just be me. But I used to find that more exciting than penalties.Nah that was NASL. Different league, different time.
They had it in MLS too... from 1996 to 1999
An alternative could be a points system.WTF you talking about mister expert on Football?move from here with that shyt eh.
If after extra time scores are tied, the winner is determined by the team that was the most attacking team.
That is determined by a points system.
Say...2 points for shots on goal that are on target
1 point for shots on goal off target
1 point for a corner
1/2 point deducted for each foul
This has the following benefits for the final stages of tournament play:
You no longer have the lottery of penalty kicks
The result of the game is determined by passages of play that typically take place in any game
You reward positive football. Teams that play counter attack football are still rewarded.
Teams that play not to lose, negative football hoping to steal a win in the end have a disincentive to do so
Matches still end within a particular time frame
Encourages a cleaner game (with the deduction of points for fouls)
It has the following drawbacks:
You lose the sheer drama of penalty kicks. No one can turn away from the screen when penalty kicks are taken
Potential for an "underdog" result is lessened because they can't simply park the bus and hope to steal a result.
Administration of this system may be complex and confusing especially for fans to keep a tally of points. However, the advent of massive digital scoreboards at most major stadia would help to alleviate this problem.
Implementation worldwide could be challenging
Also i don't think a point system properly quantifies what is attacking football to reward it as such. What about teams like Barcelona who hoard possessionBarca hoards possession yes..but they also have more shots on goal than their opponents. The system will reward it. If the opposition wants to allow them to have possession and not foul them...that's their decision.
An alternative could be a points system.WTF you talking about mister expert on Football?move from here with that shyt eh.
If after extra time scores are tied, the winner is determined by the team that was the most attacking team.
That is determined by a points system.
Say...2 points for shots on goal that are on target
1 point for shots on goal off target
1 point for a corner
1/2 point deducted for each foul
This has the following benefits for the final stages of tournament play:
You no longer have the lottery of penalty kicks
The result of the game is determined by passages of play that typically take place in any game
You reward positive football. Teams that play counter attack football are still rewarded.
Teams that play not to lose, negative football hoping to steal a win in the end have a disincentive to do so
Matches still end within a particular time frame
Encourages a cleaner game (with the deduction of points for fouls)
It has the following drawbacks:
You lose the sheer drama of penalty kicks. No one can turn away from the screen when penalty kicks are taken
Potential for an "underdog" result is lessened because they can't simply park the bus and hope to steal a result.
Administration of this system may be complex and confusing especially for fans to keep a tally of points. However, the advent of massive digital scoreboards at most major stadia would help to alleviate this problem.
Implementation worldwide could be challenging
Also i don't think a point system properly quantifies what is attacking football to reward it as such. What about teams like Barcelona who hoard possessionBarca hoards possession yes..but they also have more shots on goal than their opponents. The system will reward it. If the opposition wants to allow them to have possession and not foul them...that's their decision.
The intent is to encourage POSITIVE football. Not anti football.
Also i don't think a point system properly quantifies what is attacking football to reward it as such. What about teams like Barcelona who hoard possessionBarca hoards possession yes..but they also have more shots on goal than their opponents. The system will reward it. If the opposition wants to allow them to have possession and not foul them...that's their decision.
The intent is to encourage POSITIVE football. Not anti football.
That is Arsenal, but what about Arsenal? They also regularly hold alot of possession with little end product.
One could argue that as a brand of anti-football as well.
That points scene sounding like potential for real controversy!
hmmm I dunno.
What more fair?
Yuh play all over a side that park the bus, and they score one fluke goal in regulation and yuh loss...
or
Yuh play all over a side that park the bus, score end up in a draw, match go to PKs and yuh loss...
or
Yuh play all over a side that park the bus, score end up in a draw, match to to PKs and yuh win...
Look at it like that and in my opinion the end result is what determines the perception of fairness - PKs or no PKs.
I agree with Kicker that penalties are very fair because each team has the same opportunity. Sometimes teams like Barca and Arsenal become so focused on style of play that they forget the object of the game is to score goals. Yes some teams might be better in terms of attractiveness of play but at the end of the game the only "better" that counts is which team was better at putting de ball in de net.
I agree with Kicker that penalties are very fair because each team has the same opportunity. Sometimes teams like Barca and Arsenal become so focused on style of play that they forget the object of the game is to score goals. Yes some teams might be better in terms of attractiveness of play but at the end of the game the only "better" that counts is which team was better at putting de ball in de net.
So a team that doesn't take a shot at goal during regulation and extra time but insteadpulls all XI players back hoping for penalties is the "better" team if they "win" the penalty shootout?
We'll agree to disagree here.
Football is entertainment. PERIOD. And teams that sacrifice entertainment at the altar of result do the game a disservice in my opinion.
At the VERY LEAST....try to win. It's why catanaccio was HATED back in the 70's and anti football is no different. How many people outside of a Greece fan could honestly say they were ENTERTAINED by Greece in Portugal?
If yuh is a minnow playin a giant...at least I could understand why u playin dat way. But when alleged "BIG" teams adopt the same tactics, it seem cowardly to me.
Even when little T&T played in Germany, they had their critics amongst their own fans. Why Beenie didn't give Latas more time? He tied down de players too much and didn't showcase de "trini brand". How Theobald could play over Latas? etc etce etc
To each their own. I like positive football. If "result" football is all you care about...more power to you.
And that "you" is a collective "you"...not aimed at anyone in particular.
Too many scenarios whereby teams can try to exploit the system to rack up points and allow the game to descend into folly. Just imagine the crowd cheering their team on in the last minute to earn one more jokey corner kick as if is Duckworth-Lewis they dealing with. Madness.
Football is ENTERTAINMENT... Agreed.
But what is entertaining to you might not be entertaining to a next fan. An English or Stoke fan typically frowns on a Spanish or Barcelona brand because they find watching the ball being knocked around 100 times with no attempt on goal to be too indirect and useless for their liking. They favor a more direct approach and they like to see players getting stuck in.
Similarly, an Italian fan finds beauty in a catenaccio brand soaking up pressure with defensive discipline and structure and hitting a team on the counter attack.
A German fan will have little patience for dallying on the ball, beatsing and showboating, but value fast, efficient, effective football. A Brazilian fan on the other hand is not satisfied if their football is missing flair and exhibitions of skill.
ENTERTAINMENT is subjective... Not because you like a certain style of play means that rules should be implemented to incentivize the kind of football you like.
Part of what makes football great is that contrasting styles compete against each other to try to come out on top. Who is to say an Italian brand is worse than a Brazilian brand... A German brand better than a Dutch brand.. An Argentinian brand better than an African brand???
At the end of the day, if a team puts XI players behind the ball and you cannot score on them in 120 minutes of normal time, then you were tactically beaten. If you cannot score then you did not do enough to win regardless. Or maybe you were just unlucky.
It is not always the case that the better team wins, that is the beauty of football.
An alternative could be a points system.WTF you talking about mister expert on Football?move from here with that shyt eh.
If after extra time scores are tied, the winner is determined by the team that was the most attacking team.
That is determined by a points system.
Say...2 points for shots on goal that are on target
1 point for shots on goal off target
1 point for a corner
1/2 point deducted for each foul
This has the following benefits for the final stages of tournament play:
You no longer have the lottery of penalty kicks
The result of the game is determined by passages of play that typically take place in any game
You reward positive football. Teams that play counter attack football are still rewarded.
Teams that play not to lose, negative football hoping to steal a win in the end have a disincentive to do so
Matches still end within a particular time frame
Encourages a cleaner game (with the deduction of points for fouls)
It has the following drawbacks:
You lose the sheer drama of penalty kicks. No one can turn away from the screen when penalty kicks are taken
Potential for an "underdog" result is lessened because they can't simply park the bus and hope to steal a result.
Administration of this system may be complex and confusing especially for fans to keep a tally of points. However, the advent of massive digital scoreboards at most major stadia would help to alleviate this problem.
Implementation worldwide could be challenging
PK's aren't "ideal" but no other option is. We don't even live in an ideal world so we cannot expect activities that are microcosms of life to have "ideal" endings either. Short of that, PK's are still the best solution to determining a game winner and all them other options that people want to suggest are either even less ideal than PK's or too damned complicated (like dat crazy-ass "point" system Palos wanna trow up on we lap dey) to make any sense. Blatter ever played this game?....or is he just on drugs? Taking penalties is the purest form of the sport, almost like the nucleus of an element. Leave the damned thing just the way it is.:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :salute: :salute:
I agree with Kicker that penalties are very fair because each team has the same opportunity. Sometimes teams like Barca and Arsenal become so focused on style of play that they forget the object of the game is to score goals. Yes some teams might be better in terms of attractiveness of play but at the end of the game the only "better" that counts is which team was better at putting de ball in de net.
So a team that doesn't take a shot at goal during regulation and extra time but insteadpulls all XI players back hoping for penalties is the "better" team if they "win" the penalty shootout?
We'll agree to disagree here.
Football is entertainment. PERIOD. And teams that sacrifice entertainment at the altar of result do the game a disservice in my opinion.
At the VERY LEAST....try to win. It's why catanaccio was HATED back in the 70's and anti football is no different. How many people outside of a Greece fan could honestly say they were ENTERTAINED by Greece in Portugal?
If yuh is a minnow playin a giant...at least I could understand why u playin dat way. But when alleged "BIG" teams adopt the same tactics, it seem cowardly to me.
Even when little T&T played in Germany, they had their critics amongst their own fans. Why Beenie didn't give Latas more time? He tied down de players too much and didn't showcase de "trini brand". How Theobald could play over Latas? etc etce etc
To each their own. I like positive football. If "result" football is all you care about...more power to you.
And that "you" is a collective "you"...not aimed at anyone in particular.
That pts system would destroy the art of counter attacking football and never ever give David a chance against Goliath!!
ah love it!!
That pts system would destroy the art of counter attacking football and never ever give David a chance against Goliath!!
ah love it!!
How so? "David" have an entire 120 minutes plus to leggo dem slingshot.
Counter attacking football is great. What? Yuh doh take shots at goal and get corners etc in counter attacking football?
As an alternative to penalty kicks, a points system would ONLY come into effect in the event teams are deadlocked at the end of extra time
In essence, what you really confirming is that there are teams that go solely into such matches NOT looking to score....but hoping to just get to penalties where they feel maybe they could have a chance.
But it really doh matter. PK's will be here for the forseeable future. All I suggested was an alternative.
An alternative could be a points system.So it was you who said that on ESPN forum! :yellowcard: :yellowcard:
If after extra time scores are tied, the winner is determined by the team that was the most attacking team.
That is determined by a points system.
Say...2 points for shots on goal that are on target
1 point for shots on goal off target
1 point for a corner
1/2 point deducted for each foul
This has the following benefits for the final stages of tournament play:
You no longer have the lottery of penalty kicks
The result of the game is determined by passages of play that typically take place in any game
You reward positive football. Teams that play counter attack football are still rewarded.
Teams that play not to lose, negative football hoping to steal a win in the end have a disincentive to do so
Matches still end within a particular time frame
Encourages a cleaner game (with the deduction of points for fouls)
It has the following drawbacks:
You lose the sheer drama of penalty kicks. No one can turn away from the screen when penalty kicks are taken
Potential for an "underdog" result is lessened because they can't simply park the bus and hope to steal a result.
Administration of this system may be complex and confusing especially for fans to keep a tally of points. However, the advent of massive digital scoreboards at most major stadia would help to alleviate this problem.
Implementation worldwide could be challenging
so this "points" system only rewards so-called "attacking" football and nothing else. What about when my 'keeper make a spectacular save on a shot on target or when (s)he save a penalty, yuh go "deduct" points from the attacking team fuh dat or yuh go include a point system fuh that fuh de defending team? Petr Cech made a point-blank (no pun intended) foot save on robben in the first half then the penalty in Extra Time he doh get rewarded fuh dat?.....Drogba took a long range, speculative shot against Barca from about half line that may or may not have been on target and Valdes used it for camera time in making a diving "save". How would the points be distributed on that? Valdes couldn't risk it being off target but he didn't have to dive to save it. If a shot is taken and it off target (1 point) initially and it swerve back to be on target (2 points), yuh get 3 points fuh dat? What if it bend, swerve and dip more than once like dem Roberto Carlos and metronaldo specials, hummuch points fuh one ah dem? ::) Steuwps!!:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: Chow look don't kill me here,you have real time on your hands Breds.
so this "points" system only rewards so-called "attacking" football and nothing else. What about when my 'keeper make a spectacular save on a shot on target or when (s)he save a penalty, yuh go "deduct" points from the attacking team fuh dat or yuh go include a point system fuh that fuh de defending team? Petr Cech made a point-blank (no pun intended) foot save on robben in the first half then the penalty in Extra Time he doh get rewarded fuh dat?.....Drogba took a long range, speculative shot against Barca from about half line that may or may not have been on target and Valdes used it for camera time in making a diving "save". How would the points be distributed on that? Valdes couldn't risk it being off target but he didn't have to dive to save it. If a shot is taken and it off target (1 point) initially and it swerve back to be on target (2 points), yuh get 3 points fuh dat? What if it bend, swerve and dip more than once like dem Roberto Carlos and metronaldo specials, hummuch points fuh one ah dem? ::) Steuwps!!:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: Chow look don't kill me here,you have real time on your hands Breds.
actually it started off horribly...caught fire in the latter stages and then in sudden death, the keeper for sheffield united missed the last kick...pure drama...blatter want to do away with penalties...he mad or wha?
Any support for the sudden death goal?
Any support for the sudden death goal?
Not me, I am not for it at all.
Any support for the sudden death goal?
Not me, I am not for it at all.
Despite coming from the run of play (in contrast to PKs), the sudden death goal delivers sheer anticlimax (sometimes to both sets of fans, especially where one team has been clearly outballing the other yet loses).
There is certainly "something" to having a defined period of play in which any number could play, rather than brax!!! a goal score and iz all over. I like last minute heroics and prowess, and really want to have the challenges and demands of the game imposed right through till the whistle blows on time, rather than on a goal.
When Laurent Blanc beat Jose Luis Chilavert, the result was the result I wanted, yet still I felt that it would have been "just" to see what sort of response (other than a tear-filled, congratulatory handshake) Paraguay had for France.
I agree.
Bring back the golden goal.
It should be used during the two 15-minute periods of extra time: if a team scores during that time then game over, they win. If no one scores then so be it, and it goes to PKs.
But after 90 minutes of regular time one goal should settle the entire thing. It rewards attacking football and reduces the possibilities of going to a shootout.