 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| User | Post |
| Sin Dogan Posts: 671/861 |
Yea, I've wondered the same thing also. In soccer, as everyone knows, the idea of teamwork and skills(which encompasses practically every aspect) are stressed. So wouldn't Sudden Death OT be more appropriate then having a shootout which is pretty specific when it comes to skill(one shoots the other blocks) and doesn't really determine much. That's my take on it. |
| Arwon Posts: 298/631 |
No. It's not just chance. Goalkeeping is still a matter of skill, and calling it "pure chance" is rather insulting to that. The fact that goalies aren't expected to stop penalties just reflects the fact that they usually don't. Why would a 50:50 situation be fairer than an 85:15 one? |
| Silvershield Posts: 296/587 |
If stopping a penalty kick is something a keeper is never "expected" to do - a statement which indicates that it is such a difficult, or even utterly random, task - then how is such a spot kick suitable to determine the World Cup champion? You would think a moment of such importance should not fall on pure chance, but on a contest that rests entirely on skill or only minimally on randomness, if at all. |
| Salmon Posts: 157/221 |
Of course I want to stop every shot that goes towards goal. I can be highly self-critical, and I hate to let a ball past me, but that doesn't stop me from going into every penalty situation knowing that I can not come out of it with shame. Goal keepers aren't expected to stop penalties, so when they do, they're heroes, when they don't, it wasn't their fault. In the mindset of pretty much every football fan on the planet, penalty = goal.
And wite, I don't think you really understand the nature of a penalty kick. Of course players are paid to perform, but I don't think I've heard of it happening once in the sport that a goal keeper has been blamed for letting in a penalty, or that he has actually even been expected to take one. You don't blame the goal keeper for not stopping a penalty, but you sure as heck blame the kicker for missing one. And Silvershield, stopping a shot ain't completely random, some goal keeper has it as a specialty. Pepe Reina is especially good at stopping penalties. Ricardo Pereria ain't bad. Heck, Bjarte Flem of my favorite team Tromsų was known among fans for his penalty stopping, before he became known for throwing the ball into his own goal. Now, tell me about a goal keeper who is notoriously known for not saving penalties, you say. Well, I can't. I don't think I've ever heard of a goal keeper notoriously known for not saving penalties. You don't notice a goal keeper who doesn't save penalties, because it's so damn normal. You do, however, recognize a goal keeper who saves them. Did you know that before the World Cup Quarter Final between Argentina and Germany, Jens Lehmann saw footage of every single penalty taken by the Argentine players over the last two years? He knew the favorite spot of all the players, and he went to the right side on all four shots. He came prepared, and he knew what to do. Speaking of Lehmann, take a look at the footage from the dying minutes of Arsenal vs. Villarreal, when Villarreal has gotten a penalty to tie it. Riquelme's face says "I don't want to do this", Lehmann's face says "This could make me a hero". Those two facial expressions really sum up what goes through the heads of the two players involved in a penalty kick situation. Oh yes, Lehmann saved the penalty by the way. |
| witeasprinwow Posts: 250/613 |
Originally posted by Salmon Where do you play? These guys are paid athletes. They are expected to perform. It is, quite literally, their job, and they get fired if they don't produce. |
| Silvershield Posts: 295/587 |
Originally posted by SalmonMaybe you and I have different mindsets entering into a situation like that, but I would always kick myself when I was scored on, whether it was directly through my own fault or I was hung out to dry by my defenders. Even a penalty kick that results from a foul that is not your own has to be "your" fault - the ball ends up in the back of the net, and it's your job to keep it out of there. Logical rationale aside  .
Originally posted by SalmonFrom a goalkeeper's perspective, it is certainly random. I can't help if Germany and Argentina have rock-solid concentration but England tends to choke - all I can do is guess left or right. The other end of the ball is completely a game of nerves, whether the shooter has the presence of mind to steady himself for a situation that should be incredibly easy for him. |
| Salmon Posts: 156/221 |
As a long-playing goal keeper (ever since I was a little child I've been playing goal keeper, I still do today, in an amateure-league, of course) I can say that there is nothing quite as wonderful as having a penalty kick taken against you, and I cannot see where Silvershield is coming from.
Penalty Kicks are a lot about mentality, and as the goal keeper, you can not be anything but thrilled to have a penalty kick taken against you. It's a situation in which you cannot lose, only win. If they score, no one's gonna blame ya', it was a penalty kick. If you save, you're the grand, big hero. Also, knowing that the situation is the complete opposite for the penalty taker, you have the upper hand mentally. Anyway, I don't think penalty kicks are as random as some would have you believe. Did you know that in the history of the World Cup, Germany has only missed one single time in a penalty kick shootout (Stielike against France in 1982, a shootout they still won). That's 17 times scored out of 18 attempts. Argentina had never lost a penalty kick shootout before meeting Germany (a shootout where one of the teams would have to get their first loss). On the other end of the scale, you got Italy, who won their first World Cup shootout against France in some match a couple of days ago, and England, notoriously known for messing up shootouts. Is it random, or is there a certain skill included, when you see the same teams winning and the same teams losing over and over? |
| Cynthia Posts: 3483/5814 |
Penalty kicks are a lottery but there's really no other way to decide the game. Because of the nature of soccer, you can't just play endless extra time until there's a winner, and it's time-consuming to replay the game if it ends tied.
I thought that the Golden Goal rule + penalties was probably the most logical way to solve the problem with the current system, but it's still not perfect. |
| Sweet Kassy Molassy Posts: 274/886 |
That idea has merit, but could still take three forevers. And soccer/futbol is so big and so devoutly followed that I doubt the rules could be changed at this point. |
| witeasprinwow Posts: 241/613 |
I agree that there's always going to be some randomness, but I think there are limits to how far you can take that as a justification. We are looking for the MOST fair set of rules.
Basically, to summarize my last post, it's a problem with defense-centric sports like soccer. All sports where defense is favored and points are limited (Soccer / Hockey / Lacrosse / Others, I'm sure) will end up in a lot of ties when played at a high level of skill, simply because the rules of the game are well tilted towards the defensive end of the ball. In basketball (A rather offense-centric sport), when both teams are scoring upwards of 100 points a game and possibly beyond, there is little chance for a tie, because it is relatively probable to score different numbers of points even if the teams are pretty well matched. The chances both teams score EXACTLY 105 points is pretty bad. In a game like soccer, where you expect only 1 or 2 points for your team, you are much more likely to tie. What they could do is something like how overtime works in college football... Give each team the ball near the goal (but not a penalty kick, have other players on the field) and give them a certain amount of time. If they miss or the other team gets possession, the other team gets the ball and gets to try it. The first team to score without being scored on in response wins. Just an idea. EDIT: Wow, I was tired when I wrote this. I fixed all the nonsensical statements and sentance fragments and stuff. |
| Arwon Posts: 294/631 |
There's a large element of sport that is entirely random, anyway.
"one Frenchman missed his shot, but only by inches, while each of the Italians who shot were successful, and that decided the entire game" It's a game of randomness and inches throughout, anyway. A player is offside by a bare margin. A cross drops just wide of a striker's head. A goalie manages to get fingertips to a ball and knock it wide. Penalty shootouts are penalty kicks, a part of the game. Shootouts are still a test of the fundamental skills of the game, albeit in a controlled setting. After 120 minutes fail to separate two teams, it's entirely reasonable to say enough is enough, and reduce it to such a controlled situation resting on inches. |
| Sweet Kassy Molassy Posts: 268/886 |
I wasn't comparing them, I was just pointing out why I was inclined to think the other way.
I can see your point and won't argue with it. I just can't think of how else they could decide a draw game. |
| Silvershield Posts: 294/587 |
Originally posted by KasdarackBut, then again, a professional hockey goalie will have a .9 save rate or higher, while a soccer goalie will have nothing near that. A soccer game and hockey game that have comparable scores will often see vastly different save counts - the soccer keepers might see between three and five saves each, while the hockey keepers will each have 30+. They're just different games, and the two positions cannot be directly compared. |
| Sweet Kassy Molassy Posts: 257/886 |
I suppose so...
I'm a hockey fan, and the shooter almost never scores in a shootout, so my feelings there are exactly the opposite of what you just said. |
| Silvershield Posts: 292/587 |
Originally posted by KasdarackOk, my mistake  .
Originally posted by KasdarackIf a shootout weren't so random, I'd think it were a wonderful way to end a game that might otherwise continue indefinitely. Like I mentioned before, I never played pro - not hardly - but even an amateur goalie can attest that a penalty kick is nothing more than a roll of a die. (A die that is fixed so that the shooter wins more often than not, but that's irrelevant.) You'll be hard pressed, as a goalie, to really read a shooter, and it's almost always an issue of just guessing. As I see it, that's not a good way to ultimately decide an enormously high-stakes game. |
| Sweet Kassy Molassy Posts: 249/886 |
I didn't mean to imply that you were a whiner. I apologize that that's how I came across. I just get upset when people bicker about situations in games because most of them knew the rules and how the game worked before deciding to watch.
I did read part of your post... and then scrolled through the thread and my OMGhuge replynow instinct kicked it. But... a shootout requires skill too. It's not as much of a team effort per shot, but it is a team effort. Your players are tested in a critical moment. One on one versus the goalie. Each player who gets a kick contributes to the success/fail ratio of the team. The teams get to that point by playing a good, evenly matched game so it comes down to the wire. I fail to see how a shootout is not representative of the skills of the players as individuals and the strength of a team. |
| Silvershield Posts: 290/587 |
Originally posted by ArwonAnd does a penalty shootout really simulate the real-game situation of scoring a goal, or is it as close a simulation to that as a home run derby is to hitting a real-game home run? Hitting a baseball 500 feet is easier when the ball's being lobbed at you by a batting practice pitcher, just like scoring a goal is easier when you have a spot kick at twelve yards without a defender in sight. Originally posted by KasdarackI'm all for penalty kicks during the duration of a game itself. If you'd read a single line of my (admittedly enormous) post, you'd have gotten that pretty clearly. The game was decided by a penalty shootout; one Frenchman missed his shot, but only by inches, while each of the Italians who shot were successful, and that decided the entire game. A little bit offensive, really, watching the entire hard-fought game simplified into ten minutes of potshots. And I resent being called a "whiner" for proposing a debate about something. I think I'm pretty justified, to be honest. Hell, I was rooting for the Italians, so it's not like my team lost. |
| Sweet Kassy Molassy Posts: 244/886 |
Penalty kicks are part of the game. There have to be certain penalties for certain offenses. You can't take them out of the game just to avoid having them decide a game here and there. Same thing with penalty shots in hockey.
Was the game decided by penalty kicks or a shootout? because those are two completely different things. Still, I can see reasons for a shootout being necessary when a draw isn't an option. Games can't go on forever. There has to be some sort of ultimate time limit. Shootoffs are part of the game too, so it's just useless bickering to whine about them deciding a game. Only the fans of the losing team have a problem with it |
| Arwon Posts: 293/631 |
That's funny, I thought the deciding factor was 'scoring more goals'.
Ho hum. |
| Silvershield Posts: 288/587 |
Let me try to put my own opinion into words.
Ultimately, the purpose of any sort of tournament, or any single game for that matter, is to discern which participating team is superior to those against which it is competing. In soccer, I first found myself seeking to spell out exactly what it means for a team to be "superior." That is, I put together an idea of what capabilities and attributes a good soccer team possesses. Among them are such fields as: - good communication between players. - skillful coaching and management. - technical proficiency, insomuch as mastery of fundamental skills (passing, positioning) and, if not mastery, at least awareness of other more advanced skills (remaining onside, making accurate crosses). - mastery of fatigue. As soccer is a game in which players can expect to be on the field for 90 minutes or more, it is vital that preparing for fatigue is addressed both by individual players and as a team. - maintaining individually skillful players in each position (including forwards, goalkeepers, etc). - having a roster with such depth as to assure substitutions that do not disrupt or even cripple the players already on the field. - individual "stars" - that is to say, one or more single players who are standouts and can, to some degree, carry the rest of the team. Now, that is by no means a comprehensive list, but I think it is fairly thorough and essentially accurate. Of course, as a game of soccer would seek to discern whichever of the two teams has those attributes, or which displays each more strongly, an ultimate decision-making event - in this case, a penalty shootout to resolve a tied game - should reflect those fields. Without addressing each of my stated points individually, I can say that one gets the sense that all of those contributing factors involve teamwork as opposed to invidual prowess. Even the idea of a single superstar carrying the team as a whole, or a skillful player residing in each position, includes the idea that such players have a larger supporting cast to facilitate their endeavors: what good is a star forward when the midfield can't get the ball to him? I'll stop my diatribe and just try to sum up what I'm thinking, because I feel myself veering off track a bit. Ultimately, as a goalkeeper for a number of years - hardly professionally, of course, but nonetheless - I can sympathize with the idea of being stuck in a net and having guys line up to take potshots from twelve yards out. Even with the most practiced goalie, one who is adept at reading the feet of a person who's lining up for a shot, it amounts to little more than a guessing game. A flip of the coin, if you will. I can guess right and make the save, or guess wrong and miss it. Or, I can get lucky and he can choke and just miss the net altogether. In a game of such magnitude as a World Cup final, you don't want the "wrong" team to win. Surely any number of variables can lead to that result, but none would be as random or as arbitrary as a shootout. An unlucky red card can tilt the odds against the better team, but is that disadvantaged team really superior if they cannot display the integral skill of avoiding or managing fouls and cards? Conversely, the smallest bit of luck - a French player hitting the crossbar instead of aiming only inches lower - can decide the victor. That one miskick, that one missed PK, decided everything. If it were my job to propose a solution, the idea of penalty kicks would be entirely erased from the game (except to award to players who have been fouled in the box during the course of normal play). Your team has 22 players, let them all play! As it stands, maybe fourteen or fifteen of a World Cup roster will ever see the field, and the remainder seem to be token names that might as well be anyone. When overtime has finished, instead of lining up for penalty kicks, play should continue as normal. Except, substitutions should be allowed at will. Those seven or eight guys who are sitting on the side should get to see some playing time. After all, isn't it better for a team to have 22 solid players than ten or eleven really good ones? As it stands, your eleven starters and the three subs are supposed to represent your entire country's soccer identity. I wrote this post over the course of an hour, in between breaks to watch a bit of TV, so it probably sounds really disjointed. But whatever. |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. | |
