Board 8 > World Cup Discussion Topic 5

(+) Yeah! (+)

Both Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland made it to the qualification play offs though, losing to Switzerland and Denmark respectively. It's not that bad.
---

I normally get behind the Republic as underdogs whenever they're in the mix (i.e. 2002 v Germany which went to pens)

And you gotta O'Neill jumping 7ft in the air every win.
---

ctesjbuvf posted...

So yeah, screw this cup. Especially all the penalty kick shootouts.

I love PKs as a neutral spectator. When you're watching a team you're emotionally invested in, though, it's agony.

UltimaterializerX posted...

I say it every 4 years. Penalty kicks are a supremely idiotic way to end a soccer game.

Yeah but what's the alternative?? Golden goal is exciting and can reduce the time the players have to spend continuing to play, but what if no one scores? Play forever?? You'll have people dropping all over the place. I guess you could potentially reduce the number of players, like in hockey, or reduce the size of the field (if that's logistically possible?) but I think 120 minutes is enough to defer to PKs.
---

Hardcore_Adult posted...

KingHova045 posted...

As an American do y'all think it's weird that this is by far the most invested I've been in a WC? I put some money on England to win as a gag, becsuse of the solid return, and I think Rashford and Kane are two of the best strikers in FIFA. Shame Rashford hasn't been subbed in more.

Anyway the quality of the matches is just so above 2010 or 2014 imo.

Nope.

It's good, even though you lot aren't in the mix this year, which shocked me. The US qualifying is almost a given!

Yeah, we played too nonchalantly in qualifiers. With an undeserved arrogance tbh.
---

jcgamer107 posted...

I love PKs as a neutral spectator. When you're watching a team you're emotionally invested in, though, it's agony.

Yeah, I feel the same.

I just haven't been neutral at any of them.
---

Ulti not liking penalties, quelle surprise!

But he has a point, they are kind of cruel!

If it's a cup game and the job can't be done in 90 mins or 120, there's no other way.
---

jcgamer107 posted...

Yeah but what's the alternative?? Golden goal is exciting and can reduce the time the players have to spend continuing to play, but what if no one scores? Play forever??

Yes, they should. Just give them an extra sub for every extra period they play. More if you have to. Each team has more than 10 extra players they can choose from. How it's settled now is like if they shot free throws to decide the end of an NBA game, or kicked field goals to decide the end of an NFL game. It's just not fair to decide a game based on one singular aspect of that game.
---

Yeah but what's the alternative?? Golden goal is exciting and can reduce the time the players have to spend continuing to play, but what if no one scores?

The two leading scorers from the respective teams compete in an injury faking competition.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Yeah but what's the alternative?? Golden goal is exciting and can reduce the time the players have to spend continuing to play, but what if no one scores?

The two leading scorers from the respective teams compete in an injury faking competition.

Isn't that what Golden Goal is already?
---

Problem with playing until you get a winner is the massive disadvantage it puts teams at if it goes long.

Maybe you could do something like removing players over time to increase open space and encourage goalscoring. Tactics then also plays into it too

Problem with playing until you get a winner is the massive disadvantage it puts teams at if it goes long.

Couple this with a "you can substitute as much as you want until your bench is empty" rule and it becomes a lot more strategic.
---

ShatteredElysium posted...

Problem with playing until you get a winner is the massive disadvantage it puts teams at if it goes long.

Maybe you could do something like removing players over time to increase open space and encourage goalscoring. Tactics then also plays into it too

Tough, imo. Teams/players in every other major sport deal with it, they should too. If you made them play potentially forever, inferior teams would stop turtling up and waiting for PKs and actually try to do stuff instead.
---

KingHova045 posted...

SmartMuffin posted...

Yeah but what's the alternative?? Golden goal is exciting and can reduce the time the players have to spend continuing to play, but what if no one scores?

The two leading scorers from the respective teams compete in an injury faking competition.

Isn't that what Golden Goal is already?

Golden Goal was done away with years ago!
---

Hardcore_Adult posted...

KingHova045 posted...

SmartMuffin posted...

Yeah but what's the alternative?? Golden goal is exciting and can reduce the time the players have to spend continuing to play, but what if no one scores?

The two leading scorers from the respective teams compete in an injury faking competition.

Isn't that what Golden Goal is already?

Golden Goal was done away with years ago!

It was a joke because in today's game that's exactly what Golden Goal would be. A buncha strikers diving everytime they're within 25 yds of the goal.
---

Emeraldegg posted...

How it's settled now is like if they shot free throws to decide the end of an NBA game, or kicked field goals to decide the end of an NFL game. It's just not fair to decide a game based on one singular aspect of that game.

Not exactly because no one's guarding the rim or uprights
---

jcgamer107 posted...

Emeraldegg posted...

How it's settled now is like if they shot free throws to decide the end of an NBA game, or kicked field goals to decide the end of an NFL game. It's just not fair to decide a game based on one singular aspect of that game.

Not exactly because no one's guarding the rim or uprights

Not exactly, but the point was more that this focuses on one aspect of the game (shooting) and leaves out the rest of the game. Anyway, the rim is much smaller than the net, and the uprights are much farther than the net, both of which imo make up for the goalie in a PK situation which helps it be close enough, imo.
---

Shootouts are terrible in Hockey IMO but understand in a way why they are there if you want to prevent ties in the regular season. But during the playoffs it's great that the game is Sudden Death.

Soccer should use Sudden Death overtimes during the big games of elimination tournaments.
---

^ In the PL, There are times when Ties can't be helped. You split the points and move the fuck on.
---

LOLIAmAnAlt posted...

Shootouts are terrible in Hockey IMO but understand in a way why they are there if you want to prevent ties in the regular season. But during the playoffs it's great that the game is Sudden Death.

Soccer should use Sudden Death overtimes during the big games of elimination tournaments.

I'd rather there just be ties in the regular season. Although the point of every game is to determine which team is better, it's acceptable for there to be ties because the point of the season is to determine which teams are better over the whole body of work. Ties can work into that formula without messing anything up. It's better than just half-assing determining a winner in the regular season because there doesn't "have" to be a winner. If 2 teams are equally matched, then it should be recorded as such, only breaking that when it's absolutely necessary, i.e the playoffs.
---

In the regular season yes I agree on the ties. I just stated that I understand it's a form of tie-breaker that is a passable solution. I don't like it though.
---

*actually, field goals aren't too dissimilar since the defense (assuming they'd be on the field) would have a chance to block it
---

Emeraldegg posted...

Teams/players in every other major sport deal with it, they should too.

Considering the size of the pitch, comparing football to, say, basketball in this instance doesn't really work.
---

How about a rule where if nobody scores after the overtime period (maybe you make it 45 instead of 30), BOTH teams lose, nobody advances, and their next opponent gets a bye.

If it's the literal final game, you keep playing forever - because why the fuck not?
---

Penalty kicks in knockout games are fine, but they should never decide who wins the tournament. Keep playing until someone scores in the finals.
---

davidponte posted...

Penalty kicks in knockout games are fine, but they should never decide who wins the tournament. Keep playing until someone scores in the finals.

that i can get behind
---

that'd be kind of interesting, actually
---

Once they allow unlimited subs then I'll be fine with letting the players keep playing.
---

Hardcore_Adult posted...

Ulti not liking penalties, quelle surprise!

But he has a point, they are kind of cruel!

If it's a cup game and the job can't be done in 90 mins or 120, there's no other way.

After I heard that England's win on penalties was their first in World Cup history, I couldn't quite believe it and went back to look at past world cups, when I learned something I really never knew - penalties to determine the winner only first showed up in 1982, and before then a game ending tied after extra time would literally be entirely replayed, and even that only happened rarely (once in 1934 and a bunch in 1938 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_FIFA_World_Cup#Replays).

After 1938, no replays happened because no elimination games ended tied after extra time.

Literally I just counted it up, there were 37 knockout games 1950 through 1978, 44 if you count third place games (though I assume the "replay" rule wouldn't apply to them). What are the chances that 0 out of 37 games ended tied after 120 minutes, that seems mind-boggling since we get 3 or 4 each world cup nowadays...

Edit: after a little more reading, it looks like after 1938, the replay would only apply to a tied final and "drawing of lots" would occur for ties in non-final elimination games. Which makes a penalty shootout look a lot more appealing, than basically putting your fate in a coin flip... and still doesn't negate the point of none of those 37 games needing 'drawing of lots' or replays, either.

In 1950 it seems that there was no elimination bracket, the top team of each of the 4 groups combined to form a finals group. Whomever had the best record won the world cup.
Just a weird tidbit of info is all.
---

I still think France vs England is the probable final outcome.

As far as European matches go, that's one of the 5 biggest you can make for hype.
---

I will mever get the Scottish, Welsh amd Irish mentality of wanting England to loose more than their own country to win. Ok I do get it somewhat with the Irish but still.
---

Jealous Neighbours.

Meanwhile, I don't think many Americans would root for Canada or Mexico....
---

https://twitter.com/BBCSport/status/1015889613938978817?s=19

Christ

Total population of UK is 65mil

This also doesn't include fanzones and pubs
---

87.7% share of the TV audience apparently
---

If France gets knocked out, I need to know if England winning the world cup leads to a bank holiday.
---

Fuck me....

That is some figure.
---

1978 was actually the first year that had penalty kicks as a tiebreaker.

It just wasn't needed before 1982.
---

What if instead of two halves of Extra Time, there were just 3 Extra Time periods of 10 minutes? It's not quite as absolute as Golden Goal; you'd still have a few minutes of frantic defending.
---

What does that change exactly?

Also I would be for reducing ET to 20 or 15m. 30 is a long time and I think the extra attrition is a reason why ET is sometimes conservative.
---

I guess the main point I'd be trying to make is that two halves of Extra Time leaves only one more chance for a tie to be broken, at the end of the 30 minutes. Just make the two halves their own separate Extra Time, where if it goes as it did yesterday, Croatia would've won after the first 15 minutes.
---

Oh, so basically silver goal?
---

https://twitter.com/sohlstromt/status/1015626267973115904?s=19

That's the Swedish ambassador to the UK. This encapsulates their reaction.

Such stark contrast between the class of Sweden and Colombia being such c***s.
---

Hardcore_Adult posted...

Jealous Neighbours.

Meanwhile, I don't think many Americans would root for Canada or Mexico....

I root for Canada but they're usually so bad that it doesn't matter
---

The media elites tried hard to push the notion that the US should root for Mexico this year. Even bullshit like this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEn_wrANGuY" data-time="

As far as I can tell, this didn't work with any normal people.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

The media elites tried hard to push the notion that the US should root for Mexico this year. Even bullshit like this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEn_wrANGuY" data-time="

As far as I can tell, this didn't work with any normal people.

As an American I can say I enjoyed them beating Germany, but I was cheering for England, and Spain this Cup. As those are are probably my two favorite countries I've travelled too. Also, my favorite player is Marcus Rashford.

I think as Americans, England is probably the easiest foreign side to get behind. Mostly because you can understand all the the language of the chants, and stuff. Also, I've been streaming the ITV coverage, which makes watching the England games way more hype lol.
---

meanwhile, Neymar is still rolling
---

Hype for Belg/Fra

So much HYPE
---

Id root for Canada but never Mexico holy shit how could you
---

Yeah, Belgium hasn't failed to entertain yet and France hasn't in the knockout phase.

I'm rooting for Belgium to win it all. France has some fantastic individuals and a really great team overall, but the combination of Belgiums front has really left me impressed beyond all else.

I'll be rooting for them both in the weekend.
---