Based in London and writing for a global audience our aim is to produce EliteFootballTalk. Enjoy the site and feel welcome to join in our discussion on the beautiful game.

Saturday, May 24, 2008

Two better match conclusion methods to the Penalty Shoot-Out

The Champions League final between Man Utd and Chelsea was a solid match high on tempo if not sparkling in true quality. Its conclusion also, for me at least, again raised the issue of the suitabilty of deciding games by the method of the selection of five players from each side to take penalties. Its an issue that strikes every team: in recent years alone, Arsenal, Liverpool, Everton, Tottenham, West Ham - to name just a few - have been involved in major games that were decided by this method. Even today, a match that could represent the only chance for Bristol City and Hull City to reach the Premier League, could be decided by the inherent fickle fortune of the penalty shoot out.

Focusing briefly on Wednesday, Man Utd dominated the first half against a frozen Chelsea team and should have been at least two goals up before Chelsea - with a rare attack in the Man Utd half of the pitch - benefited from some fortunate ricochets for the Lampard equaliser in injury time. The second half saw Chelsea drive Man Utd back and the game was a played at a high tempo which made for good watching. The game predictably went into extra time as the solidity and the balance of the two teams meant no real chances were created.

It looked quite clear that both sides - probably more so Chelsea - were looking to the finish line of the penalty shoot out rather than taking the riskier option of winning outright before the 120th minute, and so it was that Man Utd went to take the trophy on the penalty shoot-out method thanks to Edwin van der Saar's save from Niclas Anelka's nervous penalty.

So the biggest club competition in Europe was decided by penalties. Just like the biggest international cup competition, the World Cup final in 2006. For me this method of deciding matches - particularly huge matches - is a poor method of deciding matches. This is because I think that to win a match on penalties just means that you were luckier with the taking of penalties - rather than proving yourself to be the better team on the pitch by winning in open play, eleven against eleven.

As I see it there are two preferable alternatives to the current penalty shoot-out method.

My preferred method is to introduce the golden goal into extra-time and simply to play on until a goal is scored. Why this is not the present solution I don't know - the only drawback I think that can be argued against it is that matches can potentially run on and on. But for me if that is the case, so be it. Anyway, looking at other sports, I think battles that run on and on can make for epic, sporting occasions - look at McEnroe v Borg in the Wimbledon final tie-break of 1980, for an example. It is also clear to me that with the removal of the option of penalties the incentive to attack and score will be far greater, so that in practice matches aren't likely to last long into the night as I guess some may fear.

For me, the golden goal method is better than penalties because it keep the essence of football in tact until its conclusion - eleven against eleven taking it to each other on the pitch until a winner is scored.

The other method is a concession to those who - for whatever reason - want penalties to remain as the method of deciding matches. For me one of the worst things about the current method is that five players who has played 120 minutes of football are ruled out of having an impact (unless the score is tied after five penalties each) on whether his side ultimately wins or loses, and are simply left to hope that fortune is supporting five of their teammates in the taking of penalties. A better solution for those who want penalties to remain is that all ten outfield players on the pitch should have to take a penalty, and the winner is decided simply by what team scores more.

This way every individual is still involved in the conclusion of the match and the winning or losing of a match retains a stronger sense of collective involvement - which is the essence of football.

I think it would be great for football if UEFA/FIFA seriously looked at the current 'five takers from each side' penalty shoot-out method. I can understand how it was seen in 1970 as a preferable method of the drawing of lots - but surely it is now time with more and more high profile games seemingly decided by this method that a review took place of alternative and more satisfactory methods of deciding tied cup games.

40 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Absolutely disagree.

When they tried the golden goal method it was a disaster.

The silver goal fiasco was a mess as well.

Pens are a high drama situation..

ppl love drama

5/24/2008 2:23 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you ManU fan? Penalties are harsh and this article is good

5/24/2008 2:30 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Are you ManU fan?"

This makes about much sense as asking if the author is a Chelsea fan

5/24/2008 2:32 pm

 
Anonymous Willow farm said...

Another solution would be that, after extra time is up, the teams would need to remove a player every five minutes until a goal is scored

Alternatively, they could carry on playing after ET but without goalkeepers.

5/24/2008 2:35 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I remember one of the first games to have golden goal was a championship play off game but cannot remember who & it was end to end stuff & one of the best games I have ever seen.
I think most teams are so worried of losing a goal they just defend & opt for penalties but if that option did not exist they would have little choice but to go for it.

5/24/2008 2:35 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Despite not ever having much luck personally with penalties I still dont think there's a truly better solution that isn't just a gimmick.
I do like the idea of the ten outfield players taking one each, but I would also add that each team takes their kicks at each end of the pitch. Not only would it be in front of their own fans, it would save the area around the penalty spot.

5/24/2008 2:38 pm

 
Anonymous Greekos said...

Firstly willow farm you are crazy thinkin that it would b a good idea to play extra time without keepers. If it was a joke then it aint very clear that it is one. Why fix something that aint broken. Yes there is an element of pot luck in a penalty shoot out but 2 b fair if teams decide to play 4 the shoot out then its their own fault if they take the chance and loose (AKA Chelsea on Wednesday night). If they were confident in their own abilities 2 beat them in open play then they can do it in an extra 30mins of play after the full 90. I hav no sympathy 4 teams that play 4 penalties and loose out. But from an entertainment point of view there could b nothing better surely. Im not a man u or chelsea fan but even i was quite nervous when watchin those penalties! Penalties r great entertainment and thats what football is rele about. ENTERTAINMENT

5/24/2008 2:47 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another alternative is to take the penalties before extra time. The result of the shoot-out would only count if the subsequent 30 mins of extra-time ends in a draw.

This way, the poor guy who missed the deciding penalty has a chance to redeem himself. Furthermore, there would be no more stand-offs in extra-time.

5/24/2008 2:50 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah...ok! Both of your ideas are great. However I tend to disagree with the second point. Well, penalties are drama-driven, and pose nerves to the player...and the problem is still there!

So..ok..after 120 minutes still no winner....re-play the match! Than after the second 120 minutes...go to your point 1 and if after a fair amount of time we still do not have a winner...go for penalties...or a mix between penalties and set pieces from outside the box!

This method will ensure 11 vs 11 and will declare a winner base on which team is better prepared to challenge! ...and drama is encapsulated in this all the time!

5/24/2008 2:50 pm

 
Blogger Mark said...

These are some good ideas. I give mine at in a post called "Killing the Shootout", written after Italy won the Wold Cup final not in open play, which is a disgrace for the game.

5/24/2008 3:00 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The person who just suggested taking penalties before extra-time is spot on (excuse the pun). That's exactly what they should do. Have a quick shoot-out (could even go straight to sudden-death). Then, on with the extra-time. Guaranteed an exciting 30 minutes of extra time, at the end of which there is bound to be a winner without victimising one player.

5/24/2008 3:04 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Agree with the suggestion of penalties before extra time. Sounds stupid at first but, thinking about it, makes perfect sense. The penalties effectively give one side the advantage. Nice one.

5/24/2008 3:07 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the best thing about Football is that it is a simple game. I love shootouts and I find extra time a chore to watch.

Football is all about heros and villains. What perfect way to decide a match! And you say it depends on 5 players, that half the team are redundant, but every player can stand up and be counted by WANTING to take a pen. Also, it gives keepers a rare chance to be match winners

5/24/2008 3:32 pm

 
Anonymous Bilal said...

i for one hate penaltys maybe the best answer would be to take both goalkeepers off the pitch and start with a drop ball the first team to score wins this way it would be impossible to defend it would be all out attack in fact the winning of the drop ball would be the most important part of the period of course someone could just stand on each goal line so on one would be allowed in the six yard area. or no goalie in 6 yard area that sounds like the solution action action action......Nuff Said

5/24/2008 3:46 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I dont even like penalties. Get rid of them, introduce goal line and video technology like Cricket and Tennis, and see how football gets more famous. Penalties just ruin the whole effort one team does over the other luckier one. Chelsea clearly deserved to win. I mean they hit the post thrice!!

5/24/2008 4:34 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Golden goal or silver goal is totally unfair to the team, that concede the goal. Why you want to take the possibility to score equalizer in the extra time? Don’t you remember games, where after full time score was even, and in the extra time both teams scored goals and it was also a draw? It is more stupid idea, than penalties I would say.

You point out that penalties kills the team effort. Golden goal does the same! Because it doesn’t mean that if one team has lost a goal in extra time, it would not score again! For me golden goal is total rubbish!

5/24/2008 5:24 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have thought for a long time that penalties can reward a team that spends the whole game snuffing out the opposition and hope to win on penalties. I'd add up the number of corners scored after 90 minutes. At least a team has to get near their opponents goal to get a corner. And it would reflect the balance of play. If, after extra time there was still no result, and the number of corners after 90 minutes was the same, then add extra time corners. If still the same then goal kicks. Only then, if they are still equal (highly unlikely) go to penalties.

5/24/2008 5:25 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have a hit the crossbar competition at the end of the 120 mins

5/24/2008 5:47 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I posted the first comment.

And no I'm not a Man U fan.

I'm a liverpool fan


I was just saying that theres a reason why the golden/silver goal/any other gimmick hasn't been able to topple the pen shoot out as the ultimate decider.

5/24/2008 6:50 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Another alternative is to take the penalties before extra time. The result of the shoot-out would only count if the subsequent 30 mins of extra-time ends in a draw"

how dumb can people be? think it through.

whoever wins the penalty shoot out pre- extra-time will just run the clock down at every opportunity and defend with 10. hardly more entertaining than the current system.

5/24/2008 7:36 pm

 
Blogger RedsMan said...

Nice issue to debate over, so many anonymous people!!

For me the penalties at the end of extra time is fine and should not change.

"My preferred method is to introduce the golden goal into extra-time and simply to play on until a goal is scored. Why this is not the present solution I don't know - the only drawback I think that can be argued against it is that matches can potentially run on and on. But for me if that is the case, so be it. Anyway, looking at other sports, I think battles that run on and on can make for epic, sporting occasions - look at McEnroe v Borg in the Wimbledon final tie-break of 1980, for an example. It is also clear to me that with the removal of the option of penalties the incentive to attack and score will be far greater, so that in practice matches aren't likely to last long into the night as I guess some may fear.

For me, the golden goal method is better than penalties because it keep the essence of football in tact until its conclusion - eleven against eleven taking it to each other on the pitch until a winner is scored."

Novel idea that was tried before then abolished due to major criticism from international fans. It is not suitable for me either. The penalties are a last alternative to separate both sides following 120mins of stalemate. Being a side of quality to be in a final (some may argue against that point when considering Greece v Portugal in the Euro2004 final although the Greeks defeated both the French and the Czechs' too on their way) you have players who can make a difference individually in that time. The procedure of 90mins+ football, then another 30mins+ gives ample time for goals. The penalties then occur as a more surefire way of splitting up a winner and a loser plus adds drama, nerves, tension and unfortunately heartbreak.

With the golden goal, the action is stopped the moment the goal is scored. Reduces the viewing time of the match for the fans. Takes away the initiative from the losing side of proving their worth by adding an equaliser. We have come to witness sides dominate their opponents only to succumb to a sucker punch of a goal. Portsmouth v Man Utd at OT refers. That is potentially what a golden goal would deliver, a side deservedly on merit earning the chances, making the play, only to lose to one chance of a shot that can ricochet off a player with a keeper despairingly frozen to his spot.

"The other method is a concession to those who - for whatever reason - want penalties to remain as the method of deciding matches. For me one of the worst things about the current method is that five players who has played 120 minutes of football are ruled out of having an impact (unless the score is tied after five penalties each) on whether his side ultimately wins or loses, and are simply left to hope that fortune is supporting five of their teammates in the taking of penalties. A better solution for those who want penalties to remain is that all ten outfield players on the pitch should have to take a penalty, and the winner is decided simply by what team scores more.

This way every individual is still involved in the conclusion of the match and the winning or losing of a match retains a stronger sense of collective involvement - which is the essence of football."

Decent point. But ten outfield players do not necessarily provide ten decent confident penalty takers. Before the concept of spot-kicks put keepers on edge, now the skill level of keepers has risen and the monopoly is shared. Having five players confident of taking penalties is a smaller therefore better and quicker number to go through than ten. Ten can be involved if it is sudden death but the five is usually sufficient to gain the ending required.

"I think it would be great for football if UEFA/FIFA seriously looked at the current 'five takers from each side' penalty shoot-out method. I can understand how it was seen in 1970 as a preferable method of the drawing of lots - but surely it is now time with more and more high profile games seemingly decided by this method that a review took place of alternative and more satisfactory methods of deciding tied cup games."

Playing football, then more football, then deciding on penalties is a sure-fire proven method of ending a crucial game. Looking at teams, you think there is more for one side over the other because of the players involved. However we have giant-killing in Cup competitions, which go to show that it is not down to the players in the squad, it is down to the players on the day, and maybe a little bit of luck. And I doubt anyone would begrudge luck playing a part in our games.

Finally, the idea of a penalty shootout before extra time. No. If you have that, it is pointless having extra time. The point is having a method of deciding the fate of both sides after they have playerd a sufficient amount of football. Therefore the football aspect should be entertained before penalties are taken, penalties are a last resort.

5/24/2008 8:05 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Headers and Volleys instead?

5/24/2008 8:15 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the game goes to penalties, it would be more fun if the Captains from each team chose the penalty takers from their opposing team, that way it would stop the managers from making a late substitute and putting a player on just to takea penalty.

5/24/2008 9:42 pm

 
Blogger no offside said...

Remove the Offside rule in ET, this will open up the game and goals would be pouring in!!!

5/25/2008 2:55 am

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Penalty shoot outs should be abolished ...they encourage and a lot of time reward negative play, it is not winning a trophy by playing football it is giving someone a trophy after a team does better in a "schoolyard" kick in!!

What a crap way of "winning" (and I use that term very loosly as no team has actually won the football match/trophy if it has gone to penalties it was a draw!)..... if a competition has gone on for 9 months or more as the CL does what a terrible way to decide the final outcome...I repeat it's crap!

I know a lot of softie foreign players and officials hated it but surely it should go to a replay? But as an added excitement extra time could be used to remove a defender every 5 mins until say a min of 6 players per side were left on the field ... teams would then have the space to win the game and it would be a matter of tactics to keep your fresh subs for extra time in some cases. And before someone says it wouldn't work as it is too difficult to officiate.....sorry but I actually refereed a tournament in France that had this system and it worked very well, a seperate official is appointed to each team and he is then responsible for collecting the identified defenders who are nominated by the team manager at full time in the order he has them removed, that offical is then responsible for ensuring that the player leaves the pitch at the right time .... once notified the player must leave the pitch within a minute otherwise he is sent off and the next player on the list is removed immediately (so meaning that a team could be an extra man down for the rest of the game, and trust me it works....teams go for it and know that they have to attack.

5/25/2008 3:54 am

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What if, in a neutral venue match -such as a final, one team was the home team for the first half and the other team was the home team for the second half. Use the away goals rule and I bet there'd be a lot less games going to penalties!

5/25/2008 6:39 am

 
Blogger T said...

Thanks everyone for your comments - good quality makes for engaging reading!

It seems clear there are a lot of football fans who share the same feelings as me - and I don't understand why the authorities seem fixated with issues like tweaking with the offside rule or the rare circumstance of judging whether the ball has crossed the line when something as fundamental as how to decide a tied game is never seemingly looked at despite it having a lot of detractors.

Redsman, comprehensive counter-points which are always good reading. Must take issue with point about golden goal having been tried. It was tried in the context of penalties remaining - so teams became even more ultra cautious knowing that the safety net of the penalty shoot out was still there. This is why it was abolished.

Secondly you didn't like how the game ended with the goal by saying that it ended the game early for the viewers - which is not right because the game should end in ninety minutes and any time extra by definition means that the viewers are getting more viewing than they should.

And you don't like how the other team wouldn't get a chance to retaliate - but they would have had the chance in normal time which is where the game should be decided, and for me I can't understand how anyone would think it is less satisfactory for a golden goal to decide the game in open play than the game ending with a penalty in a shoot out for the reasons I set out in my article.

Finally, tt seems to me that the supporters of a penalty shoot out who say that it should remain for entertainment purposes might as as well set up a new club competition which solely has teams taking penalties in a shoot out. This may be entertaining for some - but its not football to me.

5/25/2008 3:36 pm

 
Anonymous Yidarmy said...

What about instead of penalties the player starts from the halfway line and must shoot from outside the box? You could even add a defender and allow a shot from inside the box...this would mean that to score you would have to have a little bit of skill(not just punting the ball straight down the middle)and it would give a better chance for the keeper and/or defender to prevent the goal. Im sure this method would have more excitement than pens and wouldn't be as tedious as a golden/silver goal. Also making all 10 players(11 if you include the keeper) would add to the excitement and be fairer on the whole team.

5/26/2008 9:55 am

 
Blogger RedsMan said...

I understood that it was becoming out of favour with the fans mostly why the golden goal was ceased. The authorities were put under pressure from fans' disapproval as it remained to snipe a game straight after a goal, without the remaining minutes after being available for the conceding to fight back. That gave a chance for the conceding side and provided more tense football with one side fighting to critically gain an equaliser and the other fearing they will concede back. The equivalent in boxing would have a boxer go down from one punch after both remain after 8 rounds, then not having the remainder of that round and the following 3 rounds to score points back or indeed issue a knockout blow. In tennis, and I'm slightly familiar with the scoring, there is a moment when both players are tied in a set and they play on, where each won point counts as 1. I think its the first player up to a certain number who wins the game, like 6 or 7 or the first player to gain a 2pt gap. In that event, with a 'golden point', one player gets to serve fast or return fast, win the point while the other has no fair way of at least fighting to remain level in the game. Given that chance, it is then up to the disadvantaged player to try and get level. At least it is in his hands.

The same with the golden goal rule. It syphons the chance of at least getting level, remaining with a chance to proceed to the next round or win the game. The competition for which golden goals were introduced were that important that to take that chance away from one side is the same as taking the daily bread from the mouth of the hungry. The game and its competitions are that competitive that teams must know that they have at least some ambit if they do fall behind. In mitigation of the golden goal, teams will be concerned in scoring first yet at the same time weary of defending heavily to aid preventing conceding. That could lead to a monotonous action of an attacking side passing the ball around from side to side, looking for a little tweak ion the defence to breach. That could run down the clock and bore the fans. Of course some will say the management wouldnt care about the fans' feelings as much as they would in looking to prevent conceding. I say it is the football that attracts fans as much as their support for their clubs, though give-or-take fans come mostly to support. ow long will they remain content in seeing their club, with its resources, play slow-building, non-evasive football?

Penalties provide euphoria to one, heartache to another, and with the monoploy of its achievement swaying further away from the taker towards the keeper, the skill is yet another art for the up-n-coming player to learn, not take for granted. Why is it looking so easy to smack the ball from 12yards yet players still fail? Talent, multi-million pound players are valued so for their contribution to their team, and with such qualities comes their skills level. One such level should be penalty taking.

LFC won the CL and FA Cup taking penalties, emerged into the 2007 CL final through penalties, and recently Man Utd emerged European champions of 2008, great achievement with the title too. But none of the clubs on the raw end of those penalties complained in regard to the fairness of the outcome. AC Milan president Adriano Galliani said the best team lost in 2005, correctly, but not about the penalties. Alan Pardew didnt complain about the penalties after the FA Cup final 2006, though West Ham extremely close in winning it in extra time. Jose Mourinho said the best team lost in 2007 after the 2nd leg at Anfield, but not about the penalties. Avram Grant made no statement about the penalties after Wednesday.

The golden goal relies on skill, defence, sharpness to outwit the opponent, sharpness of the keeper, the attacking player who is set to score, the decisions made by the referee, and luck. Luck not to suffer from an unexpected ricochet, deflection, coming off the keeper and in. Any team would prefer to concede a golden goal in such unfortunate circumstances? Penalties rely on the skills and sharpness of two players, the keeper and the taker. Referee's decision plays little in the action, only in the set-up of the kick, positioning of both players. When the 'go' is given to take that kick, it is between two players only. And the crowd. Tense drama and it mostly appeases both sets of fans.

5/26/2008 10:42 am

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yidarmy, spurs fan? shut up muppet. Whats the use of a player starting from the half way line, what to shoot or dribble? So which side or which player starts then?? How do you pick that? Might as well kick off like extra time and be done with. Your idea dont make sense. Sounds like redsman has a beteer argument, stick with the pens. No probs, aint broke, nothing wrong, dont fix it. so someone loses, tough, someone wins, so it goes. Mans game stop moaning and get on with it.

5/26/2008 6:37 pm

 
Anonymous Striker said...

Hi Guys,
Grabbed your uefa.com widget for SFS , hope you dont mind...I believe a protocol mention is always a good practice.

Keep the excellent work guys!
Cheers
Striker

5/26/2008 10:08 pm

 
Anonymous GunnerPete said...

Well 'T' I am not surprised this old chestnut has arisen again following yet another huge competition being decided by penalties.

Hopefully you will remember my email and correspondence with you sometime ago when I sent you the scheme I devised in 1982 which had the backing of Bob Wilson & Jimmy Hill amongst others ie; My player reduction system.

So simple and so effective when used as my brother will testify in Australia, having used it to sttle games out there.

All the system does is provide a football end to the draw after 90 mins. It places the responsibilty squarely on the managing staff to decide what to do. It takes away the terrible stigma of being the 'pillock who missed' from a single player. It provides an exciting but fair way to decide a trophy.

a simple version is as follows:-

after 90 mins....the manager has to take off 3 players (any 3). If after a further 20 mins, he has to take off two.

Now in all the trials we tried the game always ended very soon after the first 20 mins. The main reason was that the gaps provided allowed pacy players to elude everyone and score the vital goal. The game ended at that point.

If in the event of apenalty being awarded during this period the manager can select any one of his squad to take it....even players who have been replaced during or after the 90 mins.

Its still as simple and as exciting as the day I first devised it and sent it (as suggested by Bob Wilson) to the FA, FIFA, The Leage & UEFA....I never received a single reply...that says it all to me about why we are still using this backward & out of date method of ruining a competition.

I submit my case yet again.

5/28/2008 11:58 am

 
Blogger T said...

Yes, I certainly remember it GunnerPete, and I thought about it as a I wrote this over the weekend. Wouldn't it be great if a big name would come forward and suggest the time is ready to review the current system - I guess with a heavyweight name backing a campaign then would the authorities start taking notice.

It may be worth submitting the idea to some of the big football journalists/newspapers - they could be self-interested in taking on the idea and launching a campaign?

Striker, thanks for the acknowledgement. I got the idea of the widget from seeing your own widget! I then decided to explore the net for any others out there and came across the UEFA one which is cool and informative - a good combo and happy that you have also grabbed it for SFS!

5/28/2008 10:13 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hold on, if you take off 3 players then 2 more, how is that going to please the fans watching? Newcastle v Everton, after 90 minutes off comes Butt, Viduka and Jose henrique, then its Hibbert, Arteta, and Johnson. After 20 minutesd its Taylor and Milner, Osman and Baines. Six players left, opening spaces, all very nice. What if the player called off is the one who would have scored the winning goal? Oh but you're so sure of it working you told two old fannies not in the game anymore about it and since then it's gathering cobwebs. A player comes off, like rooney did tonight, and has the sulk, who wants to play all game, why drag him off when you can have 11 out there fighting for it. Your a gunner, says it all with prat ideas. What about taking off Fabregas and Adebayour and Toure, then Gallas and Walcott? Next thing you'll say 'its not fair, this stupid rule, we should have had 11 men on before this rubbish' after you lose. Grow up and come with something decent. worked in australia should it damn well is ok everywhere else. If it was OK then we would have it why they got rid of the golden goal rubbish.

5/29/2008 2:43 am

 
Blogger Abdul said...

Really enjoyable debate. My two pennies:

Are penalties really that unfair? Are they not one of the most thrilling and exciting of sporting spectacles? Is there not a great degree of skill, temperament and bravery on show? I dont believe it is a lottery as demonstrated by the fact that certain countries areinvariably successful at penalties (eg Germany), while others are absolutely pants (England).

5/29/2008 9:38 am

 
Anonymous GunnerPete said...

Hi 'T' Glad you remembered the idea. Sad to see that child readers still invade this website (Anon 29/5) to rubbish anything that is joined up writing. But whislt its usually best just to humour the brainless, this time I will put right some of his/hers/its, questions ?

I know its hard to think in football terms from where you come from matey but my scheme allows the Manager/Coach to take off three players then two at the end of 90 mins then another 20 minutes.

Having seen that your brain has trouble in working out these sums, I will explain how it works in real life.

A good manager will work out just how good the opposition is ie; are they Flash & pacy (Man U) are they strong but quite boring (Chelski /Everton ) are they Half & Half like Liverpool? Based on his knowledge of both sets of players, and who is on form on the night so far...he will in Arsenals case, against say Chelski, will keep on the ball players with pace and reduce 'our' innefective central defence by 2 player and our our defensive midfield by 1. This would have the effect of our formation looking like :- Almunia..Clichy..Sagna...Fabrigas..Walcott...AdeB, Van Percie , Diaby, Rosicky.

Chelski would probably keep all their defenders and most of the midfield keeping only Drogba up front.

Still with me....? Its a football decision not a fl;ash in the pan. It needs knowledge & thought and courage because right or wrong its what he is paid for.

Some teams will go for the defend and pray for a lucky breakaway...so be it but AFC will always go for constructive destruction by passing through. We know it works, but others would have other ideas.

All I do know is that like Rugby sevens, 'experts' said that players could not handle so much room to run and would not stand the pace....WRONG ! They crowds love as do the players and look at the points scored and the entertainment.

As for the insulting comments about the two 'old' players I mentioned. First let me point out that Bob Wilson is loved all over the world as a great ambassador for UK football. He is one of the origial doube side from 1971 he is highly educated and a genuine nice man. Jimmy Hill is also very famouse for achievments on the pitch and off. He is responsible for getting rid of the max wage a great step forward. And again a nice genuine man.

The main point I was making is that my idea brings about a fair way of finishing a big tournament ( single games penalties could be kept if the clubs agree) but the Champs League....never. It should be the best side not the over a period o 90 mins + not who misses or slips ina sudden death farce.

Im sure this will not help you much but I tried and again thats what its all about .

5/30/2008 9:57 am

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oooooh, arent you witty, about as much as your idea is full of crap. No one will want to know about taking off three players then another two to leave a keeper, two defenders, one midfield and two strikers, or two defenders, two midfielders and one striker. Managers choice may not appease the fans and if it goes wrong then the manager takes the flak. Fans say this or that player would have won it if he was left on, why take him off when he was better than another player, and then there's the tiredness of five players running around covering so much when they have trained for a 11-a-side. Mate, in a nutshell, your idea WILL NOT WORK!! OK?? Wide enough for you, in plain English???

This is football, 11-a-side, if we could do with 6-a-side we would have had it already. Everyone else is happy with the penalties after full time and extra time but oh no not you you have to be King Kong beating your chest for all to see because you want this idea that YOU made that so-and-so said was alright and yet they dont dare put their name to it publicly because IT IS CRAP!!!!! Not what we, the fare paying fans, want to see happening to decide our club's place in a competition.

Now, are YOU still with me?? Ah diddums, you want to play and nobody will play with you, nobody likes your way of playing??? Right, means we dont like it, dont want it, dont say it anymore. And when you say Chelsea are strong but boring, wtf are you on?? Jellied eels or something?? YOu had your stupid chance for trophies and threw them away, blaming it on youngsters when in fact you had no bottle for a captain and they thought they were better than they were. We now come and take over, came damn close to running them for title and CL, closer than your running snot mob got and you call us strong but boring??? Learn to keep to your own team mate and stay there.

Your teams crap, your ideas crap, youre crap and you got a big mouth. End of. Cock.

5/31/2008 2:53 pm

 
Anonymous GunnerPete said...

Everything we needed to know about the level of intelligence of Chelski and its fans base was shown by your razor sharp wit and incite into the game. You still have no idea do you. Never mind sunshine, now you have purchased the league twice and a few cups you think that makes you a club of quality....?? Just re-read your own words and ask yourself..." am I an intellegent life form, and have I got any knowledge about anything above scratching pimples etc. If the answer is yes then you need medication.

Why not istead come up with some ideas yourself, or do you need to purchase them too?

6/01/2008 1:57 pm

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Intelligence? So good you can spell it twice correctly....not!! Try 'instead' as well, talking about intelligence. You were meant to say the answer being no, wally.

If I scratch pimples, you like your Arse!! LMAO!! Get it? Should do being brainbox. We bought players when we wanted them, they were great signings and still are, lets face it your Gooner lot have had their meat and believe in their own hype while down at the bridge we earn and carve our craft pal. Your Arse dont buy players because the stadium is bloody draining it all and while the rest of the league like to lie down and let you lot play over them, we dont thats why we got to be 2nd place and champs league where were you? not scratching spots like me, you were good for Kleenex with your tears liek your mate Gallas (we call him Callous cos he thinks of no one but himself so he cries to sleep!!) Terry dropped tears like a true Blues at heart for something worth it, your Callous cant claim that cos you got nowhere

You want ideas? Penalties as they are now, no change, no stupid players off rule, no stupid golden goal rule, just as it is. Clear enough mate? now you run along and tell mummy why you are crying when you dont get anywhere when your friend s think they are better than they really are.

Have one on me, you need it.

6/01/2008 7:53 pm

 
Anonymous GunnerPete said...

Sorry anon its all my fault because I thought I was debating with a man not a pre teen girl. And do you mean Leak ?

Sorry after all that money spent what did you win last season? Oh yes, the £100 mill got you 2 more points WELL DONE , mind you buying the refs helped a bit too.

Time for your nappy change girl and then go and read about real football clubs with great histories, then perhaps you can swagger with pride? END OF SISTER

6/03/2008 10:26 am

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

 

Locations of visitors to this page