Liverpool Message Board
you are viewing a single comment's thread.view the rest of the posts
Robert, I know your just re-posting someone else’s prose here, but wonder what you really think of what your fellow blue is saying?
Seems to me either its a bit of a case of sour grapes because on at least a couple of those occasions where extra time and penalties resulted in a cup for LFC I think we went through you lot and beat you fair and square.
Or maybe he's having a serious critic of the best way to settle a game that's all square at the end of 90 minutes (but of course without having the balls to actually provide his own suggestion).
If that is the case I suppose he feels teams that fight back to earn a draw within 90 minutes just don't deserve extra time; or, penalties if extra time is not enough. I suppose the motto might be if you can't lead a game you should not win a game, but of course that is counter to his logic on the old golden goals, but violating logic does not seem to be a concern. But maybe he'd advocate the old idea of replays if games can’t be settled after extra time, sure that would work well these days!
But something tells me this would never have been written, or the ideas would have been hidden away, if only John Terry had not slipped on the new turf in Moscow a few years back!
Oh dear, don't take it too seriously, I just found it mildly amusing.
I much preferred the golden goal actually. I think you'll probably get the better team winning more often, and seen to win. I don't like the lottery of the penalty shootout and the focus on the players who don't score. The only disadvantage of the golden goal is that you don't know how long it will go on for.
Alternatively, if level after extra time I would award the game to the team who won the most corners. Reward the attacking team. That also has the advantage that both teams won't be playing for a draw.
- 2 Replies to Robert M
I always thought that at the end of extra time you could award the match to whoever scored last. It would encourage attacking play and discourage defensive play (if you were only 1 up, you are still in danger of going out so it makes sense to try and get the second goal).
What do you think?
Don't take much on here too seriously to be honest, although I assume you were looking for a reaction otherwise why post it. Just glad you did come back to actually put your point of view down rather than just leaving something that is obviously anti LFC.
Personally I'm not a big fan of penalties either, but you've got to end it some how. Not sure about corners, as it might be a bit arbitrary, so why not also count throw in's in the oppositions half, or maybe time of possession. I don't mind the golden goal, but think better if it’s in an additional extra time period. That is a lot of playing, so bit harsh on the players, and sure the TV companies would not be thrilled with not knowing when a game would end. Maybe do like they do in ice hockey over here where they just keep playing additional over times until someone eventually scores.
But at the end of the day, we are talking about a cup final, which is when usually the best team on the day (or just for a brief passage of play when a goal results) wins, but not necessarily the best team. In 2005 for much of the game AC Milan was the better team but then again they could not hold the lead or close out the game. But imo in 2007 we were better than Milan, yet it was the Italian side that got the cup.
But also should note, while penalties may have an element of luck and will likely punish the team that makes a mistake rather than the side who produces better play, is that not true for many matches when teams are fairly evenly matched? One call; from the ref, a non off side flag, or a tragic mistake by a keeper or defender can often swing a game, and not necessarily to the better playing side. So football can be a lottery, and penalty kicks are not so different.
It really is a shame that for Sir Robert, this awful, barely above relegation fodder Liverpool side have smeared the Carling Cup by winning it, as well as clearly disobeying his highness' orders for someone else of a higher calibre in "a football match" to win. Afterall, in this very same competition, in the final one year ago, it was London's biggest club who waltzed right over and through their underdog opponent for 90 minutes en route to glory..
I could only imagine the outrage he and those on his noble counsel would have felt, if this side were to have gone through his club in this competition needing a win to progress...
Oh sh.it, wait.... I could swear I had a dream that did happen, and in this silly dream, Liverpool actually had to go to Stamford Bridge too!
For exactly how many minutes did 3rd biggest club in London lead in that tie, in the "football match"? (2-0 says not very long)
How many minutes did they have the lead vs Europe's Elite and Super Power Birmingham City, in the inferior FA Cup match, ALSO at Stamford Bridge? I think that was also a "football match", though I'm known to have a wild imagination at times..