Liverpool Message Board
you are viewing a single comment's thread.view the rest of the posts
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.
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?
- 1 Reply to Paddy
That's a good idea for one leg finals at neutral grounds. Would it be seen as fair for games tied over two legs? A certain match between our teams was decided on penalties after we won 1-0 at our place and you won 1-0 at yours.
Another idea would be to do the penalties before the extra time. Extra time often looks like neither team are trying for the win but both are trying not to lose. Do the penalties first and the team that loses it then has to go looking for a winner. It would mean the result is seen less as who missed the last penalty and it would give more recovery time for the players before they play the last thirty minutes.
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.