soccer soccer soccer

[Transmogrified Tiger]

It’s not necessarily the lack of scoring. It’s more the lack of scoring opportunities I think. Goalkeepers can go an entire game without having to make a save and it’s not a rare occasion. And I get that there doesn’t have to be a save for there to have been a scoring chance but it seems to my uneducated eyes that rarely in games is there a true chance of a goal happening. That definitely was NOT the case yesterday.

 

And I hate the fact that the World Cup final was decided on penalty kicks. Seems like such an injustice to the teams in my opinion.

 

I think everyone hates the shootout but they can't keep playing forever. My personal view is make it "golden goal" - ie whoever scores first wins (so Argentina wins when Messi score yesterday).

Yea I was admittedly surprised as I looked up thr overtime rules and found out wasn't a golden goal situation. Sounds like they did it for a while before abandoning again. Is there some purist arguement against it?

 

Golden goal makes for terrible soccer in most cases because teams play so conservatively for the fear of that one slip up. In theory that should be better with the current extra time rules, but often it's similar and teams are just waiting for PKs, which aren't great but save us from endless bad and static play. Player health/conditioning becomes a concern at a certain point too.

 

My favorite variant on this is playing golden goal, but every few minutes(let's say 5) both teams take a player off the field. So by the end of the normal 30 minutes of extra time you're playing 6 v 6 which makes basically every possession a transition moment because of how much space is everywhere at all times. It also encourages teams to go for goal when they're closer to full strength before the chaos of being short handed sets in.

[stitchface]

I really don’t like soccer at all. A large part of that comes from me not knowing the intricacies of the game so I get bored with it easily. I tried multiple times to watch some of the WC games and didn’t enjoy a lot of it. For whatever reason I turned yesterday’s game on not long after the start. I wasn’t paying close attention but it was on and I found myself getting into it a little. The second goal for Argentina was a thing of beauty. I was about to turn it off with Argentina cruising to a 2-0 win when France got their penalty shot. From there to the end of the game it was one of the most exciting sporting events I’ve seen in a long time. I had to chuckle a little when I kept hearing different announcers/commentators talk about how that was the most exciting game in soccer history because I was thinking to myself how maybe I should watch a little more because it was a lot of fun. But nothing will ever top that game so I should probably go out in a high note.

 

I'm not sure it was really the best game ever but the stakes were high. I remember the 86 final was actually similar and then there was the Barcelona-PSG Champions League game a couple years ago . . .

 

I actually got into watching by starting with the champions league highlight show.

[Derwood]

 

I think everyone hates the shootout but they can't keep playing forever. My personal view is make it "golden goal" - ie whoever scores first wins (so Argentina wins when Messi score yesterday).

Yea I was admittedly surprised as I looked up thr overtime rules and found out wasn't a golden goal situation. Sounds like they did it for a while before abandoning again. Is there some purist arguement against it?

 

Golden goal makes for terrible soccer in most cases because teams play so conservatively for the fear of that one slip up. In theory that should be better with the current extra time rules, but often it's similar and teams are just waiting for PKs, which aren't great but save us from endless bad and static play. Player health/conditioning becomes a concern at a certain point too.

 

My favorite variant on this is playing golden goal, but every few minutes(let's say 5) both teams take a player off the field. So by the end of the normal 30 minutes of extra time you're playing 6 v 6 which makes basically every possession a transition moment because of how much space is everywhere at all times. It also encourages teams to go for goal when they're closer to full strength before the chaos of being short handed sets in.

 

Yeah, I was curious if this would work. The 3v3 OT in hockey is a fun way to open up the ice and allow more scoring opportunities. Is the soccer field just SO big that reducing the players becomes ridiculous?

[stitchface]

Yea I was admittedly surprised as I looked up thr overtime rules and found out wasn't a golden goal situation. Sounds like they did it for a while before abandoning again. Is there some purist arguement against it?

 

Golden goal makes for terrible soccer in most cases because teams play so conservatively for the fear of that one slip up. In theory that should be better with the current extra time rules, but often it's similar and teams are just waiting for PKs, which aren't great but save us from endless bad and static play. Player health/conditioning becomes a concern at a certain point too.

 

My favorite variant on this is playing golden goal, but every few minutes(let's say 5) both teams take a player off the field. So by the end of the normal 30 minutes of extra time you're playing 6 v 6 which makes basically every possession a transition moment because of how much space is everywhere at all times. It also encourages teams to go for goal when they're closer to full strength before the chaos of being short handed sets in.

 

Yeah, I was curious if this would work. The 3v3 OT in hockey is a fun way to open up the ice and allow more scoring opportunities. Is the soccer field just SO big that reducing the players becomes ridiculous?

 

I think the players have all been on limit for 20-30 minutes already. That's a lot of ground to cover for exhausted players. I'm not sure of the psychology of it - Argentina was clearly going for it yesterday although they were always going to be favored on the penalty kicks so not sure teams really would be more conservative (knowing they also win if they score). Generally, I think the 30 minutes is too long - mostly because everyone is already exhausted.

[CubColtPacer]

Uneducated ramblings of a casual soccer fan here:

 

I described soccer to someone else as normal play being a team needing basically 3-4 awesome plays strung together in order to get a goal. The joy in the game comes from the rising excitement level as the first play comes together, then the second, then the third. The hard part about it is the last play is the hardest one of the string, and often it doesn't even come close to being completed. The exceptions to these rules are transition play (which is always exciting) or a giveaway, which just doesn't happen that often on the WC level. '

 

I'm not sure if the game itself is more or less exciting on a lower level. More giveaways and mistakes which open up exciting moments, but on the other side even less amazing strikers that completely change the game.

 

The one thing I'd love to change as a casual is that I'd love to assign 0 points for a 0-0 game in the group stage. Force teams to get out and try to get a goal. And it would create even more permutations and drama for who gets out of the group.

[stitchface]

Uneducated ramblings of a casual soccer fan here:

 

I described soccer to someone else as normal play being a team needing basically 3-4 awesome plays strung together in order to get a goal. The joy in the game comes from the rising excitement level as the first play comes together, then the second, then the third. The hard part about it is the last play is the hardest one of the string, and often it doesn't even come close to being completed. The exceptions to these rules are transition play (which is always exciting) or a giveaway, which just doesn't happen that often on the WC level. '

 

I'm not sure if the game itself is more or less exciting on a lower level. More giveaways and mistakes which open up exciting moments, but on the other side even less amazing strikers that completely change the game.

 

The one thing I'd love to change as a casual is that I'd love to assign 0 points for a 0-0 game in the group stage. Force teams to get out and try to get a goal. And it would create even more permutations and drama for who gets out of the group.

 

there were seven 0-0s in the World Cup - I think 6 in the group stage. I wonder if changing the rule from tiebreaker from goal differential to goals scored would be motivating?

[imb]

I get why people don't like seeing a match end after 120 minutes with penalties, but i don't know a better way to end it. If you go much beyond 120 you're gonna just have a bunch of corpses out there before too long. Someone once mentioned doing alternating set pieces until someone scores (think knockout in basketball) but that could still end with a bunch of fatigued players running 35 corner routines in a row until someone just dies of exhaustion.

 

maybe i could get behind alternating set pieces as long as all or some of them were in that range where you can either take a shot at goal or play them into the box and hope for a header or chaos goal, might be more strategy than PKs. But i guess at the same time maybe you're just doing a harder version of PKs with no real benefit other than being different?

[UMFan83]

I get why people don't like seeing a match end after 120 minutes with penalties, but i don't know a better way to end it. If you go much beyond 120 you're gonna just have a bunch of corpses out there before too long. Someone once mentioned doing alternating set pieces until someone scores (think knockout in basketball) but that could still end with a bunch of fatigued players running 35 corner routines in a row until someone just dies of exhaustion.

 

maybe i could get behind alternating set pieces as long as all or some of them were in that range where you can either take a shot at goal or play them into the box and hope for a header or chaos goal, might be more strategy than PKs. But i guess at the same time maybe you're just doing a harder version of PKs with no real benefit other than being different?

 

I know this is usually a hated idea but can we maybe go back to golden goal? Maybe instead of 2 15 minute periods, you do a single 15 minute period and then golden goal for the next 15 (or 30) mins. Though looking at this World Cup that would have only affected 2 of the 5 games to go into penalties so it doesn't solve the "issue" of PKs.

 

All that said, I don't mind pk's. I'd rather it just keep going until someone wins, but doesn't seem feasible unless you allow more subs or the crazy idea of letting people sub back in after the match gets to a certain point.

[wolf stansson]

I like the old MLS shoot out format. I like the idea of doing them before kick off so everyone knows what the result will be in the event of a tie before hand. They can also keep the current format. Idc.

 

 

 

I have purchased two season tix for inter Miami. Schedule drops tomorrow. Hopefully Messi isn’t convinced to stay by the Qataris at PSG, because I am v excited.

[Sammy Sofa]

but that could still end with a bunch of fatigued players running 35 corner routines in a row until someone just dies of exhaustion.

 

[stitchface]

but that could still end with a bunch of fatigued players running 35 corner routines in a row until someone just dies of exhaustion.

 

 

 

I don't see how that is better than penalties. I think golden goal - at least is rewards a team that tries to score. if they aren't going to try, they aren't going to try.

[stitchface]

also, what could have been more exciting than a golden goal walkoff win?

 

I know, I know, a golden goal walkoff win with a VAR review . . .

[imb]

I'm not saying it's better and obviously any idea I come up with is gonna be worse than what the world's soccer minds have come up with. I just mean people are always complaining about PKs because they happen outside the run of play, and I'm just trying to illustrate how it's not that easy to come up with a scenario that resembles on-field soccer and still gets you a winner without having to sit and watch Chris Birdman Anderson brick 45 dunks in a row.

 

I do kinda like the "PKs happen" pregame idea, at least the game ends on the field

[17 Seconds]

how much more taxing is running than skating? hockey players are basically skating around like zombies in deep playoff OT games, but it's still glorious

[We Got The Whole 9]

If only Mbappe had converted that header right around the 120 mark. so close

[Sammy Sofa]

having to sit and watch Chris Birdman Anderson brick 45 dunks in a row

 

I mean, this kinda sounds pretty awesome.

[wolf stansson]

how much more taxing is running than skating? hockey players are basically skating around like zombies in deep playoff OT games, but it's still glorious

Considering hockey has unlimited subs (lines/shifts) and soccer only allows 5? A lot more taxing. Not a useful comp.

[stitchface]

how much more taxing is running than skating? hockey players are basically skating around like zombies in deep playoff OT games, but it's still glorious

Considering hockey has unlimited subs (lines/shifts) and soccer only allows 5? A lot more taxing. Not a useful comp.

 

I think it's just really different physiologically. Soccer is like a 10k run with sprinting some percentage of the time.

[17 Seconds]

how much more taxing is running than skating? hockey players are basically skating around like zombies in deep playoff OT games, but it's still glorious

Considering hockey has unlimited subs (lines/shifts) and soccer only allows 5? A lot more taxing. Not a useful comp.

 

oh yeah

[stitchface]

I'm not saying it's better and obviously any idea I come up with is gonna be worse than what the world's soccer minds have come up with. I just mean people are always complaining about PKs because they happen outside the run of play, and I'm just trying to illustrate how it's not that easy to come up with a scenario that resembles on-field soccer and still gets you a winner without having to sit and watch Chris Birdman Anderson brick 45 dunks in a row.

 

I do kinda like the "PKs happen" pregame idea, at least the game ends on the field

 

this would hugely impact how the teams play though - not sure that would be good. Note the hated "away goals" rule that was just abandoned.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Yea I was admittedly surprised as I looked up thr overtime rules and found out wasn't a golden goal situation. Sounds like they did it for a while before abandoning again. Is there some purist arguement against it?

 

Golden goal makes for terrible soccer in most cases because teams play so conservatively for the fear of that one slip up. In theory that should be better with the current extra time rules, but often it's similar and teams are just waiting for PKs, which aren't great but save us from endless bad and static play. Player health/conditioning becomes a concern at a certain point too.

 

My favorite variant on this is playing golden goal, but every few minutes(let's say 5) both teams take a player off the field. So by the end of the normal 30 minutes of extra time you're playing 6 v 6 which makes basically every possession a transition moment because of how much space is everywhere at all times. It also encourages teams to go for goal when they're closer to full strength before the chaos of being short handed sets in.

 

Yeah, I was curious if this would work. The 3v3 OT in hockey is a fun way to open up the ice and allow more scoring opportunities. Is the soccer field just SO big that reducing the players becomes ridiculous?

 

I play indoor soccer, which is 6 v 6 and has more hockey elements(free substitution, ball bounces off walls, etc). It also is played on roughly a hockey rink sized field, and feels pretty appropriately spaced in most cases. Now here's that size compared to a full soccer field to give you an idea of how much space would exist.

 

[stitchface]

 

Golden goal makes for terrible soccer in most cases because teams play so conservatively for the fear of that one slip up. In theory that should be better with the current extra time rules, but often it's similar and teams are just waiting for PKs, which aren't great but save us from endless bad and static play. Player health/conditioning becomes a concern at a certain point too.

 

My favorite variant on this is playing golden goal, but every few minutes(let's say 5) both teams take a player off the field. So by the end of the normal 30 minutes of extra time you're playing 6 v 6 which makes basically every possession a transition moment because of how much space is everywhere at all times. It also encourages teams to go for goal when they're closer to full strength before the chaos of being short handed sets in.

 

Yeah, I was curious if this would work. The 3v3 OT in hockey is a fun way to open up the ice and allow more scoring opportunities. Is the soccer field just SO big that reducing the players becomes ridiculous?

 

I play indoor soccer, which is 6 v 6 and has more hockey elements(free substitution, ball bounces off walls, etc). It also is played on roughly a hockey rink sized field, and feels pretty appropriately spaced in most cases. Now here's that size compared to a full soccer field to give you an idea of how much space would exist.

 

 

great graphic. would be interesting to see who coaches sacrificed.

[imb]

I'm not saying it's better and obviously any idea I come up with is gonna be worse than what the world's soccer minds have come up with. I just mean people are always complaining about PKs because they happen outside the run of play, and I'm just trying to illustrate how it's not that easy to come up with a scenario that resembles on-field soccer and still gets you a winner without having to sit and watch Chris Birdman Anderson brick 45 dunks in a row.

 

I do kinda like the "PKs happen" pregame idea, at least the game ends on the field

 

this would hugely impact how the teams play though - not sure that would be good. Note the hated "away goals" rule that was just abandoned.

 

isnt that the point?

[wolf stansson]

how much more taxing is running than skating? hockey players are basically skating around like zombies in deep playoff OT games, but it's still glorious

Considering hockey has unlimited subs (lines/shifts) and soccer only allows 5? A lot more taxing. Not a useful comp.

 

oh yeah

Hold on…unlimited on the fly subs in OT? Guys can come back in? That would be chaotic fun.

[stitchface]

I'm not saying it's better and obviously any idea I come up with is gonna be worse than what the world's soccer minds have come up with. I just mean people are always complaining about PKs because they happen outside the run of play, and I'm just trying to illustrate how it's not that easy to come up with a scenario that resembles on-field soccer and still gets you a winner without having to sit and watch Chris Birdman Anderson brick 45 dunks in a row.

 

I do kinda like the "PKs happen" pregame idea, at least the game ends on the field

 

this would hugely impact how the teams play though - not sure that would be good. Note the hated "away goals" rule that was just abandoned.

 

isnt that the point?

 

not for me. you would give one team an unfair advantage for the 90 minutes of play. basically, you're starting the game with a 1/2 goal lead.