I think that's a pretty bad idea - the objective is for a team to win, having to tear apart your team every five minutes would be a very complex and niche tactical meta to master and will result in an incredibly slow paced game as lungs tire when teams get down to 7-8 players each. If teams are on even terms after 90 minutes, and cannot break the deadlock after 30 minutes of Extra Time then they're as evenly matched as possible and therefore deserve a way to win that doesn't break them physically. Whether or not they can handle it mentally is another matter [casts an eye towards England...]
I can say that as a player I can stomach a loss on penalties, I wouldn't say that I enjoy taking them but I could handle it. I would absolutely detest the idea of playing Extra Time with my teammates disappearing every few minutes.
Edit: hope it doesn’t sound like I was having a go at you for raising this proposal! On the contrary, I find it interesting when people want to tweak the game in creative ways and talk about it!
>I think that's a pretty bad idea - the objective is for a team to win
And a series of static 1v1s is more accurate than a series of 10v10s, 9v9s and so on?
People have criticized chess for pretty much the same thing wrt tie breakers for world championship, classic chess being decided by player's proficiency in a very different format and decision making.
I'm not saying I support the diminishing player count, but perhaps penalties should be deferred until another (3rd total) added extra time in the final match only. Maybe give the teams 2 extra subs if it is still tied after 2nd AET.
Yeah I honestly think it is - some extra time to try to get an edge then a series of set pieces where ultimately if they’re evenly matched everyone, even the goalkeepers, could end up taking a pen.
There’s no easy way to handle a situation like this, but utilising an already integral component of the game like penalties is probably the fairest solution, and it helps that it’s the one with the most excitement and drama for those watching. It could be much worse, before penalties a literal coin toss was used. If recall correctly teams made it thru to the European Cup (what the Champions League used to be called) final based on a coin toss
I don't know if that means the better "team" wins, but if that's the point I think is up for debate too...
Having said that in the US college hockey they do a 3 on 3 overtime. In contrast to a typical 5 v 5 game it is INTENSE. Crowd is on the edge of their seat and so on. Suddenly it's like some back yard / local ice rink where kids just get together to play style game.
It's still the same game as far as the players go, but just more space and a great pass or move to shake a defender / goal keeper is huge.
I don't know if that's the best route to go, but it really is exciting and I prefer it to shootouts by far.
> I don't know if that means the better "team" wins, but if that's the point I think is up for debate too...
Of course you should keep in mind that if you want the better team to win with a p-value of e.g. < 0.001, then you will have to play hundreds of games ...
Yeah more so in such a low scoring sport I imagine where rando outcomes are possible?
It's a constant discussion I have where folks talk about a playoff is there to determine the best team but ... that's not really how it works. Having said that, I'd rather not see an endless "regular season" where we just tally up stats and everyone just goes home after playing a ho hum game and happy that they're statistical champs ...
I like playoffs, it produces those extraordinary moments of greatness that we seem to want in sports.
This is the quintessential American take on soccer. It's ok if you're not a soccer fan. Soccer doesn't need to be like hockey or basketball, where teams can be dogshit for most of the season and still wind up as champions.
