Having just watched England lose (again) on penalties, I find myself once again frustrated. Being a player and a supporter, I have never agreed with any football match being decided on penalties. I understand that a winner needs to be determined, but not that way surely... I would rather see them just keep playing on a "next goal wins" scenario, or even reduce the number of players every 5 or 10 minutes or something. Anybody else have any thoughts/suggestions on this one?
sort by best latest
Understand your point. As a "football purist" I don't think that one seldom used and unique skill (penalty taking) should decide the game instead of open play, no matter how many players. It's just not a true reflection of the game in it's entirety.
I said after extra time that is the best option.If it does not get get done and dusted in that period it is the most accurate of things to do at that point rather than removing players although understand completely that it is not a true reflection.
Maybe we should just make the goals higher so these highly skilled professionals could actually hit the target in 90 minutes! I cannot believe how many shots go sailing over the cross bar! If they scored more, penalties would be a non issue!
hahaha mate i don't think fifa will agree with your idea=P
The tactics of the coach/manager would come in to play as to who they take off. Take of a striker and lessen your chance of scoring. Take of defence and maybe get scored upon. Less players = more space = more chance to score. That's what we want.
Flipping a coin is the worst possible solution as it has absolutely nothing to do with football. That would hurt more than losing on penalties from a player's point of view. I'm still an advocate for the idea of reducing the number of players.
whittling down the # of players on the pitch also makes those players more prone to fatigue and injuries: would you really prefer an injured & weary England playing than keeping pks? Why don't England prepare more for pks if it's a problem for th