Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: 19 Dec 2000, 4:40 pm

Post 15 Jul 2011, 12:11 am

I am not a big soccer fan and mostly pay attention around the World Cup but the thing that impressed me about the tying goal against Brazil was the amount of skill that play took. A perfect cross that the keeper missed by inches and then a perfect header. The women's game is not just a watered down version of the men's. I find women's basketball hard to watch (how they shoot, how they dribble, everything looks awkward) but women's soccer is aesthieticallly pleasing to watch
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 15 Jul 2011, 4:03 am

Japan are not to be underestimated. They cruised through the group (sure, England beat them, but it was not a game they needed to win).

They battled past the Germans, who were apparently the only team in the competition (Rickyyyyy!). I saw some of that game and Japan did look very hard to beat. The USA should be favourites, but I don't think they'll find it easy. It's actually interesting to note that the women's game means that 'bigger' physical sides don't have quite the advantage over 'smaller' skill teams that we see in men's football.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 21 Jul 2011, 3:20 pm

a PK ending, while exciting is kinda dumb.
It's no different than finishing a basketball game by free throws, no different at all.
I am not complaining about a US loss, I did say this was a stupid way to win 12 years ago as well. It's just a stupid system. One idea I had from my coaching girls soccer many moons ago.
Play a golden goal game, after one period, if still tied, start taking players off the field!
You go from 11 vs 11 to 10 vs 10 to 9 vs 9 and so on. You are still playing the same game but making the chances o0f scoring more likely, you start to make certain the team with better depth wins, seems to me to be a win-win all around?

Another note, as stated before, I live in Rochester, NY home of Abby Wambach and home to one of the more successful pro women's teams. Fate had a game just last night seeing Abby Wambach playing at home! The game sold out in moments and we had the all time record attendance figure! We had thousands of fans cheering on Abby, it was pretty awesome!
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 26 Jul 2011, 3:06 pm

Big props to Danivon for picking the Japanese early.
I've seen them fall early too often before. But here they resembled the Spanish Mens team quite a bit.
Possession, possession possession and swarming defence.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 26 Jul 2011, 5:03 pm

Why is taking players off the field a "silly" idea? Settling a game on pk's is NOT "silly"?
At least the players are still playing the same game vs a different game altogether.
And your assertion that playing on and on is a bad idea because players are tired....ummm, both teams are tired, both teams are in the same situation. Baseball is played until it ends, I fully understand the endurance situation is not the same but baseball can be played over 20 innings, pitchers can only throw so many pitches, once players are taken out they can not return, the game can go on for hours upon hours upon hours, the situation is similar yet THEY do it, but not your "superior athletes" in soccer. I do get what you are saying and the penalty kicks are VERY exciting! If you simply want an exciting finish, then this works and I can appreciate that. But if you want "fair" then PK's is hardly the fair way to end a game, it sucks for those on the losing end to lose in such a way....they played the GAME so well, then they lost by a different game.

Settling the game by PK's is indeed similar to a basketball game ended by free throws, it's ending one game by playing a different game, a part of the whole. Why is taking players off silly while PK's "are part of the game"? I fully understand the exhaustion each team faces, but if that's your worry, then change the rules to limit that exhaustion? I see soccer fans talk all about the superior athletic abilities their substitution rules assure, but how can you tot these rules on one hand and then turn around and say the game needs to be ended in some other fashion because the players are tired? how can you have it both ways and not think it silly?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 26 Jul 2011, 6:21 pm

Penaty kicks are part of the game of soccer. It's not a different game at all. And there is absolutely nothing unfair about them at all.

Free Throws are part of the game of basketball, it's not a different game at all. And there is absolutely nothing unfair about them at all.

PKs are rare to see even one in a game

...yet you claim it's a real part of the game?

I think you just supported my position of another game suddenlt deciding the outcome, thanks sport!
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 26 Jul 2011, 6:24 pm

oh, and Big East Semifinal tourney game 2009, Syracuse vs Uconn
Six overtimes
...no free throws decided that game
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 26 Jul 2011, 6:26 pm

1981 Rochester Red Wings vs Pawtucket Red Sox
33 Innings
...no home run derby decided that game
User avatar
Foreign Minister
 
Posts: 6870
Joined: 03 Oct 2002, 1:50 pm

Post 26 Jul 2011, 6:49 pm

I am not a big soccer fan, but as 3 of my 4 kids are into it heavily as players I have had plenty of time to analyze the PK aspect of the game. As well I am an HUGE hockey fan where shoot-outs are now part of the NHL game.

Long story short, I am in favor of PKs. The same as I am in favor of the college-football (real football with helmets & such) style of overtime vs the NFL lame overtime rules. There are no tie games and there is no sudden death. Equal opportunity to step up and claim victory.

The US women choked, the Japanese women didn't; game over, the cup is in Tokyo!
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 27 Jul 2011, 12:59 am

Before Penalty Kicks, we had full replays to decide knock-out competition matches. As in, wait a few days and play the whole thing again.

I much prefer PKs as a least worst option. The idea of taking players off over time has been suggested before, and unsurprisingly, rejected.

(and comparisons to other sports are not really the point - all sports are different)
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 27 Jul 2011, 6:07 pm

PK's are indeed exciting (as are hockey shootouts) but it just seems "wrong" to lose a game by playing a different game to determine so. And using hockey as an example, the NHL doesn't have them in playoff games (though most international tourneys do). Listen I am in agreement it's exciting, I simply said it seems a cheap way to win and a worse way to lose.

Congrats to Japan, they won fair and square, the US won fair and square the same way 12 years ago. I just don't "like" playing a part of the whole (an incredibly minor part at that) to determine the winner.
User avatar
Foreign Minister
 
Posts: 6870
Joined: 03 Oct 2002, 1:50 pm

Post 27 Jul 2011, 7:00 pm

Good point that the NHL does not go with PKs in the playoffs.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 28 Jul 2011, 6:46 am

I clearly stated this was my personal position, therefore I can't be wrong. Please stop trying to tell me I can't have a thought for myself. You are free to believe what you like and I even agree the PKs are exciting. But when you stated PK's (during a game) are very seldom seen and almost rare, well you kinda made my point about a vastly different game within the game suddenly being used to determine the winner was being applied. That sir is a fact, you can like it ...good for you, plenty do like it.
I just think it unfair and kind of stupid.

You are free to like what you want to like, so too ma I free to dislike what I want to dislike.
In my opinion you are deciding one game by playing another and when you yourself stated PK's a rare and rarely practiced, etc, you helped prove that point, thanks for playing along.

What's my point about these other games? Simply that they do not change their game when the going gets tough. I fully understand the fatigue angle, but there are other options to still play the same game to determine the winner. The taking players off is one, changing substitution rules is another, simply adding a golden goal rule would get rid of some shootouts alone. What I am saying is their are other ways to determine the winner while still playing the same game and not changing to one minor portion of the game, to me, it cheapens the victory and yes, the USA won by pk's 12 years ago, while that was exciting, I felt it was a cheapened victory. I coached girls soccer and recall one tourney we won by PK's it too was somewhat shallow and I felt bad for the losing team.

I just don't get it, deciding one game by playing another.
That's me, my personal opinion, if you like it (again, very exciting!) that's your opinion that I happen to disagree with. To my way of thinking, this is one of many reasons the game will never catch on in America as was expected for so long now. I have heard my entire life how soccer will be huge here as well and it just has not happened, nor will it with so few goals scored, Time kept as it is, faked injuries (though the ladies are more manly than the men in this regard), shootout rules with no sudden death, and so on. Just not happening here!
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 28 Jul 2011, 10:12 am

Sorry Randy but you are wrong.
You can like it, that's cool. But the game decided on PK's is not playing the game but rather one aspect of it only. Why not simply line up and play PK's and forget the rest of the game? Absurd an idea, but if it's the same game as you insist, then why not? Your logic fails on this point.
Listen again, you can love the idea and want it, that's cool!
But to claim it's the SAME game? No, you lose it there.

It most certainly is unfair that a game played where passing, defense, play patterns all come into play are suddenly tossed out the window in favor of a goalie making some lucky guesses decides the game, yep ...not quite fair now is it?
You could claim both sides are equal and that makes it fair, but then you can make that same argument about a coin flip as well and I seriously doubt you would consider that fair now would you?
...Thus it is not "fair"
Exciting?
you bet!

and soccer catching on in America?
it's still not even considered one of our major sports now is it?
The viewership is still in the toilet, the pro leagues are folding left and right.

Kids LOVE the game and I coached kids and Loved the game. Please do not confuse a few people liking the game and/or liking watching their kids with watching professionals. Big difference from watching your kids play with watching it on TV and gee, while it may be growing, it's growing s l o w l y and is still hardly thought of in American tv markets.

Why do more kids play it than any other sport?
Because it's an awesome game for them to play, you don't hear me talking t down do you?
But that has been the case for a very long time now and still that has not done much for tv viewership or professional interest in the States. I get it, you love the sport! But because you love it doesn't make it catch Football (REAL football mind you) or Baseball or Basketball or Hockey or Nascar now does it? Yeah, it probably passed bowling and darts ...big deal.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 28 Jul 2011, 12:56 pm

PKs are not the same as a coin toss. The skill of the player is up against the skill of the keeper. It is by no means a random event.

Now, back to the bar-room bickering.