2021 Euro 2020

[Westheim]

The little prince is sad.

There were a few really ****** kicks in there. Look at what Maguire does. That's all I'm gonna -

Okay, one: IIII-TAAAA-LIAAAAA, IIII-TAAAA-LIAAAA!!

[Bub13]

Better team won, I hate to admit. At least we were spared the usual Italian theatricals.

After that England goal I turned to my wife and said "This'll end 1-1 and England will lose on penalties, like usual!"

[BBGiovanni]

Originally Posted by Westheim

Shootout. The horror.

Kinda, I guess Insigne was hurt but it seemed odd to take the guy that takes all Napoli's kicks out.


Fortunately, England subbed in just the right guys to hop around and shank kicks!

[Boomcoach]

I think Southgate has to take the blame for this one, start to finish. England get the early goal, then try to park the bus for the next 88 minutes. At one point Italy had 71% possession. The tying goal was inevitable. the best chance for a goal England had in those 88 minutes was another dive by Sterling ("Hey, it worked against Denmark!")

Southgate followed that up by subbing in 2 penalty takers so late that I don't know if either one touched a ball in play before the shootout. It was farcical handling of an extremely talented squad.

Not a fan of the shootout, either, but I don't see a better, or fairer, way to end a knockout game. I wouldn't mind returning to Golden Goal, but that isn't really going to help avoid many shootouts.

It was a strange tournament for me, as a US fan with no skin in the game. I am far more familiar with the English players, from watching so much Premier League, and I like many of them, but England, as a national team, annoy me.

Italy has moved well beyond their traditional, defend for a 1-0 score and rival South American players for theatrical dives and overreactions. they were a fun squad to watch this tourney and I have always had a tendency, because of the diving, to root against them, but that changed this year.

[dkgo]

People being more familiar with english players since they mostly watch the premier league makes you think they are better than they are. Pretty natural.

Fact is they rode a soft path while playing their games at home and still needed a blatant dive to even get there. Runner-up is a flattering result overall.

And their fans are probably the biggest group of assholes in the world so it was great to see them blow it. Cant go anywhere without seeing video of them beating people up in the stadium or racially abusing players.

[Boomcoach]

Originally Posted by dkgo

People being more familiar with english players since they mostly watch the premier league makes you think they are better than they are. Pretty natural.

Fact is they rode a soft path while playing their games at home and still needed a blatant dive to even get there. Runner-up is a flattering result overall.

And their fans are probably the biggest group of assholes in the world so it was great to see them blow it. Cant go anywhere without seeing video of them beating people up in the stadium or racially abusing players.

I agree with the soft path, but I also think that Southgate did not utilize what he had available very well. Rather than use that safe path to get some rhythm going, he played it safe and defensive all tournament, with a roster that, imo, has some pretty good attacking talent.

[Ragnar]

England looked pretty good for the first 20 minutes. To me they looked better. Then they went on defense.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Boomcoach

Not a fan of the shootout, either, but I don't see a better, or fairer, way to end a knockout game. I wouldn't mind returning to Golden Goal, but that isn't really going to help avoid many shootouts.

The shootout is definitely exciting, but IMO it's a terrible way to decide a game after players have gone 120+ minutes actually playing soccer. Shootouts are mostly luck. I mean, goalies and the shooters are definitely skilled, but it's merely a guessing game, combined with both the shooter and goalie hoping they don't screw up. But it's not really soccer.

My solution? I'm sure I'll skewered for this, but I'd like to see the following, using Italy/England as the example:

a) 30 minutes of OT, as per current rules
b) Italy gets five minutes to play with an 11-on-7 advantage
c) England gets five minutes to play with an 11-on-7 advantage
d) Italy gets another five minutes to play with an 11-on-7 advantage
e) England gets another five minutes to play with an 11-on-7 advantage
f) If still tied, each team gets 1 five-minute segment to play with an 11-on-5 advantage
g) If still tied, go to a shootout that is - rather than PK's - 3 offensive players vs 2 defenders and the goalkeeper...

Or maybe just skip b thru f, and go straight from a to go. Regardless, at least the game would be decided by actual soccer, rather the luck of a guessing game, where the only activity (PK's) is something that is a very small part - if one at all - of an actual game.

[Boomcoach]

Originally Posted by thehef

The shootout is definitely exciting, but IMO it's a terrible way to decide a game after players have gone 120+ minutes actually playing soccer. Shootouts are mostly luck. I mean, goalies and the shooters are definitely skilled, but it's merely a guessing game, combined with both the shooter and goalie hoping they don't screw up. But it's not really soccer.

My solution? I'm sure I'll skewered for this, but I'd like to see the following, using Italy/England as the example:

a) 30 minutes of OT, as per current rules
b) Italy gets five minutes to play with an 11-on-7 advantage
c) England gets five minutes to play with an 11-on-7 advantage
d) Italy gets another five minutes to play with an 11-on-7 advantage
e) England gets another five minutes to play with an 11-on-7 advantage
f) If still tied, each team gets 1 five-minute segment to play with an 11-on-5 advantage
g) If still tied, go to a shootout that is - rather than PK's - 3 offensive players vs 2 defenders and the goalkeeper...

Or maybe just skip b thru f, and go straight from a to go. Regardless, at least the game would be decided by actual soccer, rather the luck of a guessing game, where the only activity (PK's) is something that is a very small part - if one at all - of an actual game.

I have heard suggestion of playing 10 on 10 in added time, lower numbers tends to lead to higher scores being the logic. Don't think I could get behind your idea, which sounds like the NCAA football overtime rules. I also think it could be problematic for 4 players to sit out for 5+ minutes then go back in. That is just asking for injuries.

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by dkgo

And their fans are probably the biggest group of assholes in the world so it was great to see them blow it. Cant go anywhere without seeing video of them beating people up in the stadium or racially abusing players.

A couple of their players (Rashford, Sancho) can use some abuse for the horrible penalties they shot, tiptoeing around the ball like it's all hot potatoes out there.

Abuse for their penalty kicking skills, mind, not the other thing.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Boomcoach

I have heard suggestion of playing 10 on 10 in added time, lower numbers tends to lead to higher scores being the logic. Don't think I could get behind your idea, which sounds like the NCAA football overtime rules. I also think it could be problematic for 4 players to sit out for 5+ minutes then go back in. That is just asking for injuries.

Ya, good point on the sitting out then going back in... But basketball players do it... I'd be for anything that has actually playing soccer decide the game, rather than the flukiness of PK's. In hockey, 4-on-4 makes a huge difference, as each side loses 20% of it's skaters. And 3-on-3 is guaranteed to have plenty of scoring opportunities. I'm not sure in soccer that 10-on-10 would make a big enough difference. That's only a 10% reduction on a huge field. Maybe 8 on 8? 7 on 7?

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Boomcoach

Don't think I could get behind your idea, which sounds like the NCAA football overtime rules.

I hear you. I'm not a fan of that. But at least they're playing football. The football equivalent of soccer's current OT rules would be if in football the teams were still tied after OT, they get the two quarterbacks and have a contest throwing footballs at tires swinging from ropes

[ukhotstove]

Originally Posted by thehef

The shootout is definitely exciting, but IMO it's a terrible way to decide a game after players have gone 120+ minutes actually playing soccer. Shootouts are mostly luck. I mean, goalies and the shooters are definitely skilled, but it's merely a guessing game, combined with both the shooter and goalie hoping they don't screw up. But it's not really soccer.

My solution? I'm sure I'll skewered for this, but I'd like to see the following, using Italy/England as the example:

a) 30 minutes of OT, as per current rules
b) Italy gets five minutes to play with an 11-on-7 advantage
c) England gets five minutes to play with an 11-on-7 advantage
d) Italy gets another five minutes to play with an 11-on-7 advantage
e) England gets another five minutes to play with an 11-on-7 advantage
f) If still tied, each team gets 1 five-minute segment to play with an 11-on-5 advantage
g) If still tied, go to a shootout that is - rather than PK's - 3 offensive players vs 2 defenders and the goalkeeper...

Or maybe just skip b thru f, and go straight from a to go. Regardless, at least the game would be decided by actual soccer, rather the luck of a guessing game, where the only activity (PK's) is something that is a very small part - if one at all - of an actual game.

I'm figuring you have a coin toss to decide that Italy go first, if so your deciding the game on the toss of a coin.

Italy passes the ball around runs the England players into the ground for there 5 minutes or you have the scenario of England putting 7 players behind the ball. When I played we even trained with 5 defenders against 8 attackers, bit like your idea, we used to stack the penalty box with a goalkeeper and 5 defenders trust me not easy to score.

Penalties aren't a great way but it's probably the best, as was stated 10 v 10 was mentioned years ago, I'd go 10 v 10 10 minutes, then go 9 v 9 with you being able to make a substitution in each 10 minutes. If no decision after 7 v 7 then penalties.

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by ukhotstove

Penalties aren't a great way but it's probably the best, as was stated 10 v 10 was mentioned years ago, I'd go 10 v 10 10 minutes, then go 9 v 9 with you being able to make a substitution in each 10 minutes. If no decision after 7 v 7 then penalties.

That adds an hour of game time, potentially. Ain't nobody got time for that!

[ukhotstove]

My take.

Italy were not only the better team on the night but the whole tournament.

A minority of English fans don't even deserve to have won, I know it was a minority but I'd ban every English fan who was in Wembley for booing the Italian anthem. For the fans who broke into Wembley, £10,000 fine and a ban from every stadium in England just like they do if you run on the pitch.

Sack Southgate, his tactics after the first goal was shocking. Italy were on the ropes, he should have gone for the throat. His subs in extra time were shocking, giving Rashford and Sancho no time to get their heads in the game and putting Rashford in at right back just so he was on the field for penalties, utterly shocking.

Penalties, it's not rocket science. Most of the ones scored the player went up and hammered it, even if the goalkeeper gets an hand on it 9 times out of 10 it goes in. You dance round the ball, 9 times out of 10 the goalkeeper saves it.

They'll keep Southgate on because he's a yes man but imo, his tactics cost England, not the lads that missed the penalties.

[ukhotstove]

Originally Posted by Westheim

That adds an hour of game time, potentially. Ain't nobody got time for that!

If the PlayStation genre don't want to watch them give them an extra hour on fifa, others would like the extra hour, advertisers, beer sales, food sales.

[ukhotstove]

I actually didn't see what was wrong with golden goal, if you add that to the 10v10, 9v9 etc idea, least it would be decided on skill.

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by ukhotstove

If the PlayStation genre don't want to watch them give them an extra hour on fifa, others would like the extra hour, advertisers, beer sales, food sales.

Please explain to me how players, that lie on their back with a cramp after 100 minutes, are supposed to play almost 200 minutes, with the load only increasing as things go to 9v9 and so on.

[thehef]

Taking multiple comments/replies into account, what would be wrong with going straight to Golden Goal (no current double-15 minute OT period) with a significant reduction in the number of players? Going to just 10 or even 9 probably doesn't approach the realm of a guaranteeing of a goal being scored in, say 15-20 minutes, but maybe 7-on-7 would?

If you have, say, 7-on-7 sudden death beginning after regulation, doesn't this accomplish three things?

1) Actually deciding the game by playing soccer, albeit slightly modified
2) Addressing concerns about the the game going on and on and on...
3) Addressing concerns about ultra-fatigued players cramping up, etc. (it doesn't eliminate those concerns, but it wouldn't be any more playing time than the current system, and it would be much less than going 10-on-10, then 9-on-9, then 8-on-8, and so forth.

[ukhotstove]

Originally Posted by Westheim

Please explain to me how players, that lie on their back with a cramp after 100 minutes, are supposed to play almost 200 minutes, with the load only increasing as things go to 9v9 and so on.

The game wouldn't go on that long, 200 minutes would be an extreme it's like me saying they could take 200 penalties. The longest penalty shoot out is 48, could you imagine sitting through 48 penalties.