Dispelling the Myths of the World Cup
There are a couple of interesting articles penned by Simon Kuper in this weekend’s Financial Times. In the first, he tries to dispel some of the myths that are associated with the World Cup. I happen to agree with most of his thoughts but I’m not too sure I can agree with his belief that penalty shoot-outs are a decent way to decide a football match.
In response to the idea that “Penalty shoot-outs are a lottery, a terrible way of deciding football matches,” Kuper writes:
You might as well say that putts in golf are a lottery. Penalty shoot-outs test the ability to beat a goalkeeper from 12 yards while exhausted and with tens of millions of people watching. Clearly there is an element of luck, as in almost everything.
There is nothing wrong with this statement, but during the course of a football match a penalty shot is a very rare event. It is not like golf where a player has to putt every third or fourth stroke. While a penalty kick might test the nerves of the players and it does require a certain skill, I don’t think it is the best way to determine a winner. It reflects a mere element of the sport, one that doesn’t usually play a significant role during a 90-minute game.
Kuper’s other article offers an interesting look at the history of German football and the role history has played in that development. Kuper is never one to mince words and offers up this take on the current state of the German team:
Since then Germany has become a country with a stagnant economy, a skeleton army, and a laughable football team. Germany has not won a prize or even a European Championship match since 1996. It has not beaten a front-rank nation since defeating England at Wembley in 2000. Having sufficed with two managers from 1937 to 1978, Germany has been through so many recently that in 2004 Spiegel magazine printed an application form for its readers to send in: ‘You want to manage the German national team? No problem!’ The job went to the former German international Jurgen Klinsmann. He has not only continued losing while living in California, but also intends to get rid of the legendary German white shirts with the black eagle, thus stripping the team of all remaining mystique.”
I’m sure there are plenty of Germans who would like nothing more than to have Mr. Kuper eat his words this summer.
 |
Soccer Forums | International Results |  |
 |  Travel |
Related Posts
Subscribe
|
Print
|
Share        |
Comments
By Lucas | May 27th, 2006 at 12:52 pm 
Re: penalty shoot-outs. I agree with you Bob, it’s a terrible way to decide a game (viz. the FA Cup Final this year – that was a fantastic match and it was a shame that it had to end on penalties), but if two teams play 120 minutes, the players are going to be dog-tired. What is the alternative?
Posted from 
United States
By chuck | May 27th, 2006 at 1:00 pm My alternative would be a hockey-style penalty shot, where an offensive player gets the ball about 35 yards (or so) out, and goes 1v1 with the keeper.
The offensive player would only get a certain amount of time to shoot (a reasonable amount, though), and up until that point, he can dribble the ball. Meanwhile, the keeper starts on his line, but when the whistle blows, he can charge up to cut off the angle.
The offensive player can choose to either power one by, or try to round the keeper, or try a chip, but if he doesn’t get his shot off in about 5 or 6 seconds, a “buzzer” or something goes off, and his turn is over.
MLS did something like this for their first season or two, and I think it is superior to a shoot-out (less luck, more skill, more like a realistic game situation), potentially more exciting than a shoot-out, and it’s a good way to get the game over after 120 minutes of field-play.
Say what you will about MLS, I think this innovation (though subsequently scrapped by MLS) is superior to spot-kicks in determining which team should advance after 120 minutes.
Posted from United States
By Cajun Nick | May 27th, 2006 at 2:31 pm What about allowing extra substitutions (2 or 3), and playing until someone wins?
I know already that someone will give 2 obvious objections:
1) There’s got to be a limit set, or games could last until the next day (or longer);
2) The level of play will fall off dramatically because of fatigue, and it won’t be great to watch.
My answer is: Let’s be realistic. Matches won’t last “forever”. One good thing about baseball is that the game lasts until someone wins. No matter how long it takes.
Sure, players will get tired, but that’s where having the best team comes in. The best teams are more than 13-15 players deep. The best teams are fit, and will outlast the other team.
But at least this way, no one can say it was a lucky win.
Posted from United States
By Martin | May 27th, 2006 at 5:36 pm I agree with Nick, they should play until one team wins. Abolish penatly shoot outs. We’ve seen how many superstars of football have failed at penalty shoot outs over the years and it’s not fair for the game to be decided this way.
Subs is a perfect answer for extra time. The game will eventually end. Survival of the fittest.
By chris | May 27th, 2006 at 5:57 pm With the amount of TV money coming into the game, they cannot allow games to go way over their allotted time. Plus how is it fair for a team in the quarter or semi final play for longer than 120 minutes and then have to back up a few days later to play another big match with all their players exhausted? Perhaps for the Final it would work, but for earlier games you stand to have a team with a marked disadvantage over a team that finished it’s match in regular time.
Having said that, I don’t have a better solution. Shoot-outs have plenty of drama and make for great TV but anyone who’s played the game knows how heart-breaking it to go through one and lose. The one-on-one solution would certainly be interesting and I’d like to see FIFA give it a go. With so many players out there with sublime skills on the ball it could prove very entertaining.
Posted from United States
By Cajun Nick | May 27th, 2006 at 6:19 pm Chris,
I’ve thought about the lack of rest for teams involved in prolonged matches, and, frankly, still don’t see a problem.
For me, part of the “team” is having players on the bench who can step up and contribute valuable minutes, whether those minutes are within the first 90, or sometime after that.
As for TV time, I believe that is only a consideration here in the States. The World Cup, however, is global. Having had some experience watching a few World Cups and Euro Championships in Belgium, I can assure you that if a game were to last 150 or 180 minutes, there would be no problem televising it.
Posted from United States
By Adrian Wagner | May 27th, 2006 at 9:16 pm I’m disagreeing with the gernaral trend here. While a penalty shoot-out is a very cruel way, it is also very spectacular with heroes and ‘looser stars’ being created. Nations hold their breath while one of their players attempts to take the kick. Tension is at it’s peak. Cruel, yes. But exciting.
I don’t agree with the idea that more subs could allow the teams to play until somebody wins. The reason is simple: it will hurt the sport. If you possibly need 20 similarly strong players to win a Champions League final, the rich teams will buy 20 similar strong players. This will end in sights as we had it with AC Milan for a while, where they had a whole set of national team players from all around the world ON THE BENCH. 1. of all, this hurts the form of the player. Playing games is important – no matter how talented you are, you need game practice. If half of the worlds best players will sit on the bench most of the time, generally the quality of the game will sink (especially on World and Continental Cups). 2. the ‘finance division’ will become even bigger. Only the few rich teams have a chance to win a title really. And having watched this process over the last 25 years already – I don’t want it to be even worse than it is already: No more power for ManU, Chelsea, Real, Barca, Milan, etc. It’s supposed to be a competition in sport and not finances.
Cajun Nick: you wrote, MSL got rid of this rule after two years. What was the reason why? Obviously, the MSL thought it not to be a good idea after all.
So, while yeah, penalty shootout does include some luck (although most missed penalties are just plain ‘bad shots’ rather than ‘unlucky’) – I think it’s an ok way to end a tournament game. Just imagine the 94 World Cup final between Brazil – Italy. Arguably the worst final ever. And it would have carried on for hours this way! Nope, boys. Put the ball on the spot and take some responsibility.
Posted from 
Australia
By WorldCupBehaviour.de | May 27th, 2006 at 11:29 pm I agree with Adrian there. Cruel but extremely exciting.
Posted from 
Germany
By Akbar | May 28th, 2006 at 1:22 am The MLS solution is definitely the best one. There would be nothing quite as thrilling as watching some of the best players in the World go one on one against some of best keepers.
Posted from 
Switzerland
By DT | May 28th, 2006 at 4:48 am I agree with Adrian Wagner. Penalty shoot-outs are so damn exciting. It’s like watching a thriller movie. You can see how confident/nervous the player is when he places the ball on the spot .
If after 120 minutes, both teams are equally as good physically, there’s nothing wrong with a nerve contest to see who’s mentally tougher.
On a sidenote, I never understand why FIFA scraped the golden goal rule. It’s a good rule to reduce the chance of penalty shoot-outs happening. Bring that back on and we’ll have fewer penalty shoot-outs.
Posted from Australia
By Double B | May 28th, 2006 at 10:56 pm The penalty shootout is a terribly unfair way to decide a match. I can’t think of another sport that has such an arbitrary means of advancing a team after a tie game. That being said, it is incredibly exciting. I remember watching France-West Germany in 1982 (first World Cup shootout) and it was unbelievably captivating (didn’t hurt that the 120 minutes beforehand were incredible as well).
So instead of eliminating the shootout, minimize the amount of times that it comes into play. After first round play in 1982, the 12 advancing teams were regrouped into 4 groups of 3. The winners of those groups advanced to the semifinals. You could do the same thing in today’s 32 team field. Take the 16 remaining teams after the opening round and group them into 4 sets of 4. The winners of each group advance to the semifinals. This leaves the shootout, but also minimizes the amount of time that it will effect the outcome of a game.
Posted from United States
By swthrhs | June 1st, 2006 at 5:59 pm Some interesting ideas have been aired by people here, but I think it highly unlikely that something will be done about it all.
For a start, penalties aren’t all that bad. In fact, ehy’re great. Yes, it hurts to lose like that, but at least there is an element of skill in them, to say nothing of being able to control your nerves. Remember England going out on penalties to Argentina in 98? Who was responsible? David Batty, the most unskilful player on the pitch. Plus, ever since the back pass was axed, we tend to see less of goalkeepers running the show in the way that somebody like Zoff did. Penalty shoot outs brings this element back.
There is only one problem with penalty kicks as far as I’m concerned, and it’s that football is a team sport, whereas penalties reduce the action to individual combat between the keeper and the penalty taker.
I like Double D’s idea more games being played, but I just can’t see it working, because it would increase the number of games played inordinately. I doubt if even Brazil and Italy can handle 8-9 games in a tournament.
But I would argue that we should bring back replays for the final; for every final in any competition, and not just the World Cup.
Posted from 
Greece
Comments are closed
