OT - World Cup Semifinal #2 NED v. ARG, ESPN, 3:00pm CDT
Well, after yesterday's completely terrifying beatdown of Brazil by Germany, I have no clue what will happen today. I think Holland has a more complete team, but Messi is the best in the world (or top two). It's going to come down to how often Robben gets away with diving versus keeping the ball away from Messi.
NED 3 - 1 ARG*
______________________
* Not to be taken seriously, unless it happens.
Congrats Argentina. Played more constructive today -
I hear a lot of people complain about a lot of things in soccer that they don't like, and none of it bothers me, not even the players taking dives and faking being hurt. But I HATE that games of this magnitude are decided by penalty kicks. It's a travesty. Play sudden death OT until someone wins.
It would be if it was decided by each team kicking five field goals and seeing who makes the most.
I'm not sure what "everyone knows it going into the game" has to do with it. If an NBA finals game went to overtime and before being decided by a free throw shooting contest, knowing about it ahead of time wouldn't mean it wasn't a shitty way to end a game.
been to a NFL game.
Soccer is 99% passing, dribbling, and tackling. So make the tiebreak something that involves those things instead of just shooting, which is like deciding an NBA game with a free throw contest at the end.
Such as... two players from Team A get the ball at the top of the box. Team B has a goalie and 2 defenders. If Team B puts the ball out of bounds or keeper gets possession, Team B wins. Team A has to put the ball in the net to win. Switch sides and repeat until one side gets a goal and the other doesn't.
PK's can be emotionally devastating. So what, deal with it.
I'm assuming this is a drunken post, because no one was talking about "emotionally devastating" penalty kicks. Jeebus, man, dry out and come back when that's happened, then try contributing something.
Should hockey just go to shootouts after one overtime?
If hockey players had to play the entire game without substitution, yes.
Why do people insist on exporting the rules/philosophies of their own favorite sports onto others?
But I think it's a fair question as to why teams don't get additional substitutes for extra time. You get your three subs for the first 90 minutes, so why not more when you go for an extra 30?
Maybe that'll happen someday; we've crept slowly in that direction. I'm not sure how many younger fans realize how limited substitutions used to be.
Here's a history of the EPL rules I just found:
- before 1965: no substitutions allowed for any reason
- 1965: one substitute allowed for an injured player
- 1967: one substitute allowed for any reason
- 1987: two substitutes allowed for any reason
- 1994: three substitutes allowed but only two field players (the other substitute had to be a goalie)
- 1995: three substitutes allowed for any reason
I think the EPL was a bit behind the international game throughout--the first sub in a WC match or qualifier was in '56.
Forcing players to play the entire match and dole out their energy accordingly is an essential part of the game. It wouldn't be different if there were one more sub allowed in extra time--you'd still have seven players that had gone the full 120. If those players don't know in advance that there's a cap on the number of minutes they might have to play, they'll have no choice but to expend less energy, just in case. I don't think a lot of people want that.
They won't even get a chance to make amends by playing arch-rival Argentina in the Consolation game, the one thing that could have energized them and brought them some small measure of redemption.
Nobody will remember or care who wins between Brazil and the Netherlands. It won't change anything.
The poor Dutch. They've made five semifinals and three finals, and have no titles. Hard to expect to win two straight games on penalties, though.
At least they won't be in four finals without winning one. You always want the chance, but that would be a tough one to swallow. Especially against Germany.
Dutch have been fortunate. Could have lost to Mexico, or at least tied and gone to extra. Mexico carried a good portion of that game. While they dominated CR they didnt score and could have been knocked out on PKs.
They were probably a bit better in 2010 actually but just ran into one of the best teams ever.
With Germany in the Final, you're going to get some kind of Nazi joke about something no matter what. It's inevitable.
No better way than to end it. Maxi Rodriguez with another dagger in the WC.
Imagine Michigan getting blown out in the Final Four to say, Kansas, who then faces MSU in the final. Who are you going to root for?
The Dutch should have saved a sub again.
Maradona?
If Messi wins the WC in Brazil against this German team, it will be a bigger accomplishment. But Maradona is still the better player. Mesi is great in the attacking third and on free kicks, but Maradona could take over the entire game by himself from anywhere on the field.
Especially with his hand
I saw that match live on TV when it happened. At least on television, you could not conclusively tell it was a handball at game speed, even though his hand was in the area. And the ref obviously did not see it, or was too uncertain to call it.
I'll never understand why he tainted his own legacy by admitting that it was a handball. Some things are better left a mystery for the ages.
I liked the honesty myself. It would be different than if he went up to the ref right after and say I did it. If I remember the replay right he was looking around right after to see if they caught him before celebrating.
I believe Henry did the same thing in 2010 qualifying in the "wildcard" match vs Ireland to quality for WC.
He gives no fucks. That is probably why he does most of the things he did/does.
Probably they'd be considered "equals" more than 1 is better than the other. Messi could score 500 goals a year for Barca but until he carries Argentina to a title he wont be viewed as highly in his home country.
These arguments are just that - it is like the guys who argue who is better in baseball among generations i.e. Babe Ruth v Ted Williams vs modern day dude etc.
These guys are all dominant in their era and if you put them in another era would be as well. My opinion is the modern era you have way more talent found across the globe - there could have been 3-4 guys of Messi level playing in a small town in Algeria or Yugoslovia or Peru who would never have been found in 1958. Wheras now the chance of that dude being found at age 8 is a lot more probable.
yes it is endess fun debate for any sport. Players today as a whole are way more better on average. The top end player is probably similar but your guy #5 on any team is generally better than he was 50 years ago. Everyone is bigger, average dude is faster, everyone eats well (mostly), healthcare is better, etc.
Taking it to football you take a guy from a 1960s offensive line and put him out there today and he'd be a TE.
These are arguments for the bar. They are all excellent plaeyrs and lets be happy we have one to watch in his prime. Having Zidane 15 years ago, and Ronaldo as well - lots of great players to enjoy this era.
They are each a different kind ot "better". Maradona did not have the sharp-shooting and tight passing skills that Messi has. Messi can't make the weaving 80-yard runs at full speed through traffic that Maradona could.
Wonder how much gas the Argentinian D will have left in the tank after 120 minutes.
Also wonder if Low brings in a fresh set of legs in Schurrle or Goetze instead of Klose to add more pressure on that D.
Deutschland uber alles.
Since 2002 (and, obviously, leaving out matches where both teams were in this situation)...
Teams that win on penalties are 1-9 in their next match, with Brazil/Colombia this year the only exception.
Teams that win in extra time or penalties are 3-14 in their next match. (Germany over France this year; Italy's win in the final in '06.)
The effect wasn't so pronounced in earlier years. Overall, penalty winners are 4-15, ET or penalty winners are 9-22. My guess would be that the faster pace and emphasis on pressure in the modern game is the reason, but that's unsupported.