Running, all-purpose World Cup thread

But Golden Goal didn't work, at least not to the degree everyone thought it would. In the two World Cups for which it was in place, there were a total of nine extra-time games. Five ended on penalties, four were ended by golden goals.

In 1990, widely held up as the worst World Cup EVAR, largely because of the high number of shootouts, there were eight extra-time games, of which four were settled on penalties and four were settled through goals.

In 1994, there were three penalty shootouts and one game settled through customary extra-time. There was also the only example in the past five tournaments of both teams scoring in extra-time and the game being settled through a shootout. (Sweden scored in the 115th minute to tie Romania 2-2, then won in a shootout.)

In 2006, there were four shootouts and two games decided in extra-time, including Argentina-Mexico.

So in the two World Cups with golden goal, we have five shootouts and four, well, not shootouts.

In the last three without it, 11 shootouts and seven not-shootouts.

Statistically, there might be a bit of an edge for Golden Goals. But no one who actually watched Golden Goal soccer would argue that it changed the attacking style, or lack thereof, at all. If anything, it made teams even more afraid of allowing a goal.

The only real advantage of Golden Goal is that it ends a game more quickly. I don't think it actually makes the game any more interesting, because in almost every case, a team that scores in extra-time wins. But if you end the game, at the very least, you deprive the fans of more action.

It's a shame that replays aren't feasible anymore, because that would be a true incentive. Think of the pressure of the final 5 minutes of extra-time, knowing that if you don't score, you have to come back out two days later and play another 90 or 120 minutes, and that if you win, you'll then have two days turnaround to get ready for your next game. It would be a death knell for any team that won a replay, and it might well negatively impact the overall quality of the tournament, but it sure would liven up the dying minutes of extra-time.

 

The NASL had the best shootout.

Guy starting at midfield one-on-one with the goalie with 10? seconds to shoot the ball.

 

I want to go back to what I said about fixing the penalty kick shootout. No one really told me of what they thought about what I said. I just wanted a comment from people that are much smarter than me. What can I say, I respect my elders.

 

Of course, in the same article, the Italians claim Zidane provoked him with a different mother line ...

 

A lovely theory, totally unsported by the facts.
Zidane hit the turf at least three times after challenges by Italian players, probably more, and received the "get up" hand signal from the official. So, in the ref's opinion, he did his share of diving. OK, so he didn't fake injury. Great for him. Dr. Z is dead wrong.

 

This is a criticism I will agree with. Think about the preponderance of 4-5-1.
Four years ago, England had no better option to play up front with Michael Owen than Emile freaking Heskey, and they still went with two strikers.
This time, 4-5-1.
France had David Trezeguet, Sylvain Wiltord and Louis Saha available, but played 4-5-1.
Italy had Inzaghi and Del Piero, but kept them on the bench and played 4-5-1.
I do not need to remind you about a certain country close to home.
Did these guys have some sort of convention and agree that everybody would play with a lone striker?
I'm starting to like the idea of Klinsmann as US coach even more. He skipped that meeting.

 

At least two of those incidents were clear fouls, including getting absolutely mauled on a challenge on a goal kick.  Not saying that he didn't exaggerate an incident in the first half -- it looked like it, although the defender was chopping at his legs -- but it wasn't like Zidane is a diver.  He also isn't the type of player who lays prone on the turf like he's been shot.  The ref simply decided to err on the side of not making a call, which is fine and kept the game flowing.

 

I disagree. There were quite a few teams that did put in the defensive system, but it wasn't all of them. Germany and Brazil were two teams that attacked, attacked and attacked more. Their defenses were shaky and the managers knew it. As such, they were always attacking.

Portugal, despite the diving, flopping and rolling around, seemed to have a balanced game plan. They attacked and withdrew evenly.

Argentina was another that seemed to attack fairly often. They were not playing a defensive system.

In the Final, you could see that France was looking to push the ball up field. They weren't willing to rest back. This could be partly due to Italy's style of sitting back, but that has been how they have played for years.

I understand what you and others are saying, but I think that it is only the teams with either a manager too afraid or a team with too few weapons choosing this type of style. Of course, this doesn't apply to Italy since they have the weapons, but they have just always played this way.

 

I think that many teams, like France, Argentina and Portugal played an attacking style with their front 4 or 5 players, while the rest really sat back except when the overlaps called for it. France played their back six very deep (especially the central defenders and midfielders) while the diamond up front went forward. The problem with that system is that there isn't anyone to cross to. Only Brazil seemed committed to get a lot of players up all of the time.

I wonder how an all out attacking style would do. My guess is that the defenders would tire quickly and it probably wouldn't work.

 

In South Africa, since it's south of the equator, it'll be winter there in June.

 

Materazzi admits to insulting Zidane, but still claims he doesn't even know what an Islamic terrorist is...

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=373723&cc=5901&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines

 

US is offering the job to Klinsmann. This isn't a surprise, but it looks like lots of setup and planning is involved.