Fixing soccer at the
knockout stage...
One of great
disappointments of modern ‘cup’ soccer tournaments is the need to resort to a
penalty shootout to get a result, after the match (and extra time) results in a
draw.
And the frequency of
this resort being called into play is increasing, as the average number of
goals being scored in top level football matches is decreasing.
Several solutions have been proposed to address the
problem, including both:
- a ‘golden goal’ concept – ‘next goal wins’ back when
you were a kid, and;
- reducing by one the number of players on the field at set
intervals, heightening the speed of play and the likelihood of a resulting
goal, until a set interval concludes with one team in front.
However, I have a
better solution – elegant and simple – that involves no new innovations, no
changes beyond changing the order of events.
In a nutshell: have
the penalty shootout BEFORE the game, and award a ‘half-goal’ to whichever team
wins the shootout.
Then, when the game
begins, a result at full-time is assured: since it’s not possible to score
another half-goal, one team will be in front of the other by at least a half a
goal at fulltime. To win the game, the team that lost the penalty shootout
needs to finish in front, the team that won the penalty shootout needs to
preserve (or improve) its half-goal advantage.
It’s that simple.
It’s not perfect, of
course, but it’s a lot closer to perfect than the current system and the
anti-climax it generates.
By reversing the order
of the two components, the ‘mini-climax’ now serves as an introduction to the
main narrative of the story, which in turn and unlike before is much more likely to lead to a climactic outcome, as every closely fought contest generates a result. Much more dramatic, more in tune with the
mechanics of modern storytelling.
Rejoinder
Some time has passed,
and of course, anything to do with soccer draws a stronger response than most
topics.
Responses fall into
three categories:
1.
The
positive, pretty much just positive about the idea, yeah, and like, waiting for
some giant of the game to run with it
2.
The
negative:
a.
“I like
penalty shootouts.” Okay….
b.
Starting a
half goal ahead means one team will be on the defensive from the outset,
protecting a small but meaningful advantage. In response I’m inclined to say
‘so?’ And the other team will be just as much on the offensive! Couldn’t this
mean that the level of tension in the game overall is higher, as there’s no
zero sum game on offer. It might change tactics a little, but..
3.
The
alternative, the ‘scoring corner’, was suggested to me today, sparking this
rejoinder: Instead of a ‘half goal differential’ at the start, score a hundred
points for each goal, and a single point for each corner earned. This would
give the win to the team with the most goals, and in the case where the number
of goals is equal, give the win to the team which forced its opponent back over
its own goal line most often. Is that fair? Is it too complicated? Is it still
soccer, given that it might seriously change the nature of the game any time
the total scores are very close, as players would be aiming to deflect the ball
off an opponent and over their goal line, to secure the single point that could
determine victory, while defenders have to balance the cost of a corner versus that of a potential goal? Alternatively, might the same play-to-a-draw situation not be repeated in miniature, like
a Mandelbrot set?
No comments:
Post a Comment