With a large enough sample that shouldn't matter, as which team goes first is selected randomly. I've no idea if the study was large enough to be conclusive though.
ABBA
- Thread starter Kazi
- Start date
Absolute shite. Meddling for the sake of meddling.
Such a weird thing for some people to be so bothered about 
He did this a while ago and fancies himself as an expert! When you blast them and they miss, it looks so much worse than if you just take a soft side-foot that the keeper saves.
You can't just dismiss the objective evidence because you don't like it though. That's the kind of thinking that leads to organisations going backwards and corruption festering in the darkness. You either decide to take on board all evidence and make decisions based on that, or you dismiss all evidence and decisions based on what you think is right. You can't pick and choose.
He's taken one before in a preseason game and it was very good. I'm sure most players are capable of banging them in, just more about nerves and composure on the day.
As for the new system, it's good they're trying to even any advantage but it seems it brought one for the team going second today? Ordinarily, when Arsenal make it 1-3, Chelsea could potentially put pressure on them again by scoring the next one. Here it went from 2-1 to 4-1 without a chance of a reply.
I actually don't know why they don't split the penalties at each end.
Both teams shoot where their fans are, would add another level of fairness to me it seems.
Both teams shoot where their fans are, would add another level of fairness to me it seems.
It's really when a penalty shootout is at a sudden death position where the difference will be made. Today, people are saying 'pointless' but that's only because Chelsea missed two in a row. No matter what order you do that it in, you're likely to lose.
It's more than that. There was research done that revealed a significant advantage for the team going first, meaning it's more than a case of merely 'freshening up something'. Lots of opinions here, however, are based on emotions and nothing more. For the lazy:
Full article.
On the count of three, both players should simultaneously shoot as well
If the side taking the first pen (using the old system) won 60% of the time. What are the percentages for the ABBA system? Have they used it anywhere else?
Penalty is a game of nerves and this change gives immense advantage to team going second. For ex- today morata would have been under more pressure after tibo's miss. And ox would have been more calm considering Chelsea missed two pens and he has less pressure.
Unnecessary change if you ask me. Why fix those things which need not require fixing.
Unnecessary change if you ask me. Why fix those things which need not require fixing.
It somewhat killed the excitement of the penalties for me I have to say tbh. The second one to shot will have the biggest chance to win it.
Based on those statistics, it's a needed change. I'd also be in favour of having penalties switch sides after each 5 goes.
Not sure why people are moaning about such a minor change which could make penalties fairer..
If it knocks the w/r of going first to 55% or lower then it's a great change.
Not sure why people are moaning about such a minor change which could make penalties fairer..
If it knocks the w/r of going first to 55% or lower then it's a great change.
it's quite good idea. anyway, for me luck is biggest factor to win penalties shootout.
Fantastic!
60% vs 40%. A pretty huge advantage really
Even if this system gave the second kicker an advantage, that still leaves it on par with the previous system which gave the first kicker an advantage.
The difference is, we have actual statistical evidence showing that the previous system aided the first kicker, whereas we have no evidence that this system is unfair in the same way.
I don't see why a 60/40 advantage to one team wouldn't require fixing, especially when attempting to fix it involves such a minor, painless change.
The first system the advantage was less, considering the pens were taken alternatively. In this case a player will feel more pressure if he has to take the penalty immediately after his teammate had just missed or will be under less pressure if he knows his opponents have missed 2 pens in succession and he still has advantage.
Why does the keeper raise his hand in appeal every time the taker takes the ball around him? Were you not allowed to take the ball too wide?
It's Sunday. There's nothing to do. It's only right to generate drama to keep things interesting.Such a weird thing for some people to be so bothered about
I've said it before, they should just keep playing until someone scores.
It was first introduced over the summer at UEFA tournaments, and there doesn't appear to be any data floating around right now. I think this is still considered the 'trial period', so I guess they're waiting for a good amount of data before coming to any conclusions about whether or not it's successful.
ABBAABBAAB
In the old system, the team that went first won 60% of the time.
This system will probably be fair
In which case we'll eventually have statistical evidence that shows that this system is worse, at which point they can try something else. Until then there’s just your subjective opinion that this set up is worse, which doesn't really mean much when so many others would argue the reverse. The only way to know is to try it and assess the results.
Interesting, thanks.
It's very unusual for them to test stuff out in the England. I've got no problem with it personally.
It's almost as if this used to be a rule before called the Golden Goal
ABBA Advantage Counter
Matches: 1
Won: Team A
100% - 0%
No, wait, Arse was B!
0% - 100%
Won: Team B
Matches: 1
Won: Team A
100% - 0%
No, wait, Arse was B!
0% - 100%
Won: Team B
When did the golden goal require you to keep playing until someone scores?
Could have gone the other way though. If Arsenal had missed their first two penalties and Chelsea scored both, then Arsenal's penalty taker would be in a do or die situation. Ultimately Chelsea screwing up two consecutive penalties is what cost them.
Nah, golden goal was bullshit because teams just parked the bus and waited for penalties.
There's quite the amount of factors coming into play here.
But what's easy to break down is the top teams in competitive matches and the statistics from there..Chelsea have been in two Champions League finals, both ended with penalty kicks, both times they didn't start, they lost the first one and won the second.
Yeah but it was still shit coz the other team didnt get any time to equalise.
A formalised way to what you want will be what they do in basketball - have overtimes with shortened time periods and repeat that until the tie's been broken. So basically repeated 30-min extratimes.
...what is it?
Two random games, regardless of the competition or competitors, is much too small a sample size to mean anything. I'll take the study over anecdotal evidence like that every day.
The idea is just to say "Hey! We're English and different from others. We're also innovative. We think and make the Future"
I've have a guaranteed 30 minutes of extra time and then "next goal wins it". Football games should be decided by people playing football.
That's not how Golden Goal worked though. It was still only 30 minutes and then went to penalties if no-one scored.
30 minutes of regular extra time followed by Golden Goal would be better than penalties.
Sit down Jurgen