No it's not. FIFA and UEFA have trialled it too.
ABBA
- Thread starter Kazi
- Start date
Great system IMO, for once well done to the FA.
Good to know, thanks.
I understand it's based on the fact that 60% of the team that take the 1st penalty win the penalty session.
Some say that ABBA would be more fair.
The importance of the penalty shootout will always be key, why should the penalty shootout between United and Real Madrid be used in any statistics at all ? The point wasn't to use two random game as a comparison to Ignacio's report.
If we want to know how to make something relatively simple more exciting, we should ask the Yanks.
Good idea that's fair. A lot of statistics show how the team who takes the first penalty are a lot more likely to win, which is understandable when you get to sudden death etc, and the second team taking penalties are always in the position of having to keep up with their opponents. This balances it out a bit, and it's not too difficult to understand.
I personally didn't find this ABBA system as bad as some were making it out to be. It's not a drastic change - it's a nice subtle tweak which means if you go first and then the opponent score twice, you're under pressure. In the traditional sense, the team going second is always playing catch up and this tweak might just even it out a little. If nothing, it's just something new without just shaking things up for the sake of it.
Did it say why they thought that was? Might have just been a coincidence.
I never thought going first made much of a difference anyway but if it is the case and this does make it fairer then what's the problem? It's such a minor change anway.
You could choose to exclude friendlies and such, and maybe the study did. But with a sufficient sample size such random variables don't matter.
All that needs to be said.
Ofcourse it matters, the amount of penalties in meaningsless competitions seriously outweights the important ones, so that needs to be accounted for.
I'm a fan of Abba.
Not unless you believe there's some logical reason why in meaningless competitions the team shooting first has a bigger advantage than if it is an important match, which I can't possibly agree with. Also, the system is being implemented not just for CL finals but all competitive matches which require penalties, so it makes sense to evaluate in that context as well.
I don't think this system is bad but just that the change was not needed.
I think the change is for the better, the pressure of scoring your teams first goal after conceding a penalty is immense, even if you miss your team can still pull back level with the second pen.
For once i agree with a modern day change in football
For once i agree with a modern day change in football
A couple of months ago there was a list getting around of rules that they were thinking of changing, and I thought the majority (if not all) of them were stupid unnecessary changes.
This one however I'm fine with, and I'm interested to see more examples as time goes on.
This one however I'm fine with, and I'm interested to see more examples as time goes on.
Which song?
Yeah but that's still the point I'm making. If Arsenal missed their two, Chelsea could take it from 1-0 to 3-0 with no reply. In the old system if Chelsea gets to 2-0 after the first Arsenal miss, atleast Arsenal still has a chance of pegging it back to 2-1 before Chelsea kicks again. It just seems like there's potential pressure lost on the team leading in that situation and/or extra pressure on the team losing.
In general if you miss one penalty, by the next time you have another kick you could be two goals down! At worst in the other system you would be one behind.
Yeah it can definitely magnify the pressure for certain kicks. Under this system the order in which you have players take the penalties becomes much more important. I think Morata suffered for taking a penalty right after Courtois missed like that.
Hate these sort of pointless changes, but I dare say they'll soon be forgotten.
Hahaha what is this?
It's totally stupid and unnecessary, I doubt the player who goes second will fee any less pressure at all, which I assume is the idea, in fact only 2nd player B will see any advantage from what I see.
Jog on uefa, stop tying to appear relevant and try and stop corruption instead
It's totally stupid and unnecessary, I doubt the player who goes second will fee any less pressure at all, which I assume is the idea, in fact only 2nd player B will see any advantage from what I see.
Jog on uefa, stop tying to appear relevant and try and stop corruption instead
For the nth time, this is not a pointless change! It's been researched and proven that going first in the tradition format gave you an advantage. This evens that out, and makes the shootout more fair, which is a good thing. Why in the world would someone be against this...
I'm slightly confused at the logic here. One of the key points about the statistics is the factor of added pressure due to constantly being behind the team taking the first pens. Yet you're unwilling to accept the factor of difference in pressure related to meaningless friendlies vs big tournaments. Another key factor coming into play is the amount of statistics being used these days, compared to the past. If there's a risk of the match going to a penalty shootout, the goalkeepers will watch and go over a shitload of data regarding the opposition.
Statistics is a representation of numbers, just reading statistics is meaningless unless we understand what's behind the numbers.
Since it was named the Champions League, 6 finals have been won on penalty shootouts
Winner taking 1st pen:2
Winner taking 2nd pen:4
In 4 of those shootouts, the first penalty taker missed
FA Cup final shootouts: 2005 and 2006:
Winner taking 1st pen:1
Winner taking 2nd pen:1
Europa league final 2014:
Winner took 2nd penalty
2006 WC final
Winner took 1st penalty
League Cup final in 2012
Winner took 1st penalty (Even though Liverpool missed their first and second pen)
League Cup final 2009
Winner took 1st penalty
Statistics say otherwise, 60-40 in favour of the team that goes first.. is a pretty big difference.
Whatever the system, England will still be awful at it.
Got a better idea - clubs to pick up the first 5 takers , but then a computer to choose in what order will they take the penalties
Personally, I always liked the idea of a pre-match penalty shoot-out. That way you would never have the situation where two teams don't attack because they are afraid to lose.
LVG, for all his craziness, had a pretty radical idea too, if I remember rightly. Both teams remove a player every 5 minutes from when extra-time begins. Eventually with all the free space someone has to score and the need for penalties is removed. Sounds like a really exciting way to decide the game to me.
LVG, for all his craziness, had a pretty radical idea too, if I remember rightly. Both teams remove a player every 5 minutes from when extra-time begins. Eventually with all the free space someone has to score and the need for penalties is removed. Sounds like a really exciting way to decide the game to me.
Let both teams simultaneously take one penalty each at the opposite ends of the pitch. Problem solved!
It's our
This is what the results looked like today. Bold is a goal. Chelsea only took 3 pens.
A B
B A
A B
B
For arguments sake, had the old system been used and the results stayed the same, Chelsea would have taken a 4th pen. If Arsenal scored the 4th, game over, but it they missed, on to round 5. So the ABBA system shifts the previous advantage of team going first to the team who scores the most in first 3 rounds.
A B
A B
A B
?
I'm sure they ran all kinds of simulations and maths on this and decided to go for it after the win ratio of ABBA was closer to 50%.
A B
B A
A B
B
For arguments sake, had the old system been used and the results stayed the same, Chelsea would have taken a 4th pen. If Arsenal scored the 4th, game over, but it they missed, on to round 5. So the ABBA system shifts the previous advantage of team going first to the team who scores the most in first 3 rounds.
A B
A B
A B
?
I'm sure they ran all kinds of simulations and maths on this and decided to go for it after the win ratio of ABBA was closer to 50%.
So the solution is to adopt the tennis system that puts more pressure on the first penalty taker, miss ,and you can be 2 down.
Win the toss, either choose to go first or choose to take the pens in front of your own fans and go 2nd.
What's wrong with that ?
Win the toss, either choose to go first or choose to take the pens in front of your own fans and go 2nd.
What's wrong with that ?
Hopefully everyone will just get used to it because they'll never understand it
This is the tennis system!!!
I'm not sure why people are so much against a decision that makes the system fairer. Just because we used something for a long time doesn't mean that it's the best option. We should embrace this sort of innovation.
I'm surprised that so many just reads something and accepts it as valid.
I don't think having teams play until somebody scores is a good solution at all. 120 minutes is already a long game, when two defensive teams face each other they could often go another 40-50 minutes before scoring (or longer even). Unless you allow unlimited substitutions in the extra time, it's not going to work.
It seems unnecessarily unfair
Is this study available somewhere? There were posts about 60% of first takers win, but exactly what kind of advantage do they get?
What are the reasons behind it?