It's ABBA all the time.
If A doesn't score, B still gets 2 shots, A still gets 2 further shots, and so on.
ABBA
- Thread starter Kazi
- Start date
If A doesn't score, B still gets 2 shots, A still gets 2 further shots, and so on.
As Oscie has pointed out, if you choose to go first you create pressure to score that first goal, because you run the risk of being 2-0 down.
So being the one to step up first on a big European final, for the sake of argument, with the pressure that if you miss you may well put your side in a position where you're 2-0 down before you get a chance to respond, is apparently less pressure than taking a penalty 2nd whereby the worst case scenario is you're 1-0 down before you step up?
Difference is that is one kick.
Currently the second team has to respond to the 'evening up' kick EVERY time.
As it stands if you win the toss you choose to go first every time. If this setup makes people consider their option, then that in itself shows it's more fair.
Awful seeing it for the first time it seems like such a needless change.
Next up is the dribble from half way line to penalty box 1v1 against the keeper while listening to your teammates give directions to the area because you're fecking blind folded.
Next up is the dribble from half way line to penalty box 1v1 against the keeper while listening to your teammates give directions to the area because you're fecking blind folded.
Agnetha, Bjorn, Benny & Anafried feckin love em.
Gimme, Gimme , Gimme a man after midnight......
Gimme, Gimme , Gimme a man after midnight......
What was the sample size of the penalties that the researches used in their sample to prove that going first is an advantage?
With ABAB it's proven team A wins about 60% of the time which is a significant advantage given by a coin toss. ABBA might not be perfect but as long as it makes it fairer I'm all for it.
I kept thinking the dog was sitting on the remote. I am very intrigued by the half way line run with the keeper allowed anywhere in the 18. If this new format is about fairness then how about both teams take their penalties at the same time. Keeper at each end and both teams take their penalty at the whistle. It would certainly send the fans away on a fecking high after a boring 0-0 in a knockout competition.
The sole source of the 60/40 premise appears to be one piece of academic research by two economists in an article titled: 'Psychological Pressure in Competitive Environments:Evidence from a Randomized Natural Experiment', published in the American Economic Review journal in 2009, that looked at 129 shootout contests.
What? That isn't the case at all. Home advantage allows one team to have a better chance of winning, statistically speaking, over their opponents. That's countered by both sides having the opportunity to play at home, ensuring the imbalance is thus nullified. This is similar to the new penalty system...the team who takes first has the psychological advantage because they're never a penalty taken behind their opponents...whereas now each side takes it in turn to be ahead/behind. I think it's especially beneficial when it comes to sudden death.
Results of shootouts are in the public domain. If you want to do your own research and come back to us, go for it. A sample of 129 seems pretty conclusive to me.
I understand the point about the team going 2nd now having the opportunity to take the lead in the middle rounds, and with it, the possibility to apply pressure, this should make it more fair, & if it does, it's a good thing. I'd be all for it, I was just under the impression ( wrongly it seems ) that abba was supposed to make it 100% fair. Something that isnt achievable whilst teams alternate. Going first always has a slight advantage. It's dependant on the team wether or not they capitalise on it.
How's this really fairer? I just don't see it.
Can see this system also leading to less penalties missed overall, it sacrifices tension admittedly for greater efficiency.
Knowing Conte and Wenger too, there is nothing the ref could do.
Penalty Penalty Penalty , must be funny, when the match poor.
Don't go wasting your emotion,put the keeper on the deck.
Love ABBA, Can't you tell .
If you change you mind, and you're last in line.
Penalty Penalty Penalty , must be funny, when the match poor.
Don't go wasting your emotion,put the keeper on the deck.
Love ABBA, Can't you tell .
If you change you mind, and you're last in line.
At least the first 9 kicks will even out? Something is better than nothing.
Read the thread. It's been more than adequately spelled out.
It's statistically proven that teams that take the first penalty have an unfair advantage. It's something stupid like a 60% win rate for the team that goes first. The ABBA system stops that from happening, therefore a much fairer system.
What are you basing those conclusions on?
We've absolutely no idea at this stage if the ABBA system will result in a narrowing of the win percentage or not.
On the basis of a single piece of research people seem to conclude that penalties are inherently unfair and that the new system must be fairer based on absolutely nothing other than it being different to the first one.
If you toss a coin 10 times and 6 of those times it's tails (or 60 over 100, to bring it more or less into line with the sample size of the survey) it wouldn't be surprising or terrible significant statistically. In fact all penalty shootouts have a number of variables. Venue, physical conditioning of the participants at the time, amount of preparation, how the participants performance was in the preceding 120 minutes of football....possible hundreds of micro-differences besides.
The premise for declaring shootouts unfair seems to be based on a reasonably small sample (129) and on an assumption that in every penalty shootout everything is equal without any weighted variables and therefore any research that doesn't show an outcome of 50/50 win percentage proves unfair advantage. Even in situations where there genuinely are no weighted variables (toss a coin 129 times and there's a fair chance it won't be 50/50 heads/tales) this would seem a small sample over which to prove the theory. Unless someone can point to another piece of research this is based on, as so far the only one cited in any articles I've ever seen is the one I've provided, then the premise seems highly suspect.
Furthermore the actual research doesn't even mention how it's sample base was selected.
Might be a bit far to call it a dodgy dossier but it seems incredibly flimsy grounds on which to change the laws of the game.
Last edited:
The entire idea of a shoot out was that each penalty had increased pressure. So going first was never any real advantage. Giving a second team 2 penalties in a row puts an unfair amount of pressure on the starting teams 2nd penalty. I personally believe it a dumb innovation
That's a perfectly fine opinion - once you explain the statistics that tell us the first takers win 60/40. Otherwise there's an unfairness that should be addressed.
The argument in favour of keeping the previous system is far more statistically flawed than the argument for trying something new. If someone wants to argue against the evidence then they should provide some compelling evidence of their own. Y'know, the kind of evidence that might come from trying the ABBA system.....
Until then they're of the anti-intellectual, scepti-fact Trump/Brexit worldview as far as I'm concerned. Though even those viewpoints could piece together a semi-coherent argument in their favour.
Last edited:
Did a quick wiki search of the number of penalties deciding World Cups, Champions Leagues (including old edition), and Euros matches.
There are only 55 such occasions. A sample size of 129 is pretty big in comparison.
Didn't do a proper research on the times when the first team wins - this is not my day job..
There are only 55 such occasions. A sample size of 129 is pretty big in comparison.
Didn't do a proper research on the times when the first team wins - this is not my day job..
Im willing to bet that the statistics are down to certain teams simply being worse penalty takers than others rather than it being about any perceived advantage . A better statistic to look at as regards penalties is which are the teams that often win penalties. I'd be unsurprised for example if you found teams like Germany, the Czechs or Brazil in international football who are traditionally good at penalties, keep the same win percentage in shoot outs whether they go first or second. For example Im not convinced that an England would be more likely to win a penalty shoot out vs a traditionally strong penalty taking nation by going first. Now imagine that same England missing its first penalty and being 2 nil down in a shoot out before being able to respond to halve the pressure. Does that sound like a fair situation to you?
The whole idea of the shoot out was the sudden death nature. That is why AB, AB made perfect sense. But ABBA? It now becomes tactical and stuff. On top of being slanted unfairly in favour of the team taking second
Last edited:
As it turns out, a number of studies have been done.
See http://penaltyshootouts.co.uk/research
Might be interesting to note this:
"Jordet, G., Hartman, E., Visscher, C. and Lemmink, K. A. P. M. (2006) Kicks from the penalty mark in soccer: The roles of stress, skill, and fatigue for kick outcomes. Journal of Sports Sciences, 1-9, Preview article.
This paper is an essential starting place for an analysis for the impact of penalty shoot-outs in competitive international football as it reports some empirical findings on events in penalty shoot-outs in the World Cup (WC), European Championships (EC) and the Copa America (CA). The results are fascinating; here is a glimpse. The percentage success rate in the World Cup is 71.2% compared to 82.7% (CA) and 84.6% (EC), possibly reflecting the greater importance and consequent pressure of the world stage. The success rate of each penalty kick changes throughout the competition:
Statistically, seems like the first player does well.
See http://penaltyshootouts.co.uk/research
Might be interesting to note this:
"Jordet, G., Hartman, E., Visscher, C. and Lemmink, K. A. P. M. (2006) Kicks from the penalty mark in soccer: The roles of stress, skill, and fatigue for kick outcomes. Journal of Sports Sciences, 1-9, Preview article.
This paper is an essential starting place for an analysis for the impact of penalty shoot-outs in competitive international football as it reports some empirical findings on events in penalty shoot-outs in the World Cup (WC), European Championships (EC) and the Copa America (CA). The results are fascinating; here is a glimpse. The percentage success rate in the World Cup is 71.2% compared to 82.7% (CA) and 84.6% (EC), possibly reflecting the greater importance and consequent pressure of the world stage. The success rate of each penalty kick changes throughout the competition:
- First kick 86.6%
- Second kick 81.7%
- Third kick 79.3%
- Fourth kick 72.5%
- Fifth kick 80%
- ‘Sudden death’ kicks 64.3%"
Statistically, seems like the first player does well.
That study is about score % in which order penalties are taken within a team. What relevant does it have to the subject?
The first taker is 86.6% likely to score, his team mate who goes second is 81.7% likely to score. It's an utterly irrelevant piece of research to the subject matter.
The first taker is 86.6% likely to score, his team mate who goes second is 81.7% likely to score. It's an utterly irrelevant piece of research to the subject matter.
Gosh darn, I really thought there would be 1000s of contests taken into account. 129? Bullshit.
Some proper fecking dinosaurs in this thread 
Like have intervals in between pens with commercials and cheerleaders? Intriguing
It's been aped from the tennis tie-breaker, and honestly I don't have a problem with it. There's absolutely no reason why the second team in a shootout should always have the stress of chasing their opponents.
Well 129 isn't an unreasonable sample for a single survey. However a single survey shouldn't really be enough of a basis on which to change the laws of the game. It appears thought that it has been. As I said earlier taking a single survey on the outcome of events that are full of variables and declare that anything other than a 50/50 outcome is proof of unfair advantage, isn't the strongest of foundations.
As you'll be aware, one of the reasons why singular pieces of research aren't taken as conclusive, even those that publish sample selection data, is because some surveys might be self-selecting. If it was the intention of an author to prove that the team that took the first penalty had an unfair advantage and if they believed they would be published for a piece of research that came to this conclusion, it'd be a piece of piss to self-select a sample that substantiated the hypothesis they set out to prove.
We don't have evidence this is what happened here, but on the basis of it seeming to be just one piece of research we also don't have evidence that this isn't what happened here.
Again, changing the rules based on very shaky foundation is not something I'm thrilled with.
Last edited:
I would be all for this.
Apparently
ABBA BAAB AB is the closest to 100% fair for 5 penalties
ABBA BAAB AB is the closest to 100% fair for 5 penalties
If Wiki is correct and I didn't screw something up...
Penalty fun at World Cups
Team B (France v West Germany)
Team B (Brazil v France)
Team A (West Germany v Mexico)
Team B (Spain v Belgium)
Team B (Romania v Ireland)
Team A (Argentina v Yugoslavia)
Team B (Italy v Argentina)
Team B (England v West Germany)
Team B (Mexico v Bulgaria)
Team A (Sweden v Romania)
Team B (Italy v Brazil - Baggio miss!)
Team A (Argentina v England)
Team A (France v Italy)
Team A (Brazil v Netherlands)
Team B (Ireland v Spain)
Team A (South Korea v Spain)
Team A (Ukraine v Switzerland)
Team A (Germany v Argentina)
Team A (Portugal v England)
Team A (Italy v France)
Team A (Paraguay v Japan)
Team A (Uruguay v Ghana)
Team A (Brazil v Chile)
Team A (Costa Rica v Greece)
Team B (Costa Rica v Netherlands)
Team B (Netherlands v Argentina)
15-11 Team A who soared in 2000s.
(fixed placing of some teams in parenthesis - now *should* be correct)
Penalty fun at World Cups
Team B (France v West Germany)
Team B (Brazil v France)
Team A (West Germany v Mexico)
Team B (Spain v Belgium)
Team B (Romania v Ireland)
Team A (Argentina v Yugoslavia)
Team B (Italy v Argentina)
Team B (England v West Germany)
Team B (Mexico v Bulgaria)
Team A (Sweden v Romania)
Team B (Italy v Brazil - Baggio miss!)
Team A (Argentina v England)
Team A (France v Italy)
Team A (Brazil v Netherlands)
Team B (Ireland v Spain)
Team A (South Korea v Spain)
Team A (Ukraine v Switzerland)
Team A (Germany v Argentina)
Team A (Portugal v England)
Team A (Italy v France)
Team A (Paraguay v Japan)
Team A (Uruguay v Ghana)
Team A (Brazil v Chile)
Team A (Costa Rica v Greece)
Team B (Costa Rica v Netherlands)
Team B (Netherlands v Argentina)
15-11 Team A who soared in 2000s.
(fixed placing of some teams in parenthesis - now *should* be correct)
Last edited:
And at Euros
Team A (Czechoslovakia v West Germany - Panenka!)
Team B (Italy v Czechoslovakia)
Team B (Denmark v Spain)
Team B (Netherlands v Denmark)
Team A (England v Spain)
Team B (Netherlands v France)
Team B (France v Czech Republic)
Team B (England v Germany)
Team A (Italy v Netherlands)
Team B (England v Portugal)
Team B (Sweden v Netherlands)
Team B (Croatia v Turkey)
Team A (Spain v Italy)
Team A (Italy v England)
Team A (Spain v Portugal)
Team B (Switzerland v Poland)
Team A (Portugal v Poland)
Team B (Italy v Germany)
Team B 11-7.
22-22 combined.
Team A (Czechoslovakia v West Germany - Panenka!)
Team B (Italy v Czechoslovakia)
Team B (Denmark v Spain)
Team B (Netherlands v Denmark)
Team A (England v Spain)
Team B (Netherlands v France)
Team B (France v Czech Republic)
Team B (England v Germany)
Team A (Italy v Netherlands)
Team B (England v Portugal)
Team B (Sweden v Netherlands)
Team B (Croatia v Turkey)
Team A (Spain v Italy)
Team A (Italy v England)
Team A (Spain v Portugal)
Team B (Switzerland v Poland)
Team A (Portugal v Poland)
Team B (Italy v Germany)
Team B 11-7.
22-22 combined.
See we've already got it down to 60% to 57%
I'm not reading 6 pages, someone can just give a quick reply. I'm not that eager to find out
I don't quite understand how though? The pressures always on the kick taker, and although there's added pressure on the second team's takers if the previous opposition taker has scored, I think there's an equal amount of pressure on team A to score in order to add pressure on team B.
Anyway, it's not that important. If it's fairer I'm all for it. Cheers for the response!
Good Work MS!
of course the advantage of taking first was only an advantage (if indeed it was, and stats can be misleading)... if the team taking it scored!
129 penalty shoot-outs is a fecking tiny sample size with which to base this rule change on.