No it's not. FIFA and UEFA have trialled it too.The idea is just to say "Hey! We're English and different from others. We're also innovative. We think and make the Future"
g = window.googletag || {}; googletag.cmd = googletag.cmd || []; window.googletag = googletag; googletag.cmd.push(function() { var interstitialSlot = googletag.defineOutOfPageSlot('/17085479/redcafe_gam_interstitial', googletag.enums.OutOfPageFormat.INTERSTITIAL); if (interstitialSlot) { interstitialSlot.addService(googletag.pubads()); } });
No it's not. FIFA and UEFA have trialled it too.The idea is just to say "Hey! We're English and different from others. We're also innovative. We think and make the Future"
Good to know, thanks.No it's not. FIFA and UEFA have trialled it too.
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.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.
Sit down Jurgen
Did it say why they thought that was? Might have just been a coincidence.Pretty sure it was because there was some really high statistic about how the first pen taking team on average wins much more than 50% of the time.
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.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.
All that needs to be said.Its proven that there is an advantage in taking first. This evens that up. Cant see whats not to like about it? People will get used to the idea.
Ofcourse it matters, the amount of penalties in meaningsless competitions seriously outweights the important ones, so that needs to be accounted for.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.
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.Ofcourse it matters, the amount of penalties in meaningsless competitions seriously outweights the important ones, so that needs to be accounted for.
I don't think this system is bad but just that the change was not needed.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.
Which song?I'm a fan of Abba.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Statistics say otherwise, 60-40 in favour of the team that goes first.. is a pretty big difference.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 ourWhatever the system, England will still be awful at it.
Hopefully everyone will just get used to it because they'll never understand itFor 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...
This is the tennis system!!!So the solution is to adopt the tennis system
I'm surprised that so many just reads something and accepts it as valid.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.
Is this study available somewhere? There were posts about 60% of first takers win, but exactly what kind of advantage do they get?It's been researched and proven that going first in the tradition format gave you an advantage.