It's ABBA all the time.So it's only ABBA if A scores, if not it's ABAB?
If A doesn't score, B still gets 2 shots, A still gets 2 further shots, and so on.
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()); } });
It's ABBA all the time.So it's only ABBA if A scores, if not it's ABAB?
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.I don't prefer it, I just don't think this new system eliminates the advantage of winning the toss and going first. I assume there is still going to be coin toss to determine who goes first, and I'd assume that most people / players would figure out that it is still beneficial to go first and have the opportunity to get the task completed before your opponent.
Under the new ruling, under what circumstances would you win the toss & decide t to go 2nd ?
I'm not against it, I'm just not convinced this is more fair, and I don't remember too many cries of foulplay whilst the old system was in use, that would make a change necessary. It's being pushed as a solution to a problem that doesn't exist & in my eyes , it doesn't solve. There is still an advantage to going first.
Difference is that is one kick.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?
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.You mean a system where you take it in turns based on the outcome of random chance to do things alternately?
I agree that would NEVER work with penalties.
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.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.
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.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.
At least the first 9 kicks will even out? Something is better than nothing.In the event that the first 9 pens have been scored , you are still left with the team that went 2nd trailing 5-4 & having to score to stay in. Doesn't this still make it advantageous to go first ? Or if they miss, does the team that went first , now have to score a 6 th penalty to win by 2 clear pens , as is the standard in tennis ? You have to win by 2 clear points.
Read the thread. It's been more than adequately spelled out.How's this really fairer? I just don't see it.
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.How's this really fairer? I just don't see it.
What are you basing those conclusions on?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.
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 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
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?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.
Gosh darn, I really thought there would be 1000s of contests taken into account. 129? Bullshit.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.
Like have intervals in between pens with commercials and cheerleaders? IntriguingIf we want to know how to make something relatively simple more exciting, we should ask the Yanks.
Gosh darn, I really thought there would be 1000s of contests taken into account. 129? Bullshit.
I would be all for this.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.
See we've already got it down to 60% to 57%If Wiki is correct and I didn't screw something up...
Penalty fun at World Cups
Team B (West Germany v France)
Team B (France v Brazil)
Team A (West Germany v Mexico)
Team B (Belgium v Spain)
Team B (Ireland v Romania)
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 (Spain v Ireland)
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.
I'm not reading 6 pages, someone can just give a quick reply. I'm not that eager to find outRead the thread. It's been more than adequately spelled 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.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.
Good Work MS!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)a
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)