I love the penalty shootout. It's not "fair" in the best possible way - it's a psychological test that resonates with invested fans, and it's also a rare opportunity for goalkeepers to take the spotlight
Yeah. But I would comeback with the rematch, but with less time (60 min?) and then the penalties. It seems less unfair (and we would have more games to watch).
I don't think there are any better alternatives to replace PSO. yes it takes a great deal of mental strength and also sometimes luck, but that's what make PSO perfect for football. With this, even underdogs like russia, croatia and morocco could upset bigger teams The caveat is how to prevent abuses and condemnations towards football players who fail at PSO, especially online abuses
I would split the pitch in half (from the top of the 18-yard-box to the halfway line) and play next goal wins with only 5 players on each team. An added caveat could include each team sacrificing a player every 2 minutes without a goal. That would be so much fairer and more exciting than a penalty shootout.
It's a crapshoot, but boy is it exciting - I'm sure anyone who's ever experienced one in person will never forget it, isn't that what football is about?
I like the idea of using shots on goal or disciplinary records to settle ties. It will encourage more attacking play during regular time and prevent weaker teams from packing the bus for 120 minutes just hoping to bag an undeserved penalty shootout win. That’s been my biggest beef with shootouts. They’re often not a fair representation of who deserved to win the game.
For all its flaws, penalty shootouts' positives, as described in the video, probably make it the best option, though the MLS style run-up is a nice variant. Maybe one little tweak I would suggest would be to have it be best of 7, rather than best of 5, to slightly lessen the impact of missed penalties on individuals & place more emphasis on the team as a whole.
@@MM-ev1fg I did consider that, although maybe that'd drag a bit much, plus with sendings off, it might actually benefit the team that incurred them if their best takers could go twice.
No... penalties are exactly what their name indicates PENALIZING both teams' inability to win the game in 120 min!! It's supposed to be grueling and suffer... it's part of the drama of the game Also it's very fair and clear... the ball either goes in or not... no room for misinterpretation from bad referees
Should be mentioned how exciting and nerve wracking penalty shoot-outs are. It's my mum's favorite moment of football, and I guess it's the same for other people who aren't big football fans but still watch worldcups and other major tournaments.
Even without being in a FIFA committee 😁, I've discussed this with my friends before, and it's really hard to think of a better alternative to penalty shoot-out in football. And quite frankly, it's the favourite part for some people who don't really watch football. The tension and expectation can be beautiful to watch if you are a neutral.
Penalty shoot outs are one of the few things that non football fans would watch and then totally get the drama. Beautifully incorporates the glory and heartbreak of football.
True, was just watching the Morocco Spain penalty shootout and my friends who don’t watch the sport said that this is the only thing entertaining about it
Penalty shootouts are stupid! A team could completely dominate another team on the pitch and still lose in a penalty shootout because shootouts are 50-50. A team of high schoolers could beat a world cup champion in a penalty shootout!
@Mihail Parshin Well sometimes the other team gets lucky or gets a favorable call. I've seen games where the best team hit the goal post 5 times and attacled relentlessly throughout the whole game outshooting the other team 20 shots to 5, got an unfavorable call and because of that remained tied after 120 minutes.
@Mihail Parshin No. The better team needs to blame the rules and we need to come up with something better that a stupid shootout. That is why FIFA has relentlessly searched for an alternative. Sounds like you would just go back to flipping coins to settle games. LOL. That's just hillbilly mentality!
this is the first time i've heard of ADG and i liked it, but then you mentioned how shootouts are free from referee bias and i immediately thought of how controversial tackles could be in ADG.
I have a suggestion to improve this: 2 Attackers (freely moving), and the defender and goal keeper can't leave the penalty box. Plus a time limit. Less contact, more strategy.
@@divyatulsi1520 That's an overwhelming advantage to the attackers, even more so than a penalty kick. Defender has to challenge the attacker with the ball - passes to other attacker in box - easy goal. 3 attackers, 2 defenders might work.
Right on time to see this after spain was knocked out after failing every penalty shoot out Clearly the people that run the channel have a time machine and know what will happen in the next games
...or they just knew that there would inevitably be at least one penalty shootout in the World Cup and were waiting for the right moment to release a video they had made in advance
I believe there is a statistical advantage in going first on penalty shootouts, so a good way of tweaking them without changing the formula too much would be to just swap the order of the teams between shots, to make it fairer.
@Suba CHAD It has been tried by a few competitions. But from what I heard, officials found it too confusing and routinely messed up the cycle. I personally like the ABBA format (if we have to keep penalties) so learning who shoots first in each round, and what the consequences of each outcome will be, will need to be taught clearly and unambiguously.
I think that was attempted in some youth tournaments, but last I heard of it was in 2018 or so. It seemed like a fine idea on paper, and something I think is worth bringing back to a discussion on shootouts.
Another alternative is doing the penalty kicks at the end of full time (before extra time starts) And the winner of the PSO is declared the winner if extra time ends in a draw. This takes away from the worst of the PSO while retaining the best parts. It also decreases the tactic of smaller teams playing just for the draw. It also allows the team that lost the PSO to attempt to win the game in extra time. And takes the pressure off the individuals taking the penalty.
This is the best alternative i've read from all the comments, and one I think would work and add real excitement to the following extra time as the penalty shootout losers would really have to go for it
My only suggestion is that there should be more penalties, perhaps ten. Part of the current issue is that players who ‘step up’ are then vilified for missing. If every outfield player was expected to take one, and the manager determined the order, players would have less pressure on them. Missing one penalty out of ten is then no big deal.
@@qazburger2461 wouldn't always reach 10 if a team miss a few in a row like spain. also means there's far less pressure on the first few so you would put weakest first which is good. but there would be a dilemma of who to choose with 7 because you wouldnt want your weakest to take them, but should all be equal, you're having the weakest taking sudden death pens.
I’m all for people giving their opinions… but some of the suggestions I’ve read so far are comical, they almost sound like training drills i would’ve done in juniors😂😂
As a football fan, penalties are one of my favorite things about the game. It is harsh when it happens to your team but I think it is just crazy to watch. It just ends the game. It is harsh but intense and brings all of the emotions out.
I’ve seen people saying penalties in regulation are also problematic as a single, sometimes unintentional or inconsequential, moment can define the result of a game by being punished with a roughly 75% chance of a goal. I think this problem and the one with penalty shootouts can be solved by simply moving the ball back. By lowering the chance of scoring, it is isn’t as big of a punishment for something potentially irrelevant, and lowers the expectations for takers in a shootout, decreasing the pressure and amount of abuse players may get from missing
I like the ADG idea. One other idea I have as an attempt to minimize penalty shootouts in tournament play, is one I recently thought of when reflecting on Croatia making it to the 2022 semi-final without having more than 1 non-penalty shootout win. The idea is that during the tournament, for every penalty shootout a team participates in, they accrue one "miss" in subsequent shootouts. So for a team in a second shootout, they begin with a "miss" on the penalty score sheet, for a third shootout, they begin with 2, and so on. While teams can still win a penalty shootout while beginning with 1 or more misses, it clearly grants an advantage to teams who haven't had previous shootouts. The idea is to discourage teams from grinding games down to a tie in hopes of beating what might be a better opponent in a penalty shootout. So it doesn't get rid of the shootout, but it offers some incentive for teams to be more aggressive in winning a game before it comes to a shootout.
I think it could be improved by moving the spot back and shifting the competitive balance more towards the keeper. Making the scores more challenging makes them - perhaps- more exciting which is what the current system doesn’t really allow for. Maybe the spot becomes a small arc to create some potential for different shots as well. Give the shooter one touch to keep the keeper honest. Idk.
Penalties work pretty well (it's only occasionally you get some shootouts that go on for over twenty shots each). If you want to try to address the issue of individual jeopardy, then you could add scenarios involving more players. Eg attacking corners, attacking free kicks where all the players on the team are involved.
@@yohannessulistyo4025 Halve or less, the number of players, for ease of refereeing. You've now got 3 officials available (bring one lino onto the field)
After 90 minutes, each team takes 2 penalties each then plays 15 minutes of extra time, then another 2 penalties followed by another 15 minutes. Add the total score from the penalties and extra time together and use sudden death penalites if needed. It would force a team to attack if they end up behind after a round of penalties.
So: Argentina - France 2:2 Mbappé scores, Messi scores, Martinez saves Coman's shot, Dybala scores. (i.e. 4-3) Fifteen minutes of extra time follow. They remained scoreless. Two more penalties: Tchouameni misses - Paredes scores - Kolo Muani scores - Montiel scores. This would have made it 6-4. And in the second fifteen minutes of extra time, Messi and Mbappé score. This would mean it is a 7-5 win for Argentina.
My idea is to play the shootout before the period of extra time. Say Italy play Brazil, and Brazil win the shootout held immediately after the 90 minutes. You then go into extra time knowing that if both teams are still level at the end, the match is awarded to Brazil. If Italy managed to get a goal in ET, then they win instead. Sort of makes the shootout result like a half goal. This would mean that rather than the game being decided entirely by spot kicks, the two teams would at least be able to play some football to determine a result.
This is honestly a great idea. It gives one of the teams an advantage in the ET, and forces the other to push for a change of outcome. I really like it.
I don’t think there is any player who experienced the cruel beast of penalties like Roberto Baggio. An amazing player who’s career is mostly remembered for the most high profile penalty miss. And he never really got over it.
As has been stated in the video, the penalty shootout really has no rival in it's clarity, effectiveness and adherence to the spirit of the game. If a side like Japan and Spain aren't good at penalties, it's as good as saying they weren't good enough to win the game.
If anything, it demonstrates how disproportionately little focus is put into being good at penalties. Teams will min-max every aspect of a game then make tactical clangers in the deciding moment.
As Italian who had to suffer big losses and incredible victories with all mentioned methods, I still prefer to retain the psychological PSOs style You are also not minding the physical efforts players put into action over 120+ minutes, which is very needed to be considered to avoid extra physical stress (And I highly doubt that adopting the ADG model will reduce the psychological impact) Moreover, as I like Underdogs stories, and I love GKs showcasing their penalty-saving skills, it's better to preserve PSOs.
Haha, I'm English and I agree. Most alternatives fail to consider the detrimental impact they will have on the regular 90 minutes. e.g., indefinite extra time or ADG completely change substitution strategy.
except underdogs are far less likely to win a penalty shootout, since underdog teams have less experience with them since they're in tournaments less often. like for example Japan v Croatia in the world cup, the general consensus was that japan was the better team in regulation time, but Croatia had far more experience in pens. Not to mention that if teams know they have an advantage in penalties it makes extra time negligible since they virtually park the bus for the whole 30 mins
I want them to make a rule for the penalty takers. They should not be able to run up to the ball and stop in order to try to trick the keeper. It should be one smooth movement to the ball, no skipping, or freezing, just one smooth movement to kick the ball in the goal.
They're only allowed to stutter, they aren't allowed to stop. If you watch Jorginho or Fernandes, they never completely stop, just suddenly slow down right before the kick
@@Gremunky One smooth movement,that includes no stuttering. If goalkeepers have to stay on the line, there must be some restrictions for penalty takers too.
@@andrebrown8969 there are restrictions, just like I said. See Heung-Min Son's disallowed penalty against Fulham in 2018, he stopped before he kicked the ball, so it got disallowed. As long as the player doesn't fully stop, it's legal. They're allowed to vary the speed at which they approach
@@Gremunky I don't them to vary their speed. One smooth movement. You either approach quickly or slowly or somewhere in between that. No varying of speed.
Elite sport is all about heroes and villians. Nothing is more brutal or magnificent illustration of this than Football's penalty shootout. It should never go. if players aspire to win tropheis and world cups, then they should accept penalty shootouts are a potential pitfall of that path to greatness. Penalty shootouts are possibly the most tense and greatest illustration of what makes sport great.
This video just got recommended after England’s departure from Qatar 2022 world cup in the Quarter finals. The thumbnail for this vid in relation to penalties was such wild timing💀
I would love to see ADG trailled in some tournaments. I enjoy the drama of a penalty shootout but what i absolutely hate is a game where both sides refuse to take chances and basically just fitter away 120 minutes to get to that point. Ideally something to fix that would be nice.
I think a major issue is what to do with fouls. Like if I need to defend Messi I will just foul him every time. Replaying is obviously not desirable. We can also just allow free kicks and penalties but that would just defeat the purpose
A free kick shoot out where players can line up from any chosen spot on the D of the penalty area would be interesting. Regarding penalty shootouts, they may not always reward the better team, but it's hard to top the drama of penalties. I love watching them as a neutral and I'm constantly on my feet pacing when my team is involved in one. If all else fails, have extra time where the keepers can't use their hands. 😅
I also think a free kick shootout would be a good idea, but I think the ball placement should be a little bit farther away. And the play would be over once the ball touches the ground.
A free kick shootout would be interesting but it might be too slanted the other way - too hard to score rather than 80% chance of scoring. I don't know what the average conversion rate is for free kicks but I assume it's low.
Ok, hear me out. How about being able to take the ball and score from the rebound? If the ball goes out or is caught/pinned into the ground by the goalie, then the penalty is over, but if it hits the goalie or the frame of the goal, the taker can get the rebound as many times as they like until they score or the ball goes out or is caught/pinned into the ground by the goalie.
Golden goal and silver goal weren't really alternatives to the penalty shootout as panelties were still used if teams were tied after extra time. They were more alternatives to extra time. One option would be to use another statistic to use to determine a game winner such as shots on goal, possession, or discipline records. But none of those would provide the entertainment of the penalty shootout. The only change I'd make is to use both sides of the field to take penalties... ie, shoot at one goal for 3 pens, then the other for the rest of the shootout so no team gets an advantage shooting on front of their own fans
So Liverpool winning the FA cup final in 1971on Golden Goal would be an improvement on watching Charlie George score that fantastic winning goal in the second period of extra time? Golden goal was the worst option ever IMO. In some matches the best part of the game occurs in extra time.
@@djfez58 of course it does, but I'm not sure we are really querying the merits of extra time it self. Had CG's goal been the first scored in ET then, in your own words, that would have been a "fantastic" goal to win a game......anyway, I think the video suggests none of the solutions are perfect so I guess it'll still be penalties for a while yet 🙂
I have a nice tweak to penalties, the shoot out could be done first, then the winner given an advantage point, afterwards the extra time is played, and the team with an advantage could win either by a draw or a win, and the other team must win the extra time. This should reduce the randomness and the cruelty of the PSO, and create more competitive exciting extra time rather than the traditional cautious and dull ones.
Penalties are a bit like qualifying in F1, both are the best way to sort the best from the rest under pressure, and completely under appreciated purely because of the amount of time they have been used in their respective sports. They aren’t perfect sure, but the alternatives are far far worse propositions
As someone who played as a keeper, penalty is too easy of a task to fairly settle two teams. Even amateur players can score a penalty at a high percentage, which means the skill difference between the two teams is basically eliminated in the shootout. I like the idea of moving the spot for shootout further away, maybe the edge of the box. That way the shootout still keeps all of its advantages, but the skills of both the players and the keepers matter much more.
Why would anyone change the penalty shootout? The joy of winning would never be so great, if the misery of losing would be reduced. And yes it is supposed to be a mental meat grinder for the players. Kicking a penalty is easy for any professional player, the mental part is the interesting bit.
Speaking of pens my tinfoil hat theory is that all the players are afraid to put this world cups ball in the air on pens. It seems to be taking flight higher and quicker than normal. I could be trippin but I’m convinced 😂
I also had the same thought. You saw players such as Kimpembe, and Maguire blasting it in the top corner during the Euros. And in general, the shootouts in the Euros and Copa Americas saw the ball hit the roof more often than not. The way Japan or Spain took their Pk's, I had the same doubt
I like the idea of the ADG model however I think 2v2 would be better as it would encorperate all 10 outfield players for each team... this way the encorperation of teamwork and cohesion would be mixed in and be in more of the spirit of football
A few tweaks I would make to the PSO 1. Switch to a "mirror pattern" format (ab ba ab ba ab. Sudden death starts. ba ab ba ab ba). 2. Have the team captain of both clubs take all of the penalty kicks in the shootout (including sudden death rounds if necessary). 3. If the matches are played on neutral- site pitches (e.g the world cup or the olympics), then the club's name who is last in alphabetical order kicks first. (e.g Portugal vs Spain. Spain kicks first because a match is on neutral-site pitch and their name is last alphabetically). I hope that they are not confusing. Especially the 3rd one. I would also just simply just get rid of extra time in the sport in general because trying to figure out what type of extra time rule is "fair" is too subjective.
(F) hockey used to do the same penalties as football but has since changed it to a 1v1 with the keeper where you have 8 seconds to score, that was a massive improvement over the football style ‘strokes’
@@herbertmorales333 yeah, in (f)hockey the goals are a bit smaller and the keeper has pads on so he usually runs out to create an acute angle but with football, the strategy would have to change.
Just swap the order of Penalties and extra time. If a teams wins the shootout, they only have to draw in extra time to go through. If the team loses, then they have to win at extra time. That way, the game can end with us watching actual football
I like it. It creates a more attack vs defence dynamic, rather than maintaining a stalemate into extra time as we already saw 90 mins play out and end in a draw anyway. Someone else in the comments proposed a similar idea where the winner of pens after 90 earns 0.5 goals, followed by extra time where the losing team is now more strongly incentivised to attack.
Idea: Flip the order to Extra Time and Penalties. After the 90 minutes ends in a draw, the game goes straight to penalties. The winner the shootout gains 0.5 of a goal (for instance the scoreline would read 2.5-2), and then we commence with 30 minutes of Extra Time - in which one team must eventually win but the team that were better from the spot gaining a fair advantage. This not only reduces the heartache of missing the deceive pen as the team will have time to change the outcome, it also solves the issue of ET periods often being slow, dull spectacle as losing team will have the incentive to go and attack!
@@chrisgarry22 It's not literally half a goal, it just means that whoever wins extra time goes through but if extra time is a draw then the team that won the shootout goes through. So if Morocco won the shootout, Morocco would go through with a draw but Spain would have to win by 1 goal to win (can be thought of as Morocco going through 0.5-0 if they draw and going out 0.5-1 if they lose)
The best solution LAST GOAL RULES: 1. Penalty shoots will be before overtime 2. If some team score more goals than other, this team wins. 3. If both teams scores goals, but still draw, who score last goal win 4. If both teams don't score goals, team who win penalty shoots, win a game. So in overtime every minute we have team who leading games, and team who is losing games. If someone score goal, other team have good change to win game, so them need just score goal
Am I wrong for thinking alternating corners? Just swap out goalies and reposition. It would almost have to be a timed attempt but could work. Or a small touch line hash mark where it has to cleared by without being timed. Am I wrong?
I hate penalties, so I love this idea. I would suggest maybe having only reduced players (especially defenders) so that it wouldn't take too many attempts to score.
I think ADG is a good idea, but it would be even better if it were a 2v2 + the goalkeeper scenario, with 5 attempts for each team. If tied, a 1v1 between the keepers.
1. They could do corners instead of PKs. More team involvement. Alter number of players somehow to increase odds of scoring 2. ADG but with 3 attackers vs 2 defenders and a goalie. Again, more reflective of actual game with passing actually being possible 3. Use metrics within the game (possession within 25 yards of opposition goal, fair play, shots on target) to award additional PKs in the shootout. So, maybe, each team is guaranteed 3 but additional shots are awarded for winning metrics in game. Tough to balance but would maybe push teams to go for it in extra time if they know the PKs will be stacked against them. Japan had zero interest in playing the last 10 minutes of their game against Croatia but this type of system might stop "weaker" teams from playing for penalties.
Think the problem with ADG is you'd end up with marginal fouls with 2 minute VAR breaks to determine outcomes of individual rounds. You'd get situations where it stays 0-0 deep into round 8-9. How would you choose who the D is? (whoever is chosen would then be more fatigued if their penalty was coming up). Would it need to be rotated as with attacker?
I have an Idea, reduce the size of the field by moving the goal posts to the edge of the box for extra time. keep everything else the same. You heard it here first.
I think they should take the pointing system from tiebreaks in Tennis. Basically that means anytime the aggregate of the score during penalties is an odd number they change the team taking the penalty. It would almost eliminate the issue of one team chasing the other.
I like the ADG idea a lot. Maybe do some trials in junior tournaments. I think it could be a significant improvement to PSO because it should take away most of the luck aspect and reward skilled players both on the attack and defence.
Honestly I actually like the ice hockey style shootouts the NASL and early MLS had and actually wouldn’t mind if FIFA and UEFA adopted it Sure I’m also big Ice Hockey fan (which might be why I prefer it) but personally I like it as it’s less guess and luck based that the current way is and is instead much more based on the skills of the attacker and goalkeeper The ADG proposal is actually kind of similar except a defender is added
Field hockey made the switch from football style to ice hockey style and I think it's better for it. The one difference being that the ball can go backwards so rebounds count too. You simply have 8 seconds to score. Not sure how that part worked in the MLS implementation
@@skintythe1andonly MLS shootout (and NASL, who also used it) you got one shot. It's a better simulation of an actual situation, but it does pose a non-minor risk of injury (fairly easy for the two players to collide). Pure sudden death works in hockey (but not often swiftly, playoff games going into a second 20 minute period are fairly common and exhausting even with subs). But part of it is that there isn't enough room to bunker (I've seen a shot beat the goalie, hit the crossbar the rebound go down the ice and be scored in the other end within 10 seconds). The problem with Soccer OT is that there is a LOT of empty space to waste time in, especially if the other team are pulled back (and they likely will be).
1:15 That idea goes back even further than the MLS; to it's predecessor, the NASL in the 1970s. Only that was from the 35 yard line that was introduced in that league.
For a while now I've been a fan of no shoot-outs in major tournament finals. Obviously, in earlier rounds, there has to be a timely end for the sake of fitness moving on, but for the finals, they should just play until someone eventually scores. My basic outline: Keep playing 15-minute periods, switching sides each time. After the first (normal) extra time, each team gets an additional sub. Just keep playing and if it takes an extra hour so be it. If someone can't continue, you play down a man. Someone will score eventually.
An alternative would be to have time in possession in the final third calculated and be be on display to show which team will win should the game end in a draw. This would give the team in the losing position the incentive to push forward and make the game more exciting.
Set plays where one team attacks and the other defends, then swap. 3 each + Sudden death. The ball can be placed outside the box in any position. Defending team is allowed a wall of up to 3 people. Each team is allowed 5 players in the penalty area (Not including the wall) Each team has 10 seconds to shoot then swap over. Whole team can be involved from both side, allows for some interesting arranged plays and dramatic moments.
The NHL did something similar to one man off a few years back. Typically, hockey is 5 a side. In overtime, each team would be reduced to 3 (not including goalies). Some hated it. I thought it produced exciting action. Outside of that, ADS looks really cool on paper. There would need to be some test runs though.
One idea I'm surprised not to have heard yet is to have some penalties in the shootout taken from further away - for example, the first three from the D. (Any more might bias it too much towards the favourites, who tend to have more technically gifted players.) This would put more emphasis on scoring as an achievement, rather than missing as an embarrassment. To me, that is the biggest problem with penalties - that they tend to create "villains" rather than heroes and disasters rather than triumphs.
Just to counter the last argument - id say the question of if the keeper is on or off their line is an example of how penalties aren’t purely objective
The answer is no. Penalties are the ultimate showdown and they are fair enough to establish a correct winner. However, the way they are taken can certainly be improved because the ones we have been seeing at the World Cup were often atrocious lol. All the fails in the shootout between Spain and Marocco were easily predicted by just looking at how these players approached the ball. It cannot be explained how top players are so terrible at shooting a ball 11 meters from the goal.
Yes but penalties cause weaker team to park the bus for 120 minutes. Yesterday's match was close to unwatchable due to how boring it was. Marocco knew they couldn't win without penalties so they only played defense for the whole game Penalties are fair when both teams are trying to score but in the case of matches like this it's just killing what makes football entertaining
@@Returntonature145 even if it's not a reliable strategy it's still enough to cause some absolutely unwatchable games I'd rather watch teams playing 7v7 then 5v5 after full time rather than watching 120 minutes of waiting for penalties
@@azerty1933 yes, but what else could Morocco do? They don't have the players to take Spain head-on. And if Spain are so much better, than that superiority should translate to better quality of penalty taking/saving. Nah man, you're just bitter Spain lost.
@@azerty1933 All weaker teams play on the counter and is a legitimate and very common football strategy. It will never go out no matter the changes you make, unless you are planning to completely change the sport into an 11-man basketball. Saying Morocco only played defense is also highly misleading, considering that the best chances in the game in the first 90 minutes were almost all Morocco's and they only lacked finishing (Cheddira in particular was wasteful). Spain was just keeping possession for the sake of it without producing chances until the Moroccans started tiring, and even then there were only a few good chances that were never capitalised on.
I agree with the end part saying that penalty shootouts are definitve and not subjective, however they on ocassion don't escape controversy especially when officials fail to sanction a goalkeeper coming off his line. They have to be more firm on that and I would suggest finding deterrents for those "tippy tappy" run ups, they're not illegal, but it's a bit unfair on the goalkeeper who's already limited on his movement.
How about shrinking the field and making it a 5 vs. 5 or 6 vs. 6? Alternatively just move the goals to the sides so the short side of the field becomes the long side of the field. It'd become a game of Futsal basically. Temporary lines would have to be drawn but honestly that would ensure a goal goes in.
Bring back the short corner: Short corner shootout. Each team picks 4 outfielders and a keeper. Ball out of bounds (inc halfway) means a restart. Normal rules (fouls, offsides) apply. No need for a time limit, these are professional players. Injuries are exclusive: no subs, no replacements. Follow the unanswered point rule: if you finish a paired round (ABBA) ahead; victor. Else: new round, new outfielders. Pros: - fast-ish. (One paired round could be 10mins inc. resets. - shows class and fatigue - tactics on display - skills on display - makes heroes - we came to watch players
Swap the order of penalties and extra time. Win the penalties and you only need to draw extra time to go through. Lose penalties and you have to win in extra time. Makes extra time more meaningful and finishes a game with teams actually playing football
How about 5 rotating turns of a 3 v 2 attacking drill from the halfway line with a 45 second clock? Defenders objective is to kick the ball into touch. It would tie in with the growing interest in planned set piece's and would lead to exciting attacking moves that constantly evolve game to game. Imagine watching Haaland, De Bruyne and Foden run at Maguire and McTominay with de Gea in goal for the FA Cup final. You could restrict each participating players involvement to 3 separate drills to add in a strategic planning element between teams as they try to plan out whether to play the best players together or spread them out. It has a little bit of an american football trick play or FIFA Street vibe to it, but it would be fun.
I think ADG is a good alternative to penalty shootout, attackers can showcase their skill, it would be fun to watch players like Neymar dancing their way to a goal
These discussions only happen when there is an upset. It is fair. If a team deserved to win in the regular time or extratime they would have, with var this is more true.
Exactly that. And should there be a dubious decision such as the foul on Saka in the Euro 2020 final the referees including var should be made to give an explanation immediately after the match.
I still think there could be better and the 1-on-2 variant seems like it's worth trying however, since more is now known about the psychology and analytics of penalty-taking, I find the current shoot-out more intriguing and less random and would be fine if it continued on.
What if each team had an opportunity to attack from the second quarter of the field and score a goal in say 2 minutes. Each team would have X chances to attack and score a gol. Great content! Rumo ao hexa!
I think PSO is one of the most interesting things of football and is basically impossible to replicate on any other sport. And is also very fair. The penalty is condensed expression of the whole game. A attacker trying to score a gol vs a goalkeeper trying to stop a shot. It's takes the "luck" variable completely off the equation, there's no bounce/spin on the ball, there is no gust of wind, no other players to help/hinder anyone. Yet the PSO is completely unpredictable because it takes every mental and technical skill from all the players involved. No alternative method can achieve that.
"It's takes the "luck" variable completely off the equation" What are you on about ? It's quite the opposite: there is still very much luck involved. Have you actually seen a penalty shootout ? In most cases, keepers RANDOMLY CHOOSE a direction to dive. I know sometimes the shooters give away their intentions through either body language or eyesight, but those are RARE occurences, especially at high levels. So given that there are 3 main directions (left, right, middle) that mathematically results in a LUCK factor of 66% -> that's how many times the goalkeepers have no chance of succeeding, not because of lack of skill, but because of lack of luck. Yes, I agree that PSOs are very good, but they are definitely NOT perfect. And the huge involvement of luck is precisely the PSOs biggest drawback. When determining who is better, you want the complete opposite: as little luck involved as possible, ideally 0. That's why 66% is waaay to much. The solution to this is, as others have pointed out, moving the kicking spot further back, so that keepers will not be forced to randomly choose a direction to dive, they would instead have to use their skill, reflexes and (jumping) strength to get to the ball. Obviously, you don't want to move the spot too far back and make it too easy for the keeper. You want to find the sweetspot where the keeper can wait and see where to jump, but he still needs good reflexes, speed, strength, skill in order to pull of a save. And even when he does have all those down, he might still not get the save if the shooter kicks it very well (a powerful and well placed shot)
Golden Goal is great, but to avoid the problem of teams sitting back and playing to "not lose" instead of to win, you could introduce a "shot clock". Basically make it that teams have a set amount of time they're allowed to possess the ball or make it that once the ball is possessed in the attacking half, it can't be passed back over. Basically make it so that teams are FORCED to attack directly and quickly
I've always felt shoots should be in this before format, AB, BA, AB, BA and so on.. Statistically, iirc, 75% of shootouts are won by the team going second.
They did try that before and binned it [I think the Community shield was done that way once], but I do prefer that system. It's actually the team going first that wins 60% of the time.
I like pens. Think we should just go straight into them. Think they have about a 70% success rate. Which is good. Wanna see goals more often than not. The run from half way is around 50% if I recall? (Previous tifo vid talked about this). Think we'd see too many failed shots to be interesting. Only thing I can think of to improve pens is both teams take them on opposite end of the pitch at the same time. Bit of a mental game being played to add to the fun. Do you go quick to not get the crowd reaction and the result on the other side, or you do you wait and respond to what's happened on the other side etc etc. Minimises the issue of who goes first too
Don't sleep on it...this is a time to invest I recently just bought another property valued at over $3m. I wish knew the right investment firm to invest with earlier, better late than never thought.
I think I'm blessed because if not I wouldn't have met someone who is as spectacular as expert Charles Patrick I think he is the best broker I ever seen
managers racing from one end of the pitch to the other seems ideal to me
Have the manager piggyback a player of their choice
Egg and spoon race could be thrown in there too.
Let them do it while juggling a ball.
how about shoulder carrying the heaviest fan in the audience from each team?
🤣🤣🤣
I love the penalty shootout. It's not "fair" in the best possible way - it's a psychological test that resonates with invested fans, and it's also a rare opportunity for goalkeepers to take the spotlight
Yeah. But I would comeback with the rematch, but with less time (60 min?) and then the penalties. It seems less unfair (and we would have more games to watch).
not rare enough imo
@@Yngvar_ this is the worst idea I have ever heard no one will ever listen to you or respect you
@@Yngvar_ more games is the last thing football needs
@@Yngvar_ awful idea the players are already being stretched to their limits the last thing they want is more games
I don't think there are any better alternatives to replace PSO. yes it takes a great deal of mental strength and also sometimes luck, but that's what make PSO perfect for football. With this, even underdogs like russia, croatia and morocco could upset bigger teams
The caveat is how to prevent abuses and condemnations towards football players who fail at PSO, especially online abuses
I would split the pitch in half (from the top of the 18-yard-box to the halfway line) and play next goal wins with only 5 players on each team. An added caveat could include each team sacrificing a player every 2 minutes without a goal. That would be so much fairer and more exciting than a penalty shootout.
The idea of other alternative is to prevent shock and upset for bigger teams and their fans.
@@the_one_the_only4651 great idea just replace our sport with Futsal...
It's a crapshoot, but boy is it exciting - I'm sure anyone who's ever experienced one in person will never forget it, isn't that what football is about?
I like the idea of using shots on goal or disciplinary records to settle ties. It will encourage more attacking play during regular time and prevent weaker teams from packing the bus for 120 minutes just hoping to bag an undeserved penalty shootout win. That’s been my biggest beef with shootouts. They’re often not a fair representation of who deserved to win the game.
For all its flaws, penalty shootouts' positives, as described in the video, probably make it the best option, though the MLS style run-up is a nice variant. Maybe one little tweak I would suggest would be to have it be best of 7, rather than best of 5, to slightly lessen the impact of missed penalties on individuals & place more emphasis on the team as a whole.
Good idea. Why not make it every outfield player. Then it’s truly the full team.
@@MM-ev1fg I did consider that, although maybe that'd drag a bit much, plus with sendings off, it might actually benefit the team that incurred them if their best takers could go twice.
MLS run up is awful any half decent player can score
@@zoeysiddiqi1532 can't you make that exact same statement about a penalty from the spot?
@@nickhamblin8179 I would say sent of players automatically count as a failed attempt
No... penalties are exactly what their name indicates
PENALIZING both teams' inability to win the game in 120 min!!
It's supposed to be grueling and suffer... it's part of the drama of the game
Also it's very fair and clear... the ball either goes in or not... no room for misinterpretation from bad referees
Based
when you put it like that it does sound perfect....
I would favor this. If the score is level after 120 minutes, both teams are eliminated.
@@jstnrgrs Then who would qualify instead of them?
@@lawliet_4821 no one, there's just no winner this year. like ninja warrior
Should be mentioned how exciting and nerve wracking penalty shoot-outs are. It's my mum's favorite moment of football, and I guess it's the same for other people who aren't big football fans but still watch worldcups and other major tournaments.
Even without being in a FIFA committee 😁, I've discussed this with my friends before, and it's really hard to think of a better alternative to penalty shoot-out in football. And quite frankly, it's the favourite part for some people who don't really watch football. The tension and expectation can be beautiful to watch if you are a neutral.
Penalty shoot outs are one of the few things that non football fans would watch and then totally get the drama. Beautifully incorporates the glory and heartbreak of football.
Exactly thats why I love them so much
True, was just watching the Morocco Spain penalty shootout and my friends who don’t watch the sport said that this is the only thing entertaining about it
Penalty shootouts are stupid! A team could completely dominate another team on the pitch and still lose in a penalty shootout because shootouts are 50-50. A team of high schoolers could beat a world cup champion in a penalty shootout!
@Mihail Parshin Well sometimes the other team gets lucky or gets a favorable call. I've seen games where the best team hit the goal post 5 times and attacled relentlessly throughout the whole game outshooting the other team 20 shots to 5, got an unfavorable call and because of that remained tied after 120 minutes.
@Mihail Parshin No. The better team needs to blame the rules and we need to come up with something better that a stupid shootout. That is why FIFA has relentlessly searched for an alternative. Sounds like you would just go back to flipping coins to settle games. LOL. That's just hillbilly mentality!
this is the first time i've heard of ADG and i liked it, but then you mentioned how shootouts are free from referee bias and i immediately thought of how controversial tackles could be in ADG.
Also you're giving all the advantage to the defenders, since they'll have 2 players while the attacker is only 1.
I have a suggestion to improve this: 2 Attackers (freely moving), and the defender and goal keeper can't leave the penalty box. Plus a time limit. Less contact, more strategy.
@@divyatulsi1520 That's an overwhelming advantage to the attackers, even more so than a penalty kick. Defender has to challenge the attacker with the ball - passes to other attacker in box - easy goal. 3 attackers, 2 defenders might work.
@@pizzashark7067 why not have 11 attackers and 11 defenders but the defenders can also score? Oh wait
Right on time to see this after spain was knocked out after failing every penalty shoot out
Clearly the people that run the channel have a time machine and know what will happen in the next games
Or they made their video in advance and release it at the most opportune time to increase viewership.
@@monicag.k.tambajong Or they saw what happened to Japan and decided to make a video about it.
...or they just knew that there would inevitably be at least one penalty shootout in the World Cup and were waiting for the right moment to release a video they had made in advance
I believe there is a statistical advantage in going first on penalty shootouts, so a good way of tweaking them without changing the formula too much would be to just swap the order of the teams between shots, to make it fairer.
@Suba CHAD It has been tried by a few competitions. But from what I heard, officials found it too confusing and routinely messed up the cycle. I personally like the ABBA format (if we have to keep penalties) so learning who shoots first in each round, and what the consequences of each outcome will be, will need to be taught clearly and unambiguously.
I think that was attempted in some youth tournaments, but last I heard of it was in 2018 or so. It seemed like a fine idea on paper, and something I think is worth bringing back to a discussion on shootouts.
@subachad3269 Winner takes it all?
Statistically in the world cup the team that goes second has won more.
@@devanman7920 its an outlier then not a presentation of the statistics
Another alternative is doing the penalty kicks at the end of full time (before extra time starts) And the winner of the PSO is declared the winner if extra time ends in a draw. This takes away from the worst of the PSO while retaining the best parts. It also decreases the tactic of smaller teams playing just for the draw. It also allows the team that lost the PSO to attempt to win the game in extra time. And takes the pressure off the individuals taking the penalty.
I was about to suggest the exact same thing. This idea could really work!
I like the idea but what if it's still a draw after the extra time? back where it started
@@exgardevior then the winner of the penalty shoot would advance
This is the best alternative i've read from all the comments, and one I think would work and add real excitement to the following extra time as the penalty shootout losers would really have to go for it
Nah...
My only suggestion is that there should be more penalties, perhaps ten. Part of the current issue is that players who ‘step up’ are then vilified for missing. If every outfield player was expected to take one, and the manager determined the order, players would have less pressure on them. Missing one penalty out of ten is then no big deal.
maybe seven would be ideal. ten would have too many players take the shot
@@qazburger2461 wouldn't always reach 10 if a team miss a few in a row like spain.
also means there's far less pressure on the first few so you would put weakest first which is good.
but there would be a dilemma of who to choose with 7 because you wouldnt want your weakest to take them, but should all be equal, you're having the weakest taking sudden death pens.
but yeah 20/22 pens seems a lot
Yeah no players still get abuse over missing 1/11 unfortunately.
@@sinewybug8415 20 pens seems a lot… after 120 minutes of football? Pens take a few second each and there’s already often more than 10
I’m all for people giving their opinions… but some of the suggestions I’ve read so far are comical, they almost sound like training drills i would’ve done in juniors😂😂
If penalties weren't traditionally accepted you could say the same about them.
@@ryansmith-jr4gn Never said otherwise.
@@jameswright21 but penalties are traditionally accepted?
As a football fan, penalties are one of my favorite things about the game. It is harsh when it happens to your team but I think it is just crazy to watch. It just ends the game. It is harsh but intense and brings all of the emotions out.
I’ve seen people saying penalties in regulation are also problematic as a single, sometimes unintentional or inconsequential, moment can define the result of a game by being punished with a roughly 75% chance of a goal. I think this problem and the one with penalty shootouts can be solved by simply moving the ball back. By lowering the chance of scoring, it is isn’t as big of a punishment for something potentially irrelevant, and lowers the expectations for takers in a shootout, decreasing the pressure and amount of abuse players may get from missing
I like the ADG idea. One other idea I have as an attempt to minimize penalty shootouts in tournament play, is one I recently thought of when reflecting on Croatia making it to the 2022 semi-final without having more than 1 non-penalty shootout win. The idea is that during the tournament, for every penalty shootout a team participates in, they accrue one "miss" in subsequent shootouts. So for a team in a second shootout, they begin with a "miss" on the penalty score sheet, for a third shootout, they begin with 2, and so on. While teams can still win a penalty shootout while beginning with 1 or more misses, it clearly grants an advantage to teams who haven't had previous shootouts. The idea is to discourage teams from grinding games down to a tie in hopes of beating what might be a better opponent in a penalty shootout. So it doesn't get rid of the shootout, but it offers some incentive for teams to be more aggressive in winning a game before it comes to a shootout.
Park the bus to win for reasons you didn't create
I want to watch a match with the one player removal rule just once.
watch portugal vs the netherlands WC 2006 lol
@@andrewvu7865 I did. Battle of Nuremberg. I was thinking without the violence lol
watch NHL
I want to see a World Cup final five-a-side
@@andrewvu7865 LMFAOOOOO
I think it could be improved by moving the spot back and shifting the competitive balance more towards the keeper. Making the scores more challenging makes them - perhaps- more exciting which is what the current system doesn’t really allow for. Maybe the spot becomes a small arc to create some potential for different shots as well. Give the shooter one touch to keep the keeper honest. Idk.
Penalties work pretty well (it's only occasionally you get some shootouts that go on for over twenty shots each). If you want to try to address the issue of individual jeopardy, then you could add scenarios involving more players. Eg attacking corners, attacking free kicks where all the players on the team are involved.
I could imagine the tussle during the corner kick anticipation will become a hotbed of arguments (fouls, offsides, etc).
You're them welcoming refereeing bias into it, plus the chances of teams scoring from them is low, and you could be there for ages
@@yohannessulistyo4025 Halve or less, the number of players, for ease of refereeing. You've now got 3 officials available (bring one lino onto the field)
After 90 minutes, each team takes 2 penalties each then plays 15 minutes of extra time, then another 2 penalties followed by another 15 minutes. Add the total score from the penalties and extra time together and use sudden death penalites if needed. It would force a team to attack if they end up behind after a round of penalties.
Love this idea! Keeps most of the drama of penalties but winning the match ultimately depends on the entire team in extra time
Lame
So: Argentina - France 2:2
Mbappé scores, Messi scores, Martinez saves Coman's shot, Dybala scores. (i.e. 4-3)
Fifteen minutes of extra time follow. They remained scoreless.
Two more penalties: Tchouameni misses - Paredes scores - Kolo Muani scores - Montiel scores. This would have made it 6-4.
And in the second fifteen minutes of extra time, Messi and Mbappé score. This would mean it is a 7-5 win for Argentina.
My idea is to play the shootout before the period of extra time.
Say Italy play Brazil, and Brazil win the shootout held immediately after the 90 minutes. You then go into extra time knowing that if both teams are still level at the end, the match is awarded to Brazil.
If Italy managed to get a goal in ET, then they win instead.
Sort of makes the shootout result like a half goal.
This would mean that rather than the game being decided entirely by spot kicks, the two teams would at least be able to play some football to determine a result.
This is honestly a great idea. It gives one of the teams an advantage in the ET, and forces the other to push for a change of outcome. I really like it.
Really like this idea
Tifo putting Kane on thumbnail: I am somewhat of a time-traveller myself.
I don’t think there is any player who experienced the cruel beast of penalties like Roberto Baggio. An amazing player who’s career is mostly remembered for the most high profile penalty miss. And he never really got over it.
As has been stated in the video, the penalty shootout really has no rival in it's clarity, effectiveness and adherence to the spirit of the game. If a side like Japan and Spain aren't good at penalties, it's as good as saying they weren't good enough to win the game.
If anything, it demonstrates how disproportionately little focus is put into being good at penalties. Teams will min-max every aspect of a game then make tactical clangers in the deciding moment.
As Italian who had to suffer big losses and incredible victories with all mentioned methods, I still prefer to retain the psychological PSOs style
You are also not minding the physical efforts players put into action over 120+ minutes, which is very needed to be considered to avoid extra physical stress (And I highly doubt that adopting the ADG model will reduce the psychological impact)
Moreover, as I like Underdogs stories, and I love GKs showcasing their penalty-saving skills, it's better to preserve PSOs.
Haha, I'm English and I agree. Most alternatives fail to consider the detrimental impact they will have on the regular 90 minutes. e.g., indefinite extra time or ADG completely change substitution strategy.
except underdogs are far less likely to win a penalty shootout, since underdog teams have less experience with them since they're in tournaments less often. like for example Japan v Croatia in the world cup, the general consensus was that japan was the better team in regulation time, but Croatia had far more experience in pens. Not to mention that if teams know they have an advantage in penalties it makes extra time negligible since they virtually park the bus for the whole 30 mins
I want them to make a rule for the penalty takers. They should not be able to run up to the ball and stop in order to try to trick the keeper. It should be one smooth movement to the ball, no skipping, or freezing, just one smooth movement to kick the ball in the goal.
I’d rather move the penalty further away from the net say at the edge of the penalty box.
They're only allowed to stutter, they aren't allowed to stop. If you watch Jorginho or Fernandes, they never completely stop, just suddenly slow down right before the kick
@@Gremunky One smooth movement,that includes no stuttering. If goalkeepers have to stay on the line, there must be some restrictions for penalty takers too.
@@andrebrown8969 there are restrictions, just like I said. See Heung-Min Son's disallowed penalty against Fulham in 2018, he stopped before he kicked the ball, so it got disallowed. As long as the player doesn't fully stop, it's legal. They're allowed to vary the speed at which they approach
@@Gremunky I don't them to vary their speed. One smooth movement. You either approach quickly or slowly or somewhere in between that. No varying of speed.
Elite sport is all about heroes and villians. Nothing is more brutal or magnificent illustration of this than Football's penalty shootout. It should never go. if players aspire to win tropheis and world cups, then they should accept penalty shootouts are a potential pitfall of that path to greatness. Penalty shootouts are possibly the most tense and greatest illustration of what makes sport great.
The pressure of penalties is part of the magic you cant change it leave the game alone ffs
This video just got recommended after England’s departure from Qatar 2022 world cup in the Quarter finals. The thumbnail for this vid in relation to penalties was such wild timing💀
I would love to see ADG trailled in some tournaments. I enjoy the drama of a penalty shootout but what i absolutely hate is a game where both sides refuse to take chances and basically just fitter away 120 minutes to get to that point. Ideally something to fix that would be nice.
I think a major issue is what to do with fouls. Like if I need to defend Messi I will just foul him every time. Replaying is obviously not desirable. We can also just allow free kicks and penalties but that would just defeat the purpose
1:51 - Nice Infinity War reference
A free kick shoot out where players can line up from any chosen spot on the D of the penalty area would be interesting.
Regarding penalty shootouts, they may not always reward the better team, but it's hard to top the drama of penalties. I love watching them as a neutral and I'm constantly on my feet pacing when my team is involved in one.
If all else fails, have extra time where the keepers can't use their hands. 😅
I also think a free kick shootout would be a good idea, but I think the ball placement should be a little bit farther away. And the play would be over once the ball touches the ground.
A free kick shootout would be interesting but it might be too slanted the other way - too hard to score rather than 80% chance of scoring. I don't know what the average conversion rate is for free kicks but I assume it's low.
@@pcoccoli
But it will be fair for all side.
@@pcoccoliput a limit on the number of people in the wall would solve that. or used a fixed training wall
1:55
Throwing in Infinity War blip dialogue was a touch of class
Can't believe you didn't mention the perfect system: MULTIBALL!
With 2x multiplier for the special golden ball
Ok, hear me out. How about being able to take the ball and score from the rebound? If the ball goes out or is caught/pinned into the ground by the goalie, then the penalty is over, but if it hits the goalie or the frame of the goal, the taker can get the rebound as many times as they like until they score or the ball goes out or is caught/pinned into the ground by the goalie.
I think pentalties shoot outs should stay forever. A quick, simple and packed with emotions solution.
Golden goal and silver goal weren't really alternatives to the penalty shootout as panelties were still used if teams were tied after extra time. They were more alternatives to extra time. One option would be to use another statistic to use to determine a game winner such as shots on goal, possession, or discipline records. But none of those would provide the entertainment of the penalty shootout. The only change I'd make is to use both sides of the field to take penalties... ie, shoot at one goal for 3 pens, then the other for the rest of the shootout so no team gets an advantage shooting on front of their own fans
I still like Golden Goal best...."next goal wins it" was always good enough for us as kids
So Liverpool winning the FA cup final in 1971on Golden Goal would be an improvement on watching Charlie George score that fantastic winning goal in the second period of extra time? Golden goal was the worst option ever IMO. In some matches the best part of the game occurs in extra time.
@@djfez58 of course it does, but I'm not sure we are really querying the merits of extra time it self. Had CG's goal been the first scored in ET then, in your own words, that would have been a "fantastic" goal to win a game......anyway, I think the video suggests none of the solutions are perfect so I guess it'll still be penalties for a while yet 🙂
Mate the video literally said it was disliked by many
It works for hockey
But that would tire out the players even more. Causing injuries and more. Imagine you play for 200 minutes and still fail to score the next goal
I have a nice tweak to penalties, the shoot out could be done first, then the winner given an advantage point, afterwards the extra time is played, and the team with an advantage could win either by a draw or a win, and the other team must win the extra time.
This should reduce the randomness and the cruelty of the PSO, and create more competitive exciting extra time rather than the traditional cautious and dull ones.
Penalties are a bit like qualifying in F1, both are the best way to sort the best from the rest under pressure, and completely under appreciated purely because of the amount of time they have been used in their respective sports. They aren’t perfect sure, but the alternatives are far far worse propositions
Great quality video brav keep up the good work brav much love.
As someone who played as a keeper, penalty is too easy of a task to fairly settle two teams. Even amateur players can score a penalty at a high percentage, which means the skill difference between the two teams is basically eliminated in the shootout. I like the idea of moving the spot for shootout further away, maybe the edge of the box. That way the shootout still keeps all of its advantages, but the skills of both the players and the keepers matter much more.
Nothing will ever be able to replace the tension that comes with a penalty shootout, the yes or no outcome makes it definitive and thrilling.
Why would anyone change the penalty shootout?
The joy of winning would never be so great, if the misery of losing would be reduced.
And yes it is supposed to be a mental meat grinder for the players. Kicking a penalty is easy for any professional player, the mental part is the interesting bit.
i really like the one player off idea. if it ever came to a 1 on 1 it would be cool to see
Speaking of pens my tinfoil hat theory is that all the players are afraid to put this world cups ball in the air on pens. It seems to be taking flight higher and quicker than normal. I could be trippin but I’m convinced 😂
I also had the same thought. You saw players such as Kimpembe, and Maguire blasting it in the top corner during the Euros. And in general, the shootouts in the Euros and Copa Americas saw the ball hit the roof more often than not.
The way Japan or Spain took their Pk's, I had the same doubt
seems reasonable
The MLS version was the perfect version, I don't see why it wasn't adopted elsewhere.
I like the idea of the ADG model however I think 2v2 would be better as it would encorperate all 10 outfield players for each team... this way the encorperation of teamwork and cohesion would be mixed in and be in more of the spirit of football
I was thinking 2ADG: 2 attackers v. defender and goalkeeper. That appeals to me more than ADG.
How about 3v3? You can have 1 player as the third man run.
A few tweaks I would make to the PSO
1. Switch to a "mirror pattern" format (ab ba ab ba ab. Sudden death starts. ba ab ba ab ba).
2. Have the team captain of both clubs take all of the penalty kicks in the shootout (including sudden death rounds if necessary).
3. If the matches are played on neutral- site pitches (e.g the world cup or the olympics), then the club's name who is last in alphabetical order kicks first. (e.g Portugal vs Spain. Spain kicks first because a match is on neutral-site pitch and their name is last alphabetically).
I hope that they are not confusing. Especially the 3rd one. I would also just simply just get rid of extra time in the sport in general because trying to figure out what type of extra time rule is "fair" is too subjective.
Could try moving the penalty spot back a little bit
(F) hockey used to do the same penalties as football but has since changed it to a 1v1 with the keeper where you have 8 seconds to score, that was a massive improvement over the football style ‘strokes’
I’d be interested in seeing the creativity of individual players as well as how the goalkeeper would react due to the size of the goal.
@@herbertmorales333 yeah, in (f)hockey the goals are a bit smaller and the keeper has pads on so he usually runs out to create an acute angle but with football, the strategy would have to change.
Just swap the order of Penalties and extra time. If a teams wins the shootout, they only have to draw in extra time to go through. If the team loses, then they have to win at extra time. That way, the game can end with us watching actual football
ooo actually good idea ngl
No then the team that wins the shootout will park the bus
@@salvadorjimenez1467 and its the other team's responsibility to break through
@@beard6329 boring af then
That’s a brilliant idea but what happens if the other team scores a goal in the extra time proceeding the PSO?
They could try moving PK's to after 90 mins and use it as a tie breaker if no one scores after 30 mins of extra time. Would make ET more fun!
I like it. It creates a more attack vs defence dynamic, rather than maintaining a stalemate into extra time as we already saw 90 mins play out and end in a draw anyway. Someone else in the comments proposed a similar idea where the winner of pens after 90 earns 0.5 goals, followed by extra time where the losing team is now more strongly incentivised to attack.
Idea: Flip the order to Extra Time and Penalties. After the 90 minutes ends in a draw, the game goes straight to penalties. The winner the shootout gains 0.5 of a goal (for instance the scoreline would read 2.5-2), and then we commence with 30 minutes of Extra Time - in which one team must eventually win but the team that were better from the spot gaining a fair advantage. This not only reduces the heartache of missing the deceive pen as the team will have time to change the outcome, it also solves the issue of ET periods often being slow, dull spectacle as losing team will have the incentive to go and attack!
Really good idea!
What if it ends in a draw after penalties and ET? There's no definitive outcome.
@@praveenmitikiri9481 you can’t score a half a goal. That’s the point with the penalties being before extra time
@@chrisgarry22 It's not literally half a goal, it just means that whoever wins extra time goes through but if extra time is a draw then the team that won the shootout goes through. So if Morocco won the shootout, Morocco would go through with a draw but Spain would have to win by 1 goal to win (can be thought of as Morocco going through 0.5-0 if they draw and going out 0.5-1 if they lose)
Sounds overcomplicated and boring
The best solution LAST GOAL RULES:
1. Penalty shoots will be before overtime
2. If some team score more goals than other, this team wins.
3. If both teams scores goals, but still draw, who score last goal win
4. If both teams don't score goals, team who win penalty shoots, win a game.
So in overtime every minute we have team who leading games, and team who is losing games. If someone score goal, other team have good change to win game, so them need just score goal
Am I wrong for thinking alternating corners? Just swap out goalies and reposition. It would almost have to be a timed attempt but could work. Or a small touch line hash mark where it has to cleared by without being timed. Am I wrong?
I hate penalties, so I love this idea. I would suggest maybe having only reduced players (especially defenders) so that it wouldn't take too many attempts to score.
@@trevorvanderwoerd8915 definitely a good idea.
I think ADG is a good idea, but it would be even better if it were a 2v2 + the goalkeeper scenario, with 5 attempts for each team. If tied, a 1v1 between the keepers.
Finally the first one here . Another great video
1. They could do corners instead of PKs. More team involvement. Alter number of players somehow to increase odds of scoring
2. ADG but with 3 attackers vs 2 defenders and a goalie. Again, more reflective of actual game with passing actually being possible
3. Use metrics within the game (possession within 25 yards of opposition goal, fair play, shots on target) to award additional PKs in the shootout. So, maybe, each team is guaranteed 3 but additional shots are awarded for winning metrics in game. Tough to balance but would maybe push teams to go for it in extra time if they know the PKs will be stacked against them. Japan had zero interest in playing the last 10 minutes of their game against Croatia but this type of system might stop "weaker" teams from playing for penalties.
Think the problem with ADG is you'd end up with marginal fouls with 2 minute VAR breaks to determine outcomes of individual rounds. You'd get situations where it stays 0-0 deep into round 8-9. How would you choose who the D is? (whoever is chosen would then be more fatigued if their penalty was coming up). Would it need to be rotated as with attacker?
I have an Idea, reduce the size of the field by moving the goal posts to the edge of the box for extra time. keep everything else the same. You heard it here first.
It's fine the way it is
I like the idea of dueling corner kicks. It might take a little longer but it preserves more of the game.
Tifo getting this out before England lose on pens in the quarter finals again
That Thanos SNAP! reference was extremely on point! 😂
I think they should take the pointing system from tiebreaks in Tennis. Basically that means anytime the aggregate of the score during penalties is an odd number they change the team taking the penalty. It would almost eliminate the issue of one team chasing the other.
They’ve done this before. I remember them experimenting with an ABBA penalty order instead of ABAB not too long ago. Idk why it stopped
The two point lead Idea would also be interesting
I like the ADG idea a lot. Maybe do some trials in junior tournaments. I think it could be a significant improvement to PSO because it should take away most of the luck aspect and reward skilled players both on the attack and defence.
Honestly I actually like the ice hockey style shootouts the NASL and early MLS had and actually wouldn’t mind if FIFA and UEFA adopted it
Sure I’m also big Ice Hockey fan (which might be why I prefer it) but personally I like it as it’s less guess and luck based that the current way is and is instead much more based on the skills of the attacker and goalkeeper
The ADG proposal is actually kind of similar except a defender is added
Field hockey made the switch from football style to ice hockey style and I think it's better for it. The one difference being that the ball can go backwards so rebounds count too. You simply have 8 seconds to score. Not sure how that part worked in the MLS implementation
@@skintythe1andonly MLS shootout (and NASL, who also used it) you got one shot. It's a better simulation of an actual situation, but it does pose a non-minor risk of injury (fairly easy for the two players to collide). Pure sudden death works in hockey (but not often swiftly, playoff games going into a second 20 minute period are fairly common and exhausting even with subs). But part of it is that there isn't enough room to bunker (I've seen a shot beat the goalie, hit the crossbar the rebound go down the ice and be scored in the other end within 10 seconds). The problem with Soccer OT is that there is a LOT of empty space to waste time in, especially if the other team are pulled back (and they likely will be).
@@skintythe1andonly yeah 8 seconds is much better in hockey than strokes
1:15 That idea goes back even further than the MLS; to it's predecessor, the NASL in the 1970s. Only that was from the 35 yard line that was introduced in that league.
For a while now I've been a fan of no shoot-outs in major tournament finals. Obviously, in earlier rounds, there has to be a timely end for the sake of fitness moving on, but for the finals, they should just play until someone eventually scores.
My basic outline:
Keep playing 15-minute periods, switching sides each time. After the first (normal) extra time, each team gets an additional sub. Just keep playing and if it takes an extra hour so be it. If someone can't continue, you play down a man. Someone will score eventually.
The MLS gets alot wrong, but that runup penalty kick was pretty cool in my opinion
Penalties are great for spectators though. Pure drama.
An alternative would be to have time in possession in the final third calculated and be be on display to show which team will win should the game end in a draw. This would give the team in the losing position the incentive to push forward and make the game more exciting.
Set plays where one team attacks and the other defends, then swap. 3 each + Sudden death.
The ball can be placed outside the box in any position.
Defending team is allowed a wall of up to 3 people.
Each team is allowed 5 players in the penalty area (Not including the wall)
Each team has 10 seconds to shoot then swap over.
Whole team can be involved from both side, allows for some interesting arranged plays and dramatic moments.
This made me laugh lol, I’m gonna guess you’re American😂😂
That sounds like a training drill lol
@@kdburner7356 British Mate.
Have to say I prefer pens, but when I saw what criteria Fifa were after I made something to fit that criteria.
@@kdburner7356 By that standard, every set piece is a training drill. As are penalty shootouts themselves.
The NHL did something similar to one man off a few years back. Typically, hockey is 5 a side. In overtime, each team would be reduced to 3 (not including goalies). Some hated it. I thought it produced exciting action.
Outside of that, ADS looks really cool on paper. There would need to be some test runs though.
One idea I'm surprised not to have heard yet is to have some penalties in the shootout taken from further away - for example, the first three from the D. (Any more might bias it too much towards the favourites, who tend to have more technically gifted players.)
This would put more emphasis on scoring as an achievement, rather than missing as an embarrassment. To me, that is the biggest problem with penalties - that they tend to create "villains" rather than heroes and disasters rather than triumphs.
Just to counter the last argument - id say the question of if the keeper is on or off their line is an example of how penalties aren’t purely objective
The answer is no. Penalties are the ultimate showdown and they are fair enough to establish a correct winner.
However, the way they are taken can certainly be improved because the ones we have been seeing at the World Cup were often atrocious lol.
All the fails in the shootout between Spain and Marocco were easily predicted by just looking at how these players approached the ball. It cannot be explained how top players are so terrible at shooting a ball 11 meters from the goal.
Yes but penalties cause weaker team to park the bus for 120 minutes. Yesterday's match was close to unwatchable due to how boring it was. Marocco knew they couldn't win without penalties so they only played defense for the whole game
Penalties are fair when both teams are trying to score but in the case of matches like this it's just killing what makes football entertaining
@@azerty1933 But they will get destroyed by overwhelming attack of portugal.Park the bus rule won't work on bigger teams
@@Returntonature145 even if it's not a reliable strategy it's still enough to cause some absolutely unwatchable games
I'd rather watch teams playing 7v7 then 5v5 after full time rather than watching 120 minutes of waiting for penalties
@@azerty1933 yes, but what else could Morocco do? They don't have the players to take Spain head-on.
And if Spain are so much better, than that superiority should translate to better quality of penalty taking/saving.
Nah man, you're just bitter Spain lost.
@@azerty1933 All weaker teams play on the counter and is a legitimate and very common football strategy. It will never go out no matter the changes you make, unless you are planning to completely change the sport into an 11-man basketball.
Saying Morocco only played defense is also highly misleading, considering that the best chances in the game in the first 90 minutes were almost all Morocco's and they only lacked finishing (Cheddira in particular was wasteful). Spain was just keeping possession for the sake of it without producing chances until the Moroccans started tiring, and even then there were only a few good chances that were never capitalised on.
I love the attacker, defender, goalie model. I want to see it in action!
No
I agree with the end part saying that penalty shootouts are definitve and not subjective, however they on ocassion don't escape controversy especially when officials fail to sanction a goalkeeper coming off his line. They have to be more firm on that and I would suggest finding deterrents for those "tippy tappy" run ups, they're not illegal, but it's a bit unfair on the goalkeeper who's already limited on his movement.
How about shrinking the field and making it a 5 vs. 5 or 6 vs. 6? Alternatively just move the goals to the sides so the short side of the field becomes the long side of the field. It'd become a game of Futsal basically. Temporary lines would have to be drawn but honestly that would ensure a goal goes in.
Honestly, reading these suggestions I can’t tell who’s joking and who’s not, that’s worrying😅
Bring back the short corner: Short corner shootout. Each team picks 4 outfielders and a keeper. Ball out of bounds (inc halfway) means a restart. Normal rules (fouls, offsides) apply. No need for a time limit, these are professional players. Injuries are exclusive: no subs, no replacements.
Follow the unanswered point rule: if you finish a paired round (ABBA) ahead; victor. Else: new round, new outfielders.
Pros:
- fast-ish. (One paired round could be 10mins inc. resets.
- shows class and fatigue
- tactics on display
- skills on display
- makes heroes
- we came to watch players
Swap the order of penalties and extra time. Win the penalties and you only need to draw extra time to go through. Lose penalties and you have to win in extra time. Makes extra time more meaningful and finishes a game with teams actually playing football
Think I like this one the best.
I really like this suggestion!
How about 5 rotating turns of a 3 v 2 attacking drill from the halfway line with a 45 second clock? Defenders objective is to kick the ball into touch. It would tie in with the growing interest in planned set piece's and would lead to exciting attacking moves that constantly evolve game to game. Imagine watching Haaland, De Bruyne and Foden run at Maguire and McTominay with de Gea in goal for the FA Cup final. You could restrict each participating players involvement to 3 separate drills to add in a strategic planning element between teams as they try to plan out whether to play the best players together or spread them out.
It has a little bit of an american football trick play or FIFA Street vibe to it, but it would be fun.
I like penalties and how intense they are.
I think ADG is a good alternative to penalty shootout, attackers can showcase their skill, it would be fun to watch players like Neymar dancing their way to a goal
These discussions only happen when there is an upset. It is fair. If a team deserved to win in the regular time or extratime they would have, with var this is more true.
Exactly that. And should there be a dubious decision such as the foul on Saka in the Euro 2020 final the referees including var should be made to give an explanation immediately after the match.
Always right on point
5 players of each team, a goalie, and a ball on each side of the field, first team to score wins
I still think there could be better and the 1-on-2 variant seems like it's worth trying however, since more is now known about the psychology and analytics of penalty-taking, I find the current shoot-out more intriguing and less random and would be fine if it continued on.
Bro just leave them as they are
What if each team had an opportunity to attack from the second quarter of the field and score a goal in say 2 minutes. Each team would have X chances to attack and score a gol.
Great content! Rumo ao hexa!
I think PSO is one of the most interesting things of football and is basically impossible to replicate on any other sport. And is also very fair.
The penalty is condensed expression of the whole game. A attacker trying to score a gol vs a goalkeeper trying to stop a shot. It's takes the "luck" variable completely off the equation, there's no bounce/spin on the ball, there is no gust of wind, no other players to help/hinder anyone.
Yet the PSO is completely unpredictable because it takes every mental and technical skill from all the players involved. No alternative method can achieve that.
"It's takes the "luck" variable completely off the equation"
What are you on about ? It's quite the opposite: there is still very much luck involved. Have you actually seen a penalty shootout ? In most cases, keepers RANDOMLY CHOOSE a direction to dive. I know sometimes the shooters give away their intentions through either body language or eyesight, but those are RARE occurences, especially at high levels. So given that there are 3 main directions (left, right, middle) that mathematically results in a LUCK factor of 66% -> that's how many times the goalkeepers have no chance of succeeding, not because of lack of skill, but because of lack of luck.
Yes, I agree that PSOs are very good, but they are definitely NOT perfect. And the huge involvement of luck is precisely the PSOs biggest drawback.
When determining who is better, you want the complete opposite: as little luck involved as possible, ideally 0. That's why 66% is waaay to much.
The solution to this is, as others have pointed out, moving the kicking spot further back, so that keepers will not be forced to randomly choose a direction to dive, they would instead have to use their skill, reflexes and (jumping) strength to get to the ball.
Obviously, you don't want to move the spot too far back and make it too easy for the keeper. You want to find the sweetspot where the keeper can wait and see where to jump, but he still needs good reflexes, speed, strength, skill in order to pull of a save. And even when he does have all those down, he might still not get the save if the shooter kicks it very well (a powerful and well placed shot)
Golden Goal is great, but to avoid the problem of teams sitting back and playing to "not lose" instead of to win, you could introduce a "shot clock". Basically make it that teams have a set amount of time they're allowed to possess the ball or make it that once the ball is possessed in the attacking half, it can't be passed back over.
Basically make it so that teams are FORCED to attack directly and quickly
I've always felt shoots should be in this before format,
AB, BA, AB, BA and so on.. Statistically, iirc, 75% of shootouts are won by the team going second.
They did try that before and binned it [I think the Community shield was done that way once], but I do prefer that system. It's actually the team going first that wins 60% of the time.
I like pens. Think we should just go straight into them. Think they have about a 70% success rate. Which is good. Wanna see goals more often than not. The run from half way is around 50% if I recall? (Previous tifo vid talked about this). Think we'd see too many failed shots to be interesting.
Only thing I can think of to improve pens is both teams take them on opposite end of the pitch at the same time. Bit of a mental game being played to add to the fun. Do you go quick to not get the crowd reaction and the result on the other side, or you do you wait and respond to what's happened on the other side etc etc. Minimises the issue of who goes first too
hmmm would be interesting
Despite the economic downturn, I'm so happy 😊.I have been earning $ 20,200 returns from my $7,000 investment every 15days✓🇺🇲
This must be an investment with Charles Patrick
@@chadwagner2997 Wow I'm surprised he is mentioned here because he helped me recover what I lost trying to trade myself
Don't sleep on it...this is a time to invest I recently just bought another property valued at over $3m. I wish knew the right investment firm to invest with earlier, better late than never thought.
I started with just 4,000 dollars few months ago now earning up to 17,000 dollars WEEKLY
I think I'm blessed because if not I wouldn't have met someone who is as spectacular as expert Charles Patrick I think he is the best broker I ever seen
corner kick with one striker and the goalkeeper. Requires accuracy from the kicker, a response from the striker and gives the keeper a good chance