After the heartbreaking and a rather undeserved loss and knocking out of the very last Asian representative in World Cup 2010, Japan, few if not most people might ask questions about the credibility of penalty shoot-outs in the World Cup or any other competitions to separate two teams that simply cannot and will not be separated, even after an arduous 120 minutes or 2 hours of intense football game. Many have labeled the penalty shoot-outs as a lottery, and also most out of this group have labeled the system as a backdoor or even a loophole ready to be exploited by a much weaker team to just defend and defend, or in Jose Mourinho's words to “park the team bus in front of the goal” throughout the aforementioned 120 minutes and to just simply try their luck in the penalty shoot-outs where they have much more chance of progressing at the expense of their stronger opponents compared to an open play of a football game. No matter the circumstances, when teams are separated after penalty shootouts, there are always a plethora of “what if” questions being asked non-stop in the aftermath of the game, and the losing team is always regarded as a victim, a team which doesn't deserve to be the losers. On the other hand, it's always the case that the winning team is always regarded as undeserving to have their victory clinched through the penalty shootout, especially if it involves the opposing player missing his kick while the goalkeeper has been completely beaten. From Roberto Baggio's miss in 1994 World Cup final, to David Trezeguet's miss in 2006 World Cup final, to the recent Yuichi Komano's miss against Paraguay which effectively the very kick that knocked the Japanese out, we have the aforementioned feelings to the winning and losing teams respectively.
Despite this fact, there doesn't seem to be any replacement to this seemingly flawed deciding system which is criticized and questioned by many within the footballing universe. There are actually three possible alternatives (which have surely been considered before but I am just contributing my two cents' worth on these alternative methods) to the penalty shoot-outs.
Firstly, if after 120 minutes both teams are still tied and can't be separated, why not just keep playing? Instead of stopping both teams that are trying ferociously to break one another down and to send them to the penalty shoot-outs? Just like the recent game between Paraguay and Japan, it was able to be seen that the faces of players from both teams showed that they want to keep getting on with the game, to just try to score that one goal that will surely separate the two teams at that point of time. Even more so for Japan at that time as they were about to take a free kick and the face of Yasuhito Endo, the man who was about to take the kick said it all, he was simply eager to launch the ball into the penalty area for the equally eager other Japanese players to try to score from.
While it is true that even if the game from the end of the 120th minute onward is using the discarded golden goal system, the game will drag on longer and potentially for a very long time. For whatever reasons (which it is beyond my scope to fathom), FIFA have made it clear that they don't want a football game, especially in the World Cup arena to be too long. In fact, that's one of the reasons put forward by FIFA to justify their firm stance against the implementation of various technologies in the matches such as the hawk-eye technology and others of the same mold. Thus, FIFA would not want it to drag matches too long and thus this method is already out even if it looks fair that teams fight it out to matter for how long, and how many 15 minutes half will be played, but the game will only end when someone scores, just like the good old days of extra time. But, who is to say that the old golden goal debate will not surface if this method is indeed implemented? It might even resurrect a long exorcised football debate ghost. Also, if this is implemented, players might even show their unhappiness as longer matches would mean further tiring their already spent bodies after 120 minutes of intense, high stakes football.
Still sticking with the “Keep playing” concept, perhaps we can also go back much further into the distant eras in which matches are played just within 90 minutes, and even during knockout stages, each match is still 90 minutes long at most. Well, I am not trying to say that we should go back to an era in which the “final round: of the world cup is a group, or a mini league to be precise, and the champions, runners up, and third placed teams are determined by the final position after the mini league has been played. In my humble opinion, a glance at that method is also not foolproof and flawed, and that's why the system is defunct as of now. What I am trying to say is actually also to resurrect another defunct concept, in which if a match is tied after 90 minutes, it's over, but it is to be replayed again another day, perhaps 3 days afterward to give the players adequate rest. However, it would be unfeasible in the World Cup as the schedule being run is very tight. Start too early, and it will clash with the tail end of the club season. Start too late and/or end much later, and it will clash with the clubs' pre-season preparations. In short, the schedule is tight, and I don't think such a replay can be carried out. Also, it will be unfair for the teams that have to replay a game, or even two games if the first replay also end with a draw. It means that even if the next round is delayed to facilitate these replays as well as including some days to again give the players adequate rest before the next round, this exhausted team will be in an extreme disadvantage over their opponents in the next round who have rested so long while waiting for the teams to slog it out in the replay(s). While many might argue that the lack of matches might also decrease their match fitness and sharpness, the strain from the plethora of replays will certainly put them in a much worse position than their well rested opponents. Again, it will even be more unfair than the current penalty shoot-outs system, and this idea is again out.
Lastly, as mentioned in the beginning, since many people have dubbed the penalties as a lottery system in which weak teams are able to exploit by just aiming to get to the “lottery” when they face a stronger team, why don't we, for once follow their advice? Why don't we just scrap the penalties and just put in its place a lottery system. Perhaps a coin toss system just like at the beginning of a match in which the two captains of the opposing teams alongside the assistant referees witness the referee determine who will get the chance to kick-off with a coin, and why not we determine the winning team after the arduous 120 minutes of football by using the same coin or even a similar system to the cup draws in the World Cup, FA Cup, or Champions League draws? Well, to keep things short and simple, it mgiht even spark a massive riot and even something resembling coup d'etat in FIFA if this goes ahead. Assuming that the coin and/or the drawing system is a fair one, each team, no matter how lop sided the match is, have a 50% chance of winning the match. It is just like gambling! Imagine this, Brazil vs Papua New Guinea match with a coin toss. Each team has a 50% chance of winning the match even though at the time of writing, Brazil and Papua New Guinea are the first and last team respectively in the FIFA rankings!
Thus, despite the lottery nature,and the seemingly unfair nature of the penalty shoot-outs. It seems that it is still the best way to go, even after dissecting the various alternative methods as above. Also, penalty shootouts can sometimes be a fair game, especially if a goalkeeper has performed admirably well in his reflexes in correctly determining ( I won't use the word “guess”) the direction of the shot from the opposing player and to save the shots, just like what Jerzy Dudek did in the famous 2005 Champions League final for Liverpool. Also, we have to realize that goalkeepers sometimes are an unheralded bunch. It's always about the strikers and/or attacking midfielders. Even defenders get their fair share of glorious moments as well as goals during matches. But goalkeepers? Even with plenty of saves in a match, they still won't be glorified so much. Thus, penalty shoot-outs does have a positive in which it is a huge chance for goalkeepers to shine in a match, and be an ultimate hero for their respective teams. Call it the best methods out of the worst, but still, it is there to stay, along with its ability to elevate our heart rate by oh so much!
No comments:
Post a Comment