When someone makes this kind of claim, ears prick, hearts pound, pupils dilate, and everyone listens. Most people wish that there was a fairer way to end a close game in a knock-out competition. I would first like to suggest that it is fair, and then point out why you’re a moron.
When anyone leads with the opening statement “I wrote a letter to…” I’m already against them. No matter what they follow on with, I already have a very bad opinion of them, their family, their face, and everything they stand for. This guy could have solved the global debt crisis or the melting polar ice caps, but I’d still think he was a moron.
Earlier today, a listener called into Talksport’s Drive Time show and explained to the nation his thoroughly thought through, well researched, and incredibly genius idea. Having informed us that he wrote a letter to FIFA outlining his ideas, I was thinking that it must be good. I imagine that a lot of other listeners were on the edge of their seats. You don’t announce that you have written to FIFA if your idea is bad, right?
This is how it goes: Select your four most skillful players at the end of the game. They are going to challenge the opposing goalkeeper from a corner, who is not allowed out of the six yard box. They must score within two touches, without the ball hitting the ground. The two competing teams would do this in the same format as the current maligned penalty shootout.
The losing team would inevitably suffer bum-raps.
Now I’m thinking that all this time spent playing headers and volleys may not have been wasted practice. Knowing that future generations may win the World Cup final in this method fills me with a great sense of pride. Though I would not call myself a pioneer of the game, I have played this, and initiated many heads and vols exhibitions, along with millions of my fellow park-going citizens. This current generation of 8-30 year olds up and down the country has been part of the heads and vols revolution, making it a popular and dearly loved pastime.
This is by far the worst idea I have ever heard in regards to the shootout reform. The caller was rightly laughed at, and thoroughly ridiculed. He justified it by saying that it would be far more entertaining to watch because it would demonstrate great skill and ability. What about at the younger levels where some of the players don’t have the coordination? Are they allowed a bounce? Do half volleys count? Whenever I played, you always made allowances for the bad kid. Maybe he can shoot from inside the six yard box.
We tried Golden Goal, which worked for a few years, but it appeared the world preferred the traditional thirty minutes. After an hour and a half of football you might need a slash or to stock-up on food and drink. Sometimes this means missing the first couple of minutes of extra time, in which someone may have scored the Golden Goal. Then what? You’ve got three bags of crisps and a pizza in the oven, and yet the football is over.
So why is a penalty shootout fair? Because you shoot from the same distance, in the same sized goal, from the same angle, at the same altitude, with the same meteorological interference, with the same number of attempts. The conditions are exactly the same. The only difference is the ability of the two teams, of the striker versus the goalkeeper. “It’s still unfair putting that much pressure on them, wah wah wah”. It might be in a cup final that the toss of a coin decides you shoot in front of your or opposing fans. Big deal. These are all perceived pressures. They are only as real as your head believes them to be.
Once at a lecture with Matt Le Tissier as the speaker, someone asked him “So how come you only ever missed one penalty?”. The response from Matt was “Because I am confident enough in my own ability to score unopposed from twelve yards, versus a goalkeeper that cannot move off his line”. It’s that simple.
How to take a penalty is a discussion for another day, though once it is explained to you, it is simple. I would suggest reading the book Brilliant Orange, where within its pages, it explains why the Dutch lose at penalties, and the research conducted on how to administer your kick.
So why do we miss if it’s that easy? I’m not an expert on sports psychology, but I have been studying it in various modules for A level and for my degree, so I feel inclined to give it a go. Wellying the ball is a gross motor skill, a bit like punching your hardest, or straining for a dump. Placing the ball is more of a fine motor skill, along the lines of potting in snooker or putting in golf.
The average conversion rate for penalties is 60-70%. In a shootout, we often see far more than that missed. At Copa America 2011, Brazil missed four out of four in their game against Paraguay. If you miss a penalty in a game, you’ve got time to make amends. If you miss a penalty in a shootout, it can be catastrophic. This greatly intensifies the consequences of the outcome. The whole game, the whole season, the whole tournament could depend on your penalty. Think of some of the most high profile penalty misses you have seen. Stuart Pearce, Roberto Baggio, John Terry etc.
Ghana were first to shoot, and Gyan was first to step up. He scored the first penalty in this shootout with relative ease. What was so different? Why did he go from massive idiot to cool cat in a matter of minutes? Let’s examine the consequences. If he scored the penalty in extra time, Ghana make the semis, and he’s a hero. Women will throw themselves at him, statues will be erected of him all around the country, his shirt will sell all around the world, and everyone would know his face. What happens if he scores the first penalty in the shootout? Well big deal, there’s another nine to go.
Can you see the difference? Can you feel the difference in pressure? This is what makes it difficult. Your mind is clouded with consequences. There is noise, there is distractions. You become nervous. You don’t want to let down your fans and teammates. How much time have you actually spent focussing on the task at hand? Now you’ve got to choose how to take the penalty, and yet your heart is racing, and your mind is full of noise.
Think of the difference between an atmosphere at a boxing match and at a snooker match. For boxing you literally have to pack a punch. You’ve got to be fearless, ready to ignore pain, you have to move quick and be strong. You administer these gross motor skills. In snooker you have to be calm and considered. Can you do mental arithmetic with someone shouting in your face? So now you’re stuck between power and placement, gross and fine. The more power you put into the shot, the more ballistic the movement, and the less controllable the outcome. If you choose to place it with little power, it becomes far easier for the keeper to react. So how do you do it? What choice do you make? Finding that balance between gross and fine is very hard, especially with all that noise, and such a fast pounding heartbeat.
Pressure is something that is entirely down to how you perceive it. A lot of it is based on your circumstances, considering punishment and reward, and also how you personally deal with it. I remember during my exams, some people were throwing up and unable to sleep. Others treated it as just another day. I was very calm. My parents would not have hit me for failing, and I had no high hopes to become a doctor or a lawyer. I’m not saying for a moment that I outperformed my peers. Due to their pressure, they revised every night, for months leading up to the exams. I had a quick glance at GCSE Bitesize so that it was on the browser history in case my parents checked.
But in a vital moment such as taking a penalty, try to put it into perspective. No one is going to die. Empires will not fall. It is just a game. You have been doing this for years, you are more than capable of executing it correctly, and remind yourself of what Matt Le Tissier said. Now it becomes far easier.
So with this perceived cruelty, we’re not asking the players to do anything extraordinary. We’re not asking them to do something they have never done. We’re not asking them to do anything dangerous. What’s the big deal? Well it’s unfair to put one player through that much pressure. Pay me the millions they get paid and I will gladly miss a penalty.
How about we examine the alternatives and why they can’t and won’t work?
A one-on-one from the halfway line where the striker has ten seconds to score. What happens if the keeper brings down the attacker in the box? Likewise, what about the attacker deliberately injuring the keeper so that he definitely won’t save the next few attempts? And do we have a buzzer? If the ball is shot before the ten seconds is up, but goes over the line after the buzzer, does it count?
Penalties are far more simple because no one gets hurt, there is no need for further penalties, and it is far easier to determine if a goal has been scored.
Take free kicks instead of penalties. Free kicks are harder to score and require more skill, but the same problems arise. It will be far more difficult for the referee to keep control. Inevitably players will try to cheat because of the implications of the situation. The wall will encroach ten yards, the players will attempt to jump with their arms in the way, and what about rebounds? When is the ball out of play? How many players are allowed in there from each team? And who decides where the free kicks are taken?
Slowly remove players from the pitch and/or play for a Golden Goal. The problem with playing for longer than one hundred and twenty minutes, and also reducing the number of players on the field will increase the risk of fatigue and injuries. Top level players are nowadays playing every four days. The intensity of a cup match gone to extra time is far more than most league games. I love it because there are far more games on TV, but players and managers bitch and whine about the amount of games they have to play.
From a TV perspective, extra time and penalties are pain in the bum enough from a scheduling perspective. TV rules when it comes to football. They want more matches, not longer matches. These are the reasons why replays were abolished. Not only did they add more games, but it was a pain for the fans. More travel time, more ticket expenses, and more time off work. Can you be bothered? No. Let’s get it over with tonight, and quick because Coronation Street is waiting to start.
Look at the stats, go by shots on target/corners/possession etc. No. What counts in football? Goals. Invert the reasoning, and the team with the most shots on target or the most corners, if the score was equal (which it is because you are going to penalties) has also missed the most chances. I don’t believe that deserves to be rewarded. It is entirely subjective. Can this be recreated at lower levels where there are no cameras and no Opta Index? Who keeps count? The referee would be constantly distracted, and the teams would lie.
In regards to stats, I’ll give an example outside of football. AC/DC are much maligned for only ever using three chords in their songs. This is a conversation between Eric Clapton and AC/DC guitarist Angus Young:
Clapton: I noticed you only used three chords.
Young: Yeah, but I know all four.
Young: Yeah, but I know all four.
(probably never happened)
A great retort, but the results speak for themselves. AC/DC’s bestselling album is the 1980 release Back In Black. Only one album has sold more copies than this, ever, in the world, ever, of all time. And this was Michael Jackson’s Thriller. AC/DC only needed three chords to sell forty million albums. Doesn’t that show great strength in resources? Other bands would have used many more than that, but AC/DC could write many memorable songs, using only three chords. If you have one shot on target and score one goal, compare that to your opponent who has ten shots on target but only one goal. You have a 100% conversion rate, surely that makes you better? That’s an unfair and unjust way to lose a match.
All in all, why do games result in going to penalties? Because the two teams have been evenly matched when it comes to skill, guile, effort, bravery, cunning and determination. They cannot best each other any. They are equal. So we can’t see which one is better, how about we see which team has less morons? As discussed earlier, penalties are easy to take. If you miss, you’re a moron. Does a moron deserve to win? Let’s think back to Arsenal v AC Milan, when Arsenal lost the first leg 4-0 and had pulled it back to 4-3 in the second leg at the Emirates. Van Persie had a golden opportunity from six yards to score the equaliser, but instead of smashing it into the net, he tried to be clever, and the keeper saved it. In that instance, he made the wrong decision. He became a moron, and as a result, his team did not get their fourth and equalising goal, and so lost the tie on aggregate. Is it fair to blame Van Persie? I would argue is it fair that the players and fans of Arsenal should suffer elimination from the tournament because their striker is a moron?
To recap; penalties are easy, all players can take them and know how to do them, all players are capable of scoring, the situation is the same every time, there is a clear, definite and easy to measure outcome, no threat of injury, the rules are simple, and it is relatively quick. With the circumstances being all the same, and there being so very few variables, there is an almost non-existent chance of cheating or controversy.
So no more of this “There’s got to be a better way” because there isn’t. The players could play FIFA. The referee could write down a number between 1-100 and the players could make a guess to see who gets the closest. They could arm wrestle. They could play snap. They could joust on horses.
As it goes, a penalty shootout is much like asking each player "What is 2+2?" and waiting until someone answers with "Five".
As it goes, a penalty shootout is much like asking each player "What is 2+2?" and waiting until someone answers with "Five".
No comments:
Post a Comment