Well, that would have to be decided, but I would envisage more attacking play being rewarded.

I suppose this could potentially have a bit of a benefit in acting as a deterent to parking the bus during the 90 minutes.

comment by (U14518) posted 1 day, 15 hours ago

The game is 11 a side not 6 a side. Why we do not play the golden goal is beyond me it is far more conclusive than penalties and also the result is from open play.
___________

Like I said already.....


comment by redmisty (U7556) posted 2 days, 18 hours ago

Golden goal was intended to make the game more exciting but what happened was teams became ultra cautious in extra time and it was boring as hell to watch. It was as if teams preferred to play it safe and take their chances with pens instead!

That is why the golden goal was rightly scrapped.

How about looking at goal difference in the tournament so far? If both teams have the same GD then obviously it would go down to goals scored, etc.

It works well enough in the league as we saw this season. I see no reason why the same logic could not be adapted/applied to a knockout competition .

The benefit is that it would encourage teams to play more attacking football right throughout the tournament and not just in extra time in one match.

It also means that teams would start a match already knowing who would win in the event of a draw - just like the away goal rule.

There you go....Sorted. Blatter can send me a cheque for doing his job for him.

red

that team that are ahead may well have enough 'credit' by then to then 'park the bus'....

same problem

comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007) posted 27 minutes ago

red

that team that are ahead may well have enough 'credit' by then to then 'park the bus'....

same problem
_________________

I don't mind this. If a team's attacking philosophy has put them ahead on GD then they have earned the right to 'park the bus' imo.

Also, I think it is unlikely that they will be that defensive. If they have the best GD then that suggests that their style of play is more attacking. So perhaps they would not be comfortable parking the bus? Could/would Barca do that, for example?

Also, by 'parking the bus' in the semi final (for example) they would be reducing their chances of winning the final...i.e. the final would also be decided on GD in the event of a draw, right? That means that teams would be discouraged from playing defensively in every round of the tournament.

Anyway, teams don't tend to park the bus when they have an away goal advantage so what's the difference? I think the teams that would be most content parking the bus (cough...Chelsea...cough) are the ones that are least likely to have the goal difference advantage in the first place.

If anything, this approach should improve the quality of football all round. In the Chelsea V Barca match, for example, the onus would have been on Chelsea to attack - NOT park the bus - because the GD advantage would have been with Barca.

I meant in the final....

"the onus would have been on Chelsea to attack - NOT park the bus - because the GD advantage would have been with Barca."

You's still get the bus scenario - on the off chance of nicking one
you aren't going to overturn a significant deficit in 'credit' -so to speak in one game

Comment | Complain about this Comment | Share

comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007) posted 3 hours, 2 minutes ago

I meant in the final....

"the onus would have been on Chelsea to attack - NOT park the bus - because the GD advantage would have been with Barca."

You's still get the bus scenario - on the off chance of nicking one
you aren't going to overturn a significant deficit in 'credit' -so to speak in one game
_____________

I still think you're missing the point. Using Chelsea as an example against Barca, the team theat parked the bus (Chelsea) could not play for pens - they had to win the game outright whereas the team that loves to attack (Barca) could have parked the bus but wouldn't as it is not in their nature.

It isn't perfect but it helps to redress the balance - i.e. teams that habitually park the bus will be penalised while teams that habitually attack will be favoured.

I see that as a good thing - far better than golden goal or penalties. Your argument can equally be applied to the away goal rule - i.e. the team with the away goal could park the bus in their home leg in order to "sit on" the away goal advantage...but nobody is complaining about that because overall the away goal is a positive thing for the game as it encourages teams to attack away from home that might otherwise have parked the bus.

trouble is that many posters who have posted their own idea, may have slated other posters' ideas come what may.


OP - how about picking up 5 ideas from this thread and having a vote ?

eg

voting at 90 mins before extra time
goal difference before the final
pens before extra time
etc

The more I think about this, the more I like the goal diff approach (and not because I proposed it!). After all, nobody is complaining about settling a 38 game league season on goal diff so why not a cup competition?

On the downside, lower league clubs would be disadvantaged in, say, the FA Cup. For the underdog, penalties can be a great leveller and often their best chance of progressing against better teams. Do we want to deny them that?

On the upside, the goal diff approach would make tournaments much more exciting because even teams that are 2-0 up will think twice about sitting on that lead. They might just go for more goals which would be more entertaining for the fans.

Also, managers might be less inclined to field such weakened teams in cup competitions because they know that goal diff could be a factor if they draw in a later round.

Any objections? Or should City and United have a penalty shootout for the title?

So it's the 4th round of the FA Cup, and united draw against arsenal 2-2.
In the previous round united confidently defeated spurs 2-0, whereas arsenal humiliated non-league boston united 11-0.

In your system arsenal would go through. Does that seem fair to you? x

if noone else has done it by tomorrow, i'll draft a summary article bulletpointing 5 suggests for a vote

X,

I don't see that as an issue tbh. Is it fair that United drew Spurs while Arsenal drew non-league Boston in the first place? Nobody is complaining about the "luck of the draw" element of the cup are they? So why suddenly compain about it in the context of goal diff?

In your example (which is a good point by the way), Arsenal and United would know the score before a ball is kicked - just as is the case with away goals today. I.e. United would go into that game knowing that only a win will do. How can that be a bad thing for a cup tie? It would force Fergie to play a strong team for starters and maybe inject a bit more passion back into the tournament.

PS the "home" and "away" draws in the FA Cup are also completely random and, one could argue, "unfair". But if a team lands a home draw but has a goal diff disadvantage then that could be an exciting dynamic for a cup tie imo. If a team is away from home and has a goal diff disadvantage then that would of course be a really harsh draw in the cup!

the vote :

http://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewArticle/123018