Is extra-time a good thing?

by Art Morte Sat Jun 28, 2014 8:07 pm

Especially when playing in demanding conditions like Brazil, is extra-time a good idea?

In the Brazil v Chile game, the minutes between 60 and 90 were just so much worse than the first-half, with players getting so fatigued. No pace, no tempo, pretty boring football for long periods. An exciting player like Neymar was great in the first-half, but nowhere to be seen in the second, obviously because of fatigue.

And then, when you have battled through 90 minutes of top-level football in the World Cup in the Brazil heat, if the match is drawing, there's another 30 minutes of extra-time. The quality is just nowhere the same as during the first half an hour. Especially in an international tournament where you play about 3 games in a week.

So my question is that is extra-time good in the World Cup or should we go straight to penalties after normal time?

by CBarca Sat Jun 28, 2014 8:15 pm

It's a very good idea.

PK's are such a shite way to end a game- I love the drama, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't necessarily reward the better team, it's like a roll of the dice really. 30 extra minutes is a good amount of time to give each team another chance to win the game without a BS PK shootout.

But there is a certain amount of time where you have to stop- and after 120 minutes...it's time to stop, and at that point PK's are an inevitability.

Yeah after the first hour the game wasn't as good, but would this thread be here after the 2010 WC final? I'm glad the final ended that way and not in a shootout.

by Hapless_Hans Sat Jun 28, 2014 8:16 pm

by Chumlum Sat Jun 28, 2014 8:21 pm

I can't think of better solutions, at least not ones that wouldn't fundamentally alter something about the game.

Sure the fatigue can suck in terms of watching, but then again, mistakes lead to drama. Shootouts are a last resort, and should remain that way, IMO.

by Hapless_Hans Sat Jun 28, 2014 8:28 pm

but the great thing is that the shootouts come when everyone is completely exhausted. Else they'd go on forever as everyone converts lol.
I love the way it is, don't see what could be wrong with it.

by Bankz Sat Jun 28, 2014 8:35 pm

hats off to Chile! that clueless Brazil. that clueless
midfield.
Poor alexis. but if one thing is clear Brazil will win
*bleep* all in this tournament. take neymar off and
they're finished. this just goes to show you how
immense neymar is as a player, that the day he
actually has an off game Brazil simply looked
better than only crystal palace. BTW is it just me or
did hulk refuse to pass the ball to both neymar and
Oscar most of the time? six things are clear now,
Brazil has no midfield, Joe and Fred has no
business putting on the Brazilian jersey, Julio Cesar
is a freak, home support can be a disadvantage,
scolari stubborn head will put him in trouble, and
NEYMAR is Brazil!!!!
Neymar's chance to go into hall of fame by
winning the tournament with this shit Brazilian team
making it more of a Goat achievement.

by Art Morte Sat Jun 28, 2014 8:41 pm

CBarca wrote:It's a very good idea.

PK's are such a shite way to end a game- I love the drama, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't necessarily reward the better team, it's like a roll of the dice really. 30 extra minutes is a good amount of time to give each team another chance to win the game without a BS PK shootout.

But there is a certain amount of time where you have to stop- and after 120 minutes...it's time to stop, and at that point PK's are an inevitability.

Yeah after the first hour the game wasn't as good, but would this thread be here after the 2010 WC final? I'm glad the final ended that way and not in a shootout.

On the other hand, statistics suggest that goals in extra-time are not anywhere near as likely as goals in normal-time. So I think the excitement of extra-time is a bit of an illusion. And I don't think "fatigue makes the game interesting because of mistakes" is what top-level football should be about. It should be about skill. If we want to watch an endurance race, let's watch marathons, not sports where technical skills should be the first and foremost source of entertainment.

by BarrileteCosmico Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:33 pm

Better than straight to penalties, which is really a gimmick and has no bearing on who was the better team during the match. The match quality decreased partly because of the weather but I think most importantly because both teams featured very intense pressing. Note that it was Brazil the one that tired first even though you would think that they would be the ones better used to the weather conditions.

I think 1 or 2 more subs should be allowed during ET for fresher legs, though, regardless of the weather.

by Hapless_Hans Sat Jun 28, 2014 9:48 pm

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Better than straight to penalties, which is really a gimmick and has no bearing on who was the better team during the match. The match quality decreased partly because of the weather but I think most importantly because both teams featured very intense pressing. Note that it was Brazil the one that tired first even though you would think that they would be the ones better used to the weather conditions.

I think 1 or 2 more subs should be allowed during ET for fresher legs, though, regardless of the weather.

that's not a bad idea, one more sub

by rwo power Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:32 pm

Well, penalties are better than drawing lots, but winning in extra time is better than winning by penalties. Best way of course is always to win in 90 min, though. ^^

by CBarca Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:39 pm

Art Morte wrote:
CBarca wrote:It's a very good idea.

PK's are such a shite way to end a game- I love the drama, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't necessarily reward the better team, it's like a roll of the dice really. 30 extra minutes is a good amount of time to give each team another chance to win the game without a BS PK shootout.

But there is a certain amount of time where you have to stop- and after 120 minutes...it's time to stop, and at that point PK's are an inevitability.

Yeah after the first hour the game wasn't as good, but would this thread be here after the 2010 WC final? I'm glad the final ended that way and not in a shootout.

On the other hand, statistics suggest that goals in extra-time are not anywhere near as likely as goals in normal-time. So I think the excitement of extra-time is a bit of an illusion. And I don't think "fatigue makes the game interesting because of mistakes" is what top-level football should be about. It should be about skill. If we want to watch an endurance race, let's watch marathons, not sports where technical skills should be the first and foremost source of entertainment.

See this is right, but that's exactly why extra time is needed right there. How much skill exactly is needed for a penalty shootout? Not much, it's really about mental strength, and it's about luck.

So why would we want to go to such an affair after 90 minutes? We must give the players enough time to prove they are the better team through (more) legitimate means, and at the end of that contest-for the players cannot go forever- there is the last resort of a penalty shootout.

And I don't care what the statistics say- that's not my point. My point is as stated- it's a good idea to give the extra 30 minutes of contest between the two teams to determine a winner. Penalty shootouts are, in essence, a necessary evil.

by Abramovich Sat Jun 28, 2014 11:59 pm

Think it was Padrew or someone who suggested this in the media a while back, can't really remember who though but they said they should have an extra sub for extra time. I think that should happen tbh, if I remember correctly it was West Ham vs Pool and that scrub Marlon whatever was almost dead in extra time bounce

by elitedam Sun Jun 29, 2014 12:15 am

I agree with people calling for extra subs. I would much rather have the game decided during open play and the extra subs would probably help.

by httredskins47 Sun Jun 29, 2014 9:17 am

Yes, If anything I would get rid of the shootout all together.

Every 7 minutes each team takes a player off the pitch.

Eventually someone will score.

by Hapless_Hans Sun Jun 29, 2014 9:55 am

httredskins47 wrote:Yes, If anything I would get rid of the shootout all together.

Every 7 minutes each team takes a player off the pitch.

Eventually someone will score.

LOL that was an idea Louis Van Gaal had as well.

But I don't get the discussion, penalty shootouts are GREAT.

by rwo power Sun Jun 29, 2014 10:24 am

httredskins47 wrote:Yes, If anything I would get rid of the shootout all together.
Every 7 minutes each team takes a player off the pitch.
Eventually someone will score.

A shootout ends the match in finite time. Imagine you have to go down to the last player, that could take up to 70 minutes. Plus - what happens if the last remaining players are the GKs and they don't manage to score either?

by iftikhar Sun Jun 29, 2014 10:52 am

I think 1 or 2 more subs should be allowed during ET for fresher legs, though, regardless of the weather.

by zigra Sun Jun 29, 2014 12:00 pm

rwo power wrote:
httredskins47 wrote:Yes, If anything I would get rid of the shootout all together.
Every 7 minutes each team takes a player off the pitch.
Eventually someone will score.
A shootout ends the match in finite time. Imagine you have to go down to the last player, that could take up to 70 minutes. Plus - what happens if the last remaining players are the GKs and they don't manage to score either?

How would it be possible not to score if it's 1on1 Laughing

Anyway it would be a nice idea. Take one of every 5 minutes. Obviously you wouldn't do it forever. Do it for 30 or probably 45 minutes (stop at 5vs5 then) and after that we can still do a penalty shootout though that would most likely never happen.

by BarcaLearning Sun Jun 29, 2014 12:31 pm

Of cos....and for a long while they used the golden goal rule, which was unfair I thought.

Imagine straight to pens after 90 mins, would be so shit.

by Zealous Sun Jun 29, 2014 12:39 pm

We could always bring back the replay system but that creates it own problems.

by Art Morte Sun Jun 29, 2014 2:31 pm

CBarca wrote:
Art Morte wrote:
CBarca wrote:It's a very good idea.

PK's are such a shite way to end a game- I love the drama, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't necessarily reward the better team, it's like a roll of the dice really. 30 extra minutes is a good amount of time to give each team another chance to win the game without a BS PK shootout.

But there is a certain amount of time where you have to stop- and after 120 minutes...it's time to stop, and at that point PK's are an inevitability.

Yeah after the first hour the game wasn't as good, but would this thread be here after the 2010 WC final? I'm glad the final ended that way and not in a shootout.

On the other hand, statistics suggest that goals in extra-time are not anywhere near as likely as goals in normal-time. So I think the excitement of extra-time is a bit of an illusion. And I don't think "fatigue makes the game interesting because of mistakes" is what top-level football should be about. It should be about skill. If we want to watch an endurance race, let's watch marathons, not sports where technical skills should be the first and foremost source of entertainment.

See this is right, but that's exactly why extra time is needed right there. How much skill exactly is needed for a penalty shootout? Not much, it's really about mental strength, and it's about luck.

So why would we want to go to such an affair after 90 minutes? We must give the players enough time to prove they are the better team through (more) legitimate means, and at the end of that contest-for the players cannot go forever- there is the last resort of a penalty shootout.

And I don't care what the statistics say- that's not my point. My point is as stated- it's a good idea to give the extra 30 minutes of contest between the two teams to determine a winner. Penalty shootouts are, in essence, a necessary evil.

There is a limit as to which point it makes sense to continue on playing as normal. To me, that limit has been quite OK with the 30-minute extra-time, so that you play the 90 minutes plus 30 minutes extra. The poll shows that the vast majority believe this is how it should be, too.

However, in a high-intensity game in the conditions in Brazil, it might be different. That Brazil v Chile game, to me it looked like 60 minutes was good football, but the last 30 minutes of normal time already looked like the players were playing extra-time, so slow the tempo got, so invisible some players became and so heavy were the legs of many players. Sure it was still football, but the contrast between the first 45 minutes and the last 30 minutes was just so huge I have rarely seen anything like that, talking from a fatigue point of view.

Let's put it this way that I think pretty much everyone would agree that 120 minutes is the absolute maximum we should be playing in any conditions. So, it doesn't sound unthinkable to me that in highly demanding conditions that maximum time might best be shortened.

Penalties are largely down to chance and it's not ideal, either, but watching exhausted players play football makes the experience slowly worse as it becomes obvious to us spectators that the quality of the football we're witness is lessening as exhaustion levels grow. At least in penalties the players can still put in their best performance, but watching a player like Neymar play at 50% of his usual ability for 30 to 60 minutes (last 30 of normal time plus 30 mins of extra-time) isn't quite as exciting as I'd like the quality in the World Cup to be.

That said, if it was up to me, I still might leave the extra-time as it is. The suggestion of extra-time extra-subs isn't a bad one, either. But I definitely think there's a clear downside to playing up to 120 minutes in the Brazilian conditions, especially in a tournament like the WC where you play a game every four days or something like that.

Will be interesting to see what happens fatigue wise in tonight's games, I believe at least the Holland v Mexico game is being played in one of the hotter cities.

by rwo power Sun Jun 29, 2014 5:14 pm

Well, the coach and players know the conditions in which they play, and if they notice it is especially taxing, then they should try to make sure to win the match in 90 minutes. If they are not able to do that it is probably a bit of a punishment to go through the extra time - but what test of their mettle it is! I think this is where the heroes of the game are born (insert fanfare here). The game of the century between Germany and Italy in 1970 probably wouldn't have become the game of the century without the added extra time.

by zenmaster Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:00 pm

Extra time is just perfect before going to Penalties !!

Why ?

=> Fatigue and Stamina is tested. 90 min is enough to show your creative aspect. If in 90 mins there is no result then the testing has to be on some other ground.

=> Also mental attitude does matter in extra time. Remember CL final few weeks back. Both the team were exhausted but RM had mentally won the game in Extra time. Yes fatigue can be seen in all the players face but hey , that is what make the extra time interesting.

=> One substitute sounds just awesome but sad there is no such rules.

=> Penalty is skill and luck , its good if we can avoid that. But again , it comes with some awesome drama Very Happy

by Peccadillo Mon Jun 30, 2014 7:14 am

Part of me enjoys pens as a neutral as well. But a bigger part of me is always pretty unsatisfied about it as a way of resolving otherwise tight games.

I agree with the gradual removal of players from the pitch.. Additional sub for the 30 mins.. Every 15 minutes remove a player.

9v9 with 15 minutes to go after 105 mins of football.. got to be open.

Only problem is it starts to feel way to American..
The other, more serious problem, is you would have to make it silver goal rules. It wouldn't really be fair if a team scored twice in the first 15 mins with 10v10, then the other team had a spare 15 mins to score when its 9v9.

Silver goal has been unsuccessful in the past as it encourages teams to defend, but I think to avid 15 mins of 9v9... teams will attack to try to win the game in the first 15 mins.

.. anything's better than pens!

by rwo power Mon Jun 30, 2014 9:00 am

Problem is if you take away players, then a team that already lost one player is even more disadvantaged. I mean, the more players are taken away, the more it feels if you have one guy less than the opponent. In a 10 vs 11, the disadvantage weighs 9%, if there are less players, it weighs more and more.

by Sponsored content

Is extra-time a good thing?

Extra-time

Is extra-time a good thing?

Re: Is extra-time a good thing?

Re: Is extra-time a good thing?

Re: Is extra-time a good thing?

Re: Is extra-time a good thing?

Re: Is extra-time a good thing?

Re: Is extra-time a good thing?

Re: Is extra-time a good thing?

Re: Is extra-time a good thing?

Re: Is extra-time a good thing?

Re: Is extra-time a good thing?

Re: Is extra-time a good thing?

Re: Is extra-time a good thing?

Re: Is extra-time a good thing?

Re: Is extra-time a good thing?

Re: Is extra-time a good thing?

Re: Is extra-time a good thing?

Re: Is extra-time a good thing?

Re: Is extra-time a good thing?

Re: Is extra-time a good thing?

Re: Is extra-time a good thing?

Re: Is extra-time a good thing?

Re: Is extra-time a good thing?

Re: Is extra-time a good thing?

Re: Is extra-time a good thing?

Re: Is extra-time a good thing?