The post-match discussion devolved into various aspects but
one of them contained something new.
Michael Caley polled his followers asking “If a knockout
game is tied, should they play extra time then penalties if necessary, or
penalties then extra time?”
68% said keep it like it is, 32% said penalties before, thus
better extra time.
Michael Caley’s
Suggestion
As you can see from the above tweet, it generated a lot of
discussion. Here is Caley’s suggestion
in full:
- Penalty Shootout followed by extra time
- Winner of penalty shootout gains a point (1-0) and wins if extra time ends in a draw or no change in score
- Loser of penalty shootout can win game by winning in extra time, thus incentivized to attack while the winner defends.
- Sudden death after five penalty kicks by each team with no resolution
Michael has the right idea. Players are already exhausted
after 90 minutes, why extra time tends to be more of a snooze fest than a
spectacle. Incentivizing the players to end the game as quickly as possible
leads to a more dramatic finish knowing the stakes are higher.
If you’re a player and already fatigued from playing 90
minutes, you know under Caley’s setup you’re encouraged to make your penalty
kick count to gain advantage in extra time.
If you’re the losing team of
the penalty shootout, you know your task got even harder. You attack, the other team
wants to defend and happily hold onto their lead.
Tweaking Caley’s Suggestion
My suggestion, make it more dramatic. First, instead of the
possibility of sudden death in the penalty shootout before extra time, each
team operates under a best out of 5 approach.
Thus, it implicitly adds the sudden death element to the
penalty shootout after 90 minutes have been played. As discussed before, players are fatigued and
making it best out of 5 is an easy way to communicate the end of the game is
approaching.
Players will be incentivized to make their penalty kick
count even more as their margin of error decreases. As Eminem says “You only
got one shot”, better make it count.
If neither team wins the best out of 5, then like in Caley’s
setup, they play out extra time but without the element of a point system. It’s all fair play and the stakes increase
because after geeing themselves up for an intense best-out-of-5 penalty shootout,
they have to find it within themselves to expend energy again for another 30
minutes. Grueling right?
That’s the idea. The
body remembers grueling pain quite well and once it goes through this
experience, it tends to see how it can avoid it again.
Now, if both teams are still level after extra time, they
encounter the final test: actual sudden death.
Since the players are already fatigued from regulation play, an intense
penalty shootout, and 30 minutes of extra time, sudden death provides enough
respite their misery will soon be over.
It becomes a question of staying power and technical execution against
immense physical and mental exhaustion.
For those who prefer to see explanations in a bullet point
fashion:
- Penalty Shootout (Best out of 5)
- Each team has 5 attempts to score penalty kicks and win the shootout
- After 5 attempts whoever, has more penalty kicks
scored wins the shootout and the game is over
- If neither team is able to win, the game moves to extra time for 30 minutes of game play
- If neither team is able to win in extra time, teams face off in sudden death to end the game
What’s nice for fans and media alike in this setup is the
level of drama and suspense remains relatively high no matter how the game
ends. Based on statistical analysis, you
would probably guess most games would end in the best out of 5 shootout
scenario, but there’s enough probability it goes beyond.
If it does, it becomes even more nail-biting
as everyone watching is waiting to see what’s going to break the deadlock,
perhaps even the players.
It comes down to how the players respond to maintaining
composure and quality execution in a pressure-cooker type environment while
managers work to ease the pressure to increase the likelihood of victory.
Thus, I believe using this implementation would result in
more dramatic finishes to games which go past regulation.
Additional reading
As much as we enjoy football, keeping players’
well-being in mind allows more optimal recovery and performance for the next
game in a tournament, season and the offseason.
Allowing for more optimal recovery enables players to perform at a
maximum level longer. With ever
increasing demand for the sport, it becomes more difficult to manage any fixture
congestion which inhibits this level of recovery.
The question is how far are fans, media and other vested
parties willing to push the demand and thus players’ physical capabilities to
meet such demands? We drive high demand
then wonder why we hear the stories we do about doping.
If you ask me, they’re not as disconnected as
we think but because of how we identify with the game, we’d rather say the game
needs us rather than taking responsibility or ownership for whatever part we
play in the way the game is now.
On the other hand, players also drive part of the demand
themselves, wanting to play game in game out. The key part to communicate to
players is due to what they did to get to the top, it’s nigh on impossible to satisfy
that desire.
It most likely defines a
big part of who they are. Thus, the key
there, assuming the player is willing, is to guide them on a holistic process
of understanding their mind, body and whatever else helps them create deeper
understanding about who they are in a football-specific context. Equipping the players with a toolkit to
maximize their performance on a more consistent basis.
With players more aware of their limitations and how they
can push their limitations, they can not only push the boundaries of what they
believe about their capabilities, but also know when it’s better to take a back
seat to not adversely affect the team and allow a teammate the opportunity to
help the team achieve its objective. Winning football matches.
Thanks for reading!
