Drama, action and endless nerves for players and fans alike, the World Cup got its first penalty shootout of 2010 as Paraguay overcame Japan. Heroes and villains were typically born during the theatre, but is it a fair way to decide a result?
Some players dread the walk from half way while others relish it.
After a slop of 120 minutes of football, Paraguay went unblemished from the spot for a 5-3 shootout win.
It was a poor game, featuring a defensive Japanese side and a Paraguayan side not entirely intent on attacking and struggling to break down the Asian side.
This Japan was a complete contrast to the impressive and quick outfit that easily overcame Denmark in its last group game.
But after 120 scoreless minutes, the shootout was the decider.
Paraguay’s Edgar Barreto slammed the first with power into the bottom corner.
Yasuhito Endo sent the keeper the wrong way.
Lucas Barrios just snuck his past the outstretched hand of Eiji Kawashima into the bottom corner.
Makoto Hasebe put his into the top corner – a spot becoming a dangerous target for the Japanese.
Cristian Riveros rolled his past Kawashima with a poise, elegance and confidence usually unseen.
Then, the moment of truth, Yuichi Komano hit the bar.
Nelson Valdez and Keisuke Honda exchanged blows, the latter with another rolling shot before Oscar Cardozo did the same to win it.
The obsession with the high penalty from Japan was unusual, particularly given the troubles with the Jabulani.
The dangers were realised, hitting the bar, with the other danger being it would be hit at an easy saving height for the goalkeeper.
The calmness of some of the takers to roll the ball with so little pace was unbelievable and maybe characteristically of the South American flair and confidence.
Cardozo was the hero, Komano the villain, but is it fair?
In the case of football, and more so this match, it was a fair way to decide a game that may not have ended otherwise.
But you’ll often hear the case where ‘neither team deserved to lose’.
Football has got it right.
The best players step up – the best shootout keepers make themselves count – and nerves of steel are the successor.
The drama accompanying the shootout, the edge of the seat theatre may not be fair, but it is the best way to end an encounter that couldn’t be decided in two hours of play.
Is there a better way?
dasilva
Guest
Golden goals was terrible because it encourages sides to play for penalties even further. Nevertheless, once you removed the penalty safety net and get the side to play until infinity. Golden goals would be a good option
mahony
Guest
Yes. They are cruel - but fair. We could get around the toss issue (not that it is unfair) - but both sides taking penalties at opposite ends at the same time. Not that is television!!!
PeteHarrison
Roar Rookie
It is possible to profile your likely opponents in the shootout and predict which way they are likely to shoot. The biggest problem with shootouts is the coin toss. In world cup matches, the team that shoots first wins something like 60% of the time because the opposing team has to keep scoring (generally) simply to stay in the game. The idea that penalties are random is not true. It can be planned for as can any other aspect of the game. The main problem comes down to the toss, and in that sense, there is little that can be done, except that if you win it, don't send the other team in to score first.
ItsCalledFootball
Roar Guru
A nil all game is not sporting cowardice or mediocrity, it usually shows just how even the teams are or the game is. Sometimes great games of football have no goals scored in normal time. You have to really appreciate the game to understand that. Doesn't just happen for nil all either, could be 10 all and still goes to penalties. A penalty shootout is required because the teams are so evenly matched - better than tossing a coin, picking a card or drawing lots.
punter
Guest
It's a terrible way to lose, but what a feeling when you win. When Alosi got that penalty, the feeling was never better, ever, on a sporting field.
beaver fever
Guest
A game of darts should settle it, IMO keep playing till someone scores, penalty shootouts are just plain dumb. Easier still, flip a coin.
sheek
Guest
With all due respect, this is an incredibly stupid idea. Teams will be governed by how they performed in penalty shoot-out. Whoever loses the penalty shoot-out will be trying to score goals, which is fair enough. But whoever wins the penalty shoot-out will flood their defence & play for the draw. Hardly conducive to a good game of football. You see it already how a team with a goal advantage will try to kill the last 5-10 minutes of a regulation match. Imagine winning the shoot-out beforehand & then trying to kill a result for the next 90 minutes. Sheer madness. The idea is far too silly to be given any credence.....
Towser
Guest
Its as good as anything else I've heard.
Edgo
Guest
Ok how about this idea. Not my own but I liked it. Penalty shoot out at beginning of match. Only used if no result in match. And added benefit is the team that lost shootout will play attacking football...win win! I await the onslaught
apaway
Guest
Golden goal was a terrible rule and I'm glad it's gone. It fundamentally changed the way the match (a time-limited affair) was contested. Now Roy and HG had a great idea: Have the penalty shootout to START the game. The team that wins the shootout then only has to draw the match to progress (or win the trophy). The team that loses MUST win the game. (OK, it was tongue-in-cheek but it WAS funny)
sheek
Guest
AndyRoo, I am speechless! But mainly from rolling around the floor with laughter.....
AndyRoo
Roar Guru
Sheek I believe my idea (stolen from someone else of course) of counting the times the ball hits the woodwork is better, I am now secretly lobbying the US for financial support so I can afford to arm various convicts and unemployed people to over throw you with the vague promise of restoring democracy. But don't worry I inted to syphon of most of the funds for personal use and flee to France without any blood being spilt.
sheek
Guest
Consultative committees are often useless. This forum is like dancing around the edge of a sink hole. Paul Hogan was right - the best political entity is a benevolent dictatorship!!! Where are your balls? Some of you will get splinters sitting on the fence! There ARE solutions. There IS an answer. Often it's like multiple choice - you go with the MOST correct answer. Get that greasy blighter Sepp on the line, I reckon Dublin Dave & I have the solution between us..... !
mds1970
Roar Guru
Penalty shoot-outs can be a lottery. But short of the Isner-Mahut method, there's not really a viable alternative.
sheek
Guest
DD, You mean there was something else besides Roberto Baggio's disconsolate ponytail..... ???
sheek
Guest
Thanks dasilva, My point in fact was, whether 80 or only 40 years, if the majority agree on a better way, then we should go down that path. Nothing remains the same forever. Sometimes that is good, at other times not so good..... !
dasilva
Guest
Penalty shootout is not a 80 year old tradition It only started in the FIFA World Cup back in 1970 Before hand they just replaying the game and if that option is not available, drawing of lots (Ok, I admit that Penalty is better then drawing lots) I think the FA Cup in England only introduce penalty shootout about the 90's. It's hardly a sacred part of Football. IMO, I'm thinking of mimicking tennis by having a golden goal indefinitely after 90 minutes. If players complain about fatigue. That's what you get for not winning the match in normal time.
sheek
Guest
Davstar, My opening reply stands, fair or not might not be the most important consideration. I ask the question again: "Is the penalty shoot-out the best option available"? Just because it's been the standard for the past 80 or so years, doesn't mean it's inviolate.
Davstar
Guest
Penalty shoot-outs should never change fair or not it is onething of many that makes football so special
sheek
Guest
Dejan, Perhaps a better question might be, "is the penalty shoot-out the best option available?" Some might argue the teams deserve to go to the penalty shoot-out, especially after 120 minutes of goal-less action! (Helps both teams remember where the goalposts actually are located)..... I'm not a fan of golden goal either, especially since with the paucity of goals (generally) scored anyway, that mightn't prove any more effective a solution. And you wouldn't want a golden goal decided by the same way that Australia dramatically bowed out in 2006 against Italy. My suggestion, by no means new, is to win by attrition. That is, cull the number of players in extra-time. Victory will go the team that can stand on its feet most effectively the longest. Survival (& victory) to the fittest. After all, sport is supposed to mimic the gladiatorial! At the beginning of extra-time, each team is immediately down a man - to 10. For 0-7.5 mins of extra time, it's 10 men; for 7.5-15 mins, it's 9 men. The second period of extra-time begins with 8 men. For 15-22.5 mins, it's 8 men; for 22.5-30 mins, it's 7 men. Another interesting potential decision for the last 7.5 mins is whether the player removed is a field player, or both teams play the very last 7.5 mins without a goal-keeper! Keep in mind there is a lot of tactical considerations required by the coach as to whether/when he removes attackers, midfielders or defenders. Another option for consideration is to start the extra-time with two fresh replacements, thus removing players who have already played the full 90 minutes of normal time. Anyway, this is another option to throw into the ring for consideration.