While we’ve all had ideas on ways to improve football, mine was considered by the International Football Association Board and I’ve presented it to FIFA’s head of refereeing. Allow me to introduce you to Attacker Defender Goalkeeper.
The FIFA World Cup is now just months away and with so much at stake in modern football, the chance of a showpiece match like a semi-final or the final being decided by the penalty shootout looms increasingly large.
Two World Cup finals in each of the men’s and women’s competitions have now been decided on penalties and in the 2010 final we were only four minutes away from two consecutive finals going to penalties.
“When you go into extra time, we’re talking about drama. But when we reach the penalty shootout, it’s a tragedy.”
That’s a quote from FIFA boss Sepp Blatter after Italy beat France on penalties in the 2006 final.
At the FIFA congress in 2012, Blatter asked Franz Beckenbauer to come up with an alternative.
A lot of people interpreted this as sour grapes because Bayern Munich had just lost the UEFA Champions League final to Chelsea on penalties.
But Blatter (who is Swiss, not German) has always been opposed to the shootout and in 1993, while he was FIFA’s Secretary General, oversaw the introduction of golden goal.
In response to Blatter’s request, ‘Der Kaiser’ said shootouts “bring emotions into play and are a lot more attractive than the toss of a coin, for example.”
But Franz, surely there must be other options beside the coin toss?
Attacker Defender Goalkeeper (ADG) is an alternative I developed back in 2008.
ADG features a series of ten contests in which an attacker has 30 seconds to score a goal against a defender and a goalkeeper.
The 2008 UEFA Champions League final was the inspiration.
I wasn’t really cheering for either Manchester United or Chelsea but I just thought penalties were a terrible way for a fine match to finish.
It was then I had the idea of including a defender.
The challenge was then to develop that initial idea into a tiebreaker format that would combine the skill and athleticism of modern football with the inherent dramatic tension of the shootout.
The result was ADG.
How does it work?
The attacker kicks off, has 30 seconds to try and score a goal. Only half of the field is in play and if the attacker scores, the contest is over.
Likewise if the ball goes out of play, the contest is over. If the goalkeeper gains possession of the ball, the contest is over.
If the defender or goalkeeper commits a foul anywhere within the field of play, it’s a penalty kick.
If the attacker commits a foul, the contest is over.
Both teams receive two additional substitutions. The teams take turns at playing the attacker and defender for ten contests and if scores are level we go to sudden death.
ADG has six fundamental advantages over the shootout.
All players compete. It showcases skill and athleticism. It’s a positive natured competition where the goals scored, rather than the missed goals determine the winner. Strategy is vital. It promotes attacking play and it promotes fair play.
Most of these are self-explanatory but for promoting fair play we can look to an incident from the 2010 World Cup quarter-final between Uruguay and Ghana as an example.
In the last minute of extra time, Luis Suárez deliberately handled the ball and denied Ghana a winning goal.
As we all now know, Ghana missed the penalty kick and went on to lose the shootout.
The point has to be made that once Ghana had missed the penalty kick, Uruguay were not subject to any further disadvantage.
In fact it doesn’t matter how many players a team has had sent off, if they can make it to the shootout, then they are at no disadvantage to their opponents.
However with ADG, Uruguay would have been without a defender for one of their contests.
This gives the Ghanaians a distinct advantage, which is something I know most rational football fans around the world believe they were entitled to.
Some would argue while it’s not perfect, the penalty shootout is a simple and fair solution to a difficult problem.
And it may be a simple solution, but it’s definitely not fair.
Two Spanish economics professors studied 1343 penalty kicks from 129 shootouts and they discovered the team who took the first kick won 60.5% of the time.
The reason is due to the increased pressure the team kicking second experiences.
Even before this research was published, you’d never see a team opt to kick second. They knew instinctively there was an advantage in going first.
I sometimes hear people say they like shootouts because they’re a great ‘leveller’ or ‘equaliser’.
No one cheers harder for the underdog than me, but I want a team to win it on the pitch with their superior skill, athleticism and strategy, not because their opponents hit the crossbar with a penalty kick or their keeper guessed the right way.
In 2009 ADG was considered by the IFAB who are the international rule-making body. They decided not to pursue it, but at that stage I’d only been working on it for a few months and in retrospect it was very rough and underdeveloped.
The following year in Zurich I presented a revised proposal to FIFA’s head of refereeing.
Jérôme Valcke, who’s Secretary General at FIFA and conducted the World Cup draw, thought ADG was “very well thought-out”.
And since then it’s become more comprehensive and greatly improved.
I’ve approached numerous clubs both in Australia and elsewhere about testing ADG, but I understand that people are busy and have their own priorities.
However, I am hopeful an established club will find the time to conduct some practical trials and I am sure a lot of professional players would be curious to test it.
We’re all scared of change but we also know the shootout is an unsatisfactory solution and that’s why we’ve seen things like golden goal and the American shootout.
It was interesting seeing Cruyff in that documentary about the New York Cosmos saying he thought they should still try it in Europe.
For the record, ADG is not based on the American shootout, despite what it says on Wikipedia!
Growing up in Australia I had no exposure to American soccer and it was only after developing ADG that I became aware of it.
I know people will say that ADG isn’t real football and contrary to the laws of the game, but the very nature of a diabolical problem necessitates innovation and evolution.
It’s also important to remember prior to the shootout, drawn matches were decided by the coin toss as mentioned by Beckenbauer.
I doubt even the shootout’s most ardent critics would argue its introduction wasn’t an improvement over the coin toss and ADG should be viewed as another step forward in this evolutionary process.
You can read more about ADG at: www.theadgalternative.com
Steve Austin
Guest
http://www.theadgalternative.com/qanda.html The ADG website answers the question about ADG putting more pressure on the referee. If the ref catches a player diving then he should be sent off and be given a length suspension (as well as a fine) and teams should be dock points if the ref did not see the dive that led to the penalty. You can get yellow carded or sent off in ADG which is good for fair play. Many competitions have VAR as well so this should eliminated any possibility. In addition, penalty shootouts has cheating in it too. In fact goalkeepers to it a lot. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jul/02/are-goalkeepers-getting-away-with-cheating-during-world-cup-shootouts
thatwontworkeither
Guest
Sudden death is much better
mahonjt
Guest
The best system I can think off, but it is still silly and should not be implemented, is the staged removal of defenders from both teams across the period of extra time. The game would open up dramatically, almost comically as time went by and the 'golden goal' could apply. Mathematically and sportingly fair - but still ridiculous because football is fine as it is. Lets leave it alone.
mahonjt
Guest
No. Just no. Points for creativity, but the 'tragedy' at the heart of the shootout is what makes it so compelling and beautiful. Leave the game alone least it become a laughing stock from a legislative perspective. This game has some issues - passion and popularity are not two of them. There is nothing to fix here. Lets get on with rooting out corruption.
mahonjt
Guest
Indeed.
Avon River
Guest
#Craig Joubert Are you suggesting the tongue in cheek post I was referring to was any more relevant. Btw DL system is a method to derive a fair target n a turn based sport. To help avoid penalty shoot outs then a similar approach is what I suggested - in essence - but for a real time and not turn based game. The alternative is stepping out of the original match and creating an abridged format contest that decides the tournament winner. There is farce all over it.
Avon River
Guest
#Ben What are you on about. I never mentioned changing the ball. What is the relevance of your post?? Btw - luck plays it's part in all sports. It tends to favour the brave. That goal to Monfries is as poorly indicative to the norm as say 'the hand of God' Maradona goal.
Ben
Guest
I guess that's why Shaquille O'Neal was just a scrub considering he was just a functional low post player whilst superstar perimeter players such as Tony Delk and Dana Barros are in the NBA hall of fame! Heck, even Michael Jordan was a scrub, he had a lower career 3P% than Dell Curry, Chris Duhon even hit more threes than Jordan in a game!
Ben
Guest
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=XW3vUoq5FoSGkQWg_oGIDA&url=http://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DEDeHaeWPnJk&cd=1&ved=0CCgQtwIwAA&usg=AFQjCNGsAFpdacSVrCWWfysemyoW9AvTyA&sig2=2_YzFetLVNmpmNbtw5b_1A Yes, that is much more representative of a "qualitative" end product. This is exactly what association football needs, an egg shaped ball that bounces randomly, thus producing such brilliantly worked goals such as the one presented in the link! Forget the intricacies of a Barcelona styled goal composed of dozens of interplayed passes and perfectly timed off the ball runs, just long bomb a prolate spheroid shaped "ball" in the general direction of the goal and quite possibly, it might just bounce through! Quality!
Roberto Bettega
Roar Rookie
As some have already intimated, you are replacing one unsatisfactory contrived situation with another - not sure if either can claim the mantle of being "best". There was a time when the football purist would not have viewed pens as an acceptable way to determine a trophy. Pens proved quite popular in the US market in the 1994 world cup, where we witnessed the mighty Brasil accept a world cup with zero embarassment at having earned it via pens. To the football purist - they represent an anathema. If Brasil had refused to accept the WC trophy back in 1994, things may have turned out differently....
Statler and Waldorf
Roar Guru
D&L did not change the scoring system at all. They just used a system to calculate how many runs one teams needed to win if they batted for 20 overs when the other team batted for 30 overs (as an example) - totally irrelevant to the discussion here
Avon River
Guest
#Ian - If a draw need be settled then the shoot out is as dispicable or ideal as most other concepts. I just figure best to minimise the chances of that result but that may only apply to the tournament decider. The soccer goal is wider by 3 feet than the AFL one and has an effective advantage width wise by allowing deflections off the wood. The degree of difficulty is largely vertical with the 8ft high x-bar. Obv AFL doesn't have this element but has it's own complicating factors such as more than one defender able to use arms/hands, goal can't be touched or off post and the lack off deep corners which corrals play nearer to goal into greater congestion. The lack of off-side is obv an uncomplicator. The full width inc point posts is about 19.2m. The original rules stipulated kick off posts 20 yards either side of the goal posts. Thankfully the modern point posts are somewhat closer. I do find it interesting that the VFL in 1897 ran with behinds added in real time rather than using them as a tie breaking countback system. It's a little counter intuitive to kick more goals yet lose. However if we accept the Rugby notion of a variety of score results (noting the original try was worth zero by itself) and the game is decided by an accumulated tally then I guess real time behinds are okay (but yes they tend to draw the 'point for missing' comment.) If a goal is consider the object of the game - i.e. the major point reward. Then the Rugby codes have a 'major' target of about 70m in width. Like wise Grid Iron. People celebrate the Try or Touchdown far more than the conversion kick.
LX
Guest
I'm with this too, and remember Johnny Warren raising it as an alternative during the 2002 World Cup. Penalty Shootouts are a blight on the sport. ADG is novel, but strikes me as somewhat complicated. I'd much prefer the number of players on the ground reduced every 5 minutes. It could come down to 3 vs 3, but so be it. They are still playing football.
Statler and Waldorf
Roar Guru
surely all of that is then multiplied by TV ratings and divided by advertising revenue :)
Statler and Waldorf
Roar Guru
problem with the basketball 3-2-1 system is that the 3 points is given to an easier option than you get 2 points for. that is: the long bomb is a cop out option for those teams not capable of cracking the defense and getting under the basket. It is harder to get into the keyhole and go for 2 points than it is to put up a hail mary and go for three. Their system is flawed and should not be used as the basis for any other sport
Avon River
Guest
#Midf - not trying to be perfect. Just lateral. The irony is how much some of the tie-break ideas mentioned in this thread or elsewhere act to completely bastardise the game for the explicit purpose of deciding the game. So - how far do you go?? And why not back into the game where a relatively minor tweak might do the trick. #Prof Rosseforp - messers Duckworth and Lewis??
Ian
Guest
I have enjoyed the responses to Avon River immensely. "expansive" "binary" "archaic"..........what a spiel. The leading world sport is 'archaic' .......Goodness me. Not to mention - aussie rules having the largest goals in team sport. 30 metres or so wide with unlimited height to kick the ball through to register points. how easy is it to kick a goal in aussie rules? I for one enjoy a penalty shootout. You can't buy that drama. and its only played after 30 mins of extra time so its not like a shootout happens that often. as for a draw, it's a legitimate result in premiership games. the only reason aussie rules doesn't have many draws is the mathematical probability of a game that its easier to score goals in, thus more goals are scored combined with points of 1 or 6 awarded. that doesn't mean its 'expansive' or 'not archaic'.......its just different. though we can't all play a grand final that ends in a draw and then reschedule it a week later to make a few more million. i seem to recall at the end of the st kilda collingwood grand final two or three or so years ago the players were complaining a draw was not right, alluding to the fact they should keep playing on the day to settle the grand final. as is done with extra time and a shootout in football finals.
Avon River
Guest
#nickoldschool Thanks for taking this the right way. Unlike some others. #Football United - I explicitly pointed out that as not bring the case - in a most goals wins the AFL system is not correct. #Ben - this notion is based on the basketball 3-2-1 and not the AFL however I have enjoyed parts of the preseason 'supergoal' at least in that context. AFL goals are already qualitative from the perspective of not being touched or deflecting in off woodwork. Using the basketball notion could soccer (perhaps in a side tournament) trial 3pt goal from outside penalty area. 2 within and only one for a penalty kick but perhaps like BB you get two goes to convert a penalty to full value. I wouldn't expect it to happen but there's a degree of solving the root cause rather than just putting filler in the crack. And seemingly any straw poll shows that as many people who hate penalty shoot outs do love them. Perhaps based on historical outcomes.
MattQ
Guest
um your idea is used across training fields all over the world. Tell me a player who has never done 1v1 with a gk at training? Good try though but not the way to end a WC final. Penalties are the pefect way to end a gut wrenching 120mins of drawn football. Sucks to lose them and receive condolences from everyone including the winner, but that's the respect you deserve for losing a WC final on pens.
Roberto Bettega
Roar Rookie
This was my very first thought, it's not a new idea at all. However, it wasn't the MLS, it was its predecessor (by two even). We're talking late 70s early 80s. Also, my memory is that the system involved two attackers versus a defender and keeper, but the concept of scoring within a predetermined time period applied (might even have been less than 30 seconds). This was at the time of the New York Cosmos, one of the most well known football clubs in its day.