20/20 Soccer

[Tom Halsey]

This thread is a joke, surely? Shootouts are one of the biggest problems with football, for mine. They're exciting, but they aren't an accurate measure.

Agree with this. That said there isn't another alternative I really like either and they're definitely better than the old coin toss.

 

[GIMH]

Lol, you don't reduce a 90 minute game

Soccer atm is still longer than 20/20 cricket.

I still reckon if you removed penalty shootouts, and played until there was a winner (golden goal after extra time I guess) it'd be frickin' entertaining.

Imagine the 06 world cup, it'd almost be last man standing. Eventually a few players would cramp up and wouldn't be able to move, it'd be incredibly awesome viewing.

I wonder about this. When we had golden goal before it tended to be really dull, but that was as teams played cagily for pens. That wouldn't be an option here, so it would be very interesting.

 

[steds]

Soccer atm is still not as long as 20/20 cricket.

Frigging boring though.

Heard a suggestion before about during extra time keep removing one player from each team every 5 minutes till there's a result

Interesting. Would have to start with the keepers imo.

 

[Johnners]

20/20 Soccer = 20 players per team, reduced pitch size, no 'keeper, and no offsides. Would most likely be rather ****ty, but interesting to watch for the first 2-3 minutes.

 

[GIMH]

Nah, 20-aside is a guaranteed 0-0, midfield stalemate

 

[cpr]

Depends if you play by cannon fodder rules: no fouls, bookings, etc, man down stays there untill he gets up/stretcher reaches him.

 

[GIMH]

Sounds just like League One tbh

 

[Magrat Garlick]

20/20 Soccer = 20 players per team, reduced pitch size, no 'keeper, and no offsides. Would most likely be rather ****ty, but interesting to watch for the first 2-3 minutes.

You forgot to remove the crossbar, put two extra posts in, and allow the handpass.

 

[NZTailender]

You forgot to remove the crossbar, put two extra posts in, and allow the handpass.

Hahaha.

 

[NZTailender]

20/20 Soccer = 20 players per team, reduced pitch size, no 'keeper, and no offsides. Would most likely be rather ****ty, but interesting to watch for the first 2-3 minutes.

Wouldn't be far off what we used to play in school, where all the boys in the year would play soccer at lunchtime and it'd be one big free for all usually.

Change the pitch to a square, or circle, and include two extra teams.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Only someone from Queensland could have made this thread.

 

[irfan]

AWTA.

You don't screw around with soccer's format.

Whilst taking players off every few minutes in ET is an interesting idea in theory it would open the game up far too much, so much so, that eventually only the most fit team would succeed rather than the most skilled team, which shouldn't be the aim.

Penalties also, aren't indicative of a team's footballing skill, but it certainly tests a players mental makeup. The objective is simple, put the ball in the net past the keeper from 20 yds, but to do this after running around 120 min requires a fair bit of concentration, poise and composure. Penalty shoot-outs also offer a chance to glorify a goalkeeper, who's skills are too often overlooked when the highlights of the match are analysed.

 

[sledger]

Penalty shoot-outs also offer a chance to glorify a goalkeeper, who's skills are too often overlooked when the highlights of the match are analysed.

Or glorify a goalkeeper who is otherwise undeserving of praise, ala Jose Reina.

 

[_Ed_]

The best way of making football more exciting would clearly be added-time multi-ball

That sounds brilliant.

 

[NZTailender]

Taking players off can work and is somewhat exciting. Used to do it in competetive touch football.

 

[DJellett]

. Penalty shoot-outs also offer a chance to glorify a goalkeeper, who's skills are too often overlooked when the highlights of the match are analysed.

Thank you

Having saved 2 this year, I know.

 

[irfan]

Thank you

Having saved 2 this year, I know.

Haha. Am an indoor keeper as well, prefer to play outfield outdoors tho

 

[Agent TBY]

Whilst taking players off every few minutes in ET is an interesting idea in theory it would open the game up far too much, so much so, that eventually only the most fit team would succeed rather than the most skilled team, which shouldn't be the aim.

Surely the most skilled teams are able to finish the game in 120 minutes? If their skills are that evenly matched, then fitness is definitely better than using a lottery as your decider.

 

[Josh]

20 minute halves would certainly make for a more interesting, less frustrating game.

 

[33/3from3.3]

20-a-side?

Or even better. 20 sides!

20 Goals arranged in a circle-ish shape around a cricket field sized area. One ball. Each side has one player plus a goalie to stand between their sticks. It'd be mayhem.