20/20 Soccer

[Mister Wright]

Would love to see it tbh.

Love how cricket is so adaptable that 3 forms of the sport can be so successful internationally, which I guess it isn't that hard to do when your first incarnation goes for 5 days. Not many other sports are as adaptable. So, was thinking of ways other sports could make themselves more adaptable and appeal to audiences that don't really follow the sport.

As someone who finds the 'World Game' rather boring I'd love to see soccer adopt a 20/20 format. 20 penalty shoot out each side. Could be rather awesome with a game over in about half an hour.

I know this is going to upset many of the soccer fans on this forum, but don't care tbh. I know I would pay to see it, as penalty shootouts are the only time I get interested in the sport.

 

[duffer]

I know this is going to upset many of the soccer fans on this forum.

You damn right.

 

[GIMH]

kyle, GTFO, seriously, post report, give him seven!

 

[GIMH]

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

 

[steds]

It's an awesome idea tbh.

 

[NUFAN]

So, so dire.

 

[steds]

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

Indeed.

 

[NUFAN]

It's an awesome idea tbh.

Would make it tough picking the correct score in our prediction thread IMO.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

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.

 

[sledger]

The ****......?

 

[alternative]

If they ever want to change things in soccer, the best thing to do is remove the Penalty shoot out's and continue on with extra time and extra time till you get an outright winner.

 

[headhunter]

Haha @ the reaction here, but totally agree, the less penalty shootouts in soccer the better.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

If they ever want to change things in soccer, the best thing to do is remove the Penalty shoot out's and continue on with extra time and extra time till you get an outright winner.

If a game was to go on for 200-300 or more minutes which it potentially could with continuous extra time, there would be a huge amount of injuries and at the end players would be worse than exhausted. That would be a massive handicap, especially in an international tournament when you have to play a game every 4-5 days.

 

[duffer]

Heard a suggestion before about during extra time keep removing one player from each team every 5 minutes till there's a result, would open the game up plenty but also has the potential to go on and on and on.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

If a game was to go on for 200-300 or more minutes which it potentially could with continuous extra time, there would be a huge amount of injuries and at the end players would be worse than exhausted. That would be a massive handicap, especially in an international tournament when you have to play a game every 4-5 days.

The suggestion has been to drop a player off every five or ten minutes until you get a result. Would make for interesting (not necessarily good, I wouldn't know) viewing.

 

[sledger]

Imo if it gets to the stage (in a final) that two teams cannot be separated after extra time then the trophy should be shared. But in the current sporting Climate the demand for an outright winner and the financial implications surrounding any major tournament this would be impossible.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

Heard a suggestion before about during extra time keep removing one player from each team every 5 minutes till there's a result, would open the game up plenty but also has the potential to go on and on and on.

The suggestion has been to drop a player off every five or ten minutes until you get a result. Would make for interesting (not necessarily good, I wouldn't know) viewing.

Great minds, it seems.

 

[cpr]

If Rugby can have a 7's tourney, why not follow the same with footie, full size pitch, 7 a side. For added fun have fly keeper or heads and volleys

 

[Jono]

Lol, you don't reduce a 90 minute game

Soccer atm is still not as long as 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.

 

[Jono]

If a game was to go on for 200-300 or more minutes which it potentially could with continuous extra time, there would be a huge amount of injuries and at the end players would be worse than exhausted. That would be a massive handicap, especially in an international tournament when you have to play a game every 4-5 days.

So win earlier then.

Survival of the fittest.

Just like in Grand Slam tennis. If you can't win by breaking in the 5th set, tough luck. Whether its 10-8 or 20-18, you need to prove you're actually the better player to advance, and if this is a disadvantage come the next round, that's bad luck, you should have beaten your opponent earlier.