FIFA World Cup 2010

[//\/\/]

Originally Posted by BrotherLovesDub

Why allow games to end in a tie anyway? Wouldn't it be easier to play until someone scores?

easier for the dim of aspect.

[BrotherLovesDub]

Ah, so a tie game is intellectually superior. I get it now, thanks. I also had no idea that a tie score meant that both teams played equal. I always thought one team could play better than the other and still not score more points. I guess football is superior in that the team that plays best wins every game. Sometimes in faggy baseball, a team can outplay another team with the exception of 1 pitch and lose the game.

[cured]

Originally Posted by BrotherLovesDub

Why allow games to end in a tie anyway? Wouldn't it be easier to play until someone scores? I'm not just being combative, I really want to know why football fans think it's ok to play to a draw.

Maybe it's an England thing where you'd rather tie than lose?

Let's put it this way: in the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, etc, you can substitute any number of players at any time without limit. In soccer (footie), you can't. You get 5 subs to make for the entire game and that's it. That's a lot of running for a group of players and the quality of play suffers if you have to play overtime after overtime in the first round of a tournament, let alone a season. Should the teams be allowed as many subs as they want? Not for me to say.

Tactics do come into play, though, when teams know there is a tie looming. Some teams are fine playing for the tie and they pull their players back. Teams in desperate need of a win need to push forward. It's a small but interesting element to the game.

Because of the substitutions rule, it wouldn't be much of a game if they played until one team fell over and the other team taps in a goal just because of fatigue.

[//\/\/]

a tie doesn't mean that - it can mean just that a superior team can be thwarted either by luck, or by a well-organised or committed inferior team. it's why sport is, well, sporting. so in baseball, because you insist on all or nothing, the crushing team can walk away with nothing due to the crushed team getting lucky at the end. sounds crap. at least today your team got a point from the game.

[cured]

Originally Posted by BrotherLovesDub

Ah, so a tie game is intellectually superior. I get it now, thanks. I also had no idea that a tie score meant that both teams played equal. I always thought one team could play better than the other and still not score more points. I guess football is superior in that the team that plays best wins every game. Sometimes in faggy baseball, a team can outplay another team with the exception of 1 pitch and lose the game.

Ain't outplaying by much if one pitch costs the team a game, is it?

I'm in the minority here around the office by not liking baseball, I prefer to have action going on at all times. The NFL and NBA are the kings of my sports world, save for the times I can wake up early enough to catch an EPL game or a WC game.

[//\/\/]

football tried 'golden goals' and it was a stinker - it just 'wasn't football' - it felt totally wrong that there was no comeback!

[cured]

^ us yanks actually like golden goals. At least I think so. Sudden death in sports makes games really interesting. As far as not having a comeback, the losing team already had 90 minutes to score and end the game so they forfeit their comeback

I think golden goals are MUCH fairer than, say, penalty kicks.

[BrotherLovesDub]

cured's explanation makes the most sense but wouldn't the team with the best fitness win if it came down to that? it seems like it would be pretty easy to allow for a larger team and more substitutions. why not let a player come back on the field?

what was the issue with the golden goal? why didn't it work?

[BrotherLovesDub]

Also, FIFA needs to implement instant replay on important plays.

[cured]

Originally Posted by BrotherLovesDub

cured's explanation makes the most sense but wouldn't the team with the best fitness win if it came down to that? it seems like it would be pretty easy to allow for a larger team and more substitutions. why not let a player come back on the field?

what was the issue with the golden goal? why didn't it work?

You gotta keep in mind the World Cup happens right after just about every league in the world ends their season, so teams with good players are usually having to nurse injuries from playing a long season. Also, the World Cup is often times held in the northern hemisphere and there are lots of issues with players cramping and being dehydrated in summer heat.

Draws are not a bad thing. It's a good way for a David (Algeria) to take some bragging rights away from a Goliath (England). If Goliath isn't good enough to beat David in regulation, just give them both a point and have them move on. In today's case, a draw for England could very well be their death knell. Just wait to you see what the tabloids have to say about it.

Don't worry, though, draws will be a thing of the past after next Friday. When that second round starts, you'll get overtime and, if that doesn't settle it, penalty kicks.

It all evens out. I've been watching the World Cup since 1994 and the best teams generally always manage to escape out of their group since there are 3 games to be played.