No way. Golden Goal was removed for the very reason that it made teams to hesitant to attack because one goal would decide it and then it is too risky to attack with many players because it leaves you open if you get countered. That made the overtime an exhibition in defensive play where the occasional horrible mistake or goalkeeper failure lead to a golden goal. Having a chance to actually get back even if you get scored on opened up the overtime again.
That was one reason for removing the golden goal actually.
And to be entirely fair PK isn't entirely a russian roulette. Miss your first 3 like the US did in the finals vs Japan is simply unforgivable. The player got all the advantage in the world and the quality of PKs was laughable. Probably it was part fatigue, part nerves but that's what makes it interesting and such a trial for a team.
If US had put their best, most experienced player to take the first shot and scored then it would have turned out differently. I have honestly never seen a team miss the first 3 shots ever and I have seen countless penalty shootouts. It's one thing to make an awesome penalty shot and have it hit the post or the keeper doing an amazing save. It's another thing to shot it 5m over or a weak lame shot on the keepers side.
It's not an optimal way to close a match but it isn't in other sports either and if you don't have the balls for it then don't let it go to penalties. US twice failed to defend a lead, they can't really complain about the PKs then. Just like Brazil they had the most to lose in the PK and they let it get to them. Just like a tennis player can choke a tiebreak they choked in the PK.
Interesting opinion here.
If the one in OP's avi was any good then the US would've won the PK's. Japan was better. Period.
I still love her and would still do her.
Originally Posted by Purple Rainbow
After the match, first have the penalty shoot-out.
After the penalties, play the extra time (with or without golden goal).
If after extra time the game is still tied, the team that won the penalty shootouts wins.
Often we see matches where teams are more scared to lose than eager to win. By having the penalty shootout first, you make sure that one team definitely has to score, which makes the extra time more exciting.
Now this is interesting.
Haha did you see the penalties? Russian roulette my ass... biggest horror show I've seen since the Dutch vs. Italy at Euro 2000
Golden goal is really unfair in my opinion, because football isn't/shouldn't be a game of 'who scores first'. That's what makes the Germans so great (and what makes them so annoying
), they always find that extra something in the last couple of minutes. The golden goal would eliminate that quality, which just isn't right.
But I love the excitement that it brings, that dramatic moment when you score the winner and realize that you've ended it, especially if it's the final (euro 2000 final, I believe?)
Penalties are equally exciting and more fair. They are a perfect test of technique, mentality and composure = FOOTBALL
Ok, well it seems the majority opinion here is not to get rid of penalties. Fair enough.