The two guys subbed on to take pens don’t convert.
Shootouts are such a ****** way to determine a winner, but damn that’s some drama.
Shootouts are such a ****** way to determine a winner, but damn that’s some drama.
Euro 2020
- Thread starter shagcarpetjesus
- Start date
Round of 16 in the WC is a pretty big moment, but I think the Euro final is another level.
I know conventional wisdom is that hitting a baseball from major league pitcher is the hardest feat in sports, but I don't think it can be any harder than goaltending against a PK.
Racist ******** gonna racist. Rashford has done more for England (specifically kids in poverty there) than any random, idiot fan and that’s not even taking into account anything he’s done on the football pitch.
Yeah I know there is a great deal of talent and athleticism required to stop a pk, but I feel like luck and knowing the tendencies of the kicker are equally important.
Soccer is such a grueling sport, I don’t honestly think you can do it any other way if it’s in a game that needs a winner. Substitution rules alone would make anything more than an extra 30 minutes unwatchable.
And they were all young black men. They’re gonna have some very bad things directed towards them.
That honestly sounds horrible. You do realize soccer isn’t a “golden goal” in extra time right?
No, it doesn’t have to be. But I guarantee you there would be a much better chance of scoring in extra periods.
No it would crowd up the field even more. Given more space, guys like Chiesa and Sterling would have more room to operate and score.
I will preface this with I know nothing about soccer.
But...
The English manager put in two subs at 120', and they took the third and fourth shooting kicks.
They missed both.
The fifth was missed by the sub who came in at 70'.
I ask... was that intentional...? Are they like ringers, equivalent to maybe like a three-point specialist in basketball, who has a very defined role in taking those penalty kicks? Are they maybe reserves who don't practice being on the field much but rather just take PKs in practice as specialists on the national team?
I would have to imagine they were specifically chosen for that role given when they came in.
Also, here were the ages of the five men to take the kicks for England...
27 (made)
28 (made)
23
21
19
Why give the kicks to three of your youngest players, especially considering the stakes, instead of some of your older and more experienced players who might be a little more used to the moment? Sending a 19-year old up there, who I am sure was terrified, for the one kick you need to stay alive seems... odd.
Can anybody explain the reasoning or workings to me here?
But...
The English manager put in two subs at 120', and they took the third and fourth shooting kicks.
They missed both.
The fifth was missed by the sub who came in at 70'.
I ask... was that intentional...? Are they like ringers, equivalent to maybe like a three-point specialist in basketball, who has a very defined role in taking those penalty kicks? Are they maybe reserves who don't practice being on the field much but rather just take PKs in practice as specialists on the national team?
I would have to imagine they were specifically chosen for that role given when they came in.
Also, here were the ages of the five men to take the kicks for England...
27 (made)
28 (made)
23
21
19
Why give the kicks to three of your youngest players, especially considering the stakes, instead of some of your older and more experienced players who might be a little more used to the moment? Sending a 19-year old up there, who I am sure was terrified, for the one kick you need to stay alive seems... odd.
Can anybody explain the reasoning or workings to me here?
It did seem really bizarre. I certainly don’t have all the data points of all the English players PK kicking abilities, but not sure why he didn’t let Sterling and Shaw take one. Thought it was strange he took out Rice too, but he was playing his ass off.