Yeah, right... I suppose that was obvious. A golden goal with PKs means Extra Time will always be followed by PKs.
Yes, the OTs might drag on for a long time. Given the tradition of few substitutions, that could mean someone(s) could go down after 120+ minutes.
Maybe half of the match. Kane had a chance to make it 2-0 with a tough tight open net opportunity. England had plenty of chances to up the lead, but didn't. In the second half Croatia started having success.
The girls follow women's soccer, because girls. That's the nice thing about soccer (and basketball) versus other men's only sports like American Football. A guy like me can relate to his girls who play and follow the same thing. The kids play for clubs and school, and referee games.
Or maybe they just don't have flashy pirouetting dribblers like the South Americans, nor maniacal I-only-run-in-straight-lines speed demons like Klinsmann.
It would have been nice to see Belgium win given that they've never been to the finals, but since this is only France's 3rd trip to the finals, I still think of them as underdogs rather than a major soccer power.
France vs Croatia would be kind of cool, but France vs England would be epic, and I mean "make homemade hot wings to watch the game" epic.
There seems to be a lot of shootouts in this world cup. I'm not a fan of settling things by that method. Maybe they'd be better off just forcing teams to continue play until someone scores in a sudden death. It would force open a team like Russia that was packing the box on defense and hoping the game went to penalties. It might also open the game up during regular play because unlimited extra time would all but mean you'd be defeated in the next round if you didn't take the risks needed to end it.
That wouldn't stop a team up 1-0 from going into a defensive shell, but it might encourage them to try to get a second goal so they don't risk ending up tied at the end with a late goal that pushes them into a long match.
I doubt we'll see a rule change of that level anytime soon. Especially one based on my personal opinion.
At least in the first rounds some teams take extra offensive risks because goal differentials can be a deciding factor in getting through.
But as things stand, we're not going to play England.
Or England would need to beat either Switzerland or Sweden, and then either Russia, Spain, Croatia or Denmark! You know! Nah.
EB
The England performance is a good metaphor for Brexit; Lots of super patriotic hope and bluster, completely undone because they disregarded the fact the the rest of Europe also gets a say in what happens.There seems to be a lot of shootouts in this world cup. I'm not a fan of settling things by that method. Maybe they'd be better off just forcing teams to continue play until someone scores in a sudden death. It would force open a team like Russia that was packing the box on defense and hoping the game went to penalties. It might also open the game up during regular play because unlimited extra time would all but mean you'd be defeated in the next round if you didn't take the risks needed to end it.
That wouldn't stop a team up 1-0 from going into a defensive shell, but it might encourage them to try to get a second goal so they don't risk ending up tied at the end with a late goal that pushes them into a long match.
I doubt we'll see a rule change of that level anytime soon. Especially one based on my personal opinion.
At least in the first rounds some teams take extra offensive risks because goal differentials can be a deciding factor in getting through.
Not a chance.
Because, precisely, "unlimited extra time".
EB
- - - Updated - - -
They're rehearsing for the Brexit.
Can't blame them.
EB
Yeah, the further east you go in Europe, the worse it gets.
