11/21/24
October 13, 2003
The Women's World Cup Final: finished in overtime with what had to have been one of the most beautifully executed free kicks I've ever had the joy of seeing. But should the kick ever have happened in the first place? Swedish coach Marika Domanski Lyfors says "nein". (more inside)
posted by Ufez Jones to soccer at 02:47 PM - 8 comments
Golden goals are an incredibly cruel way of finishing a game. To the neutral spectator they're a terrible anti-climax as well I think. Personally, if I'm watching a game that goes into extra-time I'm hoping it'll go to penalties at the end of the 30 minutes. That's still the best way to settle a game IMHO.
posted by squealy at 03:16 PM on October 13, 2003
I thought it was a crappy call too, and a crappy way to end the match. Sweden's defense was playing so phenomenally and they were one Svensson/Ljundberg incredible one-on-one move from scoring the go-ahead goal, so it seemed like that one freak header was the wrooooong way to end it. It ran counter to the storyline of the match if you know what I mean, which was overmatched Swedish team that would not allow the Germans to score, combined with freakish play from Ljundberg and especially Svensson. Kind of a gut-punch of an ending. This thing should've gone to free kicks or to a Svensson breakaway. But Sweden shot themselves in the foot by relaxing for the first two minutes of the second half--that's all it took for Germany to pull even.
posted by Justin Slotman at 04:17 PM on October 13, 2003
But Sweden shot themselves in the foot by relaxing for the first two minutes of the second half--that's all it took for Germany to pull even. Indeed. If the game had just kept running past the 90-minute mark instead of the obligatory break before the golden goal period, Sweden would have easily won. But they chilled and got a little lazy at the beginning of the overtime and allowed a very talented German squad to grab the momentum right back. Ljundburg and Svensson had a lot of great runs at the end of the second half, and I was waiting very impatiently for them to finally sink one in. It was a heart-breaking loss for them.
posted by Ufez Jones at 04:26 PM on October 13, 2003
This is one of the reasons why "silver goal" has been introduced in the mens game. Under silver goal the team ahead at half or full time in extra time wins. This means that a team has (probably some) time to scrape a goal back. The idea is that it frees teams from the "defend at all costs" mentality that meant many extra time periods were dull beyond belief as no-one wanted to take the risk that might result in letting in a goal and losing (at a stroke) the game.
posted by Brettski at 03:49 AM on October 14, 2003
I don't personally think the "silver goal" works any better than the golden goal. The idea was that it would encourage attacking play as teams would see a way to avoid going to penalties. In fact, exactly the opposite happens because, as Brettski points out, teams are too afraid to concede a goal. The silver goal doesn't give you enough hope of equalising (at the most 14 minutes). I say just scrap the damn things, whatever colour and go back to 30 minutes and penalties.
posted by squealy at 04:37 AM on October 14, 2003
Silver goal was the original way and the BEST way. Golden goal sucks. With golden goal, both teams just sit back and wait for penalties. At least with silver goal, there is a chance for some action.
posted by StarFucker at 08:47 AM on October 14, 2003
Either is preferable penalties, I think, but this game is in the books, and the point is moot. It was a lovely match to watch, played hard, with outstanding plays on offence and defence. I didn't have a problem with the call-- saying that there were calls that should have or could have been made is no kind of argument against a legitimate call that was made, in this one seemed fair to me.
posted by outside counsel at 05:34 PM on October 15, 2003
I don't think there's any doubt that a foul was commited, but compared to some of the other plays that the ref was allowing due to the circumstances (sudden death overtime, you let them play unless it's brutal and obviously malintended, which was how the ref had called the previous 15-20 minutes of overall play), it seemed like the game-ending call stood out like a sore thumb, to me at least. Anyone else watch the game? Thoughts?