411 Football/Soccer Fact or Fiction 06.05.08: FIFA's 6+5, Penalties in Championships, and ESPN Getting the Prem

Posted by Sean Garmer on 06.05.2008

Matt Adamson and I discuss a lot of different topics this week in Footy FOF. Sven is the new manager of Mexico, FIFA wants a 6+5 rule, and more.

Hello everyone, though this has nothing to do with EURO 2008 (it would but Tim is already doing a daily preview, and there will be a Footy staff roundtable on Friday (that includes me), so I felt it was unnecessary to oversaturate the website with EURO stuff. ) Remember those living in America that EURO 2008 begins on Saturday on ESPN Classic, and will be shown throughout the month on their family of networks. You can also watch it online for free on ESPN 360.com Anyway, we discuss a lot of controversial topics this week, so you'll want to read this one.


First, let's introduce my American compatriot Matt Adamson He cheers on his Portland Timbers like no other, and is a RSL fan too. He hasn't written anything in the wrestling zone for a few weeks, but check out the Soccer Forums for Matt's lively discussions.

Today, he's facing me, Sean Garmer Hopefully, I'll have a new America's Football column out tomorrow or Saturday, as well as my review for UEFA EURO 2008 the Video Game. Anyway, I'm awaiting the FC Dallas game on Friday, but I'm excited hardcore for the Euro's, but that's enough with the pleasantries.

Onto the questions folks…


1. The current format for ending a draw in a Championship game (CL Final, World Cup Knockout Round) with extra time and penalties is ok?



Sean Garmer: FACT. The reason this was brought up is because the American media cannot stand things not ending in some dramatic run of play fashion. The Golden Goal was instituted to break ties to prevent the tense and individualized spot-kicking scenario, but really all it did was make most teams get defensive to go force a penalty shootout anyway. I myself, like the way things are done, they give each squad an extra 30 minutes to try to end things during the run of play. However, unlike Basketball, Hockey, and American Football, Soccer only has a limited number of subs, (and you can't play with unlimited subs because then Soccer would have no tactics or strategy which kills the game. It is fine at youth level, but it would really interrupt the flow of the game, besides they always take too long to do regular subs anyway, imagine if we were trying to change six at a time.) Soccer also doesn't have constant television timeouts and periods of rest, American Football may be a very grueling sport, but they get time to rest before each play, so that's why in College Football they can go eight overtimes. These players are human and can only go for so long; if Soccer were played by America's standards, we would have the players out there passing out on the pitch playing two games in one night just to end a tie. Why does everything have to change itself to meet whatever the United States wants? Penalty shootouts are just as thrilling and unless we can come up with some sensible way to change it, just learn to respect the fact that Footy should be able to make its own choices.


Matt Adamson: FACT. I personally hate the Golden Goal rule. The idea of taking penalties to finish a match is a fun thing to watch and really exploits certain people. Talk about pressure! There is nothing like the pressure that these guys face when shooting penalties in the final of a major tournament. For the rest of the 120 minutes they are relying on each other, but for penalties it is the only time where a single player can honestly be responsibly for winning or losing a championship. It makes legends like Van Der Saar this year when he stopped the last shot. I'd never want to change how they do things, though I prefer the match to be won in regulation.



2. Cristiano Ronaldo should go to Real Madrid?


Sean Garmer: FICTION. I don't really see the point in him going to Real Madrid. It's not like he hasn't grown his game in England, that he has to move on to Real Madrid. Obviously, this is Cristiano's choice, but he has the same chance to continue to win championships at Man United. I can understand the boyhood dream of wanting to go to Real Madrid as a boy, the money, or to be playing against different competition, and the fact that Spain is right next to his homeland. However, Fergie is only helping his game, and getting to play with Tevez and Rooney a few more years will make him better. I just don't see a conventional reason for Ronaldo to go to Real Madrid, but I do wish he'd stop all this hoopla. He needs to commit to one or the other soon, because that's not fair to the teams. Of course, I'm always one that says you should honor your contract, but it doesn't work that way in the World of footy, so I hope he stays at Man U.


Matt Adamson: FICTION. I don't think a move from a club the size of Manchester United to Real Madrid makes a bit of difference for the career of any footballer, especially the one considered by many to be the greatest in the world at the moment. Sticking around with United leaves him the ability to defend the championships he was largely responsible for United winning. A move to Real Madrid would be like a side step.



3. David Beckham deserves to start ahead of David Bentley?


Sean Garmer: FACT. He is in fine form for the Galaxy right now and deserves to play as long as he continues to show that. Bentley seemed to digress towards the end of the season, and I feel that Capello is doing what he said he would. The ones that are in-form will play, Beckham is a huge threat from the set piece, and that is another reason to have him on their squad. Bentley isn't quite there yet, he has the ability to be a great player for England, and yes, Capello probably should have used the two friendly's to test his youngsters like Bentley, but I don't think we should slam him for starting a player, in Beckham, that is playing well right now. If anything he has proven that he can still do it. Until Becks shows that, why shouldn't he be allowed to play?


Matt Adamson: FACT. I agree with Sean in that Beckham is in good form right now and I think he's one of the 5 best players playing in the Western Hemisphere. If Bentley were playing over here I'm not fully convinced he'd be in that same vote though European football is a completely different monster than what goes on in CONCACAF and CONMEBOL. I think Beckham is going to have to prove that he isn't cut out for the spot until I believe that Bentley should be in there. Besides when you have Beckham giving the service he gave to John Terry against the US National Team, there isn't much to argue about.



SUBSTITUTION TIME


4. Let's take away politics from this (that means the EU law) would you be in favor of FIFA's proposed 6 + 5 rule?


Matt Adamson: FACT. Originally I was against this idea, but after some thought I like it. Since parity is almost completely shot in Europe, I think this rule would open the door for some other teams to succeed and be able to acquire the best foreign players that they can. With more to go around, it could open up clubs like Everton, Aston Villa, Fiorentina, Atletico Madrid and others a regular roll in competing for Champions League spots. I think it could also grow the game domestically by allowing some players to stick around in their home nation, which for some could be a vast improvement to where they currently play. The only negative I see is that some of the nations with less impressive national teams could take a hit as some of their players might not make the cut in a better league in favor of a less skilled homegrown talent. That would leave such players playing in leagues where the skill level may not help them improve much.


Sean Garmer: FICTION. I'm kinda on the fence with this one, but I'm leaning towards liking it more. The chances of this actually happening are pretty slim due to that EU regulation but England gets a lot of press from the media about not playing well in the big tournaments. This would give more English players a chance to get first team experience. Yes that hurts the "best league in the world" but we all know that FIFA considers international football the most important thing, and when it comes down to it, what England does is important. England have been playing with the same players for a while now, and Capello has yet to really play the youngsters that they do have in the squad. Especially against the US and T&T I expected to see a younger side with Capello just telling them to go play. England has academies, but the chances of the English guys playing are very slim when your league is full of foreigners. I think I would agree with a rule that states, a squad has to have so many English players on the bench, but forcing a manager to have to start six English players no matter what is making it difficult for them. What happens if most of your English players get injured? Will they make exceptions, I think the rule needs to be loosened a bit, because right now, it really isn't open to interpretation and I think that's what makes it difficult for people to accept it.

With the new rule of allowing seven players on your bench for the next European season, it would give you more opportunity to place those English players in the 18. However, you are basically telling a manager who he has to pick in their starting 11, which is very crucial to any game. Whom you start can sometimes dictate the pace, the flow, what options you have in certain places. If they were to adopt it, and tell us what this rule would entail completely, I would give it my full ok, for now though, I'll say Fiction, but its intentions of trying to help out the international sides are good. What it could do to the club doesn't sound to good right now. In truth, this is only a problem in England, as most other countries already have a rule similar to this in place. The English FA must decide what it thinks is more important. Do they want to continue to have the best players in the world at the sacrifice of an under-performing national team? Or would they want their league to flourish with a very good amount of foreign talent, but also be a showcase for England to find its next group of star players for the EURO's and World Cups? Sepp Blatter's idea is a good one, it needs to be refined a little first though. I don't know, but I would think that it would be a matter of pride to be able to say that the Premier League is the best, and it isn't just because of the foreign talent, our English players are damn good too. Not to mention, if this did work, I think this would give more opportunities for different kinds of players to go abroad because we would be able to see a variety of talent.



5. There are rumors that ESPN will be looking to bid for the rights to broadcast the Premier League in the US, the next time the contract comes up for renewal. With all the other Soccer stuff they have already, if they did get the Premier League, would that finally start the train rolling for the sport in the states?



Matt Adamson: FICTION. The word is that ESPN Classic could become a first run channel called ESPN3 or some such moniker. With that in mind I don't think it will amount to much unless it is included on the same package for Satellite and Cable as ESPN and ESPN2. Fox Soccer Channel is already an obvious place for the sport to be seen on expanded packages, so adding another won't do a whole lot, especially when people begin to realize it is primarily a "soccer channel".


Sean Garmer: FACT. I totally disagree with Matt here. For one if, ESPN Classic did become ESPN 3 it would be packaged with the other two channels. The reason ESPN Classic and ESPN U are set apart, is because they offer different content than the regular ESPN, and are different kinds of channels. I just want to say that for the purpose of this question I am stating this in a US perspective. Secondly, for this to occur ESPN would probably have to buy out Setanta, which they could do if they felt it necessary (personally, I think they would just work out some deal to get the feed, or just not bother with it.) Then they would have to outbid Fox which would be the easier of the two to do. The bad thing is that essentially ESPN would probably kill Fox Soccer Channel, but then again, since it is packaged in most expanded cable packages and Sports packages (unlike Setanta which is sold by itself in the US for $15 dollars a month only on the Dish, which is considered a rip-off for most people) it could still survive with their Serie A coverage, and I'm sure they could get other kinds of Soccer leagues if it had to. Back on point,

I believe if the Premiership was broadcast on ESPN in over 80 to 90 million homes it could catch on big time in the US. Sure, you would probably have a lot of bandwagon fans, and it would probably lead to some things being changed (like I could seriously see the 39th Game idea taking off (not that I support that,) more Premiership teams having preseason games here, and things like the Community Shield or the Carling Cup final being played in the states.) Still, if the Premier League wanted to see a boom like no other, let ESPN bid for it, because as they have proven with their World Cup (Broadcasters aside), EURO 2008, and MLS coverage they will kick it up a notch. Also, there's that thing called ESPN 360, if people could watch any Premier League game they wanted for free on the net, it would be a huge advantage the sport would have over any of the others. I think once America is able to see the best players in the world every week on a consistent basis, understand the intricacies of the game, how the season works, and the witness the relegation and championship battles, it would bring a tremendous boom. Sure, it wouldn't be a good thing for MLS because it would point out their flaws, but maybe it would lead to MLS dropping the salary cap, paying its players more, and getting more outside talent to come to the league. I didn't phrase the question to say, is it going to convert everyone, if it did happen it would start the ball rolling, I guarantee it.



6. Sven Goran-Eriksson will be the man to take the Mexican National Team farther than the round of eight in the 2010 World Cup?


Matt Adamson: FICTION. I always wish for the success of El Tri, for the sake of CONCACAF. However, while I'm excited about what Sven can do, I'm not convinced that anybody can take the Mexican National team to the final 4. I don't think there is enough strength in their squad, and considering the event is still 2 years away, who knows what can happen between now and then. Things could get better or worse, and I know Sven will have a completely unbiased take at these guys in Mexico, which could mean just about anything at this point. How was that for beating around the bush?


Sean Garmer: FICTION. Just because I agree with Matt, I don't know that there is anyone that can do it, at least not with this group of players. The core is on the older side, they are beginning to have youngsters shine through like Ochoa, Guardado, Vela, and Villaluz (Dos Santos is still unproven.) As a latino I'm jaded because I believe that Sven can do something with them, but here's the difference, much more so than with the England job, there should be no reason why Mexico doesn't walk it, in qualifying. Unless they start playing all European opposition in friendly's they are not going to improve as a squad, because other than the US, Honduras, maybe Canada and Costa Rica, they don't have much competition in CONCACAF. Even if they played the hardest teams in those Frendly's (they still aren't a true measure, because they are just exhibition games) as teams have proven before form going into the World Cup can be a fickle thing. Look at Greece in 2004 and France in 2006, as examples. Mexico can be in the form of their entire history and still not get to their milestone of making the semi-finals. This is the 2nd hardest managing job in international football because the fans expect so much. Not to mention, almost all of the players are not in favor of him being manager because he's foreign and doesn't understand the players or the schedule.


I think it is good for them to have someone different, because Sven will be less biased towards the big names. Many of the managers have the reputation like Steve McClaren of babying the big players like Rafa Marquez and Pavel Pardo, though I do think Sven will look to them because he may have seen them play more, he will not be showing favor to anyone because he has no reason to do that. Most of all, this is about Sven, he is out to prove everyone wrong, and he needs to do what is in his best interest, and do what he feels will get Mexico where they want to go. I just feel like the pressure is too great on him, if he fails he will be run out like a dog, and it doesn't help many see his England run as a failure too. This is a tough situation for Sven, I wish him the best of luck, I normally don't root for Mexico because I want to see the US and South America do better than them, but I will be keeping my eye on them. Just because my heart goes out to the Swede for trying a new challenge and willing to face whatever comes his way. You have to admire him for that, like Matt said the tourney is two years away, but its going to very tough for Mexico to get anywhere near the Semi's.


I'm disappointed in only a 4 out of 6, but maybe next week

Enjoy the opening round games.