Hello,
Yesterday, in the LDC, the 2 1/2 finals ended in frustration for the 2 losers with an identical final scenario: the opponent equalised in the last minute and lost at the tab.... In other words, in the blink of an eye you go from victory to defeat, which is cruel for some and unhoped-for for the opponents.
To avoid this "shock", why not have extra time with a golden goal and little or no physical loss.

ultras37: Bonjour,
Hier, en LDC , les 2 1/2 finales se sont finis avec une certaine frustration pour les 2 perdants avec un scénario final identique : égalisation de l adversaire à la dernière minute et défaite aux tab.... C est à dire qu en 1 claquement de doigt on passe de la victoire à la défaite,c est cruel pour les uns et inespéré pour les adversaires.
Pour éviter ce "choc", pourquoi ne pas prévoir des prolongations avec but en or avec perte de physique réduite ou nulle.

I'd rather not, as that's part of the charm of a VF Cup. Besides, 90 minutes is already extremely long, especially on VF, so I can't imagine a final lasting 149 minutes... or much longer.

OMstar83: Plutôt contre, ça fait partie du charme d'une coupe sur VF. Et puis, déjà que 90 minutes, c'est extrêmement long, surtout sur VF, je n'ose imaginer une finale qui durerait 149 minutes... ou bien plus.

Why 149 minutes? Extra time is 2x15m...and with the golden goal it could be a lot quicker

Frankly, why not?

Already 1h30 to follow a match is a long time but then two hours.... Cons. That's the charm of vf

ultras37: Pkoi 149min? Les prolongations, c est 2x15m...et avec le but en or ça peut être bcp plus rapide

My finger rippled on 4, I meant to write 119. I just think the time is already too long on VF in a match.

OMstar83: Mon doigt a rippé sur le 4, je voulais écrire 119. Je trouve juste le temps déjà supra long sur VF en match.

Après, on va se dire qu'on peut aussi faire deux prolongations, parce que c'est "cruel" de prendre un but à la 119ème. On peut imaginer faire plusieurs prolongations du coup ^^
J'ai peur que cela n'ai pas de fin. Que ce soit cruel à la 90ème ou à la 120ème ne change rien, à part 30 minutes perdues de plus sur le jeu.

It's not losing that's cruel... it's going from victory to defeat in 1 second without understanding anything. With extra time and a golden goal, there's no such shock.
We could also imagine shorter extra time periods

ultras37: Bonjour,
Hier, en LDC , les 2 1/2 finales se sont finis avec une certaine frustration pour les 2 perdants avec un scénario final identique : égalisation de l adversaire à la dernière minute et défaite aux tab.... C est à dire qu en 1 claquement de doigt on passe de la victoire à la défaite,c est cruel pour les uns et inespéré pour les adversaires.
Pour éviter ce "choc", pourquoi ne pas prévoir des prolongations avec but en or avec perte de physique réduite ou nulle.

I made this proposal during a live chat with Aymeric, but he was against it because it was probably too complicated to set up.
I clearly agree with you. I don't have the figures in my head, but the further along we get in the cups, the more matches end up going to the last four.
It's quite a shame. It may be a charm for some, but not for me. Vf's most prestigious competition ends up as a giant lottery after the first round of skimming.
It has become increasingly difficult to make a difference in the matches.
Unfortunately, I have little hope that this proposal will be heeded.

Perhaps we could imagine a return match from the 1/8th or 1/4th like Ireland? That would also remove the advantage of playing at home in a dry match

+1 for this proposal
Too much randomness in the cut format on VF.

Will the game stand up to it 🤔 already 1h30 it's struggling at the moment

I vote for this proposal...

#match?mid=6213978

Cons. It would favour the strongest.

You don't score for 90 minutes and you're frustrated. If you add another 30 minutes and still don't score, what do we do? Play another 30 minutes? 🤣

leniav: Contre. Ça avantagerai les plus forts.

Or those who have no life. Sometimes it's hard for 1h30, then 2h... It's not necessarily all I have to do...

Why don't we start the game with a penalty shoot-out?

Deck: Pourquoi on commence pas le match par une séance de penos ?

Or better still, there is another system that considerably reduces the risk and, above all, increases the interest in following matches by making them very attractive.
I used it more than fifty seasons ago when I was organising the LV in-house cup, in which ties had to be broken in a 'friendly' match.

In the event of a draw, victory went to the last team to score.
And if it was 0-0, victory went to the last team to have had a chance.

In practice, when matches were close, they always gave rise to hyper-spectacular matches because for the team leading (by one goal) it was dangerous to concretise because if they equalised they would be eliminated.

And if both teams were concreting in search of a 0-0 scoreline, it was equally risky for both sides, as they were at the mercy of a single adverse opportunity.
Right up until the last second, victory could change hands in favour of the more daring team (even if they didn't have the success to convert a chance into a goal).

The matches were very interesting to play from start to finish because, apart from in the first few minutes (or seconds) when there was still no first chance, there was always a team in a position to qualify (with either a goal or a chance ahead) and a team in a position to work hard to try and reverse the trend (on the pitch and not waiting for the Russian roulette of penalties and for whom the unfavourable gap was not irremediable to come back).

NB: and for those who might object that this is not a realistic system, let me remind you that this is a game and that such a system is surely no more unrealistic than coming up against a DFC NG 1 with 99 in scoring and 99 in speed

myforsans: Ou même mieux, il existe un autre système qui limite considérablement l'aléa et qui surtout renforce l'intérêt de suivre ses matchs en les rendant très attractifs.
Je l'ai utilisé il y a plus d'une cinquantaine de saisons quand j'organisais la coupe interne LV où il fallait départager des ex-aequo au terme d'un match conclu en "amical".

En cas de match nul, la victoire revenait à la dernière équipe à avoir marqué.
Et si il y avait 0-0, la victoire revenait à la dernière équipe

And then, when some people are eliminated because of this system, they will say that a TAB session with the possibility of choosing the side of the shot and the save would be nice...

In the end, whatever the system, the main thing to come out of it is the frustration of those eliminated.

We all agree that whatever the innovation, there will always be those who find fault with it.
Fortunately, that's just the way human beings are!
But you have to admit that such a system would be (for the loser, of course :) :) ) less frustrating than the Russian roulette of the current system.

But above all, such a system would make the decisive matches much more interesting to play (I'm not deluding myself... I speak from experience) because at the moment, cup matches, at least between teams of the same value, are often like sumo wrestling matches where nothing much happens. You only have to look at the very small number of goals scored in the Champions League from the 1/8 or 1/4 finals onwards to see that.

myforsans: On est d'accord que quelle que soit l'innovation, il y en a qui trouveront toujours à redire.
L'être humain est (heureusement d'ailleurs) ainsi fait !
Mais il faut reconnaître quand même qu'un tel système serait (pour le perdant bien sûr :) :) ) moins frustrant que la roulette russe du système actuel.

Mais surtout un tel système rendrait les matchs couperets beaucoup plus intéressants à jouer (c'est pas une illusion,...je parle en l'ayant expérimenté) car actuellement les matchs de

Above all, it's the low number of chances and xGs that should be increased to put an end to undeserved carrots all round.
It's mind-boggling to play matches at 1.5xG and dominate every area for 1 hour and 30 minutes.

Then you end up with a 20% chance of a draw and a 13% chance of defeat in over-dominated games that should have a 95% chance of winning. So it's not surprising to take carrots in 1 match out of 4 and end up with a Champions League where half the matches go to the last four.

IRL, that kind of over-dominated match is 4.5xG and 99% victory, on VF you can only reach that kind of xG in friendly matches against 25ngs.
So yes, it's always the same teams that win the competition (Real, Barça, Bayern, etc) but at least there's no unfairness or randomness, the best team wins, full stop.

Skyz: C'est surtout le faible nombres d'occasions et d'xG qu'il faudrait augmenter pour définitivement en terminer avec des carottes imméritées à tout va.
C'est hallucinant de faire des matchs à 1.5xG en surdominant toutes les zones pendant 1h30.

Derrière tu te retrouves avec des 20% de chance de faire match nul et 13% de defaites sur des matchs surdominés qui devraient donner lieu à 95% de chances de victoires. Donc c'est pas surprenant de prendre des carottes 1 match sur 4 et de se retrouve

Above all, I think that the further you get into the competition, the tighter the clubs play, or at least the more defensively solid they are.
In the group stages, there's a lot of play, a lot of spectacle and a lot of goals, and that's often the case. Then from the 8th round, especially 1/4 and 1/2, it's generally much more cautious, but that's understandable...The result is famishing xGs, teams grouped together, and summaries of matches with very few chances or often one or two acts that decide the fate of the match but in any case it's logical the teams are closer in level you'll have less space and more tactical adjustments ...

Nicularo: Et puis, quand certains se feront éliminer à cause de ce système, ils diront qu'une séance de TAB avec la possibilité de choisir le côté du tir et de l'arrêt, ce serait bien...

Au final, peu importe le système, ce qu'il en ressort c'est surtout la frustration des éliminés.

That's the most accurate assessment we can make.