True but you don't have to win by 2 in football like you do in Tennis so I'm not convinced how it will work, seems like big pressure is on the 2nd player if the first player misses at least if you miss in the normal setup you have a chance to recover straight away if the other team misses it feels like there is now a double whammy effect.
Interested to see what it spits out the study they did found the normal way gave the team going first a 60% chance of winning, how many times do they need to run the new system before they feel they've got a fair representation?
Penalties aren't really a fair way of seperating teams after a draw but they're the only thing we've got at the moment. Do we go to golden goal and say we play until someone scores a winning goal? That could go on for ages and just isn't really practical, could we have some sort of judges panel and a point scoring system, again not really practical and open to abuse. Penalties are the logical way of concluding a game if teams can't be seperated after 120 minutes.
Taking turns in a best of 5 each scenario just makes sense, maybe get rid of the coin toss and the team with most shots on target in the 120 minutes gets to decide who goes first but again that's not easy to record outside of the pro games.
I can see why they want to try something else but I just don't think it works unless you also have the 2 clear rule but I'm happy enough with sudden death style shoot outs. Doing first to 5 and win by 2 clear surely just makes the shoot outs longer.
I'm interested to see if it turns out a different pattern it may be that no matter what order you go in the team that misses first in a shoot out probably goes on to lose most of the time which is what happens yesterday and in most shoot outs, very few teams recover after going behind in a shoot out.