(1) The Attacker Defender Goalkeeper - (ADG) solution is
the brainchild of Timothy Farrell, who introduced his idea in 2008.
ADG sees an attacker go up against a defender and a goalkeeper, with 30 seconds to score a goal. The attacker starts on the center spot.

Just like a penalty shootout, each team has five attempts each, with the team scoring more times
deemed the winner. In the instance the teams are still level, we go to sudden death. Unlike a penalty shootout, all active players (those
on the field at the end of the game) are involved. Each team would nominate five attackers, five
defenders and goalkeeper.

You also have an obvious disadvantage if you've had a player sent off—leaving you a defender short for one of the opposition attempts. To learn more about the system, visit the ADG
website. Here are the main advantages, as they see them:

All players compete
Showcases skill and athleticism
Positive natured competition
Strategy is vital
Promotes attacking play
Promotes fair play

(2) Shootout -The North American Soccer League and MLS both
tried a variant on the penalty shootout—with players starting 35 yards out and tasked with
beating the goalkeeper inside five seconds. This system was last seen in 1999. You could argue it calls for greater skill than a spot-
kick shootout, and thus serves as a fairer way of splitting two teams.
That said, it's still pitting one man against another

(3) Golden Goal - FIFA's golden goal system was used most notablyat Euro 96, Euro 2000 and the 1998 and 2002 World Cups.
The idea was simple. If two teams remained level at the end of normal time, extra-time would go ahead as usual—with two halves of 15 minutes. But if either team scored, the game would be over.
The most famous example came with David Trezeguet's winner in the final of Euro 2000, for France against Italy. The silver goal was a variation on a theme. This time, if a team led after the first period of extra-time they would be deemed the winners of the tie. Greece beat the Czech Republic in the semifinal of Euro 2004 by this method.
We haven't seen either system since. The main argument against them is that they promote negativity during extra-time. Conceding a goal becomes so frightening a proposition teams are encouraged to sit back and wait for the penalty shootout.

(4) Ever decreasing numbers - One idea that's never far from the discussion involves reducing the number of players on each
team during extra-time. You could, for example, remove one player from each team every five minutes. If the two periods remained 15 minutes in length, this would leave the teams playing the last five with just six players.
The theory here is that fewer players leads to a greater chance of goals being scored and errors
being made.

(5) Never ending extra time - Then there's the notion of extra time going on as long as it needs to—you might call it the bronze
goal. Let's say the two teams can't be separated after 30 minutes. What you could do is tell them to simply keep going, until eventually one of them scores. This one will never happen. Not only would it play havoc with television schedules, you also risk player
injuries and encounter the possible scenario of a team playing a major final several days after being
involved in an eight-hour football marathon.

(6) Statistics count - With the vast array of statistical data now available, we could potentially decide games based on elements other than goals—either before or after an extra-time period. Potentially decisive options:
Most corners include:
Most shots on target
Time in possession
Fewest fouls conceded
Fewest yellow/red cards
Number of times a team hits the woodwork

(7) Rogue goalposts - We could even take things back to the Sheffield Rules of 1862. What you have here is an additional goal area on either side of the goalposts, marked by flags. Teams
would then score points for any shots passing through the area between the post and the flags.
These points could then be used to separate two teams, should be they level on goals at the end of a
match. This one's clearly not happening, but fun to include
nonetheless.

( Coin toss - How many times do we hear penalty shootouts
referred to as "a lottery"?
What you could do is take away the responsibility from the players and simply hand the result over to
fate—and the simple toss of a coin. But is that really more satisfactory? Surely you'd
rather your team had at least a modicum of control over their destiny?

(9) Free kick shootout - Blatter talked of the "tragedy" of penalty kicks. But perhaps if you take away the expectation that a
player should score, you take away some of the heartache. From 12 yards, a miss is humiliation. From 25 yards, it's more or less expected. If you had a free-kick shootout, perhaps even with a
training wall placed by the opposition goalkeeper, you'd be rewarding those of the highest skill level. That said, you'd also be inviting goalkeepers to make terrible mistakes. And then we're back to heartbreak and humiliation again.

(10) Jury decision - What if, at the end of extra time, an expert panel
was given the task of awarding a points decision to the best team?
Ridiculous, right? Yes. In fact it's hard to imagine a more terrifying
thought than Blatter and his cohorts deciding upon your team's future. If it's that or a penalty shootout, I'll take penalties.

What option do you prefer or proffer?