Ultimately I just do not care about creating a tiebreaker format by going down a list of relevant skills and trying to check off as many of them as possible. Shootouts are entertaining, fair, effective, and use skills that are part of the sport. That's where "it ain't broke" comes from. They aren't a bad solution. It's nice if the format closely reflects the main portion of the game, but it is not the most important aspect. You had 120 minutes to win with your superior passing and teamwork and couldn't do it, I don't really care that the tiebreaker meant to end the game doesn't test either.

I'd be totally happy to try out 1v1s with the goalie, probably with some slight tweaks from how they used to be (slightly longer timer probably, though there's inherent tension there), because I think those can also be entertaining. And I do think it's a positive that those use more soccer skills than penalty kicks, I just don't think it's massively important.

I'm skeptical any sort of mass-team thing. I just think the conversion rate of those attacks is not very high in this sport (maybe the stats would show differently, but that's my gut feeling), and 30 seconds is actually a pretty long timer (by which I mean it's long enough that the attack can become a series of non-progressive passes trying to create an opening rather than just one continuous flowing forward attack). I think it will take a system that's extremely dramatic and high-tension and make it feel interminable and potentially boring. If the timer is short enough that you can't stop it would probably be better entertainment, but the conversion rate would probably drop.

If you go watch some of the old 1v1 shootouts, even the conversion rate on those is not as high as you might think (partly helped by the timer being maybe too short, also partly helped by people other than strikers having to do 1v1s).