Hows this for a mad/bad idea for soccer..........

redspider

I remember the Irish experiment of 4,3,2,1 (or was it 5,4,3,2,1), but the problem with that system was that it encouraged away teams to defend, as at 0-0 they were getting more pts, and then they looked to score goals on the break only. It was disbanded because it did not produce better football, and the LOI thought they were perhaps too radical in relation to the rest of the world, so they switched back and rightly so. The challenge is to devise a points system so that a team always have something to gain points wise by attacking. That's what the 3 pts for a win system did and I presume that no-one wants to go back to 2 pts for a win, or do they?

DesF wrote:

If a team like Derby goes to the Emirates with the sole purpose of stymiying the Arsenal attack, and are successful, and come away with a 0-0, or even a 0-1 win after getting a lucky goal the break, do they not deserve to be rewarded? By going and doing exactly "hold out for a 0-0, defend at all costs, 10-men behind the ball," they would be gaining an excellent point.

I think Des you are in the minority if you find dogged defending as entertaining as freeflow attacking. The move to 3 pts for a win would on your arguments not have been introduced and kept. In a 'defending-is-the-best' skill scenario, maybe you even want to add a bonus point for not scoring and keeping a game scoreless ?!?

DesF> I'm sorry to have to inform you, but football is not just about entertaining braindead morons who only wake up when the ball hits the net.

I fully agree that its not only about goals. But, without attacking there would be no defending. Germany Austria anyone? The change from 2 pts for a win to 3 pts as it is now was a move to award wins and hence attacking football.
Any proposed points change should reward attacking football, as much as possible, dont you think? At the moment, once a team goes 1-0, such as a Chelsea, then the rest of the game can peter out as Chelsea have no need to score, points wise, and have more capability at shutting up shop and with a good goalie compared with what the weaker oppositions can offer in attack. If at 1-0 both teams can gain points with the next goal, it changes the dynamic of a match completely. So, by your logic, do you want to move back to 2 pts for a win and reward defending a bit more?

DesF> Who said anything about waiting? I actually don't even know what your point here is tbh.

You made the point (based on a team being within 1 goal), that at 1-0 down, they are within a goal, and that at 2-0 down, they would only then be forced to attack. I am not advocating giving anything to a losing team at 1-0 down.

DesF> Yes they would if it was a relegation battle, and if instead of falling 4 points behind you would only fall three points behind. Why risk going forward if you leave yourself exposed at the back?

Yes, in some cases there is something to gain by defending by reducing the points one team would be behind another competing team. But at many stages of a match in the proposed system, the team that is behind would have more to gain by getting a goal.

DesF> I take it the part in bold means limiting the winners to 2 bonus points?

That was outlining that a 1-0 win would only get 2 pts whereas a 2-0 win would get 3 pts.

DesF> I never said you were a child or American. I said you sounded like either. Or both.

I guess then by using that logic you cant have any gripe then if I say you sound like an idiot!

DesF> Oh, I understand perfectly that you want to see more goals in football, the question I ask is why?

The idea is to reward teams for their efforts, and bias it towards rewarding more for attacking efforts than defending efforts. That is the only way to encourage teams to attack. That is why the 3 pts for a win was brought in. Were you against that by the way at the time? And would you revert back to it now?

Hoolio> Zero points of a 0-0 draw

That's potentially a useful suggestion, as it means that teams have to score at some point in the match if they want to get anything out of it, and could if nothing else lead to frantic play in the last 10 mins if both teams are forced to go for a win. A 0-0 would mean that both teams would effectively lose!

I think the Rugby points system is quite a good one and encourages teams to attack. Whether a new system can be introduced for Soccer is another thing, but doing so certainly would have benefits.

Redspider

DerekD Goldfish

Rugby needs the points system because of the nature of the sport
only about 10 countries in the world are any good at the sport and unlike in soccer where upsets can happen where teams ranked in the top 10 can draw or lose to teams outside the top 50 the best any of the smaller teams can hope for is not to get beaten by to much.
There are to methods of scoring In rugby Kicking and Running as Trys are generally more exciting to watch than penalty's and drop goals they are encouraged.
Soocer has nither of these issues which cause Bonus points to be a good idea in rubgy.
2 points to 3 was a good idea but any move to a bonus points system or a 4-3-2-1 system would be experimentation for experimentations sake.
Why no points for a 0-0? Ive seen 0-0draws that have been better games thans games with plenty of goals in them.
If a small team wants to "Park The bus" against a big team whats wrong with that it can be very interesting to see a team have to break down a 10 man defence.

astrofool

Any new points system needs to be immune to manipulation to maximise points by teams.

Anything that rewards teams to finish on an even higher score, or to score more goals while neglecting defending will be open to abuse.

Lots of 0-0's would become 1-1's just to ensure an extra point, with teams being happy with the score, especially if their rivals are currently at 0-0.

Witness Ireland at the world cup in italia 90 playing out a 1-1 draw with Holland.

Anyway, you do get a bonus for scoring more and not conceding, it's called goal difference. When Utd. were chasing Arsenal a few seasons ago, they had a much worse goal difference, and had to lessen the gap to put more pressure on Arsenal, they duly did so, slaughtering the likes of Liverpool and Newcastle 4-0 so that Arsenal did not have the same cushion. Even last season, Utd's attacking football meant Chelsea had to catch up +1 point extra in the league which eventually proved too much for them.

_blank_

redspider wrote:

4-4 - 2 pts each

Right, we had a 4-4 tonight.

Do you still stand by this, given the standard of goalkeeping, defending and play by forwards in that game?

Two points for both of them teams is an absolute joke.

Or maybe Martin and Martin were reading this thread.

Eirebear

how many points would reading and wigan have got the other day?!?!

DSB

I'm a Villa fan and theres no way I'd have wanted us to get an extra point tonight for that.

Guy:Incognito

Eirebear wrote:

how many points would reading and wigan have got the other day?!?!

35 and 47 respectively. (it was Reading and Pompey btw) . Portsmouth would then win the league. The reason for the high points is because they would get 20 extra bonus points each for conceding so many , its a "making a game of it mega bonus giveaway"

Eirebear

Stekelly wrote:

35 and 47 respectively. (it was Reading and Pompey btw) . Portsmouth would then win the league. The reason for the high points is because they would get 20 extra bonus points each for conceding so many , its a "making a game of it mega bonus giveaway"

lol so it was....i dont pay much attention to english football while theres still things to wrap up in scotland (by this point last season i was an everton fan;) )

eirebhoy

I don't see why people have a problem with giving Pompey and Reading a bonus for scoring 4 or more goals. Of course they conceded loads but it still made for a great game of football.

Number of times teams scored 4 or more last season:

(1) Man Utd 89 - 7
(2) Chelsea 83 - 3
(3) Liverpool 68 - 4
(4) Arsenal 68 - 3
(5) Tottenham 60 - 3
(6) Everton 58 - 1
(7) Bolton 56 - 1
(8) Reading 55 - 1
(9) Portsmouth 54 - 1
(10) Blackburn 52 - 2
(11) Aston Villa 50 - 0
(12) Middlesbro 46 - 2
(13) Newcastle 43 - 0
(14) Man City 42 - 0
(15) West Ham 41 - 0
(16) Fulham 39 - 0
(17) Wigan 38 - 1
(18) Sheff Utd 38 - 0
(19) Charlton 34 - 1
(20) Watford 28 - 0

As I've already said, the bonus shouldn't carry the same weight as a draw. Maybe half that. There'd be no difference in last seasons table so it's not going to be a huge change.

Celtic are a much better team this season because they're scoring so many goals. It's the teams that score so many and go out to entertain that should be rewarded. If they have a dodgy defence then they're not going to go very far anyway.

_blank_

eirebhoy wrote:

There'd be no difference in last seasons table so it's not going to be a huge change.

So, why make the change then?

Just for the laugh is it?

Or is it becaise Celtic can pretty much guarantee four goals in 85% of their games in Scotland if they put their mind to it, and have the league won by the first week of November, instead of the last?:D

eirebhoy

DesF wrote:

So, why make the change then?

Because it'd make football more entertaining. Goals make games entertaining. It's not as if the bonus system has made a huge change to things in rugby.

eirebhoy

To be honest, my main point is goals are what make games entertaining. It's why I'd watch the likes of Spurs or Roma or Man Utd or Barcelona at every opportunity.

Necronomicon

I've only given a brief look at the thread so far, but this caught my eye:

redspider wrote:

Hoolio> Zero points of a 0-0 draw

Which has to be about the most absurd suggestion so far IMO. While there are really boring goalless draws where you think neither team actually deserves something, think about the smaller clubs battling out a 0-0 draw with one of the bigger teams. Reading went to Old Trafford on the first day of the season and got a 0-0 draw because they were immense at the back.

So taking that game, and taking last night's 4-4 game, you would've had:

United and Reading - 0 points each for the draw.
Spurs and Villa - 2 points each for the draw.

So how are Villa and Spurs more deserving of 2 points than Reading? Reading went to the champions and defended like lions to get a hard-earned point, whereas Spurs and Villa played out a game where 8 goals were scored because of some comical defending and a goalkeeping howler.

I love seeing goals as much as the next guy, but if every game turned into a Pompey vs Reading or a Spurs vs Villa, it'd become a joke.

_blank_

Necromomicon wrote:

defended like lions to get a hard-earned point,

The point I've been making in the thread.

Necromomicon wrote:

but if every game turned into a Pompey vs Reading or a Spurs vs Villa, it'd become a joke.

Last night was a joke.