Zero point for nil-nil?

[McMaster#28]

It's the same in every world cup isn't it?

[Eoghan_M]

9-0-1 must be your favorite formation.

No I enjoy attacking football, I can just respect a solid defensive display.

[Sir Stuart Wilson]

Wrong, it favors the BETTER teams, just the way it should be.

Haha.... the better teams should need no favours for they are as you say the 'better team'...

[STFC will rule again]

I say it'd bad sportmanship for the smaller teams to not lay down and roll over for the bigger teams like Brazil or Spain, throw them out of FIFA I say .

[Woodmansee]

Give the fans paint guns to shoot players that don't attack!

[STFC will rule again]

A sniper in the stands picking off defenders, that'd help attacking football although the bodies on the pitch might get in the way of the ball.

[Sned]

The sniper missed and got De Rossi the other day

[englandmanager]

ok so why not get rid of defenders and have 4 extra strikers seeing as this OP doesn't think they matter

[Woodmansee]

Lets just have no goalies then we'd get very high scoring games, every game.

[Rafalution]

If you want more goals then make the goals bigger.

[ATW]

And wasn't that long again keepers can pick up backpasses, I wonder why that got changed.

If I remember rightly - I was still a very young keeper at the time - it was to stop time wasting. I'm finiding it hard to see what point your statement has with regard to your stupid idea - especially the latter part.

[Sned]

Even though people aren't going for the zero points for 0-0, are there any that might advocate other points changes, such as those mentioned further up in the topic?

[BoroPhil]

well the back pass rule was abolished to encourage attacking football, as I imagine the 0pts for 0-0 idea is supposed to do

[ATW]

Even though people aren't going for the zero points for 0-0, are there any that might advocate other points changes, such as those mentioned further up in the topic?

3 points for a win

1 point for a draw

1 point for 3+ goals (aka Bonus Point)

That wiill be the next likely change if any

[football_master_94]

3 points for a win

1 point for a draw

1 point for 3+ goals (aka Bonus Point)

That wiill be the next likely change if any

Like the Rugby Bonus point system basically

[McMaster#28]

The offside rule was changed from 3 players to 2 to encourage goals too. Maybe we just go to one now

[georginho_juventusygr]

Ridiculous idea.

[Qolumbo]

All that's needed to increase the number of goals is for referees to stop favouring the defence in 50/50 situations.

[Eoghan_M]

Even though people aren't going for the zero points for 0-0, are there any that might advocate other points changes, such as those mentioned further up in the topic?

I'm perfectly happy with it as it is, not really a fan of bonus points for winning by more than 3 goals or whatever as its giving extra incentive for the winning team while the losing team has lost all care in the game.

[ATW]

The offside rule was changed from 3 players to 2 to encourage goals too. Maybe we just go to one now

As the 2 player rule is usually the GK +1 Defender, would that not 9/10 bin the offside rule in practically every game?

[Samamatara]

what a stupid idea

zero points for 0-0

[McMaster#28]

As the 2 player rule is usually the GK +1 Defender, would that not 9/10 bin the offside rule in practically every game?

It would lead to goals though

[ATW]

Would it though? It would lead to a lot of teams playing 5-0-5 or 7-0-3 or something stupid. Scotland could do well - we're known to play hoof ball

[ericcantona7]

going to skip most of this thread, but I'm assuming that someone's pointed out that this rule would just leave teams trading goals at the start of the game?

[ATW]

Just noticed - wrong section. Surely this is more a football general discussion than World Cup?

[Katarian]

I didn't think it's a great idea. I actually have no problem with teams going out and playing for 0-0 (or more likely trying for 1-0 and failing) in domestic football. If a team wants to play for a draw in a 38 or 44 game season that is fine, in the FA cup a non league team stiffling a Premier League team is tactical sound, and defending is an art form in it's self.

I do think that the World Cup is different though. Something needs to be done to reduce the negative tactics. I was going to suggest that only one team from each group reaches then next round (and the round of 16 is removed), but thinking about it I think it would make teams even more defensive.

[skybluedave]

Just make the goals bigger if you want more goals

[Kenco]

Really? Has anyone ever gone into start a match with 5 strikers on the pitch? Really?

Yes, back in the very old days. Really.

[Trildor]

The good old days, yes.

[Romanista.]

this is football, if you want entertainment go watch clowns.

[SCIAG]

Yes, back in the very old days. Really.

Though they weren't genuine strikers. Two were advanced wingers.

[foolsgold]

For all intents and purposes they are strikers ffs.

[ericcantona7]

this is football, if you want entertainment go watch clowns.

or watch Robert Green and Emile Heskey and get both

[Kenco]

Though they weren't genuine strikers. Two were advanced wingers.

Maybe, but it was all about attack in those days.

[aggressive minor]

Big no to this.

[tdpatriots12]

Are you American?

As an American, the chief "complaints" I've run across here among my "I'll check out this World Cup thing" friends are:

* The vuvuzuelas, duh.

* The lack of solid scoring chances

Now, the latter needs some elaboration. To the casual - or better put completely new - viewer, long shots, set pieces, and headers that end up yards away from the goal are not solid chances. So throw out every single shot off target in terms of potential excitement for this crowd. They're therefore unlikely to get excited when the likes of Ronaldo or even Landon Donovan - the most dangerous American from set pieces - gets an opportunity close to the goal. Firstly because they only see these balls sailing dramatically off the mark, and secondly because they don't know who these people are. The only way they know Ronaldo is any good is the announcer telling them. Further they don't know that players should have done better with these chances because they haven't had the experience of watching players actually do something with similar looks at the goal.

Some are just turning off the TV or watching something else. There's nothing we can do for these people.

Some are intrigued, but start proposing things like the thread starter - not saying he qualifies under any of this but I've heard the same idea mentioned. Also stuff like getting rid of the offsides rule, etc. These people can be saved by exposing them to more football. Positive football that is.

Some get into the flow of the game and while they probly would like more scoring chances, like what they see.

In the US, the vast majority fall into Group A. That's just the facts. More people than ever seem to be in Group B or C, which is a good thing.

I did hear one good idea though. Yellow cards retroactively given after games (or during with replay) for simulation. The tape doesn't lie, and if it isn't clear to the refs during the game that's fine - a lot of what makes diving work is the perspective the referees have. But at home we see slow-mo replays, different angles, etc - and we get incensed with good reason. Now post-game yellow cards would only matter in terms of accumulation, using replay for simulation would work ingame, however it would require an infrastructure for replay that doesn't exist. Would the game stop for video reviews? Probably a bad idea. Would need another official in the box quite literally reviewing every play - this is what American college football does, actually - every play is "reviewed" and if the guy upstairs sees something fishy he calls the refs on the field and overturns the play. It doesn't take long at all, and this kind of thing would be great for dealing with diving. At least in theory.

[georginho_juventusygr]

Nándor Hidegkuti.

[Razzler]

The offside rule was changed from 3 players to 2 to encourage goals too. Maybe we just go to one now

I'd remove the keeper from the equation, make it 1 outfield player. Wouldn't make a difference for a vast majority of goals but would make it easier for people to comprehend like when the keeper came out for that corner the other day and there was 1 defender on the line ... offside but take the keeper away and it's on as there's still 1 defender there.

Not a massive change but a tweak to the rules. There isn't gonna be any changing of the points awarded imo

[Oypus]

As an American, the chief "complaints" I've run across here among my "I'll check out this World Cup thing" friends are:

Actually, what it is with Americans is that the vast majority of us only enjoy sports that use hands. American football, basketball, baseball, hockey, golf, even the complete waste of everything it uses that is NASCAR (Actually baseball also falls into that category...), they are all hand-oriented sports. And yes, I think it's as simple as that. I've heard my "I'll check out this World Cup thing" friends go on and praise the keepers. Only the keepers. Given there hasn't really been anything too dazzling in terms of goals, it's just...hands. I cannot say how many times people have just said to me "Oh soccer sucks. They use their feet, it's stupid." I guess "we" just like watching these ridiculous behemoths run around and do things with their juiced up arms. (Don't take that the wrong way either, I'm a huge football fan, and don't mind a basketball game here and there.) The more I think about it, the more true it becomes.

And Razzler, why change the rules for people who don't understand? Offsides is not a very complicated rule anyways...the only people I know who don't understand it are those who don't care to listen. Takes about 30 seconds to explain it tbh.

[Rafalution]

How many sports don't use hands?

[tdpatriots12]

Actually, what it is with Americans is that the vast majority of us only enjoy sports that use hands. American football, basketball, baseball, hockey, golf, even the complete waste of everything it uses that is NASCAR (Actually baseball also falls into that category...), they are all hand-oriented sports. And yes, I think it's as simple as that. I've heard my "I'll check out this World Cup thing" friends go on and praise the keepers. Only the keepers. Given there hasn't really been anything too dazzling in terms of goals, it's just...hands. I cannot say how many times people have just said to me "Oh soccer sucks. They use their feet, it's stupid." I guess "we" just like watching these ridiculous behemoths run around and do things with their juiced up arms. (Don't take that the wrong way either, I'm a huge football fan, and don't mind a basketball game here and there.) The more I think about it, the more true it becomes.

That's true, though they'd go in my "Group A" of people who just don't get the game. But I hear that complaint more from my parent's generation than my own. Small sample size maybe. I'm mainly talking about the folks who can and do get over the whole hands thing. And don't diss my baseball

And to answer Rafulation, very few I can think of. Aside from football... um, some track events?

[ham_aka_stam]

How many sports don't use hands?

Paralympics :o

Sorry, that's horrible, Seriously though. Very few. It's just so much easier to manipulate the ball with your hands (or an object held in the hands) than with your feet, as it's your feet you use to move.

[UTT]

Yes, back in the very old days. Really.

The good old days, yes.

So not actually 5 orthodox strikers like you would have me believe then Kenco

[Razzler]

And Razzler, why change the rules for people who don't understand? Offsides is not a very complicated rule anyways...the only people I know who don't understand it are those who don't care to listen. Takes about 30 seconds to explain it tbh.

True but I also think it simplifies it and if a keeper commits and attackers are past him we don't have to worry about 2 defenders being back to keep it onside, 1 will do so it's more favourable to attacking situations

[foolsgold]

So not actually 5 orthodox strikers like you would have me believe then Kenco

Reading what someone else said to bail you out then ffs. The formation is still a 3-2-5.

[neutral]

-1 point for any team that have lesser than 40% of possessions of the ball in a match, -2 points for team that have lesser than 35% of possession...

-1 point for any team have lesser 1/2 total shots from their opposition in a match, -2 points for lesser than 1/3 total shots...

+1 point for every 3 goals...

That would confuse the players and officials..

And abolish offside rule ffs..

[Razzler]

Yeah, points for keeping hold of the ball, that's encourage attacking football ...

[RBKalle]

Well...

the problem isn't a 0-0 game per se. The problem is the rampart comeback of ultra-defensive, possession-oriented football.

Cote d'Ivoire-Portugal has been a decent enough 0-0, while Italy-Paraguay or Slovakia-New Zealand have been unbearable triumphs of boredom and of "Tony Cascarino's Ireland" gameplay.

So I don't think a 0-0 draw should be "punished" just because it's a 0-0... Sometimes the ball just won't get in... While some 1-1 draws, or even 1-0 wins are so boring and dull you'd want your 90 minutes of life back.

Changing the points system would be unfair, and it would instantly trigger a whole lot of "arranged" 1-1 instead of the traditional "let's not hurt ourselves" goalless draws.

But even the idea of a 0 points draw [which is a tad silly to be honest] wouldn't discourage most teams from playing an horribly defensive game.

Not because they like it, but because, quite frankly, it's the ONLY GAMEPLAN they can have...

Australia tried to play a bit more adventurous style, and they got hammered by Germany... Had they gone for a 5-4-1, North Korea style, they would have probably lost anyway, but with a much smaller margin.

In the end, football is ALSO a business, so unless you can really make it work, it's no use going all out attack "to entertain the crowd", if said approach will earn you heavy losses and an early trip home.

It's not a coincidence if Zdenek Zeman's entertaining attacking football never won him a single trophy and ended up being ok just for midtable acts.

[Sned]

Nooooo Razzler we can't change the offside rule. Gives me a perfect opportunity to smugly inform everyone that is frothing at the mouth and failing to comprehend why a goal has been disallowed when it happens in that circumstance.

[Puevlo]

I think it should just be 1 point for each goal scored.