Sir Stuart Wilson Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 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. Did you watch the game? Starting without a striker is not adventurous ffs:D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HL7 Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 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. I do agree with this, but in current footballing terms what is the difference between Australia losing 4-0 to Germany and NK losing 2-1 to Brazil? Neither got any points and both will probably be going home at the end of the group stage. FIFA need to think of a way to incentivise victory. Perhaps offer 4 points for a win? Bonus points for goals scored? I'm not a fan for punishing teams that fail to score though, for the reason that two teams can attack for 90 minutes and fail to score. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razzler Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 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. Like that one from the corner the other day that was ruled out. Under my rule it would have been a goal. Can't remember the game but the keeper came out for the ball from a corner and missed, attacker headed the ball goalwards and another attacker headed in with a defender on the line. Rightly offside, 1 defender on the line there, usually the keeper is always '1 of the 2' defensive players but people have a mental block when the keeper is out of his goal and still go with 'last defender' or something Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafalution Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I think it should just be 1 point for each goal scored. Yet enough great, thought out idea from Puevlo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoroPhil Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I actually think there is some merit in that idea, Jimmy Hill had a similar one years ago when he said league tables should be ordered solely on goal difference. that would mean if you were 5-0 down or 5-0 up in a game with 10mins to go, you would still have a reason to score. maybe you could award a bonus point for winning an actual match so individual matches still retain their significance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
samb_95 Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 no, just no, poor idea. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hasdgfas Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I heard something about losing offside if the ball is played from inside the box to inside the box, for things like the Mexico disallowed goal, because once it's that far downfield, some of the offsides are really silly or really lucky. It made sense to me in my head, but I think it's hard to get it written down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jxd Posted June 17, 2010 Author Share Posted June 17, 2010 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. And time wasting is part of the negative tactics. You have no idea what you are talking about. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jxd Posted June 17, 2010 Author Share Posted June 17, 2010 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 . But it's certainly ok for smaller teams to not even try to attack? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbert_o154 Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 win, 3 pointswin by more than 3 goals, 4 points Only if you scrap goal difference as a decider, because if you don't, you're basically handing out the benefit for more goals twice that way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbert_o154 Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 But it's certainly ok for smaller teams to not even try to attack? You don't really do irony, do you? Are you sure you're not American? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jxd Posted June 17, 2010 Author Share Posted June 17, 2010 0 points for a 0-0 won't take into an account the game. Reward teams that score goals, don't punish teams that can't or are unlucky not too. (Does that make sense ) Why should one be rewarded for failing? Do you get a gold medal for just trying in the Olympics? Football is just about the only sport where people are happy with being not good enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jxd Posted June 17, 2010 Author Share Posted June 17, 2010 You don't really do irony, do you? Are you sure you're not American? Oh I forgot, there are only two cultures, yours, and American. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdpatriots12 Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 You don't really do irony, do you? Are you sure you're not American? http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2007/feb/10/comedy.television Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jxd Posted June 17, 2010 Author Share Posted June 17, 2010 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. This is only a good idea if they also give out retroactive cards to defenders, and retroactive goals for bad offside calls and so on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdpatriots12 Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 This is only a good idea if they also give out retroactive cards to defenders, and retroactive goals for bad offside calls and so on. Gotta start somewhere. The college football system of replay is something I really endorse. Anything else involves too much stoppage of play, and gives partial control to biased parties - like coaches challenges in the NFL. Replay official who is basically sitting at a desk with every camera feed of the game and a walkie talkie takes care of so many officiating problems. Don't see the offsides thing working with replay though. There's no guarantee a goal would be scored unless you start saying that play doesn't stop on an offsides call, and then rule after the shot if the goal was onsides or not. Replay really only works for judgment calls and questions of perspective, not "what if" scenarios like bad offsides goals. In American football where replay is commonplace, not every play is even subject to review and I think the same would be the case here if it was to work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenco Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 So not actually 5 orthodox strikers like you would have me believe then Kenco The modern 4-3-3 hardly has 3 orthodox strikers, it's a technicality. The point is, back in the day they were very top-heavy formations with mostly attacking players. In this World Cup it's been very negative, Spain only started with 1 orthodox striker and they are supposed to be the favourites. Australia started without any strikers! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruud van Nistelrooy Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Formations don't matter at all. Barcelona play with one striker and you don't hear anyone going on about how dull they are. Back in the day you weren't alive and unless you've watched extensive recordings of football matches from then you can't really comment on how entertaining it was. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UTT Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 The modern 4-3-3 hardly has 3 orthodox strikers, it's a technicality. The point is, back in the day they were very top-heavy formations with mostly attacking players. In this World Cup it's been very negative, Spain only started with 1 orthodox striker and they are supposed to be the favourites. Australia started without any strikers! I don't refer to the modern 4-3-3 as a 4-3-3 FWIW. Its a 4-3-2-1. The wide players are often deeper than the central man Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry_14 Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 I think it should just be 1 point for each goal scored. Primary school football 5 a side tournamenta i used to play in did that. We once drew all three games 0-0 and came bottom despite being undefeated and in a points system would have come second in the group and gone through to the semis. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBKalle Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 Did you watch the game? Starting without a striker is not adventurous ffs:D Oh well.. .Italy technically had 3 strikers but they didn't have lot of shots on goal anyway... And Australia don't even have an actual striker in their squad... "Adventurous" =/= four strikers... I just meant Australia didn't really sit back with 4+2 defenders... They tried to push up a bit, and they conceded way too much room for the German offense to exploit. Had they played like North Korea, I seriously doubt Germany could have scored 4 and missed just as many. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenco Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 Formations don't matter at all. Barcelona play with one striker and you don't hear anyone going on about how dull they are. Back in the day you weren't alive and unless you've watched extensive recordings of football matches from then you can't really comment on how entertaining it was. You can look at the stats and see there were more goals. I didn't say anything about the entertainment though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
djvandyke Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 I agree, no goals = no points, simple and fair. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.