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

eirebhoy

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Increasing the number of points for a win just flat-out won't work

6 points for a win and 2 for a draw is just the same as the current system...

/edit, unless you're replying to someone else.

_blank_

eirebhoy wrote:

6 points for a win and 2 for a draw is just the same as the current system...

/edit, unless you're replying to someone else.

But the gap "looks" bigger.
1
Manchester United (C)
P : 38 W : 28 (84) D : 5 (5) L : 5 Pts : 89
P : 38 W : 28 (168)D : 5 (10) L : 5 (5 Bonus)Pts : 183
Manchester United's League Losses
They get a point for ALL of their losses!

Man U 0-1 Arsenal
West Ham 1 - 0 Man U
Arsenal 2 - 1 Man U
Portsmouth 2 - 1 Man U
Man U 0 - 1 West Ham

Chelsea
P : 38 W : 24 (72) D : 11 (11) L : 3 Pts : 83
P : 38 W : 24 (144) D : 11 (22) L : 3 (3 Bonus)Pts : 171
Chelsea's League Losses

Chelsea get a bonus point for all their losses!
Middlesboro 2-1 Chelsea
Spurs 2-1 Chelsea
Bolton 1-0 Chelsea
So instead of winning by 6 points ManU win by 12 - if my maths is ok?



Anyway, I'm not so sure this 'gap' is a points thing, which would take this off topic, but anyway.

The 'gap' the the monetary difference between the bigget and smaller teams.

eirebhoy

DesF wrote:

But the gap "looks" bigger.
1
Manchester United (C)
P : 38 W : 28 (84) D : 5 (5) L : 5 Pts : 89
P : 38 W : 28 (168)D : 5 (10) L : 5 (5 Bonus)Pts : 183
Manchester United's League Losses
They get a point for ALL of their losses!

I never said a team should get a point for finishing within a goal of the opposition though. That's just stupid.

Mr Alan

the whole idea is stupid.

this just reminds me of the ad for Bud, "we'll do the beer,you do the football thing"

Leave football as it is, clamp down on diving, bit of goal line technology maybe, be don't be changing fundamental rules etc

i dont like change

Zapp Brannigan

Only idea Soccer should take from Rugby is that the ref will only talk to the captain. No other play can approach the ref.

leninbenjamin

DesF wrote:

But the gap "looks" bigger.
1
Manchester United (C)
P : 38 W : 28 (84) D : 5 (5) L : 5 Pts : 89
P : 38 W : 28 (168)D : 5 (10) L : 5 (5 Bonus)Pts : 183
Manchester United's League Losses
They get a point for ALL of their losses!

Man U 0-1 Arsenal
West Ham 1 - 0 Man U
Arsenal 2 - 1 Man U
Portsmouth 2 - 1 Man U
Man U 0 - 1 West Ham

Chelsea
P : 38 W : 24 (72) D : 11 (11) L : 3 Pts : 83
P : 38 W : 24 (144) D : 11 (22) L : 3 (3 Bonus)Pts : 171
Chelsea's League Losses

Chelsea get a bonus point for all their losses!
Middlesboro 2-1 Chelsea
Spurs 2-1 Chelsea
Bolton 1-0 Chelsea
So instead of winning by 6 points ManU win by 12 - if my maths is ok?



Anyway, I'm not so sure this 'gap' is a points thing, which would take this off topic, but anyway.

The 'gap' the the monetary difference between the bigget and smaller teams.

in fairness you're completely failing to understand the motivations behind it... but, whatever. i concede.

d22ontour

Zapp Brannigan wrote:

Only idea Soccer should take from Rugby is that the ref will only talk to the captain. No other play can approach the ref.

Agreed though the movement of the ball 10 metres for dissent is also a decent idea...

leninbenjamin

d22ontour wrote:

Agreed though the movement of the ball 10 metres for dissent is also a decent idea...

there was a while where that was in the prem but they got rid of it. i never found out why...

5starpool

DesF wrote:

Perhaps teams should abandon defenders altogether and just go all out for goals, maybe a 1-3-6 formation.

I remember a computer game I had on the Commodore 64 called Multi Player Soccer Manager where once you got in the top 2 divisions the formation that guaranteed about 150 goals a season was 2-3-5. The game got a bit boring after a while though unless playing 3 or 4 player game.

ROCKMAN

millersangel wrote:

the whole idea is stupid.

this just reminds me of the ad for Bud, "we'll do the beer,you do the football thing"

Leave football as it is, clamp down on diving, bit of goal line technology maybe, be don't be changing fundamental rules etc

i dont like change

The idea may be stupid but leaving football as it is ,Is not a great idea , Football needs to change ever so often .If not we would still be stuck with the back pass (THE BEST RULE CHANGE EVER IMO). As another poster say defence is a art form but without that change where would that part of the game be.
My OP was about trying something new to bring the standard and entertainment value of games up.
Example
Two of the top or bottom four are playing Team A take a two gaol lead with 30 mins left My bonus idea stops
1 Losing team from dropping heads and giving up they still have something to play for ie stopping their title /regulation rivals get bonus point
2 It stops Winning team playing keep ball and pasting the ball across the backfour for the last 30 mins ,it give them something to chase and a reason to play football for the full 90 minutes.

The bonus also help with the chase for europe for the same reasons.

OK I will say I have looked back at the last few seasons and the posters are right about the gap between the big 4 and the rest would increase but that is happening anyway ,however it tightens it up between the top 4
This way just may lead to the league been more interesting for longer and not just a two horse race for the title for the last few months

Ps My OP was for 1 bonus point for 3/4 goals scored not bonus points for this ,that and the other. just a simple score 4 get extra point but the idea was complicated along the way with ideas I do not agree with myself.

Eirebear

Your completley forgetting the fact that football, when played at its best, is a very very simple game.
You seem to think there were no good defenders before the passback rule!

If you think that football needs to change every so often you only need to look at the recent re-interpretations of the Offside rule...look at the state its in now, managers, players, fans and referees are all still struggling to get to grips with it.

I would be more inclined to think your rule change would look like this.

Two team in the relegation zone are playing, the home side goes 2-0 up fairly early on, the away side puts ten men behind the ball instead of attempting to get back into the game because they know that dropping 3 points is far better than dropping 4!
this does not make for exciting football, as the home team will settle for opening up that 3 point gap between them and their rivals.

ROCKMAN

Eirebear wrote:

Your completley forgetting the fact that football, when played at its best, is a very very simple game.
You seem to think there were no good defenders before the passback rule!

If you think that football needs to change every so often you only need to look at the recent re-interpretations of the Offside rule...look at the state its in now, managers, players, fans and referees are all still struggling to get to grips with it.

I would be more inclined to think your rule change would look like this.

Two team in the relegation zone are playing, the home side goes 2-0 up fairly early on, the away side puts ten men behind the ball instead of attempting to get back into the game because they know that dropping 3 points is far better than dropping 4!
this does not make for exciting football, as the home team will settle for opening up that 3 point gap between them and their rivals.

Never said there was bad defenders, but the back pass was a nightmare leading to stop /start games all the time. Attacks broke down defenders played a one two between each other then pass it back to keeper. Keepers pick it up had, a think roll it two yards in front of themselves , re-think the situation pick it back up, run to the other side of the box and play short ball to defender , who may play it forward but then again he can always pass it back.
Hmmm riveting stuff:D

Eirebear

But you still see teams defending a lead by passing the ball amongst themselves and the goalkeeper all the time!
The passback rule has made a difference ill give you that, but it doesnt mean that football needs changed in anyway, as i said look at the farce that is the offside interpretation at the minute.
And if you still honestly think that a bonus point for scoring 4 or more goals will cause teams who are 2 or 3-0 down to attack more then your positiveley mad!

ROCKMAN

Eirebear wrote:

But you still see teams defending a lead by passing the ball amongst themselves and the goalkeeper all the time!
The passback rule has made a difference ill give you that, but it doesnt mean that football needs changed in anyway, as i said look at the farce that is the offside interpretation at the minute.
And if you still honestly think that a bonus point for scoring 4 or more goals will cause teams who are 2 or 3-0 down to attack more then your positiveley mad!

Yes I totally agree the offside rules are a farce which why change can be a good thing .if modern tech was able to sort this out once and for all would you be against it ?
And I did question my madness in the OP but sometimes change work and sometimes they are crap but you do sometimes just have to try.
Would you be against trying out the idea in say some lower league (with teams agreement )for two to three years then we would have facts/ results to go on and not just opinions ?

Ronan|Raven

Why not paint the pitch several different colours and allocate a certain number of points for a goal scored from each area? Or perhaps have the introduction of another ball on the pitch at the same time. Endless possibilities.

shatners basoon

If people really want to see a brand new version of premier league football see this
http://www.skyone.co.uk/allstars/

there ya go... happy now?!:p

Things that should be introduced though are - goal line technology and TV replays (the ref just has to look up ffs) for importand decisions- goals, sending offs, penalties and diving. The captain only being allowed to speak to the ref is also a needed introduction. Changing the structure of the point system won't make a damn bit of difference imo, it'll just piss people off.

hoolio

Personally:

Zero points of a 0-0 draw.

Otherwise things as the stand.

Eirebear

ROCKMAN wrote:

Yes I totally agree the offside rules are a farce which why change can be a good thing .if modern tech was able to sort this out once and for all would you be against it ?
And I did question my madness in the OP but sometimes change work and sometimes they are crap but you do sometimes just have to try.
Would you be against trying out the idea in say some lower league (with teams agreement )for two to three years then we would have facts/ results to go on and not just opinions ?

To be honest i would be completely against it, its like the offside changes that they tried years back in a few UK cup competittions with the Subbuteo style lines at the 30 yard mark and you couldnt be offside before you crossed that....it ended up failing because teams ended up flooding the midfield.
The americans suggested many changes to the game over the years, including larger goals, 3 periods, kick ins...and skin tight "uniforms"!:D

For me the only way to stop the gap growing between rich and poor is for UEFA to stop cow towing to the bigger clubs...G14 especially... and start pumping the crazy money earned by certain leagues through TV revenue into the game at grass roots level all over the continent.
The relegated teams in England earn more money through TV and prize money than most champions of europe.....this isnt right.

Hoolio: we've already been through this one....in the eighties the english league had a system of 1point for a no score draw 2 for a score draw and 3 for a win.....it didnt work

hoolio

Really? Never knew that. Thanks actually, i'd been starting to feel old recently

(i'd actually go for 0 for no score, 1 for any score draw, three for a win, but thats splitting hairs)

What do you actually mean by "didnt work" though?

ROCKMAN

Eirebear wrote:

To be honest i would be completely against it, its like the offside changes that they tried years back in a few UK cup competittions with the Subbuteo style lines at the 30 yard mark and you couldnt be offside before you crossed that....it ended up failing because teams ended up flooding the midfield.
The americans suggested many changes to the game over the years, including larger goals, 3 periods, kick ins...and skin tight "uniforms"!:D

For me the only way to stop the gap growing between rich and poor is for UEFA to stop cow towing to the bigger clubs...G14 especially... and start pumping the crazy money earned by certain leagues through TV revenue into the game at grass roots level all over the continent.
The relegated teams in England earn more money through TV and prize money than most champions of europe.....this isnt right.
Hoolio: we've already been through this one....in the eighties the english league had a system of 1point for a no score draw 2 for a score draw and 3 for a win.....it didnt work

NOW THIS I TOTALLY AGREE WITH ..
yes I am a big team fan but I am also involved in grassroots football.

Eirebear

hoolio wrote:

Really? Never knew that. Thanks actually, i'd been starting to feel old recently

(i'd actually go for 0 for no score, 1 for any score draw, three for a win, but thats splitting hairs)

What do you actually mean by "didnt work" though?

I'm not sure mate..im a little too young to remember(just!) the in and outs of it TBH...but id say the fact it was ditched after a season or two is testament to how well it worked!

hoolio

Fair point. Must have a google around about for it when i'm not pretending to be working.

As long as it doesn't go down the lunacy routes of penalty shootouts or golden goal periods i'll be reasonably happy to keep watching while idly grumbling about how much better things would be if i was in charge.

BrianCalgary

DesF wrote:

:rolleyes:

You sound like a child. Or an American.

"I want to see goals daddy, why aren't they scoring goals daddy, it's just. not. fair daddy, there were no goals today daddy, I wasn't entertained enough daddy".

Good defending is an art. In this set up good defenders get nothing.

Perhaps teams should abandon defenders altogether and just go all out for goals, maybe a 1-3-6 formation.

Ahh well said Des. This type of system was attempted in the old NASL (North American Soccer League). I don't really remember it working all that well.

The greatness of the game or any game for that matter is the cat and mouse that happens. The tactics of defending vs. attacking, the transitional play. Sometimes defending is the way to go and look for that counterattack.

Leave it alone. The hole thought of it = :eek:

redspider

There are many things wrong with football that could be improved upon, but the topic of this thread is improving the points system.

The points system I proposed has the aim of rewarding BOTH attacking and defending play, but it doesnt reward teams that come and try to hold out for a 0-0, defend at all costs, 10-men behind the ball, etc, and only try to get the odd goal on the break or from a dead-ball situation.

But devising a better points system is not easy.

DesF wrote:

Bonus point for keeping within a certain distance would make average teams go on the hunt for goals once they go, say, two down. What would happen then is that the better teams would then exploit the even more exposed defence and get a hatful of goals. Hmm, yes, it would be more goals for sure, but the average team would be conceding more, not scoring them.
OR, the losing team would shut up shop at 1-0 down, bring on an extra defender or two in a bid to earn the 'bonus' point for entertaining us all for eighty minutes with six defenders on the pitch.

In the system I've proposed, a team that is 1-0 down wouldnt wait to go for a goal until they are 2-0 down. The points system proposed rewards teams scoring goals at nearly all stages, and goal difference would still apply. A team losing 1-0 would not shut up shop because they would be getting zero points, although limiting the winning team to 2 pts in the system proposed. The team that's winning 1-0 would also not shut up shop. At each score there is nearly always something to play for, but 4-0 is the same as 3-0, apart from the effect of better goal difference.

DesF wrote:

You sound like a child. Or an American. "I want to see goals daddy, why aren't they scoring goals daddy, it's just. not. fair daddy, there were no goals today daddy, I wasn't entertained enough daddy". Good defending is an art. In this set up good defenders get nothing.

Well, I am neither a Child nor an American, so your deduction capabilities are way off.

Of course defending gets rewards, but not all-out defending for the full-game from the start!

Perhaps the fact that I mentioned that the proposed system could be understood by a 4 year old 'fooled' you. It is complex. ;-)

Redspider

_blank_

redspider wrote:

but it doesnt reward teams that come and try to hold out for a 0-0, defend at all costs, 10-men behind the ball, etc, and only try to get the odd goal on the break or from a dead-ball situation.

Why not?

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?

Forget the scenario where Derby win for a second.

Would it not be a very commendable result for Derby to go and get a draw at Arsenal? 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. Hardly Derby's fault that Arsenal's players couldn't find a way past, now is it.

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 actually enjoy a match where a potent attacking force is being thwarted by dogged defending.

I enjoy even more the excellent defending of players such as Paolo Maldini, Liliam Thuram and in the past Franco Baresi (he is an especial hero of mine, from watching Italian Football on RTE TV with my dad).

Why not reward players like this, or if a team is built on them, reward them.

redspider wrote:

But devising a better points system is not easy.

We don't need one.

redspider wrote:

In the system I've proposed, a team that is 1-0 down wouldnt wait to go for a goal until they are 2-0 down.

Who said anything about waiting? It only takes a second to score a goal, I'm sure you've witnessed many times teams conceding two goals in less than three, four or five minutes. I actually don't even know what your point here is tbh.

redspider wrote:

The points system proposed rewards teams scoring goals at nearly all stages, and goal difference would still apply. A team losing 1-0 would not shut up shop because they would be getting zero points,.

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?

redspider wrote:

although limiting the winning team to 2 pts in the system proposed. The team that's winning 1-0 would also not shut up shop. At each score there is nearly always something to play for, but 4-0 is the same as 3-0, apart from the effect of better goal difference.

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

redspider wrote:

Well, I am neither a Child nor an American, so your deduction capabilities are way off.

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

redspider wrote:

Of course defending gets rewards, but not all-out defending for the full-game from the start!.

Again...why not?

redspider wrote:

Perhaps the fact that I mentioned that the proposed system could be understood by a 4 year old 'fooled' you. It is complex. ;-)

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

If people find football too boring, and I don't find the football I watch to be boring, maybe they are watching the wrong football.

redspider wrote:

Redspider

DesF

Nunu

Eirebear wrote:

To be honest i would be completely against it, its like the offside changes that they tried years back in a few UK cup competittions with the Subbuteo style lines at the 30 yard mark and you couldnt be offside before you crossed that....it ended up failing because teams ended up flooding the midfield.
The americans suggested many changes to the game over the years, including larger goals, 3 periods, kick ins...and skin tight "uniforms"!:D

For me the only way to stop the gap growing between rich and poor is for UEFA to stop cow towing to the bigger clubs...G14 especially... and start pumping the crazy money earned by certain leagues through TV revenue into the game at grass roots level all over the continent.
The relegated teams in England earn more money through TV and prize money than most champions of europe.....this isnt right.

Hoolio: we've already been through this one....in the eighties the english league had a system of 1point for a no score draw 2 for a score draw and 3 for a win.....it didnt work

Are you sure about this? I'm positive that's false info. The only change I know was from 2pts to 3pts for a win in 1981 which English football introduced - it was Jimmy Hills idea!

Nunu

Eirebear wrote:

how about we ditch draws all together and go for the old J league approach of penalty shoot outs in the event that both teams are level....that worked quite well :rolleyes:
Or even better...as the above one would eventually cause teams to play for penalties...maybe we should award the game to the team who won the most corners like they used to do in schoolboy football?

If it aint broke...dont try and fix it

Ah now come on! I don't mean to pick on you but are you making this stuff up? I refuse to believe that ever happened:D

Nunu

Eirebear wrote:

To be honest i would be completely against it, its like the offside changes that they tried years back in a few UK cup competittions with the Subbuteo style lines at the 30 yard mark and you couldnt be offside before you crossed that....it ended up failing because teams ended up flooding the midfield.
The americans suggested many changes to the game over the years, including larger goals, 3 periods, kick ins...and skin tight "uniforms"!:D

For me the only way to stop the gap growing between rich and poor is for UEFA to stop cow towing to the bigger clubs...G14 especially... and start pumping the crazy money earned by certain leagues through TV revenue into the game at grass roots level all over the continent.
The relegated teams in England earn more money through TV and prize money than most champions of europe.....this isnt right.

Hoolio: we've already been through this one....in the eighties the english league had a system of 1point for a no score draw 2 for a score draw and 3 for a win.....it didnt work

:eek: Seriously where did you hear all this? I have honestly never heard of any of these innovations you've mentioned ever been used. I am open to correction though...

BrianCalgary

Nunu wrote:

:eek: Seriously where did you hear all this? I have honestly never heard of any of these innovations you've mentioned ever been used. I am open to correction though...

The NASL put a line about 35 yards out from goal. youcouldn't be offside on your side of the other teams 35.

It was meant to spread out the defense and create space through the midfield to allow for an easier transition and counterattack.

What they failed to understand is that we like watching a team have pressure in the other teams end, push the ball about trying to break through and score.

I feel that people who want to change the game don't really understand what is happening on the pitch and the intense tactical movements that are being adjusted throughout the game.

Leave it the way it is.

bohsman

Nunu wrote:

Ah now come on! I don't mean to pick on you but are you making this stuff up? I refuse to believe that ever happened:D

http://www.rsssf.com/tablesi/ierdublincityhist.html

1956-57 Shamrock Rovers Drumcondra 1-1 [1] [a]
1957-58 Shamrock Rovers Drumcondra 4-2 [1]
1958-59 Limerick Drumcondra 4-3 [1]
1959-60 Shamrock Rovers Drumcondra 1-1 [2] [a]

[a] Shamrock Rovers won on corners

Unusually the final of this competition was twice decided on corners - the team who got the most corners in the final were declared winners in the event of a draw! On both of these occassions the victors were Shamrock Rovers who also won the Belfast-Dublin Inter-City Cup by the same method in 1943.

Nunu

bohsman wrote:

http://www.rsssf.com/tablesi/ierdublincityhist.html

1956-57 Shamrock Rovers Drumcondra 1-1 [1] [a]
1957-58 Shamrock Rovers Drumcondra 4-2 [1]
1958-59 Limerick Drumcondra 4-3 [1]
1959-60 Shamrock Rovers Drumcondra 1-1 [2] [a]

[a] Shamrock Rovers won on corners

Unusually the final of this competition was twice decided on corners - the team who got the most corners in the final were declared winners in the event of a draw! On both of these occassions the victors were Shamrock Rovers who also won the Belfast-Dublin Inter-City Cup by the same method in 1943.

Ha, madness! Do you know if it's ever been used in schoolboy football as Eirebear suggested?

bohsman

No idea but the fact its been used in senior cup finals would make it seem very likely.

Eirebear

Nunu wrote:

Ha, madness! Do you know if it's ever been used in schoolboy football as Eirebear suggested?

Wow nunu...its just been shown that it was used in proffesional level football yet you need more proof! Come on man....As for the subbutteo thing, im pretty sure it was used in the scottish challenge cup, or whatever it was called back then. Allo with the English lower league cup competittions.

Eirebear

Just to confuse you a little more...did you know that European competittions were decided on a toss of the coin?!?!:p

Nunu

Eirebear wrote:

Just to confuse you a little more...did you know that European competittions were decided on a toss of the coin?!?!:p

Ye, heard of that alright!

Still no proof any of the 3 innovations you mentioned happening where and when you said they did:p

What about the 2pts for a score draw.....I'm sure that never happened.

Eirebear

Bah! struggling to find proof of it right now, but i will beieve me!
As for the other ones...they happened within professional football, so you cant really argue against them can you?

Zaph

We could always go back to this system

1981-1982

1. Dundalk 30 20 6 4 61-24 80
2. Shamrock Rovers 30 21 3 6 50-23 76
3. Bohemians 30 17 9 4 50-18 72
4. Athlone Town 30 18 3 9 70-42 67
5. Sligo Rovers 30 16 5 9 55-45 62
6. Limerick 30 13 9 8 56-34 58
7. St.Patrick's Athletic 30 14 6 10 49-39 56
8. Waterford 30 12 4 14 41-46 47
9. Shelbourne 30 10 7 13 44-46 45
10. Cork United 30 10 6 14 41-50 42
11. Drogheda 30 8 10 12 45-50 41
12. Home Farm 30 8 7 15 34-48 40
13. University College Dublin 30 7 10 13 30-41 37
14. Finn Harps 30 7 4 19 42-61 31
15. Galway Rovers 30 5 8 17 30-62 29
16. Thurles Town 30 3 5 22 29-96 18

Points system trial - 4 away win, 3 home win, 2 away draw, 1 home draw.

http://www.rsssf.com/tablesi/ierhist.html

_blank_

bohsman wrote:

[a] Shamrock Rovers won on corners

League of Ireland?

That's hardly real football is it?

Find a proper example.

BrianCalgary wrote:

I feel that people who want to change the game don't really understand what is happening on the pitch and the intense tactical movements that are being adjusted throughout the game.

Leave it the way it is.

Word

Eirebear wrote:

Just to confuse you a little more...did you know that European competittions were decided on a toss of the coin?!?!:p

Er.

In Italia 90, after the group stages, the finishing positions in the group Ireland were in (England, Holland and Egypt) was decided on a coin toss.

Us and Holland drew our three games.
England beat Egypt and finished top.
A coin toss meant we finished second.
The rest is history.

Eirebear

DesF wrote:

League of Ireland?

That's hardly real football is it?

Find a proper example.

I love the smell of sarcasm in the evening...

DesF wrote:

Er.

In Italia 90, after the group stages, the finishing positions in the group Ireland were in (England, Holland and Egypt) was decided on a coin toss.

Us and Holland drew our three games.
England beat Egypt and finished top.
A coin toss meant we finished second.
The rest is history.

I didnt actually realise that...my reference point was the quarter finals of the 1972 Cup winners cup which Rangers won on the toss of a coin....as you say the rest is history

ROCKMAN

zaph wrote:

We could always go back to this system

1981-1982

1. Dundalk 30 20 6 4 61-24 80
2. Shamrock Rovers 30 21 3 6 50-23 76
3. Bohemians 30 17 9 4 50-18 72
4. Athlone Town 30 18 3 9 70-42 67
5. Sligo Rovers 30 16 5 9 55-45 62
6. Limerick 30 13 9 8 56-34 58
7. St.Patrick's Athletic 30 14 6 10 49-39 56
8. Waterford 30 12 4 14 41-46 47
9. Shelbourne 30 10 7 13 44-46 45
10. Cork United 30 10 6 14 41-50 42
11. Drogheda 30 8 10 12 45-50 41
12. Home Farm 30 8 7 15 34-48 40
13. University College Dublin 30 7 10 13 30-41 37
14. Finn Harps 30 7 4 19 42-61 31
15. Galway Rovers 30 5 8 17 30-62 29
16. Thurles Town 30 3 5 22 29-96 18

Points system trial - 4 away win, 3 home win, 2 away draw, 1 home draw.

http://www.rsssf.com/tablesi/ierhist.html

AH a season i rememeber well my team in league 1 (My first intro to the game), I was eleven ,seen rovers ,bohs ,cork and the rest playing in the dog track any one guess my team?

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