- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: If you could change the game of soccer...?
Posted on 3/26/12 at 12:28 pm to TheSexecutioner
Posted on 3/26/12 at 12:28 pm to TheSexecutioner
quote:
Basically, tiebreaking and playing for ties are the two problems in this sport. Those aren't issues in basketball or baseball.
My main argument when trying to explain the tie to non fans is the fact that Soccer looks at the overall season/tournament to determine the best team. Therefore, everything adds up to a whole. American sports need a victor each and every game. That is why there are playoffs and such. Some games, there is no better team. They were equal. That is fine in the grand scheme of things. Instead of looking at ties as a bad thing because a winner isn't determined that day, Americans need to look at the forest instead of the trees.
0
Posted on 3/26/12 at 12:31 pm to TheSexecutioner
quote:
Basically, tiebreaking and playing for ties are the two problems in this sport.
That's why leagues are decided over a season of home and away, and an accumulation of points, not wins and losses. There are no PKs...
The best teams will always rise to the top...
Posted on 3/26/12 at 12:32 pm to TheSexecutioner
quote:
What is your opinion on the shot clock in basketball? Rather, what is your opinion on the old "four corners" offense, where a team would get a lead and then hold the ball in the second half for incredible amounts of time?
It's a lot easier to stall in basketball when you can hold onto balls with your hands. That argument just doesn't translate to soccer. In soccer, most of the time the team that is winning and bunkering in doesn't even have the ball. They are just putting 11 men behind the ball. The team that is holding the ball when up is clearly superior to the other team and shouldn't be punished for being able to hold onto the ball due to the sheer difficulty of it.
This post was edited on 3/26/12 at 12:33 pm
Posted on 3/26/12 at 12:34 pm to TheSexecutioner
quote:
TheSexecutioner
Posted on 3/26/12 at 12:35 pm to EastcoastEER
quote:
refs would actually card for simulation like they are supposed to.
I actually saw one yellow card for faking in the World Cup two cups ago.
Posted on 3/26/12 at 12:57 pm to ohiovol
First post (glad it's on the soccer board, I enjoyed lurking for a few months)
I think there is a prevalent elitist culture among soccer fans that really puts a stick in the spokes of these types of discussions. If I wanted to gain instant approval on this board I could launch an assault on TheSexecutioner for blaspheming the beautiful game, but I am on board with a few of his qualms with the sport.
The issue with the lack of scoring, at least as I interpret it, isn't due to a lack of appreciation for buildup play or staunch defending but rather precisely due to a desire to see those types of plays rewarded more generously. If creating good shot opportunities yields more goals, then a few more of those chances are rewarded, and thereby stingy defense is all the more valuable.
And on the topic of the tie: it is not the fact that teams may be equal that is unsettling. It's that a team may be thoroughly outplayed and salvage a tie through a few instances of dumb luck because the goals in the current game are so few and far between. It is much more indicative of an evenly played match if teams tie 3-3 rather than 1-1, because with increased sample size there comes a more accurate representation of the true comparative quality of the teams, hence the NBA finals being a best of 7 instead of a single game. Now each of these ideas can be exploded into extreme bastardizations of the game that would in fact detract from its validity and appeal as a sport, so the proposition to increase goal size would be one that does so only marginally. Personally, I'd be in favor of it.
I think there is a prevalent elitist culture among soccer fans that really puts a stick in the spokes of these types of discussions. If I wanted to gain instant approval on this board I could launch an assault on TheSexecutioner for blaspheming the beautiful game, but I am on board with a few of his qualms with the sport.
The issue with the lack of scoring, at least as I interpret it, isn't due to a lack of appreciation for buildup play or staunch defending but rather precisely due to a desire to see those types of plays rewarded more generously. If creating good shot opportunities yields more goals, then a few more of those chances are rewarded, and thereby stingy defense is all the more valuable.
And on the topic of the tie: it is not the fact that teams may be equal that is unsettling. It's that a team may be thoroughly outplayed and salvage a tie through a few instances of dumb luck because the goals in the current game are so few and far between. It is much more indicative of an evenly played match if teams tie 3-3 rather than 1-1, because with increased sample size there comes a more accurate representation of the true comparative quality of the teams, hence the NBA finals being a best of 7 instead of a single game. Now each of these ideas can be exploded into extreme bastardizations of the game that would in fact detract from its validity and appeal as a sport, so the proposition to increase goal size would be one that does so only marginally. Personally, I'd be in favor of it.
Posted on 3/26/12 at 1:03 pm to TheMuffinMan
quote:
If creating good shot opportunities yields more goals, then a few more of those chances are rewarded, and thereby stingy defense is all the more valuable.
I really think that if the goals are expanded you will see more shitty long range attempts than good soccer. That is a main argument against larger goals.
quote:
And on the topic of the tie: it is not the fact that teams may be equal that is unsettling. It's that a team may be thoroughly outplayed and salvage a tie through a few instances of dumb luck because the goals in the current game are so few and far between. It is much more indicative of an evenly played match if teams tie 3-3 rather than 1-1, because with increased sample size there comes a more accurate representation of the true comparative quality of the teams, hence the NBA finals being a best of 7 instead of a single game.
This is just a good argument for why the tie is a good thing. It all culminates in a total to the end of the season. The best team will always be the champion. Yeah, ManU may get screwed and end in a tie with Wigan, but over the course of the season, their skill will show more than bad luck. If you change the size of the goal to prevent ties, then you may have more fluke goals. If you eliminate ties, then I say PKs are flukier than one team getting a chance goal.
As for the whole elitist attitude. There is a difference between suggesting small tweaks and trying to change the entire game.
This post was edited on 3/26/12 at 1:05 pm
Posted on 3/26/12 at 1:05 pm to Stewie Griffin
quote:
There's an art to the game that encouraging more scoring by widening the goals or whatever rule change you want to implement would completely ruin. I've seen many 0-0 games that were beautiful, and many 4-3 games that were not.
Yea, verily.
As for changes, I'd like to make MLS have a team in Atlanta...and that's my list.
This post was edited on 3/26/12 at 1:06 pm
Posted on 3/26/12 at 1:06 pm to TheMuffinMan
First off, let me be the first to welcome you out of Lurkage onto the beautiful board... but I really don't think I (we, although some might be?) am lampooning Sexecutioner that much for having ideas, it just doesn't seem like he actually likes THIS sport with all of the ideas, I don't want to see a game that's 11-8. That's not soccer.
I don't think there truly is a good way to increase scoring just barely without hurting the game, I mean some matches already end up 7-3 (leeds), I saw a few 3-1 and 4-1's this week as well. Making the goals a few feet wider is a huge difference to the goalies, and could easily increase the scoring by 5 for each side, just think how many balls you see barely miss the outside post or bounce off the bar (which is honestly very entertaining in and of itself)
ETA: I think my first paragraph is kind of what Destrehan said much better with his "difference between changing the game and tweaking it"
I don't think there truly is a good way to increase scoring just barely without hurting the game, I mean some matches already end up 7-3 (leeds), I saw a few 3-1 and 4-1's this week as well. Making the goals a few feet wider is a huge difference to the goalies, and could easily increase the scoring by 5 for each side, just think how many balls you see barely miss the outside post or bounce off the bar (which is honestly very entertaining in and of itself)
ETA: I think my first paragraph is kind of what Destrehan said much better with his "difference between changing the game and tweaking it"
This post was edited on 3/26/12 at 1:07 pm
Posted on 3/26/12 at 1:06 pm to TheMuffinMan
quote:
TheMuffinMan
What you, and the Sexecutioner, both fail to realize is that there is no international demand for more goals. The demand is largely from the United States, who has become accustomed to high scoring sports. There was a point in time when I thought the same way. But after following for years, you grow accustomed to it and learn to enjoy the goal scoring as is.
1-1 ties are part of the sport. At the end of the season, the best team in the league will win virtually every time.
And Sexecutioner, your argument about PKs is just silly. If you watched football to any large extent, you would realize how rare a PK shootout actually is.
Posted on 3/26/12 at 1:09 pm to TheMuffinMan
quote:Buildup play is only one part of the equation.. finishing is the other. The buildup play is exciting or not on its own merit, but the team still has to finish to get the goal.
The issue with the lack of scoring, at least as I interpret it, isn't due to a lack of appreciation for buildup play or staunch defending but rather precisely due to a desire to see those types of plays rewarded more generously.
Here's the corollary to the three big sports in the US: Should american football reward teams that break the redzone with automatic points simply because the buildup was good? Should getting baserunners to 3rd every inning be rewarded with automatic points if the runner never reaches home? Should basketball reward getting the ball into the "circle" under the rim with points? Hell no, you've got to finish. You don't stop taking shots in golf once the ball is on the green.
Posted on 3/26/12 at 1:09 pm to Jumbeauxlaya
Yeah, 11-8 games sound atrocious to me. If we're getting in the double digits, it better be a monster blowout... like this match.
Posted on 3/26/12 at 1:13 pm to CrazyTigerFan
quote:
Here's the corollary to the three big sports in the US
I also just thought of some corollary to the rule suggestions in here
NFL > Arena Football. You would think rules that completely favor the offense would be more popular, but arena football is crap and everybody knows it.
NBA > NBA Allstar Game. Again, more scoring and offense, but the Allstar game is boring
I guess baseball doesn't really have a high flying, faster paced version.
This post was edited on 3/26/12 at 1:14 pm
Posted on 3/26/12 at 1:14 pm to DestrehanTiger
quote:
As for the whole elitist attitude. There is a difference between suggesting small tweaks and trying to change the entire game.
Changing the goal size from one arbitrary size to another marginally bigger arbitrary size is a change of the entire game? I think you are picturing a goal spanning the length of the goalie box.
Think of it like this....what if every ball that hit the post was a goal? It might change the way teams play a slight bit(for the better I think), but most of it wouldn't even be recognizable.
Posted on 3/26/12 at 1:14 pm to DestrehanTiger
If the goal was expanded a single foot, then every ridiculous long shot that hit the post and had everyone in the stadium on the edge of their seat would go in, and no others. There is obviously a marginal return in goal increase with every inch the goal is expanded, and the trick would be finding the point where the average goals per game is "ideal." Now for people who are satisfied with the current frequency of goals the current goal size suffices, but I think that 3-5 goals per game should be the norm and therefore would be interested in seeing average goal statistics and how much the goal would need to be expanded to accommodate my recommendation (and I don't think it would take much).
And I have no problems with the fact that teams often tie in league games because it works itself out. My problem is in World Cup matches, or other tournaments, where far too often tiebreakers come into play. And tiebreakers are obviously less fair than standard gameplay, or else they would BE standard gameplay.
But if you think that making the goal a foot wider is a more comprehensive overhaul than making a countdown clock, especially in a sport where field size is variable between venues, then I feel we are going to disagree on most topics in this discussion.
And I have no problems with the fact that teams often tie in league games because it works itself out. My problem is in World Cup matches, or other tournaments, where far too often tiebreakers come into play. And tiebreakers are obviously less fair than standard gameplay, or else they would BE standard gameplay.
But if you think that making the goal a foot wider is a more comprehensive overhaul than making a countdown clock, especially in a sport where field size is variable between venues, then I feel we are going to disagree on most topics in this discussion.
Posted on 3/26/12 at 1:14 pm to CrazyTigerFan
quote:
Should american football reward teams that break the redzone with automatic points simply because the buildup was good?
I agree with your point, but this was a bad argument to chose
(basically they do with field goals)Posted on 3/26/12 at 1:15 pm to TheSexecutioner
quote:
Changing the goal size from one arbitrary size to another marginally bigger arbitrary size is a change of the entire game? I think you are picturing a goal spanning the length of the goalie box.
Think of it like this....what if every ball that hit the post was a goal? It might change the way teams play a slight bit(for the better I think), but most of it wouldn't even be recognizable.
Slippery slope. Again, I think this would result in more long range shots similar to the what the 3 point line has done to basketball.
Posted on 3/26/12 at 1:15 pm to LSUSOBEAST1
quote:
And Sexecutioner, your argument about PKs is just silly. If you watched football to any large extent, you would realize how rare a PK shootout actually is.
A world cup this decade ended in a shootout. Arguably, the most prestigious sporting event in the world was decided with PKs. If that isn't enough to catalyze an amendment to the rules, I don't know what is.
Posted on 3/26/12 at 1:16 pm to TheSexecutioner
You beat me to two of those
Posted on 3/26/12 at 1:17 pm to TheMuffinMan
Welcome to the board. Appreciate the thought put into your post even if I tend to disagree.
I do see the point you're making about matches where one side outplays the other but loses or draws.
However are you sure that the same thing doesn't happen in basketball just as often even with the larger scoring sample you point to? I think upsets may happen more in basketball actually where, just like in soccer, finishing shots ultimately decides your fate. Would a larger goal mouth encourage/reward lesser teams to simply fire away from long distance more often and lessen the quality of the build up play and therefore impact of truly special players-- similar in way to what many basketball purists claim the 3 pt shot has done?
True. But there is also often an arrogance that comes from other side as well of "I don't care it's been done forever, I know better" when many of the suggested "improvements" seem to people who've been huge fans a long time about on par with how "Arena Football" improves American football.
I do see the point you're making about matches where one side outplays the other but loses or draws.
However are you sure that the same thing doesn't happen in basketball just as often even with the larger scoring sample you point to? I think upsets may happen more in basketball actually where, just like in soccer, finishing shots ultimately decides your fate. Would a larger goal mouth encourage/reward lesser teams to simply fire away from long distance more often and lessen the quality of the build up play and therefore impact of truly special players-- similar in way to what many basketball purists claim the 3 pt shot has done?
quote:
I think there is a prevalent elitist culture among soccer fans that really puts a stick in the spokes of these types of discussions.
True. But there is also often an arrogance that comes from other side as well of "I don't care it's been done forever, I know better" when many of the suggested "improvements" seem to people who've been huge fans a long time about on par with how "Arena Football" improves American football.
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News