- 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 2:45 pm to TheMuffinMan
Posted on 3/26/12 at 2:45 pm to TheMuffinMan
quote:
I understand that there may not be an overwhelming desire to see more goals
If one wanted to see a few more goals, I think a much less radical solution would simply be to call fouls and shoulder to shoulder more closely to reward players with more technical skill and move away from the trend of teams loading up on "physical specimen" type players.
1
Posted on 3/26/12 at 2:47 pm to ohiovol
1. blow up Old Trafford
2. no more Man U
3. enjoy futbol
2. no more Man U
3. enjoy futbol
Posted on 3/26/12 at 2:53 pm to wm72
Changing the allowable contact rules would be a much more radical solution as it invalidates the way players have been taught to play. Defenders would have to be "reschooled" in the art of defending, and frankly I don't want play stopped every minute for a foul.
And I don't think Real Madrid types would put up that many more goals than other teams, but I agree that they would benefit more than some teams. But since when is rewarding successful offense undesirable?
And I don't think Real Madrid types would put up that many more goals than other teams, but I agree that they would benefit more than some teams. But since when is rewarding successful offense undesirable?
Posted on 3/26/12 at 3:06 pm to TheMuffinMan
quote:
Changing the allowable contact rules would be a much more radical solution as it invalidates the way players have been taught to play.
Not necessarily. I mean subtle changes in how officials call instead of changing the rules themselves (I'm not for changing any rules whatsoever).
It's already a gray area for interpretation more than a "rule" which vastly differs from league to league. You hear Brazilian and Argentinian players say all the time how much more contact the defenders are allowed to get away with in Italy and the EPL seems worse that Serie A as far as a premium on physical over technical play.
I disagree that it would slow the game down since the leagues where they allow defenders to get away with less are usually more high scoring and faster paced.
A few more consistent red cards/pks for bear hugging and pulling an attacker's jersey over his head on corner kicks for example and it doesn't take long before defenders stop it.
Same with holding/running into off the ball runners on counters.
Same with creeping 5 yards away from free kicks.
This post was edited on 3/26/12 at 3:12 pm
Posted on 3/26/12 at 3:17 pm to wm72
Well all of those things are separate from disallowing shoulder to shoulder and are just harsher penalties for existing infractions. But I guess that cracking down on fouls would get defenders to back off and therefore make attacking easier, but that's not what I think needs adjusting. I think the chance creation is sufficient but too few are rewarded. And I don't think that teams would abandon buildup and combinations tor long shots, because it's not like a 3 point line where there is incentive to shoot from further. They would get the same benefit from taking a low percentage shot and they would a high percentage one created closer to goal
Posted on 3/26/12 at 3:23 pm to wm72
All I've gathered from ya'lls side of this argument is that you are resistant to change. This is just human nature.
If the goals were a foot smaller right now, you people would say the same thing if somebody suggested we expand them to the point that they are at now.
Once you accept that the goal size right now is arbitrary, you will accept that it is not necessarily ideal. Only after you accept that can you start to really judge the pros and cons of moving the goals. Right now, all ya'll are doing is insisting that people who want to make a small change for the better are adulterating your sport.
If the goals were a foot smaller right now, you people would say the same thing if somebody suggested we expand them to the point that they are at now.
Once you accept that the goal size right now is arbitrary, you will accept that it is not necessarily ideal. Only after you accept that can you start to really judge the pros and cons of moving the goals. Right now, all ya'll are doing is insisting that people who want to make a small change for the better are adulterating your sport.
Posted on 3/26/12 at 3:24 pm to TheSexecutioner
quote:
Once you accept that the goal size right now is arbitrary, you will accept that it is not necessarily ideal. Only after you accept that can you start to really judge the pros and cons of moving the goals. Right now, all ya'll are doing is insisting that people who want to make a small change for the better are adulterating your sport.
"I'm not the crazy one. It's all you other people that belong in a loony bin."
Posted on 3/26/12 at 3:25 pm to TheMuffinMan
Yeah, by calling shoulder to shoulder more closely I didn't mean disallow completely just not make it such an advantage to overly physical players.
But then again, I see no reason why there should be any more goals anyway. I'd just like to see more technically brilliant players rewarded over weight room warrior enforcers which is maybe one reason I like soccer more than the other mainstream American sports. I hope to never hear "he's a beast" used positively in soccer.
But then again, I see no reason why there should be any more goals anyway. I'd just like to see more technically brilliant players rewarded over weight room warrior enforcers which is maybe one reason I like soccer more than the other mainstream American sports. I hope to never hear "he's a beast" used positively in soccer.
Posted on 3/26/12 at 3:30 pm to DestrehanTiger
To understand your position, would you be in favor of shrinking the goals to eliminate those terrible long shots that poor teams take?
Posted on 3/26/12 at 3:32 pm to TheSexecutioner
Posted on 3/26/12 at 3:34 pm to WarSlamEagle
quote:
As for changes, I'd like to make MLS have a team in Atlanta...and that's my list.
The Atlanta Silverbacks, could one day ... conceivably be an MLS franchise.
Posted on 3/26/12 at 3:36 pm to TheSexecutioner
quote:
To understand your position, would you be in favor of shrinking the goals to eliminate those terrible long shots that poor teams take?
I'm just fricking with you because that's what I pictured when reading your last post. I just don't think there is a problem that needs fixing. If we keep bringing up data and averages, why not bring up the growing popularity of the game while the goal has remained the same size for decades (I actually could be wrong there, not really sure).
You could be right, the size could be arbitrary, but I believe that there has to be a reason that size was settled on. The game has been played for almost 200 years. In the hundreds of thousands of games played, there has to be a reason this size was settled on.
Posted on 3/26/12 at 3:37 pm to TheSexecutioner
quote:
To understand your position, would you be in favor of shrinking the goals to eliminate those terrible long shots that poor teams take?
Highly preferable to making it larger. I'm completely serious.
Posted on 3/26/12 at 3:37 pm to TheSexecutioner
The thing is ... I don't want more scoring. When goals are scored, I want to celebrate because its a big deal.
When goals are scored .... i don't want it to be because some guy hit a half decent shot that went in on a big goal ... i want it to be difficult ... i want there to have to be build up and some time of intelligence in breaking down a defense and earning a goal.
I don't want anymore scoring than there is ... I like that the game is tough ... that's what makes it great ... and to those that don't know the game - understandably more boring.
When goals are scored .... i don't want it to be because some guy hit a half decent shot that went in on a big goal ... i want it to be difficult ... i want there to have to be build up and some time of intelligence in breaking down a defense and earning a goal.
I don't want anymore scoring than there is ... I like that the game is tough ... that's what makes it great ... and to those that don't know the game - understandably more boring.
Posted on 3/26/12 at 3:37 pm to TheSexecutioner
I came across this list of goals per game in various leagues. It's from a gambling info site and doesn't give a year. It shows 2.23 for MLS, 2.5 for Serie A, 2.79 for the Premier League, and 2.84 for the Bundesliga, and 2.75 for La Liga.
If someone came up with rule tweaks to bring the MLS to 3.19 like the Eredivisie, I would be willing to listen. I think the argument about teams bunkering has merit. FIFA took action against it 20 years ago by awarding three points for a win instead of two, but there are still more options out there. NASL had extra lines to prevent teams from putting too many players on defense.
Expanding the goal would not be my first choice for a rule change because too many of the goals would be scored from dead balls. I think one underlying problem is that the games don't get stretched until the second half. I think the most effective rule changes would be aimed at getting more action right from the opening kickoff.
If someone came up with rule tweaks to bring the MLS to 3.19 like the Eredivisie, I would be willing to listen. I think the argument about teams bunkering has merit. FIFA took action against it 20 years ago by awarding three points for a win instead of two, but there are still more options out there. NASL had extra lines to prevent teams from putting too many players on defense.
Expanding the goal would not be my first choice for a rule change because too many of the goals would be scored from dead balls. I think one underlying problem is that the games don't get stretched until the second half. I think the most effective rule changes would be aimed at getting more action right from the opening kickoff.
This post was edited on 3/26/12 at 3:38 pm
Posted on 3/26/12 at 3:39 pm to GeorgeTheGreek
quote:
When goals are scored .... i don't want it to be because some guy hit a half decent shot that went in on a big goal
This made me think of another comparison. Wouldn't making the hole bigger in golf lower scores? I don't know if you'll find any golf enthusiast that would be in favor of that.
Posted on 3/26/12 at 3:41 pm to GeorgeTheGreek
quote:
The thing is ... I don't want more scoring. When goals are scored, I want to celebrate because its a big deal.
When goals are scored .... i don't want it to be because some guy hit a half decent shot that went in on a big goal ... i want it to be difficult ... i want there to have to be build up and some time of intelligence in breaking down a defense and earning a goal.
I don't want anymore scoring than there is ... I like that the game is tough ... that's what makes it great ... and to those that don't know the game - understandably more boring.
So are you in favor of shrinking the goals? What makes you so sure that they have hit the perfect sweet spot?
The best argument that I can conceive of is that changing the goal size would change the standards of judging past players to current players....... Nobody would know how Messi compares to Pele, even against their respective competition.
Posted on 3/26/12 at 3:42 pm to DestrehanTiger
quote:
This made me think of another comparison. Wouldn't making the hole bigger in golf lower scores? I don't know if you'll find any golf enthusiast that would be in favor of that.
That is a very valid comparison. As is basketball rim size. It is arbitrary but the difference with golf is I can't think of a glaring problem with the current hole size. It's not like terrible putters are able to keep up with great ones. They have done a relatively good job of sizing the hole such that putting and long game are equally important.
Posted on 3/26/12 at 3:43 pm to TheSexecutioner
"if it aint broke, dont fix it."
is there an actual problem with goal size now? no. so, why change it and risk tainting the best game on the planet?
is there an actual problem with goal size now? no. so, why change it and risk tainting the best game on the planet?
Posted on 3/26/12 at 3:44 pm to NOTORlOUSD
quote:
Expanding the goal would not be my first choice for a rule change because too many of the goals would be scored from dead balls
Hadn't thought of that. Good point. I still would be in favor of it. In some cases it would be unfortunate to make a dead ball more of a penalty, though.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News