frasermc
25 Jan 2009, 04:01 PM
in this month's World Soccer magazine there is a large article entitled The Future of Football. many journalists have written on it with viewpoints on FIFA, scientific developments, club ownership, transfers, player power etc etc.
Paul Gardner wrote a 10 page article regarding the game and it's defensive tendencies and what can be done to redress the balance and make football more exciting again.
below is a section of that article with his proposed changes to the game. what do you think of his ideas? i'm off to watch Lost now but will post on it later with some thoughts.
I list below a number of changes that could be made to the game - not all of them are changes to the rules - with the specific aim of tilting the game away from defensive dominance towards a closer balance between offense and defense. That balance, which is essential for all competitive sports, has been lost in the modern game. This is really the phone-in, e-mail part of the article, because the list is far from exhaustive, of course.
Some modest proposals
Not all the blame for the lack of goals can be laid at the door of packed and ruthless defenses. Poor attacking must take a share. A corner kick used to be considered a likely scoring opportunity but hardly seems to these days. In the 2006 World Cup, only 12 of the 147 goals were scored from corners. The average number of corners per game was 10.5, for a total of 672 in 64 games. Put bleakly, it needed 56 corners to produce one goal. I'm told that in Germany they used to say that three corners equals one penalty kick. Not anymore. But I think much of the ineffectiveness of corners can be ascribed to utterly feeble delivery, the inability to deliver the ball accurately to somewhere around the penalty spot. Does anyone practice taking corners anymore? Considering the number of corners that come down inside the 6yd box to be gobbled up gratefully by the goalkeeper, I doubt it.
A state of affairs that suggests that the very will to attack has somehow become attenuated. The suggestions I make below are all designed, in their different ways, to re-ignite that will. Before going through some possible changes, two more difficulties must be faced (no one said this was going to be easy).
Firstly, a rule change is like a stone thrown into water, it causes ripples - and these ripples spread throughout the game, causing who knows what in terms of subsidiary adjustments. Of one thing you can be certain: the adjustments will be defensive in nature. Karl Poppers famous Law of Unintended Consequences could have been formulated with football in mind. Hence, only one rule change at a time - the ripples and counter ripples and sub-ripples produced by simultaneous changes would make any meaningful assessment impossible.
Secondly, any change, at least in theory, needs to be tested. But can you imagine the English Premier League or the Bundesliga or Serie A agreeing to play a season using a domestic version of the game different from what everyone else was playing (reverting, of course, to the unmodified game whenever international games are scheduled)? Not going to happen. Either a change has to rely on something considerably less than a full trial, or it is introduced, universally, at one fell swoop.
So, the first four changes listed below are basically attempts to alter the defensive mentality rather than the rules themselves.
- Insist on a strict application of the existing rule, particularly in dealing with rough play and with tactical fouling. This would surely lead to a sudden spate of yellow and red cards, at which point the coaches would protest, the referees and administrators would lose their determination, and yet another "clampdown" would wither away. Meaning that I don't see much hope in this approach.
- In the standings, award points for goals scored. Such a system was used for years in the now defunct North American Soccer League. It went like this: 6pts for a win, 3 for a draw, none for a defeat - plus a point for each goal scored up to a maximum of 3. Thus, in a 6-3 win, the winning team would get the maximum 9pts, the losers 3.
- Deduct points from a teams total for foul play. Devise a simple points system for fouls, penalty kicks, yellow and red cards, fix levels of acceptability - and teams that go over the limit get docked. More pressure on the referees, of course.
- The penalty shoot out is glaring evidence of footballs low-scoring problem. It has become so difficult to resolve tournament games with real goals that synthetic penalty-kick goals must be used. But the shootout makes matters worse because it encourages even more defensive play - by those teams that fancy their chances of winning it. Hence, use the shootout only as a tiebreaker of last resort. The first should be corner kicks - a system that is not simply a gimmick tacked on at the end of a game, but one that works throughout and which rewards teams who attack.
The following modifications do involve changes to the playing rules:
- Increase the size of the goals. This has been suggested many times, and has regularly been mocked as the most ridiculous idea ever and countered with sardonic jokes about using smaller goalkeepers. But the idea has merit. Goalkeepers are no doubt bigger and better trained than they used to be, defenses are stronger and better organised. The 8ft by 8yd goal may well belong to another era. Refusing to consider a change in its dimensions is like ignoring the enormous growth in vehicle ownership and insisting that we continue to use two-lane motorways.
- Reduce the influence of the goalkeeper. The vast area within which he is allowed the enormous advantage of being able to handle the ball is absurd - 792 square yards, half as big again as a basketball court! Get rid of the six-yard markings, which serve no purpose at all, mark out a new, smaller penalty area - say one of 12, rather than 18 yards. This would reduce the 'keepers' domain by half, and might well have the added advantage of encouraging referees, confronted with fewer decisions, not to chicken out on penalty decisions.
- Possible further experiments with the offside rule. The one that seems to me to have some promise is to banish offside once the ball is inside the penalty area. This would still rule out the long ball hoofed down the field, but would mean more opportunities for quick passing interchanges within the area. But... if the smaller area suggested is accepted, then maybe this change becomes meaningless.
- Give referees more authority in dealing with rough play and tactical fouls. Divide fouls, as basketball does, into two categories: personal (ie contact fouls) and technical (eg verbal abuse and time wasting). As things stand a violent foul and a trivial offense like removing a shirt to celebrate scoring are likely to receive equal punishment. I don't believe that anyone finds that satisfactory. Giving a lesser punishment for technical fouls would erase that anomaly but at the same time the personal fouls must be harshly dealt with.
- Find a way to avoid a team playing with 10 men. This usually destroys a game, ruins the entertainment value, because playing short-handed is an open invitation to resort to ultra-defensive football. A red-carded player should be replaced - but an additional method of punishing the offending team must be introduced.
Paul Gardner wrote a 10 page article regarding the game and it's defensive tendencies and what can be done to redress the balance and make football more exciting again.
below is a section of that article with his proposed changes to the game. what do you think of his ideas? i'm off to watch Lost now but will post on it later with some thoughts.
I list below a number of changes that could be made to the game - not all of them are changes to the rules - with the specific aim of tilting the game away from defensive dominance towards a closer balance between offense and defense. That balance, which is essential for all competitive sports, has been lost in the modern game. This is really the phone-in, e-mail part of the article, because the list is far from exhaustive, of course.
Some modest proposals
Not all the blame for the lack of goals can be laid at the door of packed and ruthless defenses. Poor attacking must take a share. A corner kick used to be considered a likely scoring opportunity but hardly seems to these days. In the 2006 World Cup, only 12 of the 147 goals were scored from corners. The average number of corners per game was 10.5, for a total of 672 in 64 games. Put bleakly, it needed 56 corners to produce one goal. I'm told that in Germany they used to say that three corners equals one penalty kick. Not anymore. But I think much of the ineffectiveness of corners can be ascribed to utterly feeble delivery, the inability to deliver the ball accurately to somewhere around the penalty spot. Does anyone practice taking corners anymore? Considering the number of corners that come down inside the 6yd box to be gobbled up gratefully by the goalkeeper, I doubt it.
A state of affairs that suggests that the very will to attack has somehow become attenuated. The suggestions I make below are all designed, in their different ways, to re-ignite that will. Before going through some possible changes, two more difficulties must be faced (no one said this was going to be easy).
Firstly, a rule change is like a stone thrown into water, it causes ripples - and these ripples spread throughout the game, causing who knows what in terms of subsidiary adjustments. Of one thing you can be certain: the adjustments will be defensive in nature. Karl Poppers famous Law of Unintended Consequences could have been formulated with football in mind. Hence, only one rule change at a time - the ripples and counter ripples and sub-ripples produced by simultaneous changes would make any meaningful assessment impossible.
Secondly, any change, at least in theory, needs to be tested. But can you imagine the English Premier League or the Bundesliga or Serie A agreeing to play a season using a domestic version of the game different from what everyone else was playing (reverting, of course, to the unmodified game whenever international games are scheduled)? Not going to happen. Either a change has to rely on something considerably less than a full trial, or it is introduced, universally, at one fell swoop.
So, the first four changes listed below are basically attempts to alter the defensive mentality rather than the rules themselves.
- Insist on a strict application of the existing rule, particularly in dealing with rough play and with tactical fouling. This would surely lead to a sudden spate of yellow and red cards, at which point the coaches would protest, the referees and administrators would lose their determination, and yet another "clampdown" would wither away. Meaning that I don't see much hope in this approach.
- In the standings, award points for goals scored. Such a system was used for years in the now defunct North American Soccer League. It went like this: 6pts for a win, 3 for a draw, none for a defeat - plus a point for each goal scored up to a maximum of 3. Thus, in a 6-3 win, the winning team would get the maximum 9pts, the losers 3.
- Deduct points from a teams total for foul play. Devise a simple points system for fouls, penalty kicks, yellow and red cards, fix levels of acceptability - and teams that go over the limit get docked. More pressure on the referees, of course.
- The penalty shoot out is glaring evidence of footballs low-scoring problem. It has become so difficult to resolve tournament games with real goals that synthetic penalty-kick goals must be used. But the shootout makes matters worse because it encourages even more defensive play - by those teams that fancy their chances of winning it. Hence, use the shootout only as a tiebreaker of last resort. The first should be corner kicks - a system that is not simply a gimmick tacked on at the end of a game, but one that works throughout and which rewards teams who attack.
The following modifications do involve changes to the playing rules:
- Increase the size of the goals. This has been suggested many times, and has regularly been mocked as the most ridiculous idea ever and countered with sardonic jokes about using smaller goalkeepers. But the idea has merit. Goalkeepers are no doubt bigger and better trained than they used to be, defenses are stronger and better organised. The 8ft by 8yd goal may well belong to another era. Refusing to consider a change in its dimensions is like ignoring the enormous growth in vehicle ownership and insisting that we continue to use two-lane motorways.
- Reduce the influence of the goalkeeper. The vast area within which he is allowed the enormous advantage of being able to handle the ball is absurd - 792 square yards, half as big again as a basketball court! Get rid of the six-yard markings, which serve no purpose at all, mark out a new, smaller penalty area - say one of 12, rather than 18 yards. This would reduce the 'keepers' domain by half, and might well have the added advantage of encouraging referees, confronted with fewer decisions, not to chicken out on penalty decisions.
- Possible further experiments with the offside rule. The one that seems to me to have some promise is to banish offside once the ball is inside the penalty area. This would still rule out the long ball hoofed down the field, but would mean more opportunities for quick passing interchanges within the area. But... if the smaller area suggested is accepted, then maybe this change becomes meaningless.
- Give referees more authority in dealing with rough play and tactical fouls. Divide fouls, as basketball does, into two categories: personal (ie contact fouls) and technical (eg verbal abuse and time wasting). As things stand a violent foul and a trivial offense like removing a shirt to celebrate scoring are likely to receive equal punishment. I don't believe that anyone finds that satisfactory. Giving a lesser punishment for technical fouls would erase that anomaly but at the same time the personal fouls must be harshly dealt with.
- Find a way to avoid a team playing with 10 men. This usually destroys a game, ruins the entertainment value, because playing short-handed is an open invitation to resort to ultra-defensive football. A red-carded player should be replaced - but an additional method of punishing the offending team must be introduced.