It's obviously not just you, but what Prenn is saying makes sense if you are aware that some matches (and one is too many) in the past have appeared to have been fixed in ways that benefitted the two teams playing (and usually screwing a team that wasn't). It's happened internationally and in club competitions. And if my damn boss wasn't being so unreasonable and demanding at least some signs of productivity, I'd do a search and come up with a couple specific matches.
So, what percentage of Premiership matches are still fixed to end in a draw? If a club reneges on the fix and scores a goal in the, say, 89th minute to steal the three points, is Prenn saying that other clubs in the fix will conspire against them to not let them have a point from a draw and will instead “take” the win? Call me naïve, but that is probably the single most preposterous thing I’ve heard about English football, if true....
What do people think about a champion based on total Goal Differential rather than individual results? First tiebreaker, away goals count more. Second tiebreaker, current ranking system (3/1/0) # Goals never tiebreaker. Seems to have these positives: 1. Teams have to compete at all times. Can't just pack it in when they get down by 3 goals. 2. Every goal crucial and interesting. Seems to have these disadvantages: 1. Only works in a league where you play everybody the same number of times. Ie EPL (yes) vs. MLS (no). 2. Blowouts have large ramifications. 3. Promotes running up the score. 4. Discounts whether you win or not EDIT: just wanted to add that this is more or less the idea of the "home and away" format between two teams applied to the entire league at the same time.
I don't think he's just talking about English football, but even if he was, it wouldn't have to happen all the time. If it happened once in a decade, it will leave a sour taste in fans' mouths. And even if it never happened, the fact that it could APPEAR to have happened would be something that any governing body would want to avoid.
Prenn, given Dr. Wankler’s statements above and prior, do you think that draw fixing is prevalent -- or a rare, isolated occurrence? If the former, why bother watching at all? Just to see that Bolton will stay above relegation, yet still in the bottom half? If the latter, why even enter it into this discussion at all? How was this relevant to the logic and strategy of playing for a draw when clearly 3 points would benefit the team who has the means and the temerity to take them?
How is that any different than 2 teams deciding to not score at all so they can both get 1 point. This doesn't happen alot in real life, so why would it happen anymore, if teams got 0 points for a scoreless draw.
The light goes on! Apparently, I misread the meaning behind your post the first time around (that's what I get for trying to discuss something intelligently while posting from work, I suppose), and now that I read this, I understand what the hell you were talking about. I guess it boils down to this: if zero points were given for a nil-nil draw, your pessimistic view is that this would cause clubs to conspire to get a 1-1 draw, and thus a point a piece, whereas one could take the optimistic view that this would cause teams to try harder to score goals throughout the whole of the game. Again, I never said I agreed with this suggestion, but I do see one obvious flaw with it: say two sides have been battling all 90 minutes, shots have been ringing off the uprights and the posts, strikers have been placing excellent shots, keepers have been making spectacular saves, the action has been fast and end to end, but they still end up 0-0 at the end of regulation. Does either team deserve no points at all? I think this is a good argument against 0 points for nil-nil draws, much better than the argument that it would drive teams to conspire to fix 1-1 draws.
Dear Partitioner, I recall the commentating in World Cup of 1990 and thereafter. The score was debated. If you will, you can safely assume scores with points. The broadcastors were weary of talley within range of lowness. The conceptive abatement was hurting soccer. Was there enough people tuning in or tuning out? Mind you, I was weightless at time of amount upon 165 lbs. Then came Major League Soccer and The World Cup of 1994. Soccer is revived in United States of America! The scoring systems previously mentioned and others as followed: ------------Win---Tie---Lost---Bonous------------ 4-1-0-1 1. This is nice system but leans toward dominace. 2. The runners are set only to meet gale force winds. 3. A quagmire attempt at space. 4. Hail! Showmanship is shown. 4-1-(1) 1. The midfeild passes back but keeps forward progress. 2. An realm yet ventuered by members of board. 3. The accounting meathod equals minus of (1). 3-1-0 1. A common discriptive permutation. 2. However at 165 lbs., is a pitbull dog applier of bite? 3. The best none the less! 3-0-(1) 1. A record is challenged for "How many games?". 2. A true offenssive plight. 3. Seems to be Mideast. 3-0-0 1. What a victorious march at the end? 2. Fewness complication at birth. 3. Is there room for dictatorship? 2-1-0 1. A system filled with teemingness and creaminess. 2. It sticks around hoping for upseter. 3. Is there more to just one league? 2-1-(1) 1. It is deservingly progression 2. The mismerizer grounded at cast. 3. The apple toss withstands somewhat something of fierceness. [/list=A] -------------------------------------------------- I hope. The thread is understood better now, there is some stability. I thought there were several replys, because whom worthiness and statistics needed reiteration. I also feel personally, at that; a match should have a winner. Non-tie matches including shoot-out decisions. Might-have-been deemed equationally resistance of switch-a-rue in debarment. A. and E. looks for the win. C. and F. leaves no straglers. B. D. and G. repremands of skill. I hope. The check book is out and the numerous velociraptors rip the crowds. We're looking past World Cup of 2006 and ahead to World Cup of 2010. What other changes? Will exist in leagues, confederations and body of governments. The mind keep at change of Major League Soccer. Does Africa behold such experimentations? Do they answer to Germany?
You're getting what I mean. But a hell of a lot of people aren't and that's disturbing. How many of you realise just how vital 1 point can be in league play? It doesn't just affect the two teams involved it has an effect on the entire league. Any team would rather to have 1 point from a game than 0. The more I think about it teams would conspire to get a 1-1 scoreline early on, kind of as a safety net so supposing they do draw they get 1 point as opposed to 0. The game would then take place as normal. Suppose Bolton and Southampton were fighting against relegation (what odds would you get on that? ) It's in their best interests to make the game 1-1 early, so a point is at least guaranteed in the event of a draw, then play the game as normal. If it finished 0-0 at full time they have both effectively lost and received 0 points. Neither team has any advantage in that situation. Is this becoming clearer now?
Why would teams conspire to get a draw? At least if they get a 0-0 they still get 1 point. In the proposed situation this would be 0, the same as a loss. Why would clubs leave themselves open to this. I'll say it again. It would be in the best interests of the clubs to assure themselves of at least 1 point in the event of a draw.
So, in your eyes, the draw fixing would be much more of a directive from the club hierarchy, from a purely business point of view (relegation = death, in post-ITV age), not so much a pride issue of the players?
There have been quite a few games in England, normally last day of the season, where two clubs know that a draw will be favourable to both. These often end 0-0. They might not be technically rigged, but both teams know the situation. I've also seen a match in Serie A a few years ago when on the penultimate day of the season Milan (I think) needed a draw to win the title and the relegation threatened team they were playing needed a draw to stay up. It was 0-0 with about 5 minutes to go when a Milan sub cracked a 25 yard shot into the top corner - his teammates just stared at him like he was mad. There then followed a moses-esque parting of the red sea of the Milan defence to let the other team equalise. Embarassingly this took two goes as the striker put his first shot wide.
Someday, an economist will write his or her Ph.D thesis on Game Theory and Prisoner's Dilemma in soccer point systems. Wait, someone has done this work. "Do the ‘three-point victory’ and ‘golden goal’ rules make soccer more exciting? A theoretical analysis of a simple game" by Isabelle Brocas and Juan D. Carrillo of Columbia Business school. Paper at http://www.columbia.edu/~jc2095/PDFpapers/wp-foot.pdf
It's nothing to do with business. Why risk drawing with 0 points when it's well within your power and of benefit to both teams to ensure yourselves of a point in the case of a draw? We're not looking at teams trying to make games finish with a draw, we're looking at teams making sure the game will finish 1-1 in the event of a draw therefore guaranteeing a point. If it's within the power of the teams and of benefit to both to make sure that in the event of a draw they come out with a point a piece then they'll make sure of that eventuality. 0 points for a 0-0 does not promote attacking football, all it does is promote the American obsession with increased scoring, however false.
Okay here's two scenarios In a 0 points for a 0-0 draw world which of these is most beneficial to the clubs: 1) The teams play as they do now but in the event of a 0-0, where neither team has done better than the other, they both lose. 2) At the start of the game each team allows the other to get one goal, the game is played as normal. It'll end 2-1, 3-1, 2-2, 3-2 or 1-1 but never 0-0 so if there is no victor at the end at least each team gets a point. It's common sense for both teams to want to ensure themselves of a point in case they draw.
I think teams agreeing to score a goal each is unlikely to happen in most of the world. Right now, many teams see that they are tied 0-0 late and are happy for the point. Therefore, they stop attacking. I think the real question is: will the occasional fixed game happen more often if scoreless draws are unrewarded than how often that system deters teams from settling on 0-0? I think in any point system a league uses there will always be some incentives for unwanted behavior. The systems really need to be judged on what will most likely occur. That's why I liked the shootout with it's 3-0.5 system and that is why I like a 3-1 system with nothing for a scoreless draw. Both provide better overall incentives even if there a few situations where they system isn't an improvement.
Point well taken. Instead of creating an atmosphere where each side would produce a more attacking style of play, which is the intended result of 0 points for 0-0, an artificial scenario would unfold ensuring someone will at least get something. Like I said before, I was never necessarily in favor of the proposed system, but I do believe that new ideas should be treated as impartially as possible, and looked at from as many angles as possible. There’s no way my thick German-descended skull can think of all possible outcomes and/or potentialities. I don’t have any problems with the current internationally practiced method of awarding points. I think it works just fine. Domestically, one of my biggest issues with the A-League, USA’s 2nd division, is the points system. I’ve always been of the belief that instead of creating Americanized gimmicks with the intention of attracting more fans, the powers that be in the US should be adopting internationally accepted practices across the board, instead of alienating a large fan base who are already knowledgeable about world soccer and its accepted practices.
There are some changes which I don't have trouble with. I think the best changes are the ones which allow the 90 minutes on the pitch to have the same rules. Thus, a person with no idea of the point system still sees what they are used to seeing. Increasing incentives for goals is no problem either, because that should be every team's incentive any way. (Score more than your opponent, not score at least as much.) I would have a lot more problems if they altered incentives so that teams were trying to win corners or free kicks because the number of those settled ties. I would also be more bothered by a change in the game rules such as altering the definition of offside.
This is news to you that there is a high degree of corruption in Italian soccer? Okay, guys. Who's going to tell him about Santa, the Easter Bunny, and professional wrestling?
Watch the heresy! Next thing you’ll be telling me is the Italian government is run by the Mafia and MLS officials never watch soccer....
As always in a discussion like this the original question has long been forgotten. Jimmy Hill, a man famous for many things in football, first came up with the idea of 3 points for a win. It was adopted by the FA and used in English football. FIFA used it in Italia '90 and then it's been used worldwide since. Reading this thread the question I ask myself is why do people want to change a perfectly good system? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. We don't need new ideas. Prenn - by the way, I haven't been on here for a while but mate - 3-1! And it should have been a lot more.