When I was watching Portugal-France at no point was I like "man this game would be so much more exciting if it was 5-5 entering the overtime period". I was pretty much on the edge of my seat to see if something would happen. And the funniest part about this thread is... .. something did happen! A goal from an unexpected hero from an unexpected distance out of nowhere.
I think there's no doubt that a game where it's 3-3 will, on average, be more exciting that one where it's 0-0, but part of that is because 3-3 draws are rare. The scarcity of goals is a big part of the game. They are few other sports where you can score in the first minute, and think there's a good chance that goal could win you the game. It makes goals themselves hugely important. If there were 5-6 goals per game, that would be lost. In the professional era I think the highest it's been (at league level) is a bit over 3 per game. This competition was very low, at 2.12, but leagues aren't like that. Typical is about 2.75 a game. You could make a case for saying it'd be good if it was more like 3 per game, but making a change to bring that about wouldn't be easy. You could make the goal fractionally bigger, but that's about it. I'm not sure if anyone actually did suggest a shot clock, but that would be a terrible idea. Teams aren't failing to shoot because they are being too cautious. They're not shooting because they can't create an opening. Making them attempt a shot from 35 yards because a clock has run down from 30 to 0 isn't going to help that.
Personally I like defensive tactics and appreciate good defensive execution and keeping (as long as there are chances on both sides). 3-3 games to me are never more exciting then 0-0 in a Championship situation. They are equally exciting. But it takes all kinds. Everyone has their own opinion.
Goals add drama, and a game can still be really tense, even at 3-3. A game where you feel that another goal is likely is nearly always more enjoyable than one where a goal doesn't feel likely - as is often the case when both teams seem to have settled for penalties. There definitely are some great 0-0 draws, but typically, they lean heavily towards the dull side. A game being 0-0 is often a symptom of a poor game though, rather than the cause. As said though, if 3-3 draws were normal, due to a significantly higher goals per game average, the goals themselves would cease to be so dramatic. And early 1-0 lead would cease to be a seen as a potential winner, and would instead just be assumed to be the opening score of the evening.
I can only speak for myself and for the Finals I have seen in my life. And drama can come in a big save, a huge slide tackle at the last second, or a defender kicking the ball of the line just as it can from a spectacular goal. I know many people don't feel this way but that is the beauty of it.
This made me want to compare goals per game in the Finals of club tournaments and national team tournaments. All of what I typed below has the combined score after regulation: Tournaments that qualified teams for Confederations Cup 2017: World Cup 2014: 0 Euro 2016: 0 2015 AFC Asian Cup: 2 2015 CONCACAF Gold Cup: 4 2015 Copa America: 0 2016 OFC Nations Cup: 0 The 2017 Africa Cup of Nations hasn't been played. The 2015 Africa Cup of Nations had 0 goals in regulation in the Final. That's 6 goals, which is 0.43 per team per game. Note that I didn't include Copa America Centenario. Club tournaments happen every year, so I'll use each confederation's most recent final, which was 2015 for AFC and CAF and 2016 for four confederations: 2015 CAF Champions League: 5 goals in 2 legs 2015 AFC Champions League: 1 goal in 2 legs 2015-2016 UEFA Champions League: 2 goals after regulation of 1 game 2016 OFC Champions League: 3 goals in 1 game 2015-2016 CONCACAF Champions League: 5 goals in 2 legs 2016 Copa Libertadores: 3 goals in 2 legs That's 19 goals in 10 games, which is 0.95 per club per game. That's low scoring, but still over double the 0.43 average from national team games.
It is an interesting concept that not too many people think about or talk about. Club teams can also purchase players and fit them into positions they need to improve upon every 6 months or so to win games in a high scoring fashion. They can constantly work on weaknesses and improve in a quick-turnaround time span. If a country is low on pure strikers, or there is a shortage of attacking midfielder or they are weak on the wings or stuff like that you just can't buy your way to the top. National team Managers have to make due with the cards that were dealt to them and hope some young kid or new face can come in and play better.
Building-off that point, many finals lately haven't even had much in the way of chances. I'm struggling to think of even one scoring chance created by Germany in the 2014 final until the actual goal.
Argentina on the other hand had plenty of chances but just choked or had the ball go inches past the post.
Okay I quickly skimmed through the first half on YouTube and Germany did have a good chance to score right before halftime on a beautiful corner that hit the post. That was exciting.
I don't know if I'd say "plenty". By many accounts, the Messi chance was the second-best of the game at it was from an acute angle that Neuer will always have covered. But yeah, it was still better than the semifinal where 8 goals were scored...
Let's not get into a game of semantics on what constitutes as plenty. Argentina had their chances but just could not put it in the back of the net.
I guess, but would be nice to see a variety of types of finals. The 2014 one fitted the trend which led to this thread: overly defensive strategy + good defending + poor attacking = 0 or 1 goal.
Both figures though, are far lower than is normal for the game at club level. Any idea that we should change the laws of the game to fix the 0.01% of top level games each year that are continental finals is crazy.
I think about this; the contrast is what I like. Club teams, if they need a left back or whatever, will go find him, and don't care if he is Korean or Canadien. But national teams have to "make do", maybe use a younger player or play a guy out of position. The contrast is fun to watch, and the dual fortunes of players (club and country) is fun to follow. My fear is that FIFA is overplaying, or allowing FA's to overplay, their hand by using players too much, and winking at corruption; and we are going see the international game greatly diminish. Messi quitting at 29 years old may be just the beginning.
I don't want to see changes to the laws either. Perhaps modify the way yellow card suspensions work might help. Also, refereeing in finals tends to be too much in the let-them-play-don't-determine-the-outcome mode, which allows defenders to be too cynical. The 2010 final epitomized this, with no red card for the kick in the chest. Maybe allowing the extra sub in overtime will help too, then teams won't feel they have to one in reserve during the 90 minutes. Maybe there is no fix, I honestly interested in what ideas people had.
I think allowing a 4th sub would be a good idea. Won't really have much impact on the first 90 minutes though. I do wonder if the mere existence of extra-time leads to these overly conservative matches. Maybe part of the reason for this is that the teams know they have 120 minutes so there's no big hurry to do anything. The extra-times have generally been quite good in both the Euros and WCs lately.** If extra-time didn't exist, one wonders if teams would start being more proactive earlier instead of waiting until the 91st minute to get on with it. ** Thank God they got rid of the golden goal. At least now we're getting 30 minutes of entertaining football as a minimum.
I guess everyone is different. I was entertained by every World Cup Final , Euro Final, Copa America Final I have seen since I have been watching the sport.
I don't really think the lack of scoring has anything to do with fouling. I really think it does just boil down to so much being at stake, and teams being too cautious and too reluctant to commit players forward as a result. It'd be difficult to do anything that would alleviate the fear of bit hit on a counter-attack if you push players forward. I think the opposite. It was always true in the past that tiredness would see the game open up, as it's so tiring to play a pressing game for a full 90 minutes. Bringing on more subs just makes that less likely. I'd rather see the number of subs allowed on reduced.
I know the figures are low, and I wasn't arguing for a change in the laws of the game because of those games.
But as I said in the start of the thread, there's Super Bowls with a lot of scoring that are boring as heck because some turn out to be blowouts. It is Very rare for me to see a Final match within international football that makes me want to see the commercials more than the actual game itself. So more scoring is kinda meaningless.