You American's are too caught up in stats. It's the same with all sports you's follow. Just watch the World Cup and enjoy. There's no shortage of goals and it's turning out to be quite a good world cup.
The first round of matches was horrible. I don't buy the "tense and interesting" argument, the majority of matches was just bad, with teams struggling to adjust to altitude and/or the ball and apparently being frightened to death of losing. There were a few exceptions, but generally, the matches were really bad. But it improved since then. In round 2, 3 and the round of 16, teams weren't that defensive, the quality of play imroved, we've seen enough goals, I see no reason to change the rules. At least not in order to get more goals.
Over the first 16 games, the number of goals scored was like a cholesterol reading. It was an imperfect but somewhat accurate reading of the lack of flow in the games.
only idiots do. first of all, I don't mind smart rule changes, I just can't stand all the stupid suggestions. and I actually think the main reason over 90% of all people demanding rule changes to increase scoring are Americans is because of your notoriously short attention span.
Hello, and welcome to BigSoccer. That's a common stereotype you've mentioned here, but it doesn't really hold water. FIFA didn't get rid of the back-pass or go to the 3-1-0 system for the benefit of Americans. And FIFA rather enjoyed using the USA as a laboratory for new rules at times. There's also a funny scene in the great NASL documentary Once In a Lifetime worth checking out. They talk about the introduction of the shootout, a bit like a penalty-spot tiebreaker except that each player starts 35 yards away and dribbles at the keeper from there. Three players say they loved it. Those players -- Rodney Marsh, Carlos Alberto and Johan Cruyff. Not American. (See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/beau-dure/in-soccer-usa-still-rever_b_595900.html) Americans these days are a bit timid about suggesting changes, in part because of the undeserved reputation from the NASL days, when Englishmen made those changes because they thought that's what Americans needed to see. The best-rated and best-remembered game in U.S. history was a 0-0 draw that went to penalty kicks. The nation was thrilled. Of course, the "right team won. The "attention span" problem really isn't so simple. In the rest of the world, fans have developed ways to pass the time when the game hits a lull. They sing, they chant, they beat drums, etc. Fans in the USA have caught on to this through MLS history. We still don't know what to do with ourselves when Paraguay and Japan are conspiring to put us to sleep on our TVs. But no one in the world does.
I do, have a couple of pints! I know of course that there were changes to the game without any American input, and I said it many times before, I'm always open for new ideas, it's just the ones which don't make any sense that I have a problem with. at the end of the day, boring play is down to tactics. the last thing we want is some kind of rule which governs which tactic is allowed, and which not. that would destroy a large part of the appeal of the game, namely the freedom to adjust your tactics depending on your own skills and that of your opponents. 0 points for a draw wouldn't have made the Japan v Paraguay game any more interesting. so how exactly is that all supposed to work? if some genius can come up with a solution, American or not, I'm all ears, but I simply haven't heard one yet.
I think a couple of pints is a good idea, too (!) But the rules govern which tactics are used, if not as a matter of allowed or disallowed, as a matter of what's practical and prudent. From another thread that got moved to the World of Soccer forum, there's a similar point being made: It's worth repeating the point MutinyRIP is making because it's at the crux of the matter and there's really been no reply to it. As long as it's this hard to score a goal, teams that don't absolutely have to score a goal will play cautiously, knowing that a goal is more likely to come from a counter-attack. Even teams that need a goal will proceed relatively cautiously because they know the next goal is more likely to come from exposing themselves to the counter than it is from success in committing themselves with numbers to the attack.
133 goals in 60 match= 2.22 goals/match First round of group games = 1.56 goals per match Since then = 2.45 goals per match Breaking it down further: 1st round of group matches = 1.56 2nd round of group matches = 2.63 3rd round of group matches = 2.13 Round of 16 = 2.75 Quarterfinals = 2.5
They did it! They caught Italy 1990! All we need now is 7 goals in 3 games to stay ahead of 1990. (Do we include the consolation game in the totals? Then we need 8 goals in the 4 remaining games.)
I believe the third place match is included. That game has had a minimum of three goals everytime its been played since 1974 so it should help ensure the tournament stays above Italy 90.
Despite the low goal average, I have a better feeling about this World Cup than either '90 or '06. I guess because it started slow and picked up steam? (You tend to remember the later games more than the earlier ones). Plus there have been some very good knock-out games.
Well that 5 goal semifinal should make staying above Italy 90 mainly academic unless we only see two goals over three matches. Fantastic games through the knockout stages for the most part.
The knockout stages (thru today's semifinal) has averaged about 2.85 goals per game. I think most people have been happy to see some goals scored in these games, like the 5 goals today. That doesn't mean some of the 1-0 or 1-1 games aren't exciting. But some scoring is a good thing. We're lucky that there's been more goals (per game) in the knockout stages than the group stage, which I believe is highly unusual. The lesson here is there's nothing wrong with more 3-2 games. There will still be thrilling 1-0 games, but hopefully fewer drab ones.
At this point most of the drab teams have been kicked to the curb and I could not be happier. Dan Loney on the front page makes a point I completely agree with based on my years of watching soccer that most (yes, there are exceptions) Cinderella's in soccer are barely watchable. The teams that remain are all quite entertaining.
Goals per game 2.242 Italy '90: 2.212 3 more goals needed in last two games to stay ahead of Italy '90 In knockout stage: 2.714 goals per game (thru 14 games)
How does the scoring in the knock out rounds compare to other World Cups? Off the top of my head, it is higher than 94,02 and 06 for sure.
I'm curious, too but I'll let someone else dig that up. I think, generally, scoring goes down in the knock out rounds so in that sense this World Cup is a major exception. And which may have helped a lot in making this an entertaining World Cup.
Ya, this WC was strange in being the inverse of the historical trend of a lower GPG average in the knock-out-rounds versus the opening rounds. The opening round was infested with these overly cautious underdogs who were just trying to sneak through the first round on 3 to 4 points. Once these never-had-a-hope-of-winning-the-WC teams were cleared out, the games got better. If anything, the opening round of the WC shows why at 32 teams we have more than enough teams participating. Allowing any more teams in would probably just mean even more games featuring the playing-scared-with-10 men-amassed-near-their-own-penalty-area style of soccer. Of course, more of those games would probably delight the people on here who say I am just not sophisticated enough to appreciate that style of soccer. Whatever.
Goals per game of World Cups since they went to the Round of 16 knockout: Code: [FONT=Courier New]Year Overall Group Knockout 2010 2.24 2.10 2.71 2006 2.30 2.44 1.88 2002 2.52 2.71 1.94 1998 2.67 2.65 2.75 1994 2.71 2.58 3.00 1990 2.21 2.28 2.06 1986 2.54 2.33 3.00 [/FONT] So 2006, 2002, and 1990 saw a drop in goals in the knockout round. 2010, 1998, 1994, and 1986 saw an increase. This World Cup will be second only to '90 as the lowest-scoring ever. However, because the knockout round has been pretty entertaining, I think it might be remembered better than 2006 and 2002. A lot depends on the final, of course.
Does that include overtime goals or not? If a decent number of those games lasted 120 minutes, then there should be a least a few more goals per game compared to the first round where no games enter extra time.