Why in the world would we want to change a rule that doesn't need changing? For all my blathering, this poster has summed it up nicely: https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=21032117&postcount=54
Make the goals bigger. Make them 23 feet wide, and so that it's not too easy to score, raise them 10 ft. up off the ground. Let players use their hands, too.
And get rid of the defenders all together, I mean, they are keeping teams from their GOALZZZ!!!!ELEVENTY111!!!!
[To start off with, I'm basically a semi-traditionalist when it comes to soccer: no massive changes, but it should be willing to consider and experiment small rule changes. Like the ones they've already done: offside rule, backpass, 3pts for a win, etc. Also, the last few games have seen more scoring, so maybe all this discussion is premature.] One thing good about goals, they change the dynamic of a game. A 0-0 game can be exicting as hell, back and forth action, lot's of drama. But it is a one-note song - the dynamic is always the same: the game is tied, and a goal gives a team the lead. When multiple goals are scored, the theme of the game changes. Example: 0-0: game is tied: 1-0: Team A has the lead to defend; Team B has to score to tie 1-1: Tied again. Does team B have momentum having just scored? 1-2: What a comeback! Can Team A salvage a tie? So there's four different themes in the game. As a story, that's much more interesting to me (all other things being equal). No matter how well-played, a 0-0 game has the same theme the whole way. Like a symphony with only one movement instead of four. Now, not every game needs to be like that. If all the games were 2-1 then it would be the same story. But when none of the games are 2-1, then there's a story missing from the tournament.
So what? We have all these themes in soccer and much more. For all the hue and cry about a 0-0 scoreline, we have had only 2 of them in the World Cup so far, and one of them was a very tactically exciting game. Americans are acting as if 60-70% of the games have ended 0-0. There have been 7 such 0-0 draws in 2006, 3 in 2002, 4 in 1998, 3 in 1994, 5 in 1990 (and this is including knockout stages too that were settled through penalties). I know for Americans, the mere possibility of a 0-0 draw, even if its rare makes the whole sport unwatchable, but then they don't have to watch it. They'll love basketball, where they score so many times that you have to look at the scoreboard more than the players.
You know, I hate that attitude. "Either you love all soccer games the way they are, or you're a moron should watch basketball". It's insulting. If soccer is go great just the way it is (1.9 goals per game so far at this World Cup), then I guess back at the 1958 World Cup (3.6 goals per game) it was way too much scoring, right? I mean, it must have been unwatchable soccer, with all that scoring. I guess they were a bunch of basketball fans back then. Over the years, I've found that leagues/tournaments that average around 2.5-2.8 goals per game are the most exciting. There's enough variation in scores when the average is that high. In the first round of play at this World Cup, 7 of the 16 games were 0-0 or 1-0. That's just not enough variety. If the whole tournament was like that, it would widely considered the worst tournament ever.
That's precisely the problem I have with Americans and their understanding of soccer. There are a lot of things that even I hate about soccer. But none of them have to do with the number of goals scored. If you hated soccer for the reasons that soccer should be hated, genuine reasons, then I wouldn't call you out. But if you hate soccer for the low scores, despite a tactically great game, then I'll call you out, doesn't matter if you are American or Irish. The World Cups in the 50's and 60's were great due to tactical flair of the dominant teams. "Flair", also called "enghanche" or "joa bonito" was truly alive in those days and that's why they were so exciting. It was not the high goals per game average that made it great. that statistic was just incidental. Italia 90 was a boring tournament, because of the poor tactical play. The poor goals tally was just incidental. You have yet to grasp the concept that a great or terrible soccer tournament has nothing to do with the goals tally. Euro 2008 had loads of goals, and it was considered a terrible tournament. This world cup has a low goal tally so far, but even though its early days, its shown flashes of great tactical masterminds, like the Swiss, the Koreans, the Dutch, the Chileans, and the Germans.
That's news to me. In general, a higher scoring match is more entertaining than a lower scoring match. There's no getting around that fact. Now that doesn't mean that a 2-2 match necessarily was more exciting than a 0-0 match. But if an entire tournament has ten 2-2 matches and ten 0-0 matches, more of the 2-2 ones will probably be remembered.
Read the great analysis earlier in this post (or was is the nil-nil thread?) Euro 2008 was a tactically terrible tournament. No. No. And No. If that's what you feel so strongly, then let's end the discussion now. There was never been a tournament with more than 7 instances of 0-0 draws in the history of the World Cup. Nor in the Euros. The average number of 0-0 draws in World Cups going back to 1930 is 3.7. And this includes knockout games where a 0-0 deadlock after 120 minutes were settled on penalty kicks. So basically in a 64 game tournament, you have 4 goal less draws. Less than 6%. So your point is moot. We are arguing over something that happens very rarely.
No, that isn't a fact at all. And the scoring scenario you've provided doesn't happen enough to bother caring about. A handful of draws in a season, or tournament isn't a big deal, and more often than not, the matches are just as exciting as the matches with goals.
You are misunderstanding me. I don't hate low-scoring, tactically-interesting games. I just hate a tournament when that's all there is. I like a variety of outcomes. Let me take it to an extreme. Let's say every game was a well-played tactical game, and the score was either 0-0 or 1-0. Goals/game averaged 0.5. Would you consider that a great tournament? Individually each game was exciting in it's own way. But after 7 or 8 of these games, you might be ready for something different. How about a well-played tactical game with a score of 2-1 or 3-2? How about the possibility that when a team goes down 1-0, they have a chance of winning?
Yes in that I agree with you. But its still early days in this World Cup. I am sure we'll get to see a variety of story lines, including comebacks. Already in 2 days of the 2nd round of games, we have had 2 demolitions (URU-SA 3-0, ARG-KOR 4-1), 1 comeback (GRC-NGR 2-1) and 1 classic pound till your opponent breaks performance (MEX-FRA 2-0).
I agree. People (including me) tend to get too excited when the early games don't meet our expectation. There are plenty of games to go.
I highly recommend the Sudanese league. Since only two teams are professional (Al-Hilal Ondurman and Al-Merreikh), while the other teams are organized by vegetable salesmen from local markets, games often end 13-0 or more.
I know this thread is 'goals scored'. But, really I think most fans aren't concerned about goals necessarily. Personally I care more about chances and teams playing to win. The first round of this tournament was marred by teams afraid to lose and when a team did score mostly it wasn't even pretty. I can see a team like N Korea bunkering and countering against a superior team like Brazil....I expect that to happen. Same with <insert lowly team here> vs Spain. I don't expect two teams like IC and Portugal to do whatever it is you call what they did. And there were many games played in that manner. If it's because I'm American that I can't appreciate that crap performance from both teams then so be it...I'll get on with watching game 7 tonight. Atleast I won't have to listed to those **&^% horns. Probably cuz I'm American that I can't appreciate the vuvu's too Mr. Argentina? And, after a while even though there can be exciting 1-0 or 0-0 games...it's nice to see some well taken goals from the run of play. Most of the goals scored in the first round weren't even pretty. Scrappy goals or mistakes by keepers/defenses. It was refreshing to see Germany score some beautiful goals with fantastic buildup. Wasn't the greatest game as it was a blowout but I sure enjoyed Germany's effort. And at least Australia tried to play with Germany. Alright, back to whining and crying about this crappy tournament thus far....American Style
http://www.goal.com/en/news/1863/wo...hy-has-world-cup-2010-been-the-lowest-scoring Here is an interesting article. In 02, 51% of shots were on target, in 02 45% of shots were on target, however in 10 only 33% of shots are on target. That is a significant drop. Why are so many shots going missing the target? I would say altitude, but I have played at altitude before and while there is some drop in accuracy, there is not as great of a drop in accuracy as we have seen here. Perhaps it's the ball which only a fraction of the players have touched before this tournament and according to adidas's own promotional material is supposed to behave quite differently from past balls.
Where does all this non-sense of the Euro 08 being terrible comes from? Considered terrible exactly by who, besides you??
These threads always start and end the same way. Someone points out a problem or issue with a tournament, league, or particular game, and then some eurosnob calls him a dumb American who could never appreciate the game. 0-0 ties and low scoring games over a consistent period point to negative soccer tactics. Higher scoring games are positively correlated with more shots on goal and more positive attacking tactics. At some point high scoring games reach a point where they are more highly correlated with poor goalkeeping and bad defense. The happy medium seems to be around 3 goals per game which the best modern tournaments as well as leagues seem to average. All this talk about how goals have no correlation to exciting soccer and that it is all about "tactical play" is BS. In most low scoring or 0-0 games the "tactical play" of both teams is a 4-5-1 formation where the forward plays most of the game about 10 yards in front of his own 18. This isn't tactical genius. Tactical genius is finding a way to score goals in a sport where it is difficult to do so against a bunkered defense. There's a reason it's called negative soccer/football and not "amazing tactical display." Some low scoring games can be exciting. This usually occurs when one team is attacking and putting many shots on goal but the opposing goalkeeper puts on an amazing display. This has not happened very often in this cup (the exception being Nigeria-Arg.) and is usually the exception and not the rule. Most of the low scoring games in this cup (and in any other competition) are due to negative tactics and crappy strikers who can't finish. Hardly a recipe for good football.
As reference: Worst (until now) WC90: 2.21GPG 2nd worst WC2006:........2.30GPG ============================= WC2010 so far .............1.86 GPG