I posted the essentially the following in the Beautiful Game forum, but I got a pretty poor response. On reflection, this is probably the better place for it. I was thinking about recent changes to our Super 12 rugby competition and its points system, away from the traditional 3 points for a win, one for a draw. Here's a rough translation of this system to football: 4 points for a win 2 points for a draw A bonus point for any team scoring 3 or more goals in a match A bonus point for any team losing by only one goal I'm not advocating sweeping changes, I was just interested to find out how people thought this would influence the way the game is played if it was applied to (say) the EPL. In rugby, it's opened up the game by encouraging far more attacking and entertaining play (especially in games which have a certain result). I know it's a vastly different game, but I think the principle could translate. So, how do you think it would affect how the game is approached tactically? Is any effect a good thing or a bad thing? The first thing I think of is that it might provide an incentive to the manager up 2-0 to continue attacking for the 3rd goal and the bonus point, rather than to switch to 5-4-1 or 4-5-1 to protect his lead.
Good post but I think many fans may find the idea too complicated for football, since this is a game that prides itself on simplicity. And that's kind of ironic since the offsides rule has gotten to the point where even commentators find it confusing. But I do like the notion of favoring attacking football. Perhaps this might work better: - 1 point for a draw - 3 points for winning by a 1-goal difference - 4 points for winning by a 2 or more goal difference This keeps the idea of favoring the attack-minded teams who keep going forward instead of bunkering down on 1-goal leads. It also awards more value to a convinicing victory, perhaps then lessening the overall damage done by dodgy penalty calls late in the game.
Very interesting idea that might be popular among the younger generation. But I can't think of any other sport (aside from rugby mentioned above, though I don't know much about it) that rewards margin of victory. Too many purists would be against it, and I can't necessarily say I favor it either, but it could make matches more exciting, especially if a team goes up 3-0.
What is it about the current system that strikes you as broken, so that you feel a need to fix it? 3-1-0 gets the job done just fine.
I'm not saying that anything is broken really. We all love football as it is, but at the same time it would be nice to have a points system that weighs a dominating 5-1 victory a bit more than a 1-0 midfield scrap (though scorelines don't always reflect the run of play, they'd be accurate enough over a long season). Football would still be a great game even without past changes like 3-pts for a win, or the away-goals tiebreaker, or restricting passbacks to the keeper. But these changes were made to improve an already great sport by lessening the stingier tactics used in matches. So basically we're just brainstorming ideas on how to inspire more open play during games, since attack-minded teamplay is usually the most entertaining. We sort of do it to an extent when we use goal differential as a points tiebreaker, but I see what you mean. And also another drawback is that it does perhaps favor the big clubs that have the quality of players to drive up a scoreline.
Another disadvantage I just realised is that any result of 2-1 or 1-0 under the system I listed would result in 4 points for the winner and 3 for the loser - not much difference there. Considering that these are pretty common results in football, perhaps the lack of disparity doesn't reward the winner enough?
Just read the thread and was going to offer something like that. How in gods name anyone would think that system would favour "attacking football" is beyond me. It's bloody hard enough now to break teams down that come looking for a draw and have all 11 behind the half-way line - this would put all 11 on the goal line.
Actually, I've just rethought that and my comment is incorrect - a 2-1 or 1-0 result would end up with 4 points for the winner and 1 for the loser. Why would a team be looking for a draw, when the rewards of winning are much greater? Instead of 2 points apiece, you would have 4 for the winner and 1 for the loser in the case of a 1 goal win. I would have thought doubling your points for the match would be a huge incentive not to bunker down for the draw.
Most teams go to away grounds now thinking that a taking back a point is a good result.It is often evident in their play - or lack of to be exact - as they pack the backfield and hope for something on the counter. Now, you are not only offering them an extra point for doing this, but are actually going to give them that very point for a 1 goal loss? *Stunned. It's not broke - it doesn't need fixing.
My reasoning is just that the rewards are that much greater for a win. A point under the new system isn't worth as much comparatively as a point under the current system. It would seem to me that, at the end of the season, the teams that come out on top would be the ones that one - and scored plenty of goals. A team that goes through counting on picking up 1 or 2 points away isn't even going to look like competing with those who get the elevated rewards for the win. That's the same as the current system. I think this thread is getting bogged down a little, in that we're losing sight of the point of my original post. It wasn't a cast-iron proposal, merely a tentative suggestion. The point was to provoke discussion about how changing the points system (in any way, not merely the one outlined) would affect tactics and strategy. If there are flaws with my quick, rough translation from the rugby system that's fine - refine it. Something that's become very clear is the predominance of draws in football, as opposed to eggball. Think outside the box, and formulate an alternative - perhaps drop the point for a narrow loss. Just for fun - none of us, I take it, are on the FA Board - ignore the mantra of "it ain't broke". Instead of saying "why change?" say "why not?". What don't you like about the tactics employed - and what sort of scoring system could act as a disincentive for it? Have a go.
That's the pure objective, but sadly it gets corrupted by reality. If a team goes into an away match playing for a 0-0 result by barely attacking and focusing on killling off the other team's offense, then we basically reward that sort of anti-football with a point (maybe even 3 if they manage a goal against the run of play, thus "stealing points" by the media's definition). But the only way to really stop that is to end all draws, which I guess Blatter was poorly arguing for. The alternative idea is to *balance* out that cynical approach by rewarding teams with an extra point when they play to win by a convincing scoreline.
But under the current system you can triple your points by winning instead of drawing. Surely a better incentive? Look, I know you're just throwing up an idea for discussion. But this sort of thing is just completely unnecessary in my opinion (and, I would guess, in the opinion of a great many other fans).
Didn't the NASL experiment with having so many points for a win with bonus points for goals scored? Can't remember the exact formula but the idea was to make teams score more goals. In truth, the point system you use isn't going to have that much influence on games. Good teams will still win and bad teams will still suck. If you really want more goals, then you need to do something drastic like tie one of the keeper's arms behind his back or make the goal 10 feet wider.
Because the status quo is serving the game very well - hence it's worldwide popularity. 3-1-0 is an appropriate incentive to win.
in a special FIFA sanctioned experiment today at Vicarage Road, Watford, the Watford goal was replaced with a barn door, but the tests showed that Reading's players were still unable to hit it. In a separate test they recreated several of the potential tackles Reading's midfielders failed to make and found that in 7 out of 10 cases, the assembled collection of Reading fans' grandmothers were indeed able to make those tackles.
Not so very long ago, the status quo switched from 2-1-0 to 3-1-0. Not because there was anything drastically wrong with the old system - little problems, sure - but because it was thought that it would make for a better game to have 3 points for a win. And it did. Recently Rugby has switched from the traditional 3-1-0 system to a new one, which is similar to the above. By all accounts, it has drastically improved the game by encouraging attacking play from both sides. If you are personally perfectly happy with the current system, then that's fine. Nobody's ragging on it. However, I think it is pertinent to raise the question of a different system when it has proven so supremely successful in another environment. If nobody looked to improve what is currently there, we'd still be sitting on 2 points for a draw. Neccessity is not always the mother of all innovation.
Interesting that you chose an example where there was a groundswell of opinion that 3 points for a win was neccessary. I don't hear any such groundswell as regards changing the current system. I wonder why?
You're making it seem as if we're saying a change is absolutely necessary to save football from some kind of horrible death. That simply isn't the case. We know the game will be popular even without a points change... no one is saying otherwise. But again, we're simply looking at new ways to improve a sport we already love. And it's fair to say most neutral fans don't enjoy seeing a dull midfield scrap between two teams whose fear of losing outweighs their desire to win, or a 1-0 game where an ultra-conservative team chooses to kill the game's flow in the 60th minute, or the excessive timewasting used to defend such a lead. So I think there's plenty of room for suggestions on limiting these not-so-beautiful aspects of the sport, and promoting the kind of open football that people enjoy. Sadly these types of threads seem to always degenerate into a tiring debate over change in general, rather than the specific ideas being made (esp. whenever someone has the nerve to suggest an alternative to pk shootouts as a tiebreaker).
If people are looking at improving the game, then there are much more compelling areas to look at like improving officiating and cutting down on time wasting and diving, than meddling with the points system. Anyway, your points are moot, the system isn't broken and will remain the same. I don't know why this is in the Premiership forum, surely more appropriate in the FIFA forum with Blatter's pointless ideas like abolishing draws.
Totally agree. If we need to have a new table for points it should be for ref's. Now, i realise that they have to make split second decisions as the play runs around them, and, being only human mistakes will happen.It's the blatently obvious much ups that should be punished. However, the match this past Saturday between Man U and Chelsea should have had a negative point awarded to the ref when he was going to (rightly) card Scholes the second time, upon realising what it would mean he decided not to.It was the right decision to make, obvious to everybody - even him - but he bottled it.
So much for finding 'reasoned debate'. I would have thought a moderator would have more courtesy than to hijack my thread.
Are you a child? He's not 'hijacking' it, he expounded on my point that there are areas of the game that need improvement much more urgently than the points system, and then he made that relevant to the Premiership (which is what this forum is about in case you hadn't noticed) by bringing up an example from a recent game.