Those are both well within what we could expect from random chance though. Not to say that the conclusion is wrong, just that the numbers don't necessarily point to it.
Only on a draw. Makes a road draw REALLY a stolen point. And means the home team can't just say "Oh, to heck with it. Let's take our point and go drinking." Probably wouldn't work. Just talking. And voros, yes, I know. But it's not particularly strong evidence that what many people said would happen happened.
For what it's worth, here's the standings under that system. EAST Columbus 12-5-13, 19 points. DC United 11-10-9, 12 points. MetroStars 11-12-7, 10 points. Revolution 8-13-9, 3 points. Fire 8-13-9, 3 points. WEST Kansas City 14-9-7, 19 points. Los Angeles 11-9-10, 13 points. Colorado 10-9-11, 11 points. San Jose 9-10-11, 8 points. Dallas 10-14-6, 6 points. For what's it worth, I don't know if fans, especially those ever so lovely "casual" fans, could get their heads around the concept of a team having negative points if they really suck. Well, maybe Northwich fans, but even they are out of negative points now in England. I wonder if anyone has the data - didn't everyone go to 3 points for a win to reduce draws? Has it actually worked in other leagues? I just wonder if increasing to 4 would actually cause more harm than good. I don't know - I'm just wondering.
When did England go to 3-1-0? 1990 or something? They didn't do it in the World Cup until '94, correct? As for the minus scoring system, we could call it the Modified Stableford System and everybody would recognize it right away!
As far as I can tell from rsssf.com, the first season England's top division used 3-1-0 was 1981-82. I don't remember it being that far back, but I don't have the stats they do to argue it and can't say as I would have cared before 1990. From rsssf ... 1980-81 Division 1 winners: Aston Villa 26w-8d-8l, 60 points. 1981-82 Division 1 winners: Liverpool 26w-9d-7l, 87 points.
England introduced 3-1-0 to the world for the 1981-82 season. It was used in Scotland starting in the 1991-92 season, in Italy starting in the 1994-95 season, and in Spain, Holland, and Germany starting in the 1995-96 season. The World Cup finals didn't start using it until 1994. World Cup qualifying didn't start using it until France '98 qualifying.
Yep, as you indicated along in the thread - draws where someone scored. I've always noticed that the end of the BBC broadcast on Saturday's is always careful to separate out draws and scoring draws for betting purposes. And I would guess that coming from behind to even the score is much more interesting than 2 teams bunkering for 90. I'd love to see the stat, if someone has the time to put it together (but no rush, either).
I show 46 draws this year, and 33 of them had at least 2 goals scored. 13 0-0 draws 23 1-1 draws 8 2-2 draws 1 3-3 draw 0 4-4 draws 1 5-5 draw Times each number of goals was scored in a game: 10...1 9....0 8....1 7....1 6....6 5....9 4...24 3...28 2...39 1...28 0...13 9% of MLS games were scoreless. Nearly half (70 of 140) had at least three goals scored.
And I would say only really the 0-0 matches are where you could definitevely state that the team settled for a draw. Even in 1-1 draws, a team had to fight back from being a goal down to "win" the point. And who knows how exciting a 2-2 match can be....there are possibly 4 lead changes in a game like that. That's why I think they should award 0 points for a 0-0 match, and keep the rest of the scoring system. Just count scoreless draws as losses for both teams.
Thanks for calculating that, Kenn. I would expect that a casual fan would be surprised that there is an 81% chance of any game having at least one goal. But I'm sure that there are people who would complain about that 9%. So which teams made up that 9%?
That would be 91%. Only the MetroStars were not involved in a 0-0 game this year. Colorado was in five to lead the league: Team........0-0 Colorado.....5 Columbus.....4 San Jose.....4 Los Angeles..3 Chicago......2 DC United....2 Dallas.......2 Kansas City..2 New England..2
You can bunker in games other than a 0-0 draw. I think people are critical of Gansler for getting a 1-0 lead and then battening down the hatches, or just coming out defensive and hoping to nick one somewhere.
Isnt it the spirit in which the game is played more important than just how many draws or scoreless draws there are? Scoring one goal then bunkering down could be a much more boring game than a gamed played hard to a zero-zero tie, no? New England was in a really good game earlier in the season like this. Playing for a tie in many cases is boring, playing too a tie is usually less so. Hard to factor this in statistically though. I know you guys like stats, but with soccer being so subjective its kind of hard, no?
There are actually at most 2 leads in a 2-2 tie (1:0 and 2:1) and as few as 1 (2:0) if you count it per team and not per goal. And as far as my memory serves me right, sometime in the 1970s, the Soviet Premier League had tried a penalty shoot-out (1973, IIRC) within a 2-1-0 system, though I am not all that sure of the points since the site I used to rely on has gone down.
A quick take: it may be more useful to count the number of shots, shots on goal and the number of saves as the statistics that best indicates the entertainment quality of the game. One could also count the number of Ronaldinho's tricks to determine the same ... alas, some leagues fall short on Ronaldinhos.
I think Dustin's original post (about more cynical play, games not meaning quite as much) is true. But I don't think we need to mess around with points to correct that problem. 1. A bigger league (or conversely--tougher competition for playoff spots). It's too easy to make the playoffs right now. If it's more competitive, all games will mean more. Yes, teams might play for a tie to grab a point. But the flip side is the opposing side (usually the home team) might struggle more for a win. There's a big difference between a match where people play for 70 minutes and then pack it in versus a tense match that has you on the edge of your seat up to the 90th minute (well, 95th minute depending upon stoppage time!). 2. Bigger rosters/reserve sides. Let's face it--the size of MLS teams and other issues (national team callups, loans, purchases) means that there are games where despite the coaches' spin, one team is just too depleted to really have a chance. Practically every MLS team this year had circumstances where they had to show up for a game badly depleted. Granted, occasionnally a Metro or other side would win fielding the youngest lineup in MLS history--but those were flukes. They'd go out and buy an emergency fill-in. But with MLS you just make do and figure "it's only one game." Reserves for 2005 won't dramatically improve the quality of play. But I think it will help reduce the number of games where one team goes in thinking "well, maybe we'll get a lucky PK in the first 20 minutes and then we can bunker--that's our only hope of winning this one." 3. SSS. Smaller, more intimate stadia with more competition for tickets--will lead to more of a home field advantage and more "atmosphere." I know, I know--you'd think that would lead to more ties. And it might. But it's not that I'm so "anti-draw." What I'm against is when teams figure "1 point is enough, let's tone it down" as opposed to teams desperately fighting for a single point. Again, a draw can be thrilling. But where both teams treat it as "we worked hard in the first half, time to mail it in and we both leave with a point"--that is less likely to happen in front of some stands of raving maniacs who've been chanting all match.