The thing I don’t understand about Soccer, which is now used Worldwide, is the rule awarding three points for a win and one point for a draw. Now, my understanding is that this rule was changed around 20 years ago allowing teams one point for a draw, instead of the two which used to be awarded to sides. However, I’m not 100% sure about that as I am only sixteen, therefore, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. Anyhow, what I cannot understand is why three points (An odd number) is awarded for a win and one point awarded for a draw. I believe being awarded one point for a draw is fine. However, I disagree with the ruling allowing teams do be awarded three times as many points if a team wins. The current system (As you all know) works like this: Win – Three points. Tie – One point. Loss – Zero points. However, a draw is the middle-point between a win and a loss. Therefore, why can’t we award two points for a win instead of the current three? Using the lowest common denominator (One point for a draw) is a good rule, however, as I have already stated, we should not award a team three points for a win as the current ruling is basically saying winning a game is three times better than drawing a game. Let’s assume three games have been played, and the following has occurred: Arsenal – 1 win – 0 draws – 2 loses Chelsea – 0 wins – 3 draws – 0 loses. How on Earth are those results equal in achievement? Chelsea hasn’t lost a game, yet, Arsenal, who have lost two games are at the same level as Chelsea. It just doesn’t make sense to me. Again, I repeat – A draw is the Middle-point (half way between a win and loss), therefore, why do we only award a team three times the amount of fewer points than a team who won? Another point – There is no guarantee on the amount of points which will be given out during the season. The way the current system works - There is a possibility of either two or three points up for grabs per game. If we awarded a team two points for a win, there will ALWAYS be two points per game given out. Therefore, we will know straight away that 760 points will be given out each season. The way the current system works, a total amount between 760-1140 points could be given out. Which brings me to my next point. If there were two points instead of three points for a win, the current EPL ladder would stand: 1. Arsenal – 34 points 2. Man. U – 31 points 3. Chelsea – 30 points 4. S’Hampton – 27 points 5. Newcastle – 27 points 6. Liverpool – 26 points 7. Everton – 26 points 8. Blackburn – 25 points 9. Tottenham – 25 points 10. Man.City – 24 points 11. M’brough – 22 points 12. Leeds – 21 points 13. A.Villa – 21 points 14. Charlton – 21 points 15. Birm’ham – 19 points 16. Fulham – 18 points 17. Bolton – 16 points 18. S’land – 15 points 19. West ham – 14 points 20. West Brom – 12 points A lot better ladder, don't you think? I would like to hear the opinion(s) from others, as I can't understand why the rules were changed.
I believe three points are awarded for a win in order to discourage teams playing for a draw and make them play attacking football. I'm not sure though.
Yeah, a valid point. However, a draw can be neither a good thing nor a bad thing. Therefore, most teams should play for the win - If they try their heart out for the win and end up coming a draw, it seems to me they don't get awarded enough points. Or, what I should've said - Winning a game awards a team one too many points.
I can see where you are coming from here mate but I can also understand why the system is in place for soccer. Coming from Australia, Australian Rules Football awards 4 points for a win, 2 points for a draw and 0 points for a loss... a draw being the middle ground between a win and loss as you have already said. However, the chances of our games being draws are pretty remote compared to soccer. We are lucky to have one draw during our whole season as there is a lot more scoring in our game as opposed to soccer where there are almost as many draws as there are wins. The system was brought into soccer to reward teams for winning more, thus trying to make the game more attacking and therefore more appealing to fans worldwide. The whole idea of playing a game is to try to win, not settle for a draw and therefore I don't see any real problems with this new system. Good post mate!!
What you are proposing is a return to the old system. That was 2 points for a win and 1 for a draw, not 3 pts and 2 pts respectively. As other contributors have said, the idea was to make a win more valuable than a draw. In a game like football, which is low-scoring and in which scoring can be difficult, it was relatively easy for a team playing against technically better opponents to get a draw. They would do this by pulling back players to defend and "pack their goalmouth". The idea is that with a win being worth three times a draw there is an incentive for most teams to try for the win. I think it really has a beneficial effect, especially with regard to teams who play away from home. Under the old rules an away draw was regarded as a good result, now it is regarded as two points lost.
Re: Re: Three points for a win - One for a draw Err, what I meant to say was that a win should be even more valuable in comparison with a draw than it was under the old system.
It was brought in about 20 years ago in England, but only adopted worldwide in the last 10 years. There was also an experiment for a year or two in the conference of awarding 2 points for a home win and 3 for an away win, but that idea was scrapped. As said before, it was put in place to try to prevent teams just going away and playing for a draw. I could be wrong, but I think the biggest impact has probably been in Italy where draws seemed the most common result due to ultra-defensive tactics.
Yeah, I understand that, but - Why award three points for a win? Why not award five, or ten? If you don't recieve half the amount of points for drawing as applied to winning, it isn't a draw. A draw means you cannot split the sides together, therefore, you must give them half the amount of points each.
Well, your argument seems to be that the three points for a win is an arbitrary figure - and you're right. But no more arbitrary than five or ten. In fact, if anything, less arbitrary, as it was clearly chosen because it was one up from the then current 2 points for a win. The basic premise was that we wanted to make a win more valuable than a draw. That's it, in a nutshell. I don't think you're notion that a draw is "halfway between a win and a loss" stands up in real terms - you can get battered for 90 minutes and thoroughly deserve to lose on the basis of that performance, but still get away with a 0-0. Just because the result represents parity does not mean the game itself did. And, as such, the idea that you can place a result in an empirical context - against a win or a loss - is a flaky one. They wanted to make teams value the win more, settled on 3 points for a win and that was the end of it - no greater rhyme or reason, I reckon.
There was no better example of this then Liverpool vs Sunderland at Anfield this season. Sunderland didn't have a shot for goal but because they were able to hold Liverpool to 0-0, got one point from the match. There's no way in the world Sunderland deserved to get "half a win" from the match as only one team, (Liverpool) was trying to win. Can you imagine if we awarded teams 'half' for a draw compared to a win?? You'd have struggling teams like Sunderland play like they did this day against Liverpool because half the points would be seen as a fantastic result away from home and games like this would occur more often. I dont think anyone who likes this great game wants to see that!!
I'm absolutely fine with the three points rule - I would only like to see one thing changed. I think that 0:0 matches should be 0 points for either team. You should at least have to score a goal to get any points.
That would be impossible to implement though - imagine the uproar every time a team had a goal wrongly disallowed in a game that eventually ended 0:0. Besides, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with a 0:0 - the game against Sunderland is again an example. It was a cracker, despite the lack of goals.
I did a bit of a search for past tables and found some interesting results. The tables I found were from 1970 onwards, and from the English League. They didn't show the results before that. From the 1969-70 season until the 1980-81 season (the last 12 seasons with the two-point rule) the results were as follows. 1969-70 to 1980-81: Matches - 5544 Draws - 1602 Percentage of draws - 28.90% Total goals per match (both teams combined) - 2.55 From the 1981-82 season until the 2001-02 season (the first 21 seasons with the three-point rule) the results were as follows. 1981-82 to 2001-02: Matches - 8840 Draws - 2398 Percentage of draws - 27.13% Total goals per match (both teams combined) - 2.63 So, the 3-point rule has had the massive affect of decreasing draws by 1.77% and increasing the total goals per game from 2.55 to 2.63. Wow! If it was right for 100 years until 1981 why change it to make it more unfair? What has changed? Has there been more scoring? No (0.08 is nothing.) Has the amount of draws decreased? Not perceptibly.
Try the same stats for Italy. from 82-83 (first old rothmans yearbook I found lying about) Matches - 240 Draws - 101 (42%) Goals 505 (2.1 per game) last season matches - 306 Draws - 87 (28.4%) Goals - 806 (2.63 per game) More recently 90-91, one of the last 2pts for a win seasons and considered one of the most open & attacking seasons for years. Matches - 306 Draws - 101 (33%) Goals - 702 (2.29 per game) So although in England the impact may not have been as great as expected, the same can't be said elsewhere.
It may not have had as much affect on the results of games but I believe it has changed teams' attitide towards how they approach the matches. I like the new system.... I'd much rather watch a game where both teams are trying to win rather then just settle for a draw.
We all would, mate. Drawing with your opposition, though, means that your opponent never beat you. It also means you never beat your opponent. Therefore, you should be awarded an average amount of points that you would usually get for winning and drawing. Eg - Win - 3 points Lose - 0 points 3+0=3. Two into three goes 1.5 times. That's the figure you should get for drawing. Work out the average you would get if you win a game and lost a game, then you would be able to work out the average when you divide the figure by two.
I understand what you are saying there mate, but what would stop lower teams like Sunderland, West Ham, West Brom, Bolton, etc etc. playing for draws every week and settling for half a win?? This would make it much easier for them to stay in the Premiership and would create a not so good spectacle for the fans watching the game.
What you don't see in those stats is how the game was played. Were both teams trying to get a draw or were they both trying to win and the game ended as a draw? In football more than any other sport, stats are meaningless(except the score, of coarse).