There has been some debates on these boards over regular season overtime in MLS. I thought it might be of interest for MLS fans to look at J.League - it had regular season overtime (two 15-minute halves, golden goal) for the first 10 seasons of its existence, but beginning this year, matches end after 90 minutes regardless of the score. The league broke down statistics from the first 10 matchdays of this season, comparing this year (no overtime) with last (with overtime). You can read this if you can read Japanese: http://www.nikkansports.com/ns/soccer/p-sc-tp0-030604-0008.html Or you can just keep reading this post. - This year, 81% of matches had a winner after 90 minutes. Last year, only 69% of matches had a winner after 90 minutes. - There have been 240 goals after 80 matches this season. At the same point last season, there were 234 total, 217 in regulation. - There have been 1979 shots this season, over a 200 shot increase from 1788 (in regulation) last season. - 32 goals were scored in the first 15 miutes, compared to 9 last year. There has also been a 7 goal increase in the last 15 minutes of matches. - Midfielders have scored 136 goals, more than the 81 goals scored by forwards. Last season, 54% of goals were scored by forwards. - There have been 4460 tackles (56 per match), a 13% increase from 3935 tackles (49 per match) from the same point last season. - 5.1 players are subsituted per match this season, an increase from 4.8 last season. The percentage of defenders used as subs decreased from 17% to 10%, as more forwards and midfielders are used as subs. The change in format was made primarily to accomodate TV networks, but the league also wanted players to manage the clock and their stamina, and also improve the quality of play. If stats are any indication, the there has been more attacking without overtime.
That's an interesting observation. I don't see any reason why the MLS would feel that strongly about keeping overtime. I'll bet they feel it's more of a pain that not. Perhaps they felt that overtime would reduce ties, but if there is evidence to the contrary, I'm sure MLS would take another look. It's no skin of MLS's nose. With no overtime, it's easier for them to manage their paid-for TV time, and it's easier on the players, too. If these stats from the Japanese league hold up here, I can't see anybody complaining about ending overtime. Of course, this is BS, so someone will probably complain.
Interesting, but there is a big difference between two 5 minute overtimes and 2 15 minute overtimes. You can struggle through 10 minutes of OT while tired, but if you are tired going into a 30 minute OT session you are going to be in serious trouble. I could care less either way myself.
I'd like for MLS to get rid of OT. When I watch international matches at 90 the match is over and it just feels right. But when I watch MLS and after 90 they play that short OT it just seems stupid and unnatural. I can see that after 90 and stoppage time if the match is tied then why not just let play continue for another 3 min to the discretion of the referee? If the teams seem too fatigued or seem incapable of creating a serious chance to score then blow the whistle. I think that when FIFA went to the 3 pooints for a win system that gives the teams incentive enough to play for a win.
I'm that guy. There is no good reason for ending OT. Japan's example is a limited data base by any stretch of the imagination. In other words it's statisticly insignifigant. If OT decides even just one game then OT is worth it. I'm also completely for bringing back the SO (as they are better than pks) and having that be the contest for the third point. Several leagues at various levels do this already and have for years, so save the "tradition" bs arguments. If we're so worried about TV then why not eliminate stoppage time and go back to the orignal MLS strict clock? Why not go back to all starters wear 1-11 only, nothing is more traditional than that. Keep OT, it's the only sensible thing to do. Ties suck.
I agree on this point. It's a little too early to call elminating OT a success after only 10 games, and correlation isn't necessarily causation. But at least so far, it seems to be affecting the style of play in a positive way. Do they? Or perhaps that's just your opinion?
Limited sample. There are so many other factors it's not funny. For example, the World Cup. Even though the J-League didn't play through the World Cup, one must keep in mind that last year at this time a lot of the J-League's most skilled players (mostly players on the Japanese and South Korean national teams) had missed quite a few league matches while playing pre-WC friendlies. Their replacements in the starting lineups of their clubs wouldn't be anywhere near as strong. More specifically, attacking play suffers more than defensive play, because it's much easier to replace a defensive hardman than it is to replace a good attacking player. Consider, for example, the Metrostars. Pope may be their best field player at his position, but he's likely easier to replace than Mathis. Pope's replacement will be able to mark decently even if he's a hack, while Clint's replacement is likely to be not much more than a speed merchant. Furthermore, the replacement for a defender is likely to be almost as good defensively but much weaker on the ball.
I have to admit, even as a relatively "purist" fan (if anyone can call themselves that), I like the inruige of overtime and the golden goal. Something about the possibility of the celebration that would follow finishing a game on the last shot and going nuts is awesome. (For me, this season when KC scored in OT vs. DC was very exciting. Also Molnars goal to send KC to the Cup in 2000.) But, I think we're seeing why OT doesnt work. First, its only 10 minutes, split in the middle. Not much time at all, theres really only time for 10 or less attacks of the opponents goal (on average.) Second, teams tighten up, and play for the draw. They know they've got the point at hand, and they know with the slightest mistake they could lose that point. This often leads to at least 10 minutes of "nothing" soccer. Now if they knew 90 minutes was it, they would have more urgency about them. First because its pretty clear to know when OT is going to end, there is rarely time added (I've even seen time called BEFORE 5 min was up). In regulation you can have 4 or 5 minutes sometimes, and those minutes get exciting as hell at times. Because a team knows, that even if they do give up a goal, they're going to have at least a couple minutes to try and get one back. As opposed to the sudden death aspect of OT.
The game is already decided. The decision is that the game is a draw and that the teams take away one point apiece.
A 10 minute overtime is absolutely pointless. Make the periods 15 minutes or don't do it at all. Ties are part of the games and sometimes its a fair result.
The thing I like about ties in soccer is that it complicates things. A win or a loss is pretty obvious, but there are varying degrees of quality when it comes to ties. A tie at home can be really bad, as is a tie on the road when you blow a 2 goal lead in the last 10 minutes. Or if you come back from 3-1 draw at home, a tie can be a good thing. Instead of "not deciding anything" a tie can open up a large number of what the Brits call "talking points." Of course, American sports fans have a hard time with ties. It was funnier than all hell last year when the Steelers played to a tie. What happened? The press spent days arguing over whether it was good or bad, whether Bill Cowher was wrong or right when he said, "it's okay. We didn't lose." It's just that in soccer (or hockey for that matter), it's a more common occurance.
Re: Re: What happens when you eliminate overtime - the J.League example That sure seems to be the case this season. If my quick check of MLSnet.com is accurate, only one game has been decided in extra-time out of 16 games that were level after 90min (6%). The stats since extra-time was introduced to replace the shootout: Year....OTgoals..Draws+OTgoals 2000....13........47 (28%) 2001.....8........35 (23%) 2002....14........36 (39%) 2003.....1........16 (6%) Total...36.......134 (27%) I like regular season extra-time. Hopefully it won't be sacrificed at the altar of traditionalism...
Re: Re: Re: What happens when you eliminate overtime - the J.League example Yeah. It's making such a huge difference.
Exactly. Last week KC played terrible for 70 minutes in New England. Then they come to life, down 0-2 and Preki pulls them level. Looking beyond Chris Brown missing about 4 goals in the last 10 minutes, I was estatic that the Wizards "took a point" from NE in that game.
What do you think about a variation on the NHL setup. 3 points for a regulation time win. 1 point for each team for a regulation time tie. 2 points to the team that gets the golden goal. Since there is nothing to gain buy playing defensively in the OT there would probably be a lot more golden goals.
In a word: No. I'm actually a bit of a fan of hockey, but when the NHL did this, I thought it was very stupid to say the least. You get records like 4-6-0-2....
OK, Why not? From a fan's perspective, ties can be like kissing your sister. This can help mesh the teams desire to make sure they at least get the point, with the fans desire to see someone win the game with a goal that comes from the run of play.
Statistical confusion aside, awarding 1 point for a regulation tie would result in the lesser/visiting team killing the game late in regulation so they at least get a point and wait for OT to possibly get another point, and the better/home side would respond by similary not taking a risk in regulation. If the match ended at 90 minute, there would be more urgency for the team that needs the 3 points.
Because it just confuses things too much. During the regular season having an overtime is pointless, if the league standings are determined based on points. If you accept there are going to be ties, and base the league structure around it, why bother with overtime? There is no evidence suggests there are fewer ties with the overtime. No evidence it creates more goals, no evidence it makes the games more enjoyable to watch. In fact, the evidence from the J-league is the exact opposite. In a knockout or playoff situation, where you must have a winner, of course extra time is essential, but during the regular season, there is little or no benefit.
This is what makes it interesting. The better/home team is giving away a point if they play for the tie. The OT win only gives them 2 points where the regulation gives them 3. There could also be increased urgency in the regulation time to deny the other team the point that they are guaranteed for the tie. If you were two points back of the other team in the standings, a tie and a win in OT only gaines you 1 net point on that team, so you neeed to go for the win in regulation.
Dcc134, How confusing is it? You look at the points, and the team who has more points is ahead of the team with less points. I agree that the traditional overtime is basically just a longer game. If both teams are happy with one point instead of 3 there is no reason to go for it in overtime. But if your one point is already in the bag, and all you have to loose by giving up a golden goal is the other team getting one extra point, there is a lot of incentive to attack, even if it means you might give up a goal on the counter. I really think fans would rather see the game end with a goal (even if it means it will be the other team sometimes) than in a tie.
So does being on the losing side of 3-1 -- or any score. A tie doesn't suck if you're a road team or any team coming from behind to gain a point. Often earning a tie is, in fact, a win, since winning, in a grown up world, usually goes deeper than the score at the end of the match. Soccer is a child's game for grownups, not unlike Haydn string quartets: too easy for amateurs, too difficult for professionals. Or like chess, where the rules and moves can be learned in half an hour, but the game is rarely mastered in a lifetime. Like Shakespeare's plays or life itself, with all its frustrations, rewards, triumphs and hollow victories. What 'sucks' is the adolescent impatience with the facts of life, and the phrase itself: that sucks.
Thats why. The shootout sucked, 5 minute overtime halves suck. Golden goal is fun, but if I called the shots it would only be used in necessary situations (knockout rounds of tournaments or playoffs.)