Simple question. Garber and AEG president spoke numerous times about attacking soccer and how entertaining they are and yet they have done nothing to further improve the entertainment of the game. Action speaks louder than words. Advocating attacking soccer is not the same as mandating it. An example: Garber spoke so cheerfully about how entertaining and 'this is what soccer is all about' at last year playoff between DC-NE. Even if the game wasn't a playoff game and the crowd wasn't so into it, it would still be a great game. Why? because two coaches played attacking soccer at the same time. It was a great game to watch. In fact, I can say with confident that most of MLS 20 best/classic games are played when the two opposing coaches played attacking/offensive soccer. One reason a coach might not want to play attacking soccer is the fear the other coach would not. If the playing is level as in every team is mandated to play attacking soccer, the coach will be more willing to play offensive soccer. What do MLS got to lose for mandating all its team to play offensive soccer? If Chivas USA is mandated to do it, why not all teams? I believe the quality/entertainment level would pick up a bit if the two teams play attacking/offensive soccer with little/no cost to MLS.
Re: Why won't MLS mandate attacking soccer? It's wrong for the league to tell teams to play a certain way. Let the games turn out the way they do, even if it's not as exciting (see KC-CLB last night). If individual owners want to do that, then fine. But it would be wrong for AEG or Hunt to do so with mutiple teams.
Re: Why won't MLS mandate attacking soccer? My mistake, I did not meant the league, I meant the owners mandating attacking soccer. New thread title: Why won't MLS owners mandate attacking soccer? I was hoping Checketts and Kroneke would follow Vergera's lead and mandate attacking soccer for their team. How so? I don't see anything wrong with Vergera mandating Chivas USA to play attacking soccer and I don't think I see anything wrong if Hunt mandate Crew, Wizards and FC Dallas to play attacking soccer. On another note, who mandate Brazil Nats to play attacking football? The owner of the team do (aka its fans). Same for the Dutch team.
Re: Why won't MLS mandate attacking soccer? I like to see decent defending and competitive soccer as well. As it is, I think American players could use more experience playing against opponents that play defensively - one of the big weaknesses of our national team is the total inability to break down a bunker.
Re: Why won't MLS mandate attacking soccer? Two points: 1) If all teams play attacking soccer, it would be just as competitive as it is now. Maybe more so because Chivas might have a chance at winning. 2) So you want to see 'decent defending' because you want US Nats to succeed against the bunker. I was thinking more in line of seeing a better, more entertaining product from MLS, rather than have MLS be the training ground for bunker ball for the benefit of the US Nats.
Owners will do what they think will put fans in the seats and money in their pockets. Most owners feel that having a winning team is what keeps people coming to games , building the fan base, and selling merchandise. If playing attacking soccer at the expense of winning games is really what is needed then I think the owners would consider this. Me personally? I'd go with a winning team. But the power ultimately lies with the fans and sponsors to decide what they prefer.
Re: Why won't MLS mandate attacking soccer? I think most of us want to see "decent defending" because with out it the game is a joke. Like Chivas USA. Of coures, decent defending doesn't mean defensive soccer. You can play attacking soccer AND play good defense. I think the league is less defensive than people think. We averaged 4 goals a game last weekend!
Not every team is really capable of playing "attacking soccer". Case in point--if the Rapids would have come out of their shell last night in San Jose and played "attacking soccer" then they would have lost 5 - 0 instead of 1 - 0. Teams and especially coaches are judged on wins, not at all on how they happened to win the game. MLS, like most other leagues, doesn't give style points. You can complain all you want about the styles of the various teams, but coaches are always going to play the style they think gives them the best chance of a win or (in the case of our Rapids) a draw. The NASL tried to mandate more offense by giving extra points in the standings for each goal scored. I'm not sure if it made the game better but it didn't save the league.
THATS WHAT I WANT TO KNOW!!!!! As a coach your job is to win with what you have. If your players aren't capable of playing "attacking" soccer then you it is your job to play the style that will get you the results. Please, pc4th, show me a league in the world where every single team plays "attacking" soccer.
I guess you have Garber introduce a system where 1 goal earns you one 1 goal point, second goal earns you 1 goal point, third goals earns you 2 pts, etc. Corner kick goals earn you 2 pts. Goals made from outside the penalty area earns you 3pts...oh..wait..that basketball! Ok. No matter. 3 pts! If it is the 3rd goal, 5 pts!.....Then coach tells players " Attack! Attack!"
Of course, you get the same points either way. But I get your point. Teams without obvious talent play on fear, especially on the road. You'd have to work real hard to change that. There are really only two ways I could see to attack it: 1 - Try to take away the means to it, by changing the rules to prevent the ways teams usually play defensively (I can think of two off the top of my head: don't let teams spend money on defensive players, and heavily penalize tactical fouling). and/or 2 - Change the incentive structure to where a team is celarly penalized for not taking risks. I figure you could either do that with the points system (I've suggested a one point penalty for getting shut out, for instance, which would make a 5-1 loss actually better than a 1-0 loss in the standings) or the payscale (more of the player and coach compensation being converted into winning and scoring bonuses). They did a lot worse, such as the 35 yard line which changed the game more fundamentally and made the average goal more than a touch less pretty or memorable. On balance, isolating for other problems that league had, I would still say more offensive play helped the league--guys like Chinaglia became more famous because their goal scoring totals were gaudier (193 goals in 213 games, 34 in his best single season).
EDIT - adding to your point... What IS attacking soccer? attacking when you should defend? being reckless in defense? shooting any time you're near the box? never make a back pass?... Every team attacks with the skill/ability and opportunity that they have during the game... The sentiment to mandate "attacking soccer" is naive... If MLS was like the WWF then it could mandate the style of how teams are to play - but then they could also mandate who will be champion each year, how dramatic the wins should be, and we could have villians and heroes... What would be the punishment for disobeying - giving a team that wins without playing "attacking soccer" a loss? or a deducting more points for a team that loses by not playing "attacking soccer"? OR fine a team for winning or losing with the wrong style of play? Ask Thomas Rongen what his reward was for playing "attacking soccer" at the owner's bequest...
Your ideas tend to go against the flow of what MLS has been doing lately. The league has been trying to show the world that they are a standard soccer league, using the same rules and point system as everyone else. In short, they're trying to show they're not a "gimmick league" like the NASL. Believe me, this is not just a US problem. Every league in world has teams that make people complain about boring games. MLS isn't going to adopt its own rules. Changes like you talk about will only be made by FIFA and I don't think that's going to happen. BTW, there's reports that when MLS first started, FIFA offered the league an opportunity to experiment with bigger goals. MLS wasn't interested.
Is there a league anywhere in the world, in any sport, that does not have it's fair share of boring games?
I can understand it, too (and in most cases agree). And it seems like a fine distinction to make between altering the incentives concerning tactics and actually changing the very rules of the game. Which I note my ideas don't actually do, but politically it will still look like monkeying. And one thing they did about it, between the 1980s and 1990s depending on what competition we're talking about, is change the points system (from 2-1-0 to 3-1-0). The stats say that had a positive impact, but there's only so far you can go by giving teams a bigger reward for a win. You could go to 4/1/0 or even 5/1/0 without getting as big an improvement as you did going to 3/1/0 from 2/1/0. At some point, it would become far more productive to actively penalize the results you don't want. Interesting. I'm happy they made that decision.
a little off topic, but personally I think rule changes by FIFA will become more and more seldom from now on. Why? Because they will constantly be accused of trying to "Americanize" the game, and some footie fan will quote a BigSoccer thread to prove his point that Americans are trying to ruin the game.
I have Direct Kick , so I watch tons of MLS games. I think the games have been exciting and entertaining overall. Not every game , but most games. If you want exciting soccer, refer to the Chicago Fires last 5 games- they have been just as much fun as an EPL game.
I'm all for the 0 points for a scoreless draw. Maybe 4 points instead of 3 for a win. But I know FIFA would want cheese with their whine. It's kinda how I wanted NASCAR to make a win mean more than finishing one place above second. They gave them a whopping 5 points more last year so now it's the same as finishing 2 spots ahead. Ever seen the NASCAR events where a million bucks is on the line? Everybody tries so much harder because that's way more than is usually paid out. Do the same with the MLS scoring system and maybe it'll work better. I don't think a points per goal system is good but I like the zero point scoreless draw idea a bunch.
i still fail to see this "attacking soccer" by Chivas. Yet another BigSoccer myth that has gotten out of hand
3 - Change the attributes of the player pool A big reason to complain about MLS is the shortage of attacking play through the midfield, and a big reason for that is the shortage of attacking midfielders. Imports like Christian Gomez, Ronnie O'Brien, Jose Carlos Cancela, Youri Djorkaeff, and Amado Guevara have made the games more fun to watch. I don't think many people would say the same about the defenders and d-mids who have come from abroad, even though some of them have cost more than any of the names above. MLS could (and imo, should) bring more attacking midfielders into the league. (Importing strikers is a more interesting question. In general, though, they've been poor value for money, and a team that gets a really good one might prefer to sit back and let him do most of the scoring.)