Chivas have 5 more goals scored this season than the only other team in the league (RSL) even close to as bad as they are. They tried to play the attacking game, they just didn't have the talent. When they get good enough forwards to keep Matt Taylor off the field, they'll probably try again.
Hell, they don't even see the value of keeping entertaining sides IN the league: Hey, I know everyone wants Miami back in MLS...I know that you know that I know that you know that MLS is still missing the kind of rich, attractive, offensive-style, play with a certain flair that Ray Hudson's sh**kickers brought to the league that last year--you know, the same year their attendance took off and they were red-carded outta the playoffs (can't have your league champs contracted now, you know?) We all know that you know that we know that you know that you want MLS back in Miami. Rest assured people, your wishes will be fulfilled at some point...not a matter of IF, but of WHEN... Main idea: More Ray Hudson, more excitement for this vanilla, defensive league.
Actually, that originally came under my #1 (though only parenthetically). I agree that MLS, with its single entity structure, has unique ability to transfer the spending onto players that can attack rather than ones that can defend. MLS has the power to say, "Next year, more Thiagos, fewer Simo Vaalikaris" if they want (even though Simo is a good player, he's pretty much a pure destroyer).
I think moving to a 4-1-0 would go relatively unopposed from FIFA (the 3-1-0 is actually pretty new in the scheme of things, and hardly written in stone). Then again, I also think it would have less effect than some of the ones that might draw more opposition. And FIFA does still change rules. I was a big admirer of the new timewasting rules, for instance.
As I see it, the big problem with both of these systems is psychological. A team that ties shouldn't be "gaining a point." It's been shown that when people feel like they're gaining something, they become a lot more conservative; likewise, when they feel like they're already behind, they're more willing to gamble. With that in mind, why not replace the 3,1,0 system with the mathematically equivalent* 1,-1,-2 system? This way, a tie is a bad situation that you hope to get away from. More moderately, FIFA could switch to the 2,0,-1 system, where a tie means that you walk away with nothing. (Sorry about overlooking your parenthetical before.) *assuming all teams play an identical number of games
You know, I really do agree with you on that. Studies of home field advantage in MLS suggest playing for the draw on the road is not an appropriate strategy unless you know the team you're playing against is better than you. And yet, there seem to be teams every year who do it. I like the 'moderate' proposal there. It's already psychologically very different even though mathematically equivalent. The bolder one may not be necessary.
Thank you! They came to Foxboro and took the bus, their fans, the team, the mascot and all the hobos in Boston they could round up on short notice and parked them all in front of their net.
Exactly. Let's not confuse poor defending with "attacking soccer." Recently, Chivas USA has been putting out lineups in which as many as 6 or even 7 players are listed as defenders. A lot of goals are scored in their games, but that's mostly because their opponents score a lot of goals on them. It's disingenuous to say they're playing attacking soccer because they've scored 5 more goals than the next-worst team in the league - they've still scored the third-fewest goals in the league, and their attack is not that much better than the two behind them, since they've played one more match than RSL and two more matches than Columbus. More telling: Chivas USA has the second-fewest shots of any team in the league (ahead of only Colorado), and the fewest shots on target (by a fairly large margin), despite having played 16 matches when most of the league has played 14 or 15. Only FC Dallas and DC United have been caught offside fewer times per match. Only Kansas City has had fewer corner kicks per game. I've just cited every single aggregate stat that is any indication of how much attacking a team has done, and Chivas USA is the only team that is consistently near the bottom in all of them. And as for effectiveness... after playing exactly half of their matches, they currently have 6 points on the season, and if they continue this pace they'll be the worst team in MLS history (relevant marks: 2003 Dallas Burn, 16 points; 1999 Metrostars, 15 points in shootout era). More interestingly, 5 of those 6 points were earned in matches in which they played very defensively.
That said, their ratio of 15 goals: 6 points is by far the highest in the league, and they've outscored the two teams immediately ahead of them in the standings, which says to me they try a lot harder to score than the other crappy teams do.
That's not a whole lot more scoring. I could definitely see Columbus scoring 3 goals in the 2 games that they have in hand.
A 0-0 draw is no worse than a 1-1 or 5-5 draw. How can you punish a team for having good defense and not allowing goals, and reward them for allowing 5 goals? You shouldn't say that offense is more important than defense. That's not fair.
I just gave numerista retroactive rep, because feeding on his idea (the moderate version), I've discovered something: Code: Team GP W L T PTS [b]ADJ Pts[/b] FC Dallas 15 10 2 3 33 18 New England 14 9 1 4 31 17 Chicago 17 9 6 2 29 12 San Jose 15 6 3 6 24 9 Los Angeles 15 7 5 3 24 9 Kansas City 15 5 3 7 22 7 MetroStars 14 5 4 5 20 6 D.C. United 14 5 5 4 19 5 Columbus 14 4 8 2 14 0 Colorado 16 4 10 2 14 -2 Real Salt Lake 15 3 9 3 12 -3 Chivas USA 16 1 12 3 6 -10 You see what I'm seeing? This table does a heckuvalot better job filtering out for matches in hand than does the current MLS table. Notice how Chicago goes back closer to the pack. Question is, could you stomach a negative point total? If you could, it sets up a enat playoff scenario, as every team above zero points looks like it would qualify for the playoffs (at least in a single table) and every team zero or below wouldn't.
You know, this is partially just a philosphical debate (in which the best answer would be, "if people think a 0-0 draw is worse, then it is"), but part of it is an empirical question on whether it is easier to deny goals than to score them. I don't know what the answer to that half is, but I suspect it's easier to deny goals by playing a defensive style than to score them by playing an offensive one. After all, if you score a goal, then most of the time you had to run a competent offensive play to do so. However, not allowing a goal could just be the other team's incompetence. For instance, Real Salt Lake has shut its opponents out 3 times so far this season. FC Dallas has done it. . . 4 times.
I've been stuck on hold for an hour, so I tallied up a few numbers for scoreless draws ... South American WC qualifying in 2002 and 2006 Ties involving either Argentina or Brazil: scoreless -- 5 (29%) other -- 12 (71%) Ties involving two other teams: scoreless -- 12 (50%) other -- 12 (50%) Bundesliga 2004/05 Top half of table -- 14 scoreless draws Bottom half of table -- 22 scoreless draws There is a hint that weaker teams play more scoreless draws.
Easy. Six points for a win. Two points for a tie. Zero points for a loss. One point for each goal scored. Code: [U][B]EASTERN CONFERENCE[/B][/U] Team GP W L T GF GA PTS New England 14 9 1 4 28 13 90 Chicago 17 9 6 2 31 26 89 Kansas City 15 5 3 7 25 19 69 MetroStars 14 5 4 5 22 17 62 D.C. United 14 5 5 4 21 19 59 Columbus 14 4 8 2 12 24 40 [U][B]WESTERN CONFERENCE[/B][/U] Team GP W L T GF GA PTS FC Dallas 15 10 2 3 28 14 94 San Jose 15 6 3 6 22 15 70 Los Angeles 15 7 5 3 20 18 68 Colorado 16 4 10 2 16 22 44 Real Salt Lake 15 3 9 3 10 25 34 Chivas USA 16 1 12 3 15 38 27
I thought people were talking about forcing coaches to do certain things, not changing the point structure, which I am generally ambivalent on Funny that that structure keeps the standings in exactly the same order.
Not if you look at previous years. Take last year: Code: [U][B]EASTERN CONFERENCE[/B][/U] Team GP W L T GF GA PTS Columbus 30 12 5 13 49 40 147 D.C. United 30 11 10 9 43 42 127 MetroStars 30 11 12 7 40 47 120 New England 30 8 13 9 42 43 108 Chicago 30 8 13 9 36 44 102 [U][B]WESTERN CONFERENCE[/B][/U] Team GP W L T GF GA PTS Kansas City 30 14 9 7 38 30 136 Los Angeles 30 11 9 10 42 40 128 [B]San Jose 30 9 10 11 41 35 117 Colorado 30 10 9 11 29 32 111[/B] Dallas 30 10 14 6 34 45 106 In fact, you can make the argument that in terms of emphasizing "attacking soccer," it still slightly overemphasizes wins and dras vis-a-vis goals scored. Look at Colorado and Dallas. Colorado was the one team in the league that scored fewer goals than Dallas, but they would be in the playoffs in this system. Why? Because while both teams had 10 wins, Colorado had 11 draws to Dallas' 6.
Your goal numbers are off for Cbus and Metro You have the pts each team earned as GF and the number of goals scored as GA. Recalculated it should look like this. Code: [U][B]EASTERN CONFERENCE[/B][/U] Team GP W L T GF GA PTS Columbus 30 12 5 13 40 32 138 D.C. United 30 11 10 9 43 42 127 MetroStars 30 11 12 7 47 49 127 New England 30 8 13 9 42 43 108 Chicago 30 8 13 9 36 44 102 I think
I think part of it is that most other teams in MFL also go for attacking soccer....So Chivas Mexican version finds more suiccess with their style...... here, too much conservative tactics/tacticians..... Heck, Ellinger, Gansler. Andrulis.... And at times NOvak, Clavijo, Sarachan, ... Heck just right there you have 50% of the league..And it's not about scoring alone (when people pull out goals per game avgs)..... it's about not creating that many good chances to score.... and entertain the fan in the process....