Re: FIFA world cup low scoring. Changes? There is another thread discussing this. The three main problems are (1) teams could collude and allow goals on each other in order to avoid a 0-0 draw. (2) This approach might encourage more attacking soccer during group and league play, but obviously does nothing to encourage attacking soccer in single elimination play and finals where historically there is less scoring. (3) Various point awarding schemes in the past have had little impact on scoring in comparison to changes to the actual laws of the games such as changes to the off-side rule, back pass to GK, etc. Ultimately, it seems clear that to encourage attacking soccer actual changes to the rules of the game or dimensions of field and goal would need to be made. Changing the point system would have almost no effect.
Re: FIFA world cup low scoring. Changes? The ONLY change that needs to be made is that damn ball. In 2006 you had more goals because you could literally score from all over the park (Lahm vs Costa Rica, Joe Cole vs Sweden, Rosicky vs USA) with the Teamgeist ball. I can count on one hand the number of decent long-range shots that have been scored in 2010, because everytime anybody even thinks of shooting from distance, the ball goes sky-high. This has also limited the number of Free-Kick goals we have seen (I count only one, with Nigeria's Uche vs Greece).
Re: FIFA world cup low scoring. Changes? I have been saying for awhile that FIFA should make it a rule that a new ball design must be in use for three years before the World Cup to allow for thorough evaluation of the ball in match play. This ball was only used in a fraction of Bundesliga matches, MLS play, and at the African Cup of Nations before the WC. The WC is too important to have more than half of the players adapting to a new design at the biggest event in the sport. Also, I noticed adidas touting how many academics they consulted with in the design of the ball. Screw the academics. Put the ball in the hands of actually pros in different leagues around the world (so you get input from players playing different styles) and see what they say about how easily they can put a free kick on target or put a ball through the defense. (I read in an article that although the failure to convert free kicks gets a lot more press, one other problem players are havnig is delivering an accurate through ball through the defense. If a ball is too slick and explodes too much off the foot, it becomes nearly impossible to deliver that perfect low pass through the defense that an attacker can reach before the goalkeeper can collect it).
Re: FIFA world cup low scoring. Changes? finally passed the 2.0 mark. things are starting to open up a bit as teams have to go for wins.
Re: FIFA world cup low scoring. Changes? hm, that's exactly what they have been doing. you just didn't hear much about it because no-one had a problem with the ball before that WC.
Re: FIFA world cup low scoring. Changes? Well, I'm not sure which pros they put the ball in the hands of, but adidas's best and most high profile player, Messi, talked about how the ball is "complicated" and how the players are still adapting to it. If I was developing a ball and Messi was one of my company's sponsored players, I sure would have consulted with him throughout the process and given him plenty of prototypes to test and comment on.
Re: FIFA world cup low scoring. Changes? problem is that Barca are sponsored by Nike. but the ball was available to everyone who wanted it since February. the Argentine league and a few Bundesliga clubs used it in the second half of the season. there were no complains as far as I know. neither from players, nor from fans.
Re: FIFA world cup low scoring. Changes? 0 points for nil-nil draw? would it help? the moderators moved it to the World of Soccer>>Beautiful Game forum (Perhaps to kill off something they found distasteful...?!) There are several threads on rule changes there although they go back years. Some of the interesting ones: Is soccer ready for a rule change? Why we need to change the game Should offsides rule be modified Also, I recently started a thread in the Women's Soccer forum: More offense: the blue line in women's soccer I may start another one this week in The Beautiful Game forum on a couple topics. Agreed.
65 goals in 31 matches = 2.1 gpm By the time the group phase is over, we may be above 1990's gpm (= 2.21).
It looks like there may be a long term trend toward fewer goals: http://www.soccerquantified.com/project-updates/onelastrally not helped along by very evenly matched groups: http://www.soccerquantified.com/project-updates/groupstrengthandwhyitdoesntmatter
Commenting on the 2010 World Cup, Beau Dure is also concerned with the long-term trend while reading Jonathan Wilson's Inverting the Pyramid. I commented on the Women's Soccer thread about CKs. I suggested earlier removing two defenders from the offensive zone, but I added an alternative which perhaps is less artificial: which is that on CKs where the ball goes out from the 18-yard box, the CK can be taken closer in - that is from the 10-yard corner mark. This is keeping with the principle that restarts take place in relation to where stoppage of play occurs: throw-ins near where the ball goes out of bounds, goal kicks from the goal area, free kicks from the spot of the foul, etc. Would a CK taken from 10 yards closer make a significant difference? I think so but I'd like the opinion of people with more experience of the game.
67 goals in 32 matches = 2.09 goals per match. The goals per match increased by from about 1.5 in the first set of matches to 2.5 in the second set of matches.
It's BigSoccer. We're all about premature knee-jerk reactions. Worse than teen girls during those days.
Not really. It's still running behind previous WCs. And for some of us, it's not like the amount of attractive, attacking soccer has been ample in those, especially in the closely-matched games or knockout stages.
People are asking for too much ,"the game has to be open, all players have to be skillful, there has to be a bucket of goals, those goals have to look sexy," etc. Not every team can pull off Argentina's 300 pass play against Serbia & Montenegro in 2006. And not every team can be Brazil 1982. Go watch Copa Libertadores then.
Eh people were concerned that this tournament was going to shatter the floor for number of goals scored, so you're argument is mostly a strawman.
The GPG average would probarbly be greater than 2006 if Chile had put half of thier fluffed chances away In seriousness though, while the play in the opening round of games did not exactly lend itself to scoring plenty of goals, the players haven't exactly been helped by the ball. 2006 was greatly helped by the Teamgeist ball, which would fly in from all ranges of the pitch. This year, the ball is terrible. The good/bad crosses ratio is probarbly something like 30/70. Only problem here I see is Jabulani. 2010's GPG average is basically handicapped by the fact that we will see a) Few long range goals b) More overhit crosses than good. Despite this, from about tuesday onwards (the Brasil/Korea game which I found quite engrossing despite only three goals), I have thoroughly enjoyed this tournament.
Indeed, with a notable exception or two *cough* England/Algeria *cough* the entire second round has been pretty good for neutral entertainment value.
Tell me about it. I have never been so bored during an England match in my entire life. It was just one of those surreal games where you think to yourself 'WTF is happening!?!'
Actually that game was very attractive to me because Algeria has creative midfielders and wingers who actually run fast, take people on one on one and attempt passing combinations. Even their defenders kept the ball on the ground. Their problem is lack of finishing strikers and below average defense. I think these next 16 matches will be high scoring. There are a handful of teams that have been qualified or disqualified so they little to lose if they come out and attack. A handful of other teams require 3 points to have a chance so there will be insentive to attack.
Or is the counterreaction that everything's fine because we've seen a few balls hit the net in the second 16 games the knee-jerk reaction? The first 16 games were, as a whole, abysmal. Not just the lack of scoring -- in fact, some 1-0 games were quite good. But the lack of control on the ball, the tentative play and the outright blunders (accounting for a couple of the goals that were scored) added up to a nightmare. Calling for wholesale change would be overreacting. Discussing it as a potential problem? I think that's valid.
Exactly. Most of the people on here, such as myself, are not suggesting that wholesale changes need to be made to the rules of the game. We are suggesting that there may be a need, again, to consider certain incremental changes to the laws of the game. Many incremental changes have been made in the past such as prohibiting the goalkeepr from handling a back pass, as well as a host of changes to the offside rule. Perhaps there was some resistance to these changes when they were proposed, but nearly everyone seems to now agree that they benefited the game. Maybe we are due for tweaks to the offside rule in order to open up more space for attackers because, as you point out, there has been an almost undeniable decades long trend toward more cautious and negative soccer. Either way, I think that some changes should be experimented with in different leagues. Inevitably, people will not like the effects of certain changes and so these ideas can and should be abandoned, while other changes might be more successful and become adopted. Also, I think the lack of ball control you mentioned is a very valid point and was symptomatic of players adapting to a ball that (with a few exceptions such as bundesliga and MLS players) they were unfamiliar with. Perhaps the most telling statistic, in my opinion, is the significant drop in percentage of shots on target from 2006 (about 45%) to 2010 (about 33%). Moreover, scoring from distance has virtually disappeared this tournament (unless a GK error is involved). When teams cannot score from distance, defenses can comfortably clog the space from the PK spot up through the top of the penalty area. However, when teams can legitimatley threaten from distance, then defenses most push out of this area to defend against this threat which then opens up more space.
Something that people may not have considered is that the standard of the smaller nations has improved (especially defensive organisation) and now you seldom see a rout. That will bring the average down. For example in 74 Haiti and Zaire conceded 28 goals between them in just 6 games and scored just 2 but that still equates to a 5.0 average in the games they were involved in. (were these one sided affairs more entertaining?) Regarding rule changes. Perhaps they could consider increasing the height of the goal by 3 inches and the width by the same because the standard of goalkeeping is not only better now but generally human beings are taller than they were a generation ago. At first it sounds Mickey Mouse but such a small increase in goal size would bring about a subtle (unnoticeable?) change to the way the game is played but allow increased scoring.