So if I'm not mistaking,Algeria and Honduras are the only two teams who have not contributed at all in the amount of goals scored at this World Cup...Not a single goal to cheer for for their people who travelled all the way to South Africa to support them!Pityfull...
I'm quite glad I managed to resell my tickets back to FIFA France 0 Uruguay 0 Italy 1 Paraguay 1 Spain 0 Switzerland 1 Netherlands 1 Japan 0 Chile 1 Switzerland 0 Ghana 0 Germany 1 Switzerland 0 Honduras 0 0.86 goals a game for my "lucky 7"
Although the Swisse - Honduras match was "epic". One of the most wide-open matches of this tournament. So 2.12 goals per game combined with the unpredictability and great fans. This might go down as the best world cup ever by an absolute mile.
So maybe there's been one or two more and maybe the new ball bears some of the blame. Still it reminds me of what Beau Dure said on his blog. Sounds like we should find a way to make CKs a better scoring chance. For the team taking the kick, I should add.
Perhaps, although if the ball's flight is as unpredictable as reported by so many players, no situation is going to be more affected than a corner kick. So the few corner kick goals may not indicate so much of a problem with the CK rule as a problem with the ball.
Bogus! Even if there was something different about the ball, the players would have had more than enough time to adjust to it by now.
Germany-England 4:1 was the first knock-out match with 5 goals since Brazil-Denmark 3:2 in 1998 (if we count Lampards goal, it's the highest scoring ko match since '86 ^^). The other 2 matches also had 3 goals each... I must say the knock out stage starts as spectacular as the group stage started boring Unfortunately it's the other way around for the refs, great start, now too many blunders... can't have everything, I guess.
Scoring-wise, this is turning out to be a decent World Cup, at least after that horrendous first round. First round of group games = 1.56 goals per match Since then = 2.52 goals per match Added fun fact: In the four Round of 16 games so far, there have been as many goals as in the entire Round of 16 from the 2006 tournament (15).
The first set of group games were low-scoring and cautious, but even in those I thought there was plenty of intensity and drama. Since then, we've had more scoring, and the intensity and drama have continued. The only black marks have been (as usual) key refereeing errors. Other than that, the tournament's been great.
Ultimately I'll take a dull first round of games for an exciting finish to the group stages and good knockout round games as I imagine pretty much everyone else will. Hopefully this continues through the end of the tournament.
It doesn't seem like the Round of 16, so far, is being ruined by too much scoring, does it? Even though there've been enough goals to keep even some American fans satisfied. It seems World Cup fans like goals. On a general note, I think this thread,& a couple other recent ones, have been pretty good discussions on rule changes involving increased goal-scoring. I think those of us who want to see some changes have done fairly well in not coming off as loonies. In any discussion, we need to quickly make it clear we're not trying to make soccer some high-scoring affair like basketball (that was always a bit of a strawman argument). As far as offensive rule-changes, we now need to focus on the rules of how the game is played and not on how we count the results for a group or table - e.g. how many points for a win vs a tie or whether a 0-0 tie gets zero points. The "three points for a win" rule change was fine, but it still had limited effect and it doesn't affect knockout stages at all. Also though, those of us who want to see change have to be responsible about it and try to narrow the number of proposals. Looking at various internet discussions during the World Cup, I felt the purist's horror at the endless half-baked ideas on altering the game. It's our responsibility to show respect for the game and its traditions -- even if it doesn't mean slavishly following along in all respects. We have to make it clear that we're trying to preserve most of the fundamental aspects of the game and the way it's played. For instance, we're not getting rid of offside. We're not allowing unlimited subs. We're not introducing elements involving the clock - 5 or 10 or whatever-second clocks like basketball or time in the penalty box like ice hockey. If anyone can be accused of half-baked ideas in this discussion, it's me. I've put out about the most radical ideas and I fully expected a lot of skepticism and probably that's as it should be. I fully accept that the burden is on me to show how these ideas are in keeping with the fundamental character of the game. And if I can't make the case, they should be shelved. But the game has shown a tendency to lapse into defensive mentalities over the long run. It is time to search for more far-reaching change than it has allowed itself in the last 30 or 40 years. Ideas about video replay and adding goal-line referees is another category of proposed change altogether and not meant to address the issue of offense and attacking play. It's important to make clear this is an entirely separate subject. I'm pretty fuzzy on the subject but it does strike me that it helps our credibility to at least understand the main objections to video review and the danger of disrupting the flow of the game.
your whole post is completely loony! seriously, you even admit to come up with a lot of stupid ideas. so what are all those great ideas you are dreaming about??? the thing is, you are desperately trying to fix something which simply isn't broken. we've had 3 goals in most of the R16 games, one with 4 and another with 5, and one with 2. what else do you want? as more and more teams get closer together in terms of quality, you'd expect the goal average to go down a bit on the one side, but you'll get an increase in dense and exciting games on the other.
We've been lucky so far in the knockout stage. Usually (from everything I've read) scoring goes down from group stage to knockout stage. Let's put it another way. We don't seem to have many people complaining about too much scoring over the last several days -- although, if prodded, I'm sure a few of the "purists" may voice some anxiety. Instead, we have a lot of people breathing a sigh of relief now that we're getting 3+ goals per game. So if no one's complaining about 3+, what does that tell us about 2 to 2.5 goals per game? That it's too much, too little or just about right? Too little, or even significantly too little, doesn't it? I won't rehash specific ideas here. I think it's better (for those of us who favor changes) to summarize some general lessons on how to best make our case. (and no, it may be a subtle distinction to some but I don't admit to having stupid ideas, I just realize mine are relatively radical compared to some of the changes that already have been put in place and gained acceptance.)
not loony, eh? right... what is it with your stupid obsession with numbers and statistics, can you not simply enjoy the game? football is not the worlds number one sport because people like to argue over whether the average goals scored should be 2.5 or 2.6...
Not to get obsessed with numbers but numbers matter, or at least they can help get a point across. When traditionalists and purists complain about possible changes to the game, they tell people to stick with basketball because teams can score 100 points a game. So both sides use numbers in their argument. One side uses them more reasonably.