bettermirror Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 What do you guys think about adding points for goals as Wenger suggests? It just might be the move to get this game rolling again? Sometimes I wish I was old enough to remember the days of World Cup scores that were 6-4, 7-3, 5-2. [?] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massive Attack Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 It's funny watching the English media go crazy now that the Serie A is more exciting then the EPL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youllneverwalkalone Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Massive Attack It's funny watching the English media go crazy now that the Serie A is more exciting then the EPL. That is funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ref Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 This thread reminded me of a question for someone with more trivia knowledge. Can anyone explain why, who and when was the 2 points for a win changed to 3 points for a win. How widespread is the 3 versus the 2? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HamiltonSteelers Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 I don't know the when (early 80s?), but the why was due to teams winning titles by 'losing the least' rather than 'winning the most' and it was felt that the champion should be the team that won the most, which I inherently agree with. More pressure was put on teams to win instead of settling for the draw, since the extra 2 points could be had over the draw. Makes sense. As far as points for goals: the Super 12 rugby competition has (If I'm not mistaken) 4 pts for the win, 2 pts for the draw, and 1 pt if you can score 4 or more tries. I think it is a great idea, even if it clutters up the league standings table with another column. You would probably see a loosening of the 4-5-1's that are in fashion of late. I thought about the points for goals incentive in relation to the NHL's low-goal tally. If you want to kill off the defensive game, then reward the teams that put the points up on the board. Bonus point for 4 or more goals in regulation. 3 points for the win, 1 for a draw. It would make the Larry Robinson's of the world rethink their strategies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massive Attack Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 The change to 3 points for a win happened in the mid-90's. I know in Italy it was first used in the 94/95 season, and I assume that it was a world wide change. The purpose of the 3-point win is to increase scoring, but the jury is still out on whether this has had any effect at all. Mind you, the 3-point win has had a more profound effect in tournaments like the World Cupe where only a few matches are played. One thing I know for sure, if you recalculate most tables at the end of the season using 2-points for a win only a few clubs would move up or down in the standings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crampton Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 This is simply by recollection so I may be completely wrong but I believe the 3 points for a win came about after the Italia 90 World Cup (same with the back pass rule) due to this being the lowest scoring WC ever. FIFA was concerned that too many teams were playing for draws and announced (after the technical evaluation and all that) that to encourage teams to play for the win they would start awarding 3 points for wins. Every domestic league was encouraged to adopt the same policy and over the next few years that's pretty much what happened so that these days it's nearly universal. As to the Wenger suggestion I'd be rather hesitant to see something like that introduced. The percieved "boringness" of the EPL this season has more to do with competitive imbalance than a genuine lack of desire to win. Giving Chelsea even more reason to want to be astronomically better than everyone else (an extra point) might, perversely, make lower half of the table teams even MORE defensive when playing them. The biggest problem in the EPL is that creative attacking players who stand out for third tier teams quickly get bought up by the big clubs but often end up just riding the bench or being used as infrequent subs. Does Chelsea "need" to have two players at every position who could start on any team outside the top three? Jose would tell you that to compete in Europe and in England successfully that's true and strictly speaking he'd be right but that's ten top players not distributed among other teams. Until this basic competitive imbalance is rectified (and no - I'm not a fan of salary caps) the English league will continue to go the way of the Italian: three to five super clubs that compete in Europe continually and finance the whole league through buying up players from the provincials. Mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massive Attack Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 That's an excellent analysis of the problems in the EPL, Mike. I think one of the reasons that Serie A is improving is that a lot of the star offensive players are starting to learn that its better to play every game for a small team team then sit on the bench for the big three. This is why you get Lucarelli (last years leading scorer) staying at Livorno, Toni moving to Fiorentina, Udinese keeping most of their attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HamiltonSteelers Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 Luca Toni was quite a coup, especially since Fiorentina are trying to reclaim their status as one of the "big boys" in Serie A. Good pick to move up the ladder. The battle of survival in the EPL has made a very significant impact on clubs on-field style. Playing a defensive-counter attack mindset such that minimizing defensive mistakes and hoping to catch the opposition off guard seems to be the lowest risk style of play. Forcing the way teams play to a more offensive-minded style via changing the way points can be earned (which ensures survival) has a better chance of opening up all of the other 17 teams (well, 16 if you count Wigan to more goals. Mind you, I haven't complained with alot of the games that I've watched this season, so what do I know. I will agree with you Mike on the Chelsea stockpile of talent. That being said, no league or governing body could possibly impose a sanction against such a practise, and Chelsea aren't in it for 'the good of the game'. Sadly, the players are in it for the money and the limited exposure of signing for a big club. Most have to make the mistake of moving to Chelsea to realize that their playing time has been reduced to a fraction of what they expected. I will dispute that alot of the depth that Chelsea have wouldn't likely be signed to another EPL club, rather the 'giants' of football instead that are on the continent, but denying a paying public of the best possible players available week in-week out is almost criminal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desigol Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 I think there should be a 'Bonus Point' for Aggregate wins (including Away Goals), with Half a Point if the Aggregate score is level. It may make English sides better prepared for Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john tv Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 Some many year ago I suggested this to the MLS and even included points for goals scored inside the box and outside.They presented it to the technical committee and it was trned down.I thought it to be a very good idea and I related it to indoor soccer,basketball and of course football. This scoring business if you were to award a point for a touchdown and 1/2 a poit for a field goal worked out to be simular to the soccer scores.The CFL at that time had an average of 3 td per game. Our society is so use to scores and of course this football business makes a somewhat of a joke. If we were to give 8 points for a goal scored in soccer and make it even more dramatic by giving nine point for outside the box well we could have a different game. The end result would be football scores. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Massive Attack Mind you, the 3-point win has had a more profound effect in tournaments like the World Cupe where only a few matches are played. Yes, that has been a huge boost to the quality of play in the group stages at the World Cup finals. It used to be ( under the 2 pts for a win formulae) that you were safely through to the round of sixteen with three draws. So, the smart thing was to play for 0-0 scorelines for the first three games. This was even more evident in the time whereby the WC finals consisted of 24 rather than 32 sides. The introduction of the 3 pts rule ( started in USA 94 )as well as the increase to 32 team ( meaning the elimination of that silly "best third place" finishers rule) has really improved the WC. Had this not been done, the group stage of the WC finals might have become unwatchable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zacRWE Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 Don't really like the idea.... they already decide tie breakers on goal differential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJT Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 Regarding 3 points for a win: began in England in 1981-1982 season, first used in World Cup in 1994, used everywhere else following that. Regarding points for goals: there's a reason why it's finally gone even from American leagues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeta Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Free kick Yes, that has been a huge boost to the quality of play in the group stages at the World Cup finals. It used to be ( under the 2 pts for a win formulae) that you were safely through to the round of sixteen with three draws. So, the smart thing was to play for 0-0 scorelines for the first three games. This was even more evident in the time whereby the WC finals consisted of 24 rather than 32 sides. The introduction of the 3 pts rule ( started in USA 94 )as well as the increase to 32 team ( meaning the elimination of that silly "best third place" finishers rule) has really improved the WC. Had this not been done, the group stage of the WC finals might have become unwatchable. Not really. Doesn't make a difference in short tournaments. I think the biggest change like you said is from 24 to 32 so no 3rd place teams go through. If you play for 3 ties, you will have 3 points. The other 3 teams will have 1 point (from the tie), and have 2 games each left. So even with 2 points for a win, lets say the top two teams beat the last team, the top two will have 3 points (1 win and 1 tie) with 1 game between them remaining. So if wins are the tiebreaker, the top two go through over your 3 ties. (I hope that made sense). I wonder if any analysis of the standings exists anywhere comparing 2 to 3 points and the difference in the standings. Quickly looking over the standings, doesn't seem to make a difference. There needs to be a huge difference in the number of ties to make a difference. As for points for goals, beside that it's ridiculous, I think it would make teams clamp down on defense even more. If you are down 2-0 and you don't think you can come back, you are not going to give up a 3rd goal and give the team bonus points in the standings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argh1 Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 What the EPL needs is some form of revenue sharing and a salary cap. It's the competitive imbalance and pricing of attendance that's hurting. No quick fix gimmick in points will help that. I've been reading alot of late of how the EPL is over exposed on Brit TV, now maybe the country is too small in size for local black-outs ....I dunno... But it does show a sharp contrast between NA and Europe, where on this side of the Atlantic TV is used constantly with regional and national broadcasters. It is considered a must here that all our teams games be avialable (well,except for soccer).If they are not then the team is deemed not to have a large enough audience and are losing broadcast revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massive Attack Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 There is no correlation between salary caps and lower ticket prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argh1 Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 quote:Originally posted by Massive Attack There is not correlation between salary caps and lower ticket prices. No there isn't. But lowering costs won't hurt. Also a league wide strategy on raising revenue is needed. The only avenues open to the league and it's clubs are through merchandise, broadcast, in house advertising or ticket prices. If the head of the EPL is already complaining about too much broadcasting hurting attendance. Raising merchandise, advertising and ticket prices are the only alternatives. Eventually you can raise prices to a point beyond which the market will bare. So controlling costs has to be seen as a must and large market teams will have to share profits will medium and small market teams or there'll be no league. Have I ever mentioned that maybe there should be a super Euro League for the giants to play in and still have domestic leagues without the giants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJT Posted September 28, 2005 Share Posted September 28, 2005 quote:Originally posted by argh1 I've been reading alot of late of how the EPL is over exposed on Brit TV I haven't been reading, but whenever it comes up here the general consensus seems to be that they don't get much EPL on British TV — it's always pointed out that we get more than them. So, can you expand on that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 How about 3 points for a win, 1 point for a loss and zero points for a tie. Yes, if there's a tie, both teams get nothing. This makes losing more valuable than a tie. So teams have nothing to gain by sitting back and playing for a tie. The premise being, the purpose is to make games more exciting, by getting teams to play for the win and thus aiming to score more, instead of sitting back, playing defense and for the tie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeta Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 Suspect that in some instances there'll be a few more own goals under that scenario. Suspect that in other cases if an out and out victory looks out of reach teams will simply bunker down as the match progress' as they don't want to risk loosing any ground to a rival who's closely placed in the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argh1 Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 quote:Originally posted by DJT I haven't been reading, but whenever it comes up here the general consensus seems to be that they don't get much EPL on British TV — it's always pointed out that we get more than them. So, can you expand on that? Here's a few BBC articles relating to EPL on Brit TV and ticket prices. Head of EPL comments about TV Special meeting concering attendance and TV Ticket prices EDIT: Took awhile to get back to this, as I was trying to find out how many EPL games are shown in Canada but couldn't so I'll take a wild stab. RSN shows three games a week through out the season. So that must be ...say 70 games? alone. Add in FSW and Score plus pay per view I'd be confident in saying that would total more than what is available in Britain on broadcast, cable and pay per view whose total games broadcast is 106 in the last EPL broadcast deal. A hundred six games out of 760 (?) played doesn't sound like much to those on this side of the ocean does it. When our "major" league teams offer almost full broadcasting of their games and alot have all their games broadcast. Heck in the small city I live in local teams get their games broadcast on the local Rogers channels. Look to compare apples to oranges Sunday 6,200 showed up for a Wildcats game that was broadcast live on Rogers, last nite 7,100 paid $70 a crack for exhibition NHL in a 32 year old barn that seats 6,450, and don't tell me NHL isn't broadcast alot a heckuva alot. So maybe I just don't understand the British market or culture about broadcasting games affecting attendance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 quote:Originally posted by bettermirror What do you guys think about adding points for goals as Wenger suggests? Is Wenger American? Geez, what an awful idea. quote: It just might be the move to get this game rolling again? "This game" ???? It's only the EPL thats gotten a bit boring right now. One league out of like a million. quote: Sometimes I wish I was old enough to remember the days of World Cup scores that were 6-4, 7-3, 5-2. Those games were probably terrible. See, if every match averages 7 goals, then a 5-2 game is NOT especially exciting. Why? Because the importance of a goal, and thus, the excitement generated when a goal is scored are both functions of # of goals expected in a match. That's why you're more likely to remember a 6-3 footy game than a 6-3 baseball game. -- -- -- -- Man, some of the comments in this thread are very robotic in nature: 1) insert British tabloid news. 2) press "generate response" button 3) retrieve print-out listing dumb-a$$ American idea(s) to improve things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piltdownman Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 Well I for one have found the EPL very exciting this year. The number of goals might be down, but the quality of play as is good as ever. As for Ticket prices and attendance. I saw something showing that the teams with the highest ticket prices (Chelsea, Manchester United, Arsenal, Tottenham ) were also sold out. Its the crap teams that have both low ticket prices and low attendance. This leads me to believe the problem is people are following the big clubs, and not their local clubs. As for Wenger's suggestion, thats just dumb. I like the idea of zero points for a tie. Forget about 1 point for a loss though, I think that would lead teams to score deliberate own goals during injury time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.