Greenlizard0 PL & Championship Football Thread ** spoilers ** [2nd - 12th January 2023]

Ferguson has made a great start to PL life, 2 goals and 1 assist in 1 start/1 sub.

See if he can keep it up against Liverpool if he’s given the opportunity.
 
Shamikebab said:
I think there is a lot of confusion in this thread between playing low block and playing for 0-0. Newcastle had 8 shots last night, they clearly weren't parked in their half playing for 0-0. The goal is not to punish low block, it's a perfectly valid form of football.

It's also a naive statement to say that because it's popular it can't be improved on. That is the kind of attitude that has lead to diving, time wasting and other changes not being addressed at all.
Click to expand...
But it would punish a low block, or any other form of defensive football, because it would lead to a significant risk for the "defensive" team that, even if successful, they would receive no points. It would force teams to gear towards a more attacking style of play which, in turn, restricts tactical options and to my mind favours teams with better players (i.e. the richer teams). You'd be significantly reducing the likelihood of upsets.
 
manic111 said:
But it would punish a low block, or any other form of defensive football, because it would lead to a significant risk for the "defensive" team that, even if successful, they would receive no points. It would force teams to gear towards a more attacking style of play which, in turn, restricts tactical options and to my mind favours teams with better players (i.e. the richer teams). You'd be significantly reducing the likelihood of upsets.
Click to expand...
0-0 for a low block is not a success. Low block doesn't try to not score.
 
I think it would ultimately reduce the competitiveness of the league amongst the sides at the extreme ends of the table. City v Bournmouth for example, there isnt any payoff for playing tight and trying to hit City on the counter. City would win 5-0 and they would do it more frequently against sides near the bottom
 
Last edited:
Trusty said:
I think it would ultimately reduce the competitiveness of the league amongst the sides at the extreme ends of the table. City v Bournmouth for example, there isnt any payoff for playing tight and trying to hit City on the counter. City would win 5-0 and they would do it more frequently against sides near the bottom
Click to expand...

Why not? Multiple teams have got results against City by playing that exact same way. Why would it become any less viable?
 
Shamikebab said:
It depends, is football for the teams or for the fans? If you're happy watching one team sat in front of the goal showing no intention to score then go you but for me football is far more exciting when both teams are trying to score. Your arguments are all over the place, do you see how these two statements contradict each other?
Click to expand...

Considering how much money is involved in top tier football these days then it's definitely more for the teams than fans. I'd imagine if you asked Greek fans if they enjoyed Euro 2004 most would say they did even though their team played boring defensive football.
 
bayo000 said:
Considering how much money is involved in top tier football these days then it's definitely more for the teams than fans. I'd imagine if you asked Greek fans if they enjoyed Euro 2004 most would say they did even though their team played boring defensive football.
Click to expand...

Cup football is a whole other problem. I would like to see some way of encouraging teams to not park the bus for 120 mins and play for penalties. Several teams do it and it is ******** boring and a massive drain on the interest of the competition for spectators. Tough to think of a better solution though for cup football (at least for knockout stages, 0-0 for groups being zero pts would still be a big improvement)
 
Last edited:
Shamikebab said:
Why not? Multiple teams have got results against City by playing that exact same way. Why would it become any less viable?
Click to expand...

The odd game, fine. But if you averaged it out between those games between the top and bottom, i think you'd start to see more erratic scorelines.

Teams at the bottom have a disadvantage, how do you make it more competitive? They win by either gaining 1 point or 3. By removing the incentive to draw, it seems like you are removing the advantage they have
 
Trusty said:
The odd game, fine. But if you averaged it out between those games between the top and bottom, i think you'd start to see more erratic scorelines.

Teams at the bottom have a disadvantage, how do you make it more competitive? They win by either gaining 1 point or 3. By removing the incentive to draw, it seems like you are removing the advantage they have
Click to expand...
It doesn't remove the incentive to draw, it removes the incentive to draw by making no attempt at any point to try and score. Why on earth would you want to encourage that? Take the Forrest - Chelsea game at the weekend for example. They played low block and had very little possession but attacked when they broke and got a good 1-1 draw from it. That should be encouraged over sitting back and playing for 0-0 from the start because it is far better for spectators and it is a spectator sport!
 
Shamikebab said:
It doesn't remove the incentive to draw, it removes the incentive to draw by making no attempt at any point to try and score. Why on earth would you want to encourage that? Take the Forrest - Chelsea game at the weekend for example. They played low block and had very little possession but attacked when they broke and got a good 1-1 draw from it. That should be encouraged over sitting back and playing for 0-0 from the start because it is far better for spectators and it is a spectator sport!
Click to expand...

Its the mentality of being able to get something from the game though, if they can get a draw, they win. If Forest go 1 down, they would have to actually win to get anything from the game., it would end up 4/5
 
Does it matter - they aren't going to change the points system. Adding more injury time on is the best solution at present. Games lasting another 20-30 mins would need taking into account though in terms of broadcasting etc.
 
Robbo said:
Does it matter - they aren't going to change the points system. Adding more injury time on is the best solution at present. Games lasting another 20-30 mins would need taking into account though in terms of broadcasting etc.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure adding on more injury time really solves anything. First of all they'll never add on the amount of time wasted but wasting time is as much to do with killing the tempo of the game as it is actually taking time out of the game and it's the former which really annoys me and spoils the game. You could play for 3 hours but if it's constantly stop start, with 30 second breaks in between every stoppage, it will still be awful.
 
Robbo said:
Does it matter - they aren't going to change the points system. Adding more injury time on is the best solution at present. Games lasting another 20-30 mins would need taking into account though in terms of broadcasting etc.
Click to expand...

I don't think they need to last that much longer and very quickly teams would stop time wasting in the same way. I can't remember which team it was that kept doing this but they were almost like clockwork have a player down with a prolonged injury in around the 70th minute so that they could take on some energy gels and have a chat with the manager.

Players take the **** because they can. If they couldn't, they wouldn't bother. Diving and cheating is awful in all the top leagues because it gives you a massive advantage. If it didn't the football would change within weeks.
 
Robbo said:
Does it matter - they aren't going to change the points system. Adding more injury time on is the best solution at present. Games lasting another 20-30 mins would need taking into account though in terms of broadcasting etc.
Click to expand...

I like what NHL do in ice hockey. Each team gets a point and then there's 5min golden goal overtime 3 v 3 (rather than 5 v 5) to open up the space and then shutout if still level for an extra point. Maybe 5-10min long extra time 7 v 7, then penalties if needed.
 
Shamikebab said:
0-0 for a low block is not a success. Low block doesn't try to not score.
Click to expand...
It depends on the circumstances. In general, the primary objective of a team playing a low block is not to concede. If they score and win that's a bonus.

Your suggestion means that if a team doesn't score a goal, they cannot get a point. That naturally forces teams to play in a more attacking manner, making football less varied so less interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom