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

manic111 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Which is the way it should be. Not attacking at all should not be something that is encouraged. This is the first time I've ever heard someone argue that trying to score goals is less interesting :D
 
I appreciate your intentions are to make football more entertaining Shami but the idea is a bit mad to be fair. If all the smaller clubs had to score to stand a chance of getting any points then going to Anfield, the Etihad etc would become an almost impossible task. There are some exceptions of course but the way in which smaller sides have historically got anything from these games has been when they've shut up shop and prioritised not conceding, with scoring being nothing more than a bonus. If these sides now had to score to get at least a point then they can't just shut up shop and what happens when one of these sides have gone behind and had to come out and play? They've typically end up getting hit for 3 or 4. They're now going to have to try and play from minute 1 and it'll just make life even easier for the bigger sides in these games.
adam cool dude said:
What will happen to Westham now? Another sale to some oil state?
Click to expand...
His shares will just pass on to his children however he and Sullivan have already began selling off part of the club to some Czech billionaire and the expectation is that he'll fully takeover in the not too distant future*.

*As part of the Olympic stadium move Gold and Sullivan agreed that x% of any profit they made from selling their shares in the club would go to the owners of the Olympic stadium however there is a time limit to that and they're expected to fully sell up as soon as that time passes.
 
Shamikebab said:
Which is the way it should be. Not attacking at all should not be something that is encouraged. This is the first time I've ever heard someone argue that trying to score goals is less interesting :D
Click to expand...
It makes it more interesting because it leaves open the prospect of upsets. The likelihood of a "small" team playing a "big" team in a way which gives the small team a decent chance to score a goal without leaving themselves open is slim.
 
manic111 said:
It makes it more interesting because it leaves open the prospect of upsets. The likelihood of a "small" team playing a "big" team in a way which gives the small team a decent chance to score a goal without leaving themselves open is slim.
Click to expand...
Yet Brentford have managed it multiple times this season, Forest did it just last weekend. Morocco, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Costa Rica etc all managed it in the world cup. I think you're overstating the gulf between the big and small teams. We've seen over the last few seasons that anyone can get a result

Baz, yes it would make it harder for those teams to go to those stadiums and get a point. But that is a few games a season and it would affect all teams equally so I don't see it as being a crazy issue personally.

The arguments against change always seem to boil down to "it has been done this way so it should continue being done this way" It is madness that the sport is so stagnant. It doesn't adapt to take into account changes in teams exploiting the rules at all.
 
I'm all for this; Football is supposed to be entertainment that you pay good money for. You want goals. I hated how Leeds played vs Newcastle, absolute bore fest. I would rather go down then play like we do nowadays, at least I will be entertained in the Championship.
 
Last edited:
manic111 said:
It makes it more interesting because it leaves open the prospect of upsets. The likelihood of a "small" team playing a "big" team in a way which gives the small team a decent chance to score a goal without leaving themselves open is slim.
Click to expand...
This doesn't really make sense. If they are more likely to get an upset defending and looking to break and then play on the counter then teams will continue to play that way. it doesn't mean everyone will suddenly go gung-ho and throw everything forwards.
 
Shamikebab said:
The arguments against change always seem to boil down to "it has been done this way so it should continue being done this way" It is madness that the sport is so stagnant. It doesn't adapt to take into account changes in teams exploiting the rules at all.
Click to expand...
That's certainly not the case for me but you have to look at the consequences of the changes your making. So many of the rule changes we've seen in the past 10 years have caused more problems than they've solved. We tried to stop John Terry blocking shots by standing in front of forwards like a starfish but have ended up with chaos as a result of the rule change for handballs. You then have the 101 issues that VAR has brought about, including changing what we now consider to be part of the arm and part of the shoulder.

Yes we want football to be more entertaining however you don't want to create a new problem. I'm convinced that the change you're proposing will disproportionately advantage the bigger sides. It could even swing the other way and have the opposite effect with smaller sides knowing the longer they can keep the game 0-0, the more likely the bigger side will throw caution to the wind later on, giving them a bigger chance of pinching a win. I've no idea what alternative options there are to encourage sides to play more attractive football but I'm not convinced by this one.
 
BaZ87 said:
That's certainly not the case for me but you have to look at the consequences of the changes your making. So many of the rule changes we've seen in the past 10 years have caused more problems than they've solved. We tried to stop John Terry blocking shots by standing in front of forwards like a starfish but have ended up with chaos as a result of the rule change for handballs. You then have the 101 issues that VAR has brought about, including changing what we now consider to be part of the arm and part of the shoulder.

Yes we want football to be more entertaining however you don't want to create a new problem. I'm convinced that the change you're proposing will disproportionately advantage the bigger sides. It could even swing the other way and have the opposite effect with smaller sides knowing the longer they can keep the game 0-0, the more likely the bigger side will throw caution to the wind later on, giving them a bigger chance of pinching a win. I've no idea what alternative options there are to encourage sides to play more attractive football but I'm not convinced by this one.
Click to expand...

Of course all consequences should be considered but I think you just calling it madness suggests you weren't really considering it :p

If I had the inclination I'd look back at past seasons and see how the rules would change the table. I wonder how much these 'unlikely' 0-0's are a part of the smaller clubs season and similarly how much those 0-0's where big clubs fail to score would change their final points tally. For me I think most small clubs see those games as 'whatever' games. They're not the ones that will keep them up so if they can grab a point great as the current rules mean it is the lowest risk, biggest reward ploy for them. Unfortunately this leads to some boring games where only one team is trying to score. For example in the world cup (particularly in the group stage) I would say for every good game there were 2 or 3 dull ones with one team trying to break down an eleven man defence. To me that is ******** boring to watch and I would like to see that change as a neutral.
 
I'm not sure on no points for a 0-0 but how about taking some inspiration from rugby - a losing bonus point if you score and lose by one goal, a winning bonus point if you win by 3 or more goals? :cool:
And you'd need a bonus point for a score draw to compensate too
 
Last edited:
Arsenal played in a tournament during the world cup whereby at the end of every match was a penalty shootout and the winner got a bonus point. Thats some easy excitement for fans, who doesn't love a pen shootout :D
 
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...
Bringing that kind of rule in only helps the big clubs, and will effectively destroy any competition from the smaller clubs in football.
 
Shamikebab said:
Making an argument without a why is no argument at all.
Click to expand...
Well it's quite obvious that a smaller/lesser team has lesser quality players, so will create lower quality chances and on average require more chances to score - So you're taking a well earned point away from a team that defended well but missed several chances because their strikers couldn't finish a sandwich.
 
Calpol said:
Palace vs Spurs. A cure for insomnia so far. I'd prefer to watch Wham get nudged closer to relegation by Leeds.
Click to expand...
I don't even know why I switched this on, knew exactly what it was gonna be. Spurs matches these days are like Wolves ones almost guaranteed snoozefests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom