You misunderstood me-that comment, which you took out of context, was about how there’s too many players on the field (IMHO) in soccer, and how adding extra players in baseball would seriously reduce scoring. Same argument could be made if an extra player was added to gridiron football-that extra safety would almost completely put an end to the long passing game. I just find that the extra players in soccer clog the action just as much as a 4 man outfield in baseball would spear all line drives in the gaps, but I certainly don’t want a 4 man outfield.
If soccer fans are happy with the slow pace and low scoring of their favorite sport, then so be it. Doesn’t mean I have to like it-hockey is tons more exciting with the constant end to end action and like I said with a mere 1 more goal scored per team per game is much more interesting in the late going (esp. after the goalie has been pulled-yes in soccer the goalie often joins the rush at the offensive end).
Would taking 1-2 players off of each soccer team “fundamentally alter the game”? I think not, but with all the newly extra space there will be more end to end action and less standing around and poking the ball from player to player trying to find the tiny seam in the opposing defense. The rare times when a line drive in a four man baseball outfield would find the gap, leading to an extra base hit, would certainly be cause for celebration, but that doesn’t mean I want it to be that rare.
Nobody is talking about that radical a change - 6 - 12" higher was mentioned. Goalkeepers have already got taller. Making the goal higher is really just restoring things to the way they were. Currently, you cannot score over the keeper’s head unless he is off his line, whereas you can score near the post with a well-struck shot. Adding 6 - 12" to the height would have the effect of a slight increase in scoring without, to my mind, materially affecting the game. The keeper would need to be more careful about how far off the line they come, but I think that is fine.
Don’t get me wrong - I don’t want to turn football into a basketball-type score-fest. Basketball is tedious to watch because of that. But I do think that a slight increase in goal frequency would be beneficial. And I don’t think that FIFA disagrees - changes have been made to try encourage attacking play, such as the three points for a win and tweaks to offside.
Yes. You can no longer play 4-4-2 or any other formation. Obviously new formations/styles would have to be invented and whether that would be better or worse I cannot say - but it would certainly be fundamentally different.
I took nothing out of context. And there is no “extra player” in soccer.
You make it sound as if there were once an idyllic time when soccer had just enough players, and then they added an “extra player” just to reduce scoring. There have been 11 players per team since the 19th century, at least.
You arguing that there is an “extra player” in soccer is like me arguing that there is an “extra player” in baseball, and that it would be better without a shortstop, or that there is an “extra player” in football, and that one offensive and one defensive player should be removed from the game.
As i said, no-one is asking you to like soccer. But when you claim that the soccer world exhibits a “hide-bound” refusal to “revamp” the game, you’re acting as if the changes you propose would actually be to the benefit of the millions of people worldwide who watch and love the game. You’re acting as if the sport’s administrators would be rational to act on the whining of a few thousand Americans who probably wouldn’t watch the game even if it did change.
Well, my discussion about fundamentally altering the game was about toying with the dimensions of the goal. I’m not sure i agree with amarone about that issue, although i see some merit if, in fact, goalkeepers have gotten significantly taller over the years (have they? is there data supporting this? or is it just something that we all assume?).
But i agree with what amarone said about this; a key to the way soccer is played is the formation of the players. And the reason that the fans love it the skill required to get past the other team and score a goal. The style and tactics of the game are built around a certain number and density of players, and changing the number of players would alter that irrevocably. Just like removing a short-stop or second baseman from baseball would.
Also, as GorillaMan notes, the fact that the game is low-scoring does not mean that it’s slow paced. And that’s not even a subjective judgment; it’s a simple fact. I’ve seen plenty of games where the action constantly streams from end to end, with flowing attacking plays and last-minute defensive plays, and the score still ends up 1-0 or 2-1 or even 0-0. Again, you’re welcome to dislike a game where low scoring is the norm, but simply equating low scoring with slowness is plain incorrect.
I wouldn’t put any time back. As a player it is your job to always be aware of what’s happening on the field. Even if that means you have to play a few minutes with an incorrect decision being made you can’t let up. You don’t know if you’re going to be up a goal or down a player, you just have to play. And if a controversial goal occurred just before the final whistle then they have to wait a few tense minutes after the game to see if the goal stands or not. You do this because you’re still playing the game on the field as it is now. Kinda like how that American had the victory in the Tour de France taken away from him. Everyone was suspicious but everyone kept playing the game as it stood then. When the decision came down his actions were nullified.
Anyway I was just trying to work MJinks idea to preserve the flow of the game. By the way I was working under the idea that you can only request a small number of reviews. MJinks suggested 2.
I see it more like … what’s that British game show with the female host who is famously rude to the contestants? In that show you can bank you winnings and guarantee not losing them, right? In baseball you have to work your runners around the bases but once you get them home that run is banked. In the Tour de France you have to work and struggle every day but at the end your time is set and the next day you build upon it. Whereas with soccer most of the build-up ends with them coming away with nothing. It’s frustrating. I have the same problem with volleyball. I really root for the wahine volleyball team here but if you put up a great first set but your opponent is just that much better and wins the set you start the next set down 1-0. Which is exactly what the score would be if you decided pick your teeth during the set and never try to hit the ball. It just doesn’t feel rewarding enough. Now 5th sets are awesome. If all they played were 5th sets I’d enjoy volleyball a lot more. But there are lots of people who like volleyball the way it is so I’ll leave it at that.
Let’s play what-if; in an alternate universe somewhere a goal-scoring game virtually identical to soccer evolved over time where 9 players per side became the norm. A pundit in that universe came along in the year 2007 and suggested that perhaps adding 2 players per side would make the game more defensively-oriented, avoiding all the “wild” 4-3 scores using the 9 man lineup. This person is then shouted down by all the soccer traditionalists who like the game just fine with 9 players, the wide-open nature being very appealing to them, how dare someone suggest ruining the game by adding two more players and thus clogging up all the passing lanes.
While I respect how attached a fan is to a given sport as it is (and not as it could be), and not wanting to change it, I just wonder if you were in this alternate universe if you would be on the side of these 9-team traditionalists. The other team sports IMHO have precisely the right number of players to foster excitement, whether through accident or by via a deliberate choice (basketball); add any more players to them and offensive attack grinds to a halt, even if it might be enjoyable to see a team score anyway against such intimidating odds. Unfortunately in this universe we don’t have the advantage of seeing how a 9-man squad would have worked out through the years, with strategies being refined, strategy and counterstrategy, while we do with the 11-man version here. I just wonder how that alternate version would have played out (or maybe it has, in some minor corner of the world).
[p.s. I don’t particularly care for the indoor version which went too far in the other direction]
Incidentally I have come to the conclusion that the players in basketball and hockey have gotten a bit too big for their respective playing surfaces, resulting in precisely the kind of defensively-oriented ennui which soccer is so often accused of. The NHL made some moves to help remedy that, while the NBA hasn’t (tho in the latter case perhaps that is a good thing, as it makes each basket more important as others in that other CS thread have noted). I remember watching a replay of a 1970’s NHL game (in the Montreal Forum) where the ice seemed absolutely huge, even though it was the same size as it is today. The players were that much smaller, and it was very noticeable.
So it’s a rhetorical question, then? Or, if not, how do you know that none of the sports which you consider to demonstrate perfection in the team makeup would have not evolved in a way which you would actually prefer?
As an aside, the rules as they stand would permit a 9-a-side match: “A match is played by two teams, each consisting of not more than eleven players, one of whom is the goalkeeper. A match may not start if either team consists of fewer than seven players.”
Well, what you apparently fail to appreciate about sports is that, to a considerable extent, they are not about determining the most rational, efficient, or high-scoring method of playing a game. They are often about emotion and tradition, and if the “traditionalists” of which you speak wanted to keep their hypothetical 9-man game, it would be completely understandable, because their love for the game would be inextricably tied up with the way it had been played.
You can’t simply separate out people’s feelings about sport from the history of the sport. People the world over love, and want to keep, 11-a-side soccer NOT because it’s inherently better than 9-a-side soccer, but because it’s what they know and love.
Also, you continue to assume that everyone shares your opinion that more scoring automatically means more excitement. Even if we were designing soccer from scratch, there might well be millions of people who would prefer an 11-man team, precisely to keep the scoring lower. There is, for soccer fans, nothing inherently unexciting about low scores. In fact, the premium placed on each goal by the lack of scoring can lead to greater tension and excitement in soccer than in many other games, in my experience.
I’ve watched sports of all types in a variety of countries. High-scoring sports (basketball, Australian rules football, cricket), low-scoring sports (soccer, ice hockey, field hockey, baseball) and those in between (rugby, American football), and the excitement of each sports is, to my mind, inherently tied to the way it’s played and the format and scoring system.
High-scoring sports like basketball and Australia Rules football tend to maintain a relatively steady amount of tension and excitement, as teams trade scores. Real excitement tends to come when teams score in bursts, and as the game gets near the end with the scores close, while each individual score is not necessarily that important in and of itself.
Very low-scoring games like soccer tend to produce different types of tension and excitement, as each score is worth a lot more in the overall context of the game. The tension in a soccer crowd during a burst of goal-mouth action or a sweeping move down the field is palpable, and the explosion of excitement when a goal is scored is incredible.
I think that too many people who constantly want higher scores often fail to appreciate the defensive side of whatever sport they’re talking about. In my experience, a 2-1 baseball game or a 14-7 football game can often be more interesting and exciting than a 12-9 baseball game or a 42-35 football game. Any decent sport can provide excitement even when points are not being scored.
I realize that some people have a different take, and that’s fine, but the underlying assumption behind all your arguments seems to be that more scoring is inherently more exciting, and that everyone should share this view. I’m just telling you that not everyone does.
There is at least one example of scoring going way up due to a change in equipment combined with the acceptance of a new paradigm: baseball in the 1920’s. After the Black Sox scandal broke big (and bad), baseball fans and pundits were looking for anything which would save their sport from the crisis at hand. Ray Chapman died after being hit with a dirty baseball, and TPTB outlawed the spitball/emery ball, and coincidentally Babe Ruth got traded to the Yankees, and with the fresh new white baseballs hit 54 home runs.
To be sure there were plenty of old-timers (most notably Ty Cobb, still active at the time) who decried the new state of affairs, saying that the game, which heterofore consisted of bunts and steals and few home runs, had been ruined by the home run.
Now, it certainly would have been interesting to see how the old dead ball era play would have continued to develop without new baseballs and the Babe, but I hardly see a broken, boring game with all of the strategy and subtlety drained out of it. Since it boils down to a matter of taste in the end, make of that what you will.
I’ll tell you what: when soccer suffers a huge scandal that causes the “fans and pundits” to look for “anything which [will] save their sport from the crisis at hand,” then you should make your suggestion to TPTB in the soccer world. For now, the sport seems to be struggling along pretty well with a global audience in the billions.
Also, the rule against the spitball was instituted before Chapman got killed; it was just enforced more stringently afterwards. And while baseball might have been looking for a way to erase the stain of the Black Sox crisis, i haven’t seen much evidence that the end of the dead ball era was a specific result of the Black Sox incident.
Also, i never argued that rule or equipment changes, combined with increased scores, are always unpopular or always a bad thing. I was merely taking issue with your general assertion that soccer is somehow in need of change, and that the absence of change is just a result of “hide-bound” officials afraid to reform the sport for the better. Hundreds of millions of fans love it the way it is.
This happens much too often. And then it’s far too easy for an inferior team to bunker to protect that lead they got against the run of play.
I think not only to you have the natural resistance to change that you get with a very entrenched sport, you also have a defensiveness to any suggestion that comes from the U.S. I think the idea that only Americans high scoring games is bullshit. But ask yourselves this: without knowing anything about the match except the final score, which game would you rather watch, a 3-2 match or a 0-0 match?
Now, I don’t have a good answer on how to increase scoring without changing the fundamental nature of the sport. Larger goals isn’t the answer (imagine have to change out all the goals all over the world).
As far as the claim that the game is played the same way on all levels, at the top levels, referees have wireless communication systems. I don’t see that on the youth fields.
Some good points here about keeping or changing the offside rule and other ideas. Personally, I’ve come to appreciate soccer, even with its low scoring affairs and understand that it’s not so much in the score changes that occur so many times in other fine sports like American football and baseball but in the struggle to get one goal and then to defend it. Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t appreciate an average final score of 3-2.
The offside rule, I think, is fine. It’s really the officiating of it that needs to be improved and I can’t see how this can be done without some kind of mechanical assistance or at the least another person. The linesman needs to observe two points at once: the ball - oftentimes many yards upfield - and the last defensive player. On the other hand, 98% of the time the calls are made well, as far as instant replays show. Problem is, it’s those 2% when goals are scored that are 2% too often. In a sport where goals are so “rare” (for lack of a better word), a miscall can be quite devastating.
Now, the offside rule is fine. However, I really think something should be done about the wall. Personally, I’d love to see something like in basketball and team fouls. If a team accumulates a certain number of fouls in a half, they no longer should be allowed to construct a wall in front of a free kick. Or it can only be of a maximum number of players, like three.
That may be drastic and probably a fantastic sort of change to a simple game. But one thing that certainly should be addressed is the irritating habit of defensive members of the wall to creep up. It seems that the ten yard (or 9 meters?) distance is a suggestion not a rule. How many times do defenders creep up and the ref chastises them but then they do it anyway, the kicker shoots a ball off one of their faces and the game goes on? It’s not right. At the least they can put something into the official rules that if a player consistently creeps up the ref has to wag a finger at them and say, “shame shame.”
In all seriousness, the distance should not be a suggestion, it should be a rule and if it’s broken, then the consequences should be paid. It’s bad enough that the defense has chopped down a player charging at goal, they shouldn’t be allowed to now get away with making their free kick meaningless. No player that creeps up should be handed a yellow card, I think. But if it happens consistently, then the team should be punished. If I were in charge of the rules, I’d make it so that the first time a player moves past the imaginary line drawn down by the ref, the team gets a warning. It happens again, you lose the priviledge of forming a wall for the rest of the game.
If this were true (something i’m not convinced of), would you blame them?
The United States has shown itself singularly unwilling to embrace professional soccer in any really substantial way, both at the corporate level, and at the level of fan interest. Why, then, should a sport that is massively popular worldwide, and played before huge audiences on the majority of continents, entertain the idea of changing the game just to appease a bunch of people who have never shown very much inclination to embrace their sport, and who would probably still continue to watch baseball and basketball and the NFL, no matter what changes FIFA made to the game?
What do you think would be the response if the people from a country that had never shown the slightest interest in American sports started bombarding Americans with criticism of the games? “Hey, the ‘down by contact’ rule is stupid; if there’s no-one holding the guy down, he should be able to get back up and run with the ball.” “You know, i’d watch American football if they got rid of the timeouts and reduced the play clock to 15 seconds.” “There should be no leading in baseball; the runner shouldn’t be allowed to start until the ball leaves the pitcher’s hand.”
Probably a 3-2 match, but not necessarily. While you blithely throw in the words “without knowing anything else about the match,” the fact is that in order to judge how exciting the match actually was, as opposed to how theoretically exciting it might have been, you have to know something about the match other than the score.
Also, it’s not like 0-0 is the typical score in soccer. If my count of the table is correct, there have been 107 total games in the English Premier League this year, with 8 of those games ending in a 0-0 scoreline. While a scoreless draw is not an especially unusual event, it is not a very common one either. The average number of goals per game in the Premier League this year is just a bit under 3, making a typical scoreline something on the order of 2-1, give or take a few tenths of a goal.
Based on my experience living in the UK and attending soccer games, and based on my discussions with friends from many countries who are soccer fans, i’d be willing to bet that the vast majority of soccer fans would be horrified if the game was changed in such a way that a typical scoreline became, for example, 8-6 instead of 2-1 or 3-2.
Actually, from a purely logistical standpoint, i imagine that changing the goals would be pretty easy, especially at the pro level. But even schools and social soccer clubs could probably do it without too much trouble, especially if the pro organizations gave some financial or other material support.
For the rest of the game? A ridiculously strong punishment. You might as well hand them a forfeit there and then. I don’t see what’s inappropriate about a yellow card.
However, I fully agree that the enforcement of the proper distance is something that is dreadfully ill-enforced.
Genuine answer - I don’t know. If I knew the score in advance, there’d be little point in watching the game.
These are just an aid to communication. They’re not doing anything different than if they talked to each other directly.
Probably the 3-2 match, but you know it is more likely to have been special precisely because it is relatively rare; if 3-2 matches were made ten a penny, it’d no longer be an indication of an entertaining game. Believe it or not, thrilling 0-0 draws do happen, even if they’re rare. Sometimes teams compete for 90 minutes, and go away with the honours even. And for that matter, 0-0 draws aren’t as common as all that - check out the number of goals scored in the Premiership this weekend, for example. Arsenal recently stuck seven past (an admittedly dire) Slavia Prague, and Chelsea tonked Man City 6-0 over the weekend. Is this really a sport that has problems with scoring?
Changing the rules to increase scoring doesn’t make any of the protagonists more skilful, or the football they play any more entertaining. It just makes the numbers bigger. My enjoyment of the game isn’t derived from adding up two digits at the end; it’s watching the football that led to them. A godawful hoof-fest isn’t going to be made any prettier by changing the rules so all the strikers look like Maradona on the scoresheet.
Finally, we have a popular game with higher scoring over here too, incidentally - rugby. Is a 6-3 game of that necessarily any more entertaining than a 0-0 draw in football, simply because there are some numbers on the board? Of course not.
We have another high-scoring game over here that is popular in former Empire countries but has a very low appeal in the States - cricket. In a 5-day Test match it’s nothing out of the ordinary for the total runs scored to exceed 1000, and although batsmen are out for 0 often enough for it to be an unremarkable occurrence, individual scores may run well into three figures. Contrast that with the low scores in baseball. Shouldn’t you be agitating for a way to make baseball freer scoring?
I’m in the school that says if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. That goes not just for the offside rule, the size of the goal, the number of players, but also, and most critically, for video replay. Video replay “works” in American football because American football has become a highly legalistic game, where a significant part of the action happens somewhere other than on the field of play. American football is filled with arcane rules and bizarre distinctions. It’s also filled with plenty of downtime for the discussion of said rules and distinctions – figure that for a three-hour match, only 20-odd minutes are spent in actual play.
If the price you pay for not having video replay is the occasional missed call, I’m okay with that. God forbid if every shirt tug, every tackle, every possible hand ball were subject to video review. The game would be destroyed. Even if you try to constrain replays to a limited sphere – offsides calls, say – it’s just the thin end of the wedge, as far as I’m concerned.
Is this really true? Figures from MLS show that they’re averaging almost 16,000 fans a game (cite here). This is still small potatoes compared to some sports, particularly if you look at all the ancillary business other sports do with jerseys and souvernirs and whatnot, but to me it means that MLS is at least making money. Attendance-wise, it’s almost on par with the NHL.
