Our posts crossed. I was sure I wasn’t misremembering.
I’m glad someone is at least willing to talk about a marginal increase in goal size (one point that has been made is that the athletes guarding the goal have gotten larger themselves over the years).
Researching a little more, I find that Sepp Blatter, the head of FIFA for the past 16 years and a high ranking member at the time of the proposal, was actually for it:
So it’s “ridiculous” to even talk about changing the size of the goal (other than to Fuzzy wuzzy), but the president of FIFA was all for it. Okie doke then.
But this is refreshing, and makes me wonder if they might actually finally do this after seeing all these super low scoring World Cup Finals year after year. Then there will be howls of protest, but eventually the current era will be looked back on like the “dead ball era” in baseball or the past eras in the NFL when teams would slowly grind out yardage with power running plays.
1990 and 1994 finals were abysmal. The 1998 and 2002 games were dominated, niether losers were ever in it. The 2006 was an underdog sneaking through. 2010 and 2014 very exciting ET single goal wins.
Cannot say the quality of the game has gone down.
If that were true then we’d clearly see the same extreme pattern in the much higher sample size of league football. note: we don’t, On average there are about 0.7 less goals per game now than in the mid-50’s. IT has remained at the current level for nearly 50 years. i.e. during the period of massive professional, geographical and commercial expansion. The scoring rate isn’t a problem.
I think the above shows that you really don’t know what you are talking about.
You measure entertainment in the number of goals scored. No matter how many times we repeat it I don’t think you are going to get it. The only thing that matters is the quality of the game. The score doesn’t necessarily tell you anything about how good a game was.
As for the 1954 world cup. Is that seen as the best ever? Or were there a lot of one-sided hammerings? What do fans like to see…more goals or close games? would they choose more 7-1 Germany v Brazil or 1-0 German v USA? because I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that the majority would pick the latter.
If you don’t grasp why then I really can’t help you.
That is from 1996, it is also from Sepp Blatter, Someone I wouldn’t trust to buy me an ice-cream and give me my change back.
The man is an idiot and the traction the idea has had in the intervening 18 years shows you what a great idea it is.
The current world cup has been the best ever due to the style of play and the closeness of the games, not the number of goals scored.
Yet he gets reelected again and again to head your beloved sport. Which is fine and dandy just as it is. Um, ok?
Im with you on the increasing goal size. Or at least im not aghast at the idea. As you said, athletes have become bigger, and dare I say more athletic. Football is more defensive minded than it was 50 years ago. All of which means fewer goals per game.
If I were you I would not point to Blatter floating the idea as a way of attracting others to your opinion. A more corrupt official it is hard to meet. And a man who helped bring about some of the most incompetent decisions in the game.
btw does anyone know Jimmy Hill’s opinion on larger goals? I’d automatically agree with whatever Jimmy Hill says on the matter of goal size. For all the criticism he gets Hill is/was a visionary of the game.
As I have already stated, we grew up playing football in all sorts of weird places with all sorts of sizes. The ridiculousness of the idea is that it is done to satisfy some of the fans from one country.
No, just no.
For the third time:
WE GREW UP PLAYING WITH ALL SORTS OF GOAL SIZES.
You are trying to fix a perceived issue that the vast, vast majority of the world has no issue with. We have played different types of football with different goals and different rules. We are used to the concept.
To put it more simply, you are aware of the phrase “if it ain’t broke then don’t fix it”? Well, you may think it is broken but others don’t. This isn’t “stubborn traditionalism” this is just liking it how it is because we enjoy the game this way.
This is like a Rugby League fan moaning about how in American Football you get a new set of four downs after running ten yards and putting down everyone who disagrees as “stubborn traditionalists”.
I’d argue that a large part of that is that due to globalisation the sport is played to a better degree all around the world now. There are few “whipping boys” anymore.
But we still have the same basic problem, you come from a position of “more goals makes game better”. I’m sorry, but that isn’t a universal belief.
Is this the same Sepp Blatter that thought women should wear tighter shorts so as to make it more sexy?
Again, it is ridiculous to do it just to keep a few fans (and I put that mildly, as your connection with football is watching the World Cup a decade ago and from watching your son play) happy in a single country.
Or they may change other things, like the implementation of the backpass rule. As you are probably unaware of it, in the 80s the last ten minutes of the game generally degenerated into the defenders and the goalkeeper of the team in the lead passing to each other. The goalie would pick the ball up, think for a bit, throw it to a defender, who would then think for a bit and then pass it back to the goalkeeper. He would then pick it up, rinse and repeat. This is why the goalkeeper is now not allowed to pick up the ball when kicked to him by his own player.
Personally, I want to see an end to the rule (and I believe I mentioned this in the “Brasil 2014” thread) where a player can use his body to shield the ball with absolutely no intention of playing the ball. This stops decent attacks, with the defender getting in the way of the attacker and then standing still, and it is what allows attackers to take the ball to the corner and just waste time, shielding the ball from the defenders (whose team is losing) with his body.
I would love to see that rule changed.
Yeah, you really need to read up on the corruption within FIFA and the alleged payments made to the heads of the Football Associations in countries where corruption is more common. Him getting voted in has nothing to do with football, it is very much to do with whose palms have been greased.
As a Coventry fan, I adore the guy.
Three points for a win.
Safer, family-oriented all-seater stadiums.
Club-run trains specifically to get fans to away games.
All his ideas.
Then again, he was also behind the removal of the salary cap so, well, … 
For several reasons I am not absolutely against making the goals a little larger - and I am European.
- It would increase the chances of scoring long distance shots. Many people love long distance goals, just look at the three finalist for the Ferenc-Puskas-Award 2013 (best goal in 2013) The closest of these three shots came from the 18 yard line.
- Increasing the chances of scoring from long distance would mean that the defence has to defend further up the field. This would in turn provide more free space in the 18 yard box, i.o.w. it would make it more difficult to “park the bus”.
I believe an increase of the width of the goal by about half a metre would improve the game.
What point are you making again. I can’t follow you.
Blatter is corrupt and obviously so, pretty much all of football that isn’t directly in his pocket agree on this. The fact that he is in charge is a travesty and his opinion adds no weight to any recommendations. He isn’t in the job to improve football. His sole aim is to create and maintain a powerbase by greasing palms in order stay in power.
He is a malevolent force and a stain on the sport and the sooner he goes the better…please, anybody…stop me if I’ve been unclear or gone too far here?
By all means start a thread to pull that shit to peices and I’ll be right there with you, but don’t use him to add credibility to your argument. That dog don’t hunt monsignor.
ETA - dammit Amanset! you even used the “greasing palms” phrase. Shouldn’t one of us at least be doing some work? OK, it’ll be me. You are beating me to the punch every time anyway:)
How does that have bugger-all to do with World Cup Finals? Six of the past seven seeing two goals or fewer (the seventh seeing three), when there had never been a final so low scoring in the 60 years before that. There are no “whipping boys” in Finals…right?
My point about Blatter is that it comes across very strangely from my admittedly outside POV to hear a group of people leap to the defence of soccer, insisting it “ain’t broke”; but then practically in the same breath, gripe and moan about the leader of soccer’s governing organisation. Welll…kinda sounds like you think he broke it. Which means it’s broke. Or if it really “ain’t broke”, then what’s your beef with the guy? I don’t see how both can be true.
I am in this thread purely to annoy you
I have a hard time believing you’re not being deliberately obtuse.
Sepp Blatter doesn’t really affect the way the game is played. Sepp Blatter is horribly corrupt. Do you understand this?
A large part of the post that I quoted was about how there are fewer big wins in general.
Regarding the specifics of the final itself, a large part of it is how the game is played. That I’ll agree with, but what I will disagree with is the idea that how it is played now is wrong and it needs fixing. Because as it has been pointed out to you several times in this thread, but you just don’t seem to get, lots of goals doesn’t automatically mean a good game.
Regarding Blatter, the beef with the guy is that he is corrupt as fuck and gets in the way of the changes people REALLY want, like the use of video replays. Seriously, you need to read up on the guy.
Oh, and amanset, how would it work to make shielding the ball illegal? As I see it, banning that would radically affect large portions of the game. Hold up play, for instance, would basically cease to exist.
If he really wants to understand why, IU think we should point him in the direction of Andrew Jennings, who has written and done documentaries about the issue.
I would say that if the player shows no intent to play the ball (and playing the ball is just touching it with his foot) whilst using his body to block opposition then it is an indirect free kick.
The interpretations of the laws document says this:
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/worldfootball/clubfootball/01/37/04/28/law12-en.pdf
My problem is that “as long as the ball is kept within playing distance and the player does not hold off the opponent with his arms or body” is badly refereed. All too often you see a player pushing into the player behind him with the ball a yard or so away and yet the referee does nothing. And, in my opinion, the “or body” part of the rule is completely ignored.