Sheesh with all the 1-0, 0-1 and 0-0 games played, would it kill you to increase the width of the goal by a foot or so? The World Cup was won a few years ago on penalty kicks. The heck?
Tradition, shmadition.
To the best of my knowledge, the parts of the world that actually watch soccer are not up in arms over the low scores or possibility of a tie.
I don’t really see why a 5-4 game would be any more entertaining than a 1-0 game.
Soccer is played on a massive field, and guys are running around for almost the entire time. Except for the occassional corner kick, penalty kick or tossing the ball in bounds, most of the game looks like a bunch of guys chasing a ball around a field.
I know soccer is much more complicated than that, and it takes a great amount of skill to play it at a high level. I’m not slamming the game at all. I enjoy watching the occassional soccer match, especially a world cup match.
But extra goals don’t fundamentally change the way the game is played. So if you are bored with 1-0, you will be just as bored with 5-4.
Even in the parts that don’t watch it, those of us that do are perfectly content to see low-scoring games and ties. There is no reason to fundamentally alter the game to appease a small subset of people that probably wouldn’t watch even if they got everything they wanted anyway.
If I was running the sport that was the undisputedly most popular spectator sport in the entire world, had been for many years, and showed no signs of stopping anytime soon, I have to admit that I’d probably adopt a pretty solid policy of “it ain’t broke, so don’t fix it.”
How about a 3-2 game. One that maybe includes a lead change or two? That wouldn’t be more entertaining?
Now making the goals bigger is probably not the best way to do it. Would change the game too much. More potshots from outside the penalty box wouldn’t make the games more entertaining.
An equivalent stupid argument would be to make the basketball hoop smaller so that each score matters more.
Not to me.
First of all, there is no guarantee that the scoring will go 1-0, 1-1, 2-1, 2-2, 3-2. And there is no guarantee that the scoring won’t be all done in the first half either. You could have all 5 goals scored in the first 45 minutes, and nothing in the second half. Are you more or less excited at the end of the game because more goals were scored? Or are you bored out of your mind because the second half was scoreless?
Secondly, a lead change or two would add some excitement. But so does a shift in momentum. For me, what I enjoy about soccer is the ebb and flow of momentum. If each team has 8 shots on goal and one goes in, that is just as exciting to me as your 3-2 game. What matters is how the game is played. Having a 1-goal lead is exciting no matter what the score is, and if you are closing in on the 90th munute and you are down by one, why would it matter if the score was 3-2 or 1-0?
I have heard the same arguments about scoring in the NHL. And granted, hockey games usually have more than 1 goal scored, but depending on the situation, where every shot counts, a 0-0 tie is very exciting, as is a close soccer match.
I do understand how penalty kicks can be anti climactic. And i wouldn’t have a problem with games like World Cup matches having to play sudden death until a goal is scored, but changing the game sumehow to artificially pump up the score just seems bogus to me.
The game is played all over the world and is the most popular game on the planet. I don’t think it suffers feom a lack of scoring, except maybe in the mind of Americans, who have never really embraced the sport like it was once hoped for.
MISL was fun, and I went to a number of soccer games played in an arena where scoring came in bunches. But it was a different type of game, and luck played a part with some scoring. International soccer is a different game, and high scores wouldn’t make it better.
That’s how I see it, anyway.
I used to think that soccer needed more scoring, but a discussion with a real fan changed my mind. There are very few sports when an instant can change the result, but soccer is definitely one.
Think of most sports - there are passages of play, or periods of play which can change the result, but with soccer any moment during the 90 minutes can be the difference between a win, loss or draw.
Although I used to play basketball and enjoy watching it, usually the first three quarters are either trading basket for basket or one team will overwhelm the other.
Soccer on the other hand can produce the game winning score in the first minute or the 90th minute.
Given that, I’ll join the “if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it” crowd.
Most American sports are relatively high scoring in nature. One of the appeals of soccer to me is that it’s atypical of that.
Great minds should be able to come up with a better alternative to deciding an elimination game than penalty kicks, however.
Diving competition. 
I would be all for that. Basketball is a good game at the lower levels but breaks down once you get to the NBA. NBA players are simply too big and too good for the equipment. It should be adjusted for difficulty as the level of play rises. I say raise the goal in the NBA at least a foot so that making a slam dunk requires more than just a gentle hop from their tippy-toes. They need to do something about the strategic fouling system as well.
I can guarantee that the 1-0 game will never ever go like that.
More excited. Really, what a dumb question. As you pointed out (as nearly every soccer fan pedantically points out), the game can be entertaining even when goals aren’t being scored.
Exactly.
It wouldn’t. But the match up to that point is more likely to be more exciting.
Soccer fans have to be the most conservative fans on the planet.
Being unwilling to entertain rule changes proposed by people who don’t follow the sport isn’t conservative - it’s just common sense.
But yeah…at least don’t decide WC finals on penalties. Pull a player from each team every ten minutes after the extra time. Or allow unlimited substitution. And don’t give me any ‘safety of the players’ crap.
Well basketball used to be played with peach baskets and square boxes. Admittedly that was 100+ years ago.
Dubious points aside, NBA rules are tinkered with constantly. History. Methinks the difficulty of doing this internationally is what keeps soccer so conservative, as opposed to the fans.
Well, I think soccer is broken due to the corruption of its organizers. Also endemic unsportsmanlike conduct. But this isn’t a fix for that. I agree though that this is a matter for fans to decide, not outsiders like myself. Corruption is everyone’s issue though.
Yeah, I guess soccer really sucked in the 1930s-1960s, when World Cups finals would have 4 or 6 total goals scored. (Sorry for the snark).
Seriously, scores of 3-4 or 2-1 would still represent a low scoring game. And that would go a ways towards creating a game with less randomness. Under today’s system the fittest team is less likely to prevail.[sup]1[/sup] I mean Brazil dominated the 1994 world cup IIRC, and yet they still managed only a zero-zero draw against Italy won on penalty kicks. Give me a break.
[sup]1[/sup] Might this actually be a feature? I don’t think so. The status quo produces more frustrating outcomes (bad) than upsets (problematic).
This happens every four years. People who only watch then have all kinds of ideas on how to improve a game that most of the world has no problem with.
It wasn’t a dumb question given your premise. You pointed out how a 3-2 game would be more exciting to you. So, if the entire second half was scoreless, how does that ramp up the excitement level for you? How is that different than a 1-0 game? You are telling us that more scoring is needed to keep you interested. I don’t see how you can say a 3-2 game with a scoreless second half would be more exciting than a 1-0 game… Or better yet, a 0-0 game. Going down to the wire where the next goal will probably win is exciting regardless of the score.
To you, sure. But to the vast majority of soccer fans? I doubt it.
I am not a rabid soccer fan. However, I appreciate it for what it is. I don’t understand how someone who doesn’t like the game and thinks it should be changed to suit your own particular beliefs in what makes a game exciting or not is put off by people telling you the game should remain as it is.
I don’t think soccer fans are conservative. The game’s not broken.
What is your favorite sport? Whatever it is, my guess is you like it pretty much as it stands. What if someone wanted to make the holes in golf twice or three times as big, because they like to see birdies and low scores? Maybe lower the rim in basketball and make the hoop wider so more people can dunk and make shots from longer distances? You can tweak any game to increase the scoring. That doesn’t necessarily make the game better or more appealing.
YMMV.
As an avid fan of football (no, not egghand), I have to say the sport is near perfect bar the fact that technology should be used more than it is right now. I watch over 150 games a season.
The goals being widened, as you’re asking, is utterly ridiculous because there are plenty of teams that are known for having a strong defense, and the best goalkeepers around the globe are known for keeping the most clean sheets (not conceding goals).
If you see a match between quality teams (for example Athletico Madrid v Barcelona three weeks back, Manchester United v real Madrid last year in the champions league etc), they both were low scoring draws, but the tactical awareness of the players in either matches was superb. Studying the tactics, the positional sense of the players is vital to understand the game.
But, don’t get me wrong, I understand where you’re coming from, you just want to see more goals (perfectly acceptable), but football is perfect I wouldn’t want to change it at all. When I started watching football, just like you I wanted more goals as well, but as you get more into the game you’ll understand high scoring matches mostly mean that terrible defending is being displayed (exceptions are there).
If you want a faster paced game, watch futsal instead. You’ll thank me later!
I don’t disagree that soccer’s rules are more difficult to change, though not that much more difficult. For example there was a major rule change in 1992 with the introduction of the no-back pass rule, and if you look back you see a pattern of major rule introductions amendments once every 20 years. However even without changing the rules, in between these periods, FIFA have been able to substantially influence the way the game is played with instructions to referees.
However for me the whole premise of the thread is faulty. The solution that you’re suggesting is to something that in your personal view is a problem, but it isn’t generally regarded as a problem in the soccer world.
I can’t say corruption isn’t a problem in FIFA, however FIFA are not directly involved in the organisation of most competitions. You have continental associations (e.g. UEFA), which exist autonomously under the FIFA umbrella and with those continental associations you have national associations which again exist autonomously and then the leagues themselves which aren’t usually even run by the national association.
And even for the competitions it does organize FIFA’s corruption doesn’t affect them as a sporting spectacle as the problem is how the host country is allocated. The underlying problem is FIFA’s democratic structure.
Unsportsmanlike conduct (in particular diving) for me and for many fans is a bigger problem (though describe the game as broken), however why it happens and what can be done to stop it are complicated issues which I won’t go into here.
The reason scores are much lower nowadays are due to tactical changes. You may not realize it, but in the 1920s a major rule change amended the offside rule which made it more favourable to the attacking team. Immediately after this the number of goals scored significantly increased, but there has always been a trend for soccer tactics to become more defensive. In the 19th century the norm was 7 or 8 forwards, but for the 1st half of the 20th century 5 forwards were the norm. By the end of the 20th century nearly all teams used 2 forwards , but nowadays I would say it has become more normal to play with just 1 true forward and there have even been games where teams have played with 0 forwards!
There’s always an element of randomness in sport, I think you’re seeing a problem where there isn’t one.
1994 I would say is actually is a counterexample trying to prove, Brazil and Italy were the two best teams in the tournament and also the two pre-tournament favourites. They were very closely-matched and the fact it went to penalties was an probably an accurate indicator of how close the two teams were. Despite the 0-0 scoreline it was still a good game.