There’s way too much money invested in these players to be so cavalier about their health.
The problem is that the field is too damn big. It’s like football with 300 yards between the two goalposts or baseball with twelve bases.
Also, the game takes too long. Why not just award the win to the team that scores the first goal? The losing team’s fans can then riot and burn down the stadium (gasoline should be sold at the concession stands), thus saving the local area from another soccer game for months if not years.
Another way to liven up the game would be to give the players swords.
Last night I watched the Manchester City v Chelsea game. (top of the table clash in the Premier League)
It finished 0-1 and as the goal was scored in the first half I’m sure some of you are thinking that the rest of the game was tedious in the extreme. No goals for over an hour? how can that be interesting?
Well, perhaps it was the end-to-end play and the multiple attempts on goal or the quality defensive play and tactical masterclass from Jose Mourinho. That game was a perfect example of many of the points made in this thread. One goal less or more would not have made a substantial difference to the enjoyability of this game and, if you don’t understand that, then football is simply not for you.
For me, I think the Penalty Kick Shootout is an awesome solution to games that must have a result. What else would be better? If you are still drawn after 2 hours of a game then what else can be done?
Toss a coin?
Maybe the only thing I would say would be 45 minutes each way, then two 10 minute extra times then two 5 minute sudden death.
Being a Rugby fan, what I don’t like about soccer is that it rewards a good defense too much - making for a very dour game. A wider goal, making it easier to score would give greater reward to an enterprising attacking team, and also give fast breaks a greater chance of scoring - making for a more exciting game.
It would also give more chance of a “hail mary” type play of succeeding, which would increase the uncertainty - leading to a more exciting game.
But it is the fast break that is exciting, not necessarily the putting of the ball in the net.
Good old “route one” eh? I think you’ll find that is precisely what most football fans don’t want. Really, we don’t. A single well crafted goal against a tough defense is worth half a dozen put past substandard opposition.
Second the observation of the Man City - Chelsea game yesterday. Awesome, tense contest, with every pass and tackle mattering.
We need a soccer thread for soccer enthusiasts, just to talk about all the really interesting stuff that’s going on.
Agreed. Most of us who love the beautiful game have little interest in responding to ignorant comments from yahoos about how to “improve” it.
I will add that it is hilarious, if a bit pathetic, when a few Americans who don’t pay any attention to football outside of the World Cup (if that) think that they have just the insight to fix problems with what is by far the most popular sport in the world.
No, making the goal wider would not be an improvement.
Agreed, but they always seem to fall off the front page too quickly to sustain through the season.
I’d love to talk about the team that’s top of the league right now… 
It was nice to see a small fish like Chelsea with their limited funds be able to compete with big-spending City as well. A true underdog story.
By rights I should hate Chelsea and often I do…but…I simply have to acknowledge that Mourinho is one of that rare breed, a manager who make the difference. Plus he is infuriatingly entertaining and his by turns self-deprecating and arrogant demeanour seems to be appreciated by the UK.
You’re calling Chelsea a “small fish”? Chelsea, #7 on Forbes’s list of most valuable football clubs? Manchester City is #9.
It was sarcasm based on recent comments by Mourinho on how they couldn’t compete. See here: José Mourinho says Chelsea 'can't compete' with Manchester City's cash | Chelsea | The Guardian
Now he’s saying that Chelsea aren’t title contenders, or are a “small horse” in the race at best. He’s quite enjoyable to have around, to be honest, when he isn’t ordering stupefyingly boring football. The sucker punch yesterday was very entertaining.
They tried “sudden death” in overtime for a while, but it just made teams sit back and not try and score, in case they conceded on the break.
I’m not actually totally against changing the size of the goalposts, really. I don’t think making them a little bigger would actually increase the scoring that much, though, and it certainly wouldn’t solve the problem of what to do with tied games in knockout contests.
I remember a conversation I had once in which it was suggested that any goal that broke an “even” scoreline (so from 0-0, 2-2, etc) should count double, to give teams encouragement to score it. Before we could discuss it at any length, though, time was called and the pub shut.
Ah, the “soccer is boring” thing. Must be Tuesday again. Anyway …
I have heard the same arguments and frankly it is ridiculous. Is a match where someone is sent off suddenly no longer football? Or to have exactly the same situation, when two people are sent off (for example, if they have a fight)? Is five-a-side not football?
Personally I would be very much behind three rule changes:
- Offside rule goes back to “two opposition players between player and goalline”.
- Use of off-field refs for everything, from “did it go over the line” to “was it a dive”.
- The aforementioned solution to drawn games in cup competitions.
I think part of the problem here is the erroneous belief that the World Cup is the pinnacle of football. To be honest, I really don’t think it is. The best players doesn’t make the best games as everyone basically cancel each other out. Well that and the overly defensive play due to the nature of the event.
Regarding the “problem” of 0-0s, here are the scores from England’s Premier League this season:
http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/premier-league/results
In 2014, out of 47 games (quick count, I may be out by one or two) so far in 2014 there have been exactly TWO 0-0 draws. TWO. In the same period we have seen (and this we me just tallying up quickly with my eyes, I may be slightly wrong):
Eight games with three goals
Seven games with four goals
Two games with five goals
Two games with six goals
One game with seven goals
One game with eight goals
So what exactly was the problem again?
Oh and before anyone says anything, I only counted 2014 as I couldn’t be arsed to count any more than that.
I think I see both the problem and the solution.
Soccer scores 1 for a goal.
American Football scores 6 for a touchdown, 1 for a ‘kicking’ conversion, 2 for either a safety or a ‘running’ conversion and 3 for a field goal.
So Americans who don’t watch soccer see a score of 1-0 and think “In the latest Superbowl, the score was 43-8 - so that must be much better.”
So let’s change the scoring systems:
- Soccer scores 10 for a goal
- American Football scores 1 for a touchdown, 0.15 for a ‘kicking’ conversion, 0.3 for either a safety or a ‘running’ conversion and 0.45 for a field goal
Now the final scores read 10-0 in Soccer and 6.95 - 1.3 in the Superbowl.
We’ll make a statistician out of you yet sir! 
Ah, ok.
Well played.
Has anybody mentioned that this was a joke on Sports Night around 12 years ago? Anyway: I find the game boring in general, but I don’t demand that they change just to suit me (which probably wouldn’t work anyway).
Oh dear??! Are you for real??!!
I had so many Americans come up to me at bars telling me Americans would be world cup champions, if only soccer wasnt their #1 sport.
You know what, soccer is a very technical sport. The US, if US mens focused all their attention on soccer, they surely would have a much better team then they have now. But that still doesnt guarantee success.
Russia (former Soviet Union) pumped all their money into soccer, and all they had to show for it was 1 Euro cup, and one world cup semifinal showing. And thats with about the same population as the US
.
And this quote from this morning:
Of course I’d be delighted if Chelsea were not title contenders, but honestly I have little patience for false modesty.