You know, we can always make soccer higher scoring by just awarding 7 points for every goal 
I always thought soccer goals should be closer together (smaller field)
There are variants: five-a-side has smaller goals and a smaller playing pitch.
I think I can reasonably claim to “get” football, thanks very much. I am not proposing that it would be better if every game finished 4-3. But I wouldn’t mind if the average goals per game were a bit higher than the low 2.0s.
As for goals not being exciting, come on. When does the crowd make the most noise? What makes up most of the highlights reel that they play at the end of tournaments? Goals.
Nope, It doesn’t sound like you can make a reasonable claim to “get” football on anything other than a very superficial level. This is a sport that has hit a sweet spot in terms of number of goals vs the worth of the goal vs the chances of upset vs rewarding the best team. The numbers of worldwide participation and tv audiences bear this out. It isn’t perfect but whatever imperfections it may have, lack of goals isn’t one of them. I never…never hear football fans saying that there is not enough scoring in the sport as a whole. It is not an issue.
Now no one claims that goals aren’t exciting, but nor are they the only thing that is exciting.
And which highlights reel are you watching? The ones I see contain, goals, saves, last ditch tackles, skillfull touches, angry flashpoints etc. Might yours be a highlight reel made for an audience of non-aficionados?
I agree, not in the sport as a whole, but it is true that when I’ve set out for the stadium or when I’ve been about to watch a game on tv, if I could have specified beforehand, I’d rather have watched a high-scoring game than a low-scoring game, especially if it’s two sides I don’t care about. Also, while a 0-0 game can be interesting, it often isn’t, whereas it’s hard to imagine a 5-4 game that is not interesting.* All in all, while I don’t think there’s a problem that needs to be addressed in a systematic way, I also don’t think football would really suffer if the average goals per game went up. In fact, scoring has gone up in recent years in a number of competitions, as ultra-defensive strategies seem to be less effective, and fans have appreciated that.
Again, I don’t think that there’s any need for change, certainly not if it is to accommodate those (like the OP) whose knowledge about the game is inversely correlated with how much they want to change it. But I also don’t think you can really say there’s a sweet spot that’s been hit, especially when the game is constantly evolving.
- One factor to consider is whether increased goalage would lead to more blow-outs or to more high-scoring tight games like 5-4s, or even to closer draws. I am not certain those proportions would stay the same, and that might affect whether the interesting-ness of games goes up or down. If, say, increasing the goal size primarily leads to, say, 2-0s becoming 5-0s, is that an improvement?
bucketybuck, to whom I was responding, did literally claim that goals are not exciting in themselves. But I didn’t say that highlights reels consist entirely of goals. I said “most”. We may not all be blessed with your exquisite appreciation for the game, but there is a reason why they make “100 best goals” videos and not “100 best holding midfielders” or “100 best offside traps”.
You say that 2 point something goals per game is a “sweet spot”. But a few decades ago, when football was even more popular than it is now, the average was more like four goals per game. So, what sweet spot? Even the football authorities look at goal rates, and from time to time worry that they are getting too low, like in 1990, after which the no-back-pass rule came into effect, and goal rates increased, to the approval of everybody. It is not just a concern of footballing philistines. It’s one of the metrics that the sport is measured by.
The scoring rate is pretty much unchanged in the last 45 years. 89/90 was 2.6 90/91 was 2.77. The following decade since that change saw only three years that were higher than 89/90 so whatever the reason for introducing the back-pass it hasn’t seen an increase in scoring rate.
In over a 125 years of the English football league the average is just over 3. currently it is about 2.8 and it has hovered around that or slightly lower since 1969 so I think, yes, it has established an “sweet spot”.
As for “more popular” ? well some of thestats suggest no loss of popularity over the last 25 years for live attendance and I suspect that worldwide tv audiences are far higher now than ever but I don’t have figures for that but here’s an article that talks about the rising popularity in Asia, (even with flat-lining goals per games)
Can I have cites for ‘more like four goals per game’ and ‘even more popular than it is now’?
Goals per game: per cite above, English First Division 1960-61, 3.73 goals per game, .
Popularity: Sort the following page by attendance and note the dates:List of record home attendances of English football clubs - Wikipedia.
That’s one season in one competition. In fact, it’s the single highest post-war seasonal average in that one competition. That’s not really evidence for a persistent lasting period in which they scored four goals per game. The fact is, while there have been years in which scoring has been higher than it commonly is now, it has been stable (within about .5 goal/game) over the last 45 years.
For one thing, again, this is only one country. For another, it’s a very very flawed measure of football’s popularity. Why is attendance down? Because people are no longer allowed to stand in football stadiums, because when they do, they end up crushing each other to death. So football stadiums are now seating-only, and that has reduced the number of people that they can let in. It does not reflect on the popularity of football in any way. If you look up average crowds and you take that as a percentage of stadium’s capacity, I doubt you’d find that much of a decrease, and given the fact that prices have gone up esp. in England, I’d say that the continued ability of clubs to sell tickets is a great testament to the fact that football continues to be massively popular.
Meh, these are small samples. For all we know the goal rate could have gone lower were it not for the rule change. Maybe the rule change successfully arrested a downward trend.
It was Novelty Bobble who introduced English league statistics into the argument, not me.
Look, football was popular then and is popular now. Football had more goals then than it has now. Therefore the idea that there is some “sweet spot” of goals-per-game is questionable.
In rereading this, I notice that it sounds really dumb. Obviously scoring goals is the objective of soccer matches. The point is that the excitement of the game is primarily how the goals are achieved and what leads up to them: the athleticism, strategy, creativity, and sometimes pure luck, not just the fact of scoring in itself.
So why claim that there was a time when it was ‘even more popular’? Do you have evidence for that claim? If not, are you ready to admit you had no basis to make that claim?
I did not question that there have been times in which scoring was more prevalent, I just called you out asking for a cite for the ‘more like four goals per game’ statistic. You could not produce that.
That’s why I questioned it in post #146.
I have given evidence that football was more popular in England in the post-war years than it is now, with huge crowds that only the biggest teams these days could dream of. 70,000 at a Charlton Athletic, Huddersfield, Sheffield United. These are unimaginable numbers by today’s standards.
Re goals, 3.73 is more like 4 than it is like 3, and that’s just England, where we couldn’t hit a cow’s arse with a banjo, as they say. World Cups in that period were more than 4 goals per game, on average.
Does that take into account other forms of patronage, such as watching on television, subscribing to special services (cable, satellite, wireless), readership of specialty publications, traffic to specialty websites, and purchase of licensed goods?
I can’t stand soccer. Horrible, boring sport. In My Opinion, of course.
The rest of the world disagree with me - fair enough, I’m in the minority. I’m certainly not going to suggest how they should change their sport to suit me. I also understand that there is an enormous thrill available to spectators when their side achieve that precious, maybe only once-in-a-match moment that can decide the game.
If anything, I think the thrill of goal-scoring is one of soccer’s strengths because it so rare. Remove that by making goals easier, and it would be a less attractive game.
Yes, I suppose that given that it wasn’t as easy to follow the game back then, the level of popularity at that time is even more impressive. Good point.
You what, now?
Are you suggesting that live attendance is an absolute measure of popularity but these other things are not?