Also, Sheffield United?! You do realize they play at Hillsborough Stadium… which perhaps at one point could hold 70,000 standing fans - but that is exactly what led to 96 fans’s deaths leading to the requirement that all stadiums be all-seaters.
So now the capacity of Sheffield United is 40,000 - even though the stands are the same size.
Those were the easiest, most comprehensive numbers to hand. Plus it is also the culture that I know best and so can speak to.
You seemed to be suggesting that there is a causal relationship between the goals per game and the popularity of the sport. Certainly there were times in the past where more goals were scored and at the same time there were more people in the crowds but it is some leap to suggest that one drives the other.
It is akin to suggesting that larger cinema attendance in the 1930’s was due to the movies being better.
I don’t claim that the number of goals per game now is perfect or that it would be the amount you would design a “perfect” sport to achieve but the current rate is no barrier to the increasing popularity of the sport. It has been roughly the same for decades and seems to have settled at somewhere between 2.5 and 3 and all the while the global audience is increasing.
There is no drive to bring in rule changes to increase the scoring. You want to see lots of goals? Go and watch amateur games. It is exactly the same sport but the levels of skill are much lower allowing more goals to be scored but it is not a “better” product and of course the crowds are much lower.
I suspect that improved fitness, tactics, strategy and skills are the reasons the scoring rates have stabilised as it becomes a more even contest between attack and defence.
Even more impressive?
What is hard to understand about this? In the 60’s stadium’s didn’t have to be all-seaters and so even smaller grounds could hold 60-70000 people. Add this to the fact that the only way people could see a football match was to actually go to the game and you get high attendances.
Today, stadiums have to be all seater which limits their capacity. Live football also has to compete with extensive television coverage by which I could watch a game every single night should I choose to.
This will of course affect attendances and has absolutely nothing to do with the number of goals scored per game.
You are thinking of Sheffield Wednesday. The Blades play at Bramall Lane.
It is not a small sample by any stretch of the imagination. The average goals per game is not even a statistic…it is the parameter and it is large enough to make comparisons with a fair degree of certainty.
There are 380 separate games played in the EPL last season and there were more in the past. Most statisticians would kill for access to a full population like that.
Anyway, stat-flinging aside my position is that there is no need to make fundamental changes to increase scoring. Any changes should be concentrated on allowing the game to flow, introducing technological help to the referee, cutting down on back-chat and simulation, allowing “quick-tap” free kicks under all circumstances.
All these things would enhance the game in my opinion but none of them are designed to increase the number of goals scored and certainly none of them make it easier to score. If any of them have the* side-effect *of causing an extra goal to be scored ever 3 or 4 games then fine, but it is not the primary intention.
[QUOTE=bucketybuck]
This will of course affect attendances and has absolutely nothing to do with the number of goals scored per game
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t say that more goals meant better attendance. It was not me who introduced the notion of a “sweet spot” goal rate, which is what I am disputing. I concede that I overstated the goals-per-game, although it was over 4.0 in World Cups in the 1950s, and reached an all-time low in 1990, just before the backpass rule. It has been speculated, as you fellow followers of the game will know, that the backpass rule in the early 90s changed things, and the World Cup goal rate did immediately pick up, but it is a simplification.
That was sarcasm, for which I apologise. I was joking about the idea that you can neat-and-tidily take such factors into account. You listed some things that might count one way, I gave a counter-example. I don’t think either of us came up with a definitive, “absolute” measure. The things you mention probably matter, but we cannot know to what extent.
That wasn’t sarcasm, you just don’t know what you’re talking about.
No, it actually was sarcasm.
I generally think it’s a good thing when the OP revisits the OP near the end of the thread, as appropriate.
Even conceding that low scores provide a weak measure of fitness for soccer matches, most professional games are played in the context of Round Robin leagues (where everyone plays everyone) and not tournament structures where teams advance up a ladder. In a British Premier League round robin context you get effectively larger samples, since a tie will earn you a point (vs 3 for a win). Similarly, penalty shootouts are a tournament issue.
I think it’s fair to question why one should apply a universal fix (eg widen the goals) to a problem that doesn’t arise in most games played (i.e. the Round Robin). The fix (assuming you don’t like penalty shootouts) should apply to overtime and not the entire game itself. So the argument in the OP is weak. But I confess that I still am unconvinced about the virtues of the penalty shootout as a measure for national soccer prowess.
The usefulness of the average scores per match metric during Round Robin games is something I’ll leave for the fans to discuss.
The good part aboot low-scoring games is the game is usually always very close. A 2-0 score, even with 15 minutes left, isnt very safe at all.
I was at the 1994 world cup match between Brazil and NL in Dallas.
It was 2-0 but we fought back and made it 2-2 late in the game. Of course only to lose 3-2…LOL :smack:
Believe me, you’re not alone in this.
I was there too!
GTFO!!! I was there upper right, left-corner.
Still can’t believe Branco put the free kick in!!! Cunt!!! :mad: 
But then Brazilians are probably still mad when Sneijder put in the 2-1, so its all good 
:smack: Are you kidding? More goals would absoutely make the game more exciting for the vast majority of observers. Can we be a risk taker here? I promise you that if the average soccer game in America had 10 to 15 goals, you would put millions of dollars in the game instantely and billions over the next three years. This would push soccer above professional basketball and eventually baseball in America where it belongs. Why should the most popular youth sport in America stop at the youth level. Let our youth rise to the level of popularity as our other major pro sports. Make the goals two feet higher and four feet wider and LET THE EXCITEMENT BEGIN!! If the rest of the world don’t like while we smile all the way to the bank and take their best players to come here to play, then to heck with them. We’ll just chage the name of the game or something, USSOCCER OR SOCCERUS. After we get all the worlds best players, then we can say “beat us or join us” and they won’t be able to beat us so they will likely choose to join us and beautiful game will reign dominate forever.:smack:
No.
It’s not how many goals as much as the fact that each team holds the ball for a short amount of time before the other team takes over, lather rinse repeat, back and forth, team X, team Y, over and over again.
I dislike watching basketball for pretty much the same reason (but I enjoy playing both sports).
I agree with that “no”. (And yes, I realize that this is a resurrected thread from over a year old; in fact, I posted to it back in its day.)
Among other things, “two feet higher and four feet wider” is not going to increase the number of goals significantly. How many shots on goal have been only two feet off?
Also, if scoring goals brings in fans, then explain how indoor soccer failed.
If you want to increase scoring, there are better ways of doing it than increasing the size of the goal. The first three are, reduce the number of players on each team, make the field smaller, and completely change the offside rule. One idea that I like: add something along the lines of hockey’s blue lines - draw a line from one sideline to the other that goes over the edge of each penalty area, and no offensive player is allowed to cross it before the ball (or the player with the ball) does.
Reading through this thread, it seems to me that many of the “make the goal posts wider” are missing some vital points to the “beautiful game”.
As a supporter of a crap team, it’s not more goals / game that I want, it’s more wins / season and no amount of tinkering with goalposts is going to improve that!
Secondly, my team is crap, has match day crowds in the hundreds and has trouble beating teams which weren’t fit to tie its bootlaces up to a few years ago; HOWEVER it was founded in 1884 has a history slightly better than its current predicament and I live in hope the nearly glory days will come back again. And this really is the point, at this level it’s not about great football and loads of goals it’s about identity, hope, self-delusion and many other emotions not really related to sport.
This is a common complaint amongst non-soccer fans but the truth is that not all low-scoring games are the same. Sometimes the games are VERY exciting but just don’t feature much scoring. On the other hand while higher-scoring games can be pretty exciting sometimes they make you wish for some capable defending.