So, I’ve just watched the tepid France Uruguay game, which finished 0-0.
It got me thinking about ways to encourage more attacking play, and I wondered about a system where you only get a point for a score draw; a 0-0 draw results in zero points for both teams. (I can’t be the first person to think of this…but my google fu has found nothing).
Thoughts? It does seem harsh to keep a clean sheet and get nothing, but OTOH it would virtually guarantee that the end of a game finishing 0-0 will be full of excitement.
I doubt it would change much. Finishing with a 0-0 tie gives you exactly as many points as a 0-1 loss does, but it gives your opponent 3, and in pool play that is a big, big deal. So teams would still play not to give up goals, out of point-prevention rather than self-improvement. Of course they would push a bit harder to score knowing that it’s a 3 point shift rather than 2 points, but other than that I think things stay pretty much the same.
Perhaps under the 2-1-0 points system, it would be more significant, not getting any points for a nil nil.
(But of course that’s another level away from reality – having both those rule changes happen would be about as likely as FIFA ruling that there should be a sand trap in the middle of every pitch)
I absolutely hate draws in soccer, and think they should just go into overtime, with one player being subtracted every 5 minutes (or however long) on both teams. None of that penalty kick bullshit; settle the game with more soccer. 10 v 10 is still very much soccer, and that applies all the way down to even 6 v 6, I think. Yes, if you get down to something like 3 v 3, it gets kind of tiring and weird, but hey it’s their own bloody fault for not scoring earlier. And it’s still less of an absurdity than PK shootout.
If you want to get rid of tepid matches like the France-Uruguay game, the solution is to implement rules that encourage teams to take offensive chances and discourage teams from sitting back in a defensive shell and only counterattacking.
I think that is the powers that be wanted soccer to become a mainstream professional sport in the US, then certain changes would need to be made to reduce (or eliminate entirely) the number of ties. I also think that the field would need to be made smaller in order to speed up the pace, the clock would need to count down to zero instead of up to 90’, and they’d need to stop the clock for injury time and the like, instead of adding an uncertain amount of time at the end of the game.
That being said, the World Cup is not about making the game more accessible to the casual American fan, so I don’t think there are any problems with the rules as they are. Besides, nobody needs to worry about ties after this week anyway…
I think the idea is sound, just that getting rid of draws in group games isn’t required. The idea is what I have been advocating instead of the basic extra time and then penalties.
The OP wasn’t against draws per se, it was against lacklustre games where both teams seem unwilling to try for the win.
But the rule change that I came up with wouldn’t work too well. I’m now leaning towards a rule that would force a team to get the ball out of their own half within a certain time…
To me personally it is all part of it. Happens every World Cup. First few games teams are apprehensive plus the results are not crucial yet, so play gets very defensive. As we reach the quarter and semi finals the fire returns and we get some very exciting matches. In the final, too much is at stake and the defensiveness often returns. In retrospect everyone only remembers the exciting matches of previous editions and starts complaining about the boringness of soccer. It isn’t boring to me who sees all of this as part of the tactics and psychological aspect of the game, though I could see how it would be for others, especially those who are not very invested in one particular country winning.
Yes, why do you ask? I like playing more than I do watching, but the World Cup is always good fun. Can’t someone be a fan of something and still want to change it for the better?
Draws are stupid in any sport. It’s not like I’m advocating high scoring circus shows; I just think that after a whole match, one team should emerge the victor.
Settling matches in a way that has nothing to do with the actual game (like PK shootouts) is also stupid. It’d be like settling a baseball match with a home run derby, or a basketball match with a free throw shooting contest.
If it makes you feel better, I have suggestions for most major sports. Baseball needs to clamp down on the time between pitches. Games of past eras used to take just over 2 hours, while modern games take an hour more. I also think baseball should institute a challenge system similar to tennis. They’d get something like 2 instant replay challenges per game for stuff like out-safe calls. No arguing balls and strikes, though.
Pro basketball needs to actually enforce traveling; college hoops are often more fun to watch because they actually have to play the real game.
I pretty much only watch the sport when the WC is on, but from what I can tell, it seems that they take a longer view than the US sports. That is, it is not necessary to have a victor in each game; what you are really trying to establish is who the best team is over the course of 270 minutes of play in the group stage. If you play someone even over 90 minutes, why determine a victor artificially? It just isn’t necessary, which is in contrast to the knockout stages, where you obviously need to have a victor one way or the other.
Changing the number of points awarded for an 0-0 draw probably wouldn’t affect the number of 0-0 draws any way. When the system was changed from two to three points for a win, there was no appreciable change in the number of draws. As this columnist noted,
The big problem was that changing a win from two points to three didn’t really have that much change on who went through and who didn’t. The columnist also notes that in the 56 World Cup groups played from 1958 to 2008, only once would the qualifiers from the group been different had wins been worth three points instead of two or vice versa.
Three games just aren’t enough time for an award of zero points for a 0-0 draw to have much of an effect.
Hmmm… Maybe you could subtract points for a 0-0 draw…
Although, then, you would end up with bizarre things like teams scoring on their own goal to make sure that they got 0 points instead of a negative amount!
(I seem to remember that there was some bizarre game somewhere in the Caribbean during a championship, due to some weird rule being applied, wherein basically both teams were trying to score on their own goal, and ended up defending the other team’s goal. Let’s see if my google-fu works…)
What if you used goals scored as a tie breaker, instead of goal differential. A 2-2 tie would have more value then a 0-0 tie. Might prod teams to play a little more aggressively.
They already do use goals scored as the next tie-breaker. In some leagues in the past (and for all I know somewhere in the world right now) they have used goal average, essentially the same thing as goals scored, as the primary tie-breaker.
The complaint about international soccer is not that scores can be low, it’s that among teams of even remotely comparable skill, they are always low. The average score in the World Cup is 1-0.
