The W
Views: 100769620
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
23.11.14 1301
The W - Football - FIFA considers eliminating draws from ALL World Cup games
This thread has 2 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.85
Pages: 1
(497 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (14 total)
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 21 hours
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.35
http://espn.go.com/​sports/​soccer/​news/​_​/​id/​5463515/​fifa-​considers-​doing-​away-​draws-​world-​cup


WOW. I don't mind draws but they can REALLY slow down the game as both sides do just enough not to allow a goal.

Stalling tactics were so bad that there was a rule change after the 1990 World Cup when the Irish keeper held on to the ball for about 5-6 minutes. Starting in 1992, the keeper could not pickup a ball passed back to him from a teammate (The Back Pass rule).


I know a lot of traditionalists will be upset, but I see this as the best way to get American fans into it, and more importantly, keep the action level up since might go into extra time before the shootout.


EDIT: Changed title

(edited by Zeruel on 14.8.10 1324)


-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year --

-- July 2009 Ordained Reverend --
Promote this thread!
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 103 days
Last activity: 103 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.46


I don't think FIFA should be (or is) changing rules with the goal of appeasing American fans. People all around the world manage to get into this game with draws on the table, and I don't buy the standard claim that ties are why Americans don't like soccer. Frankly, I think that's bullshit. It has become somewhat self-fulfilling — everyone says ties are the "problem," so everyone believes ties are the problem.

I agree that the tactics playing for a draw got annoying, but the potential is certainly there for that strategy to come back and bite a team in the ass. I don't like this idea, and I definitely don't like the idea of sudden death. I like the 30-minutes-no-matter-what overtime format. I doubt anything will actually change, but it's possible I'm overestimating how much global outrage there would be if this happened.



Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 21 hours
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.35
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    I like the 30-minutes-no-matter-what overtime format. I doubt anything will actually change, but it's possible I'm overestimating how much global outrage there would be if this happened.


I think that is the best solution. Keep all games consistent for every round. 30 mins of extra time followed by a shootout if necessary.

I honestly don't think they're doing this for Americans, but I feel like it would be a welcome side-effect of the rule change, if they actually do it.



-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year --

-- July 2009 Ordained Reverend --
Canard
Cotechino








Since: 25.7.05
From: England

Since last post: 119 days
Last activity: 1 day
#4 Posted on
I cannot believe that Sepp Blatter thinks making drawn games end in penalty shoot-outs is going to make teams play positively.

If a team has a good goalkeeper with a record of saving penalties, then this encourages them to play even MORE defensively, because it's in their interest to see it go to a shoot-out where they've then got a great chance of winning, without really having to exert themselves. Currently if you play defensively in a group game, the most you can expect is one point. Under these rules, you could easily get all three.

For the best example of what I'm on about, see Argentina's record in the 1990 World Cup. They played for a draw in each knockout stage game they were in, knowing that their keeper Goycochea was a top class penalty stopper. They beat Brazil with a late breakaway goal despite being dominated for the entire game, then beat Yugoslavia and Italy on penalties after dour draws. Of course they came undone in the final against Germany, ironically to a penalty in regulation time, having not had a single shot on target the entire game.

TheOldMan
Landjager








Since: 13.2.03
From: Chicago

Since last post: 145 days
Last activity: 13 hours
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.52
I would guess if they're going to do this, it would be 2 points for winning in a shootout, 1 point for losing the shootout. If not, you're just going to have a lot more talk about who is leading in goal differential as the final qualifying round games come around.

FIFA doesn't need to do anything to get Americans interested in the World Cup, they're fine in that regard. Now if you want to spice up MLS, I always liked the NASL version of the shootout (players take the ball in from something like 40 yards out - more like an NHL shootout instead of penalty kicks).



Captain Ferret
Chipolata








Since: 14.9.02
From: Manchester

Since last post: 545 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#6 Posted on
This is an unfeasibly bad idea, look at what happened when the golden goal rule came in. That was supposed to make extra time more attacking, but had the opposite effect, as teams new one goal could kill them, so they chose to risk penalties most of the time, instead.
thecubsfan
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 10.12.01
From: Aurora, IL

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 10.00
I haven't thought this thru, but instead of getting rid of draws, get rid of the points teams gets for draws. Make them worth the same 0 points as a loss, and everyone suddenly must score.



thecubsfan.com - luchablog
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 103 days
Last activity: 103 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.46
    Originally posted by thecubsfan
    I haven't thought this thru, but instead of getting rid of draws, get rid of the points teams gets for draws. Make them worth the same 0 points as a loss, and everyone suddenly must score.


I am intrigued by this idea. I don't know if I'm ready to say I like it, but it's an interesting suggestion.



Spank E
Boudin rouge








Since: 2.1.02
From: Plymouth, UK

Since last post: 19 days
Last activity: 16 hours
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.83
I always preferred the silver goal rule, where if a goal was scored in the first half of extra time, the game would end at the half unless the other team were able to equalize. It wasn't perfect, but it was much better than golden goal.



Canard
Cotechino








Since: 25.7.05
From: England

Since last post: 119 days
Last activity: 1 day
#10 Posted on
    Originally posted by Spank E
    I always preferred the silver goal rule, where if a goal was scored in the first half of extra time, the game would end at the half unless the other team were able to equalize. It wasn't perfect, but it was much better than golden goal.


I think the silver goal would only work if you were to have it like hockey playoffs, where it was unlimited periods of overtime. Otherwise the only difference between a silver goal and regular extra time was that first 15 minute period - if you score in the second period, nothing really changed.

While the golden goal didn't acheive its aim of making teams more positive, the one complaint I always heard about it was that it didn't give the other team a chance to get a goal back. I always said "tough" to that - after all if you score in the 90th minute of normal time then the other team doesn't get a chance to equalise then either, but you wouldn't add on extra minutes there.
dMr
Andouille








Since: 2.11.02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland

Since last post: 75 days
Last activity: 2 days
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.94
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    I doubt anything will actually change, but it's possible I'm overestimating how much global outrage there would be if this happened.
Well I haven't found anyone who likes the idea yet and I'm certainly ready to get outraged about it. Observe!

This is about the single dumbest idea I've heard from Sepp Blatter which, given his storied history of saying really dumb stuff, is impressive in and of itself.

This would do absolutely nothing to make teams more attack-minded. Teams that pack the defence just now are basically playing for a draw* which would net them one point. If games go to penalties and they award three points to the winner and none the loser, the average points gained from a draw (assuming pens are a 50-50 shot) will increase to 1.5. If they give two to the winner and none to the loser the average points gained from a win stays at one. So what you gain by getting a draw will, at best, remain unchanged and the POTENTIAL returns from doing so actually increase.

Beyond the whole "it wouldn't achieve what they want it to" issue, there is absolutely nothing wrong with draws in the group stages. If you can't score in 90 minutes you don't deserve all three points and if, god forbid, a nation like North Korea, Honduras or (if we ever qualified again) Scotland managed to keep a clean sheet against a Spain or a Brazil, then they probably deserve a point.

If they really, REALLY want to encourage more attacking play then they could probably start by actually calling fouls for shirt-pulling and holding in the box which happen at damn near every corner. Teams that spend most of a game defending tend to be amongst the more cynical, so it would greatly reduce the likelihood of being able to just sit back and hope for the best. Wonderfully, it would also just mean enforcing the existing laws of the game rather than introducing something new and completely retarded.

Long story short, they're trying to solve the problem of small nations playing defensively against bigger nations which I don't think is a problem that can (or should be) solved by changes to the rules.



    Originally posted by cubs
    I haven't thought this thru, but instead of getting rid of draws, get rid of the points teams gets for draws. Make them worth the same 0 points as a loss, and everyone suddenly must score.
Maybe just 0 points for a nil-nil, because you wouldn't want to give teams no points for a 3-3 draw. Even then I'm not sure it would work that well because in a four-team group there's a lot to be gained from just denying the opposition points and you'd probably find teams would be happy to try to take their chances with two 0-0's against the stronger teams in the group, then try to beat the weakest team. And you might find there are some games which are headed for a 0-0 before it conveniently ends up in a 1-1 thanks to two late goals.

* Ideally they might hope to sneak a win with a break-away goal, but that doesn't affect the above math.
Captain Ferret
Chipolata








Since: 14.9.02
From: Manchester

Since last post: 545 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#12 Posted on
If this is a response to smaller teams playing for draws in the group stage, then it's their own fault for expanding the tournament to 32 teams, enabling more smaller nations to qualify.

Did they really expect the likes of Honduras, Ecuador, North Korea or Togo, to name some of the smaller nations who've qualified for the last two tournaments, to go all out for victory? And that's not even counting teams that tend towards the negative anyway, I'm looking at you, Greece.
JayJayDean
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
Y!:
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.26
    Originally posted by Captain Ferret
    If this is a response to smaller teams playing for draws in the group stage, then it's their own fault for expanding the tournament to 32 teams, enabling more smaller nations to qualify.

    Did they really expect the likes of Honduras, Ecuador, North Korea or Togo, to name some of the smaller nations who've qualified for the last two tournaments, to go all out for victory? And that's not even counting teams that tend towards the negative anyway, I'm looking at you, Greece.


I was prepared to agree with you, but more bottom-feeder teams should equal MORE win/loss games, right?

I would argue that if they were trying to eliminate draws EXPANDING the finals to 40 teams with eight five-team groups would help, because then you would have five teams in each group going to two spots. That would require sixteen more matches, which would have its pros and cons.



Holy fuck shit motherfucker shit. Read comics. Fuck shit shit fuck shit I sold out when I did my job. Fuck fuck fuck shit fuck. Sorry had to do it....

*snip*

Revenge of the Sith = one thumb up from me. Fuck shit. I want to tittie fuck your ass.
-- The Guinness. to Cerebus
Captain Ferret
Chipolata








Since: 14.9.02
From: Manchester

Since last post: 545 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#14 Posted on
    Originally posted by JayJayDean
      Originally posted by Captain Ferret
      If this is a response to smaller teams playing for draws in the group stage, then it's their own fault for expanding the tournament to 32 teams, enabling more smaller nations to qualify.

      Did they really expect the likes of Honduras, Ecuador, North Korea or Togo, to name some of the smaller nations who've qualified for the last two tournaments, to go all out for victory? And that's not even counting teams that tend towards the negative anyway, I'm looking at you, Greece.


    I was prepared to agree with you, but more bottom-feeder teams should equal MORE win/loss games, right?

    I would argue that if they were trying to eliminate draws EXPANDING the finals to 40 teams with eight five-team groups would help, because then you would have five teams in each group going to two spots. That would require sixteen more matches, which would have its pros and cons.


The gap between the 'big' nations and any given 'small' nation isn't as large as you'd think, especially as the World Cup isn't the best football you can get,the European Cup is. So more minnows in there would result in more decisive results, as the top teams in that competition are much better, whereas more minnows in the World Cup has resulted in packed defences playing against teams who aren't going to take too many risks, and either haven't got enough attacking talent to get through, or haven't got the cohesiveness that playing together regularly gives.

Your idea of having five teams in a group might help in that it means the better teams know a defeat in their first game doesn't mean they have to win all their other games to qualify, but it won't happen as it brings back the prospect of teams being screwed over by the other teams who know what result could send both through, as one team will have played all their games before the other 4 play their last game (see El Anschluss, West Germany v Austria 1982 World Cup)
Thread rated: 4.85
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: Auction Draft
Next thread: Sidney Rice has hip surgery yesterday.
Previous thread: Brandon Marshall: two sport superstar?
(497 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Isn't the Cotton Bowl in Houston? I remember hearing somewhere a few years ago that the BCS folks were real impressed with Atlanta and the Peach Bowl. In my (admittedly small)
Related threads: World Cup 2010 discussion - Fantasy World Cup - World Cup 2010 Seeds/schedule announced - More...
The W - Football - FIFA considers eliminating draws from ALL World Cup gamesRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.126 seconds.