I don't mind the current system of three points per game and then goal difference but would it be so bad if it were just based on goal difference? usually the teams with the worst goal diff go down and the once with the best get the title. sometimes there are indiscrepancies to this, especially mid-table - but generally you get what you deserve
I think it would open the door for more attacking football. what do you guys think?

Interesting and worthy of consideration, anything that encourages attacking football has got to be a good thing in my book.

I can see a number of downsides though; take this scenario for example (exaggerated to make a point)

Manu get off to a bad start in the new season and loose the first 5 games 20-0, as a desperate measure saf calls on the old timers (GB,DL,BC) to help out. They are then able to win the next 17 games 1-0
but still get relegated because of gd.

I see your point but the fact is - it would never happen. When I argue this point to people they come up with weird and wonderful scenarios which prove their point but in reality it would never happen. Quite frankly if any team loses 100 goals in their first 5 games and can only manage to muster up 1-0 victories against lower sides, whicst other teams are trouncing on the 5-0: then yeah utd should get relegated. It serves them right for losing their concentration so badly on the first 5 games and not being able to put enough spirit in their play to level up the GD.
My friend also came up with the scenario of a team that were in last place with -42 GD and on the last game beating the other team so badly that they end up winning the prem. I mean yeah great point but it just won't happen. as I said the table usually reflects the gd. I just think that it would be awesome if on the last day of the season, although it could be any time in the season, man utd had to score 2 goals to top the table, but then news would filter thrugh that arsenal had just scored 2, mean utd would have to score 4. imagine the attacking that would go on. In both games.
Goals would mean a lot more then and a goal conceded when you are 4 goals up could be very costly and not just a consolation goal. teams would always have a point in playing to 100% even when they are 4-0 down. If they get one goal back that means they have -3 instead of -4 which could prove useful in the future

I’m sorry my friend, but you’ve clearly been sitting in the sun for to long It is a bloody daft suggestion for multiple reasons, and I seriously dispute it would encourage attacking play. Why attack and risk conceding a goal? Far better to play a flat back 11 and keep your entire team on the goal line. You wouldn’t need to score a single goal all season to avoid relegation... It drives me up the wall when folk come out with ideas to encourage attacking play without thinking about the possibilities for uber-defensive ploys. Apart from anything else quality defending is every bit as much a skill as attacking. Why don’t you go and watch basketball if you want a goal chance on every attack.


To say that GD usually reflects the final table is far from true. For a very notable case in point Norwich City in the first ever EPL season. They were in the title chase right up until April and no one could have claimed they didn’t deserve to be in the hunt. By the end of the season they finished third, just behind Villa. Under your system they would have been thirteenth and just nine goals off relegation. I use the Norwich example deliberately. Small clubs rarely record strong GD figures because they haven’t got thirty internationals in their squads. By definition a small club will suffer some hefty reverse each season when they have a number of bodies out. The richer clubs nearly always have far superior GD figures even when they have inferior points records.

When has a low budget club ever finished high in the EPL table without a very poor GD? It hasn’t happened. On top of Norwich we have Wimbledon finishing 6th with a GD of 3, Sheffield Wednesday finishing 7th with a GD of -1 and West Ham finishing 5th with a GD of -7 (to give an example of a crap big club with a large squad benefiting under your system that same season Liverpool came in 7th but had a GD of 19). To take last season as another example you’ve got Charlton and Bolton just missing out on Europe with a 0 and -8 GD, while Manchester City narrowly avoided relegation (and arguably deserved it) yet had a positive GD figure. May as well just hand out the honours at the start of the season based on balance sheets. We could do away with the pointless football altogether.

League campaigns aren't about generating excitement on the final day. If a team is way better then the rest over nine months ala Arsenal last year then it should be dead on the final day. If you want a big final go and watch the cups. A league is a test of endurance, not who can get lucky at the death.

Asd a matter of fact I do watch basketball and I enjoy it a lot.
How exactly would having 11 men on the goal line help? according to many managers 42 points is what you need to avoid relegation. that's 32 draws and a few wins to ensure safety by the current rules. again someone has given a silly example. 11 men on the goal line - even if they did play defensive all season and didn't score - and even if they were successful at it they would have 0 gd. meanwhile other teams who take the game seriously would be attempting to win by a decent margin - not only through defense but through attack as well. you are assuming that teams will play the same way but they would have to go for goals - especially if they conceded. but I'll admit you have a point and so maybe they could have a system whereby you get two points for a goal - like the aggragate rule in two-legged games
yes you are right - teams with no money won't get high positions. but what's happening now? teams with no money getting into europe? I don't see it. teams with little money struggling at the bottom? yep that's accounted for. leeds were doing ok until they hit the financial wall
I said in the first post that it doesn't have to be on the last day - it could be anytime - after all, all teams want to be top at any point in the season.
Also I always see teams who are down 3 goals just lose the plot. they've got nothing to play for anymore. that would change.

I once came accross a suggestion to encourage attacking football. If I remember correctly, it goes like this-

1 point for a win in each half
2 points for the winning team
1 point for a draw

If you win both halves, 4 points.
If you win 1 half and draw another, 3 points
If you win 1 half, lose another half, but you still win the game 3 points (the other team get 1 point for their attacking effort)
If you win 1 half, lose another half, game ended in draw, 2 points
If you win 1 half, lose another half and you lose the game, 1 point
If you draw both, 1 point

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paraggio
How exactly would having 11 men on the goal line help? according to many managers 42 points is what you need to avoid relegation. that's 32 draws and a few wins to ensure safety by the current rules. again someone has given a silly example. 11 men on the goal line - even if they did play defensive all season and didn't score - and even if they were successful at it they would have 0 gd. meanwhile other teams who take the game seriously would be attempting to win by a decent margin

---

Quote:

---

win by a decent margin - not only through defense but through attack as well. you are assuming that teams will play the same way but they would have to go for goals - especially if they conceded.

---

Quote:

---

but I'll admit you have a point and so maybe they could have a system whereby you get two points for a goal - like the aggragate rule in two-legged games

---

Quote:

---

yes you are right - teams with no money won't get high positions. but what's happening now? teams with no money getting into europe? I don't see it. teams with little money struggling at the bottom? yep that's accounted for.

---

Quote:

---

Also I always see teams who are down 3 goals just lose the plot. they've got nothing to play for anymore. that would change.

---

Paraggio, I'm sure you have heard of sods law, believe me its a universal truth, silly things (unexpected things) happen all the time and usually when people say that can never happen!

I'm just arguing for arguments sake and I like engaging in a decent discussion on the net. the reason I say all this is because when it comes odwn to points there are occasions when two teams will end up on the same points and then GD will come into play. On such occasions the team that needs a better GD will attack to get more goals whilst the team that is ahead will do what is neccesary, like get two goals and try and hold on to it. Its happened a few times at the bottom ebnd of the table. I was just applying that logic to a broader sense. I see the limitations - I was focusing on the benefits and not on the limitations.
But I do wonder why you keep badmouthing, or at least saying footballl will end up like basketball. What's wrong with B'ball. Its fast and I love the sport.
I suppose the big erroneous assumption I made was that all teams would go for it in the league - I was just thinking of the extremes. I recently did a study on the psychology of football and came across an article about the difference in spanish and english sides. It highlighted that the EPL had more managers with ready made excuses (lookat their bench and look at ours) whilst in spain there was a genuine belief that a small team could win the entire thing. real sociedad almost done it, deportivo did. The point here is that in spain teams play with more belief and even midtable teams believe that they could win the league. you pointed this out in another thread regarding the SPL and EPL. right now only a few teams could win it and that's a shame.
right now the vodafone cup is played with a points and gd system, meaning boca are way ahead whilst man utd, whilst they won their game are a bit behind and need to score goals to win the tournament. I was watching it and was essentially wondering why they don't do that? I see now that you definitely do need a point system but what's wrong with the way the vodafone cup is being played. I know its only two games for each team but I think it could work in the long run. I know it sounds like the system we have now but I think psychologically it would be different. right now players say "well its 3 points in the bag" whist they could be saying its 5 points. It would make a win really valuable - although in the vodafone cup I'm not sure on the system for draws

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paraggio

But I do wonder why you keep badmouthing, or at least saying footballl will end up like basketball. What's wrong with B'ball. Its fast and I love the sport.

---

Quote:

---

It would make a win really valuable

---

- vile bacteria indeed.
alas - I fear you are right. thehorrible truth about football and sport in general is that teams will do anything to win and the moral code be damned. I used to like criket as well....well only part time when India were playing. tendulkar is my hero and dravid is an awesome player as well...shame we don't have many bowlers...
I've not kept up to date with basketball but I am a better b'ball player than footie player....dammit.

anyways I suppose the crappy attitude of clubs has ruined the idea. good defenders are hard to come across but I really don't like defensive, negative football. I enjoy deep tactical games but not plain boring ones with 2 chances all game. I don't think anyone does. I enjoyed wqatching greece in the championships but on a one time basis. I'd hate to think that they could win the world cup.

I don't know if I'm looking thru rose tinted glasses but I get the impression a lot of top sports have gone the same way. Take tennis as another example, I find the modern game boring to watch when compared to the big mac and conners era; I think its called progress.

I wonder why. is it cos they get a ton of money now. you'd have thought it would be a great motivation to win, but with so much up for grabs maybe its "second place ain't so bad". the money probably is a substitute for passion and the desire to win. these days players are rewarded just for having potential but not actually doing anything with it. generally they are rewarded too easily - del piero for example. take the huge wads of cash out of the game and maybe it'll get better.
Or maybe there is too much focus on external factors that have little affect on the game and not enough on the basics. Who knows. It just pisses me off

A few decades ago sport didn't pay at all well, especially given the sacrifices one had to make to excel. By definition the only people in a sport where there for the love of the game. Nowadays it is a great industry to get involved in. A lot of modern sportsmen compete in their sport as a job, rather than a passion. It is like any other vocation; pay big bucks and you'll get a lot less committed workforce.

This is one reason I prefer watching football further down the pyramid. When you get down to the 7th tiers and below you find mainly people who are just in the game for the love of it. Most players get just a few quid on top of expenses but the games are just as good imo.