This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I am curious whether the chances of advancing are really better. If the team can score at will (which it sort of seems like), is it not better to try to get up 1-0 or 2-0 in the first half? Would that not increase their chances of winning even more? OTOH, maybe their goals were somewhat lucky, which means that they are being deceived by the results and assuming the strategy works.
Genuinely curious, what would your suggestions be?
One rule change I really want is to alter the offside rule. It is already being tested in lower leagues.
I could see that. So basically your entire body has to be past the defender. Seems reasonable.
correct.
This.
I think there are a ton of ideas that can be employed in the group stage to incentivize attacking play, but a knock out round game is much more difficult.
I love this, but my one fear is that it may slow down play as every foul will need to be recorded by some one (the 4th official maybe).
Teams know how harmful yellows can be. If they start handing them out for these things, you'd watch this behavior disappear. I don't think it would result in a huge increase in yellows but instead a decrease in what we're trying to eliminate.
If this was the only rule change, it would do almost nothing to the look of the sport.
FIFA had golden goal for a while and gave up on it. Too many games ended up looking like the England Switzerland extra time farce where both teams would just say "**** it, lets wait for pks".
I think where we differ is just that that seems radical to me. It's a ~50% increase in scoring... like going from 100ppg to 150ppg in the NBA.
I get what you are saying, but what I meant (inartfully expressed perhaps) was that in order to get managers to actually be more aggressive, they will probably need something to offset that and give a feeling of comfort that their defenders will be able to manage if they are aggressive on offense. I suppose that in theory, if you have great offensive players, like England, you shouldn’t be that worry about that, but it seems like that is the fundamental issue, no?
I think the EPL averaged 3.28 goals per game this season. Adding say 1 goal a game to that is not going to be game breaking IMO, but YMMV.
I had it in my head it was more like 2.5-2.6, so you're right -- not as big a thing I was was thinking.
last year was a big spike, which was wonderful to see. I do not know any specific reason for it.
Im pretty sure they're trialing this somewhere. Something I've been wanting for a while too.
I like this. You don't make a play on the ball and just yank on the player? Yellow. You play the ball and miss, but it's not inherently dangerous? No yellow. You make a dangerous play and you get a yellow.
More extra time? I'd be interested to see the histogram of goals vs. minute on the clock.
A team like Uruguay specializes in this.
I didn't finish this pod, but they discussed it on here: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/podcast/145-football-tactics-podcast/episode-234/
I also think the 5 subs rather than 3 has increased this. When teams had 3 subs they usually used them to get fresh attackers or saved them for injury issues. The 2 extras seem to be used to have your MF foul for 60 minutes then replace him with a new fouler for the last 30 especially if the starter has a yellow.
And Bellingham was fined something like 40K - for criticizing him in the Bundesliga ....
Let alone a major tournament semifinal.
And the German FA hid the match fixing suspension from the public. It was only after a newspaper got a hold of a secret file and published it did it become known.
That's pretty absurd. There must be some serious referee shortage....or these confederations are hopelessly corrupt...
No idea why this isn't the case. Ridiculous.
Uh... I think we already know the answer.
