How Would You Improve Football?

[Tricky Dicky]

Give referee's Tazers

This is possibly the best, most enlightened suggestion so far - in a single change, you will stop referee-hustling, diving, fegining injuries, time-wasting and encroachment. Would work on everyone except Wayne Rooney - who, if you tasered him, it would take an hour for the signal to reach the brain.

 

[Brovion]

Not a lot more. The whole aim of games is to win them. To do so, you have to score goals. If you are not trying to win (even if you "are trying to not lose") you aren't competing in the true spirit of the game.

I'm not overly passionate about the idea, but I like it, or at least the sentiment behind it.


As a neutral for most games (as I think most fans are, I will watch the one albion game this weekend and probably 3 or 4 more on TV that I have no team in, a lot of people have this sort of ratio, most don't even go to watch "their team" of a weekend so are entirely watching TV games as a neutral), I have to ask if, when we put forward these ideas, we should be improving football for the biased fans or the neutral fans?

The first part of your reply I fundementally disagree with. I believe that playing 'not to lose' IS competing within the true spirit of the game and that stopping goals is just as important as scoring them. This makes goals scarce and keeps their value high which is why they're so prized. Once you start thinking that scoring goals is the be-all and end-all you're on the way to rugby league or basketball where the points flow like diorreah (sp). And if you're THAT worried about 0-0 draws why not just make the goals bigger?

The second part is more moot. I can't really answer it as I never watch games as a neutral where I have no interest in the result. Even in things like the World Cup I tend to pick a team (usually the underdog) and yes, I'm pleaased if they hold on for a battling 0-0 draw against one of the favourites. The reverse is alos true: if I'm watching England I'm pissed off with 'turgid' games like the 0-0 draw with Algeria. But I bet the Algerians (and the Scots) weren't. And talking of that match what should the Algerians have done? Played an expansive open game and got thrashed just to please the neutrals who want to see lots of goals? I guess your answer to that would be 'yes' and fair enough if that's your opinion. It's not the way I want to see football go though.

 

[Simster]

Totally agree with you Brovian. And in any case it would open the floodgates to gentlemen's agreements where both teams get to score soft goals, just to ensure a point.

It's a crap idea.

 

[Acker79]

The first part of your reply I fundementally disagree with. I believe that playing 'not to lose' IS competing within the true spirit of the game and that stopping goals is just as important as scoring them. This makes goals scarce and keeps their value high which is why they're so prized. Once you start thinking that scoring goals is the be-all and end-all you're on the way to rugby league or basketball where the points flow like diorreah (sp). And if you're THAT worried about 0-0 draws why not just make the goals bigger?

Stopping goals is important, of course. But if all you do is stop goals, you can't possibly win. So if all you try to do is not concede, then you are not playing to win, you are not truly competing so not playing in the spirit of the game.

The only way to win a game of football is to score at least one goal. You don't get awarded a win based on how well you performed*, so you can't defend briliantly for 90 minutes and then claim victory based on how you stopped your opponents scoring.

Totally agree with you Brovian. And in any case it would open the floodgates to gentlemen's agreements where both teams get to score soft goals, just to ensure a point.

It's a crap idea.

As opposed to the gentlemen's agreements to play out a 0-0 draw so both teams get promoted?



*Maybe instead of points for goals, football should have panels watching them who decide if teams deserve points, based on the quality of the game (e.g. turgid draws get no points, in a dramatic or exciting draw both teams get a point in recognition of attempted attack and defiant defence.
Perhaps this could be extended so that when one team dominates and "should win 5 or 6-0" the team that defended well enough to keep it down to 1-0 get a consolation point in recognition.

 

[Scotty Mac]

just make it like germany

 

[happypig]

Cant agree with the 0-0 no points one. I remember a cracking game in 1997, Italy v England. England needed a point to qualify.
Report of the game is here:
Italy 0 England 0

 

[HovaGirl]

Make the pitch much smaller with a net across it.
Remove the goal posts.
Change the scoring system and pitch markings.
Only one or two players per team.
Give them racquets.

 

[Brovion]

Stopping goals is important, of course. But if all you do is stop goals, you can't possibly win. So if all you try to do is not concede, then you are not playing to win, you are not truly competing so not playing in the spirit of the game.

The only way to win a game of football is to score at least one goal. You don't get awarded a win based on how well you performed*, so you can't defend briliantly for 90 minutes and then claim victory based on how you stopped your opponents scoring.

I know you've got to score a goal to win (or concede one to lose), but what is your obsession with winning games? Why must every game have to result in a winner? I know you're not saying that as such but your view that unless a goal is scored a game is effectively null and void and thus no one should get any points just seems absurd, and a bit 'anti-football'.

And I notice you haven't answered my questions about England v Algeria, which taken from our perspective was the CLASSIC turgid 0-0 draw.

 

[Acker79]

I know you've got to score a goal to win (or concede one to lose), but what is your obsession with winning games? Why must every game have to result in a winner? I know you're not saying that as such but your view that unless a goal is scored a game is effectively null and void and thus no one should get any points just seems absurd, and a bit 'anti-football'.

And I notice you haven't answered my questions about England v Algeria, which taken from our perspective was the CLASSIC turgid 0-0 draw.

My obsession isn't so much 'winning' as teams 'trying to win'. And I wouldn't call it an obsession, more of an idealise idea of tactics. If you're not trying to win, why bother trying to tackle? why bother passing the ball around to team mates? Why bother even turning up? Just go to the local park for a kickaround.

It was someone else's idea that they get no points for a 0-0, and a point per goal for score draws or whatever.

I haven't answered your question about England v Algeria because I didn't see it as an actual question, it appeared rhetoric, what with you answering it yourself. If you want an answer...

I'm not sure I actually remember the algerian game that well, or many of the world cup games in much detail now. I remember we had one where the supposedly inferior team managed to make a fair few foray's into our half in the search for goals, and I think that was the Algeria one, since it wasn't the US, we won the other group game, and lost to germany. So, I would argue Algeria did have some ambition in that game.

 

[Brovion]

My obsession isn't so much 'winning' as teams 'trying to win'. And I wouldn't call it an obsession, more of an idealise idea of tactics. If you're not trying to win, why bother trying to tackle? why bother passing the ball around to team mates? Why bother even turning up? Just go to the local park for a kickaround.

It was someone else's idea that they get no points for a 0-0, and a point per goal for score draws or whatever.

I haven't answered your question about England v Algeria because I didn't see it as an actual question, it appeared rhetoric, what with you answering it yourself. If you want an answer...

I'm not sure I actually remember the algerian game that well, or many of the world cup games in much detail now. I remember we had one where the supposedly inferior team managed to make a fair few foray's into our half in the search for goals, and I think that was the Algeria one, since it wasn't the US, we won the other group game, and lost to germany. So, I would argue Algeria did have some ambition in that game.

One of the points of tackling is to stop the other team from scoring. Stopping the other team from scoring is one of the objectives of football, the other being to score yourself. You want to penalise a team for playing good football just because it doesn't match your idea of entertainment (Thankfully just yours and the person who came up with the idiotic idea in the first place). Football has done very well to establish itself as the most popular sport on the planet, complete with goalless draws, so I think it is just a tiny, tiny minority who think like that. Plus maybe the odd American raised on basketball.

Going back to the England v Algeria game under your rules the Algerians would have thought "Well we'll get nothing for 0-0 so we may as well attack." This would have left them open and England, who when all's said and done did have the better players, would have ripped through them and won easily. Would that have been entertaining for the neutrals watching a procession of England attacks, and subsequent goals, through a porous defence? (Not rhetorical I am asking). Once the score had got past say 3-0 the match would have still been 'boring' as the result wouldn't have been in doubt and all you would have had is an exhibition game. And would you think the Algerians would have enjoyed being a part of such an 'entertaining' spectacle? As it is they played to their limited strengths and I'll bet they're still talking about it now about how they held 'mighty' England. And those stories when re-told help to further popularise football.

And if you can't remember that specific match the same applies to any weaker team playing a stronger one.

So the hard-fought goalless draw, with shared reward, is an integeral part of football. And after all you don't know it's going to be a goalless draw until the final whistle. The 0-0 draw in the 90th minute is more exciting than than the 6-2 game in the 80th as the result is still in doubt. And 'turgid' is a subjective term. One man's 'turgid' is another man's 'battling'. That's one of the beauties of football.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

*Maybe instead of points for goals, football should have panels watching them who decide if teams deserve points, based on the quality of the game (e.g. turgid draws get no points, in a dramatic or exciting draw both teams get a point in recognition of attempted attack and defiant defence.
Perhaps this could be extended so that when one team dominates and "should win 5 or 6-0" the team that defended well enough to keep it down to 1-0 get a consolation point in recognition.

Jesus. I've read some shit ideas over the years on here but that will take some beating.

Panels deciding if teams deserve points? That can stick to diving and Ice skating and other such bollocks. Not even Sepp ' get womens footballers in revealing kit' Blatter has come up with a worse idea than that.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Actually give/award the same level of infringement in the box as elsewhere on the pitch. You can virtually undress a player by tugging his shirt inside the box and get away with it.

 

[jonny.rainbow]

Games can only be televised once they are sold out or 95% sold out.
Cheap last minute tickets as is the case in the theatre industry.
More tickets given to schools/football clubs/community organisations.
Ban ex or current coppers or people with SIA status from having anything to do with stadium safety.
Ban all seater stadia and the complete nonsense of believing it is safe for people to stand to celebrate a goal or during "exciting passages of play" but not at any other time. It is either safe or it isn't!

 

[Robski]

3 points for a win, bonus point for first three goals per side, another for every two thereafter.
Bonus point for sides with no bookings, deduct one for every three per side. Deduct two per red.

For those who suggest no points for a scoreless draw, why not go with the system they use in America where they play over-time until a positive result is reached?

Have a scoreboard with a digital clock which counts down from 45 minutes and is stopped for prolonged breaks in play (anything that takes longer than say six seconds). When it hits zero the game continues until the next break in play. This should stop people whining about four minutes extra time being added when there have been goals/injuries/five or six substitutions made in the half. Not to mention it will upset SAFF.

More stringent, transparent blood testing.

Any club that enters administration faces automatic relegation - no loop holes.

Whilel 'big' clubs with massive debts are able avoid administration by restructuring/taking out further loans, the Premier League should be obliged to give aid grants to small clubs (eg Chester) who are to be wound up for missing tiny tax bills.

Wage cap, structured so that promising kids aren't courted with huge wages by clubs with the sole intention of preventing other clubs getting them.

Transfer cap

Reduce costs for lower league clubs by having the FA and Premier League subsidise regionalised youth academies which are responsible for scouting and developing that country's kids. They go into a US style youth player draft system where lower league clubs get the first pick of the better prospects.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

1) Allowing the game to be more physical once again, meaning that the current trend of a player falling over too easily gets a free kick is abolished.

The current rules were brought in to 'protect' the more skillful players from injury but are being exploited by the cheats and divers in the game, by changing this back and allowing more physical challenges to be legal it would help to eliminate a lot of diving as play would continue and there wouldn't be a benefit of their trying to cheat.

2) Bring back terracing or introduce safe standing ares, it's what fans want so it should be allowed. This would also mean cheaper entry for fans, making it more affordable too so its win - win

3) Reintroduce the scheme where the top flight clubs pay 10% of income into a pot which was then distributed down the leagues as used to happen before the top clubs got greedy and broke away to get out of paying this by forming the Premiership.

4) Abolish the rule where players get booked over taking their shirt off after scoring, or for over celebrating.

5) Sin bins to be used for thing like: players who surround the ref and are trying to influence his decision, diving, stopping a free kick from being taken quickly, kicking the ball away, etc....

6) Punish teams that go into administration harder, making it that they are automatically relegated at the end of the season and then are unable to be promoted the following season as well as having to demonstrate they are able to run the club so that it isn't losing money, if they are found to be over spending, then they are banned from being able to be promoted for a futher season.

7) Have a system where teams can challenge by video replay critical incidences only such as if the ball crossed the goal line or if the hand ball was in or outside the box, but limit the number of times a club can use these challenges during a game or season to prevent abuse.

8) Mike the refs and get them to announce what they have awarded a free kick / penalty for, etc... (as they do in rugby and American football)

9) Allow a manager to play whatever players he likes from his squad in a match rather than the FA punishing a side for changing their line up dramatically because they dictate that he must play his strongest XI based on their guess who it is (such as with Wolves and Blackpool recently)

10) Introduce more qualified football coaches, especially for Children so that they are taught properly, concentrating on technical skills rather than hoof ball.

Three years ago an official report concluded that coaching is the "golden thread" leading to international success, but new Uefa data shows that there are only 2,769 English coaches holding Uefa's B, A and Pro badges, its top qualifications. Spain has produced 23,995, Italy 29,420, Germany 34,970 and France 17,588. Between them those four nations have provided eight of the 12 finalists at all the World Cups and European Championships since 1998. England, meanwhile, have not appeared in a tournament final in 44 years.

There are 2.25 million players in England and only one Uefa-qualified coach for every 812 people playing the game. Spain, the World Cup favourites, have 408,134 players, giving a ratio of 1:17. In Italy, the world champions, the ratio is 1:48, in France it is 1:96, Germany 1:150 and even Greece, the Euro 2004 winners, have only 180,000 registered players for their 1,100 coaches, a ratio of 1:135. (from Football coach shortage paints bleak picture for England's future | Football | The Guardian )