From: milivella on 3 Aug 2010 16:45 Mark V.: > On Aug 3, 7:06 am, milivella <milive...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > A match lasts until one of the teams leads by two goals. > > > Pros: > > - A single error by the referee couldn't be decisive. > > - Defensive/destructive tactics would be meaningless. > > I think you'd see as much bunkering as ever from weaker teams. First weak attempt to reply: it would be _less_ bunkering. Because playing counter-attack and scoring 2 goals (as in your example) is less bunkering than playing counter-attack and scoring 1 goal, and a fortiori than parking the bus looking for the 0-0. The point is: in this game there are weaker teams, and their only hope not to lose is in any case (= under any rule I can imagine) defending well. At least under a win-by-2-goal-lead rule they have not only to do it, but to score on the break, and more than once. But, as I wrote, this is just a first weak attempt... (I forgot to say it loud in my first reply: thanks for the feedback, Mark!) -- Cheers milivella
From: FF on 3 Aug 2010 17:10 On Aug 3, 10:06 am, milivella <milive...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > A match lasts until one of the teams leads by two goals. > > Pros: > - A single error by the referee couldn't be decisive. > - Defensive/destructive tactics would be meaningless. > - The best team would have more chances to win. (but less upsets could > be considered bad by some) > > Cons: > - Everything that depend from a unknown play time. (but sports like > volleyball and tennis live with it) > > Your opinion? It might work if Italy and Greece are banned forever from any Euro and WCup. ;-) Nah, no good. Only solution IMO, video refs, plus cleaning up of the rules along the lines we've discussed before.
From: El Kot on 3 Aug 2010 18:21 milivella wrote: > Mark V.: >> On Aug 3, 7:06 am, milivella <milive...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> A match lasts until one of the teams leads by two goals. >>> Pros: >>> - A single error by the referee couldn't be decisive. >>> - Defensive/destructive tactics would be meaningless. >> I think you'd see as much bunkering as ever from weaker teams. > > First weak attempt to reply: it would be _less_ bunkering. Because > playing counter-attack and scoring 2 goals (as in your example) is > less bunkering than playing counter-attack and scoring 1 goal, and a > fortiori than parking the bus looking for the 0-0. > > The point is: in this game there are weaker teams, and their only hope > not to lose is in any case (= under any rule I can imagine) defending > well. At least under a win-by-2-goal-lead rule they have not only to > do it, but to score on the break, and more than once. I think there's something useful in your idea, but the way you proposed it initially, it won't fly. The way I see it possible, is if it is applied as a "knock-out" rule. For example, if one team manages to get up to a 5 goal difference, the game is over. Otherwise, it is played normally. If you want more change, we can tack on my 5-minutes injury-time-management proposal, and get something closer to your initial idea - a game that never ends, as long as the outcome keeps changing every 5 minutes. :) -- No, no, you can't e-mail me with the nono.
From: FF on 3 Aug 2010 18:40 On Aug 3, 6:21 pm, El Kot <nono.black.e...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > milivella wrote: > > Mark V.: > >> On Aug 3, 7:06 am, milivella <milive...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> A match lasts until one of the teams leads by two goals. > >>> Pros: > >>> - A single error by the referee couldn't be decisive. > >>> - Defensive/destructive tactics would be meaningless. > >> I think you'd see as much bunkering as ever from weaker teams. > > > First weak attempt to reply: it would be _less_ bunkering. Because > > playing counter-attack and scoring 2 goals (as in your example) is > > less bunkering than playing counter-attack and scoring 1 goal, and a > > fortiori than parking the bus looking for the 0-0. > > > The point is: in this game there are weaker teams, and their only hope > > not to lose is in any case (= under any rule I can imagine) defending > > well. At least under a win-by-2-goal-lead rule they have not only to > > do it, but to score on the break, and more than once. > > I think there's something useful in your idea, but the way you > proposed it initially, it won't fly. The way I see it possible, is if it > is applied as a "knock-out" rule. For example, if one team manages to > get up to a 5 goal difference, the game is over. Otherwise, it is played > normally. 5 goals ? Yes, I guess this would make a difference to a lot of games. Especially in the final rounds of the WCup and Champs League.
From: Insane Ranter on 3 Aug 2010 18:40
In the far distance future, "Welcome back to the game ladies and gentlemen. Its currently on day 183 of Italy vs. France..." |