From: milivella on 3 Aug 2010 10:06 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? -- Cheers milivella
From: Diabolik on 3 Aug 2010 10:24 "milivella" <milivella(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:84ec390c-ae22-4e9d-b6b4-e3a428c04e4b(a)w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com... >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 the contropiede can still prevail, which is defensive. > - The best team would have more chances to win. (but less upsets could > be considered bad by some) Yeah. Upsets would still be there, like Volley ball and tennis. So the fun would still be there. > Cons: > - Everything that depend from a unknown play time. (but sports like > volleyball and tennis live with it) A football game might go on for a very long time. > Your opinion? I like the concept and I think it's worth a try. A game independent of time sounds good, never looked at football in this perspective before. I think a lot of games might take a long time to score by 2 gols though, so maybe with less players so more gols can be scored in less time. Or maybe players are taken out at each defined intervals, so scoring can be easier with time, and therefore reduce time of play.
From: Abubakr on 3 Aug 2010 11:06 On Aug 4, 12:06 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) This is a huge obstacle in football because the relative difficulty of scoring compared to those other sports. I'm sure that there'd be no point in leaving games tied otherwise nor breaking those with penalty shootouts...
From: milivella on 3 Aug 2010 11:23 Diabolik: > "milivella" <milive...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:84ec390c-ae22-4e9d-b6b4-e3a428c04e4b(a)w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com... > > >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 the contropiede can still prevail, which is defensive. Right. Let me restate: "Purely destructive tactics would be meaningless." > > - The best team would have more chances to win. (but less upsets could > > be considered bad by some) > > Yeah. Upsets would still be there, like Volley ball and tennis. So the fun > would still be there. I'd really like to see some results! > > Cons: > > - Everything that depend from a unknown play time. (but sports like > > volleyball and tennis live with it) > > A football game might go on for a very long time. Yep. Of course we are accustomed to matches played under different rules and nothing can assure that things would remain similar under new rules, but it's reasonable to expect loooong matches. Should there be a way to favor more goals? Your solutions... > I think a lot of games might take a long time to score by 2 gols though, so > maybe with less players so more gols can be scored in less time. > > Or maybe players are taken out at each defined intervals, so scoring can be > easier with time, and therefore reduce time of play. ....could work. -- Cheers milivella
From: Mark V. on 3 Aug 2010 13:22 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. Think about it. You'd be so fearful of losing in the first 20 minutes that you'd take an especially conservative approach against stronger, attack-minded teams. You'd park the bus and hope to get one on the break. If you did, you'd stay bunkered down, fearful of losing your hard-earned lead against a better team. Instead of attacking to get the game over with, you'd be mindful of how much longer it *could* last if your foe equalized, and hopeful that as the opponent tried even harder to score you'd be able to pull a second one back even more easily if they over-committed in the attack.
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Prev: You can't buy the title! Next: Copa Libertadores 2010 tonight - Aug 3 |