Cybereagles

FIFA should consider splitting a match into segments, say three, of 30 minutes each. A segment would begin at the first stoppage after 30 minutes and it would be so signaled by the ref. A goal in a later segment would be worth more than one in the prior. That is to say, a goal in the first segment may be worth one goal, two in the second and three in the third. A penalty kick stays at one.

The number of segments and value of a goal in a segment are all open to change but the concept remains.

If this is adopted, I can see teams becoming more dedicated to the attack and direct soccer instead of the silly and boring passing in the backfield and the 50-yard back pass to the keeper that have become so common in soccer. This concept maintains the fundamental nature of soccer except that teams would be more committed to attack and scoring.
Bell

What?

Completely unnecessary and frankly juvenile to award more points in later segments.

Soccer is great as is......the 50 yrd back passes you mention, how often do they happen????

Bell wrote:FIFA should consider splitting a match into segments, say three, of 30 minutes each. A segment would begin at the first stoppage after 30 minutes and it would be so signaled by the ref. A goal in a later segment would be worth more than one in the prior. That is to say, a goal in the first segment may be worth one goal, two in the second and three in the third. A penalty kick stays at one.

The number of segments and value of a goal in a segment are all open to change but the concept remains.

If this is adopted, I can see teams becoming more dedicated to the attack and direct soccer instead of the silly and boring passing in the backfield and the 50-yard back pass to the keeper that have become so common in soccer. This concept maintains the fundamental nature of soccer except that teams would be more committed to attack and scoring.
Bell

What? Teams are now scoring 6-8 goals. Is that not enough?
You want double digit wins?
Remember 6 February 2007. Do you want Ghana to score 24-1 instead of 4-1?

Bell wrote:FIFA should consider splitting a match into segments, say three, of 30 minutes each. A segment would begin at the first stoppage after 30 minutes and it would be so signaled by the ref. A goal in a later segment would be worth more than one in the prior. That is to say, a goal in the first segment may be worth one goal, two in the second and three in the third. A penalty kick stays at one.

The number of segments and value of a goal in a segment are all open to change but the concept remains.

If this is adopted, I can see teams becoming more dedicated to the attack and direct soccer instead of the silly and boring passing in the backfield and the 50-yard back pass to the keeper that have become so common in soccer. This concept maintains the fundamental nature of soccer except that teams would be more committed to attack and scoring.
Bell

Bell, do you have any appreciation for the defensive aspects of the game? Do you not think the game has already entertained a lot more changes over the years targeted at enhancing its attacking end over the defensive?

I love attacking football as much as any football aficionado out there but there is another beautiful side of the beautiful game. Its called defense and while less glamorous, it sure as hell is part of the art and science of the round leather game.

Ugbowo wrote:What?

Completely unnecessary and frankly juvenile to award more points in later segments.

Soccer is great as is......the 50 yrd back passes you mention, how often do they happen????

OK, I HEAR YOU, BUT...


...you haven't told us how this proposal would ruin the game. Sometimes, complacency can ruin a good thing.
Bell

Kabalega wrote:

Bell wrote:FIFA should consider splitting a match into segments, say three, of 30 minutes each. A segment would begin at the first stoppage after 30 minutes and it would be so signaled by the ref. A goal in a later segment would be worth more than one in the prior. That is to say, a goal in the first segment may be worth one goal, two in the second and three in the third. A penalty kick stays at one.

The number of segments and value of a goal in a segment are all open to change but the concept remains.

If this is adopted, I can see teams becoming more dedicated to the attack and direct soccer instead of the silly and boring passing in the backfield and the 50-yard back pass to the keeper that have become so common in soccer. This concept maintains the fundamental nature of soccer except that teams would be more committed to attack and scoring.
Bell

What? Teams are now scoring 6-8 goals. Is that not enough?
You want double digit wins?
Remember 6 February 2007. Do you want Ghana to score 24-1 instead of 4-1?

FOR THE RECORD...


...I checked the web site below and it shows that the highest avg number of goals in world's major leagues is 3.33 (https://soccersoda.com/betting-guide-so ... -averages/), nothing to celebrate. That said, it's not the goals scored that I'm worried about - I did not mention number of goals in the title or in my post. It's the lack of spirited effort you see sometimes as teams play around with the ball in their backfield, or withdraw into their own half when they lose the ball to the defense allowing the defense to walk the ball up slowly..
(I saw the Man City/Burnley match this weekend and it was quite spirited, though one sided, as both teams went up and down the field trying to score. If most matches were like this I would not have made this proposal).
Bell

theDunamis wrote:

Bell wrote:FIFA should consider splitting a match into segments, say three, of 30 minutes each. A segment would begin at the first stoppage after 30 minutes and it would be so signaled by the ref. A goal in a later segment would be worth more than one in the prior. That is to say, a goal in the first segment may be worth one goal, two in the second and three in the third. A penalty kick stays at one.

The number of segments and value of a goal in a segment are all open to change but the concept remains.

If this is adopted, I can see teams becoming more dedicated to the attack and direct soccer instead of the silly and boring passing in the backfield and the 50-yard back pass to the keeper that have become so common in soccer. This concept maintains the fundamental nature of soccer except that teams would be more committed to attack and scoring.
Bell

Bell, do you have any appreciation for the defensive aspects of the game? Do you not think the game has already entertained a lot more changes over the years targeted at enhancing its attacking end over the defensive?

I love attacking football as much as any football aficionado out there but there is another beautiful side of the beautiful game. Its called defense and while less glamorous, it sure as hell is part of the art and science of the round leather game.

thedunamis, IN FACT I'M FOR STOUT DEFENSES, BUT...


...we cannot confuse a strong defense, which is good, with playing defensively, which is hard to watch. Whatever changes have been adopted have done little to bring about the spirited effort I'd like to see. I like scoring but I don't want to see cheap goals.

In the Man City/Burnley match I referenced above, Burnley was down by two goals within the first 30 minutes. Imagine how much incentive they'd have had to attack more realizing that a single goal would even things.
Bell

Bell wrote:

Kabalega wrote:

Bell wrote:FIFA should consider splitting a match into segments, say three, of 30 minutes each. A segment would begin at the first stoppage after 30 minutes and it would be so signaled by the ref. A goal in a later segment would be worth more than one in the prior. That is to say, a goal in the first segment may be worth one goal, two in the second and three in the third. A penalty kick stays at one.

The number of segments and value of a goal in a segment are all open to change but the concept remains.

If this is adopted, I can see teams becoming more dedicated to the attack and direct soccer instead of the silly and boring passing in the backfield and the 50-yard back pass to the keeper that have become so common in soccer. This concept maintains the fundamental nature of soccer except that teams would be more committed to attack and scoring.
Bell

What? Teams are now scoring 6-8 goals. Is that not enough?
You want double digit wins?
Remember 6 February 2007. Do you want Ghana to score 24-1 instead of 4-1?

FOR THE RECORD...


...I checked the web site below and it shows that the highest avg number of goals in world's major leagues is 3.33 (https://soccersoda.com/betting-guide-so ... -averages/), nothing to celebrate. That said, it's not the goals scored that I'm worried about - I did not mention number of goals in the title or in my post. It's the lack of spirited effort you see sometimes as teams play around with the ball in their backfield, or withdraw into their own half when they lose the ball to the defense allowing the defense to walk the ball up slowly..
(I saw the Man City/Burnley match this weekend and it was quite spirited, though one sided, as both teams went up and down the field trying to score. If most matches were like this I would not have made this proposal).
Bell

Why not change tactics instead of the rules of the game?

Changing the rules of the game has unintended consequences.
For example, with your proposal, I can see teams sitting back at the beginning of the game to conserve energy, and going for it at the end.

The boring starts would turn off many TV fans who would simply flip channels or tune out completely.

A better solution would be the basketball style timing rules. For example, If you get the ball, you need to attack within a pre-determined amount of time or else you turn over the ball to the opponent.

Even then coaches would find ways to game the system.

Changing tactics is a better solution than changing the rules.

The only change I’d recommend for football is to get rid of VAR. It’s ruining the game. The FIFA review committee, if there’s such a thing, should hold the refs accountable for bad calls


Cheers.

TonyTheTigerKiller wrote:The only change I’d recommend for football is to get rid of VAR. It’s ruining the game. The FIFA review committee, if there’s such a thing, should hold the refs accountable for bad calls


Cheers.

VAR is mostly an EPL problem.
Also, teams like Liverpool play like they don't need to toe the line (no pun intended).

Other leagues are handling it better.

Kabalega wrote:

Bell wrote:

Kabalega wrote:

Bell wrote:FIFA should consider splitting a match into segments, say three, of 30 minutes each. A segment would begin at the first stoppage after 30 minutes and it would be so signaled by the ref. A goal in a later segment would be worth more than one in the prior. That is to say, a goal in the first segment may be worth one goal, two in the second and three in the third. A penalty kick stays at one.

The number of segments and value of a goal in a segment are all open to change but the concept remains.

If this is adopted, I can see teams becoming more dedicated to the attack and direct soccer instead of the silly and boring passing in the backfield and the 50-yard back pass to the keeper that have become so common in soccer. This concept maintains the fundamental nature of soccer except that teams would be more committed to attack and scoring.
Bell

What? Teams are now scoring 6-8 goals. Is that not enough?
You want double digit wins?
Remember 6 February 2007. Do you want Ghana to score 24-1 instead of 4-1?

FOR THE RECORD...


...I checked the web site below and it shows that the highest avg number of goals in world's major leagues is 3.33 (https://soccersoda.com/betting-guide-so ... -averages/), nothing to celebrate. That said, it's not the goals scored that I'm worried about - I did not mention number of goals in the title or in my post. It's the lack of spirited effort you see sometimes as teams play around with the ball in their backfield, or withdraw into their own half when they lose the ball to the defense allowing the defense to walk the ball up slowly..
(I saw the Man City/Burnley match this weekend and it was quite spirited, though one sided, as both teams went up and down the field trying to score. If most matches were like this I would not have made this proposal).
Bell

Why not change tactics instead of the rules of the game?

Changing the rules of the game has unintended consequences.
For example, with your proposal, I can see teams sitting back at the beginning of the game to conserve energy, and going for it at the end.

The boring starts would turn off many TV fans who would simply flip channels or tune out completely.

A better solution would be the basketball style timing rules. For example, If you get the ball, you need to attack within a pre-determined amount of time or else you turn over the ball to the opponent.

Even then coaches would find ways to game the system.

Changing tactics is a better solution than changing the rules.

kabs, AS FOR CHANGING TACTICS...


...you can't force a coach to change his ways but you can do it by incentives. It's probably against their instinct to hold back since there are no guarantees that goals would come, from either side, in the later segments. I've thought about the basketball option but that would be a fundamental change in the way the game is played. Which is something I wanted to avoid.
Bell

TonyTheTigerKiller wrote:The only change I’d recommend for football is to get rid of VAR. It’s ruining the game. The FIFA review committee, if there’s such a thing, should hold the refs accountable for bad calls


Cheers.

YEAH, I HAVE ISSUES WITH THE VAR MYSELF, BUT...


...would that really make the teams more attack-minded?
bELL

Bell wrote:

TonyTheTigerKiller wrote:The only change I’d recommend for football is to get rid of VAR. It’s ruining the game. The FIFA review committee, if there’s such a thing, should hold the refs accountable for bad calls


Cheers.

YEAH, I HAVE ISSUES WITH THE VAR MYSELF, BUT...


...would that really make the teams more attack-minded?
bELL

I really don’t think there’s generally an issue with the attack-mindedness of teams. Consider the number of goals, quite significant in my humble opinion, that have been disallowed by VAR due to an offsides ruling, goals which would have stood without the encumbrance of VAR


Cheers.

Bell wrote:

Kabalega wrote:

Bell wrote:

Kabalega wrote:

Bell wrote:FIFA should consider splitting a match into segments, say three, of 30 minutes each. A segment would begin at the first stoppage after 30 minutes and it would be so signaled by the ref. A goal in a later segment would be worth more than one in the prior. That is to say, a goal in the first segment may be worth one goal, two in the second and three in the third. A penalty kick stays at one.

The number of segments and value of a goal in a segment are all open to change but the concept remains.

If this is adopted, I can see teams becoming more dedicated to the attack and direct soccer instead of the silly and boring passing in the backfield and the 50-yard back pass to the keeper that have become so common in soccer. This concept maintains the fundamental nature of soccer except that teams would be more committed to attack and scoring.
Bell

What? Teams are now scoring 6-8 goals. Is that not enough?
You want double digit wins?
Remember 6 February 2007. Do you want Ghana to score 24-1 instead of 4-1?

FOR THE RECORD...


...I checked the web site below and it shows that the highest avg number of goals in world's major leagues is 3.33 (https://soccersoda.com/betting-guide-so ... -averages/), nothing to celebrate. That said, it's not the goals scored that I'm worried about - I did not mention number of goals in the title or in my post. It's the lack of spirited effort you see sometimes as teams play around with the ball in their backfield, or withdraw into their own half when they lose the ball to the defense allowing the defense to walk the ball up slowly..
(I saw the Man City/Burnley match this weekend and it was quite spirited, though one sided, as both teams went up and down the field trying to score. If most matches were like this I would not have made this proposal).
Bell

Why not change tactics instead of the rules of the game?

Changing the rules of the game has unintended consequences.
For example, with your proposal, I can see teams sitting back at the beginning of the game to conserve energy, and going for it at the end.

The boring starts would turn off many TV fans who would simply flip channels or tune out completely.

A better solution would be the basketball style timing rules. For example, If you get the ball, you need to attack within a pre-determined amount of time or else you turn over the ball to the opponent.

Even then coaches would find ways to game the system.

Changing tactics is a better solution than changing the rules.

kabs, AS FOR CHANGING TACTICS...


...you can't force a coach to change his ways but you can do it by incentives. It's probably against their instinct to hold back since there are no guarantees that goals would come, from either side, in the later segments. I've thought about the basketball option but that would be a fundamental change in the way the game is played. Which is something I wanted to avoid.
Bell

True, you cannot force these agbero coaches to change their ways.
Just look at how long it took EPL coaches to play from the back.

This is not an easy problem to solve but I still lean towards unforced change.
So how do you encourage change without new rules?

Kabalega wrote:Just look at how long it took EPL coaches to play from the back.

Here is another problem. Is football just for your likes? What gave you the impression that I want to spend my money or my time watching teams play from the back? All I personally want is long precise pass from Pogba or even Maguaya ON THE RUN for Rashford and a defender to chase after with all their energy, followed by either a sweet leg-over and low cross to Cavani and it's a goal.. if Rashford fails to deliver, I want to see a cool sweeping tackle from the opponent followed by a long pass to United's end. Occasional midfield build up is allowed but not for 90 minutes. That is excitement, dat is football and dat is ATTACKING SOCCER!!!!!!

YemiBrazil wrote:

Kabalega wrote:Just look at how long it took EPL coaches to play from the back.

Here is another problem. Is football just for your likes? What gave you the impression that I want to spend my money or my time watching teams play from the back? All I personally want is long precise pass from Pogba or even Maguaya ON THE RUN for Rashford and a defender to chase after with all their energy, followed by either a sweet leg-over and low cross to Cavani and it's a goal.. if Rashford fails to deliver, I want to see a cool sweeping tackle from the opponent followed by a long pass to United's end. Occasional midfield build up is allowed but not for 90 minutes. That is excitement, dat is football and dat is ATTACKING SOCCER!!!!!!

Everything in moderation. The occasional long ball is OK but hoofing the ball up all the time which gives the opponent a 50% chance of getting the ball doesn't make sense.

Then you have goalies who cannot pass.
Defenders who cannot dribble or "own" the ball.
There is a reason teams like Stoke FC learned to pass the ball too.

Kabalega wrote:

YemiBrazil wrote:

Kabalega wrote:Just look at how long it took EPL coaches to play from the back.

Here is another problem. Is football just for your likes? What gave you the impression that I want to spend my money or my time watching teams play from the back? All I personally want is long precise pass from Pogba or even Maguaya ON THE RUN for Rashford and a defender to chase after with all their energy, followed by either a sweet leg-over and low cross to Cavani and it's a goal.. if Rashford fails to deliver, I want to see a cool sweeping tackle from the opponent followed by a long pass to United's end. Occasional midfield build up is allowed but not for 90 minutes. That is excitement, dat is football and dat is ATTACKING SOCCER!!!!!!

Everything in moderation. The occasional long ball is OK but hoofing the ball up all the time which gives the opponent a 50% chance of getting the ball doesn't make sense.

Then you have goalies who cannot pass.
Defenders who cannot dribble or "own" the ball.
There is a reason teams like Stoke FC learned to pass the ball too.

Yes sir, that was the norm until the 90s. The narrative changed decades ago - now you work hard on 'hoofing' with perfection (Carrick to Rooney, Kompany to Aguero, Pogba to Rashford etc). Dancing Atilogwu from goalkeeper to fullback to CD to DM to CM to AM then to striker is no ATTACKING SOCCER, it is boredom to some of us and that won't change - I might as well go and play PS4 or Xbox for the original version

YemiBrazil wrote:

Kabalega wrote:

YemiBrazil wrote:

Kabalega wrote:Just look at how long it took EPL coaches to play from the back.

Here is another problem. Is football just for your likes? What gave you the impression that I want to spend my money or my time watching teams play from the back? All I personally want is long precise pass from Pogba or even Maguaya ON THE RUN for Rashford and a defender to chase after with all their energy, followed by either a sweet leg-over and low cross to Cavani and it's a goal.. if Rashford fails to deliver, I want to see a cool sweeping tackle from the opponent followed by a long pass to United's end. Occasional midfield build up is allowed but not for 90 minutes. That is excitement, dat is football and dat is ATTACKING SOCCER!!!!!!

Everything in moderation. The occasional long ball is OK but hoofing the ball up all the time which gives the opponent a 50% chance of getting the ball doesn't make sense.

Then you have goalies who cannot pass.
Defenders who cannot dribble or "own" the ball.
There is a reason teams like Stoke FC learned to pass the ball too.

Yes sir, that was the norm until the 90s. The narrative changed decades ago - now you work hard on 'hoofing' with perfection (Carrick to Rooney, Kompany to Aguero, Pogba to Rashford etc). Dancing Atilogwu from goalkeeper to fullback to CD to DM to CM to AM then to striker is no ATTACKING SOCCER, it is boredom to some of us and that won't change - I might as well go and play PS4 or Xbox for the original version

yemibrazil, THANKS


You've just put in words what I've been seeing and hate, and the things I'd rather see. All I want is for teams to be playing with a lot of energy and desire, the way they play when they are behind, with a few minutes left and they need to score. Safely passing the ball around in the backfield doesn't do it for me. Neither do I enjoy attackers backing away into their own half when they lose the ball to the defense.
Bell

Bell wrote:

YemiBrazil wrote:

Kabalega wrote:

YemiBrazil wrote:

Kabalega wrote:Just look at how long it took EPL coaches to play from the back.

Here is another problem. Is football just for your likes? What gave you the impression that I want to spend my money or my time watching teams play from the back? All I personally want is long precise pass from Pogba or even Maguaya ON THE RUN for Rashford and a defender to chase after with all their energy, followed by either a sweet leg-over and low cross to Cavani and it's a goal.. if Rashford fails to deliver, I want to see a cool sweeping tackle from the opponent followed by a long pass to United's end. Occasional midfield build up is allowed but not for 90 minutes. That is excitement, dat is football and dat is ATTACKING SOCCER!!!!!!

Everything in moderation. The occasional long ball is OK but hoofing the ball up all the time which gives the opponent a 50% chance of getting the ball doesn't make sense.

Then you have goalies who cannot pass.
Defenders who cannot dribble or "own" the ball.
There is a reason teams like Stoke FC learned to pass the ball too.

Yes sir, that was the norm until the 90s. The narrative changed decades ago - now you work hard on 'hoofing' with perfection (Carrick to Rooney, Kompany to Aguero, Pogba to Rashford etc). Dancing Atilogwu from goalkeeper to fullback to CD to DM to CM to AM then to striker is no ATTACKING SOCCER, it is boredom to some of us and that won't change - I might as well go and play PS4 or Xbox for the original version

yemibrazil, THANKS


You've just put in words what I've been seeing and hate, and the things I'd rather see. All I want is for teams to be playing with a lot of energy and desire, the way they play when they are behind, with a few minutes left and they need to score. Safely passing the ball around in the backfield doesn't do it for me. Neither do I enjoy attackers backing away into their own half when they lose the ball to the defense.
Bell

You guys need to understand and appreciate the context of the game.
We are in the midst of a pandemic for heaven's sake.
Barca and more recently Man City won exciting games while passing from the back.
Remember Neymar's last CL win at Barça against PSG?

This season is unique because there was hardly any preseason. Players need the preseason to create a team.
Just look at Mourinho at Spurs. The poor guy had to endure all manner of hiccups before he could get a decent team to train together. Fortunately, the owner backed him up with new players.

Man City was battling other issues. A possible ban and with the planned player exodus; no pre-season to gel the team, injuries, ....e.t.c.
They are finally hitting their stride.

At their best, these two teams can unlock "most" defensive teams while playing entertaining footie.

Kabalega wrote:

Bell wrote:

YemiBrazil wrote:

Kabalega wrote:

YemiBrazil wrote:

Kabalega wrote:Just look at how long it took EPL coaches to play from the back.

Here is another problem. Is football just for your likes? What gave you the impression that I want to spend my money or my time watching teams play from the back? All I personally want is long precise pass from Pogba or even Maguaya ON THE RUN for Rashford and a defender to chase after with all their energy, followed by either a sweet leg-over and low cross to Cavani and it's a goal.. if Rashford fails to deliver, I want to see a cool sweeping tackle from the opponent followed by a long pass to United's end. Occasional midfield build up is allowed but not for 90 minutes. That is excitement, dat is football and dat is ATTACKING SOCCER!!!!!!

Everything in moderation. The occasional long ball is OK but hoofing the ball up all the time which gives the opponent a 50% chance of getting the ball doesn't make sense.

Then you have goalies who cannot pass.
Defenders who cannot dribble or "own" the ball.
There is a reason teams like Stoke FC learned to pass the ball too.

Yes sir, that was the norm until the 90s. The narrative changed decades ago - now you work hard on 'hoofing' with perfection (Carrick to Rooney, Kompany to Aguero, Pogba to Rashford etc). Dancing Atilogwu from goalkeeper to fullback to CD to DM to CM to AM then to striker is no ATTACKING SOCCER, it is boredom to some of us and that won't change - I might as well go and play PS4 or Xbox for the original version

yemibrazil, THANKS


You've just put in words what I've been seeing and hate, and the things I'd rather see. All I want is for teams to be playing with a lot of energy and desire, the way they play when they are behind, with a few minutes left and they need to score. Safely passing the ball around in the backfield doesn't do it for me. Neither do I enjoy attackers backing away into their own half when they lose the ball to the defense.
Bell

You guys need to understand and appreciate the context of the game.
We are in the midst of a pandemic for heaven's sake.
Barca and more recently Man City won exciting games while passing from the back.
Remember Neymar's last CL win at Barça against PSG?

This season is unique because there was hardly any preseason. Players need the preseason to create a team.
Just look at Mourinho at Spurs. The poor guy had to endure all manner of hiccups before he could get a decent team to train together. Fortunately, the owner backed him up with new players.

Man City was battling other issues. A possible ban and with the planned player exodus; no pre-season to gel the team, injuries, ....e.t.c.
They are finally hitting their stride.

At their best, these two teams can unlock "most" defensive teams while playing entertaining footie.

IT'S NOT ABOUT THIS SEASON ONLY


This has been going on for years. I like the clueless passion on display when rival high schools meet in Africa, leaving nothing behind.
Bell

I don’t get people who want to Americanize the sport. It’s good as it is, it’s the worlds most popular sport for a reason.

Mr. Piffington wrote:I don’t get people who want to Americanize the sport. It’s good as it is, it’s the worlds most popular sport for a reason.

NOT SO


it's about making the good better, without fundamentally changing it (for purists like me). It's only offering incentives to abandon boring and unproductive aspects of the game and emphasize the attack. Imagine how much more exciting and attractive it would be for even more people.

People who become complacent because of an absence of competition in which the customers have no choice should beware because the competition could come as I've seen in my lifetime.
Bell

you are trying to solve a problem caused by the gulf in investment between teams by changing the rules of the game. What you really want to to re-balance or cap the investment in the teams.