1bristolcity Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 Well we would be if it was the old 2 points for a win, second behind Wolves on gd, well goals scored actually. Still think 2 points for a win was a better and fairer way system, obviously this proves my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
22A Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 You may have a point. In 1976 if it had been three for a win instead of two Bolton, not City would have been promoted to Div 1. City W19 D15 = 53pts. 3 for a win = 72pts. Bolton W20 D12 =52pts. 3 for a win = 72pts, but the Trotters had a better goal difference than City. WBA would have been 2nd. 3pts for a win was introduced to encourage teams to go for a win rather than settle for a draw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanterne Rouge Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 6 minutes ago, 22A said: You may have a point. In 1976 if it had been three for a win instead of two Bolton, not City would have been promoted to Div 1. City W19 D15 = 53pts. 3 for a win = 72pts. Bolton W20 D12 =52pts. 3 for a win = 72pts, but the Trotters had a better goal difference than City. WBA would have been 2nd. 3pts for a win was introduced to encourage teams to go for a win rather than settle for a draw. Wasn`t it changed from goal average to goal difference too around the same time? It all seems so long ago now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 Fairly sure our away record is 2nd in Championship. Assumed it would be a thread about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handsofclay Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 I actually reckon football fans were happier back then on the whole because the three points for a win devalued the reward for a draw and thus nowadays supporters are likely to get more despondent with a draw. I believe the greater turnaround in managers these days stems from this too. Years ago it wasn't the end of the world if a team drew three and lost three out of the last six, now it would be viewed as a crisis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 I prefer the devaluing the draw to be honest. It does promote a more attacking game. I think we would simply see all away teams playing 11 behind the ball otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wendyredredrobin Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 Would be higher if we had the 3 points from that wrongly disallowed goal against Burton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cidered abroad Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Fairly sure our away record is 2nd in Championship. Assumed it would be a thread about that. Yes, second in the away table but 7th in the home one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pezo Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 6 minutes ago, cidered abroad said: Yes, second in the away table but 7th in the home one. Because we struggle to break teams down when they intend on getting a draw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handsofclay Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 57 minutes ago, 29AR said: I prefer the devaluing the draw to be honest. It does promote a more attacking game. I think we would simply see all away teams playing 11 behind the ball otherwise. 26 minutes ago, Pezo said: Because we struggle to break teams down when they intend on getting a draw. Obviously, a fair few away teams still adopt this tactic despite three points for a win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wendyredredrobin Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 Don't think Leeds came for a draw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The dastardly red Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 2 hours ago, 1bristolcity said: Well we would be if it was the old 2 points for a win, second behind Wolves on gd, well goals scored actually. Still think 2 points for a win was a better and fairer way system, obviously this proves my point. Bullshit, teams playing for a draw? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
City Rocker Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 1 hour ago, 29AR said: I prefer the devaluing the draw to be honest. It does promote a more attacking game. I think we would simply see all away teams playing 11 behind the ball otherwise. This, definitely. 3 points for a win was introduced for that reason exactly. There was a tendancy among some teams in the 70s to play for the 0-0 draw, hoping to grab a goal on the break. If you averaged a point a game you would finish in mid-table! I recall Middlesbrough had the reputation at that time as grim bore-draw specialists (which made Joe Royle's 4 on his debut against them even more remarkable). I think 3 points for the win helped change the game for the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handsofclay Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 15 minutes ago, City Rocker said: This, definitely. 3 points for a win was introduced for that reason exactly. There was a tendancy among some teams in the 70s to play for the 0-0 draw, hoping to grab a goal on the break. If you averaged a point a game you would finish in mid-table! I recall Middlesbrough had the reputation at that time as grim bore-draw specialists (which made Joe Royle's 4 on his debut against them even more remarkable). I think 3 points for the win helped change the game for the better. I do agree that on the whole teams have slightly more attacking intent now with three points for a win. However, there are still a lot of teams that play for the 0-0 draw away from home and hope to hit teams on the break to snatch a victory. Indeed, it could be said that the three points for a win might encourage such a tactic even more as the reward for its successful deployment is fifty percent greater. But my main beef with the three points for a win is that our happiness as supporters has taken a downturn. There are three outcomes to a result in a match. A win, draw and a defeat. Previously, a draw was worth more so a draw wasn't quite such a poor result. As a poster previously mentioned, a team could draw all its matches and finish mid-table. But now, with the draw devalued, if a team drew all their games they would be relegated. That, obviously, means a draw isn't such a good result and a few of them on the bounce will lead to a great deal of misery. Thus, years ago in an average sort of season, two thirds of the time supporters would either be happy or fairly happy with a result and one third of the time be miserable. Now, it has reversed and supporters are likely to be unhappy or fairly unhappy two thirds of the time. As I stated in a previous post, I believe this has led to managers having less time at the helm of clubs. Also, it isn't as simple as stating that three points for a win has led to more attacking football as during that time changes to the rules such as back passes to the keeper and less officious interpretation of the offside rule has contributed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meh Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 I prefer it now with the 3 points although there seems something slightly unfair that Sheff United have lost 150% more games but are ahead of us. But they are of course converting drawing matches to wins so it is what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheese Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 If they wanted attacking football maybe they should've made it a point per goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meh Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 7 minutes ago, cheese said: If they wanted attacking football maybe they should've made it a point per goal. Interesting - 2 points for a win and bonus point if you score 3 goals in the process ?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 1 hour ago, handsofclay said: Obviously, a fair few away teams still adopt this tactic despite three points for a win. They do, but I would rather consider 2 points for a score draw or only a point for a score draw and nil points for 0-0 or a loss as a solution. All in though I don't think it needs meddling with - not like rugby where the daft scoring encourages going for penalties than tries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handsofclay Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 14 minutes ago, Neo said: Interesting - 2 points for a win and bonus point if you score 3 goals in the process ?!? That was mooted at the time of the change and something I thought would've been better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handsofclay Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 5 minutes ago, 29AR said: They do, but I would rather consider 2 points for a score draw or only a point for a score draw and nil points for 0-0 or a loss as a solution. All in though I don't think it needs meddling with - not like rugby where the daft scoring encourages going for penalties than tries. I agree, or a slight tweak on what you suggest and state no points for the away team if it's a nil-nil, as it is very rarely the home team that plays for such a result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handsofclay Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 The most stupid suggestion I heard at the time of the change to encourage attacking football was to make it 4 points for a win and 2 points for a draw!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
22A Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 43 minutes ago, cheese said: If they wanted attacking football maybe they should've made it a point per goal. or no points for a nil nil draw. That would encourage teams to attack before parking the bus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gow2gooseya Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 3 hours ago, 29AR said: I prefer the devaluing the draw to be honest. It does promote a more attacking game. I think we would simply see all away teams playing 11 behind the ball otherwise. Times maketh the man If every away side parked the bus, the emphasis would be more on sides to become more creative in order to unlock the door so to speak This would encourage greater imagination by home teams, and more enigmatic footballers. It wouldn't necessarily produce better matches though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Fleuriot Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 17 minutes ago, 22A said: or no points for a nil nil draw. That would encourage teams to attack before parking the bus. Or encourage teams that were stuck on 0-0 at 89 minutes to each magically concede a goal each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1bristolcity Posted November 12, 2017 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 6 hours ago, The dastardly red said: Bullshit, teams playing for a draw? Coventry errr Bristol City? I thank you.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowshed Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 5 hours ago, handsofclay said: I do agree that on the whole teams have slightly more attacking intent now with three points for a win. However, there are still a lot of teams that play for the 0-0 draw away from home and hope to hit teams on the break to snatch a victory. Indeed, it could be said that the three points for a win might encourage such a tactic even more as the reward for its successful deployment is fifty percent greater. But my main beef with the three points for a win is that our happiness as supporters has taken a downturn. There are three outcomes to a result in a match. A win, draw and a defeat. Previously, a draw was worth more so a draw wasn't quite such a poor result. As a poster previously mentioned, a team could draw all its matches and finish mid-table. But now, with the draw devalued, if a team drew all their games they would be relegated. That, obviously, means a draw isn't such a good result and a few of them on the bounce will lead to a great deal of misery. Thus, years ago in an average sort of season, two thirds of the time supporters would either be happy or fairly happy with a result and one third of the time be miserable. Now, it has reversed and supporters are likely to be unhappy or fairly unhappy two thirds of the time. As I stated in a previous post, I believe this has led to managers having less time at the helm of clubs. Also, it isn't as simple as stating that three points for a win has led to more attacking football as during that time changes to the rules such as back passes to the keeper and less officious interpretation of the offside rule has contributed. Three points for a win did not lead to more attacking football. A fact unless somehow teams attacked more and managed to statistically score less goals which did occur. It can therefore be argued that teams attacked more pre rule change because teams that go a goal ahead became less likely to seek another goal, with yellow cards and fouls increasing in protection of the lead = Teams become more negative defending the two points for giving a goal away v one for a draw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gow2gooseya Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 2 hours ago, 1bristolcity said: Coventry errr Bristol City? I thank you.. Not exactly no. They went hammer and tongs for 78 minutes, then when they found out the score from Roker Park they called a truce in the last 12 minutes. I would hardly call that playing for a draw, and I dont believe anyone who was at that game would either. It was a blood and thunder occasion to put any derby to shame for most of the match Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The turtle Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 4 for a win. 2 for a score draw. 1 for a nil nil. 0 for a defeat. Could that work?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The turtle Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 8 hours ago, Tom Fleuriot said: Or encourage teams that were stuck on 0-0 at 89 minutes to each magically concede a goal each. Would you be happy to let the other team score first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Fleuriot Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 47 minutes ago, The turtle said: Would you be happy to let the other team score first? Appreciate it sounds pretty extreme, but I think it can be surprising what becomes common practice when both teams are incentivised to make it so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.