Three points for a win --- Hmmm

[X_box_X]

The thing I don’t understand about Soccer, which is now used Worldwide, is the rule awarding three points for a win and one point for a draw. Now, my understanding is that this rule was changed around 20 years ago allowing teams one point for a draw, instead of the two which used to be awarded to sides. However, I’m not 100% sure about that as I am only sixteen, therefore, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

Anyhow, what I cannot understand is why three points (An odd number) is awarded for a win and one point awarded for a draw. I believe being awarded one point for a draw is fine. However, I disagree with the ruling allowing teams do be awarded three times as many points if a team wins.

The current system (As you all know) works like this:

Win – Three points.
Tie – One point.
Loss – Zero points.

However, a draw is the middle-point between a win and a loss. Therefore, why can’t we award two points for a win instead of the current three? Using the lowest common denominator (One point for a draw) is a good rule, however, as I have already stated, we should not award a team three points for a win as the current ruling is basically saying winning a game is three times better than drawing a game.

Let’s assume three games have been played, and the following has occurred:

Arsenal – 1 win – 0 draws – 2 loses
Chelsea – 0 wins – 3 draws – 0 loses.

How on Earth are those results equal in achievement? Chelsea hasn’t lost a game, yet, Arsenal, who have lost two games are at the same level as Chelsea. It just doesn’t make sense to me.

Again, I repeat – A draw is the Middle-point (half way between a win and loss), therefore, why do we only award a team three times the amount of fewer points than a team who won?

Another point – There is no guarantee on the amount of points which will be given out during the season. The way the current system works - There is a possibility of either two or three points up for grabs per game. If we awarded a team two points for a win, there will ALWAYS be two points per game given out. Therefore, we will know straight away that 760 points will be given out each season. The way the current system works, a total amount between 760-1140 points could be given out.

Which brings me to my next point. If there were two points instead of three points for a win, the current EPL ladder would stand:

1. Arsenal – 34 points
2. Man. U – 31 points
3. Chelsea – 30 points
4. S’Hampton – 27 points
5. Newcastle – 27 points
6. Liverpool – 26 points
7. Everton – 26 points
8. Blackburn – 25 points
9. Tottenham – 25 points
10. Man.City – 24 points
11. M’brough – 22 points
12. Leeds – 21 points
13. A.Villa – 21 points
14. Charlton – 21 points
15. Birm’ham – 19 points
16. Fulham – 18 points
17. Bolton – 16 points
18. S’land – 15 points
19. West ham – 14 points
20. West Brom – 12 points

A lot better ladder, don't you think?
I would like to hear the opinion(s) from others, as I can't understand why the rules were changed.

 

[Diego Forlan]

How long till Dan26 sees this?

 

[topdon]

Originally posted by Diego Forlan
How long till Dan26 sees this?

Won't be too long. Ontop of the abolition of the away goals rule, this is yet another one of his hobby horses!

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by X_box_X
feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

A lot better ladder, don't you think?

I would like to hear the opinion(s) from others

At least we know it's not Dan26 indulging in a bit of password hacking

Moomba

 

[Dan26]

Good post xie. Everything in there makes sense and is worth at least making a point on.

I'd suggest however, that you only respond to the thread you made on bigsoccer which will generate far better discussion that it will on here. The people over there really know their stuff and can generate some interesting points.

One thing I'd like to see is how much the rule (when it introduced in 1981 I think) has increased the likelihood of a result. 3 points must certainly encourage teams to strive for the win, but so would 4 points and 5 points, and 10 points. Why stop at three? Wouldn't 4 points make it even more encouragable to go for the win?

The main issue I see is not whether it encourages sides to go for the win (which it may do if anyone could provide evidence) but the fact it is unfair, and can result in the championship going to the wrong team.

Regardles of the rule, statistically a draw is half a win. That's a fact. To label it one-third of a win might have some benefits, but the fact it can alter the championships rightful home is a downside. In terms of actual performance 2 draws is the same as a win and a loss. It won't be reflected that way in the points system, but in terms of actual perofmance they are the same and if everything was fair, they should be reflected that way, in the way points are allocated.

The rule existed as "2 points" for over 100 years so it was deemed fair and equitable for a long, long time.

 

[Diego Forlan]

Originally posted by Dan26
I'd suggest however, that you only respond to the thread you made on bigsoccer which will generate far better discussion that it will on here. The people over there really know their stuff and can generate some interesting points.

Yes we're all no-brainer bandwagoners here

Nothing to see here please move along...

 

[Falchoon]

The main benefit to the rule is at the bottom of the ladder.
These days if you get a point a game, you'll be borderline relegation.
In the old days if you averaged a point a game you'd be mid table.

Result- you need more than a draw a game to stay alive in your division. The bottom sides have to win games to stay alive, a draw will just not cut it.

Though there is one person here who argues against the psychology of such thoughts

 

[Falchoon]

Originally posted by Dan26
Good post xie. Everything in there makes sense and is worth at least making a point on.

I'd suggest however, that you only respond to the thread you made on bigsoccer which will generate far better discussion that it will on here. The people over there really know their stuff and can generate some interesting points.

We know nofffffffffink

Originally posted by Dan26

One thing I'd like to see is how much the rule (when it introduced in 1981 I think) has increased the likelihood of a result. 3 points must certainly encourage teams to strive for the win, but so would 4 points and 5 points, and 10 points. Why stop at three? Wouldn't 4 points make it even more encouragable to go for the win?

Yes it would, but would then render the value of a draw as being worthless, the intention of tge rule change was to devalue a draw v a win, but not to make it completely worthless, otherwise the team with most wins should automatically win the championship

Originally posted by Dan26


The main issue I see is not whether it encourages sides to go for the win (which it may do if anyone could provide evidence) but the fact it is unfair, and can result in the championship going to the wrong team.

Crap, the team that wins the championship is the team that performs the best against the criteria set before the season starts, all teams know the rules all teams have the ability to beat the other teams knowing the rules.

Originally posted by Dan26

Regardles of the rule, statistically a draw is half a win. That's a fact. To label it one-third of a win might have some benefits, but the fact it can alter the championships rightful home is a downside. In terms of actual performance 2 draws is the same as a win and a loss. It won't be reflected that way in the points system, but in terms of actual perofmance they are the same and if everything was fair, they should be reflected that way, in the way points are allocated.

Originally posted by Dan26

The rule existed as "2 points" for over 100 years so it was deemed fair and equitable for a long, long time. .

until it wasn't deemed fair and equitable

 

[The Hitman]

Originally posted by Dan26
The rule existed as "2 points" for over 100 years so it was deemed fair and equitable for a long, long time.

So was the belief that the world was flat.

The Hitman

 

[Shinboners]

I reckon that if the away team gets a draw or win, the points they get should count for double.

 

[Diego Forlan]

Now that I think about it:

Lets remove any possibility of a draw. After all, a draw means nobody has won the match. Why reward teams for not winning? So my proposal is this: if the match after 90 minutes is a draw, a return leg is played a few days later. Aggregate scores are totalled. The away goals rule can be applied if the aggregate scores are still level. If the away goals rule cannot decide a winner, the team that has the higher winning percentage in the league so far will be declared the winner.

Failing that:
The team with the least yellow cards will win the tie (straight red card counts as 2 yellow cards)

Failing that:
The team with the highest transfer market value will win the tie

Failing that:
The team with the least number of civil/criminal convictions will win the tie

Failing that:
The team that has the most number of front page articles in the local tabloids will win the tie.

Failing that:
The team that has a manager that can speak legitimate English without the need for translators will win the tie

Failing that:
The team that has less players with a failed music career will win the tie.

Failing that:
Guns at 20 paces. The team with more players alive after the shootout wins the tie.

Oh, and I agree with the away team getting double points for a win. Furthermore, a home team that wins should get half.

 

[Diego Forlan]

Falchoon steps up to the plate, may the force be with you son!

 

[topdon]

Diego .. can't say that i agree with your proposal. There are far many games as is when you tally up Fa Cup ties, Premiership, League Cup, and European competition (be it UEFA Cup of Champions League). There is enough clutter in the schedule for the top teams than add more. Think about the numebr of draws in a season ... that is how many extra games you'd have to play ONTOP of what you already do.

Its totally unworkable. And i haven't included international friendlies that are scheduled during the season.

 

[Karanicolas]

"Failing that:
Guns at 20 paces. The team with more players alive after the shootout wins the tie."

I prefer the above immediately following a draw after 90 minutes. Imagine the interest FIFA would generate in the game in the USA.

The only issues are what sort of guns are used and crowd protection.

BTW what is the Bigsoccer website address?

I want to see why they have allowed Dan16 (recurring) to post there given that all the posters "really know their stuff".

 

[Shinboners]

Originally posted by Karanicolas
BTW what is the Bigsoccer website address?

I want to see why they have allowed Dan16 (recurring) to post there given that all the posters "really know their stuff".

You'll find the corresponding thread on BigSoccer if you click the link below:

http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=28971

 

[Diego Forlan]

Originally posted by Karanicolas
"Failing that:
Guns at 20 paces. The team with more players alive after the shootout wins the tie."

I prefer the above immediately following a draw after 90 minutes. Imagine the interest FIFA would generate in the game in the USA.

The only issues are what sort of guns are used and crowd protection.

BTW what is the Bigsoccer website address?

I want to see why they have allowed Dan16 (recurring) to post there given that all the posters "really know their stuff".

Maybe we could take this one step further and have an all in-brawl between home and away fans? Whoever comes out the least bloodied wins?

 

[Diego Forlan]

Originally posted by Shinboners
You'll find the corresponding thread on BigSoccer if you click the link below:

http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=28971

That thread also seems to have uncovered the whereabouts of ScouseCat.

One wonders if he read some of those threads on AFLHQ and we turned him away

 

[Karanicolas]

Originally posted by Diego Forlan
Maybe we could take this one step further and have an all in-brawl between home and away fans? Whoever comes out the least bloodied wins?

why not a cage match with all the supporters congregating on the ground and the last one left on the ground winning the game for their club.

It can be called the WWEPL. Quick, get IMG to call Vince McMahon.

 

[Shinboners]

Originally posted by Diego Forlan
That thread also seems to have uncovered the whereabouts of ScouseCat.

And if you check through a few of the other boards, you should be able to locate our old pal, usscouse.

 

[Diego Forlan]

Guess ScouseCat and USScouse want to battle with some of the upper class intellecutals on BigSoccer.

How about Dan takes his away goals DanTheories over there? I'd love to see how long it takes before he gets eaten alive by the more 'learned' or 'intelligent' types that live there.

 

[Diego Forlan]

Originally posted by Karanicolas
why not a cage match with all the supporters congregating on the ground and the last one left on the ground winning the game for their club.

It can be called the WWEPL. Quick, get IMG to call Vince McMahon.

This has potential.

I am now thinking prehaps we can have the rival coaching staff slug it out on the touchline. First one to fall out of the technical area loses the tie for their team.

 

[Karanicolas]

Originally posted by Diego Forlan
This has potential.

I am now thinking prehaps we can have the rival coaching staff slug it out on the touchline. First one to fall out of the technical area loses the tie for their team.

I like the concept, but let's put them in the circle.

 

[Diego Forlan]

Originally posted by Karanicolas
I like the concept, but let's put them in the circle.

A good idea, 1 point for broken bones and 3 points for decapitation?

Is being decapitated three times as bad a broken bone? Oh the complexities of point scoring systems..

 

[Karanicolas]

Originally posted by Diego Forlan
A good idea, 1 point for broken bones and 3 points for decapitation?

Is being decapitated three times as bad a broken bone? Oh the complexities of point scoring systems..

But does lead to far more aggresive tactics with the battleaxe which I believe is the whole point (pardon the pun) of the scoring system.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Falchoon
Yes it would, but would then render the value of a draw as being worthless, the intention of tge rule change was to devalue a draw v a win, but not to make it completely worthless, otherwise the team with most wins should automatically win the championship.

And under the system the team with the most wins has more chance of winning the championship than they did without it. That might seem fair at first glance, but it could also create a very unfair situation. On team could have a 28-win:10-loss record and another could have a 23 win:14 draw:1-loss record.

The second team has the statstically better record. As a draw is half a win (they have none) , they have won 73% of their matches. Team B has won 79%. Team A will win the title, because of the way the points are allocated. However their record is inferior. This is undisputably unfair. You might argue it is good for the sport (and you may have a point) but it is still unfair.

Originally posted by Falchoon
Crap, the team that wins the championship is the team that performs the best against the criteria set before the season starts, all teams know the rules all teams have the ability to beat the other teams knowing the rules.

This is a stupid argument. Going by that logic no matter what system is used, the outcome is always fair. What utter garbage. What if the system itself is unfair? That then leads to situations like the above. You are assuming - wrongly - that the criteria is always fair.

In a totally fair world the winner of a sporting league (any team sport) should have to play every side twice (home and away) getting twice as many points for a win as a draw. That will create a perfectly fair and equitable ladder.