Three points for a win --- Hmmm

[Dave]

Originally posted by moomba
Could just be that Dave can see if others think differently to him that they may have valid reasons for doing so.

Found this on the society & culture baord. Sums up a concept Dan is singularly unable to grasp.

Originally posted by Haggis McHaggis
He's not arrogant enough to believe he's right simply because my ideas don't hold to his own, but should one or two points make sense to him though they'll be taken on board and given due thought and so it works vice versa.. that's what some of us like to call healthy debate, objectivity, hell just good old clarity of thought.

 

[X_box_X]

This continues to be a major problem.

After Chelsea’s performance against Birmingham, where many opportunities were created, but the ball couldn’t find the back of the Birmingham net, all Chelsea has to show for the game is 33% of the maximum points up for grabs.

Chelsea was, by far, the better team, controlling most of the match and, at the end of the day, just because Birmingham had 11 players behind the ball for the whole match, the game was a draw and both teams were given one point. I suppose this can be argued both ways, though, as Birmingham didn’t deserve to get a point, but if the “one point for a draw” system is used to encourage attacking football, why the bloody hell do we still have the problem of a team like Birmingham, knowing it has absolutely no hope of winning, put as many numbers behind the ball to defend the draw? It’s crazy. All Chelsea has to show for the match is one point. Again, my argument is that one point for a draw is fine, just so long that two points are given for a win. Why reward teams three times as many points for winning a slug fest affair, where not many opportunities were created, than a team who controlled 95% of the match but couldn’t score simply because the other team defended the draw?

I can think of many Chelsea wins this season where we played worse than what we did this morning against Birmingham, but were given three times as many points as a result of the outcome. Chelsea’s 1-0 wins such as Fulham and Everton deserved to come a draw. Chelsea’s 0-0 draw with Birmingham could have easily finished 5-0 in Chelsea’s favour.

Another example is Arsenal. The only undefeated team going around at the moment and, with my proposed system, Arsenal should be further in front on the table. Currently, the difference between Arsenal, Manchester United and Chelsea is:

Arsenal – 52 points
Manyoo – 50 points
Chelsea - 46 points

By earning two points for a win, rather than three points for a win, the table would read:

Arsenal – 37 points
Manyoo – 34 points
Chelsea - 32 points

Even though the gap is only one point more, Arsenal is in a far better situation here, simply because it’s harder to catch a team when only two points are up for grabs. Hence, in the bottom table, Manyoo is two games behind Arsenal, whereas it’s only one game in the top table. Chelsea is also in a far better situation going by this format.

How, on Earth, does the current system encourage an attacking brand of football? Was I dreaming when I saw the likes of Birmingham and Liverpool get 11 players behind the ball in the past couple of weeks? Attacking football, my arse.

 

[Red_Devil]

Originally posted by X_box_X
How, on Earth, does the current system encourage an attacking brand of football?

I don't see how changing a win too two points is going to make it more of an attacking game, infact, I think it would be the opposite..... As it is now, teams will play for 1 point against a top team as there happy with a result like that.

Now if a win was two points, then there going to be even more pleased with a draw, as there taking home half the points instead of 33% like normall and making the table alot closer, and getting easy wins against crapper sides to keep them in touch with the main 3.

 

[clucas91]

Not again, please.

The system is fine the way it is.

 

[X_box_X]

Originally posted by Red_Devil_04
I don't see how changing a win too two points is going to make it more of an attacking game, infact, I think it would be the opposite..... As it is now, teams will play for 1 point against a top team as there happy with a result like that.

Now if a win was two points, then there going to be even more pleased with a draw, as there taking home half the points instead of 33% like normall and making the table alot closer, and getting easy wins against crapper sides to keep them in touch with the main 3.

Yeah, I know that. It's just that some of the main arguments presented in this thread was that, by receiving only 33% of the maximum points for coming a draw, it encourages more of an attacking brand of football. My argument is that it doesn't, because teams likes Birmingham still like to get numbers behind the ball to force a draw, as it's still happy with the one point, opposed to the three.

The likes of Diego Forlan and Shinners presented arguments like "three points for a win opposed to two makes for a much more attacking brand of football", and "two points for a win won't produce the same attacking brand of football, simply because, by drawing, you will receive 50% of the points, rather than 33%".

And the table won't necessarily be closer, either. It may be closer in terms of points between teams 1-20, but because only two points are awarded for a win, the gap will take a longer time to make up. Example, if 30 points separate teams 1st and 20th in the current system, it would be the equivalent to 20 points separating the same two teams with my proposed system.

 

[tribey]

Originally posted by X_box_X
How, on Earth, does the current system encourage an attacking brand of football?

Oh for heaven's sake... I suppose the bonus points used in Cricket and Rugby Union don't encourage greater attacking play either?

It's so painfully simple without you having to complicate things with hypothetical mumbo-jumbo. Basically 3 points for a win greatly encourages teams to go for a win because it makes a draw a far less attractive option:

We all know that under the current system three points for a win means 1 win = 3 draws. So how do you win to avoid the draw? By scoring goals. No team has ever won a match on a duck-egg.

Under the old system two points for a win means 1 win = 2 draws. Thus the draw becomes a more attractive option as you lose minimal ground to other opponents if you do share points, meaning you don't have to risk so much, especially if playing away.

As for poorer teams playing for a draw against better opposition that's been happening since time immemorial, regardless of what a win is worth - but ask Mickey Adams' struggling Leicester what he thought of getting a draw at the Riverside on Saturday.

At the end of the day, if you think an extra point for a win doesn't encourage greater attacking play nor gives greater incentive for teams to push for it, you're a fool.

 

[Shinboners]

Funny how X_box_X wasn't complaining about the system when Chelsea were in form and winning games.

 

[Shinboners]

Originally posted by Slax
I still don't know why we give out 4 points instead of 2 in the AFL?

Someone posted on the main AFL board that the 4 points represented the 4 quarters of football....1 point for every quarter, the winner takes all the points.

 

[Shinboners]

p.s. There have been over 350 posts in this thread covering this topic. I reckon all possible angles to the argument have been covered. So, can we give it a rest?

 

[TheGreatCoranzo]

Why did we have to drag this sh*t up again?

For f*cks sake let it go.

Shinners, lock the thread. Please.

 

[mcgarnacle]

Originally posted by X_box_X
Yeah, I know that. It's just that some of the main arguments presented in this thread was that, by receiving only 33% of the maximum points for coming a draw, it encourages more of an attacking brand of football. My argument is that it doesn't, because teams likes Birmingham still like to get numbers behind the ball to force a draw, as it's still happy with the one point, opposed to the three.

The likes of Diego Forlan and Shinners presented arguments like "three points for a win opposed to two makes for a much more attacking brand of football", and "two points for a win won't produce the same attacking brand of football, simply because, by drawing, you will receive 50% of the points, rather than 33%".

And the table won't necessarily be closer, either. It may be closer in terms of points between teams 1-20, but because only two points are awarded for a win, the gap will take a longer time to make up. Example, if 30 points separate teams 1st and 20th in the current system, it would be the equivalent to 20 points separating the same two teams with my proposed system.

your proposed system has already had its day.

due to the nature of the game which leads to a high incidence of draws, a result is of greater significance in soccer than in other sports. hence the reward for the win should reflect the added difficulty in achieving this result.

the present system benefits clubs that can score more goals and concede less goals than the opposition i.e., win the game. Isn't this the purpose of any professional sporting event. you win championships, not draw your way to them.

 

[X_box_X]

Originally posted by dyertribe
Oh for heaven's sake... I suppose the bonus points used in Cricket and Rugby Union don't encourage greater attacking play either?

It's so painfully simple without you having to complicate things with hypothetical mumbo-jumbo. Basically 3 points for a win greatly encourages teams to go for a win because it makes a draw a far less attractive option:

We all know that under the current system three points for a win means 1 win = 3 draws. So how do you win to avoid the draw? By scoring goals. No team has ever won a match on a duck-egg.

Under the old system two points for a win means 1 win = 2 draws. Thus the draw becomes a more attractive option as you lose minimal ground to other opponents if you do share points, meaning you don't have to risk so much, especially if playing away.

As for poorer teams playing for a draw against better opposition that's been happening since time immemorial, regardless of what a win is worth - but ask Mickey Adams' struggling Leicester what he thought of getting a draw at the Riverside on Saturday.

At the end of the day, if you think an extra point for a win doesn't encourage greater attacking play nor gives greater incentive for teams to push for it, you're a fool.

You don't get it, do you?

Of course three points encourages attacking football. seventy-nine points would encourage even more attacking football and one thousand points even more attacking football.

If you're not going to treat a draw as the mid-point between a win and a loss, then it's not deemed 100% fair. Argue it all you like, but the fact is, you should receive 50% of the maximum points available for drawing the match. Why make it 33%? If you're going to be like that, why not make it 27.38445%, or 19.437455%? Seriously, it's stupid.

A win is not three times better than a draw. It's two times better than a draw.

 

[tribey]

Originally posted by X_box_X
A win is not three times better than a draw. It's two times better than a draw.

I never said anything about three times better or whatnot...

I said under the current system 3 draws (3 points) = 1 win (3 points).

And I don't have to argue it all I like because the system is in place, I agree with it and that's that. You're the one who is having to "argue it all you like" because no-one here agrees with you and you're flogging a dead horse.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by dyertribe
Basically 3 points for a win greatly encourages teams to go for a win because it makes a draw a far less attractive option:



At the end of the day, if you think an extra point for a win doesn't encourage greater attacking play nor gives greater incentive for teams to push for it, you're a fool.

Xie is not suggesting the three points doesn't encourage attacking football. It undoubtedly does (although if you look at the stats I supplied earlier in this thread the effect is minimal)

What he is suggesting, is that regardless of whether attacking play is created due to the scoring system, that the mathematics are unfair. It may very well be that football has become twice as good to watch and more attacking, but his point is that a draw is the mid-point between a win and a loss (which is 100% correct) and this mid-point mathematically should get half the points. A draw is not a loss, nor is it a win - it is exactly in between.

Personally I'm happy with the 3-point rule, but there is no dispute that it is mathematicial unfair. No one could argue that. You can debate the extent to which is encorages attacking football, because the results can be viewed subjectively, but the one and only fact in the entire thread is that the rule is mathamtaiclaly unfair. Good for the game? I'd say yes, but mathematically unfair all the same.

 

[TheGreatCoranzo]

It is threads like these that show why Dan26 et al will never be taken seriously by real football supporters.

Now, someone, lock the f*cking thread.

 

[mcgarnacle]

this thread HAS been extremely frustrating. can dan & xie please refer any further grievances with the current point system to the efa, uefa, or fifa.

 

[Red_Devil]

Originally posted by X_box_X
You don't get it, do you?

Of course three points encourages attacking football. seventy-nine points would encourage even more attacking football and one thousand points even more attacking football.

If you're not going to treat a draw as the mid-point between a win and a loss, then it's not deemed 100% fair. Argue it all you like, but the fact is, you should receive 50% of the maximum points available for drawing the match. Why make it 33%? If you're going to be like that, why not make it 27.38445%, or 19.437455%? Seriously, it's stupid.

A win is not three times better than a draw. It's two times better than a draw.

Ok then, here's a new idea.

1 point for a draw
2 points for a win
and 1 extra point for scoring OVER 3

Now Xie, shutup, just cause Chelsea are pretenders.

 

[the fly]

Here's an alternate system for football, derived from the scoring system for English county cricket.

12 points for a win
4 points for a draw
1 point for every goal in the first half
1 point for every penalty save in the first half
-1 point for every yellow card
-5 points for every red card