No points for a draw

[Juggy 0]

In England we were the first nation ever to introduce the 3 point win, in 1981.

Previously you would get 2 points for a win and 1 point for a draw. The rationale behind this was that "playing for a draw" was ruining the entertainment of football and that by giving extra incentive for a win teams would play more attacking football.

Critics countered that by giving 3 points for a win and 1 for a draw, teams would take a one-nil lead and then try and defend that lead by playing more negatively. The consequences of conceeding an equaliser becoming more substantial.

In Premier League football these days we see are seeing increasingly negative tactics by teams setting out to draw, or defending a lead.

Perhaps we could be the first nation in the world to operate a system whereas you get 0 points for a draw. Nothing at all.

3 points for each win, 0 for a draw or defeat.

The only way to climb the table is to win games, the only way to win games is to score goals.

A boxer doesn''t share the belt if he draws the title fight so why do football teams share points for failing to win the game. Why not?

This system wouldn''t have changed the table much last season by the way, we would have dropped to 13th (if goal difference was still used, we''d have been above Villa on goal difference), some do say that 11th flattered us.

The top four and the bottom three would have been the same too, just a mix up in the middle, Liverpool would have snatched 6th place from Everton on goal difference. So wins are already dictating pretty much the finishing positions.

I wonder how quickly 4-5-1 would die if draws were treated like defeats.

[funny old game 1]

Interesting that this system would have made no difference to the nitty gritty ends of the table, I quite like the idea but would maybe change it slightly - 2pts for a win with 1 additional bonus point for scoring 3 or more goals, cannot ever see it happening though.

[splutcho 173]

How incredibly stupid.

[Gingerpele 0]

Are you really saying 4-5-1 is a negative formation?

Are you really, that, naive? Seriously?

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

We see plenty of teams playing negatively to defend a one goal lead and the OP''s proposal would clearly make that worse because the downside of conceding a late goal would be even worse.

 

Whereas teams setting out to get a draw ?  I don''t see that in the Prem now - when a lower team goes away to one of the big 6 or 7, they normally take a pretty defensive approach because otherwise you''d get taken to the cleaners.  Again, this change wouldn''t help and if anything it would make it worse because when you go behind at say Man U, your chance of getting anything out of the game would go from very small (now) to practically non-existent (after the change).

And as has been said, it''s just wrong to say that 451 is a "defensive" formation.

[City 2nd 191]

Le J have to say that is a very good argument and maybe could lead to possibly more attacking inventiveness.

How about adding to the equation in that point(s) are awarded for the number of goals scored, ie as in rugby union where bonus points can be awarded for a certain amount of points reached by a side in any one game.

Anything that can alleviate the negative tactics across our national game and encourage goals needs serious consideration.

[Juggy 0]

"How incredibly stupid"

After a century of getting 2 points for a win they probably said the same when we starting dishing out 3 points.

Most of the world didn''t catch on until the 90''s, they probably thought 3 points for a win was stupid too.

[Juggy 0]

"Are you really saying 4-5-1 is a negative formation?"

No actually, I didn''t say that - clearly.

[splutcho 173]

Yes because it''s exactly the same thing.

No getting away from it, this is one of the most moronic posts on here I''ve ever seen. And that includes anything spouted by Wiz.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Perhaps we need more razzmataz too. Howabout enforcing goal music and fining clubs who don''t play it. In game interviews where the captain of each side has a mike to answer inane questions from commentators when the ball is out of play. Fine teams if they play more than 2 defenders or less than 5 attackers. Ban tackling completely. The options are endless. We can make a proper game out of football yet....

 

  

[Old Shuck 183]

It''s an interesting suggestion. I''d say no to this variation on a theme (points allocation) that does need freshening up on the basis that if a team like ourselves, Palace, Sunderland et al goes to Man City, Arsenal, wherever, and fights out a hugely entertaining 2-2 draw then why shouldn''t we be rewarded for the presumed endeavour and effort that would have precipitated such a good result?

 

I''d always thought, though its too complicated logistically, that the points allocation should be as follows-

Any Defeat* - 0 points.

Home Draw- 1 point

Away Draw- 2 points

Home Win-  3 points

Away Win-  4 points

 

* But one point every third goal or over. So if you lost 4-3 you''d get a point.

 

If you win 4-0 away from home you''re in clover- six points.

 

Like I said, complex and with its weaknesses. But I like it! No idea how the table would look if it applied up until today but guess it might be slightly different?

 

 

[Juggy 0]

"No getting away from it, this is one of the most moronic posts on here I''ve ever seen"

So anything the slightest bit non-conventional is automatically deemed moronic, with no explanation?

Would it be moronic if I''d suggested 2 points for a win and 1 point for a draw, or would that not be moronic because until 20 years ago that was the most common system globally?

Going from 2 & 1 points to 3 & 1 points makes perfect sense, but going to 3 & 1 points to 3 & 0 points does not? Sounds like a pretty simple premise to me, if you lack the smidgeon of imagination required to compute and to see that as a concept it brings about very little actual change then perhaps you are the moron.

It was just an observation, that the top 4 and bottom 3 would not have changed. It makes for a good talking point - that draws don''t win things. You are the moron.

2 points for a win and 1 point for a draw actually makes more sense than 3 points and 1 point if you think about it, we forced that change on the world. Every game had 2 points allocated to it, to be taken in full or shared.

Draws would have had more importance then.

[splutcho 173]

God almighty you really are dim. Changing the amount of points for a win is not the same as completely removing the reward for a massive part of football.

[Juggy 0]

Old Shuck, no idea how the table would look but the big four would absolutely love playing us..... Man City, Liverpool and Arsenal would collect an extra point every for goals scored every time we visited.

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

How about a point per goal? That''d encourage attacking play, you''d end up getting draws that would be worth watching if they finished 19 - 19!

NEXT!!!!!

[Juggy 0]

"God almighty you really are dim. Changing the amount of points for a win is not the same as completely removing the reward for a massive part of football"

Well 4 points for a win and 1 for a draw then, how is that?

The reward for a draw was significantly reduced in 1981, when you would get 33.3% of the number of points instead of 50% of the number of points.

My argument is that there shouldn''t be a "reward" for a draw, like there isn''t in many other sports.

You don''t appear to have much else of substance to say other than to call me a moron or dim, are you the reincarnation of City1st?

[splutcho 173]

Right, I apologise for the insults, they were unnecessary.

4 points for a win 1 for a draw would sound more realistic, however it seems pretty obvious that no change is needed. I''m pretty sure (almost) everyone agrees that the right balance has been struck. There are very, very few team sports where a draw does not count for something and it seems quite clear to me that it should be rewarded more than a loss.

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

[quote user="splutcho"]Right, I apologise for the insults, they were unnecessary.

4 points for a win 1 for a draw would sound more realistic, however it seems pretty obvious that no change is needed. I''m pretty sure (almost) everyone agrees that the right balance has been struck. There are very, very few team sports where a draw does not count for something and it seems quite clear to me that it should be rewarded more than a loss.[/quote]I''m pretty sure in every American team sport draws count for nothing. And there''s quite a lot of them.

[Juggy 0]

There are actually many people who argue that the change to 3 for a win and 1 for a draw results in pretty much no change.

In the history of the Premier League only Blackburn would have lost their Championship to Man Utd under a 2 point system (although that would have been a shame).

There has been a slight reduction in the number of draws from going from 2 to 3, I think it was something like 10%.

If we are talking about logical systems then the only truly logical one was the system they started with - where the points are shared in a draw and there are 2 points awarded for every game.

Again, the top 4 wouldn''t have changed and neither would the bottom 3 last season. The change from 2 to 3 hasn''t really achieved anything at all.

[splutcho 173]

American team sports also tend to be pretty high scoring, which makes draws a bit of a rarity whereas they''re a big part of football.

[ellis206 0]

Can someone please explain to me why this would change anything? Surely this would only stop people playing for a 0-0 draw, surely if a team went 1-0 up the last thing they would want to do is throw everyone forward trying to get a second and risk getting nothing at all.

Makes no sense.

I also wouldn''t say the Premiership is a negative league as such, there is just literally nothing between about 10 teams in the league

 

[splutcho 173]

Well if this happened you''d do away with points and just rank the league on wins. It isn''t broke so no point fixing it.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="Le Juge"]Old Shuck, no idea how the table would look but the big four would absolutely love playing us..... Man City, Liverpool and Arsenal would collect an extra point every for goals scored every time we visited.[/quote]

 

And there you see the reason for this thread.

 

Defending is an art, a skill. Managers value clean sheets. Our 4 clean sheets this season could be invaluable come the day of reckoning.

 

 

[ricardo 7,348]

If you want continual scoring go and watch Basketball. The whole point about football is that there is far more to it than just the scoring of goals. In fact I would go so far as to say the scarcity of goals is one of it''s main attractions. A goal in a football match is a rare and  important thing. Trying to make scoring easier merely devalues the game. A tense nil nil draw between two evenly matched sides is far more absorbing than a 6-6 knockabout. To propose that smaller teams going away to bigger clubs and coming away with a draw should get no points for it is a total nonsense IMO.

[ThorpeCanary 71]

"A boxer doesn''t share the belt if he draws the title fight so why do football teams share points for failing to win the game. Why not? "

I imagine this would be appropriate if for whatever reason teams were to share a trophy if the final was a draw, but its not the case.

although you could be on to something, imagine how much more exciting boxing would be if any boxing match that relied on a points decision now deemed both boxers the loser. Would really make for an exciting last round if the only method of victory was KO

[Gingerpele 0]

[quote user="Le Juge"]"Are you really saying 4-5-1 is a negative formation?"

No actually, I didn''t say that - clearly.[/quote]

Ok, fair enough you didn''t actually say that.

But ''I wonder how quickly 4-5-1 would die if we saw draws treated like defeats'' quite clearly insinuates you think its a negative formation. Otherwise why on earth would you say that? Why would 4-5-1 die? Its just a silly statement however you meant it.

[The Masked Raccoon 0]

Where is Zander Armstrong and that tall chap who supports Fulham? This really is the most pointless thread of the year!

Really Le Judge, too much time on your hands with constant pages of dribble.

As for boxing and no draws, isn''t that a fight as in there has to be a winner? Isn''t football league based over a series of games unlike knock out competitions in cups? You really do need to think!

[Juggy 0]

"As for boxing and no draws, isn''t that a fight as in there has to be a winner?"

Oh dear, you don''t know anything about boxing do you? There are draws in boxing, and there does not have to be a winner.

[Juggy 0]

"quite clearly insinuates you think its a negative formation. Otherwise why on earth would you say that?"

The number of draws in the Premier League has significantly increased over the past five or six years, hugely increased actually. The move away from two strikers to one striker seems to correlate with that.

I never said that it was a negative tactic, but it is a tactic which results in more draws. If you got no points for a draw then I''m sure people who work in the football industry would study that fact and work out that 4-5-1 results in more draws (the figures are already out there).

The EPL gets more draws than any of the other four or five top European leagues by the way, many more - 50% more than La Liga and Bundesliga. Even more than Serie A.

There is your answer.

[Juggy 0]

"Our 4 clean sheets this season could be invaluable come the day of reckoning"

Hey? What do clean sheets have to do with anything? It is goal difference which matters, and we have the 4th worst in the league.