Forum home Road cycling forum Pro race

Olympics All Format Spoiler Thread

1636465666769»

Posts

  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 14,004

    Also own goals are 0xg

    They are goal though. Goals count in the actual scoring.
  • bobmcstuffbobmcstuff Posts: 10,219
    -1xg

    Bring in Added Time Multiball from those Budweiser adverts I say.
  • JezyboyJezyboy Posts: 988

    They don't settle the boxing if there's no knockout by letting each boxer have a free shot until one of them can't stand up any more.

    If a boxer knows he is behind on points, there is a strong incentive to attack. In contrast, a football team behind on performance has a strong incentive to defend and play for penalties. It's an excellent idea by @First.Aspect
    I do quite like the xG idea. Unintended consequences might be for teams to play in a way that Opta think is more likely to create a goal, as opposed in ways that are more likely to create a goal.

    Anyhow, I still have an issue with sports and style marks that probably isn't all that reasonable or rational, but hey. Until this year I could turn over and watch another sport, but the BBC seemed to prioritise sports that used horses, make-up or music this year.
    I don't think it's that unreasonable or irrational, it's a fairly common complaint. I vaguely remember it being used lots against figure skating when some controversy came out about bias/crooked judges.

    I would tend to disagree with it though. But then I just see sport as a form of entertainment. Albeit a higher form than Eastenders.
  • JezyboyJezyboy Posts: 988
    I also think deciding drawn football matches on style points rather than penalties sounds great.

    Although I'm not sure it would improve Englands chances at major tournaments.
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 25,479
    Why do people want to change football? Is it struggling to find an audience? It think that's a premature assessment just because they couldn't pay someone a million euros a week.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • No_Ta_DoctorNo_Ta_Doctor Posts: 11,187
    Pross said:

    For some reason the open water swimming was a better watch than the pool swimming. Even with a lack of GB swimmers at the sharp end I watched quite a bit of both races.

    It helped that the commentary pair - think it was Adrian Moorhouse and some other former Olympic swimmer - were so good.

    Why is there a

    I also rate diving.

    Tough tough sport, that.

    Yup, same as gymnastics though. No objective assessment is possible.

    If two football teams draw at the end of extra time, would you award the game to the team that in your view played the nicer football?
    No worse than penalties.
    No it would be like the shoot out being tied after 5 each, then awarding the game to the team that had scored more Panenkas.
    You're aware that a huge amount of football rulings made by the ref are entirely subjective, right? We think of the game as having an objective result because we see 1-0 on the scoreboard, but that's really not that different to seeing 86.77 on a diving scoreboard.
    I like the idea of football having different points values depending on the style of the goal. You get one "goal" for a standard header from a corner or for a shot from inside the box, two for a diving header or direct free kick, three for a goal of any sort from outside the box and four from inside your own half. That might seriously reduce the amount of draws.
    This is standard in playground football - nutmegs count double.
    “Road racing was over and the UCI had banned my riding positions on the track, so it was like ‘Jings, crivvens, help ma Boab, what do I do now? I know, I’ll go away and be depressed for 10 years’.”

    @DrHeadgear

    The Vikings are coming!
  • yorkshirerawyorkshireraw Posts: 1,560
    For athletics, assuming Olympics will always be a a national team, I'd change the World Champs to actually be anyone in the who gets the qualifying standard.

    At the moment if you're Jamaica's 4th best women sprinter or Kenya's 4th best steeplechaser you're bang out of luck, even if you're in the top 10 in the World.

    Would actually make the Worlds stand out from the Olympics and reduce the nationalistic jingo-ism.

    I'd also suggest the same for the World Cycling champs - should be 7 man WT teams plus 4 or 6 Pro Conti squads (who've qualified through some process).
    It's daft that these guys win the WC jersey in a national top and then ride every race in it to the benefit of their trade team.

    You would lose out on all the possible skullduggery of riders not riding for their national team leader and supporting trade team mates etc., and the often mixed agendas in the Italian and Belgian squads.
  • TashmanTashman Posts: 2,826
    All this XG talk ignores the fact that defending is a valid skill within the game. By focusing on XG you're looking to weight the game towards attacking play which essentially becomes a T20/The Hundred version of football.
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 17,773
    Tashman said:

    All this XG talk ignores the fact that defending is a valid skill within the game. By focusing on XG you're looking to weight the game towards attacking play which essentially becomes a T20/The Hundred version of football.

    You could still just score more goals.
  • TashmanTashman Posts: 2,826

    Tashman said:

    All this XG talk ignores the fact that defending is a valid skill within the game. By focusing on XG you're looking to weight the game towards attacking play which essentially becomes a T20/The Hundred version of football.

    You could still just score more goals.
    You could score 1 then defend expertly and have a goalkeeper play outstandingly. Score is the only metric that counts, not intent
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 17,773
    Tashman said:

    Tashman said:

    All this XG talk ignores the fact that defending is a valid skill within the game. By focusing on XG you're looking to weight the game towards attacking play which essentially becomes a T20/The Hundred version of football.

    You could still just score more goals.
    You could score 1 then defend expertly and have a goalkeeper play outstandingly. Score is the only metric that counts, not intent
    When I said more, I meant more than your opposition. If you opt for a "score one early and then defend" tactic, you could win, but you'd risk losing if the other team equalises after 80 minutes of attacking play. Makes the game better if the risk is that you'd lose, rather than risking getting another chance.
  • hypsterhypster Posts: 1,210
    I stopped watching football years ago because it is so repetitive and boring. Two improvements that i would propose are:-

    1. Take the time keeping away from the ref and have a timekeeper off pitch. When the ball goes dead the clock stops and when play starts again, it restarts. Would remove all the time added on argy-bargy and make time wasting literally a waste of time. 45 minutes a half would be the actual time the ball was in play.

    2. Make the goals bigger. A score of 15-14 would be much more entertaining than a 1-0 snore-fest.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 16,748
    hypster said:

    I stopped watching football years ago because it is so repetitive and boring. Two improvements that i would propose are:-

    1. Take the time keeping away from the ref and have a timekeeper off pitch. When the ball goes dead the clock stops and when play starts again, it restarts. Would remove all the time added on argy-bargy and make time wasting literally a waste of time. 45 minutes a half would be the actual time the ball was in play.

    2. Make the goals bigger. A score of 15-14 would be much more entertaining than a 1-0 snore-fest.

    1. People have clocked this. The average football game would last 3 hours
    Best to make it 2 x 30 minutes.
    2. Agreed. Players and goalies in particular are much taller than when the size was determined.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 25,479
    Whatever, somebody needs to save football before it's too late
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 17,773
    RichN95. said:

    Whatever, somebody needs to save football before it's too late

    And the Olympics
  • yorkshirerawyorkshireraw Posts: 1,560
    pblakeney said:

    hypster said:

    I stopped watching football years ago because it is so repetitive and boring. Two improvements that i would propose are:-

    1. Take the time keeping away from the ref and have a timekeeper off pitch. When the ball goes dead the clock stops and when play starts again, it restarts. Would remove all the time added on argy-bargy and make time wasting literally a waste of time. 45 minutes a half would be the actual time the ball was in play.

    2. Make the goals bigger. A score of 15-14 would be much more entertaining than a 1-0 snore-fest.

    1. People have clocked this. The average football game would last 3 hours
    Best to make it 2 x 30 minutes.
    2. Agreed. Players and goalies in particular are much taller than when the size was determined.
    Ref 2. tho - players (strikers) probably hit the ball with a lot more force these days, and the balls are certainly quicker through the air (and along the pitch) now, so possibly evens it up a bit.
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 16,748

    pblakeney said:

    hypster said:

    I stopped watching football years ago because it is so repetitive and boring. Two improvements that i would propose are:-

    1. Take the time keeping away from the ref and have a timekeeper off pitch. When the ball goes dead the clock stops and when play starts again, it restarts. Would remove all the time added on argy-bargy and make time wasting literally a waste of time. 45 minutes a half would be the actual time the ball was in play.

    2. Make the goals bigger. A score of 15-14 would be much more entertaining than a 1-0 snore-fest.

    1. People have clocked this. The average football game would last 3 hours
    Best to make it 2 x 30 minutes.
    2. Agreed. Players and goalies in particular are much taller than when the size was determined.
    Ref 2. tho - players (strikers) probably hit the ball with a lot more force these days, and the balls are certainly quicker through the air (and along the pitch) now, so possibly evens it up a bit.
    Yeahbut, forwards can't touch a goalie these days far less barge them over the line. 😉
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 17,773

    pblakeney said:

    hypster said:

    I stopped watching football years ago because it is so repetitive and boring. Two improvements that i would propose are:-

    1. Take the time keeping away from the ref and have a timekeeper off pitch. When the ball goes dead the clock stops and when play starts again, it restarts. Would remove all the time added on argy-bargy and make time wasting literally a waste of time. 45 minutes a half would be the actual time the ball was in play.

    2. Make the goals bigger. A score of 15-14 would be much more entertaining than a 1-0 snore-fest.

    1. People have clocked this. The average football game would last 3 hours
    Best to make it 2 x 30 minutes.
    2. Agreed. Players and goalies in particular are much taller than when the size was determined.
    Ref 2. tho - players (strikers) probably hit the ball with a lot more force these days, and the balls are certainly quicker through the air (and along the pitch) now, so possibly evens it up a bit.
    Here's some stats of goals per game - English top flight.


Sign In or Register to comment.