Olympics All Format Spoiler Thread
Comments
-
They are goal though. Goals count in the actual scoring.rick_chasey said:Also own goals are 0xg
0 -
-1xg
Bring in Added Time Multiball from those Budweiser adverts I say.0 -
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.First.Aspect said:
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.TheBigBean said:
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.Aspectkingstongraham said: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.
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 would tend to disagree with it though. But then I just see sport as a form of entertainment. Albeit a higher form than Eastenders.0 -
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.0 -
This is standard in playground football - nutmegs count double.Pross said:
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.No_Ta_Doctor said:
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.First.Aspect said:
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.TheBigBean said:
No worse than penalties.First.Aspect said:
Why is there aDeVlaeminck 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.
Yup, same as gymnastics though. No objective assessment is possible.rick_chasey said:I also rate diving.
Tough tough sport, that.
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?Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
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.0 -
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.0
-
You could still just score more goals.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.
0 -
You could score 1 then defend expertly and have a goalkeeper play outstandingly. Score is the only metric that counts, not intentkingstongraham said:
You could still just score more goals.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.
0 -
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.Tashman said:
You could score 1 then defend expertly and have a goalkeeper play outstandingly. Score is the only metric that counts, not intentkingstongraham said:
You could still just score more goals.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.
0 -
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.0 -
1. People have clocked this. The average football game would last 3 hourshypster 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.
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.0 -
And the OlympicsRichN95. said:Whatever, somebody needs to save football before it's too late
0 -
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.pblakeney said:
1. People have clocked this. The average football game would last 3 hourshypster 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.
Best to make it 2 x 30 minutes.
2. Agreed. Players and goalies in particular are much taller than when the size was determined.0 -
Yeahbut, forwards can't touch a goalie these days far less barge them over the line. 😉yorkshireraw said:
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.pblakeney said:
1. People have clocked this. The average football game would last 3 hourshypster 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.
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.0 -
Here's some stats of goals per game - English top flight.yorkshireraw said:
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.pblakeney said:
1. People have clocked this. The average football game would last 3 hourshypster 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.
Best to make it 2 x 30 minutes.
2. Agreed. Players and goalies in particular are much taller than when the size was determined.
0
