Euros 24.

Ceist Beag said:
Given the way top flight football has gone with more and more games being added all the time it very much seems a case of quantity over quality.
Click to expand...

Footballers' union threatens legal action over increasing number of matches

The Professional Footballers' Association says some top clubs face seasons of up to 86 games, with the expansion of the FIFA Club World Cup and a bigger UEFA Champions League group stage.
news.sky.com

Remember reading a stat comparing games played in a year by Beckham v modern day player and thought it a big increase (can't find the article) but yes something has to give I suppose.

Not sure there will be many tears cried given the crazy salaries they're on
 
I think also at club level we see intricate attacks co-ordinated by coaches, so they are able to break down defences. It is easier to set up a solid defence.
So an international level, teams are struggling to open up defences, less time for that level of co-ordination.

I read a suggestion online to limit packed defences teams would have to keep X number of players in opposing half, and maybe push offside line forward closer to penalty box.

I wonder if extra time should be dropped or at least ask the teams before the match starts if both happy to go straight to penos. Bearing in mind impact extra time has whoever wins in next round.

On a more radical level... what could you do, limit the number of games an outfield player can be selected for across club and country?
 
Last edited:
On a more radical level what I would do will never happen as money talks. I would say reduce the number of games in the Champions League for a start (the group stages there are largely predictable and drawn out). Then reduce the number of teams who qualify for the Euros (and World Cup) to again increase jeopardy and make the games more meaningful. But of course this won't happen, in fact all we hear is that more teams will be added in the future (to promote the game to a wider audience is the argument), meaning more meaningless games.
 
The FIFA powers that be don't care about the poor games , as someone said it's all about money. That is why there is extra time , penalties , more games etc. Adding more teams to the tournament means extra revenue so it's a win win for the big wigs .....once again.
And as bad as the games are we still watch them..
 
Last edited:
At a certain point though... will viewers start to lose interest... hitting sponsors, revenue etc. We must be getting to a point of saturation \ diminishing returns. Obviously more teams, that country will watch that team, but neutrals in big countries maybe not.
 
The viewers will watch the matches alright..hoping to see an actual good game or even if only to moan about them.....it's just human nature ..
Purple said:
An entertaining game of soccer is a welcome but unusual surprise.
Click to expand...
And that's why we all watch them......just in case..
 
Sophrosyne said:
Yes. I can't believe France.

No goals from open play, one penalty kick (Mbappé), 5 penalties from a shout out and 2 OGs gifted to them.
Click to expand...
Mbappe not right with the mask, and they don't seem to be going to Plan B with Giroud anymore.
So it seems to be 'sterile' domination and relying on the opposition to make a mistake.
 
odyssey06 said:
I read a suggestion online to limit packed defences teams would have to keep X number of players in opposing half, and maybe push offside line forward closer to penalty box.
Click to expand...
1. They can't as they run the risk of players being off-side under existing laws
2. There is no "offside line" as such. There must be two defenders between an attacker and the opposition goal when the ball is played forward. There is some new-fangled stuff about being in the 'keeper's eye-line(r) or interfering with play somehow. You can be off-side if you're in the opposition half past the halfway line if the ball is cleared out from say a corner and all the opposition players are in their opponent's half of the field.
 
Yes under existing laws - the idea that was being discussed would be law changes to prevent teams from putting all 11 players deep in their own half, to prevent packed defences. There would likely be implications for offside in that.
The original intention of offside was to prevent teams from putting target men stationed in the other team's box, and a team could just lump long balls up to them.
The offside line is the halfway line.
 
Last edited:
There is nothing wrong with the existing off-side rule of Association Football. In fact, it is a good feature of the game. Only thing, is that the bar-stool fusilier cannot understand how any Celtic player can be off-side in an Old Firm clash.

In the Euros I wish to commend the referees who refuse to acknowledge deliberate diving and faking injuries.
 
Change the point allocation, zero points for a scoreless draw, 1 point for a score draw and 3 for a win.
There would be no reason to play for a scoreless draw and would end the terrible games where both teams only need a point and don't really bother playing.
 
To the completely ignorant (me) that sounds like a great idea. I'm sure there are numerous more knowledgeable posters who will now educate and enlighten me whilst simultaneously dissuading me of my view.
 
Interesting idea, something that might be needed for these tournaments where you have potentially 3 teams out of 4 qualifying from a group.
Which I think leads to more of those games.
I don't think they happen to the same extent in a 4 team group with 2 qualifiers.
 
All matches would open with a 1-1 score line after about 1 minute.
 
Isn't that the reason for the last round of games been played at the same time , to stop teams playing for a draw.
Draws might get a team through but finishing top gets a 'better' next round game than finishing second or third..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register