NationStates Jolt Archive

As I reflected on the past few weeks of World Cup soccer, I thought about the game and how dull this year's tournament had become and wondered what I could do to change it. In the process, I came up with four new rule changes that I think could change the game- some are radical while others are not. They are as follows:

(Taken from my blog (http://dgrants.blogspot.com/2006/07/new-ideas-for-beautiful-game.html). Note: for the record, I'm Canadian)

1. A set of standards for cards and fouls. This is the biggest problem facing the World Cup this year- there appears to be no set standards with regards to what qualifies for a foul or a card, and, expectedly, a lot of players and coaches have been confused as a result of it. So, I suggest the following system of fouls to be put in place:

Minor fouls- these are fouls that specifically impede a player from doing his job, such as tripping, clutching and grabbing, holding, pushing and “body-checking”. Four of these kinds of fouls by one player brings an automatic card.

Major fouls- these are fouls worthy of receiving an automatic card, such as a two-footed tackle, a tackle from behind, “unnecessary roughness” or a “professional foul”. Should this foul also result in a player’s fourth foul and he has yet to be yellow-carded, he would receive a red card.


2. New Penalties for Diving. Blatter and his associates make a big deal about catching “divers”, and, after seeing Cristiano Ronaldo’s performance earlier today, it’s high time he acted. However, I don’t think FIFA goes far enough simply giving a yellow card for diving- FIFA should also award the opponent a spot kick, either a penalty kick if it’s in the penalty area or a free kick close to the opponent’s goal if it’s not. Yes, it’s an extreme decision, but this is an extreme infraction, plus the point of diving is to draw a penalty or free kick anyway so why not award it to the other team?


3. Have a standard for awarding penalties. This goes along with the diving component, but it does stand alone- far too often in the World Cup, the referees have been afraid to call a penalty kick, probably because they’re afraid that decision will turn the game and public opinion against them. This has resulted in a considerable amount of penalty calls- such as the obvious foul on Ronaldo in Portugal’s semi-final against France- that are just not called. It is thus impertinent that the same types of standards used for fouls outside the penalty area be used inside it as well, because obstruction in the penalty area- which, in this World Cup, has resulted in far too many fouls being called on attacking players- kills far too many scoring opportunities, and the most skilled players in the game should be allowed to strut their stuff without being mugged. Yes, fouls should continue to be called against attacking players should they commit them, but sometimes attackers should be given the benefit of the doubt, as sometimes they push away because they’re being grabbed or pushed themselves. Defenders should only win the ball with their feet and that should be the standard throughout the field, not just in the penalty area.


4. Offside Changes. Here’s a bold new idea: should the ball be inside the penalty area, offside should not be called. The reason is simple: inside the penalty area it’s too small for any “cherry pickers” to gain much of an advantage, plus there isn’t a whole lot of room in there for which to cherry pick. This will result in a lot more goals being scored off deflections and one-on-one goalkeeper battles, and will ensure that the goalkeepers are just as alert as their defenders. Perhaps the rule could be even bolder by having a line stretching the width of the field extending from the top of the penalty area or a few yards above it where, if the ball precedes the attacking players, offside cannot be called. It’s similar to the offside rule in hockey and should help maintain pressure in the attacking zone because the attackers can “hem in” the defence, although this could also lead to crowding. A benefit, though, is that potentially a three-on-none break could occur in front of the opposing goal and create a bona fide scoring chance, forcing the defenders to be extra alert. There are those who might say that scores may become ridiculous because of changes like this and they may be right, but I will say that being one-on-one with a goalkeeper isn’t as easy as it looks and, as it stands now, soccer’s counterattacks are rarely as thrilling as they are in hockey or basketball because they always have to deal with a wall opposing them, and that helps suck a lot of goals out of the game.

Thoughts? I don't think the game's in a direlict situation but I think we can all agree that this year's World Cup hasn't been a world-class tournament, especially in the knockout round.

Two words: Fucking Video Referee.

No, the field needs to be described with UV-reactive markers, the uniforms and ball should also be flourescent - and games should be played at night, with Ultraviolet flood lights illuminating everything.

Soccer ought to look trippier.

Far out man.

If the Ref signals you out for diving you get 10 minutes off the field.
If the Ref signals you out for repeat tripping you get 5 minutes off the field.

Because diving is more insidious than triping that is why there is a difference.
If you are game enough to dive you better hope you odn't get caught.

the "no offside in the penalty area" is stupid, or you'll just get people standing on the goalline, and doing all they can to blok the goalies view of an incoming shot.

Thoughts? I don't think the game's in a direlict situation but I think we can all agree that this year's World Cup hasn't been a world-class tournament, especially in the knockout round.

2002 was poor, this cup has been brilliant, nearly every game has been close even if the scoreline did not reflect it, we have seen some great attacking football, arguably the best goal in history and a lot of good teams.

Of course the knock out stages are going to suffer slightly in watchabiolity becuase of the huge pressure, one mistake and your out. It has still been good to watch. Sure not a lot of goals but a lot of chances and open games.

If Fifa need to change one thing, stop pushing for penalising bad tackles(unless they are really horrible) but clamp down on diving. We had way too many cards for late accidental fouls.

Regarding your suggestions

1) We do have a set of standards but the refs are human. The ref in the game against Portugal anf Holland applied the letter of the law, he lost complete control of the game.

The refs will make mistakes, it is part of the game and there some duboius choices by the countries FA's, example Poll for England. Most good refs try to go with the Spirit of the Law, not book for every late tackle but try to keep the game flowing and be a bit leniant.

2) Right so when a player is hacked down inside the area and is punished by being sent off for diving, his team conceding a penalty and thus his team lose 1-0 in the final, what happens then? FiFA should punish dives in retrospect by suspension but it is too hard to tell at first glance for refs to do more then book.

3) Portugal against France? Henry was given a penalty and I didn't really see anything that called be called a penalty for Portugal but some blatent diving to try and con a penalty. It was not becuase the ref was too scared to give one.

Penalties are rare and only a few debatly handballs come to mind as "should have been a penalty." There are set standards but again the ref is human, they might be reluctent to give penalities but there hasn't ben that many calls for one.

4) the point of offsides is to stop goalhanging and it does open the game up, without the defence having to mark someone constantly hanging on the six yard line, they push up a lot more. The offsides allow for brilliant defending and for good attacking, it encourges players to think. The current offside system works well, it does add to the game, thos narrow seconds as you pray for the flag to stay down or to go up

how about some more scoring...lol


haha,an impatient easily bored american i am.

just kidding you guys,i dont know shit about soccer,dont want too.
played it for about 6 years in school,loved playing it,but like baseball..terribly boring to watch..to me that is.

soccer,baseball and hockey are all a hoot to participate in,but dreary to watch...although i enjoy a good hockey game,and really enjoyed the france/brazil match in the w/c.

in the states they changed some rules(in hockey) to generate more scoring(less holding and clutching the opponent) and it is more european in flavor...faster pace,more finess..etc. and i like the changes.

americans will never "get soccer"

we can know the rules,follow the game,understand the strategies...but damn..a tie?wtf is that...gotta have a winner!

enjoy the final,is it today i think?

if it's italy and france...then go italy

really dumb question...dont laugh please....i'm serious.

there obviously has to be a world cup winner..right..so the final game can't end in a tie..so how is that decided/done
and why cant you apply the same rules for the deciding game for all matches?


oh..the diving crap is pathetic!!!!!!!!!!

as is the cards for minor contact,as a casual observer,i watched some games,and i saw many yellow cards for what was,upon review...non fouls.

the refs therefore can dictate the tournament with this,and as an avid american sports fan,and gambler...see it all to often dictate the pace and outcome of games...for the book i guess,same problem with soccer(futball)i wonder?

1) There already is a set of standards for cards and fouls.

2) Would seem a great idea until someone conceded a penalty for actually being fouled.

3) Football is a contact sport - the defenders are allowed to shoulder the attackers about a bit because that's the way the game works. In any case, because a penalty decision is always controversial, of course refs are going to be reluctant to award them if they're not sure.

4) The penalty area is 44 yards by 18 yards - more than enough room for "cherrypicking". A lot of Americans think that there should be more scoring in football but the relative scarcity of goals is what makes a goal more exciting than, say, a touchdown.

there obviously has to be a world cup winner..right..so the final game can't end in a tie..so how is that decided/done
and why cant you apply the same rules for the deciding game for all matches?



If no one's scored by full time, extra time is added (30mins split into two 15min halfs). If still no-ones scored, penalties are taken until a winner is found.
This doesn't work in standard tournaments as teams will usually face each other at least twice and points are awarded by who wins/draws/loses. Always having a winner would ruin the system and would ruin any tactical advantages that may be gained through a draw (they are few, but do exist.)

nothing. its already great as it is!

*likes football*

Ways to improve the game

1) Video ref. It shouldn't be used for every minor foul, corner, throw in etc. It would be useful for determining goals, major fouls, diving and possibly offsides. However with offsides if a striker is through on goal and called back for offside and it turns out he wasn't, what do you give? A freekick? seems unfair so perhaps it would be better to stick by the wrong decision. It would also have to be taken into account the time constraints of constantly going to a video ref...

2) More consistency with the punishment of diving.

3) Cards for people approaching the ref demanding that he show cards for others or emanding fouls.

Ways to improve the game

1) Video ref. It shouldn't be used for every minor foul, corner, throw in etc. It would be useful for determining goals, major fouls, diving and possibly offsides. However with offsides if a striker is through on goal and called back for offside and it turns out he wasn't, what do you give? A freekick? seems unfair so perhaps it would be better to stick by the wrong decision. It would also have to be taken into account the time constraints of constantly going to a video ref...

2) More consistency with the punishment of diving.

3) Cards for people approaching the ref demanding that he show cards for others or emanding fouls.

I have an idea... I think the captain of each team should be able to request the video umpire, but only twice or three times during a match. That way, for really important decisions they will be sure, but they won't use it for every call.

Only one thing can improve it:

More soccer riots. :D

how about making them play with their shirts off ;)

Well I came up with an idea a while ago that would spice up not only football but *all* field games.

Plant a land mine in a random location on the pitch!

Then there's always the tension of 'Ooh! Who's gonna set it off!?'

Plus, making them risk their lives might actually come somewhere close to making the players earn the ridiculously high amounts of money they get just for kicking a ball around.

I say there should be three balls on the pitch at once, and three teams playing at once, with the pitch circular and each goal 120 degrees apart. Ooooh, and the pitch should rotate! And it should speed up if there's not a goal for 2 minutes! And anyone caught diving should be put in stocks near the opposition fans so they can have stuff thrown at them. And..and... instead of the current silly girly brawls after bad tackles, the fourth official should bring on classic wrestling style weaponry like barbed wire and metal chairs and shout FIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHHT!! Make me head of FIFA! NOW!:D

It should be a crime punishable by excruciating death to call it 'soccer'. It's called football!

Okay, first, we're going to replace the footbal/soccerball with a beach ball. Then we're going to put some random ramps across the field. Finally, we're going to replace the current goals with 'mobile' goals, that randomly move back and forth.

It should be a crime punishable by excruciating death to call it 'soccer'. It's called football!

Piffle! Then Americans would get confused! And we must always put their wishes first! Obviously "proper" football must change its name, as that is FAR more logical than renaming the American version in which most of the play is done with the hands rather than the feet anyway!:p

football should from now on be played by really hot naked women.

that is all.

Two words: Fucking Video Referee.
Three words: That's three fucking words. ^

In 150 years there have only been a few fairly minor changes made to the rules - limiting keepers to only being able to handle the ball in their box (rather than in their half of the field), changing the offside rule to 3 men to 2 between the opposing player and the goal line (and the recent 'active' player amendment), and the back-pass rule.

It doesn't need any sweeping changes, except perhaps introducing a video referee for important decisions.

I say there should be three balls on the pitch at once, and three teams playing at once, with the pitch circular and each goal 120 degrees apart. Ooooh, and the pitch should rotate! And it should speed up if there's not a goal for 2 minutes! And anyone caught diving should be put in stocks near the opposition fans so they can have stuff thrown at them. And..and... instead of the current silly girly brawls after bad tackles, the fourth official should bring on classic wrestling style weaponry like barbed wire and metal chairs and shout FIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHHT!! Make me head of FIFA! NOW!:D

You get my vote! :p

Full contact football! 3 teams as above - 1 dressed as ninja, 1 dressed as Shaolin monks and the other as Samurai (without swords). That'd rule! Running around in full Samurai armour might be a problem though but nevermind I haven't got to do it. :D

How about we turn it into a drinking game?
No, not for us the spectators. It already is.
I mean for the players.
A corner = scull for player taking the kick
Throw-in = scull for throw-in player
Save by goalkeeper = scull for g/keeper
free kick = scull
penalty kick = scull with vodka shooter
yellow card = shotgun for offending player
red card = whole team sculls
Blatant dive = yardglass
goal = whole team sculls

Within 1/2 an hour I guarantee we'll see lots of goals!

Piffle! Then Americans would get confused! And we must always put their wishes first! Obviously "proper" football must change its name, as that is FAR more logical than renaming the American version in which most of the play is done with the hands rather than the feet anyway!:p



"It should be a crime punishable by excruciating death to call it 'soccer'. It's called football!"


okay,okay..i get it.
when i was a kid i was sent to "soccer camp",in school we had a soccer team and a football team.
i suppose we needed away to differentiate the 2 games,ergo soccer.
it is so ingrained into our culture,that we have "soccer moms" as a common term(sometimes derisive)
the mom with the kids packed into a minivan,all wearing jerseys and running amuck thru the local convenience store after a game or practice.
usually a suburban mom,that doesnt want juniour getting hurt playing "real football"..j/k..but that is a big motivation,also alot of girls play it from grade school thru college.
point is,soccer/football is actually quite a popular sport in america,at least as far as organized athletics go,as is american football,that there must be away to tell the 2 apart.
when i was a kid,my soccer coach was mister Vermes,so i have been "taught" for 40 years or so,that what you call football,is called soccer.

as a matter of fact,my coach..mr.Vermes played on the hungarian national team i believe in world cup play,before he and his wife jumped the wall and came to the states.(best friends of my parents actually)and one of his sons(peter i think,my kid brothers buddy)was pretty damn good..played in the italian league,and i think the u.s team
that said,they always called it soccer...odd?

american football is mostly played with your hands..but we allready have another game called handball!

i wonder where the term"soccer" even came from?

american in origin?

i think futball is a latin term,and maybe also used for rugby...isn't calling rugby,rugby..the same as calling footbal soccer...my head hurts now..lol


i watched the wc final,pretty interesting match to me,as a non follower,but i was rooting for italy afterall.

not many penalties that i noticed,and the french guy definately deserved to be tossed for headbutting the guy...that was a cheap shot.
i dont know the rules to well,but that seemed pretty blatant.
in american football,that guy would be fined by the league and probably suspended for some period.
__________________

i wonder where the term"soccer" even came from?

american in origin?
Nope. English - from Association Football. It's an abbreviation of 'association'.

i think futball is a latin term,and maybe also used for rugby...isn't calling rugby,rugby..the same as calling footbal soccer[/QUOTE]
Erm, almost. Calling rugby rugby is like calling football 'association'. Rugby is properly known as 'rugby football'.

Higher scores would be great.
widen the net 1 meter.

Higher scores would be great.
widen the net 1 meter.
Nah, it's fine as it is. We'll just make each goal count for six shall we?

Nope. English - from Association Football. It's an abbreviation of 'association'.

i think futball is a latin term,and maybe also used for rugby...isn't calling rugby,rugby..the same as calling footbal soccer
Erm, almost. Calling rugby rugby is like calling football 'association'. Rugby is properly known as 'rugby football'.[/QUOTE]

wow,thank you!

that is interesting,i would have bet that soccer was a made up word by us,what you say makes sense though.
so we have the english to blame for the term soccer..lol..and they get miffed we call it that?..just fishing and kinda kidding.

i flat dont understand rugby,let alone the terminology.

thanks for the input though.

Improve football eh? Have an exploding football on a random timer.

wow,thank you!

that is interesting,i would have bet that soccer was a made up word by us,what you say makes sense though.
so we have the english to blame for the term soccer..lol..and they get miffed we call it that?..just fishing and kinda kidding.
Yeah. We call it football because we pretty much always have done (certainly for over 100 years). The Americans call it soccer because that's the alternative name for it, and when it was introduced to America you already had a sport that you called football (and let's be fair, it makes more sense to have 'soccer' and 'football' than to have 'football' and, I don't know, 'meric') :p

*snip*

4. Offside Changes. Here’s a bold new idea: should the ball be inside the penalty area, offside should not be called. The reason is simple: inside the penalty area it’s too small for any “cherry pickers” to gain much of an advantage, plus there isn’t a whole lot of room in there for which to cherry pick. This will result in a lot more goals being scored off deflections and one-on-one goalkeeper battles, and will ensure that the goalkeepers are just as alert as their defenders. Perhaps the rule could be even bolder by having a line stretching the width of the field extending from the top of the penalty area or a few yards above it where, if the ball precedes the attacking players, offside cannot be called. It’s similar to the offside rule in hockey and should help maintain pressure in the attacking zone because the attackers can “hem in” the defence, although this could also lead to crowding. A benefit, though, is that potentially a three-on-none break could occur in front of the opposing goal and create a bona fide scoring chance, forcing the defenders to be extra alert. There are those who might say that scores may become ridiculous because of changes like this and they may be right, but I will say that being one-on-one with a goalkeeper isn’t as easy as it looks and, as it stands now, soccer’s counterattacks are rarely as thrilling as they are in hockey or basketball because they always have to deal with a wall opposing them, and that helps suck a lot of goals out of the game.

Now this I like.

There's precedent for this in the NBA in the US. They now have a dashed arc a short distance from where the rim would make a circle on the floor were it let down from its 10ft. height. Inside that dashed arc, the offensive foul known as a "charge" cannot be called (too close to the rim). It's been very effective as far as I can tell. Football could use something like that. Good idea.

I have an idea... I think the captain of each team should be able to request the video umpire, but only twice or three times during a match. That way, for really important decisions they will be sure, but they won't use it for every call.
Kinda like the US pro football and the red "challenge flag" for instant replay of contested or believed-to-be-missed calls. If the coach throws his flag and teh replay shows the call was correct, the team loses one of its three time-outs in that half. Perhaps in football, the side could lose one of its three substitutions if they challenge and are wrong?

Three words: That's three fucking words. ^
No it isn't. Clearly those words are NOT fucking.

No it isn't. Clearly those words are NOT fucking.

No....it was an accident.....they just tripped and fell...into each other! :eek:

RED CARD! :D

Yeah. We call it football because we pretty much always have done (certainly for over 100 years). The Americans call it soccer because that's the alternative name for it, and when it was introduced to America you already had a sport that you called football (and let's be fair, it makes more sense to have 'soccer' and 'football' than to have 'football' and, I don't know, 'meric') :p

lol...gotcha

so are we tards for calling the game soccer rather then football,when we allready have a game called football!

obviously this miffs some,the incorrect terms...and let it be never said that i would intentionally miff anyone..ever!

what the hell is meric?

maybe we could use the german or french term for football..unless of coarse it is football...:confused:

Two words: Fucking Video Referee.exactomundo

football should from now on be played by really hot naked women.

that is all.or almost naked :fluffle:
http://mud.mm-a6.yimg.com/image/2090267462

http://www.elasterisco.com/foro/sexys/eurocopa/soccer_babes_maxim_04080616.jpg

Football is perfect and beautiful. No changes necessary, if people dont like they can watch something else. The fact that the games arent rigid and are free flowing is what makes it great.

Football is perfect and beautiful. No changes necessary, if people dont like they can watch something else. The fact that the games arent rigid and are free flowing is what makes it great.
i'm a bit rigid for the girl in the above post...but then again..i am honest.

I'll address the replies generally.

Offside- The idea is that it would not apply when the ball is already inside the area, allowing players greater mobility in the area and forcing the defence to be even more alert. To address the concern about a player standing in front of the goalkeeper (or "screening", as those of us in the hockey community like to call it (I think the term's in soccer too, not sure)): hockey goalkeepers have to put up with it as long as their physical ability to make a save is not impeded by the attacker. The same principle can apply here.

Diving- Carding I don't think does enough, considering that the point of diving is to give your team an advantage. It should only make sense that the decision should go against your team. This would also force teams to encourage players *not* to dive, because they know the penalty would go against them. I know it's drastic but I don't think anything *but* a drastic measure is going to solve it.

Standards/Penalties- The idea with this one is to get rid of the "discretion" part of the decision-making process, or to at least minimize it. Far too often fouls are "judgement calls" and the calls at this year's World Cup have varied because of it. I also think that if referees were told what to call and what not to call there wouldn't be at least so much reluctance to call a penalty, because they clearly know what to look for.

Only sexy men should be allowed to play. Yeah, that'd make me a fan.

Only sexy men should be allowed to play. Yeah, that'd make me a fan.

That would leave just the Italian team then, 'cause you know, us Italian guys are the only irresistible ones :p. Hey, we did win that title back in 1994 at least.

I'll address the replies generally.

Offside- The idea is that it would not apply when the ball is already inside the area, allowing players greater mobility in the area and forcing the defence to be even more alert. To address the concern about a player standing in front of the goalkeeper (or "screening", as those of us in the hockey community like to call it (I think the term's in soccer too, not sure)): hockey goalkeepers have to put up with it as long as their physical ability to make a save is not impeded by the attacker. The same principle can apply here.

Diving- Carding I don't think does enough, considering that the point of diving is to give your team an advantage. It should only make sense that the decision should go against your team. This would also force teams to encourage players *not* to dive, because they know the penalty would go against them. I know it's drastic but I don't think anything *but* a drastic measure is going to solve it.

Standards/Penalties- The idea with this one is to get rid of the "discretion" part of the decision-making process, or to at least minimize it. Far too often fouls are "judgement calls" and the calls at this year's World Cup have varied because of it. I also think that if referees were told what to call and what not to call there wouldn't be at least so much reluctance to call a penalty, because they clearly know what to look for.


Offisdes: How big are the hockey goals? A footballl keeper can't always reach his far post and a man blocking his sight is impeding is ability to save quite drasticly. It would also risk killing the game like the offside rule, the goal hanging would mean the defence sat back more and stifled the game

Diving: As I said, what happens if it costs someone the World Cup final and it turns out he was fouled. Diving is hard to tell for a ref so I support punishment after the game by FIFA, fewer refs will give a call and try to ignore the issue.

Refs: Remember the Holland vs Portgual game, all calls technically correct, all within the law, complete chaos and the ref was sent home. Who is the best ref of recent times? Collini, a man who didn't stick to the letter but to the spirit. Who got the World Cup big matches? Refs should used the spirit and didn't book every bad tackle but allowed the game to flow

wait, I have an idea:

ban italy from the world cup.

Only two changes-Sin-binning and harsher punishments on divers-via a citing proceedure.

Sin-binning would happen when a player is given a yellow, he spends 10 minuates off the pitch. Then he comes back on, if he's yellowed again he's off.

As for citing, a match offical goes through the tape of the game and if he sees any unseen fouls like odvious dives that player is given a yellow-card. If he dives twice thats two yellows and s on. he then has to serve his time at the start of the match before he's allowed on eg. 4 dives-4 yellows-40 mins before he's allowed on the feild (If he's picked0 if they choose to sub him then again he has to wait until his times up, adding a new tactical dimesion.

New ideas -

1. No more men, women only.
2. No more uniforms, naked only.
3. No more football, just a massive pit of jelly.

That should fix it right up...

If the Ref signals you out for diving you get 10 minutes off the field.
If the Ref signals you out for repeat tripping you get 5 minutes off the field.


FIFA could give yellow cards after match for diving (kind of video refering).

Another acting problem: deaths on the field
If you need a doctor you have to stay 5 minutes off the field before you can enter the game again.

Let's make all the players wear ridiculous padding like girls, throw the ball instead of kicking it and stretch out 1 hour of play to 3 or 4 hours so we can fit in more adverts. That's proper sport.

Only two changes-Sin-binning and harsher punishments on divers-via a citing proceedure.

Sin-binning would happen when a player is given a yellow, he spends 10 minuates off the pitch. Then he comes back on, if he's yellowed again he's off.

As for citing, a match offical goes through the tape of the game and if he sees any unseen fouls like odvious dives that player is given a yellow-card. If he dives twice thats two yellows and s on. he then has to serve his time at the start of the match before he's allowed on eg. 4 dives-4 yellows-40 mins before he's allowed on the feild (If he's picked0 if they choose to sub him then again he has to wait until his times up, adding a new tactical dimesion.

The game is only 90 minutes, being ten men down for ten minutes is way too harsh for a slightly late challenge.

If he dived twince, two books equal red, means a suspension so just make him miss the whole of the next match if he is cuaght diving after the game

Offisdes: How big are the hockey goals? A footballl keeper can't always reach his far post and a man blocking his sight is impeding is ability to save quite drasticly. It would also risk killing the game like the offside rule, the goal hanging would mean the defence sat back more and stifled the game

To add to what I said here, few of offsides are from lay inside the box but more runs outside or early balls into the box.

Okay, ways to improve soccer...

1. Everyone starts calling it freaking soccer like they should! Football is a sport that men play that includes running, passing, first downs, field goals, etc... soccer should be referred to as such to avoid confusion.

2. America shouldn't have a soccer team I think, I mean, if we can't be competitive in a sport, why bother playing? It just makes us look bad, and as someone previously mentioned, it's not like we're ever going to "get" soccer.

3. Allow rougher play in soccer, similar to Lacrosse, maybe then we would "get" soccer more...

4. Disallow that loser announcer yelling "gooooooooooooooaalllllllllll" in his cheesy accent every 5 minutes, that's annoying as hell.

Some simple suggestions to improve the game of soccer, although I think the greatest way to improve it would be if everyone just quit playing this lame sport and played something interesting instead :p

Offisdes: How big are the hockey goals? A footballl keeper can't always reach his far post and a man blocking his sight is impeding is ability to save quite drasticly. It would also risk killing the game like the offside rule, the goal hanging would mean the defence sat back more and stifled the game

How big are the soccer players? They're not exactly bulked up in equipment like hockey players are, and certainly it can be said that if a player's standing right in front of the 'keeper it wouldn't be allowed, because a goalkeeper isn't a defender. Having said that, a player standing a yard or two out from the net yet "ahead of the line" does not do the same thing- the goalkeeper can still see the ball clearly and besides, on free kicks and corner kicks he's still got a plethora of players to look over top of. Maybe here you'd call offside in the goal area (or an abbreviated one that just stretches from post to post and a few yards out), but the whole penalty area is pushing it.

Diving: As I said, what happens if it costs someone the World Cup final and it turns out he was fouled. Diving is hard to tell for a ref so I support punishment after the game by FIFA, fewer refs will give a call and try to ignore the issue.

Diving can already cost a team the World Cup Final so I don't see much of a difference; and if you allow FIFA to make a decision after the fact, theoretically you allow the "diving" problem to continue. What is to stop a player from "diving" in the World Cup Final, being assessed a penalty for his team, his team scoring the winning goal because of it and then he gets suspended or fined thereafter? The objective has still been achieved, so it's important that divers get called during the game, not afterwards.

Maybe it's here that video replay would be best- a foul in the area can be subject to a video review at the coach's or the captain's request, similar to the rule in American football. I still think the team should be punished too because diving affects the team as well, but I do understand that this suggestion was the most radical of mine- however, I don't know if thing will change all that quickly unless we get drastic about it.

Refs: Remember the Holland vs Portgual game, all calls technically correct, all within the law, complete chaos and the ref was sent home. Who is the best ref of recent times? Collini, a man who didn't stick to the letter but to the spirit. Who got the World Cup big matches? Refs should used the spirit and didn't book every bad tackle but allowed the game to flow

Who's fault was it that the Holland-Portugal game was a mess? The referee's or the player's? I also don't think that game was "by the standard anyway"- Luis Figo should have been sent off for that head-butt, and Deco got accosted yet he was the one getting the card. I also think that "by the spirit" produces some of the worst games I've ever seen: the England-Portugal quarterfinal, the Switzerland-Ukraine Round of 16 game, heck, not even this World Cup Final was a pinnacle of entertainment. If there's a problem with the book and how it interrupts the "flow of the game" (the Switzerland-Ukraine game certainly had none), then the book needs to be changed. There's no reason why a foul in the first minute shouldn't be a foul in the 89th- a foul's a foul. Period.

How big are the soccer players? They're not exactly bulked up in equipment like hockey players are, and certainly it can be said that if a player's standing right in front of the 'keeper it wouldn't be allowed, because a goalkeeper isn't a defender. Having said that, a player standing a yard or two out from the net yet "ahead of the line" does not do the same thing- the goalkeeper can still see the ball clearly and besides, on free kicks and corner kicks he's still got a plethora of players to look over top of. Maybe here you'd call offside in the goal area (or an abbreviated one that just stretches from post to post and a few yards out), but the whole penalty area is pushing it.

Freekicks are a good example. Players tend to be further out then the six yard line but the keeper has to find a postion to the side of the wall so he can see what is going on. Poor postioning and/or a clever attacking run can unsight or distract a keeper.Corners have shown keepers getting accidently impeded or beaten becuase the ball was curled in on goal and the keeper waited a bit too long.

Try postioning yourself when the shot might fall to the striker loitering, do you dive for it or do you wait a few more seconds at risk diving too late?

Chelsea against Arsenal a few seasons ago, Seamen was in goal. Freee kivk outwide on the left, crossed in. One Chealsea player made a run towards the cross. ASeamen is unlikly to make it if he comes out for it, if he dives to cover his goal and the striker gets a touch he conceded so he waits. Player gets nothing on it and Seamen is unable to stop the free kick slipping in.

Diving can already cost a team the World Cup Final so I don't see much of a difference; and if you allow FIFA to make a decision after the fact, theoretically you allow the "diving" problem to continue. What is to stop a player from "diving" in the World Cup Final, being assessed a penalty for his team, his team scoring the winning goal because of it and then he gets suspended or fined thereafter? The objective has still been achieved, so it's important that divers get called during the game, not afterwards.

A five game suspenion? Banned for the entire next World Cup/Euro (depending on age). I would agree with Vidieo evidence on something like that but I think a free kick and booking/sending off (only last if blantently a dive) given

Who's fault was it that the Holland-Portugal game was a mess? The referee's or the player's? I also don't think that game was "by the standard anyway"- Luis Figo should have been sent off for that head-butt, and Deco got accosted yet he was the one getting the card

A mixture of both. The ref should have been aware that by booking someone for a late(but fairly meant tackle) was going to encourge diving to try and force more yellows. Figo was missed, Deco was, by the law a red card for dissent and throwing the ball.

I also think that "by the spirit" produces some of the worst games I've ever seen: the England-Portugal quarterfinal, the Switzerland-Ukraine Round of 16 game, heck, not even this World Cup Final was a pinnacle of entertainment.

The final is rarely great, the teams are normally too nervy though this one was quite entertaining.

England and Portugal whjere two defensive teams with medicore attacks. Switzerland against Ukaraine dwas not going to be 4-3 thriller in anybodys mind. How about Germany against Argentina? Mexico against Aregentina? Germany against Costa Rica?

If there's a problem with the book and how it interrupts the "flow of the game" (the Switzerland-Ukraine game certainly had none), then the book needs to be changed. There's no reason why a foul in the first minute shouldn't be a foul in the 89th- a foul's a foul. Period.

The rules can not cover every signle matter, it is up to the refs discretion. Someone commits a late challenge early on, you book him, suddenly people think of ways of drawing another yellow card, players get scared of making a tackle but the cards still fly.

Example: Arsenal against Barca, two of the words finest attacking teams, a mouth watering tie. Neither team suffers from nevers on the day and Arsenal come close twice. Great match so early on but then Eto is sent clear, Lehm,an challenges for the ball, accidently brings down Eto.

Barca score, great news. Arsenal have to push forward, Barca won't sit back. The ref however pulls play back, cancels the goal, sends off Lehman. In one stroke, he upsets everyone. Arsenal are down to ten, Barca had a goal ruled out and the match is near ruined.

Some good stuff is shown but Arsenal mostly sit back, defending. Both sides are frustrated, get involved in some nasty moments as the good feeling evaporates. Even the normnally mild mannered Henry gets so upset that he accuses of bias( hey if you win the ball, Van Bommel kicks you in the leg but the ref books you not Bommel...) and in the end, nobody is sure who the better side is and there is feeling of what might have been

A video ref would sort out most of the problems, I have no idea why so many seem to be against it. Too much diving? video ref would see it in slow motion. penalty or not? video ref. the rules coulr be applied consistently because it would eliminate much deception and human error.

Penalties were given that shouldnt have been, eg italy australia, and denied that should have ben given, eg C ronaldo against france. PArt of this is the ref and part is the players. Perhaps if ronaldo didnt throw himself on the ground screaming like a woman every time someone looked at him the ref might have believed him. you cant cry wolf 50 times and then expect to be believed. the video ref would have caught him for the diving, meaning he would have been sent off after about 5 minutes of every game, or stopped cheating, and it would have also given him his penalty.

Okay, ways to improve soccer...

1. Everyone starts calling it freaking soccer like they should! Football is a sport that men play that includes running, passing, first downs, field goals, etc... soccer should be referred to as such to avoid confusion.

2. America shouldn't have a soccer team I think, I mean, if we can't be competitive in a sport, why bother playing? It just makes us look bad, and as someone previously mentioned, it's not like we're ever going to "get" soccer.

3. Allow rougher play in soccer, similar to Lacrosse, maybe then we would "get" soccer more...

4. Disallow that loser announcer yelling "gooooooooooooooaalllllllllll" in his cheesy accent every 5 minutes, that's annoying as hell.

Some simple suggestions to improve the game of soccer, although I think the greatest way to improve it would be if everyone just quit playing this lame sport and played something interesting instead :p

1. The whole world calls it football except the US! Maybe you should change American Footballs name since your foot rarely touches the ball.

2. Yep, if your no good just give up. Keep doing the world series with 3 other countries.

3. Great idea.

4. Shouting goal every 5 minutes? Whatever "soccer" your watching I want to see it. I think commentators are a load of wank anyway, they should just play music or something.

5. Depends what you mean by interesting

1. The whole world calls it football except the US! Maybe you should change American Footballs name since your foot rarely touches the ball.


being as its not even round I dont think it counts as a ball.

Okay, ways to improve soccer...

1. Everyone starts calling it freaking soccer like they should! Football is a sport that men play that includes running, passing, first downs, field goals, etc... soccer should be referred to as such to avoid confusion.

2. America shouldn't have a soccer team I think, I mean, if we can't be competitive in a sport, why bother playing? It just makes us look bad, and as someone previously mentioned, it's not like we're ever going to "get" soccer.

3. Allow rougher play in soccer, similar to Lacrosse, maybe then we would "get" soccer more...

4. Disallow that loser announcer yelling "gooooooooooooooaalllllllllll" in his cheesy accent every 5 minutes, that's annoying as hell.

Some simple suggestions to improve the game of soccer, although I think the greatest way to improve it would be if everyone just quit playing this lame sport and played something interesting instead :p

1) Football/Soccer first became orgnaised in 1863, is played around the world and has a World Cup that involves more then one or two nations. American Football is more like Rugby, a split off from soccer and has no real connection with foot to ball, America should bow to the masses if a man must be changed

2) It is possible that FA football will grow in America but your team is quite good, it is competive and you shouldn't deny the rights of USA players to play in the biggest competion in the world

3) Ah so crippled players in act of voilance? How about no, let us not go back to the medevil type game

4) I have never had that problem

Why should we give up the most popular sport in the world;)

Who's fault was it that the Holland-Portugal game was a mess? The referee's or the player's? Not the Ref.. he has no video replay to sort thing out.

Not the Ref.. he has no video replay to sort thing out.

Is partly, the players didn't help however. If a teacher reguarly struggles to control the class, the teacher may be the problem. The ref booked someone for a second minute challenge, things went downhill from there

You're an Arsenal fan, aren't you Cuation?

Freekicks are a good example. Players tend to be further out then the six yard line but the keeper has to find a postion to the side of the wall so he can see what is going on. Poor postioning and/or a clever attacking run can unsight or distract a keeper.Corners have shown keepers getting accidently impeded or beaten becuase the ball was curled in on goal and the keeper waited a bit too long.

Try postioning yourself when the shot might fall to the striker loitering, do you dive for it or do you wait a few more seconds at risk diving too late?

Chelsea against Arsenal a few seasons ago, Seamen was in goal. Freee kivk outwide on the left, crossed in. One Chealsea player made a run towards the cross. ASeamen is unlikly to make it if he comes out for it, if he dives to cover his goal and the striker gets a touch he conceded so he waits. Player gets nothing on it and Seamen is unable to stop the free kick slipping in.

Yeah, but on a free kick as it is the goalkeeper is still screened, and with this rule change the goalkeeper- and his defence- would have to be even more alert. Well-placed free kicks can already be chaotic for a defence- this gives the offence more options.

A five game suspenion? Banned for the entire next World Cup/Euro (depending on age). I would agree with Vidieo evidence on something like that but I think a free kick and booking/sending off (only last if blantently a dive) given

Ban for the next World Cup? Maybe for a repeat offender. The other ones might work though.

A mixture of both. The ref should have been aware that by booking someone for a late(but fairly meant tackle) was going to encourge diving to try and force more yellows. Figo was missed, Deco was, by the law a red card for dissent and throwing the ball.

If it's against the rules then it should be called- no questions asked. It's up to the players to know the rules and the referees to apply them evenly- including the inevitable diving penalties.

For the record, I thought the Portugal-Netherlands game was great entertainment- we saw some real animosity on the pitch. I loved every minute of it. :D

The final is rarely great, the teams are normally too nervy though this one was quite entertaining.

England and Portugal whjere two defensive teams with medicore attacks. Switzerland against Ukaraine dwas not going to be 4-3 thriller in anybodys mind. How about Germany against Argentina? Mexico against Aregentina? Germany against Costa Rica?

Germany-Argentina had a great second half, Mexico-Argentina a great opening ten minutes. It's not like a 0-0 game can't be exciting: going back to Arsenal and that second-leg game with Real Madrid earlier in the year, that game finished 0-0 and that was one of the best games I ever saw. FIFA needs more games like that, not the dour ties we saw at this year's World Cup.

(I wish I saw the Germany-Costa Rica game...I was going to set a tape but I didn't get around to it. Oh how I wish I did...)

The rules can not cover every signle matter, it is up to the refs discretion. Someone commits a late challenge early on, you book him, suddenly people think of ways of drawing another yellow card, players get scared of making a tackle but the cards still fly.

Example: Arsenal against Barca, two of the words finest attacking teams, a mouth watering tie. Neither team suffers from nevers on the day and Arsenal come close twice. Great match so early on but then Eto is sent clear, Lehm,an challenges for the ball, accidently brings down Eto.

Barca score, great news. Arsenal have to push forward, Barca won't sit back. The ref however pulls play back, cancels the goal, sends off Lehman. In one stroke, he upsets everyone. Arsenal are down to ten, Barca had a goal ruled out and the match is near ruined.

Some good stuff is shown but Arsenal mostly sit back, defending. Both sides are frustrated, get involved in some nasty moments as the good feeling evaporates. Even the normnally mild mannered Henry gets so upset that he accuses of bias( hey if you win the ball, Van Bommel kicks you in the leg but the ref books you not Bommel...) and in the end, nobody is sure who the better side is and there is feeling of what might have been

Like I said, it's up to the players to know and follow the rules and the referee to enforce them and enforce them evenly- no matter how much time is left in the game. It's utter nonsense that the same kind of offence called in the 85th minute can't be called in the seventh minute because it'd send "a bad precedent", especially considering a non-call can turn a game just as much as a call can.

It's also up to the players and the team to deal with bad breaks- they're a part of the game and the players can't dwell on them. If you really want to quibble about Jens Lehmann, that was a foul- it was late and Eto'o was clearly tripped. Besides, if Ludovic Giuly's goal stood it would have been Barcelona 1, Arsenal 0, with the game going either way. Instead, Lehmann was sent off, Robert Pires came off and Sol Campbell headed in a Thierry Henry free kick in the 37th minute to give 10-man Arsenal the lead, a lead they kept until the 77th minute when Eto'o levelled. Barcelona wins 2-1 on two late, dramatic goals providing some stellar entertainment in the process. Maybe the game would have been different 11-on-11, but the fact still remained that Arsenal could have won that match even with a player down and they didn't- no referee is going to change that.

There's always going to be discretion, don't get me wrong, since there will always be that "borderline infraction" that is inevitably going to have to be a judgement call. However, the rules should make what is and isn't a foul clear and reduce the impact of discretion, if only to provide some consistency to the calls. I think the players, coaches and teams deserve a consistent performance above everything else so they know how to play their own game, because otherwise a "guess" on what the referee might or might not call could come back to haunt them later- and that would be much worse.

Yes.


Yeah, but on a free kick as it is the goalkeeper is still screened, and with this rule change the goalkeeper- and his defence- would have to be even more alert. Well-placed free kicks can already be chaotic for a defence- this gives the offence more options

and he is still liable to be blinded. Besides why help the attack more? Every new rule(not you but Fifa) seems to help the attackers, no hard tackles, balls swerve way to much, offside laws. The defence have to be alert, one wrong call or a mistake can send a striker clear.

A well place free kick/corner/pass will always be a problem for a defence, as it should be. Strikers should be protected from injury threatning tackles but the defence should have rights as well.


If it's against the rules then it should be called- no questions asked. It's up to the players to know the rules and the referees to apply them evenly- including the inevitable diving penalties.

Fifa and the refs accoisation expect red cards for things like a blatent assualt on a player but also for the ref to allow the game to flow, not to allow it to turn into a riot fest. If that means not booking someoneone in the first second for an accidently late challenge, so be it in thier eyes

As I said, the Holland vs Portugal game, what happend to the ref? He was sent home in disgrace. He allowed to game to go out of his control by being too harsh. Remember the Qin dynasty? A legalist thing, there strict polcies cuased them problems whereas the Han's more merciful ways at the start gained them years of getting away with corruption.

Germany-Argentina had a great second half, Mexico-Argentina a great opening ten minutes. It's not like a 0-0 game can't be exciting: going back to Arsenal and that second-leg game with Real Madrid earlier in the year, that game finished 0-0 and that was one of the best games I ever saw. FIFA needs more games like that, not the dour ties we saw at this year's World Cup.

I enjoyed them personally though the Mexico game did slow down quite a bit as they grew tired. Guess it is just personal view but yeah, that Real Madrid game was fun. Should have settled the game and taken our chances

Like I said, it's up to the players to know and follow the rules and the referee to enforce them and enforce them evenly- no matter how much time is left in the game. It's utter nonsense that the same kind of offence called in the 85th minute can't be called in the seventh minute because it'd send "a bad precedent", especially considering a non-call can turn a game just as much as a call can.

If a player punches someone in the first minute, red card no matter what the time. If a player does a marginal bookable offence in the first minute, refs are allowed to use their discreation and be leniant if it was an accident. The players do know the rules, they should obey it but if you mistime a tackle and get booked in the first few seconds, it can be annoying

Of course sometimes the refs are just rubbish but lets not go into that;)

If you really want to quibble about Jens Lehmann, that was a foul- it was late and Eto'o was clearly tripped. Besides, if Ludovic Giuly's goal stood it would have been Barcelona 1, Arsenal 0, with the game going either way

See, another pro attacker rule. Lehmman probably should not have come that far but he goes for the ball, is a second or so late, straight red card. Keepers can not make mistakes as it is but the refs have the power to just rub it in.As it is, the ref could have played advantage, I think Barca would have prefered the lead and not play against a team with ten men behind the ball

Then again, I would have sent off Eboue for his challenge, we could have probably coped with that

Barcelona wins 2-1 on two late, dramatic goals providing some stellar entertainment in the process. Maybe the game would have been different 11-on-11, but the fact still remained that Arsenal could have won that match even with a player down and they didn't- no referee is going to change that.

Problem is Arsenal defended and when the chances came, where so exhuasted then Henry couldn't convert. Then Larson just picks apart a defence with no legs left. The sending off so early in at such a key postion against a passing team like Barca was exhuasting for the players

There's always going to be discretion, don't get me wrong, since there will always be that "borderline infraction" that is inevitably going to have to be a judgement call. However, the rules should make what is and isn't a foul clear and reduce the impact of discretion, if only to provide some consistency to the calls. I think the players, coaches and teams deserve a consistent performance above everything else so they know how to play their own game, because otherwise a "guess" on what the referee might or might not call could come back to haunt them later- and that would be much worse.

I would prefer common sense and consitancy in the refs knowing the rules

Have the penalty shoot-out [b]before[/i] the kick-off. That way whoever loses the shoot-out will be forced to play more positively during the rest of the game.

wait, I have an idea:

ban italy from the world cup.

Great idea :p

game last 20 min tops
and draws allowed
:headbang:

I'm not much of a football fan (along with most Americans). I think one complaint a lot of people have about the sport is there isn't enough scoring. Most of the WC games I watched consisted of the two teams kicking the ball back and forth and then they had to settle the winner with penalty kicks.

I was thinking maybe if they made football fields slightly smaller, there would be more scoring. I think if the amount of scoring was brought in line with the amount in hockey, it would be more exciting.

I'm not much of a football fan (along with most Americans). I think one complaint a lot of people have about the sport is there isn't enough scoring. Most of the WC games I watched consisted of the two teams kicking the ball back and forth and then they had to settle the winner with penalty kicks.

I was thinking maybe if they made football fields slightly smaller, there would be more scoring. I think if the amount of scoring was brought in line with the amount in hockey, it would be more exciting.

Well, the thing that makes hockey exciting is the speed. The puck moves a lot faster than a ball.

That, and hockey has a lot more fighting.

Maybe if we give each player a small club for beating on opponents who get too close...

I'm not much of a football fan (along with most Americans). I think one complaint a lot of people have about the sport is there isn't enough scoring. Most of the WC games I watched consisted of the two teams kicking the ball back and forth and then they had to settle the winner with penalty kicks.

I was thinking maybe if they made football fields slightly smaller, there would be more scoring. I think if the amount of scoring was brought in line with the amount in hockey, it would be more exciting.
watching a great defense is as good as watching a great attack, my freind.

Nothing whatsoever. I outrightly refuse to alter the beautiful game to accomodate the infantile expectations of the American audiance.

Beyond allowing more genuine fighting on the pitch, in the manner of Zidane, and the use of video replays in selective circumstances, the game is entirely acceptable.

watching a great defense is as good as watching a great attack, my freind.

Apparently not for everyone. I mean think about it, if the field was slightly smaller, the defense would be under even more pressure. It'd be more exciting. What I want to avoid is having the 0-0 games settled with penalty kicks.

Nothing whatsoever. I outrightly refuse to alter the beautiful game to accomodate the infantile expectations of the American audiance.

The original poster is Canadian, just so you know.

Apparently not for everyone. I mean think about it, if the field was slightly smaller, the defense would be under even more pressure.

However, I put to you the following; why is football obliged to present more goals to you? Oddly, the allure of the game is not solely justified by goals.

However, I put to you the following; why is football obliged to present more goals to you? Oddly, the allure of the game is not solely justified by goals.

It's just a question of preference, that's all. Some people think the game would be more fun to watch if there were a few more goals. It's not like we want to eliminate the fun of watching defense completely. The right amount of goals for football would probably be about the same as in hockey. You know, less than ten, but more than 1-3.

It's just a question of preference, that's all. Some people think the game would be more fun to watch if there were a few more goals. It's not like we want to eliminate the fun of watching defense completely. The right amount of goals for football would probably be about the same as in hockey. You know, less than ten, but more than 1-3.

No. Do enlighten me. Incidentally, a larger pitch would irrefutbaly lead to more goals.

The simple fact is that any fundamental alterations to football would be motivated through an aspiration to render the game more accessible to North America, despite the zealotry of football fans in Europe.

This amy already have been said and if it has then it needs saying again.

All football needs is for someone to shoot Sebb Blatter in the head, several times just to make sure. Then we remove every rule change he ever brought in and take to game back to how it should be, simple isn't it.

The simple fact is that any fundamental alterations to football would be motivated through an aspiration to render the game more accessible to North America, despite the zealotry of football fans in Europe.

Zealots indeed. I was just suggesting possible changes to make it more fun for everyone. I figure it's worth a shot. Why must there be a political spin on everything?

Zealots indeed. I was just suggesting possible changes to make it more fun for everyone. I figure it's worth a shot. Why must there be a political spin on everything?

Oddly, the game appears to be fun, indeed the pre-eminent sporting fun, for all but one of the continents. Hence, why detratct from the enjoyment of the majority for the minority.

Oddly, the game appears to be fun, indeed the pre-eminent sporting fun, for all but one of the continents. Hence, why detratct from the enjoyment of the majority for the minority.

I was thinking perhaps the majority would like the changes too. Don't think that I'm saying this only on behalf of Americans. (Only reason I mentioned that I'm not much of a football fan along with most Americans is to admit that I don't follow the sport too much)

I was thinking perhaps the majority would like the changes too. Don't think that I'm saying this only on behalf of Americans. (Only reason I mentioned that I'm not much of a football fan along with most Americans is to admit that I don't follow the sport too much)

We don't. The games endemic to each Europena country are fundamentally different anyway. Watch La Liga if you want high scoring.

Well, the thing that makes hockey exciting is the speed. The puck moves a lot faster than a ball.

That, and hockey has a lot more fighting.

Maybe if we give each player a small club for beating on opponents who get too close...

You are almost describing Hurling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurling)!

No, the field needs to be described with UV-reactive markers, the uniforms and ball should also be flourescent - and games should be played at night, with Ultraviolet flood lights illuminating everything.

Soccer ought to look trippier.

Far out man.
:eek: that would be so awesome! :p

The only thing that would make soccer popular in the USA is to find some way of stopping the game for thirty to forty seconds every five minutes to allow for TV advertising.

The game is fine the way it is. If you are only concerned with scoring, go watch basketball, if you want more violence go watch hockey, if you want hype then try American football. If you want a high paced, skillful game, where there is equal emphasis on technical skill and tactical awareness, then watch soccer.

If you don't like it, ignore it, but don't try to insist that it has to be changed to suit your personal preferences.

If you don't like it, ignore it, but don't try to insist that it has to be changed to suit your personal preferences.
And isn't personal preference your reason for wanting to keep the game the way it is? Nothing wrong with that.

And isn't personal preference your reason for wanting to keep the game the way it is? Nothing wrong with that.

No. I, personally, would make some minor changes if it were in my power, but the game is not there to suit my every whim. The game has evolved into it's current form over a few centuries. To come along and change things willy-nilly just to try to make it more appealing to you personally is to risk destroying the balance and nature of the game altogether, for no great reason. There are enough sports around for you to find one that suits you, without you having to want changes made to one that doesn't suit you.

No. I, personally, would make some minor changes if it were in my power, but the game is not there to suit my every whim. The game has evolved into it's current form over a few centuries. To come along and change things willy-nilly just to try to make it more appealing to you personally is to risk destroying the balance and nature of the game altogether, for no great reason. There are enough sports around for you to find one that suits you, without you having to want changes made to one that doesn't suit you.

Fair enough. I'm not demanding that they change the game. I just thought it might be a nice improvement that's worth a try. I still watched a few of the games anyway.

Have the penalty shoot-out [b]before[/i] the kick-off. That way whoever loses the shoot-out will be forced to play more positively during the rest of the game.

and truama the players before the game starts? Nice

I'm not much of a football fan (along with most Americans). I think one complaint a lot of people have about the sport is there isn't enough scoring. Most of the WC games I watched consisted of the two teams kicking the ball back and forth and then they had to settle the winner with penalty kicks.

I was thinking maybe if they made football fields slightly smaller, there would be more scoring. I think if the amount of scoring was brought in line with the amount in hockey, it would be more exciting.

Highbury had an illegally small pitch. In the 80's and early 90's, Arsenal had a repuation for long ball, strong defence and being so very very boring. A small pitch presses the players togther and doesn't give the attacking players the space they want.

Yes.

My history professor is an Arsenal fan. Me? I was rooting against you in the Champion's League Final, I have to admit- that, and I like Chelsea :p.

and he is still liable to be blinded. Besides why help the attack more? Every new rule(not you but Fifa) seems to help the attackers, no hard tackles, balls swerve way to much, offside laws. The defence have to be alert, one wrong call or a mistake can send a striker clear.

A well place free kick/corner/pass will always be a problem for a defence, as it should be. Strikers should be protected from injury threatning tackles but the defence should have rights as well.

Either way the goalie's being screened so I don't see the difference. Besides, obstruction can go against the offence too- they have to make sure the defenders can do their job. Plus, if the game has a lot of "pro-attacker" rules, why is scoring down in this year's World Cup?

Fifa and the refs accoisation expect red cards for things like a blatent assualt on a player but also for the ref to allow the game to flow, not to allow it to turn into a riot fest. If that means not booking someoneone in the first second for an accidently late challenge, so be it in thier eyes.

Maybe an "accidentally late challenge" shouldn't be against the rules or a bookable offence. I'll agree that the rules should encourage the game to flow, but I don't agree that a game should flow due to the rules being flouted.

As I said, the Holland vs Portugal game, what happend to the ref? He was sent home in disgrace. He allowed to game to go out of his control by being too harsh. Remember the Qin dynasty? A legalist thing, there strict polcies cuased them problems whereas the Han's more merciful ways at the start gained them years of getting away with corruption.

Well, the "merciful referee" in the Switzerland-Ukraine contest produced one of the most boring games I've ever seen. It was that game that made me think that FIFA don't seem to have any standards at all, and that's troublesome.

I enjoyed them personally though the Mexico game did slow down quite a bit as they grew tired. Guess it is just personal view but yeah, that Real Madrid game was fun. Should have settled the game and taken our chances.

I suppose it is- I enjoyed this year's club football more than the World Cup because it was more open. Don't get me wrong- I don't want to see a 16-15 game, but I do think teams should be encouraged to press a little more.

If a player punches someone in the first minute, red card no matter what the time. If a player does a marginal bookable offence in the first minute, refs are allowed to use their discreation and be leniant if it was an accident. The players do know the rules, they should obey it but if you mistime a tackle and get booked in the first few seconds, it can be annoying

Of course sometimes the refs are just rubbish but lets not go into that;)

Like I said- the rules should address that. I still think the quality of refereeing would be improved if the referees were given clearer directions, but that's a FIFA issue and not a rulebook issue. The point of my standards argument is that in this year's edition of the World Cup we seemed to get varying degrees of interpretations and that was unsettling.

I'm curious what you think of the idea of having a basketball-inspired "set amount of fouls" for a player to commit before he gets an automatic card. That *may* diffuse some of the yellow card controversy.

See, another pro attacker rule. Lehmman probably should not have come that far but he goes for the ball, is a second or so late, straight red card. Keepers can not make mistakes as it is but the refs have the power to just rub it in.As it is, the ref could have played advantage, I think Barca would have prefered the lead and not play against a team with ten men behind the ball

Then again, I would have sent off Eboue for his challenge, we could have probably coped with that.

I'm afraid I didn't see Emmanuel Eboue's challenge- I saw the Champions' League Final from the 60th minute onwards, the rest of the game I caught from the highlights- so I can't weigh in on that (unless I just forgot it). Maybe Jens Lehmann should have been cautioned (like what the referee said he would have done), but I still think it was an obvious foul.

Problem is Arsenal defended and when the chances came, where so exhuasted then Henry couldn't convert. Then Larson just picks apart a defence with no legs left. The sending off so early in at such a key postion against a passing team like Barca was exhuasting for the players

I would prefer common sense and consitancy in the refs knowing the rules

Arsenal still had the lead, so this was still their game to lose. I think that Arsene Wenger could have done better, at least in regards to his substitutions- maybe in bringing on Dennis Bergkamp or Robin van Persie- and, besides, it's anyone's guess how the final score would have looked if it remained 11-on-11 (Barcelona might have even doubled or tripled their lead). Still, I don't believe the referee lost the game for Arsenal (though just may be my bias), because they needed to deal with what they're dealt and they didn't.

The only thing that would make soccer popular in the USA is to find some way of stopping the game for thirty to forty seconds every five minutes to allow for TV advertising.

I disagree. The only way to make soccer popular in the U.S. is if the best American players stayed where they were (DaMarcus Beasley plays in the Netherlands, Kasey Keller plays in Germany, Brian McBride plays in England, Claudio Reyna had a stint with Rangers and now also plays in England, etc.) and if the American clubs could actually mount some sort of a challenge to the European clubs- that, and if the U.S. actually won the World Cup it may spike interest in the game (it did for hockey). As it stands, the MLS is nothing more than a rec league in terms of quality against the top European leagues and, furthermore, the best and most recognizable soccer players only show up on the Americans' TV sets every four years, for the World Cup. Nobody is going to watch what amounts to a garage league featuring has-beens and nobodies, at least not in the U.S. where they demand the best.

I've thought to myself if an American team built a team that could- and does- challenge the top European clubs people might start paying attention, because, "hey, we've got a winner here". Next-best would be if an American team could actually attract a superstar player in his prime to actually come play for them (there's talks Ronaldo might do it), because it'd allow people to actually see them play and might inspire people to take up the game in the footsteps of their new idol. Soccer in the U.S. is in a black hole because the best players don't get any exposure, and while the MLS is a good start, it clearly has to become a better league for anyone to take it seriously. Up here in Toronto we're getting a team but I'm skeptical that it will work- the people in Toronto who watch soccer watch their favourite teams and players from back home, and unless "Toronto FC" (what a name :rolleyes:) can attract a well-known player they won't succeed. It's not enough for someone to place a team in Toronto and expect them to follow them- they've got to give them something- or, in this case- someone- to follow. Winning the MLS won't be enough, because that doesn't mean much in the grand scale of world soccer. I'm willing to give the MLS several years to sort itself out- by 2010 they say they should be able to turn a profit- but for now, I'm still skeptical.

My history professor is an Arsenal fan. Me? I was rooting against you in the Champion's League Final, I have to admit- that, and I like Chelsea

Fair enough, we all have strange tastes in some ways:p

Either way the goalie's being screened so I don't see the difference. Besides, obstruction can go against the offence too- they have to make sure the defenders can do their job. Plus, if the game has a lot of "pro-attacker" rules, why is scoring down in this year's World Cup?

What rule change in the last ten years has gone to the benfit of the defending part of the game? The only new innovation is better goalkeeper gloves. Mind you obstruction tends to go the defences way more then it does the attacker...

Scoring? The games had been closly matched, the one man striker thing that hasn't been used properly, wasted chances, how well so many of the goalies performed in this World Cup. Pualetta, Ronlidinho and others didn't hit form either

Maybe an "accidentally late challenge" shouldn't be against the rules or a bookable offence. I'll agree that the rules should encourage the game to flow, but I don't agree that a game should flow due to the rules being flouted.

The advantage rule should be used more often I think sometimes

Well, the "merciful referee" in the Switzerland-Ukraine contest produced one of the most boring games I've ever seen. It was that game that made me think that FIFA don't seem to have any standards at all, and that's troublesome.

Again we are talking of team "Strong defence, not much else, playing for penalities" vs "Strong defence and Svenchko". The only thing that would liven up that contest is if the ref was being a complete git

I suppose it is- I enjoyed this year's club football more than the World Cup because it was more open. Don't get me wrong- I don't want to see a 16-15 game, but I do think teams should be encouraged to press a little more.


Mind you we got less "kick the the team and play a 10-0-0 formation" in the World Cup

Like I said- the rules should address that. I still think the quality of refereeing would be improved if the referees were given clearer directions, but that's a FIFA issue and not a rulebook issue. The point of my standards argument is that in this year's edition of the World Cup we seemed to get varying degrees of interpretations and that was unsettling.


Problem is, refs are humans and you get three basic types who interpret the rules in there own way.

The Useless: The plain useleas ones, the "I'm more important then the players, look at me TV" like Mr Poll and the biased like Mike Riley who allow Man United to commit GBH and then give Man U a penalty.

Not that I'm bitter or anything;) hard to tell what they are going to do

The stickler: Will stick to the letter not the spirit, will be harder on players then others might be. More liable to stop early free kicks, has their value. They tend to get things right but be a little frustrating and unpopular.

Problem is when they go from being a stickler to pulling up the gam every five seconds, cuasing the players to get frustrated and the players boil over, booking people for challenges that are just fouls and not worthy a booking can also happen. Little sad if the Barnet keeper is sent off in the early stages of an FA Cup tie against Man U for hand ball outside the area when the guy had just lost his bearings and didn't prevent a goal.


Leniant: Great for games where you don't want things exploding but fear they might. Looks to play the advantage, prefers to warn players if they are fouling too many times before booking, tends not to be noticed

Problem: Can duck out of the big calls, be too leniant, reluctent to isse red cards sometimes

I'm curious what you think of the idea of having a basketball-inspired "set amount of fouls" for a player to commit before he gets an automatic card. That *may* diffuse some of the yellow card controversy.

Has some value but there "too many fouls" is already a bookable offence. Some refs don't use it and could be really be used more. One game I saw, a certain then PSV player( Van Bomel) commited about twenty fouls before he got booked. I don't mean little fouls like accidently impeding someone, I mean foul fouls

I'm afraid I didn't see Emmanuel Eboue's challenge- I saw the Champions' League Final from the 60th minute onwards, the rest of the game I caught from the highlights- so I can't weigh in on that (unless I just forgot it). Maybe Jens Lehmann should have been cautioned (like what the referee said he would have done), but I still think it was an obvious foul.

A blatnent high kick to someones thigh.

Foul yes, he cuaght the player and denied him a shot on goal, advantage should have been played though.

Arsenal still had the lead, so this was still their game to lose. I think that Arsene Wenger could have done better, at least in regards to his substitutions- maybe in bringing on Dennis Bergkamp or Robin van Persie- and, besides, it's anyone's guess how the final score would have looked if it remained 11-on-11 (Barcelona might have even doubled or tripled their lead). Still, I don't believe the referee lost the game for Arsenal (though just may be my bias), because they needed to deal with what they're dealt and they didn't.

Van Persie and maybe a fresh defender at some point. If Barca had won by three goals in elven against elven, no complaints, we would simply have not been good enough.

Againt the likes of Charlton, the red card wouldn't be so much of a problem or if it had been later on in the game. So early and against Barca, it is a very big handicap

I agree with you on the USA league and I hear Beckham is thinking of joining it one day

The #1 and easiest and most obvious change? Fix the DAMN game clock. Americans figured out long ago that game clock = drama. I find it frankly stunning that referees keep the game time A SECRET!!! Is the game over now? ok...NOW? umm soon? I mean for christs sake. We had the technology to transmit game time from a watch to a scoreboard 50 yards away in 1950!!!! I mean are you kidding me?

Video instant replay of questionable referee calls.

Video instant replay of questionable referee calls.
That should go for ALL sports. Makes sense doesn't it? Why not find out the truth from the videos? But somehow, especially in American baseball, getting in the umpire's face after a bad call has become part of the game. Way to encourage insubordination, heh.

I think that soccer would also be greatly improved if the uniforms consisted of colored headbands and shoes, and no other clothing.

Play naked!

Video instant replay of questionable referee calls.

Not picking on you because it is a comment that many are making......

No.

Every stoppage is questionable to someone, so there would be endless stops and starts. Next thing you know the match takes over 3 hours and they start putting in halftime shows, constant ad-breaks, cheerleaders for the crowd to look at while the officials all wander off to look at the vid and all the rest of that crap.

You'll have 6 refs running around in the middle tossing their hankies every 30 seconds in an attempt to prevent replays.

Sounding familiar yet?

The trick is to make some subtle changes while keeping the game's character.

Maybe its the quality of the refs, but who would want that job in the first place. We just need better decisions in the first place. And remember that for all the ones they get right, its the few that are wrong that get leapt on.

Okay, ways to improve soccer...

1. Everyone starts calling it freaking soccer like they should! Football is a sport that men play that includes running, passing, first downs, field goals, etc... soccer should be referred to as such to avoid confusion.

2. America shouldn't have a soccer team I think, I mean, if we can't be competitive in a sport, why bother playing? It just makes us look bad, and as someone previously mentioned, it's not like we're ever going to "get" soccer.

3. Allow rougher play in soccer, similar to Lacrosse, maybe then we would "get" soccer more...

4. Disallow that loser announcer yelling "gooooooooooooooaalllllllllll" in his cheesy accent every 5 minutes, that's annoying as hell.

Some simple suggestions to improve the game of soccer, although I think the greatest way to improve it would be if everyone just quit playing this lame sport and played something interesting instead :p

This is flamebait, right? Oh sod it.

1) One minor country (with an overinflated ranking) with 150 million people in it calls it soccer. The other 6 million call it football. In the game which you call football, only two guys are allowed to kick the ball. They come on for 5 seconds, kick it and piss off again. (In fact, you have at least 4 guys on each side who are not allowed to touch it unless someone else drops it.)

And if "men" play football, I'll assume you're talking about rugby football, where they wear a shirt and shorts without a kevlar costume.

2) Agreed. Stick to other sports, where you can play your "world" series with a couple of other countries.

3) Go watch lacrosse instead. Better still, go get some of your friends together and batter each other to death if that's what you really want to see. Its got naff all to do with footy either way.

4) I assume this is some ESPN commentator? Figures.

I feel better now. </flame>

What rule change in the last ten years has gone to the benfit of the defending part of the game? The only new innovation is better goalkeeper gloves. Mind you obstruction tends to go the defences way more then it does the attacker...

Scoring? The games had been closly matched, the one man striker thing that hasn't been used properly, wasted chances, how well so many of the goalies performed in this World Cup. Pualetta, Ronlidinho and others didn't hit form either

Don't really know; though I will agree with you on the obstruction part- I saw way too many fouls committed by an attacker than by a defender at this year's World Cup and I knew something was up with that. Seems like they'll let the defenders play but not the attackers.

I was inspired with the standards thing by what the National Hockey League did in 2005-06: they decided to call the game by the book, no questions asked, and saw offences rocket skyward. The game is a lot more exciting without getting silly and has produced some of the best games I've ever seen. Mind you, the "product" of the NHL has been a lot worse of a condition prior to 2005-06 than this year's World Cup, but I think it may be something FIFA could learn from. I don't think the game's at the stage where we can safely say there's a delicate balance between offence and defence, but then again, the clubs do put on quite a show- the national teams don't.

Again we are talking of team "Strong defence, not much else, playing for penalities" vs "Strong defence and Svenchko". The only thing that would liven up that contest is if the ref was being a complete git

...and maybe the Swiss not taking out Alexander Frei. Maybe. I do remember seeing a few fouls that went uncalled, still.

Problem is, refs are humans and you get three basic types who interpret the rules in there own way.

The Useless: The plain useleas ones, the "I'm more important then the players, look at me TV" like Mr Poll and the biased like Mike Riley who allow Man United to commit GBH and then give Man U a penalty.

Not that I'm bitter or anything;) hard to tell what they are going to do

The stickler: Will stick to the letter not the spirit, will be harder on players then others might be. More liable to stop early free kicks, has their value. They tend to get things right but be a little frustrating and unpopular.

Problem is when they go from being a stickler to pulling up the gam every five seconds, cuasing the players to get frustrated and the players boil over, booking people for challenges that are just fouls and not worthy a booking can also happen. Little sad if the Barnet keeper is sent off in the early stages of an FA Cup tie against Man U for hand ball outside the area when the guy had just lost his bearings and didn't prevent a goal.


Leniant: Great for games where you don't want things exploding but fear they might. Looks to play the advantage, prefers to warn players if they are fouling too many times before booking, tends not to be noticed

Problem: Can duck out of the big calls, be too leniant, reluctent to isse red cards sometimes.

I have a feeling the "useless" referee was the one that refereed the 2-0 loss to Manchester United that snapped Arsenal's stunning unbeaten streak. My professor complained about that game- a bad penalty call, apparently- but I didn't see it.

Regardless, I think the goal of the rulebook is to get the best out of the game and try to keep refereeing errors out as much as possible- then again, there's no way to make it perfect. Still, I think you can agree that this year's World Cup has had varying degrees of standards and that certainly needs to be addressed.

Has some value but there "too many fouls" is already a bookable offence. Some refs don't use it and could be really be used more. One game I saw, a certain then PSV player( Van Bomel) commited about twenty fouls before he got booked. I don't mean little fouls like accidently impeding someone, I mean foul fouls.

At least if it's written in the rules- like, say, six as is the case in basketball- players can know where they stand in the game. We'd probably still get problems concerning "was that a foul or not a foul", but at least players and coaches might be able to "see" a card coming.

A blatnent high kick to someones thigh.

Foul yes, he cuaght the player and denied him a shot on goal, advantage should have been played though.

Didn't he dive and draw the free kick that lead to Sol Campbell's goal? So says the report on Wikipedia.

Van Persie and maybe a fresh defender at some point. If Barca had won by three goals in elven against elven, no complaints, we would simply have not been good enough.

Againt the likes of Charlton, the red card wouldn't be so much of a problem or if it had been later on in the game. So early and against Barca, it is a very big handicap.

Still, it's something Arsenal had to deal with and the fact is they didn't. Dealing with adversity is the key to success, and Arsenal frankly didn't do that against Barcelona and lost.

I agree with you on the USA league and I hear Beckham is thinking of joining it one day

David Beckham says he'd do it when he's close to retirement- probably in three or four years (he's 31 now)- so it would add to the image of the league as a "retirement league" (Histro Stoichkov and Lothar Mattheaus finished their careers in the MLS and Youri Djorkaeff is doing the same at New York when he's not watching Team France games)- but Ronaldo is considering doing it now, at 29 (and still looking chubby, I have to say). He's nearing retirement but still at world-class form, and an in-form Ronaldo would be a big boost for the MLS (and Barcelona, I have to say :p). I think it's only obvious when dealing with the North American viewing public- we want to see the best, and only the best. Nobody here cares about Roy Lassiter or Tony Menezes- we want to see Luis Figo, Michael Owen, Fabio Cannavaro, Michael Ballack, etc. Heck, I'm sure we'd settle just for DaMarcus Beasley, Carlos Bocanegra, Jason DeVos, Paul Peschisolido and Kasey Keller to come back, although I doubt they would with the quality of competition present here. I doubt North Americans would want to watch a sport that they think they're not good at, and certainly as it stands in soccer neither the U.S. or Canada have produced a world-class side (though that might change in the future in Canada since soccer has become our most played sport among youth). I'm waiting for the MLS to break even in 2010 before I pass judgement, but time is running out.

You know, in my video game I have a team based in Buffalo, N.Y. boasting the likes of Roberto Carlos, Bocanegra, Beasley, Owen, Pavel Nedved, Frank de Boer and Marc Overmars (I'm still using FIFA 2001 with Fed since the newer games are harder to play). That would be fun to watch. *sigh* I can dream at least.

Maybe it would be better if we put up boards so the ball didn’t keep rolling out of play all of the time.

Since we have boards it might be a good idea to allow bodychecking to spice the game up.

They move a bit slow out there. How about we flood the field with water, freeze it, and put football players on skates. Now we’ve got some real speed.

It’s a bit hard for the ball to move around on this ice. How about we replace it with something harder and smaller, say a disc like object.

It’s a bit hard kicking this disk around on the ice. How about we give football players a crooked stick so that they can reach the disc, and shoot and pass it around.

And those nets. No the big nets stay. Looks great to me.

keep everything the same but replace all the human players with robotic alien plushie creatures. packing the ball with timed pyrotecnics might also make it more colorful. (can you tell, i'm not a great enthusiast of athletic or any other kind of competition?)

=^^=
.../\...

Don't really know; though I will agree with you on the obstruction part- I saw way too many fouls committed by an attacker than by a defender at this year's World Cup and I knew something was up with that. Seems like they'll let the defenders play but not the attackers.

Maybe attackers are asked to tackle too much or dives? One thing I do enjoy seeing are good, hard but honest, tackles but you don't really see that any more.


I was inspired with the standards thing by what the National Hockey League did in 2005-06: they decided to call the game by the book, no questions asked, and saw offences rocket skyward. The game is a lot more exciting without getting silly and has produced some of the best games I've ever seen. Mind you, the "product" of the NHL has been a lot worse of a condition prior to 2005-06 than this year's World Cup, but I think it may be something FIFA could learn from. I don't think the game's at the stage where we can safely say there's a delicate balance between offence and defence, but then again, the clubs do put on quite a show- the national teams don't.

some teams go into big matches with 10-0-0, you don't get that at Nations level. I would be intrested to see if that works in football but I worry it would lead to too many stop start games

...and maybe the Swiss not taking out Alexander Frei. Maybe. I do remember seeing a few fouls that went uncalled, still

somehow Idoubt those uncalled fouls would change the game, even if gave three penalitles each and so many red cards

I have a feeling the "useless" referee was the one that refereed the 2-0 loss to Manchester United that snapped Arsenal's stunning unbeaten streak. My professor complained about that game- a bad penalty call, apparently- but I didn't see it.

The penalty call along was a little contravsoial but understanble by it self. Given that Man United had got away with blatent attempts at GBH before hand...

Regardless, I think the goal of the rulebook is to get the best out of the game and try to keep refereeing errors out as much as possible- then again, there's no way to make it perfect. Still, I think you can agree that this year's World Cup has had varying degrees of standards and that certainly needs to be addressed.

Ithink the best idea would be for the FA's to nominate officals and FiFA to pick and choose. Having just one ref from each country, is in my view, a mistake. If a county has a lot of good refs, use them.

At least if it's written in the rules- like, say, six as is the case in basketball- players can know where they stand in the game. We'd probably still get problems concerning "was that a foul or not a foul", but at least players and coaches might be able to "see" a card coming.

How man fouls would have to be thought of carefully as certain types of players(think Hargreves against Portugal) are not dirty but overager sometimes

Didn't he dive and draw the free kick that lead to Sol Campbell's goal? So says the report on Wikipedia.

Eboue did dive(the ref had a poor game overall) but the hack was before then

Still, it's something Arsenal had to deal with and the fact is they didn't. Dealing with adversity is the key to success, and Arsenal frankly didn't do that against Barcelona and lost.

Ten men for 70-80 minutes with a medciore keeper, we hang on against teams in the world, we even score. Our best striekr is booked for winning the ball, Van Bommel has the ref so in his pocket, two of our defenders where struggling for match fitness

We can cope with adverstity, we have a good record with ten men, our defensive injuries this season stopped being funny after about the 100th injury. We played against Real and Juve with our eight choice left back, eight choice!

Maybe attackers are asked to tackle too much or dives? One thing I do enjoy seeing are good, hard but honest, tackles but you don't really see that any more.

Instead, we get players feiging injury :rolleyes: You know, it may be good sportsmanship to play the ball out when the other team has an injured player, but one day I'd like to see a team just *not* do that and score while they're up a man. Might teach players to wise up.

That, and maybe a mandatory substitution out (with the team playing a man down) for 15 game-time minutes for any injury.

I would be intrested to see if that works in football but I worry it would lead to too many stop start games.

It depends on where everyone thinks football is at the moment. The NHL was in crisis in terms of quality, so it had to do something- and having a lot of stoppages was worth cleaning up the game, believe me. Football might benefit from that, but I think we have to agree on a set of standards first.

somehow I doubt those uncalled fouls would change the game, even if gave three penalitles each and so many red cards

Maybe, but maybe we would have gotten another two or three genuine scoring chances, though you're right in saying both teams were just playing "not to lose" and thus couldn't be expected to dazzle.

I think the best idea would be for the FA's to nominate officals and FiFA to pick and choose. Having just one ref from each country, is in my view, a mistake. If a county has a lot of good refs, use them.

Agreed. I mean, I'm sure England had better referees than Graham "I forgot he had a second yellow" Poll.

How man fouls would have to be thought of carefully as certain types of players (think Hargreves against Portugal) are not dirty but overager sometimes

Players still have to learn how to control themselves, and if they commit a foul because they're overeager, so be it. Owen Hargreaves- Canadian, by the way- is what, 23? He's still learning the ropes.

Eboue did dive(the ref had a poor game overall) but the hack was before then

Ten men for 70-80 minutes with a medciore keeper, we hang on against teams in the world, we even score. Our best striekr is booked for winning the ball, Van Bommel has the ref so in his pocket, two of our defenders where struggling for match fitness

We can cope with adverstity, we have a good record with ten men, our defensive injuries this season stopped being funny after about the 100th injury. We played against Real and Juve with our eight choice left back, eight choice!

Hey, you guys made an impressive run to the Final- I won't deny that. Holding out against Real Madrid and Juventus was superb. I'm just saying that the Final really was yours for the taking and you didn't do it. Meh, I won't rain on your parade any longer.

Who is the eighth choice left back on Arsenal? If he played against Barcelona, he was great- the Arsenal defence was outstanding (Eboue, Toure, Fabregas, Hleb- I know the other two are midfielders but they were still great).

Instead, we get players feiging injury You know, it may be good sportsmanship to play the ball out when the other team has an injured player, but one day I'd like to see a team just *not* do that and score while they're up a man. Might teach players to wise up.

That, and maybe a mandatory substitution out (with the team playing a man down) for 15 game-time minutes for any injury.

So Henry would miss the first 15 of the final becuase he got concussed. Seamen is 2002 World Cup game against Brazil would miss 15 becuase he had a back injury?

One reason I support Arsenal was that they replayed an FA Cup game becuase they scored the winner from one of the injury throw ins. I was gutted when Spurs finally took the lead becuase Eboue and Gilberto where both down injured.

Players may go down injured a bit too easily(maybe it is the boots) but sporting behavoiur like booting the ball out should be kept.

It depends on where everyone thinks football is at the moment. The NHL was in crisis in terms of quality, so it had to do something- and having a lot of stoppages was worth cleaning up the game, believe me. Football might benefit from that, but I think we have to agree on a set of standards first.

I think managers need to be reminded that 5-4-1 attempts to stifle a game are not a rule, they can encourge good football

Maybe, but maybe we would have gotten another two or three genuine scoring chances, though you're right in saying both teams were just playing "not to lose" and thus couldn't be expected to dazzle.

Possible

Players still have to learn how to control themselves, and if they commit a foul because they're overeager, so be it. Owen Hargreaves- Canadian, by the way- is what, 23? He's still learning the ropes.

Once he was told to calm down, he did improve on the not fouling front. Hargreves is also German, Welsh and English.

Hey, you guys made an impressive run to the Final- I won't deny that. Holding out against Real Madrid and Juventus was superb. I'm just saying that the Final really was yours for the taking and you didn't do it. Meh, I won't rain on your parade any longer.

Who is the eighth choice left back on Arsenal? If he played against Barcelona, he was great- the Arsenal defence was outstanding (Eboue, Toure, Fabregas, Hleb- I know the other two are midfielders but they were still great).

If only Henry had put that one on one into the net

The other defenders for the Barca game where Cambell and Ashley Cole. Our eight choice left back was a rightfooted mdifielder called Flamini

So Henry would miss the first 15 of the final becuase he got concussed. Seamen is 2002 World Cup game against Brazil would miss 15 becuase he had a back injury?

One reason I support Arsenal was that they replayed an FA Cup game becuase they scored the winner from one of the injury throw ins. I was gutted when Spurs finally took the lead becuase Eboue and Gilberto where both down injured.

Players may go down injured a bit too easily(maybe it is the boots) but sporting behavoiur like booting the ball out should be kept.

At this World Cup, that rule of sportsmanship got abused, and abused badly, and I think it's time something was done about it. If a player is really injured, he and the team can afford being off for 15 minutes. Maybe you force the other team to kick the ball from their own end, but something needs to be done to make sure injury stoppages are justified.

I think managers need to be reminded that 5-4-1 attempts to stifle a game are not a rule, they can encourge good football

I don't know how you can do that without enforcing strategy, and I don't know if I want to stray into that territory. The only thing I can think of is allowing more movement of the ball and cutting down on obstruction (we can keep the physical contact, we just have to make sure that offences can move and the best players can show off their skills).

Once he was told to calm down, he did improve on the not fouling front. Hargreves is also German, Welsh and English.

Born and raised in Calgary, Alberta. We're very dear to our own kids, though I don't blame him for wanting to play for England- if I could make the English team I would play for them too.

If only Henry had put that one on one into the net

The other defenders for the Barca game where Cambell and Ashley Cole. Our eight choice left back was a rightfooted mdifielder called Flamini

Matthew Flamini? I might have seen him play...and, as much as I like Ashley Cole, I still prefer Joe...that goal against Sweden was pure brilliance.

At this World Cup, that rule of sportsmanship got abused, and abused badly, and I think it's time something was done about it. If a player is really injured, he and the team can afford being off for 15 minutes. Maybe you force the other team to kick the ball from their own end, but something needs to be done to make sure injury stoppages are justified.

I can see why you feel something needs to be done but why should Henry have been punished in the final for being concussed. "You have a genuine problem but your not allowed to come on with 15 minutes" Same with Zindane.

Seamen's injury, by your rule would have either seen him replaced or England get hammered, I doubt the Brazalisn would have not attempted a shot for 15 minutes.

I don't know how you can do that without enforcing strategy, and I don't know if I want to stray into that territory. The only thing I can think of is allowing more movement of the ball and cutting down on obstruction (we can keep the physical contact, we just have to make sure that offences can move and the best players can show off their skills).

I never said enforced.

Born and raised in Calgary, Alberta. We're very dear to our own kids, though I don't blame him for wanting to play for England- if I could make the English team I would play for them too.

Wasn't Ryan Giggs born in England? Don't see me complaining about him playing for Wales

Matthew Flamini? I might have seen him play...and, as much as I like Ashley Cole, I still prefer Joe...that goal against Sweden was pure brilliance.

and after that Joe Cole dissapered while A.Cole made a saving block against Ecudor and played brilliantly against Portugal. Maybe if Joe would play the ball when Ashley overlapped;)

Improving metric football is a difficult task. The game is just hopeless. I think the best idea is just to turn it into American football.

If you can't bring yourselves to go that far, just turn it into Canadian football. It won't be quite as much fun to watch, but the name might be more acceptable.

Wasn't Ryan Giggs born in England? Don't see me complaining about him playing for Wales
Nope, he was born in Wales. To Welsh parents. And they both had Welsh parents as well. He was eligible to play for England schoolboys because he went to school in England, but he was never eligible to play for England at senior international level.

Guns, or for games in non-U.S. countries, crossbows. *nods*

I can see why you feel something needs to be done but why should Henry have been punished in the final for being concussed. "You have a genuine problem but your not allowed to come on with 15 minutes" Same with Zindane.

Seamen's injury, by your rule would have either seen him replaced or England get hammered, I doubt the Brazalisn would have not attempted a shot for 15 minutes.

What would you do then?

I never said enforced.

I know. I just don't know how you can "encourage" a different strategy without changing the rulebook- maybe it's the North American in me noting it, but a manager's going to go for a win, even if that means a boring brand of football. In our experiences here at least, the only way to get the game to open up is to force it open, because the coaches won't do it.

Wasn't Ryan Giggs born in England? Don't see me complaining about him playing for Wales

Yeah but England>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Canada. You guys can afford to lose a few guys. :p

and after that Joe Cole dissapered while A.Cole made a saving block against Ecudor and played brilliantly against Portugal. Maybe if Joe would play the ball when Ashley overlapped;)

You're just still bitter we won the Premiership. :p

This is flamebait, right? Oh sod it.

1) One minor country (with an overinflated ranking) with 150 million people in it calls it soccer. The other 6 million call it football. In the game which you call football, only two guys are allowed to kick the ball. They come on for 5 seconds, kick it and piss off again. (In fact, you have at least 4 guys on each side who are not allowed to touch it unless someone else drops it.)

And if "men" play football, I'll assume you're talking about rugby football, where they wear a shirt and shorts without a kevlar costume.

2) Agreed. Stick to other sports, where you can play your "world" series with a couple of other countries.

3) Go watch lacrosse instead. Better still, go get some of your friends together and batter each other to death if that's what you really want to see. Its got naff all to do with footy either way.

4) I assume this is some ESPN commentator? Figures.

I feel better now. </flame>


I like you. :)

What would you do then?

If a player 100% certain faked injury, then ten minutes on the sidelines. I might want to have those boots checked, if they are cuasing menstral injury then they may be helping the players get hurt more

I know. I just don't know how you can "encourage" a different strategy without changing the rulebook- maybe it's the North American in me noting it, but a manager's going to go for a win, even if that means a boring brand of football. In our experiences here at least, the only way to get the game to open up is to force it open, because the coaches won't do it.

allow the press to pelt rotton tomato's at teams that set up, from the start of the game, to stifle play. I mean look at Chelsea when on song, Arsenal since Wegner took over, Portsmout since Redknapp came back, West Ham, Barca. Bolton and Wigan style is fine, they are playing to strength and do attack.

Nope, he was born in Wales. To Welsh parents. And they both had Welsh parents as well. He was eligible to play for England schoolboys because he went to school in England, but he was never eligible to play for England at senior international level.

My bad.

You're just still bitter we brought the Premiership. :p

Changed it for you :p

I get frustrated with Chelsea in they can play better but you guys have deserved the league, you didn't buy it, you played for it. Sadly for Jose, the 49ers hang over his head, when he should be praised all he gets is "Why isn't your football as exciting as that lot."

Improve football? Hmm...

I know. Clone Michael Ballack, get a team of his clones.
I don't care if he's not a good player, he looks just yummy. :D

Improve football? Hmm...

I know. Clone Michael Ballack, get a team of his clones.
I don't care if he's not a good player, he looks just yummy. :D

He plays with heart- we could use more guys like him. In a World Cup beset by players dropping like flies because they got a grass blade to the shin, seeing him play on a hobbled leg was all the more extraordinary.

If a player 100% certain faked injury, then ten minutes on the sidelines. I might want to have those boots checked, if they are cuasing menstral injury then they may be helping the players get hurt more

Or a red card. Seems justifiable under the circumstances.

allow the press to pelt rotton tomato's at teams that set up, from the start of the game, to stifle play. I mean look at Chelsea when on song, Arsenal since Wegner took over, Portsmout since Redknapp came back, West Ham, Barca. Bolton and Wigan style is fine, they are playing to strength and do attack.

Isn't the press allowed to do that anyway? Maybe I'm not aware of it being here in Canada, but I do know here the writers like talking a lot about Jose Mourinho's "style" of play.

Changed it for you :p

I get frustrated with Chelsea in they can play better but you guys have deserved the league, you didn't buy it, you played for it. Sadly for Jose, the 49ers hang over his head, when he should be praised all he gets is "Why isn't your football as exciting as that lot."

Looking objectively, I don't think Chelsea is that great of a team- Didier Drogba's no better than a tree (although I think that may have more to do with his teammates than himself, because for the national team he's great) and about the only thing the team can do right is keep the ball out of the net- very rarely do you get someone trying to do something offensively (Arjen Robben, however, I do like). I remember watching them against Barcelona (who I also like) and thinking their lack of execution is what killed them in the Champions' League, a competition they were severly outclassed in. I honestly believe the only reason why they do well is because they simply suck less than everyone else- they're lucking out because both Manchester United and Arsenal are rebuilding. Maybe now that we have Andriy Shevchenko we just might have a chance in Europe, but he could be faced with many of same problems Drogba had- no good through ball up front (even worse of a problem now that Maniche is gone and Frank Lampard has decided to time warp back to his days at West Ham). Meh, I'm not worried- we won the last two championships and that's not something that can be taken away from us. :D

By the way, on another front- do you know anything about a one Janeiro Andre Schneider (or "Jamino Andre Schneider")? I found him in FIFA 2001 (on a Dutch club) rated a "51" out of a possible 56 but I can't find any information on him (other than he was transferred out of Udinese to Locarno in Switerzland in 1999). It's driving me nuts.

By the way, on another front- do you know anything about a one Janiro Andre Schneider (or "Jamino Andre Schneider")? I found him in FIFA 2001 (on a Dutch club) rated a "51" out of a possible 56 but I can't find any information on him (other than he was transferred out of Udinese to Locarno in Switerzland in 1999). It's driving me nuts.

He played for Atlético Paranaense (a Brazilian club) in 2003 and 2004. After that I have not been able to track him down.

To come back to Brazil in his early twenties means either he could not adapt to the European culture or he was not good/healthy enough. It seems that he never played more than 1 season for any European club. He was at De Graafschap in 1999, Udinese for not enough time to feature and at HIT Gorica in 2000. The difference in pay between Brazil and Europe is so great that no one comes back just because they feel like it.

He played for Atlético Paranaense (a Brazilian club) in 2003 and 2004. After that I have not been able to track him down.

To come back to Brazil in his early twenties means either he could not adapt to the European culture or he was not good/healthy enough. It seems that he never played more than 1 season for any European club. He was at De Graafschap in 1999, Udinese for not enough time to feature and at HIT Gorica in 2000. The difference in pay between Brazil and Europe is so great that no one comes back just because they feel like it.

Thank you. A cookie for you. I figured I was spelling the guy's name wrong.

De Graafschap=Doetinchem, I think (that's where he is in FIFA 2001). I'm still trying to figure out the high rating- must have been one of those high-profile flops (although even then I don't know why Wikipedia has no article on Schneider). This (http://66.218.71.231/language/translation/translatedPage.php?tt=url&text=http%3a//www.tgcom.mediaset.it/sport/sportnews.shtml%3f2005/03/news283894&lp=it_en&.intl=us&fr=FP-tab-web-t) from 2005 indicates he came back to NK Gorica, although it's just a birthday list (it's a Yahoo! translation, and a bad one at that).

A very, very odd character. Pity too- he's 26 now.

He plays with heart- we could use more guys like him. In a World Cup beset by players dropping like flies because they got a grass blade to the shin, seeing him play on a hobbled leg was all the more extraordinary.

I felt sorry for Ballack, the biggest stage of his career and he just couldn't quite find his killer pass, his scoring boots or his luck

Or a red card. Seems justifiable under the circumstances.

agreed

Isn't the press allowed to do that anyway? Maybe I'm not aware of it being here in Canada, but I do know here the writers like talking a lot about Jose Mourinho's "style" of play.

thats verbal pelting, I mean real pelting with real fruit or veg.

Looking objectively, I don't think Chelsea is that great of a team- Didier Drogba's no better than a tree (although I think that may have more to do with his teammates than himself, because for the national team he's great) and about the only thing the team can do right is keep the ball out of the net- very rarely do you get someone trying to do something offensively (Arjen Robben, however, I do like). I remember watching them against Barcelona (who I also like) and thinking their lack of execution is what killed them in the Champions' League, a competition they were severly outclassed in. I honestly believe the only reason why they do well is because they simply suck less than everyone else- they're lucking out because both Manchester United and Arsenal are rebuilding. Maybe now that we have Andriy Shevchenko we just might have a chance in Europe, but he could be faced with many of same problems Drogba had- no good through ball up front (even worse of a problem now that Maniche is gone and Frank Lampard has decided to time warp back to his days at West Ham). Meh, I'm not worried- we won the last two championships and that's not something that can be taken away from us

unlike Juve:p

I like Drogba as a player, likes first touch or a deadly finish at times but he makes a great battering ram, he tears Sendros apart. I think the term for Chelsea's attack is fuctional rather then brilliant and that is a disapointment. You have 4 quality wingers to choose from, full backs should be begging for mercy.

If it had not been for 49ers and Jose's sometimes overboard antics, Chelsea would be getting more praise but instead people want a better attacking play. Jose's repuation for things like against Barca overshadows a gentleman side of him

I felt sorry for Ballack, the biggest stage of his career and he just couldn't quite find his killer pass, his scoring boots or his luck

He's 26. He'll be back. Besides, he won a lot of hearts just by playing through pain- that in itself says a lot. Reminds me of our hockey heroes (and how they routinely play through pain) and that's high praise.

thats verbal pelting, I mean real pelting with real fruit or veg.

Ah, now we're on to something. What to do if the team wins though? :(

unlike Juve:p

I like Drogba as a player, likes first touch or a deadly finish at times but he makes a great battering ram, he tears Sendros apart. I think the term for Chelsea's attack is fuctional rather then brilliant and that is a disapointment. You have 4 quality wingers to choose from, full backs should be begging for mercy.

If it had not been for 49ers and Jose's sometimes overboard antics, Chelsea would be getting more praise but instead people want a better attacking play. Jose's repuation for things like against Barca overshadows a gentleman side of him

Well, considering my favourite Italian team is Inter Milan, Juventus can crumble all they want :D. Although I do wonder in the back of my head if something's up with Roman Abramovitch- for a wealthy billionaire, not a whole lot is known about his personal life...

(I still don't think you can take Premierships away for that. Sorry :D )

Drogba's size is an asset and he's got skills- just maybe they don't work so well with Chelsea, but now that we have Shevchenko Drogba might be getting some relief. I think the Chelsea midfield depends on if Frank Lampard bounces back- he's Chelsea's highest scoring midfielder but he's got to show World Cup '06 was a fluke. I'll agree that Jose Mourinho's style on and off the pitch detracts from the praise Chelsea should be getting- hey, we won for two straight years after a 50-year drought. We should be allowed to celebrate a little.

(Though you have to admit Jose's quoteable- I don't think there's ever a moment when he doesn't have something to say and I like that about him)

He's 26. He'll be back. Besides, he won a lot of hearts just by playing through pain- that in itself says a lot. Reminds me of our hockey heroes (and how they routinely play through pain) and that's high praise.

About two more World Cups but he will need to adapt his play to be less running if he is too much further

Ah, now we're on to something. What to do if the team wins though?

pelt them. The only escuse for trying to kill the game from the start is if you are a divison or so further down

Well, considering my favourite Italian team is Inter Milan, Juventus can crumble all they want . Although I do wonder in the back of my head if something's up with Roman Abramovitch- for a wealthy billionaire, not a whole lot is known about his personal life...


He probably did gain his oil by the duboius means but he has done good work in the province he governs

Drogba's size is an asset and he's got skills- just maybe they don't work so well with Chelsea, but now that we have Shevchenko Drogba might be getting some relief. I think the Chelsea midfield depends on if Frank Lampard bounces back- he's Chelsea's highest scoring midfielder but he's got to show World Cup '06 was a fluke. I'll agree that Jose Mourinho's style on and off the pitch detracts from the praise Chelsea should be getting- hey, we won for two straight years after a 50-year drought. We should be allowed to celebrate a little.


but then what formation? Your wingers are vital and it leaves a real pressure on the centre midfield players and how many you have. If Jose wants to drop Lampard, to help the player, then he must be backed by the fans and board

Jose is quotable but he has to be careful how to use that

What would you do then?



I know. I just don't know how you can "encourage" a different strategy without changing the rulebook- maybe it's the North American in me noting it, but a manager's going to go for a win, even if that means a boring brand of football. In our experiences here at least, the only way to get the game to open up is to force it open, because the coaches won't do it.



Yeah but England>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Canada. You guys can afford to lose a few guys. :p



You're just still bitter we won the Premiership. :p

And?

The M.Unitedteam of Keane, Beckham, Scholes, Giggs, Van Nistelrooy et al would have beaten you with ease.

About two more World Cups but he will need to adapt his play to be less running if he is too much further

Still, at least he'll put in effort. That wins him enough points for me.

(I realize I got his age wrong- he's 30, not 26. Must have misread that...)

pelt them. The only escuse for trying to kill the game from the start is if you are a divison or so further down

Would be a nice idea...but I don't think it would work unless the team loses. Championships trump entertainment every time.

He probably did gain his oil by the duboius means but he has done good work in the province he governs

I still have that fear though- sometimes things just seem "too good to be true". Still, the more I read about the guy the more I conclude he's more akin to fellow "ultimate fan" Mark Cuban, sans the theatrics.

but then what formation? Your wingers are vital and it leaves a real pressure on the centre midfield players and how many you have. If Jose wants to drop Lampard, to help the player, then he must be backed by the fans and board

I believe Lampard should be given a chance to keep his starting 11 role- he earned it- though if Lampard struggles early Jose Mourinho's decision there will be easier. I still see Lampard's World Cup as problematic- he really does need to get back to scoring goals. Ballack can help, but he and Claude Makalele are getting up there in age. There's rumours that Alessandro Nesta is coming to Chelsea but that won't replace any goals either. Maybe Arjen Robben becomes a centre-forward here to help feed the ball to Drogba and Shevchenko. It'll be interesting to see how Mourinho works his new adds, that's for sure.

Jose is quotable but he has to be careful how to use that

As long as he doesn't stray into Oleg "Blockhead" Blohkin territory I'll be okay.

And?

The M.Unitedteam of Keane, Beckham, Scholes, Giggs, Van Nistelrooy et al would have beaten you with ease.

So? I'm not saying that Chelsea's 2005-06 teams are the best teams ever in English football, and besides, it's foolish to posit something like that because it's impossible to stage. The fact of the matter is that Manchester United's 2005 and 2006 editions were incapable of mounting any kind of a threat to Chelsea's teams and there's no way around that.

I would, however, like to see a rebirth of the stylish Manchester United teams of the late 1990s- they were fun to watch. Just don't think they'll be around for a while- both them and Arsenal are in the downswing at the moment.

In the meantime, I'm going to keep celebrating. Even if I don't get 2007, I'll at least have 2005 and 2006.

And?

The M.Unitedteam of Keane, Beckham, Scholes, Giggs, Van Nistelrooy et al would have beaten you with ease.

They never went 40 games unbeaten, let alone the league season, but they did win a treble(well not the Van man but anyway) they where a good side but they woiuld find thier match, maybe they would win, maybe lose, in the 49ers, the Chelsea side of today and the current Arsenal side

Would be a nice idea...but I don't think it would work unless the team loses. Championships trump entertainment every time.

Eternal worship aka Brazil 82, Holland and so on, trumpts titles. Besides pretty football can win titles

I still have that fear though- sometimes things just seem "too good to be true". Still, the more I read about the guy the more I conclude he's more akin to fellow "ultimate fan" Mark Cuban, sans the theatrics.

Know what you mean. On the other hand I don't think the Arsenal board get enough praise from the fans

Last season: "We didn't spend enough money to replace Veria, the board must be lieing about the manager having money to spend. The fools should never have built the staduim. Wegner has lost the plot! We need money."

Yeah, not like we had players who could go to the CL final, nope, we are going to go bust next season as we get relegated;)

I believe Lampard should be given a chance to keep his starting 11 role- he earned it- though if Lampard struggles early Jose Mourinho's decision there will be easier. I still see Lampard's World Cup as problematic- he really does need to get back to scoring goals. Ballack can help, but he and Claude Makalele are getting up there in age. There's rumours that Alessandro Nesta is coming to Chelsea but that won't replace any goals either. Maybe Arjen Robben becomes a centre-forward here to help feed the ball to Drogba and Shevchenko. It'll be interesting to see how Mourinho works his new adds, that's for sure.

Is Robben a centre forward? He seems to be someone who likes the flank, getting 1-1 on one with the fullback and cuasing havoc from outwide. An attacking left back can be very useful to getting Robben/Duff/Cole support. As for Lamapard, if dropping him would help then Jose must do it.

Just don't think they'll be around for a while- both them and Arsenal are in the downswing at the moment.

I liked what you said up to Arsenal on a downswing, the first half of the season was simply transitional. We lost Veria, a lot of expirence had been slowly leaving the side and we got hit by loss of form of Pires, Ljungber and Cambell, throw in an injury crisis and we have enough escuses.

Gilberto is never going to win a game on his own, he is a holding player and Cesc needed to find his feet as the playmaker. After Anfield and the Bernbua games, Arsenal hit champion form. Expect to see Arsenal fighting for the title next season

Should we ask this thread get split into a Premiership discussion thread? It's kind of diverged from the original topic.

Know what you mean. On the other hand I don't think the Arsenal board get enough praise from the fans

Last season: "We didn't spend enough money to replace Veria, the board must be lieing about the manager having money to spend. The fools should never have built the staduim. Wegner has lost the plot! We need money."

Yeah, not like we had players who could go to the CL final, nope, we are going to go bust next season as we get relegated;)

My professor thinks- objectively- that Arsenal is the best run football team in the world; and I'd like to think it's well-run: the club's one of the most successful in English history, and that doesn't happen by accident.

Is Robben a centre forward? He seems to be someone who likes the flank, getting 1-1 on one with the fullback and cuasing havoc from outwide. An attacking left back can be very useful to getting Robben/Duff/Cole support. As for Lamapard, if dropping him would help then Jose must do it.

I agree he's more of a flanks kind of guy but I'm trying to think of how he could be incorporated in Chelsea's new system- we've got three quality forwards there and they've got to be used, and since Robben's good with the ball and his feet he should use more of the field in the centre forward/midfield role. Then again, so is Shevchenko- so maybe he and Robben can command the flanks and Drogba becomes the main striker. So many decisions...

I liked what you said up to Arsenal on a downswing, the first half of the season was simply transitional. We lost Veria, a lot of expirence had been slowly leaving the side and we got hit by loss of form of Pires, Ljungber and Cambell, throw in an injury crisis and we have enough escuses.

Gilberto is never going to win a game on his own, he is a holding player and Cesc needed to find his feet as the playmaker. After Anfield and the Bernbua games, Arsenal hit champion form. Expect to see Arsenal fighting for the title next season

Well, let's admit something- Arsenal isn't at the form that won them the 2003 Premiership, and they need to replace some key players in the form of Robert Pires and Dennis Bergkamp. It's not "crisis" but I'm not sure if it's championship-quality, at least not yet. Then again, nobody said they'd get to the Champions' League Final and there they were, 25 minutes from victory. They might be fun to watch in the years to come.

Should we ask this thread get split into a Premiership discussion thread? It's kind of diverged from the original topic.


Yes we should

My professor thinks- objectively- that Arsenal is the best run football team in the world; and I'd like to think it's well-run: the club's one of the most successful in English history, and that doesn't happen by accident

the words "people" and "never appreciate" combined with "what they have" fits many Arsenal fans

I agree he's more of a flanks kind of guy but I'm trying to think of how he could be incorporated in Chelsea's new system- we've got three quality forwards there and they've got to be used, and since Robben's good with the ball and his feet he should use more of the field in the centre forward/midfield role. Then again, so is Shevchenko- so maybe he and Robben can command the flanks and Drogba becomes the main striker. So many decisions...

Play a 3 man system with Cole and Robben having freedom on the flanks, Drogba or Svenchko playing in the centre forward role perhaps? Could switch to 4-5-1 formation if needed.

Well, let's admit something- Arsenal isn't at the form that won them the 2003 Premiership, and they need to replace some key players in the form of Robert Pires and Dennis Bergkamp. It's not "crisis" but I'm not sure if it's championship-quality, at least not yet. Then again, nobody said they'd get to the Champions' League Final and there they were, 25 minutes from victory. They might be fun to watch in the years to come.

Which season was it that we nearly retained the title but blew it big time?

Rosiscky and Van Perise/Cesc should cover those roles, Abeydoyor adds an alterive role to the attack, all in all, trust Wegner and his magic hat

Yes we should

Just did.

the words "people" and "never appreciate" combined with "what they have" fits many Arsenal fans

In a way, it's good because if the fans are complacent then the team would have an excuse to "throw in the towel" because they think the fans don't care, but I agree that going to the extreme is just as wrong. It's a bit more justifiable if your team has never won anything in your lifetime, but in the cases of Arsenal and Chelsea, we can- or should- be able to breath a little bit easier now that we've both won.

Play a 3 man system with Cole and Robben having freedom on the flanks, Drogba or Svenchko playing in the centre forward role perhaps? Could switch to 4-5-1 formation if needed.

Yeah, but will Drogba adjust to life as a substitute? I don't know. Mind you, it's not Jose's style to have three forwards- maybe those two will platoon, depending on performance and who they're playing- if a pure striker is needed, put in Drogba, but if a playmaking/scorer is needed, put in Shevchenko. I'll be interested in seeing how that works out.

Which season was it that we nearly retained the title but blew it big time?

That was 2005, wasn't it? My bad- you won it in 2004. :S (although it's not as bad as forgetting what years Chelsea won it).

Rosiscky and Van Perise/Cesc should cover those roles, Abeydoyor adds an alterive role to the attack, all in all, trust Wegner and his magic hat

I like Tomas Rosicky- he did a lot for the Czech Republic and will do a lot for you. Will he get a first-team start? There's quite a few quality midfielders there already.

Still, replacing legends will be tricky, but I am liking what I see so far.

Have the ball explode at a randomly set time.

Have the ball explode at a randomly set time.
Yep, and we'll introduce that into every other ball sport as well.