Steven Posted 18 September 2005 Share Posted 18 September 2005 yes, unless you are Oriental, in which case you may interpret it as having 4 attackers, which would certainly give you a much more dynamic team keen on attack and scoring goals ... or Semitic or Arabic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cisono Posted 18 September 2005 Share Posted 18 September 2005 ... or Semitic or Arabic. Indeed. I didn't mean to leave anyone out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dynamite foxes Posted 18 September 2005 Share Posted 18 September 2005 Thracian you continue to post utter bollocks. Youreally have no clue whatsoever and you sound like an American. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenzied Posted 19 September 2005 Share Posted 19 September 2005 How about multi-ball overtime, with a monster truck derby at half time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The People's Hero Posted 19 September 2005 Share Posted 19 September 2005 Can someone move this to general footy? Anyway, I think this 4-5-1 thing is just a fad and soon it will be exploited by some tactical genius. No need to change the rules for it, we're not Americans. although I do think it is a product of a lot of other things that are wrong with football that do need changing. We need to look at the Cause, not the Symptoms. Good point, well made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marko Posted 19 September 2005 Share Posted 19 September 2005 How about multi-ball overtime, with a monster truck derby at half time? What instead of boring half time presentations??? But the added time Multi ball sounds good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 19 September 2005 Author Share Posted 19 September 2005 Thracian you continue to post utter bollocks. Youreally have no clue whatsoever and you sound like an American. a) If you're happy with 4-5-1 and two-shots a game goalless draws then you clearly have the demanding, imaginative mind of the clever bugger you seem to think you are. b) Regarding Connolly. Ridicule me you may, and I can stand that. But there's a good few folk on this forum rated him at £1m and I did say "It is easier to come down that go up". As it transpires, we may be looking at £3m which is a damn site better than virtually anyone else had even dreamed of hoping for. Set your sights high, son and you might surprise yourself. Same goes for City but it won't happen with the sort of football that drives fans away. A big difference between you and me is that I care and you don't appear to given your lack of constructive suggestions. c) Since when have Americans had the monopoly on making/suggesting change? Your generalisation about Americans emphasises what a contemptuous bigot you are - but just so long as I never sound like you I can cope with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CasinoGee Posted 19 September 2005 Share Posted 19 September 2005 Good point, well made. Er, thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationwider Posted 19 September 2005 Share Posted 19 September 2005 I get where you're coming from on these. More misses than hits, I think, but some changes could/should be made... a) No points for a draw. Or, make draws impossible by having a "decider spell" at the end of each game whereby each team has to shed two players every 10 minutes of the "extra period" and so on until a goal is scored. It's a bit harsh to reward the team that pulls back from 0-3 to 3-3 with 0 points. 4 points for a win, 1 for a draw might be more workable. With 0 points for a draw, only Rotherham and Forest had less wins than us last year! ..... and let's not go mad with decider spells, thank you. b) Reduce the number of substitutes to one. This would inevitably mean that good players would start moving away from the Chelsea's and Manchester United's to have any chance of getting a game. I quite like the idea in principle. Perhaps back to a max. of 3 on the bench, including a goalkeeper? c) Reduce the number of players in a team to 10 so there is more space. There's no need to mess with the fabric of the match itself, so a no for this one. d) Award a penalty to the opposing team if one side fails to have a shot at goal for a period of 5 minutes. No, in a word. See c) e) Limited the amount of money a club can spend on its team. The Communist Premier League??? No, again. f) Limit the number of players a club can have in its squad. Back on track now. Say a max. of 24 pro players in the top 2 leagues, but with no transfer windows. g) Rule that every team must field 7 players who are UK nationals - and three who were born within, say, 40 miles of the ground. On the right lines - but probably unworkable in the current climate. A maximum of 8 non-nationals in the 24-man pro-squad, perhaps? I'd hate to see any wholesale changes to the game we all know and endure. Flattening the playing field slightly would help, though. We just need a few gentle incentives to encourage managers to play predominantly home-grown players alongside positive tactics. And what's wrong with a draw, anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 20 September 2005 Share Posted 20 September 2005 e) Limited the amount of money a club can spend on its team. The Communist Premier League??? No, again. You better have an urgent word with the Yanks because that's how the NFL works, probably the basketball as well. The emphasis is very much on ensuring the leagues remain competitive. All profits from the combined marketing of the NFL are shared equally. I believe. Whatever the system they use it is much more equitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultra Posted 20 September 2005 Share Posted 20 September 2005 But the system wouldn't work in England or indeed Europe. Bigger clubs would find it easy to bypass salary caps by means of convenient deals with sponsors etc. The NFl have tight rules on sponsorship which do not apply over here. In any event, salary caps would probably be illegal under European law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 20 September 2005 Share Posted 20 September 2005 But the system wouldn't work in England or indeed Europe. Bigger clubs would find it easy to bypass salary caps by means of convenient deals with sponsors etc. The NFl have tight rules on sponsorship which do not apply over here. In any event, salary caps would probably be illegal under European law. Why can't tight rules work in Europe? It doesn't need to be a salary cap as such, just a limit on what you can spend in total on salaries, so individual rates within a a maximum - this is how Rugby Union operates at the moment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breadandcheese Posted 20 September 2005 Share Posted 20 September 2005 I was wondering whether recent rule changes by Fifa to improve attacking play are in fact having the opposite effect. Although done for the best possible aspirations and reasons, I wonder if they are having a negative side effect. For example, the new offside rule, favouring the attacker. It allows strikers to hang deep behind defenders and away from view. I wonder if this is encouraging teams to play deeper defences to counter the floating striker. I also wonder whether it is stretching the play and reducing attacking free-flowing football. It seems a natural counter tactical response to drop defenders deep. It's just a thought, wonder whether others agree or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.