Football matches shorter than 90 mins - Thoughts?

[cityfanlee23]

There's been some discussion in the media on comments made by Florentino Perez regarding the length of matches being too long, so wondered what your thoughts are on this?

 

Personally I've no problem with 90 minutes, but I'm not bound by the idea that it's sacred, we've been using the 45 minute half format officially since the 1890's, football is obviously very different now, and with the discussion surrounding the ESL and the future of the game, it would be interesting to see if anybody could think of pros/cons or general opinions as to what the effects could be of changing it?

 

I wonder whether shorter games would create better football? Often we see games that are just passive and frankly numbingly boring, would shorter games help to solve this if teams have less time to "build into the game" ?

Again, not a suggestion from me, just interested in the discussion, or whether people feel 90 minutes is still ideal in the modern game?

[Fox92]

No.

 

If you cannot sit through 90 minutes of football then it's clearly not for you.

[cityfanlee23]

Just now, Fox92 said:

No.

 

If you cannot sit through 90 minutes of football then it's clearly not for you.

Just to clarify, I'm going slightly off what Perez said, I don't think it's that it's too long for fans, I'm wondering if it's the best amount of time for the modern game and whether there could be benefits to shortening them.

[davieG]

A more pertinent question is why would anybody take any notice of what Florentino Perez is saying.

 

As for the question I'd only consider it if they introduced a proper match clock but then that might mean the game lasting longer with the endless time spent setting up free kicks, VAR, feigned injuries, general time wasting at goal kicks and throw ins etc.

[Nalis]

The only potential change that might be viable is a stop clock any time play stops to avoid timewasting. 30 minutes per half with no injury time.

 

I recall reading somewhere that the  ball is only in play for about 58-59 minutes on an average game so it shouldnt change things too much.

 

Edited 21 April 2021 by Nalis

[cityfanlee23]

Just now, davieG said:

A more pertinent question is why would anybody take any notice of what Florentino Perez is saying.

 

As for the question I'd only consider it if they introduced a proper match clock but then that might mean the game lasting longer with the endless time spent setting up free kicks, VAR, feigned injuries, general time wasting at goal kicks and throw ins etc.

Do you mean a clock that pauses when setting up or when decisions are being made for example?

[Fox92]

2 minutes ago, cityfanlee23 said:

Just to clarify, I'm going slightly off what Perez said, I don't think it's that it's too long for fans, I'm wondering if it's the best amount of time for the modern game and whether there could be benefits to shortening them.

I know, yeah, my post wasn't aimed at you.

Edited 21 April 2021 by Fox92

[cityfanlee23]

Just now, Nalis said:

The only potential change that might be viable is a stop clock any time play stops. 30 minutes per half with no injury time.

 

I recall reading somewhere that the  ball is only in play for about 58-59 minutes on an average game so it shouldnt change things too much.

 

Cracking stat if true. I guess it would definitely put more focus on playing the game rather than wasting time.

[Fox92]

3 minutes ago, cityfanlee23 said:

Cracking stat if true. I guess it would definitely put more focus on playing the game rather than wasting time.

30 minutes a half isn't long enough.

 

That stat about a ball being in play for 60 mins is irrelevant because you have to consider how much time is stopped for substitutions, throw ins, lining up free kicks (including the defending wall), and players walking over to take corners (especially James Maddison who could probably take 5 mins a time if it was allowed). It's not all just time wasting but even if so time wasting would still happen if games were 10 minutes long.

Edited 21 April 2021 by Fox92

[davieG]

1 minute ago, cityfanlee23 said:

Do you mean a clock that pauses when setting up or when decisions are being made for example?

Every time the game stops for free kicks, VAR, Injuries, substitutions etc stop the clock so we can all see it.

 

At the moment there's obviously no accuracy to it looking mostly like it's been guessed. Fan's should be able to see where the state of the game is at.

[Simi]

Stopping the clock has to be the way forward. The time wasting is unbearable and the referees are a disgrace at accounting for time lost to VAR, goals and subs.

[Alf Bentley]

Back in the late 70s, when there was a big focus on building interest in the game in the USA, I remember equivalent proposals. One was getting rid of draws by having a shootout if the match was drawn after 90 mins.

Successive players for each team would run from the halfway line to take on the keeper, to avoid the unacceptable boredom of a league match being drawn.

 

There was little enthusiasm here for that then (except penalty shoot-outs for cup games) - and I doubt there'd be much enthusiasm for shorter matches now. Indeed shorter matches already exist for 5 and 7-a-side tournaments and they haven't challenged the traditional game. Maybe a country that lacked the long traditions might try it and make a success of it - or it could be a secondary sideline to the real deal, but I can't see it succeeding in traditional football regions like Europe or Latin America, or among serious fans in other continents. I suspect that Pérez was mainly thinking, as ever, of money-making via the global TV market for football. I can imagine that many non-serious TV fans who never attend matches might like the idea of shorter games.

 

Also, if you simply shortened matches but changed nothing else, it could lead to more defensive, boring matches as it would play into the hands of "park the bus" teams. It's already hard enough for a creative, attacking team to break down a well-organised "park the bus" team by spending 90 mins trying to move their defence around and wear down their physical and mental stamina so as to create openings. If a creatively inferior but defensively well-organised, physically fit team only had to hold out for, say, 60 minutes, you'd risk more dull, low-scoring matches with entrenched defences....especially if you did nothing to combat the time-wasting and petty fouling such teams often resort to.

 

I've no interest in shorter matches, but if someone wanted it to work, I reckon they'd have to make other changes - and not only tight control of time-wasting & petty fouling. Perhaps they could reduce matches to 60 minutes and also make them 7-a-side? Or make the goals or pitches bigger? But why should they not just follow another sport or invent their own if they find 90-minute matches too long and boring? (I appreciate you're not advocating it yourself) 

[Guest Basildon Fox]

Why not have 4 quarters of 15 minutes and we can stop the clock everytime there is a foul, throw in and corner.  The TV companies can then use this to sell more advertising space, especially when you get 3 time outs per half.

 

Substitutions can happen at any time and if you commit 5 fouls per game you get ejected.

 

Welcome to the new World Series Super League of Football where the London Gunners take on the Milano Maffia.

 

This is exactly what they would be working to.

[Simi]

Another thing I'd back is 0 points for a 0-0. Score draw you can have a point. But serving up a 0-0 does not justify a point.

[Fox92]

1 minute ago, Simi said:

Another thing I'd back is 0 points for a 0-0. Score draw you can have a point. But serving up a 0-0 does not justify a point.

That's daft. The top 6 clubs already have too much money so if a club like Burnley go to Anfield or Etihad and get a 0-0 then they should get a point.

 

If the league was a level playing field then I might agree but it's not.

[Nalis]

1 minute ago, Simi said:

Another thing I'd back is 0 points for a 0-0. Score draw you can have a point. But serving up a 0-0 does not justify a point.

The flipside is that if you have a 6 pointer like Fulham v Newcastle was potentially going to be at the end of the season, zero points for nil nil would have suited Newcastle.

[davieG]

3 minutes ago, Simi said:

Another thing I'd back is 0 points for a 0-0. Score draw you can have a point. But serving up a 0-0 does not justify a point.

I've seen plenty of exciting 0-0 games and plenty of boring 1-0 games. There's no magic formulae for making games exciting when there's so much at stake. Winning for just the glory or bragging rights is long gone even if it ever existed.

[stripeyfox]

60 minutes seems about right.

I could leave on 55 minutes then

[Simi]

My comment was half tongue in cheeky by the way, after sitting through this dross...

 

[AKCJ]

What sport is shorter than 90 minutes other than Rugby?

 

Basketball, Baseball, American Football, Cricket (even T20), Tennis and F1 always or sometimes last far longer than 90 minutes.

Edited 21 April 2021 by AKCJ

[boots60]

Why don't we take the football rule book, rip it up & start again with a whole new set of rules to cater for the "real" supporters of our beloved game, the TV audience.

With VAR already in place, the time duration of the game, non contact rules & countless other new "improvements" could be applied.

This will undoubtedly help with new ideas like a European breakaway league & will encourage more TV subscription money for the guardians of our game.

We will never have to leave our houses again. WIN WIN.

[Arriba Los Zorros]

Not sure that's a good idea, it's already enough of a trend for teams to put 11 men behind the ball and sit deep without really trying to score for a 0-0. Shortening the length of the game makes that a more realistic target for the Allardyces, Pulises, dyches and Espirito Santos of the world.

 

I can certainly get behind the idea of shortening the matches 10 mins or so though if the trade off is dead time and they do introduce a stop watch, so in effect there is more 'in play' time. Basically - Rugby Union format.

 

 

[foxy boxing]

Football isn’t like other sports where there are natural breaks where advertisers can squeeze in adbreaks throughout the duration of the match for example American football or basketball. Shorter matches or longer breaks during a match obviously comes from America where they are used to watching sports with lots of interruptions for adbreaks so the sponsors can maximise their marketing opportunities.

[Corky]

You'd still get similar outcomes. If teams want to play negatively they will regardless of the length, in fact it probably suits those people better.

 

90 minutes is fine.

[filbertway]

11 hours ago, Fox92 said:

30 minutes a half isn't long enough.

 

That stat about a ball being in play for 60 mins is irrelevant because you have to consider how much time is stopped for substitutions, throw ins, lining up free kicks (including the defending wall), and players walking over to take corners (especially James Maddison who could probably take 5 mins a time if it was allowed). It's not all just time wasting but even if so time wasting would still happen if games were 10 minutes long.

Well the idea is that the clock stops every time the ball isn't in play, I actually quite lik the idea because refs never seen to play a fair amount of stoppage time.