10 men for the good of the game?

[Lord Snooty]

Some years ago I heard an interview with one of the famous Brazillians. Have a feeling it might have been Socrates. 

 

 

Anyway. He was bemoaning modern tactics. He was saying that the modern trend for filling midfields was ruining the spectacle, especially for teams and clubs who couldn't afford the little players from the top bracket who can perform in such tight spaces.

He thought that one of the best things to do would be for teams to be reduced from 11 down to 10 men.  1 Goalkeeper and 9 outfield players.

 

Would it work though? 

Or would teams simply play a 5-4-0 formation. Or a 4-5-0.  

(I know, I know some will say Jos has pre-empted this at Millwall!)

Clearly two less men on the field would mean there would be more space somewhere on the park . But would it just end up being in the corner flags?

 

Would it actually spell the end of strikers as we know them?

Would the days of the Steven Fletcher types be consigned to history? 

Would target men like Niall Quinn be looked back on like Dinosours from another age?

Would it actually make the game less likely to see goals as the nearest attackers might be playing 20 yards deeper than classic attackers?

 

Or... would some brave manager still stick two up front and instruct his lads to get it in the mixer?

Would we see more traditional wing play come back into the game?

 

Would wing backs end up becoming the most important position on the pitch?

 

Ye Gods. These International breaks.

 

[OxonOwl]

The best way to open play up is to get rid of offside altogether.

 

Firstly it removes controversial decisions but also the players have a greater area to cover and so more space to play football in. 

Edited November 20, 2018 by OxonOwl

[Lord Snooty]

7 minutes ago, OxonOwl said:

The best way to open play up is to get rid of offside altogether.

 

Firstly it removes controversial decisions but also the players have a greater area to cover and so more space to play football in. 

 

The re introduction of 'bog-liners'!

 

Though we'd probably need new terminology for them as there are no 6 yard box bogs anymore!

[prowl]

If you want to make the game more open just make the pitch bigger. It would favour faster players and better passing.

 

 

[OxonOwl]

If they choose to goal hang, you either mark them or have a player extra somewhere else on the pitch.

 

New tactics needed, but hey, why not.

[Lord Snooty]

2 minutes ago, prowl said:

If you want to make the game more open just make the pitch bigger. It would favour faster players and better passing.

 

 

That might be a dear option for those clubs with already maximum sized pitches almost up to the front of the stands. 

[prowl]

 

1 minute ago, Lord Snooty said:

 

That might be a dear option for those clubs with already maximum sized pitches almost up to the front of the stands. 

Now you are just getting technical

 

For the good of the game what's a few seats here and there.

[Lord Snooty]

Just now, prowl said:

 

Now you are just getting technical

For the good of the game what's a few seats here and there.

 

Which club was it that couldn't build their stadium any higher as it was getting to peak and ended up making the pitch smaller and lowering into a pit to extend downwards?

 

[prowl]

1 minute ago, Lord Snooty said:

 

Which club was it that couldn't build their stadium any higher as it was getting to peak and ended up making the pitch smaller and lowering into a pit to extend downwards?

 

If it involves a pit my money is on Barnsley. A lot of disused pits round there.

[matthefish2002]

Think game would be more interesting if players did not go down all the time and fake and exaggerate injuries and contact.

Think this has spoiled many games for me. Really miss the old blood and thunder games.

Now find many game more tactical and find it a bit dull. 

[Lord Snooty]

3 minutes ago, matthefish2002 said:

Think game would be more interesting if players did not go down all the time and fake and exaggerate injuries and contact.

Think this has spoiled many games for me. Really miss the old blood and thunder games.

Now find many game more tactical and find it a bit dull. 

 

Perhaps some kind of restorative justice.

 

So if someone takes an absolute Tom Daley and the ref sees it on the V.A.R . The next foul on said player is a freebie...

 

 

[matthefish2002]

Just now, Lord Snooty said:

 

Perhaps some kind of restorative justice.

 

So if someone takes an absolute Tom Daley and the ref sees it on the V.A.R . The next foul on said player is a freebie...

 

 

 

I am not really a fan of VAR but think it is coming. Think VAR will hold the game up too much and spoil the flow of the game. Even after seeing penalty incidents 5 or 6 times from various angles I am still unsure if it should be a pen or not.
I was against video replays in Cricket but think this had added to the game so I suppose I might change my mind but at moment I am not a fan of VAR.

[Lord Snooty]

Just now, matthefish2002 said:

 

I am not really a fan of VAR but think it is coming. Think VAR will hold the game up too much and spoil the flow of the game. Even after seeing penalty incidents 5 or 6 times from various angles I am still unsure if it should be a pen or not.
I was against video replays in Cricket but think this had added to the game so I suppose I might change my mind but at moment I am not a fan of VAR.

 

Different pace of life isn't it in cricket though.

I think it's coming though and we have to get used to it. 

 

I'm all for it if it puts and end to diving and they use it as a tool for dishing out retrospective bans for cheating feckers.

[OxonOwl]

25 minutes ago, Lord Snooty said:

 

Which club was it that couldn't build their stadium any higher as it was getting to peak and ended up making the pitch smaller and lowering into a pit to extend downwards?

 

 

You've got me there.

[matthefish2002]

1 minute ago, Lord Snooty said:

 

Different pace of life isn't it in cricket though.

I think it's coming though and we have to get used to it. 

 

I'm all for it if it puts and end to diving and they use it as a tool for dishing out retrospective bans for cheating feckers.

 

If it cuts out a lot of the diving and punishes players who do it then it wont be too bad a thing.

 

Yes cricket has natural breaks and has big screens up so the crowd can watch at the same time as the umpires making they mind up which adds to it.

VAR in the World Cup the crowd were just left to twiddle their thumbs for up to 5 minutes while the ref decided on a decision. I guess in football might cause problems in the crowd if things like pens decisions were up on a big screen if it was unclear in a big game.
Maybe Football could copy cricket and each side has 1 decision they can contest a game. Not sure how that would work in practice though.

[Bing Cosby]

5 minutes ago, Lord Snooty said:

 

Different pace of life isn't it in cricket though.

I think it's coming though and we have to get used to it. 

 

I'm all for it if it puts and end to diving and they use it as a tool for dishing out retrospective bans for cheating feckers.

 

We don't need VAR to put an end to diving though Snoots.

 

They've been dishing out retrospective punishment for violent conduct for however long and it's certainly reduced it's occurance in the game in general.

 

I've been saying this for years; if they slapped a player with a 5 game ban for diving/ simulation, it would soon come to a stop. The fact that they've shown no interest in doing such a thing, tells me that the people who run the game aren't as bothered about it as the fans are.

[Lombardo]

46 minutes ago, OxonOwl said:

The best way to open play up is to get rid of offside altogether.

 

Firstly it removes controversial decisions but also the players have a greater area to cover and so more space to play football in. 

I think this may work but just have offsides from 18 yards out to prevent someone just "sitting" on the keeper...and if you are beyond the last defender you are off whether interfering or not!!!!

[Lord Snooty]

1 minute ago, Cosby Blunkett said:

 

We don't need VAR to put an end to diving though Snoots.

 

They've been dishing out retrospective punishment for violent conduct for however long and it's certainly reduced it's occurance in the game in general.

 

I've been saying this for years; if they slapped a player with a 5 game ban for diving/ simulation, it would soon come to a stop. The fact that they've shown no interest in doing such a thing, tells me that the people who run the game aren't as bothered about it as the fans are.

 

Excellent point re- violent conduct.

 

Maybe they don't mind the diving and cheating as it gets people talking more about (*shudders) ....."The Product"

 

 

[Bing Cosby]

7 minutes ago, matthefish2002 said:

 

If it cuts out a lot of the diving and punishes players who do it then it wont be too bad a thing.

 

Yes cricket has natural breaks and has big screens up so the crowd can watch at the same time as the umpires making they mind up which adds to it.

VAR in the World Cup the crowd were just left to twiddle their thumbs for up to 5 minutes while the ref decided on a decision. I guess in football might cause problems in the crowd if things like pens decisions were up on a big screen if it was unclear in a big game.
Maybe Football could copy cricket and each side has 1 decision they can contest a game. Not sure how that would work in practice though.

 

The biggest difference isn't the pace of the game for me. It's that in cricket and tennis, video officiating deals with matters of fact (or pretty close to it) "did the ball pitch inline" etc.

 

Using video footage to make subjective decisions is just a waste of time IMO. Although I'm all for goal line technology and would be fine with it for offsides.

Edited November 20, 2018 by Cosby Blunkett

[OxonOwl]

1 minute ago, Lombado said:

if you are beyond the last defender you are off whether interfering or not!!!!

 

It was a lot simpler when it was so.