Hey gang, I think I may have the answer, and sometimes the simplest answers are the best!!!
My hope is that with the right changes to soccer, the game's coaches will cease to view a matches first goal as the the most important moment of the match. This is a condition in soccer today which puts pressure on the players to foul in order to stop every scoring opportunity, or even to dive to slow down the counter attack brought about by a change of possession. When this mindset changes, we will see soccer's continuity improve to a level which fans simply cannot imagine today, and soccer will shine.
The first order of business is to retain in soccer that which is considered to be the most cherished aspect of the game...the fact that coaches cannot micro-manage the match once the whistle blows. This is what makes soccer a player's game.
With baseball players looking for permission to proceed on pretty much a pitch by pitch basic, and college basketball coaches demanding the attention of all present by repeatedly whistling and stomping on the hardwood floors of such prestigious venues as Rupp Arena and Freedom Hall, we Americans accept the role of coach as an all controlling general. And in college or professional football, it's so much of the same. I'm hard pressed to name a quarterback who has called the vast majority of his plays since Fran Tarkington left the game. Today, we accept that, with the exception of Payton Manning calling out his infamous 'Attack, Attack, Attack' gimmick play, quarterbacks are looking to the sidelines for directions 95% of the time.
Soccer must remain a player's game. This wonderful aspect of the beautiful game cannot be allowed to deteriorate, and must be foremost in our thoughts as we proceed with the business of professional soccer improvement.
The second order of business is to attempt to restore the second most important aspect of the game of soccer...it's continuity. Ask a soccer fan what single factor makes watching soccer different from watching any other sport, and the game's continuity will come up more than any other feature.
As a multi-sport fan, it's easy for me to contrast soccer to tennis or volleyball, sports where this 'start-stop-start-stop-start-stop' rhythm is such an integral part of the game's character. In America we embrace this aspect of tennis to the point that many demean tournaments played on clay courts because they produce exchanges which are too drawn out for the attention span of the average American tennis fan.
Then there's NBA basketball, where the game has deteriorated to the point that interruption to play happens so often that one couldn't begin to count the number of times that play stops and starts.
Of course, from the player's point of view, while continuity is a beautiful thing earlier in a soccer match, it is possible to have too much of a good thing. Breaks in the game's continuity are treasured by the players as they often provide much needed brief rest periods. Fortunately, the changes I'm advocating shouldn't greatly affect the overall opportunity for rest and recuperation, since increasing the number of goals scored per game from 3 to 8 would provide a higher number of short breaks after each goal.
Recognize that the game of soccer is perfect in it's present form. I have had conversations with many players over the last 6 or 7 years, and all players are in agreement on this point. This is because most players see the essence of soccer in the passing of the ball, the making of runs, in the tackling, and in the camaraderie. So long as the game is satisfying to them in these regards, most don't really care if goals are scored while they are out on the field socializing, having fun, and keeping fit.
Just don't ask them to buy tickets to American professional soccer matches, since while soccer may be fulfilling to the player in them, for the most part it's totally insufficient for the spectator in them.
Embrace only Stealth Changes . With this in mind, it's important to realize that the best changes to the pro game are those which can be totally ignored by the non-pro leagues and players.
The best way to accomplish the Stealth Changes is to switch to a completely different scoring format.
OK, after much consideration, I feel that any adequate scoring changes would necessitate the introduction of the 5th official, The Score Keeper.
The most very basic change in the scoring system for American Professional Soccer should be to use it as a way to encourage attacking play. This is easily done by reviewing the layout of the field at the time that a goal was scored to determine first if a goal was truly scored, and then if the team which scored the goal was 'pushing forward' at the time the goal was scored, and if they weren't, then was the defending team found to be 'pushing forward'.
Here's an example of how this system could be structured:
A. 3 points for any goal scored.
B. 2 additional points if one or fewer members of the offensive team were positioned at least partially behind the midfield line.
C. 2 additional points if fewer than 2 members of the defensive team were at least partially on the far side of the midfield line.
And the beauty of this scoring system is that it need not influence how soccer is played outside the Professional ranks, since the key to making this work is the use of simple video recorder technology covering the entire field, including a printer which can print out the still pictures for record keeping purposes.
The exception would be the scoring off of a corner kick, which should be based on the player placement at the time the corner kick was earned. Failing to make this exception would result in a disproportionately high value in the corner kick, something I'm trying to avoid like the plague, since I feel that the corner kick already accounts for way too high a percentage of total goals scored.
So, while the celebration of the score takes place, the score keeper examines the video recording to determine is this is a 3 point goal, a 5 point goal, or a seven point goal, and then that is posted to the score board.
The number of players has been set using minimums because it fits teams which have been reduced in number because of red cards as well as teams playing at full strength. This could make the red card even more penal, which is just fine by me.
Scoring Conditions B & C are designed to encourage both teams to 'push forward.' This will encourage a more pass oriented "build from the back" attack which in my mind is much more enjoyable than the alternative 'long ball' approach. Fans of 'Dump and Run' soccer will be pleased to know that this strategy will still yield the occasional goal, but it will likely just be a 3 or 5 point goal, since it will be hard for the required number of offensive players to get up to the mid-field line before the goal is scored.
Confession Time: I won't pretend to know what the definition of 'pushing forward' is. But I can recognize it when I see it, as I did just last night. Running late, I arrived at half-time, and was informed as I bought my ticket that the score was 0-0, and we were playing down a man. I fully expected to see Dallas pull in and go for the 0-0 draw, which would win the series. The account at right by Tobias Xavier Lopez of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram says it all, as Coach Clarke defied convention by coming out with a 3-4-2, attacking relentlessly and providing myself and the other 15,500 surprised fans in attendance one heck of an enjoyable show, right down to the last PK in the shootout.
For simplicity's sake I hope that there is one single common element which can be easily identified, but I suspect that it might vary depending on the formation which the team is employing, or there might be some other considerations which are even more important. I'm open to just about anything except the concept that the 4 man back line is more attack oriented than a 3 man back line. And while I will agree that the 4-man back line is superior to the 3-man back line when it comes to winning soccer matches at all levels, it won't be if I have my way.
Since defense really is the name of the game, I'm thinking that a scoring system needs to be devised which affords FIFA and the MLS the ability to manage how the coaches and players and fans view the game of soccer. One which awards the entertaining elements of the game of soccer, and punishes those who choose to employ those elements which are strangling soccer. If a team wants to play with "22 legs in the box" to protect a single goal 3-0 lead from the matches 20th minute on, they can, but a penalty should be paid, particularly if the opposition is 'pushing forward.' Should the opposition score and collect 7 points (3 + 2 + 2), suddenly it's 3-7, and sitting back with everyone behind the ball waiting for a quick 'dump and run' opportunity isn't going to get you back in the lead, or even a tie for that matter. Oh yeah, this is exactly what soccer needs, and I mean NOW.
And the beauty of such a scoring system is that it can be easily adjusted to allow some fine tuning which would no doubt be required over two or three seasons of league and tournament play.
Mike "Why can't we have our cake and eat it too?" Kimbro
To return, best to hit the back arrow button, or simply hit:
Mike's Home Page or Visualize Higher Scoring Soccer
PS - Now, under the heading "Anything worth doing is worth over doing", I've let my imagination run wild just to see how this type of scoring system could get out of control. I'm giving this soccer scoring system on steroids the name:
The Pinball Soccer Score Keeping System [que the song "Pinball Wizard" by The Who ;~) ]
First order of business, we are going to require a 6th Official, say an Official Score Keeper's Assistant.
Now let's decide that we are going to regulate play by awarding points for actions we like, and assessing penalty points for action which we don't like, I'm thinking those would be actions which discourage entertaining soccer. How's this for a quick and dirty list:
Awards:
3 points for any goal
1 point for goals scored in the first 5 minutes of each half
1 point if the goal is scored within 5 minutes of the last goal scored by either team
1 points if 2, 3, or 4 offensive players are behind the midline
2 points if 0 or 1 offensive players are behind the midline.
1 point for each time the ball touches the goalkeeper's gloves per possession, no points if the ball touches any other part of his body.
Penalties:
1 for each double team outside the 18 yard box
2 points for each triple team outside the 18 yard box (can the defenders reach out and touch hands)
1 point for each time a defender kicks or deflects the ball back over the end line.
2 points for each defender in or behind the 6 yard box (or 6 yard line?)
1 point for each defender in or behind the 18 yard box, but not in the 6 yard box
1 point for each defender within the 18 yard box who is sliding tackling
1 point for each off-sides player (encourages the trap, and I like the trap)
But why do I call this 2nd soccer scoring system "Pin-ball Scoring"? Because in it I see the possibility of points being awarded or assessed dynamically while the match is being played without the need for additional stoppage of play. That's right, the scoreboard would be changing while the match is still in motion, allowing the precious continuity of soccer to be enhanced. I could just imagine a 'gong' sounding as the scoreboard changes, with a brief explanation flashing on the bottom of the stadium monitors, such as "Double Team = 1 Point".
If it sounds ridiculous, imagine for a second a league which was so defensively talented with players who played at such a high work rate that any ball handler was double teamed if they held on to the ball for more than 1.25 seconds. Hold on, the following video might just be a sample of such a reality...
No video? Get the DivX Web Player for Windows or Mac
There we go, France v. Italy, 2006 in Germany, say that FIFA wanted to discourage the double team, but didn't want play to suffer any additional interruptions. One path toward that aim could be for the Official Score Keeper to simply assess a penalty point against France, the public address system emits a unique sound indicating "double team", and play continues. The fans glance towards the stadiums monitors to confirm what they already knew: "Double Team = 1 Point"
My next example comes from that very same sad and sorry excuse for a soccer match. Why couldn't two or even three different defensive elements be targeted, say double teaming and triple teaming and even slide tackling?!? Check it out:
No video? Get the DivX Web Player for Windows or Mac
The 'gong' sounds indicating Italy's assessed a penalty point for double teaming Henry, then a 'zing' is sounded when Italy decides to triple team - another penalty point assessed. Then a 'boing' is sounded for the slide tackle (note to young defenders: if your coach suggests that you drop into the splits in front of your league's #1 striker because 'that's the way they do it in Italy', change teams!), and then Zambrotta's slide tackle generates yet another 'boing' and yet another penalty point assessment. That's at least 4 penalty points assessed, and I'd assess another to Zambrotta for raising his hand indicating that he didn't take the striker down intentionally. This hand raising BS has reached epidemic proportions, and it must be stopped, and I mean for both defense and offense.
Note: Are you people beginning to get a grasp of what soccer looks like from my point of view. I fully appreciate all the fine passing featured in this clip, yet I'm a realist who understands that all that creative soccer is impotent when confronted with the advantages which the defense enjoys at all levels.
No video? Get the DivX Web Player for Windows or Mac
So you insist that I stop focusing on tournament soccer?!? OK, in the next example, let's say the FA wanted to discourage the unlimited use of slide tackling, or maybe just discourage slide tackling in the defensive end of the field, or maybe just slide tackling when employed by the 2nd player approaching a double team, such as could be the case in the following video sample of a little English Premier League action, say Chelsea v. Tottenham...a 'friendly' if there ever was one.
In this case the 'boing' sound would be heard for the assessing of a penalty point for slide tackling, then a 'gong' sound would be heard for the double team, and then another 'boing' would be heard for another slide tackle. That would be 3 total 'points' assessed against Chelsea in the span of what...4 seconds!
Hey folks, this isn't a slam against Chelsea. No way, this is simply a very brief primer on the smothering influence of attacking defense in soccer, and one desperate man's attempt to do something about it!
And I'm real flexible here, it could be just one point for the slide tackle going into a double team. Something has to be done to discourage attacking defense, and this would be a perfect starting point. The second natural consideration would be to consider the actions of the 2nd defender.
How might the goalkeeper fit into this crazy "Pinball Soccer Scoring System"?
The most important consideration in goalkeeping is position.
Positioning has 2 primary aspects:
A. Position within the goal:
B. Position on the field:
Presently, the conventional wisdom has it that it is a goalkeeper's responsibility to cover the near post area, forcing the ball handler to look for opportunity in the slightly more distant far post region of the goal.
While rare, some near post goals are scored purely on the quality of the shots taken, such as in the following two examples where that goalkeeper was in good position, but the shots were by him before he could blink:
No video? Get the DivX Web Player for Windows or Mac
No video? Get the DivX Web Player for Windows or Mac
More commonly, however, are near post goals which are the result of poor goalkeeper positioning, as in the following example:
No video? Get the DivX Web Player for Windows or Mac
Now let's consider an example of a scoring effort to the far post area, where the goalkeeper has what has to be considered perfect positioning, yet the ball finds it's way into the far side netting:
No video? Get the DivX Web Player for Windows or Mac
When not covering the posts, the keeper usually positions himself in the middle, which offers him plenty of opportunity to cover everything but the side nets and those very rare upper 90 efforts. Take a look at the following video, and think about what it is that makes this goal possible. It's not a perfectly placed shot which nicks the goal post, or finds the side netting.
No video? Get the DivX Web Player for Windows or Mac
The key here is once again goalkeeper positioning, but this time it's the keeper's position off his line, this time almost outside the 6-yard box. The point is that a keeper is taking more risk the further out from his line he ventures. While he does cut down on the angles, his reaction time is reduced by being closer to the shooter, plus he's opening up the goal posts to attack from the sides, like in the following examples:
No video? Get the DivX Web Player for Windows or Mac
No video? Get the DivX Web Player for Windows or Mac
No video? Get the DivX Web Player for Windows or Mac
After seeing these example of a keeper paying the price for playing off his line, consideration of a scoring system where goal values are assigned based on the position of the goalkeeper (in or out of the 6-yard box) is a must. I'm thinking 2 points for a goal scored with the keeper in the 6-yard box, and 1 point for a goal scored with the keeper outside the 6-yard box. And of course, all goals which are the direct result of corner kicks would be 1 point regardless of the position of the keeper...because in a 5-3 average score universe it would be easier to recognize that corner kicks are less desirable, so should be discouraged. As it should be! ;~)
The goalkeeper's primary weapons are his or her hands. To discourage the use of the hands, points should be awarded for the use of the hands, but a balance needs to be recognized:
A. Taking a weak shot or a weak redirection of the ball in the direction of the goal should not be awarded a point. The video shows us such an example:
The game of soccer is not served by awarding a point for stopping such a weak scoring effort. But we cannot ignore the obvious question here. "Why is that shot viewed as weak?" Is it the direction of the shot? No, simply because I've seen many goals scored off of deflections of very hard shots directed straight at the goalkeeper which were deflected or bobbled by the keeper. And it's not the speed of the shot, because a light 'one-touch' into an upper 90 would have produced a brilliant "goal of the week" effort.
The difference in my mind comes down to risk taking. A shot along the ground is the safest choice for a ball handler, while any shot intended to stay above the ground is harder to control. Compare the following videos, the first a very nice shot by Ljungberg which runs along the ground under the goalkeeper:
No video? Get the DivX Web Player for Windows or Mac
and produces a wonderful goal. But now contrast that to the following video:
where the result is the same, a goal, yet Vieria took a far greater risk attempting to lift the ball up over the goalkeeper, as similar efforts under like pressure rarely find the back of the net. We've seen it happen a thousand times, the shot will either hit the keeper or it soars over the crossbar.
So, if a shot hits the ground prior to being touched by the goalkeeper, then the keeper can use his hand to catch the ball, but no points will be awarded for the shot nor for the catch.
However, if the goalkeeper catches the ball and controls it, then a point is awarded to the team of the goalkeeper.
I do realize that this does put new and additional responsibilities on the referee and referee's assistants.
This recognizes that it takes a much higher level of talent for a keeper to track the ball into your hands and/or body and then maintain control of the ball than it does to simply reach out and redirect the ball with a fist or flat hand. What is the inspiration of this idea. American football, where it's understood that there is only one thing which separates the wide receivers from the defensive backs...the ability to catch the ball and hold on to it after hitting the ground. That difference is why wide receivers earn more money than do defensive backs. Anyone can slap at the ball, but it takes skill to catch it and control it.
Then there's the risk factor which accompanies a goalkeeper's decision to catch the ball. Read over the article at right for understanding of the perfection in ball handling which is expected and required of soccer's goalkeepers...even in wet conditions.
As the father of 2 keepers, I understand that the term "easy ball" often doesn't take into account the the knuckleball type flight of a shot. And study of Job's shot in the video at left reveals the fact that the ball handler's body language too often masks the true power of a shot, creating an environment where the 'smart' keeper KNOWS that he's far better off to give up a corner kick than to attempt to catch any shot...especially if the ball is the least bit moist. The article at right fits every possible definition of the word 'pathetic', including #4: "measurable inadequate", as the bottom line is that the match was obviously so challenged from an entertainment point of view that - decades after the fact - fans are still fixated on a wet ball slipping through a keeper's hands. Truly sad.
No video? Get the DivX Web Player for Windows or Mac
Check out this timely 'case study' which so makes my point...the keeper who attempts to make the catch and fails get's skinned alive, while the keeper who reaches up and pops the ball over is considered to be exercising good decision making skills, even if in doing so just hands the opposition a corner kick.
Note to the novice fan: From this time forward you will watch goalkeeper play in a different light, understanding why soccer commentators so despise athletic catches such as the those in the photographs of my main man Fabian Barthez. As you listen to criticism about "bad decision making", it's not that the soccer press hates Barthez, they just hate his behavior. Understand that, looking at soccer from their level of experience, there is simply no room for any form of showboating by the goalkeeper. So the 'smart' keeper avoids all criticism by simply tapping the ball around the post and then setting up for the corner kick. Such fear of criticism manifests in bizarre ways, like with the laughable 6" vertical leap employed by nearly all goalkeepers when they're chipped. It's not that keepers aren't athletic, it's just that getting scored on by a chip is vastly preferable to the mere possibility of being featured on FSC's 'goals of the week' as a clever Owen or Pires slots the ball under the keeper's awesome 36" vertical leap. And yes, the commentators would cite that as yet another example of bad decision making, and once the criticism begins the next two minutes are spent questioning the keeper's position in the penalty area, the speed at which he or she is advancing toward the attacker, the position of the arms (high or low), was this the right time for "the professional foul," even the keepers position on the field back at the time of the possession change. Once the criticism begins, it's followed with phrases like "here the keeper let's himself get caught in 'no man's land'," and before they're through a motivated commentator has found 2 or 3 things the keeper did wrong...just in that one play. Then before you know it, the keeper's saddled with the responsibility for the club's 3 match loosing streak (all 1-0 matches!!!) and suggestions that Shevchenko would have transferred there had it not been for the weak defense. Watch for it.
Now all this has been said simply to establish that we should encourage the goalkeeper to play outside the 6 yard box, and that we should recognize that catching the ball requires more skill while being riskier as well.
No video? Get the DivX Web Player for Windows or Mac
And I know what you may be thinking. Why would you want to reward the keeper for catching a weak shot which pretty much dribbles up to the keeper's feet, such as the example at right. And you would be right in pointing this exception out to me. So we need to exclude shots which hit the ground first, although doing so might require help from the referee and his assistants to determine whether contact was made with the ground, and I had been trying to avoid the need for additional contact between the referee and the Official Score Keeper...but that might just be an impossibility.
So, after consideration of all of the above, I'm thinking that it wouldn't be all that hard to win over the goalkeepers to embrace the Pin-ball Soccer Scoring System if it was structured to occasionally reward the goalkeeper for fun, risky, athletic, entertaining, eccentric, and adventuresome play.
And here's how that might be achieved:
Awards:
1 point for each missed PK
2 points for each blocked PK
1 point for any contact with the ball outside the 6 yard box
1 point for each catch of a ball which hasn't touched the ground (including PK's)
And then I'm thinking that there could be interesting ways to assess penalty points against the goalkeeper as well.
Penalties:
1 point for each time a defender kicks or deflects the ball back over the end line (includes goalkeepers as well.)
All of you who cite the evolution of the size of goalkeepers as just cause to replace all the goals in the world with new larger models will really appreciate my logic on the following:
1 point assessed for each goal if the goalkeeper is more than 5' 8" tall (think horse racing)
2 points assessed for each goal if the goalkeeper is more than 6' 1" tall
3 points assessed for each goal if the goalkeeper is more that 6' 6" tall
4 points assess for each goal if the goalkeeper is more than 7' tall (again, think horse racing)
If you feel that such a handicap system makes no sense, let me remind you that only 3 pro-soccer individuals world-wide are calling for more goals, and none of those 3 are currently playing the game at any level other than maybe the video game level. It simply makes no sense all is for FIFA to mandate the replacement of all those goals when not one single player is speaking out for bigger goals, or any other changes to the beautiful game which they love so well.
And I can promise you that NO goalkeeper has or will ever speak out in favor of larger goals without some direct financial incentive.
A More Restricted Use of the Award and Penalty Points
So, you're not at all amused about the possibility of the next World Cup tournament featuring matches which end in scores like 42 - 37, or a Goalkeeper of the Tournament who allowed 3.75 goals per match, but averaged 16 net points per match, in part due to his 5' 8" height, and 38" vertical leap.
OK, now let's say that a subset of these 'award and penalty points' serve to do nothing more than settle the huge number of draws which plagues the MLS today, particularly with most of the better teams, as evidenced by the following 2006 MLS Regular Season Final Standings:
|
For an undisputable angle on what 'winning soccer' is all about at the tournament level, consider that MLS Cup Champion Houston had an 11-8-13 record and runner-up New England had a 12-8-12 record, which combine for an average record of 11.5 - 8 - 12.5, which makes the big match's 1-1 draw and PK Shoot-Out so very expected. And yes, I am an expert on the subject...I was there.
Some might feel that this alone would be adequate reason to consider such a scoring system alteration. I surely do. And even for those who feel that they haven't gotten their money's worth if the match isn't at least 120 minutes long, a system to decide the winner via 'award and assessment points' would be preferable to any PK based system imaginable. How can anyone take the position that the lottery which IS today's PK system is preferable?
Consider this example suggested by a Liverpool Executive after the 2006 FA Cup Final - the addition of a 4th substitute in overtime - presented to avoid the reoccurrence of a shoot-out. Rick Parry's quote: "It would make it less of a lottery." See, I'm not the only person requesting that soccer rules be changed, it's just that most ideas publicly presented are like this one...knee jerk responses to unusual situations, and don't include any real thought for how they might affect the gestalt of soccer.
OK, let's put the joking aside. Again, since defense really is the name of the game in soccer, I'm thinking that a simpler scoring system needs to be devised which allows FIFA and the MLS to manage how the coaches view the game of soccer. One which awards the entertaining elements of the game of soccer, and punishes those who choose to employ those elements which are strangling soccer. It can be simple, or it can be complex, but the the beauty of such a scoring system is that it can be easily adjusted to allow some fine tuning which would no doubt be required over two or three seasons of league and tournament play. I'm thinking that it certainly deserves a full season of trial in the MLS prior to further consideration of a world-wide move to larger goals.
Photo Credit: Allen Shope via the International Pinball Database, photos of the Bally World Cup Soccer '94 Pinball Machine