I found it really hard to understand, which shows how behind the times I am. By my way of thinking it is Mourinho's job to win matches for Chelsea, given the resources he has; it is not his job to entertain neutrals.
This is naive. The football-watching populace has changed. Once a team's games would be watched by that team's fans. They would prefer exciting football, but a win's a win. Now so many more games are televised the majority of viewers are not fans of either team, but of "football" generally.
This may be a transition period, where the managers' incentives out of line with the customers' interests. Currently wins are rewarded, by the clubs and the leagues: it may be that (the majority) of viewers care proportionally less about wins. The most exciting league will sway international viewers. Rule change may be in the Premier League's interests. Off the top of my head, here's a couple of ways to bring in the renminbis while ruining the game you all love so much.
- No more draws. If it's a draw, there's no extra time or penalties, the team with the greatest number of shots on target, or corners, wins.
- Big clocks. No more referees' watches.
- No more offside.
- Shot counter. You need to shoot after, I don't know, a minute or so?
There. That'll sort it.
6 comments:
Agree that there is an inherent ridiculousness in the belief that if you win a game by passing short, recycling possession and cutting in from the wing, you are morally superior than a team winning a game with defending, counter-attacking and crosses.
Having said that, it's easy to be philosophical when you never watch the games. You don't sit through the tedium of Chelsea first leg away trips, because then you'd be crying out for some entertainment.
Oh, I agree! This is what I mean - most people want entertainment but the managers aren't incentivised to provide it.
I'm very rarely bored during Chelsea games because I'm nervous the whole time that we might concede. But yes, if we want to make things more interesting for neutrals, these are good suggestions.
I would say - let's keep draws, but neither team gets any points for a scoreless draw. A small intervention that would encourage teams to attack.
Shot clock is not a bad idea - getting rid of the back pass, which is kind of similar, changed the game a lot.
I don't think anyone is that bothered about ref's watches, not that much - unless you think it would stop time-wasting. But that said, it's cool in rugby when the clock runs out and they can keep playing until the ball goes out of play.
The offside rule has to exist, unfortunately, as otherwise strikers could just hang around the opponents goal and there would be constant long ball tactics. Maybe you could lightly penalise strikers for being repeatedly offside, like technical fouls in basketball? But that would discourage attacking football, possibly.
PS you are correct in your assessment that your friend is completely wrong about Mourinho ruining football. He is fighting fire with fire, it is part of the necessary cycle of tactical reinvention.
Your suggestions are more practical. Love no points for a scoreless draw. How much more fun would that be? Teams bombing forward with nothing to lose. Who wouldn't want to see that?
Same with changing the time so it's more like rugby and the half/game only ends when the balls in the stands or in the goal. No more boring passing between defenders seeing out the game. Instead, players from the losing team desperately sliding in to prevent the ball from going out. Great! Would mean taking the timekeeping away from the refs though, which would no doubt be resisted.
Well it's fair to say that given Chelsea have pumped well over 1 Billion pounds into signing the best footballers, they should play at least half decent football.
It's not my choice that I like football, or my choice that Chelsea or other big teams get more air time. But let's say I want to see a Champions Lge game. If Chelsea are playing, theres a big chance ITV will show the Chelsea game ( I can't afford Sky or to go to the pub all the time.) So I have to watch about 3 or 4 Chelsea European matches a season.
And when I do they are gash. For all the money and here's the crux of the argument ; Abramovich bought Chelsea after watching Madrid Man U 4-3 in 2003, and claimed he wanted "champagne football."
So you can keep being snide (And you're probably a Chelsea fan pretending not to be) about those of us who don't have a team in England (I'm Scottish) and our being subjected to awful football, played by a team funded by one of the richest men in Europe, ostensibly in order to play good football.
I don't mind the likes of Man City, Liverpool, Arsenal - at least they are worth watching. It takes more skill to have an attacking team than it does a defensive one.
Post a Comment