The lower scoring a sport is, the more the winners of it's matches are determined by chance. No matter how good a team is, its opponent will sometimes score by chance, not skill. If a match is high scoring, the scores earned by skill will dominate over those earned by chance.
Today's FIFA match is a perfect example. The two teams only had one point each and the winner was determined by a chance-prone shootout.
Note that I suggest that more goals should be scored, not that each goal counts more points. For statistical reasons, it might be desirable for average teams to score around 30 goals per game. (30 observations is the number at which the law of averages takes effect.) This might be accomplished by making the goal wider or higher, or imposing additional limitations on the goalie.
What do you think?
2006-07-09 18:21:12 · 26 answers · asked by crao_craz 6 in Sports ➔ Football ➔ FIFA World Cup (TM)
You are an idiot.
You are a dumb pig.
Go wash yourself.
I got two points for insulting you.
Yahoo does not care.
You are an idiot.
You are a dumb pig.
Go wash yourself.
I got two points for insulting you.
Yahoo does not care.
You are an idiot.
You are a dumb pig.
Go wash yourself.
I got two points for insulting you.
Yahoo does not care.
You are an idiot.
You are a dumb pig.
Go wash yourself.
I got two points for insulting you.
Yahoo does not care.
You are an idiot.
You are a dumb pig.
Go wash yourself.
I got two points for insulting you.
Yahoo does not care.
You are an idiot.
You are a dumb pig.
Go wash yourself.
I got two points for insulting you.
Yahoo does not care.
You are an idiot.
You are a dumb pig.
Go wash yourself.
I got two points for insulting you.
Yahoo does not care.
You are an idiot.
You are a dumb pig.
Go wash yourself.
I got two points for insulting you.
Yahoo does not care.
---------------->And you are probably right , Yahoo! doesn't care because you are still answering question, old man<-------------------
2006-07-10 17:59:59 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
Dude , you're being ignorant (no offense). The purpose of watching a sport should not only be its score. You're watching how people play and how they build an attack. You're also watching how they defend and counter attack. It's all about the plays, the goals are the final touch, and what makes football so awesome. Each goal is appreciated to its fullest because of this. In basketball 90% of the time someone scores, it's all the same... (I'm not saying basketball is boring), you're not yelling each time someone scores. Sometimes people won't even notice a score in basketball, because you score so much. In football certain goals make people cry of hapiness or sometimes sadness.
You obviously haven't watched enough matches, and that's why you're saying this. Another reason is that you probably haven't played football and don't realize the diffuclty of even the most simplest passes that are made. Unlike basketball or American football which uses hands (more intuitive), football requires incredible amount of skills with your feet.
2006-07-10 01:24:32 · answer #2 · answered by vincenzi 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You make alot of sense, although it's totally impractical to transform the typical soccer match from a 2 score affair to 60 scores combined between two teams! You would be making an entirely different sport.
2006-07-10 01:27:27 · answer #3 · answered by kirbyguy44 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I know that if they started scoring more, a lot more Americans would watch soccer more.
If they did make the goal bigger, and it still ties & goes to penalty shootout, it would go on forever. But I do wish that in games people would score a LOT more. I would love to see someone jump and do a bycicle kick at least once every game.
2006-07-10 01:30:52 · answer #4 · answered by Byahhhhhhh 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no way amn that should never happen ! all the glory and wait shall be unnoticed . it would be like basketball dont u think?
"and there goes henry and scores his 76th goal in his debut match..."do u want to hear that?actually it can be a high scoring game u know like when" france face of with a kindergarten reserve team!""it's going to be interesting?,its boring and one sided" one more thing rugby is a game where the points are the way u want it to dont u think?
2006-07-10 01:32:02 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, eh? What kind of 56 year old are you? If I saw you in real life I'd steal your wheelchair, old man! You're probably some crippled retard or something who does this for kicks and is laughing right now at my answer. You'll like this link then, huh buddy?
2006-07-11 01:44:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are an idiot.
You are a dumb pig.
Go wash yourself.
I got two points for insulting you.
Yahoo does not care.
2006-07-11 02:11:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are an idiot.
You are a dumb pig.
Go wash yourself.
I got two points for insulting you.
Yahoo does not care.
What the hell? You have that same thing on every answer? Even on mine... Idiot. Thanks for the two points!
2006-07-11 02:11:59 · answer #8 · answered by ♦♫қ!lVl♫♦ 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No! It is called the "beautiful game" for a reason. People watch on the edge of their seats waiting for that one goal. Millions love it. Why change it?
2006-07-10 01:31:21 · answer #9 · answered by tocar.elcielo 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i agree. i think there should be either a combination of, or any one of the following:
less people on the field;
a smaller goal with no keeper;
no draws, just overtimes;
and definitely no shootouts, just overtimes to determine a winner.
2006-07-10 01:26:49 · answer #10 · answered by djmixmode 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋