do u think the goal posts should be wider and higher?

Answer 1

If the dimensions of the goal is EVER increased, there must be two goal-keepers guarding it, but surely not during the times of penalties since it would result the keepers headbutting into each other.

Answer 2

That's the likes of giving Juninho a free kick from 17 meters out...Too easy.

I admit it, goalkeepers are most athletic in the modern game, but so is everyone else.

Penalty kicks are STILL more of an advantage to the taker than the keeper, with a whooping 98% of kicks aimed towards the top corner of the goal going in; I shouldn't even have to mention that low and away is almost impossible to defend.

When was the last time you saw two goalkeepers save the first 5 penalty kicks, in one game, for both sides?

Goals are down because defenders are stronger and coaching has become more tactical

The parameters of the of the goal post are fine, It makes it harder to score goals and gives weaker clubs a chance to win games. Imagine if they did increase the measurements, Serbia and Montenegro might have lost 16 to 0 instead of only 6-0 to Argentina in the World cup. Anyone who wants it extended probably still needs to learn;" Dude, the ball is suppose to hit the net, not the bar"

Answer 3

No i think its a dangerous precedent to set, what next two referees in each half or would that be four quarters?
I think if we change the size of the goals we are going to end up with american football style games .
Things are fine at the minute the goals are still flowing and the game is exciting as its ever been except the three horse race every year or two horse in scotland.

Answer 4

No, I think there are far more worthy issues that need to be dealt with within the game, such as players diving, or players feigning injury or waving imaginary cards in order to get fellow professionals booked or sent off.

The current dimensions of the goalposts are fine as they have been for over 100 years. If players can't get their shots on the target then that is their problem. Maybe they should knuckle down to some shooting practise or think about a career change.

Answer 5

No , we will not be able 2 know who is bad in scoreing &who is good b'se as the goals will be wider and higher any body can score ,and had work willbe given to keepperes and deffeders too.infact it is not good ,think agein

Answer 6

If they were it would make the older goals that we celebrate obselete. And lets face it its not as if the England Goalies would ever even see the ball up their end - it would make the wait nicer if the goalie's office was more spacious. I think that if we change the goalposts it would provide a nice edickational passage fore people.

Answer 7

Definately yes. Eric Morecambe suggested that many years ago when he was a director of Luton Town. Everyone thought it was one of his jokes but he was serious, and he was right. Goalkeepers are more athletic and defences more packed since the rules were first written so let's encourage attacking play by making a bigger target for shots.

Answer 8

No, the goals are the right size.
What would encourage better outfield play would be to reduce the team size to 10 instead of eleven.

Answer 9

Yep, but only for Celtic and Rangers
then the other teams have a chance of scoring!!!
Regards from Chelsea

Answer 10

Yes, absolutely. And the reason isn't to make the game more exciting, but to improve its accuracy at determining the better team. Soccer in its current form is deeply flawed, to the point that it exaggerates the role of luck to an extreme. Teams that are widely recognized as being far superior to their opponent don't win nearly as often as their perceived skill would suggest they should. Compared to something like basketball, this difference is very noticeable.

All we need to look at to appreciate the role of luck in a sport like soccer or basketball is to look at the results in controlled situations. Take penalty kicks in soccer. With a clean kick, professional soccer players can kick the ball with enough accuracy and force to ensure the goalkeeper has no chance of reaching it. But even with the best players in the world, there is wide inconsistency with their ability to do this. One can't argue that these players' skill level is changing widely from one second to the next. Instead we must look to the infinite number of variables that we can fairly categorize under the term "luck" to explain the variation. There simply is no level of skill that any human has ever achieved which can make him/her capable of consistency even in these controlled situations. Now when we come back to regular game action, where a ball is bouncing around, hitting different turf, pitting players with varying amounts of sweat in their eyes to distract them, etc. we have to conclude that the role of things well outside the category of skill is going to be critical. This becomes many times more relevant when a game is balanced heavily in favor of the defense, so that very few points are scored.

Changing this balance would not simply result in higher scoring games. It would result in greater consistency in outcomes. Better teams would win more often, and the role of skill would match up better to the role of luck.

This is absolutely something we should experiment with in the United States. There's no real reason not to. It would improve the quality of the sport, and it very likely would increase interest. We already have differences between our versions of sports like basketball vs. the international community. Those differences don't seem to hurt us much when we play (and win) in the Olympics.