A whole new approach

[ferrarilover]

Ok, here's the thing. The Championship table shows us that Huddersfield have a goal difference of -24, yet they have 5 more points than Wolves and the Posh, both on GD of -9. This hardly seems fair. Surely there should be some distinction between getting beaten 1-0 and getting beaten 6-0. Thus, I wonder if we don't do away with awarding points for win-lose-draw and start instead to use GD as a way of ranking teams.

That way, the real dross in a division would sink to the bottom and the better but not quite as good teams would avoid being unjustly relegated. I feel that GD is more important than it is currently given credit for being. We have a GD which is barely any different to Oxford, yet we are miles behind them on points. GD seems to even out the luck factor more too. We were hugely unlucky to lose to both Port Vale and Fleetwood and, under the present system, those teams benefited just as much as they would have had they won 6-0. Equally, we were disadvantaged, relative to those around us, just the same as we would have been had we been beaten heavily.

Under the current system, a team who's results are L6-0, L6-0, D0-0 get 1 point from 9. The team who L1-0, L1-0, L1-0 get 0 points, despite conceding 9 fewer goals and scoring the same number. This, to me, seems a bit silly when the first team are clearly much less good than the second.

Who thinks I'm nuts?

Matt.

This isn't a fully formed idea or argument, I've got a lot on.

[Southampton Gull]

Everyone?

[SuperNickyWroe]

seconded.

[usagullmichigan]

yep yep

[AustrianAndyGull]

What about me too?

[Alpine Joe]

Ferrarilover

GD seems to even out the luck factor more too

The highs and lows are part of sports fascination, and the goal difference system in my view would kill a lot of the excitement. Giving every goal you score equal status (i.e improves your goal difference by one) would kill the variety. Think of the vast differences at the moment between a consolation goal, an equalising goal, or a winning goal.

You would lose the head to head contest feel of a match and replace it with 90 minutes of football instead. If I think back to our brilliant comeback from being three nil down against Aldershot to win the game 4-3; our first goal didn't generate much enthusiasm, there was mass excitement at our third, and sheer ecstasy at our fourth. But under the goal difference system each goal you score or concede has an equal effect of improving or worsening your goal difference by the same factor of one. The high of getting a last minute winner over Exeter would be vastly diluted. The pain of conceding in the last minute to Argyle would also no longer be that big a deal as all that's happened is that your GD has taken a minor knock, as people no longer think in terms of winning matches or losing matches.

As we're using Huddersfield as a particular example, their supporters would have missed out on the excitement and emotion at the weekend if the current system had been scrapped in favour of GD. Under the current win/lose/draw they had the thrill of beating hated Yorkshire big brothers Leeds at Elland Road. You can imagine the excitement caused when that 86th minute winner was scored and the nail biting last 4 minutes plus injury time as they desperately held on for the win. Who would want to swap that in exchange for a system that rewarded you with nothing more than your goal difference going from -25 to -24 ?

But would many people still be in grounds for the final 15 minutes anyway ? Under GD you in effect have 90 minutes of football rather than a match. In the final quarter of an hour your team might improve it's goal difference by one, it's goal difference may worsen by one, or their may be no change. It's no big deal either way so why stick around in the cold. Compare that with 0-0 or 1-1 or 2-2 under the current system as we head into the final 10 or 15 minutes. One goal either way can have a huge difference as you could be celebrating a winning goal and 3 points or suffer the disappointment of seeing your team concede and get nothing.

Matt, I am sure, will reflect that evening out the highs and lows (even if it did make it fairer) would spoil football for many of us, although admittedly it would suit some. In favour, will probably be those who on an individual basis do the same thing by betting against their own team. A practice which makes the lows more palatable, but equally takes the edge off the highs as well. For those of us who are not too affluent the unbridled joy of celebrating your team getting an unexpected late equaliser would be tempered by the contrasting realisation that the goal has cost you £20 in lost stake money. And what if you win your bet ? The players troop off disappointed, no win bonus for them, the majority of the supporters troop home forlorn having seen Torquay defeated, yet you have the uneasy sensation of knowing someone will be rewarding you with money because your team lost.

Well done to Matt for thinking outside the box, but on this occasion his 'whole new approach' is the equivalent of Felipe Massa, whereas our existing win/lose/draw system is a Fernando Alonso

[Gullscorer]

Why stop with goal difference? Let's factor in the numbers of corner kicks, penalty kicks and free kicks teams have won; not to mention yellow cards, red cards, substitutions, the size of players' salaries, and the size of their boots...

Let's remember the object of the exercise here, which is to simply distinguish between teams who are otherwise equal on points, in order to determine their relative positions in the league table. I agree with Matt insofar as the current method of points difference is not entirely satisfactory, otherwise his idea is complete bonkers!

Goal difference was actually introduced in order to encourage a greater number of goals scored by teams. Well, this system obviously hasn't worked, judging by the number of 0-0 and 1-0 scorelines. Personally, I always preferred the previous system: that of goal averages. And I think we should revert to that system.

Now, where's my old calculator....?

[ferrarilover]

The highs and lows are part of sports fascination, and the goal difference system in my view would kill a lot of the excitement. Giving every goal you score equal status (i.e improves your goal difference by one) would kill the variety. Think of the vast differences at the moment between a consolation goal, an equalising goal, or a winning goal.

Except they are winning goals and equalising goals, the only thing we lose is the meaningless consolation goal and instead we replace it with a goal which earns something. Presently, if a team is 3-0 down with 2 minutes to go, there's little point in their scoring a goal, because they will still get 0 points for losing 3-1. Equally, the reward for the team in the lead for scoring a 4th goal is so slight that they may as well not bother. Games peter out into nothing. If we offered, effectively, a point per goal, there would be incentive for both teams to continue attacking for the full 90 minutes, in the hope of either lessening the points deduction in the case of the losing side, or increasing the points gain for the winning side. We still have winning and losing, it's just that it matters by how many a team wins and loses. The same with equalisers, it's the difference between losing one point and not losing one point and the opposite for the team in the lead. Heartache and ecstasy retained and, in many cases, extended.

As we're using Huddersfield as a particular example, their supporters would have missed out on the excitement and emotion at the weekend if the current system had been scrapped in favour of GD. Under the current win/lose/draw they had the thrill of beating hated Yorkshire big brothers Leeds at Elland Road. You can imagine the excitement caused when that 86th minute winner was scored and the nail biting last 4 minutes plus injury time as they desperately held on for the win. Who would want to swap that in exchange for a system that rewarded you with nothing more than your goal difference going from -25 to -24 ?

This is just the thing. Beating them 1-0 is all well and good, but under the present system, they could go there and win 10-0 with a virtuoso performance, really put them to the sword and still get the same reward as the team who goes there, gets battered for 90 minutes and gets a dreadful OG 1-0 winner in the 95th minute. There is no distinction between winning well and merely happening to score a greater number of goals than an opponent. I don't see the difference in 'merely' moving a GD from -25 to -24 and 'merely' moving a points tally from 17-20. What I do see is a system whereby there is no distinction drawn between worthy winners who really do beat a team with guile and skill and endeavour over the course of 90 minutes, and a team which is rubbish, but gets a bit lucky.

But would many people still be in grounds for the final 15 minutes anyway ? Under GD you in effect have 90 minutes of football rather than a match. In the final quarter of an hour your team might improve it's goal difference by one, it's goal difference may worsen by one, or their may be no change. It's no big deal either way so why stick around in the cold. Compare that with 0-0 or 1-1 or 2-2 under the current system as we head into the final 10 or 15 minutes. One goal either way can have a huge difference as you could be celebrating a winning goal and 3 points or suffer the disappointment of seeing your team concede and get nothing.

In the case of a match being drawn in the latter stages, a goal either way would see the scorers gain one point, and the conceders lose one point. This is, overall, at least as consequential as now, because under our system, the scorers get three points and the conceders get zero points. Equally, under the new system, a match being drawn late on is broadly similar (in terms of the consequence of a late goal either way) to a match being decided by an odd goal either way at present and I don't see too many real fans deserting their side at 1-0 down in the 80th minute, do you?
My system also allows for situations where teams may find themselves a long way behind (say 4-0) at half time (or even earlier). The chances of getting anything from that match for the losing side is so close to zero that the players go into defensive, damage limitation mode. Equally, there is almost no reward for the winning team if they score more, so they don't bother. Fans of the losing side rush home in their droves. Under my scheme, every goal counts, so while the losing side may not be able to get the 4 or 5 they need to get points, they may be able to get 2 or 3 and significantly lessen the blow of such a poor half. The incentive is therefore there for both sides to continue to attack rather than let the match peter out into nothing.

Well done to Matt for thinking outside the box, but on this occasion his 'whole new approach' is the equivalent of Felipe Massa, whereas our existing win/lose/draw system is a Fernando Alonso

I can't stand Fernando Alonso. Nor Xabi Alonso or Fernando Torres for that matter, maybe it's the names?

Matt.