PSC bonus points!

[Golden Boy]

Here's my half arsed crack at explaining it:
Every team plays one team from the other group (CCMFC V Roar), the standard points system stays (3,1,0) there are bonus points (which are added) according to how many goals you score 1 for 2 goals, 2 for 3 goals and 3 for 4 or more.

From there:
The winner of each group hosts the runner-up of the other group. The 3rd Places host the 4th places, as they play off for places.
The losers of the 3rd V 4th games play off for 7th, the winners of those games play off for 5th, the losers of the semi-finals play off for third, the winners of the semi-finals play for the Pre-Season cup. Each game is hosted by the Highest Placed (based on a combined table) team competing.

It means every team plays every week. I hope that helps.

-- a quote from Omni

[Golden Boy]

This system of bonus points has no place in football. It lacks what makes Football beautiful and what makes many things beatiful, complexity from simplicity. It is complexity from complexity which is ugly. Rugby Union rules and their league systems are ugly due to their complexity created from complexity. Their is a column on pintculture.com where a guy unleashes a torrent of hate on Matt Carrol for the bonus point system. I agree with the article but what I don't like about it is that it offers no alternative for what the FFA sees as something they would like to try, having higher scoring matches without changes the onfield rules.
This is my alternative which is simple and thus beautiful if it does indeed gain the desired effect which I am sure it will. A nil all draw does not give a point but instead gives 0 points. "That will eradicate nil all draws but will not promote higher scoring games" I hear you saying. I think it would.
All this game needs is a goal to really open it up. How often does one hear this when watching a game between two evenly matched teams. Never truer than Mariners 0 Adelaide 0. This is one example of the two teams coming away with no goals not for lack of trying. But if every manager knew from the outset that 0-0 would result in 0 points they would have their team try even harder to score commiting more players forward as if they were 1-0 down from the start. Going into the game they have zero points. If they finish up 0-0 they have zero points, if they leave on the losing end of a 1-0 scoreline they will have zero points they have nopthing to lose and everything to gain by playing looser and going all out for a goal from the start. A game that may of needed a goal to really open up now starts as if both teams are 1-0 down.
This system almost ensures there will not be a 0-0 draw, I still think though that CCMFC v AUFC would of finished 0-0 for they were so evenly matched, but does it promote higher scoring games over all? It does a way with 0-0, 1-0 is hardly highscoring and there is nothing that promotes 2-0 or 3-2. That would be the thinking of Matt Carrol who has limited experience in the game. That's where the subtlety of the no goals no points rule comes into play. Trial the system and see. I think that having nothing to lose and the subsequent looser play will result in earlier goals and then more time for the losing team to come back firing even more and get some goals of their own by commiting more players into the attack. This could result in the losing team getting a goal or conceding more.

Where Carrol's system beats mine is when a dominate team effortlessly gains a 2-0 advantage. There is no incentive to get more goals and thus at this point the play could become stale. But who wants to see 5-0 blow outs? The other point is when two evenly matched, high quality teams cancel each other out and neither is rewarded for great play because they ended up 0-0. This is unfortunate but must be a price.

I don't deny that Carrol's system would promote more goals, but it isn't worth it. There needs to be a more elegant solution than team A gets 2 points for being in the 3rd goal reward bracket and team B gets 3 points for winning and 3 for being in the highest goal reward bracket making a total of 6. The thought does make my stomach turn.

An elegant and simple solution is needed to keep intact the Beauty of football. I would like to read feedback on whether you're in favour of Carrol's bonus point system, what you think of my sytem and would love to read some other systems that people have thought up.

[Jesus]

I am going to leave my judgement to after the round. It is only in the PSC afterall. We will see how it adds up, good or bad

[Golden Boy]

I commend them for trying different things in the PSC.
I am just afraid that if this round does throw up a few matches that end 4-3, 3-3 that they will seriously consider implementing this system for future A-league seasons without exploring alternatives. The fact that Matt Carrol has the final say is worrying because he comes from a different football code and thus different sporting culture and may not get what is important to football fans.
A little correspondence with the fans would be good. But the reason I wanted a lot of opinions is to gauge whether Matt Carrol was on the money or if I need to send him an email. I just feel even if the games were high scoring affairs and really exciting it's not worth it to change the philosophy of Football from elegant simplicity to an overly complex albeit exciting sport.

[Farthing]

Well i dont like the new scoreing system i think it is stupid, but after the 0-0 draw between adeliade and glory, we need a 2-0 win on saturday and that would make sure of a home semi and if adeliade could hold sydney to a 3-3 or less draw that would get us a home final if we get that far

[brett]

That is the first I have heard of a 0-0 o points system that I can think of. Did you think it up or read it somewhere? I reckon it's a great concept.

For the record I dont like the system that will be trialled. I'll be interested to watch and see how it goes, but I can see a lot of flaws from a football purist point of view and would hate to see it implemented in A-League proper.

The worst part about this bonus round is that the teams play a team from the other group. Therefore there is no consequence to either team as to how many goals the other team scores. For example:

Mariners are 3-0 up against queensland. If we let two goals in to make it 3-2, we're still going to keep all our points, but what's worse is that the point Queensland doesn't affect us at all because they aren't in our group. There is no incentive for teams to defend against the other team getting bonus points.

So it would make sense for both teams to adopt ridiculous 3-3-4 formations and be satisfied with a 3-3 or 4-4 draw, or even a 3-4 loss, rather than play normally and risk losing 1-0 or drawing 0-0 or 1-1. This is not the football we know and love! Whether it turns out like this - we will have to wait and see. Since it's just a one-off I dont think many teams will exploit the system, rather just concentrate on playing good football in the lead-up to the proper season.

As for the 0-0 no points theory, there's certainly more merit to it on paper. I dont think it would fundamentally change the game from the outset. Teams wouldn't launch into super-attacking modes from the first whistle, because the risk of conceding first is still there. If you concede first - the other team has the ability to shut up their defence. While at 0-0, the other team still needs to score to earn anything and holes will be left for your team. The football match patterns still exist.

What we would see would be attacking substitutions around the 50-60 minute mark as teams increasingly risk their defence to get a goal. I really like the climax this would give to matches that remian at 0-0 until this period of the match. Even when one goal is scored, one of the teams would need to launch into all out attack, so the spectacle would continue.

So this may be something they could trial in next years PSC or even implement for the whole PSC. From the A-League point of view though, I'd be pretty shattered if it was anything other than standard league rules from around the world. Any change would:

a) cheapen our league, and may subsequently deter players, particularly high-profile foreigners, from coming to play here
b) significantly alter the pattern of play and fundamentals of football here. this would negatively affect our players if they were raised tactically into certain systems that didn't apply in other parts of the world. Also, on the international scene our players may be called up and have to change their playing mentality quickly! We shouldnt branch out too far from the norm.

c) it would ruin some great 0-0 spectacles and match situations. when you get a player sent off, 0-0 can be a bloody good result. or playing away from home against the top side. or what if, particularly with our 20-man squads, injuries prevented you from having the same attacking options on the bench as your opposition? And as you said GB, how good are 0-0 draws just to watch sometimes! The chess match of how much each team/manager is willing to risk it towards the end of the match can be enthralling. And the thrill of last minute 1-0 wins like against New Zealand last year is incredible; it would almost be expected if that system came into place. The increased attack as the match progressed would excite, but would become predictable. What would the next gimmick be?

A system I have dreamt up is different to these two in that it essentially doesn't alter the pattern of play in an individual match, which is the main gripe amongst purists. My system, which could only really be applied over a full season, would see the teams ranked at the end of the season in the goals scored column. The higher the rank, the higher the end of season points bonus. For example, the team that finishes the season with the most goals would score a bonus 5 points, the next two teams 4 points, 4th and 5th with 3 points, 6th and 7th with 1 point, and 8th with no bonus points.

This way, matches aren't directly affected in the way they are played out, but, over the course of the season, the most attacking teams would be rewarded. This would achieve the goal of eliminating dead-rubber finishes to games. When a team was 2-0 up towards the end, the intensity and need to score (for BOTH teams) would still be there. Extra goals would be more valuable than just salt-in-wound-rubbing or basic Goal Difference. Imagine having a team on the ropes, beating them by 2, 3 or more goals, and, needing to gain ground in the goals scored column against other teams in the comp, the fans absolutely beying for more blood while it's there to be spilt!

Since the team on top of the comp is likely to have close to the most goals and the team on the bottom the least, this rule wouldnt necessarily shake things up to a ridiculous extent at the end of the season. But if you have teams congested around that 3rd-5th position on the ladder, 1 or 2 points over a season mightn't determine who was really the 'better' team, but if one team was in line for 4 bonus points while another only 1, it might sort out their position on the ladder! Teams would have this in mind through the year, and voila, more goals.

I wouldn't back any change to standard rules but I just thought I'd throw another alternative out there.

[Golden Boy]

I made it up.

I don't think that rule changes are necessary at all. But if we are going to bring any in they would have to not change the tactical mentality of our players or cheapen our league, as you said Tiger. I don't think that my system would do that. Teams wouldn't drastically change their formations to ultra attacking they would just play a bit more riskier in the dying minutes making it more likely to avoid 0-0 than making sure of 3-4. So maybe the system wouldn't meet Carrol's objectives. But that is part of what I'm trying to find out. At what cost do we ensure no less than a 2-1 scoreline? For me it would take an extremely elegant solution to endorse a change that results in high scoring matches. The solution can't change the beauty or simplicity of the game both on the field and when I'm working out who's on top of the table.

The main problem I see with your system is that there would be too much accounting needed to work out how one's team is going, which is the main problem for me with the Carrol system. I don't like adding bonus points. Too unnecessarily complicated for my liking. I don't deny that your system would have good effects on playing mentality that would probably result in more goals and it is better than Carrol's because it heaps all the accounting into one go at the end of the season. It's still not as elegant as I would like.

I've got a system that would definetely be worth trying for a season. No goal difference just Goals for. The effects of goal difference is rewarding the best teams in all areas. If we wanted to promote goal scoring it is holding teams back. A team is 2-0 nil up and they consider playing more riskily for an extra goal. If we play loose and concede we are worse off. If we play loose and score but also concede we are in the same spot we are now in. If we play loose and over come the risks we are up. Not worth it. If league position was determined solely by goals for, after considering points of course, then play loose and concede we are no worse off but we have to start defending again, play loose and we score but they score we are better off, in most cases, playing loose and scoring markedly better off. And so the match is now 3-0 and the push forward continues. The defending team is always trying to score and especially when it gets to 3-0, they probable won't win and there is absolutely no reason to stem the deluge of goals, in most cases, so they also attack.
The reason I would like to trial this system is because I'm not sure it would affect the manager's decision enough for Carrol's desired effect. If it did and there were more goals when using this system then I would be quite happy to keep the system. I don't think it changes anything fundamental to the intrinsic beauty, simplicity or even tradition of the game.

I have now officially stopped champion 0 goals 0 points system and am all for Goals For in the stead of Goal Difference.

Thoughts?

[brett]

You say that in this new system "2-0 you concede a goal you are no worse off"

But the idea of the goal difference/goals scored sorting system is to compare your team to the others, and the other team has improved their goals scored. You are worse off! You may say that it's still worth the risk because scoring yourself puts you better off relative to the rest of the league whereas conceding only affects your position against one team, but consider that across the league, the other teams in this system are also scoring extra goals by taking the extra risk. So there is no real relative difference that makes it worth some last minute attack if you are 2-0, or more, up or down.

"For me it would take an extremely elegant solution to endorse a change that results in high scoring matches. The solution can't change the beauty or simplicity of the game both on the field and when I'm working out who's on top of the table."

The best solution to this is making football a 10 man game! Pure and simple! Blatter has mentioned this...but this would be an even bigger move away from football as we know it. Us purists couldn't hack this. It's a fundamental change to what we are watching, not just the way it's played or what happens with points later. Also, the effects of this change on world football as a marketplace/economy in terms of every club suddenly needing 1-2 less players could and probably would be devastating. Talent would slightly sift down through the tiers of world football but how many players would be out of a job! It would be the best way to achieve the objective of more goals without jeopardising the simplicity of the game though...hands down.

[Golden Boy]

I'm no purist.
I would be very interested to see a youth tournament played out with 10 a side. This would be a top solution in terms of elegance and lack of changing the simplicity of the game. Two teams, you can't use your hands, you get a goal for getting the ball across this line, this guy can use his hands the rest of you lot can't. Trying not to change these rules is the only task I set myself in thinking of new systems.

10 a side would have to come straight from the top I'm trying to think of ideas that I could email Mstt Carrol as alternatives to Bonus Point systems.

I said in most cases you would be better off. The cases that you're not better of are the ones in which you don't want your particular opponent to get a goal. I thought that was implicit, sorry. I'm not getting your point about why taking away the goals conceded column woulnd't increase the taking of risks to gain more goals. I see it this way, with only a goals for column 2-0 is equal to 2-1 in what affect it will have on your league position so why not risk going from 2-0 to 2-1 for a 3-0 goal line which will put you up the ladder? I think it definitely promotes goalscoring more than the current system. The current system with GA and GF promoting all round good play.
I'm just not getting what you're saying. It's 2.52 am so I'll look at it again in the morning.

[therodent]

Nice and in depth lads,

Tiger made the point that extra points at the end of the season to the most attacking teams could help find out who was "really" the best team over the course of the year, but doesn't the ladder already do that, apply your theory to last years A-league???

ten each, on plenty of occasions we see sides reduced to ten men (both teams) and if anything teams get tighter at the back. You sacrifice the extra man going forward, not defending your 18 yard box, which will still be 18 yards.

As far as no points for a 0-0, eventually it will come down to teams happy to take 0 points if someone behind them on the ladder isn't getting any either, yes I hear you saying what about relative to other teams in the comp, well there is only 6 more and they all won't be that close.

The main question I think is when does a game become entertaining? why is 1-0 better then 0-0. If we go by that law 3-2 is more entertaining, 5-4 even more so, where do we stop. the beauty as GB put it, comes from the lac of scoring, the waiting for that one goal. Lets face it, if we knew a goal was coming every game, wouldn't that take away from some of the emotion. Besides, teams do push for that late goal now anyway, whether it's 0-0 or 2-2.

The other question is, why are they trying it? Publicity? to make for an exciting round of games? an experiment for the a-league? It can't be for publicity, because no one really knew what was happening, which therefore means it's not for the second reason. Experiment, well you can't advertise the a-league, saying you guarantee goals, because 0-0 will happen eventually anyway.

If they are going to try something though, this is when to do it. I would hate for them to change a system that has been working for 150years in all the major championships around the globe come the season proper.

Football is what it is and any change to entice more entertaining play (which could only be for publicity) would take something away from the game the true supporters have been waiting so long for in this country anyway. We don't need to paint it a fancy colour or add a clock just to get more sales. If we do we've lost the battle already.

[Golden Boy]

Good points Rodent.

I think we might have to email Matt Carrol to suggest that more goals isn't necessary. During the world cup I heard or read a bandwagoner say that they were intially down on football due to a lack of goals but then watching the Socceroos realised that it was the great euphoria triggered by your team securing that very elusive goal that makes football so great. It is infact, as you say Rodent, the lack of goals that is so vital to the beauty of the game. Matt Carrol comes from a sport where matches end 22-16 to one where a 1-0 win could easily be the best match you ever saw. I just hope that he gets it and doesn't try to make any crazy rules in the future.

What they should be concentrating on is getting people to the matches as they are now with an interest in a particular team. If you support a team and they score it's a good match. If you are neutral to both teams and it ends 0-0 then it's generally shit. This is where it is unfortunate that the A-league matches aren't on free to air tv. It would mean more brand exposure.

What the Mariners have done and other teams should try and emulate is really connecting to their communities. The Mariners are ubiquitous on the Coast. A kid meets Sully gets a free ticket goes to a game and sees Sully score. That kid is instantly addicted. A slapper goes down on Dwight and sees him score and they are both addicted, not to football but to whatever Dwight scored. I don't think the other teams are connected as much as they have to be.

Glory. They have a history that they have created over many years and therefore have loyal fans. Every other club is now just 1 year old. No history, no particular community ties like in the past, eg Greeks, so no Club identity. So until they reach the point where they have the history that Glory has they have to go to schools every week and talk to kids. Nothing makes a kid a fan of a particular player more then meeting that particular player. Look how crazy insane for the Mariners Nomes is. If she never met Spenny and never found out what a great guy he was she would of never had such a hard on, as they say, for the guy. No random kid living in Ultimo has their room decked out in Rudan posters if they haven't met the guy. I think meet and greets are the key to gaining a bigger fan base over any rule changes. The Mariners are the delicious pudding that provide the proof and maybe the fact that Melbourne, Sydney and Queensland didn't have crowds as big as they could of, when considering their populations, last season is because they didn't realise this. Young clubs have no identity. Sydney FC membership has skyrocketed this season. Mostly due to the World Cup, but even without the World Cup there would of been an increase due to , not just onfield success but, an increase in identity that comes with time. They need to speed up this proccess by every Wednesday going to a different junior club in Sydney. The Mariners should have their Public Relations plan put into book form call it PR for Dummies and it should be given to any new franchises starting up and the other clubs we already have, with the exception of Perth Glory who already have the identity due to years of existence.
Clubs and players can't act like the big shots of the national competetion they have to intitally act like local players who go to work with and are mates with the local community. The way Manchester United players would of acted back at the start of the club, when they were ameteur players with no internationally reknowned club identity. The Mariners have that feel of players from our community representing us. Obviously management have worked hard on this image and the signing of local players. Other clubs have to do the same. The attitude of the players shouldn't reflect Dwights constant appearance in the Who's Who in Sydney section of the reags but should reflect "Stewart Petrie trained my team today" "Oh, and he gave us all free tickets. Can we go please Mum and Dad and two siblings?" "That's the beanie that Petrie was wearing when he trained us. Can you please buy me and my two siblings one Mum and Dad?"

"That's the type of smack Yorke was doing. Can you buy me a few kilos Mum and Dad?"

I'm sorry I've been rambling. I haven't said anything that you all don't know. I just hope that the FFA trolls our forum and picks up some tips. Not that the FFA isn't doing an extremely great job in most areas that I am eternally grateful for. I'm refering mainly to O'neill and Lowy. Carrol expand the league into 4 rounds you twat. I think that is part of his job. I don't know.

[Adz]

Maybe instead of bringing in bonus points for goals, they can just change the scoring system.

Football is seen as a low scoring game, and I guess the reasons for wanting higher scores is to attract more fans from the other codes. So why not just make a goal equal 6 points on the board? That way we can say the Mariners won on the weekend 18-6. Rugby League fans will love it because they don't seem to be able to calculate that a 18-12 win is the same as saying 3-2 (scoring shots/tries). We could even make a goal equal 50 points, then we won 150-50. Gee that Rugby League is a low scoring game!!

Okay that's stupid.

How about if it's 0-0 at full time they blast some music out the ground speakers (bear with me here) and the music stops at random intervals... like musical chairs... but instead of sitting down, the team with the ball in their defensive half has to take a player off the field, then they keep going until someone scores.

Ahh sometimes I even surprise myself

[MrCelery]

Nice ideas there Adz!

Why not simplify it even further. No points full stop. First past the post on goal difference. Eg. 1 goal = 1 point.

Better still, just base it on goals for. Lose 10-11, so what? Ignore the 11, that's still 10 points for our team.

Why not award extra points for outragious diving too.

Maybe the winner should be based on the number of supporters chants. That'd see us and Bling back in the Grand Final.

[Farthing]

It might be a stupid rule for the pre season cup but it is the pre season, they wont do anything like that in the actual A-League (i hope) as long as we get the home semi and final (when we get there) it doesnt worry me personally, but if it robs us of a home semi then i wouldnt be happy

[therodent]

How about if instead of just using their feet, a guy called bill picks the ball up and runs with it and we gave him 5 points for getting past the bi line.

just a thought.

[Ursus]

Well done GB I have not seen so much sense on this forum since Auburn inferred I was intelligent. ;D
The game does not need more goals. The adrenalin surge with each score would be reduced (mind you it could save a few hearts).
If you want heaps of goals go an be bored at a basketball game.

[MrCelery]

ursus said:

Well done GB I have not seen so much sense on this forum since Auburn inferred I was intelligent.
The game does not need more goals.

No one is saying that the goals should be in basketball or AFL proportions. Who elsed thinks a great 0-0 game will have equal pull on the uncommitted punters, than say a 2-1 or 3-2? Call me dim then, but count me out of that train of thought.

While as a football zealot I can see the beauty of a well fought scoreless match, I've been to plenty that I've come away from wanting my money back. I don't recall feeling like that at any 2-1 or 2-2, or 3-2 matches, even if on the losing side.

[Golden Boy]

I think the Bonus Point system has shown itself to be quite poor.
Matt Carrol - take note.