Jump to content

2 versus 3


fruitvilla
 Share

Recommended Posts

There is some discussion on Dean's thread about the win ratio.

Giving a half point for a draw seems strange to some. Well I agree, sort of. This would have been perhaps appropriate prior to 1981 before moving over to 3 points for a win. Depending on what one actually wants to do with this metric.

Now, Since 1981 if one  indeed wants to put a value to a draw, it logically should be a third of a point, compared to 1 for a win.

Just doing a little bit of reading on the subject, of three points for a win and one for a draw seems like a daft idea in retrospect. The idea was to reduce the number of draws ... it did not, and increase the number of goals scored per match ... it did not. 

Take an interesting end of season result ... Team A. 30 wins, 7 draws 1 loss, versus Team B 32 wins, 2 draws, 4 losses. Who do you think should win the league? Under the current system, Team B wins, in 1980 Team A wins.

What the 3 points per game does is make the league less competitive (a negative?), It helps differentiate the stronger teams (a positive?)

My vote would be go back to 2 points per game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, GarethRDR said:

Look, to be frank I'm still getting my head round defenders in the box for goal kicks, can we lay off the fundamental changes for a least another decade to give my poor brain time to catch up?

:lol:

Look man, you've had forty years to think about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter
On 07/09/2021 at 23:15, fruitvilla said:

Just doing a little bit of reading on the subject, of three points for a win and one for a draw seems like a daft idea in retrospect. The idea was to reduce the number of draws ... it did not, and increase the number of goals scored per match ... it did not. 

Is there any evidence to back up this claim?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/09/2021 at 23:15, fruitvilla said:

There is some discussion on Dean's thread about the win ratio.

Giving a half point for a draw seems strange to some. Well I agree, sort of. This would have been perhaps appropriate prior to 1981 before moving over to 3 points for a win. Depending on what one actually wants to do with this metric.

Now, Since 1981 if one  indeed wants to put a value to a draw, it logically should be a third of a point, compared to 1 for a win.

Just doing a little bit of reading on the subject, of three points for a win and one for a draw seems like a daft idea in retrospect. The idea was to reduce the number of draws ... it did not, and increase the number of goals scored per match ... it did not. 

Take an interesting end of season result ... Team A. 30 wins, 7 draws 1 loss, versus Team B 32 wins, 2 draws, 4 losses. Who do you think should win the league? Under the current system, Team B wins, in 1980 Team A wins.

What the 3 points per game does is make the league less competitive (a negative?), It helps differentiate the stronger teams (a positive?)

My vote would be go back to 2 points per game.

Interesting example to give as the team who won more games (arguably risking themselves more so in an attacking sense) would now win the league, whereas what you're in favour of is a (potentially) more cautious side winning the league because they didn't lose as much.

Team A has 19 wins, 16 draws with 3 defeats.  Team B has 25 wins, 3 draws and 10 defeats.  Who do you think should win the league?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter
20 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Interesting example to give as the team who won more games (arguably risking themselves more so in an attacking sense) would now win the league, whereas what you're in favour of is a (potentially) more cautious side winning the league because they didn't lose as much.

Team A has 19 wins, 16 draws with 3 defeats.  Team B has 25 wins, 3 draws and 10 defeats.  Who do you think should win the league?

Aston Villa

 

You gonna bet against us ?

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, bobzy said:

Interesting example to give as the team who won more games (arguably risking themselves more so in an attacking sense) would now win the league, whereas what you're in favour of is a (potentially) more cautious side winning the league because they didn't lose as much

The example I gave was an actual result apparently ... Arsenal and Man City. City benefited from the 3 pt per game. Of course this is fair enough as this was the rule before the season started. There is an assumption here that playing for a win is more attacking. It could be that a team plans to get ahead and park the bus. Which of course is not necessarily more attacking.

8 hours ago, bobzy said:

Team A has 19 wins, 16 draws with 3 defeats.  Team B has 25 wins, 3 draws and 10 defeats.  Who do you think should win the league?

Now I doubt either team would win the league, but who should be higher? Depends on what the rules were before the season started. One of the things about football, a 0-0 draw can be be a really exciting and entertaining  game. The 2-0 win over Newcastle was satisfying, but not really entertaining .... "the result was better than the performance."

The premise is: the more competitive a league we have, the more draws we can expected. I am not claiming this is true, but it is not clear why there was this push to devalue the draw. It certainly did not increase the goal tallies or decrease the number of draws.

The only knockdown argument against 3 pt per game was that Jimmy Hill was in favour of it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

exclamation-mark-man-user-icon-with-png-and-vector-format-227727.png

Ad Blocker Detected

This site is paid for by ad revenue, please disable your ad blocking software for the site.

Â