3 points for a win

[Ironskullll]

Controversial, perhaps but I've never agreed with it. I hope we don't come second rather than first because of it, in spite of having a more attacking record.

 

[Spurger King]

You what?

 

[TheHoddleWaddle]

@Ironskullll what you smoking mate?

 

[ernie78]

 

[Larryjanta]

Think the point the poster is making is that, if it was 2 points a win and 1 for a draw (as it was pre-1981), Chelsea would have 53 points and we'd have 52 so would be much closer

 

[Sarsipius]

It actually promotes attacking football.

Chelsea have just been more efficient

 

[Gb160]

 

[cider spurs]

Straws, clutching, at.

Oh my days, I blame it on that afternoon back in September last year. Think it was a Wednesday.

Weatherman had said it was going to be sunny...it rained. If we don't win the league...this has to be the reason.

I can't for one moment fathom what other reasonable explanation there could be.

 

[Ironskullll]

Straws, clutching, at.

Oh my days, I blame it on that afternoon back in September last year. Think it was a Wednesday.

Weatherman had said it was going to be sunny...it rained. If we don't win the league...this has to be the reason.

I can't for one moment fathom what other reasonable explanation there could be.

Lol, I do take your point but lets have some fun here. Does it really and truly promote attacking football?

 

[Shadydan]

I wouldn't like to imagine the kind of dour defensive footy we'd see if it was 2 point for a win.

 

[Lilbaz]

Lol, I do take your point but lets have some fun here. Does it really and truly promote attacking football?

Yes. Look at italian football before they introduced the 3 points. Even after they were the most boring league for years until they realised they needed to attack.

 

[Gb160]

I've always wondered what it would be like if nil nil draws got you fuck all points.

 

[dontcallme]

Lol, I do take your point but lets have some fun here. Does it really and truly promote attacking football?

Interesting. I guess the thing is for me is that I don't always see a 1-0 game as boring.

The fine margins in football scores make the game very tactical and the elation at a single goal can be huge.

I've seen games that finished 4-3 that were very poor quality. But I guess if you only enjoy the goals and highlights it would have been a good watch.

Making goals scored rather than winning might make team play formations like 235. Games would regularly have double digit goals in them but for me it would be shit.

 

[Ironskullll]

Why not four points then? I think there should be incentives for teams to keep on attacking once they get in front. 3 points for a win makes teams shut the game up when they get in front because they stand to lose 2 points if they concede an equaliser rather than one. That's what Chelsea do.

 

[cider spurs]

@Ironskullll ...

The 3 points for a win as opposed to 2 can only be seen as a carrot to promote more attacking football IMO.

That said, naive to think that most teams don't want to win in the first place ( pre 81')

Yes you get the odd bus parkers playing for a point before scarperring back to more familiar surroundings. But I'd suggest these types of teams have little bearing on who wins the league.

Yes they can mean a top team drops a couple of points, but they usually set up the same way against all the bigger clubs.

For me, 2 points, 3 points, makes no difference to me. Play to win and at times not to lose depending on what is required to succeed in reaching next round of cup, securing a point to win league etc.

That's the thing, it's not always as simple as win or lose at times.

 

[tony0379]

Controversial, perhaps but I've never agreed with it. I hope we don't come second rather than first because of it, in spite of having a more attacking record.

Yeah blud innit

 

[dagraham]

How about 3 points for a win if it's Spurs, but only 2 points for anyone else?

Better?

 

[michaelden]

I've always wondered what it would be like if nil nil draws got you fuck all points.

This is a good point. Maybe 10 shots on target gets you 1 point, I like that too

 

[Shadydan]

Why not four points then? I think there should be incentives for teams to keep on attacking once they get in front. 3 points for a win makes teams shut the game up when they get in front because they stand to lose 2 points if they concede an equaliser rather than one. That's what Chelsea do.

Can't we just leave it how it is Sepp?

 

[michaelden]

How about 3 points for a win if it's Spurs, but only 2 points for anyone else?

Better?

sounds fair