Football Scorelines

[The Third Dukes]

Okay, gonna rant here, and if my point sounds stupid, just chalk it up to being an American...

So I'm flipping through the Yahoo! FIFA World Cup page, and I come across the scoreline of Poland 8-0 Azerbaijan. This strikes me as a little excessive, but then I remember it's hardly out of the ordinary -- the 2002 cup featured 16-0, 19-0, 22-0, and 31-0 shutouts at times, and the finals had Germany trounce Saudi Arabia by the 8-0 result. My question is: why?

When the US opened against Grenada at home, they waltzed to a 3-0 victory. I saw the game, and I remember thinking that USA were toying with their opposition -- playing keepaway most of the time, even though it was a two-legged, TOTAL GOALS result. But then it hit me: USA were the superior side, and as such, they didn't need to win by more. What's the point of a blowout if your only reward is... well, if there is no bonus?

Compare to Mexico, who blasted Dominica 10-0 "away" (Dominica moved the game to Dallas for more money) and 8-1 at home. Or vice-versa. It all runs together. The point is, Mexico kept right on firing throughout the entire first leg AND the entire second leg. After you're up 12-0 on aggregate, what's the damn point? They're not making a comeback, and if they start putting in a goal or two, you can turn on the style and shut them down again. 18-1 scorelines (even if over two legs) just shouldn't happen.

Now, in home-and-home play, it's mildly excuseable, since goals matter. But in group play, it's pretty bad form. (Sidenote: yes, the US posted a 6-0 home win over Panama, and no, I wasn't too happy we didn't stop at 3-0. But after 4-0, I took a more pragmatic approach, and I'll tell you about it later.) What's your reward for winning a game 3-0? Three points. How about if you win 7-0? Still three points. So why run the score up if you gain almost nothing (and lose face) through doing so? I'd rather be a good sport about it.

There are two exceptions to this:

1. The goalscorer is a little-used sub.

2. The goalscorer completes his hat-trick.

I would never deny anyone the chance to say they got the trifecta in international play; that's the biggest reward a footballer can have. So when the US went up 4-0, I begrudgingly accepted the fifth goal as it completed Eddie Johnson's hat-trick. (The sixth was an own goal; that's their own damn fault. ) But with, say, Poland, the game was over after it became 4-0 at the hour mark. Frankowski then completes his hat-trick to make it 5-0, and the scoreline should stay that way. Poland gains nothing by humiliating Azerbaijan, a team dead to rights in the group.

In summary, it's easy to tell when the game is flat-out over and one team is just playing for pride. When you see your opponents have been beaten mentally as well as physically, is it really sporting to twist the knife? Can't you just pass the ball around and let them leave with a scoreline that, while not indicative of your dominance, gives the away side some dignity?

[Malenko]

First Goals matter, even in groups play. When two teams are tied at the end goal-difference settles who gets the best place.

Second, That would be a lot less professionalism and sportsmanship. No team wants to lose 10-0, but losing 10-0 against a great team putting in the best of efforts, is a lot easier to take then losing 4-0 to a team that were making fun of you the whole game just passing the ball around cause you aren't good enough for them to put their best game. As a former youth football player i can tell you, not only me, but everyone else in the field would hate that. Teams that do that are just being cocky assholes, and most of the times, the illtempered guys on the losing side would end up hitting them on purpose just so they would stop mocking them. This isn't only youth football. I remember a game in a Brazilian League match, that the team was winning 3-0, a player (Edilson) started showing off his skills and i don't mean dribbling his opponents, he just picked the ball and started doing "freestyle soccer" in the middle of the game. The other team didn't took it well and his opponent kicked him. He was sent off, but the other player got a fine too.

To end it, i see what you were trying to say, but passing the ball around won't leave the other side thinking they weren't dominated. It will leave the other side thinking they're rubbish and therefore were mocked.

Just out of curiosity, i know about the 31-0 but the rest were also results of Australia games in the Oceania groups phase? Or was one of those in the Asian first round qualifiers? remember?

EDIT: By the way... don't worry about azerbaijan feeling humiliated. It's not the first time they get that kind of score. They should be used by now

Edited March 31, 2005 by Malenko

[Guest Pirate Chasin' Booty]

So are you suggesting they end the game because they can't come back? or suggesting they just stop trying? both are stupid ideas, you can sit back if you want to, but theres something really great about a team that could sit back, still pushing forward, shows good dedication.

I will chalk this down to you being American.

[supergrass]

But with, say, Poland, the game was over after it became 4-0 at the hour mark.  Frankowski then completes his hat-trick to make it 5-0, and the scoreline should stay that way.  Poland gains nothing by humiliating Azerbaijan, a team dead to rights in the group.

←

Edited March 31, 2005 by supergrass

[therockbox]

The goal difference can be (and will be) massively important when deciding who goes through to the WC without qualifiers. The two best second-placed teams also go through automatically, so if teams from different groups finish level on points then the goal difference will be hugely important.

[Farmer Reil]

Are you suggesting teams lie down and sunbathe when they go 3-0 up?

Seriously, the point of football is to score more goals than your opponents, right? So why would you stop scoring goals when you were 3-0 up and say "Hey, here's the ball, put it in our net for a change"?

Personally, if I was playing for a crap team like Azerbaijan, and Poland stopped trying after 3-0 and starting leisurely passing the ball around and easing off, I'd be pretty offended.

[Malenko]

Personally, if I was playing for a crap team like Azerbaijan, and Poland stopped trying after 3-0 and starting leisurely passing the ball around and easing off, I'd be pretty offended.

←

[botchedpiledriver]

Here, I have an idea. We keep out your rugby with shoulder pads and hockey threads, and you stay out our football threads.

[9 to 5]

Here, I have an idea.  We keep out your rugby with shoulder pads and hockey threads, and you stay out our football threads.

←

Just because an American has views about football that don't fit yours doesn't mean you should come out with crap like that.

[ChrisSteeleAteMyHamster]

His views on football are stupid and are against the spirit of the game.

Poland's 8-0 victory may well help them win the group if they can trip up England and both teams finish on the same number of points.

If a team goes 3-0 up and wants to play it around, bringon some substitutes and generally act all Harlem Globetrotters on the pitch that's fair play to them, they get 3-0 and a +3 goal difference.

If another team goes 3-0 up and then looks for 4,5,6 and 7 and end up with a +7 goal difference then it's up to them.

You should twist the knife.

What is anothe rteam going to learn from their far better opponents just sitting back to make them feel better.

A team who loses 8-0 one week and then 5-0 the next week and then 2-0 the week after will feel like they are learning if the teams they are playing are playing to their potential.

Also, once a player stops trying at 100%, that's when injuries happen. They don't go in fully to a tackle, or pull out, or whatever.

Players rely on eachother to play hard and fair.

Not killing off the game to make a team feel better is stupid.

I don't see that happening in US sport (in US Football where a team goes 30-7 up so in the last quarter just stops and has a drink or in Baseball where a team goes 16-0 they don't just stop. Teams want to go after records and immprove their stats). If they don't back off in America then don't try and change the rules of an international sport developed primarily in England.

[botchedpiledriver]

Here, I have an idea.  We keep out your rugby with shoulder pads and hockey threads, and you stay out our football threads.

←

Just because an American has views about football that don't fit yours doesn't mean you should come out with crap like that.

←

[ChrisSteeleAteMyHamster]

And quite rightly so of course.

[Farmer Reil]

Yes, because due to the fact Dukes is American, he automatically knows "very little" about soccer

[ChrisSteeleAteMyHamster]

Absolutely...Isn't that the general rule of thumb?!

[Malenko]

Absolutely...Isn't that the general rule of thumb?!   

←

[Summers]

Yes, because due to the fact Dukes is American, he automatically knows "very little" about soccer

←

From his post, he does know very little.

[Liam]

I doubt he knows very little, but his idea sounds a little...."mis-guided".

[supergrass]

Here, I have an idea.  We keep out your rugby with shoulder pads and hockey threads, and you stay out our football threads.

←

Just because an American has views about football that don't fit yours doesn't mean you should come out with crap like that.

←

Edited April 9, 2005 by supergrass

[ChrisSteeleAteMyHamster]

Why is a hockey goal so small? (ice hockey that is)

[Malenko]

Why is a hockey goal so small? (ice hockey that is)

←