TIME TO SCRAP RELEGATION

[Andy G]

Interesting idea about just goal difference, so thought I would see the effects of it. The following would have been different:

 

2008 – Chelsea would have come 4th, pushing Arsenal to 2nd and us to 3rd. Birmingham would have been in 13th place instead of relegated, and Sunderland would have gone down in their place (actually finishing in 15th)

 

2007 – No change at the top. West Ham would have gone down instead of Sheffield United. Oh the irony!!

 

2006 – Arsenal would have jumped to 3rd instead of 4th and we would have jumped the other way. Portsmouth would have gone down instead of Birmingham

 

2005 – We would have come 4th instead of Everton, who would have moved down to 9th. This system looks OK to me!! Southampton would have stayed up instead of coming bottom, and West Brom would ahve gone instead.

 

2004 – No changes in top 4 or bottom 4 with Everton coming 17th (which they did)

 

2003 – Arsenal would have won the league instead of United. Chelsea and Liverpool would have jumped one place each to 3rd and 4th respectively, and Newcastle would have gone from 3rd to 5th. Bottom was the same.

 

2002 – We would have been 3rd instead of 2nd, with United jumping a place. Chelsea would be in 4th when they actually finished 6th. Bottom 5 the same.

 

2001 – We would have been runners up to go with our 3 major trophies, with Arsenal down to 3rd. Chelsea again finishing 6th would have had the 4th place spot. Bottom 4 the same.

 

2000 – Leeds would have dropped from 3rd to 5th, with us and Chelsea both gaining a place. Bradford City would have gone down instead of Wimbledon.

[The 5th Benitel]

Funny how this thread has come up after three home 0-0s. If you weren't allowed to focus on defence and hope the quality you've got up front will nick you a goal Liverpool definately wouldn't have won the UEFA cup and probably wouldn't have had anywhere near the success they've had in the Champions League.

[JohanH]

If you want parity then you need real salary/spending caps. With the massive budget differences in the PL where smaller teams often have a combined value less than the bench of a top teams their best bet is to shut up shop and hopefully compile enough points to avoid relegation.

[Code]

Superb work Andy G, repped.

 

But what about the idea in itself, any thoughts?

[Faustus]

In the interests of fairness, I'd scrap the play-offs because it's unfair how a team can earn promotion at the expense of other teams finishing above them and I'd have a two-legged play-off between the team who finishes 18th in the Premiership and the team who finishes 3rd in the Championship.

 

Saying that though, I quite enjoy watching the Championship play-offs as the games always seem to be good and they maintain interest throughout the season so they're certainly entertaining, if not very fair.

[Andy G]

Superb work Andy G, repped.

 

But what about the idea in itself, any thoughts?

 

I don't like the idea at all, mainly becuase when you see Mark Lawrenson and Alan Hansen defend together, it is as much a pleasure to watch as Dalglish and Rush. Defending is as much part of the game as attacking and that should be recognised. The great thing about football is the ability for freak results. Much as I hate the way Stoke played at Anfield, the better teams should break them down anyway, and perhaps it is the ability to do that that allows the right team to come out on top at the end of the season.

 

What I do like the idea of though, is a bonus point if you score 4 or more in a game, regardless of the final score.

 

I also think that the playoff should be between the 3rd bottom club and the 3rd top club of the division below (top two and bottom two swap automatically). The league does not lie over a season and for the likes of Ipswich to come third four years on the trot but be knocked out in the playoffs by a lesser side (in that season) is not fair.

[The 5th Benitel]

I dont see why it would make teams more attacking though? Surely teams like Stoke would just be made up not to have their goal difference negatively effected when they play the likes of us?

[Code]

I dont see why it would make teams more attacking though? Surely teams like Stoke would just be made up not to have their goal difference negatively effected when they play the likes of us?

 

Because it would invite teams to go for the second goal instead of just sitting back after they have taken the lead.

 

I dont think that much would change to be honest but I think we would see more teams going for it instead of defending a 1-0 lead since the second and third goal would become much more important than it is today.

[Section_31]

Red Nick is the reincarnation of Caligula

[aws]

scrap it the season after everton go down

[Redwooly]

I wish we had relegation over here in the American sports leagues. By the end of the year, nobody outside Vegas cares about most of the games, and a lot of sports owners can run their teams on shoestring budgets because they know they're guaranteed to come out ahead between TV revenue, tickets etc. even if they make no attempt to be competitive.

 

Plus it gives a few new places to play every year. And besides, putting the red glasses aside, if a team goes into a place like Anfield and keeps a much stronger team at bay for an hour and a half, good on them. It's the responsibility of the better teams to win those games; the lesser teams don't owe them shit.

 

 

Agree 100%. Would kill football the same way its gona destroy rugby league!

[mgw100]

Why don't we get giant 'It's a knockout' inflatables to wander round the pitch and get in the way?

 

I like footie, me. It's good. Draws are good sometimes. Even nil-nil ones. The Sunderland/Man U game was ace. I almost cried when Vidic scored. Games like that have got a place too. If Sunderland had to attack to get any points, they would have lost by half time. That would be boring.

[Code]

Why don't we get giant 'It's a knockout' inflatables to wander round the pitch and get in the way?

 

I like footie, me. It's good. Draws are good sometimes. Even nil-nil ones. The Sunderland/Man U game was ace. I almost cried when Vidic scored. Games like that have got a place too. If Sunderland had to attack to get any points, they would have lost by half time. That would be boring.

 

They would not have to attack to get points, if it became a draw they would not get -1 point though.

 

Usually more than half the league ends up with a negative goal difference anyway so a draw would still represent something positive since you would not get - in your goal difference.

[mgw100]

They would not have to attack to get points, if it became a draw they would not get -1 point though.

 

Usually more than half the league ends up with a negative goal difference anyway so a draw would still represent something positive since you would not get - in your goal difference.

 

What's the point of making the change then?

[Code]

What's the point of making the change then?

 

See above, teams would have more to achieve by going for the second and third goal instead of sitting back trying to protect a 1-0 lead and teams who find themselves 2 and 3 goals behind will have more to achive with putting up a fight instead of just giving up since every goal counts.

[Stu Monty]

Hull.

 

Shut up.

[mgw100]

See above, teams would have more to achieve by going for the second and third goal instead of sitting back trying to protect a 1-0 lead and teams who find themselves 2 and 3 goals behind will have more to achive with putting up a fight instead of just giving up since every goal counts.

 

Well ok, but I don't think that's a problem really. How often do the teams sit on a 1 nil against weaker opposition? We're probably more likely to do it than the other top four teams (for example) and I don't think we do. If anything we always look much more likely to score when we've gone 1 up.

 

As for teams that are losing 2-0, I generally think that they do start to attack more. If they don't then it's because they realise they are on a hiding to nothing and they are just going to get humped if they try and attack. Your system would make them just as likely to make that decision - more likely probably, because getting beaten by a heavier score would be proportionally more relevant than it is now.

[mgw100]

Sorry to labour this, but I've realised that what I've said isn't the crux of this. The importance of winning games is paramount to enjoying football matches. For example, when we beat Chelsea this season, though they offered little in the way of threat in the 2nd half, I watched every attack of theirs with heart wrenching fear. If they'd equalised, I would have been gutted. If it was just another goal in the deficit column, I wouldn't have been anything like as captured by it. Seems obvious I know, but still.

[Code]

I see what you are saying and to be honest I never think such a change would be made either even if I have a feeling it would have been a positive change.

 

But on the other hand a 1-0 win against your rivals would mean 2 gained points while a 2-0 win would be 4 gained points in the run for the title.

 

If the change had been made I think the fans would would get the same satisfaction and maybe even more than with the point system since the results would mean more.

 

A win would mean gained points either way but a big win would mean even more.

 

I think we as fans would adjust to it even if it would feel a bit strange in the start.