Keith wrote:I thought I'd check a few facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969%E2%80 ... Division_2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80 ... ague_table
Thirty years ago, Everton were champions, winning the old First Division. In 42 games, they scored 72 goals, averaging 2.11 goals per game.
This year, Chelsea were champions. In 38 games, they scored 103 goals, averaging 2.71 goals per game.
Four out of the top five last season scored more than the champions of 1970, despite playing four less games. Leeds were top scorers in 1970 with 84 goals which would have been 3rd last season, although if Arsenal scored two more in the 'four games in hand', the top scoring team of 1970 would have been fourth last year.
In case it was a statistical anomaly, I looked at the following year instead. 1970/71 had Arsenal as champions with 71 goals scored and Leeds again top scorers with 72, placing them in fifth & sixth highest goal scorers last year.
By now, I'm on a statistical quest...
In 1970/71 there were a total of 1089 goals scored in top flight English football during the season.
In 2009/10 there were a total of 1053 goals scored in top flight English football during the season.
So 164 games more in the 70's produced only 36 more goals. In 1971 there were 1.18 goals per game, in 2010 there were 1.39 goals per game.
I think you need to take in to account fitness of players, weight and fabric of the ball, state of the pitches, science of footwear as well as size of keeper.
Incidentally, last season Chelsea scored almost exactly twice as many goals (in less games) than they did in 1970/71 (52 & 103). Burnley were relegated in both seasons, scoring 29 in 70/71 and 42 in 09/10. Burnley were the lowest scoring that season, next lowest scored was 34. Last season, the lowest scored was 32 & 34, so even the bottom clubs are more entertaining in terms of goal scored.
Have I sunk your 'bigger goals' campaign yet?
Keith wrote:Have I sunk your 'bigger goals' campaign yet?
Peter wrote:Why else has the number of goals scored in the first 16 games of the World Cup fallen from 78 in 1954, to 46 in 2002, and just 25 this year?
If the goals were 6 inches wider and every ball that now hits the woodwork went in, scores would double or treble...
Discuss!
Peter wrote:Keith wrote:Have I sunk your 'bigger goals' campaign yet?
Nope, you're cherry-picking again.
Keith wrote:There, I think that clearly demonstrates the point...
Peter wrote:How can you compare the merits of a small squad of home grown talent of the 1950s or early 1970s against a current massive squad of multi-national internationals?
Peter wrote:Nor can you fairly compare statistics covering an 8 month league season against a quick-fire
round-robin/knockout competition.
Peter wrote:In my first post I mentioned this: 'Why else has the number of goals scored in the first 16 games of the World Cup fallen from 78 in 1954, to 46 in 2002, and just 25 this year?'
The answer has got to be linked to getting the pill into the back of the net! So why is it not happening, and why are the number off goals scored getting lesser? Lots of rules have been tinkered with/changed over the years, even the size of the playing area varies enormously from club to club, which forces teams/players to adjust their game every week.
So why not increase the size of the most important part of the pitch?
Keith wrote:Okay, in 1969/70 Morecambe FC scored 41 goals in 38 games. Macclesfield won the NPL with 72 goals. Highest scorers that season were Scarborough with 74.
Last season's Blue Square Premier League was won by Stevenage with 79 goals but from six games more. Highest scorers were Luton with 84 goals. So comparing top non-league there still isn't a difference.
Keith wrote:Err... you are suggesting a radical change to the rules of the game and you criticise my response because you want to limit the size of the body of evidence to "a quick fire round-robin/knockout competition" rather than look at more comprehensive statistics?
Keith wrote:As the standard of football around the world has increased, all teams are now tactically aware and much closer to each other in standard. That is why looking at season long leagues gives a closer indication.
Peter wrote:Keith wrote:Okay, in 1969/70 Morecambe FC scored 41 goals in 38 games. Macclesfield won the NPL with 72 goals. Highest scorers that season were Scarborough with 74.
Last season's Blue Square Premier League was won by Stevenage with 79 goals but from six games more. Highest scorers were Luton with 84 goals. So comparing top non-league there still isn't a difference.
Thanks for avoiding the question.Keith wrote:Err... you are suggesting a radical change to the rules of the game and you criticise my response because you want to limit the size of the body of evidence to "a quick fire round-robin/knockout competition" rather than look at more comprehensive statistics?
Adding a few inches to the area between the goalposts isn't radical, when huge variations in the dimensions of the playing area have been there for years.Keith wrote:As the standard of football around the world has increased, all teams are now tactically aware and much closer to each other in standard. That is why looking at season long leagues gives a closer indication.
Has the standard increased? Do you mean that New Zealand, unbeaten in 3 games, are now a major team? Is that why North Korea conceded 7 against Portugal, and Portugal then decided not to bother turning up against Spain? I think we've all been conned, the standard so far, with the odd exception has been awful.
durhamshrimp wrote:There are far too many variables to use the size of goals as a reason for more or less goals.
Peter wrote:durhamshrimp wrote:There are far too many variables to use the size of goals as a reason for more or less goals.
Such as?
Keith wrote:I think you need to take in to account fitness of players, weight and fabric of the ball, state of the pitches, science of footwear as well as size of keeper.
Peter wrote:Didier Dogbreath would have scored 5 goals in the Cup Final had the goals been 6" wider. That'll do for me.
Keith wrote:I think you need to take in to account fitness of players, weight and fabric of the ball, state of the pitches, science of footwear as well as size of keeper.
Come on Peter, it's your thread... do try keeping up with it!
scar wrote:In the second round, there were 42 goals. There you have it, goals the same size yet more goals went in despite there being only half the number of teams playing, which leads me to believe the goals should be made smaller by 6" to reduce the profuse amount of goals!
ezz wrote:It might have something to do with none of the players can keep the Jabulani ball down when shooting? No free kicks scored..
Peter wrote:scar wrote:In the second round, there were 42 goals. There you have it, goals the same size yet more goals went in despite there being only half the number of teams playing, which leads me to believe the goals should be made smaller by 6" to reduce the profuse amount of goals!
Count again. Even with 8 in a penalty shootout, and 1 in extra time there were only 30
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 94 guests