24 Feet x 8 Feet - Why?

[Plain Peter]

Why is that the size of the goalposts?
Apparently these dimensions were fixed in a pub in Holborn in 1863.
The landlord's son, apprently the height of an average goalie was told to jump as high as he could to bring off a 'save'.
150-odd years later the average goalie is about 6 inches taller, and extremely athletic.
But the size of the goalposts remain the same.
Surely, as goalies get taller the size of the goalposts ought to increase.
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.
Wouldn't this also reflect the flow of play more accurately than stupid 1-0 or 1-1?
Wouldn't this also reduce the hysteria surrounding each goal, each goalmouth incident, the significance of penalties, and decisions decided by a fallible referee.
Discuss!

[shrimpnsave]

so you get an 6ft 6in at one end and a 5ft 6in at the other end,what are you proposing

and what if the 5ft 6in was sent off and replaced by a 6ft 6in goalie....OUCH

[mrpotatohead]

A simple solution, adjustable goals, moving up and down, in and out, depending on the height of the keeper who is measured by a beancounter prematch, rather like a weigh in at boxing, this system would allow short but talented keepers a future in soccer, i am told jimmy krankie showed great goal keeping talent at school, wee nets tailored to his height and who knows

[shrimpnsave]

how big would the goalmouth be if Maradona was goalie

[Harry]

Making the goalpost area larger would obviously make goals easier to score and whilst goals make a match more entertaining, a dramatic increase would reduce their individual impact. Football is a low-scoring game and everyone gets such a unique thrill when their team score, because it's that rare a thing.

Also your point regarding World Cup goals, on the evidence on this year's tournament it's not good goalkeeping that's keeping the ball out of the onion bag. Teams are more considered and tactical now and no one wants to lose their first match, much like a first leg of a European tie.

[skyecat]

so, imagine the game. someone of Maradonna' height in goal, with someone Peter Crouch's height standing in goal, defending for a corner etc - we might see smaller keepers and taller defenders start to appear in teams

[Keith]

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?

[shrimper]

I think we should start a new poll.

"Who's sadder - Peter or Keith?"

Get some kids - you've too much time on your hands!

[Curly]

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?

You've not been timing the boots again have you?

[Plain Peter]

Have I sunk your 'bigger goals' campaign yet?

Nope, you're cherry-picking again.

[Keith]

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!

Have I sunk your 'bigger goals' campaign yet?

Nope, you're cherry-picking again.

Okay, to 'cherry pick' the season that you mentioned...

1953/54 season was won by Wolverhampton Wanderers. In 42 games they scored 96 goals, still seven less than Chelsea who played four less games. Wolves scored nine more than the next highest scorers, PNE with 87 goals, one more than last season's second highest, but the chances are, Man Utd would have scored a couple in those four 'extra' games.

So using the year you first mentioned, it still doesn't demonstrate a significant change in goals, in fact last season's top English club still outscored the champions of 30 years ago and 56 years ago.

There, I think that clearly demonstrates the point...









I am sadder than Peter

[Plain Peter]

There, I think that clearly demonstrates the point...

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?
Nor can you fairly compare statistics covering an 8 month league season against a quick-fire
round-robin/knockout competition.

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]

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?

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.

Nor can you fairly compare statistics covering an 8 month league season against a quick-fire
round-robin/knockout competition.

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?

YOU ARE SEB BLATTER AND I CLAIM MY TEN POUNDS!

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?

'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?'

Well, how about the simple fact that the quality of all the teams has significantly improved, world-wide? Teams from Africa are now strong, ditto Asia. Northern Ireland qualified from the group stage behind West Germany and ahead of Czechoslovakia and Argentina. Wales qualified from their group ahead of Hungary & Mexico.

Scotland obviously finished bottom of their group so some-things don't change.

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.

[Fallowfield Shrimp]

ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz

[ezz]

It might have something to do with none of the players can keep the Jabulani ball down when shooting? No free kicks scored, defensives are better (as keith said), less whipping boys, england dont help the scoring stats, strikers are worse, keepers are BETTER. teams are more tactical and play for 0-0 draws against better teams....take your pic.

[Plain Peter]

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.

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.

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.

[Harry]

Wtf, how have we been 'conned'??

[durhamshrimp]

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.

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.

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.

Your use of statistics as 'proof' is appalling. It makes that doctor who created the MMR scare look positively competent.

There are far too many variables to use the size of goals as a reason for more or less goals.

[scar]

Ding Ding, round two

Have got to say Peter, everything you've put up so far has been resoundingly countered by Keith, to the extent that from an outsider viewing the debate it looks like your only after seeing more goals in a world cup by simply increasing the size of the goals.

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!

[Plain Peter]

There are far too many variables to use the size of goals as a reason for more or less goals.

Such as?
Didier Dogbreath would have scored 5 goals in the Cup Final had the goals been 6" wider. That'll do for me.

[Keith]

There are far too many variables to use the size of goals as a reason for more or less goals.

Such as?

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]

Didier Dogbreath would have scored 5 goals in the Cup Final had the goals been 6" wider. That'll do for me.

From the whole world cup to a single match in the UK now

[Plain Peter]

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!

I don't get that either.
Without the ball the game can't be played.
How come some teams had prior experience to the current matchball, but England (for example) didn't?
I accept it might be a contractual thing that domestic league football have to use a certain ball, but surely all competing nations should have had an ample opportunity to train with, and become comfortable with the ball!
That ball has had a radical effect on the outcome of many games.

[Plain Peter]

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

It might have something to do with none of the players can keep the Jabulani ball down when shooting? No free kicks scored..

You not been watching Dago Forlan?
If he can regularly control the direction and height of his dead-ball work then why can't anyone else?

[scar]

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

https://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2890/wo ... -and-other

42 goals in the second round. You'd best send Goal.com an email to complain!

Although I can't get to 42 unless I add Englands clear goal and the Quarter finals that have already been played!