Soccer question: minute or time left in half?

Starman · Jun 11, 2007

deskslave said:

Starman said:

Soccer doesn't do it that way, because it would "destroy the timeless flow of the game," or some other terminally-fossilized bullshit, for a player with the ball at midfield, trailing 4-3, to look up at the clock and see "0:20" or whatever time is actually left on the clock, and know he better get downfield and try to score pretty quick, because then -- this is an actual quote I've been given, in all seriousness, by "soccer experts" -- "if the actual game time is kept on the scoreboard, the trailing team will rush helter-skelter downfield in a mad dash to score, thus destroying the natural flow of the game."

The trailing team actually trying hard to score -- by god, we can't have that. Much, much better to have everybody just waltz around at a fine, pastoral pace, and then at some point, whenever the ref feels like it, he just blows the whistle and says "that's it."

Of course, the idea of a team actually scoring four goals in a game is almost as outlandish in itself.

Last year, I looked it up, and I certainly don't feel like doing it again, but do you know in the last 50 years of World Cup play, how many games have been played that took four goals to win -- that is, games in which the losing team scored at least three goals?

The answer is something like three.
Click to expand...

It's actually five, since 1958, which would be 48 years ago. In addition, there also have been four ties of 3-3 or more, which technically meet your criteria. One of those was broken by penalty kicks.

As far as games in which teams have scored at least four goals, which you claim is nigh impossible, I didn't count, but it easily numbers more than 20.
Click to expand...

Sure, there are 9-0 and 16-1 games when Brazil plays Lichtenstein. The problem is, you never see a 5-4 game when Holland plays Italy.

The problem is the willfully-fossilized attitude many, if not most, soccer people take over the issue.

deskslave · Jun 11, 2007

Starman said:

deskslave said:

Starman said:

Soccer doesn't do it that way, because it would "destroy the timeless flow of the game," or some other terminally-fossilized bullshit, for a player with the ball at midfield, trailing 4-3, to look up at the clock and see "0:20" or whatever time is actually left on the clock, and know he better get downfield and try to score pretty quick, because then -- this is an actual quote I've been given, in all seriousness, by "soccer experts" -- "if the actual game time is kept on the scoreboard, the trailing team will rush helter-skelter downfield in a mad dash to score, thus destroying the natural flow of the game."

The trailing team actually trying hard to score -- by god, we can't have that. Much, much better to have everybody just waltz around at a fine, pastoral pace, and then at some point, whenever the ref feels like it, he just blows the whistle and says "that's it."

Of course, the idea of a team actually scoring four goals in a game is almost as outlandish in itself.

Last year, I looked it up, and I certainly don't feel like doing it again, but do you know in the last 50 years of World Cup play, how many games have been played that took four goals to win -- that is, games in which the losing team scored at least three goals?

The answer is something like three.
Click to expand...

It's actually five, since 1958, which would be 48 years ago. In addition, there also have been four ties of 3-3 or more, which technically meet your criteria. One of those was broken by penalty kicks.

As far as games in which teams have scored at least four goals, which you claim is nigh impossible, I didn't count, but it easily numbers more than 20.
Click to expand...

Sure, there are 9-0 and 16-1 games when Brazil plays Lichtenstein. The problem is, you never see a 5-4 game when Holland plays Italy.

The problem is the willfully-fossilized attitude many, if not most, soccer people take over the issue.
Click to expand...

You're right, actually. Top-flight soccer can be kinda depressing, sometimes. But there is such a thing as an entertaining 1-0 game. Hell, ask anyone who watched Sweden and Trinidad in last year's World Cup. It might not have been an exhibition of technical brilliance, but it was damned exciting. And it ended 0-0!

What I don't understand is how someone can argue that a 1-0 soccer game is unspeakably dull, yet a 1-0 baseball game (which takes longer than 90 minutes to play!) is the height of drama. (And I'm not disputing that a 1-0 baseball game is dramatic.)

Log in or Sign up

Soccer question: minute or time left in half?

Starman Well-Known Member

deskslave Active Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Soccer question: minute or time left in half?

Starman Well-Known Member

deskslave Active Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches