Eau de MacGowan posted:

suqit was a good lad i hope hes doing ok

Total Meatlove posted:

I can’t even remember the cutlery posting but triangles is forever burned in my brain

webmeister posted:

Why was he posting photos of his cutlery drawer

Shrapnig posted:

The internet is a magical place.

webmeister posted:

Why was he posting photos of his cutlery drawer

Shrapnig posted:

Total Meatlove posted:

Triangles is a famous Suqit post, he’s a Barcelona fan and the point he posted it was probably the nadir of tiki taka football.

Also Busquets is the dirtiest player to ever play football and a good 90% of tiki taka’s success was borne from those teams being allowed to foul in midfield with impunity to restore possession.

the sex ghost posted:

Maybe you've caught a couple of games on TV and would like to join in but are daunted by the prospect of reading over a decade of cryptic TRP in-jokes to work out exactly who Glen Johnson is and what he's smiling about.

sticksy posted:

webmeister posted:

Why was he posting photos of his cutlery drawer

Bogan Krkic posted:

This video is an interesting take on the idea that formations barely exist in modern football anymore, and while I don't necessarily agree, teams definitely often have two or more preferred formations even in the same game, depending on if they are in or out of possession.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vljh9olDVK0

Femtosecond posted:

Football is of course another relatively low scoring game. I'm curious has there ever been some portion of the leagues/ownership/fans/players that have ever agitated for any rule changes with an attempt to increase scoring?

sticksy posted:

webmeister posted:

Pretty much every American marketing genius who's even gotten involved in football has farted out ideas for more goals (because you see, people like goals the most so let's have more of them!)

Larger goals, changing the field size, more penalties, offside changes and so on

FullLeatherJacket posted:

But yeah, formations are fine if you want a broad conceptual idea of who these men are and why they're spitting all over this particular piece of grass. In the real world, a top-level coach is going to have individual strategies for individual players and they're going to change and overlap and do a bunch of asymmetrical stuff depending on a bunch of situational factors.

Femtosecond posted:

Yeah a lot more interesting if speculative changes to the game are coming not from outsiders, but from within the fanbase, or even moreso, the players themselves.

Edit: Never been a die hard enough NHL follower to feel confident to speak on behalf of the fanbase, and certainly wasn't during the late 90s when they made these changes, but my impression of the various rule changes the NHL made has always been that the fans were more than happy about them as they saw real problems with the game developing with the strategic innovations the NJ Devils had introduced.

greazeball posted:

The grounds changed a lot. The pitches were muddy pits of slowness, especially in front of goal, which obviously favoured defenders. Not sure when exactly the level raised to today's standards, or exactly why, because teams naturally want home field advantage when the fancy dans come to town.

The other big change has been in reffing. You used to get away with A LOT. Flying tackles through the shins and the ref tells the player to get up, it's a man's game. Not only that but defenders were "clumsier" and would "accidentally" stand on a foot or poke someone in the eye. Just accidents, like. Attacking players were getting destroyed by brutal challenges all over and orders were given to clamp down on that poo poo. The downside is this is when diving really came into the game because the ref wants a clean game but can't see everything so players will make a meal of things to get him to blow the whistle. The game's gone when you can't just elbow a player in the chin anymore, it's sad.

Shrapnig posted:

Is there another team sport where they’re constantly innovating the ball because that’s been a huge thing in the Premier League era too.

Vegetable posted:

For all the talk of innovation I think the offside rule was the last time the nature of the game really changed. And that was so long ago. Everything else has been tweaks around the edges.

Vegetable posted:

For all the talk of innovation I think the offside rule was the last time the nature of the game really changed. And that was so long ago. Everything else has been tweaks around the edges.

NinpoEspiritoSanto posted:

Backpass rule, goal line tech and VAR without a shadow of a doubt.

e:

I read something somewhere where if VAR had been a thing United could have had something ridiculous like 7 straight league title wins, flaws and all VAR has changed the game significantly.

Femtosecond posted:

Another observation relating to hockey.

In hockey google says that the odds of scoring on a penalty shot are about 33%.

In Football the odds of scoring a penalty kick are around 75-85%.

Has anyone ever mused "hey penalty kicks seem kinda op? Should we change something?"


(oh god looking up that stat makes me feel even worse for Alphonso Davies missing his penalty kick against Belgium)

Femtosecond posted:

I grew up watching hockey and in that sport there were enormous anxieties in the late 90s around defence becoming "too good" and games becoming low scoring, dull affairs. Famously the New Jersey Devils won a Stanley Cup due to their employment of the Neutral Zone Trap.

The National Hockey League brought in rule changes to break the Trap and increase scoring, such as increasing scrutiny on penalties that would slow players (ie. holding), and making it legal to do longer passes. Another recent rule change designed to weaken defence and increase scoring was to reduce the situations when the goaltender could play the puck out of their net.

Football is of course another relatively low scoring game. I'm curious has there ever been some portion of the leagues/ownership/fans/players that have ever agitated for any rule changes with an attempt to increase scoring?

I suspect that the context of the NHL, being not at all the number one sport in America, and being in tough competition with other NA leagues such as the NBA and NFL for attention, could have been a thing that would have driven a desire from the team owners to make the sport "more exciting" by increasing scoring (capitalism!). The same pressures don't seem quite so present for Football.

But yeah even if rule changes would never happen, I'm curious if amongst the fans it's a speculative thing at all, if there are some minority in the pub that after a few drinks insist that the game would be better if they made this change or that change.

Fans seem pretty happy with the rule tweaks the NHL made, though I feel there still is a bit of occasional murmur amongst the media, players and fans about maybe decreasing goalie equipment sizing or making the nets bigger to increase scoring opportunities.

Aggro posted:

I have mused this all the time but I don’t know how to make it better. I absolutely despise the rules for penalty kicks. It makes no sense that it’s the same foul for:

1. Slide tackling a dude from behind as he’s about to score the game winning goal
2. Accidentally touching a dude’s heel while he tries to pass the ball from the box to a guy outside the box
3. A cross bouncing off an attacker into a defender’s hand, while the defender has no idea that the ball is even close to his hand

The idea of a “soft” penalty makes me physically ill. And there are some fouls where the correct “penalty” should just be a given goal. For example, Ronaldo didn’t deserve a goal today, and Luis Suárez should be in jail and Ghana should’ve made a World Cup semifinal.

Aggro posted:

I have mused this all the time but I don’t know how to make it better. I absolutely despise the rules for penalty kicks. It makes no sense that it’s the same foul for:

1. Slide tackling a dude from behind as he’s about to score the game winning goal
2. Accidentally touching a dude’s heel while he tries to pass the ball from the box to a guy outside the box
3. A cross bouncing off an attacker into a defender’s hand, while the defender has no idea that the ball is even close to his hand

The idea of a “soft” penalty makes me physically ill. And there are some fouls where the correct “penalty” should just be a given goal. For example, Ronaldo didn’t deserve a goal today, and Luis Suárez should be in jail and Ghana should’ve made a World Cup semifinal.

Femtosecond posted:

Another observation relating to hockey.

In hockey google says that the odds of scoring on a penalty shot are about 33%.

In Football the odds of scoring a penalty kick are around 75-85%.

Has anyone ever mused "hey penalty kicks seem kinda op? Should we change something?"


(oh god looking up that stat makes me feel even worse for Alphonso Davies missing his penalty kick against Belgium)

greazeball posted:

The grounds changed a lot. The pitches were muddy pits of slowness, especially in front of goal, which obviously favoured defenders. Not sure when exactly the level raised to today's standards, or exactly why, because teams naturally want home field advantage when the fancy dans come to town.

The other big change has been in reffing. You used to get away with A LOT. Flying tackles through the shins and the ref tells the player to get up, it's a man's game. Not only that but defenders were "clumsier" and would "accidentally" stand on a foot or poke someone in the eye. Just accidents, like. Attacking players were getting destroyed by brutal challenges all over and orders were given to clamp down on that poo poo. The downside is this is when diving really came into the game because the ref wants a clean game but can't see everything so players will make a meal of things to get him to blow the whistle. The game's gone when you can't just elbow a player in the chin anymore, it's sad.