notts ref
15-01-2007, 16:33
This is such an interesting debate when it comes to football. Its a debate where both sides have good points in favour of that particluar point of view. Me and my friends at college had this debate and the two of us said we thought they'd still pretty much be the same amount of goals, which in the PREM is an average of 2.4-2.5 goals a game.
People who feel the absence of an offside rule would lead to more goals are looking at it abit too simplistically I feel. There may even be evidence to suggest that offside possibly leads to more goals/chances. I mean a lot of goals actually come about because defences make a mistake trying to play an attacker offside when they step up and (if he has timed his run correctly- which during the course of a whole 90 mins he should do at least once) allow him to run clean through on goal without a challenge. Additionally Lets face it, if the offside rule never existed its not like defences would just let the strikers ghost into area unmarked. Defences would just sit deeper, would probably get even more men behind the ball which would make it even more difficult for attacking teams, especially with teams who really on through balls in behind the defence to pacey strikers.
On the other hand i suppose the lack of an of an offside would allow strikers and wingers to sit further downfield from goal kicks and this would ultimately make the game more stretched, allow more 1-on-1 running at defenders and possibly more chances. Also the lack of free-kicks from offsides would keep the game alive and flowing more often aswell - again this would probably lead to more goals.
Overall there are good points in favour of both arguments but i personally believe it would still roughly be about the same. Whenever rules are changed (even if they are changed so as to create more goals in theory) defensive tactics would evolve to counter them.
What do other people think on the subject- More goals, less goals, same amount???
People who feel the absence of an offside rule would lead to more goals are looking at it abit too simplistically I feel. There may even be evidence to suggest that offside possibly leads to more goals/chances. I mean a lot of goals actually come about because defences make a mistake trying to play an attacker offside when they step up and (if he has timed his run correctly- which during the course of a whole 90 mins he should do at least once) allow him to run clean through on goal without a challenge. Additionally Lets face it, if the offside rule never existed its not like defences would just let the strikers ghost into area unmarked. Defences would just sit deeper, would probably get even more men behind the ball which would make it even more difficult for attacking teams, especially with teams who really on through balls in behind the defence to pacey strikers.
On the other hand i suppose the lack of an of an offside would allow strikers and wingers to sit further downfield from goal kicks and this would ultimately make the game more stretched, allow more 1-on-1 running at defenders and possibly more chances. Also the lack of free-kicks from offsides would keep the game alive and flowing more often aswell - again this would probably lead to more goals.
Overall there are good points in favour of both arguments but i personally believe it would still roughly be about the same. Whenever rules are changed (even if they are changed so as to create more goals in theory) defensive tactics would evolve to counter them.
What do other people think on the subject- More goals, less goals, same amount???