SEVEN!POINTS
An innovative idea
IT WAS back in 1981 that English football led the way by introducing three points for a win. Coventry legend and television pundit Jimmy Hill was at the heart of the calls for change.
Prior to that, clubs received two points for a win. It meant the draw – worth one point – was valuable. How often did you hear managers saying they would be happy if their team won at home and picked up a point on the road? It was a recipe for success.
The only thing was it didn’t encourage teams to go all-out for the victory. A draw, with goals or without, would provide a decent return.
The new system helped bring about a change in mindset. No longer was a single point so precious when you could get two more for a victory.
Thirteen years after the visionary Hill’s idea came to fruition, it was used in the 1994 World Cups finals, a ringing endorsement of the initiative.
Since then it has been commonplace in football. Truth be told, the current points system isn’t something that is often talked about - everyone seems to accept it and be happy with it.
But does it have to be three points for a win, one for a draw and nothing for a defeat? Do we just accept that and say it’s the end of the matter? Or should we open up our minds to something different, something potentially better?
Well, a group from Switzerland, led by mathematician Peter Hammer, reckon we should do the latter to encourage teams to play more attacking football, to score more goals – and, at the end of the day, entertain the paying public.
They got in touch with us at Late Tackle to let us know all about their idea. It’s radical, some people will no doubt dismiss it, but surely it’s worth listening to and thinking about. If nothing else comes of it, at least it could open a debate, bring other ideas to the table.
So, what is it? Well, it’s based on the idea that the new points system would revolve around the number seven. Yes, seven.
There are four key outcomes from a match:
If a game ends in a draw (0-0, 1-1, etc), both teams get three points.
If there is a one-goal difference, (1-0, 2-1, etc), the winners get five points and the losers get two.
If there is a two goals difference, (2-0, 3-1, etc), the winners get six points and the losers get 1.
If there is a three or more goals difference, (3-0, 5-1, etc), the winners get seven points and the losers get 0 points.
So, what are the positives from this new set-up? Well, one of the major ones is that it incentivises teams to win games by a bigger margin. One of the gripes of the Swiss group is that matches can become boring when a team is leading by one or two goals and cruising to victory. They may take their foot off the pedal and settle for what they’ve got.
Here, though, they’ve got a reason to get there lead up to at least three goals – the prospect of a maximum seven-point haul.
In addition, a team that is on the receiving end of a potential hammering has the incentive to keep going. If they can cut the deficit, they could yet walk away with one or two points.
Another of the Swiss team’s complaints about the current system is that it doesn’t make any difference if you win 1-0 or 5-0 (apart from giving you a
better goal difference). With the seven-point system, there is a connection between points and goals.
The more goals you score, the more likely it is that you will win by three or more goals and bag seven points. In the above example, a 1-0 victory would earn you five points, but a 5-0 win would give you seven.
The idea is that matches will not peter out so early. Say, for example, you go to a game and one team scores a couple of early goals - it could be virtually all over.
But the seven-point system encourages teams to increase their victory margin and their opponent to try to cut the deficit to salvage something from the match.
There could be something resting on the game until the final minute. Yes, the winner may be resolved, but whether or not they will get seven points or not, and whether the opposition can get a goal to bag an extra point could still remain open.
Another plus is that it could keep league issues alive for longer – at both ends of the table. If you’ve got the chance to get seven points in a game, it could help you to catch the league leaders.
Likewise, you may be adrift at the bottom, but you could haul yourself up the table if you can string a run of decent-sized wins together.
This can apply to season-long competitions or group stages in club and national team competitions.
If those are some of the positive aspects, there are potential downsides. For example, an underdog may consider that it’s in their interests to go out and play for a draw.
They’re starting the game with three points and may decide that is something they want to try to hang on to. Instead, of going out to attack, they could ‘park the bus’ and try to force a draw or narrow defeat from which they would still pick up a point or two.
Others may think there shouldn’t be points for ‘losers’ and that is something to ponder. At present, the team that wins gets three points and the team that loses gets nothing.
Is that winner-takes-all prize something that makes the game special? Would the pain of an injury-time defeat not feel so bad if you still picked up a couple of points?
There is lots to consider and the Swiss group would love their innovative idea to be tested, perhaps in a youth league, to see how it works and whether it would encourage more attacking football.
They would be interested to see what strategies the various coaches would take to something so revolutionary. It would be fascinating to see how it panned out.
From a personal point of view, I wonder if something simpler might be possible. For example, you get a bonus point in rugby if you score four tries. Could you do likewise in football and give an extra point to any team that scores four goals in a game?
That way you are rewarding attacking football and teams that hit the back of the net with frequency.
And don’t forget that football is entertainment, or meant to be, and that it’s competing against a host of other sports all eager to knock it off its perch.
Changing the points system would be controversial – but it has been done before. Why not again?