Treble still on as Forest finally wipe Rs away

It seems incredible, from today's perspective, that rather than have a penalty shoot out (or some other means of separating two tied teams) at the end of 90 minutes of regular football and 30 minutes of extra time in the F. A. Cup 5th Round replay between Nottingham Forest and Queen's Park Rangers 40 years ago last Monday - something that would have been over in 15 minutes or so - they instead replayed the whole match all over again just three days later.

Why did they do that? Tradition. The F.A. Cup had always done it that way. How did they do it? I still don't know, really. Were all the police and staff told that if the game on Monday was drawn they'd be needed again on Thursday? Were match officials booked, just in case? Was a parallel set of plans in place for Loftus Road too, in case they won the toss and the 2nd replay was played down there? Three days notice.

It was especially incredible as Forest were chasing all three major domestic trophies - often needing replays to get through cup ties - and we were in the middle of a pretty bad English winter where lots of games were being postponed.

Anyway, that's what they did. So just three days after a grueling 120 minutes of football at the City Ground on Monday, almost 34,000 fans rolled up on Trentside again on Thursday night to see if someone might actually get through to face West Bromwich Albion (The "Baggies") in the quarter finals at the Hawthorns. Or else, would it require yet another replay?

Replays

Writing this on the morning after possibly the most anticipated and welcomed F. A. Cup replay ever (at least by the away team) it seems a bit mean to be criticising the concept of cup replays, but that is what follows here.

Rochdale must have been over the moon when they drew Spurs (the "Spurs") at home in this season's (2017-18) F.A. Cup 5th Round. Their joy must have been multiplied ten-fold when they managed to hold on to a draw at Spotland and thus earn a replay, not at White Hart Lane - which would have been brilliant enough for them most seasons, but at Wembley stadium, Spurs' temporary home, while their ground is redeveloped. Perhaps surprisingly, this wasn't Rochdale's first time at the famous ground. They had made the fourth division (Ok, "League Two") play off final, losing to Stockport County (the "Hatters"), in 2008 too - but in any case, it must have been a great trip for the 5,000 or so that beat "the beast".

Tottenham 1 Rochdale 1

Ignoring the VAR controversies, any Rochdale fans that made it would have been very excited at half time when the score was still tied at 1-1. Of course the second half didn't go too well for "the Dale", Spurs ending up 6-1 winners - but if the game had ended 1-1, and stayed tied after extra time, the game would have gone to penalties, not a second replay.

That rule has been an integral part of English cup football since the 1991-92 season. After 110 F.A. Cup tournaments where ties were decided by a theoretically infinite number of replays, the Football Association finally decided that enough was enough. Specifically - one replay was enough. After that, it would be extra time and then a penalty shoot out to decide tied matches.

Some ties over the history of the game had been ridiculous. In the 1971-72 F. A. Cup 4th Qualifying Round Alvechurch ("the church") finally beat Oxford City ("the city") at the sixth attempt. That's in the fifth replay - after eleven hours of football.

In the Cup "proper" (that is not in the qualifying rounds) the most ridiculous sequence was in 1955. Bury ("the shakers") played Stoke City ("the potters") in the 3rd Round at Gigg Lane on 8th January. They drew the match 1-1. The replay at the Victoria Ground was played 4 days later. Again 1-1. Five days later, back at Gigg Lane - they drew again 3-3. The fourth game, and third replay, was back at the Victoria Ground five days after that. This ended 2-2. On 24th January, back at Gigg Lane for the 3rd time, finally Stoke won through 3-2. So five matches, four replays.

Probably the most famous long running cup tie in the years before the change - was the the Sheffield Wednesday ("The Owls") v Arsenal ("The Gunners") tie in 1979. Jack Charlton's side were drawn against Arsenal at home in a lucrative 3rd round tie. They drew 1-1 on a snowy winter's day. Wednesday fans threw snow balls at Pat Jennings from the kop end, causing a delay to the game and Jack Charlton coming out to plead with the Owls fans to stop. The replay at Highbury, three days later, finished by the same score. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th replays were all played at Filbert Street, Leicester ("The Foxes"). They ended 2-2 and 3-3 before Arsenal ended up winning 2-0. Arsenal went on to with the cup that year beating Manchester United ("The Red Devils") at Wembley 3-2.

I'd seen a few in my years following Forest too, even before this QPR clash, just a couple of years earlier, in the 1974-75 season - Cloughie's first, Fulham ("The Cottagers") beat us in the 3rd replay - on their way to a final where they lost to West Ham United ("The Irons" or "The Hammers").

The season before penalty shoot-outs were introduced, Forest made the final themselves, losing to Spurs (enough on that for now) but on the way there we needed two replays to overcome Crystal Palace (the "Eagles").

I don't think many fans were unhappy with the change in the rules that season.

Question: Who was the first team to win an F. A. Cup tie replay on penalties?

Answer: Rotherham United (the "Merry Millers"). They beat Scunthorpe United (the "Irons") 7-6 on the First Round after a 3-3 draw in November 1991.

So, why is there such a problem with replays in football? The nub of it, in my opinion, is the key problem with football: There just aren't enough goals. Can you imagine a cricket tournament having this problem? Or, indeed, any other sport?

When you look at it objectively, it's not surprising. The fewer the goals, the more likely the game will result in a draw.

Here's a chart showing the average number of goals per game scored over the entire history of the English football league. It's plotted on the same chart as the percentage number of drawn matches.

League Goals/game (blue) over the years versus Drawn games / game (red)

You can see that there's a clear correlation. If the goals go down, the draws go up, and vice versa. Notice too, how introducing 3 points for a win (in 1981) has made no significant difference to this.

If you plot these data - goals per game versus percentage draws - there's a clear, inverse, relationship.

There is an inverse relationship between the number of goals scored in a match and the likelihood of a draw

So, when you look at it like this, it's really just a matter of probability that some games are going to get into a sequence of draws. Since 3pts for a win came in just under 27% of games have been drawn so we can estimate that's about one cup game in four (3.71 to be more precise) is likely to go to a replay. Assuming the same odds apply to that match (so, ignoring extra time) 1 in 14 games would have gone to a second replay.

The odds of a match going to a 3rd replay were about 1 in 50

The key point here is that the more goals there are, the less likely the game will end in a draw. It's not rocket science. You don't get many tied games in most sports because they have more points to discriminate between the teams. The only sport I can think of that seems to be close to football is field hockey. But even there, it's better as there seems to be about 5 goals per game (what I'd like in football) and fewer draws, about one in five.

In AFL (Australian Rules Football), tied games are rare (just 157 in in 130 years) simply because there are so many scoring points up for grabs. Same in basketball. In cricket, to take an albeit extreme case, there have been just 65 tied first class matches in 300 years of the sport, and only two of those were test matches (England v Zimbabwe in 1996 and India v West Indies in 2011.)

Now, any of my football friends who might be reading will be rolling their eyes at this point. They know what's coming...

I think we should make the goals bigger. Not MUCH bigger. Just a bit will do.

I've been tracking all the games this season (2017-2018) in the first and second divisions (ok, sorry, "The Premiership" and "The Championship") and it turns out that at the time of writing there have been 689 games in which 1,753 goals have been scored. That's an average of just 2.54 goals per game - the data point for the current season would be somewhere at the top left corner of the chart above.

Now if you believe the stats collected, the ball has hit the woodwork on 421 occasions in those matches. Assuming they didn't note that it hit the woodwork if the ball went in, this gives us some idea of how much difference a small increase in the goal size would make.

Going by this line of reasoning, if the goals had been just two ball-widths wider and one ball-width taller - so that any time the ball hit the woodwork today would have been a goal in the hypothetical "crazy" world of slightly bigger goals, there would have been 3.16 goals per game. That's a 24% increase with just a small increase in goal size.

Two balls wider and we'd have 24% more goals

Assuming the average goal post is between 63.5 mm and 76 mm in diameter and a football is 220 mm across, it means that if the goal size was increased by just 6 percent there'd be a quarter more goals. An increase of 40% or so would double the number of goals.

Before anyone starts thinking I'm going crazy, 5 goals per game was the norm when the game started. I'm certainly not advocating basketball scale scoring levels. It was only when coaches started to organise defences and the art of goalkeeping became respected that the number of goals per game dropped dramatically.

We've all seen a few great 0-0s but, be honest, if you had top pick your best five games of all time, how many goal-less games would be included? Compared to how many 3-3s, 4-3s etc? It it being greedy to expect more games like that and fewer drab 0-0s?

It's a no-brainer. The only thing holding us back is ridiculous conservatism.

Remember. The pitch size can vary enormously. Theoretically a pitch could be a 90m x 90m square or be a 120m x 45m (that's almost a 3 x 1 ratio) rectangle. But the goal size must always be exactly 24 feet x 8 ft (7.315 m x 2.4 m) - and the rule has been stuck like that since 1848.

I just think that's ridiculous.

Here's a crazy thought. Why not just remove the law?

Just slightly amend FIFA Law 1 so that it allows the goal size to vary for each competition - as long as it stays a 3 x 1 ratio?

Change the Law!

Imagine it. At each World Cup Finals, the goal size would be determined on the number of goals per game scored at the previous finals. For me, I'd like the average to be 5 goals per game, or at least 4. So, if the figure last time was too low, the goal size would be made a bit bigger. If it was too high, it would be scaled back a little.

I don't think it would even need as much increase as I've calculated above as there'd be a positive feedback effect in the attitudes and tactics of teams as a result of even a slight increase. If goals were a little bigger - big enough so that great strikers knew there was no way the goalkeeper could save it if they hit the top corner, there'd be more long range shots and, as a result, defences would have to open up to close players down sooner, creating more space behind them. Who knows, it might even reduce the number of cynical dives in the box. These days teams calculate that it is a better bet to increase their chance of scoring to dive in the box than to try to shoot because defenses are so packed, goalkeepers are so agile and goals are so small.Diving to try and get a penalty awarded is rewarded more than shooting.

I've been arguing this for years (since 1996 to be precise) but none of my football fan mates think it's a good idea. Why is that? Too many fans seem determined to keep giving defenses too much of an advantage and most of them must really love penalty shoot outs.

What was wrong with the Golden Goal?

Talking of penalty shoot outs, whatever was wrong with the golden goal?

How many of us used to play "next goal wins" when it was starting to get dark whilst playing a game in the evening after school? It has been adopted in Rugby and in Basketball and even AFL (when the prospect of a tie is already minuscule.)

Personally, I would have a twist on it to make it even more entertaining.

After 90 minutes, each manager must select three players to take off the field. So, not only does the next goal win but it also suddenly becomes much more open and much more of a test of stamina for the players that remain - hence more likely that someone will score. If no goal has resulted in 15 minutes, the managers have to take three more players off, adding further to the effect. If, after half an hour, still no-one has scored it becomes a two v two. It's inconceivable that one pair wouldn't get the winner in seconds after that.

At least it would stay a contest of proper football not the lottery of a contrived penalty shoot out and would also bring in the skill of the manager to make the right withdrawals.

It's just my two penneth-worth. I'm sorry if you think I'm being an arse!

Arsey Nicknames

Every club has a nickname (you may have noticed I've been trying to include them so far whilst mentioning a team). I don't know why but it seems you've got to have one.

Forest's seems pretty dull ("The Reds") until you realise that we are the original reds. The oldest club in the league to play in that colour, and as long as Wrexham don't return we will continue to be so.

Queen's Park Rangers have two - they are sometimes called "The Hoops" - because they play in hoops and they are sometimes called The Rs - because, I think, Rangers begins with an "R" and it's slightly easier to say than "Rangers".

Easier, but a little vulnerable to cheap anal humour.

I couldn't resist it myself here. "Wipe the Rs away" - get it? Several journos have made some pun on it too. "Up the Rs!" etc.

Childish, perhaps, but it makes me titter.

Talking of "Arse" related football phenomena, why haven't Spurs fans ever just chanted "Arse, Arse, Arse!" when they play in the North London derby? They might not have the chance soon once Arsene Wenger leaves Arsenal. Two arses in one go. I would have thought that would be irresistible.

I actually once played for a team that was literally called "Arse" by the way. In fact it was my last appearance in a football kit. It was an attempt at a witty acronym - "Anatomy Researchers Soccer Experience" (this is Australia).

If anyone's curiosity is piqued, here's a write up of my entire (shit) football "career" ending out of the arse.

The Teams

Anyway, wasn't there some match going on that I was supposed to be writing about?

Forest played the same team as they did on Monday. Clement and James were replaced by Tommy Cunningham and Paul McGee.

Nottingham Forest

1 Peter Shilton, 2 Viv Anderson, 3 Frank Clark, 4 Larry Lloyd, 5 David Needham, 6 Kenny Burns, 7 Martin O'Neill, 8 Ian Bowyer, 9 Peter Withe, 10 Tony Woodcock, 11 John Robertson.

Goals: Martin O'Neill 1, Tony Woodcock 2.

Queens Park Rangers

1 Gary Parkes, 2 Don Shanks, 3 Ian Gillard, 4 John Hollins, 5 Ernie Howe, 6 Ron Abbott, 7 Paul McGee, 8 Tommy Cunningham, 9 Martin Busby, 10 Stan Bowles, 11 Don Givens.

Goals : Stan Bowles 1.

Substitutions: Brian Williams(12) came on for Don Givens (11).

Attendance: 33,990

The Game

If Mondays were an unusual night for football at Forest, playing on Thursday's was almost unheard of. This was my 254th match seen and it was only the 3rd that was played on a Thursday, and the first that wasn't a Boxing or New Years Day.

I called it unusual Monday ... Thursday's also rare

I watched it back in the Trent End, which 40 years on, makes it impossible to distinguish between two very faint memories. What little neural echo remained in my head about the two games against QPR has long since blurred into one.

Thank "God" for John Shipley!

He describes the game as a thriller even if it lacked of the drama of previous encounters.

Viv Anderson made a great early attacking impression, with his scything overlapping runs through the defence. Forest nearly scored twice even before Martin O'Neill's second minute goal.

Robertson to Woodcock. Down to the by line. Low hard cross, spun off Phil Parkes to the far post where O'Neill was waiting. 1-0! Parkes seemed to have been clobbered by Withe and took five minutes to get patched up. Perhaps this was justice after what Ray Hankin did to Peter Shilton in our last defeat (see below) at Leeds.

Withe nearly scored himself a few minutes later. Then Parkes made another great save from Woodcock. The Rs fought back with Tommy Cunningham bringing out a save from Shilton and McGee fluffed a chance. Just before the break Robbo nearly scored and then Peter Withe missed a sitter. 1-0 at half time. The Reds had really stuffed it up the Rs in the first half.

In the second half a couple of bookings seemed to spur QPR back into contention. Ten minutes in, Stan Bowles equalised when he stole the ball of Frank Clark and slid the ball past Shilts from a tight angle.

Not again! We thought. But not for long.

Just one minute later, Forest grabbed the lead back. Burn to Woodcock and his shot flew past Parkes. 2-1.

With ten minutes to go, Frank Clark long pass to Withe was intercepted by Ron Abbot. He passed back to Parkes but wait - it got stuck in the mud and who gets there first but Tony Woodcock - round the keeper and into the net - 3-1!

The Rs were back to the wall now but fought back a little before the final whistle.

What a relief! The treble was still on.