Talk:Three points for a win
|WikiProject Football||(Rated Stub-class)|
Three Point Win
I undid a move to "Three Point Win". A "three point win" is a win by a margin of 3 points, e.g. 17-14. "Three point win" (no caps) was a description used in the NHL when the idea was suggested but abandoned. In the sports which originally and still use it, it's always "3 points for a win". And not just "international" football, since the table lists domestic leagues. jnestorius(talk) 10:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for my move. In Canada, this term is called, simply, a, "Three Point Win". Rather, it's a slang, if it's a term at all. If there is discrepency on the term, I believe the call would be the author's - Or another knowledgeable user on the subject. I leave the option up to you. As I have been disliked for my moves in the past, I refuse to move it further. But I suggest, at least for the title, that the, "win" should be capitalized to, "Win". Thanks.
Megazodiac 16:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, no harm done. It's generally worth at least a quick Google test sanity check before moving a page. In this case I think the relevant policies are Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Lowercase second and subsequent words in titles. BTW there is no single "author" of any Wikipedia page -- decisions are made by consensus. That said, there is a general convention at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English to keep the original spelling so as not to change back and forth between "colour" and "color"; but that doesn't apply to the present case. I did add info on the NHL prompted by your original edit, so after it all we still got an improved article. Thanks, jnestorius(talk) 18:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- MLS didn't use 2-point-for-a-win; see the footnote. IIRC FIFA or the IFAB mandated 3-points, not just as an option but as the option, around 1995. I'll try to find a cite for that. jnestorius(talk) 12:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
i think there is some poor, exagerrated wording and/or logic in this article. paraguay weren't 'prevented' from qualifying by the points system in world cup '94 and neither was new zealand's elimination in 2010 'caused' by it, both teams failed due to their inability to secure enough points. neither can you credibly argue that bordeaux definitely wouldn't have won the french championship in '08-'09 if the old system had been retained - teams know and agree on the rules before entering a competition and alter their tactics and strategies accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with you. EVERY result in every league is different than if the two-point-win system has been used, because teams know about it and change their style accordingly. It is impossible to say what would have happened to new zealand if a two-point-win system were used. Everything would have been different, since the other teams would have gone into their last match (or few matches) thinking "okay here we only need to play for a draw" or "here we need to play aggressive to win".
- Its like saying "If a header counted for 2 goals instead of 1, and goals scored with the feet counted as 1, then these would be the results in every league: ..." No, obviously they wouldnt, because everything strategy-wise would change. Its stupid to say what 'would have happened' if another scoring system were used, because we have no idea how it would have affected strategy and style of play.<...> ::: --Anonymous
- In keeping with the spirit of your good faith critique, I've altered the wording (both in the historical discussion of New Zealand and Paraguay and the league section tables), which should make the aforementioned counterfactual conditional-fact distinction more evident. It should be clear now and settle the matter. Obamafan70 (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- I must agree with 184.108.40.206. Every table since 3-points-for-a-win has been affected by it. We don't have any list of rugby matches that would have had a different winner if the points value of a try had been kept at 3 or 4 points rather than 5. Or soccer matches that would have had a different outcome if the offside rule hadn't been changed. These few examples are similarly useless. jnestorius(talk) 09:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
08/09 French league
The article says the 2008/09 season in the French Ligue 1 would've ended differently under an old points system. However, assuming the system used was two points for a win, one for a draw (which works for the final points of both Marseille and Lyon), then Bordeaux would actually have ended with 56 points (24*2 +8), not 50, and would have therefore won anyway. Thought I'd ask here before changing it, in case there was in fact a different system used (though I can't work it out...). --220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC).
Other Champions Affected by 3 Points for a Win
The 1994-95 Premiership title would have been changed with 2 points for a win. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994%E2%80%9395_FA_Premier_League DavidNorman99 (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Suitability for different competitions?
Does anyone know if there has ever been discussed whether the 3 pts for a win is more suitable for some tournaments than for others? During every World cup I think of the fact that it's now possible to have secured the group win after two rounds (one team wins twice, while the other matches end with draws), meaning that one team has nothing to lose on playing a weaker team in the last match. It happened in the aforementioned '98, when both Brazil and Nigeria in that situation lost their last game, meaning Morocco and Spain had no chance to advance.
My own opinion is therefore that a 2-1-0 is better for a 4-team round-robin groups (World Cup, European championships, etc), while the 3-1-0 might well be more suitable for complete league seasons. Has that discussion ever been taken in other media you know of? Fomalhaut76 (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with you, but I don't know of any reliable sources stating this. Ironically, the 3-points rule was introduced in the World Cup before it was introduced in most national leagues.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I have removed this section:
==League champions affected by three points for a win system==
- Portugal Liga 2006–07 (three points system: Porto 69, Sporting 68, Benfica 67; under prior system: Sporting 48, Porto 47, Benfica 47)
- South Korea K-League 2008 (three points system: Suwon Bluewings 54 (goal difference +22), Seoul 54 (goal difference +19); under prior system: Seoul 39, Suwon Bluewings 37)
Note: only includes seasons in which potential champions were affected.
because apart from the potential "what if" additions it may provoke it assumes that the result of using three points for a win is the same as it would have been for two points except for the mathematical differential. Simply reading the article would tell you that the more adventurous play the extra point engenders would change the result beyond the mathematical. At the very least there is no way of knowing what differences would have been seen had the two point system been kept. Britmax (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
MLS Switch-over in 2000
We currently list MLS as switching over to 3-1-0 in 2000, which (as the source states) isn't exactly true. Since the founding of the League, MLS has always awarded 3 points for a win in 90', just because of the goofy shootouts it wasn't a strict 3-1-0, Win-Draw-Loss. Because there were no draws, it was 3 for a win in Regulation or Overtime, 1 for a win in the Shoutout, and 0 for a loss of any kind. There needs to be a better way to incorporate this information than asking a reader to follow a reference footnote. Any ideas?
- Also of note, should MLS be under [[Major League Soccer|United States]] or [[Major League Soccer|United States and Canada]]? Salient details for the non-MLS followers: MLS is recognized as the First Division for both the United States and Canada, however the first Canadian team was founded in 2006, long after the switch-over. Which is more accurate?
The introduction states this
"teams with lower overall winning percentages may rank higher in tables than teams with higher overall winning percentages but more draws"
Which is just not true. More wins and more draws gives more points than fewer wins and fewer draws. The only way this could be true is if the writer uses "overall winning percentage" to mean "(#wins + #draws/2)*100/#games" rather than the straight winning percentage. So, it's either really badly worded, or just plain wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- In this case, "winning percentage" is taken to mean (simply) "Wins/games". So if Wigan (to pick a team) wins 3 games and loses the rest, they'll rank higher in the table than Wolves (to pick a team) if they draw win 2, draw 4, and lose the rest. Perhaps the line should read "Teams with a lower total of wins..." Well, WP:BRD Runner5k (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
In the 50's, thee Greek FA adopted a system giving 3 points for a win, 2 for a draw, 1 for a loss with the ability to punish a club with nullification in case of bad sportsmanship (i.e. walking off the pitch in anger etc.).