I don't really know if i prefer it or not, i'm still thinking about it.

But it's more fair because for example a team who have won 1 match and lost 2 have 3 points like a team who made 3 draws, and the team who made 3 draws is more regular and they are not bad.

Maybe they should bting in 4 points for a win then?

I think it's good enough as it is...

because everyone will want a playoff then. Champions League spots, Uefa cup spots, relegation teams that got dropped cause of goal difference

It would be a never ending circle of playoffs

The league i play in has 4 points for a win 2 for a score draw, 1 for scoreloss draw and 0 for loss. Dunno how that would play out in a big league but its interesting

No 4 for a win it's too much.

I'd prefer games won or goals scored to decide because it would encourage teams to play more offensively and make games more attractive.

The one big problem with the points for score draws is that teams could possibly collude to get a 1-1 draw and an extra point each, and some goalless draws are only scoreless because of a great save or two.

So, a team that does a lot of attacking against a defensive team would get 4 points if they win 1-0, but only 1 if the opposing goallie makes one more great save - that's a 3 point difference

Part of the reason I mentioned 1970-71 was because that was when Don Revie was manager of Leeds, and his philosophy was "You start a game at 0-0, that's a point each - whatever you do, don't lose that point". Football was often quite boring then (but not always of course).

As it turned out this season, Man Utd would have won on any basis, even if they had just drawn at Wigan and tied on points - best Goal Average, Goal Diffence, Goals Scored and best results against Chelsea in the league (if it had to be decided like La Liga).
But, if they had drawn at Wigan, Chelsea would have won under the old rules where there was 2 points for a win and one for a draw just by getting more points.

Last season (2006-2007) Arsenal would have won the title if games were just based on games involving top 4 teams - this year it was Man U on that too - they won it fair and square under any system (apart from referees - only j/k).

How about you get more points for beating a top team?

Just a thought

twmcat, you been playing online poker with Trevor Brooking?

Jamesy - the best I ever achieved in online poker was when I forgot to play and I reached my best ever position

He's an old git like me though

i completely disagree with any changes to the current system.

would this spread to the relegation slots? should reading have played a play off to see if they should go down? should it affect 4th place? uefa cup places? 10th place? its nonsense and the current system is just fine.

agree with steely why break something that is not broken

It's not broken and doesn't need fixed.

Just speculating on it's authenticity. If you win the title via scoring one more goal than the other team, does it mean you're the best team? Every team has a different style of play and each can be likeable in their own ways, be it fast counter-attacking wing play or tight tactical playing-off-frontman style. One will score more than the other, but it does not mean it's better. You could actually score one more goal but lose one more game than the point-equalled opposition side and still win the title - is that right?