Topic: size of goal on different tables

[gpeters]

I'd like some thoughts from others on the different sizes of goals on foosball tables. 

When I first learned foosball back in the mid 70's on campus and in bars, the size of the goal was about seven inches like on a Tournament Soccer and similar tables.  The first time I played on a Tornado or a Dynamo in about 1974-5, I found the obviously larger goal much more difficult to defend ... someone could set the ball up for a pull shot and still have room for a short push shot.  Very frustrating for the defender!  It seemed too easy for the forward with a larger goal!  Imagine if someone decided to make the hoop/rims on a basketball court another 20% larger ... nothin' but net would be much more common.  The Dynamo and Tornado tables were so well built compared to many other tables at that time.  With the superb ball control on these two vendor's tables, why did the goal have to be so much wider?  It just didn't seem right to me.  I learned on smaller goal sizes and expected things to stay that way, dam it!

I felt a smaller goal size on other manufacturers tables generally encouraged the forward to shoot a wider variety of fancier shots (at least in non-tournament conditions like typical bar/gameroom foosball).  Mixing up shots kept the defense guessing.   The game was much more interesting when a variety of shots was used.  You had to mix things up more on a table with a smaller goal or the defense would catch on quicker.  When I played friends (that had less foosball experience than myself) on a Dynamo or Tornado, they just did pull shots and beat me ... that pissed me off.  There was no incentive for them to learn reverse shots (push then pull, pull then push, fake, etc...)  A short or long pull shot was all they needed to score on a huge (8 inches?) goal.  I had already seen enough fast pull shots on a 7" goal table that were difficult enough to race.  Now on an 8" table, it was even more difficult to defend.  Why did I bother to learn ever learn a variety of other shots?  I should have just focused on the pull shot to win. 

I don't know how I'd feel if I had first learned foosball on a Tornado table to begin with.  Perhaps I would hate smaller goals.  (I've been away from foosball for many years and I want to learn the snake shot sometime.)  I like Tornado tables because they are well built and so much good thought was put into their design. 

My speculation is that bar owners and game room owners wanted foosball games to get over faster so they could get more money each day.  Bigger goals meant it was easier to score, more slop goals, faster games, more games played per hour ... more quarters, more profit!  I think most new players just felt better (whether they knew it or not) with a bigger goal because they could score a little easier.    By having larger goal sizes, Dynamo and Tornado simply catered to the demands of the business owners and most players stayed silent.  Now the vendor (Tornado) can't change the size of the goals because, in general, players have built/practiced their shots on a particular sized goal.  Imagine the complaints from users and bar owners if Tornado made the goal size one or two inches smaller.  It is not going to happen.

I guess I'd like to find the answer as to why a certain goal size was settled on for a manufacturer's table.   What is going on in the head of the table designer?  What is going on in the head of a player (offense or defense).  Why not a 10" sized goal?  Or a 5" goal?  Should the goal size be somewhat proportional to a real soccer field dimensions?  Or should the goal width follow some formula based on the diameter of a ball and the size of the men's feet?  If the size of a goal was just determined/swayed by business owners trying to increase their profit, players with a real interest in the game itself are probably missing out on something.  Is there an ideal goal size??? 

What do you think about this?

[marty]

Good post i think i read some where on one of these boards that the reason for the goalie change was done by mastake but after it was built
they stayed with it , i like you started on ts tables and remember back in the day the wide range of shots , theres a new table the legend table thats got
a 7 1/2 inch goal opening with a one man goalie but the feet are wider 1 inch its harder to score on but its still a lot of fun, i feel the tornado is the best table but think it would be better if it was single man goalie and did not have a side strip running down the sides for easyer banking and the smaller goal opening, thats my thoughts

[EDGEER]

I guess I'd like to find the answer as to why a certain goal size was settled on for a manufacturer's table.   What is going on in the head of the table designer?  What is going on in the head of a player (offense or defense).  Why not a 10" sized goal?  Or a 5" goal?  Should the goal size be somewhat proportional to a real soccer field dimensions?  Or should the goal width follow some formula based on the diameter of a ball and the size of the men's feet?  If the size of a goal was just determined/swayed by business owners trying to increase their profit, players with a real interest in the game itself are probably missing out on something.  Is there an ideal goal size??? 

I know because is was there when the changes were being discussed.  For background purposes I was a custom furniture maker in Halton City, Fort Worth not far from where Ed McCloud had his factory and game room.   As I mentioned on another thread I gave McCloud my designs for the 3-man goalie and HPL playing surface in 1981.  Part of our discussions concerned McClouds design for a new player figure.  McCloud was convinced that a back pin was the shot of the future.  He created a pencil mechanical drawing of his new design as in motion at 5 degree increments.  He must have spent hours on that drawing.  He also machined by hand, wood prototypes of the design.  He showed a prototype to me and asked my opinion.  I really didn't know what to think about it' shape but I sure had something to say about its size.  Anyone who has played on an old glass top Tornado will tell you it was practically impossible to catch a perfect wall pass.  The reason being the gap between the man and the wall was the same as the size of the ball  1 3/8". 

Here is the math, it is a little difficult to follow but I will try to explain.  The old style man was 25/32" wide so, I suggested to McCloud to increase the width of his new man to 7/8" which efectively closed the gap between man and the wall by 3 /64"  (25/32"  minus 7/8" equals 3/32" and 3/32" divide by 2 equals 3/64").  As long as the bumper and shoulder of the bearing are the correct thickness the gap now is a minimum of 1/32" smaller than the diameter of the ball.  Now the importance of this as it concerns the width of the goal was the change in the spacing between the men on the 3-man forwards rod.  On the glass top when you set the ball in a pull shot position the inside edge of the man was within the width of the goal by about 3/16".  With the wider man of the new design the incrochment would increase another 3/64".  McCloud and I layed out the spacing on the new 3-man forward rod to make flush the inside edge of the man to the outside edge of the goal. I do think I remember McCloud increasing the width of the goal at one time but that was done in the late 70's.

Hope you found this interesting.

Ed