The likelihood of someone scoring wouldn't increase much. There are 2 balls to preoccupy the players, so this may sound that it is easier to score but it isn't so.

Say one team had a ball there would be less people to pass to but also less people to defend the opposition's goal, so they counter-balance each other.

I couldn't give you a probability but I would say that the likelihood would definitely increase. Basically it can be said that each player is facing 5 outfield players when attacking goal, which is fewer people to get past. It's kind of like two five-a-side games going on at the same time although players are interchangeable.

If you exaggerated that either way and made it one-a-side in the outfield you'd only have to get past one player to get an opportunity to score. Make it 100-a side and you've got to get past 100 players to get an opportunity to score. I play 5-a-side weekly and on the occasions where we have 6 each it is relatively low scoring and on weeks where there's 4-a-side it's a goalfest!

On top of that, you're going to get situations where one team has both balls in its possession which would vastly improve your chances of scoring.

We used to play 2-ball football at school. If nothing else, it's mental!

I'm not a big follower of football. In Wales it was all rugby when I was a youngster.

It seems to me that the low number of scores is one of the attractions for the true lover of the game. Each goal is a huge high to be savoured. A nil-nil draw is an anti-climax and a 5 goal game is something to be talked about all week. The joy is in the anticipation; like dreaming of what you'd do if you won the lottery (but a bit more likely to happen).

Give me cricket any day. I get a buzz every single time the bowler runs up. Now that's a real sport.