Champions League Round of 16 (and some Europa round of 32 matches)

[meyers7]

It's interesting but in a really contrived sort of way.

Because when you "win" something. There should be a team that actually wins a game. I don't think it makes it more interesting, because what ends up always happening is that the home team plays conservative or worse and the away team attacks.

Even worse, you get really cynical tactics like the away team scoring all of one goal in the first leg and then they just shut down completely. Boring.

I disagree. I've seen it make games much more interesting. Like the Arsenal game. Even though they had won the 2-0, they still were going after that last goal. Lot's of games like that. Or with the home team defending and the away team attacking, you get lot's of goals on the counter. Makes for some great games. Not boring at all.

 

[ZooCougar]

I disagree. I've seen it make games much more interesting. Like the Arsenal game. Even though they had won the 2-0, they still were going after that last goal. Lot's of games like that. Or with the home team defending and the away team attacking, you get lot's of goals on the counter. Makes for some great games. Not boring at all.

It's not the right kind of exciting when the excitement is fueled by cynicism. Nobody wants to see these teams park the bus. Just going t have to agree to disagree but sentiment against away goals is growing.

 

[meyers7]

It's not the right kind of exciting when the excitement is fueled by cynicism. Nobody wants to see these teams park the bus.

I guess we just have different ideas of exciting. I like games where teams are pressing to score and lot's of goals are scored on counters. I guess you find that boring. ????

Just going t have to agree to disagree but sentiment against away goals is growing.

Prolly have to disagree with that too. Haven't really heard/seen much of that.

 

[ZooCougar]

I guess we just have different ideas of exciting. I like games where teams are pressing to score and lot's of goals are scored on counters. I guess you find that boring. ????


Prolly have to disagree with that too. Haven't really heard/seen much of that.

People were blasting it on Sirius yesterday and I am pretty much in agreeance. Also saw a few players on twitter who were griping about it.

I don't think you have to have the away goals rule to create that style of play. The problem is, once a team gets that first away goal often times they go into a shell to protect.

If you use raw aggregate then you won't have this nonsense where two games end in a draw but there is still a winner because of away goals. It just doesn't pass the smell test.

 

[meyers7]

If you use raw aggregate then you won't have this nonsense where two games end in a draw but there is still a winner because of away goals. It just doesn't pass the smell test.

So again, how do you propose getting a winner?

 

[ZooCougar]

So again, how do you propose getting a winner?

Just use raw aggregate. If it's a draw after 90 minutes in the second leg, then extra time and penalties if neccesary. Higher seed gets home field advantage which is the home game on the second leg.

 

[meyers7]

Just use raw aggregate. If it's a draw after 90 minutes in the second leg, then extra time and penalties if neccesary. Higher seed gets home field advantage which is the home game on the second leg.

Oh KFTM huh? Yea people hate those even more than away goals. Try again.

 

[ZooCougar]

Oh KFTM huh? Yea people hate those even more than away goals. Try again.

Really? Based on what? The penalty kicks for Atletico and Bayer Leverkusen were great the other day. At least PKs are something that is decided by players and not by weighting goals based on where they were scored. It's absurd. The ONLY reason it's played over two legs is because it's a revenue producer for both clubs. If it were just one game, like a championship game there would be no away goals.

And you don't need away goals to produce counterattacking soccer. That's aspect isn't moving the argument anywhere. If a team is behind on goals it will press and can be vulnerable to counters. No away goals rule required.

If the home team drew on the previous leg with at least one goal scored, they can park the bus and win the series with 0-0 result. Sorry, but that's just bad sports right there and a huge flaw in the concept. And it also can taint the competition because it doesn't really ensure that the better team won.

 

[ZooCougar]

Another reason why the Away Goals rule is outmoded, outdated and obsolete:

"The away-goals rule might have seemed fair and necessary in 1967, when travelling teams suffered considerable difficulties, but the money and resources involved in the modern game has reduced the burden on away teams. The rule was introduced as clubs could not afford replays and penalty shoot-outs had not yet made their way into mainstream European football – the invention of the modern shoot-out is usually credited to Yosef Dagan, who came up with the idea due to his annoyance that Israel had lost their 1968 Olympic quarter-final by the drawing of lots, and the first shoot-out in England was not played until 1970, when Manchester United beat Hull City at Boothferry Park in the Watney Cup semi-final. The away-goals rule was a clever invention in 1965 but its time has passed. "

"These days the rule only leads to defensive football, as one elite coach noted in 2008. "I believe the tactical weight of the away goal has become too important," he said. "Teams get a 0-0 draw at home and they're happy. Instead of having a positive effect it has been pushed too far tactically in the modern game. It has the opposite effect than it was supposed to have at the start. It favours defending well when you play at home." That elite coach was, of course, Arsène Wenger."

http://www.theguardian.com/football...rule-scrapped-arsenal-monaco-champions-league

 

[ZooCougar]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/debate-should-champions-league-abolish-5355584

And here's another great discussion which goes into greater detail as to why the rule is obsolete.

 

[SAMCRO]

Of all the tiebreaker options for these home/away series I prefer away goals to PK's as a decider (if possible). The only modification I might recommend is if it's tied on aggregate after 180 minutes, regardless of away goal differential, play an additional 30 minutes (2 15 minute halfs) as they do if away goals are even. That at least acknoweldges that the teams did tie overall, and use overtime to break the tie. If still tied on aggregate after the OT, then use the away goals as the tie-breaker. Only go to PK's if the away goals were in fact even.

The final 15-20 minutes of PSG-Chelsea and Arsenal-Monaco was great b/c one team had to press and attack and force the issue. You didn;t have both teams withdrawing late to protect the tie and take chances in PK's.

 

[ZooCougar]

Of all the tiebreaker options for these home/away series I prefer away goals to PK's as a decider (if possible). The only modification I might recommend is if it's tied on aggregate after 180 minutes, regardless of away goal differential, play an additional 30 minutes (2 15 minute halfs) as they do if away goals are even. That at least acknoweldges that the teams did tie overall, and use overtime to break the tie. If still tied on aggregate after the OT, then use the away goals as the tie-breaker. Only go to PK's if the away goals were in fact even.

The final 15-20 minutes of PSG-Chelsea and Arsenal-Monaco was great b/c one team had to press and attack and force the issue. You didn;t have both teams withdrawing late to protect the tie and take chances in PK's.

If you do it like that, then the team with the away goal advantage will just park the bus in extra time and they won't even think about countering. That might make it even worse.


I say get rid of it. With the way the game has evolved, it's just too much of advantage and since travel is so much easier and convenient it's not like the away team is enduring any kind immense hardship. Worst trip they might have to make is to Turkey and a trip to Isntanbul from England isn't even like flying across the US.

If it has to stay then have the AGR only count in extra time. Which is the way it is done in the Capital One Cup I believe.

 

[SAMCRO]

Everton playing Dynamo Kyiv right now in second leg (in Kyiv). They won 1st leg 2-1 at home, now trailing 3-1 in 2nd leg (down 4-3 agg) in the 39th minute. Kyiv scored 2 goals in the last 2 minutes to go up 3-1.
Should be some fireworks the rest of the way as Everton will be atacking. They are England's only remaining hope in Europe.

Other matches, Fiorentino is pasting Roma, up 3-0 (4-1 agg) in first half. Dinamo Moscow/Napoli scoreless in 1st (Naples up 3-1 agg).

 

[UCFBfan]

And out goes the last Prem team. Everton got blasted by Kyiv. Pretty disappointing campaign in both European competitions for the league.

 

[meyers7]

Really? Based on what?

Seriously? Based on the same internet and TV that you base your "people don't like away goals" on.

The penalty kicks for Atletico and Bayer Leverkusen were great the other day. At least PKs are something that is decided by players and not by weighting goals based on where they were scored.

Umm, hello, McFly. Goals, home or away are decided by players during the actual game. Not afterwards with KFTM.

The ONLY reason it's played over two legs is because it's a revenue producer for both clubs.

Well not the only reason, but I'll agree probably a pretty big reason. Also doesn't give one team the entire home field advantage.

And you don't need away goals to produce counterattacking soccer. That's aspect isn't moving the argument anywhere. If a team is behind on goals it will press and can be vulnerable to counters. No away goals rule required.

True, but it doesn't dis-incentify it either. It actually creates some pretty cool games.

If the home team drew on the previous leg with at least one goal scored, they can park the bus and win the series with 0-0 result. Sorry, but that's just bad sports right there and a huge flaw in the concept. And it also can taint the competition because it doesn't really ensure that the better team won.

No, no it isn't. You've just a warped sense of the game here. Having one team pressing and the other countering is fun soccer. Good sports right there.

It makes it unique and interesting DURING the game, as opposed to neither side pressing to get to a draw and KFTM. Now that's "bad sport".

 

[ZooCougar]

Seriously? Based on the same internet and TV that you base your "people don't like away goals" on.


Umm, hello, McFly. Goals, home or away are decided by players during the actual game. Not afterwards with KFTM.


Well not the only reason, but I'll agree probably a pretty big reason. Also doesn't give one team the entire home field advantage.


True, but it doesn't dis-incentify it either. It actually creates some pretty cool games.


No, no it isn't. You've just a warped sense of the game here. Having one team pressing and the other countering is fun soccer. Good sports right there.

It makes it unique and interesting DURING the game, as opposed to neither side pressing to get to a draw and KFTM. Now that's "bad sport".

KFTM is also decided by players. Penalty kicks are a skill. Goal keeping is a skill. AGR is for accountants.

You only need to spend a few minutes perusing social media and the news. You don't see any articles stating a case for away goals. It's just one of those things that exists and hasn't been weeded out yet.

Since you don't need away goals to create good soccer, why the need for an artficial stimulus? Given the reason for the existence of the rule and because those reasons no longer exist, it should be done away with.

Warped sense of the game how? It's not warped. It's progressive. Getting rid of these prehistoric rules will make the game better. Do away with AGR and you will no longer see these away teams become cynical once they score that way too important away goal.

 

[meyers7]

KFTM is also decided by players. Penalty kicks are a skill. Goal keeping is a skill. AGR is for accountants.

Home goals, away goals are scored by players DURING the game.

You only need to spend a few minutes perusing social media and the news.

To see people hate KFTM.

Since you don't need away goals to create good soccer, why the need for an artficial stimulus? Given the reason for the existence of the rule and because those reasons no longer exist, it should be done away with.

You need a way to get a winner. Away goals make for more exciting "play" than KFTM.

Warped sense of the game how? It's not warped. It's progressive. Getting rid of these prehistoric rules will make the game better. Do away with AGR and you will no longer see these away teams become cynical once they score that way too important away goal.

Warped with what you consider good soccer and boring soccer.

Teams pressing and the other team countering, I consider good exciting soccer. You find that boring.

Neither team playing for a win and just waiting for KFTM, I consider boring. You find that exciting.

Warped.

 

[ZooCougar]

Home goals, away goals are scored by players DURING the game.


To see people hate KFTM.


You need a way to get a winner. Away goals make for more exciting "play" than KFTM.


Warped with what you consider good soccer and boring soccer.

Teams pressing and the other team countering, I consider good exciting soccer. You find that boring.

Neither team playing for a win and just waiting for KFTM, I consider boring. You find that exciting.

Warped.

Dinosaur,

You don't need AGR for good soccer. It actually creates really bad soccer. One team bunkering while the other attacks is not interesting.

That's called playing negatively, and nobody likes that. Except for you apparently. People want to see positive play, not negative play.

AGR isn't decided by players. It's decided by execs at UEFA, who are also dinosaurs.

 

[meyers7]

Dinosaur,

You don't need AGR for good soccer. It actually creates really bad soccer. One team bunkering while the other attacks is not interesting.

That's called playing negatively, and nobody likes that. Except for you apparently. People want to see positive play, not negative play.

AGR isn't decided by players. It's decided by execs at UEFA, who are also dinosaurs.

You're out to lunch. Hope you're hungry.

 

[ZooCougar]

You're out to lunch. Hope you're hungry.

So AGR doesn't encourage negative play? That's your argument? Good luck with that.