Away goals rule

[Tom84]

Surely it's time Fifa/Uefa look at changing this rule? I've seen 3 teams go out of Europe this season due to it and no one is going to convince me that the 'right' team went through in any of the 3 ties...

• Firstly take Liverpool v Zenit, Zenit won 2-0 in the first leg and then Liverpool from what I saw battered them 3-1 in the return, how is a 2-0 win at home deemed better than a 3-1?
  
• Second example would be Arsenal last night and although this contradicts the above some one tell me how Arsenal didn't deserve at least extra time having been 3-1 down from the first leg to draw the tie level away from home?
  
• Third example Inter tonight, Spurs win at home 3-0, Inter win 4-1 in the second leg, to me it's obvious who had the more convincing win over the other and yet its the losing team on the night who progressed.

So what are the alternatives I hear you ask?

• First one obviously would be the standard extra time and penalties although the argument to this would be that the home side on the night get more playing time at home
  
• Second alternative then would be have away goals count only in extra time as that offsets the previous argument but given that's basically how tonights tie went in the end this still doesn't sit completely right with me although it would be a massive improvement over what we have now
  
• Final suggestion I can come up with is just straight to penalties but Uefa wont ever go for that

So does anyone else agree that the rule as it stands needs changing (even if it's only for a short period to see how it goes) and if so anyone got any alternative way of deciding ties I haven't mentioned?

 

[Tom84]

Tell me what you said first time that prompted Andy to delete your message then I'll answer your question

 

[Tom84]

The reason why I feel Inter deserved to go through is that not only is beating a team 4-1 more comprehensive than 3-0 (imo) I also think a team who knows they're 3-0 down and come back to score 4 have had the bigger achievement (more so than winning the first leg even if it's as comfortable as 3-0)

 

[Tom84]

In the case of Arsenal last night, they may have deserved to go through but they had to chase the game. At home they were poor. Does that mean because they went to Germany needing a big win that if they get near it, that cancels out their first leg performance.

Well yeah...

 

[Tom84]

are you saying penalties are fairer then? you think the outcome of last season cl final was a fair result then?

tbh I cant really remember much about that final so I cant really say whether it was a fair result or not because I simply cant remember. Penalties are a lottery as the cliche goes though in which I dont think having home support is much if any factor

 

[Tom84]

No , beating a team 4-1 is not more comprehensive than beating them 3-0 , if anything its exactly the oposite because the home team didnt conceed. At worst its identical, but not conceeding should be given "extra" credit, even at home (as the home match should be the easier of the two).

So scoring 4 goals isn't a bigger achievement than scoring 3?

You say it's the exact opposite and at worst it's identical but you're wrong (and you being you I suspect you're trying to argue with me for the sake of it). Think about the circumstances of a team on the losing end of a 4-1, their one goal is nothing more than a consolation having been comfortably beaten on the night. 9 times out of 10 the losing team doesn't even deserve a goal for their performance.

If anything all the away goal does in this particular circumstance is for want of a better term train defences not to switch off even for a second but then it's still punishing 1% of the performance rather than rewarding the other 99% and that's not right.

 

[Tom84]

but then isn't that the point? by that measure, spurs gave 100% to inters 99%?

In terms of not conceding in your home game then yes in layman's terms Spurs' defence get a 10/10 for their home game whereas Inter's only get a 9/10 for theirs but then in this ever so simplistic view of the rule you could then 'rate' the offences of the two sides exactly the same, if Spurs score 3 at home but Inter score 4 it's Inter offence that have done the better. You're then going to argue but Spurs attack scored away from home whereas Inter didn't but then my answer to that would be yeah but Spurs conceded 4 away from home whereas Inter only conceded 3

Which ever way you look at it there's an argument.

 

[Tom84]

The game isnt just about scoring, its about defending as well.

Most teams have one or two players who score the majority of goals (albeit with a few more regular assisters) , yet they have 5 + defenders incl a goalie (admittedly this is debatable given formations etc etc), but even so whether its 1% / 5% or more than that, the team who dont conceed in one game (if scores are level apart from that) deserve to progress

You're right it isn't just about scoring but you dont win games without scoring goals whereas you can concede 10 and still win as long as you get 11.

I genuinely dont understand your point about the defence, are you saying a unit of 5 (GK & back 4) should be rewarded more than the 1-3 players involved in scoring a goal? Because to me it's looks pretty simple who's got the numbers advantage there

I understand they're be some people that will look at it from the defenders point of view and feel keeping a clean sheet in 1 game and conceding 4 in the other is better than conceding in both but from my perspective keeping a clean sheet away from home is a real accomplishment not doing it at home where you're expected to be the better side (obviously this isn't applicable if the home side is Wigan and the away side is Barcelona for example though)

 

[Tom84]

i personally feel that this sums up exactly why the away goals rule is fair.

To continue to put it into layman's terms then

Spurs' attack at home 9/10
Spurs' defence at home 10/10
Inter's attack at home 10/10
Inter's defence at home 9/10

You think based on that the away goals rule is fair? Because Spurs' defence was better at home than Inter's was? Regardless of how the attacks did?

Like I said to Frank if you're more into your defending than your goal scoring fair enough that's your opinion and nothing anyone is going to say to you is going to change that.

 

[Tom84]

Something else I mentioned the other night was are we (as in the English sides) more naive to the rule than the other European sides? I hate the away goals rule in part because of what I've seen this season but mainly because of how it's shafted Man Utd in the past but off the top of my head apart from Spurs tonight in recent memory I cant think of another English side that's actually benefited from it

So although I'm against the rule if there's something our coaches are doing differently then maybe the problem is just as much there as it is with the rule itself...

 

[Tom84]

I'll be honest I didn't understand your last reply to me and still have no idea what you're on about

 

[Tom84]

Seems to be a lot of butt hurt people around tonight because Tottenham went through.

That really isn't the case, it might appear that way because there's a lot of exchange backwards and forwards with cm but Spurs's result is no more relevant to to point of this thread than that of Liverpool's against Zenit or Arsenal's against Bayern

 

[Tom84]

Home teams generally have an advantage, the 'away goals' rule aims to take away the home advantage by forcing the home team to be conscious of their defence and forcing the away team to strive to score.

Too many teams are happy to play for a draw over the two legs or play taking into account 'away goals'. The teams should be entering these games to win both legs, then you wouldn't have to deal with disappointment when you lose on away goals.

Two things with the above

1- I assume you want to remove the home advantage as you feel the side who plays at home second has an unfair leverage over the tie?

2- your second paragraph reads as though you are in favour of removing the rule which to me contradicts your entire stance thus far. Either way I agree with the point you've made (albeit I suspect it was unintentional) neither team should play to the away goals they should play to win the individual games on their own merit. Zenit knew the minute they scored an early goal at Anfield that Liverpool needed 4 (not 3) to progress in the 90 minutes so Zenit then theoretically stopped playing the game and started playing to the rule, is that really the best way to decide these ties?

 

[Tom84]

I've already gone over why a 4-1 is better than a 3-0 (or in this case a 3-1/2-0) read through the thread.

On a seperate note I was thinking about what cm1179 said about how it was correct that the Spurs/Inter tie rewarded Spurs' defending at home which got me thinking about this scenario....

• Spurs are away from home first and win 0-1, that's a win and a clean sheet away, no one will surely argue that a clean sheet away from home isn't more impressive than one at home.
• Second leg kicks off and Spurs score again making it 2-0 on aggregate
• Inter go on to win the second leg 1-2 and go through on away goals

In this scenario the team who managed to keep a clean sheet in 1 of the 2 legs hasn't been rewarded at all, the team who's been rewarded is the one that managed to score 2 goals on a given night rather than 1. Wonder if cm1179 has an opinion on this.....?

 

[Tom84]

Ok, why is it 'fairer' for the away team to have an additional 30 minutes to score away goals in Extra Time?

The idea is that it offsets the advantage the home side have of playing an extra 30 minutes on their own ground (an advantage that the away side obviously didn't have in the first leg). I personally though would argue that it's a bigger advantage to have your goals count twice than to simply be playing in your own stadium.

 

[Tom84]

every team should want the first leg at home.

Whether it's right or wrong it's actually the opposite, every season you hear managers express the need to finish top of their CL group so that the second leg of the first knock out stage is at home (the idea being that if you trail in a tie you have the home advantage to help you overcome the deficit)

Given that the 'luxury' of playing at home second is performance based reward I dont feel this is an unfair part of the system before you go there

 

[Tom84]

That was Spurs advantage for not conceeding - it shouldnt be their problem that Inter were not able to score in the 1st leg. They deserved a slight advantage for not conceeding in 90 mins

Where was Arsenal's reward for not conceding in Munich then? Or are we only rewarding the teams that dont concede in the first leg?

 

[Tom84]

You've got plenty of time on your hands Tom, get on google, wiki and wherever else and find out what % of games that are decided in ET are won by the away side.

In the 23 Champions league ties decided by away goals, 14 have favoured the team playing at home second, however in the 96 UEFA Cup/Europa League ties settled by away goals, 58.3% have been won by the side playing away in the second leg. Thus, combining the results of both competitions, only 45.4% of the ties decided by the away goals rule were won by the team playing at home second. This demonstrates that statistically there is no evidence to support the anecdotal belief that the away goals rule favours the team who plays at home in the second leg, in fact it may actually disadvantage them.

Source: http://www.leftmidfield.co.uk/is-playing-at-home-in-the-second-leg-an-advantage

EDIT: Not sure how up to date that is mind but another of their stats is based up till the end of the 09/10 season so we can assume it's fairly up to date (give or take 3 seasons)

 

[Tom84]

Arsenal conceeded THREE at home, Im not sure how anyone can really defend that argument

Frank in your own words;

They (spurs) deserved a slight advantage for not conceeding in 90 mins

Arsenal didn't concede in 90 minutes in Munich so where's their advantage? Answer is they dont get one because due to the away goals rule it doesn't matter how they great an effort it was from them for pulling the score level they were punished for their first leg performance/result.

Earlier in this thread you said a 3-0 win was better than a 4-1 now though you're saying a 3-1 defeat is worse than a 2-0. Which is it?

 

[Tom84]

in the instance of spurs v inter, what would be a fair middle ground for both fans to travel? shall we say ...... paris? ok.. right. so, when shall we play it? well, i can't see anything other than a mid-week fixture. ok. so the fans have to travel mid-week, again and the players have another journey abroad, in an already hectic schedule, to play a game, that if it ends 0-0, could go to ET ...... again.

What you've proposed there would be the absolute fairest way of deciding who goes through (however extra time would only come into effect in the hypothetical third leg not in the standard second leg). So to paraphrase;

San Siro - Inter 0-1 Spurs (0-1)
WHL - Spurs 1-2 Inter (2-2)
Neutral venue - Inter 0-0 Spurs -> Added Time -> Penalties

In this scenario both teams have the equal chance of being at home and beating the other on aggregate and having failed to do so are taken to a neutral venue to decide who's the better side in the tie.

Now this will never happen, just as it will never go straight to penalties with the scores level after 180 minutes of both legs so given the above is the fairest way of deciding ties that are level are we really saying the new best alternative is the away goals rule? Rhetorical question you dont have to answer it.