With 5 minutes left in the Chelsea game, Steaua trailed 3-1 on the night, 3-2 on aggregate. They know that one more goal not only draws them level, but it also sends them through as well. Did Chelsea have such an opportunity with 5 minutes left to go in the first game? No they did not, difficult to see how it can be called a fair system then.
Away goals rule
- Thread starter Tom84
- Start date
home support is a massive factor. the inter fans showed rubbish support both home and away thus another reason why spurs deserved it and it helped the players.
the cl final wasn't a fair result imo. though there is the argument that defending AKA parking the bus is just as important and may actually be classed as good tactics, playing a smart move etc. bayern were the better team. imo of course.
Maybe games should be decided on the loudest supporters rather than away goals then cm :/
edit: Even though it's you I still have to ask, are you really suggesting that the level of support a side gets is a factor to consider when determining whether a side deserves to win a game?
edit: Even though it's you I still have to ask, are you really suggesting that the level of support a side gets is a factor to consider when determining whether a side deserves to win a game?
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.
Last edited:
Maybe games should be decided on the loudest supporters rather than away goals then cm :/
edit: Even though it's you I still have to ask, are you really suggesting that the level of support a side gets is a factor to consider when determining whether a side deserves to win a game?
no. i'm saying it helps. certainly helped tonight.
I think people are underestimating the effect of home advantage. Personally, I don't understand it; all they are doing is playing football in a different place on grass but it undeniably has a large influence on results and performances. I don't really see anything wrong with the away rule tbh.
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.
4-0 is of course a better scoreline than 3-0, but no I honestly dont think 4-1 is any better than 3-0 and while Im happy to agree its a matter of opinion, and each to their own, its not something to get aggressive about either
(and of course you never argue with me for the sake of it)
The team who scored away from home still deserve more credit than the team who didnt - and to kick out the team who actually managed to score is ridiculous (if otherwise the scores are level)
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
Obviously the above is only applicable if the score is exactly the opposite in the 2nd game, otherwise it makes no difference anyway.
Say exactly the same thing in different words
Last edited:
i personally feel that this sums up exactly why the away goals rule is fair.
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)
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.
It has shafted us this year and in Rafa's last year, the one in extra time I find being a load of horse **** but I'm sure it will go for us eventually if we get back in Europe.
Still a crappy rule and I'd rather always be playing away second unless we have a defence/work ethic like 2005. I can stand it in normal time, not extra.
Still a crappy rule and I'd rather always be playing away second unless we have a defence/work ethic like 2005. I can stand it in normal time, not extra.
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...
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...
but inter didn't keep a clean sheet at home. spurs did.
i understand where you're coming from but if you look at it as a gd thing, for and against would it not work in spurs favour from a table pov too?
No, alphabetical order
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Dec 2002
- Posts
- 20,823
- Location
- North Yorkshire
I'd agree with the comment that why does playing away from home make that much difference? I mean its still 11 v 11 on the same green stuff, but with the away players getting booed etc etc.
Most decent players excel when getting booed .........
Maybe I have answered my own question
Most decent players excel when getting booed .........
Maybe I have answered my own question