how much better do you want it to be?! do you want a dance off at the end or something? i mean, i know these footballers earn a lot of money but what more do you want from them?
Away goals rule
- Thread starter Tom84
- Start date
how much better do you want it to be?! do you want a dance off at the end or something? i mean, i know these footballers earn a lot of money but what more do you want from them?
I raised the point at the start of the thread - I wonder how many times the away side has won the tie in ET compared to the home side. I can't recall many times where the home side has won (my memory only brings up games that have gone to pens or the away side winning), which if that's an accurate reflection, it would mean that it's better to have the extra 30 mins of the away goals rule rather than being at home.
Again you've failed to answer the question. I'm starting to think that you can't come up with a logical reason.
As I've already said, there's no easy answer to what should be used as an alternative. I guess the only fair way would be to play a 3rd game at a neutral venue but that's not very practical.
Last edited:
Well not really because in those last 30 minutes if you score they always will need one more. Also you play with knowledge how many away goals you need etc.
so, the key here, would be to do your damn hardest to keep a clean sheet on the home first leg. right? and score as many as you can. right?
Which brings you full circle. The rule was brought about to stop sides being defensive away from home. You're now suggesting sides should be defensive at home. That defeats the object of the rule.
edit: and there's actually been incidents of sides doing what you suggest - which is another reason why I think the reasons behind the rule are no longer valid.
but we scored! we went for it in extra time and scored. being 3 down and nackered, away from home. we scored.
and besides, going on the rumours of racist chanting by inter fans, every fan should be glad we dumped them out.
so there's no easy answer and the only thing you can think of inpractical. that's probably why it's the way it is. which is actually the fairest way.
i don't have to come with an answer, i'm telling you why it's fair and it is fair. apart from when it works to spurs' favour of course
Jesus Christ. This thread and debate isn't just about Spurs and what the hell does this have to do with what I've said?
You claimed that teams should make a point of not conceding at home to which I replied that, that defeats the object of having the away goals rule as it's encouraging teams to be defensive (the exact opposite reason for the rule being implemented) and your response is.... "but we scored! we went for it in extra time and scored."
It's actually impossible to discuss/debate anything with you. Your posts are completely senseless and have no relevance to the post your replying to. Seriously, what were you thinking with this post? How does it have any relevance to the general discussion of whether the away goals rule is right or to the post you actually quoted?
I've not asked you to come up with a solution, I've asked you to explain the logic behind what you're saying. You haven't because you can't. I doubt you even understand the word logic. And no, you've not explained why the away goals rule is fair. You've just post senseless dribble, like you do in every thread.so there's no easy answer and the only thing you can think of inpractical. that's probably why it's the way it is. which is actually the fairest way.
i don't have to come with an answer, i'm telling you why it's fair and it is fair. apart from when it works to spurs' favour of course
Last edited:
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.
All teams fall under the same rules so it is fair!
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.
Seems like the only fans complaining about away goals are those who had their teams knocked out...
All teams fall under the same rules so it is fair!
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.
Seems like the only fans complaining about away goals are those who had their teams knocked out...
no. Baz87. it's actually impossible to discuss things with you when you take such statements out of context. it doesn't defeat the object of having the away goals rule at all. just because there's an away goals rule, doesn't mean that defence take priority but it is important (like it is in every game).
this (again) is my point. spurs scored 3 goals and kept a clean sheet. not even you could say this showed we were being defensive. if we'd been more clinical, we could've score more than 3 but didn't. if inter had been more clinical, maybe they would have scored. they didn't.
spurs defending away from home was poor but inter still only managed to score 3 but couldn't keep a clean sheet.
No it doesn't. The rule was brought about with the sole reason of stopping the away side from being too defensive. It was about entertainment rather than differentiating between a 2-1 or a 1-0.
And it's not about whether it's fair or not - and it's not as straight forward as simply saying all sides play to the same rules as every side doesn't play away from home last etc etc. It's about whether it's the right way.
Football in the last 10-20 years is more attacking than it was 50 years ago. I don't think we'll see a huge change in the style of play if the away goals rule was done away with.
This thread is not just about Spurs vs Inter!
You claimed, not me, that teams should try their hardest not to concede at home. By trying their hardest not to concede at home, they therefore will play more defensive than if they weren't concerned about conceding. It's not hard to understand. Read it twice to make sure it sinks in though.
Last edited:
and great entertainment it was too.
i look forward to you supporting spurs in the next round.
good night.
You say that as a joke but I will be. I want a Chelsea - Spurs final with both sides being disqualified because their managers have bad facial hair.
for the love of
look. i know liverpool's defence is a little rocky at times but nothings changed, Baz87. a defence is there to DEFEND. the key is ALWAYS to not concede be it home or away. depending upon your opposition, this will effect how you play. hence my mentioning of the chelsea bayern cl final which i thought was a little unfair on bayern that they lost on penalties but understood the argument for parking the bus to get the job done.
spurs didn't set up to defend for our lives against inter, we played attacking football and scored 3 goals. we fell to bits in the 2nd leg but we still scored.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 26,776
The thread is about discussion of the away goal rule and so far all we've had is two pages of facepalm.
good. you'll feel great.
This thread is not just about Spurs vs Inter!
Surely nobody can be this stupid? Do you have problems with your memory and what you post?
In relation to a thread discussing the merits of the away goals rule, you claimed it was key for the home side not to concede. To anybody with an ounce of sense that would mean that they would have to be more defensive than they would be if they weren't concerned about conceding. And when replying, remember:
This thread is not just about Spurs vs Inter!
'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.'
You agreed with what I wrote?
You are right, not all teams can play away from home in the second leg but at this point you're pretty much splitting hairs. To get to extra time in the second leg both teams have to be dead even when taking away goals into account.
There still hasn't been a legitimate reason why 'away goals' are wrong, it seems like a pretty legitimate way to differentiate performance over two games.
Perhaps as a non football fan, I just can't grasp the concept?
Last edited: