Away goals rule

jimferno said:
You agreed with what I wrote?
Click to expand...

No, I corrected what you wrote. The rule wasn't designed to make the home team conscious of conceding. It was simply to encourage the away side to attack.

I've never seen a logical reason presented as to why scoring more away goals makes your (that's a generic your cm) performance over the 2 legs better than the opposition. I understand why the rule was introduced initially (mentioned above) but I don't think it's needed any more. So without it being needed (imo) and there being no logical reason as to why it's better to score more away goals, why do we have the rule?

The only possible reason for some sort of rule is to balance out the benefit of the extra 30 mins of being at home for games that go to ET, in which case you'd only apply the rule for those extra 30mins. But as I've mentioned previously, it seems like (from my own memory anyway) teams playing away from home 2nd are better off in games that go to ET and therefore the away goals rule is a bigger advantage than playing at home for the extra 30 mins.
 
Last edited:
But Spurs didn't set out to defend!!! 111one

I find the whole away goal rule totally pointless, it doesn't make the games any more attacking or exciting. As for the home team having an advantage that may be so, but there are two legs to the ties and that advantage is given to both teams, the results over the course of the two nights should remain unmolested, not have the away goals enhancing the final result for one team completely unfairly.
 
Last edited:
There has to be a winner when it's all said and done.

Whether it be 'away goals', golden goal or penalties there's always going to be detractors claiming that it's a poor way to separate teams in a deadlock.

What fascinates me with Football fans is how fickle they are with the rules of the game. When the rules are in their favour it's fine but when they fall foul of a poor decision or they find themselves on the losing end of the rules there is uproar.
 
jimferno said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
For me the away goal rule makes things more interesting and reduces the number of games that go to extra time; plus it seems fair given the games are drawn at random and everyone abides by the same rules.

Example 1. Arsenal v Bayern, without the away goals rule this would have gone to extra time, where Bayern would have had an extra 30 mins to play at home. If you look across world football the home side tends to win more games so this extra 30 mins at home would give Bayern an unfair advantage. Does anyone want this? I prefer the current system.

Example 2. Spurs v Inter, both teams won 3-0 at home over 90 mins. So we have to go to ET. This seems fair. Here the 30min mini-game of extra time ended 1-1 but inter had home advantage so i think it's fair spurs go through. The alternative is presumably to go to penalties instead of giving spurs the win, penalties should really be a last resort so again I prefer the current system.

A number of posters say the current system is bad but haven't put forward a sensible alternative. A number of posters are complaining that in the second leg you know what score you need to win, lol, that's true regardless of how away goals are treated.

Stupid thread.
 
Personally I don't like away goals. Let the teams play how they want!

Also I think the concept is out dated. Teams are full of players from all around the world these days coupled with the fact there are a shed load more European fixtures than when the rule was brought in.

It's lost its relevancy - let the teams play their own game, no need to tinker anymore.
 
divaboy said:
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:confused:
Click to expand...

I've only read this far so far, but playing away from him is VERY different from playing at home.

Pitches are different sizes, crowd is further/closer to the pitch and more partisan, they will have different inclines either up or across the pitch.

They also have different "marks", Bobby Charlton says playing at home you know exactly when to hit a ball in, simply by which part of the stand you are next to, you don't even need to look, or by which building you could see through the stands.

Its very much more than 11 v 11 but in a different ground.
 
Don't think there is any problem with away goals in a 90 minute game. ET however is a different matter and then it should be back to 'normal'
 
Last edited:
atpbx said:
I've only read this far so far, but playing away from him is VERY different from playing at home.

Pitches are different sizes, crowd is further/closer to the pitch and more partisan, they will have different inclines either up or across the pitch.

They also have different "marks", Bobby Charlton says playing at home you know exactly when to hit a ball in, simply by which part of the stand you are next to, you don't even need to look, or by which building you could see through the stands.

Its very much more than 11 v 11 but in a different ground.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Which is why there are 2 legs.

Meh. I don't like away goals. Too many teams play with away goals in mind and place strategies around it. I would much prefer there were no away goals and have extra time and Pens.
 
Last edited:
BaZ87 said:
Put it this way (and I'm not saying this way is right), in the EPL, it's better to win 4-1 than to win 3-0.
Click to expand...

Im sure Man Utd would have preferred not to conceed as many last season especially.....so no even in the EPL its not always better (admittedly the title being decided on goal difference is rare, but even so)

Tom84 said:
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 :confused:
Click to expand...

It wasnt meant to be that defenders are rewarded more, but imo if any team (even the home one) is scoring three goals in the 90 minutes, they arent set up that defensively however they are playing tactically. If its 1-0 at home (like plenty of Utd home games over the years) , the home team can batter the other team and have little g/d to shout about or it can be a defensive display with one break and one goal. Its all about picking the fights your side can win (as it were) with the players you have fit at the time.

Im more than happy to accept its only my opinion - but I would much rather not conceed at all (who ever the gk is) rather than score extra goal(s) and conceed the same amount.
 
Last edited:
No1newts said:
What about Newcastle?

Our manager has bad facial hair too!!
Click to expand...

If they're scraping the away goal they might also decide to scrap the ludicrous idea of having just 2 teams play at once. A Spurs, Chelsea and Newcastle final could be a real reality :)

MW
 
Purdy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Is that trying to imply that Inter werent aware they would probably need an away goal from the 1st game?:D
 
FrankJH said:
Is that trying to imply that Inter werent aware they would probably need an away goal from the 1st game?:D
Click to expand...
I don't think he was implying anything, it's a pretty clear point that should be obvious to anyone with half a brain.

Infact your response even shows the point he was making, Inter know they 'probably' need an away goal. Sure, both teams know the value of away goals before a ball is even kicked, the difference is Spurs went into last nights game knowing with 100% certainty how many away goals Inter would be scoring over the course of the tie.

Sorry but I had to lol @ this as well.........

FrankJH said:
Im sure Man Utd would have preferred not to conceed as many last season especially.....so no even in the EPL its not always better (admittedly the title being decided on goal difference is rare, but even so)
Click to expand...
Who did United buy over the summer...... Oh yes it was that towering defender RvP. I guess you were right, fergie tried to improve our GD by conceding less rather than scoring more.
 
Tom, how is a 3-1 better than a 2-0? Were taking the Liverpool game here as the example..it's still a 2 goal difference. Quite right the away team is rewarded for getting an away goal.
 
Last edited:
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Right, so i've gone thru a lot of the thread, not all of it. I hear what your saying about 3-1 being better but I'm of the attitude that 2-0 is better than a 3-1, Keeping a clean sheet is far better indicator of dominance than say that extra goal to make it 3. When you consider a team already 2-0 up, the other side's heads have dropped and to score that 3rd is probably easier than say the first.

I'm not sure if i put my point across that well, hopefully you understand what im trying to say. Basically i'm saying the more you score the easier it gets as the opposing side gradually have less to play for.

Tom84 said:
  • 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
Click to expand...


This is one of the scenarios which ive always wondered about. Its a very odd one i agree!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom