WhatTheFunk Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 It was brought about to stop the kind of football Chelsea played at the Nou Camp, it's as dull as dish water for the neutral spectators. Which is why it's great to see them knocked-out. I would have loved it if Man Utd got knocked out last season for the same reason too. Scholes' goal and Man Utd's performance at Old Trafford last season int he semi were worthy of winning any tournament. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 It was brought about to stop the kind of football Chelsea played at the Nou Camp, it's as dull as dish water for the neutral spectators. Which is why it's great to see them knocked-out. I would have loved it if Man Utd got knocked out last season for the same reason too. Scholes' goal and Man Utd's performance at Old Trafford last season int he semi were worthy of winning any tournament. His goal was magnificent but all I remember from that match was how awesome Messi's technique was. Man Utd weren't at their best in that match but did what they had to do: defend. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobby_solano Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 we've been stung enough by it in the past, but it should definitely still stand. keeps both teams on their toes Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sittingontheball Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 My own observation would be that the first leg is usually pants. The knee-jerk experiment then would be having only one leg. You could award home advantage based on seedings set according to performance in the earlier rounds. If you play to scrape through, you'll end up away at one of the better teams. It would be commercial suicide of course, since the idea there is to drag it out as long as possible. I think we'd see better football though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 surely the basic point of the away goal rule is that in theory it's harder to score away from home, therefore if you do so and the game ends up tied over 2 legs then you get extra "weight" for the away goal and quite rightly so - plenty of teams can be dominant at home, performing away is not always such an easy task look no further than NUFC for examples of this in recent history, when you look back on the title we lost to man u we lost it due to our away form basically...we won 17 games at home that season iirc which was immense, we were average away and that's why we lost during the 10 years or so man u kept getting dumped out of the CL by borrussia dortmund etc... it was primarily because they thought they'd got a great result 0-0 away from home then johnny foreigner popped up with an away goal to blow them out of the water, their success now is largely based on making sure they score in the away legs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
juniatmoko Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 this system often counter productive towards attacking football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest helios_centric Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 I don't like playing over two legs. The first leg is often 22 players walking around on eggshells, scared to make a mistake. Just draw the thing out of a hat and take your chances with home or away advantage. Won't happen of course as it would mean less money in the coffers, but I think it might be more dramatic. The away goal rule itself is patently unfair - what does it matter at which venue the goals were scored - if it's level, it's level. I understand why it's there but it's hardly a satisfactory system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil K Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Golden goal is better and fairer. Mind, when they're playing golden goal time the brown stains on defenders shorts are NOT mud.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 I dont mind the rule, Chelsea totally fucked up, they had 90s minutes to get an away goal in Barcelona but never bothered their arses and tried to be clever. Got stung big time. Nobs, And Redknapp spazzing out afterwards in the studio was hilarious. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 All I can see is Athletic Bilbao. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exiled in Texas Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 I doubt any of the proponents saying get rid of away goals were watching football before they brought the away goal rule in. Dour game where the away team stacked all 11 players behind the ball in their own half and prayed for just one quick break or failing that to take their chances at home in the second leg. The away goal rule is a good thing in my book, as it encourages the visiting team to "try" a bit harder than they otherwise would. The only unfair thing in "away goals" is that they continue to count in Extra-Time. Anyone remember the Waffa cup semi last yeat where Bayern played Gettafe. It was tied 3-3 on agregate after the seond leg, and in the two additional 15 mins it was tied 1-1. Bayern went through on away goals in the extra-time. Totally unfair at that point in the game when both teams are going for the win. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gggg Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 It was brought about to stop the kind of football Chelsea played at the Nou Camp, it's as dull as dish water for the neutral spectators. Which is why it's great to see them knocked-out. I would have loved it if Man Utd got knocked out last season for the same reason too. Scholes' goal and Man Utd's performance at Old Trafford last season int he semi were worthy of winning any tournament. His goal was magnificent but all I remember from that match was how awesome Messi's technique was. Man Utd weren't at their best in that match but did what they had to do: defend. Messi did fuck all in that match despite having the most space on the pitch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 I doubt any of the proponents saying get rid of away goals were watching football before they brought the away goal rule in. Dour game where the away team stacked all 11 players behind the ball in their own half and prayed for just one quick break or failing that to take their chances at home in the second leg. The away goal rule is a good thing in my book, as it encourages the visiting team to "try" a bit harder than they otherwise would. The only unfair thing in "away goals" is that they continue to count in Extra-Time. Anyone remember the Waffa cup semi last yeat where Bayern played Gettafe. It was tied 3-3 on agregate after the seond leg, and in the two additional 15 mins it was tied 1-1. Bayern went through on away goals in the extra-time. Totally unfair at that point in the game when both teams are going for the win. As someone (think it was O Nut) said, if it's all square after two sets of ninety on away goals too, should be straight to pens. Burnley were denied a carling cup final at the expense of Spurs this year because of a different extra time related discrepancy. It just confuses the matter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen927 Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 It's a real sucker punch to be knocked out on away goals, Chelsea had a few stone wall penalty appeals, then they were beat by what was a very well taken shot at the end by Barcelona. They still have to look at themselves for why they were knocked out though, they went to Spain with no intentions of grabbing a crucial away goal, while Barcelona went to England with every intention of getting that crucial away goal. Thats the difference. Would like to see the stats for who gets knocked out more often, the team that plays away first or the team that plays home first. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tisd09 Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 I have got no issue with the away goal rule in Europe. But I don't think it should be the case in the Carling Cup Semi Finals. I have no logic behind my opinion just think it would be better that way. In the example of Spurs/Burnley I don't think it would have changed the attitude of either team except for Spurs when they got the late goal to draw level, instead of sitting back they may have attempted looking for another goal that would see them through rather than pens, and in Burnleys case they wouldn't have had to go looking for another goal and could have settled for Pens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 Anything other than Away Goals doesn't really work before it came in any away side in Yurop would pack the team with midfielders and never come out of their half - it was bloody awful Golden Goal sounds good but as time goes on in the game teams become more and more defensive With Away Goals you know what you have to do and if you sit on a 1-0 lead at home like Chelsea did then you know the risks - AND it keeps the opposition playing and attacking right to the end Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bovineblue Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 Don't think there's anything wrong with away goals at all. My problem is when it goes to Extra-Time. It should be two lots of 90 minutes, if it's still level, then penalties. Trying to imagine Viduka playing two sets of 90 minutes........ What in the same season? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now