Chelsea v Paris SG : Champs League Round Of 16 : 17th Feb, 2015 : 19:45 UK

[Bilo]

I do actually sympathise with this, although Bilo has correctly pointed out that you get an advantage too. Reckon the away goals rule has had its day (isn't there a thread about that here, or was that on TFF?)

The thing is, if you remove the away goals rule it'd be an undivided advantage in extra time for the home team. With the away goals rule, it sort of evens out. But even then, statistically, it's better to play the second leg at home which is why the group winners do precisely that in the first knockout round.

 

[Renegade]

Think it was on TFF.

I'm all for scrapping the away goals rule. As last night showed again, it promotes negative football, Chelsea rested on their laurels because of the away goal lead they maintained and it came back to bite them in the arse. The rule was introduced so teams would attack more away from home, but it's had the opposite of the desired effect, as most of the second legs played in European competition end up being cagey affairs.

It feels like a completely arbitrary means to decide a fixture. There is a significant difference between Arsenal playing away at Chelsea and Arsenal playing away at Galatasaray. There are variable home advantages and depending on the fixture often feels like a really unsatisfying way to end a contest.

We wouldn't have the issue of extra-time away goals either and it prevents us from the ultimate spectacle of penalties (which is far more fun for the viewer). Scrap it, it's shite.

 

[thespus]

Away goal rule should go.

Chelsea didn't deserve to make it to extra time, anyways.

 

[Bilo]

I'd say it's a much more complex issue than simply looking at why it was introduced.

First and foremost, you have to ask yourself if it's better or worse now than when the away goal rule was introduced, as you run the risk of going right back to where we were before the rule if you remove it. I'd say it's better now, but obviously that's just my opinion based on very little experience of what it was like before the away goals rule.

Secondly, right now, the away goals rule sort of evens out the advantage of playing the second leg at home, but still not quite. Remove it, and the advantage of playing the second leg at home will be much greater. And I'm all against advantages and disadvantages you can't control.

Third, it'd make penalties much more likely. And while it's entertaining for a neutral, I'd much rather see a game decided by actual football rather than spot kicks, even if I disagree with the notion that it is a lottery. You're also more likely to win a penalty shootout in front of your own fans rather than the opposition's, so once again having the second leg at home will be too great an advantage.

For me, I'd rather that we look at the fairest way than the most entertaining way. And scrapping the away goals rule will make it less fair, without any guarantee whatsoever that it will be more entertaining. Because the truth is, big games tend to be cagey, away goals or not.

 

[G-Dragon]

Keep the away goals. If you want it to be fairer then take ET out, go direct to pens. BUT team that is at home second leg definitely has much more advantage.

 

[Laker]

Remove away goals. Put 64 teams in a hat and do a straight knock out like the FA Cup, single leg with replays if it's a draw. If you're good enough, you'll win anyway.

*sits back and grabs popcorn*

 

[Renegade]

I don't think it's much more complex than looking at why it was introduced. It made sense when travelling abroad was a more gruelling endeavour, when TV coverage wasn't global and when home advantage was a much, much bigger deal. I'm not convinced that home advantage is such an advantage any more that it merits goals being weighted differently. It's much easier to play away from home now than it was when the rule was introduced and it feels like an arbitrary variable measure to decide a fixture.

Take away the away goal rule and teams would play more naturally, they wouldn't alter/bastardise the way they play thinking about an unnatural rule of the game. There would be less cagey ties, less holding onto leads. I don't believe the away goals is a fairer means of deciding fixtures any more, but I accept the point. If the difference is completely negligible, then opt for the more entertaining solution for the viewer (this is entertainment after all).

Or have a third tie in a neutral ground (take that schedule makers!).

 

[mistermagic]

I like the away goal rule. Just not in ET.

 

[BlueBee]

It's sort of evened out by the fact that the other team get an extra 30 minutes at home.

You're on decent google search away from seeing how playing at home in the second leg is favourable. One. Do your best. Good luck!

I think it used to be an advantage playing home in the second leg.....I don't think so anymore. I'd much rather play away in the second leg....we're much better suited to sitting deep and hitting teams on the counter...A lot of European teams play that way too.

I quite like the away goals rule but as I say I think it gives the away team an edge in the second leg if it goes to extra time. I'll say it again before anyone thinks I'm making excuses....We didn't deserve extra time, PSG were far better than us over the 2 legs.

 

[Bilo]

I don't think it's much more complex than looking at why it was introduced. It made sense when travelling abroad was a more gruelling endeavour, when TV coverage wasn't global and when home advantage was a much, much bigger deal. I'm not convinced that home advantage is such an advantage any more that it merits goals being weighted differently. It's much easier to play away from home now than it was when the rule was introduced and it feels like an arbitrary variable measure to decide a fixture.

Take away the away goal rule and teams would play more naturally, they wouldn't alter/bastardise the way they play thinking about an unnatural rule of the game. There would be less cagey ties, less holding onto leads. I don't believe the away goals is a fairer means of deciding fixtures any more, but I accept the point. If the difference is completely negligible, then opt for the more entertaining solution for the viewer (this is entertainment after all).

Or have a third tie in a neutral ground (take that schedule makers!).

While I think you hold a fair opinion, I think you are being overly optimistic because of the current tactical culture and climate. Big games are often won by not losing, rather than going for the win.

This has increased since the introduction of tika-taka and extreme possession by Barcelona in 2009. Of course I'm simplifying and discrediting their predecessor, but Guardiola's 09 team made it a main stream theory. Since then you can start off looking at the world cup. In the past four semi finals and two finals, only two games out of these six have contained more than one goal. Only one of the games have been high scoring and with less than six goals ( ) between the teams, which was the Netherlands-Uruguay semi in 2010 finishing 3-2 in favor for the dutch.

The sample is too small to prove anything, but it does indicate something. Couple it with how often big games are anything but entertaining and you see a pattern. If you then look at the regular exception, el Clasico, you'll see how culture plays a huge part of it because the culture there won't accept a cagey, let's not lose-affair.

I agree that the rule is unnatural to some extent, but it's perfectly fair in my opinion and the only more fair option would be playing on game on neutral soil. But that would neglect the fans and it's not a big enough gain, fairness wise, to be anywhere close to being worth it.

 

[Bilo]

I think it used to be an advantage playing home in the second leg.....I don't think so anymore. I'd much rather play away in the second leg....we're much better suited to sitting deep and hitting teams on the counter...A lot of European teams play that way too.

I quite like the away goals rule but as I say I think it gives the away team an edge in the second leg if it goes to extra time. I'll say it again before anyone thinks I'm making excuses....We didn't deserve extra time, PSG were far better than us over the 2 legs.

Even if you are right, Chelsea under Mourinho would have to be the rule rather than the exception that they are for your opinion to be valid. Mourinho doesn't attack when he's in the lead, almost out of principle and it's both his weakness and his strength. But he's an exception, so even if it's a slight advantage for him to play the second leg away, it doesn't change anything because he's almost unique.

You can prefer playing the second leg away from home, while still seeing how it's a disadvantage in general. They're not mutually exclusive, I promise.

 

[Whitechapel]

This season in all comps:
Diego Costa (£32m) - 17 goals, 3 assists.
Giroud (£12m) - 13 goals, 3 assists & he was out injured for 3 months.

Costa hasn't scored or assisted anything this season in the CL.

 

[Pagnell]

Wrong. He assisted Marquinhos to the floor.

 

[G-Dragon]

This season in all comps:
Diego Costa (£32m) - 17 goals, 3 assists.
Giroud (£12m) - 13 goals, 3 assists & he was out injured for 3 months.

Costa hasn't scored or assisted anything this season in the CL.

Super Mario has more goal in Europe than Costa

 

[Whitechapel]

A true gentleman.

 

[thespus]

This season in all comps:
Diego Costa (£32m) - 17 goals, 3 assists.
Giroud (£12m) - 13 goals, 3 assists & he was out injured for 3 months.

Costa hasn't scored or assisted anything this season in the CL.

I think this says more about Giroud being an excellent signing than it does Costa being underwhelming.

 

[smat]

Chelsea have slowed down a hell of a lot this year, though. Fabregas was a passenger yesterday, and Costa's goals have dried up. What's happened there? On Sky they were talking about Mourinho not liking to rotate too much, is that backed up by facts? Are they just tired?

 

[JimJams]

They're fucking scared. Shitting a brick they are.

 

[Whitechapel]

Super Mario has more goal in Europe than Costa

So has Yaya Sanogo.

 

[BlueBee]

Costa hasn't scored a goal since Swansea away...January if i'm not mistaken.

I genuinely don't think he's doing anything wrong, he just isn't getting the opportunities. Fabregas looks extremely tired, perhaps he isn't adapting well to playing 3 times a week. Both are out of form and they were key to our early season success. Hopefully now with 1 game a week until the end of the season we'll start to get some form from those two.

It's no secret that we have a paper thin squad....Our first 11 is as good as gets when firing on all cylinders. After that you have players like Ramires, Luis, Zouma/Cahill, Drogba, Cuadrado and Mikel. They all can do a job but the quality is so bad.

 

[mistermagic]

No one plays 3 games a week. Ever.

 

[Pagnell]

Chelsea are forced to. It's a conspiracy against them and them only.

 

[JimJams]

It's no secret that we have a paper thin squad....Our first 11 is as good as gets when firing on all cylinders. After that you have players like Ramires, Luis, Zouma/Cahill, Drogba, Cuadrado and Mikel. They all can do a job but the quality is so bad.

Are you having a fucking laugh?

 

[Tilbury]

Well that was totally deserved.

Ibrahimovic: 'When the red card happened the worst thing was the Chelsea players. I felt there were 11 babies around me.'

 

[Whitechapel]

1, 2, 3, 4! 4 players. Ah ah ah.

 

[mente captus]

Well that was totally deserved.

 

[Whitechapel]

Love the fact Terry stood on Oscar's head to get to the ref to start his protests.

 

[thespus]

Are you having a fucking laugh?

Had the same reaction. I'd bite someone's hand off for Luis and Zouma at Arsenal.

 

[Pagnell]

View attachment 394

Every outfield Chelsea player is in that photograph. Fucking pathetic.

 

[mistermagic]

Are you having a fucking laugh?

Not to mention Schürrle. God he's gash amirite BB?