Jump to content

Football Thread 2021/2022


Plissken
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, GamesGamesGames said:

 

Get rid of them in second leg extra time. Best of both worlds.

 

but this doesn't address the gross unfairness of a team having 30mins to score a winning goal at home, the teams should get on a plane after 15m and play the second half in the other sides stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Gotters said:

 

but this doesn't address the gross unfairness of a team having 30mins to score a winning goal at home, the teams should get on a plane after 15m and play the second half in the other sides stadium.

 

Not sure if serious or...

 

You play the first leg.

 

You play the second leg. Away goals will come into play at full-time if the match is drawn. Each side gets 90 minutes (+stoppages) as the away side.

 

If extra-time, away goals no longer come into play.

 

Am I missing something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Disgraced Toblerone said:

This does not make sense at all. Why not getting rid after the first half? Or 82 minutes?

 

Because that wouldn't make any sense. Getting rid of them should the tie go to extra time means each side has had a whole match as the away side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i wasn't serious about splitting extra time to different grounds.

 

I'm just not happy with all goals not being equal - its so arbitrary having scoring away being worth a bit more. Why not go down the basketball route and have higher scoring zone, so goals outside the area are worth a bit more to encourage long range thunderbastards.

 

It'll be interesting to see how it impacts 2 leg ties though as these things never quite pan out as intended as coaches get to grips with implications

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gotters said:

I'm just not happy with all goals not being equal - its so arbitrary having scoring away being worth a bit more. Why not go down the basketball route and have higher scoring zone, so goals outside the area are worth a bit more to encourage long range thunderbastards.

 

Because long-range thunderbastards aren't as good as team goals or individual magic. :)

 

It's not arbitrary mind you. There's a system in place, everyone knows it. Now if every time you scored an away goal someone tossed a coin to decide whether or not it was worth more...fair enough, that would be arbitrary and mental.

 

It maybe comes down to being a sucker for punishment. Way back before the takeover when I rarely missed a game, those last ten minutes of ties where an away goal was going to be a killer (for better or worse) were just unbearable, but I wouldn't ever want to lose that feeling.

 

Christ, what a thing to be occupied by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's arbitary because all other means of scoring a more difficult & rewarding goal are ignored - thus it lacks logical reason if not a ruleset. Definition of arbitrary isn't just about being random or not codified.

 

You like team goals, there you go give a move of 20+ passes leading to a goal a score of 1.1 goals, 30 passes can get 1.2. Goals outside the box get 1.3 and VAR has to be involved to adjudge where shot taken from of course. 

 

I guess the reason I like what UEFA has done here is for the first time in ages they are helping to simplify and make the game cleaner, rather than layering on technology and impossible to understand offside/handball from the likes of IFAB.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gotters said:

 

but this doesn't address the gross unfairness of a team having 30mins to score a winning goal at home, the teams should get on a plane after 15m and play the second half in the other sides stadium.


The easiest solution to this is having extra time behind closed doors. As soon as the final whistle goes after 00 minutes I’m sure all of the fans will calmly leave the stadium and once they’ve left you can finish the game and it’s fair for both teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proponents of away goals point to occasions where the drama of a situation is heightened by the potential for a complete turnaround, but that's being selective. For every situation where a tie hangs in the balance with a goal causing a complete upheaval, there are many more ties effectively over because the away side have grabbed a precious goal that gives them a near unassailable lead. These are casually forgotten, because the rule made it far more difficult to make them memorable.

 

There's the inherent unfairness. Should the tie finish 1-1 on aggregate, one team is rewarded for scoring away from home, disregarding that they utterly failed to score when they had home advantage. Two legged ties are also assymmetric - the circumstances for the away team in the first leg are often not the same as those for the team in the second. Goals change games, as the saying goes, but the reaction to going a goal down is different when you have 150 minutes remaining, most of them at home, and when you've got 60, all away.

 

We're apparently to ignore these problems because Team A got a favourable result in dramatic circumstances that would not have happened but for the rule. We don't, however, entertain other rule changes that might heighten drama at the expense of competitive fairness. Goals in the final ten minutes of a game aren't worth double. Winning sides aren't subject to player removal in the second half to make things more competitive. Losing captains aren't executed at the final whistle. We reject these notions because they are ludicrous.

 

60 years of the away goals rule has allowed familiarity and comfort to get a stranglehold over its inherent unfairness, and prevent it from looking just as stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with Fry.  Still like away goals (yay Spurs v Ajax!) but yeah it's not really a great equaliser, in fact I think that it favours the team that plays home first, because whatever the score in the return leg they now have a target to go for, and the moment they score more goals away than the other team they are in a more advantageous position.

 

These days we don't need it to level the playing fields because even eastern European grounds are decent, and the trips there are relatively similar to trips within the same country.

 

Also, there's the data that UEFA quoted.

 

So i'll shed a tear for it (yay again Spurs v Ajax!) but it's had its day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Fry Crayola said:

Should the tie finish 1-1 on aggregate, one team is rewarded for scoring away from home, disregarding that they utterly failed to score when they had home advantage.

 

Two legged ties are also assymmetric - the circumstances for the away team in the first leg are often not the same as those for the team in the second.

 

Sorry, not good at the multiquoting thing, but wanted to reply to these separately.

 

1) Well yes. They managed to score under what is considered the more taxing of circumstances (i.e. without home support). Each side can choose to shut up shop at home if they like, but in the knowledge that a single dropped bollock would be very costly;

 

2) But that's the same regardless. Players might be out injured, or in better/worse form, or suspended. The circumstances for each team between one leg and the next will always be different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah and say your star striker is out at home and you lose 1-0, then he's back when you go away and he scores 2, you're gonna win on away goals despite the fact you were in much, much better shape in the away match.

 

Removing away goals for 2 legs isn't unfair.

 

What WAS unfair was removing replays in the FA Cup/League Cup.  If you fail to score at home your punishment is "Another 30 minutes to score at home and/or a penalty shoot out with a friendly crowd".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, GamesGamesGames said:

1) Well yes. They managed to score under what is considered the more taxing of circumstances (i.e. without home support). Each side can choose to shut up shop at home if they like, but in the knowledge that a single dropped bollock would be very costly;

 

They did, yes, but they failed to score at in the least taxing of circumstances as a corollary. Away goals is intent on rewarding the former without recognising that the latter could be regarded an issue.

 

Of course, that's the literal rule - away goals are worth more. So we reward an away team for scoring a goal, but we don't reward an away team for preventing the home team from scoring, an achievement carried out in "the more taxing of circumstances", as you put it. 

 

In isolated matches, success in defence and attack cancel each other out. With the away goals rule, that's no longer the case.

 

Quote

 

2) But that's the same regardless. Players might be out injured, or in better/worse form, or suspended. The circumstances for each team between one leg and the next will always be different.

 

We do not award results for having the fewest injuries, the best form, or the least number of suspensions*. 

 

Away goals do not take into account the imbalance of a two-legged tie, and have different impact depending on when they were scored due to their ability to disrupt the result. An away goal in the second leg can be borne out of necessity (the team is losing and will exit if they do not score), which doesn't exist in the first leg. The team away from home in the first leg may be considered disadvantaged by this.

 

* except in tournaments when all other tiebreakers can't resolve the situation, of course!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can get behind those who feel it antiquated bc the difficulties of travel way back when meant it was that much more of a schlepp, sure.

 

Anyway, it'll be back within a few years.

 

Dead right on getting rid of the cup replays btw - I think for congestion's sake there wasn't much of a choice, but the cup is weaker for their loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Naysonymous said:


Fairness went out the window when it became apparent that the team with the most money wins.  

LOSC budget : 147M€

 

PSG budget : 640M€

 

Edit : That said, of course the vast difference between budgets is a problem.

 

I think french rugby top 14 has introduced two rules that makes it more unpredictable and interesting.

 

First, a salary cap. Obvious answer, but for football you'd have to implement it in all of europe. Difficult.

 

Second, and more interesting I think : on the whole year, each club should have on average a minimum of players in the team that are coming from their youth club. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The second one could be interesting but there remains a financial gulf in the youth setups, with teams actively recruiting the best talents from around the world. 

 

I think it's important to look at these things from a player perspective as well - moves to restrict clubs to fielding X or Y also impact the ability of a footballer to forge a career where they want (if there are clubs that will have them, of course). You don't want to go too far into the realm of the mid-nineties where every club had a three-foreigner limit, but the status quo also seems to be damaging to the health of the game when there's a bigger financial disparity than ever before.

 

I think that's one of the roots of my love of international football, really. If a nation wants to improve, they need to look inwards instead of out, the occasional Gulf state farming Brazilians notwithstanding, and when a good team does emerge in a traditionally unfancied nation they can't be picked apart by the vulturous elite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, GamesGamesGames said:

 

Away goals are great, and the only thing that needed changing with them was getting rid of their favouring a side in second-leg extra time. Knockout football will be the poorer for their loss.

 

This.  Still bitter about it being 'Arry "I got Spurs to the Carling Cup final in 2009, y'know" Redknapp instead of 'Arry "I blew a 4-1 lead to a Championship side" Redknapp.  Some cunts are just born lucky.

 

And having them in the Europa League run added a level of abject terror that really wasn't necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Gotters said:

I'm just not happy with all goals not being equal - its so arbitrary having scoring away being worth a bit more.

 

Right now, all goals aren't equal.  Because an away goal in extra time in the second leg is worth more than an away goal scored in normal time in both the first and second legs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

F365 had an interesting take on how the balance of power is switching from clubs to head coaches citing the problems Palace, Spurs and Everton are having finding replacements although they do acknowledge that Everton were somewhat blindsided. 

 

I wonder if this will result in fewer mid-season sackings? Probably not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/06/2021 at 15:14, David Kenny said:

I seem to be the only football fan who really likes away goals. Isn't this going to take us back to the days where the first leg is extremely negative.

Dunno mate Its been around since 1965! Was it negative first legs before then and never since?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, sorry if I came across like that, was meant to be more light-hearted but that bit got lost. 

 

Certainly a good point on the internationalisation, you don't really get as much of a national identity as you did back in the nineties. I miss that without really wanting to fix what causes it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Pockets said:


Not really these days. All teams are so international now it’s not exactly any different seeing Barcelona or Man City. The home and away two-legged nature was at the core of it and was lent extra excitement by the away goals. That’s just my opinion on it, clearly not yours. You don’t have to condescend like everyone’s dad all the time. 

 

As a Chelsea fan can I absolutely back you up that European football isn't different than playing Man City.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/06/2021 at 14:07, Disgraced Toblerone said:

LOSC budget : 147M€

 

PSG budget : 640M€

 

Edit : That said, of course the vast difference between budgets is a problem.

 

I think french rugby top 14 has introduced two rules that makes it more unpredictable and interesting.

 

First, a salary cap. Obvious answer, but for football you'd have to implement it in all of europe. Difficult.

 

Second, and more interesting I think : on the whole year, each club should have on average a minimum of players in the team that are coming from their youth club. 


 

Probably worth mentioning that PSG have won 18 of the past 25 domestic honours (League, French Cup, French League Cup) that they competed in, plus the French Charity Shield 8 years in a row.  They won four domestic trebles between 2015 and 2020. Their utter domination of French football is totally down to their budget. This “off” year (where they still won the cup) is a blip, whereas the Lille team will break up due to the fact that they are pretty much bankrupt.  
 

Salary caps just aren’t going to happen in Europe unless we get a Super League and nobody wants that. 

The youth team idea is interesting but it’s just so open to abuse as all it means is that the clubs with the most money just spend it on the best youth players instead, and if incentivised by punitive rules for not fielding youth academy graduates they might just rip the hearts out of other clubs academies before those players have chance to develop a fair value.  
 

Truth is it’s all fucked.  No matter what solution you think of, the top clubs (including ones we all support) have the motivation  and resources to make sure they have brighter and better people to spend all day every thinking  about how to get around it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And salary caps continue to have their problems.  Most budget caps tend to exclude them in elite sports because it'd be very easy for say, Yokohama's contract with Chelsea to be reduced by £10m and them pay £1m each to 10 players as a "consultant / advert star / ambassador".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.