Why didn’t Arsenal do it then?
It's true. The away goal added jeopardy which meant the first leg had more on it.
It increases the likelihood of extra time - the thing they should actually have gotten rid of.
Interesting fact - there has never been a 0-0 first leg in CL since the abolishment of the away goals rule.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 3 minutes ago
Interesting fact - there has never been a 0-0 first leg in CL since the abolishment of the away goals rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice bit of trivia that.
Whilst checking back. I also noticed that so far this decade, every 0-0 tie in the CL knockouts has featured an English side.
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 3 minutes ago
Interesting fact - there has never been a 0-0 first leg in CL since the abolishment of the away goals rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice bit of trivia that.
Whilst checking back. I also noticed that so far this decade, every 0-0 tie in the CL knockouts has featured an English side.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No
Not really. I was initially against abolishing the rule but I actually think the knockout games have been far better without it.
My issue, somewhat related, is that whoever plays at home in the second leg gets the potential extra time advantage. First leg ends 1-0 and after 90 mins the second leg is 2-1 - the home team get another 30 mins, at home to try and win it. That’s fine for the rd16 where group winners are supposed to have an advantage, but later rounds is unfair.
It's the seeding I find most annoying. It removes a large part of the jeopardy involved in unseeded ties and greatly reduces the chances of a less fancied side to make it through to the final stages.
No doubt it's one of those things the elite clubs would have lobbied for way back when, and it's hard to see it being ditched this far down the line.
I'm also really dislike the sound of the new group format coming in next year or the year after. They tried it out a while back in some big preseason tournament for a couple of years, and there seemed to be no heads or tails to it.
Who cares who wins the 'which richest clubs prevails' competition?
comment by Zein Mayassi (U21076)
posted 1 hour, 20 minutes ago
It increases the likelihood of extra time - the thing they should actually have gotten rid of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
More advertising time for the sponsors.
Dreadful rule, should have left it how it was.
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 14 minutes ago
Who cares who wins the 'which richest clubs prevails' competition?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally speaking, the fans of clubs who go deep in the competition, who likely number in the hundreds of millions worldwide.
As with any other competition, a lot of fans who don't have a stake in it generally become disengaged as the rounds progress - but ratings suggest it's obviously still a huge draw for many of them.
See a lot of people moan about seeding, but when you get 2 championship sides in the FA Cup semi final because they have had the luck of the draw it is a massive turn-off for the viewing public and the final is a shiiity one sided borefest.
Seeding is great, as it gives you the best chance of the best teams meeting at the business end of the competition, which is surely what we want to see. It also doesn't stop the unseeded teams proving themselves better than the seeds.
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 14 minutes ago
Who cares who wins the 'which richest clubs prevails' competition?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally speaking, the fans of clubs who go deep in the competition, who likely number in the hundreds of millions worldwide.
As with any other competition, a lot of fans who don't have a stake in it generally become disengaged as the rounds progress - but ratings suggest it's obviously still a huge draw for many of them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like Scotland and the World Cup
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 56 seconds ago
See a lot of people moan about seeding, but when you get 2 championship sides in the FA Cup semi final because they have had the luck of the draw it is a massive turn-off for the viewing public and the final is a shiiity one sided borefest.
Seeding is great, as it gives you the best chance of the best teams meeting at the business end of the competition, which is surely what we want to see. It also doesn't stop the unseeded teams proving themselves better than the seeds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair argument, but I remain unconvinced. Nothing wrong with watching the big teams meet earlier on, and I have nothing against lesser sides making the finals. One of the massive appeals of cup football is the chance of huge upsets happening.
Another problem with it is that it tends to further tilt the playing field towards the bigger clubs, as the small guys rarely get to enjoy the additional income that comes from the prize money and media exposure that comes from big cup runs.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 54 minutes ago
See a lot of people moan about seeding, but when you get 2 championship sides in the FA Cup semi final because they have had the luck of the draw it is a massive turn-off for the viewing public and the final is a shiiity one sided borefest.
Seeding is great, as it gives you the best chance of the best teams meeting at the business end of the competition, which is surely what we want to see. It also doesn't stop the unseeded teams proving themselves better than the seeds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah this. seeding is vital
How will the seeding system work in the new uefa super league next season? Will it still be based on league champions or will it be back to favouring the big leagues?
It’s much better. You actually have to win the tie to get through now.
How odd, I was thinking this whilst watching the game lastnight, that its more boring without away goals
Doesn't really matter in this case as if Porto score at the Emirates we will still need to get three to win the tie
Not quite true that. If you lose 2-1 you still have the chance of going through on penalties, whereas before the away goal would've put Porto through.
Yeah and you get extra time to get that third goal
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 8 minutes ago
Yeah and you get extra time to get that third goal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, overlooked that important point.
Extra time was arguably more interesting under the previous system, because while the home team had the crowd advantage, the possibility of conceding also increased the jeopardy.
Was it more common for the home team or the away team to win it in extra time? I wonder what the statistics are on that.
Away team I reckon. There’s been an increase in penalty shootouts (which is bloody grate) since the removal of the away goals rule. There’s obviously an advantage to being at home on ET but the away goal actually benefits the away team more than the home advantage does, in my opinion. It probably doesn’t make it as interesting, however, I think extra time is better when the home team and away team can play with some freedom to go and win the tie before pens.
Boiled down, the away goals rule applied in extra time means that any score draw benefits the away team. A goalless draw leads to penalties, and e.t. win for either team puts them through, regardless of the difference in goals.
I haven't found exact stats, but I did find a mathematical model extrapolating the number of goals typically scored over 90 minutes by home and away sides, respectively.
On its own, that model awards the home team a 32% chance of winning it in extra time vs a 21% chance for the away team.
There are other factors involved, of course, so it would've been more interesting to see what the results in actual fact were, but I didn't manage to find any.
Sign in if you want to comment
The CL away goal rule
Page 1 of 2
posted on 22/2/24
Why didn’t Arsenal do it then?
posted on 22/2/24
It's true. The away goal added jeopardy which meant the first leg had more on it.
posted on 22/2/24
It increases the likelihood of extra time - the thing they should actually have gotten rid of.
posted on 22/2/24
Interesting fact - there has never been a 0-0 first leg in CL since the abolishment of the away goals rule.
posted on 22/2/24
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 3 minutes ago
Interesting fact - there has never been a 0-0 first leg in CL since the abolishment of the away goals rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice bit of trivia that.
Whilst checking back. I also noticed that so far this decade, every 0-0 tie in the CL knockouts has featured an English side.
posted on 22/2/24
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 3 minutes ago
Interesting fact - there has never been a 0-0 first leg in CL since the abolishment of the away goals rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice bit of trivia that.
Whilst checking back. I also noticed that so far this decade, every 0-0 tie in the CL knockouts has featured an English side.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No
posted on 22/2/24
Not really. I was initially against abolishing the rule but I actually think the knockout games have been far better without it.
posted on 22/2/24
My issue, somewhat related, is that whoever plays at home in the second leg gets the potential extra time advantage. First leg ends 1-0 and after 90 mins the second leg is 2-1 - the home team get another 30 mins, at home to try and win it. That’s fine for the rd16 where group winners are supposed to have an advantage, but later rounds is unfair.
posted on 22/2/24
It's the seeding I find most annoying. It removes a large part of the jeopardy involved in unseeded ties and greatly reduces the chances of a less fancied side to make it through to the final stages.
No doubt it's one of those things the elite clubs would have lobbied for way back when, and it's hard to see it being ditched this far down the line.
I'm also really dislike the sound of the new group format coming in next year or the year after. They tried it out a while back in some big preseason tournament for a couple of years, and there seemed to be no heads or tails to it.
posted on 22/2/24
Who cares who wins the 'which richest clubs prevails' competition?
posted on 22/2/24
comment by Zein Mayassi (U21076)
posted 1 hour, 20 minutes ago
It increases the likelihood of extra time - the thing they should actually have gotten rid of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
More advertising time for the sponsors.
Dreadful rule, should have left it how it was.
posted on 22/2/24
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 14 minutes ago
Who cares who wins the 'which richest clubs prevails' competition?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally speaking, the fans of clubs who go deep in the competition, who likely number in the hundreds of millions worldwide.
As with any other competition, a lot of fans who don't have a stake in it generally become disengaged as the rounds progress - but ratings suggest it's obviously still a huge draw for many of them.
posted on 22/2/24
See a lot of people moan about seeding, but when you get 2 championship sides in the FA Cup semi final because they have had the luck of the draw it is a massive turn-off for the viewing public and the final is a shiiity one sided borefest.
Seeding is great, as it gives you the best chance of the best teams meeting at the business end of the competition, which is surely what we want to see. It also doesn't stop the unseeded teams proving themselves better than the seeds.
posted on 22/2/24
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 14 minutes ago
Who cares who wins the 'which richest clubs prevails' competition?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally speaking, the fans of clubs who go deep in the competition, who likely number in the hundreds of millions worldwide.
As with any other competition, a lot of fans who don't have a stake in it generally become disengaged as the rounds progress - but ratings suggest it's obviously still a huge draw for many of them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like Scotland and the World Cup
posted on 22/2/24
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 56 seconds ago
See a lot of people moan about seeding, but when you get 2 championship sides in the FA Cup semi final because they have had the luck of the draw it is a massive turn-off for the viewing public and the final is a shiiity one sided borefest.
Seeding is great, as it gives you the best chance of the best teams meeting at the business end of the competition, which is surely what we want to see. It also doesn't stop the unseeded teams proving themselves better than the seeds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair argument, but I remain unconvinced. Nothing wrong with watching the big teams meet earlier on, and I have nothing against lesser sides making the finals. One of the massive appeals of cup football is the chance of huge upsets happening.
Another problem with it is that it tends to further tilt the playing field towards the bigger clubs, as the small guys rarely get to enjoy the additional income that comes from the prize money and media exposure that comes from big cup runs.
posted on 22/2/24
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 54 minutes ago
See a lot of people moan about seeding, but when you get 2 championship sides in the FA Cup semi final because they have had the luck of the draw it is a massive turn-off for the viewing public and the final is a shiiity one sided borefest.
Seeding is great, as it gives you the best chance of the best teams meeting at the business end of the competition, which is surely what we want to see. It also doesn't stop the unseeded teams proving themselves better than the seeds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah this. seeding is vital
posted on 22/2/24
How will the seeding system work in the new uefa super league next season? Will it still be based on league champions or will it be back to favouring the big leagues?
posted on 22/2/24
It’s much better. You actually have to win the tie to get through now.
posted on 22/2/24
How odd, I was thinking this whilst watching the game lastnight, that its more boring without away goals
posted on 23/2/24
Doesn't really matter in this case as if Porto score at the Emirates we will still need to get three to win the tie
posted on 23/2/24
Not quite true that. If you lose 2-1 you still have the chance of going through on penalties, whereas before the away goal would've put Porto through.
posted on 23/2/24
Yeah and you get extra time to get that third goal
posted on 23/2/24
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 8 minutes ago
Yeah and you get extra time to get that third goal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, overlooked that important point.
Extra time was arguably more interesting under the previous system, because while the home team had the crowd advantage, the possibility of conceding also increased the jeopardy.
Was it more common for the home team or the away team to win it in extra time? I wonder what the statistics are on that.
posted on 23/2/24
Away team I reckon. There’s been an increase in penalty shootouts (which is bloody grate) since the removal of the away goals rule. There’s obviously an advantage to being at home on ET but the away goal actually benefits the away team more than the home advantage does, in my opinion. It probably doesn’t make it as interesting, however, I think extra time is better when the home team and away team can play with some freedom to go and win the tie before pens.
posted on 23/2/24
Boiled down, the away goals rule applied in extra time means that any score draw benefits the away team. A goalless draw leads to penalties, and e.t. win for either team puts them through, regardless of the difference in goals.
I haven't found exact stats, but I did find a mathematical model extrapolating the number of goals typically scored over 90 minutes by home and away sides, respectively.
On its own, that model awards the home team a 32% chance of winning it in extra time vs a 21% chance for the away team.
There are other factors involved, of course, so it would've been more interesting to see what the results in actual fact were, but I didn't manage to find any.
Page 1 of 2