Sounders Season Thread ***YEDLIN SOLD***

[Sgt. Largent]

The reason the away tiebreaker is stupid is where it's implemented. If it was a tie with the away goals. Then they would have played extra time. So why not play extra time first, then if still a tie go the tiebreaker? Considering the time between matches, there's no reason to do away with extra time. I can understand moving away from PK. But I don't agree with eliminating the extra period. I didn't like it when the Sounders benefitted from it against Dallas. I think it's dumb and a bad decision on MLS part to add it. The rule was made in the 50s or 60s....it's now outdated.

So go to extra time and THEN use an aggregate tie breaker system?

That's just not done, anywhere.........and for good reason. 180 minutes + extra time is plenty of time, adding another 30 minutes that 90% of time time results in no one scoring doesn't accomplish anything other than some hurt and tired players.

I'm telling you the reason the rules for both knockout matches and aggregate matches are what they are is because owners, manager and players have all given input over time and this is what they agreed upon is the best way to settle two match playoffs and one match winner take all matches.

 

[253hawk]

The whole away goal thing seems to benefit whoever plays at home first. Just turtle your ass off, then you can be a bit more aggressive the next match when your goals basically count as 2.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

The whole away goal thing seems to benefit whoever plays at home first. Just turtle your ass off, then you can be a bit more aggressive the next match when your goals basically count as 2.

It benefits no one, that's why it's fair.

By your logic the Sounders could have played for more goals in LA because they count for more. The Sounders actually had the advantage because most teams want the 2nd match in front of their home fans.

But strategically? I don't see any advantages, because no matter what the outcome of the 1st match, both teams know what they have to do in the 2nd.

 

[253hawk]

I see it like college football OT. Let the other team go first, that way you know exactly how much you need to do when it's your turn. You don't kick a field goal if they scored a TD; you're in 4-down territory.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

The whole away goal thing seems to benefit whoever plays at home first. Just turtle your ass off, then you can be a bit more aggressive the next match when your goals basically count as 2.

Give the man a cookie. For those not keeping up a goal should mean EXACTLY the same regardless of geographic location. Dumbest rule ever bar none.

 

[Uncle Si]

The whole away goal thing seems to benefit whoever plays at home first. Just turtle your ass off, then you can be a bit more aggressive the next match when your goals basically count as 2.

Give the man a cookie. For those not keeping up a goal should mean EXACTLY the same regardless of geographic location. Dumbest rule ever bar none.

and yet, the world's most competitive soccer tournament swears by it... lets not confuse naivety with ignorance of the game.

away goals dont benefit any one team more than the other, until one is scored. you can be the first home team but outmatched by your opponent. the idea that the home team would "turtle" is contrary to the philosophy and tactics the home teams employ to begin with and shows the lack of understanding of the rule (and to a point, the sport). being a "bit more aggressive" on the road holding a 0-0 in your pocket is the same as being a "bit more aggressive" on the road to start the tie.

The point of the away goal rule was to get teams to play more open, attacking soccer when traveling. This isnt rocket science, but people who argue against this rule show a naivety in understanding the tactics (and history) of the game. prior to the rule (and even now), away teams bunkered. they played for 0-0. people are underestimating a. how easy it is for teams to bunker to zeroes. 2. how awful those games are to watch. 3. the impact of "home field" advantage in soccer.

the away goals gave caoches inspiration to come out of their shells. it basically states that if you play attacking soccer away from your grounds, and still give up a goal (even two) you can get something from the tie.

this is coming off as condascending, and i dont mean it to, but its very difficult to explain the notion of the rule without pointing out its origins and how it impacts strategy and tactics. I argued this earlier that I thought the aggregate rule wasnt a good fit for MLS. However, i argued it because I dont think the players skill level and the tactical understandings of the coaches are nuanced enough to make it worthwhile. I also dont think the regular season sets enough precedent for it.

Any long time fan of the PL is aware of watching good attacking teams hit a brick wall against the lower tier teams. (rainy January nights at Stoke come to mind). when you've seen enough games hindered by those types of tactics the idea of aggregate scoring becomes far more appealing. The MLS doesnt produce those types of games (not often, atleast) and despite what some strong MLS supporters on here think, the "attacking" of the final four teams wasnt enhanced by the aggregate scoring more than simple matchups of good attacking teams did. Once away goals were scored good attacking teams had to attack more. It made for decent soccer. now, imagine a skilled team like Chelsea, barcelona, etc. forced to attack and not just hold. When truly fantastic teams are forced to change tactics it is an absolute joy to watch.

aggregate scoring just adds to that. If you dont want aggregate scoring the next best option is one game playoffs, which to me are also poor representations of the sport.

my only problem with aggregate scoring is the insistance to allow away goals to count as weighted in extra time. once it goes to ET, the away goal rule should fall away. (maybe it has now, i dont know)

 

[dumbrabbit]

Yes, yes, away goals do benefit one team, the lower seed. The lower seed always gets the away goal advantage if the higher seed doesn't score first. Don't you get it?

Please quit making the argument that other leagues swear by it. That means nothing right now. Sounders screwed and got screwed big time. It's a DRAW. 2-2. new game. How much harder is it to explain that? Go into extra time. Play until a winner is found. Why settle the series based on a goal that the lower seed won?

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Yes, yes, away goals do benefit one team, the lower seed. The lower seed always gets the away goal advantage if the higher seed doesn't score first. Don't you get it?

That's the same as saying the higher seed gets an advantage if THEY score the away goal first on the road.

They're both true, thus a fair system.

The Sounders did play aggressively in LA to try and get an away goal, and failed. Thus advantage lost. So you can spin this anyway you want, but the system's not weighted in anyone's advantage. There's tactical advantages on both sides of the draw.

If you'd like to debate which system is better, aggregate or extra time + PK's? That's fine, but enough of the tactical advantage nonsense for aggregate away goal.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

and yet, the world's most competitive soccer tournament swears by it... lets not confuse naivety with ignorance of the game.

Who cares? They also swear by flopping just because it's a rule does not make good or even sensible. Basically if you insist on a 2 game aggregate goal setup that should mean if after 2 games you are tied you play extra time and then PK's or extra time until the cows come home if you think PK's suck. Or extra time but sudden death first one who scores wins.

Otherwise you get the ridiculous situation that happened or even better some visiting team winning a game 3-0 which says the second game is a pure waste given they would have to win 6-0 or something more stupid. Like that is going to happen realistically.

 

[dumbrabbit]

Then the higher seed gets the benefit. Away goals always benefit one team more than the other. That's the point I was making.

I understand the reasons for the away goal rule, the other team has to attack more. But is that really how you want the playoffs setup? One team always gets a disadvantage. In pretty much North American sports, if there's a draw at the end of regulation, extra time is played to determine a winner. Why can't MLS be the same? an aggregate draw at the end of regulation means that whoever scored the last away goal wins. That hardly makes sense. A draw = a win for one team.

 

[Uncle Si]

Yes, yes, away goals do benefit one team, the lower seed. The lower seed always gets the away goal advantage if the higher seed doesn't score first. Don't you get it?

Please quit making the argument that other leagues swear by it. That means nothing right now. Sounders screwed and got screwed big time. It's a DRAW. 2-2. new game. How much harder is it to explain that? Go into extra time. Play until a winner is found. Why settle the series based on a goal that the lower seed won?

they got screwed by playing in a format they knew about ahead of time and not doing what was needed to win?

the fact that "other leagues" (including the Champions League) swear by it means everything, as it is why the MLS did it. If you cant see the benefits than keep biting the pillow.

how in the world does it benefit any one team over another? youre under the impression (wrongfully) that starting at home is some advantage or disadvantate. its not. ive heard coaches argue preference for either. If the Sounders got an away goal (i'm assuming you rated them as the higher seed) then they suddenly have an advantage that will play out at home. but, if they start at home (as LA did), and play a 1-0 (win, as LA did) then they take a goal advantage plus the appeal of needing just one goal to settle the draw. not to mention any team that scores first, in any game, under any format, now has an advantage). no scenario benefits one team over the other before the ball has been kicked, which is why it is fair. the fact it exists opens the game up more.

You cant "play until a winner is found" (i mean you can, but anyone that has watched extra time soccer can give you a fairly reasonable explanation as to why its not that much fun. sometimes, as in last years CL final, it explodes. other times, like the 2010 and 2014 World Cup final, its a tepid affair where teams look more like punchdrunk heavy weight fighters in the 15th round than exciting elite footballers) when the games are already 90 minutes (on only 3 subs per game) 30 minutes of extra time exisists if aggregate scoring is level. avoiding it is why the do home and away to begin with.

the argument against it removes the basic premise of its existance: to add more to the game while keeping it fair. to suggest it benefits one team more than another (outside of existing talent) before the games start is naive, and honestly just sour

 

[Uncle Si]

and yet, the world's most competitive soccer tournament swears by it... lets not confuse naivety with ignorance of the game.

Who cares? They also swear by flopping just because it's a rule does not make good or even sensible. Basically if you insist on a 2 game aggregate goal setup that should mean if after 2 games you are tied you play extra time and then PK's or extra time until the cows come home if you think PK's suck. Or extra time but sudden death first one who scores wins.

Otherwise you get the ridiculous situation that happened or even better some visiting team winning a game 3-0 which says the second game is a pure waste given they would have to win 6-0 or something more stupid. Like that is going to happen realistically.

they swear by flopping?

christ on a bike.

who cares? well the MLS obviously. Most soccer fans as well. and obbviously you've no idea how the aggregate scoring works. if an away team wins 3-0, then the next game they start with a 3 goal lead. if the away team than wins 3-0. then they are tied. if the away team wins 3-1, then they lose 4-3 (because goals and addition and all that). if they win 4-1 then they win the tie 4-4 by having more away goals.

where you came up with 6-0 means you need to take a break from the thread.

they dont want extra time or PKs. i dont know why you dont understand that. the players dont. the coaches dont. thats why their is aggregate scoring.

 

[Uncle Si]

Then the higher seed gets the benefit. Away goals always benefit one team more than the other. That's the point I was making.

away goals benefit the team that scores them. doesnt matter when. you act as if they are given to only one team.

again, aggregate scoring is set up to advance attacking play and to avoid extra time. extra time soccer becomes laborious and often leads to injury and poor play. teams are allowed 3 subs. usually by 90 minutes those subs have been used. most players after 90 minutes have already ran 8-12 miles. asking them to run another 30 doesnt improve the spectacle.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

and yet, the world's most competitive soccer tournament swears by it... lets not confuse naivety with ignorance of the game.

Who cares? They also swear by flopping just because it's a rule does not make good or even sensible. Basically if you insist on a 2 game aggregate goal setup that should mean if after 2 games you are tied you play extra time and then PK's or extra time until the cows come home if you think PK's suck. Or extra time but sudden death first one who scores wins.

Otherwise you get the ridiculous situation that happened or even better some visiting team winning a game 3-0 which says the second game is a pure waste given they would have to win 6-0 or something more stupid. Like that is going to happen realistically.

they swear by flopping?

christ on a bike.

and obbviously you've no idea how the aggregate scoring works. if an away team wins 3-0, then the next game they start with a 3 goal lead. if the away team than wins 3-0. then they are tied. if the away team wins 3-1, then they lose 4-3 (because goals and addition and all that). if they win 4-1 then they win the tie 4-4 by having more away goals.

where you came up with 6-0 means you need to take a break from the thread.

they dont want extra time or PKs. i dont know why you dont understand that. the players dont. the coaches dont. thats why their is aggregate scoring.

I know EXACTLY how it works thank you. You NEED to read what I said and stop telling me I have no clue how soccer works. I said IF the visiting team gets 3 goals to none for the home team in the first game they are up 3 goals regardless and just have make sure they aren't outscored by 4 goals. It's dumb so deal with it, they can literally be dominated (3-0 is a wipeout in soccer) and still win rather then actually having to have an aggregate score that actually superior by whatever means. Be that extra time, extra time with sudden death, PK's or a combination of them. More likely you get a tie in aggregate like Los Angeles and Seattle which means they should play on as detailed above like any other North American professional sport.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Otherwise you get the ridiculous situation that happened or even better some visiting team winning a game 3-0 which says the second game is a pure waste given they would have to win 6-0 or something more stupid. Like that is going to happen realistically.

What was the ridiculous situation again? That both teams know how the aggregate system works before the playoffs start?

Ridiculous is playing til 4:00am with players dropping like flies due to exhaustion or injury because you don't like PK's or away goal weighted aggregate score.

You can't have it both ways, you either go to an overtime + PK's system, or away goal aggregate.........and every owner, GM, ,manager and player on the planet prefers the away goal aggregate system for tournament style soccer because it's the most fair and doesn't give the lesser opponent the opportunity to just play on their half of the field for 90 minutes trying to get to PK's.

/discussion

 

[Uncle Si]

and yet, the world's most competitive soccer tournament swears by it... lets not confuse naivety with ignorance of the game.

Who cares? They also swear by flopping just because it's a rule does not make good or even sensible. Basically if you insist on a 2 game aggregate goal setup that should mean if after 2 games you are tied you play extra time and then PK's or extra time until the cows come home if you think PK's suck. Or extra time but sudden death first one who scores wins.

Otherwise you get the ridiculous situation that happened or even better some visiting team winning a game 3-0 which says the second game is a pure waste given they would have to win 6-0 or something more stupid. Like that is going to happen realistically.

they swear by flopping?

christ on a bike.

and obbviously you've no idea how the aggregate scoring works. if an away team wins 3-0, then the next game they start with a 3 goal lead. if the away team than wins 3-0. then they are tied. if the away team wins 3-1, then they lose 4-3 (because goals and addition and all that). if they win 4-1 then they win the tie 4-4 by having more away goals.

where you came up with 6-0 means you need to take a break from the thread.

they dont want extra time or PKs. i dont know why you dont understand that. the players dont. the coaches dont. thats why their is aggregate scoring.

I know EXACTLY how it works thank you. You NEED to read what I said and stop telling me I have no clue how soccer works. I said IF the visiting team gets 3 goals to none for the home team in the first game they are up 3 goals regardless and just have make sure they aren't outscored by 4 goals. It's dumb so deal with it, they can literally be dominated (3-0 is a wipeout in soccer) and still win rather then actually having to have an aggregate score that actually superior by whatever means. Be that extra time, extra time with sudden death, PK's or a combination of them.

im not going to argue anymore with you, but here is your quote: "Otherwise you get the ridiculous situation that happened or even better some visiting team winning a game 3-0 which says the second game is a pure waste given they would have to win 6-0 or something more stupid."

so again, tell me you understand and why the other team would have to win 6-0 again? maybe you need to read what you wrote?

whats dumb is your insistance its not fair and dumb. teams dont want extra time. they dont want penalties. your insistance on defending a format the actual participants wants to avoid reveals you're not all that interested in how soccer works.

sorry, i sound like an a--hole, and i dont want to. but the argument against it simply ignores the fact that the system itself was created to make the game as enjoyable as possible at the insistance of those that coach and play it.

its not perfect. the alternatives arent either. nothing ever is.

 

[dumbrabbit]

Then the higher seed gets the benefit. Away goals always benefit one team more than the other. That's the point I was making.

away goals benefit the team that scores them. doesnt matter when. you act as if they are given to only one team.

again, aggregate scoring is set up to advance attacking play and to avoid extra time. extra time soccer becomes laborious and often leads to injury and poor play. teams are allowed 3 subs. usually by 90 minutes those subs have been used. most players after 90 minutes have already ran 8-12 miles. asking them to run another 30 doesnt improve the spectacle.

Then give each manager another substitution each 30 minutes played, or finish play another day. I still don't understand why one team benefits from only having to score one away goal.

It defeats competition from the home team in the first game, they just have to defend their home turf, if they don't allow scoring, then they just need to score a goal the next game and they'll advance.

Every North american sports league has odd-numbered series, why can't MLS do it? It's less confusing and better talent will always win.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

Otherwise you get the ridiculous situation that happened or even better some visiting team winning a game 3-0 which says the second game is a pure waste given they would have to win 6-0 or something more stupid. Like that is going to happen realistically.

What was the ridiculous situation again? That both teams know how the aggregate system works before the playoffs start?

Ridiculous is playing til 4:00am with players dropping like flies due to exhaustion or injury because you don't like PK's or away goal weighted aggregate score.

You can't have it both ways, you either go to an overtime + PK's system, or away goal aggregate.........and every owner, GM, ,manager and player on the planet prefers the away goal aggregate system for tournament style soccer because it's the most fair and doesn't give the lesser opponent the opportunity to just play on their half of the field for 90 minutes trying to get to PK's.

/discussion

Like that would happen.You could solve that by having extra time sudden death then PK's that force you to use different kickers each time also limiting it to sudden death (5 kicks each) after that the first score wins the second team doesn't get a shot. Pretty much soccer's version of how the NFL overtime rules work.

By having extra time be sudden death you will likely skip PK's entirely because both teams will be hyper aggressive because first goal wins end of game.

Also why can't it be 2 out 3 sudden death extra time and sudden death PK's in the third game? The bulk of the time the better time will win outright without the sudden death aspects coming into play.

 

[Uncle Si]

Then the higher seed gets the benefit. Away goals always benefit one team more than the other. That's the point I was making.

away goals benefit the team that scores them. doesnt matter when. you act as if they are given to only one team.

again, aggregate scoring is set up to advance attacking play and to avoid extra time. extra time soccer becomes laborious and often leads to injury and poor play. teams are allowed 3 subs. usually by 90 minutes those subs have been used. most players after 90 minutes have already ran 8-12 miles. asking them to run another 30 doesnt improve the spectacle.

Then give each manager another substitution each 30 minutes played, or finish play another day. I still don't understand why one team benefits from only having to score one away goal.

It defeats competition from the home team in the first game, they just have to defend their home turf, if they don't allow scoring, then they just need to score a goal the next game and they'll advance.

Every North american sports league has odd-numbered series, why can't MLS do it? It's less confusing and better talent will always win.

the idea is that the away goal system allows teams to play more freely, and thus make each game more "neutral". Home field advantage is significant in European soccer (look at the stats some time). it doesnt defeat competition. that home team knows that giving up an away goal can be critical, but also know they only get 90 minutes in front of their supporters. the away team knows they can really gain an advantage by attacking, but also know that if they concede a goal they will need to be more careful in the return leg. again...it adds nothing to either team until the first touch of the ball.

Soccer doesnt want extra time. it was only 20-30 years ago that they didnt allow subs period. Seriously, just 11 guys. no subs. they want coaches and players thinking and strategizing the whole time. and while i'm not against adding a sub, it starts to muddle the two teams from a purist standpoint (my 11 against yours).

3 games is worse than just one in my opinion. you will always have one team with the extra home game, and soccer is a sport where repetitiveness does not lead to efficiency.

 

[Uncle Si]

Otherwise you get the ridiculous situation that happened or even better some visiting team winning a game 3-0 which says the second game is a pure waste given they would have to win 6-0 or something more stupid. Like that is going to happen realistically.

What was the ridiculous situation again? That both teams know how the aggregate system works before the playoffs start?

Ridiculous is playing til 4:00am with players dropping like flies due to exhaustion or injury because you don't like PK's or away goal weighted aggregate score.

You can't have it both ways, you either go to an overtime + PK's system, or away goal aggregate.........and every owner, GM, ,manager and player on the planet prefers the away goal aggregate system for tournament style soccer because it's the most fair and doesn't give the lesser opponent the opportunity to just play on their half of the field for 90 minutes trying to get to PK's.

/discussion

Like that would happen.You could solve that by having extra time sudden death then PK's that force you to use different kickers each time also limiting it to sudden death (5 kicks each) after that the first score wins the second team doesn't get a shot. Pretty much soccer's version of how the NFL overtime rules work.

By having extra time be sudden death you will likely skip PK's entirely because both teams will be hyper aggressive because first goal wins end of game.

hyper aggressive after 90 minutes of a soccer match? again, go back to my examples of the 2010 and 2014 world cup finals. the players were exhausted to the point half of them were not even crossing half field. the players have just run 90 minutes straight in excess of 8+ miles (midfielders and wingers are nearing 12-15 miles by the 90th minute)

extra times in the world cup are golden goal. it doesnt change the soccer that is played. its like saying if a marathon was tied at the end, just go ahead and run another 10k to sort it out