MizzouHawkGal":2uwj1hts said:
253hawk":2uwj1hts said:
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)