Re: MLS 2011 Non-Sporting Discussion [R] That's just as bad as the away goals. You are still declaring different point amounts.
Re: MLS 2011 Non-Sporting Discussion [R] Uh, yeah, because I was totally being serious about people not knowing how to add fractions.
Re: MLS 2011 Non-Sporting Discussion [R] Team B didn't lose because the pitch was perfect and the game was quick; they lost because they conceded two goals at home. Team B should've played better defense -- period. Barcelona manage to turn their fast-paced, possession-oriented game into lots of goals scored with next to none conceded. Team B didn't need to channel Barca, though; they just needed to play better soccer. If you have to break a tie, I'd take away goals over a shootout every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Re: MLS 2011 Non-Sporting Discussion [R] But the game doesn't end on penalty kicks. That alone is a step up.
Re: MLS 2011 Non-Sporting Discussion [R] Amen. A goal is a goal is a goal ... except when scored in a shootout. Though when you do the half-goal method, I would bet that the shootout winner would just play bunker-ball for 30 minutes to protect their 1/2-goal lead. Not sure that would be a better tie-breaking system.
Re: MLS 2011 Non-Sporting Discussion [R] Well, we should know very well from playing under Gansler that playing bunker ball doesn't always end in a win.
Re: MLS 2011 Non-Sporting Discussion [R] no but it certainly kills the game, which leads back to the reason that the away goal was instituted to begin with. (See James' post where he talks about Italy.)
Re: MLS 2011 Non-Sporting Discussion [R] My biggest thing with away goals is I don't like game series. At all. A soccer game is 90 minutes long. Not 180 minutes. Not 270 minutes. The person who invented game series just wanted more opportunities to fill a stadium and make more money. That's all. In a tournament sense, it's silly. A single elimination tournament should truly be single elimination, not best 2 out of 3 elimination or something like that. So then what do you do? Away goal rule on a one game series? The home team then is at a disadvantage because they have to straight up win it. They can't even tie. So yeah, I'll go on record as to saying I'm not a huge fan of PKs, but I'd rather take a one-and-done elimination with PKs as a decider than a multi-game series with away goals and PKs.
Re: MLS 2011 Non-Sporting Discussion [R] Barca is the exception, not the rule. Anyone who knows the game knows that games end up being played in different styles as it unfolds. Sometimes you get into a shootout. That doesnt mean you played poorly or you played a lower quality game than you if it were a tight defensive contest. I have seen teams play some very solid defense and allow 2 goals. I have seen some lousy defensive efforts result in a shutout (last year's Wizards couldnt score for games if the goal was wide open). In my example Team B won the game. You can allow two goals and still have played excellent defense. It only takes too excellent shots in a game to score two goals, other than that, they could have played solid defense. It doesnt matter thought because they won that game and lost a game. They scored 3 goals and allowed 3 goals. It's equal on both sides and no one should be declared winner.
Re: MLS 2011 Non-Sporting Discussion [R] Eeek. How awful. Introduce the most hated element of the sport into the game as a pre-tie breaker and then play extra time anyway. Ha. It'll never happen. The goal is to get the guys off the field so they are not playing 120 minutes plus pens or as Felix suggested somewhat naively that we start having replays. With fixture congestion being what it is, limited squad sizes and me remembering Arsenal playing Leeds United 4 times in one round of the FA cup I can only give both suggestions a resounding thumbs down. All replays do is wear players out, create injuries, crowd schedules and should be entirely unnecessary when aggregated scores and 180+ minutes of football are there to determine a winner. Neutral site replays in MLS would mean .... nobody there. There has been a million idea from simply awarding the team that got the most corners victory, to the Golden Goal, to PKs -- but the goal will always be to reduce the playing time over 90 minutes and try and encourage attacking play. The trend towards Away Goal has been strong as has the move toward less replays and games over the last 20 years, hell a lot of European finals used to be two leg affairs back in the days, its really only within the last 20 years that we've learned that the game is more fun when the players are not exhausted. Ultimately letting players play the game to determine the outcome of the game is better (IMO) that introducing the randomness of PK's into the mix and I am thankful that they really only happen when other avenues have been exhausted.
Re: MLS 2011 Non-Sporting Discussion [R] All well and good but your entirely ignoring the evolution that has gotten us to this point over the last few decades ..... nothing you are saying is a revelation that hasn't been discussed to death for decades.
Re: MLS 2011 Non-Sporting Discussion [R] First, I never suggested replays. Although I do think it is better to determine a winner by the actual game. However, I understand the fixture congestion pretty much stops that from happening. You may have been referring to my suggestion to changing things to a Best of 3 series. I understand the arguments against that but still think it is a better resolution to the problem. I understand the evolution just fine. No, I havent been a life that long but I do a lot of reading on the history of the game. That doesnt mean I have to agree with the method. It is a poor way to break a tie. There is nothing that can happen to change my mind on that. The rule makes some goals worth more than others and that doesnt sit well with me, at all. I know it's been beat to death, I have read a lot of articles and write ups on this subject. As you can probably tell by my post, I just hate the away goals rule. The evolution and other factors do not change my mind on the subject and never will. I have seen Everton win and lose using this rule and with either result, it leaves me feeling unsatisfied and empty. To me, it is like those series were never concluded and are forever left a match unfinished. Goal scoring sports are meant to be decided by a team scoring more goals than the other, not who scores their goals where. I just hope MLS never adopts it. There isnt many things the league could do that would piss me off more than that. It's just how I feel about it even when I take into account the history and factors involved.
Re: MLS 2011 Non-Sporting Discussion [R] Fair enough -- as you said I took the following as reply which it kind of is if we play a whole other game just as a tie breaker. "That's a good question. One would be a neutral site 3rd game or a 3rd game at home for the higher seed. I've never been a fan of the aggregate to begin with." The horse is beat I mentioned Arsenal vs Leeds in the thread because I thought 4 games was as long as an FA Cup tie had ever gone. Imagine: 1979 - Arsenal vs Wednesday - FA Cup 3rd Round. Four Replays and the original tie between Jan 6th and January 22nd. Can you imagine? And then having to make up the league games that got bumped back then. Three of the replays would have had the full 30 minutes of extra time. 540 minutes of football not including injury time to get the job done .... and back then you could only use two subs, and only had two and a goalkeeper named on the bench. Back in the days when the FA Cup REALLY meant something.
Re: MLS 2011 Non-Sporting Discussion [R] You know, this "away goals count as double" thing always bothered me a lot. Because it's not right - they don't count as double. One goal ends up counting as > 1 but less than 2... put it anywhere you want it, 1.000000001, 1.1, 1.5, 1.9, but only one goal gets the benefit of the extra 'value' from being an away goal. It's no more fair to give a home team the advantage of playing extra time at home, which still an issue when the away goals are equal, though that probably actually compensates for the availability of the tactic by the 1st leg home team to play super defensive to prevent any away goals (such that any tie other than 0-0 in the 2nd leg would result in their win, so having a 2nd leg 0-0 give that leg's home team an advantage isn't too poor). But if you did get rid of the away goal rule just to play extra time then you are not only giving the 2nd leg home team an advantage but also are making any card (yellow or red) be that much more important in the 2nd leg than they are in the 1st leg, due to the temporal nature of cards (such that earlier cards in a match are more detrimental than later ones). Away goals as a tiebreaker are infinitely better than PKs - at least with away goals the team that wins did so by putting the ball in the net during play. PKs are generally decided upon by either a lucky guess by a GK or poor execution by players which probably will never take a PK outside of a shootout.
Re: MLS 2011 Non-Sporting Discussion [R] In all honesty, the "away goals count as double" argument seems to be a fabrication or oversimplification to simplify commentator's lives.. (Not picking on you, but your turn of phrase summed it up in a nice, neat package) Yes, when a team wins 1-0 in their away leg, their opponent would indeed need to put in a 2-0 win in the return to win the tie - reinforcing the concept above. But when a team wins 5-4 on their away leg, their opponent doesn't need to score 10 goals in the return leg to win the tie; the same 2-0 result will do just fine. To go with another example that actually ends in a draw for the tie: Team A wins the opening leg away 3-2, but drops the return leg 2-1. With an away-goals aggregate score of 3-2, Team A seems to have shown demonstrably that they are the better team. To force them into a shootout situation - where it's equal parts luck and skill - seems off. If you still want to offer the home team some advantage, then exclude away goals scored in the extra time session from the tie-breaking aggregate score..
Re: MLS 2011 Non-Sporting Discussion [R] And so it goes. The point remains: they still needed to, you know, not give up those goals (or the chances or possession that led to them). Sports can be pretty simple sometimes. Games become end-to-end because both teams (implicitly) choose to play that way. Nothing ever lets the players know, "Hey guys, this one's going to be high-scoring, end-to-end stuff. Hope you're up for it." With aggregate scoring and away goals, you always know where you stand. In the A vs. B example, the second leg didn't mysteriously end 3-2 and anoint one team the winner; there was, obviously, a goal-by-goal progression wherein both teams knew at all times who was going to advance should no more goals be scored. That told both teams what they needed to do -- either score the next one or defend. It's both team's relative success on those fronts, in the run of play, that determines who advances. That's the very essence of deciding it on the field. But when neither team scores more than the other, you gotta come up with something. And I find it highly preferable to have the tie decided by real goals, rather than shootouts and their fake goals.
Re: MLS 2011 Non-Sporting Discussion [R] If the Red Bulls manage to pick up Anelka like the French Media are suggesting ......... with Henry .... OMG ..... WOW.
Re: MLS 2011 Non-Sporting Discussion [R] would be craptastic for the rest of the league, and once LA or NY with 3 DPs fail again to win the cup, the league will just allow more DPs...
Re: MLS 2011 Non-Sporting Discussion [R] There's nothing in those new rumors that's changed from the previous time this rumor cropped up. I'm not putting anything into it yet.
Re: MLS 2011 Non-Sporting Discussion [R] I can't help but feel mildly giddy about it all .... I am gonna keep my rose tinted specs on today.
Re: MLS 2011 Non-Sporting Discussion [R] My thought was to play half (or some smaller part) of the season at Alamo Dome and half the season at something new in Austin. Bad idea, really. Yes. I wouldn't be the first. I'd be good with either. You aren't alone.
Re: MLS 2011 Non-Sporting Discussion [R] Same year, Liverpool played Arsenal four times in the semi-finals of the FA Cup at Hiilsborough, Villa Park, Villa Park again, Coventry. 0-0, 1-1, 1-1, 1-0 to Arsenal in the 4th match, I went to all 4 matches!!
Re: MLS 2011 Non-Sporting Discussion [R] I dredged up an old thread about Kezar in the Quakes forum. Sounds like the people in the nearby neighborhoods have a lot of control over anything that happens there with a crowd over 5,000, and/or requires use of the stadium lights. Add in the usual parking and access concerns, and it's not going to be anything approaching a good situation for a MLS team.