I don't know. Because of style of play perhaps the physios said they were exhausted and needed rest. But lack of sharpness wasn't the problem today IMO. They played well. Perhaps some better finishing would have helped it not go to ET in the first place. And not cracking Atletico away and coming out with 0 x 1 result is not terrible. Most of the time playing Atletico in CL it means you're going to cut it close. Today was about GK mistake that fuked them up.
ultimately today simply reinforced what a few of us have been saying to win cups you need a bit of luck and that the best teams dont always win the cups.
Essentially this Liverpool season is now inferior to City's 2017/18 season yes both will win EPL by a mile but at least City won the League cup
Were Liverpool overconfident after the Barcelona 4-0, believing that no matter on the first leg result all would be cured on a European night at Anfield? What’s your reasoning? Besides giving the home team (at least) 30 more minutes of home support I’ll repeat what I’ve always believed: When Atlético made it 2-2 on the night your scenario of no away goals in extra time would have meant potential spot kicks to decide the winner. With the away goals rule Liverpool were forced to attack. That’s the greatest benefit of the rule. No matter who scores the next goal there’s an onus on one team needing to score and eliminates the possibility of both teams sitting back and settling for penalty kicks to decide who advances. Until a better alternative can be implemented to avoid each team taking at least five spot kicks at the end of the night I will always favor the away goals rule, both in regulation and extra time.
I’d prefer to see Liverpool playing to the anti football of Atletico.. All the Real Madrid guys laughing at Liverpool may live to regret it if they have to play Atletico
Liverpool battered Atletico though .. 36 attempts on goal to their 7 .. It was the keepers who made the difference I feel
Too powerful of an advantage. To score 1 goal away and having the home team have to score 2 in ET. More than fan support IMO. If anything the home team has an incentive to be cautious and not expose themselves. Liverpool attack based on philosophy.
Not sure, but I'm pretty sure the home team still wins more of these situations where a two-legged tie is decided after 180 minutes. Meaning not only is it not "too powerful of an advantage" its actually still a disadvantage to play 120 minutes away. The thing is, you don't see both teams scoring in too many ETs so the majority of the time the away goal doesn't play a real factor. So it ends up simply being home advantage for 30 minutes and possibly PKs for one team X% of the time, where X is way over 50%.
I agree. I even noted after Atletico scored their first goal in extra time that I felt Liverpool would still advance.
This is not about statistics. This is about the concept. You may say the home crowd gets 30 mins extra, but that's outside interference compared to in game rule.
That's a technicality IMO. Bottom-line: its an advantage to be at home for 30 extra minutes + PKs. A pretty big one. And one they didn't earn as the main premise of a two-legged playoff is for no team to have an advantage.
My two cents is in the camp of going directly to penalties after normal time. You remove the 30min extra support/away goal chance. Alternatively, play a small sided game for 2x5mins minutes. 3+GK vs 3+GK in small area. Like, goals at the end of a single penalty box.
In the R16, that's not the case, as you can make a case that a group winner deserves something (more than group runner-ups, besides a weaker-on-average opponent). But from quarterfinals on, not so much. The main premise of a two-legged tie is to make double the money of the whole thing / giving two sets of people a chance to see the thing live. If "no advantage" was the key, could just play a one-off in neutral venue.
It's also football they too can only dream of as they can't actually play in the competition anymore cuz they lost to a 6th placed Liga team
So you would have no problem seeing more two-legged ties that are level on aggregate after extra-time being decided on penalties than on away goals from open play? Because eliminating away goals in extra-time will likely mean more ties decided on spot kicks. As it stands now, with the away goals rule being enforced in extra-time, do you feel it's more beneficial for a team to host the first or second leg? Which match do you prefer Barcelona host (regardless of opponent)?
I don't mind the PKs. If you get scored on in ET and get one back, you've earned that chance. When you go to R16 it's not a problem is it's #1 vs #2 (even if it's diff groups). After that, sure it's decided on a coin toss who plays return leg at home. For me, it is what it is at that point. Having 30 mins extrra where your goal is worth 1.5 is a bigger problem than fan advantage. Shit ... nowadays away stadiums, fans and travel are fairly sterilized that it really shouldn't be that much of a factor. Yeah .. I still don't believe the Anfield thing ... we just fuked up.
But then once it's all square again there's no onus on either team to score. There's no urgency for either team to score another. Neither team is chasing the game. For me, that's the beauty of the away goals rule. Without it, extra-time becomes more stale and boring, especially when Barca (or LPB) aren't involved. So...