Having your home game first or second? I think it's more advantageous having the 2nd game on your home field, because if you can smash your opponent on his home turf in the first game, you pretty much have things wrapped up, due to the away goals rule. Also, by the 2nd game you are more familiar with your opponent's style and can make adjustments. Finally, if it goes to extra time, at least it's on your home turf in the 2nd game.
Doesn't make a difference. There's nothing advantageous regarding which team gets the home game first or second. Realizing a team's style is good and all, but tactical knowledge and being on the field physically against a team you understand and know, won't make any difference because it is an entirely different task when you're on the pitch playing the game yourself. Players may know how their opposition lead a game and at what pace they lead it, but they cannot anticipate or see what their opposition sees in their own tactics. How the opposition will utilize the holes or spaces a team reveal in their own defense will guarantee that their knowledge of one another means absolutely DlCK once the game starts. One team cannot see what the other team sees so knowing how each other play becomes helpful minimally. Knolwedge of an opposing team gives a team a feel of how they play their game, but in no way do I think it contributes significantly. I don't know how exactly I can describe this, but having knowledge of your opposition is more of a psychological reassurance rather than helping in the actual game(anyone who plays for their school or college chime in, maybe you can articulate this better if you have an inkling of what I'm trying to say). Besides, before crunch matches, both teams would have already dissected each other to the fullest. Anything can happen in the game of football when two teams of similar class are playing in a highly competitive atmosphere. And because more is at stake, which team has more of the edge or has the advantage comes down to the coach's tactics during that scoreless period when both sides want to sink in the first goal to set the pace of the game. When that first goal comes, it is again, up to the coach's tactics on whether he wants his players to go for counters or patiently and comfortably play the game as they would in a league game by going for a second goal to secure a comfortable win. On the chasing side however, the coach of the losing side will have to make a choice on whether to go on the attack and risk somewhat being vulnerable on the defensive line from a counter, or break the opposition down through short quick passes that will test the patience of a highly-adrenalized group of players who will want that equalizer as soon as possible. So, basically, in my humble opinion, I think it doesn't matter at all regarding who gets to play at home first. Again, there are differences in the way teams play league matches and competitive matches, so every outcome depends on the coach's tactics. This is assuming that both sides are in similar classes of skill. I'm sure there are a lot who would strongly disagree with me and it would be fun to hear the different takes on this topic from people.
i think 1st game at home is better. if you can hold your opponent to a shutout then you can play for a non-scoreless tie.
the general concensus has always been that it's better to be at home in the second leg. I've no idea if the stats bear that out though. There must be some stats freaks out there only too happy to go through every single european cup tie since the 50s and check if teams at home in the second leg win more often or not. What I do find really stupid is when TV commentators talk about having "the advantage of the away goal" after a 1-0 away victory. And what score exactly, Mr Well-paid-studio-expert, will allow a team to progress on away goals after a 1-0 away win?
The advantage of starting away is that you can sit things out a bit. See how it goes, etc, while the opponent will have to come out and look for goals. It's mostly a psychological advantage.
It will be slightly better to play the decisive game at home. If the game goes into extra time or PK shootout, the advantage belongs to the home team. Plus, the result of the first leg will affect how the second game will be played. The home team can control the situation better.
Yeah, I think the advantage comes in allowing you to play for the 0-0 or 1-1 tie. But I wouldn't fancy anyone being able to do that w/o becoming too passive, except maybe an Italian team that plays defensive football.
This would result in you advancing 2-1 on aggregate, not away goals, which was the original question. (He was making the point that you couldn't advance on AWAY GOALS following a 1-0 road win.) Anyway, here's another point to consider about the original question: if it ends up going to the 30-minute tie-breaker (done for Euro 2004 as a full 30-minute game time), if it is tied, say, 1-1, away goals count double, so the visiting team qualifies. Wouldn't that make you want to be the visitors in the second game, giving you that advantage if needed? The PDF file to see is http://www.euro2004.com/newsfiles/19079.pdf , then section 6: Knock-out system 6.09 In matches played according to the knock-out system, each team plays the same opponent twice, in home-and-away matches. The team which scores the greater aggregate of goals in the two matches qualifies for the final tournament. 6.10 If two teams score the same number of goals over the two legs of their tie, the team which scores more away goals qualifies for the final tournament. If this procedure does not produce a result, i.e. if the two teams score the same number of goals at home and away, extra time of 2 x 15 minutes is played at the end of the second leg. If, during extra time, both teams score the same number of goals, away goals count double (i.e. the visiting team qualifies). If no goals are scored during extra time, kicks from the penalty mark (Article 14) determine which team qualifies.