Uefa has confirmed that away goals will be abolished for all European competitions starting next season: https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ls-rule-in-club-competitions-from-next-season I am kind of torn because it has created sudden-death drama in a lot of ties over the years (Lucas Moura anyone?), but it has also killed off a lot of ties. What do you guys think?
I hate this. I mean, I really hate it. For one thing, I really like the scenario where a goal determines the difference between a win and a loss - and not between either and a draw. But that's just me, so whatever. The main thing is this: there is no less satisfying way for a tie to be determined than via penalties. Going to penalties sucks ass. And now more ties will do just that. Far more.
I know the Football League has never used it for the playoffs and I can't remember too many ties going to pens after two legs.
Over the last 20 years, 19 EFL playoff semifinals have gone to penalties. With two semis from each of three divisions, that's roughly one-in-six two-legged ties going to penalties. Conversely, I've just looked back through the CL two-legged ties and had to go back six years (with 14 knockout ties per season) to find one that's gone to penalties. That's once in the last 84 ties. Going further back, I'm seeing it comes to thrice in the last 140. So, given those two samples, we're looking at roughly 16% of ties going to penalties without the away goals rule, as opposed to a hair over 2% with it. That's hardly a comprehensive analysis, but I think it's clear enough that the difference will be substantive.
Those are good stats, but for me a goal is a goal is a goal, it shouldn't be worth more because of where you scored it. And at least I won't have to explain the away goals rule to the missus and her girlfriends anymore...
That's seems a fair point. But I would counter that penalties given outside the run of play (that is, penalties at the end of extra time) are not goals; they aren't counted as such in the scoreline. Or if they are, it certainly compromises the theory articulated above. So, the only way to decide a match by 'real' goals is to play until someone scores one, which isn't a realistic option. So something's got to give. If folks think penalties is a better arbiter of who deserves to win a level tie than giving the nod to away goals, fair enough. It's utterly subjective. In my opinion - and it's only that - I feel that away goals are a more 'fair' determinant. And I also feel that it improves the spectacle. So it's no shock that I'd very much prefer that the rule stand. No shock, either, that others will feel differently.
I mean, it's a mathematical certainty there will be more shootouts. Every tie with aggregate scores level will need one, which the away goals rule would avoid in many cases. I don't mind the rule change though. I think it started as a deterrent to negative play and it's clearly failed at that purpose.
I actually prefer a shootout over the away goal rule. No goal should have more "power" than another. A goal is a goal. If it's tied after 180 minutes. Let them decide by a shootout so teams still have the power in their hands to see who advances. I always hated the fact that a team would win just because they scored on the road instead of having to score more goals be it penalties or open play goals.