-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* English Football Season 2014-15
- Thread starter GIMH
- Start date
Tom Halsey
International Coach
No-one has ever successfully explained why the side that loses 3-1 at home deserves to go out more than the side that loses 2-0. It's just completely arbitrary.
Penalties as a separator have considerably more merit. At least penalties discriminate based on an actual footballing skill.
Penalties as a separator have considerably more merit. At least penalties discriminate based on an actual footballing skill.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
Probably made sense when it was introduced as sides would play for the 0-0 away. Just a dated concept now for me
also, though it was funny to see the chavs suffer, if it's going to apply it should only be after 90 IMO
Tom Halsey
International Coach
It's an exact equal/opposite though. Away goals become more important and therefore not conceding home goals becomes more important by exactly the same amount.
Cabinet96
Hall of Fame Member
I don't think that's actually the case though. For example, this round what sides do you think played for 0-0's at home? The only ones I can think of were sides who were vastly inferior to the side they were playing, like Shakhtar and Schalke.
Tom Halsey
International Coach
It's just a game theory result of two horse races. Give one side an incentive to do one thing and you give the other side an exactly equal incentive to do the opposite. Whether teams realise this or not yet (I think they do fwiw), the fact is that placing as much priority on not conceding an away goal as your opponents do on scoring an away goal (ceteris paribus obviously) is the optimal response.
This round is perhaps a poor example but there are countless examples in the past few years alone of teams clearly prioritising not conceding an away goal.
Besides all of this isn't really my point. Even if it did encourage more attacking football I'm not sure I'd be in favour. I just don't really like one goal being valued above another. Say you win 1-0 at home and lose 2-1 away, you're through, but both teams scored 2 goals over 180 minutes which were played equally home and away. Add it all together and both have achieved the same thing. You may argue that scoring an away goal is harder to do so you deserve to go through by virtue of that away goal, but then logically scoring a home goal is easier and therefore you deserve to go through less because you have only accomplished that simple task only once, as opposed to the opposition's twice, in my example. It's just equal/opposite all round.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
When was this? I got in at 11/1
Jarquis
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Tom Halsey
International Coach
Without checking the specifics I doubt they will pay out and if they do it will only be for PR pusposes as they don't have to legally. Palpable error.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
Aye.
Magrat Garlick
Global Moderator
Mind, playing 120 minutes vs. 90 minutes on each team's home ground isn't equal either. You could argue the unfairnesses cancel out.
The AGR isn't good, but anything that avoids shoot-outs is preferable.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Arguably then the fairest thing would be to go straight to penalties.
Scaly piscine
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Fairest thing would be extra time, then if it's still even the away team (during extra time) goes through because they've had the disadvantage of playing a higher % of the tie away.
