My understanding of why this rule exists is because it is supposed to encourage the away team into playing more attacking football and encouraging them to go for more goals. This, in my view, naturally makes the home team play more defensive which kinda defeats the objective of achieving mroe attacking football.

So, i decided to do a 10 minute study. by comparing champions League semi-final goal tallies with championship playoff tallies since 1999.
Football league playoffs don't have the away goals rule and haven't since 1999.

I chose only the CL semis for two reasons, 1) laziness, and 2) more accurate data since there is a higher likelihood that there will be large scorelines in the earlier knockout rounds but where the away goals rule had a lower impact on match strategy.

I also included all extra time goals, from both sets of data, again because laziness but also it made sense since having the away goals rule reduces the likelihood of extra time occurring, and if this is about having more attacking football, which is a fan service, then having a higher chance of extra time as a benefit of not having the away goals rule gives fans more football for their money. Another byproduct of having more extra time is penalty shootouts become much more likely. Which is even more excitement. I didn't include those goals.

Anyway. Here are the total number of goals scored each season in the respective semis, and the goals per game at the bottom.

Did you normalise for goals scored in other games in the same competition (just for starters)?

as a third column, what about league cup matches - which have/had a different away goals rue - as we sadly know too well?

also, i wonder how many ties have been decided by away goals in recent seasons in the CL, Europa League and league cup - as a proportion?

thatdberight wrote:Did you normalise for goals scored in other games in the same competition (just for starters)?

I did not. I was just comparing away goals rule with no away goals rule.

I didn't think about doing that. However, I don't consider that to be a good idea since in the champions league, especially the group stages, it would be unfairly detrimental to compare the champions league semi-finals goals/game with the overall competition goals per game since there are more likely to be blowout wins in the champions league than in the Championship, and those large wins would then affect the data more profoundly because there are fewer games in the champions league.

Doing it this way means i'm comparing more similar relative standards. the final 4 of a champions league being the (probably) the 4 best teams and so their attack and defensive abilities are more matched with each other, and comparing their goals output with 4 teams all clustered together in the championship league table which implies their their relative attacking and defensive abilities are quite well matched.

6 goals in 2009 - we scored 3 of them - we were class

edison wrote:as a third column, what about league cup matches - which have/had a different away goals rue - as we sadly know too well?

Interestingly, that dumb application of the rule was what was used for the playoffs before they got rid of it altogether.

Reading about other applications: CONCACAF has a different rule for its Champions League, employing away goals at the end of full-time of the second leg, but not applying the rule at the end of extra time

edison wrote:Reading about other applications: CONCACAF has a different rule for its Champions League, employing away goals at the end of full-time of the second leg, but not applying the rule at the end of extra time

Which I think is fair enough as the away team in the second leg has 30 minutes more than the home team got to score away goals.

the counter argument being that the home team has 30 mins more at home

Test User wrote:I did not. I was just comparing away goals rule with no away goals rule.

I didn't think about doing that. However, I don't consider that to be a good idea since in the champions league, especially the group stages, it would be unfairly detrimental to compare the champions league semi-finals goals/game with the overall competition goals per game since there are more likely to be blowout wins in the champions league than in the Championship, and those large wins would then affect the data more profoundly because there are fewer games in the champions league.

Doing it this way means i'm comparing more similar relative standards. the final 4 of a champions league being the (probably) the 4 best teams and so their attack and defensive abilities are more matched with each other, and comparing their goals output with 4 teams all clustered together in the championship league table which implies their their relative attacking and defensive abilities are quite well matched.

The last 10 years as opposed to 20 would tell an entirely different story. But I wouldn't pin anything on it as I think there are too many other factors in which teams play, order of ties etc and, in any case, I think linking the goals to the attacking play or otherwise based purely on the "tie-break" mechanism is a big stretch.

CL were reported recently as being close to scrapping the away goals rule as it had served it’s purpose. See link.
https://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/away-go ... ulqe11ug53" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

thatdberight wrote:The last 10 years as opposed to 20 would tell an entirely different story. But I wouldn't pin anything on it as I think there are too many other factors in which teams play, order of ties etc and, in any case, I think linking the goals to the attacking play or otherwise based purely on the "tie-break" mechanism is a big stretch.

You understand that i'm not the one linking the tiebreak mechanism to "attacking play or otherwise". That's what the implementer of the rule is doing.

I decided to look up Red Star as I believed the myth that they used away goal and pens to their advantage throughout the 1990/91 EC. Yes they shut it down in the final, but I was surprised to see they won away in the 1st round, QF and SF as well as drawing 1-1 at Rangers in the 2nd round. Suppose in a one off match, away goals mattered not, so they were just negative.

Tricky Trevor wrote:CL were reported recently as being close to scrapping the away goals rule as it had served it’s purpose. See link.
https://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/away-go ... ulqe11ug53" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"In 2015, Arsene Wenger branded the rule "outdated" after his Arsenal side were knocked out of the Champions League by Monaco."

Calls for it to be scrapped when it works against you

Test User wrote:You understand that i'm not the one linking the tiebreak mechanism to "attacking play or otherwise". That's what the implementer of the rule is doing.

You probably need to have a word with the OP;
"My understanding of why this rule exists is because it is supposed to encourage the away team into playing more attacking football and encouraging them to go for more goals. This, in my view, naturally makes the home team play more defensive which kinda defeats the objective of achieving mroe (sic) attacking football."

That OP rebutted the link between the rule and more attacking football.

I know some people have multiple usernames. Now we seem to have the same username for people who are/aren't saying something.

Going back through CL semi-finals from 93/94 when they introduced the format (previously it was group winners to determine finalists), just six times has a team advanced to the final on away goals - Spurs scoring the latest away goal, followed by Barca at Chelsea, which was hilarious.

In 5 of the 6 - the team that advanced on away goals was away in the 2nd leg - the only one who played away first was Leverkusen who knocked out Man U. Milan went through on away goals in their own stadium as well.

You can tell I'm busy at work today

For those too young to remember.
When it was brought in European football was utterly boring. The away side, first leg, made no attempt to cross the halfway line. Just sat back and prayed for the 0-0.
I’ve no feeling on it either way but it certainly improved the game back then.

Tricky Trevor wrote:For those too young to remember.
When it was brought in European football was utterly boring. The away side, first leg, made no attempt to cross the halfway line. Just sat back and prayed for the 0-0.
I’ve no feeling on it either way but it certainly improved the game back then.

That might be an easier comparison, although even then very difficult to strip out variances caused by irrelevancies, I'd think.

thatdberight wrote:You probably need to have a word with the OP;
"My understanding of why this rule exists is because it is supposed to encourage the away team into playing more attacking football and encouraging them to go for more goals. This, in my view, naturally makes the home team play more defensive which kinda defeats the objective of achieving more (sic) attacking football."

That OP rebutted the link between the rule and more attacking football.

I know some people have multiple usernames. Now we seem to have the same username for people who are/aren't saying something.

You're fundamentally misunderstood what I said in the OP, and now you're being smug about it by trying to turn the thread into a slanging match.

The people implementing the rule are doing so because they think that it will encourage more attacking play from the away team by doubling the value of away goals in the event of a tie. If that is true then in return it will naturally mean home side play more defensive than they normally would to counter the increased threat of away goals.

My opinion is conditional on my understanding or the intent of the implementers being accurate. If you failed to understand that then that's your problem, but you shouldn't try to turn a thread into a place for you to troll just because you don't like the OP.

Test User wrote:You're fundamentally misunderstood what I said in the OP, and now you're being smug about it by trying to turn the thread into a slanging match.

The people implementing the rule are doing so because they think that it will encourage more attacking play from the away team by doubling the value of away goals in the event of a tie. If that is true then in return it will naturally mean home side play more defensive than they normally would to counter the increased threat of away goals.

My opinion is conditional on my understanding or the intent of the implementers being accurate. If you failed to understand that then that's your problem, but you shouldn't try to turn a thread into a place for you to troll just because you don't like the OP.

It's not about the OP. Nor is it about the possibly valid contention that this rule has no impact on attacking play and/or goals. It's about bad statistical analysis.

I misunderstood nothing. You laid out the rule and why you think it exists in the minds of the organisers. I think you're right. You laid out a hypothesis that it fails; a hypothesis which, it seems to me, has legs - at least to be considered.

thatdberight wrote:It's not about the OP. Nor is it about the possibly valid contention that this rule has no impact on attacking play and/or goals. It's about bad statistical analysis.

OK. So by all means go ahead and criticise what i already pointed out wasn't a detailed study, but you've done nothing of the sort so far. All you did was criticise me personally and then mock me because you wrongly assumed something.

If you think there is a flaw in my use of the statistics then point it out. You started out doing that and i responded with what i thought was a respectful reply. And then you went after me personally, which will garner no form of respectful reply from me, which you knew.

Test User wrote:OK. So by all means go ahead and criticise what i already pointed out wasn't a detailed study, but you've done nothing of the sort so far. All you did was criticise me personally and then mock me because you wrongly assumed something.

If you think there is a flaw in my use of the statistics then point it out. You started out doing that and i responded with what i thought was a respectful reply. And then you went after me personally, which will garner no form of respectful reply from me, which you knew.

Your OP explicitly says that you're rebutting the organisers' view that it encourages attacking play.
"This, in my view, naturally makes the home team play more defensive which kinda defeats the objective of achieving mroe attacking football"

Two posts later you're explicitly saying that's not what you're saying.
"...i'm not the one linking the tiebreak mechanism to "attacking play or otherwise"."

Do you see the contradiction? It's only at point I realised that this is where you always get with ImplodingTestUserrtle...

PS: We're done.

PPS: Note to self. Stop wasting your time.

thatdberight wrote:Your OP explicitly says that you're rebutting the organisers' view that it encourages attacking play.
"This, in my view, naturally makes the home team play more defensive which kinda defeats the objective of achieving mroe attacking football"

This view had nothing to do with my analysis. I held that view before i decided to make my comparison and it was conditional on that being the intent of the implementers. It wasn't specific to this single rule. I think any rule that gives any side an advantage will naturally make the other side more defensive to counter that rule.

My opinion, that when you encourage attacking from one side you in turn encourage defending from the other side, isn't one that is linked to a tiebreak mechanism. It's linked purely to the principle of action and reaction.

Two posts later you're explicitly saying that's not what you're saying.
"...i'm not the one linking the tiebreak mechanism to "attacking play or otherwise"."

Do you see the contradiction? It's only at point I realised that this is where you always get with ImplodingTestUserrtle...

PS: We're done.

PPS: Note to self. Stop wasting your time.

Do you understand now?

Test User wrote:This view had nothing to do with my analysis. I held that view before i decided to make my comparison and it was conditional on that being the intent of the implementers. It wasn't specific to this single rule. I think any rule that gives any side an advantage will naturally make the other side more defensive to counter that rule.

My opinion, that when you encourage attacking from one side you in turn encourage defending from the other side, isn't one that is linked to a tiebreak mechanism. It's linked purely to the principle of action and reaction.





Do you understand now?

The problem is.... (sees note to self above)

.

thatdberight wrote:The problem is.... (sees note to self above)

.

Was it your intent to troll the thread from the outset, or from when i answered the only decent, contributory post you made in it?

Rest assured, if only one of us gets banned for this it won't be you.