Fifa grants Ocenia direct entry..

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Diego Forlan
Apart from having zero relevance, my age isn't important.

It's very important because it shows how long you have been following the game for. I thought I was arguing with a 30 year old. Then, over at AFLheadquarters I see that you are a teenager who has been following ManU since - wait for it - 1993! United, of course having won 7 of the last 10 titles, the first of which came in 1993. How convenient.

Any credibility you had (you didn't have any) is gone. Finito. At least I have been following my club since before their drought-breaking title win in 1989.

Originally posted by Diego Forlan


I find it completely ironic that once it was brought to your attention (on AFLHQ) the away goals rule doesn't apply in the Worthington Cup

Moomba says it does. You says it doesn't. Any clarification on this at all?

Originally posted by Diego Forlan
I find it completely ironic that once it was brought to your attention (on AFLHQ) the away goals rule doesn't apply in the Worthington Cup, you instantly use it as your 'evidence'. Surely you haven't been stalling us because you couldn't come up with your own answer now could you?

Hahaha. I am literally laughing at your idiocy. If the rule is NOT used in the League Cup (as you suggest), then that is the biggest slap in the face for you. The rule is so crap, that the English FA don't want it used in their country. But I don't need that as evidence. The natue of the rule itself is evidene. The way it works, and the fact it allows a side to progress after the scores are level (total stupidity as you must agree) is the evidence.

The rule is crap. You know it. I've explained it to you, and you obviously understand because you repeat back everything I say. There is no shame in swallowing your pride and admitting you are wrong. A simple "Yes Dan you are right" will not make the world end. Nothing will alter in your life if you do this.

 

[Falchoon]

Hey Dan?

Originally posted by Falchoon
Dan out of interest (though I've lost most of it) what is your solution to deciding a result over 2 legs?

As a Liverpool supporter for 25ish years

BTW does the English FA run the League Cup, they didn't use to but it may have changed?

 

[Dan26]

Id play a thrid match at a neutral venue.

If that is unworkable, I'd use a golden goal, playing for 10 minutes each way. Then if still level, have a penalty shoot-out.

One may argue that the golden goal favours the home side in the second leg. Bad luck - life isn't fair. It's still an opportunity for a side to "win." It's a million times better than just allowing the side who has scored more away goals (even though it is level at 3-3 after 180 minutes) to progress when their performances are not superior.

The away goals rule would be the last method I would use.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Falchoon


BTW does the English FA run the League Cup, they didn't use to but it may have changed?

I'm not sure. All I know was that it was started by a guy in the Football League back in the early 60's as a Cup that would be more attractive for those smaller clubs in the football League than the FA Cup. A small League club could go for many years without getting the advantage of a money-making home FA Cup tie against a big club. The League Cup was suposed to fix that.

 

[Diego Forlan]

Originally posted by Dan26
It's very important because it shows how long you have been following the game for. I thought I was arguing with a 30 year old. Then, over at AFLheadquarters I see that you are a teenager who has been following ManU since - wait for it - 1993! United, of course having won 7 of the last 10 titles, the first of which came in 1993. How convenient.

Well blow me over, another insightful comment from you Daniel. A teenager I am not. But of course I knew you would use it as some sort of pointless comeback, I can read you like a book.

Originally posted by Dan26
Any credibility you had (you didn't have any) is gone. Finito. At least I have been following my club since before their drought-breaking title win in 1989.

Another groundbreaking observation. For someone who supposedly has been following English football for 14 years you sure know precious little about the game. But keep at it with these pointless barbs about credibility and age, it just proves I have you comprehensively beaten.

Originally posted by Dan26
Moomba says it does. You says it doesn't. Any clarification on this at all?

My understanding is that such games go to extra time and then penalties.

Originally posted by Dan26
Hahaha. I am literally laughing at your idiocy. If the rule is NOT used in the League Cup (as you suggest), then that is the biggest slap in the face for you. The rule is so crap, that the English FA don't want it used in their country. But I don't need that as evidence. The natue of the rule itself is evidene. The way it works, and the fact it allows a side to progress after the scores are level (total stupidity as you must agree) is the evidence.

Where have I said it is used in the League Cup? Wasn't it I who pointed out that it wasn't? If it's such a slap in the face, why do UEFA and several other larger confederations use it? You've lost it.

Originally posted by Dan26
The rule is crap. You know it. I've explained it to you, and you obviously understand because you repeat back everything I say. There is no shame in swallowing your pride and admitting you are wrong. A simple "Yes Dan you are right" will not make the world end. Nothing will alter in your life if you do this.

Since when have I repeated anything you claim? What baloney. I can see how insecure you really are though, wanting to be told you're right when clearly it is the opposite. Why would you need my approval? Not that you're going to get it anyway, because everyone knows you've been embarassed up by several people in this thread. Your credibility on this topic is just shining through. Keep trying though Daniel, I'm sure I'm not the only one laughing at your predicament. You avoid all the hard questions because you know you haven't got any answer for them. It's a great diversionary tactic, but not all of us are nieve enough to overlook it.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Diego Forlan





Another groundbreaking observation. For someone who supposedly has been following English football for 14 years you sure know precious little about the game. But keep at it with these pointless barbs about credibility and age, it just proves I have you comprehensively beaten.

I don't think I have ever known anyone who will just come out with crap like, "It just proves I have you comprehensively beaten." (note the word proves)

I mean, really you have no idea what you're talking about. You just come out with a comments and then claim with no proof that that comment proves you are right. You havn't proven anything, so don't EVER go around claiming you have.

In fact, you havn't put forward an actual argument against the away goals rule for days. You've given up. All you do is make a post and say "Look, my post proves I am right" or you might get really ambitious and use someone else's comments (eg Moomba) as a basis for your posts. You know deep in your heart that any argument you make about the away goals rule can be logically countered by me. You know it. You don't want to argue against it, because you know I have the rebuttal. You, my friend have nothing. Nothing. You have no argument. Read my posts and you will see that EVERYTHING I say makes sense. It is all logical. You're just fighting against your own pride. Hell, I could point out that the sky is blue and you'll disagree because it's me who said it.

1993, you've got to be kidding.

 

[Diego Forlan]

Originally posted by Dan26
I don't think I have ever known anyone who will just come out with crap like, "It just proves I have you comprehensively beaten." (note the word proves)

I mean, really you have no idea what you're talking about. You just come out with a comments and then claim with no proof that that comment proves you are right. You havn't proven anything, so don't EVER go around claiming you have.

In fact, you havn't put forward an actual argument against the away goals rule for days. You've given up. All you do is make a post and say "Look, my post proves I am right" or you might get really ambitious and use someone else's comments (eg Moomba) as a basis for your posts. You know deep in your heart that any argument you make about the away goals rule can be logically countered by me. You know it. You don't want to argue against it, because you know I have the rebuttal. You, my friend have nothing. Nothing. You have no argument. Read my posts and you will see that EVERYTHING I say makes sense. It is all logical. You're just fighting against your own pride. Hell, I could point out that the sky is blue and you'll disagree because it's me who said it.

1993, you've got to be kidding.

Ok genius, here's some more matches that show the effect of the away goals rule:

Euro 2000 Playoff Leg 1: Scotland 0 England 2
Euro 2000 Playoff Leg 2: England 0 Scotland 1

UEFA Cup 3rd Round Leg 1: Wisla 1 Schalke 1
UEFA Cup 3rd Round Leg 2: Schalke 1 Wisla 4

Now, in 50 words or less, explain to me why in both these matches, the away goals rule didn't offer the away team any incentive to attack, particularly in the 1st leg. Furthermore, please justify what beneifts the home team would have in playing defensive in the 1st leg.

I tried this once with the Man United v Leverkusen example, even showing you how the attacking mindset of Leverkusen in leg 1 was due to the advantage of the away goals rule. All I got back was a bunch of dribble. Now lets see how you fare with two matches you probably never witnessed. Remember, keep it short.

By the way, your claim i might use someone else's comments as a basis for one of my post is very amusing, can you tell me why?

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Diego Forlan
Ok genius, here's some more matches that show the effect of the away goals rule:

Euro 2000 Playoff Leg 1: Scotland 0 England 2
Euro 2000 Playoff Leg 2: England 0 Scotland 1

UEFA Cup 3rd Round Leg 1: Wisla 1 Schalke 1
UEFA Cup 3rd Round Leg 2: Schalke 1 Wisla 4

Now, in 50 words or less, explain to me why in both these matches, the away goals rule didn't offer the away team any incentive to attack, particularly in the 1st leg. Furthermore, please justify what beneifts the home team would have in playing defensive in the 1st leg.

Ok genius. First example. Away goal rule doesn't apply, England win on aggregate. England don't need to score a goal in the second match to progress. In fact they can lose 1-0 and still progress. The most imporant thing for England is not to concede a goal. They didn't. The most important thng for England in the second leg was stopping Scotland from getting an away goal. What benefits would the home team get from playing defensively in the 1st leg you ask? Well if Scotland took a more defensive approach in the 1st leg, they may have stopped England scoring two vital away goals which would have allowed Scotland to win the tie. The benefits are pretty simple to understand really.

That's what you don't understand. For every instance where it is more beneficial to attack (than it would be without the rule) there is exact opposite where it is more beneficial to defend (than it would be without the rule.) I've never said the away goals rule creates more defensive football. I'm saying that overall it makes no difference. Both teams spend half the time knowing their goals are more valuable (as the away tewm) and half their time knowing they are less valuable (as the home team)

NOT conceding an away goal is just as important as scoring one yourself. How many teams would have won a 2-legged tie had they not conceded a certain away goal. Heaps. You seem totally incapable of understanding this. Totally and utterly incapable. Why are you so incapable of understanding? It's not hard.

Now obviously the away team has got an incentive to attack. The nature of the frigging rule makes gives them more incentive to attack. But the rule gives LESS incentive for the home side to score. And in your example England-Scotland example the home side didn't score in EITHER leg!!!!!!!! That's what I'm saying. It gives more incentive for the away side and less for the home side and in your two exmapels the away side outscored the home side by 8 to 2!!!

Second example: Schalke go into the second leg as the home team knowing a 0-0 draw will be enough. Wisla will be happy with a score draw. Because there is less incentive for the home team to score with the rule than without the rule, Wisla could have played defensivley in the first leg making sure not to concede a vital away goal. If Wisla didn't concede a goal in the first leg it would have made their task far, far easier in the second leg. Fortunately they won anyway.

It is just as beneficial for the home side to avoid conceding an away goal, as it is for them to score an away goal themselves. Both are of equal value. The fact Wisla was able to win 4-1 on the road only shows they outplayed Schalke. It doesn't show, prove or indicate how the results would have been different if the rule wasn't there.

Understand now? Read it slowly.

 

[myee8]

Who cares about who has more incentive to attack who, when, where and why? It just means unnecessary complication and confusion of a rule. I just see the away goals rules as these things:

*Having the world's best defense won't do anything, you have to score goals to win matches.
*Whoever scores the most away goals is the better side aggregate wise.
*The away goal rules gives teams incentive to go out and try to score away from home instead of just in front of a home crowd to entertain them. Sure teams will still shut up shop in certain situations, but so what? These things will happen.

Why bother with when it is beneficial to attack or defend, or when it is best for the home side to score or not? Sure the odd boring game will be played but it happens in all sports, it pretty much comes down to a roll of the dice as to the entertainment value. I just sit back and hope for the best really.

 

[Diego Forlan]

Originally posted by Dan26
Now obviously the away team has got an incentive to attack. The nature of the frigging rule makes gives them more incentive to attack.

It gives more incentive for the away side and less for the home side and in your two exmapels the away side outscored the home side by 8 to 2!!!

My two 'examples' illustrate perfectly the benefits of the away goals rule. Thank you for also pointing out the away sides scored more goals than the home side. Does this not indicate that the away goals rule is clearly promoting attacking football, preventing the away teams from stacking the defence?

Originally posted by Dan26
Second example: Schalke go into the second leg as the home team knowing a 0-0 draw will be enough. Wisla will be happy with a score draw. Because there is less incentive for the home team to score with the rule than without the rule, Wisla could have played defensivley in the first leg making sure not to concede a vital away goal. If Wisla didn't concede a goal in the first leg it would have made their task far, far easier in the second leg. Fortunately they won anyway.

They did concede a goal, and they knew they had to score away to win the tie. Stopped them from playing defensively didn't? In the end they scored 4.

What you are failing to understand is that the away goals rule has an effect on a team's tactitcs and style of play, even before kick off. Clearly, after a 1-1 draw with Schalke at home, Wisla had no choice but to attack. Why? Away goals rule. Without it they could've stacked the defence and gone all the way to spot kicks. As far as Scotland v England is concerned, Englands 2 away goals in the first leg pretty much killed off the tie, as Scotland would then have to score 3 times to get back in the game. Why would England bother scoring twice away from home? Away goals rule.

You seem to think the away goals rule is only of use if the 2 legs finish in a tie. I'm sorry to say, but you're completely wrong on that point. Once again, I have to try and educate you on the finer points of the game. Being outdone by this 'teenage bandwagoner' must really cut deep.

 

[Diego Forlan]

Oops.

 

[Katthawk]

Geez can't this be shoved over to the soccer board now. I have had just about enough.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Diego Forlan
My two 'examples' illustrate perfectly the benefits of the away goals rule.

No they don't. Read my post to see why.

Originally posted by Diego Forlan
Thank you for also pointing out the away sides scored more goals than the home side. Does this not indicate that the away goals rule is clearly promoting attacking football?

No it doesn't indicate that at all, dimwit. Can't you read? The home side didn't even score one goal in the England-Scotland tie. The home side is less encouraged to score than what they would be without the rule. Why in God's name are you so dumb not to see that?

Originally posted by Diego Forlan
What you are failing to understand is that the away goals rule has an effect on a team's tactitcs and style of play, even before kick off.

Indeed it does. The away side knows it is more valable to score. The home side knows it is more valuable to defend (than what it would be without the rule.)

Originally posted by Diego Forlan
Clearly, after a 1-1 draw with Schalke at home, Wisla had no choice but to attack. Why? Away goals rule.

Hahahaha. This just proves you don't read or understand anything I write. You have absolutely no knowedge or understanding of basic maths, or the application of the rule. You only think it applies to the away team. The home team's situation has never been mentioned by you, beause it destroys your argument. When will you learn that there are situations where a side enters the second-leg knowing that if they don't concede an away goal they will be safe. If a situation with the away goals rule promotes attacking football for one side (more so than it would without the rule) then it also promotes defensive football for the opposition (more so than it would without the rule).

You only use examples that suit your argument and you totally ignore situatuons that don't suit it, that are perfectly reasonable to be used in the topic. You are an idiot, you know nothing about the application of the rule in practice and you are nothing but a bandwaggoing Manyoo fan who admits he started supporting the team in 1993. P*ss off and stop embarassing yourself. Shoo.

Originally posted by Diego Forlan
You seem to think the away goals rule is only of use if the 2 legs finish in a tie.

Last time I checked the rule is only applied if the score is tied after 180 minutes. Maybe on Mars where you come from the rule is different.

Sure away teams may attack knowing that IF the series is tied away goals count more. But home teams may also defend knowing that if they don't concede an away goal, they will progress if the series is tied.

Not conceding an away goal is just as imporant as scoring one if the series is tied. That very basic fact is something you still have not proven you understand. How will it take? Another 2 years?

Talk through it to yourself. Say it to yourself, "I Diego, understand that it is important for the home team not to concede an away goal, so therefore in some instances it promotes defensive football, just as in other instances it promotes attacking football, depending on the situation."

Say it again and again. Repeat it to yourself. Maybe, just maybe you may wake up from the dreamworld you perpetually reside in, and come back to reality. Until this happens, go away. You are not wanted. You have contributed nothing to this thread. Nothing.

 

[Diego Forlan]

Talk through it to yourself. Say it to yourself, "I, Dan, even though I claim to have been following Arsenal since 1989, have no feel for the game of soccer, and I have no understanding of benefits of the away goals rule. Even though I claim the away goals rule encourages the home side to defend, I still cannot provide an example of a match where the home team in the first leg of a tie played defensively hoping to get a 0-0 draw. I have been shown examples which clearly support the fact the away goals rule promotes attacking football for both home and away sides, yet I am too ignorant to see otherwise. Until I can find some evidence that supports my claim, I know the rest of my claims that are pertinent to this 'fact' are totally baseless.

 

[Dan26]

Oh wow aren't you smart. You just copy what Dan does, because he's smarter. The only problem is your psot was full of crap. Baseless crap.

You have been shown that the home side doesn't want to concede an away goal. You know this. You know that the home side's defence must be relentless otherwise they may concede an away goal. This is just as relevant to the away goals rule as the away side scoring an away goal. For any side whose goals are worh more, their opponents are worth less.


You KNOW that the home side not conceding a vital away goal is important. Yet, like the dumbass you are, you don't acknowledge this.

Instead, you endlessly promote the idea that the away side wants to score (duh!)

You even bring up an England-Scotland example in which 5 goals were scored in TOTAL betwene both sides over two matches., including none by the home side, and claim it promotes attacking football.

You ave no idea, you know nothing, and need to go back to school. Go away until you learn that not conceding an away goal (for the home side) promotes defence, just as scoring an away goal (for the away side) promotes attack.

 

[Diego Forlan]

Originally posted by Dan26
You even bring up an England-Scotland example in which 5 goals were scored in TOTAL betwene both sides over two matches., including none by the home side, and claim it promotes attacking football.

Euro 2000 Playoff Leg 1: Scotland 0 England 2
Euro 2000 Playoff Leg 2: England 0 Scotland 1

Please tell me how 2+1=5.

I want to see you squirm your way out of this one champ!

Cheers!
MathsDude

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Diego Forlan
Euro 2000 Playoff Leg 1: Scotland 0 England 2
Euro 2000 Playoff Leg 2: England 0 Scotland 1

Please tell me how 2+1=5.

I want to see you squirm your way out of this one champ!

Cheers!
MathsDude

Oh I'm sorry. I must have overestimated the massive attacking philosphy the away goals rule promotes. Instead of both teams combining for 5 goals over two matches, they combine for 3.

Goal galore. What a great rule! So many goals!!! Three over 2 matches. Wow!!!

 

[Diego Forlan]

Originally posted by Dan26
Oh I'm sorry. I must have overestimated the massive attacking philosphy the away goals rule promotes. Instead of both teams combining for 5 goals over two matches, they combine for 3.

Goal galore. What a great rule! So many goals!!! Three over 2 matches. Wow!!!

So can you admit to us you made yet another mistake?

Your arguments are full of holes. So where's our examples of the home team playing defensively in the first leg, or playing intentionally for a 0-0 draw? Still waiting....

Mind you, I don't have to keep proving the point to you. I've done it enough times - and so have others. How about you get off that arrogant high horse of yours and actually prove something for a change, using real-life facts rather statistical gobbledegook? Or can't you admit you are actually wrong?