This season the UCL Champions, and best team in the world, benefited greatly from this rule. Bayern beat Arsenal in the round of 16 3-1 on the road and then lost 2-0 at home, but they advanced on away goals. That result really bothered me. Imagine if the game would have continued after the final whistle because they were tied. Imagine the drama? Instead Bayern who lost at home without scoring walked off the pitch winners because of where there goals were scored. Does that make any sense?
I don't think it does and the Barcelona PSG result put us all in the same position, but even worse. Barcelona earned an away draw to PSG 2-2. In the return leg PSG struck a goal and took a 3-2 lead overall, but Barca tied the game minutes later at 1-1. The match finished that way. So neither team won a match, but Barcelona advanced. Wait now you can advance without even winning. Barcelona was deemed better because they scored more on the road. Huh?
To make matters worse even when the rule is not directly enforced it can have an affect on an outcome because it might be enforced. You need not look any further than the 2012 UCL Semis to see how the rule can effect pivotal legacy defining matches. Real Madrid lost it's away leg to Bayern 2-1. In the home leg Real scored early and made it 1-0 and then again to go up 2-0. Bayern equalized 2-1 on a PK. So there we sat deadlocked, but in reality we weren't deadlocked. Real knew that they had to be extra careful because if they allowed a Bayern goal they would have to then score two. Every Bayern goal for the remainder of the game counted for more. Real became more defensive, but it didn't end there.
In extra time the rule still applied. This is baffling to me. Real were being punished for playing at home. If Bayern scored they still had to score twice to avoid elimination. The logic here is baffling. To me it was a apparent that Real became very conservative and the rule was effecting their play. Bayern advanced on PK's. In this case the rule indirectly effected the outcome, but it didn't end there.
Barcelona lost to Chelsea in their semi 1-0 on the road. In the return leg Barca got up 2-0, but Chelsea got a late second half goal making the tie level, but Chelsea were threw if the result didn't change. With Chelsea down to 10 men the game became a struggle for them to lose only 2-1. Barcelona through the kitchen sink at them and eventually Fernando Torres benefited and added a late goal to seal the tie with Barca committed to forward. Sure the tie was not decided by the rule, but indirectly it was. Had the tie been even Barcelona would have had a different strategy to get another goal and the game would have been more exciting. Perhaps Chelsea, who no one thought was the best team in Europe last year wouldn't have hoisted the trophy that said they were. To me that's kind of a big deal.
This match seemed like revenge for Chelsea who lost a heart breaker in the UCL Semis in 2009 when they drew Barca at home 1-1 and were eliminated. There were no goals in the first leg. To me this loss changed the landscape of football. Barca's big tie started their dynasty, but they only advanced because they tied better. How often does a tie start a dynasty in the NFL?
The rule also can effect the outlook of a match and make the mountain seem higher should you lose the first leg. Lyon dropped the first leg of their 2010 semi final tie with Bayern Munich 1-0. On the road one would think that is a good result, but look at the position that Lyon was in. They had to be nearly perfect to advance from that position. They needed to win by two goals to have any chance of going through. All because they lost 1-0. That seems a bit harsh, but that's the reality the rule creates. Certainly Bayern's strategy had to be let's just score one goal and defend like mad, while Lyon had to be thinking about how aggressive do we need to be. The strategy going into the second leg was overly effected by a minimal result. So Lyon had to play different from how they normally would and Bayern could be more defensive and less exposed. The end result was a match that was not the best of how either side plays. Eventually ending in a blow out by Bayern.
I believe this rule needs to be done away with. At least in the KO portion of the UCL. Fans contribute all the revenue to the UCL and they deserve better than to watch boring grinding football that is decided by location of goals rather than quantity. There are three key benefits to doing away with the rule that would greatly elevate the quality of play in the KO stage and deliver more satisfying results.
The first benefit, and I can't underscore this enough, is that you would always have a winner. Someone would either score more than someone else or win in PKs. While I don't think PK's are the greatest thing ever it still gives you a winner and a loser. Chelsea won because they scored more PK's than Real Madrid is better than Chelsea won because they scored one more away goal than Real Madrid. You would eliminate ties and that has a ton of value.
Think about how this rule would have effected the 2012 semi final in Madrid. There is no way Real would have been as passive when the result was leveled and probably would have pressed either resulting in a goal for them or something for Bayern or to my next point.
More goals would be scored if this rule was abolished. You would likely eliminate the tactical defensive strategies that go into place when a team is trying to protect their away goal lead. It then becomes 180 minutes of two teams trying to out score each other and not out wit each other, which in turn leads to my final point.
More drama equals more interest and more memories. Image if Arsenal and Bayern had to keep playing in this seasons round of 16. Imagine if they went to penalties. Wouldn't that have been more exciting? It certainly would have been more exciting in the case of PSG/Barca where neither team won a match for their to be extra time. Creating more deadlocked situations, creates more drama and you can't put a price on that. The tactics can be draining and very anti-climactic, but with the rule change the matches would seem to have more life for the entire duration.
Image this scenario. Man U play AC Milan into a 1-1 draw in Milan. In the return leg Milan get up 2-0 in the first half. Now with the current rule in place this match is basically over because Man U would have to score 3 times to win and have no chance of forcing extra time. It's very easy for Milan to sit in for an entire half and prevent three goals, but without the rule if Man U were to score one goal in the 2nd half then the match would be on pins and needles until the final whistle. I think this would be the case in regards to many matches.
I don't think the powers that be at UEFA are likely to do anything anytime to soon. I get that impression by the fact that they have not even adopted the disappearing salt for free kicks like other federations have. It's one of the biggest no brainers there could be and when you add to the fact that it wouldn't stir up controversy at all you just have to scratch your head. World Football is too often protected by authorities that are out of touch with what really matters, but I think they are missing out on the bigger picture. Ratings are a driving force in sports. The changing of this rule and the extra drama, goals, and decisions it will bring only create more interest and more reason to watch. That equals more money and in the end unfortunately that's what they are all about. So, let's hope they wake up soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment