|
Post by nowhereman on Feb 15, 2022 15:10:39 GMT -5
paris Saint germain v. Real Madrid on CBS. Midweek soccer on regular tv. No score in the 18th minute.
Inter Milan v. Liverpool on Wednesday. Same time and channel.
|
|
|
Post by shortlibero on Feb 15, 2022 16:14:21 GMT -5
PSG has the ball possession most of the time but cannot score still at the 55', kind of frustrating match for the parisians if it stays like that, cos' the return match in Madrid will be difficult.
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on Feb 15, 2022 16:53:54 GMT -5
Wow. Mbappe!
|
|
|
Post by shortlibero on Feb 15, 2022 16:58:46 GMT -5
yep, the savior ! cos' letting Messi shooting penalties is really a wrong idea considering his penalties history hahaha
1 - 0, not much, but at least no goal conceded at home, Madrid will have to play a more open game next time, good news considering PSG is a counter-attack deadly weapon with MBappé
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Feb 15, 2022 17:00:57 GMT -5
Eliminating the away goals rule was a mistake.
|
|
|
Post by shortlibero on Feb 15, 2022 17:04:50 GMT -5
Oh sh.t yeah ! completely forgot that one !
It was the beauty of the UCL indeed, some games being constant emotional rollercoasters.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 15, 2022 17:14:30 GMT -5
Eliminating the away goals rule was a mistake. The goals away rule was stupid. The idea was to avoid teams playing for a scoreless tie on the road and then trying to win it at home, but all the goals away rule did was change that to play for a 1-1 tie on the road and then a scoreless tie at home.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Feb 15, 2022 17:19:28 GMT -5
Eliminating the away goals rule was a mistake. The goals away rule was stupid. The idea was to avoid teams playing for a scoreless tie on the road and then trying to win it at home, but all the goals away rule did was change that to play for a 1-1 tie on the road and then a scoreless tie at home. There needs to be an incentive for the away team to actually play, rather than bunker. It's going to be a much bigger problem than the home team playing for a scoreless draw ever was.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 15, 2022 17:23:41 GMT -5
The goals away rule was stupid. The idea was to avoid teams playing for a scoreless tie on the road and then trying to win it at home, but all the goals away rule did was change that to play for a 1-1 tie on the road and then a scoreless tie at home. There needs to be an incentive for the away team to actually play, rather than bunker. It's going to be a much bigger problem than the home team playing for a scoreless draw ever was. Why is it so much better to have an incentive for the home team to "bunker" than the away team? Without the away goals rule, the away teams tried to keep the scoring low and escape with no worse than a tie. With the away goals rule, the home teams tried to keep the scoring low and escape with no worse than a tie. At least without the rule, if you have two ties, then they need to play to a conclusion. With the away goals rule, you could and did have series that were won after two tied matches.
|
|
|
Post by shortlibero on Feb 15, 2022 17:27:19 GMT -5
At least the away team did try to score on the 1st game, be it only 1-1 at the end. What we've seen here is the Real Madrid just... bunkering for a 0-0, indeed. The 1st games will for sure be most of the times boring in that sense.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Feb 15, 2022 17:31:28 GMT -5
There needs to be an incentive for the away team to actually play, rather than bunker. It's going to be a much bigger problem than the home team playing for a scoreless draw ever was. Why is it so much better to have an incentive for the home team to "bunker" than the away team? Without the away goals rule, the away teams tried to keep the scoring low and escape with no worse than a tie. With the away goals rule, the home teams tried to keep the scoring low and escape with no worse than a tie. At least without the rule, if you have two ties, then they need to play to a conclusion. With the away goals rule, you could and did have series that were won after two tied matches. Because the home team has a significant advantage and wants to press that advantage to score goals at home.
|
|
|
Post by shortlibero on Feb 15, 2022 17:34:23 GMT -5
There needs to be an incentive for the away team to actually play, rather than bunker. It's going to be a much bigger problem than the home team playing for a scoreless draw ever was. Why is it so much better to have an incentive for the home team to "bunker" than the away team? Without the away goals rule, the away teams tried to keep the scoring low and escape with no worse than a tie. With the away goals rule, the home teams tried to keep the scoring low and escape with no worse than a tie. At least without the rule, if you have two ties, then they need to play to a conclusion. With the away goals rule, you could and did have series that were won after two tied matches. Tied match with plenty of goals scored many times ! also, do you remember those crazy games Monaco vs Man City in 2017, no tied matches, but a 6-6 overall ?
When the Mbappé legacy started...
1st game
2nd game
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 15, 2022 17:41:17 GMT -5
I don't remember this, no. I don't really follow this sport. But I'm somewhat aware of it, just like I didn't watch any NFL this year but I'm aware that the Rams just beat the Bengals.
You know what would work? Just flip a coin. If the outcome is tied after two games, just flip a coin. That way there is no advantage for either team. And both teams have an incentive to win it on the field rather than accept a 50/50 chance of getting knocked out because of a coin.
|
|
|
Post by shortlibero on Feb 15, 2022 17:49:44 GMT -5
I don't remember this, no. I don't really follow this sport. But I'm somewhat aware of it, just like I didn't watch any NFL this year but I'm aware that the Rams just beat the Bengals. You know what would work? Just flip a coin. If the outcome is tied after two games, just flip a coin. That way there is no advantage for either team. And both teams have an incentive to win it on the field rather than accept a 50/50 chance of getting knocked out because of a coin. Ahem... they actually did this decades ago! and of course it was considered as a total injustice, then they introduced the penalty kick shoutout right after the 90 minutes, and it was still rude, so the extra 2x15 minutes were introduced, and then the away goals rule to avoid those OTs, cos' teams also had to play their local leagues just 2 or 3 days after the wednesday thrill.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 15, 2022 18:04:59 GMT -5
I don't remember this, no. I don't really follow this sport. But I'm somewhat aware of it, just like I didn't watch any NFL this year but I'm aware that the Rams just beat the Bengals. You know what would work? Just flip a coin. If the outcome is tied after two games, just flip a coin. That way there is no advantage for either team. And both teams have an incentive to win it on the field rather than accept a 50/50 chance of getting knocked out because of a coin. Ahem... they actually did this decades ago! and of course it was considered as a total injustice, then they introduced the penalty kick shoutout right after the 90 minutes, and it was still rude, so the extra 2x15 minutes were introduced, and then the away goals rule to avoid those OTs, cos' teams also had to play their local leagues just 2 or 3 days after the wednesday thrill. Go back to the coin flip. If you played 180 minutes and came to a tie, then it's clearly not an injustice whichever team gets knocked out.
|
|