|
|
Post by stewart on Dec 8, 2016 22:51:13 GMT
What a ridiculous outcome of tonight's matches. Southampton finished equal on points with an Israeli team, with a goal difference of +2 compared with 0. Somehow, this team from Israel, of whom I doubt whether many people had previously heard, have somehow fluked their way through to the next round by virtue of a better head to head record. As this adjudication depended on the scoring of one away goal in a drawn match, this is utter nonsense and cannot be justified by any logical reasoning.
Sorry, I didn't mean to post this twice. That's what comes of being 70 years old and by no means a fan of modern technology.
|
|
jerry
TFF member
Posts: 165
|
Post by jerry on Dec 9, 2016 18:32:54 GMT
The fact that you may not have heard of this Israeli team is surely irrelevant? I would guess that hardly anybody in Israel has heard of Southampton either.
Head to head records are used to separate teams in lots of leagues (including Spain and Italy) and the World Cup and European Championships so it is not like it is a new concept.
It makes perfect sense in competitions like the Europa League as the final fixtures often involve teams already eliminated and with nothing to play for. If goal difference is used in this situation the team who by luck of the draw play their final match against such a team have an advantage as they could rack up a few goals against a weakened and/or unmotivated opposition.
Southampton only have themselves to blame, they knew they needed either a win or a 0-0 draw to qualify, rather than going for the win they sat back and played for the 0-0 only to concede late on. Lo and behold they suddenly upped their game but too little too late.
|
|
|
|
Post by stewart on Dec 10, 2016 0:52:20 GMT
The fact that you may not have heard of this Israeli team is surely irrelevant? I would guess that hardly anybody in Israel has heard of Southampton either. Head to head records are used to separate teams in lots of leagues (including Spain and Italy) and the World Cup and European Championships so it is not like it is a new concept. It makes perfect sense in competitions like the Europa League as the final fixtures often involve teams already eliminated and with nothing to play for. If goal difference is used in this situation the team who by luck of the draw play their final match against such a team have an advantage as they could rack up a few goals against a weakened and/or unmotivated opposition. Southampton only have themselves to blame, they knew they needed either a win or a 0-0 draw to qualify, rather than going for the win they sat back and played for the 0-0 only to concede late on. Lo and behold they suddenly upped their game but too little too late. The problem with your argument is that Southampton did not sit back and play for a goalless draw. They dominated the match and had about 75% of both possession and territory. You are quite right to say that it doesn't matter that the Israeli team is unknown, although it could also be said that Israel is not part of Europe anyway. The current regulation in fact assists the "unmotivated opposition", in that they can "park the bus" (as the current description has it) and frustrate a better team by taking advantage of the rules as they now exist. Southampton actually had better results against the other teams in the group. Nevertheless, you are of course entitled to your own views, misguided though they are. |
|
hector
TFF member
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by hector on Dec 13, 2016 6:51:07 GMT
The fact that you may not have heard of this Israeli team is surely irrelevant? I would guess that hardly anybody in Israel has heard of Southampton either. Head to head records are used to separate teams in lots of leagues (including Spain and Italy) and the World Cup and European Championships so it is not like it is a new concept. It makes perfect sense in competitions like the Europa League as the final fixtures often involve teams already eliminated and with nothing to play for. If goal difference is used in this situation the team who by luck of the draw play their final match against such a team have an advantage as they could rack up a few goals against a weakened and/or unmotivated opposition. Southampton only have themselves to blame, they knew they needed either a win or a 0-0 draw to qualify, rather than going for the win they sat back and played for the 0-0 only to concede late on. Lo and behold they suddenly upped their game but too little too late. The problem with your argument is that Southampton did not sit back and play for a goalless draw. They dominated the match and had about 75% of both possession and territory. You are quite right to say that it doesn't matter that the Israeli team is unknown, although it could also be said that Israel is not part of Europe anyway. The current regulation in fact assists the "unmotivated opposition", in that they can "park the bus" (as the current description has it) and frustrate a better team by taking advantage of the rules as they now exist. Southampton actually had better results against the other teams in the group. Nevertheless, you are of course entitled to your own views, misguided though they are. I'm not sure it is fair to suggest that Jerry is misguided. He is simply explaining the rules to you and why they may exist. I prefer the goal difference version of separating teams and always hated the way the Football League, for a while in the 90s, used 'goals scored' as the measure to separate teams level on points for a few years, rather than goal difference. I remember the 79/80 season, Torquay had a goal difference of +1. That was because they scored 70 and conceded 69. A goals scored rule would have seen them above most teams on the same points even though +1 was not a great goal difference. The old rule of 'goal average' that was used, made little more sense, so there will always be ways that various leagues use to decide teams who are level on points that do not make enormous sense. In the same way, the six nations will have a new points scoring system for wins/draws/bonus etc. Whilst modelling the new points system, with tournaments played in the past, they realised that it was possible for a team who does the grand slam to finish second. Therefore, any team who does do the grand slam is awarded 3 additional points to ensure they cannot be overhaul by a team harvesting a lot of bonus points. Only yesterday I read how the team that won the 1960 World Series (Pittsburgh Pirates) scored 27 runs over 7 games, whilst the losing team (New York Yankees) scored 55 runs. That seems daft but Pirates won 4 of the 7 matches, even if they were only by narrow scores such as 3-2 yet Yankees won two of their games 16-3 and 12-0. That was being used to illustrate the fact that Hilary Clinton won more votes than any other presidential candidate bar Obama, yet lost the election, winning 48% of the vote compared to 46%. Now whilst I agree with you about goal difference, the fact that such an electoral system exists that puts the least popular candidate in the White House, is really something to worry about. |
|
jerry
TFF member
Posts: 165
|
Post by jerry on Dec 13, 2016 15:50:59 GMT
According to Wikipedia this used to happen in Italy:
From 2005–06 season if 2 or more teams are tied in points (for every place), the deciding tie-breakers are follows:
1.Head-to-head records (results and points)
2.Goal difference of head-to-head games
3.Goal difference overall
4.Higher number of goals scored
5.Draw
Until 2004–05 season, there were a play-off: it was used especially to award title, European spots or relegation. Any play-off was held after the end of regular season.
Not sure how often it was used though.
I do agree with you about away goals which seem to achieve the exact opposite of what was intended, rather then making the away side more attacking it just means the home side is more defensive as they are terrified of conceding the away goal.
|
|
hector
TFF member
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by hector on Dec 13, 2016 22:35:24 GMT
The other thing I dislike about the away goal rule, is that if the 2nd leg goes into extra-time, the away team effectively has more time to score an away goal than the other team did in the 1st leg.
I don't see why the away goal rule cannot be done away with and it simply goes to extra-time and penalties.
|
|
