"The Frenchman has never been one to bow to public opinion, particularly when it comes to swimming in the shark-infested waters of the transfer market. Like Frank Sinatra, he does it his way."
Funniest thing I've read this week 😆
In the words of Stephen Marche: Arséne Wenger is not an ancient Aztek. He will not go willingly to have his heart cut out.
Klaus wrote: "The Frenchman has never been one to bow to public opinion, particularly when it comes to swimming in the shark-infested waters of the transfer market. Like Frank Sinatra, he does it his way."
😆 Shocking metaphor pile-up …
Klaus wrote: In the words of Stephen Marche: Arséne Wenger is not an ancient Aztek. He will not go willingly to have his heart cut out.
Heh, well Stephen Marche had better study his Mesoamerican history a bit more. The Aztecs didn't sacrifice themselves- They sacrificed everything/everyone else, in fact the function of war in their culture wasn't to kill their enemies but to close on them stun them and capture them for sacrifice. You can imagine that this was quite disadvantageous when faced with an enemy who kept their distance and just wanted to kill you with crossbows and muskets. 😆 But I digress.
You need to read the story that post is referring to, Biggus. It's quite something. 😆
MEGAN FOX BELIEVES THAT BEING FAMOUS IS WORSE THAN BEING BULLIED "'I don't think people understand," she says. 'They all think we should shut the fuck up and stop complaining because you live in a big house or you drive a Bentley. So your life must be so great. What people don't realise is that fame, whatever your worst experience in high school, when you were being bullied by those ten kids in high school, fame is that, but on a global scale, where you're being bullied by millions of people constantly.'" When I was at school, there was a kid who everyone picked on because they thought he was gay. One day, a bunch of older kids dragged him into the PE showers and forcibly inserted a broom handle into his ass. Pretty sure he'd trade lives with you, Meg.
MEGAN FOX BELIEVES THAT BEING FAMOUS IS WORSE THAN BEING BULLIED
"'I don't think people understand," she says. 'They all think we should shut the fuck up and stop complaining because you live in a big house or you drive a Bentley. So your life must be so great. What people don't realise is that fame, whatever your worst experience in high school, when you were being bullied by those ten kids in high school, fame is that, but on a global scale, where you're being bullied by millions of people constantly.'"
When I was at school, there was a kid who everyone picked on because they thought he was gay. One day, a bunch of older kids dragged him into the PE showers and forcibly inserted a broom handle into his ass. Pretty sure he'd trade lives with you, Meg.
Indeed, like when CRonaldo said he was "a slave" at Man Utd......I don't know what fucking planet these celebrities live on.
Back on topic, Wenger reckons the away goal rule should be done away with- http://www.3news.co.nz/Arsenal-manager-Arsene-Wenger-wants-end-to-away-goals-rule/tabid/415/articleID/326102/Default.aspx?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+co%2FHCaY+%283News-+Latest+News%29
Does he have a point?
I think he has a point. It's certainly not an ideal situation and no longer really seems to serve its intended purpose. But i guess the immediate question is what's the alternative? Extra time? Golden goal? Penalties? Most pre assists? It's a tough one.
The purpose of the rule change was of course to encourage away teams to attack. There were a lot of games back then where the away team only wanted to defend, but I don't think the rule change has changed much in the dynamics of games. I don't mind the rule that much, but it is absolutely mental that the rule is still in place when a game goes to extra time.
The away goals rule first made an appearance in European football in the Cup Winners' Cup in 1965, primarily to eliminate the need for replays, which were costly and difficult to arrange. Given the alternative was flipping a coin, it probably seemed the lesser of two evils and, besides, back then it made a certain sense. Only 16% of all European away games then resulted in an away win. Away trips were difficult: travel was gruelling and away teams would often face unfamiliar and/or hostile conditions. As a consequence, the tendency was for the away side to bed in, look to absorb pressure and try to keep the score down. In the 1964-65 European Cup, for instance, three of the 30 ties featured leads of two goals or more being overturned.
http://http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2013/mar/13/the-question-football-away-goals
I agree that in certain competitions, like the CL away goals rule should be scrapped. I guess there is no ideal alternative though possibly another rematch at a neutral venue which we can rule out for so many reasons. I would prefer 15 minutes extra time followed by a further 15 of sudden death extra time if required after which go to penalties. Even with regard to penalties, I would adopt the American style where they have to dribble first.
I like the away goal rule. It brings a bit of balance to the fixtures. I can't see any feasible alternative to it.
Just scrap it? If the tie is tied, no pun intended, after 180 minutes you go into extra time, then penalties. Simples.
Could reach a tie with the away goals rule too. It applies to both teams you know, albeit in separate legs of the fixture.
It does, but I don't see the point of it. I understand the thinking behind it in wanting away teams to be more adventurous attacking, but I don't really see that being the case. Do you?
Wenger probably has a point but only in regards to the CL groups where head to head away goals as a deciding factor too high up the list. Although we got exactly what we deserved in our group due to some bad results. Playing at home is an advantage no doubt so how is it making it fairer that one side plays an extra 30 minutes and possibly penalties (which may still happen anyway under the present system) at home? The away goal rule is a victim of it's own success, teams now come out and attack more when away it would just revert back to parking the bus away and finishing the job at home if it was changed, games would all take on a familiar look. It's no surprise this nutty idea comes from Platini trying to attract attention to himself again.
It's the extra time that is the problem. No matter what you do it's not going to be fair unless you're playing at neutral ground. Just skip it and go directly to penalties when the game is over. Everyone hates ET anyway because it's a complete gamble. It's an additional 30 minutes of football midweek that most teams could do without too.
Yeah, and it starts with about 15 minutes to go anyway where teams have one eye on it and the next goal is virtually the winner.
It doesn't really matter what system is adopted, managers and coaches will develop tactics to take advantage of it.
Make the knockout rounds one off ties at neutral grounds.
Many games would struggle to sell out.
i like the away goals rule. i agree that it seems more fair that if everything's level after regulation time in the return leg, then the teams go straight to pens.
Volante wrote: Make the knockout rounds one off ties at neutral grounds.
why?
