Pros and cons to both way rounds. Like against city? At home first win the game and keep clean sheet and all you need to do is score 1 away from home and the pressure is immediately on Home team. If we go away forat lef and lose 2-0 then so much pressure on the defence and you’re never safe even if you’re 3-0 up as one goal suddenly means you’re out.
TBH I perfer the home leg last. You know oppoenent knows.... they know they need to take a lead to anfield so we go score that away goal or at least get 0-0. then we absolutely rock their world's at anfield If we have home leg first it is always possible a side gets 0-0
That's a human fail and it's a shame VAR can't take the BS out of the game. The fact it is not an exact science is used by traditionalists as an excuse against VAR, like the current injustices are preferable to less injustice. Somehow VAR has to be perfect but the existing imperfect is great, or something, I dunno, there's no logic to it. It's not going to be perfect immediately but it is better already. The pundits seem to have gone from complaining about decisions to complaining about not being immediately informed, like they're the be all and end all of the game. Sorry, Pougash, but you're way down the food chain. The TV companies already have the replays we've all been watching for decades, so they're already seeing what the VAR referee is seeing. If you want to talk about the soul of the game, how about telling pundits and TV execs it's not about them? The delays don't seem any longer than many decisions where the ref gets surrounded by a bunch of players. VAR can be sped up; players whining to refs can't. It's just more "you can't tackle anymore" and "the offside rule is too confusing." Those intiatives were brought in because people were sick of dirty, talentless players spoiling the game and the old offside rule resulting in too many good goals being discounted. Put Alan Shearer back there and he'd soon STFU about them. Ditto timewasting. People complain about it but as soon as there's an intiative to sort it out - stopping the clock - the traditionalists are all, "Wait, we like whining about timewasting." Logically, it makes very little difference. All it does it takes away any reason to waste time, especially at the end of a game, when one team is a goal up. We only get about 60 minutes of play on average. Nobody complains about that. But fix a game at 60 minutes and OMG, Chicken Licken's sky is falling! You'd never even notice if they did it on the sly, because games would still be about the same length. There will be pros and cons but pre-VAR there was only one pro: dinosaurs like arguing about refs' decisions when they lose. Not a good enough reason. FIFA has done extensive testing of VAR decisions and the injustices are miniscule with it compared to without it. Injustice is not the soul of the game. If the ref's decisions are all you've got to talk about, you might as well find another sport, because you're watching for the wrong reasons. There's a distinction between objective decisions - offsides, mistaken identity, etc - and subjective decisions - pens, fouls, etc, so you'll still have subjective decisions to argue about if that's your thing, but does anybody remember a single ref's decision from Istanbul? Anybody?
A lot of points, many of which I agree with. The last paragraph is the important one with regards to the point I was making. I'm happy for VAR to be used in objective decisions, but I don't like the idea of the game being held up for subjective ones which will still be the source of endless controversy. For instance, no amount of video evidence can determine whether Eriksen's ball did brush Kane's shoulder or not so the argument rumbles on. The PL panel based their decision, in part, on his testimony - as if that was worth a carrot under those circumstances. Not so much objectivity there. The game will never be perfect - the accuracy of decisions can be improved, but imo technology needs to be used judiciously and not seen as the cure for all injustices. No tech will ever be able to decide intent, although that is considered crucial in many decisions. As I'm sure you're well aware, another name for a referee is an arbiter, and his decisions are arbitrary in the sense that someone has to make them, and they are in large part down to his (supposedly, expert) opinion. Regardless of any injunction against it, you just know that players and managers are going to harass the officials for a review of anything they don't agree with and I just think that it is going to make the game less manageable, not more so. To me, one of the attractions of football over similar sports is its fluidity, and I don't care for anything that disrupts that. For many years I've been pissed off with players screaming in the ref's face for their opinion to be the accepted one. As far as I'm concerned the ref's decision is final and players should just get on with it. All refs should be subject to performance review in order to improve standards, and gross errors (blatantly incorrect cards etc) can be retrospectively adjusted. It's easy to label anyone who dislikes a piece of innovative technology as a Luddite, but not everything new is necessarily an improvement. The pros and cons of anything new need to be weighed, and - just my opinion, of course, the negatives are potentially greater than the positives. I've no doubt it will come in - the footballing authorities routinely fail to consult me, for some reason - so time will tell.
Agree with MFG on the expected perfection for VAR when the game has far more imperfections re decisions but you are exactly right here on the subjective issues, VAR needs to be limited to certain things, lest we have the game stopped constantly, with every decision challenged. Football will become sterile
Not really sure why he said this tbh. Motivation for the players but you'd think they'd be determined to put the last three games behind them anyway.
He's talking with it out really. Yes they've lost 3 games in a week, but they were 3 high-powered games against good quality and determined opponents. They have another tricky one today, but they should be hoovering points up until the end of the season after that. Surely a motivational thing, as you say - they collapsed a bit against Utd, so maybe he sees that underlying psychological vulnerability in the team and wants to make sure he gets it out of them. Or, just maybe he does panic a bit himself when things go against him. Whatever it is, you wouldn't have expected them to be showing fear at this stage. Maybe some finishing-line nerves.
I think pep is wanting 500mil this summer. he ended up fixated on a 19 year old rb as his plot and taa schooled sane totally. imo pep was found out there.
Hopefully the whole episode will have brought Trent on now. We all thought he'd looked weak defensively prior to the tie, but he knuckled down, kept his concentration, and really kept on top of Sané.
