2 games that show why the away goal in Europe rule should be.....

They should keep it exactly the same but with some small changes

Away goal is there for a reason and it works.

Seems like Barca backers done their coconuts and look to change things..............

I'd say as many games are killed by the rule (or nearly as many) tonight being a case in point, Team on top, no away goal and game over as soon as away goal scored. Best team over 2 legs (even with disallowed goal) won but the game was over as soon as Liverpool scored.

muggerised I don't think those who have never won it have a valid opinion.

Charlene you tart, you know full well you won 4 European cups when it was a micky mouse version of the real thing today you mug.

Leave it as it is. It works well in the main

Charlene you tart, you know full well you won 4 European cups when it was a micky mouse version of the real thing today you mug.


Ah right. I presume Arsenal won loads during that time then?

Funnily we won it when we weren't even champions of our league in 05.

Wouldn't have been possible in the 'easier' days............over to you squire.

A goal is a goal and shouldnt matter whether its home or away. Now 0-0 is viewed as being halfway decent in the home teams first leg result as they know they can get a score draw away from home and go through like Seville for eg. It actually makes a mockery of the competition when a teams playing in terror at home incase of the dreaded " away goal"

The competition is obviously easier to get into given they're are more places available, but it's much harder to win it when you're in it given you have to play 13 matches win instead of 9. Against the worlds best players in the worlds best teams as opposed to playing 2 legged tied against Pub champions from Finland / Scotland / Bulgaria round after round. That's why it was changed, 4th placed teams in England, Spain, Germany are more of a challenge than league titles winners where teams are made up of part time milkman and the local vicar.

You haven't won the Champions League 5 times, you've won it once, Champions League and European Cup are two very different competitions. And that's not to do down Liverpool or any other teams history for the sake of it, it's just the way it is.

TBh - and having just looked at your record in Europe - i didn't realise it was so very crap - while other English teams were winning the (very easy to to win European cup) you were embarrassing the country and generally getting knocked out in the very early rounds of the (even easier to win) uefa cup. Damn those (very) easy to beat European teams in a (very) easy comp to win ruining history for you!

You haven't won the Champions League 5 times, you've won it once, Champions League and European Cup are two very different competitions

Football began in 1992.

Mesmerised

That's why it was changed, 4th placed teams in England, Spain, Germany are more of a challenge than league titles winners where teams are made up of part time milkman and the local vicar.

It was changed so clubs and UEFA could make more money - no other reason.

I also agree with mes on this one, although it isn't virtually a different competition, it is a totally different competition and has no right to be compared with the European Cup (RIP)

1. Away goals rule should be scrapped.
2. Liverpool have been European Champions five times. Makes no difference what the competition is called or whether it used to be 'easier to win.' It used to be a lot harder to qualify as well.

I have nothing against Liverpool, but you have to say it the way that it is
I haven't said they were not European Champions 5 times, I said they were European Champions 4 times when it was a piss poor version of today's Champions League.
It may have been harder to qualify for the European Cup as there were only 1 team per country allowed, however this is negated by the fact that a) Liverpool practically had carte blanche on the market for the best players in Britain once they were in, and b) you qualified for the following season's comp if you won the competition. As Nottingham Forest also did, they finished runners up in 1979 but were re-entered into the European Cup as European winners, they won it again in 1980.
Not old enough to have lived through that era, but having looked up the teams Liverpool played during those 4 wins, they even had a first round bye in 78 to win a European Cup having played 7 matches, other knock out ties were won against the likes of Crusaders, OPS (me neither) who they beat 10-1, Bulgarian champions, Zurich, Trabzonspor, Odense ?

The European Cup back then is probably on a par with the Europa League of today, but even less?

Point being, fans of teams that were dominant in Europe pre 92 should be more humble about achieving success in a much inferior era.

If there were 4 teams per country from the main leagues back then, things would look very different.

Could Celtic win the Champions League today?

I'm not sure how some can justify teams like Celtic as an equal to the CL winners by any stretch of the imagination. Two completely different tournaments.


Is football the same as it was in 1967? That's a nonsense argument. They won the EC in 1967, under 1967 conditions, over 50 years ago. They couldn't win it today because football has changed dramatically since then. How many CL winners couldn't have won the EC because they weren't domestic champions the year before?


Do we throw out Ray Reardon's 6 World snooker titles because he wouldn't win it today?

I'm not arguing your points; I'm just saying as you two virtually are too, the competitions are not alike and should be treated as two different tournaments with two different sets of stats. I fail to see how this point can be argued but hey ho, we all see things differently.