*Official* English Football Season 2016-17

[sledger]

The AC Milan loss was fairly unlucky too. IIRC they scored with every shot in their home leg.

Those losses did still fit patterns of failure though, bad game management and playing much better once the game was out of reach.

Yeah, you could say the same about some of their losses to Bayern as well. Especially when Arsenal beat then 2-0 away from home.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah, you could say the same about some of their losses to Bayern as well. Especially when Arsenal beat then 2-0 away from home.

I think they managed the Barca game last season really badly too. Genuinely seemed to have an attitude of "gonna lose anyway, no point planning". Conceding to Barca on a 3-on-2 counter mid-way through the first leg is embarrassing, especially with the score at 0-0. Similar mistake to the Monaco game.

It's strange because they actually travel really well these days, but play the home legs as if not winning is such an insurmountable disaster that they have to risk everything going for it.

 

[vcs]

I think they managed the Barca game last season really badly too. Genuinely seemed to have an attitude of "gonna lose anyway, no point planning". Conceding to Barca on a 3-on-2 counter mid-way through the first leg is embarrassing, especially with the score at 0-0. Similar mistake to the Monaco game.

It's strange because they actually travel really well these days, but play the home legs as if not winning is such an insurmountable disaster that they have to risk everything going for it.

0-0 is actually a very decent first-leg result playing at home in CL knockouts.

 

[Furball]

Yeah if you're at home first the most important thing is not conceding (this is a moot point if you're 5-0 up)

 

[sledger]

0-0 is actually a very decent first-leg result playing at home in CL knockouts.

It's an interesting issue, I think.

Generally speaking, do people think it's better to win 2-1 at home in the first leg of a tie or draw 0-0?

I'm leaning towards the latter, but this doesn't sit well with my usual philosophy, which is basically that a good team should always look to try and win all home matches (obviously achieving this 100% of the time isn't realistic, but I think it should at least be the objective).

 

[vcs]

Haha, there's no result that would take you through, or fail to eliminate you at 0-0 which wouldn't happen if you won the first leg 2-1. So that's a fallacy.

 

[sledger]

Well yeah obviously you would have to score at some point. Either result in the first leg still necessarily requires a serviceable performance in the second.

The question is just whether it would be preferable to win the first leg by one goal but concede an away goal, or tie the first leg but not concede. The question is obviously context-dependent to some extent as well but, assuming we are talking about two sides that are relatively well-matched, it's an interesting one to muse over I think.

 

[vcs]

No, but 2-1 better than 0-0 is an objective truth, right? For it not to be so, there'd have to be at least one possible result in the 2nd leg where being 2-1 up from the first leg would leave you worse off..

 

[sledger]

Not necessarily.

https://www.researchgate.net/public..._the_first_leg_of_a_two-legged_football_match

According to this a team which draws 0-0 at home in the first leg of a CL tie will progress nearly 50% of the time, whereas a teams that win 2-1 will progress 8% less frequently.

This excerpt from the Grauniad also sheds some light on things.

They found that if two teams of equal strength face each other and the first leg finishes 0-0, a home side has a 46.7% chance of progressing. A 1-0 victory lifts that to 65.3%. But losing 0-1 drops it like a stone, to only 12.5%. Arsenal may have done better to stick rather than twist. The academics also found the most balanced result going into a second leg is 2-1 – a score that leaves the home side with a 55.3% chance of progressing. By contrast, a 1-0 win would give the home side a 63.5% chance of going through.

 

[vcs]

Interesting, will take a look.

 

[Scaly piscine]

CDMs just a classic bottler side really. Find 'unlucky' ways to lose. They're the Spuds of the Champions League.

I mean the 4-1 win was typical of their ability to blow mediocre teams away when it doesn't really matter. If they'd have had to have won that game it would have been a totally different match.

You just know that when it comes to the first leg someone like Walcott or Ox will be completely invisible, whilst they let in a soft goal at the other end.

 

[sledger]

CDMs just a classic bottler side really. Find 'unlucky' ways to lose. They're the Spuds of the Champions League.

I mean the 4-1 win was typical of their ability to blow mediocre teams away when it doesn't really matter. If they'd have had to have won that game it would have been a totally different match.

You just know that when it comes to the first leg someone like Walcott or Ox will be completely invisible, whilst they let in a soft goal at the other end.

 

[Tom Halsey]

No, but 2-1 better than 0-0 is an objective truth, right?

Yeah you are correct that there is literally no possible 2nd leg scoreline where a 0-0 in the first leg would have taken the home team through but a 2-1 win wouldn't.

Having said that, for most possible second leg scorelines, a first leg result of 0-0 is equivalent to a first leg result of 2-1, so there isn't much in it. It wouldn't take much of a psychological effect to override the advantage gained by a 2-1 win vs a 0-0 draw.

The fact that Sledger's statistics indicate there is indeed a psychological factor in play at all does surprise me, though. If you think about it for any longer than two seconds you'd realise a 2-1 win is always at least as good as a 0-0 draw, objectively.

 

[sledger]

The psychological factor is significant I think. But it works both ways.

You do often see teams who score an away goal in the first leg become jittery in the second leg, and not know whether to try and "protect" the away goal, rather than kill off the tie.

The other team in the second leg of such a tie have no such qualms, however, and know that no matter what the other team does they have to come out and score at least one goal, and to some extent I think the security of that knowledge can free up a team to play with confidence etc...

This basically was what happened when Arsenal went out of the Champions League to Chelsea in 03/04. 1-1 draw in the first leg at Stamford Bridge. Chelsea came into the second leg knowing they had to score at least once no matter what. Arsenal scored. Chelsea basically didn't give a crap because it meant nothing for them (i.e. they still had to score at least one goal, so nothing much had changed). Turned it on big time after they conceded and won in convincing fashion whilst Arsenal capitulated.

Probably the most annoyed I have ever been with an Arsenal performance actually.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Just variance I reckon. Plus I would guess a crap side is more likely to put 11 men behind the ball and get a 0-0 type result than lose 2-1 away from home. Then obviously the crap team lose the tie in the second leg because they have to actually do something. The 2-1 scoreline is the sort a high calibre attacking team would suffer then end up dominating the second leg.

 

[Ikki]

I'm not one to **** on our players, but I didn't know Henderson had such a fanboyish following. You have some Liverpool fans saying he's the best midfielder in the league. Honestly, I'd replace him at the end of the season for someone that can actually dictate a game and not **** himself when an opposition player is within 2 metres of him. It's weird I'm asking for validation from you guys to call him average

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah Henderson is a player I really don't rate. Our defensive strategy in the 0-0 was basically to make sure he had to play the ball out.

His passing and dribbling are just plain not good enough. Enormous turning circle and can't fizz the passes along the turf, they always bobble and are hard to control. He's fine when the other team have the ball, nothing special. Should definitely be looking to replace him with someone who can constantly fire the ball into the feet of your army of 10s.

 

[Furball]

Yeah you are correct that there is literally no possible 2nd leg scoreline where a 0-0 in the first leg would have taken the home team through but a 2-1 win wouldn't.

Having said that, for most possible second leg scorelines, a first leg result of 0-0 is equivalent to a first leg result of 2-1, so there isn't much in it. It wouldn't take much of a psychological effect to override the advantage gained by a 2-1 win vs a 0-0 draw.

The fact that Sledger's statistics indicate there is indeed a psychological factor in play at all does surprise me, though. If you think about it for any longer than two seconds you'd realise a 2-1 win is always at least as good as a 0-0 draw, objectively.

If you draw the first leg 0-0 at home then you feel that you need to score, win 2-1 and your focus shifts to not conceding. It's a subtle difference but depending on a team's strengths and weaknesses it can make a bit of a difference.

 

[Furball]

The psychological factor is significant I think. But it works both ways.

You do often see teams who score an away goal in the first leg become jittery in the second leg, and not know whether to try and "protect" the away goal, rather than kill off the tie.

The other team in the second leg of such a tie have no such qualms, however, and know that no matter what the other team does they have to come out and score at least one goal, and to some extent I think the security of that knowledge can free up a team to play with confidence etc...

This basically was what happened when Arsenal went out of the Champions League to Chelsea in 03/04. 1-1 draw in the first leg at Stamford Bridge. Chelsea came into the second leg knowing they had to score at least once no matter what. Arsenal scored. Chelsea basically didn't give a crap because it meant nothing for them (i.e. they still had to score at least one goal, so nothing much had changed). Turned it on big time after they conceded and won in convincing fashion whilst Arsenal capitulated.

Probably the most annoyed I have ever been with an Arsenal performance actually.

Haha that's always the tie I come back to when explaining variance and how luck (not the right word in this instance because Chelsea were excellent second half at Highbury but I can't think of the term I want) can play a huge part in Champions League progression. Arsenal gave a very controlled performance in the 1st leg, got a good result to take back to Highbury and dominated the first half to go in 1-0 up. Ranieri basically just went for it 2nd half, brought on Gronkjaer and Duff (I think, can't remember if he was a Ranieri or Mourinho signing), pinned Arsenal's full backs back and dominated the 2nd half. One bad 45 minutes when Arsenal had controlled 3 quarters of the tie was enough to put them out.

 

[Furball]

CDMs just a classic bottler side really. Find 'unlucky' ways to lose. They're the Spuds of the Champions League.

I mean the 4-1 win was typical of their ability to blow mediocre teams away when it doesn't really matter. If they'd have had to have won that game it would have been a totally different match.

You just know that when it comes to the first leg someone like Walcott or Ox will be completely invisible, whilst they let in a soft goal at the other end.

Except Arsenal had to win the game to have a chance of topping the group, muppet.