POLL: Which team is better-off after a 0-0 in the first leg of a two-leg tie?

[Ødegaard]

That's an odd argument. Surely you can then say that if a team couldn't score at home, surely the home team in the second leg can keep them from scoring away.

It's not exactly guaranteed that the away side gets an early goal against.

No it is not. But it's an argument that if they do get a goal then the opponents need 2. It's just a factual argument that people seem to want to overlook for some weird reason.

 

[Siorac]

No it is not. But it's an argument that if they do get a goal then the opponents need 2. It's just a factual argument that people seem to want to overlook for some weird reason.

Well, yes, if they get one, the home team needs two. That is a fact. It just doesn't seem to be that significant. As in, it doesn't decide games that often.

To put it this way: no matter how we tried to look at and weigh the data, none of the available data suggests that the away team in the second leg progresses in a majority of cases after a 0-0 draw. Not even the fabled betting odds suggest that so it seems to be at best a neutral position to be in overall.

 

[GhastlyHun]

Well, yes, if they get one, the home team needs two. That is a fact. It just doesn't seem to be that significant. As in, it doesn't decide games that often.

Yeah when was the last ti... yesterday.
http://www.kicker.de/news/fussball/...ht_bayer-leverkusen-9_fk-krasnodar-20509.html

 

[HoustonRed]

Hm?
You folks are valuing being at home too much.
Get a early goal against and you lose unless you score two. If they could hold you to 0-0 then the probably they can keep you from scoring 2.

I don't think Revan and others are arguing anything about home advantage, or team strength or anything else. All those are just discussion points, reasoning given to the available statistic based on ALL the existing data. The basic point he is establishing is that -

Statistical fact:
"of all the 2 legged KO ties to-date (including round of 16 or not) that ended in 0-0 in the first leg, it is observed that in >60% of them the team playing home in the second leg went through"

Inference:
In the next how so many games, that % (of second leg home team going through) is not likely to change by much. which means, that, of the next 100 games that end 0-0 in the first leg, >60 of those ties will end up with the team playing home in the second leg as the winner.

Note 1: This inference is just mathematical/statistical deduction, no assumption. Now the reasoning is what lot of folks are discussing about, which may be true in parts or combinations, mostly subjective. no way to quantify that. These discussions include - home advantage, team strengths, team forms, players quality, manager luck, what not, you can say whatever. but it doesn't take away from the FACT that >60% of the time, the team playing home in the second leg ends of going through (with tie 0-0 in the first leg).

Note 2: This in no way tells anything about any single tie, is there a way to say liverpool or bayern will win with any certainty?- NO. too many other variables involved. But one thing you can say is that, historically, there is >60% chance that bayern will go through (not looking at the rosters, forms, xGs bla bla).

Note 3: This 65% win percentage might change over time, due to many factors that you and others underline - the home advantage is reducing over time, teams and tactics getting better so home advantage will take back seat eventually.. which may shift the that >60% to closer to 50%.

 

[Siorac]

Yeah when was the last ti... yesterday.
http://www.kicker.de/news/fussball/...ht_bayer-leverkusen-9_fk-krasnodar-20509.html

Didn't say it never happens. Just that nothing suggests that it's a bigger deal than home advantage.

 

[MuranoLover]

0-0 from first leg lets the home team with 2 options - to win or lose in the 2nd tie and the away team with the only option to win - so..

 

[Irish Jet]

It obviously benefits the away team from the first leg far more.

Home advantage is one of the most decisive factors in the game.

 

[GhastlyHun]

Didn't say it never happens. Just that nothing suggests that it's a bigger deal than home advantage.

Having a tiebreaker to your advantage is huge for matches between sides of near equal strength.

 

[GhastlyHun]

It obviously benefits the away team from the first leg far more.

Home advantage is one of the most decisive factors in the game.

It isn't. Home advantage is no longer significant after statistical corrections for team strength.

 

[Keeps It tidy]

It isn't. Home advantage is no longer significant after statistical corrections for team strength.

Liverpool are actually a great example of it still being significant considering their poor record away from home.

 

[Siorac]

It isn't. Home advantage is no longer significant after statistical corrections for team strength.

What? That is simply not true, not even close.

 

[Siorac]

Having a tiebreaker to your advantage is huge for matches between sides of near equal strength.

Yes. But the data doesn't suggest that tiebreaker decides ties in the majority of the cases. At best it seems to be 50-50, based on actual outcomes.

 

[Kag]

If the home advantage is anything like we saw at Old Trafford the other week then I think I’d rather head into the return leg as the away side.

 

[Ødegaard]

I don't think Revan and others are arguing anything about home advantage, or team strength or anything else. All those are just discussion points, reasoning given to the available statistic based on ALL the existing data. The basic point he is establishing is that -

Statistical fact:
"of all the 2 legged KO ties to-date (including round of 16 or not) that ended in 0-0 in the first leg, it is observed that in >60% of them the team playing home in the second leg went through"

Inference:
In the next how so many games, that % (of second leg home team going through) is not likely to change by much. which means, that, of the next 100 games that end 0-0 in the first leg, >60 of those ties will end up with the team playing home in the second leg as the winner.

Note 1: This inference is just mathematical/statistical deduction, no assumption. Now the reasoning is what lot of folks are discussing about, which may be true in parts or combinations, mostly subjective. no way to quantify that. These discussions include - home advantage, team strengths, team forms, players quality, manager luck, what not, you can say whatever. but it doesn't take away from the FACT that >60% of the time, the team playing home in the second leg ends of going through (with tie 0-0 in the first leg).

Note 2: This in no way tells anything about any single tie, is there a way to say liverpool or bayern will win with any certainty?- NO. too many other variables involved. But one thing you can say is that, historically, there is >60% chance that bayern will go through (not looking at the rosters, forms, xGs bla bla).

Note 3: This 65% win percentage might change over time, due to many factors that you and others underline - the home advantage is reducing over time, teams and tactics getting better so home advantage will take back seat eventually.. which may shift the that >60% to closer to 50%.

That's just stating history as the answer, if/when enough time has gone and that statistic change, does your answer also change?
If we know nothing about the first game then current historical statistics show that the team who have a home game in the second leg will likely go through, but it also says that the away team have more results that will end in them going through as the away team.
The question was (as I read it) who we think have an advantage after 0-0 when we know nothing else, to which the answer is that within that vacuum the away and leg away team has it better as we don't know differences in strengths between the two teams.

 

[Ødegaard]

Well, yes, if they get one, the home team needs two. That is a fact. It just doesn't seem to be that significant. As in, it doesn't decide games that often.

To put it this way: no matter how we tried to look at and weigh the data, none of the available data suggests that the away team in the second leg progresses in a majority of cases after a 0-0 draw. Not even the fabled betting odds suggest that so it seems to be at best a neutral position to be in overall.

The majority of cases can take other factors into it. If you ask me between teams you have in mind then I might change my stance, but i'm arguing within the vacuum of not knowing anything but the first leg result.

 

[Siorac]

The majority of cases can take other factors into it. If you ask me between teams you have in mind then I might change my stance, but i"'m arguing within the vacuum of not knowing anything but the first leg result.

So you are saying that if there is a 0-0 draw between two hypothetical teams that we know absolutely nothing about, the team that played the first leg at home is more likely to go through?

 

[Ødegaard]

So you are saying that if there is a 0-0 draw between two hypothetical teams that we know absolutely nothing about, the team that played the first leg at home is more likely to go through?

Pretty much. Although "slightly more likely" rather than "will".
History currently shows it to be untrue, but history changes with time.

 

[anant]

The team playing at home is at advantage. All these teams playing in CL and progressing to KO stages are big teams. OBviously their chances of winning a game in front of their home support > 50%

 

[strongwalker]

How many of those draws are goalless?
I have them advancing 12 times at home vs 14 away from home after a 0-0 first leg draw, assuming none of the draws are goalless.

Was quoting league games to drive a point home that they are a lot more vulnerable away from home.

Hm?
You folks are valuing being at home too much.

Hummels said one part of Bayerns tactics involved "taking the stadium out of the game". "when we heard the crowd getting loud, we took the pace out and tried to outplay their pressing".

 

[Ødegaard]

Was quoting league games to drive a point home that they are a lot more vulnerable away from home.


Hummels said one part of Bayerns tactics involved "taking the stadium out of the game". "when we heard the crowd getting loud, we took the pace out and tried to outplay their pressing".

If we're talking Anfield, then sure.

 

[Mcking]

Was quoting league games to drive a point home that they are a lot more vulnerable away from home.

It also shows that they are more than capable of getting the job done away from home, moreso than at home after a 0-0 first leg draw.

 

[strongwalker]

It also shows that they are more than capable of getting the job done away from home, moreso than at home after a 0-0 first leg draw.

Of course they are. Still it is easier to win, even to score, at home, as amply proven by LFCs away performances this CL season (0:9 pts, 1:5 goals). 1 meager away goal at the group stage for the fastest attack on the planet. In comparison: City: 7 goals, PSG: 7, Barca: 7, Real: 7, Juve: 4, Bayern: 7

 

[CognitiveNeuro]

Of course they are. Still it is easier to win, even to score, at home, as amply proven by LFCs away performances this CL season (0:9 pts, 1:5 goals). 1 meager away goal at the group stage for the fastest attack on the planet. In comparison: City: 7 goals, PSG: 7, Barca: 7, Real: 7, Juve: 4, Bayern: 7

Part of the reason is because Klopp has changed his system from last season's. It is stupid because I felt Liverpool of last season is almost perfect for European football especially away from home.

 

[Grande]

Pretty much. Although "slightly more likely" rather than "will".
History currently shows it to be untrue, but history changes with time.

Yes, and before Newton no one really had a clue that if they dropped an apple, it would fall.

 

[2mufc0]

I swear we used to go out on away goals most times in Fergie's era, used to be gut wrenching.

 

[antohan]

We won 6-5!