UEFA Cup quarters/semis & final [R]

[argh1]

Sorry mods, I just couldn't be bothered searching the old Uefa Cup thread.

To-days matches:

CSKA Moscow/Auxerre

Austria Vienna/Parma

Newcastle/Sporting Lisbon

Villareal/AZ Alkmaar

I'll pick Auxerre, Parma, Newcastle and Villareal. For what it's worth.

[Grizzly]

First game finished earlier because of time difference in Moscow:

CSKA 4 Auxerre 0

Looks like CSKA (soccer division of Moscow Red Army hockey team) will be into the semis against Austria or Parma.

[jonovision]

Bit of a surprise with small Dutch side AZ beating Primera Liga's Villareal 2-1 in Spain.

[amacpher]

quote:Originally posted by jonovision

Bit of a surprise with small Dutch side AZ beating Primera Liga's Villareal 2-1 in Spain.

Hmmm... a possible preview to a Champions League match next season??? []

[canadiankick97]

Rest of the results:

Austria Vienna 1 - 1 Parma

Newcastle U. 1 - 0 Sporting Lisbon

[Jarrek]

quote:Dutch side AZ

Small side? Maybe in the past, take a look at the Dutch tables.

[Bxl Boy]

In the recent past

Because I'm pretty sure AZ is the last club out of the "three giants" (Ajax, PSV, Feyenoord) to have won the dutch title

[jonovision]

quote:Originally posted by Jarrek

Small side? Maybe in the past, take a look at the Dutch tables.

They had their best finish in a long time last season (5th) and have continued to improve this season, and a bunch of their players have been selected for the Oranje. That doesn't change the fact that they aren't one of the money sides, play in a small town (less than 100,000 people) with a small stadium (about 8,000).

On results alone, they are the 2nd best Dutch team this season, which has required a fair bit of over-achieving.

[amacpher]

quote:Originally posted by Bxl Boy

In the recent past

Because I'm pretty sure AZ is the last club out of the "three giants" (Ajax, PSV, Feyenoord) to have won the dutch title

That's correct. They won it in 1980/81. Although that is the only time they've won the league.

Their success (and PSV's) is also important as it has given the Netherlands their 3rd CL spot back (starting next year).

[Guest Jeffery S.]

quote:Originally posted by jonovision

Bit of a surprise with small Dutch side AZ beating Primera Liga's Villareal 2-1 in Spain.

Very good result as Villareal had not even been scored upon at home in the previous 16 games. I only saw highlights, but commentators were impressed with AZ's play (and some said having Van Gaal in the stands jinxed the locals).

Riquelme missed a penalty that would have made it 2-1 and would certainly have changed the tone of the match. Also, Forlan cannot play for them in UEFA, a big loss as he is leading scorer in Spain this year exclusing penalties (Eto'o total includes four from the spot).

[Bxl Boy]

AZ is looking to have Kluivert next year...

[Grizzly]

Quarter-finals, second leg

14 April 2005

Sporting 4-1 Newcastle Aggregate 4-2

Alkmaar 1-1 Villarreal Aggregate 3-2

Auxerre 2-0 CSKA Moskva Aggregate 2-4

Parma 0-0 Austria Aggregate 1-1 Parma advances on away goal rule

Sporting will play Alkmaar and CSKA will play Parma in the semis.

My predictions are that CSKA and Sporting will play in the final which is being held at Sporting's field regardless of the teams. If Sporting is in the final they will be hard to beat at home but CSKA has already eliminated Benefica who are ahead of Sporting in the Portugese league so I predict CSKA as the UEFA champions. Anyone else have predictions of their own?

[canso]

That would be a great final match-up. However, the CSKA team is young, especially at the back with Akinfeev and the Berezutsky's and Parma may just have the edge defensively. AZ are tough but Sporting will be desparate to get to the final.

Sporting-Parma final, Sporting win in extra time.

[argh1]

So it'll be CSKA Moscow/Sporting Lisbon May 18th in Sporting Lisbon's home stadium (if I'm reading the report right).

Is that right? CSKA are only the 2nd Russian club to reach a European final and Dynamo Moscow were the last way back in '72.

Guess there was a problem with flares in Moscow as the Parma keeper was hit with one during the goal celebration for CSKA's first goal and the keepers had to be changed? Wow they've got to come up with some kind of rule to hurt the home team or the team whose fans caused the rucus that impacts directly , like with a penalty kick or a red card or something.

[Polish_LYNX_Fan]

quote:

Wow they've got to come up with some kind of rule to hurt the home team or the team whose fans caused the rucus that impacts directly , like with a penalty kick or a red card or something.

quote:

They are not fans they are hooligans. THere is a huge differance. I know its like this in Poland, when ever something goes donw ( it happens often) ohh Wisla fans this Leiga fans that Cracovia fans this, its not the fans it HOOLIGANS !!!!. Today is the Krakow derby the President of Cracovia (who is holding the match) said they have called in extra cops ( over 1000 and hired 200 security personel) to handle the hooligans, all over teh net the fans were finally someone has called them by their proper name.

anywho..............thats my story

[jonovision]

Can somebody explain to me the logic of the away goals rule being applied to extra time? In the AZ-Sporting match, it was tied 3-3 on aggregate after 90 minutes, and then each team scored in extra time. I always thought the main reason for the away goals rule was to encourage offensive play and to avoid extra time/PKs as much as possible. However, I don't think that logic need apply to the 30 minute mini game, especially since you can't avoid ET with it since you've already played you extra minutes. AZ (and I) were heartbroken the way it went down yesterday, especially with Lisbon scoring in the last minute of ET (not to mention that the celebration was a bit over the top, with staff and subs running on the field while there was still time on the clock.)

[amacpher]

quote:Originally posted by jonovision

Can somebody explain to me the logic of the away goals rule being applied to extra time? In the AZ-Sporting match, it was tied 3-3 on aggregate after 90 minutes, and then each team scored in extra time. I always thought the main reason for the away goals rule was to encourage offensive play and to avoid extra time/PKs as much as possible. However, I don't think that logic need apply to the 30 minute mini game, especially since you can't avoid ET with it since you've already played you extra minutes. AZ (and I) were heartbroken the way it went down yesterday, especially with Lisbon scoring in the last minute of ET (not to mention that the celebration was a bit over the top, with staff and subs running on the field while there was still time on the clock.)

Well, the main purpose of the away-goals rule is to encourage the away team to attack. In THEORY, the home team would want to attack anyway, so with the away-goals rule, in THEORY, both teams are attacking.

Yeah, bad week for Dutch sides in Europe. Two heartbreakers! Applying the away-goals rule after extra time is really really stupid. Totally unfair since Sporting Clube de Portugal (not Lisbon ) spent more time being the away team.

[amacpher]

quote:Originally posted by Polish_LYNX_Fan

Well, they are both. Hooligans are fans. Their hooligan-like behaviour stems from their huge emotional investment they put in-to their team.

But why was CSKA not eliminated from the UEFA Cup?? It was an almost identical incident as with the Inter-Milan quarter-final second-leg.

[argh1]

quote:Originally posted by amacpher

But why was CSKA not eliminated from the UEFA Cup?? It was an almost identical incident as with the Inter-Milan quarter-final second-leg.

It seems that the UEFA disciplinary commitee will meet to-day (Sunday)

to decide on measures for CSKA Moscow but elimination from the competition is not expected.

[DJT]

From Football Italia:

UEFA reject Parma appeal

Sunday 8 May, 2005

CSKA Moscow will play the UEFA Cup Final after Parma’s appeal for a flare that injured Luca Bucci was rejected.

The Tardini side had lodged an immediate appeal following Thursday’s 3-0 semi-final defeat in Russia, as goalkeeper Bucci was forced off the field after just 20 minutes of play.

A flare thrown from the stands exploded nearby and Bucci was later diagnosed with a ruptured left eardrum.

Because of the nature of this injury, the veteran shot-stopper has been advised not to fly and is still in the Eastern European country for treatment.

However, UEFA’s Disciplinary Commission has this evening ruled that it was not enough to award the tie to Parma, so CSKA Moscow will face Sporting Lisbon in the Final.

The Russian outfit will be forced to play their next European game behind closed doors after the crowd trouble, with another one-match ban on a two-year suspended sentence.

Something's not right here. Both Roma and Inter had to forfeit their Champions Leagues matches earlier this season when objects thrown from the crowd struck the referee and an opposing player, respectively. Sure, the incident in Moscow was not nearly as extensive as that in Milan in terms of number of objects thrown, but it was certainly more than the one object thrown by only one person in Rome.

And people suggested that Italy receives special treatment by UEFA? I don't think so.

But once again, just as Milan's Dida stood around picking up flares as they continued to come down, so did Parma's Bucci. Why the heck did they not move away???

[DJT]

quote:Originally posted by amacpher

Well, the main purpose of the away-goals rule is to encourage the away team to attack. In THEORY, the home team would want to attack anyway, so with the away-goals rule, in THEORY, both teams are attacking.

In addition, the way I look at it is that it is theoretically (with lots of supporting historical evidence in terms of performance of home and away teams) more difficult to score away from home. Hence, in case of an overall tie, the team that was able to score more away from home gets the nod. (That's the way I thought about it when I set up the Voyageurs Cup tiebreakers (based on UEFA's system), where the idea of encouraging the away team to attack is irrelevant.)

I think you have to extend this to extra time because otherwise the home team would theoretically (again, with lots of supporting evidence) have a greater advantage by playing more at home over the two legs — which I guess you could attribute to the luck of the draw...

[Grizzly]

quote:Something's not right here. Both Roma and Inter had to forfeit their Champions Leagues matches earlier this season when objects thrown from the crowd struck the referee and an opposing player, respectively. Sure, the incident in Moscow was not nearly as extensive as that in Milan in terms of number of objects thrown, but it was certainly more than the one object thrown by only one person in Rome.

And people suggested that Italy receives special treatment by UEFA? I don't think so.

But once again, just as Milan's Dida stood around picking up flares as they continued to come down, so did Parma's Bucci. Why the heck did they not move away???

There are some differences in the incidences though which played a part in the decision. One is that both Inter and Roma are repeat offenders and have been repeatedly warned about their fan's behaviour and have taken little action. UEFA said in its decision that CSKA had a clean record until now and had taken action (though insufficient) to control its fans behaviour before the game. Another difference is that both Kiev and AC Milan were in the lead when the game had to be stopped, AC Milan had an insurmountable lead in aggregate in a 2 game series with little time remaining while Roma only had to finish in 2nd place in a 6 game series with 4 teams to advance, not an impossible task even forfeiting one game. The Roma incident may have only involved one person but there was no doubt of the intent to injure the ref with the object thrown whereas both flare accidents may not have been targeting the keeper.

There was no game stoppage required in the Parma-CSKA game, CSKA was leading 1-0 at the time and won convincingly 3-0. Although Parma replaced their keeper they actually replaced him with their usual starting keeper so the only real disadvantage was having one less substitute. There was also a great deal of suspicion of Parma's motives in replacing their keeper. Parma has been quite poor this year and are fighting against relegation in Italy. Through a combination of deciding that avoiding relegation was more important than the UEFA Cup and not believing they had the form to beat CSKA, their management decided to rest some starters including the keeper in both games against CSKA to save them for the final league games. They would have been more than happy to be gifted a trip to the final through forfeit. After what happened in the Milan derby it is incredibly stupid if not suspicious that the keeper was collecting flares from the field when the incident occured. Nor did the flare actually hit him it came near him and he continued for several minutes before being subbed. In fact from the angle I saw the flare does not seem to come near enough to the keeper to cause any damage. Maybe a closer camera angle would show something I didn't see but while there were certainly flares being thrown on the field I am not convinced the keeper was legitimately injured by one. He may have been surprised and a bit scared by one landing nearby but the claims he received a concussion are a bit suspicious, it definitely did not hit him. Given he was not going to start the next league game anyway Parma can afford to claim he was seriously injured.

This is not to condone the incident which is serious indeed but only to state it is not identical to the other two incidences and the penalty given while it may in the opinion of some be too little is consistent with previous UEFA penalties. UEFA does need to have some consistent guidelines on what penalty will be applied for an offence but must also have some mechanism to stop clubs taking advantage of possible forfeits (i.e. there would have been no issue had the keeper not been pulled). Giving Parma a 3-0 victory would not have been right in my opinion but there might have been grounds to demand a replay at a neutral location though one would then have to do so in every game where flares or other objects land on the pitch. I have seen several CSKA matches and while their fans are generally peaceful in my experience they are pretty pyro happy. I actually like a pyro show and feel it is part of the atmosphere but they seem to be used more and more in a hooligan fashion and may have to be more tightly controlled. While clubs cannot stop every crazy or find every hidden pyro or possible throwing object there is no doubt that more can be done. After a particularly bad Leipzig derby the following one was held under the conditions that you could only buy one ticket with identification, your name was recorded, no tickets available on game day and extensive searches were carried out on fans at the gate. These measure turned what is always a very difficult game with flare incidents, game stoppages, fan riots and fighting with both police and rival fans into a game that ran without problem. It is unfortunate but maybe this is necessary at least at some clubs at the moment.

[Massive Attack]

Parma's coach isn't too happy:

http://www.channel4.com/sport/football_italia/may11i.html

I think the question that needs to be asked is "Why are flares still allowed in stadiums?" I know people will say they add atmosphere, blah blah blah blah blah. This is ridiculous. A lot of these incidences could be avoided with proper security at stadium entrances.

Now, to UEFA's decision. I think UEFA screwed up the punishment again. I'm convinced that its going to take another disaster for anything concrete to happen. I think CSKA should have been kicked out (along with Inter for next year). That would have truely sent a strong message to fans and clubs to get their acts toghether. If you think that's too strict, the game should have at least been re-played at a neutral site. The flare throwing had a direct influence on the game (goalie sub, loss of sub for later in the game). And if you think Bucci was faking it, the guy wasn't even allowed to travel by airplane, because his eardrum was fuked up.

Plus, this sets the horrible precedent that its okay for fans to disrupt a game because their team is winning.

[argh1]

UEFA considering point deductions for teams whose fans throw missiles onto the field and want domestic leagues to follow their lead.

BBC article link

[Grizzly]

I don't know if you have seen the video but my personal feeling is that Bucci was faking it. I just don't see a flare coming near enough to him to cause any damage. I have had flares come much nearer to me than he did in this situation and while it is scary they rarely cause serious injury even if they hit you. Bucci is not Parma's starting keeper so that is why they sent him to hospital and prevented him from flying. He wasn't going to start the next league game anyway so Parma could play their best card to the hilt, i.e. they were not going to win the tie on the field but if they could do it otherwise they would try their best. Does it not seem suspicious that a team which sits half of their starters for a UEFA Cup semi-final then tries to win the tie on a disqualification especially after they had seen other disqualifications earlier in the year?

I do agree that UEFA should be stricter with such incidences and punish teams more for fan interference. What I don't agree with is a first time offender like CSKA being the fall guy because of a game in which a suspicious injury had a very minimal effect on the outcome after years of more serious incidents that went unpunished. I also don't think there is any merit to say that there is a double standard with Italian teams this year. The Italian teams have consistently had problems the last five years, were very lightly punished over this time and took almost no measures to solve these problems. What would have happened if the Moscow police had beat the crap out of the Parma team after the game like the Rome police did to Gala a few years ago? I think CSKA would have received a much harsher punishment than Roma did (had it been reversed and Turkish police had beaten Roma players the punishment would surely have been much more severe as well). Don't forget that despite the result already being a foregone conclusion, the ref made an attempt to restart the Milan derby before calling the game. AC Milan also replaced their keeper and had the game been able to continue there would not have been a forfeit and Inter would have only had a penalty similar or less than CSKA received. Unlike in Milan, the game in Moscow neither had to be stopped nor were there any further problems.

UEFA should have guidelines for punishing teams whose fans throw objects on the field although they need to be well thought out to stop opposing teams from trying to unfairly take advantage of such rules. UEFA should have formulated such rules over a decade ago. If they had we wouldn't be in the situation we are in today. What they should do is to formulate and announce such a policy before the start of the next Cup competitions and then enforce them consistently throughout the season regardless of the stature of a club or the league it plays in.