and i don't want City to win the CL this year... it would take a bit away of the Leicester Magic...

3 CR - 0 Man City.

2-1 Real-City

Except Madrid were more consistent as they scored in both legs, to me it points heavily to being salty, you know why this is an example of the rule working fine? Because it forced both teams to come out and work, once Atleti scored the game was on a knife's edge because the was no penalties or extra time so Bayern had to go full gear to score with out conceding while Atleti battled to keep them out. That's what the rule forces, you not liking doesn't mean it's not successfully doing what it was created to do.

Rol basically highlighted why such rules in football exist, you talk about modern football but complain about a rule that came into being because of the progression of modern football. If you find games now boring they would be much more boring with out the rule as away teams would park the bus with no attempt to go forward as they bank on the home game, the rule adds an element of risk to not only help deal with the home advantage but to encourage the away team to perform outside of parking the bus. At the same time the home team knows they can't afford to mess up and be reckless even when they win so they have to perform as well, so in other words it forces strong performance over two legs as both teams get the chance to gain away goals.

Do I think Atleti deserve to go through based on head to head performance over both legs? Yes, they performed at home and battled away from home better than Bayern did, like it or not over two legs they were more consistent so deserve to go through.

Bold prediction

RM 1 - 1 MC.

You aren't wrong, as Man U spend more on players than many teams however back in the day, they formed their team and earned their wealth from home grown players, these players helped them win the title in the 90s. After that however, it's all about buying the big players and winning the title. The fact they ever owned Tevez is proof of that. :P

You don't think Bayern was forced to more attacking gameplay simply because they were a goal down? Or that Atletico wasn't going to play more defensive and try to hit on counter without this rule? This is what football is about, outscoring your opponent and trying to keep a clean sheet. I'm not saying the rule is not successfully doing what it's created to do, I'm saying it's unnecessary and forces certain tactics. Also I know well why the rule was created, I just don't think playing away is as hard as it was back in 60s. And it's not like rules aren't changed over time.

As for Atletico, do I think they deserved to go through? Of course, the rules now are what they are. I also admire how they have mastered the art of defending and counter and play as a unit. Do I like that playstyle? Not really. They are capable of playing more direct, entertaining and attacking football though, their team is incredibly skilled.

Some goals being more valuable than others is something I think is not good for spirit of competition though, and I've thought this since I started watching football. They should at least try couple of years without the rule and see how it goes. I don't think it would PtB away and bank on home game as you say. Let's agree to disagree.

You keep telling yourself that because history was what forced the rule into being as well as many other things in football. Football is about outscoring your opponent but what goes on during a match wasn't always reflective of the aim of the game hence why the are rules in the first place, an example during a world cup games in the same group used to be played on different days because teams are meant to play to win no matter what right? Nope West Germany and another team fixed a match by just casually passing the ball around with no shot at goal the whole game because they knew a draw would see them both through knocking out another team (I think it was Algeria) that would have gone through if either of them had lost. This forced the competition to changed so that all group games are played at the same time.

If you naively think what you see in today's game would happen with out rules you're fooling yourself, you've even flat out admitted the rule is doing it's job, the rule is in place for a reason and is the result of what I've told you, it wasn't just randomly made up on the spot the teams and the players are the ones who forced it into existence. You not liking Atleti's style means bugger all to me and I don't care tbh. They already tried decades with out the rule why do you think it exists in the first place, it made exploiting tactics and situations much more riskier plus the lure of an away goal made away teams more willing to attack. Before it was in effect many matches were defensive 1-0 and so on, the competition became more aggressive when UEFA created the rule as conceding a goal now had an added risk and new angle.

I was never a fan of Guardiola and his playstyle, don't get me wrong, but at the same time I can't applaud a team who wastes a lot of time and dives like there's no tomorrow. Don't even get me started on Simeone. At least Mourinho has his moments, Simeone is the biggest cunt I have seen in my 8 years of watching football regularly.

I don't have any problem with defensive tactics, but what I hate about atlético are their dirty tricks(fighting, hiding balls, interrupting plays by throwing balls, pretending injuries, etc...)

I have the same problem with teams that play offensive or defensive, it's not about tactics, it's about ethics