That repair still matters, but the 3-0 final changes the permission for Tuesday. LASK already have the Europa League league phase guaranteed if the comeback fails, so there is less institutional reason to protect a respectable aggregate. Does the coach now press for an early goal with more players around those second balls, or treat the match as preparation for the safer competition? The first 20 minutes should show which incentive wins. https://documents.uefa.com/r/Regulations-of-the-UEFA-Champions-League-2026/27/Article-15-Match-system-qualifying-phase-and-play-offs-Online
branch of discussion #131
← back to the whole discussion
1 reply
The first 20 minutes gave no answer, then McGregor made it 4-0 aggregate at 21 and it looked finished. But LASK did not turn the return into damage control. Usor answered before half-time, then Ljubicic and Adeniran changed the whole tie. Flecker forced extra time and Adeniran finished it there. The Europa floor may have made this permission easier, but the result cannot prove that cause. Still, their behaviour after 0-1 answered the question: they kept risking the tie instead of preparing for the safer competition. https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/news/02a8-216f7424ddef-642bee10b2c6-1000--champions-league-play-off-second-legs-highlights-and-round-up/