Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
(, Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread
(, Mon 24 Oct 2011, 11:34, 1 reply, 14 years ago)
it's not like there were any burglaries or drug crimes going on...
(, Mon 24 Oct 2011, 11:35, Reply)
have not seen result, what happened?
(, Mon 24 Oct 2011, 11:38, Reply)
and you know you are, no really you guys seem to have accepted the fact
(, Mon 24 Oct 2011, 11:45, Reply)
Man U were (just) the better team until Evans went. Then they tried to get out of it by all-out attack, which was suicide, but it's no indication of anything. City still haven't faced a half-decent team in the premiership this season on equal terms. First thing I did at the final whistle was place a signficant bet that Man U will finish above City in May. It's as meanignless in the grand scheme of things as Man U putting 8 past Arsenal, which is why I didn't crow about that either.
(, Mon 24 Oct 2011, 11:46, Reply)
City were prepared and clinical. Utd gave up and collapsed.
(, Mon 24 Oct 2011, 11:49, Reply)
Granted, Man U were a bit arsenal-ish in their wastefulness in the last third in the first half. But they didn't give up, they used their defenders as wingers from the second that Evans went. Which was very stupid, but no indication of anything meaningful. Watch it again and pay attention this time, eh?
(, Mon 24 Oct 2011, 11:53, Reply)
It showed city giving you too much respect for fifteen minutes before smashing six past you at home. You watch it again and tell me rio and the rest of the back four didn't give up. You don't score 3 in 3 if the other team still give a shit. Oh and at home as well... Ouch
(, Mon 24 Oct 2011, 12:01, Reply)
no wonder i haven't heard from my dad and brothers since. they've probably killed themselves.
(, Mon 24 Oct 2011, 12:05, Reply)
when the other team, who've been playing with 10 men for 40 mins, pull one back to 3-1 and go all-out attack, and City find the inevitable spaces on the break. I'm not saying City aren't very good, I'm saying bar the 3 points it's a meaningless result as it's no indication City are a better team in an equal arena.
IF you'd watched the whole game you'd have seen that Man U had a lot of pressure and (I think) more shots in the second half. 11 v 11 and City would have struggled to hold the lead, and Mancini basically admitted as much. It was a carbon-copy of the Charity Shield and the 2-1 last season until Evans went.
(, Mon 24 Oct 2011, 12:13, Reply)
Money, unfortunately, wins you football games
(, Mon 24 Oct 2011, 12:17, Reply)
to score more goals than the opposing team?
I don't know much about football, but I'm sure this should always be the plan.
(, Mon 24 Oct 2011, 12:20, Reply)
If I ever have to manage a team I'll hire you as my assistant, Bobs.
(, Mon 24 Oct 2011, 12:24, Reply)
that just because a team won, does not mean that played better, apparently.
(, Mon 24 Oct 2011, 12:24, Reply)
I'm saying the fact they were better 11 v 10 is fairly meaningless, whereas the footballing press seems to regard it as some kind of new dawn and power shift. Like when Newcastle beat Man U 5-1. Or Southampton beat them 6-3. Or Liverpool beat them 4-1 two years ago. Because all three of those clubs went on to dominate the premiership for years to come, of course. Oh, hang on...
(, Mon 24 Oct 2011, 13:34, Reply)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread