Beefymcfc wrote:It was a good time to face Chelsea, but in the wrong circumstances (down to Terry of course). I believe the City players were well up for it and the boil over from the Tevez and Terry incident really seemed to galvanise the team, and they played for one reason, to beat Terry. I think we frustrated them severely which led to lapses in concentration and fueled their anger that they had to protect their man. Terry himself was woeful, and as the Captain and spirit of Chelsea seemed to be lacking in all areas, and soon, their team started to follow his pre-conceived lead that they could get away with anything.
One thing I did notice was that for some reason, City were the ones walking down shaking hands, when it usual for the home team to do so. Whether this was a specific ploy so that Wayne didn't have to shake hands with Terry (even though the ref looked disgusted at the lack of Fare Play), I don't know, but even a change in pre-match protocols can affect teams.
Sounds like you are suggesting the win was due to the 'Terry' affair. accepted that as captain a ropey performance can effect the team.
But i think that would underestimate the frustration that City players have that they have not hit the heights that their talents deserve. The Stoke games must have been extremely frustrating for our players.. and we were due a reaction if you like.
Having watched the game again, i put the way it panned out as Chelsea simply not being prepared for how resilient City were on the day. Apart from Lampards run and goal we pretty much contained them, they got frustrated by that and more so as they went goals down.
Big games have drama attached to them.. we now have that extra spice with Arsenal as well.. all concerned will up the ante before the return game at the Emirates and Arsenal will not be as confident as they 'normally' would be facing City at home.