***saints v city official match thread***

[Mikhail Chigorin]

For those going on about the second half performance the first wasn't bad either, it's just that we converted in the second half. For me that was as complete a performance as we've turned in all season. Really fookin happy tonight.

Good call S.

It would be interesting to see what's being said about us by Southampton fans tonight, on any of their forums (or should that be 'fora' ??.....no forget it). Might just have a trawl out of pure curiosity.

[Spurge]

NBC saying it was not a pen and a good save as we see them switch to the side angle and foster whack Sané's foot.

Forster gets something on it. It wasn't a pen and one angle showed it to be so. The question was what the referee saw. I suspect it looked more like a pen. But he made the right decision more out of luck than judgment, but for me Forster deffo got something on the ball.

[BookJunior]

Clean sheet was down to a defence that looked stable. In the past we have played out first halves like that. All the possession, few shots and then get robbed of a penalty.
But up until now with Bravo in goal we would invariably concede from the first chance we give them.
Today he looked far more protected and they never got close enough to bother us, despite a couple of times where he was pricking about overconfidently.
I think Vinny has to take much of the plaudits for that. All four at the back looked competent. They looked like they were in the right place, organised.
Even Clichy, although he still does my head in the way he turns most attacks into a pass back into our own half.
I even thought Navas did ok, although I can't see him being the answer at RB either.

Today was all about Vinnie and the organisation he brings.
And I don't agree about the diving in comment in earlier posts.

Today I thought he looked to consciously temper that urge. He used his experience to shepherd people out when he was caught covering out wide.

A top performance from the man and kicked off what was looking an unlikely win, with a trademark goal from a corner.

Top man Vinnie.

I can well believe it from experience and trusting your judgment.

I know it's almost impossible to answer, but how does he compare with Dave Watson and Mike Doyle?

In my opinion, Vincent embodies the best qualities of both but less reliability due to injury is a minus point.

He needs to look after those hamstrings.

[Sparklehorse]

MASSIVE 3 points. If we beat ScumUtd at home we're home and hosed for top 4.

Kompany is some player. One of City's greatest ever?

Yes

[iwasthere2012]

Clean sheet was down to a defence that looked stable. In the past we have played out first halves like that. All the possession, few shots and then get robbed of a penalty.
But up until now with Bravo in goal we would invariably concede from the first chance we give them.
Today he looked far more protected and they never got close enough to bother us, despite a couple of times where he was pricking about overconfidently.
I think Vinny has to take much of the plaudits for that. All four at the back looked competent. They looked like they were in the right place, organised.
Even Clichy, although he still does my head in the way he turns most attacks into a pass back into our own half.
I even thought Navas did ok, although I can't see him being the answer at RB either.

Today was all about Vinnie and the organisation he brings.
And I don't agree about the diving in comment in earlier posts.

Today I thought he looked to consciously temper that urge. He used his experience to shepherd people out when he was caught covering out wide.

A top performance from the man and kicked off what was looking an unlikely win, with a trademark goal from a corner.

Top man Vinnie.

I can well believe it from experience and trusting your judgment.

I know it's almost impossible to answer, but how does he compare with Dave Watson and Mike Doyle?

In my opinion, Vincent embodies the best qualities of both but less reliability due to injury is a minus point.

He needs to look after those hamstrings.

I know it was a different era, but I loved both, Doyle and Watson.
Doyle was the immovable object that so often would come against the irresistible force and win.
Watson was a class player.

I absolutely love Vinnie's class and leadership both on and off the field. I must admit I was doubting that he could play Pep's type of football and often thought his reluctance to play him was as much about Pep's opinion of him than of his injuries.

I think Vinnie st times has tried too hard in coming back, to do something exceptional to get noticed and just forced things too much.

In last two games I've seen though he has seemed his old self. He had added a calmness to the defence that has been lacking no matter what personnel we've had there.

Whether he is kept or not, what it does show is, the difference having a defender and leader of that quality in the centre of defence makes to our team.

Some have mentioned that the first half wasn't as bad as some are saying.

It wasn't and that's the point. It was no different than s lot of our games except we didn't concede.

I've seen it many avtime in a Pep team whether it's Barca or Bayern or us. Dominating the ball for an hour or more eventually leads to mental fatigue in the opposition and you wear them down into submission.

If in the hour you haven't scored and the others do with each time they get s shot on target, then your philosophy goes out the window.

Today we kept a clean sheet and we ran out easy winners in the end.

I don't think you can underestimate Vinn's part in that.

[Dameerto]

NBC saying it was not a pen and a good save as we see them switch to the side angle and foster whack Sané's foot.

Forster gets something on it. It wasn't a pen and one angle showed it to be so. The question was what the referee saw. I suspect it looked more like a pen. But he made the right decision more out of luck than judgment, but for me Forster deffo got something on the ball.

you say definately got something on it - but the ball never changes trajectory after Sane kicks it - the more I see it the more convinced I am that Forster missed it.

[Dameerto]

NBC saying it was not a pen and a good save as we see them switch to the side angle and foster whack Sané's foot.

Forster gets something on it. It wasn't a pen and one angle showed it to be so. The question was what the referee saw. I suspect it looked more like a pen. But he made the right decision more out of luck than judgment, but for me Forster deffo got something on the ball.

you say definately got something on it - but the ball never changes trajectory after Sane kicks it - the more I see it the more convinced I am that Forster missed it.

I take it all back, there's one angle where you can see the ball change direction after contact with his glove. I agree with you about the ref accidentally making the right call though, very little went our way with decisions today.

[sheblue]

I thought Ottamendi was superb today. (I never thought I'd say that.)

That's because vinny was beside him. A fit Vk has a hugely positive effect on his partner whoever that is.
I would love to see stones getting a run of games with the big man beside him.

[iwasthere2012]

NBC saying it was not a pen and a good save as we see them switch to the side angle and foster whack Sané's foot.

Forster gets something on it. It wasn't a pen and one angle showed it to be so. The question was what the referee saw. I suspect it looked more like a pen. But he made the right decision more out of luck than judgment, but for me Forster deffo got something on the ball.

you say definately got something on it - but the ball never changes trajectory after Sane kicks it - the more I see it the more convinced I am that Forster missed it.

I take it all back, there's one angle where you can see the ball change direction after contact with his glove. I agree with you about the ref accidentally making the right call though, very little went our way with decisions today.

And I call absolute bullshit. No matter how many angles of it I see, it's a penalty.

I couldn't give s toss if he got a fingernail (and I still don't believe he god) to it. He brought Sane down.
They can try to justify it all they like. It was a penalty.

Where's OD when you need him.

[Beefymcfc]

NBC saying it was not a pen and a good save as we see them switch to the side angle and foster whack Sané's foot.

Forster gets something on it. It wasn't a pen and one angle showed it to be so. The question was what the referee saw. I suspect it looked more like a pen. But he made the right decision more out of luck than judgment, but for me Forster deffo got something on the ball.

you say definately got something on it - but the ball never changes trajectory after Sane kicks it - the more I see it the more convinced I am that Forster missed it.

I take it all back, there's one angle where you can see the ball change direction after contact with his glove. I agree with you about the ref accidentally making the right call though, very little went our way with decisions today.

And I call absolute bullshit. No matter how many angles of it I see, it's a penalty.

I couldn't give s toss if he got a fingernail (and I still don't believe he god) to it. He brought Sane down.
They can try to justify it all they like. It was a penalty.

Where's OD when you need him.

I didn't see the whole match but seen the penalty incident and it was definitely a penalty. The commentators immediately said penalty, the replays showed it was a penalty and everybody knew it was a penalty. It was only later in super slow-mo, after trying to find a shred of evidence to suggest otherwise, that a few then stated it wasn't a penalty and that it was a good call. The fact that the keeper brought Sane down after the 'possible' miniscule of touches to the ball, when he still could've got on the end of the ball seems to be of no consequence to certain pundits. Just like every other penalty shout this year, absolute nailed on ones are waved away or we get a yellow for their troubles.

Pathetic from the referee, again, and you'd think at some point they'd take a second look and highlight the amount of decisions that haven't gone our way. But why would they, it's not in their interest to point out how the PL has turned into the WWE, it would be like shooting the Golden Goose.

And as for letting Southampton get away with those tackles, well, if Blues haven't 'Woken up and smelt the coffee' yet, I don't know what to say. All noted on the back of less than a quarter of the game, fuck knows what went on in the rest.

One thing I did note was the way we no longer protest to the ref, totally ignoring his poor decisions. Every player out there knows what's going on, they know that there's no point in winding themselves up. At least by accepting the league is a rigged organisation then we can play our game without losing it, to the detriment of our play.

[Slim]

Graham Poll never waivered, called it a pen and stuck by his decision.

[john68]

Graham Poll never waivered, called it a pen and stuck by his decision.

Graham Poll, in his book, made the point quite assertively that the laws of the game never mention the ball, whether it was won, touched or otherwise.
He added that it annoyed him when he heard commentators, pundits, ex players continually refer to getting the ball and accused them of not knowing the laws of the game.
Whatever happened yesterday, the only question that needs to be asked is; was the player the player brought down inside the area in an unfair manner.
If the answer is yes, then it is clearly a penalty.

[zuricity]

finally! thanks j68.

he caught the players foot, intentional or not , the guy trips to the floor . Penalty,

[Nickyboy]

Graham Poll never waivered, called it a pen and stuck by his decision.

And Slippy G and Ian Wright both said it was a definite penalty. No one said Forster getting a slight touch meant it wasn't a pen as he clearly stopped Sane going on to get the lose ball

[Sister of fu]

Graham Poll never waivered, called it a pen and stuck by his decision.

Graham Poll, in his book, made the point quite assertively that the laws of the game never mention the ball, whether it was won, touched or otherwise.
He added that it annoyed him when he heard commentators, pundits, ex players continually refer to getting the ball and accused them of not knowing the laws of the game.
Whatever happened yesterday, the only question that needs to be asked is; was the player the player brought down inside the area in an unfair manner.
If the answer is yes, then it is clearly a penalty.

It's the same when a player makes a tackle where they get the ball and the man. No one bats an eye lid when these are called fouls? Surely this is the same? I'm quite sure Fern saw red for getting the ball and the man.

[Hazy2]

It was a penalty, it is also an own goal if we do no sell out the Semi next Sunday to support City.

[Spurge]

Graham Poll never waivered, called it a pen and stuck by his decision.

Graham Poll, in his book, made the point quite assertively that the laws of the game never mention the ball, whether it was won, touched or otherwise.
He added that it annoyed him when he heard commentators, pundits, ex players continually refer to getting the ball and accused them of not knowing the laws of the game.
Whatever happened yesterday, the only question that needs to be asked is; was the player the player brought down inside the area in an unfair manner.
If the answer is yes, then it is clearly a penalty.

That is quite extraordinary. It serves to highlight how the art of the tackle has been outlawed and why defending has become increasingly more difficult in the modern game.

For me it's ludicrous to think you can win/play the ball first in a challenge and be penalised for it. A reckless or dangerous challenge the exception to the rule of course but seriously it's a contact sport ffs if you make a fair (not reckless) challenge and win the ball first and your momentum means there is some contact with the player you challenge then that should not be penalised. It sets a dangerous precedent for the games future.

Why is this now the case? Well I suspect Murdoch's money and interests are key, it's all about entertainment - more goals means higher viewing figures no place in the game for a good old fashioned challenge. Who wants to appreciate the finest of touches saving a goal scoring opportunity when we could have a goal instead.

[Original Dub]

Of course it was a penalty.

Slowing it down x 10 to see if there was a fingernail from foster...

Pmsl

Everyone in the pub shouted peno in real time. And then again on the replays.

But the ref... just... knew it wasn't.

Fuck. Off.

[Foreverinbluedreams]

Of course it was a penalty.

Slowing it down x 10 to see if there was a fingernail from foster...

Pmsl

Everyone in the pub shouted peno in real time. And then again on the replays.

But the ref... just... knew it wasn't.

Fuck. Off.

To be fair the ref has the perfect angle to see the ball change direction from Fortser's glove

[johnny crossan]

Of course it was a penalty.

Slowing it down x 10 to see if there was a fingernail from foster...

Pmsl

Everyone in the pub shouted peno in real time. And then again on the replays.

But the ref... just... knew it wasn't.

Fuck. Off.

To be fair the ref has the perfect angle to see the ball change direction from Forster's glove

as their tame studio ref pointed out in the BT replays , the Forster fingernail didn't move the ball out of Sane's reach but his giant paw did wrap itself around his ankle and bring him down. Only bonehead City haters like the BBC commentator and Shearer could claim it was no penalty.