The mancityfans.net football forum

I honestly can't believe some of the shite I have just read in today's match thread. Some are slagging Ireland (that's the chap who put the ball through for our goal) off for his performance whilst others are having a go at our manager for taking him off.

After about 0.3 seconds of analyzing today's events I have come up with a theory on a) why he wasn't at his best and b) why he was replaced.

It's quite a complicated theory so please stay with me whilst I try to explain the intricacies of it;

HE WAS INJURED!!

Hope that helps, thanks.

He didn't look injured!

Beefymcfc wrote:He didn't look injured!

Not even when he was limping around feeling his hamstring?

The physio put loads of ice and bandages on him when he came off. Pretty injured looking to me.

KK Stevie played well imo but he was'nt injured it was our defensive minded caoches opinnion that we have what we hold.I wont appologise for this but we are so defensive now Stevie sticks out like a sore thumb as a player that cant play defensive so he will get the hook every time.

I did say that straight after the game when he was slagged off. He had been struggling for quite a few minutes from what I saw.

King Kev wrote:

Beefymcfc wrote:He didn't look injured!

Not even when he was limping around feeling his hamstring?

That's just poppy-cock! Players are paid millions of pounds a year don't you know, they should play through regardless!

gillie wrote:KK Stevie played well imo but he was'nt injured it was our defensive minded caoches opinnion that we have what we hold.I wont appologise for this but we are so defensive now Stevie sticks out like a sore thumb as a player that cant play defensive so he will get the hook every time.

Yes he was!! See MMR's post above and Doug's post in the match thread.

King Kev wrote:

gillie wrote:KK Stevie played well imo but he was'nt injured it was our defensive minded caoches opinnion that we have what we hold.I wont appologise for this but we are so defensive now Stevie sticks out like a sore thumb as a player that cant play defensive so he will get the hook every time.

Yes he was!! See MMR's post above and Doug's post in the match thread.

Well i bow to superior wisdom lol.

MMR?? Is that the dodgy drug mummy's refused to give their kids 5 or so years ago ;-)

gillie wrote:

King Kev wrote:

gillie wrote:KK Stevie played well imo but he was'nt injured it was our defensive minded caoches opinnion that we have what we hold.I wont appologise for this but we are so defensive now Stevie sticks out like a sore thumb as a player that cant play defensive so he will get the hook every time.

Yes he was!! See MMR's post above and Doug's post in the match thread.

Well i bow to superior wisdom lol.

Not wisdom, realism.

King Kev wrote:

gillie wrote:

King Kev wrote:

gillie wrote:KK Stevie played well imo but he was'nt injured it was our defensive minded caoches opinnion that we have what we hold.I wont appologise for this but we are so defensive now Stevie sticks out like a sore thumb as a player that cant play defensive so he will get the hook every time.

Yes he was!! See MMR's post above and Doug's post in the match thread.

Well i bow to superior wisdom lol.

Not wisdom, realism.

KK i watched the game but i honestly did not pick up on an injury to Stevie hence my ignorance.

shouldn't have started then - or been replaced earlier - fed up of excuses at the moment to be honest

Wooders wrote:shouldn't have started then - or been replaced earlier - fed up of excuses at the moment to be honest

JUST SEEN THIS THREAD AND HAVE TO AGREE WITH WOODERS.

Have you watched the Post Stoke interview with Mancini on OS..
Ireland..mmm..wit..a..problem.
sounds like injury to me with that bloke's lousy englsih

If you looked at the subs bench there was no attacking players on it bar santa cruz? im tired at the moment but are all out attcking players injured?

We had a chance to get this game out of the way without having an even tougher battle away at stoke where the players will know they have been in a game. Winning breads confidence , playing defensively against stoke does not.

BlueMoonAwoken wrote:If you looked at the subs bench there was no attacking players on it bar santa cruz? im tired at the moment but are all out attcking players injured?

We had a chance to get this game out of the way without having an even tougher battle away at stoke where the players will know they have been in a game. Winning breads confidence , playing defensively against stoke does not.

Quite right you were. Just checked and the bench of Unused subs was:
Taylor, Onuoha, Garrido, Sylvinho, Boyata.

Though, I think he could've tried of making Garrido a left winger. Not fan of players being played out of position but he has always looked better going forward than at defending...

Moonchesteri wrote:

BlueMoonAwoken wrote:If you looked at the subs bench there was no attacking players on it bar santa cruz? im tired at the moment but are all out attcking players injured?

We had a chance to get this game out of the way without having an even tougher battle away at stoke where the players will know they have been in a game. Winning breads confidence , playing defensively against stoke does not.

Quite right you were. Just checked and the bench of Unused subs was:
Taylor, Onuoha, Garrido, Sylvinho, Boyata.

Though, I think he could've tried of making Garrido a left winger. Not fan of players being played out of position but he has always looked better going forward than at defending...

It's all a cunning plan to have us playing two times a week . a) for Squad rotation purposes. b). to get us used to the CL style season. and c) Most importantly, to give us something to discuss on this site.

If he was injured it would explain why he was completely inneffective for all but the 1st 15 minutes & lost nearly every challenge but not why he was on the pitch for so long.

I really do hope that he was injured (ie. carrying a knock going into the match) as he was pretty damn poor all game

He got what he had effectively "asked" for via his criticism of Hughes "shackling him"

Had a free role and the stage was set for his "response". It was a whimper when a roar was needed.