Feigning Injury a City Tactic
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:34 amI have to admit that whilst I would consider myself to be a fairly even handed city fan, able to both praise and criticse my club, this bile strewn article about city having a tactic of feigning injury to delay play, really has me stumped!
I dont really have much of a problem either with Dzeko's reaction or the fact thaf Liverpool went on to score. it was a bad decision, we all move on.........but what I find astounding about this article is the bit where he says that if we went on the attack, Dzeko would have bounced back up.......no fucking shit, as happens in every game of football, in the land, week in week out.
i'm all for constructive criticism, but for this guy to single city out as deploying this as a tactic is a shocking piece of journalism.
http://www.football365.com/news/1776/84 ... ity-tactic
Manchester City get their comeuppance
Liverpool's first goal at Manchester City on Sunday really didn't sit well with me.
As Edin Dzeko lay on the floor clutching his legs following a strong tackle from Daniel Agger, Liverpool refused to kick the ball out of play despite boos ringing around the Etihad Stadium and the protestations of some City players. Eventually, the ball fell to Daniel Sturridge, who superbly fired home.
Dzeko got booked for his protests and City boss Roberto Mancini was adamant after the game that Dzeko was fouled, also saying the visitors should "probably" have kicked the ball out of play.
I can certainly understand City's frustration at no foul being awarded - I'm undecided on it, but City know better than most that winning the ball does not always matter - but enough time had elapsed after Dzeko going down that Mancini's men cannot possibly blame anyone but themselves for conceding.
You may be wondering, then, why the goal did not sit well with me.
Well, every Manchester City fan will disagree, but I believe it is a tactic of their players to feign injury when the opposition has the ball, making them kick it out of play to bring an end to their attack and allow City's players to regroup.
I'm not offended by any of the dark arts in football, but this is certainly one of the more cynical ones. It's a tactic Neil Warnock has used for as long as I can remember, yet it goes largely unnoticed.
Had City won the ball back against Liverpool and gone on the attack themselves, Dzeko would have jumped to his feet. Even if he hadn't, City would have played on if they felt there was a chance to score. Yet we are supposed to believe Liverpool should have kicked the ball out?
It would have been very sportsmanlike of a Liverpool player to have done so, and any act of sportsmanship deserves praise. But in direct response to blatant gamesmanship by Dzeko, I'm delighted Liverpool played on and scored.
I dont really have much of a problem either with Dzeko's reaction or the fact thaf Liverpool went on to score. it was a bad decision, we all move on.........but what I find astounding about this article is the bit where he says that if we went on the attack, Dzeko would have bounced back up.......no fucking shit, as happens in every game of football, in the land, week in week out.
i'm all for constructive criticism, but for this guy to single city out as deploying this as a tactic is a shocking piece of journalism.
http://www.football365.com/news/1776/84 ... ity-tactic
Manchester City get their comeuppance
Liverpool's first goal at Manchester City on Sunday really didn't sit well with me.
As Edin Dzeko lay on the floor clutching his legs following a strong tackle from Daniel Agger, Liverpool refused to kick the ball out of play despite boos ringing around the Etihad Stadium and the protestations of some City players. Eventually, the ball fell to Daniel Sturridge, who superbly fired home.
Dzeko got booked for his protests and City boss Roberto Mancini was adamant after the game that Dzeko was fouled, also saying the visitors should "probably" have kicked the ball out of play.
I can certainly understand City's frustration at no foul being awarded - I'm undecided on it, but City know better than most that winning the ball does not always matter - but enough time had elapsed after Dzeko going down that Mancini's men cannot possibly blame anyone but themselves for conceding.
You may be wondering, then, why the goal did not sit well with me.
Well, every Manchester City fan will disagree, but I believe it is a tactic of their players to feign injury when the opposition has the ball, making them kick it out of play to bring an end to their attack and allow City's players to regroup.
I'm not offended by any of the dark arts in football, but this is certainly one of the more cynical ones. It's a tactic Neil Warnock has used for as long as I can remember, yet it goes largely unnoticed.
Had City won the ball back against Liverpool and gone on the attack themselves, Dzeko would have jumped to his feet. Even if he hadn't, City would have played on if they felt there was a chance to score. Yet we are supposed to believe Liverpool should have kicked the ball out?
It would have been very sportsmanlike of a Liverpool player to have done so, and any act of sportsmanship deserves praise. But in direct response to blatant gamesmanship by Dzeko, I'm delighted Liverpool played on and scored.