The mancityfans.net football forum

Yeah I keep hearing we have to win back to back prems or the champs league to be great.

None of which the "great" arsenal team (that we finished miles ahead of) managed.

They really don't know how to handle it do they? Then again, how would they, it's never, ever been done before?

Original Dub wrote:Yeah I keep hearing we have to win back to back prems or the champs league to be great.

None of which the "great" arsenal team (that we finished miles ahead of) managed.

They really don't know how to handle it do they? Then again, how would they, it's never, ever been done before?

Denial mate, isn't it the first thing they do? When do they move onto anger before crying into their Rag duvets?

Germ Genius on BT last night opined that Griezmann should 'go and play for Barcelona for £100m even if Man City pay £200m'.
That particular pundit is currently moving up my execrability list very quickly. ....

The media are getting desperate now “not legends until they win it back to back” what about when we do that and maybe do even better next season. Will we not be legends until we win it 3-4 times in a row?

Do we care what they say? No. They pretty much all were forced into collective bumming of us.


CENTURIONS!

The arsenal invincible team are legends.
They were outclassed in every stat apart from the loss column by our champions and they only won 1 trophy. Go figure.

Wonderwall wrote:The arsenal invincible team are legends.
They were outclassed in every stat apart from the loss column by our champions and they only won 1 trophy. Go figure.

We conceded just a solitary goal more than they did, but when have you heard any pundit say we’ve got even a decent defence?

Our 100 points beats their 90, however many you lose and whatever way you spin it.

Tokyo Blue wrote:

Wonderwall wrote:The arsenal invincible team are legends.
They were outclassed in every stat apart from the loss column by our champions and they only won 1 trophy. Go figure.

We conceded just a solitary goal more than they did, but when have you heard any pundit say we’ve got even a decent defence?

Our 100 points beats their 90, however many you lose and whatever way you spin it.

There’s arguments against this, but I actually think goal difference truly tells you how good a team is. It’s a simple measurement of how many goals you’ve scored and conceded across the whole league.

edge275 wrote:

Tokyo Blue wrote:

Wonderwall wrote:The arsenal invincible team are legends.
They were outclassed in every stat apart from the loss column by our champions and they only won 1 trophy. Go figure.

We conceded just a solitary goal more than they did, but when have you heard any pundit say we’ve got even a decent defence?

Our 100 points beats their 90, however many you lose and whatever way you spin it.

There’s arguments against this, but I actually think goal difference truly tells you how good a team is. It’s a simple measurement of how many goals you’ve scored and conceded across the whole league.

Especially when you think of the 100 sitters we missed!

edge275 wrote:

Tokyo Blue wrote:

Wonderwall wrote:The arsenal invincible team are legends.
They were outclassed in every stat apart from the loss column by our champions and they only won 1 trophy. Go figure.

We conceded just a solitary goal more than they did, but when have you heard any pundit say we’ve got even a decent defence?

Our 100 points beats their 90, however many you lose and whatever way you spin it.

There’s arguments against this, but I actually think goal difference truly tells you how good a team is. It’s a simple measurement of how many goals you’ve scored and conceded across the whole league.

MS puts the record straight...as usual.

Manchester City were excellent in parts this season but you can’t compare them with a team that went unbeaten. The fact that this City side were so good and still lost twice shows you what an achievement the unbeaten season was – and City lost at home to their rivals. TGB, London.

Actually, you can compare them. You can very easily compare them because both played 38 games. So that’s – Games won: Manchester City 32, Arsenal 26; Goals scored, Manchester City 106, Arsenal 73; Goal difference, Manchester City 79, Arsenal 47; Points, Manchester City 100, Arsenal 90. City let one more goal in and lost twice. Against that, City drew four matches to Arsenal’s 12. Now, I’m not diminishing Arsenal’s achievement. The reason I put the Invincible season alongside Manchester United’s Treble winners and Manchester City’s 100 points is because I think each is special, in different ways. But to say you can’t compare is wrong. You can: and I think anyone with an open mind can process the evidence, too.

Nobody in the media (except MS) seems to understand that, in principle, you can go unbeaten all season, finish with 38 points (as all games were drawn), and end up relegated. Would that team still be classed as legends ahead of our current City team? Defies logic the way these so-called pundits think!!!

Interesting rankings - 6 of the top 10.


BTW Vinnie had the highest ranking of all at 92.5 but didn't play enough games to qualify.

http://www.football-observatory.com/-rankings-_none

Original Dub wrote:Yeah I keep hearing we have to win back to back prems or the champs league to be great.

None of which the "great" arsenal team (that we finished miles ahead of) managed.

They really don't know how to handle it do they? Then again, how would they, it's never, ever been done before?

The grapes must be really sour. Some dickhead on BT Sport said that we can't be better than the Invincibles because we got knocked out of the Champions league by Dippers. Why is that any worse than the Arse going out to Chelski?

When you Google Manchester City Centurions you see posts from City, several from specialist football sites but hardly anything from the mainstream media. Almost like it didn't happen.

Sorry, sometimes I read the Sport bit of the Daily Fail and sometimes I fall for click bait.

Martin Samuel replied to my comment:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... le-5734937

I replied again and said City won’t drop points at Burnely, Palace or Home to scum next season and to think Liverpool will beat us twice again is insane.

Crossie wrote:Sorry, sometimes I read the Sport bit of the Daily Fail and sometimes I fall for click bait.

Martin Samuel replied to my comment:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... le-5734937

I replied again and said City won’t drop points at Burnely, Palace or Home to scum next season and to think Liverpool will beat us twice again is insane.

If's, but's and maybe's mate.

Crossie wrote:Sorry, sometimes I read the Sport bit of the Daily Fail and sometimes I fall for click bait.

Martin Samuel replied to my comment:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... le-5734937

I replied again and said City won’t drop points at Burnely, Palace or Home to scum next season and to think Liverpool will beat us twice again is insane.

Fucking hell. Samuels seems to think that the season after the first 100 point team in the history of top-flight football, another team could feasibly, and immediately, follow it with a 101 season. How much does he get paid for writing this bollocks?

Peter Doherty (AGAIG) wrote:

Crossie wrote:Sorry, sometimes I read the Sport bit of the Daily Fail and sometimes I fall for click bait.

Martin Samuel replied to my comment:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... le-5734937

I replied again and said City won’t drop points at Burnely, Palace or Home to scum next season and to think Liverpool will beat us twice again is insane.

Fucking hell. Samuels seems to think that the season after the first 100 point team in the history of top-flight football, another team could feasibly, and immediately, follow it with a 101 season. How much does he get paid for writing this bollocks?

The only logic in Samuel's response is that it is illogical. Crossie posed a question that shouldn't have been answered in the way way he did. He may have just said the Dippers could win every single game next season, breaking all records ever.

What he fails to mention is the slump they've had over the period when the CL games were on, where they got 9 out of a possible 18 points. I'm not saying they will but if they carried over that form then they'd be mid table next season. But, of course, Samuel's ignores that because, you know, he needs to have his say.

I became somewhat bored halfway through and gave up, it just seems to be saying that if red scouse beat everyone, they'll get 114 points.
Strange article.

The dippers are unable to play with their current intensity throughout the whole of next season. I can see them burning out sooner than later. We have a better squad all round.

Outcast wrote:The dippers are unable to play with their current intensity throughout the whole of next season. I can see them burning out sooner than later. We have a better squad all round.

The only reason they played with intensity against us in the first CL game, is cos they were on something.

Next season they will fail , they will probably sell Salah and he will be found out anyway.