Beefymcfc wrote:You need to make your mind up son, is it City, or is it 'I'll decide when I've seen a bit more'?
Wow... I don't agree and so I am not a City Fan or something?
Beefymcfc wrote:You need to make your mind up son, is it City, or is it 'I'll decide when I've seen a bit more'?
avoidconfusion wrote:Beefymcfc wrote:You need to make your mind up son, is it City, or is it 'I'll decide when I've seen a bit more'?
Wow... I don't agree and so I am not a City Fan or something?
PeterParker wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYABbpAFe_I&feature=player_embedded
King Mike !
xavi6 wrote:Whether he was right or wrong it just looks like he being and provides more ammunition to that lot.
Did more harm than good imo.
ashton287 wrote:Summerbee is a legend, he doesnt look bitter atall. He said exactly what any real fan would say when surrounded by those three cunts wanking each other off over the scum. I'll buy him pint ANY time for that.
Redknapp looked like he wanted to call his dad the little faggot, hate that cunt.
avoidconfusion wrote:Beefymcfc wrote:avoidconfusion wrote:Came across as a bit bitter to be honest.
Stick to what you know mate.
Come on, he was saying we dominated posession when the stats show we didn't, it was rather even.
He said we had more shots on goal, which we didn't.
When they showed him the stats he said something like he doesn't believe in statistics...
I love him for sticking up to us, but some of the things he said were a bit too much.
But then again that's how Sky talk about United all the time so maybe it's good that he had a go at them.
Thai wrote:If you look at the BBC stats then
Shots:
Rags 11 (6on 5off)
City 13 (8on 5off)
Possesion:
51% Rags
49% City
Well said Mike.
Im_Spartacus wrote:Thai wrote:If you look at the BBC stats then
Shots:
Rags 11 (6on 5off)
City 13 (8on 5off)
Possesion:
51% Rags
49% City
Well said Mike.
So how can "STATS" be different by two different broadcasters, when they are reporting a factual event? Surely a shot is either on, or off target, there is no inbetween.....
I may have been pissed, but I certainly don't remember 8 shots on target by City, and would tend to agree with Sly's figure of 3 - so I am somewhat dubious about where the BBC have made this up from.
zuricity wrote:Im_Spartacus wrote:Thai wrote:If you look at the BBC stats then
Shots:
Rags 11 (6on 5off)
City 13 (8on 5off)
Possesion:
51% Rags
49% City
Well said Mike.
So how can "STATS" be different by two different broadcasters, when they are reporting a factual event? Surely a shot is either on, or off target, there is no inbetween.....
I may have been pissed, but I certainly don't remember 8 shots on target by City, and would tend to agree with Sly's figure of 3 - so I am somewhat dubious about where the BBC have made this up from.
What statistics will never show and where the in- studio reporters let the game down. Be that sky or the beeb, is the poor analysis of the game AND the statistics.
For example, their first goal is analyzed as a brilliant pass from giggs and good finishing by nani. This is fair enough. It was a well taken goal coming off a lump up foward to relieve the pressure by vds. A simply piss poor attempt to win the header by lescott on Rooney. The ball fell perfectly for giggs , who had all the time in the world to a play measured pass forward. That nani almost didn't get, it was so high! Bani did however finish well.
Giggs's only good pass, plus a cross late in the first half. Otherwise he was shockingly poor.
Rooney had been rubbish all through the game, if he had not have miskicked the ball, allowing nani to to eventually receive a pass which hit zabs and changed it's direction, kompany slips and Micah pulls his head out, probably fearing the worst. Rooney takes his overhead kick, ( if Micah had gone for it with his head it would have been dangerous play by Rooney).
Whereas silvas miss was all city creativity, even the goal from city, the deflection was city affecting the game
What I'm trying to say is that we didn't lose because united were magnificent or anything else, two unplanned and fortuitous goals did us in.
Any other day the ball would break for city too.
zuricity wrote:Im_Spartacus wrote:Thai wrote:If you look at the BBC stats then
Shots:
Rags 11 (6on 5off)
City 13 (8on 5off)
Possesion:
51% Rags
49% City
Well said Mike.
So how can "STATS" be different by two different broadcasters, when they are reporting a factual event? Surely a shot is either on, or off target, there is no inbetween.....
I may have been pissed, but I certainly don't remember 8 shots on target by City, and would tend to agree with Sly's figure of 3 - so I am somewhat dubious about where the BBC have made this up from.
What statistics will never show and where the in- studio reporters let the game down. Be that sky or the beeb, is the poor analysis of the game AND the statistics.
For example, their first goal is analyzed as a brilliant pass from giggs and good finishing by nani. This is fair enough. It was a well taken goal coming off a lump up foward to relieve the pressure by vds. A simply piss poor attempt to win the header by lescott on Rooney. The ball fell perfectly for giggs , who had all the time in the world to a play measured pass forward. That nani almost didn't get, it was so high! Bani did however finish well.
Giggs's only good pass, plus a cross late in the first half. Otherwise he was shockingly poor.
Rooney had been rubbish all through the game, if he had not have miskicked the ball, allowing nani to to eventually receive a pass which hit zabs and changed it's direction, kompany slips and Micah pulls his head out, probably fearing the worst. Rooney takes his overhead kick, ( if Micah had gone for it with his head it would have been dangerous play by Rooney).
Whereas silvas miss was all city creativity, even the goal from city, the deflection was city affecting the game
What I'm trying to say is that we didn't lose because united were magnificent or anything else, two unplanned and fortuitous goals did us in.
Any other day the ball would break for city too.
Return to The Maine Football forum
Users browsing this forum: C & C and 193 guests