Manchester united versus Manchester City sun 1.30pm

CivilServant

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

All the bitter bitter pool/city/abu's fans coming out now. Typical.

United 100% deserved to win that match. No doubt about it. Spin it whatever way you want.

100% deserved to win? Maybe, but after 90 minutes + 4 mins allotted injury time the score was 3-3. Then the game should of been over. Goal was scored in the 6th minute of injury time which as per the rules should not of been played. Spin it whatever way you want.

eZe^

Don't mind other fans lads, for the entire 2nd half there was onlhy one team in it. I was going for city but it's nonsense to say you didn't deserve it. Always happens though, people still **** on about the barca chelsea semi final last year! Class game too.

marko91

im sure if it went into added time and united were still winning their would be 2 mins added time MAXIMUM but when united concead a late goal the minutes on the added time board fly up:pac:and it thats not enough lets give united added time IN added time...typical old trafford games

NightStrike

marko91 wrote: »

since when did 4 mins added time = 5.27 that is a ****ing disgrace!!!



liverpool fan feeling disgraced at 1.27 minutes extra to the 4 mins allready added on...****ING DISGRACE:mad:

Whether the ref should've played on that much is debatable but having let utd go ahead with the free that Rooney took he then gave City a chance to break which was fair enough I suppose and I'm sure when Rooney hit the free short to Ireland Mark Hughes would've been praying for the time to get one last attack as utd basically had their whole team forward though. They lost the ball though, city shut off and utd took advantage. It's tough yes but that's football.

NaiveMelodies

Hahahahahahahah how bad were De Jong Barry and Ireland, utterly invisible!! Soooo Overrated, we fully deserved the win and I cudnt give a Flying F UCK how we won it.

City will need to spend at least another 500 mill to come even close to beating us.

Dunnie1982

marko91 wrote: »

since when did 4 mins added time = 5.27 that is a ****ing disgrace!!!



liverpool fan feeling disgraced at 1.27 minutes extra to the 4 mins allready added on...****ING DISGRACE:mad:

There was 4 minutes shown for extra time. Then city scored & celebrated for a minute and united made a substitution which is another 30 seconds, that's a minute & a half extra. Great and well deserved result.

Headshot

have to give credit to city

ye put up a great fight and Bellamy was your best player today,superb game


the match was pure class

Daysha

Can't wait to see the fanzone commentary now

Unearthly

Dunnie1982 wrote: »

There was 4 minutes shown for extra time. Then city scored & celebrated for a minute and united made a substitution which is another 30 seconds, that's a minute & a half extra. Great and well deserved result.

It doesn't take much to debunk retarded conspiracy theories, and this ladies and gents end the "OMG FERGIE ADDED TIME!!!" theory.

Denis Irwin

1. The added time was a minimum of 4 mins


2. Citeh scored in the 90min so that was another 30secs at the very least

3 United made a Subsitution in 91st/92nd min so that's another 30 secs
which would bring us up to the 95min+ mark.

marko91

Dunnie1982 wrote: »

There was 4 minutes shown for extra time. Then city scored & celebrated for a minute and united made a substitution which is another 30 seconds, that's a minute & a half extra. Great and well deserved result.

man city scored BEFORE the man showed his board for how much added time!...typical typical united:rolleyes:

Mikeyt086

only1stevo wrote: »

Hahahahahahahah how bad were De Jong Barry and Ireland, utterly invisible!! Soooo Overrated.

I dont agree with this.

Lescott and Toure were the only City players who i thought didnt play well today.

Theresalwaysone

The 6 minuted of injury time came from:

4 mins was advised.

Then city scored and ate into it. So he added more.

United also made a sub during injury time which would need to be added on.

5 anda half or 6 mins isnt wholly unreasonable.

Whats the problem?

marko91

Denis Irwin wrote: »

1. The added time was a minimum of 4 mins


2. Citeh scored in the 90min so that was another 30secs at the very least

3 United made a Subsitution in 91st/92nd min so that's another 30 secs
which would bring us up to the 95min+ mark.

city scored before the 90th minute...

NaiveMelodies

Mikeyt086 wrote: »

I dont agree with this.

Lescott and Toure were the only City players who i thought didnt play well today.

Not atall, The City midfield trio were non existent and went far from destroyin our midfield!

Bobalicious93

marko91 wrote: »

man city scored BEFORE the man showed his board for how much added time!...typical typical united:rolleyes:

Nope. You're wrong. The goal came afterwards

smashey

A quick question to City fans here; If the result was reversed with the goals scored at the same times, would you still be giving out about it?

nullzero

I can't wait for Match of the day 2 tonight.
Easily the most exciting Manchester derby in years.
Michael Owen in for free and getting shot of malcontent Tevez looks like a decent swap so far.
Giggs just keeps getting better and better in every game he plays, how can he at 35 be producing a performance like that in such a high intensity game?
A true legend who ran a mile from City as soon as Fergie came calling all those years ago, I'd say the bitters are sick of the sight of him and have been for the best part of two decades.
Credit to Given for keeping City in the game for so long.

Denis Irwin

marko91 wrote: »

city scored before the 90th minute...

Jesus alright then Citeh scored after 89min and 50secs :rolleyes:

Bobalicious93

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

The 6 minuted of injury time came from:

4 mins was advised.

Then city scored and ate into it. So he added more.

United also made a sub during injury time which would need to be added on.

5 anda half or 6 mins isnt wholly unreasonable.

Whats the problem?

It's United. That's the problem :rolleyes:

Daysha

marko91 wrote: »

city scored before the 90th minute...

Their goal was clocked at 89:54, but there were at least 30 seconds of celebrations that ran into the injury time.

Dunnie1982

marko91 wrote: »

man city scored BEFORE the man showed his board for how much added time!...typical typical united:rolleyes:

The ref usually contacts the 4th official with about 3 minutes to go to tell him the time added on. This time is displayed as a minimum allowed time & then any incidents after that are taken into account.

MagicMarker

marko91 wrote: »

man city scored BEFORE the man showed his board for how much added time!...typical typical united:rolleyes:

Yes, and the ref adds on the extra time for the goal.

Theresalwaysone

I did think City were good after the equalised the first goal though. Were prob the better team between then and half time.

City's back four were the only real bad performances on the team. Bellamy was awesome.

Morzadec

smashey wrote: »

A quick question to City fans here; If the result was reversed with the goals scored at the same times, would you still be giving out about it?

We always get this type of question...

Answer: Of course not. But you can be damn sure the United fans would be complaining if it was reversed and if it was them hanging on.

Football fans aren't always consistent and unbias, their team bias will always influence their opinion

Daysha

Just in:

Ugly scenes marred the Manchester derby after a fan invaded the pitch and took a picture of Joleon Lescott.

fullstop

CivilServant wrote: »

Ref was in Utd's pocket for the last 20 minutes, everything went Utds way. WTF is going on with injury time you can't add on extra injury time in injury time FFS.

Wow, what an uneducated comment. Injury time shown is the MINIMUM to be played. Have you ever been to a match? The announcement usually goes something like this "there will be a MINUMUM of 4 minutes added time"

smashey

Morzadec wrote: »

We always get this type of question...

Answer: Of course not. But you can be damn sure the United fans would be complaining if it was reversed and if it was them hanging on.

Football fans aren't always consistent and unbias, their team bias will always influence their opinion

I agree. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of it all.

Daysha

Daysha wrote: »

Just in:

Ugly scenes marred the Manchester derby after a fan invaded the pitch and took a picture of Joleon Lescott.

LOL

Kirby

Would Richard Dunne have allowed Fletcher to score two headers like that? doubt it.

Bad decision to sell him.

ctrl-alt-delete

smashey wrote: »

A quick question to City fans here; If the result was reversed with the goals scored at the same times, would you still be giving out about it?

You could ask the same about the last goal, if it was a City goal would United fans accept it?

Pro. F

My God i was actually shaking after the whistle blew. That game was immense.

Our midfield performance was fantastic. Great pressure when they had the ball and fantastic use of possession when we had it.

I'd give Giggs the motm but Fletcher was a fair call, he was also great.

Giggs' pass was absolute pure class. And when i realised it was Owen on the end of it i knew it was perfect. With that goal he became an instant United legend.

How vindicated is Fergie for bringing him in now?

Edit: oh yeah forgot to say- City put in their place ! sweet

Sizzler

The only thing we found out today was City arent really that good defensively are they! All over the shop, basic marking was like applied maths for them!

It would have been a travesty if Utd didnt win.

Maybe City will put in a bid for Rio in January, his defensive quality would fit right in there

JPA

smashey wrote: »

I agree. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of it all.

hypocrisy? It's just football, it's life.

Villain

4 minutes plus goal celebration and sub, means probably 5 or 5.5 minutes so its not as if the timing was out by a mile. City fans should blame their defending not the ref imo.

Morzadec

Man Utd boss Sir Alex Ferguson: We gave three goals away today. It could have been an embarrassment - we could have won 6-0 or 7-0 today. But in the end we still we won one of the best Manchester derbies. We have a neighbour, and sometimes neighbours are noisy, but we showed our power today and we get on with life.

Fergy is trolling!

Tom65

Really, if City didn't want so much added time, they shouldn't have scored that third goal

Xavi6

only1stevo wrote: »

Hahahahahahahah how bad were De Jong Barry and Ireland, utterly invisible!! Soooo Overrated, we fully deserved the win and I cudnt give a Flying F UCK how we won it.

I'm sure any real football fan would have the decency to recognise and acknowledge that De Jong was superb.

City will need to spend at least another 500 mill to come even close to beating us.

I'd have thought losing by a single goal in added time was quite close myself.

Theresalwaysone

Sky Sports wrote:

That wasn't the end of it as Giggs picked out the pass of the match finding Owen in space in the area as he delicately dinked over Given in the 95th minute - when only four were supposed to be added on.

FFS even sky are at it. Joke. You'd think they would understand the whole concept of added time. I can understand some fans being bitter but Sky are supposed to be an unbiased reporter.

James Forde

LEGEND THAT LAD!!

Headshot

Xavi6 wrote: »

I'm sure any real football fan would have the decency to recognise and acknowledge that De Jong was superb.


I'd have thought losing by a single goal in added time was quite close myself.

did you see the 2nd half

we dominated city

smashey

JPA wrote: »

hypocrisy? It's just football, it's life.

Based on my first question, I stand by what I said. As for comparing football to life, that's your prerogative. I put all sports well down my list of priorities no matter how enjoyable/frustrating they are.

Mars Bar

NightStrike wrote: »

city haven't been in it at all second half apart from bellamy's goal. i reckon utd will bring owen on and that substitution will either win them or lose them the game.

Fair fecks to ya!

ctrl-alt-delete

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

FFS even sky are at it. Joke. You'd think they would understand the whole concept of added time. I can understand some fans being bitter but Sky are supposed to be an unbiased reporter.

Since when have Sky ever been unbiased?

Theresalwaysone

Xavi6 wrote: »

I'm sure any real football fan would have the decency to recognise and acknowledge that De Jong was superb.


I'd have thought losing by a single goal in added time was quite close myself.

I agree. De jong was very good today. I did think Ireland was a bit below par though and Barry wasnt great either.

And City werent close, not footballing wise. Im sure any real football fan would have the deceny to recognise that.

NightStrike

Xavi6 wrote: »

I'm sure any real football fan would have the decency to recognise and acknowledge that De Jong was superb.

He did well in patches but would he not have to shoulder at least a bit of the blame for not tracking Fletcher for one or both goals?

JPA

smashey wrote: »

Based on my first question, I stand by what I said. As for comparing football to life, that's your prerogative. I put all sports well down my list of priorities no matter how enjoyable/frustrating they are.

I wasn't saying football is life, I'm saying that obviously fans or people supporting a certain group or team are going to be biased. If they weren't neutral they wouldn't be fans.

Xavi6

Headshot wrote: »

did you see the 2nd half

we dominated city

And for that it was still deadlocked in the closing stages. It's a cliche but football is won and goals and for all the possession and pressure, the finishing was poor. Given was good but should never have been given the opportunity to make those saves.

NightStrike

In fairness to that Sky reporter, he didn't really dink the shot over Given either it was past him not over his head.

JPA

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

FFS even sky are at it. Joke. You'd think they would understand the whole concept of added time. I can understand some fans being bitter but Sky are supposed to be an unbiased reporter.

It's not Jamie Redknapp is it?