Manchester united versus Manchester City sun 1.30pm

Dave!

Yeah Sparky always comes across as rather dignified IMO

Handsome Bob

DSB wrote: »

Is Hughes possibly the least likeable manager there is in Premiership football? Him and Warnock fighting it out for the overall football award.

Nah, Phil Brown and Sam Allardyce are two that immediately spring to mind. There's one more but it would be suicide saying it around these parts.

Xavi6

Sizzler

Post of the thread , I think Fletech did OK:D

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62189448&postcount=425

Regardless of the incessant moaning about time added on, the fact is you play to the whistle, if Hughes cant accept that then hes in the wrong job.

In contrast you have Tony Pullis who got "done" by injury time goals against Chelsea recently :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/eng_prem/8245879.stm

First 25 seconds of interview sums it up, funny how Hughes has spent more time looking for explanations on the timekeeping rather than asking his expensively assembled defence what exactly they were doing all afternoon :rolleyes:

Xavi6

Sizzler wrote: »

First 25 seconds of interview sums it up, funny how Hughes has spent more time looking for explanations on the timekeeping rather than asking his expensively assembled defence what exactly they were doing all afternoon :rolleyes:

My God, you're a genius! I'm sure it never once dawned on Hughes to ask questions of his defence after the game. Hold on til I flick a quick letter over to the COMS to point out that shocking oversight :rolleyes:


The amount of injury time was questionable to say the least and of course the manager on the receiving end of such a situation is going to point it out if he feels it was incorrect. So what?

You'd swear Fergie has never spoken about a decision after a game.

bohsman

Would love to see Sparky take over when Ferguson retires now that he's getting experience managing a club with money.

d22ontour

bohsman wrote: »

Would love to see Sparky take over when Ferguson retires now that he's getting experience managing a club with money.

Not a chance of that happening imo.He doesn't seem to be capable of taking over at United regardless of who the owners of city want him to sign. I would be surprised if he is still at City next season if money spent is anything to go on.

Peyton Manning

Xavi6 wrote: »

The amount of injury time was questionable to say the least

No it wasnt, it was spot on.

Xavi6

Archimedes wrote: »

No it wasnt, it was spot on.

We'll see how 'spot on' it is over the coming weeks with other teams and other games.

If it's consistant then there won't be any complaints from me.

Sizzler

Xavi6 wrote: »

My God, you're a genius! I'm sure it never once dawned on Hughes to ask questions of his defence after the game. Hold on til I flick a quick letter over to the COMS to point out that shocking oversight :rolleyes:


The amount of injury time was questionable to say the least and of course the manager on the receiving end of such a situation is going to point it out if he feels it was incorrect. So what?

You'd swear Fergie has never spoken about a decision after a game.

Didnt once hear Hughes mention his teams keystone cops defending in amy media interview. I'm sure he had the good sense to ask WTF lads in the privacy of the dressing room.

If your team were as defensive as some of your posts on this thread City would have won 3-0.

SlickRic

Archimedes wrote: »

No it wasnt, it was spot on.

absolutely. 100% agree.

as long as you're happy that the next time utd are maybe hanging on in injury time at, i don't know, Eastlands or something, and they add on every bit of time due - just enough time for them to score a winner or equaliser.

because it very very very rarely happens. it's supposed to, but it never ever does.

again, all everybody is looking for is consistency; that the same thing happens at every football ground.

Xavi6

Sizzler wrote: »

If your team were as defensive as some of your posts on this thread City would have won 3-0.

Well played sir

/tips hat

Iago

SlickRic wrote: »

again, all everybody is looking for is consistency; that the same thing happens at every football ground.

No, no it's not.

What everyone wants is for their team to accrue the benefit every week regardless of what happens.



What we would settle for is consistency of performance even when it affects us negatively although we reserve the right to moan about it ad nauseum.



What we'll get is inconsistency and moaning on a weekly basis because the ref did/didn't punish the dive, gave/didn't give the penalty, played/ didn't play the advantage, played/ didn't play extra injury time...

and so on and so forth

Mitch Connor

Xavi6 wrote: »

We'll see how 'spot on' it is over the coming weeks with other teams and other games.

If it's consistant then there won't be any complaints from me.

So your argument is that they should have got it wrong like they normally do?

SlickRic

Iago wrote: »

No, no it's not.

What everyone wants is for their team to accrue the benefit every week regardless of what happens.

well of course, that's the natural reaction of a passionate football fan.

but, when the dust settles, and people put their bias aside, consistency is what would be welcome in all circumstances.

that's just my personal opinion though.

_blank_

SlickRic wrote: »

people put their bias aside

Good luck with that on this forum tbh

Xavi6

Mitch Connor wrote: »

So your argument is that they should have got it wrong like they normally do?

It's not an argument as such because I understand why that amount of additional time was played. I'm just curious as to why the letter of the law was applied so strigently in this particular situation.

For now I'll keep my tinfoil hat on and have an eye on the games over the next few weeks to see how they go.

Fall_Guy

It will only be an issue in games where a goal is scored after the allotted extra time has been announced and the celebration eats into the added time signifigantly. Doesn't happen all that often to be fair.

Boggles

Xavi6 wrote: »

It's not an argument as such because I understand why that amount of additional time was played. I'm just curious as to why the letter of the law was applied so strigently in this particular situation.

Refs are alot more stringent in their time keeping when 2 teams are either drawing or are just a goal apart.

If a team are leading by a large margin or are obviously going to be clear winners, refs usually blow it up that bit earlier and are less stringent on the time keeping.

The circumstances of Sundays game made the Ref alot more aware of time added on, and fair play to him he was bang on.

Something he should be really applauded for instead of questioned to be Fair.

Xavi6

Fall_Guy wrote: »

It will only be an issue in games where a goal is scored after the allotted extra time has been announced and the celebration eats into the added time signifigantly. Doesn't happen all that often to be fair.

But when it does.....

Nalz

stats on sky sports news there now, all top 4 clubs last season got more minutes over injurytime when they were chasing a game than when they were winning. Fairly obvious

Here's that Tevez song that was song a gazillion times on Sunday

Headshot

where's Mr. Miyagi

greendom

Trilla wrote: »

stats on sky sports news there now, all top 4 clubs last season got more minutes over injurytime when they were chasing a game than when they were winning. Fairly obvious

Why is it fairly obvious ?

I would have said it is completely wrong and needs to be stopped immediately. Surely there is enough cheating in the game without this ?

Mmcd

Trilla wrote: »

stats on sky sports news there now, all top 4 clubs last season got more minutes over injurytime when they were chasing a game than when they were winning. Fairly obvious

Maybe because they're often winning by two or three goals and the game is dwindling out!

Nalz

greendom wrote: »

Why is it fairly obvious ?

I meant that the teams are probably winning by 2 or 3 goals and there is no need for the extra extra minutes

_blank_

People talking about conspiracy theories. Stop it. You are embarrassing yourselves.

nicklauski

Des wrote: »

People talking about conspiracy theories. Stop it. You are embarrassing yourselves.

You mean Oswald did shoot Kennedy!!:pac:

RasTa

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/sep/22/manchester-united-goals-stoppage-time. Here is the proof....

mink_man

I just have to say HAHA XAVI6, CITY LOST! ...........










....no offence
















*abuse directed at xavi6 as he's the only city fan I can think of on this.

JP Liz

Well Done United! a win is a win no matter how

Mr Alan

Des wrote: »

People talking about conspiracy theories. Stop it. You are embarrassing yourselves.

Not embarrasing conspiracy theories, no one is claiming that Ferguson & the refs meet in fields late at night & howl at the moon while sacrificing animals...just that refs are intimidated by a figure such as Ferguson who is so revered in the game in England. Something you yourself would admit is true.

herbieflowers

Mr Alan wrote: »

Not embarrasing conspiracy theories, no one is claiming that Ferguson & the refs meet in fields late at night & howl at the moon while sacrificing animals...just that refs are intimidated by a figure such as Ferguson who is so revered in the game in England. Something you yourself would admit is true.

No matter how much time was added on, Man Utd still had to put the ball in the back of the net. It was a lack of concentration which cost City that late winner, not necessarily the time added on.

Mr Alan

herbieflowers wrote: »

No matter how much time was added on, Man Utd still had to put the ball in the back of the net.

that's hardly fair on City is it?!

Mr Alan

Bellamy & Neville just got warnings from the FA for their conduct on Sunday according to SSN

ctrl-alt-delete

Mr Alan wrote: »

Bellamy & Neville just got warnings from the FA for their conduct on Sunday according to SSN

Just seen that,

If they take Ade's celebration any further then shame on them.

sofireland

aren't they investigating it? or is it just a warning?

KevIRL

BREAKING NEWS FROM SKY SPORTS - Ryan Giggs has just scored for United to make it 5 - 3.

Denis Irwin

Daily Express columnist Mick Dennis suggests Manchester City boss Mark Hughes needs to start learning the rules before he points the finger of blame at referee Martin Atkinson. The Premier League referee allowed for over six minutes of stoppage time, despite there being only four allocated, much to the annoyance of Hughes as it led to a late winner from Manchester United’s Michael Owen. Dennis believes Atkinson was spot on with his assessment of the game.
Dennis told the Daily Express: “LET me tell you a few refereeing secrets, because the utter tosh that has been talked by ¬players, managers and pundits over the weekend ¬demonstrates a shocking lack of knowledge.”

“Let’s start with timekeeping, most of which is complete guesswork.”
“Referees do not keep an accurate tally of every stoppage. They make a rough estimate.”
“The only exceptions to that haphazard approach – pay attention here, Mark Hughes – is that Premier League referees are instructed to add on at least 30 seconds for each substitution and each goal.”
“In the Manchester derby, referee Martin Atkinson told the fourth official the minimum time to be added was four minutes.”
“In the second half there had been three subs and three goals, so Atkinson had added the bare 30 seconds for each, plus a minute for other stoppages.”
“Then came another substitution and a City goal. That is at least another minute to add on but because, according to Sky’s timing, Craig Bellamy spent 55 seconds celebrating his goal, Atkinson correctly added more.”
“That meant at least one minute, 25 seconds to add to the four minutes already indicated. Michael Owen scored United’s winner after 95 minutes, 27 seconds, a discrepancy of only two seconds, which made Atkinson probably the most accurate timekeeper of all the officials on duty at the weekend.”
“He would not have suffered a diatribe from Hughes if the City manager had learnt this very basic refereeing stuff

http://www.sport.co.uk/news/Football/27319/Dennis_suggests_Hughes_was_wrong_to_question_referee%E2%80%99s_timekeeping.aspx

Nalz

Mr Alan wrote: »

that's hardly fair on City is it?!

hardly fair that Manchester City celebrated well into the additional time?

bigstar

Trilla wrote: »

hardly fair that Manchester City celebrated well into the additional time?

well if we hadnt, you wouldnt have scored .

anyway decent enough game from a city point of view, obviously disappointing to lose that way but any derby previously probably would have been over by half time. good to see us not giving up after conceding early and so many times. on and up for us id say.

The Muppet

bigstar wrote: »

well if we hadnt, you wouldnt have scored .

anyway decent enough game from a city point of view, obviously disappointing to lose that way but any derby previously probably would have been over by half time. good to see us not giving up after conceding early and so many times. on and up for us id say.

Did you watch the game, City were played off the pitch for most of it., there was very little for city fans to be satisified with.

event

Mr Alan wrote: »

Not embarrasing conspiracy theories, no one is claiming that Ferguson & the refs meet in fields late at night & howl at the moon while sacrificing animals...just that refs are intimidated by a figure such as Ferguson who is so revered in the game in England. Something you yourself would admit is true.

i would reckon the reason all big teams get more time added when they are trailing is because if a team is leading at anfield, OT or stamford bridge they are more likely to be time wasting over free kicks, kick outs and throw ins, etc.
this means the refs add on more time in these games

i dont think its anything about influence tbh

bigstar

The Muppet wrote: »

Did you watch the game, City were played off the pitch for most of it., there was very little for city fans to be satisified with.

your obviously not a city.

yes we were outplayed for the second half. but. despite that we only lost by a last (6) minute goal. isnt it said of united and the otehr top teams that they can ply badly and still get a result, we almost did. how many teams go to OT and arent outplayed btw. didnt say it was a great result, but its better than previously.

DSB

bigstar wrote: »

your obviously not a city.

yes we were outplayed for the second half. but. despite that we only lost by a last (6) minute goal. isnt it said of united and the otehr top teams that they can ply badly and still get a result, we almost did. how many teams go to OT and arent outplayed btw. didnt say it was a great result, but its better than previously.

They don't really say that the top teams can play badly and still get a result, they say they can play badly and still win. City haven't even drawn here. No positives to take, in the slightest.

Nalz

bigstar wrote: »

how many teams go to OT and arent outplayed btw. didnt say it was a great result, but its better than previously.

You can't take all the credit for absolutely shambollick defending for the 3 goals, most noticably the first and last. Was like something out of a comedy sketch. City have played much better and have come away with better at Old trafford in recent years

Mitch Connor

Was going to respond to Xavi's latest post in the Liverpool thread about Neville inciting the City fans (he was continuing on a discussion) but it clearly isn't the place for it.

I have seen Neville run towards the area the City fans were in, I have seen him doing the star jumps (facing the pitch) on the way back up. Does anyone have a link to video of him actually celebrating in front of the City fans? What exactly did he do?