MATCH THREAD: Man Utd v Stoke (20:00)

kryogen

Overall the performance wasnt bad

delighted to get the 3 points and keep pressure on the chasing pack

Nalz

mars bar wrote: »

My MOTM:

Nani (I think that's quite obvious as to why)
Rafael (He was a rock and contributed to so much of our attack)
Hernandez (Scored and assisted too. He's a gem)

this ^

Mars Bar

I've been watching replays of Hernandez's goal and I reckon it's an OG.

kryogen

it was on target

Mars Bar

kryogen wrote: »

it was on target

But I don't think he touched the ball...

MisterAnarchy

Stoke managed their usual one shot on target in 90 minutes .
Awful awful team.

curry-muff

mars bar wrote: »

But I don't think he touched the ball...

You got me wondering, but upon checking again, he definitely did hit it, look at 0:55 in this video.

Hernandez Goal

Headshot

oh he did touch it alright

paddy power says so :pac:

curry-muff

Headshot wrote: »

oh he did touch it alright

paddy power says so :pac:

F*cker, I had a 5er in my betslip on him but then got tempted by the fact Nani was 6/1 and he was only 4/1, damn you greed :pac:

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Stoke managed their usual one shot on target in 90 minutes .
Awful awful team.

And United managed 2. What does that tell you??

Mars Bar

curry-muff wrote: »

You got me wondering, but upon checking again, he definitely did hit it, look at 0:55 in this video.

Hernandez Goal

I see it now! I can try to explain to ye why exactly I thought it was an OG but I might confuse us all, but it has something to do with the socks!

flahavaj

THFC wrote: »

And United managed 2. What does that tell you??

They deservedly won 2-1.:pac:

Nalz

THFC wrote: »

And United managed 2. What does that tell you??

just 2?

ARE
YOU
SURE?

Mars Bar

THFC wrote: »

And United managed 2. What does that tell you??

SS say 2.

BBC say 7.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Opta Joe said there were 3 shots on target in the match, all of which went in.
Surely some one should be able to remember a shot that Begovic saved - if indeed there were seven?

Mars Bar

THFC wrote: »

Opta Joe said there were 3 shots on target in the match, all of which went in.
Surely some one should be able to remember a shot that Begovic saved - if indeed there were seven?

Yeah, I'm trying to think of them!

Unsuccessful as of yet.

IRISHSPORTSGUY

Marc Wilson played very well for Stoke tonight, great eye for a pass. Have a feeling he's too creative minded for Trap's liking though, unfortunately.

kryogen

Is he not predominantly a centre back anyway?

I assume your mentioning him as an option is midfield? I am aware he is an option there, just thought he played centre back naturally

homerjay2005

THFC wrote: »

Opta Joe said there were 3 shots on target in the match, all of which went in.
Surely some one should be able to remember a shot that Begovic saved - if indeed there were seven?

so whats your point here, you saying united didnt deserve to win the game? united werent great, but stoke played almost the entire game playing long balls into one corner of the pitch. united were very comfortable save for a poor opening to the 2nd half, but woke up and again, did enough to win the game.

shot stats can tell lies sometimes and not an indication of the game. a shot from 30 yards out that trickles into the hands of the keeper can be classed as a shot on target, where as one that hits the post, rolls across the line, hits the other post (i.e. as close to scoring as you can get) may not be classed as a shot on target.

the aim is to put the ball into the net and while yes, to do that you need to hit the target, its not as simple as just getting it on target, you also have to beat the keeper.

take berbas sitter last night. looking at some stat on twitter wont show that he missed a sitter and should have scored, but he missed the target, from 6 yards out. that is as good a chance as you can get, without scoring (lucas on saturday v bolton excluded)

likewise, tuncay had a great chance to equalise before stoke did, he headed wide, he should have hit the target. Gibsons shot deflected over and Hernandezs shot deflected over (incorrectly not given a corner) were also shots on target, giggs had a free kick just wide, Owens chest down and they loosing his feet, could also be classed as a great chance as again, he could and perhaps should have scored. i can also recall PIG making 2 simple saves, on target non the less and the stoke keeper also having one or 2 comfotable saves, so the stats are misleading as i said.

never a fan of shots on target/off target stats, it should all be down to chances created as some shots never have a chance of going in yet still are down as a stat. in terms of the game last night, united created about 8 scoring chances to stokes 2.

overall, pleasing result, difficult game to play, stoke are a tricky team. they will take points off the other teams near the top before may, thats for sure. getting 6 points off them, is not easy and we have done that this season. rafael, smalling, vidic, hernandez and nani stood out for me last night.

RasTa

What were there fans like this time?

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

homerjay2005 wrote: »

so whats your point here, you saying united didnt deserve to win the game? united werent great, but stoke played almost the entire game playing long balls into one corner of the pitch. united were very comfortable save for a poor opening to the 2nd half, but woke up and again, did enough to win the game.

shot stats can tell lies sometimes and not an indication of the game. a shot from 30 yards out that trickles into the hands of the keeper can be classed as a shot on target, where as one that hits the post, rolls across the line, hits the other post (i.e. as close to scoring as you can get) may not be classed as a shot on target.

the aim is to put the ball into the net and while yes, to do that you need to hit the target, its not as simple as just getting it on target, you also have to beat the keeper.

take berbas sitter last night. looking at some stat on twitter wont show that he missed a sitter and should have scored, but he missed the target, from 6 yards out. that is as good a chance as you can get, without scoring (lucas on saturday v bolton excluded)

likewise, tuncay had a great chance to equalise before stoke did, he headed wide, he should have hit the target. Gibsons shot deflected over and Hernandezs shot deflected over (incorrectly not given a corner) were also shots on target, giggs had a free kick just wide, Owens chest down and they loosing his feet, could also be classed as a great chance as again, he could and perhaps should have scored. i can also recall PIG making 2 simple saves, on target non the less and the stoke keeper also having one or 2 comfotable saves, so the stats are misleading as i said.

never a fan of shots on target/off target stats, it should all be down to chances created as some shots never have a chance of going in yet still are down as a stat. in terms of the game last night, united created about 8 scoring chances to stokes 2.

overall, pleasing result, difficult game to play, stoke are a tricky team. they will take points off the other teams near the top before may, thats for sure. getting 6 points off them, is not easy and we have done that this season. rafael, smalling, vidic, hernandez and nani stood out for me last night.

Yes, thats exactly what I'm trying to say, that and United are such a terrible team and should be no where near the top.... please, stop trying to start something over nothing...

homerjay2005

THFC wrote: »

Yes, thats exactly what I'm trying to say, that and United are such a terrible team and should be no where near the top.... please, stop trying to start something over nothing...

your oringinal reply to the post suggest your looking to start something yourself.

Predalien

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Stoke managed their usual one shot on target in 90 minutes .
Awful awful team.

I've never understood all the Stoke bashing that goes on, like a lot of teams in the premier league they play a style that best suits their resources, granted it isn't ever going to win them the league but it does give them their best chance of staying in the league and there's nothing wrong with that.

They can't be expected to try and go to old trafford and play a passing game, they'd most likely get trounced. People should remember that in many European games Man Utd adopt a more negative approach if it gives them the best chance of getting a result.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

homerjay2005 wrote: »

your oringinal reply to the post suggest your looking to start something yourself.

No it didn't, I was pointing out that United weren't much better than Stoke last night, I never said or implied that they didnt deserve to win. In fact, when Fla said they deservedly won 2-1 I thanked his post, implying that I agreed with him. Perhaps if you had seen that we wouldn't be having this stupid argument now..

homerjay2005

Predalien wrote: »

I've never understood all the Stoke bashing that goes on, like a lot of teams in the premier league they play a style that best suits their resources, granted it isn't ever going to win them the league but it does give them their best chance of staying in the league and there's nothing wrong with that.

They can't be expected to try and go to old trafford and play a passing game, they'd most likely get trounced. People should remember that in many European games Man Utd adopt a more negative approach if it gives them the best chance of getting a result.

stoke are a terrible team to watch and ruin games, like they did last night.

did you notice that everytime they had a goal kick, the amount of time wasting they did, even when they were losing? no urgency.

or the fact that all of the goal kicks went into the same position (left wing) everytime and the entire stoke team all grouped into the one position? it is like watching u-12's play football.

or the fact they have a man on the team, just to take throw ins?

shirt pulling galore?

the fact that all of their "football" is played in the air?

feel free to proove me wrong, but stoke have never had more possession than the opposition in any game they have played in the premiership. that stat was on soccer sat a few weeks ago, doubts its changed since.

they are effective and they have avoided relegation 2 years in a row and will prob do so this year, are a tough team to beat, but they are limited in what they can do. terrible stuff to watch, hence the critics.

homerjay2005

THFC wrote: »

No it didn't, I was pointing out that United weren't much better than Stoke last night, I never said or implied that they didnt deserve to win.

United were alot better than Stoke, by some distance. That is not opinion, that is fact. i assume you watched the game in full?

considering Stoke were time wasting even at 2-1 and barely pressed united, and as already posted on the BBC match tracker, they were very happy to leave only with a 2-1 defeat.

it was an extremely comfortable victory for united last night, it wasnt pretty, but games against stoke are never pretty and just compare 6 wins for united against them in 6 games, to those of other teams like liverpool, city and arsenal who all lost to stoke in the last year or so.

Predalien

homerjay2005 wrote: »

stoke are a terrible team to watch and ruin games, like they did last night.

did you notice that everytime they had a goal kick, the amount of time wasting they did, even when they were losing? no urgency.

or the fact that all of the goal kicks went into the same position (left wing) everytime and the entire stoke team all grouped into the one position? it is like watching u-12's play football.

or the fact they have a man on the team, just to take throw ins?

shirt pulling galore?

the fact that all of their "football" is played in the air?

feel free to proove me wrong, but stoke have never had more possession than the opposition in any game they have played in the premiership. that stat was on soccer sat a few weeks ago, doubts its changed since.

they are effective and they have avoided relegation 2 years in a row and will prob do so this year, are a tough team to beat, but they are limited in what they can do. terrible stuff to watch, hence the critics.

As I said they play in a way that best suits their resources, as you said yourself they are effective,

I don't agree that they "ruin" games. What they do is disrupt the flow of the opposing team, fair enough if you don't enjoy watching this but football is a very varied sport and often games involving Stoke are fascinating despite not being aesthetically pleasing or typical of what people would describe as good football.

I think the criticism is unfair as I don't think it's "terrible stuff to watch" just different to perhaps what Man Utd and Arsenal fans expect, I'd expect a lot of Stoke fans take a lot of pleasure from grinding out results and putting the top teams through a tough challenge whenever they take them on.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

THFC wrote: »

No it didn't, I was pointing out that United weren't much better than Stoke last night, I never said or implied that they didnt deserve to win. In fact, when Fla said they deservedly won 2-1 I thanked his post, implying that I agreed with him. Perhaps if you had seen that we wouldn't be having this stupid argument now..

Just re-watching the game on MUTV here and United dominated Stoke, implying that they weren't much better than Stoke is absolute bullshít, tbh.

Mitch Connor

going to leave the voting for the Man United MotM open a little longer.

Link:

https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?hl=en&formkey=dE1CQzhqbjFHX1R1alNESUJ6TXZxRHc6MQ#gid=0

Mitch Connor

MotM results....

United fan and overall vote result.

1. Nani
2. Hernandez.
3. Rafael.

Non-United fan vote. (2 votes)

1. Nani
2. Giggs/Hernandez
3. Smalling/Fletcher

Results link:

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=tvGn4I9ZoF24by9OeUgXetQ&authkey=CJy5nOsG&hl=en&authkey=CJy5nOsG#gid=1