People still don't get it - if you want exposure in the media you have to play their game, like it or not. Sign up for a free BBC account and comment, good or bad, in praise of the team or just defending them against other clubs idiots, and raise the clickbait bar for Man City - or don't moan when they feature other clubs higher on their websites or MOTD. Deigning to pander to them is righteous but doesn't help us in the media stakes.
I honestly don`t believe some of the nonsense I am reading ob here.Liverpool up until we scored had more possession,created more chances (we didn`t create one until we scored) and at the time were better organised.
I can only assume that the terminology "watching games through blue tinted specs" is contagious.
That first 20 minutes was just Liverpool through and through.
I honestly don`t believe some of the nonsense I am reading ob here.Liverpool up until we scored had more possession,created more chances (we didn`t create one until we scored) and at the time were better organised.
I can only assume that the terminology "watching games through blue tinted specs" is contagious.
That first 20 minutes was just Liverpool through and through.
I honestly don`t believe some of the nonsense I am reading ob here.Liverpool up until we scored had more possession,created more chances (we didn`t create one until we scored) and at the time were better organised.
I can only assume that the terminology "watching games through blue tinted specs" is contagious.
That first 20 minutes was just Liverpool through and through.
Just watched Sky's Premier League Preview. Couple of minutes on each game to be played this weekend.
There was one mention of money in the programme....................
And you'll never guess which team warranted that mention...
I honestly don`t believe some of the nonsense I am reading ob here.Liverpool up until we scored had more possession,created more chances (we didn`t create one until we scored) and at the time were better organised.
I can only assume that the terminology "watching games through blue tinted specs" is contagious.
That first 20 minutes was just Liverpool through and through.
I doubt they had more possession, they broke well on us but generally we got good numbers back to restrict them, they got through once when Salah put that tame shot in. They edged it in terms of opportunities in the opening half hour but didn't create anything of note. In fact if not for a good reaction stop from Mignolet with his feet to keep DeBruyne out we'd have been two to the good before the sending off.
I agree with this but I think Mignolet's save with his foot was from our new striker, John Stones.
They certainly had more possession in our half than we did in theirs and created far better chances.By the way it was Stones and as I said previously up until we scored (which was against the run of play) it then became us,us and us.I doubt they had more possession, they broke well on us but generally we got good numbers back to restrict them, they got through once when Salah put that tame shot in. They edged it in terms of opportunities in the opening half hour but didn't create anything of note. In fact if not for a good reaction stop from Mignolet with his feet to keep DeBruyne out we'd have been two to the good before the sending off.
WOW so I was approx 5 minutes out of my original timing !!Don't agree. Liverpool were the better team for about the first 15 minutes. The next 10 minutes we edged it, but neither side, before the goal, had created much more than the odd shot from outside the box. If you want to say that the goal was against the balance of the opening 25 minutes taken as a whole, I would grudgingly agree. But if you said it was against the run of play at the time, I wouldn't. I thought the goal was coming, because we had started snapping at them, turning over possession and making them make mistakes - KDB in particular was brilliant in this period.
We then pretty much bossed the period between the goal and the sending off. Saleh gVe us problems but we dealt with them and he was pretty much the only one that did.
I take it you never saw the match day thread on here ?? All I read about and rightly so was how shit we were in that first 20 minutes,how we couldn`t get the ball of the Dippers,how crap our midfield was.Don't agree Oakie and you can bang that drum all you like. They maybe has Salah's chances and Can's free kick, but
i don't think they were on top as much as you think. You sure you had ANY glasses on ;-)
The match day thread is no barometer of the goings on at the actual game, too many rags posting in there who all fuck off when we go a goal up.I take it you never saw the match day thread on here ?? All I read about and rightly so was how shit we were in that first 20 minutes,how we couldn`t get the ball of the Dippers,how crap our midfield was.
Nice to see that I wasn`t alone in my thinking.Only the die hard Blues could make such comments that we wern`t second best in that opening spell.
Unfuckingbelievablejeff !!
Can`t argue over that comment mate,but the world and his wife could see that for the first 20 minutes we were "all at sea" and second best.I think some people just see a red mist and don`t like the truth that City can be shit some times.However as I`ve repeated before, we were the only team likely to win after we scored that first goal.The match day thread is no barometer of the goings on at the actual game, too many rags posting in there who all fuck off when we go a goal up.
They certainly had more possession in our half than we did in theirs and created far better chances.By the way it was Stones and as I said previously up until we scored (which was against the run of play) it then became us,us and us.
Really ? You need to take those sky blue specs off mate.Horse crap
Stones was the one who shot and Mingolet saved with his feet, not KDB.They created one chance. They had other opportunities to create chances but didn't owing to us getting bodies back to restrict options. What was Stones mate?