Media Thread 2017/18

  • Thread starter Thread starter mat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
All morning sky sportsnews been saying when city meet united at old Trafford in April, cock eyed Pratt’s
 
Listened to 5 live and Talksport for an hour and half this morning and heard just four words relating to us when someone on TS said "Man City were superb" then went on to lay into Wenger/Arsenal. BBC 5 Live was pathetic, talked only about womens football and Phil Neville.
 
No one in the media has pointed out that we have achieved so much in spite of crippling injuries that none of our rivals seem to have had.
Have I imagined it or have we had more?
 
That's because we have a 'massive' squad with all our dirty money much bigger than the 25 players other teams are allowed.
I've wondered that before when I hear city have a "bigger" squad. Do they really mean bigger or same size. Same with rags or Liverpool having "more" history. Do they really mean "more" or the same amount or what ?
 
Finally got around to checking the Guardian App on my phone at lunchtime today, to have a read of the match report. Neither the Sport homepage nor the Football homepage had any mention of City at all. We just pummeled one of the other "title contenders" in their own ground, where we've won once in the last 40 years, scoring 3 of the best goals this season, and there's absolutely no mention of it on the Guardian App. An article about McTominininay being a rag "regular" (having played all of 8 League games in 2 seasons) gets second billing, but even scrolling all the way to through every Football headline, there's not a peep! #WereNotReallyHere
 
No one in the media has pointed out that we have achieved so much in spite of crippling injuries that none of our rivals seem to have had.
Have I imagined it or have we had more?

You are imagining it. I do understand your point as it does feel worse as we have a small squad but our rivals have undoubtedly had worse injuries to contend with. City and Southampton have the lowest number of days in the league players were unavailable for selection.
 
Finally got around to checking the Guardian App on my phone at lunchtime today, to have a read of the match report. Neither the Sport homepage nor the Football homepage had any mention of City at all. We just pummeled one of the other "title contenders" in their own ground, where we've won once in the last 40 years, scoring 3 of the best goals this season, and there's absolutely no mention of it on the Guardian App. An article about McTominininay being a rag "regular" (having played all of 8 League games in 2 seasons) gets second billing, but even scrolling all the way to through every Football headline, there's not a peep! #WereNotReallyHere

The Guardian is effectively a rag fanzine.

For current affairs it's generally good, but the Sports section is sanctimonious bollocks. The publication's hatred of our 'oil money' seeps into all their City articles, when they do bother to write one.
 
You are imagining it. I do understand your point as it does feel worse as we have a small squad but our rivals have undoubtedly had worse injuries to contend with. City and Southampton have the lowest number of days in the league players were unavailable for selection.

Feels like Spurs and Chelsea hardly ever have injuries to key players.

We've had Mendy missing virtually all season, and Jesus, Komps and Delph for large chunks of it.
 
Feels like Spurs and Chelsea hardly ever have injuries to key players.

We've had Mendy missing virtually all season, and Jesus, Komps and Delph for large chunks of it.

It does mate but I think we notice it more because we have quite a small squad.

Example being Rose for Spurs has been injured for a large part of the season but Davies is a like for like replacement. Think Alderweild has been out quite a bit also.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top