Because... they always give higher marks to the underdogs if they get a close result just like the second leg against Burton...
Just reading the Guardian report this morning. Other than half the report focusing on the Chelsea goalie petulance, it reads as if Chelsea were the better team. Player ratings for Chelsea total 67, for City 63. How, then, did we have more possession, more shots, the only shots on target, more corners, AND... WIN THE BLOODY TROPHY?
Fuck the Guardian off mate.Perhaps it's because that's the best Chelsea have played for some time but City weren't at their best. But not being at our best was Still good enough to beat a Chelsea team at their best !!!!
Haha. Maybe that’s it. We gave them such a shafting 2 weeks ago, keeping a clean sheet is a major success for them.
Just seen the Times ratings and it’s even worse: 77 to 66!!!
What game were these clowns watching?? I admit we were not at our best and think overall 6s & 7s are about right, but in what weird universe were Chelsea better by 1 mark a man?
Agree with that.I can kind of understand the marks. Chelsea players executed their game plan better than we executed ours. So them getting higher marks makes at least some sense. Irrespective of the differing tactics, a player can only do what he’s asked... unless you are Kepa then you do what you want! Not many players played well for us, but I think more players played well for Chelsea, albeit within far less expressive tactics set by the manager.
Yep.in the bin where it belongs.Fuck the Guardian off mate.
Yep.in the bin where it belongs.
I can kind of understand the marks. Chelsea players executed their game plan better than we executed ours. So them getting higher marks makes at least some sense. Irrespective of the differing tactics, a player can only do what he’s asked... unless you are Kepa then you do what you want! Not many players played well for us, but I think more players played well for Chelsea, albeit within far less expressive tactics set by the manager.
That's so 1980's ! I hit the unsubscribe ;)Yep.in the bin where it belongs.
To be fair and balanced Sky gave us both a total of 71 for the starting 11's, which would be about spot on I'd say.Haha. Maybe that’s it. We gave them such a shafting 2 weeks ago, keeping a clean sheet is a major success for them.
Just seen the Times ratings and it’s even worse: 77 to 66!!!
What game were these clowns watching?? I admit we were not at our best and think overall 6s & 7s are about right, but in what weird universe were Chelsea better by 1 mark a man?
Nah.80s is where i,m still at..That's so 1980's ! I hit the unsubscribe ;)
Do you remember after we beat Palace away(the day Stevie slipped)?..Souness went on a mad one saying we didn’t put in a performance like potential champions. We had just won 2-0 away at Palace and dominated the game. He is usually quite good to listen to but he can’t keep a cool head when the pressure is on his beloved club.
Defender-passes back to keeper-keeper waits for pressure-keeper picks up ball-keeper waits for pressure to drop-keeper puts down ball-keeper passes it to defender-defender-passes back to keeper-keeper waits for pressure-keeper picks up ball-keeper waits for pressure to drop-keeper puts down ball-keeper passes it to defender-defender-passes back to keeper-keeper waits for pressure-keeper picks up ball-keeper waits for pressure to drop-keeper puts down ball-keeper passes it to defender-defender-passes back to keeper-keeper waits for pressure-keeper picks up ball-keeper waits for pressure to drop-keeper puts down ball-keeper passes it to defender...Remember that. Is this the same Souness who used to play for that team who'd go one up after 20 mins away from home and then shut up shop?
Remember that. Is this the same Souness who used to play for that team who'd go one up after 20 mins away from home and then shut up shop?
You obviously didn't see them when they came to Maine Road and twated us nearly every game......I cannot recall many 0-1 wins