JoeMercer'sWay
Well-Known Member
The whistle went before cross came in we had stopped playing
This, our defenders like Zaba knew it was given off so stopped playing, no guarantee it would have been a goal if they continued playing.
The whistle went before cross came in we had stopped playing
First - it was refreshing to see linesmen who knew how to implement the offside rule.
Newcastle is the first game this season where we have achieved 1 goal in 4 chances.
Chelsea is the next closest with one goal in 5. The rest have been 7, 8, 9 & 10.
To win the league this season, we have to consistently hit the back of the net 1 in 4 times.
Yeh but !!! The barcodes were shite, ye olde farmer Warnock said so, on G on S.
Newcastle is the first game this season where we have achieved 1 goal in 4 chances.
Chelsea is the next closest with one goal in 5. The rest have been 7, 8, 9 & 10.
To win the league this season, we have to consistently hit the back of the net 1 in 4 times.
Apart from the two he got wrong in the first half (Newcastle's "second goal" which wasn't offside and the one Joe saved which was...)
1 in 4?? youd score about 200 goals!
At the time I had no idea why that "goal" had been disallowed, I was simply relieved it had been, but on Sunday I watched the highlights on MoD. I agree with posters who believe they gave a very misleading impression of the balance of the first half, but the commentator did point out the offside was given against the overlapping winger, as Hungarian Blue said, and the slo-mo confirmed it. The offside was NOT against anyone in the middle because they were always behind the ball.
It's hellish close if it was for the overlapping winger (and I'd be very disappointed if a similar offence was given against City).
As the flag didn't go up at the time I'm fairly sure the offside was given for the Newcastle player on the near post (Perez?). The two players in the middle were offside when the ball was given to the winger and can only become active again if they first become onside.(in the City highlights video at 2:47 the winger passes the ball) and the guy at the near post is LEVEL with Raheem Sterling (chasing down the winger) but crucially he has not yet become active again by being BEHIND Sterling. So when he touches the ball an offside is given. It's still hellish close mind.
Opps I made a classic mistake there dividing goals by attempts per game. Should be attempts per game / goals per game. Doh - I need some sleep.
Chelski 2015: 73 goals/38 games = 1.92 goals a game from 14.8 attempts per game = 1 goal every 7.7 attempts.
..City 2014: 102 goals/38 games = 2.68 goals a game from 17.7 attempts per game = 1 goal every 6.6 attempts.
...Utd 2013: 86 goals/38 games = 2.26 goals a game from 14.7 attempts per game = 1 goal every 6.5 attempts.
....City 2012: 93 goals/38 games = 2.45 goals a game from 19.4 attempts per game = 1 goal every 7.9183 attempts.
(...Utd 2012: 89 goals/38 games = 2.34 goals a game from 17 attempts per game = 1 goal every 7.26 attempts.)
Historically the closer you get to 1 from 6.5 or better the more likely you are to win the league .
City 2016: 19 goals/7 games = 2.71 goals a game from 20.6 attempts per game = 7.6 attempts per goal.
Arse 2016: 13 goals/7 games = 1.86 goals a game from 20 attempts per game = 10.75 attempts per goal.
Utd 2016: 12 goals/7 games = 1.71 goals a game from 11.1 attempts per game = 6.49 attempts per goal..
So as you can see Utd are BANG on target, we are under performing and ARSE are showing the world why you can't win the league without a quality striker.
Can't believe some of the paranoia in here.
We got the benefit of the doubt at Sunderland when Otamendi fell on his arse.
We got the benefit of the doubt at Tottenham with both our goal and Demichelis staying on the pitch. Tottenham got the benefit of the doubt with their 2 offside goals.
We got the benefit of the doubt in Monchengladbach when Fernandinho inexplicably took a guy out 3 yards from the 5th official. They got the benefit of the doubt from our goal which they weren't going to give. Their penalty they actually got is up for debate.
We got a huge benefit of the doubt on Saturday. Their second 'goal' was flagged for offside when the winger overlapped. He was about a yard onside. There is no debate about that one, it's clear as day. Seriously, if you've still got MOTD recorded then rewatch it and pause it at the moment the ball was passed. It wasn't even that close!
Some of us sound like bloody Mourinho in here. I can't fathom why some of you feel that when we get the benefit of the doubt on a 'tight' call i.e. KDB at Spurs then that doesn't matter as much.
If there WAS any agenda then those are the calls which would go against us time after time. Think about it.
It'd be funny to see the reaction in here if a tight call went against us (wrongly). I'm sure we'd all be "ah well it doesn't matter it was a close call" eh?? Aye right!
You are Howard Webb and I claim my quid.
Go find that thread about "Swings & roundabouts decisions" or something. Supposedly a "neutral" thread where everyone ignores anything that goes for us but write down everything that goes against us. Blue tinteds are strong in that thread.Can't believe some of the paranoia in here.
We got the benefit of the doubt at Sunderland when Otamendi fell on his arse.
We got the benefit of the doubt at Tottenham with both our goal and Demichelis staying on the pitch. Tottenham got the benefit of the doubt with their 2 offside goals.
We got the benefit of the doubt in Monchengladbach when Fernandinho inexplicably took a guy out 3 yards from the 5th official. They got the benefit of the doubt from our goal which they weren't going to give. Their penalty they actually got is up for debate.
We got a huge benefit of the doubt on Saturday. Their second 'goal' was flagged for offside when the winger overlapped. He was about a yard onside. There is no debate about that one, it's clear as day. Seriously, if you've still got MOTD recorded then rewatch it and pause it at the moment the ball was passed. It wasn't even that close!
Some of us sound like bloody Mourinho in here. I can't fathom why some of you feel that when we get the benefit of the doubt on a 'tight' call i.e. KDB at Spurs then that doesn't matter as much.
If there WAS any agenda then those are the calls which would go against us time after time. Think about it.
It'd be funny to see the reaction in here if a tight call went against us (wrongly). I'm sure we'd all be "ah well it doesn't matter it was a close call" eh?? Aye right!