Campbell was played in and Hart came out and the rags reject ran it out of play. Maybe Savage was thinking that if Joe hadn't come out and if Campbell was a better player and if he had it under control and if he shot on target and if Joe hadn't saved it them maybe Palace could have scored...It could have been 10 said:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City v Crystal Palace Post Match
- Thread starter Champions2012!
- Start date
jimharri
Moderator
The words "auntie", "balls" and "uncle" spring to mind.Eds said:Campbell was played in and Hart came out and the rags reject ran it out of play. Maybe Savage was thinking that if Joe hadn't come out and if Campbell was a better player and if he had it under control and if he shot on target and if Joe hadn't saved it them maybe Palace could have scored...It could have been 10 said:maurizio said:I think Savage only saw the "highlights" shown. Palace took every opportunity to boot it into the box and those were the chances, not many in the whole game. We kept possession, constantly probed, but the final ball or run didn't arrive in the first half so no highlights for TV. He should admire our control and endeavour and believe it was only a matter of time before a move would come off, if he had any intelligence, that is.
I am racking my brains to think of the 3 clear cut chances that Palace had before we scored (according to Savage). There was the overhead kick by Campbell from a very acute angle. If he had managed to score with that overhead kick from such an angle it would have been goal of this & every other century. Quarter chance at best & I'm being very generous when I count it as a quarter chance. Then there was the shot from Bolasie once again from a very acute angle. From such a tight angle there was only 2 places he could hit it, Straight at Hart or straight into the side netting which he did do. Not even a quarter chance. In fact not even a goal scoring opportunity unless the best goalkeeper in England fumbled it if it was straight at him. So I am completely at a loss to come up with Palace's 3 goal scoring opportunities. Can somebody help me out?
grim up north
Well-Known Member
It could have been 10 said:maurizio said:I think Savage only saw the "highlights" shown. Palace took every opportunity to boot it into the box and those were the chances, not many in the whole game. We kept possession, constantly probed, but the final ball or run didn't arrive in the first half so no highlights for TV. He should admire our control and endeavour and believe it was only a matter of time before a move would come off, if he had any intelligence, that is.Blue Hefner said:I didn't see the programme but if Savage did say they should have been 3-0 up at half-time then he's clearly not in the real world - they may have had 3 chances but so did we so a comment like that isn't balanced
I'd also question the people who gave him the platform to say that. They must have a meeting beforehand to discuss topics so how did anyone think that would be appropriate??? Agenda??
I am racking my brains to think of the 3 clear cut chances that Palace had before we scored (according to Savage). There was the overhead kick by Campbell from a very acute angle. If he had managed to score with that overhead kick from such an angle it would have been goal of this & every other century. Quarter chance at best & I'm being very generous when I count it as a quarter chance. Then there was the shot from Bolasie once again from a very acute angle. From such a tight angle there was only 2 places he could hit it, Straight at Hart or straight into the side netting which he did do. Not even a quarter chance. In fact not even a goal scoring opportunity unless the best goalkeeper in England fumbled it if it was straight at him. So I am completely at a loss to come up with Palace's 3 goal scoring opportunities. Can somebody help me out?
The Aussie blokes header that Hart saved in the early stages
Chi-town blues
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 May 2012
- Messages
- 31,363
I watched it again and I have to admit this game was the best team performance by city.
Sublime ...
Sublime ...
eversince 76
Well-Known Member
grim up north said:It could have been 10 said:maurizio said:I think Savage only saw the "highlights" shown. Palace took every opportunity to boot it into the box and those were the chances, not many in the whole game. We kept possession, constantly probed, but the final ball or run didn't arrive in the first half so no highlights for TV. He should admire our control and endeavour and believe it was only a matter of time before a move would come off, if he had any intelligence, that is.
I am racking my brains to think of the 3 clear cut chances that Palace had before we scored (according to Savage). There was the overhead kick by Campbell from a very acute angle. If he had managed to score with that overhead kick from such an angle it would have been goal of this & every other century. Quarter chance at best & I'm being very generous when I count it as a quarter chance. Then there was the shot from Bolasie once again from a very acute angle. From such a tight angle there was only 2 places he could hit it, Straight at Hart or straight into the side netting which he did do. Not even a quarter chance. In fact not even a goal scoring opportunity unless the best goalkeeper in England fumbled it if it was straight at him. So I am completely at a loss to come up with Palace's 3 goal scoring opportunities. Can somebody help me out?
The Aussie blokes header that Hart saved in the early stages
Not bothered to look at the game again to find an answer to be able and state a pundit is wrong or right. We didn't look very comfortable in the first 30 minutes, and up until than it was pretty even. Than we gained more control and after the first goal it was over (except for their wrongly disallowed goal that according to Warnock woud probably have made Palace wrap the game up 2-3 ...).
Will Bayern looks the same if you take away Robben, Lewandowski, Ribery and Lahm? Will Barca if you take away Neymar, Messi, Suarez and Pique? Will Real without Ronaldo, Benzema, Bale and Ramos? Will Chelsea without Hazard, Costa, Willian and Terry? Doubt it. Doubt it very much.
So in the circumstances we wre in, we did pretty well and only needed about 30 minutes to play according to ajusted tactics. But I don't want to jump to conclusions too soon. I'd rather we do so after we have our strikers and Kompany back from injury. But so far without the strikers and Kompany it's 3 played, 9 points and none conceded. I can live with that ... easily.
stony said:cleavers said:Savage will end up on Talksport, the station for WUM's, because that's all he is.Mr Ed (The Stables) said:I thought martin keown stuck up for us brilliantly and should be congratulated. Savage obviously has an axe to grind with us after we sacked his mate....tosser!!!
He looked like a right twat even before he opened his gob. Those bins he had on were thicker than Wio. He resembled a male Thelma from Scooby Do.
It is VELMA for f*cks sake, VELMA
manimanc
Well-Known Member
Why was palace singing.. "we pay your benefits"?
Weird bunch..
Weird bunch..
Blue Mist said:stony said:cleavers said:Savage will end up on Talksport, the station for WUM's, because that's all he is.
He looked like a right twat even before he opened his gob. Those bins he had on were thicker than Wio. He resembled a male Thelma from Scooby Do.
It is VELMA for f*cks sake, VELMA
Calm down Thready.
manimanc said:Why was palace singing.. "we pay your benefits"?
Weird bunch..
Fulham sang the same song..
Arrogance of southern w@nkers, particularly Laaardan southern w@nkers
Always make s me laugh for two reasons
a) They lost (petty , childish but HAAAA !!)
b) Those fans may well be suffering the same shyte fallout of the bankers' disastrous mess of 2008 as their northern counterparts... but just don't get it