City v Sunderland Post Match

[CelesteItis]

Well done the lads.

The first half was NOT poor by any means. It was a 10 man double decker bus parked and our players were probing, very intelligently, indeed; they pass and pass making the 10 mackem defenders dizzy.

Second half they found it and the bus was dismantled.

Only problem I see is that with cheating refs like today's c unt, we seem to lose composure thus conceding. But it should have (should of?) ended 8-2.

Any gifs of Pants denying us should be forwarded to Joey Hart.

Bonus: Maureen is cracking up, he's cracking up.

Come On City!

 

[Didsbury Dave]

OK I am moaning again about MOTD. - At the end they showed the Table - Chelsea -1 City 2 Rags -3. - Lineker spouting that City and Chelsea
both have identical records - So why ffs didn't it show Chelsea and City equal no.1 - Chelsea 1= City 1=..... Rags -3
makes me sick

Because when teams are dead level they are shown in alphabetical order. Always have been and always will be.

Why on earth should you care? We are level and that's that.

 

[Vic]

OK I am moaning again about MOTD. - At the end they showed the Table - Chelsea -1 City 2 Rags -3. - Lineker spouting that City and Chelsea
both have identical records - So why ffs didn't it show Chelsea and City equal no.1 - Chelsea 1= City 1=..... Rags -3
makes me sick

Because when teams are dead level they are shown in alphabetical order. Always have been and always will be.

Why on earth should you care? We are level and that's that.

Because even the Premier League's official table shows us second are we aren't second. Nothing in the rules about alphabetical first. Must be a City subeditor at the Telegraph as the headline asks the question but the article ignores it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...the-Premier-League-above-Manchester-City.html

 

[Didsbury Dave]

OK I am moaning again about MOTD. - At the end they showed the Table - Chelsea -1 City 2 Rags -3. - Lineker spouting that City and Chelsea
both have identical records - So why ffs didn't it show Chelsea and City equal no.1 - Chelsea 1= City 1=..... Rags -3
makes me sick

Because when teams are dead level they are shown in alphabetical order. Always have been and always will be.

Why on earth should you care? We are level and that's that.

Because even the Premier League's official table shows us second are we aren't second. Nothing in the rules about alphabetical first. Must be a City subeditor at the Telegraph as the headline asks the question but the article ignores it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...the-Premier-League-above-Manchester-City.html

Let it go man. Jesus.

 

[jollylescott]

OK I am moaning again about MOTD. - At the end they showed the Table - Chelsea -1 City 2 Rags -3. - Lineker spouting that City and Chelsea
both have identical records - So why ffs didn't it show Chelsea and City equal no.1 - Chelsea 1= City 1=..... Rags -3
makes me sick

Because when teams are dead level they are shown in alphabetical order. Always have been and always will be.

Why on earth should you care? We are level and that's that.

This is absolute confirmation of the agenda. The BBC are doing the same thing. Chelsea first and us second. And I always thought the BBC was the impartial arm of the media. Now I know better :-)

On a more serious note I thought the team showed great character today. We could easily have scored about 8 in the second half if it wasn't for Pants.

It was one of those games where the manager earns his corn. This team is different to previous seasons. There is a resilience and grit which reflects Pellegrini's leadership - trust in the system and trust in one another.

Overall a great result. Chelsea are under pressure now. Let's see how they handle it.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

OK I am moaning again about MOTD. - At the end they showed the Table - Chelsea -1 City 2 Rags -3. - Lineker spouting that City and Chelsea
both have identical records - So why ffs didn't it show Chelsea and City equal no.1 - Chelsea 1= City 1=..... Rags -3
makes me sick

Because when teams are dead level they are shown in alphabetical order. Always have been and always will be.

Why on earth should you care? We are level and that's that.

This is absolute confirmation of the agenda. The BBC are doing the same thing. Chelsea first and us second. And I always thought the BBC was the impartial arm of the media. Now I know better :-)

On a more serious note I thought the team showed great character today. We could easily have scored about 8 in the second half if it wasn't for Pants.

It was one of those games where the manager earns his corn. This team is different to previous seasons. There is a resilience and grit which reflects Pellegrini's leadership - trust in the system and trust in one another.

Overall a great result. Chelsea are under pressure now. Let's see how they handle it.

I know. Just because the entire world has put level teams in alphabetical order since the 19th century, doesn't mean to say they shouldn't change it this week ;-)

I agree with you about chelsea...and us. This could well be the pivotal day in the title race.

 

[aguerooooo]

it has to be said when Edin joined the injury queue a few weeks ago I feared for our title ambitions How the hell we would cope with a lightweight Pozo entrusted to score goals to ensure we get enough points to stay on the Coat tails of the leaders or as the media were calling them, the champions elect The fact that tonight we are neck and neck with them after a busy festive period ,makes a mockery of those willing to still put the proverbial boot in to the latest player/players who have been below par I admit to doubting Jovetic and said as much after BURNLEY INFACT I AM STILL NOT CONVINCED but what I am definitely sure of is that despite a stream of injuries 1 we should all be proud how the team have gave their all AND let the knockers have a rest and 2 we fight to the end were Man CITY and we fight to the end HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL FELLOW BLUES

 

[No One Understands]

I haven't had a chance to watch the match today, but some interesting stats glared at me and was wondering if anyone can help out.

City: Tackles 15 Fouls 14 Possession 64
Mackems: Tackles 20 Fouls 7 Possession 36

While tackles are not always associated with fouls, I was wondering how we committed almost the same number of fouls as tackles whereas sunderland committed only 7 fouls in comparison when they attempted 20 tackles. I also can't see us committing double the number of their fouls when we had twice the possession. Why would we commit fouls when we had the ball.

Was it a dirty game, poorly officiated, or did it just get out of hand near the end?

Thanks

 

[Stockport mackem]

Well played, in fairness 3-2 flattered us, and I don't think it as a pen...ball was out of play when contact was made..cmon spurs

FLATTERED US???????????........did you actually watch the game......I will assume that this is a joke.

Yes I did...I'm a Sunderland fan, therefore 3-2 flattered us....as in Sunderland

 

[bluestown]

can we please sell dzeko back to turkeyboorg,hes a serial injury,also let kompany go he has glass feet,so tired of sicknotes