No One Understands said: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
bluestown said:can we please sell dzeko back to turkeyboorg,hes a serial injury,also let kompany go he has glass feet,so tired of sicknotes
Mister Appointment said:Fuck me what a weird game. Similar to Burnley in that there was an element of Christmas fatigue about our performance. It's really worrying the way we seem to have looked so vulnerable at times and conceded goals from practically nothing situations. I know he's a hero but Zaba in particular has been culpable a few times this season and was again against both Burnley and Sunderland.
On the plus side, Clichy looks one of our most dangerous attackers as well as being very good defensively.
Massive 3 points considering what happened at WHL. It's amazing how narrative rules in football. Chelsea have been lauded week in and week out whilst the overriding opinion on City has continually been that we're too complacent and won't win the league. Yet watching Chelsea yesterday three things stood out beyond anything else. Terry/Cahill partnership is vulnerable as fuck. Fabregas can and is often bullied out of big games. Costa is overrated and for all his physicality isn't particularly quick nor particularly skill full. He's definitely efficient when it comes to being a dirty bastard.
Big month ahead for us now. The way Chelsea are wobbling there's the potential for them to drop more points. More than anything because Mourinho's reaction to big defeats is generally to become even more negative in the way he sets his team out.
Oh and that's one win in five away games unless i'm mistaken for Chelsea. Hardly title winning form and certainly not the kind of form you'd associate with a team which is described as the greatest the league has ever seen!
jacko74 said:No One Understands said: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
These kind of stats have been representative of most City games for quite sometime now, the level of ''fouls'' we supposedly commit is ridiculously high.
Here's me thinking we're one of the best sides in the league when it comes to keeping possession and passing the ball when in fact the stats PROVE we're just a bunch of talentless, clumsy cloggers who are constantly chasing the the game and hacking the opposition players down.
Still, no agenda though...
Mister Appointment said:Fuck me what a weird game. Similar to Burnley in that there was an element of Christmas fatigue about our performance. It's really worrying the way we seem to have looked so vulnerable at times and conceded goals from practically nothing situations. I know he's a hero but Zaba in particular has been culpable a few times this season and was again against both Burnley and Sunderland.
On the plus side, Clichy looks one of our most dangerous attackers as well as being very good defensively.
Massive 3 points considering what happened at WHL. It's amazing how narrative rules in football. Chelsea have been lauded week in and week out whilst the overriding opinion on City has continually been that we're too complacent and won't win the league. Yet watching Chelsea yesterday three things stood out beyond anything else. Terry/Cahill partnership is vulnerable as fuck. Fabregas can and is often bullied out of big games. Costa is overrated and for all his physicality isn't particularly quick nor particularly skill full. He's definitely efficient when it comes to being a dirty bastard.
Big month ahead for us now. The way Chelsea are wobbling there's the potential for them to drop more points. More than anything because Mourinho's reaction to big defeats is generally to become even more negative in the way he sets his team out.
Oh and that's one win in five away games unless i'm mistaken for Chelsea. Hardly title winning form and certainly not the kind of form you'd associate with a team which is described as the greatest the league has ever seen!
City as a team, are an honest one, they look to play football, retain possession, not to cheat, to go down easy, unlike Chelsea, who have a mandate to dive, cheat, win at all costs, as directed by José, maybe we are too honest, but the club has a clear philosophy of doing it the right way, from tea lady to team captain, on and off the field, we get massacred in the media if we put a toe out of place, and only begrudgingly, get plaudits for what we do right most of the time, no, keep doing it the same way, I want my son to look up to players like Aguero, Zaba, Vinny for what they do on and off the pitch, for being good people, not just good players, and that includes not diving for free kicks.BlueAnorak said:jacko74 said:No One Understands said: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
These kind of stats have been representative of most City games for quite sometime now, the level of ''fouls'' we supposedly commit is ridiculously high.
Here's me thinking we're one of the best sides in the league when it comes to keeping possession and passing the ball when in fact the stats PROVE we're just a bunch of talentless, clumsy cloggers who are constantly chasing the the game and hacking the opposition players down.
Still, no agenda though...
I've been looking at this issue for quite some time now and it is quite clear that one of the reasons for this is it is quite clear that refs only give free kicks when a team loses possession.
For example Silva gets fouled on average 6 times a game but because he is so quick and gets the ball away in the direction of a City player as the foul comes in refs don't give the foul. I'm at a loss to understand how it can be an advantage to City that a foul is not given - especially when the bus is parked - but there you go. (Incidentally Silva gets both his feet in the air as the challenge comes in so little damage is done (somthing else that is worth noting). The same applies to Nasri and YaYa to la lesser degree.
That said refs have a basic reluctance to blow up for a foul on City yet will blow up instantly when a City player pulls the same trick, so I'm sure City would have to face many more break away attempts if City player went down without trying to retain possession.
Didsbury Dave said:Bluep*ss said: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.