Correct skasSkashion said:The rag team we beat 6-1 was a better side than the 4-1, hence why they had already beaten Arsenal 8-2 and were second in the league (to us) when we played them as well as finished with 89 points, which I guarantee they won't be doing this season. Also talking about playing against ten men is slightly disingenuous. Whilst I don't believe for a minute it'd have been 6-1 with eleven on the pitch, it's not like Evans got sent off for swearing at the ref or an off the ball incident. He brought Balotelli down when there was a clear goalscoring opportunity brought about by great attacking football. The red card was induced by how well we were playing. I don't understand getting too excited over the 4-1 at home. We've put three and four past the rags on our own patch plenty of times, including under Pearce. Massacring the rags at Old Trafford however was an earthquake where records tumbled, beating the rags 3-1 or 4-1 on our own patch is a very good derby win but not that much out of the ordinary in the history of the Manchester derby. I also cannot agree with those claiming the 4-1 was a more dominant performance. We also dominated the game for longer at Old Trafford. I think the people claiming we dominated from first to last minute against the rags at home are suffering from wilful amnesia, because after Gollum brought Cleverley on, and Pellegrini didn't respond tactically probably deciding 4-0 was enough, or else we just took our foot off, the rags had the better of the last half hour, whereas 70 minutes at Old Trafford, 75 with stoppage time, were ours in my view. The stats also back me up on that as they show the rags actually had more possession in the 4-1 than us whereas in the 6-1 we had the most possession.BlueSiam said:What's wrong with LC's post? I agree with it too. City's 1-6 win was largely against 10 men playing catch up. In the 4-1 we totally dominated from the first minute.
2-1.The cookie monster said:I would say the 1-0 away at their shithole last year was also Better than the 4-1 home win
Sorry the 2-1 win yes.Skashion said:2-1.The cookie monster said:I would say the 1-0 away at their shithole last year was also Better than the 4-1 home win
The cookie monster said:Correct skasSkashion said:The rag team we beat 6-1 was a better side than the 4-1, hence why they had already beaten Arsenal 8-2 and were second in the league (to us) when we played them as well as finished with 89 points, which I guarantee they won't be doing this season. Also talking about playing against ten men is slightly disingenuous. Whilst I don't believe for a minute it'd have been 6-1 with eleven on the pitch, it's not like Evans got sent off for swearing at the ref or an off the ball incident. He brought Balotelli down when there was a clear goalscoring opportunity brought about by great attacking football. The red card was induced by how well we were playing. I don't understand getting too excited over the 4-1 at home. We've put three and four past the rags on our own patch plenty of times, including under Pearce. Massacring the rags at Old Trafford however was an earthquake where records tumbled, beating the rags 3-1 or 4-1 on our own patch is a very good derby win but not that much out of the ordinary in the history of the Manchester derby. I also cannot agree with those claiming the 4-1 was a more dominant performance. We also dominated the game for longer at Old Trafford. I think the people claiming we dominated from first to last minute against the rags at home are suffering from wilful amnesia, because after Gollum brought Cleverley on, and Pellegrini didn't respond tactically probably deciding 4-0 was enough, or else we just took our foot off, the rags had the better of the last half hour, whereas 70 minutes at Old Trafford, 75 with stoppage time, were ours in my view. The stats also back me up on that as they show the rags actually had more possession in the 4-1 than us whereas in the 6-1 we had the most possession.BlueSiam said:What's wrong with LC's post? I agree with it too. City's 1-6 win was largely against 10 men playing catch up. In the 4-1 we totally dominated from the first minute.
And just to add the rags were in form when we humiliated them 6-1
6 days after we beat beat them 4-1 west brom twatted them at the swamp,they were all over the show form wise.
I would say the 1-0 away at their shithole last year was also Better than the 4-1 home win
Oh dear!citytill1die84 said:The cookie monster said:Correct skasSkashion said:The rag team we beat 6-1 was a better side than the 4-1, hence why they had already beaten Arsenal 8-2 and were second in the league (to us) when we played them as well as finished with 89 points, which I guarantee they won't be doing this season. Also talking about playing against ten men is slightly disingenuous. Whilst I don't believe for a minute it'd have been 6-1 with eleven on the pitch, it's not like Evans got sent off for swearing at the ref or an off the ball incident. He brought Balotelli down when there was a clear goalscoring opportunity brought about by great attacking football. The red card was induced by how well we were playing. I don't understand getting too excited over the 4-1 at home. We've put three and four past the rags on our own patch plenty of times, including under Pearce. Massacring the rags at Old Trafford however was an earthquake where records tumbled, beating the rags 3-1 or 4-1 on our own patch is a very good derby win but not that much out of the ordinary in the history of the Manchester derby. I also cannot agree with those claiming the 4-1 was a more dominant performance. We also dominated the game for longer at Old Trafford. I think the people claiming we dominated from first to last minute against the rags at home are suffering from wilful amnesia, because after Gollum brought Cleverley on, and Pellegrini didn't respond tactically probably deciding 4-0 was enough, or else we just took our foot off, the rags had the better of the last half hour, whereas 70 minutes at Old Trafford, 75 with stoppage time, were ours in my view. The stats also back me up on that as they show the rags actually had more possession in the 4-1 than us whereas in the 6-1 we had the most possession.
And just to add the rags were in form when we humiliated them 6-1
6 days after we beat beat them 4-1 west brom twatted them at the swamp,they were all over the show form wise.
I would say the 1-0 away at their shithole last year was also Better than the 4-1 home win
You mean that 2-1 where the rags didn't give a fuck? Don't be fucking stupid the 4-1 against them was 1 of the most 1 sided games I've ever seen and to say rags had a better team when we beat em 1-6 is bull as well they didn't have RVP and they beat probably the worst Arsenal team in prem history due to all the injuries they had.
The cookie monster said:Correct skasSkashion said:The rag team we beat 6-1 was a better side than the 4-1, hence why they had already beaten Arsenal 8-2 and were second in the league (to us) when we played them as well as finished with 89 points, which I guarantee they won't be doing this season. Also talking about playing against ten men is slightly disingenuous. Whilst I don't believe for a minute it'd have been 6-1 with eleven on the pitch, it's not like Evans got sent off for swearing at the ref or an off the ball incident. He brought Balotelli down when there was a clear goalscoring opportunity brought about by great attacking football. The red card was induced by how well we were playing. I don't understand getting too excited over the 4-1 at home. We've put three and four past the rags on our own patch plenty of times, including under Pearce. Massacring the rags at Old Trafford however was an earthquake where records tumbled, beating the rags 3-1 or 4-1 on our own patch is a very good derby win but not that much out of the ordinary in the history of the Manchester derby. I also cannot agree with those claiming the 4-1 was a more dominant performance. We also dominated the game for longer at Old Trafford. I think the people claiming we dominated from first to last minute against the rags at home are suffering from wilful amnesia, because after Gollum brought Cleverley on, and Pellegrini didn't respond tactically probably deciding 4-0 was enough, or else we just took our foot off, the rags had the better of the last half hour, whereas 70 minutes at Old Trafford, 75 with stoppage time, were ours in my view. The stats also back me up on that as they show the rags actually had more possession in the 4-1 than us whereas in the 6-1 we had the most possession.BlueSiam said:What's wrong with LC's post? I agree with it too. City's 1-6 win was largely against 10 men playing catch up. In the 4-1 we totally dominated from the first minute.
And just to add the rags were in form when we humiliated them 6-1
6 days after we beat beat them 4-1 west brom twatted them at the swamp,they were all over the show form wise.
I would say the 1-0 away at their shithole last year was also Better than the 4-1 home win
citytill1die84 said:You mean that 2-1 where the rags didn't give a fuck? Don't be fucking stupid the 4-1 against them was 1 of the most 1 sided games I've ever seen and to say rags had a better team when we beat em 1-6 is bull as well they didn't have RVP and they beat probably the worst Arsenal team in prem history due to all the injuries they had.