Martin Demichelis

[kp789]

I think this thread is starting to highlight those with football knowledge and those without much.

One single incident in an entire match does not make it a bad performance! Kompany made mistakes in that game, but was phenomenal. Messi, Xavi and Iniesta made mistakes in that game.

I have seen strikers score 4 goals in a game and miss a sitter, yet they still put in an amazing performance.

The reason that people are blaming MDM is for two reasons. Firstly, they cannot accept that City are not the greatest team in the world and were undone by a well drilled team with some of the greatest players of our generation. (Some are starting to sound like un*ted 'fans')
Secondly, certain fans already have a dislike for MDM and look for any excuse to use him as the scapegoat and blame him for anything which goes wrong.

Give your heads a wobble! He plays for City and therefore you should support him, not just wait for him to fail. It is sickening the treatment that this bloke gets of some moronic people. Applaud what he does well and encourage when he needs it.

I find it hard to think that this is the same fan base that was watching City play Crewe with me 13 years ago.

I dislike every single word of this. From the hackneyed 'starting to sound like United fans' to the yawnsome, entirely flawed comparison to our recent past (because hey we used to just accept everything and never used to complain once in the dark old days. I recall us applauding the winning side off after each defeat and saying a collective 'Hard lines City but you gave it your best')

But mostly it's the arrogance wrapped around ignorance. You say something entirely wrong then claim if someone differs from your incorrect viewpoint they must, by default, know nothing about the game.

MDM had a generally decent first half and made some important intuitive interceptions that were peppered by examples of poor distribution. Mainly though he played - as per - on the front foot and - for once - his timing was largely impressive.
But his mistake defined his performance. His mistake changed the entire narrative of the tie and our Champions League pursuit. His mistake was extremely costly.

In this instance one single incident DOES warrant criticism just as Hart's rush to the head justified rebuke after Chelsea away.

It was a mindless, incredibly stupid decision to commit to a challenge he could never hope to pull off. From the moment he chose to commit - and bear in mind this seasoned veteran at the highest level then had an extra few seconds to pull out - a sending off was inevitable.

Far worse than conceding - and whose to say Hart wouldnt have blocked Messi's effort - at that moment in the game was to lose a man. And MDM CHOSE this option.

So the reason I'm blaming him for our defeat is not because I consider us the greatest team in the world - as you state - but rather because he was to blame.

I am not making the comparison with the old days because we would just accept defeat. I am making it because it is only recently that I have been aware of such hate and criticism toward a city player. I cannot remember anything like what MDM is getting currently pre2008.

In regards to my 'arrogance and ignorance' I think that is a bit unfair. Perhaps that is just the style in which I am conveying my views and my opinions. I draw the point in regards to the 'lack of football knowledge' not only on the basis of this game, but on many of MDM's performances. His mistakes are highlighted and his successes are swept under the carpet.

I accept that it was a bad mistake, but lets say that MDM let Messi run through, stay on the pitch and score. Unfortunately, I can see no situation where any fan would accept that MDM should have done let him go past. Retrospect is a wonderful thing, but had he let Messi go through, everyone would go crazy and say he should have made the attempt, becuase he could have stopped a goal (if messi had scored) . If he had not made the tackle and we were debating now whether he should have made the attempt or not, how could we say that he would have won the ball or not?

It is all what if's and many variables. Like I say, retrospect is a wonderful thing.

 

[kp789]

So the reason I'm blaming him for our defeat is not because I consider us the greatest team in the world - as you state - but rather because he was to blame.

You have to agree with this. Had Kompany made this challenge he would have got slated for it as well. It was a stupid thing to do and with MDM's age and experience, he really should have known better.

I can see KP's point in that if Kompany had done similar any criticism would have been very much tempered with frsutration rather than ire. But that's because Vinnie has been largely outstanding for us for several seasons whereas Dimichelis has not. One has earned the right to avoid outright castigation after a cock-up, the other has not.

I see his point but dont understand why he thinks this is so unfair. Its the same for all of life - you make more allowances for those you have greater feeling/respect for.

To be fair that is a very good point. I do agree.

But what I specifically think is unfair is the expectations bestowed upon MDM. Perhaps it is reasonable to expect a player of his experience, signing for a fantastic club to perform to the highest level. But like I mentioned in another post, I think he has been brought in as a stop gap for a season. I think he signed as a rotation option and did not expect to be playing anywhere near this many games. City fans expect himto be this superstar centre half and hey, maybe he should be! But it isnt his fault that his limited by his own ability and forced to attempt to adhere to expectations unreasonably bestowed upon him. Perhaps, dare I say it, it is the clubs fault for not bringing in a partner for Vinnie who is at the 'next level'.

I doubt he expected to play week in week out when he signed. He knows his own abilities and unfortunately, he is

 

[the old abbey]

Just to highlight a couple of things firstly you have no proof that this is a fact all you have is 1 bad judgement and a poor game when he was left wanting by Yaya.

Also all the best CB were already playing in the CL so too late for this season

Course ive proof.seen every game of his since sep thats proof enough to know the guys a liabilty.he aint good enough comprende! As for breaking the bank money talks.

-- Thu Feb 20, 2014 1:25 pm --

Just to highlight a couple of things firstly you have no proof that this is a fact all you have is 1 bad judgement and a poor game when he was left wanting by Yaya.

Also all the best CB were already playing in the CL so too late for this season

Course ive proof.seen every game of his since sep thats proof enough to know the guys a liabilty.he aint good enough comprende! As for breaking the bank money talks.

Unfortunately it isn't proof that is just your opinion. You stated you had facts but actually you don't you just have a point of view.
Facts are when you can add something to a debate and show the evidence at hand that he is a liability. What is a fact is that you have nothing but your opinion which means nothing. For all I know you could say that Lescott is by far a better defender. Then in my opinion I would say you are fucking clueless and your previous post is void.
However I don't have facts to prove that you are fucking clueless. I shall just leave this for you to keep posting and prove this yourself.

im afraid seeing every game hes played since september are enough proof and facts to know he just aint good enough.have you seen every game.i doubt it you clueless prick.

 

[the originalkippaxman]

Has to be done, sorry!

Looks like we will have to go for the Primary liability. Though I am unsure with the match stats and season stats we would have a strong enough case. Though we do have a key witness "The Old Abbey"

 

[stonerblue]

Course ive proof.seen every game of his since sep thats proof enough to know the guys a liabilty.he aint good enough comprende! As for breaking the bank money talks.

-- Thu Feb 20, 2014 1:25 pm --


Course ive proof.seen every game of his since sep thats proof enough to know the guys a liabilty.he aint good enough comprende! As for breaking the bank money talks.

Unfortunately it isn't proof that is just your opinion. You stated you had facts but actually you don't you just have a point of view.
Facts are when you can add something to a debate and show the evidence at hand that he is a liability. What is a fact is that you have nothing but your opinion which means nothing. For all I know you could say that Lescott is by far a better defender. Then in my opinion I would say you are fucking clueless and your previous post is void.
However I don't have facts to prove that you are fucking clueless. I shall just leave this for you to keep posting and prove this yourself.

im afraid seeing every game hes played since september are enough proof and facts to know he just aint good enough.have you seen every game.i doubt it you clueless prick.[/quote]

no need.

 

[kp789]

Unfortunately it isn't proof that is just your opinion. You stated you had facts but actually you don't you just have a point of view.
Facts are when you can add something to a debate and show the evidence at hand that he is a liability. What is a fact is that you have nothing but your opinion which means nothing. For all I know you could say that Lescott is by far a better defender. Then in my opinion I would say you are fucking clueless and your previous post is void.
However I don't have facts to prove that you are fucking clueless. I shall just leave this for you to keep posting and prove this yourself.

im afraid seeing every game hes played since september are enough proof and facts to know he just aint good enough.have you seen every game.i doubt it you clueless prick.[/quote]

no need.

Can people stay away from the personal insults and try to have a constructive discussion. No need for the bitchy comments and insults.

 

[the originalkippaxman]

Course ive proof.seen every game of his since sep thats proof enough to know the guys a liabilty.he aint good enough comprende! As for breaking the bank money talks.

-- Thu Feb 20, 2014 1:25 pm --


Course ive proof.seen every game of his since sep thats proof enough to know the guys a liabilty.he aint good enough comprende! As for breaking the bank money talks.

Unfortunately it isn't proof that is just your opinion. You stated you had facts but actually you don't you just have a point of view.
Facts are when you can add something to a debate and show the evidence at hand that he is a liability. What is a fact is that you have nothing but your opinion which means nothing. For all I know you could say that Lescott is by far a better defender. Then in my opinion I would say you are fucking clueless and your previous post is void.
However I don't have facts to prove that you are fucking clueless. I shall just leave this for you to keep posting and prove this yourself.

im afraid seeing every game hes played since september are enough proof and facts to know he just aint good enough.have you seen every game.i doubt it you clueless prick.

Still only your point of view and really you aren't offering much proof. Though to be fair you are assisting me in building a strong case for me to offer the facts that you are indeed fucking clueless.

Have I seen every game he has played in. Now that is a good question. Put it this way I will be one of the 4,600 so I will let you work that one out.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Course ive proof.seen every game of his since sep thats proof enough to know the guys a liabilty.he aint good enough comprende! As for breaking the bank money talks.

-- Thu Feb 20, 2014 1:25 pm --


Course ive proof.seen every game of his since sep thats proof enough to know the guys a liabilty.he aint good enough comprende! As for breaking the bank money talks.

Unfortunately it isn't proof that is just your opinion. You stated you had facts but actually you don't you just have a point of view.
Facts are when you can add something to a debate and show the evidence at hand that he is a liability. What is a fact is that you have nothing but your opinion which means nothing. For all I know you could say that Lescott is by far a better defender. Then in my opinion I would say you are fucking clueless and your previous post is void.
However I don't have facts to prove that you are fucking clueless. I shall just leave this for you to keep posting and prove this yourself.

Has to be done, sorry!

Liability
A comprehensive legal term that describes the condition of being actually or potentially subject to a legal obligation.

Joint liability is an obligation for which more than one person is responsible.

Joint and several liability refers to the status of those who are responsible together as one unit as well as individually for their conduct. The person who has been harmed can institute a lawsuit and recover from any or all of the wrongdoers—but cannot receive double compensation, for instance, the full amount of recovery from each of two wrongdoers.

Primary liability is an obligation for which a person is directly responsible; it is distinguished from secondary liability which is the responsibility of another if the party directly responsible fails or refuses to satisfy his or her obligation.

I don't know what you are trying to show here. But you miss:

"[USUALLY IN SINGULAR] a person or thing whose presence or behaviour is likely to put one at a disadvantage:
she said the party had become a liability to green politics"
Oxford English Dictionary

 

[aguero93:20]

Unfortunately it isn't proof that is just your opinion. You stated you had facts but actually you don't you just have a point of view.
Facts are when you can add something to a debate and show the evidence at hand that he is a liability. What is a fact is that you have nothing but your opinion which means nothing. For all I know you could say that Lescott is by far a better defender. Then in my opinion I would say you are fucking clueless and your previous post is void.
However I don't have facts to prove that you are fucking clueless. I shall just leave this for you to keep posting and prove this yourself.

Has to be done, sorry!

Liability
A comprehensive legal term that describes the condition of being actually or potentially subject to a legal obligation.

Joint liability is an obligation for which more than one person is responsible.

Joint and several liability refers to the status of those who are responsible together as one unit as well as individually for their conduct. The person who has been harmed can institute a lawsuit and recover from any or all of the wrongdoers—but cannot receive double compensation, for instance, the full amount of recovery from each of two wrongdoers.

Primary liability is an obligation for which a person is directly responsible; it is distinguished from secondary liability which is the responsibility of another if the party directly responsible fails or refuses to satisfy his or her obligation.

I don't know what you are trying to show here. But you miss:

"[USUALLY IN SINGULAR] a person or thing whose presence or behaviour is likely to put one at a disadvantage:
she said the party had become a liability to green politics"
Oxford English Dictionary

Hehe fair enough, I was trying to make the point that it's a legal term and not meant for personal use but I wont argue with the oxford dictionary! :)

 

[the originalkippaxman]

Unfortunately it isn't proof that is just your opinion. You stated you had facts but actually you don't you just have a point of view.
Facts are when you can add something to a debate and show the evidence at hand that he is a liability. What is a fact is that you have nothing but your opinion which means nothing. For all I know you could say that Lescott is by far a better defender. Then in my opinion I would say you are fucking clueless and your previous post is void.
However I don't have facts to prove that you are fucking clueless. I shall just leave this for you to keep posting and prove this yourself.

Has to be done, sorry!

Liability
A comprehensive legal term that describes the condition of being actually or potentially subject to a legal obligation.

Joint liability is an obligation for which more than one person is responsible.

Joint and several liability refers to the status of those who are responsible together as one unit as well as individually for their conduct. The person who has been harmed can institute a lawsuit and recover from any or all of the wrongdoers—but cannot receive double compensation, for instance, the full amount of recovery from each of two wrongdoers.

Primary liability is an obligation for which a person is directly responsible; it is distinguished from secondary liability which is the responsibility of another if the party directly responsible fails or refuses to satisfy his or her obligation.

I don't know what you are trying to show here. But you miss:

"[USUALLY IN SINGULAR] a person or thing whose presence or behaviour is likely to put one at a disadvantage:
she said the party had become a liability to green politics"
Oxford English Dictionary

I can't believe you are know blaming him for the state of politics ;-)