My last game of ball - at 41 - I came on as a late sub, raked the shit out of the calf of the lad who was marking me for a corner and nodded in the equaliser.Nope you’ve got to try and win the game by hook or by crook (imo when you’re as shit as the teams I played for). Topically, VAR is cancelling out the hooks and crooks.
Job-o-workMy last game of ball - at 41 - I came on as a late sub, raked the shit out of the calf of the lad who was marking me for a corner and nodded in the equaliser.
I then spent the next ten minutes staying well the fuck out of his and the ball's way.
Funny to look back on.
It in no way endorses a pundit calling for opposition players to lay yellow card worthy fouls on a specific team.
I agree. What Murphy did - and others on Talkshite too, apparently (couldn't be arsed listening to that, myself) was outrageous.Job-o-work
Yeah it’s one of those truths that we don’t say cos we know it’s wrong even though we do it
If US based Electronic Arts believed the beeb, he’d have the pace he desiresI agree. What Murphy did - and others on Talkshite too, apparently (couldn't be arsed listening to that, myself) was outrageous.
The suggestion made earlier, along the lines that ''players don't care about such comments' is poorly timed, considering that the scorer of one of England's greatest ever goals, Jesse Lingard (no, seriously!), was quoted in the BBC before the game, lamenting his imaginary self's rating on a computer game.
Where the f**k do these people think that footballers watch their football?
Don’t bother bluelf the guy can’t be that stupid he’s just being contrary for the sake of itLike asked already how do you get a yellow card in Danny Murphy's scenario ?
He is calling for the opposition of your team to get a yellow card by breaking the rules.
Like previously stated you just do not want to see or just prefer to play the devils advocate for your shits and giggles, the same as your alter ego friend.
Also the next 7 or so games after his comments City players faced at least 10 leg breaking tackles that resulted in the sum total of ZERO red cards, or did you not see those either ?
Is this also laughable you odd odd man.
Thanks for your response. I trust you will forgive me if I havethe audacity to seek to disagree upon the salience of your points, though?
I can only applaud your citing of Jamie Carragher as a denial of the remarks I clearly condemned - which were those those of Neville and Tyler. Most people who would have read my remarks might have concluded from such wording as "it stemmed from the two clowns in the commentary box" as being clearly indicitave of my attribution of the blame to them rather than "a Sky narrative" which you alone have constructed in your imagination.
I take your point about not every outlet seizing upon the narrative of the, shall we for simplicity's sake call it, "great injustice". I do this, not least, because it's exactly the point that I made in my original post. However, I thank you for citing the relevant passages that endorse what I said in your rather pedantic post. Admittedly, I am somewhat at a loss as to how you feel they are in any way a negation of my argument but hey, if it makes you happy to think so, have at it.
I might also point out that Mane's goal in the return fixture was described by the same Sky commentator as "revenge" and that Sky saw fit to remove this remark in subsequent repeats of the goal. This, to my (what was your patronising remark again? Oh, yeah...) "emotive nature" further exemplifies my claim that this particular cause celebre was an individual rather than a organisational development. However, you may feel free to accuse me if claiming otherwise. I frankly have no time to be quibbling with such a self-servingmentality.
Guardiola's remarks on the sending off are open to interpretation. You argue they were a vindication. That's not unreasonable, to be fair. I would suggest they were as much born out of diplomacy. A diplomacy deamanded by his employers and, the lacking of which, has been evident in the sacking of both Maldini and your man, El Fathead, back at the time of the take over. What's indisputable is that Pep later despaired at the treatment of our players - and chose his words extremely carefully in doing so.
Your assertion that Danny Murphy didn't call for violence against our team on MOTD, has been quite thoroughly dealt with already. So, I'll spare you the embarrassment of repeating it.
PS
For the record, I posted my entry in a mannerly and respectful tone. Always, feel free to disagree with me any time (that's never a problem) but it was disappointing that, rather than respond in constructive argument and address the actual points I made, you chose to distort and, worse again, attempt to patronise me in your response. Frankly, nothing you have posted thus far suggests that youyou poss the intellect to carry that particular trick off.
Oof.Thanks for your response. I trust you will forgive me if I havethe audacity to seek to disagree upon the salience of your points, though?
I can only applaud your citing of Jamie Carragher as a denial of the remarks I clearly condemned - which were those those of Neville and Tyler. Most people who would have read my remarks might have concluded from such wording as "it stemmed from the two clowns in the commentary box" as being clearly indicitave of my attribution of the blame to them rather than "a Sky narrative" which you alone have constructed in your imagination.
I take your point about not every outlet seizing upon the narrative of the, shall we for simplicity's sake call it, "great injustice". I do this, not least, because it's exactly the point that I made in my original post. However, I thank you for citing the relevant passages that endorse what I said in your rather pedantic post. Admittedly, I am somewhat at a loss as to how you feel they are in any way a negation of my argument but hey, if it makes you happy to think so, have at it.
I might also point out that Mane's goal in the return fixture was described by the same Sky commentator as "revenge" and that Sky saw fit to remove this remark in subsequent repeats of the goal. This, to my (what was your patronising remark again? Oh, yeah...) "emotive nature" further exemplifies my claim that this particular cause celebre was an individual rather than a organisational development. However, you may feel free to accuse me if claiming otherwise. I frankly have no time to be quibbling with such a self-servingmentality.
Guardiola's remarks on the sending off are open to interpretation. You argue they were a vindication. That's not unreasonable, to be fair. I would suggest they were as much born out of diplomacy. A diplomacy deamanded by his employers and, the lacking of which, has been evident in the sacking of both Mancini and your man, El Fathead, back at the time of the take over. What's indisputable is that Pep later despaired at the treatment of our players - and chose his words extremely carefully in doing so.
Your assertion that Danny Murphy didn't call for violence against our team on MOTD, has been quite thoroughly dealt with already. So, I'll spare you the embarrassment of repeating it.
PS
For the record, I posted my entry in a mannerly and respectful tone. Always, feel free to disagree with me any time (that's never a problem) but it was disappointing that, rather than respond in constructive argument and address the actual points I made, you chose to distort and, worse again, attempt to patronise me in your response. Frankly, nothing you have posted thus far suggests that you possess the intellect to carry off that particular trick.
Back of the net sonThanks for your response. I trust you will forgive me if I havethe audacity to seek to disagree upon the salience of your points, though?
I can only applaud your citing of Jamie Carragher as a denial of the remarks I clearly condemned - which were those those of Neville and Tyler. Most people who would have read my remarks might have concluded from such wording as "it stemmed from the two clowns in the commentary box" as being clearly indicitave of my attribution of the blame to them rather than "a Sky narrative" which you alone have constructed in your imagination.
I take your point about not every outlet seizing upon the narrative of the, shall we for simplicity's sake call it, "great injustice". I do this, not least, because it's exactly the point that I made in my original post. However, I thank you for citing the relevant passages that endorse what I said in your rather pedantic post. Admittedly, I am somewhat at a loss as to how you feel they are in any way a negation of my argument but hey, if it makes you happy to think so, have at it.
I might also point out that Mane's goal in the return fixture was described by the same Sky commentator as "revenge" and that Sky saw fit to remove this remark in subsequent repeats of the goal. This, to my (what was your patronising remark again? Oh, yeah...) "emotive nature" further exemplifies my claim that this particular cause celebre was an individual rather than a organisational development. However, you may feel free to accuse me if claiming otherwise. I frankly have no time to be quibbling with such a self-servingmentality.
Guardiola's remarks on the sending off are open to interpretation. You argue they were a vindication. That's not unreasonable, to be fair. I would suggest they were as much born out of diplomacy. A diplomacy deamanded by his employers and, the lacking of which, has been evident in the sacking of both Mancini and your man, El Fathead, back at the time of the take over. What's indisputable is that Pep later despaired at the treatment of our players - and chose his words extremely carefully in doing so.
Your assertion that Danny Murphy didn't call for violence against our team on MOTD, has been quite thoroughly dealt with already. So, I'll spare you the embarrassment of repeating it.
PS
For the record, I posted my entry in a mannerly and respectful tone. Always, feel free to disagree with me any time (that's never a problem) but it was disappointing that, rather than respond in constructive argument and address the actual points I made, you chose to distort and, worse again, attempt to patronise me in your response. Frankly, nothing you have posted thus far suggests that you possess the intellect to carry off that particular trick.
this is a top , top post ...I'm reluctant to join the queue of posters jumping down your throat because you dare to disagree but I would like to make one point, if I may....
I think it might have been our second home game of the season when an opposing forward launched himself into the air, caught our goalkeeper in the face and rendered him in urgent need of medical attention.
To be fair to the attacker, I don't believe anybody thought there was any malice in his actions. The ball was in play, he felt he had to go for it and, when he didn't get it, everybody else felt he had to go. That should have been the end of it. Except, as you know, it wasn't.
The two clowns in the Sky TV commentary box set forth a theory that a great injustice had been perpetrated, not on the goalkeeper who needed eight stitches, a stretcher and an oxygen mask but on the forward who had (most probably not maliciously, as I say but) inarguably led with his foot several feet off of the ground without any care or consideration for the well-being of his opponent.
They proceeded to spend the remainder of the game ignoring some scintillating football from our team and, instead, urging the viewer to believe that every City transgression was worthy of review with an eye to issuing a post-dated red card. All interviews after the game concentrated upon the sending-off with a clear inference that a great injustice had cost the visitors dearly.
The printed media, seeing the value of playing up to this narrative, in many cases seized upon it, in others, at the very least, validated it - despite the clear and obvious fact that it was utter, utter bollocks.
So, why am I rehashing this, you might be wondering?
This chain of events was not, even in the wildest of imaginations, a manifestation of some greater, clandestine conspiracy. It stemmed from two individuals in the commentary box - neither of whom have ever liked City, I suspect - putting their tainted view of an action, front and centre and other outlets realising some commercial value in acknowledging it rather than simply dismissing for the petty, deluded bollocks it rather was.
The trouble is, the story doesn't just end there. It continued to have ramifications throughout the season. Time after time, opposition players left nasty, vicious tackles in on City players, throughout the remainder of the season. Largely, they did so with impugnity.
Undoubtedly, many other clubs' fans will point to seriously violent challenges upon their players that went without due punishment. That's part of football.
I doubt though that they could point to Match of the Day pundits urging opposition players to assault theirs - and I doubt too that they could realistically argue, as we City fans can, that, having witnessed the shitstorm arising from such a blatant red card in September, referees were intimidated with regard to sending off any further players for foul play against us. So much so, in fact, with the exception of the final minute of extra time v "plucky Cardiff" (the BBC's description, not mine), after 90 minutes of employing tactics that more resembled British Bulldog than Association Football, I cannot recall any other opposition player being sent off against City for the rest of the season, despite some entirely vicious assaults masquerading as tackles in about ten occasions.
So, yeah, I get it. You work with United fans and they tell you every day that Fernandinho leads a charmed existence and you somewhat believe it - or, if not, you at least, think that the argument somehow negates any claims of bias made by City fans.
That's fine. You're entitled to your opinion - and yes, some of the tin foil helmet stuff floating about can be embarrassing.
You're wrong though. City have undoubtedly been the victims of a loosely orchestrated campaign of bias. The tale set out above is just one example. There have been others - some of it quite blatant - from Sky displaying doctored statistics to BT accidentally forgetting to include City in its Champions League promotions to the BBC saluting "Bertie" and so on...
Again, I don't think it's a particularly well thought out campaign. Hating on City is more a flag of convenience for hacks wishing to appeal to both of the big red tribal bases.
It undoubtedly exists though and - in one manifestation of it at least - our players are being put at very real physical risk because of it.
Supporters have every right to call it out when they see it. They don't deserve to be ridiculed or spoken down to for expressing an opinion about it. They might get carried away in their interpretation of its origins but let's not pretend it's a figment of the imagination. It's very real.