MOTD

[TCIB]

He says sensible things and pisses off a rag?
Merry Xmas and a happy new year secret footballer!!!!

Annoyed enough to log off skype which he never does.
Well i did prod more about how much they can at least look forward to January with their 100mil war chest :)

 

[Balti]

He says sensible things and pisses off a rag?
Merry Xmas and a happy new year secret footballer!!!!

everyone knows Phil Jones is player of the year ffs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! wtfigo?????????????????????????????????????????

 

[BertTrautmann'sParachute]

When will people realise that you can edit a 90 minute match and edit highlights to present exactly what you want to present.

The analysis of Dimechelis was so selective in nature, to present a narrative about his defending that Hanson wanted to portray. What I found amazing is that his examples were so unbelievably puerile and led to nothing In particular by way of Fulham chances.

I really wouldn't be bothered were it not the weak minded and un independent thinking viewers who just regurgitate this nonsense and hence perpetuate the myth. These are usually people who have not watched the game in its entirety and simply choose to believe what they are told by Hanson and his ilk.

Contrast this narrative with the eulogy about the return of the rags wing play as a result of two mediocre results against two mediocre teams. If anyone can't see this different agenda/treatment of the respective clubs then you are simply denying the blindingly obvious.

Spot on!

 

[Plaything of the gods]

Hopefully the criticism will fire up Demichelis, Dzeko and City in general and that Liverpool will feel the effect.

If Hansen was hoping to use his public platform to undermine City before the Liverpool game, I hope he's on the programme on Boxing Day to do a Hoddle.

 

[Gray]

The BBC has a history of employing complete tools, Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris and our very own Stuart Hall to name just three.

Hansen although not for the same reasons as the aforementioned is also a tool of the highest order, who can forget this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Es-RIBnba8.

The sooner he leaves our screens the better.

 

[Neville Kneville]

When will people realise that you can edit a 90 minute match and edit highlights to present exactly what you want to present.

The analysis of Dimechelis was so selective in nature, to present a narrative about his defending that Hanson wanted to portray. What I found amazing is that his examples were so unbelievably puerile and led to nothing In particular by way of Fulham chances.

I really wouldn't be bothered were it not the weak minded and un independent thinking viewers who just regurgitate this nonsense and hence perpetuate the myth. These are usually people who have not watched the game in its entirety and simply choose to believe what they are told by Hanson and his ilk.

Contrast this narrative with the eulogy about the return of the rags wing play as a result of two mediocre results against two mediocre teams. If anyone can't see this different agenda/treatment of the respective clubs then you are simply denying the blindingly obvious.

Spot on!

It was obvious Demichelis was going to be the subject on motd because he was the main reason City were conceding chances to Fulham. He was the reason they scored their 1st goal. A normal calm centre back would have just held his position & we would have had no problem.

Demichelis ended up on the wing, trailing behind Clichy & the fulham player. If people can't see how awful it was, then perhaps you should listen to what Hansen is explaining to you.

Yes he also made some great challenges & ran about a lot, but the reason these bits were highlighted, is because it was spectacularly shit, schoolboy stuff, & such a contrast to the fantastic attacking play. You don't expect that level of defending from a Premier League player.

The foillowing day, Jimmy Hasslebank & Shay Given were talking about the same thing on Goals On Sunday, their verdict was to get rid.

 

[samharris]

When will people realise that you can edit a 90 minute match and edit highlights to present exactly what you want to present.

The analysis of Dimechelis was so selective in nature, to present a narrative about his defending that Hanson wanted to portray. What I found amazing is that his examples were so unbelievably puerile and led to nothing In particular by way of Fulham chances.

I really wouldn't be bothered were it not the weak minded and un independent thinking viewers who just regurgitate this nonsense and hence perpetuate the myth. These are usually people who have not watched the game in its entirety and simply choose to believe what they are told by Hanson and his ilk.

Contrast this narrative with the eulogy about the return of the rags wing play as a result of two mediocre results against two mediocre teams. If anyone can't see this different agenda/treatment of the respective clubs then you are simply denying the blindingly obvious.

Spot on!

It was obvious Demichelis was going to be the subject on motd because he was the main reason City were conceding chances to Fulham. He was the reason they scored their 1st goal. A normal calm centre back would have just held his position & we would have had no problem.

Demichelis ended up on the wing, trailing behind Clichy & the fulham player. If people can't see how awful it was, then perhaps you should listen to what Hansen is explaining to you.

Yes he also made some great challenges & ran about a lot, but the reason these bits were highlighted, is because it was spectacularly shit, schoolboy stuff, & such a contrast to the fantastic attacking play. You don't expect that level of defending from a Premier League player.

The foillowing day, Jimmy Hasslebank & Shay Given were talking about the same thing on Goals On Sunday, their verdict was to get rid.

yet the very same player was in the team of the day...14 clearances.. yet you pick up on one error..

ffs do the maths..

 

[Academica]

When will people realise that you can edit a 90 minute match and edit highlights to present exactly what you want to present.

The analysis of Dimechelis was so selective in nature, to present a narrative about his defending that Hanson wanted to portray. What I found amazing is that his examples were so unbelievably puerile and led to nothing In particular by way of Fulham chances.

I really wouldn't be bothered were it not the weak minded and un independent thinking viewers who just regurgitate this nonsense and hence perpetuate the myth. These are usually people who have not watched the game in its entirety and simply choose to believe what they are told by Hanson and his ilk.

Contrast this narrative with the eulogy about the return of the rags wing play as a result of two mediocre results against two mediocre teams. If anyone can't see this different agenda/treatment of the respective clubs then you are simply denying the blindingly obvious.

One Hansen drew attention to was Demichelis divng in on the half way line, he missed the ball and it led to Fulham's first goal
Hansen does have a point that Demichelis is on his arse too much, but as the majority have said, Hansen should have balanced it with the good aspects of our play, especially as we won by scoring four goals

I think Silva not releasing the ball and having it taken off him, led to the first goal.

 

[Academica]

When will people realise that you can edit a 90 minute match and edit highlights to present exactly what you want to present.

The analysis of Dimechelis was so selective in nature, to present a narrative about his defending that Hanson wanted to portray. What I found amazing is that his examples were so unbelievably puerile and led to nothing In particular by way of Fulham chances.

I really wouldn't be bothered were it not the weak minded and un independent thinking viewers who just regurgitate this nonsense and hence perpetuate the myth. These are usually people who have not watched the game in its entirety and simply choose to believe what they are told by Hanson and his ilk.

Contrast this narrative with the eulogy about the return of the rags wing play as a result of two mediocre results against two mediocre teams. If anyone can't see this different agenda/treatment of the respective clubs then you are simply denying the blindingly obvious.

One Hansen drew attention to was Demichelis divng in on the half way line, he missed the ball and it led to Fulham's first goal
Hansen does have a point that Demichelis is on his arse too much, but as the majority have said, Hansen should have balanced it with the good aspects of our play, especially as we won by scoring four goals

I think Silva not releasing the ball and having it taken off him, led to the first goal.

Demichelis v Fulham
94% pass completion
100% of five aerial battles won
Game high 14 clearences
Match of the day team of the day
Probably one of the worse defensive performances of the season.

 

[Anonymous]

He really has a bee in his bonnet about us doesn't he?

Liverpool play us then Chelsea. Our record at home as we know is phenomenal and Chelsea are not too shabby, but Hansen in the Torygraph frames things thusly: if Liverpool can get 3 pts at City and a draw at Chelsea, then they can be real title contenders.

I agree with the statement in principle (i.e. if they pick up 4 pts it will put them in very good stead) but why does he see them picking up 3 pts against us given our current record rather than against Chelsea?

Now I'm not saying we will beat Liverpool any stretch of the imagination, but given our systematic dismantling of the shite, Arsenal and Tottenham amongst others, wouldn't an analysis of "a point a City given their home record and a push against Chelsea whom seem to be still finding their feet…" hold more weight and credibility?

Again, call me paranoid and laugh at me for letting Hansen get under my skin, but I find it all rather sad that, for whatever reason, he decides to take this tack and show just how ridiculous an individual he is.