My son and 19 year old grandson watched on the tele and thought City were poor and fortunate to keep a clean sheet. One of my other sons watched on the tele elsewhere but missed the first half hour. He thought Norwich were never in the match at all. I watched on the TV on my own and thought Norwich threatened in the first half hour but the threat never materialised and in the second half their task was trying to keep the score down.
I find it interesting that the views of different supporters, usually very much the same because closely related, differed on this match and I'm sure that it was the effect of the TV commentary. I am NOT saying that I found that commentary biased or anti-City because I did not. What I do think is that the commentators have to speak to a large audience which includes supporters of both teams and a large number of "neutrals", so the commentary tried to suggest the match was competitive for as long as possible and that Norwich's surges forward were actually far more dangerous than they were. Hitting our post was a major incident, a blow for Norwich and a bit of good fortune for us: I was not surprised or offended when the commentator stressed what a good match Norwich were playing and even that City were a little rattled (which we weren't). By the 30 minute mark I thought Norwich had tried really hard, been no-one's pushovers but would do well to avoid a thrashing! I would not have expected a commentator to say that because their job should involve respecting both sets of supporters rather than giving a strictly objective view.