Post match thread - City v Newcastle

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Apart from the two he got wrong in the first half (Newcastle's "second goal" which wasn't offside and the one Joe saved which was...)

At the time I had no idea why that "goal" had been disallowed, I was simply relieved it had been, but on Sunday I watched the highlights on MoD. I agree with posters who believe they gave a very misleading impression of the balance of the first half, but the commentator did point out the offside was given against the overlapping winger, as Hungarian Blue said, and the slo-mo confirmed it. The offside was NOT against anyone in the middle because they were always behind the ball.

 

[BlueAnorak]

1 in 4?? youd score about 200 goals!

Opps I made a classic mistake there dividing goals by attempts per game. Should be attempts per game / goals per game. Doh - I need some sleep.

Chelski 2015: 73 goals/38 games = 1.92 goals a game from 14.8 attempts per game = 1 goal every 7.7 attempts.
..City 2014: 102 goals/38 games = 2.68 goals a game from 17.7 attempts per game = 1 goal every 6.6 attempts.
...Utd 2013: 86 goals/38 games = 2.26 goals a game from 14.7 attempts per game = 1 goal every 6.5 attempts.
....City 2012: 93 goals/38 games = 2.45 goals a game from 19.4 attempts per game = 1 goal every 7.9183 attempts.
(...Utd 2012: 89 goals/38 games = 2.34 goals a game from 17 attempts per game = 1 goal every 7.26 attempts.)

Historically the closer you get to 1 from 6.5 or better the more likely you are to win the league .

City 2016: 19 goals/7 games = 2.71 goals a game from 20.6 attempts per game = 7.6 attempts per goal.
Arse 2016: 13 goals/7 games = 1.86 goals a game from 20 attempts per game = 10.75 attempts per goal.
Utd 2016: 12 goals/7 games = 1.71 goals a game from 11.1 attempts per game = 6.49 attempts per goal..

So as you can see Utd are BANG on target, we are under performing and ARSE are showing the world why you can't win the league without a quality striker.

 

[BlueAnorak]

At the time I had no idea why that "goal" had been disallowed, I was simply relieved it had been, but on Sunday I watched the highlights on MoD. I agree with posters who believe they gave a very misleading impression of the balance of the first half, but the commentator did point out the offside was given against the overlapping winger, as Hungarian Blue said, and the slo-mo confirmed it. The offside was NOT against anyone in the middle because they were always behind the ball.

It's hellish close if it was for the overlapping winger (and I'd be very disappointed if a similar offence was given against City).
As the flag didn't go up at the time I'm fairly sure the offside was given for the Newcastle player on the near post (Perez?). The two players in the middle were offside when the ball was given to the winger and can only become active again if they first become onside.(in the City highlights video at 2:47 the winger passes the ball) and the guy at the near post is LEVEL with Raheem Sterling (chasing down the winger) but crucially he has not yet become active again by being BEHIND Sterling. So when he touches the ball an offside is given. It's still hellish close mind.

 

[grim up north]

It's hellish close if it was for the overlapping winger (and I'd be very disappointed if a similar offence was given against City).
As the flag didn't go up at the time I'm fairly sure the offside was given for the Newcastle player on the near post (Perez?). The two players in the middle were offside when the ball was given to the winger and can only become active again if they first become onside.(in the City highlights video at 2:47 the winger passes the ball) and the guy at the near post is LEVEL with Raheem Sterling (chasing down the winger) but crucially he has not yet become active again by being BEHIND Sterling. So when he touches the ball an offside is given. It's still hellish close mind.

The lines pointed with his flag who he had given offside and it was the full back

 

[Chris in London]

Opps I made a classic mistake there dividing goals by attempts per game. Should be attempts per game / goals per game. Doh - I need some sleep.

Chelski 2015: 73 goals/38 games = 1.92 goals a game from 14.8 attempts per game = 1 goal every 7.7 attempts.
..City 2014: 102 goals/38 games = 2.68 goals a game from 17.7 attempts per game = 1 goal every 6.6 attempts.
...Utd 2013: 86 goals/38 games = 2.26 goals a game from 14.7 attempts per game = 1 goal every 6.5 attempts.
....City 2012: 93 goals/38 games = 2.45 goals a game from 19.4 attempts per game = 1 goal every 7.9183 attempts.
(...Utd 2012: 89 goals/38 games = 2.34 goals a game from 17 attempts per game = 1 goal every 7.26 attempts.)

Historically the closer you get to 1 from 6.5 or better the more likely you are to win the league .

City 2016: 19 goals/7 games = 2.71 goals a game from 20.6 attempts per game = 7.6 attempts per goal.
Arse 2016: 13 goals/7 games = 1.86 goals a game from 20 attempts per game = 10.75 attempts per goal.
Utd 2016: 12 goals/7 games = 1.71 goals a game from 11.1 attempts per game = 6.49 attempts per goal..

So as you can see Utd are BANG on target, we are under performing and ARSE are showing the world why you can't win the league without a quality striker.

It isn't quite that simple though, because chance conversion rate alone only tells part of the story. Chance creation is the other part of it.

To take a simple example, if your chance conversion rate is 1 in 5, that's great, but not if you create an average of 4 chances a game. 1 in 20 is not so good, but if you create 40 chances a game you are still likely to score 2 goals a game.

You can see this in the above figures. In both our title winning seasons, our chances-per-game figures were much higher than the champions' figures the following seasons when we didn't win the league.

All of which is simply to use statistics to illustrate the common sense point that to win the league you need to create lots of chances and take them when you do.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

Can't believe some of the paranoia in here.

We got the benefit of the doubt at Sunderland when Otamendi fell on his arse.

We got the benefit of the doubt at Tottenham with both our goal and Demichelis staying on the pitch. Tottenham got the benefit of the doubt with their 2 offside goals.

We got the benefit of the doubt in Monchengladbach when Fernandinho inexplicably took a guy out 3 yards from the 5th official. They got the benefit of the doubt from our goal which they weren't going to give. Their penalty they actually got is up for debate.

We got a huge benefit of the doubt on Saturday. Their second 'goal' was flagged for offside when the winger overlapped. He was about a yard onside. There is no debate about that one, it's clear as day. Seriously, if you've still got MOTD recorded then rewatch it and pause it at the moment the ball was passed. It wasn't even that close!

Some of us sound like bloody Mourinho in here. I can't fathom why some of you feel that when we get the benefit of the doubt on a 'tight' call i.e. KDB at Spurs then that doesn't matter as much.

If there WAS any agenda then those are the calls which would go against us time after time. Think about it.

It'd be funny to see the reaction in here if a tight call went against us (wrongly). I'm sure we'd all be "ah well it doesn't matter it was a close call" eh?? Aye right!

 

[CelesteItis]

Can't believe some of the paranoia in here.

We got the benefit of the doubt at Sunderland when Otamendi fell on his arse.

We got the benefit of the doubt at Tottenham with both our goal and Demichelis staying on the pitch. Tottenham got the benefit of the doubt with their 2 offside goals.

We got the benefit of the doubt in Monchengladbach when Fernandinho inexplicably took a guy out 3 yards from the 5th official. They got the benefit of the doubt from our goal which they weren't going to give. Their penalty they actually got is up for debate.

We got a huge benefit of the doubt on Saturday. Their second 'goal' was flagged for offside when the winger overlapped. He was about a yard onside. There is no debate about that one, it's clear as day. Seriously, if you've still got MOTD recorded then rewatch it and pause it at the moment the ball was passed. It wasn't even that close!

Some of us sound like bloody Mourinho in here. I can't fathom why some of you feel that when we get the benefit of the doubt on a 'tight' call i.e. KDB at Spurs then that doesn't matter as much.

If there WAS any agenda then those are the calls which would go against us time after time. Think about it.

It'd be funny to see the reaction in here if a tight call went against us (wrongly). I'm sure we'd all be "ah well it doesn't matter it was a close call" eh?? Aye right!

You are Howard Webb and I claim my quid.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

You are Howard Webb and I claim my quid.

What's incorrect? It's medication you need, not money!

 

[stablemcfc]

Can't believe some of the paranoia in here.

We got the benefit of the doubt at Sunderland when Otamendi fell on his arse.

We got the benefit of the doubt at Tottenham with both our goal and Demichelis staying on the pitch. Tottenham got the benefit of the doubt with their 2 offside goals.

We got the benefit of the doubt in Monchengladbach when Fernandinho inexplicably took a guy out 3 yards from the 5th official. They got the benefit of the doubt from our goal which they weren't going to give. Their penalty they actually got is up for debate.

We got a huge benefit of the doubt on Saturday. Their second 'goal' was flagged for offside when the winger overlapped. He was about a yard onside. There is no debate about that one, it's clear as day. Seriously, if you've still got MOTD recorded then rewatch it and pause it at the moment the ball was passed. It wasn't even that close!

Some of us sound like bloody Mourinho in here. I can't fathom why some of you feel that when we get the benefit of the doubt on a 'tight' call i.e. KDB at Spurs then that doesn't matter as much.

If there WAS any agenda then those are the calls which would go against us time after time. Think about it.

It'd be funny to see the reaction in here if a tight call went against us (wrongly). I'm sure we'd all be "ah well it doesn't matter it was a close call" eh?? Aye right!

Go find that thread about "Swings & roundabouts decisions" or something. Supposedly a "neutral" thread where everyone ignores anything that goes for us but write down everything that goes against us. Blue tinteds are strong in that thread.

In general I think more big decisions have gone against us this season, especially some very very blatant ones that obviously stand in memory more than some of the decisions that have gone for us which have been more mild, but as you said we've had a number of lucky decisions also - not least the Newcastle 2nd goal.

 

[Bluekiwi]

If you go to the highlights package on the OS and go to 2.43 miniutes in you will see the linesman start raising his flag as soon as the winger/full back crosses the ball and it is the position of the winger that he points his flag to. If he got it wrong then so be it but at least it shows who he thought was offside. And you'll also see the City players saw the flag and eased off. I also remember, on my video feed (which has been taken down now), seeing the ref blow his whistle before the ball was put into the net.