I understand clearly, but why when we lose is it always about officials? Yes he got a yellow out then changed it to a red, we were hardly pulling up trees before that decision were we, and we get the odd decision go in our favour, it just riles me that we always have am excuse, when cold hard facts are we were just not good enoughThe thread is about referees and their performance . Not whether the players were shit and couldn't beat Wigan , so you clearly are missing the point.
Many posters have blamed the players for their performance in not winning the game, as you have done.
However my point was to question the integrity of the referee , and his performance regarding the sending off and his " change of decision " , an act which he has demonstrated previously and which once again adversely affected the result of the game.
If you can't understand that, then I am clearly wasting my time .
I understand clearly, but why when we lose is it always about officials? Yes he got a yellow out then changed it to a red, we were hardly pulling up trees before that decision were we, and we get the odd decision go in our favour, it just riles me that we always have am excuse, when cold hard facts are we were just not good enough
If you look at 90% of those we win, the comments are the same, so its nothing to do with "when we lose".I understand clearly, but why when we lose is it always about officials?
Take your face for a shit? Good one, I backed it up before with several points, you have backed it up with none, so as you were
I didn't say he did, but red card which was shit, he wasn't that bad, not looking to argue here but I just think every time we get beat it's always someone else to blame except the players, we soind like the bin dippersI give up . We were shit and the referee performed impeccably throughout the game.
Ok if that makes you feel better you believe It, I know what I believe, and I believe they wanted it more and put more effort in, I failed at nothing except my opinion on how I saw itPlayers missing chances, failing to break down lower league opposition and trying to play the offside trap are examples of poor play, not a lack of effort. See the difference, I’ll give you an example.
Tommo74 forum report
Effort: B+ (you tried)
Achievement: E (you failed)
The fact remains Taylor was a big factor in costing us the game, whether you choose to believe it or not. If he refereed the game correctly Wigan would have been down to 10 men after four minutes, he didn’t, he cheated as he has done previously. Combined with our “poor play” at times and we didn’t get the result, shit happens especially when you’re cheated by a bent official.
Interesting analysis, you should send that Mark Halsey, and ask for his comments, and see if he wants to go public with them.Apologies for the statto attack but i've been doing some investigation of results with various refs (I trade football matches on Betfair for some of my income)
It's easy to just react to a joker like Taylor yet again being allowed to hurt us, but is there real basis. The results are ridiculous...
I wont bore you with the full details but I looked at all games that Taylor has refereed including either us or the rags since the start of the 2011 season.
Compared with our overall results in those 6 seasons, when Taylor is in charge our points per game drops by 20% whilst the rags results unsurprisingly improve by 12%.
That's quite a swing immediately, but then I thought about it a bit more and decided to look at only games where the outcome had a maximum of 1 goal in it, the theory being that a dodgy ref will struggle to impact a very one sided game as a general rule (We had him v Watford and Swansea away and scored 10 so he was taken out of the equation.), but a few decisions can swing a tight game.
Over the 6 years since 2011/12, the Taylor effect produced a 25% drop in points against our average in tight games. Surprisingly the bias towards Utd isn't there in these games, so maybe he is wary of showing obvious bias to them, or just instinctively does enough to hurt us in tight games.
I then compared the Taylor stats with a couple of our our nemesis men in black, Pawson and Clattenburg and guess what , their stats matched Taylors.
In tight games with a "neutral" referee City averaged 1.76pts per game over those 6 years (124 matches)
However when the PGMOL three refereed us that plummets to just 1.03 points per game (29 matches)
Initially I thought that they had been given top 6 clashes hence the difference but that is not borne out on closer inspection - the games cover all types of opposition evenly.
For reference I did the same with the rags games and their average points with/without these jokers was virtually unchanged (ie no impact or obvious bias in the numbers)
1.76 pts per game to 1.03 is a MASSIVE difference and is way outside any "statistical variance". For me it simply reflects that with any of Taylor, Pawson or Clattenberk in charge we have been at a monstrous disadvantage. Those numbers simply cannot be easily explained any other way.
I have a rule which says that I dont bet on City games, but if I did, I would be looking very closely at opposing City if either Taylor or Pawson is in charge. That system shows a big profit over the 6 years I looked at - it's tempting just as an Anadin bet to cover the headache when we get screwed over by these jokers.
Really worried about Pawson on sunday now. Arsenal are nearly 5/1......
Praying that the boys are up for this and Eddie is in goal (doubt it)!! We need to smash them to take Pawson out of the equation.
Completely paranoid now...
As I said, its the same comments for the numerous games we win, where the comments are the same, so why "when we lose" ?I didn't say he did, but red card which was shit, he wasn't that bad, not looking to argue here but I just think every time we get beat it's always someone else to blame except the players, we soind like the bin dippers