so this agenda thing.

[OB1]

I saw that post last night and agreed with it, Frank, but couldn't respond as my Ipad was going crazy. It's actually a discussion which merits a new thread because it gives the manager difficult decisions.

Against Liverpool and Newcastle the only real pressure they had were freekicks around our box, for the reason you gave.

The goal Stoke scored was because we didn't dive in and give a foul away.

the players are walking a bit of a tightrope. When we start to score goals properly, which will happen, it will be much less of an issue of course.

With respect, on the Stoke goal, Dinho got his body shape all wrong and Hart fucked up; both things being far more significant than avoiding fouling.

The way that we try to defend and Pellers demands for his team to be aggressive are bound to lead to a certain amount of fouls that could be avoided if we sat off our opponents more. I prefer us to be aggressive but I do think we give too many stupid free kicks away.

As to Mike Dean, he had a poor game on Sunday. Zab's sending off was a joke: one can debate the validity of the second booking but the first was unmerited because Hazard clearly runs into Zab. Quite how Costa's foul on Dzeko in their box went unpunished is beyond me. However, Dean is usually a good ref for us.

I've never seen the Stoke goal since the game, so I'm happy to accept your take on it. Like you, I'd been concerned at the cheap free kicks against Liverpool and Newcastle and I remember as they broke shouting "Don't foul him! Don'e foul him!" at which point they didn't, and they scored, leaving me thinking "You should have fouled him"...

Dean was appalling on Sunday. We've had almost nothing but appalling refereeing all season so far. But it won't stay like this. They aren't corrupt but they are struggling to cope with the modern game. And they are a bit stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea: they blow for everything in the letter of the law and they are spoiling games and not using common sense. They let the game flow and they let something go which creates a goal.

We've had both of those types of refs in the last week.

I reviewed the Stoke goal several times. Dinho was square on so had to turn before giving chase once the ball went past him; if he had been side on, he had the pace to track the forward and challenge safely, IMO. Hart should still have saved the shot. Old news now though.

I agree that the spate of horrid refereeing we have had will probably even out, or thereabouts, as the season progresses. For now I see it as nothing more than randomness i.e. that we are getting the bad decisions against us. The poor decisions per se are not down to randomness but to the generally poor standard of officiating: as you, and others, point out, the game can be too quick for them.

 

[tonea2003]

I'm not having it both ways, unless you are seeing something I didn't post?

He was right to book Ferdy, end of

He was wrong to allow Fabregas to go unpunished for the same offence on three separate occasions

How is that having it both ways? I want the ref to be fair, Dean was far from it. To say he had a bad day office is to allow the likes of him and Clattenberg to do this regularly and get away with it.

If I acted as impartially as Dean did on Sunday at put it down to a bad day at the office, I'd now have a grievance from the union on my desk.

for what he was booking players for in the latter part of the first half then all 11 on each side would have been booked by the end of the match
he had made a rod for his own back so let a few go he shouldn't have
not sure what you mean by not evenly distributed, numbers wise or time wise?

An interesting way of twisting a meaning, unless, of course, you didn't understand it in the first place

By evenly distributed I would mean that the referee deems foul A to be a booking
A little later on in the game foul B is committed, an almost carbon copy of foul A, but receives no retribution seems to be less than even handed
It becomes more sickening when fouls C and D are then committed in the exact same way by the same player and nothing is done about it.

You even admit to 'him letting a few go he shouldn't have'
Where does that sentiment change from a bad day at the office to a lack of even distribution

If you genuinely believe he let a few go he shouldn't have then there's something seriously wrong with his refereeing as it implies a bias he was aware of rather than just a paucity of performance.

i'm not intentionally twisting anything
he booked 4 players from each side of which one(zabba) got 2
5 of those bookings was in a spate of 15 minutes at the end of the first half where i think dean(in his mind) was trying clamp down on the aggressive nature of the game.
i distinctly remember toure's booking where dean was gesturing to him and saying "you have given me no choice"
so 6 players booked in the first half.
the nature of the game didn't change second half but it took a dust up for the next cards to be shown.
i have no idea why took a more lenient view of things second half.
where we differ correct me if i'm wrong, you think he chose not to book chelsea players or to put it bluntly cheated?

 

[squirtyflower]

for what he was booking players for in the latter part of the first half then all 11 on each side would have been booked by the end of the match
he had made a rod for his own back so let a few go he shouldn't have
not sure what you mean by not evenly distributed, numbers wise or time wise?

An interesting way of twisting a meaning, unless, of course, you didn't understand it in the first place

By evenly distributed I would mean that the referee deems foul A to be a booking
A little later on in the game foul B is committed, an almost carbon copy of foul A, but receives no retribution seems to be less than even handed
It becomes more sickening when fouls C and D are then committed in the exact same way by the same player and nothing is done about it.

You even admit to 'him letting a few go he shouldn't have'
Where does that sentiment change from a bad day at the office to a lack of even distribution

If you genuinely believe he let a few go he shouldn't have then there's something seriously wrong with his refereeing as it implies a bias he was aware of rather than just a paucity of performance.

i'm not intentionally twisting anything
he booked 4 players from each side of which one(zabba) got 2
5 of those bookings was in a spate of 15 minutes at the end of the first half where i think dean(in his mind) was trying clamp down on the aggressive nature of the game.
i distinctly remember toure's booking where dean was gesturing to him and saying "you have given me no choice"
so 6 players booked in the first half.
the nature of the game didn't change second half but it took a dust up for the next cards to be shown.
i have no idea why took a more lenient view of things second half.
where we differ correct me if i'm wrong, you think he chose not to book chelsea players or to put it bluntly cheated?

I would like to hear from Dean why he deemed correctly fernadinho's foul a booking, and the three similar Fabregas fouls not a booking
You put it down to a bad day at the office, I say three similar mistakes is gross negligence

 

[tonea2003]

An interesting way of twisting a meaning, unless, of course, you didn't understand it in the first place

By evenly distributed I would mean that the referee deems foul A to be a booking
A little later on in the game foul B is committed, an almost carbon copy of foul A, but receives no retribution seems to be less than even handed
It becomes more sickening when fouls C and D are then committed in the exact same way by the same player and nothing is done about it.

You even admit to 'him letting a few go he shouldn't have'
Where does that sentiment change from a bad day at the office to a lack of even distribution

If you genuinely believe he let a few go he shouldn't have then there's something seriously wrong with his refereeing as it implies a bias he was aware of rather than just a paucity of performance.

i'm not intentionally twisting anything
he booked 4 players from each side of which one(zabba) got 2
5 of those bookings was in a spate of 15 minutes at the end of the first half where i think dean(in his mind) was trying clamp down on the aggressive nature of the game.
i distinctly remember toure's booking where dean was gesturing to him and saying "you have given me no choice"
so 6 players booked in the first half.
the nature of the game didn't change second half but it took a dust up for the next cards to be shown.
i have no idea why took a more lenient view of things second half.
where we differ correct me if i'm wrong, you think he chose not to book chelsea players or to put it bluntly cheated?

I would like to hear from Dean why he deemed correctly fernadinho's foul a booking, and the three similar Fabregas fouls not a booking
You put it down to a bad day at the office, I say three similar mistakes is gross negligence

we may never know, but i just can't see him intentionally refusing to book fabregas

from what i remember ivanovic got carded for a cynical foul second half so its not as if he wouldn't card people

think we will have to agree to disagree

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

You're making subjective assertions to justify our high card count I'm presenting you with facts. The team with the highest amount of possession gets the 2nd highest amount of yellow cards and that doesn't in any way strike you as strange? I would suggest it probably bucks any trend since these type of stats were collected. Clattenburg gave two penalties to Leicester that were penalties and neither of them were game defining at the point they were taken.

Zabaleta's second foul was a foul nothing more, nothing less. He didn't leave the floor, raise his foot stop in a professional manner a promising attack. He simply attempted to get round costa to win the ball and fouled him in the process. Dean for whatever reason saw that as an opportunity to send our player off at precisely the moment we started to look like we would go on and win the match.

Let's take Bayern munichs booking count for last season who equally play a high pressing game, they accrued 45 bookings last season so that would seem to negate that theory.

I'll give you my interpretation, we get booked for tackles that are nothing more than fouls and in many cases are a result of players throwing themselves to the floor to win fouls and the referees are looking for any reason to book our players that immediately puts them treading a tightrope to not get booked for the remainder of the game and stifling their game in the process.

In the face of pretty damning statistics you continue to try and defend the status quo. Unbelievable.

LOL! Stats without context are like most of your contributions to this forum; somewhat lacking. Government stats on unemployment appear to constitute evidence of sound economic policy, until you look at the corresponding surge in the numbers of people in part time work, on zero hours contracts, or incapacity benefit. There was a fall in the number of people claiming asylum in 2011. Evidence of a tougher Government stance on immigration as touted, or merely a reflection of the fact that the visa regime on foreign students was relaxed at the same time, providing otherwise would be claimants with a legitimate route into the UK?

Whatever, several posters have provided you with a footballing explanation for our booking levels. If you choose to believe in a City hating refereeing agenda instead though........

Don't think your government analogy really works but nice try, like I haven't heard of the phrase lies, damn lies and statistics. Interestingly, no one, other than the usual childish jibes, can actually provide a sensible explanation as to why there is this strange anomaly other than we play a pressing game.

When I point out that Bayern Munich play a pressing game but they have significantly less yellow cards people conveniently ignore that because it doesn't suit their 'theory'. Plus I don't think anyone could argue we played this style last season.

If I further point out that nearly 49% of our yellows come in the first half (meaning we play for significantly longer on a disciplinary tightrope - incidentally the highest % in the league) and the other top 4 teams were in the lower half of the table for bookings as you would expect, that is also down to our pressing style I presume?

But no, we play a much more pressing game than everyone else.....Yeh, that must be the reason.....

Munich play in a far less competitive league than we do, and none of the football played on the continent is anywhere near the tempo or the level of physicality that you see here. And, yes, the intensity of our pressing game does largely account for the number of bookings we collect. That help you at all?

 

[cheddar404]

LOL! Stats without context are like most of your contributions to this forum; somewhat lacking. Government stats on unemployment appear to constitute evidence of sound economic policy, until you look at the corresponding surge in the numbers of people in part time work, on zero hours contracts, or incapacity benefit. There was a fall in the number of people claiming asylum in 2011. Evidence of a tougher Government stance on immigration as touted, or merely a reflection of the fact that the visa regime on foreign students was relaxed at the same time, providing otherwise would be claimants with a legitimate route into the UK?

Whatever, several posters have provided you with a footballing explanation for our booking levels. If you choose to believe in a City hating refereeing agenda instead though........

Don't think your government analogy really works but nice try, like I haven't heard of the phrase lies, damn lies and statistics. Interestingly, no one, other than the usual childish jibes, can actually provide a sensible explanation as to why there is this strange anomaly other than we play a pressing game.

When I point out that Bayern Munich play a pressing game but they have significantly less yellow cards people conveniently ignore that because it doesn't suit their 'theory'. Plus I don't think anyone could argue we played this style last season.

If I further point out that nearly 49% of our yellows come in the first half (meaning we play for significantly longer on a disciplinary tightrope - incidentally the highest % in the league) and the other top 4 teams were in the lower half of the table for bookings as you would expect, that is also down to our pressing style I presume?

But no, we play a much more pressing game than everyone else.....Yeh, that must be the reason.....

Munich play in a far less competitive league than we do, and none of the football played on the continent is anywhere near the tempo or the level of physicality that you see here. And, yes, the intensity of our pressing game does largely account for the number of bookings we collect. That help you at all?

I'm playing devil's advocate here but we seemed to get a disproportionate amount of bookings under Mancini too with similar stats on possession but without the pressing style.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Haha. I was waiting for EB to pop up and nod that one in the onion bag. A bit like when Mario put that one in with his chest.

 

[City Glory While Others Fade]

Haha. I was waiting for EB to pop up and nod that one in the onion bag. A bit like when Mario put that one in with his chest.

Shoulder ?

 

[without a dream]

I saw that post last night and agreed with it, Frank, but couldn't respond as my Ipad was going crazy. It's actually a discussion which merits a new thread because it gives the manager difficult decisions.

Against Liverpool and Newcastle the only real pressure they had were freekicks around our box, for the reason you gave.

The goal Stoke scored was because we didn't dive in and give a foul away.

the players are walking a bit of a tightrope. When we start to score goals properly, which will happen, it will be much less of an issue of course.

With respect, on the Stoke goal, Dinho got his body shape all wrong and Hart fucked up; both things being far more significant than avoiding fouling.

The way that we try to defend and Pellers demands for his team to be aggressive are bound to lead to a certain amount of fouls that could be avoided if we sat off our opponents more. I prefer us to be aggressive but I do think we give too many stupid free kicks away.

As to Mike Dean, he had a poor game on Sunday. Zab's sending off was a joke: one can debate the validity of the second booking but the first was unmerited because Hazard clearly runs into Zab. Quire how Costa's foul on Dzeko in their box went unpunished is beyond me. However, Dean is usually a good ref for us.

Clattenberg was the bent one last week, however I'd just prefer to label him as shit, just as his performance at Leicester this weekend was. Again however, as is par for the course, Clattenberg was not bent this weekend, and got the decisions correct.

The "YCNMIU" acronym does wind me up, however its rather apt here.

Find someone who seriously believes Clattenburg got the decisions against the rags correct. They were shocking. There's plenty of incompetent refs. He's not one of them. Bent as fuck. Not in an agenda/anti city way but in a far east bookie way. We used to get excellent results when he reffed our games when a certain former prime minister was our owner. He's literally been suspended from refereeing before.

Walton, Mason and Taylor are the others I wouldn't want anywhere near a City game. City have successfully had Mason pulled from games before but he seems to be back now which is pretty irritating. Walton was quietly retired and I find it bizarre that people from Greater Manchester can ref games for either side, even if you're not a fan of either City or United you're likely to have strong feelings towards one or both of them.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Don't think your government analogy really works but nice try, like I haven't heard of the phrase lies, damn lies and statistics. Interestingly, no one, other than the usual childish jibes, can actually provide a sensible explanation as to why there is this strange anomaly other than we play a pressing game.

When I point out that Bayern Munich play a pressing game but they have significantly less yellow cards people conveniently ignore that because it doesn't suit their 'theory'. Plus I don't think anyone could argue we played this style last season.

If I further point out that nearly 49% of our yellows come in the first half (meaning we play for significantly longer on a disciplinary tightrope - incidentally the highest % in the league) and the other top 4 teams were in the lower half of the table for bookings as you would expect, that is also down to our pressing style I presume?

But no, we play a much more pressing game than everyone else.....Yeh, that must be the reason.....

Munich play in a far less competitive league than we do, and none of the football played on the continent is anywhere near the tempo or the level of physicality that you see here. And, yes, the intensity of our pressing game does largely account for the number of bookings we collect. That help you at all?

I'm playing devil's advocate here but we seemed to get a disproportionate amount of bookings under Mancini too with similar stats on possession but without the pressing style.

As far as I can see online, we finished thus in the bookings charts under Mancini:

2010 - 18th
2011 - 2nd
2012 - 13th
2013 - 9th

A fairly mixed bag. I would have actually expected to see a bit more uniformity and for us to have finished around 7th or 8th every season. We didn't press as emphatically as we do under Pellegrini, and particularly not in terms of the front foot defending we now see from our centre halves, but we still had a lot of possession high up the pitch and were susceptible to the counterattack. Again not to the same degree as under Pellers, with Gaz Baz and NDJ often tag teaming in front of Kompers and Lescott, but we were vulnerable to it. Barry in particular was a great one for the cheap foul (and inevitable booking), and we also had a lot of petulant yellows for Ya Ya and a lot of typically idiotic ones from Mario to skew the figures further.

The fact that we copped it far worse under Pellegrini then (2nd last season), could easily therefore be attributable to our change in playing style. Or perhaps, as some posters insist, because the referee's association now meets around a cauldron somewhere in a disused World War 2 bunker under Westminster each week, to plot the disciplinary downfall of Manchester City Football Club, because they, erm, don't like us very much......