Spurs Post Match Thread

[Ducado]

Because staying in the top 2 for yet another season is a better achievement than dropping from champions to 3rd place. It is better for team morale and less so therefore for Arsenal's. United could easily lose to Arsenal and still not get caught by a Liverpool side that has to go to Chelsea, who may ease up a bit now but really won't want to drop points to the Scousers.

Maybe but I doubt it will have that much impact on morale. Finishing 3rd didn't affect Chelsea last season and finishing 2nd didn't help Liverpool.

The only place that anyone remembers is 1st!

You are right about it being a longshot from the scousers though but I can't ever find it in me to want them to win.

I hate United more than I love City

Well that's a pretty sad state of affairs

 

[BooksReject]

Because staying in the top 2 for yet another season is a better achievement than dropping from champions to 3rd place. It is better for team morale and less so therefore for Arsenal's. United could easily lose to Arsenal and still not get caught by a Liverpool side that has to go to Chelsea, who may ease up a bit now but really won't want to drop points to the Scousers.

Maybe but I doubt it will have that much impact on morale. Finishing 3rd didn't affect Chelsea last season and finishing 2nd didn't help Liverpool.

The only place that anyone remembers is 1st!

You are right about it being a longshot from the scousers though but I can't ever find it in me to want them to win.

I hate United more than I love City

Are you sure? You a scouser?

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Over the past few weeks I have come to realize at long last that I watch City through a different pair of eyes to those I use to watch everyone else! I think I'm not quite the nervous wreck at City matches that I used to be - not quite, maybe because it's sunk in that we are actually a much, much better side than we used to be - and I now ask myself what I would think if City played like some of the other teams I see on the TV. A case in point was the United match on Saturday. My view pre-match was that United would have an easy victory, probably matching our 3-0 at home to the Baggies. Rooney and co would simply be too good for them!

As the game progressed I began to see that United had all of the ball, but passed it from left to right, back again, back to the back four, up to the forward, out to the wing and then same again. Still I thought the pressure would soon pay off. Then it sank in - all the possession, but none of the pressure! Still, all it would take was one chance,one ruthless finish and the floodgates would open. Gradually it dawned on me that they weren't creating one real chance. They didn't look like creating it. Pulis had done what he always does, there were no surprises there, and United couldn't cope. It didn't come across as tactical genius to play your players out of position. And then fall for the sucker punch: a daft free kick to give away, let the Baggies stick two men in your wall and in goes the goal. The point is that 99% of Bluemooners think City have the monopoly of this kind of incompetence, but we clearly don't. United showed they are twice as clueless in face of this routine tactic of getting all eleven back.

Then I watched Chelsea clinch the title. Mourinho's ruthless tactical efficiency, to get the job done? Was it really! Nervy and leaky at the back they had to rely on Mr Chelsea to keep them on level terms, typically by throwing himself heroically in front of a Palace shotster and sticking his arm up to deflect the ball away. Penalty? Not a chance! It was, the pundit told us, the kind of spirit that had made Chelsea easily the best team in the PL! And on the stroke of half time they won it, by a player who was the best in the PL, who had shown us how he could turn a game in a moment. The way he changed this game was by grabbing the defender's arm to launch himself into a twisting turning pole-vault manoeuvre which the ref found aesthetically pleasing enough to reward with a penalty. The boy genius outfoxed the keeper by rolling the penalty straight at him but heading the rebound provided by the incompetent 'keeper in. It was, opined the fawning pundit, a poor penalty but an excellent follow up header and proof hat Hasard was a match winner.

I watched City, didn't like our defending in the early stages, but thought it was no worse than much of what I had witnessed at "the bridge" admire our attacking play, better than any at OT or Chelsea and thought Sergio and David were far superior to anyone who had played in the other two games. It is unfair to compare Harry Kane, a bright, youg striker, to Sergio Aguero, the best striker in the world. It hasn't been a good season for City but if next season we play consistently well....

 

[Universidad de Chile]

Over the past few weeks I have come to realize at long last that I watch City through a different pair of eyes to those I use to watch everyone else! I think I'm not quite the nervous wreck at City matches that I used to be - not quite, maybe because it's sunk in that we are actually a much, much better side than we used to be - and I now ask myself what I would think if City played like some of the other teams I see on the TV. A case in point was the United match on Saturday. My view pre-match was that United would have an easy victory, probably matching our 3-0 at home to the Baggies. Rooney and co would simply be too good for them!

As the game progressed I began to see that United had all of the ball, but passed it from left to right, back again, back to the back four, up to the forward, out to the wing and then same again. Still I thought the pressure would soon pay off. Then it sank in - all the possession, but none of the pressure! Still, all it would take was one chance,one ruthless finish and the floodgates would open. Gradually it dawned on me that they weren't creating one real chance. They didn't look like creating it. Pulis had done what he always does, there were no surprises there, and United couldn't cope. It didn't come across as tactical genius to play your players out of position. And then fall for the sucker punch: a daft free kick to give away, let the Baggies stick two men in your wall and in goes the goal. The point is that 99% of Bluemooners think City have the monopoly of this kind of incompetence, but we clearly don't. United showed they are twice as clueless in face of this routine tactic of getting all eleven back.

Then I watched Chelsea clinch the title. Mourinho's ruthless tactical efficiency, to get the job done? Was it really! Nervy and leaky at the back they had to rely on Mr Chelsea to keep them on level terms, typically by throwing himself heroically in front of a Palace shotster and sticking his arm up to deflect the ball away. Penalty? Not a chance! It was, the pundit told us, the kind of spirit that had made Chelsea easily the best team in the PL! And on the stroke of half time they won it, by a player who was the best in the PL, who had shown us how he could turn a game in a moment. The way he changed this game was by grabbing the defender's arm to launch himself into a twisting turning pole-vault manoeuvre which the ref found aesthetically pleasing enough to reward with a penalty. The boy genius outfoxed the keeper by rolling the penalty straight at him but heading the rebound provided by the incompetent 'keeper in. It was, opined the fawning pundit, a poor penalty but an excellent follow up header and proof hat Hasard was a match winner.

I watched City, didn't like our defending in the early stages, but thought it was no worse than much of what I had witnessed at "the bridge" admire our attacking play, better than any at OT or Chelsea and thought Sergio and David were far superior to anyone who had played in the other two games. It is unfair to compare Harry Kane, a bright, youg striker, to Sergio Aguero, the best striker in the world. It hasn't been a good season for City but if next season we play consistently well....

Wow, just "wow". Great piece!

 

[jimharri]

I hate United more than I love City

For the day that's in it;

 

[jimmygrimblesboots]

Over the past few weeks I have come to realize at long last that I watch City through a different pair of eyes to those I use to watch everyone else! I think I'm not quite the nervous wreck at City matches that I used to be - not quite, maybe because it's sunk in that we are actually a much, much better side than we used to be - and I now ask myself what I would think if City played like some of the other teams I see on the TV. A case in point was the United match on Saturday. My view pre-match was that United would have an easy victory, probably matching our 3-0 at home to the Baggies. Rooney and co would simply be too good for them!

As the game progressed I began to see that United had all of the ball, but passed it from left to right, back again, back to the back four, up to the forward, out to the wing and then same again. Still I thought the pressure would soon pay off. Then it sank in - all the possession, but none of the pressure! Still, all it would take was one chance,one ruthless finish and the floodgates would open. Gradually it dawned on me that they weren't creating one real chance. They didn't look like creating it. Pulis had done what he always does, there were no surprises there, and United couldn't cope. It didn't come across as tactical genius to play your players out of position. And then fall for the sucker punch: a daft free kick to give away, let the Baggies stick two men in your wall and in goes the goal. The point is that 99% of Bluemooners think City have the monopoly of this kind of incompetence, but we clearly don't. United showed they are twice as clueless in face of this routine tactic of getting all eleven back.

Then I watched Chelsea clinch the title. Mourinho's ruthless tactical efficiency, to get the job done? Was it really! Nervy and leaky at the back they had to rely on Mr Chelsea to keep them on level terms, typically by throwing himself heroically in front of a Palace shotster and sticking his arm up to deflect the ball away. Penalty? Not a chance! It was, the pundit told us, the kind of spirit that had made Chelsea easily the best team in the PL! And on the stroke of half time they won it, by a player who was the best in the PL, who had shown us how he could turn a game in a moment. The way he changed this game was by grabbing the defender's arm to launch himself into a twisting turning pole-vault manoeuvre which the ref found aesthetically pleasing enough to reward with a penalty. The boy genius outfoxed the keeper by rolling the penalty straight at him but heading the rebound provided by the incompetent 'keeper in. It was, opined the fawning pundit, a poor penalty but an excellent follow up header and proof hat Hasard was a match winner.

I watched City, didn't like our defending in the early stages, but thought it was no worse than much of what I had witnessed at "the bridge" admire our attacking play, better than any at OT or Chelsea and thought Sergio and David were far superior to anyone who had played in the other two games. It is unfair to compare Harry Kane, a bright, youg striker, to Sergio Aguero, the best striker in the world. It hasn't been a good season for City but if next season we play consistently well....

excellent post , perhaps we arent as bad as some posters would like to think , but you will be accused of being a glass half full , happy clapper , york veteran , beware.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

Over the past few weeks I have come to realize at long last that I watch City through a different pair of eyes to those I use to watch everyone else! I think I'm not quite the nervous wreck at City matches that I used to be - not quite, maybe because it's sunk in that we are actually a much, much better side than we used to be - and I now ask myself what I would think if City played like some of the other teams I see on the TV. A case in point was the United match on Saturday. My view pre-match was that United would have an easy victory, probably matching our 3-0 at home to the Baggies. Rooney and co would simply be too good for them!

As the game progressed I began to see that United had all of the ball, but passed it from left to right, back again, back to the back four, up to the forward, out to the wing and then same again. Still I thought the pressure would soon pay off. Then it sank in - all the possession, but none of the pressure! Still, all it would take was one chance,one ruthless finish and the floodgates would open. Gradually it dawned on me that they weren't creating one real chance. They didn't look like creating it. Pulis had done what he always does, there were no surprises there, and United couldn't cope. It didn't come across as tactical genius to play your players out of position. And then fall for the sucker punch: a daft free kick to give away, let the Baggies stick two men in your wall and in goes the goal. The point is that 99% of Bluemooners think City have the monopoly of this kind of incompetence, but we clearly don't. United showed they are twice as clueless in face of this routine tactic of getting all eleven back.

Then I watched Chelsea clinch the title. Mourinho's ruthless tactical efficiency, to get the job done? Was it really! Nervy and leaky at the back they had to rely on Mr Chelsea to keep them on level terms, typically by throwing himself heroically in front of a Palace shotster and sticking his arm up to deflect the ball away. Penalty? Not a chance! It was, the pundit told us, the kind of spirit that had made Chelsea easily the best team in the PL! And on the stroke of half time they won it, by a player who was the best in the PL, who had shown us how he could turn a game in a moment. The way he changed this game was by grabbing the defender's arm to launch himself into a twisting turning pole-vault manoeuvre which the ref found aesthetically pleasing enough to reward with a penalty. The boy genius outfoxed the keeper by rolling the penalty straight at him but heading the rebound provided by the incompetent 'keeper in. It was, opined the fawning pundit, a poor penalty but an excellent follow up header and proof hat Hasard was a match winner.

I watched City, didn't like our defending in the early stages, but thought it was no worse than much of what I had witnessed at "the bridge" admire our attacking play, better than any at OT or Chelsea and thought Sergio and David were far superior to anyone who had played in the other two games. It is unfair to compare Harry Kane, a bright, youg striker, to Sergio Aguero, the best striker in the world. It hasn't been a good season for City but if next season we play consistently well....

Love it. Great post sir.

 

[jimmygrimblesboots]

Spurs create chances in all their home games , to criticise our team for allowing them a few chances is comical , spurs hammered chelsea , beat arsenal and the rags scraped a draw at WHL , we won , without Vinny and Yaya , credit where credit is due .

 

[lasereyes]

Over the past few weeks I have come to realize at long last that I watch City through a different pair of eyes to those I use to watch everyone else! I think I'm not quite the nervous wreck at City matches that I used to be - not quite, maybe because it's sunk in that we are actually a much, much better side than we used to be - and I now ask myself what I would think if City played like some of the other teams I see on the TV. A case in point was the United match on Saturday. My view pre-match was that United would have an easy victory, probably matching our 3-0 at home to the Baggies. Rooney and co would simply be too good for them!

As the game progressed I began to see that United had all of the ball, but passed it from left to right, back again, back to the back four, up to the forward, out to the wing and then same again. Still I thought the pressure would soon pay off. Then it sank in - all the possession, but none of the pressure! Still, all it would take was one chance,one ruthless finish and the floodgates would open. Gradually it dawned on me that they weren't creating one real chance. They didn't look like creating it. Pulis had done what he always does, there were no surprises there, and United couldn't cope. It didn't come across as tactical genius to play your players out of position. And then fall for the sucker punch: a daft free kick to give away, let the Baggies stick two men in your wall and in goes the goal. The point is that 99% of Bluemooners think City have the monopoly of this kind of incompetence, but we clearly don't. United showed they are twice as clueless in face of this routine tactic of getting all eleven back.

Then I watched Chelsea clinch the title. Mourinho's ruthless tactical efficiency, to get the job done? Was it really! Nervy and leaky at the back they had to rely on Mr Chelsea to keep them on level terms, typically by throwing himself heroically in front of a Palace shotster and sticking his arm up to deflect the ball away. Penalty? Not a chance! It was, the pundit told us, the kind of spirit that had made Chelsea easily the best team in the PL! And on the stroke of half time they won it, by a player who was the best in the PL, who had shown us how he could turn a game in a moment. The way he changed this game was by grabbing the defender's arm to launch himself into a twisting turning pole-vault manoeuvre which the ref found aesthetically pleasing enough to reward with a penalty. The boy genius outfoxed the keeper by rolling the penalty straight at him but heading the rebound provided by the incompetent 'keeper in. It was, opined the fawning pundit, a poor penalty but an excellent follow up header and proof hat Hasard was a match winner.

I watched City, didn't like our defending in the early stages, but thought it was no worse than much of what I had witnessed at "the bridge" admire our attacking play, better than any at OT or Chelsea and thought Sergio and David were far superior to anyone who had played in the other two games. It is unfair to compare Harry Kane, a bright, youg striker, to Sergio Aguero, the best striker in the world. It hasn't been a good season for City but if next season we play consistently well....

Not sure about your eyes when you watch games, but the specs today are rather rose-tinted:
1. United are not our benchmark for anything.
2. Matches to clinch titles are always nerve tinglers (QPR anyone?) Throughout the season, Chelsea >> us.
3. There was clear contact with Hazard - very reasonable penalty.
4. Our defending in the first 10 mins was schoolboy like. We could have been 3 down. To our credit, we pulled things together thereafter.

 

[tonea2003]

Because staying in the top 2 for yet another season is a better achievement than dropping from champions to 3rd place. It is better for team morale and less so therefore for Arsenal's. United could easily lose to Arsenal and still not get caught by a Liverpool side that has to go to Chelsea, who may ease up a bit now but really won't want to drop points to the Scousers.

Maybe but I doubt it will have that much impact on morale. Finishing 3rd didn't affect Chelsea last season and finishing 2nd didn't help Liverpool.

The only place that anyone remembers is 1st!

You are right about it being a longshot from the scousers though but I can't ever find it in me to want them to win.

I hate United more than I love City

so wrong in so many ways
its like saying you would rather utd lose than city win