Re-watched the match on Sky last night. It's amazing how much the nerves of viewing a game live, and the influence of the commentators comments, can affect how you feel a match is going at the time, compared to how it actually went when you get chance to view it back, knowing the result.
The first half was amazing, but we continued playing really well for the first ten minutes of the second half, we then conceded the goal, but then conceded only ONE more half chance, in the rest of the match, and that was at 3-1!
Yes, we lost a little control, and West Ham played slightly better, but we still dominated, played a handful of sloppy passes and looked slightly more hesitant, but continued to look slick for the majority of the time, and created about five clear cut chances.
If it wasn't for the almost flawless first half, the second half would have appeared excellent. However the commentators, at different points in the second half, described us as "wilting", and "coming apart at the seams"! You'd think we'd crumbled, and West Ham were all over us. The pundits in the studio continued this theme, without being able to show anything but City highlights (and the Aguero incident).
I guess Sky feel they have to keep the drama cranked up to the max, but it was amazing watching it back, how much a slight dip in our play, and a moderately better West Ham performance, created such a huge shift in the reporting of the match, and consequently must have influenced my nerves/frustration while watching live!