Wolves (H) - Post-Match Thread

[Manc in London]

How can I have a reasoned chat when you're all claiming Kilman should have had a penalty against him when the actual rules state it was too high up to be given? It's not a penalty, simple as.

Fair enough with rest of post. The 'Scouse-esque' is probably harsh because no one is as bad as them but can you not see my point?

You have a lot of fans looking down on another because of the style of play, making you come across as superior - that's what they do.
You have a lot of whataboutery with the decision - it wasn't a penalty, but Kilman's was. That's what they do.
Admittedly not as many in this regard but we've had some slagging our support, that's what they do.
And even the odd one moaning about what we sing, that's what they do.

To be fair, we all hated the way we played under Pearce as it was negative. At the time, many of us would have preferred to have been in the Championship playing like we did under Keegan. I don't see it as a 'superiority' thing.

Wolves certainly have the players to play better football and not rely on cynicism so much. It was horrible to watch.

As for the penalty decisions, what do you expect on a rivals forum? We think the opposite of Wolves fans. Not s surprise.

Regarding the support, some of the City fanbase are sensitive about opposition fans singing 'where were you when you were shit' and people mocking the size of our fanbase (it is rare we get crowds of less than 50k). Personally, I couldn't care. I'd be happier if we had a fanbase the size of the Saddlers as i would therefore have no problems getting an away ticket :)

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

Stopping a break haha. C'mon man. We had everyone behind the ball (as usual) and you're trying to say it was a break. It's soft at best, but I don't really care about that, didn't really impact our game plan, we would've sat back anyway and we still managed to restrict you reasonably well until Marriner got involved.

That’s the sad bit tho innit. 1 goal in 6 games tells its own story. If you are happy with that then fair play to you

 

[Crewelad]

To be fair, we all hated the way we played under Pearce as it was negative. At the time, many of us would have preferred to have been in the Championship playing like we did under Keegan. I don't see it as a 'superiority' thing.

Wolves certainly have the players to play better football and not rely on cynicism so much. It was horrible to watch.

As for the penalty decisions, what do you expect on a rivals forum? We think the opposite of Wolves fans. Not s surprise.

Regarding the support, some of the City fanbase are sensitive about opposition fans singing 'where were you when you were shit' and people mocking the size of our fanbase (it is rare we get crowds of less than 50k). Personally, I couldn't care. I'd be happier if we had a fanbase the size of the Saddlers as i would therefore have no problems getting an away ticket :)

Totally agree. If you come on any opposition forum as an away fan, you need to treat it like you are in their house, and you have to treat the homeowners with total respect and civility.

Wolves fans are just wind-up merchants as a whole, I shake my head in disbelief when we sang that, or when we sang "sign on" to the scousers. I have talked about songs like that to my fellow Wolves mates and said "why?" - don't you realise it makes us look like plankton. It's as if their IQ drops a further 20 points at football matches. The response I generally get is that "it's just banter". I do think there is something in their Black Country make up, at first I thought what a bunch of twats but they are diamonds underneath. Like most of us to be fair. Look at the way they applauded the moments rememberance before the match on Saturday - it was more than just warm applause - it was with absolute heart and sole.

I do wonder whether this posturing demeanour largely stems from Wolves principally being shit on the pitch for most of their lives, and trying to compensate in some desperate but false way.

Those same fans, away from a game (and as the other Wolves fan on here confirmed) actually generally like City a lot and like their fans a lot, a polar-opposite to their feelings towards Salford and Liverpool fans who they despise, especially out of towners like that bloody blogger Flex on SSN. I have just dropped Sky because I am entirely sick of London-based Manure muppetts taking it over, also I will never use DHL for postal services - both stand for everything most of us detest about football. But City are class ( Iam genuinely not arse licking) and if I was born in the north-west I would easily fall for City.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Totally agree. If you come on any opposition forum as an away fan, you need to treat it like you are in their house, and you have to treat the homeowners with total respect and civility.

Wolves fans are just wind-up merchants as a whole, I shake my head in disbelief when we sang that, or when we sang "sign on" to the scousers. I have talked about songs like that to my fellow Wolves mates and said "why?" - don't you realise it makes us look like plankton. It's as if their IQ drops a further 20 points at football matches. The response I generally get is that "it's just banter". I do think there is something in their Black Country make up, at first I thought what a bunch of twats but they are diamonds underneath. Like most of us to be fair. Look at the way they applauded the moments rememberance before the match on Saturday - it was more than just warm applause - it was with absolute heart and sole.

I do wonder whether this posturing demeanour largely stems from Wolves principally being shit on the pitch for most of their lives, and trying to compensate in some desperate but false way.

Those same fans, away from a game (and as the other Wolves fan on here confirmed) actually generally like City a lot and like their fans a lot, a polar-opposite to their feelings towards Salford and Liverpool fans who they despise, especially out of towners like that bloody blogger Flex on SSN. I have just dropped Sky because I am entirely sick of London-based Manure muppetts taking it over, also I will never use DHL for postal services - both stand for everything most of us detest about football. But City are class ( Iam genuinely not arse licking) and if I was born in the north-west I would easily fall for City.

Good posts. I think what rival fans need to understand when they come on here is that City and City fans have been subjected to 13 years of abuse from almost all quarters: press, other clubs, other clubs' fans and the games officials and authorities. This has had an effect on our collective personas. It has made us oversensitive to some issues: money and ownership, attendances and new fans, treatment by officials on the pitch and treatment by authorities off it. I think that is normal after a while. Even Pep has it and is increasingly expressing it, and he hasn't been here that long.

So by all means say we got a dubious penalty last weekend, but try not to ignore all the other penalty shouts; say it was unlucky the guy got sent off, but try not to say he didn't deserve it after bookings we got previously (and get every week btw); and don't criticise attendances or fan base if you can't take it back. Then we will all get on fine.

We are quite nice, really.

Some of us :)

 

[Crewelad]

Good posts. I think what rival fans need to understand when they come on here is that City and City fans have been subjected to 13 years of abuse from almost all quarters: press, other clubs, other clubs' fans and the games officials and authorities. This has had an effect on our collective personas. It has made us oversensitive to some issues: money and ownership, attendances and new fans, treatment by officials on the pitch and treatment by authorities off it. I think that is normal after a while. Even Pep has it and is increasingly expressing it, and he hasn't been here that long.

So by all means say we got a dubious penalty last weekend, but try not to ignore all the other penalty shouts; say it was unlucky the guy got sent off, but try not to say he didn't deserve it after bookings we got previously (and get every week btw); and don't criticise attendances or fan base if you can't take it back. Then we will all get on fine.

We are quite nice, really.

Some of us :)

Mate, everyone knows City fans are absolutely fullfill the definition of "sound", but on the day away fans will sing anything to get under skins. It doesnt mean they belive what they sing really.

 

[Cassandra]

This was my account of the refereeing on a refereeing website - got a mixed response!

Mr Moss didn't put a foot wrong - for 115 seconds, then things went downhill. On 116 seconds it seems to me that he failed to award a penalty to City and a Red card to Saiss for wrestling Sterling to the ground as he was about to shoot.

A delightful pass from Cancello allows Sterling to play the ball just inside the penalty area and get ahead of Saiss, Sterling tries to stay on his feet under the challenge from behind by Saiss and just as he is about to shoot is pushed to the ground. To me rather more of a penalty than the clip I have seen for United against Norwich. Perhaps it was because the red card would have to have followed that the penalty wasn't awarded so early in the game. It would however have had a much greater impact on the game than the later red card and the dubious penalty given later.

On 6 m 23 s Grealish got away from Dendoncker and was brought down from behind - free kick awarded - could easily have been a yellow card but seemed to me that these two decisions set a rather high threshold for red and yellow cards - compared with later decisions.

In the 11th minute Traore charges into Cancello, nothing given a minute later Cancello returns the complement on Traore, again nothing given.
Also in the 12th minute Sterling is again wrestled to the ground right in front of the AR.

Result throw in to Wolves.

Then in the 18th minute a reasonable penalty shout as Jesus gets between the defender and the ball and is kicked on the leg for his troubles. I have mixed feelings about this one: Jesus has put himself in a position to attract the foul. However these are regularly given - the award to Salah seems the same sort of situation, Mr Oliver gave two penalties to Leicester last season where Vardy did the same, Calcello received a red card when Wellbeck did much the same against Brighton last season and so on. Shortly after Cancello fouls Traore and should probably be a yellow card - nothing given.

Diaz then makes a similar challenge on Traore as the one on Sterling earlier, wrestling him to the ground and receives a yellow card - in isolation this is an OK decision but in the context of previous decisions it is pretty inconsistant. The inconsistency continues when Rodri makes a similar challenge to the earlier one on Grealish and receives a yellow card. So when Jiménez tries to pull back Rodri by the arm and then tries to trip him a yellow card follows and as he tries to block the free kick the inevitable second yellow is given. It certainly seemed to me that the criteria for yellow cards had changed from his earlier decisions.

And so it went on, and we have a handball against Jesus where so far as I can tell the ball is nowhere near his arm but hits the chest and shoulder.

Finally in the 7th minute of added time to the first half City have another, to me credible, penalty claim. When a Grealish cross, which had a good chance of reaching Sterling or Bernado on the edge of the six yard box. is blocked by the arm of Kilman and deflected back to the keeper. Kilman's arm is reasonably at his side but he does move himself (including his arm) about a yard into the path of the ball and it hits him between the elbow and the bottom of his sleeve, he appears to pull his arm behind his back after the ball has hit it. So in my view this should have been a penalty although I don't think the one in the second half actually hit the arm but deflected downwards from the chest and armpit.

The second half continued in the same vein of inconsistency but I think there is enough here to say both on the balance of play and on the balance of refereeing decisions City were not particularly fortunate to achieve a win.
[/quote]

 

[dad1971]

Stopping a break haha. C'mon man. We had everyone behind the ball (as usual) and you're trying to say it was a break. It's soft at best, but I don't really care about that, didn't really impact our game plan, we would've sat back anyway and we still managed to restrict you reasonably well until Marriner got involved.

Face facts. You played a twats game for the full match.
It was a training game for city against a team only interested in shit housery and keeping the score low. Your manager is only taking you to one place !

 

[Leeky]

That's just wrong, plain and simple.

We barely fouled you at all, which is backed up by the stats. This is not me arguing with the fact we were extremely defensive and negative but this is bullshit. We sat so deep, didn't want to play but didn't need to foul as there was no space in behind and we were perfectly happy with you passing it around in front of us.

Wolves have played City 7 times in the Premier League.
In 5 of those games City have had more bookings for fouls than us :D Decent enough sample size that to suggest we're not the ones who go around kicking?

Although, in the 3-1 win at Molineux with no crowds it says that Rodri was booked in the 86th minute when the score was 2-1 for time-wasting. So maybe it's wrong as surely, surely, surely you wouldn't time waste eh ;)

The only stats you need to worry about is 11 goals in 12 matches, your going backwards with Bruno

 

[Inter Me Nan]

How can I have a reasoned chat when you're all claiming Kilman should have had a penalty against him when the actual rules state it was too high up to be given? It's not a penalty, simple as.

Fair enough with rest of post. The 'Scouse-esque' is probably harsh because no one is as bad as them but can you not see my point?

You have a lot of fans looking down on another because of the style of play, making you come across as superior - that's what they do.
You have a lot of whataboutery with the decision - it wasn't a penalty, but Kilman's was. That's what they do.
Admittedly not as many in this regard but we've had some slagging our support, that's what they do.
And even the odd one moaning about what we sing, that's what they do.

You're miguel delaney and I claim my £5.

 

[alexmcity]

This was my account of the refereeing on a refereeing website - got a mixed response!

Mr Moss didn't put a foot wrong - for 115 seconds, then things went downhill. On 116 seconds it seems to me that he failed to award a penalty to City and a Red card to Saiss for wrestling Sterling to the ground as he was about to shoot.

A delightful pass from Cancello allows Sterling to play the ball just inside the penalty area and get ahead of Saiss, Sterling tries to stay on his feet under the challenge from behind by Saiss and just as he is about to shoot is pushed to the ground. To me rather more of a penalty than the clip I have seen for United against Norwich. Perhaps it was because the red card would have to have followed that the penalty wasn't awarded so early in the game. It would however have had a much greater impact on the game than the later red card and the dubious penalty given later.

On 6 m 23 s Grealish got away from Dendoncker and was brought down from behind - free kick awarded - could easily have been a yellow card but seemed to me that these two decisions set a rather high threshold for red and yellow cards - compared with later decisions.

In the 11th minute Traore charges into Cancello, nothing given a minute later Cancello returns the complement on Traore, again nothing given.
Also in the 12th minute Sterling is again wrestled to the ground right in front of the AR.

Result throw in to Wolves.

Then in the 18th minute a reasonable penalty shout as Jesus gets between the defender and the ball and is kicked on the leg for his troubles. I have mixed feelings about this one: Jesus has put himself in a position to attract the foul. However these are regularly given - the award to Salah seems the same sort of situation, Mr Oliver gave two penalties to Leicester last season where Vardy did the same, Calcello received a red card when Wellbeck did much the same against Brighton last season and so on. Shortly after Cancello fouls Traore and should probably be a yellow card - nothing given.

Diaz then makes a similar challenge on Traore as the one on Sterling earlier, wrestling him to the ground and receives a yellow card - in isolation this is an OK decision but in the context of previous decisions it is pretty inconsistant. The inconsistency continues when Rodri makes a similar challenge to the earlier one on Grealish and receives a yellow card. So when Jiménez tries to pull back Rodri by the arm and then tries to trip him a yellow card follows and as he tries to block the free kick the inevitable second yellow is given. It certainly seemed to me that the criteria for yellow cards had changed from his earlier decisions.

And so it went on, and we have a handball against Jesus where so far as I can tell the ball is nowhere near his arm but hits the chest and shoulder.

Finally in the 7th minute of added time to the first half City have another, to me credible, penalty claim. When a Grealish cross, which had a good chance of reaching Sterling or Bernado on the edge of the six yard box. is blocked by the arm of Kilman and deflected back to the keeper. Kilman's arm is reasonably at his side but he does move himself (including his arm) about a yard into the path of the ball and it hits him between the elbow and the bottom of his sleeve, he appears to pull his arm behind his back after the ball has hit it. So in my view this should have been a penalty although I don't think the one in the second half actually hit the arm but deflected downwards from the chest and armpit.

The second half continued in the same vein of inconsistency but I think there is enough here to say both on the balance of play and on the balance of refereeing decisions City were not particularly fortunate to achieve a win.

[/QUOTE]

Would be nice if you added a picture of the foul on Jesus. Thought it was a 60/40 penalty: there's a clear contact impeding his movement.

Penalties need not be 100% in order to be given. Often it's not clear whether the perceived contact impedes the player's movement or the player pretends to be fouled.

Also, it's wrong to view penalty shouts in isolation (just as it is wrong to view yellow cards in isolation). If you have several penalty shouts, then a 40/60 situation (or even a 30/70 one) is far more likely to be given than if there are no other penalty shouts.